| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "All Fighter Party is viable with planning" thing is a feature, not a bug. In Pathfinder 1e Fighter was probably the worst class to do an entire party of.
I honestly don't think this premise is valid.
A party only of fighters in PF2, however much they, like any other class, can manage with MC and with the versatility in the weapon options they have, will not be able to deal "smiling" with all situations such as clerics did in 3.5/PF1. Especially from mid-game onwards, where things like heightened invisibility, flight, resistances to physical damage, regeneration and other specific abilities of many monsters, even the most prepared party of fighters is not going to be an easy life.Interestingly, druids and other spellcasters, even with the much-maligned Battle Forms, always considered inferior to martials, and even alchemists, are likely to handle these unexpected situations much better than fighters could on their own.
Yeah, it's just not feasible to always buff literally everything else to be as good as the best option. Some choice nerfs are perfectly acceptable, just as the nerf to gnome flickmace was ultimately far more practical than the many, many buffs that would've been necessary to accomplish relative parity otherwise. "Buff everything else" is sometimes decent advice if the rest of the game isn't fun and everything else needs changing anyways for being boring, but if that isn't the problem then nerfing a strong option is going to be less disruptive overall.
I don't think the case of Gnome Flickmace was really a nerf, but rather that the designers saw that it was behaving very little like a flail.
I really think Paizo messed with her because she was behaving more like a "long sword" than really like a flail.
People point out issues and then get bombarded with a range of counters for why its okay that it is bad. People will continue to point out the bad points because they are bad points.
People will also actively defend Paizo against all criticism because "if you don't like it play an different game" or "you just need to learn how to play" or "you are just a power gamer" or some other nonsense.
Actually the feeling I get is a little different from that it's more like people said between the lines "how dare you criticize the holy PF2 that was designed by the holy design demigods of Paizo I like so much". This was especially notable in 2019/2020 shortly after the game was released, but over time it got better, nowadays they already accept criticism, but like "OK, but if you're criticizing the same thing that I dislike then everything good". lol
If you stop to pay attention, it is an advanced weapon that, in order to be viable, the player needs to play with a gnome and spend an ancestry feat to be able to use it efficiently, or spend a general talent with Adopted Ancestry if it is of another ancestry. . That is, it was never a cheap and really accessible skill, it always required you to limit your choices and spend feat resources to gain access to it.Also it is a bug and bad design when you can make a party of Wizards that multiclass into martial archetypes be straight up worse than a fighter multiclassing into caster archetypes. If the game really were balanced properly then it wouldn't matter what your initial class was you could still make a good character. But in PF2 that is not the case.
Here I already disagree. It's not a bug, this is clearly a design decision where you're given the option of being a martial with some caster skills or a caster with some martial skills. Increasing the options available instead of going half-and-half.
I agree but they could have made more middle ground options beyond the magus and the summoner is something that I, and I believe a lot more people, would like to see, a greater number of interesting hybrid classes.
I also add a criticism, the situation of spellcasters with martial dedications is nowhere near on par with the situation of martial with spellcasting dedications. Doing anything with spellcasters, including MC, in PF2 is much more complicated than with martial ones.
For example, any martial can easily benefit from the buffs and tools provided by multiclass dedications, including access to scrolls, wands and staves, to improve their attacks (True Strike), or solve more situational things (flight). While a spellcaster to really benefit from the feats of a martial MC normally limits himself to the champion's AC bonus, or to any feats that work with a battle form, forcing the player to understand the game mechanics much better and limiting the options of interactions available.
But that's not really a problem with the MC per se. But from the fact that spellcasters are much more complicated to play and master in PF2 than martial ones.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting during the keynote address they mentioned that witch and wizard were getting the most rework out of the core 1 classes. Which is interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting during the keynote address they mentioned that witch and wizard were getting the most rework out of the core 1 classes. Which is interesting.
Might be a hint that the schools of magic are getting re-worked, given those are probably OGL terminology in their expression.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the case of Gnome Flickmace was really a nerf, but rather that the designers saw that it was behaving very little like a flail.
I really think Paizo messed with her because she was behaving more like a "long sword" than really like a flail.
It was explicitly a nerf. They pretty much straight-up said that it turned out it was stronger than intended, and they were acting to bring it more in line with the other one-handed reach weapons. At least, that's how I remember it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The actual errata was:
Page 281: The gnome flickmace was too strong due to the inherent advantages of a one-handed reach weapon. It’s been changed to reduce its damage die and Bulk and add sweep so it functions more like a flail.
Gnome flickmace statistics are as follows.
Price 3 gp; Damage 1d6 B; Bulk 1; Hands 1; Group Flail; Weapon Traits Gnome, reach, sweep
So it was both "yeah this was too good" but sweep also makes it more like a flail and was a buff. So it was kind of an open-faced nerf sandwich.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting during the keynote address they mentioned that witch and wizard were getting the most rework out of the core 1 classes. Which is interesting.Might be a hint that the schools of magic are getting re-worked, given those are probably OGL terminology in their expression.
I would really love for schools of magic to just be moved entirely within the wizard class or at least the arcane tradition, if it is really going to stick around at all. So little outside of wizards really interacts with them at all any more that it feels like a lot of wasted organizational space in PF2, and it is something so heavily tied to D&D specifically.
But the real problem with the schools is that they just do not line up well with the traditions of magic and that makes some school specializations so difficult for wizards to do well.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow! They did get rid of schools, and replaced them with Schools of Magic, like actual schools. Such a good choice!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, that EXPLICITLY was part of the game design, that you could use Skills and Multiclassing to shore up what a party needs rather than having required classes.The "All Fighter Party is viable with planning" thing is a feature, not a bug. In Pathfinder 1e Fighter was probably the worst class to do an entire party of.It should neither be a bug or a feature, because this is obviously not part of the games design at any level.
The problem is that the way this is put into the game is kind of asymmetrical. Some classes have so much of their power put into the chassis that multiclassing and other nonstandard feat choices to bolster utility is cheap, whereas other classes need to invest at least some resources into specialization... and it's not always clear that there's a reward for those requirements.
Moreover, access to certain resources is also asymmetrical, so depending on your composition how good you are at filling those holes can vary wildly.
It's much easier to grab healing, buffing, and debuffing with class-agnostic resources than it is to invest in damage or personal survivability. So groups that stack the latter in class choice has an easier time filling those gaps than a group focused on the former.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting during the keynote address they mentioned that witch and wizard were getting the most rework out of the core 1 classes. Which is interesting.Might be a hint that the schools of magic are getting re-worked, given those are probably OGL terminology in their expression.
CALLED IT!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Druids are getting some fun tweaks, it sounds like!
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Druid Anathema against using metal is gone!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow! They did get rid of schools, and replaced them with Schools of Magic, like actual schools. Such a good choice!
Any mention of how that's going to interact with things outside the scope of remaster that rely on schools?
Wow! They did get rid of schools, and replaced them with Schools of Magic, like actual schools. Such a good choice!Any mention of how that's going to interact with things outside the scope of remaster that rely on schools?
The only "school" trait sticking around is illusion, since that is much more mechanical, although I am sure some of the summon type trait mechanics will stick around too.
Otherwise they are all gone or being changed to focus on the thing that they are supposed to do. It also sounds like your wizard school will give you access to specific spells in your starting spell book, because that is literally where you learned your spells, (entirely my speculation: some of it might not be so tradition locked if the school had a very particular theme). The schools are not based on inherent properties of magic as much as what you use that magic to do. So there will be a battle magic school for example, and probably some rune lord schools, and some of the other major academies of magic as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Druid Anathema against using metal is gone!
I was thinking it was going to have to go away, because every druid is going to be getting access to metal element spells and it would be weird if they couldn't be expected to cast them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the spells are changing quite a bit. Cantrips got a pretty heavy look over. It sounds very cool.
Oh, thank goodness. The cap on druid AC was killing me.
Also, the spells are changing quite a bit. Cantrips got a pretty heavy look over. It sounds very cool.
Oh, nice.
Presumably, then, EArc will no longer be quite so dominant, and possibly Divine casters will get a decent go-to damage dealer?
It'll be good to not have to so much weirdly-shaped need to pull cantrips out of your ancestry.
Now I'm wondering if elves are going to keep their "acid splash, but in any element, and no somatic component" feat. This whole thing is going to make a *lot* of little changes in certain sections of character optimization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriests are getting a huge buff. I think they were fine before, but there's no harm in giving them more overt melee capability.
Warpriests are getting a huge buff. I think they were fine before, but there's no harm in giving them more overt melee capability.
Oh! That's... huh.
How huge a buff? Are we getting a full caster with Master proficiency in a weapon? Are they soaking any sort of a nerf to pay for it?
Warpriests are getting a huge buff. I think they were fine before, but there's no harm in giving them more overt melee capability.
What was huge? They get master proficiency in their deity weapon at 19, and a few class feat options that directly affect combat. Nice, but not amazing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's something very funny about your two posts right next to each other. Very different perspectives on how powerful Master proficiency is.
(It's really strong; there's a reason PF2 is so stingy with it.)
They're also getting feats for scaling heavy armor proficiency and, it sounds like, some other feats that are unique to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
War Priest are also getting in class feats to get scaling heavy armor. I think they are getting just a boost, it is just not a boost that will really kick in until higher levels.
Pretty sure they get Expert with all martial weapons, too. That's earlier on.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
19 is an awkward choice. I feel like asymmetrical scaling is one of the weird pain points of PF2, not a good thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is weird. I think it's a deliberate attempt to make progression itself feel dynamic, like you aren't just playing the exact same game at level 8 as at level 15. Different characters shine at different levels in a steady rotation. I don't like it a ton, though. There are lots of obvious flaws.
Still, it's a core element of PF2's balance. Removing it would be more a PF2.5- or PF3-level change.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Holy god they basically are changing things in about everything.
They free refocus! You can spent 30 minutes to refocus 3 focus points!
Holy god they basically are changing things in about everything.
They free refocus! You can spent 30 minutes to refocus 3 focus points!
Uh.
Wow. Okay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still, it's a core element of PF2's balance. Removing it would be more a PF2.5- or PF3-level change.
Yes theses changes goes far from what 3.5 gone to us. It's more likely PF1 changes.
Holy god I hardly believe that shields will now have hardness runes.
Man we need another topic!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards post remaster will be a very different, very Golarion class, with a lot of room for potential growth. Both they and witches are not even going to be remotely the same. I am curious about how the "getting as many focus points as possible" thing is going to work for classes like the oracle, but we won't see that for a while yet.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oracle is at least in Core 2 so it's getting at least some changes by default.
Psychic feels a little out in the cold now? I mean this change still helps them, but Refocus 2 11 levels early was one of the things that made the class feel strong in that level bracket and now anyone can do that. Not sure how that ends up shaking out.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Druid Anathema against using metal is gone!
I can finally make a dwarf druid in full plate? Hell yeah.
I have to admit, I'd've enjoyed the reported change to Final Doctrine when I played my Warpriest. Finishing off my career with accuracy equal to any non-Fighter Martial would have been a fun way to go.
Wonder what level the new Warpriest armor feat will be? I'm curious as to whether I would've been able to fit it into my build. I have to say that the one thing about Warpriest I didn't like was the lack of Master Proficiency in armor. Heavy armor would help with that, although I didn't want it enough to bother going Sentinel or Champion Dedication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oracle is at least in Core 2 so it's getting at least some changes by default.
Psychic feels a little out in the cold now? I mean this change still helps them, but Refocus 2 11 levels early was one of the things that made the class feel strong in that level bracket and now anyone can do that. Not sure how that ends up shaking out.
I think that there is still going to be one feat for "regain all Focus Points in 10 minutes" and starting with that could still be a significant boost for Psychics.
Holy god they basically are changing things in about everything.
They free refocus! You can spent 30 minutes to refocus 3 focus points!
Iunno if I quite like this change. Not the 3 focus points bit, I trust Paizo can balance stuff out to make fights work on that assumption, but I dislike the prospect of being expected to split hairs over whether the party got to rest for 10, 20, or 30 minutes before they have to fight again. I absolutely despise 5e for forcing me to constantly apply time pressure because that system falls apart at the concept of going to bed, an expectation that I provide such overwhelming time pressure that I can permit 10 minutes but not 30 of idle time is the kind of time tracking or GM fiat I really dislike.
Now, if 30 minutes is hte new standard assumption of how long players ought to have between fights to consider them separate encounters, sure I guess, but I liked 10 minutes as a more manageable chunk of time that's easier to kind of ignore for the GM. 30 minute intervals are more annoyingly significant.
Really the only reason it seems to me that it would take 30 minutes is purely because regaining a focus point currently takes 10 minutes, so regaining all three should take three times as long, right? But we're already in the process of making big changes to the system, so why not just make it 10 minutes off the bat and make it clear that the assumption is that players have their entire focus pool every fight? If it's not going to be the assumption, I'd rather a resource other than additional time be spent to get those extra focus points bcak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holy god they basically are changing things in about everything.
They free refocus! You can spent 30 minutes to refocus 3 focus points!
Iunno if I quite like this change. Not the 3 focus points bit, I trust Paizo can balance stuff out to make fights work on that assumption, but I dislike the prospect of being expected to split hairs over whether the party got to rest for 10, 20, or 30 minutes before they have to fight again. I absolutely despise 5e for forcing me to constantly apply time pressure because that system falls apart at the concept of going to bed, an expectation that I provide such overwhelming time pressure that I can permit 10 minutes but not 30 of idle time is the kind of time tracking or GM fiat I really dislike.
Now, if 30 minutes is hte new standard assumption of how long players ought to have between fights to consider them separate encounters, sure I guess, but I liked 10 minutes as a more manageable chunk of time that's easier to kind of ignore for the GM. 30 minute intervals are more annoyingly significant.
Really the only reason it seems to me that it would take 30 minutes is purely because regaining a focus point currently takes 10 minutes, so regaining all three should take three times as long, right? But we're already in the process of making big changes to the system, so why not just make it 10 minutes off the bat and make it clear that the assumption is that players have their entire focus pool every fight? If it's not going to be the assumption, I'd rather a resource other than additional time be spent to get those extra focus points bcak.
This is a valid concern and you're right to say it. I love 10 minute rests but I don't really love back-to-back rests. The Continual Recovery feat for Medicine does this too--it's probably the single most powerful non-magic healing feat available if your GM doesn't keep you on your toes with the time, and it renders the 'one hour heal to boost damage' option irrelevant as soon as it comes online.
And of course, your GM can always decide "10 min in a room triggers random encounter probability" but at best you've only asked your party to go backtrack out of the dungeon. Whatever it takes to go far enough that their willingness to recover overcomes your willingness to find obstacles to throw at them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that wait 30 minutes "resting and refocusing" is that bad. It's currently a very used stop for many player to recovery their HP using Medicine, Lay on Hands and similar recovery activities.
For example in my last session my players stopped for 40 minutes to recover. It's not like they have to recovery until maximize every HP they usually just recover until their HP goes next to maximum and constantly are worried about the time and ambushes while they are "refocusing and resting".
So now makes usually no difference one the already uses 20-40 minutes to recovery your HP. It isn't always possible to stay so much time but usually if they had 10 minutes to rest so the probably have 30. If they are in a situation that they don't have 30 minutes they probably don't have even 10 minutes available to rest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that wait 30 minutes "resting and refocusing" is that bad. It's currently a very used stop for many player to recovery their HP using Medicine, Lay on Hands and similar recovery activities.
For example in my last session my players stopped for 40 minutes to recover. It's not like they have to recovery until maximize every HP they usually just recover until their HP goes next to maximum and constantly are worried about the time and ambushes while they are "refocusing and resting".
So now makes usually no difference one the already uses 20-40 minutes to recovery your HP. It isn't always possible to stay so much time but usually if they had 10 minutes to rest so the probably have 30. If they are in a situation that they don't have 30 minutes they probably don't have even 10 minutes available to rest.
I see that regularly at my tables as well. After difficult encounters (some moderate encounters and everything above), players will often rest about 30 mins, as that is the average time the medic will need to patch the frontliner up to full.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing I noticed along with the "you can get 3 focus points with 30 minutes of refocus" is that you now no longer need to have spent a focus point since the last time you refocused in order to refocus.
So you could:
- Spend 2 focus points.
- Refocus 1 over 10 minutes.
- Spend 0 focus points
- Refocus 1 over 10 minutes.
Which is probably a bigger change than the "you can sit around for 30 minutes" thing.
Also for most classes 3 focus points doesn't come in till mid or late game. Its not going to be a thing right out the bat.
I love the removal of the feat tax. I would have been ok with all focus points in 10minutes because the extra 10 per focus point feels super arbitrary. Its either safe to rest or its not. If you are under proper time pressure 10 minutes is too long anyway.
That said there are other things that already push rests over 10 minutes - multiple items needing repair, identifying multiple items, continual recovery or only 1 person having medicine with multiple wounded, also Lay on hands 10min intervals to top everyone up. Its not a super big deal for most games but it removes one of the worst feat taxes in game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also for most classes 3 focus points doesn't come in till mid or late game. Its not going to be a thing right out the bat.
Leaf and Storm Druids get 2 focus points at level one. Good spells too. So they are looking good.
That relies on some odd wording so perhaps that will go away as well.
Also for most classes 3 focus points doesn't come in till mid or late game. Its not going to be a thing right out the bat.Leaf and Strom Druids get 2 focus points at level one. Good spells too. So they are looking good.
That relies on some odd wording so perhaps that will go away as well.
Yes it's not that hard to get 3 focus points earlier in the game. Specially for Druids, Bards and Psychic.
Hopefully the Psychic gets a little something in errata to compensate.
Maybe start with 3 focus points and automatically regain all focus points in 10 minutes.
I don't know. Maybe the designer consider that refocus 2 focus points at once as already a good benefit.
Also the psychic is the class with most "focus spells" choices in the early game. Once it begins with 2 or more AMPs since level 1 and have many options to choose due Conscious Minds.
I simply don't expect that the designers just give another focus point just to compensate like was getting Clarity of Focus earlier. Maybe they prefer to give only the compensation of always recover all your focus points instead or just leave it as it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bards are fine. Leave them alone.Counterpoint: Bards are a bit OP... but trying to carve that back in any meaningful way would be far more damaging than it could possibly be worth. Leave them alone.
The true true
So there's going to be items in rage of elements that give kineticist an eventual +2 in blasts plus a 1/day spell......this instantly got me thinking that the new core range is gonna have similar items for the different sources of magic and/or classes. Did we finally do it? Did we annoy them enough to add blasting accuracy items?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like out of list access would be really powerful considering how utilitarian Occult already is, it has the potential to be very abusive.
I think I'd rather see... not pick a list per se but some sort of class archetype option that might change their spell list entirely.
Always thought it was a big miss that Elementalist was restricted to arcane and primal casters.
I doubt this change will happen, but the recent additions of minotaurs and centaurs made me want to bring it up. How do people feel about giving bards more options for spells outside of the occult list? There are many musicians that can control animals and weather, which sounds pretty primal, in ancient Greek stories. Orpheus of course being a prime example. Then there are stories of people selling their souls for musically abilities, which could be a divine source. On top of this, the Thaumaturge, which is some ways a martial bard, easily goes between all four lists.
Not saying the bard should be a pick a list caster, not that I would mind it, but maybe some form of "occult access" to pick up some of these spells? Thoughts?
This is something that, subtly, the remaster is going to allow in a different way. Verbal/somatic components are being replaced with concentration/manipulate traits. It's up to players to decide what forms those take, meaning that every caster gets something pretty close to the bard's current ability to substitute playing an instrument for various components.
While giving Bard some Skald-esque cross-list access might be a little much on an already strong class, you'll be able to have your Cleric or Druid cast spells in a more musical manner without jumping through hoops to do it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
scrolling through this i just see a severe desire for massive power creep