I think "the wizard was historically very strong" was simply the reason for more caution in designing the wizard, and correspondingly there was less caution applied to classes which were historically weaker which is why the rogue and fighter are so good now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually say they did a fine job hitting CoDzilla with a nerfbat. Like. Have you seen warpriest? Don't bring that horrible thing anywhere near melee combat. Actually, maybe don't bring it anywhere near any combat at all. And anyone who thinks cloistered cleric is going to replace the fighter or sorcerer has never seen a fighter or sorcerer in their life. A pile of fort save spells and healing does not CoDzilla make.
I can say I'm disappointed with how they're handling Warpriest, because they aren't addressing a lot of the problems the subclass has (and what little they addressed isn't enough to save it). Even Magus handled it better, and honestly, I don't see why we don't just turn Warpriest into a Divine Magus in terms of proficiencies, key ability boosts, spellcasting, etc.
I'd actually say they did a fine job hitting CoDzilla with a nerfbat. Like. Have you seen warpriest? Don't bring that horrible thing anywhere near melee combat. Actually, maybe don't bring it anywhere near any combat at all. And anyone who thinks cloistered cleric is going to replace the fighter or sorcerer has never seen a fighter or sorcerer in their life. A pile of fort save spells and healing does not CoDzilla make.I can say I'm disappointed with how they're handling Warpriest, because they aren't addressing a lot of the problems the subclass has (and what little they addressed isn't enough to save it). Even Magus handled it better, and honestly, I don't see why we don't just turn Warpriest into a Divine Magus in terms of proficiencies, key ability boosts, spellcasting, etc.
I don't get why we didn't just get proper 2/3rds casters back when traditionally they're what Paizo has been best at. A War Priest that gets 3-slots of spells up to level 6 with the option to pick up on theme higher levels spells via feats/class features would have a lot more room for the martial side of the class fantasy. Or just grant them a focus spell that locks them out of their highest-level spell slots but gives them a boost to attack rolls, damage, AC, and saves for the next minute. Sure they can lead off with a high-level spell and then wade into melee but that just seems thematic for how a holy warrior should approach combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "the wizard was historically very strong" was simply the reason for more caution in designing the wizard, and correspondingly there was less caution applied to classes which were historically weaker which is why the rogue and fighter are so good now.
I mean, I'd argue to some extent Fighters still suffer from the same design problems too. The class is very good at hitting things with a weapon, but that's pretty much the start and finish of what the class specializes in.
Which is honestly the same place the Fighter was in PF1.
The rest of the game was kind of collapsed down around the fighter, to give the class a more clearly defined niche and therefore tighter balance, but as a consequence this has made designing and balancing other classes fit along very narrow parameters.
So you end up with this situation where Fighters are kind of OP but also still kind of limited, and other classes can't even fulfill their own design briefs properly because they have to avoid stepping on the fighter's toes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get why we didn't just get proper 2/3rds casters back when traditionally they're what Paizo has been best at. A War Priest that gets 3-slots of spells up to level 6 with the option to pick up on theme higher levels spells via feats/class features would have a lot more room for the martial side of the class fantasy. Or just grant them a focus spell that locks them out of their highest-level spell slots but gives them a boost to attack rolls, damage, AC, and saves for the next minute. Sure they can lead off with a high-level spell and then wade into melee but that just seems thematic for how a holy warrior should approach combat.I'd actually say they did a fine job hitting CoDzilla with a nerfbat. Like. Have you seen warpriest? Don't bring that horrible thing anywhere near melee combat. Actually, maybe don't bring it anywhere near any combat at all. And anyone who thinks cloistered cleric is going to replace the fighter or sorcerer has never seen a fighter or sorcerer in their life. A pile of fort save spells and healing does not CoDzilla make.I can say I'm disappointed with how they're handling Warpriest, because they aren't addressing a lot of the problems the subclass has (and what little they addressed isn't enough to save it). Even Magus handled it better, and honestly, I don't see why we don't just turn Warpriest into a Divine Magus in terms of proficiencies, key ability boosts, spellcasting, etc.
I mean, I can accept that Warpriest was published the way it was because Wave Casting wasn't even conceived until Secrets of Magic, meaning the idea of making Warpriests into pseudo-casters wasn't considered plausible when they were making the Core Rulebook. (Maybe Paizo should have considered designing something like Wave Casting in the Core Rulebook, but my guess is that it wasn't considered necessary at the time, or just wasn't coalescing into what we have now if an attempt was made.)
But given the Remaster and that they have acknowledged that they want to change some of the classes' math and mechanics, and that Wave Casting now exists, I'm disappointed that Warpriest isn't given the Magus treatment entirely, giving them Channel Smite as a 1st level feature (removing it as a 4th level class feat), and that they aren't just given Wave Casting with Blessings as their bonus lower level spell slots to account for their full Martial progression.
I think "the wizard was historically very strong" was simply the reason for more caution in designing the wizard, and correspondingly there was less caution applied to classes which were historically weaker which is why the rogue and fighter are so good now.I mean, I'd argue to some extent Fighters still suffer from the same design problems too. The class is very good at hitting things with a weapon, but that's pretty much the start and finish of what the class specializes in.
Which is honestly the same place the Fighter was in PF1.
The rest of the game was kind of collapsed down around the fighter, to give the class a more clearly defined niche and therefore tighter balance, but as a consequence this has made designing and balancing other classes fit along very narrow parameters.
So you end up with this situation where Fighters are kind of OP but also still kind of limited, and other classes can't even fulfill their own design briefs properly because they have to avoid stepping on the fighter's toes.
Some of this is tied to how they wanted to cut back on spells' ability to "replace skills" (a thing we saw a lot in PF1) so they wanted to make Skills important and able to stand on their own. Thus the fighter, having as many skill choices and skill feats as basically everybody else, supports the other half of their class through that.
You do kind of see how in practice when classes like the Druid and the Monk getting class feats completely unrelated to "winning fights", those feats tend not to be very popular when "this is very useful" is not clearly signposted throughout the campaign (like "Thousand Faces" has uses in an intrigue game, and "Tongue of the Sun and Moon" is useful I guess if you spend a lot of time on other planets.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I can accept that Warpriest was published the way it was because Wave Casting wasn't even conceived until Secrets of Magic, meaning the idea of making Warpriests into pseudo-casters wasn't considered plausible when they were making the Core Rulebook.
I'm not a fan of wave casting as the replacement for what should be 2/3rds casting classes. A War Priest or Smite Paladin doesn't feel right having a few powerful spells per day and then some low-level utility spells. They feel like they should be buffing up with mid-range spells and getting a few on-theme spells a spell rank early.
The changes previewed thus far also don't suggest that they're going to give us the fixes we want. Spell damage seems to be going down and War Priest getting Master super late feels like a token adjustment at best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of this is tied to how they wanted to cut back on spells' ability to "replace skills" (a thing we saw a lot in PF1) so they wanted to make Skills important and able to stand on their own. Thus the fighter, having as many skill choices and skill feats as basically everybody else, supports the other half of their class through that.
Some skills got bumped up enough to feel fulfilling to invest in but there's a big gap between the good skills and the situational ones.
I mean, I can accept that Warpriest was published the way it was because Wave Casting wasn't even conceived until Secrets of Magic, meaning the idea of making Warpriests into pseudo-casters wasn't considered plausible when they were making the Core Rulebook.I'm not a fan of wave casting as the replacement for what should be 2/3rds casting classes. A War Priest or Smite Paladin doesn't feel right having a few powerful spells per day and then some low-level utility spells. They feel like they should be buffing up with mid-range spells and getting a few on-theme spells a spell rank early.
The changes previewed thus far also don't suggest that they're going to give us the fixes we want. Spell damage seems to be going down and War Priest getting Master super late feels like a token adjustment at best.
The problem with 2/3 casting in this edition is that spells that are 6th level or so cease relevance for the most part. Legit, by endgame, Slow is the strongest spell in the game for that slot level.
I was already aware that they wouldn't address potential issues, and was going to go in depth with them, but didn't want to expand that much and be off-topic.
To be fair, though, Warpriest and Magus should be the only spellcasters that actually benefit from True Strike, since they are martials as well as spellcasters. True Strike is a martial spell, not a spellcaster spell.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually say they did a fine job hitting CoDzilla with a nerfbat. Like. Have you seen warpriest? Don't bring that horrible thing anywhere near melee combat. Actually, maybe don't bring it anywhere near any combat at all.
Yeah, I've seen Warpriest. I played one from Level 1 to Level 20. I spent all twenty levels with my guy right in the thick of it, being the Barbarian's flanking buddy. All told, it worked out quite well. I'll admit that I would've enjoyed the Remaster's new version of Final Doctrine... it would have been a nice cherry on top of a very satisfactory campaign.
Would I claim the character was a DPR machine? Of course not. However, his output was consistent, and undeniable. He had his share of foe-ending Strikes, and as I recall ending a foe quickly is considered good strategy. He also soaked up a considerable amount of damage with Replenishment of War & shield block. When he needed to, he kept his party going, usually because he was easily able to keep in range of everybody except the wizard (who, for obvious reasons, tended to hang back.)
So I wouldn't hesitate to bring a Warpriest into melee combat. In my experience, it was exactly the right place to be.
The problem with 2/3 casting in this edition is that spells that are 6th level or so cease relevance for the most part. Legit, by endgame, Slow is the strongest spell in the game for that slot level.
I think spells scaling by slot instead of caster level is just a mistake and makes for more issues than it solves. I don't think I would have ever pushed that as a design in the first place.
I was already aware that they wouldn't address potential issues, and was going to go in depth with them, but didn't want to expand that much and be off-topic.
Fair, but I think that horse has already bolted.
One solution that wouldn't upset the mathematical structure of the game would be to have more single-target damage spells that uses saves (so you can target different saves, as well as get half-damage on a successful save). In other words, more static bolts.
I would fear that you would run into another problem like electric arc. It is not the highest damaging cantrip, but because it is a save, it usually averages to the highest damage. That's not even including that it can target two enemies.
I think just having more single target spell that target saves would only make the ones that target ac feel worse. Maybe just having them function similarly to those might help them. Something as small as doing minimal damage or splash damage on a miss could help a lot. I mean acid splash is still good because I know even if I miss the troll the splash will still cancel the healing. This makes me almost want to use it over acid arrow, even if it wasn't a spell slot.
The problem with 2/3 casting in this edition is that spells that are 6th level or so cease relevance for the most part. Legit, by endgame, Slow is the strongest spell in the game for that slot level.I think spells scaling by slot instead of caster level is just a mistake and makes for more issues than it solves. I don't think I would have ever pushed that as a design in the first place.
I was already aware that they wouldn't address potential issues, and was going to go in depth with them, but didn't want to expand that much and be off-topic.Fair, but I think that horse has already bolted.
I don't mind it, because it felt weird that I could solo a Tarrasque's HP with an optimized 3rd level spell metamagicked to heck. It should take a high level spell to stop a high level enemy. But to me, this is coming across more as "I'd rather play PF1 than PF2 because I like its mechanics better."
I'd actually say they did a fine job hitting CoDzilla with a nerfbat. Like. Have you seen warpriest? Don't bring that horrible thing anywhere near melee combat. Actually, maybe don't bring it anywhere near any combat at all.Yeah, I've seen Warpriest. I played one from Level 1 to Level 20. I spent all twenty levels with my guy right in the thick of it, being the Barbarian's flanking buddy. All told, it worked out quite well. I'll admit that I would've enjoyed the Remaster's new version of Final Doctrine... it would have been a nice cherry on top of a very satisfactory campaign.
Would I claim the character was a DPR machine? Of course not. However, his output was consistent, and undeniable. He had his share of foe-ending Strikes, and as I recall ending a foe quickly is considered good strategy. He also soaked up a considerable amount of damage with Replenishment of War & shield block. When he needed to, he kept his party going, usually because he was easily able to keep in range of everybody except the wizard (who, for obvious reasons, tended to hang back.)
So I wouldn't hesitate to bring a Warpriest into melee combat. In my experience, it was exactly the right place to be.
Yes, that was my experience too. If you build a warpriest the way it nudges you to be built (a shielded frontline melee support) then the subclass shines as having one of the most fun playstyles in the game. You bop an enemy and cast whatever the party needs to survive the encounter, all while soaking up hate from the big bads. It's my preferred holy warrior over the champion (which isn't bad but isn't nearly as versatile a frontline support).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I just came across this post from Michael Sayre from 15 days ago on Reddit. Interestingly, after another thread brought it up and gained some discussion, he edited it 10 hours ago. So I'm not sure what it originally said, but here it is now.
The original thread is here. The thread discussing it is here.
That would actually make the math more complex and confusing, and it would mean that instead of helping guide people into how play casters, it would create the mistaken impression that they should play like martials.
The shadow signet allows you to target saves instead of AC, which helps people learn that pretty much every monster in the game has at least one low save, which in turn encourages diversifying your spell list (and a diverse spell list is something that many/most/all casters assume, especially wizards).
If you used a potency rune instead, it could only apply to spell attack rolls, but not spell DCs. This would break one of the fundamental structures in the game when it comes to how checks and DCs are determined, making the advancement less intuitive and more complex, and it would have the FOMO knock-on of making people think that the "proper" way to play a caster is to focus on spells that use spell attack rolls, since those are the spells that get item bonuses.
So the shadow signet pushes the caster towards doing the thing that all casters should be doing: learning how to identify enemies' weakest defense and deploying a spell that targets it. A well-built caster won't need a shadow signet at all, because they'll deploy a spell that targets the weakest defense without needing the hack.
So the shadow signet essentially serves two purposes-
1) Help guide people into understanding how to play a spellcaster
2) Provide some additional support for spell attack spells if a player wants to focus on them more than the base engine of the game assumes they will.
As a player gets more experience with spellcasters, they should begin to see things like how staves and scrolls are the equivalent of swords and shields for martials; where a fighter wants to progress their base bonus and damage die, the wizard wants to expand their repertoire and be ready to leverage their significantly broader toolbox towards whatever best suits the situation.
The kineticist, then, is more of a middle ground. It simply can't have the breadth of options that a true caster has, but it can offensively target more defenses than a typical martial. It's able to be that "I only memorize fireball" version of a spellcaster who can hyper-specialize and gain higher accuracy bonuses because none of its abilities hit quite as hard as a spell slot, and it's okay that it gains items that push it towards more of a martial playstyle because it's designed to accommodate that. It doesn't have the break point a wizard would have where adding item bonuses would distort the math so heavily on a well-played wizard with strong system mastery that we'd find ourselves back in an era of caster dominance, and so it also doesn't need to create as many workarounds or dictate other system dynamics in a way that over-complicates the game and creates increasingly difficult-to-bridge gaps based on system mastery.
This is certainly an... interesting take on the whole issue with spell attacks.
This part seems particularly pertinent
Help guide people into understanding how to play a spellcaster
This, to me anyhow, reads like saying "Experienced Spellcasters should know not to cast Spell Attack Roll spells".
The comment itself is focused on the role of Shadow Signet and its apparent utility as a "learning tool" for casters.
However, at 10th level, its way too late. It should be a 2nd level item if that's its intended function. By 10th you've spent enough time as a caster to know your issues and limitations.
Having to spend so much (action wise or resource wise) to get so little is honestly the toughest part of playing a tier 1 caster. I have a hard time not choosing psychic or kineticist if a game is going to start before lvl 7. I think it's better to be limited but impactful (a similar issue to alchemists imo). The real issue with true strike is that it's trying to prop up a poor, expensive option
'Martials are King of single target damage'
I See the Point and I do agreeBut I don't think it would be Bad If spellcasters single target spells, a limited recource, would out-dpr a martial, even by 2 Turns Worth of damage
A Martial would just do another turn like the last, the spellcaster has to think twice If He wants to use another one of His highest spell SlotsIt is an Investment of a limited recource with a risk of wasting it, a risk that is substantially higher against the big enemies
For lower threat enemies ist would probably end Up being Overkill often, so you overspend your recource, but got something of it
In that vein I support casters getting spell attentiators of some Sort
That might digress from the core question about sure Strike but I think the discussion evolved enough at this Point anyWay
Personally?
Yes I think that is over the line. I limited, recurring resource that you can swap every day to a multitude of options shouldn't outshine a class at it's main purpose
|
So I just came across this post from Michael Sayre from 15 days ago on Reddit. Interestingly, after another thread brought it up and gained some discussion, he edited it 10 hours ago. So I'm not sure what it originally said, but here it is now.
The original thread is here. The thread discussing it is here.
...That would actually make the math more complex and confusing, and it would mean that instead of helping guide people into how play casters, it would create the mistaken impression that they should play like martials.
The shadow signet allows you to target saves instead of AC, which helps people learn that pretty much every monster in the game has at least one low save, which in turn encourages diversifying your spell list (and a diverse spell list is something that many/most/all casters assume, especially wizards).
If you used a potency rune instead, it could only apply to spell attack rolls, but not spell DCs. This would break one of the fundamental structures in the game when it comes to how checks and DCs are determined, making the advancement less intuitive and more complex, and it would have the FOMO knock-on of making people think that the "proper" way to play a caster is to focus on spells that use spell attack rolls, since those are the spells that get item bonuses.
So the shadow signet pushes the caster towards doing the thing that all casters should be doing: learning how to identify enemies' weakest defense and deploying a spell that targets it. A well-built caster won't need a shadow signet at all, because they'll deploy a spell that targets the weakest defense without needing the hack.
So the shadow signet essentially serves two purposes-
1) Help guide people into
Way I read it, spellcasters should know when to cast the spell that best fits their current need. Sometimes it will be an attack spell, but that should not be the default expectation.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone is saving it should be the default expectation.
But if Spell Attacks are to be treated as just one of many tools to pick from, they should not be inherently worse than the other possible options.
As in they should share the 4 degree of success structure like other spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone is saving it should be the default expectation.
But if Spell Attacks are to be treated as just one of many tools to pick from, they should not be inherently worse than the other possible options.
As in they should share the 4 degree of success structure like other spells.
It is a good thing that spell attack rolls are not inherently worse than any other possible options then!
They benefit from tactics more than any saving throw spell, can be hero pointed, and get a default +1 to success by virtue of being actively rolled instead of passively rolled by the NPC (by virtue of ties going to the roller). Do those advantages always off set not doing partial damage on a miss? No. But those advantages can very quickly and easily be exploited in some encounters, against some enemies to be far more effective than doing partial damage on a miss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Overwhelming energy is a powerful metamagic feat for casters that want to focus on one energy type. It is not quite as good as extract element from the kineticist, but there is no caster that can't very easily have a couple of different options even if they are thematically focused on 1 damage type.
The problem with overwhelming energy is that it is level 10. I could see how an elementalist archetype should have access to something like that earlier, but overwhelming energy doesn't really interact with the element trait tags, only energy damage types, so it would really be for some kind of energy blaster archetype, not an elementalist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm into year two of consistently playing PF2e weekly and everyone in our group agrees that casters are not accurate enough. It's just how we feel and it's what our experience has been. It's not unusual for our casters to go a full session without ever landing an attack spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sort of argument is why most experienced players stick to evergreen options like walls, buffs and illusions, which don't meaningfully interact with opponent saves, strong "success" effects like slow and synesthesia, and non combat utility.
Don't need to play the guess the save minigame if all you want is steady, reliable effectiveness.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone is saving it should be the default expectation.
But if Spell Attacks are to be treated as just one of many tools to pick from, they should not be inherently worse than the other possible options.
As in they should share the 4 degree of success structure like other spells.
It is a good thing that spell attack rolls are not inherently worse than any other possible options then!
They benefit from tactics more than any saving throw spell, can be hero pointed, and get a default +1 to success by virtue of being actively rolled instead of passively rolled by the NPC (by virtue of ties going to the roller). Do those advantages always off set not doing partial damage on a miss? No. But those advantages can very quickly and easily be exploited in some encounters, against some enemies to be far more effective than doing partial damage on a miss.
I'm sorry, how are they not?
If enemy AC is assumed to require item bonuses to overcome reliably by nature of martial scaling, and enemy Save DCs are not because item bonuses to DCs don't exist in the game, you're looking at a +3 differential between targeting Saves and targeting AC at the endgame, just based on that alone. That's not including enemies which may have higher AC than usual, or enemies who have even worse saves than usual that you should be exploiting. And if enemies have just as much if not more AC? Congratulations, Shadow Signet is useless/detrimental instead of helpful, what a great way to teach spellcasters that affecting saves is more helpful than affecting AC.
Relegating a caster's ability to affect enemies based on saves more efficiently than AC really only tells me that spellcasters should just be offered save-based effects and not attack-based effects, because you are inherently worse at them as the game goes on with no way to boost it up. And don't you even decide to state "Well, there's Sure Strike," because a whole other roll does not always equate to upwards of a +3 bonus to your attack, because it could be worth more (such as if you have a high hit/crit chance), it could be worth less (such as if your hit/crit chance is practically non-existent). And IMO, Sure Strike should be relegated to Strike actions/activities only.
Oh, and if we say "Well, there's Legendary casting at 19th, so if we implemented item bonuses, they would have more to-hit than Martials do!" To which I say is basically pointless. First, we're making a complaint about the last 10% of gameplay that practically nobody ever reaches. Second, this is assuming that they need to have the same scaling, and they don't. Third, there are little to no 1-action attack roll cantrips or spells, meaning they lose out on action economy alone. Lastly, those cantrips/spells aren't going to do as much damage as a dedicated martial in a given round anyway based on scaling and the factor that there are better spells to prepare that aren't attack-based.
What is sad is that this is so easy to fix that I don't understand why Paizo doesn't do it if the goal is that spellcasters need to be trained to target bad saves instead of using spell attack rolls; especially since they still do meaningful effects on successful saves. Just make all attack roll spells into save-based effects. Wow, what a marvelous, simple, and effective idea! And it's not like Paizo can't do this, because they already have done this with other effects. Remember that PF1's Inflict Wounds and Vampiric Touch were originally touch attack effects? Well, they're save-based in PF2 now, so it's already been done with certain effects already. Just complete the process instead of leaving us hanging with these garbage attack roll spells if the idea is that spellcasters shouldn't be affecting AC with their spells. PF2 was meant to cut out trap options that were extremely prevalent in PF1, not implement them in new coats of paint or implement completely different ones.
And before we have complaints of "Well, this nerfs Magus/Warpriest, so we should still have some form of attack roll spells for these subclasses to shine," Warpriest only works with the Harm/Heal spell, and their feat already covers how that works. Otherwise, give Magus the option to substitute a save-based effect with an attack roll instead via Spellstrike. Boom, problem solved. Spellcasters won't feel bad by maintaining effectiveness, Warpriests still gonna Channel Smite (which should have honestly been a feature available at 1st level based on Doctrine), and Magi still gonna Spellstrike (except now they don't need to worry about Intelligence worth a damn because it doesn't affect Save DCs or damage or anything like that, and they're still doing something on a miss thanks to the nature of save-based effects).