| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maximum possible INT for a fighter is 1 boost behind the class's key attribute, because the class itself only boosts one thing --- the key attribute.
For any class, you can boost the class's key ability to one level higher than any of the other attributes' possible maxima. This is not a bug, it's a feature. :-)
If you insist on maxing class key attribute, fortitude save, reflex save and will save every time you get your four free boosts, then unless your key attribute is INT or CHA, you ain't boosting INT or CHA (Unless you do it with ancestry or background boosts). Is the game broken?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Fighter that maxes intelligenceBwahahahahaha. Good one.
You don't get a class boost to Int, so you actually can't max Intelligence - at best, you're always a point behind an actual Int-based class, and at low level before the level 5 ability score increase, more like 2 or 3. And depending on the fighter you're playing (Str based without plate armor, for instance - plate and the bulwark property it provides is EXPENSIVE at low levels) you're going to have to make some very hard choices about which one of your saves is going to be bad. Because you can't pump Str, Int, Dex, Con, and Wis all at the same time.
By max I meant put the maximum boosts they can. Sorry if that wasn't obvious. But a fighter eith +3 int has as many skills as a wizard with +4 and is only 1 point behind in bonus. Don't need high dex with bulwark as a class feature.
Fighters have better saves than wizards so its a choice wizards make too but start off further behind, also have less health and less AC. A fighter cannas easily pick up a bow and do the same or better damage than a wizard and still have better saves and AC and +3 int.
There is nothing to explicitly indicate wizards are supposed to be recall knowledge monkeys in the class design, there are no class features or feats to support your argument. Many classes get RKnfeat support, start all but 1 of them start with more base trained skills to spend on knowledge skills.
Show mw what class features or class feats a wizard gets to support or utilise recall knowledge? There is none. PF2e rules are supernexplicit about their intent and what you can do. There is nothing explicit for wizards for skills or recall knowledge. Enigma bards, mastermind rogues and thaumaturges are all better knowledge classes by design than wizard. Even inventors get free increases in am int based knowledge skill (crafting).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Fighter that maxes intelligenceBwahahahahaha. Good one.
You don't get a class boost to Int, so you actually can't max Intelligence - at best, you're always a point behind an actual Int-based class, and at low level before the level 5 ability score increase, more like 2 or 3. And depending on the fighter you're playing (Str based without plate armor, for instance - plate and the bulwark property it provides is EXPENSIVE at low levels) you're going to have to make some very hard choices about which one of your saves is going to be bad. Because you can't pump Str, Int, Dex, Con, and Wis all at the same time.
Making difficult, character-defining choices sounds like fun to me, instead of playing it painfully safe by only pumping the three saving throw stats.
A smart Fighter focusing in on Recalling Knowledge sounds like a really cool kind of character to play as. Especially with the RK clarifications letting me choose my questions, so I can play it as deducing things about the enemy in a moment-by-moment manner.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
RK is just as giod for a fighter knowing weaknesses and resistances, your argument still lacks merit. Every class can benefit. Also wizards after daily prep have zero flexibility on ehat spells they have prepared so there is a high chance, especially at low level they will not have a decent spell for what they learn.
Because spells is not an argument, sorcs don't have high int, have just as many spells so clearly that isn't the reason.
Show me 1 explicit feat or feature where recall knowledge is called out for wizards?
You can't, you can say but spells but rk benefits choice of weapom or consumeable for an encounter just as much.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Happy to. Spells. Fighters throw attack rolls, wizards throw saving throws. RK is a huge boon to anyone casting since it lets them pick the right saving throw for the job. Moreover, the arcane list is uniquely good at having a wide variety of saving throw types and effects.
Having RK be spending an action to metagame is terrible game design. It should have an active bonus or debuff that it gives so that it's useful even against well-known foes or ones the player has metagame knowledge of.
Also, the wizard's spells are 2-action and almost always ranged, while the fighter...let's just say at low level being a ranged fighter isn't the most fun thing in the world. The fighter has to MOVE with their third action, and their first two are taken up with Power Attack, Double Slice, or just making two attack rolls. They don't have the actions to Recall Knowledge in combat, and the wizard does.
Fighters also get action compression feats like Sudden Charge to deal with these issues while casters, at best, get 1/day Quicken Spell. Caster action economy suffers way harder than the martial action economy from level 1 when Sudden Charge is an option to level 20.
Yeah that's why I called out the price tag of plate at low level. You don't necessarily have the money for it.
At low-level what damaging reflex saves is the fighter commonly going to have to worry about?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing is a fighter would never choose wizard as a MC archetype because the arcane list lacks the buff spells a fighter would use. A fighter would choose an occult or divine class for the buffs and likely occult since the occult list has true strike and heroism on it. Along with invis and see invis.
Wizards used to be good at buffing. Now they are not. Another thing taken from them and given to the occult list.
The funny thing is a fighter would never choose wizard as a MC archetype because the arcane list lacks the buff spells a fighter would use. A fighter would choose an occult or divine class for the buffs and likely occult since the occult list has true strike and heroism on it. Along with invis and see invis.
Wizards used to be good at buffing. Now they are not. Another thing taken from them and given to the occult list.
They did much the same to Clerics slapping them back into a hard support/healing role when they used to have better damage and melee options that are vastly reduced in scope. I'm not sure if they realized why Clerics kept scope creeping since AD&D but they've balanced them by putting them right back where they started.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing is a fighter would never choose wizard as a MC archetype because the arcane list lacks the buff spells a fighter would use. A fighter would choose an occult or divine class for the buffs and likely occult since the occult list has true strike and heroism on it. Along with invis and see invis.
Wizards used to be good at buffing. Now they are not. Another thing taken from them and given to the occult list.
This was a correct decision. Buffing should be the cleric's domain, not the wizard's
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was a correct decision. Buffing should be the cleric's domain, not the wizard'sThe funny thing is a fighter would never choose wizard as a MC archetype because the arcane list lacks the buff spells a fighter would use. A fighter would choose an occult or divine class for the buffs and likely occult since the occult list has true strike and heroism on it. Along with invis and see invis.
Wizards used to be good at buffing. Now they are not. Another thing taken from them and given to the occult list.
Niche protection is garbage. Classes should be built around a theme, not a mechanical role.
Arcane lost major "buffing" spells when Clone and Soul Jar were omitted from PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Niche protection is garbage. Classes should be built around a theme, not a mechanical role.This was a correct decision. Buffing should be the cleric's domain, not the wizard'sThe funny thing is a fighter would never choose wizard as a MC archetype because the arcane list lacks the buff spells a fighter would use. A fighter would choose an occult or divine class for the buffs and likely occult since the occult list has true strike and heroism on it. Along with invis and see invis.
Wizards used to be good at buffing. Now they are not. Another thing taken from them and given to the occult list.
This is more or less the same thing. Mechanics reflect theme. The theme of wizards and arcane spellcasting means less buffing. Wizards mechanically and thematically should not be buffers like divine casters should be
I actually agree that wizards are not any better at recall knowledge compared to anyone else except that they are pretty good with arcana and occultism, and grabbing additional lore is not a bad idea. I don't know if this is especially important though. I only think wizards should automatically progress arcana as they level up, and I might argue int psychics and maybe bards should auto progress occultism too, but I think sorcerers should not
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane lost major "buffing" spells when Clone and Soul Jar were omitted from PF2.Those... aren't buffs? Really at all. Except maybe for the wizard casting them. But they're mostly just horribly broken piles of absurdity, and their elimination was a supremely good choice by the developers.
RK is just as giod for a fighter knowing weaknesses and resistances,
So you know the monster is vulnerable to sonic damage, or adamantine. How, as a fighter, do you intend to deal with that or exploit it at low level? Serious question, not rhetorical - I may be missing something but I don't think I am? At low level you don't have the money for a golf bag of energy runes and different materials (cold iron, adamantine, etc). You can barely afford potency runes. The wizard can afford different damage types for cantrips, however, since they don't cost gold and are class features.
But more importantly. Many monsters don't have energy or weapon material weaknesses at all. But they all have weak saves. So the wizard still gets more use out of recall knowledge than the typical fighter, because they're built around saves.
How about resistance to non bludgeoning for a skeleton or weakness to slashing for zombies? You picked a high level material to make a bad faith point.
The arcane list has literally all the spells listed except heroism, and even then I would argue some fighters would prefer enlarge over it due to it not competing with haste for a spell slot/spell known like heroism is.The funny thing is a fighter would never choose wizard as a MC archetype because the arcane list lacks the buff spells a fighter would use. A fighter would choose an occult or divine class for the buffs and likely occult since the occult list has true strike and heroism on it. Along with invis and see invis.
Wizards used to be good at buffing. Now they are not. Another thing taken from them and given to the occult list.
They'll end up with haste anyway if they max out casting and cast heroism in level 4 5 or 6 slots.
Haste isn't that great any more with the MAP penalties. It's not not an extra max level attack like it was in PF1. It's an extra strike at whatever MAP is current.
Heroism is a bonus to hit, skills, and saves. It's superior to haste now.
You remember haste in 1st edition? Extra max level attack, +1 to attack reflex, saves and AC. This isn't your grandma's haste. This is the nerfed haste. Heroism is better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They did much the same to Clerics slapping them back into a hard support/healing role when they used to have better damage and melee options that are vastly reduced in scope. I'm not sure if they realized why Clerics kept scope creeping since AD&D but they've balanced them by putting them right back where they started.The funny thing is a fighter would never choose wizard as a MC archetype because the arcane list lacks the buff spells a fighter would use. A fighter would choose an occult or divine class for the buffs and likely occult since the occult list has true strike and heroism on it. Along with invis and see invis.
Wizards used to be good at buffing. Now they are not. Another thing taken from them and given to the occult list.
Cleric has weapon proficiency, armor, 8 hit points, and it has some nice attack spells, the most versatile summons, lots of heals or harms, and can be built to hammer.
I played a cleric of Gorum with Channel Smite that was absolutely brutal.
I don't play cleric's much because I don't enjoy the boring chassis or following a god all the time, but the class has way more than just buffing.
It is super hard to bring a cleric down in this edition. 2 action heal while being able to swing a weapon is potent. If you have 3 or 4 extra heals that you can heal yourself for 2 actions makes you last a long time.
They have boring feats so toss on a martial archetype like fighter, get the hit point booster, and clerics are doing well this edition still.
They won't win the most interesting class award, but they certainly can be built powerfully in this edition and to do more than buff and heal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is more or less the same thing. Mechanics reflect theme. The theme of wizards and arcane spellcasting means less buffing. Wizards mechanically and thematically should not be buffers like divine casters should be
Not really. A wizard is supposed to buff with intense scrying (PF2 nerfed this into the ground), bypassing enemy defenses (teleportation - also nerfed), via form changes (heavily nerfed, limited selection of forms, nothing like Magic Jar), via outright elemental immunity, or via summoning which is now very restricted. A lot of the ways Wizards used to help the party overcome challenges - i.e. buffing the party's ability to solve the issue facing them - just stopped existing in PF2 and they got nothing back for losing this utility.
Arcane lost major "buffing" spells when Clone and Soul Jar were omitted from PF2.Those... aren't buffs? Really at all. Except maybe for the wizard casting them. But they're mostly just horribly broken piles of absurdity, and their elimination was a supremely good choice by the developers.
They are self-buffs which are still buffs.
Clone could easily still work as a ritual that brings you back with Stupified 1 for the next 1d3 days. It still serves as a costly way to bring back a worse version of the caster without divine magic.
Magic Jar just needs the incapacitation trait and possibly a 24-hour duration and it's also perfectly fine.
Cleric has weapon proficiency, armor, 8 hit points, and it has some nice attack spells, the most versatile summons, lots of heals or harms, and can be built to hammer.
I played a cleric of Gorum with Channel Smite that was absolutely brutal.
I don't play cleric's much because I don't enjoy the boring chassis or following a god all the time, but the class has way more than just buffing.
It is super hard to bring a cleric down in this edition. 2 action heal while being able to swing a weapon is potent. If you have 3 or 4 extra heals that you can heal yourself for 2 actions makes you last a long time.
They have boring feats so toss on a martial archetype like fighter, get the hit point booster, and clerics are doing well this edition still.
They won't win the most interesting class award, but they certainly can be built powerfully in this edition and to do more than buff and heal.
They aren't interesting compared to what they are in D&D 5e or what they were in PF1/3.x. They lost heavy armor, their best self-buffing spells, the 2/3rds BAB-progression which no longer exists in PF2, and meta magic. What, aside from healing font which they didn't need in previous editions, did they gain that gives them meaningfully more options in PF2?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about resistance to non bludgeoning for a skeleton or weakness to slashing for zombies? You picked a high level material to make a bad faith point.Arcane lost major "buffing" spells when Clone and Soul Jar were omitted from PF2.Those... aren't buffs? Really at all. Except maybe for the wizard casting them. But they're mostly just horribly broken piles of absurdity, and their elimination was a supremely good choice by the developers.
RK is just as giod for a fighter knowing weaknesses and resistances,
So you know the monster is vulnerable to sonic damage, or adamantine. How, as a fighter, do you intend to deal with that or exploit it at low level? Serious question, not rhetorical - I may be missing something but I don't think I am? At low level you don't have the money for a golf bag of energy runes and different materials (cold iron, adamantine, etc). You can barely afford potency runes. The wizard can afford different damage types for cantrips, however, since they don't cost gold and are class features.
But more importantly. Many monsters don't have energy or weapon material weaknesses at all. But they all have weak saves. So the wizard still gets more use out of recall knowledge than the typical fighter, because they're built around saves.
Nope, just picked a random one. Cold iron isn't cheap either. It costs more than a weapon potency rune, which is big money at this level.
Bludgeoning and slashing are totally fair, and you raise a good point with them. But I do hope you agree that those resistances and weaknesses don't always come up - whereas "which save should I target" is a question the wizard can ask every encounter.
Sure but with super limited spellslots its a question they are highly unlikely to have a good answer to. Low level casters might only have 3 or 4 prepped spells of a level to do somethimg worthwhile, there are too many possible basis to cover so sure you might get lucky and have a spell that might be useful and target the right save and then will fail 40 to 55% of the time or have far less effect than a trip, shove, or 1st 1 action attack. Meanwhile the caster might get 1 chance at it and use their whole turn which means no moving, mo reach spell or other metamagic, no shield cantrip and worse defenses and AC to deal with it.
Also very few low level creatures have a resistance to everything but cold iron. The difference is the fighter still gets a awesome chance of damaging or tripping an enemy, probably still do decent damage with +4 damage from strength. Theu may not be able to take advantage of a cold iron weakness but neither can the wizard have spells targeting every save and every weakness all at once with sufficient slots to have a good chamce they can and lower chance of success than a fighter's primary attack.
In short RK is something everyone can take advantage of. Wizards get no feat support for it. If they got the ability to change the damage type of the spell after a successful rk check, or a bonus on next spell attack or something then maybe you would have a point.
Really there is no feat support for it or baseline class buff for using it unlike many other classes including fighters get.
Wizards have less baseline skills than most classes, no additional skill feats, nothing about their design other than +1 int at first level that gives them advantage or benefit not also available to any other class.
Even your rk argument to target a better save (assuming I have a spell which is worthwhile that can target that save, not affected by incap trait or the target isn't naturally immune) then I am still gating behind losing an action and a a skill check I have a decent chance of failing at low levels, especially if a higher level creature to gain any benefit. Wizards are less an rk class tham thaumaturge, mastermind or enigma bard before feat choices and have zero feat options to improve it.
I hope you can see that and agree they get nothing to support your theory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is more or less the same thing. Mechanics reflect theme. The theme of wizards and arcane spellcasting means less buffing. Wizards mechanically and thematically should not be buffers like divine casters should beNot really. A wizard is supposed to buff with intense scrying (PF2 nerfed this into the ground), bypassing enemy defenses (teleportation - also nerfed), via form changes (heavily nerfed, limited selection of forms, nothing like Soul Jar), via outright elemental immunity, or via summoning which is now very restricted. A lot of the ways Wizards used to help the party overcome challenges - i.e. buffing the party's ability to solve the issue facing them - just stopped existing in PF2 and they got nothing back for losing this utility.
All of these nerfs were necessary. Extremely necessary, and also not buff spells. They're "bypass narrative" spells
All of these nerfs were necessary. Extremely necessary, and also not buff spells. They're "bypass narrative" spells
What harm would there be in having PF2-level divination given that spell effects are nerfed and teleporting is up to GM approval and still inaccurate even if it is allowed?
If instead we only removed excellent scrying, what is the harm in pin-point teleportation when it can only get you back to a place you've already scouted in detail?
What is the issue with proper non-template form changes if all the DCs and attacks are bound to the caster's proficiency?
What's the harm in having elemental immunity if you can't make it last all day?
What's the harm in Summoning when it takes a 5-round fight to break even on action economy?
Paizo was overly afraid when they designed PF2 and it's clear that a lot of cut content could come back if it's reintroduction was handled carefully.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the harm in Summoning when it takes a 5-round fight to break even on action economy?
You "break even" on the second round. You use three actions to cast and get two immediately and then the next round when you sustain you use one action for 2. You use four actions and get four actions, after that is positive
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the harm in Summoning when it takes a 5-round fight to break even on action economy?You "break even" on the second round. You use three actions to cast and get two immediately and then the next round when you sustaining you use one action for 2. You use four actions and get four actions, after that is positive
Unless you need to move on any of those turns or need to use a third-action style ability and don't have a one-action spell ready. Summoning is weak in PF2 even if used perfectly and saying that it pays for itself two rounds after you summon a creature is only technically true and even then only in a perfect white room scenario.
R1) -3 actions spent casting the summoning spell.
R2) -1 action commanding the summon, +2 actions from the summon
R3) -1 action commanding the summon, +2 actions from the summon
R4) You finally go plus on actions except you're still in the hole because you didn't cast a better spell R1 and have either skipped casting a spell or moving each round.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is more or less the same thing. Mechanics reflect theme. The theme of wizards and arcane spellcasting means less buffing. Wizards mechanically and thematically should not be buffers like divine casters should beNot really. A wizard is supposed to buff with intense scrying (PF2 nerfed this into the ground), bypassing enemy defenses (teleportation - also nerfed), via form changes (heavily nerfed, limited selection of forms, nothing like Magic Jar), via outright elemental immunity, or via summoning which is now very restricted. A lot of the ways Wizards used to help the party overcome challenges - i.e. buffing the party's ability to solve the issue facing them - just stopped existing in PF2 and they got nothing back for losing this utility.
Yep. The number of ways a wizard was nerfed are so varied that the totality of the nerf makes them not so fun to play if you remember how good they were in previous editions.
I was expecting some kind of power reduction to the wizard, but this is so multi-layered in its destruction of the wizard that it's not worth it to me to figure out how to make them good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the harm in Summoning when it takes a 5-round fight to break even on action economy?You "break even" on the second round. You use three actions to cast and get two immediately and then the next round when you sustaining you use one action for 2. You use four actions and get four actions, after that is positiveUnless you need to move on any of those turns or need to use a third-action style ability and don't have a one-action spell ready. Summoning is weak in PF2 even if used perfectly and saying that it pays for itself two rounds after you summon a creature is only technically true and even then only in a perfect white room scenario.
R1) -3 actions spent casting the summoning spell.
R2) -1 action commanding the summon, +2 actions from the summon
R3) -1 action commanding the summon, +2 actions from the summon
R4) You finally go plus on actions except you're still in the hole because you didn't cast a better spell R1 and have either skipped casting a spell or moving each round.
This is factually incorrect it's
R1) use three actions to summon, immediately get to use two actions with the summonR2) use one action to sustain, get two actions
You are action neutral on round two
R3) one action, get 2
You are now action positive
A creature called by a spell or effect gains the summoned trait. A summoned creature can't summon other creatures, create things of value, or cast spells that require a cost. It has the minion trait. If it tries to Cast a Spell of equal or higher level than the spell that summoned it, it overpowers the summoning magic, causing its own spell to fail and the summon spell to end. Otherwise, the summoned creature uses the standard abilities for a creature of its kind. It generally attacks your enemies to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows your commands.
Immediately when you finish Casting the Spell, the summoned creature uses its 2 actions for that turn. A spawn or other creature generated from a summoned creature returns to its unaltered state (usually a corpse in the case of spawn) once the summoned creature is gone. If it's unclear what this state would be, the GM decides. Summoned creatures can be banished by various spells and effects. They are automatically banished if reduced to 0 Hit Points or if the spell that called them ends.
This is factually incorrect it's
R1) use three actions to summon, immediately get to use two actions with the summon
R2) use one action to sustain, get two actions
You are action neutral on round two
R3) one action, get 2
You are now action positiveA creature called by a spell or effect gains the summoned trait. A summoned creature can't summon other creatures, create things of value, or cast spells that require a cost. It has the minion trait. If it tries to Cast a Spell of equal or higher level than the spell that summoned it, it overpowers the summoning magic, causing its own spell to fail and the summon spell to end. Otherwise, the summoned creature uses the standard abilities for a creature of its kind. It generally attacks your enemies to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows...
My bad, I generally avoid using summoning spells in this edition.
Also, none of what you've said does anything to address the issue of opportunity cost and what else you could been spending the actions on instead of a creature that makes, at best, attacks like a martial character's second attack but with less damage. It also doesn't address the action crunch and lack of ability to move and cast spells while maintaining said summon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They aren't interesting compared to what they are in D&D 5e or what they were in PF1/3.x. They lost heavy armor, their best self-buffing spells, the 2/3rds BAB-progression which no longer exists in PF2, and meta magic. What, aside from healing font which they didn't need in previous editions, did they gain that gives them meaningfully more options in PF2?Cleric has weapon proficiency, armor, 8 hit points, and it has some nice attack spells, the most versatile summons, lots of heals or harms, and can be built to hammer.
I played a cleric of Gorum with Channel Smite that was absolutely brutal.
I don't play cleric's much because I don't enjoy the boring chassis or following a god all the time, but the class has way more than just buffing.
It is super hard to bring a cleric down in this edition. 2 action heal while being able to swing a weapon is potent. If you have 3 or 4 extra heals that you can heal yourself for 2 actions makes you last a long time.
They have boring feats so toss on a martial archetype like fighter, get the hit point booster, and clerics are doing well this edition still.
They won't win the most interesting class award, but they certainly can be built powerfully in this edition and to do more than buff and heal.
Everyone is nerfed from before including all martials.
But the cleric is still very playable and still has power in PF2. The cleric class still works and still fills the same roles and abilities.
Whereas the wizard is something I can barely relate to from what it was before. It's clunky. It's theses were former class features. Metamagic is mostly bad. Crafting is mostly bad. They don't have any casting advantages. No feats that stand out as better or worth building over a theme. Skills are no longer intel-based. People keep bringing up RK, but they are only good at RK for intel-based skills. Everyone is acting like Religion and Nature are not Wisdom based now. Wizards are good at Recall Knowledge with Arcane, Occultism, Society, and Crafting. Thaumaturge is the king of Recall Knowledge in PF2.
Then look at the Arcane list. Outsider summons gone. Major buffs like heroism gone. No standout spell for debuffing like synesthesia. No healing. Very little condition removal. Most of the former power spells are incap spells now. Teleport 10 minutes to cast and on the occult list. Haste on every list but Divine. Slow on every list but Divine. Walls on every list with Wall of Force on Occult. Fly on nearly every list. So their spell list nerfed as well.
No simple weapons to build off ancestry feats.
Intel main stat with the fewest number of high impact combat feats. Mostly good for downtime or exploration and even then plenty of other feats to accomplish the same ends.
The cleric is still a very playable class with different interesting ways to build them.
Wizard not so much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is factually incorrect it's
R1) use three actions to summon, immediately get to use two actions with the summon
R2) use one action to sustain, get two actions
You are action neutral on round two
R3) one action, get 2
You are now action positiveA creature called by a spell or effect gains the summoned trait. A summoned creature can't summon other creatures, create things of value, or cast spells that require a cost. It has the minion trait. If it tries to Cast a Spell of equal or higher level than the spell that summoned it, it overpowers the summoning magic, causing its own spell to fail and the summon spell to end. Otherwise, the summoned creature uses the standard abilities for a creature of its kind. It generally attacks your enemies to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows...My bad, I generally avoid using summoning spells in this edition.
Also, none of what you've said does anything to address the issue of opportunity cost and what else you could been spending the actions on instead of a creature that makes, at best, attacks like a martial character's second attack but with less damage. It also doesn't address the action crunch and lack of ability to move and cast spells while maintaining said summon.
I presume if you are using a summoning spell you are using a summon which has abilities you want to double up on. For instance, what activity often uses two actions? Casting spells. My favorite example has been the Unicorn from summon fae which can use it's two actions on a two action heal. If you don't need to move, this is 2 2 action spells a turn and you have a meat shield. Four actions a turn and something that by doing something like healing and putting itself in an annoying position for the enemy should come with down sides. I agree with the opportunity cost here. Summons shouldn't always be good. Sometimes other spells should be better. I don't see an issue here
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of these nerfs were necessary. Extremely necessary, and also not buff spells. They're "bypass narrative" spellsWhat harm would there be in having PF2-level divination given that spell effects are nerfed and teleporting is up to GM approval and still inaccurate even if it is allowed?
If instead we only removed excellent scrying, what is the harm in pin-point teleportation when it can only get you back to a place you've already scouted in detail?
What is the issue with proper non-template form changes if all the DCs and attacks are bound to the caster's proficiency?
What's the harm in having elemental immunity if you can't make it last all day?
What's the harm in Summoning when it takes a 5-round fight to break even on action economy?
Paizo was overly afraid when they designed PF2 and it's clear that a lot of cut content could come back if it's reintroduction was handled carefully.
What are you talking about, man?
Fiery body and corrosive body give immunity. Very nice spells.
Equal action economy after 5 rounds? What? You can use sustain spells at level 16 as a free action which allows for summons if find a useful one.
What do you even mean non-template form changes?
It's like you're bringing up stuff like you don't even play this game and know anything about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone is nerfed from before including all martials.
But the cleric is still very playable and still has power in PF2. The cleric class still works and still fills the same roles and abilities.
As somebody who enjoyed things like archery-focused clerics, cloistered cleric + knowledge domain, tank melee clerics, et al. I find that the PF2 cleric is far more pigeonholed into pure support than it has been since AD&D.
I presume if you are using a summoning spell you are using a summon which has abilities you want to double up on. For instance, what activity often uses two actions? Casting spells. My favorite example has been the Unicorn from summon fae which can use it's two actions on a two action heal. If you don't need to move, this is 2 2 action spells a turn and you have a meat shield. Four actions a turn and something that by doing something like healing and putting itself in an annoying position for the enemy should come with down sides. I agree with the opportunity cost here. Summons shouldn't...
I hard disagree as making summoning spells situation shuts down the Summon playstyle and makes it non-viable. Given how beloved this playstyle is, even with the understanding the the horde-style summoner isn't coming back, the weak state of PF2 summoning is inexcusable.
Fiery body and corrosive body give immunity. Very nice spells.
Compare that to the 24-hour long buff that was elemental immunity and tell me we're even on the same plane of existence.
Equal action economy after 5 rounds? What? You can use sustain spells at level 16 as a free action which allows for summons if find a useful one.
See above. I was incorrect about how summons work due to not using them.
I still find them weak and very rarely worth the opprotunity cost even with the correction to their action economy.
What do you even mean non-template form changes?
Pick a form from the Monster Manual Shapechange. Magic Jar. The kind of stuff where you could take a monster as is from the list and just be that creature. Instead, we get very limited selections of things to change into and they're often applied like a PF1 template of changes rather than a wholesale change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I presume if you are using a summoning spell you are using a summon which has abilities you want to double up on. For instance, what activity often uses two actions? Casting spells. My favorite example has been the Unicorn from summon fae which can use it's two actions on a two action heal. If you don't need to move, this is 2 2 action spells a turn and you have a meat shield. Four actions a turn and something that by doing something like healing and putting itself in an annoying position for the enemy should come with down sides. I agree with the opportunity cost here. Summons shouldn't...I hard disagree as making summoning spells situation shuts down the Summon playstyle and makes it non-viable. Given how beloved this playstyle is, even with the understanding the the horde-style summoner isn't coming back, the weak state of PF2 summoning is inexcusable.
If a class only did summoning, I would agree with you, but that is not what summon spells are and not the context they're in. Summon spells are in the context of being a part of the tool kit of full dedicated spellcasters, and as such should be one tool among many. All spells should be a trade off with one another the turn you cast them. A tactical decision about what you plan to use now versus later, and what you are giving up to do so. A summon spell should be on par with other spells you might choose to use the turn you use them, and should not give you 5 actions per turn for instance, 4 is already pretty damn good
If a class only did summoning, I would agree with you, but that is not what summon spells are and not the context they're in. Summon spells are in the context of being a part of the tool kit of full dedicated spellcasters, and as such should be one tool among many. All spells should be a trade off with one another the turn you cast them. A tactical decision about what you plan to use now versus later, and what you are giving up to do so. A summon spell should be on par with other spells you might choose to use the turn you use them, and should not give you 5 actions per turn for instance, 4 is already pretty damn good
I strongly disagree. Every spell competes for its place on a caster's list of known/prepared spells and thus every spell should have a minimum baseline of usefulness that spells like Fireball, Slow, and Synesthesia all enjoy. Spells that don't enjoy this baseline should be buffed until they meet it as I don't think the aforementioned spells are so game-warping that they deserve nerfs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, maybe you should take a break and cool down. It seems like you're getting really worked up on a fairly regular basis about this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly disagree. Every spell competes for its place on a caster's list of known/prepared spells and thus every spell should have a minimum baseline of usefulness that spells like Fireball, Slow, and Synesthesia all enjoy. Spells that don't enjoy this baseline should be buffed until they meet it as I don't think the aforementioned spells are so game-warping that they deserve nerfs.
I understand the desire, but it's somewhat unrealistic. Some spells will be better than others no matter what the design philosophy is, or how hard you try to make them as good as each other. Baseline usefulness as a concept also seems... Dubious. How do we determine this? I would argue that baseline utility exists in all spells. All spells have a use, you can use them all and they do something, accomplish something. Some are just worse than others. Perhaps summoning is just quite bad, I don't agree, but presuming this is true, a summon still does a thing. It still has a use by giving more actions, being a potential scout, casting additional spells, perhaps spells not on your list, and can be out in an enemy's way so you can time walk them (eat all their actions). A baseline usefulness exists here
I also agree that I don't think those three spells need nerfs. I frankly just believe synesthesia should be on the arcane list
I understand the desire, but it's somewhat unrealistic.
I don't agree. I think that when a company goes all in on balance as Paizo has with PF2 they set a standard for themselves. A standard that says that they won't stand for outliers and will take an active hand in balancing their game.
Some spells will be better than others no matter what the design philosophy is, or how hard you try to make them as good as each other. Baseline usefulness as a concept also seems... Dubious. How do we determine this?
Have PFS GMs log spells prepared/cast at their tables, collate the data, and build a model that determines the effective impact of said spells and their relative prevalence. The hardest part would be figuring out how to weigh spells from non-core sources so they don't get buffed overly much.
Honest question why is clone bad? I feel like its overrated because unless you get a party wipe your allies will bring you back and you can always go to a major capital and pay a lawful church to revive you later, besides we have feats that have a similar effect like the psychic's "Become Thought" or the animist "Eternal Guide" so why not just slap a similar feat on wizards and call it "Arcane Clone" or something? it just feels weirdly arbitrary to me.
I can give some context here.
When combined with Magic Jar which I insinuated when I mentioned both spells in the same post, Clone allows you to not worry about defending your abandoned form. If you ever wish to return to the body you had before you can just die and pop back up as yourself.