| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
[QLately the people hosting PF2e games are slowly rolling in the Remaster changes. So its a bit of a guessing game to see if they are going to use ir or not. And this is me just not wanting that new content because it doesn't interest me that much since it is heavily tied to the ORC changes. Again, I prefer to just make my own life easier than to argue against the coming wave.
Maybe after the changes have settled there will be a bit more of a clear cut diferentiation, what do you think?
To be honest, I'm not sure how to advise you. It might help to clarify what changes you find objectionable, because I'm having trouble guessing it, especially if you just want to be a player.
Alignment? Basically just something you write on your character sheet with no mechanical consequence 95% of the time. You can still write in on your sheet, and the holy/unholy thing will largely function the same way. If you play a cleric, you'll have a better time against neutral creatures. If you're neutral, you'll be slightly more susceptible to fiends but that was always an annoying caveat for alignment damage.
Ditching old monsters? Again, they aren't going to reprint old APs to remove old monsters, and those stat blocks still exist to use in home games too.
Wizard schools are pretty much the only thing I can think of where things are substantially changing in a way that nerfs their power ceiling, but it doesn't seem like you're a wizard stan.
Losing ability modifiers to cantrip damage? I've seen people have strong reactions to that because they prefer better minimum damage of 1d4+4 to the higher average damage of 3d4... But you can keep using old cantrips with your GM's blessing if that really bothers you so much.
I guess there's name changes? Positive damage to vitality damage, new names for half elves and half orcs, and such. But people are going to keep using OGL names regardless of the official canon. I'm stoked for the Remaster but even I never bothered to learn the new name for half elves and half orcs, and only remember Nephelim because of a video game.
The game just isn't really changing that much. It is an errata patch with some name changes. If you just miss PF1 and think you'll enjoy it more than you enjoyed pre-remaster PF2, then definitely switch. But if you were enjoying PF2, it seems like you're sabotaging yourself. Especially if you're worried about finding the right table. I don't have the impression there are That many PF1 tables left. I haven't actually looked for one, but I know second edition was made because first was dying.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well...
So um yeah.
I'm ready for the remaster and most of the changes are things I'm for. I didn't like what they did to cantrip damage but I can deal with it.
There will probably be things I'm hoping for clarity on that won't be clarified. There will probably be some changes I'm not fully onboard with. But I'll get over it and move forward.
Outside of the cantrip thing I can't think of a single thing that I know I didn't care for.
My biggest "complaint" is how long it will take to get player core 2. 20 years ago that would have meant a lot of players seeing the things in it as 'not part of the base game' but I'm not worried about that these days - I just want all the fixes now. ;)
With one month left to go, I expect we're about to re-enter the hype-train vs sky-is-falling phase of things. So that's going to be weird.
I look forward to all of this being in the rearview mirror so we can get back to other things.
|
You can still use all the spells from before the remaster. Paizo printed materials won't reference the OGL spells, but it's not like people don't own copies of the original CRB that has the rules for alignment and magic missile in it.
So really what changed is that "you won't encounter a magus in a PF2 adventure who has shocking grasp prepared" not "your magus can't prepare shocking grasp".
Tables are going to have to have a discussion when people want to use a previous version of something that's better than the current one, but if it's just different then there's no real problem. Probably the clunkiest thing will be mixing cantrips that add your stat mod with ones that don't.
My PFS Magus already mixes the RoE cantrips and the older ones. It is absolutely not a problem at all. And in fact I am coming to prefer having the dice decide completely rather than feeling bad that my INT is not as high as the Wizard's.
|
|
Well...
So um yeah.
I'm ready for the remaster and most of the changes are things I'm for. I didn't like what they did to cantrip damage but I can deal with it.
There will probably be things I'm hoping for clarity on that won't be clarified. There will probably be some changes I'm not fully onboard with. But I'll get over it and move forward.
Outside of the cantrip thing I can't think of a single thing that I know I didn't care for.
My biggest "complaint" is how long it will take to get player core 2. 20 years ago that would have meant a lot of players seeing the things in it as 'not part of the base game' but I'm not worried about that these days - I just want all the fixes now. ;)
With one month left to go, I expect we're about to re-enter the hype-train vs sky-is-falling phase of things. So that's going to be weird.
I look forward to all of this being in the rearview mirror so we can get back to other things.
I think the worst of the Sky is falling is behind us. Thanks to the earlier announcements concerning the most contentious topics. It gave people who needed it the time to vent. This has been Paizo's usual MO for quite some time now, at least as early as the PF2 playtest.
|
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the worst of the Sky is falling is behind us. Thanks to the earlier announcements concerning the most contentious topics. It gave people who needed it the time to vent. This has been Paizo's usual MO for quite some time now, at least as early as the PF2 playtest.Well...
So um yeah.
I'm ready for the remaster and most of the changes are things I'm for. I didn't like what they did to cantrip damage but I can deal with it.
There will probably be things I'm hoping for clarity on that won't be clarified. There will probably be some changes I'm not fully onboard with. But I'll get over it and move forward.
Outside of the cantrip thing I can't think of a single thing that I know I didn't care for.
My biggest "complaint" is how long it will take to get player core 2. 20 years ago that would have meant a lot of players seeing the things in it as 'not part of the base game' but I'm not worried about that these days - I just want all the fixes now. ;)
With one month left to go, I expect we're about to re-enter the hype-train vs sky-is-falling phase of things. So that's going to be weird.
I look forward to all of this being in the rearview mirror so we can get back to other things.
Also, as the Exemplar is around, at least in playtest form, we can always attack the sky if it threatens us.
Overall, I like all of the changes we have seen so far. My biggest problem is with the name changes. Magic missile has been magic missile since the 70s. How it worked has changed in every edition but not the name. Now I have to call it Force Barrage. I'll get used to it.
Getting rid of alignment will be smaller adaption for me as I mostly play Clerics and Champions. Spirit damage and Holy/Unholy are an improvement over alignment damage.
I am GMing Kingmaker in my home campaign. For one of the players the change to wizards school will be a major change. Her wizard currently is a specialist in Conjuration (Teleportation). She and I will have to see which of the new schools comes close to having a similar flavor.
All in all, it will just take some time to adjust.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, I like all of the changes we have seen so far. My biggest problem is with the name changes. Magic missile has been magic missile since the 70s. How it worked has changed in every edition but not the name. Now I have to call it Force Barrage. I'll get used to it.
Getting rid of alignment will be smaller adaption for me as I mostly play Clerics and Champions. Spirit damage and Holy/Unholy are an improvement over alignment damage.
I am GMing Kingmaker in my home campaign. For one of the players the change to wizards school will be a major change. Her wizard currently is a specialist in Conjuration (Teleportation). She and I will have to see which of the new schools comes close to having a similar flavor.
All in all, it will just take some time to adjust.
why would you try to make a player make changes to a game in progress? That sounds like extra work for everyone. Why not just treat all the new content as new options and then make a formal switch if you go to a new campaign? Kingmaker will always be OGL content.
why would you try to make a player make changes to a game in progress? That sounds like extra work for everyone. Why not just treat all the new content as new options and then make a formal switch if you go to a new campaign? Kingmaker will always be OGL content.Overall, I like all of the changes we have seen so far. My biggest problem is with the name changes. Magic missile has been magic missile since the 70s. How it worked has changed in every edition but not the name. Now I have to call it Force Barrage. I'll get used to it.
Getting rid of alignment will be smaller adaption for me as I mostly play Clerics and Champions. Spirit damage and Holy/Unholy are an improvement over alignment damage.
I am GMing Kingmaker in my home campaign. For one of the players the change to wizards school will be a major change. Her wizard currently is a specialist in Conjuration (Teleportation). She and I will have to see which of the new schools comes close to having a similar flavor.
All in all, it will just take some time to adjust.
Good advice, I'll talk it over with the group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only downside for continuing to use the old wizard will be newer spells lacking schools, but you you can just keep using all the OGL spells.you can also make up schools for new spells, or assign whatever spells your player wants to their curriculum list if you use the remastered wizard. Curriculums explicitly allow thematically appropriate additions if the GM agrees to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only downside for continuing to use the old wizard will be newer spells lacking schools, but you you can just keep using all the OGL spells.you can also make up schools for new spells, or assign whatever spells your player wants to their curriculum list if you use the remastered wizard. Curriculums explicitly allow thematically appropriate additions if the GM agrees to them.v
"You can only use the first four years of spells in this slot" is honestly still a very chill restriction.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly we use the spells in the Core Rule Book, Advanced Players Guide and Secrets of Magic. So no big deal.
One thing I just noticed is that with the Remaster changing spell schools, the Magus is going to need an erratum to deal with this:
"If your most recent spell before entering the stance (Arcane Cascade - ER) was one that can deal damage, the damage from the stance is the same type that spell could deal (or one type of your choice if the spell could deal multiple types of damage). If the spell couldn't deal damage, this stance's bonus damage depends on the spell's school.
Abjuration or Evocation: force
Conjuration or Transmutation: same type as your weapon or unarmed attack
Divination, Enchantment, or Illusion: mental
Necromancy: negative"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I just noticed is that with the Remaster changing spell schools, the Magus is going to need an erratum to deal with this:
"If your most recent spell before entering the stance (Arcane Cascade - ER) was one that can deal damage, the damage from the stance is the same type that spell could deal (or one type of your choice if the spell could deal multiple types of damage). If the spell couldn't deal damage, this stance's bonus damage depends on the spell's school.
Abjuration or Evocation: force
Conjuration or Transmutation: same type as your weapon or unarmed attack
Divination, Enchantment, or Illusion: mental
Necromancy: negative"
It seems likely it will be updated to match the new Secondary Detonation Array wizard feat - if the spell dealt damage it will be that damage type, or force damage otherwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if the sky falls ON the hype train. Then we’ll be in trouble.
Personally, I’m all for every change. Because no matter if you’re a cloudchaser, or have a valid ticket on the rails, neither matter a whit to the concrete fact that the Remaster will envelop us all. And I see no reason to try to stop it or even complain about it,
It obviously helps that I’m still in a “newbie” phase with PF2, so any changes will largely be nonexistent. And that from what I’ve seen, it all seems fairly a)benign, and if not b) necessary. And I do love the ORC-entailed changes just to give Paizo even more ownership over something they’ve been building on for years.
I’m not a fan of the curated spell list thingys, they seem a bit silly, but I don’t play wizards, so it doesn’t really effect me.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I just noticed is that with the Remaster changing spell schools, the Magus is going to need an erratum to deal with this:
"If your most recent spell before entering the stance (Arcane Cascade - ER) was one that can deal damage, the damage from the stance is the same type that spell could deal (or one type of your choice if the spell could deal multiple types of damage). If the spell couldn't deal damage, this stance's bonus damage depends on the spell's school.
Abjuration or Evocation: force
Conjuration or Transmutation: same type as your weapon or unarmed attack
Divination, Enchantment, or Illusion: mental
Necromancy: negative"
Maybe something like:
➤ A spell that uses a damage type uses that same damage type
➤ If the spell has the mental trait uses mental damage
➤ A spell that has the vitality or void trait uses that vitality or void damage
➤ If none of the other damage types apply above, then force damage
So, germane to all this discussion, I do remain a little confused on how spirit damage will interact with the Holy and Unholy (and related sanctification) traits.
So, spirit damage is pretty clear in what it does in the preview. Zaps the spirit, can do direct damage to entities possessing another body, not explicitly alignment-locked. Easy enough. And all instances of alignment damage are spirit damage now. Very clear.
Or so it'd seem. I'm still a bit unclear on how it interacts with Holy and Unholy, especially in the context of, say, the alignment damage done by a celestial or by Divine Lance. This was previously the alignment of your deity, and could do bonus damage to creatures of opposite alignment (a lot of fiends are weak to Good damage, a lot of celestials weak to Evil). Is this just a blanket weakness to spirit damage now? While the attacks gain the holy or unholy traits, what does that actually do to effects? Can on-hit effects that were previously, specifically noted to only affect opposite-alignment creatures now deal normal damage to everything?
Or, for weaknesses previously keyed to Good/Evil alignment (like damage weaknesses or turning off a pit fiend's regen, for example), should Good and Evil for resistances, weaknesses, on-hit effects etc. be swapped for Holy and Unholy, respectively? That would make sense, and make how the damage works a lot clearer, but I do wonder how that affects Sanctified mortals and whether they suffer additional ill effects from an opposite-santification attack.
Still, in the long run I'm very glad to see alignment and all the bugbears it's caused over the years shown the door, and a lot of the other changes will be very healthy for the game. Roll on Remaster!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think of it more like weakness to cold iron or silver. They aren’t damage types, but creatures have weaknesses to them. I don’t know if all alignment damage will always be spirit damage or not ( maybe champions attacks could gain holy or unholy without gaining additional spirit damage, or a spell gives weapons the holy trait).
Well I mean, going by the Core Preview:
Change chaotic damage, evil damage, good damage, and lawful damage to spirit damage. If you have a bit more time, you can instead incorporate that damage into the other damage of the attack if it makes sense, increasing the physical damage instead, for example. Consider adding the holy trait or unholy trait to an action, spell, or item if it’s often strongly themed to a deity or the metaphysical fight of good versus evil.
Mostly I was just wondering exactly how the holy/unholy trait would interact with that and if some of the existing verbiage that emphasized the damage only happening to opposite alignment/sanctification should still be adhered to.
If it is spirit damage, it will just be damage unless it has additional text saying it only affects certain targets, kinda like the way void/vitality damage works with the heal/harm spell. I would not assume immunity. Maybe some remastered spells will do that and be able to serve as an example, but it won’t be all holy/unholy spirit damage that work that way. Things being sanctified holy or unholy will be much less common than things being good or evil were.
Having played the game since the playtest, there are tons of little things that have bugged me about the game. The Remaster is an opportunity to adress many of these things, and from what I've seen a lot of changes are exactly what I wanted to see in this department. Cleric changes, Rogue weapon proficiencies, Focus Changes... a lot of very positive quality of life stuff. The cantrip changes are good too, in core the power level of damage cantrips were all over the place with some massive stinkers and some wildly out of line. The remaster seems to be raising the floor and lowering the ceiling.
I don't like the Wizard changes that much, though for different reasons than most people who complain about them. I don't think it will be an especially big power loss, but I do think the new wizard schools are a bit too generic mechanically. They're a bit too close to Sorcerer bloodlines for my tastes, and I would rather they had a bit more spice to them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like they are buffing classes that were already up there and didn't need a buff, and nerfing some of the weaker classes that needed some help.
Other than the changes made to the Witch, my opinion is pretty negative thus far, and my overall trust in the designers, paizo and PF2e has dropped a bit from the unsurpassable peak I used to hold them at.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I mean, going by the Core Preview:
Change chaotic damage, evil damage, good damage, and lawful damage to spirit damage. If you have a bit more time, you can instead incorporate that damage into the other damage of the attack if it makes sense, increasing the physical damage instead, for example. Consider adding the holy trait or unholy trait to an action, spell, or item if it’s often strongly themed to a deity or the metaphysical fight of good versus evil.Mostly I was just wondering exactly how the holy/unholy trait would interact with that and if some of the existing verbiage that emphasized the damage only happening to opposite alignment/sanctification should still be adhered to.
Some of your confusion may come of the fact that the quoted passage is actually from the "Fast Changes" section of the preview--a stopgap for letting you use some remaster content without needing to wait for November. That section should likely not be taken as actual Remaster rules text and only be used as a guideline for converting pre-master content to Remaster rules.
I think Unicore's silver/cold iron analogy is probably the best, but to go over it once again:
-As you say, Spirit damage itself is clear, it zaps the spirit, hurting anything that has a spirit.
-So far all spells I've seen that used to deal alignment damage now deal spirit damage, ie instead of dealing selective 'good' or 'evil' it has become "to whom it may concern". Divine Lance by default your conventional spirit damage cantrip.
-I don't think we've seen exactly what any new celestial or fiend looks like? Someone be free to correct me
-While spirit damage replaces alignment damage, there's another mechanic for replacing the theme of using holy powers to kill demons and vice versa. Instead of a holy damage type, fiends are weak to any holy effect (presumably that deals damage).
-A spell like Divine Lance can become holy, but even if it does, it still only shoots spirit damage. If that holy spirit damage happens to alight on a fiend's face, the holy part makes them hurt more, but the spirit part will hurt anyone else that gets hit by it even if it is holy.
-In the Cleric blog post we see that there is also consideration for the old utility of AoE alignment damage sparing your allies while killing your enemies. It seems that for example Divine Wrath simply selectively omits allies who are helping you in your deity's quest (mechanics unclear, could mean 'damage enemies only' could mean "if your ally has not broken anathema in X months, they're safe"
-The Core Preview tells us the two most likely solutions for Celestials/Fiends dealing alignment damage on their strikes--either they get free bonus Spirit damage that is sanctified as holy or unholy, or they lose aligned damage altogether and just have their base damage increased to compensate.
Does that manage to answer what has been bothering you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the Cleric blogpost today pretty much sorted it all out. :V So thanks to you, and thanks to Paizo for that! I suspected I understood it, but I did want to be sure.
|
It seems like they are buffing classes that were already up there and didn't need a buff, and nerfing some of the weaker classes that needed some help.
Other than the changes made to the Witch, my opinion is pretty negative thus far, and my overall trust in the designers, paizo and PF2e has dropped a bit from the unsurpassable peak I used to hold them at.
? What class that didn't need buff got buffed?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like they are buffing classes that were already up there and didn't need a buff, and nerfing some of the weaker classes that needed some help.
Other than the changes made to the Witch, my opinion is pretty negative thus far, and my overall trust in the designers, paizo and PF2e has dropped a bit from the unsurpassable peak I used to hold them at.
New poster with only two inflammatory posts ?
Is this your first time on these boards or did we know you previously under another name ?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like they are buffing classes that were already up there and didn't need a buff, and nerfing some of the weaker classes that needed some help.
Other than the changes made to the Witch, my opinion is pretty negative thus far, and my overall trust in the designers, paizo and PF2e has dropped a bit from the unsurpassable peak I used to hold them at.
New poster with only two inflammatory posts ?
Is this your first time on these boards or did we know you previously under another name ?
Not that it should matter, but this is my first time in these boards, but I have been active in several pf2 discord channels and the pf2 reddit for quite some time.
I don't think my post on this thread is inflammatory at all, and it would take a lot to interpret it as such, unless disliking most of the changes in is inflammatory.
All I said above was that before the remaster previews I held paizo, the designers and pf2e at the top unrivaled, and after the previews that we have seen thus far, my confidence and trust in them took a hit and as a result they no longer are.
Not that big of a hit really, but enough so that they are no longer the unrivaled number 1 on my list.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think my post on this thread is inflammatory at all, and it would take a lot to interpret it as such, unless disliking most of the changes in is inflammatory.
Inflammatory might be the wrong word, but 'made a brand new account to make intentionally vague posts about how I've lost faith in the project' does have at the very least an air of stirring the pot to it (which also tends to be just how people on this forum posts so it's likely how they're going to read any post with shades of this regardless of intent).
I completely agree with you but at this point I believe talking about the wizard has become pointless, its one thing to try and change the mind of a fan-base but if the developers believe its fine then there is not much that can be done.It seems like they are buffing classes that were already up there and didn't need a buff, and nerfing some of the weaker classes that needed some help.
Other than the changes made to the Witch, my opinion is pretty negative thus far, and my overall trust in the designers, paizo and PF2e has dropped a bit from the unsurpassable peak I used to hold them at.
So R3st8 are you saying the Wizard is getting nerfed? If so, could you point us to the info you use to arrive at that?
AFAIK we know just a few things about the remastered class. We know it's getting simple weapon proficiency. We know the schools are getting reworked away from schools of magic. And we've seen one feat (Secondary Detonation) which adds some 'go again' damage to area spells. Overall, I would rate that info as "too early to tell, but seems positive."
In addition to those wizard specific changes, we also have a recalibration of cantrip damage which is meh and some changes to focus point regeneration which is likely to be a benefit to any caster with focus spells. Which I think is going to include all Wizards but certainly not exclusively them.
The wizard school change is nerf to their theoretical ceiling but likely a buff to their floor. Otherwise, they are getting a variety of buffs and quality of life improvements which apply to other spell casters too: feat tune ups, spell improvements, refocus improvements, recall knowledge clarification, better weapon proficiencies. I think the wizard's relative power amongst the other classes may suffer slightly even though they will actually become more powerful overall.
Ie: if a wizard right now is a 7 and the cleric is an 8, the wizard may be wind up a 7.75 while the cleric becomes a 9. The numbers here are arbitrary but hopefully demonstrate my point. Wizards won't actually become worse overall but they have one nerf and otherwise are just another boat elevated by the rising tide.
People also have this idea that the ranger got worse because crossbow ace became a more niche feat, but that ignores that you can spend that feat on something like Gravity Weapon or Sniping Duo with the Arbalest and wind up with better damage overall. I guuuuess you could argue losing snare access is a nerf, but the snare archetype already came online quicker and cheaper and snares were pretty niche to begin with.
Beyond that I don't know where this "bad classes are getting nerfed" idea is coming from. Witches were the weakest class to be remastered in Player Core 1, and we about a bunch of incredible new options they are getting. (And some meh options they are either getting or which are remaining meh, but I've kind of given up on every single feat being one I would want to take at this point.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im hopefully optimistic that they dont dumbster all cantrips.
they realy need to upp the dice numbers alot when they remove the flat damage. if they leave them with the same average damage it will just feel alot worse when you roll bad, (and you remember the bad things more)
having high minimum damage is important for how any ability feels to play, thats party why martial often feels nice they have alot of flat damage increasing the minimum damage they can deal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im hopefully optimistic that they dont dumbster all cantrips.
they realy need to upp the dice numbers alot when they remove the flat damage. if they leave them with the same average damage it will just feel alot worse when you roll bad, (and you remember the bad things more)
having high minimum damage is important for how any ability feels to play, thats party why martial often feels nice they have alot of flat damage increasing the minimum damage they can deal.
They already upped the dice for Needle Darts and increased the melee dice size for Produce Flame. All cantrips are losing ability mod to damage, but they pretty much all are getting some kind of buff: more dice (Needle Darts), multi-target abilities (Slashing Gust, Timber), riders on a regular hit (Ray of Frost), conditional damage buffs (produce flame), higher usability (divine lance, acid splash.)
The only cantrip which I predict will wind up nerfed overall is electric arc, but everything else is getting buffed.
|
|
They already upped the dice for Needle Darts and increased the melee dice size for Produce Flame. All cantrips are losing ability mod to damage, but they pretty much all are getting some kind of buff: more dice (Needle Darts), multi-target abilities (Slashing Gust, Timber), riders on a regular hit (Ray of Frost), conditional damage buffs (produce flame), higher usability (divine lance, acid splash.)
The only cantrip which I predict will wind up nerfed overall is electric arc, but everything else is getting buffed.
My tentative guess is EA is the new normal. 2d4 30' ranged with some sort of multitarget and a nondamage extra effect on a hit will be the baseline. With cantrips going to 3d4 or 2d6 if it loses one of those qualitative bennies (i.e. melee, or not multitarget) or staying at 2d4 if there's a tradeoff (such as Ray of Frost getting long range but only being single target). But that is entirely just my guess.
It does sound both aligned with what we have seen this far and the best way to rebalance Electric Arc, as hoped for by many posters for many years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does sound both aligned with what we have seen this far and the best way to rebalance Electric Arc, as hoped for by many posters for many years.They already upped the dice for Needle Darts and increased the melee dice size for Produce Flame. All cantrips are losing ability mod to damage, but they pretty much all are getting some kind of buff: more dice (Needle Darts), multi-target abilities (Slashing Gust, Timber), riders on a regular hit (Ray of Frost), conditional damage buffs (produce flame), higher usability (divine lance, acid splash.)
The only cantrip which I predict will wind up nerfed overall is electric arc, but everything else is getting buffed.
My tentative guess is EA is the new normal. 2d4 30' ranged with some sort of multitarget and a nondamage extra effect on a hit will be the baseline. With cantrips going to 3d4 or 2d6 if it loses one of those qualitative bennies (i.e. melee, or not multitarget) or staying at 2d4 if there's a tradeoff (such as Ray of Frost getting long range but only being single target). But that is entirely just my guess.
To be fair I think a lot of people hoped every other cantrip would become as good as electric arc, but I don't think that was gonna happen, if only because 1st level blast spells would be completely overshadowed.
Also, Ray of Frost is going to add bludgeoning weakness IIRC in addition to maintaining its long range.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one am a bit disappointed about the ranger changes. Not because i dislike them but because it seems to me like it was a wasted occasion to fix the annoyances with hunt prey and the "only in the wild" linked abilities when the cleric got a buff it did not need.
Everything else I feel is great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im hopefully optimistic that they dont dumbster all cantrips.
they realy need to upp the dice numbers alot when they remove the flat damage. if they leave them with the same average damage it will just feel alot worse when you roll bad, (and you remember the bad things more)
having high minimum damage is important for how any ability feels to play, thats party why martial often feels nice they have alot of flat damage increasing the minimum damage they can deal.
1d4+4 is average 6.5. 2d4 is average 5, 3d4 is average 7.5, and unlike 1d4+4 average damage on multiple dice is a lot more likely than minimum damage (or maximum, for that matter). I'd like to see them bump cantrip minima to 3d4, but I don't expect it.
I wonder how gouging claw will turn out, if it will still have flat damage to more resemble a melee attack's damage roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how gouging claw will turn out, if it will still have flat damage to more resemble a melee attack's damage roll.
I find it very unlikely that it will keep the attribute bonus damage. One of the stated intents was to remove all attribute damage from all cantrips because it causes confusion due to the difference of having attribute damage on cantrips, but not on spell slot spells or focus spells.
3d6 got gouging Claw is possibile, though I don't feel confident in it. Needle Darts makes me think physical damage can be higher than energy damage because it runs into resistance problems, and Paizo is designing melee only spells to have higher damage.
Gouging Claw should be in Player Core, so we'll know soon. Though I do think it's highly unlikely to retain the attribute modifier.
Why would Gouging Claw be in Player Core? It is from Secrets of Magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would Gouging Claw be in Player Core? It is from Secrets of Magic.
It's the cantrip of the Protean Form Wizard schools and thus appears in Player Core. This was mentioned in one of the streams, I think the one from PaizoCon.
Why would Gouging Claw be in Player Core? It is from Secrets of Magic.It's the cantrip of the Protean Form Wizard schools and thus appears in Player Core. This was mentioned in one of the streams, I think the one from PaizoCon.
Fair enough. That is a good reason for it to be there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of whether Gouging Claw is there, I think it is a safe bet that anything printed from player core onwards won't have attribute modifiers added to damage. From the blog:
Cantrips
We’ve made several revisions to damaging cantrips, with the broadest change being to use only damage dice rather than adding an attribute modifier. Like with most changes we made to the system, this was decided after examining multiple factors that were causing problems together.
Consistency with how other spells work. Most spells deal just dice for damage, and cantrips were an outlier. Making spells look and function more consistently across the board helps in understanding the rules, especially for new players.
Match their damage to our intended spell benchmarks. One-target cantrips were supposed to deal around 6 damage, with focus spells and spell slots dealing a bit more. Adding the spellcasting attribute modifier pushed all the damage numbers off their baseline.
Avoid penalizing characters who have damage cantrips from innate spells or multiclassing twice. Characters who got damaging cantrips from multiclassing or as innate spells from ancestry feats or the like often have a lower attribute modifier than a dedicated spellcaster and were dealing with both a lower chance of success and lower damage if they hit. This is a smaller issue, but often led to players being unhappy with their character options.
Cleaning up how cantrips work for monsters. This is another smaller issue, but a pain point for GMs. It was unclear how to apply the spellcasting attribute modifier for monsters with cantrips.