| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class-specific spell lists are a nightmare to create and to maintain.So, you want to play a caster who is as effective as a Fighter using their favorite weapon but who also benefit from variety in their casting ?No. I want Paizo to go back to making each caster have their own distinct list of spells because traditions are a mess. Then we could have a caster that gets limited to no utility in exchange for blasting spells and other interesting class features that enable the desired gameplay. Killing bespoke per-class spell lists was a mistake and it makes good game design harder than it needs to be.
Adding meta tags to spells is something that you could automate in Excel. If Paizo is so bad at tech they can't automatically append new class tags onto existing spells that's not a me issue.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Show me the "boss killer" martial, and I'll show you a flotilla of flying pigs.2h Fighter, Giant Barbarian, and Flurry Ranger are a few examples of classes that can brute force most boss fights (think APL+2 or APL+3).
Barbarian is probably the lowest of the three by nature of garbage Reflex and AC, being a bag of HP and that's it, but it makes up by doing more raw damage per hit than any of them. Flurry Ranger has practically few penalties with so many attacks that it's almost as accurate as a full round of Fighter attacks, and 2h Fighter is so accurate and has the best amalgamation of defenses in the game that they could go toe-to-toe with most any enemy because they can Evasion a lot of the damage, Juggernaut a lot of diseases/poisons, and Bravery any Will Saves thrown at them. Combine that with Knockdown feats and Disruptive Stance, and it shuts down many enemies.
All they need is a Speed weapon (for Haste effect) with some Winged Boots (or other Flying item/ability), and they can literally chase/kill everything in the game.
I'll take those pork wings to go, by the way.
Oh Darksoul. Read the next sentence Caliipope wrote:
"I challenge someone to show me a martial build that is capable of soloing a level + 4 encounter."
I mean, without even going that far... At what level do you expect those things to be soloing a creature 2 or 3 levels above them? Because I really doubt the math bears it out.
At that point you should save everyone else's time and say "Rocks fall, everyone dies, make new characters." Just as well, most Level+4 encounters are at 20th, where characters are at their peak of power.
If a Fighter can't even reasonably brute force the encounter, then throwing in a few more non-Fighters isn't really going to help matters any, just prolonging the inevitable TPK at that point. A Cleric could have triple the fonts, action economy will overpower them to the point their healing can't keep up.
Without a healer my Barbarian is going down in a boss fight that they're alone in. My friend's fighter would go down without the healer. They're still not going to solo a boss.
Barbarians are nothing but bags of HP. Their best defense is pure damage/offense and control. When they critically fail Reflex Saves all the time because of bad progression and have garbage AC, literally even an APL+0 encounter requires in-combat healing if you throw enough monsters at them, because they can be crit/hit so much. But when they hit, they hit harder than anyone else in the game.
Literally had a Fighter in our group at 1st level beat down a Level 4 Druid NPC single-handedly while the rest of the party handled everyone else (which meant no spellcasting from the BBEG) and had another Fighter stun-lock multiple spellcaster BBEGs with Knockdown and Disruptive Stance in another group. So the idea that Fighters can't solo bosses, in our groups, is relatively debunked. Can they do this for every boss? No. But the idea they never can doesn't track for the play experience I've had thus far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Show me the "boss killer" martial, and I'll show you a flotilla of flying pigs.2h Fighter, Giant Barbarian, and Flurry Ranger are a few examples of classes that can brute force most boss fights (think APL+2 or APL+3).
Barbarian is probably the lowest of the three by nature of garbage Reflex and AC, being a bag of HP and that's it, but it makes up by doing more raw damage per hit than any of them. Flurry Ranger has practically few penalties with so many attacks that it's almost as accurate as a full round of Fighter attacks, and 2h Fighter is so accurate and has the best amalgamation of defenses in the game that they could go toe-to-toe with most any enemy because they can Evasion a lot of the damage, Juggernaut a lot of diseases/poisons, and Bravery any Will Saves thrown at them. Combine that with Knockdown feats and Disruptive Stance, and it shuts down many enemies.
All they need is a Speed weapon (for Haste effect) with some Winged Boots (or other Flying item/ability), and they can literally chase/kill everything in the game.
I'll take those pork wings to go, by the way.
Oh Darksoul. Read the next sentence Caliipope wrote:
"I challenge someone to show me a martial build that is capable of soloing a level + 4 encounter."
I mean, without even going that far... At what level do you expect those things to be soloing a creature 2 or 3 levels above them? Because I really doubt the math bears it out.
I don't know why I bothered to do this, because it feels pretty obvious to all of us, buuuut...
Level 17 fighter
+34 to hit, 41 AC, 255 HP
Fort +30, Ref (vs damage)+ 28, Will +25
Ancient Red Dragon (19)
+37 to hit, AC 45, 425 HP
Fort +35, Ref +32, Will +35
Reach 20 feet, speed 180 feet, breath weapon DC 42, Frightful Presence DC 40, Dragon Heat Aura DC 39...
Good luck catching it with that speed. Good luck if you because it is taking an AoO on you. Good luck standing toe to toe when it needs a 4 to hit you, you need an an 11 to hit it, and it has 175 more hit points than you. Good luck relying on evasion when you need a 14 to succeed.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding meta tags to spells is something that you could automate in Excel. If Paizo is so bad at tech they can't automatically append new class tags onto existing spells that's not a me issue.Class-specific spell lists are a nightmare to create and to maintain.So, you want to play a caster who is as effective as a Fighter using their favorite weapon but who also benefit from variety in their casting ?No. I want Paizo to go back to making each caster have their own distinct list of spells because traditions are a mess. Then we could have a caster that gets limited to no utility in exchange for blasting spells and other interesting class features that enable the desired gameplay. Killing bespoke per-class spell lists was a mistake and it makes good game design harder than it needs to be.
It would also involve attempting to balance one or two dozen individual spell lists and avoid unintended interactions. Having four discreet spell lists is cleaner and reduces workload both before and after publication.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding meta tags to spells is something that you could automate in Excel. If Paizo is so bad at tech they can't automatically append new class tags onto existing spells that's not a me issue.Class-specific spell lists are a nightmare to create and to maintain.So, you want to play a caster who is as effective as a Fighter using their favorite weapon but who also benefit from variety in their casting ?No. I want Paizo to go back to making each caster have their own distinct list of spells because traditions are a mess. Then we could have a caster that gets limited to no utility in exchange for blasting spells and other interesting class features that enable the desired gameplay. Killing bespoke per-class spell lists was a mistake and it makes good game design harder than it needs to be.
Editing/clarity/layout has never been a strength of Paizo but maybe the remaster can turn that around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Wild how we get from "Developer commentary on caster balance" to "Fighters can't solo boss monsters"
???
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's bad when one character can single-handedly thwart a major obstacle. That suggests to me the obstacle in question should not be considered major, and instead parallel to something like "a lock that one person in the party can pick".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever about players*, the second solution particularly strikes me as essentially denying the player's successful spell** against the boss, which would feel pretty bad. How could a player ever expect that a GM would rule that the spell essentially works anyway, especially in a context whether the loss of an action - out of three - isn't going to matter? I'd be gutted as a player.
I do not see it that way. If a player under a similar effect asked me if they could use a normal action to cast Feather Fall instead of strictly a reaction, I would very likely allow it. What I'd allow for the player - and I make it known when situations like this come up - I also allow for their enemies. So in this case the boss, sans reactions, would fall gently away because it's what would happen if a player was in the same situation.
(* generally, I think players knowing metaknowledge is a lot more allowable than bosses knowing metaknowledge due to the power dynamics - but I think that's something to talk about at the table for spell effects that aren't obvious)
I do not agree. Either everybody metagames or nobody does and given that my players are experienced and probably couldn't help but metagame bosses would get the same benefit. If people want to run it strictly raw and use flowery obfuscating spell descriptions so nobody can metagame I'd also be cool with that.
(** and the first one strikes me a little about it as well, because how does the boss know? But less egregious since it still blocks the boss from doing an escape, and forces them to engage).
I've always ruled that you know the immediate effects of spells that impact you. So Hideous Laughter would mean you know you can't use reactions. As discussed above it just helps with evening things out when I know my players will be metagaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's with the influx of new posters with a chip on their shoulders about casters? I understand we have this same conversation once a week, but a lot of new faces with no prior history this time around.I don't see it changing until the wizard is put into a state that makes it enjoyable within the PF2 spectrum.
Wizard was probably one of the most popular D&D classes of all time across all editions. When a class as popular as the wizards gets its legs taken out, you're going to hear about it again and again and again until it can stand strong again.
These threads are not about casters no matter if that word is used every time. You don't see bard, druid, and cleric players in here complaining. They're having a good time.
These threads might as well be casters=wizards vs. martials and every other class. Wizards are not accustomed to martials being so much stronger than them for like four decades. Imagine playing this class that was so powerful for almost all of the existence of a given game and suddenly you play this edition where "You're just some guy."
Imagine that what feels like: four decades of dominance taken way and replaced with the PF2 version of the wizard who is just some ok, lower tier class.
To me it feels pretty bad. I'm very disappointed in the PF2 wizard. Even the 5E wizard still feels way better than the PF2 wizard. It's a real bad feeling.
PF1 Wizard was too powerful. People who want that level of power in PF2 Wizard will indeed be disappointed.
TBT they will be disappointed in any PF2 class, since this level of game-breaking power is thankfully a thing of the past.
I think mainly former wizard players are unhappy and they're doing their best to make this a caster issue, but most of the other caster classes are fairly happy. I rarely see these threads end up as anything other than the wizard is bad because you can't make that argument for other casters.
I don't think anyone is asking for PF1 levels of power. But the wizard isn't even interesting in this version of the game. It feels like they could have made the class better.
Nearly every other caster is pretty interesting to build. But the wizard...not so much. The wizard needs some work done to make it on par even with other casters when it comes to interesting build options.
I really tried to build a good wizard. I used to love building wizards in 3E and PF1. You could do so much with them and they were so fun to map out. This version of the wizard is pretty much locked into universalist and even then there are like four or five feats worth taking. This is to just sort of be ok.
What did the do to my wizard class? Damn.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would also involve attempting to balance one or two dozen individual spell lists and avoid unintended interactions. Having four discreet spell lists is cleaner and reduces workload both before and after publication.Adding meta tags to spells is something that you could automate in Excel. If Paizo is so bad at tech they can't automatically append new class tags onto existing spells that's not a me issue.Class-specific spell lists are a nightmare to create and to maintain.So, you want to play a caster who is as effective as a Fighter using their favorite weapon but who also benefit from variety in their casting ?No. I want Paizo to go back to making each caster have their own distinct list of spells because traditions are a mess. Then we could have a caster that gets limited to no utility in exchange for blasting spells and other interesting class features that enable the desired gameplay. Killing bespoke per-class spell lists was a mistake and it makes good game design harder than it needs to be.
Not to mention word count, readability ...
And taking all these spell lists with the interactions into account when introducing any new spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Show me the "boss killer" martial, and I'll show you a flotilla of flying pigs.2h Fighter, Giant Barbarian, and Flurry Ranger are a few examples of classes that can brute force most boss fights (think APL+2 or APL+3).
Barbarian is probably the lowest of the three by nature of garbage Reflex and AC, being a bag of HP and that's it, but it makes up by doing more raw damage per hit than any of them. Flurry Ranger has practically few penalties with so many attacks that it's almost as accurate as a full round of Fighter attacks, and 2h Fighter is so accurate and has the best amalgamation of defenses in the game that they could go toe-to-toe with most any enemy because they can Evasion a lot of the damage, Juggernaut a lot of diseases/poisons, and Bravery any Will Saves thrown at them. Combine that with Knockdown feats and Disruptive Stance, and it shuts down many enemies.
All they need is a Speed weapon (for Haste effect) with some Winged Boots (or other Flying item/ability), and they can literally chase/kill everything in the game.
I'll take those pork wings to go, by the way.
Oh Darksoul. Read the next sentence Caliipope wrote:
"I challenge someone to show me a martial build that is capable of soloing a level + 4 encounter."
I mean, without even going that far... At what level do you expect those things to be soloing a creature 2 or 3 levels above them? Because I really doubt the math bears it out.
At that point you should save everyone else's time and say "Rocks fall, everyone dies, make new characters." Just as well, most Level+4 encounters are at 20th, where characters are at their peak of power.
If a Fighter can't even reasonably brute force the encounter, then throwing in a few more non-Fighters isn't really going to help matters any, just prolonging the inevitable TPK at that point. A Cleric could have triple the fonts, action economy will overpower them to the point...
NPC casters are terrible at lower level. Their action economy is usually awful. Not surprised a fighter beat them down. I've done that myself with NPC casters, even near caster bosses. Casting is terrible action economy if a solo monster against a group.
Barbarians do get better. Low level barbarians can be pretty soft targets. They do reach a point where they are killing machines requiring less healing.
Cleared flags. This conversation is about to be locked due to the constant work of coming in and clearing flags. If we cannot talk calmly and respectfully, this thread will be locked.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever about players*, the second solution particularly strikes me as essentially denying the player's successful spell** against the boss, which would feel pretty bad. How could a player ever expect that a GM would rule that the spell essentially works anyway, especially in a context whether the loss of an action - out of three - isn't going to matter? I'd be gutted as a player.I do not see it that way. If a player under a similar effect asked me if they could use a normal action to cast Feather Fall instead of strictly a reaction, I would very likely allow it. What I'd allow for the player - and I make it known when situations like this come up - I also allow for their enemies. So in this case the boss, sans reactions, would fall gently away because it's what would happen if a player was in the same situation.
(* generally, I think players knowing metaknowledge is a lot more allowable than bosses knowing metaknowledge due to the power dynamics - but I think that's something to talk about at the table for spell effects that aren't obvious)I do not agree. Either everybody metagames or nobody does and given that my players are experienced and probably couldn't help but metagame bosses would get the same benefit. If people want to run it strictly raw and use flowery obfuscating spell descriptions so nobody can metagame I'd also be cool with that.
(** and the first one strikes me a little about it as well, because how does the boss know? But less egregious since it still blocks the boss from doing an escape, and forces them to engage).I've always ruled that you know the immediate effects of spells that impact you. So Hideous Laughter would mean you know you can't use reactions. As discussed above it just helps with evening things out when I know my players will be metagaming.
Your house rules don't matter to RAW. Not everyone is playing in your home game (thank Desna).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If every caster in PF2 worked like they did I would accept the Kineticist as a spellcaster. However, that is not what Paizo went with.
What I want, at least within what is reasonable for PF2, is what Paizo had down in PF1 which is a spell caster that casts slotted spells from a narrow list in exchange for boosts to those spells and other interesting class features. Such a class does not currently exist in PF2.
No. I want Paizo to go back to making each caster have their own distinct list of spells because traditions are a mess. Then we could have a caster that gets limited to no utility in exchange for blasting spells and other interesting class features that enable the desired gameplay. Killing bespoke per-class spell lists was a mistake and it makes good game design harder than it needs to be.
Okay. Thank you for finally actually saying what you want, rather than complaining that the Wizard is not the thing you want.
So, just for clarification, you want...
- Something that resembles a standard caster chassis, with spell slots, focus spells, and cantrips serving as their primary way of Doing Stuff, plus various class features that boost that.
- A deeply restricted bespoke spell list, forcing a degree of specialization that it is not possible to force via the current 4+1 schools, heavily limiting flexibility, with strong theme.
- Getting that value back in class features that augment effectiveness in various ways.
The basic cost of this is that it's basically not practical to increase the size of that spell list once it's been established. New books will come out, new spells will arrive that would have been in-theme for this class, and the class won't get them. That's the price, here. The whole 3.x "every class has their own spell list" thing was a mess, and Paizo is trying to avoid that, so if you get bespoke spell lists, they're basically not going to change. We don't even have spell schools to tag off of anymore.
Still, if that's what you want? Sure! Ask for it. Put up a thread and discuss it. Talk about which specialists you might like to see in particular, and what kind of class features would make them worth playing. Churn through as much of the early theory work as you can, and try to build up some interest from the rest of the player base, and you might well see a class like that. Doing a few years of that was part of how we got Kineticist, and I guarantee that the work we did geeking out on it helped feed resources to the engine that produced the eventual utterly awesome result. I've seen too many little echoes of our various discussions and debates actually show up in the final thing to think anything else.
So yeah. We did that thing. You could also maybe do that thing... but just complaining that the classes that currently exist aren't already what you want them to be isn't really that thing. If you want your specialist caster classes to actually show up, then the thing to shoot for is the classes not yet announced.
Removed more posts. This thread is now locked for a cooldown