|
Every time I hear Firelion talk about how his group doesn't like wizards, whom I consider greater than sorcerers I hear more and more about how his group skips all the things that wizards are better at.
It's like taking a game that's minimized attack rolls and then can't understand how the fighter is good.
Wizards are better at recall knowledge. We don't do that.
Wizards are better at downtime. We don't do that.
Wizards are better at preparing for specific foes. We don't do that.
Sure, if you just want to brute force everything with bon-mot + Sysentsia Sorcs are better than that.
I don't think that's your strongest option, personally I don't find it very fun either.
So you're saying wizards are only good if I set up these specific circumstances for them to be good? And if I don't, then sorcs are better?
And since those circumstances I have to set up for the wizard to be better aren't really necessary, why play one unless you want to slow down your entire group to set up the specific circumstances for wizards to be better?
So the wizard player can have fun?
That's a fairly good summation. You are right. I want the wizard to not have to have this requirement to set up to be good when most of the other classes don't need this and can plow through a dungeon without needing such a set up so one player can have fun with their class that needs this.
DL, your group rejected RK in favor of metagaming with OOC knowledge.
This is NOT how most groups play, nor how adventures are designed.
Using RK rules is not a GM trying to coddle the Wizard. It's playing the game as intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DL, your group rejected RK in favor of metagaming with OOC knowledge.This is NOT how most groups play, nor how adventures are designed.
Using RK rules is not a GM trying to coddle the Wizard. It's playing the game as intended.
Do you have statistics to back up your assumption about how most groups play? My experience is more like DL's. I don't expect characters to be ignorant of common things like trolls don't like fire or fire creatures probably don't like cold things.
I don't expect my players to play dumb for RP reasons same as I don't expect them not to use good tactics in their combat encounters because their characters are inexperienced and shouldn't use tactics a seasoned adventurer might. Do you force 1st level characters to use bad tactics because they should be played as inexperienced? If not why force the idea that they have never heard bedtime stories as children about werewolves being vulnerable to silver especially if werewolves are a common threat where they grew up?
|
|
Players who use OOC knowledge is not the basis for the game, if only because it would put new players at an enormous disadvantage.
I totally understand why people who do not use RK rules think INT is worthless and the Wizard too.
I am also 100% convinced their assessment of the game can be safely ignored since it is based on games that do not actually play by the rules.
|
|
Players who use OOC knowledge is not the basis for the game, if only because it would put new players at an enormous disadvantage.
I totally understand why people who do not use RK rules think INT is worthless and the Wizard too.
I am also 100% convinced their assessment of the game can be safely ignored since it is based on games that do not actually play by the rules.
So I think this has all gotten a little heated.
I'm going to try to thread the needle there. On the one hand, @The Raven Black I agree with you. There is NO reason to metagame knowing that balors explode when they die, or that proteans take bonus Lawful damage. That's something you know purely for OOC reasons, and I totally agree that RK should be your go-to there rather than metagame.
HOWEVER, I do agree with @Deriven Firelion in that I think even a novice player can infer some basic things. For instance, skeletons resisting piercing damage but not bludgeoning isn't some big secret weakness. It's completely logical. If you try to shank something made out of bones, you deserve what you get.
Likewise, if I'm fighting a giant wreathed in flame, I will probably try to freeze it. If I'm fighting a delicate creature of glass, I'm going to try to smash it with a hammer or a sonic explosion.
Obviously, Deriven's home game takes things quite a bit further than that, but I do not think you should be expected to have to make an RK knowledge check for basic Greek mythology (medusas can turn people to stone? Never would have guessed) or for "if you hit the ice monster with a ball of fire, it has a tendency to melt."
But that doesn't mean RK doesn't still have value. Because I'm guessing not even highly experienced players could tell me off the top of their heads the lowest save on a medusa (and many won't care anyway). If you're a caster looking to target different saves (and that's a big if, don't get me wrong), RK is still useful for you, since it functionally provides a -2 penalty or so to the...
I was not talking about using In Character knowledge and logic. Which is perfectly fine and also a good way to guesstimate the lowest save of an opponent BTW.
But of using Out Of Character knowledge to basically short-circuit important rules of the game.
It is good for DL and their friends and other people who enjoy playing like this.
But it cannot be considered as the usual way to play, and thus cannot be used as a basis for identifying where improvements are needed.
|
|
For my Baba Yaga PFS Witch, who has no special RK ability, I max in that order Society, Arcana and Occultism and got Trained in Lore : Fey, Lore : Undead, Lore : Plants and Lore : Fiends at 1st level.
I took Additional Lore (Animals) with my background.
I could have taken another Additional Lore with my Human General feat but spent it on Canny Acumen to boost my Fortitude saves instead (old habit of mine).
At second level, I took Additional Lore (Fey) and retrained Lore : Fey to Acrobatics.
At third level, I took Additional Lore (Undead) with my General feat and retrained Lore : Undead to Thievery.
At fourth level, I will take Additional Lore (Fiends) and retrain Lore : Fiends.
At fifth level, I will take Additional Lore (Aberrations) with the General feat provided by General Training because my Occult proficiency will lag behind Society and Arcana for some time.
At sixth level, I will take Additional Lore (Oozes) for the same reason.
At seventh level, I will use my General feat to get Additional Lore (Plants) and retrain Lore : Plants.
So, at seventh level, I will be Master in RK with Society (all Humanoids), Expert in RK with Arcana (Constructs, Elementals, Beasts, Dragons) and Master with a reduced DC to RK Animals, Fey, Undead, Fiends, Aberrations, Oozes and Plants. And all of those with my casting stat.
|
|
Interesting. I tend to pump Arcana (leave Religion to a wis-based character unless we don't have one, but generally I've found Religion to be the go-to for utility) and then snag the specific lore -> assurance -> automatic knowledge train. Only for a creature type that comes up a lot though.For my Baba Yaga PFS Witch, who has no special RK ability, I max in that order Society, Arcana and Occultism and got Trained in Lore : Fey, Lore : Undead, Lore : Plants and Lore : Fiends at 1st level.
I took Additional Lore (Animals) with my background.
I could have taken another Additional Lore with my Human General feat but spent it on Canny Acumen to boost my Fortitude saves instead (old habit of mine).
At second level, I took Additional Lore (Fey) and retrained Lore : Fey to Acrobatics.
At third level, I took Additional Lore (Undead) with my General feat and retrained Lore : Undead to Thievery.
At fourth level, I will take Additional Lore (Fiends) and retrain Lore : Fiends.
At fifth level, I will take Additional Lore (Aberrations) with the General feat provided by General Training because my Occult proficiency will lag behind Society and Arcana for some time.
At sixth level, I will take Additional Lore (Oozes) for the same reason.
At seventh level, I will use my General feat to get Additional Lore (Plants) and retrain Lore : Plants.
So, at seventh level, I will be Master in RK with Society (all Humanoids), Expert in RK with Arcana (Constructs, Elementals, Beasts, Dragons) and Master with a reduced DC to RK Animals, Fey, Undead, Fiends, Aberrations, Oozes and Plants. And all of those with my casting stat.
In PFS, what your next opponents will be varies a lot from scenario to scenario.
As might your fellow PCs too.
For my Baba Yaga PFS Witch, who has no special RK ability, I max in that order Society, Arcana and Occultism and got Trained in Lore : Fey, Lore : Undead, Lore : Plants and Lore : Fiends at 1st level.
I took Additional Lore (Animals) with my background.
I could have taken another Additional Lore with my Human General feat but spent it on Canny Acumen to boost my Fortitude saves instead (old habit of mine).
At second level, I took Additional Lore (Fey) and retrained Lore : Fey to Acrobatics.
At third level, I took Additional Lore (Undead) with my General feat and retrained Lore : Undead to Thievery.
At fourth level, I will take Additional Lore (Fiends) and retrain Lore : Fiends.
At fifth level, I will take Additional Lore (Aberrations) with the General feat provided by General Training because my Occult proficiency will lag behind Society and Arcana for some time.
At sixth level, I will take Additional Lore (Oozes) for the same reason.
At seventh level, I will use my General feat to get Additional Lore (Plants) and retrain Lore : Plants.
So, at seventh level, I will be Master in RK with Society (all Humanoids), Expert in RK with Arcana (Constructs, Elementals, Beasts, Dragons) and Master with a reduced DC to RK Animals, Fey, Undead, Fiends, Aberrations, Oozes and Plants. And all of those with my casting stat.
Cool but now you get no help if you need Acrobatics to escape? Any class can take additional lore and Mastermind Rogues and Investigator have a lower opportunity cost to do so (and the same int bonus). This is not a special wizard thing. This is an any character that decides to invest in intelligence and lores thing.
Allanon and Shannara druids are more like wizards, their power comes from study, not nature worship. The druids were knowers of things, keepers of knowledge (particularly about the old world and eldritch threats). They were not shapeshifters or nature worshippers and some of them (Cogline) are clearly more science than nature, closer to technologists or technomancers.
They are not druids in the pathfinder/dnd sense.
They do seem more like wizards, but they called them druids so I decided to see if I could make a druid fulfill the class fantasy. Sure enough it worked. Druids are frightening in PF2.
A druid can do melee. A druid can blast. A druid can heal. Their focus spells are good. When I change into a dragon or elemental and flank and do martial in three dimensions while using a breath weapon or burrowing, it makes you feel powerful and it looks amazing in the mind's eye.
The druid is the new wizard in my mind. This powerful class that can do martial damage, blast damage, heal, and has a lot of versatility with wild shape and focus spells. Good weapon choices. You can even take a wizard spellcasting archetype if you want wizard utility spells to change out since the druid handles so much of the casting offense well. Druid is a good class chassis to build off of.
Every time I hear Firelion talk about how his group doesn't like wizards, whom I consider greater than sorcerers I hear more and more about how his group skips all the things that wizards are better at.
It's like taking a game that's minimized attack rolls and then can't understand how the fighter is good.
Wizards are better at recall knowledge. We don't do that.
Wizards are better at downtime. We don't do that.
Wizards are better at preparing for specific foes. We don't do that.
Sure, if you just want to brute force everything with bon-mot + Sysentsia Sorcs are better than that.
I don't think that's your strongest option, personally I don't find it very fun either.
So you're saying wizards are only good if I set up these specific circumstances for them to be good? And if I don't, then sorcs are better?
And since those circumstances I have to set up for the wizard to be better aren't really necessary, why play one unless you want to slow down your entire group to set up the specific circumstances for wizards to be better?
So the wizard player can have fun?
That's a fairly good summation. You are right. I want the wizard to not have to have this requirement to set up to be good when most of the other classes don't need this and can plow through a dungeon without needing such a set up so one player can have fun with their class that needs this.
DL, your group rejected RK in favor of metagaming with OOC knowledge.
This is NOT how most groups play, nor how adventures are designed.
Using RK rules is not a GM trying to coddle the Wizard. It's playing the game as intended.
If you can't point to individual powerful abilities on the class chassis and you're falling back to RK, an ability anyone can use and certain classes are better at with powerful outsiders, then the debate has reached a point where you first have to convince me RK is necessary.
And that I have to wait a day? On each room or series of rooms? For the wizard to change out spells to have what? The perfect spell to do as well as the sorcerer? Why can't I just have the sorcerer use slow or magic missile until we find that isn't useful?
As a DM if you want your experienced players eyes to glaze over, then ask them to make a RK to figure out fire works on a troll. In my group we would do it, tell you to move on to the next encounter. If you didn't like that, we wouldn't play with you again. Don't waste our time with RK checks to figure out fire and acid shut down regen most of the time.
You fight one demon or devil and it's hurt by good, you buy a holy rune. Let it do it's work.
Use bludgeoning versus oozes unless the area is small, then just hit them and split them and then focus on the lower hit point creature that's blocking the other one from doing anything. You still get them one at a time. And they're to take out.
Weaknesses aren't that important and are often just overkill. We've killed tons of things without ever having anything to exploit their weaknesses.
There are no perfect spells any more. Just cast the good ones until they land. Kill the creatures. Martials do just fine without ever using RK.
As a DM save RK for some really unique monster fight and hope the DC isn't too high that the wizard or intel player is likely to fail like happened last night. We have an investigator at level 8 that had to make a RK check against a unique creature that was set at DC 37. He has expert in the skill and a free action RK ability. He failed. So we had to figure out how to kill the monster the hard way anyway.
RK isn't guaranteed to work against the monsters you most need it against. It isn't that useful against the majority of stuff you can kill without even knowing what it is.
For my Baba Yaga PFS Witch, who has no special RK ability, I max in that order Society, Arcana and Occultism and got Trained in Lore : Fey, Lore : Undead, Lore : Plants and Lore : Fiends at 1st level.
I took Additional Lore (Animals) with my background.
I could have taken another Additional Lore with my Human General feat but spent it on Canny Acumen to boost my Fortitude saves instead (old habit of mine).
At second level, I took Additional Lore (Fey) and retrained Lore : Fey to Acrobatics.
At third level, I took Additional Lore (Undead) with my General feat and retrained Lore : Undead to Thievery.
At fourth level, I will take Additional Lore (Fiends) and retrain Lore : Fiends.
At fifth level, I will take Additional Lore (Aberrations) with the General feat provided by General Training because my Occult proficiency will lag behind Society and Arcana for some time.
At sixth level, I will take Additional Lore (Oozes) for the same reason.
At seventh level, I will use my General feat to get Additional Lore (Plants) and retrain Lore : Plants.
So, at seventh level, I will be Master in RK with Society (all Humanoids), Expert in RK with Arcana (Constructs, Elementals, Beasts, Dragons) and Master with a reduced DC to RK Animals, Fey, Undead, Fiends, Aberrations, Oozes and Plants. And all of those with my casting stat.
Cool but now you get no help if you need Acrobatics to escape? Any class can take additional lore and Mastermind Rogues and Investigator have a lower opportunity cost to do so (and the same int bonus). This is not a special wizard thing. This is an any character that decides to invest in intelligence and lores thing.
Additional Lore is a nice feat. I had overlooked this feat for ages until a buddy took it. He used it for alcohol lore to make a brewer, but it was great to have a free scaling skill up to Legendary.
You can make a wiz or investigator, use that skill feat to get undead lore or Abyssal lore scaling to Legendary. Then at least you aren't expending a skill up or a big resource to get a useful Lore skill for RK. You might have a chance with a skill that high against a unique creature.
Yup, that's fair.
Finished my analysis (AoN and lookup tables are great). My comparison of Bon Mot vs. RK:
Recall Knowledge DCs including rarity bumps average out 2 points lower than Will DCs. So it's easier to succeed on RK than it is to succeed on Bon Mot.
Picking the minimum save vs. just always spamming Will gets you a -2 to their save bonus.
** spoiler omitted **
Of course, you can mitigate this by picking types that make sense for your campaign. In Blood Lords, it's not a spoiler to say you should focus on Religion because lots of undead. In Extinction Curse:
** spoiler omitted **And so on. So it's not that bad. But you probably are ultimately rolling for the same target number as the Bon Mot caster with your RK check, since your DCs are 2 points lower but you have -2 to your bonus comparatively.
IN ADDITION, you're using your primary for only half the skills. So you're lagging another point or two behind for Wis-based RK, plus you can't afford super high item bonuses to all skills (until you get a Diadem of Intellect at level 17, which gives +3 to all RK checks). Which drops your bonuses by another 2 points. Though if you take Additional Lore or have a friendly cleric or druid who makes the Religion/Nature checks while you do the Int-based ones, you can compensate a lot for that. And you both benefit from one another's RK.
Tl;dr it's...
I use Bon Mot before I cast a Will save spell like Phantasmal killer to improve its chances of success. Whereas I use RK and what? Hope it has a weakness I can exploit for 10 or 15 extra damage? I'd rather take the reduced save to set up a spell.
Why do people on here try to build up skills that don't have much of an impact?
What do you do you in your games? How often do your players have to make a RK check? You make them make a RK for every black pudding they fight? Every demon or devil before they know to use good damage on a demon infested temple or something?
Are you all using this skill so often even against what? Regular orcs or goblins?
Just kill the thing. 90% or more of the time you'll be fine not rolling RK and just killing it.
Even when I say Bon Mot is better, I'm not using that every fight. I'm using it when I'm setting up a will save spell to land on a creature. It's a one action activity that gives a -2 on the save I can use over and over again that is easy to use in conjunction with a 2 action will save spell. That's its value. Situational, but usable more often than RK.
If you're fighting 8 shadow demons, you make your RK roll once. You know what they are and what hurts them. Bon Mot you can keep using to set up Banishment. That's the big difference between the two.
Are you all using this skill so often even against what? Regular orcs or goblins?Just kill the thing. 90% or more of the time you'll be fine not rolling RK and just killing it.
Yup. No reason not to since it lets you get their weakest save. Then you can shred them with whatever that is.
My analysis wasn't really focused on weaknesses - I agree with you there. They're not that common. It's so you can decide whether to use a Reflex blast or a Fortitude blast. Since you're getting the equivalent of Bon Mot (-2 to saves) by picking the right one. It's neat, and personally while I know demons are weak to cold iron and good damage I couldn't tell you off the top of my head if mariliths have higher Reflex or Fortitude.
I agree that you don't need to do it more than once or twice per combat, though. Definitely worth grabbing force bolt or magic missile or scorching rays for your third action the rest of the fight.
Mariliths have generally high saves with a status bonus to the saves against magic. Your best spell against outsiders under the incap is banishment. When higher than incap, better to hit them with slow.
What spell are you using against a marilith that you would need to know?
I'm not getting what you're doing? What do you do when you figure out a save is weak?
When you calculate casting, you calculate a variety of choices:
1. Weak save
2. Strength of spell: What if the creature has a higher fort save than will save, but you don't have a good quality will save spell versus using slow? Even on a success the slow is better than a failure on your will save? This I found to be a big problem because the high value spells are few and the four levels of success can vastly change the quality of a spell.
3. Immunities based on traits.
4. Casting time as some great spells like walls are 3 actions.
5. Range
6. Spread of enemies
7. Conditions on enemies: flat-footed, clumsy, stupefied, bon mot, frightened.
8. Incap trait
Suffice it to say there are a lot of choices when picking a good spell to use and lowest save is but one choice in PF2. The four levels of success really changed the value of spells along with other factors like incap.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is sort of the issue I have with these discussions - yes, people will always have different playstyles and approaches to the game, but sometimes they're entirely antithetical to how the game was designed. This isn't definitely a "you're playing wrong" sort of thing, but DF's playstyle is likely not the norm. I, obviously, have zero data to back this up, but every post that DF makes about his view of how the game is played just isn't one I've ever seen.
Like, I enjoy Pathfinder and roleplaying games a lot, and I think 2e has a very strong, crunchy tactical element. But it's also not the sort of game where I ever think about "beating" it. Sure, a tactical video game or even board game with end states and a variety of different approaches would have me saying "Hmm, I don't need to use this."
But like, there is a separation of player knowledge and character knowledge and we all know there's an honor system of using meta information and each group will approach that differently. What becomes tedious is hearing repeatedly that something like Recall Knowledge doesn't have value because one could just use metaknowledge to "beat" the game more efficently. I will never quite grok that playstyle. On a personal level, I simply don't want to treat my social game days as exercises in mathematical precision where I should just disregard my character and ignore the abilities that allow me to utilize or uncover metaknowledge.
...
Are you all using this skill so often even against what? Regular orcs or goblins?Just kill the thing. 90% or more of the time you'll be fine not rolling RK and just killing it.
Yup. No reason not to since it lets you get their weakest save. Then you can shred them with whatever that is.
My analysis wasn't really focused on weaknesses - I agree with you there. They're not that common. It's so you can decide whether to use a Reflex blast or a Fortitude blast. Since you're getting the equivalent of Bon Mot (-2 to saves) by picking the right one. It's neat, and personally while I know demons are weak to cold iron and good damage I couldn't tell you off the top of my head if mariliths have higher Reflex or Fortitude.
I agree that you don't need to do it more than once or twice per combat, though. Definitely worth grabbing force bolt or magic missile or scorching rays for your third action the rest of the fight.
Mariliths have generally high saves with a status bonus to the saves against magic. Your best spell against outsiders under the incap is banishment. When higher than incap, better to hit them with slow.
What spell are you using against a marilith that you would need to know?
I'm not getting what you're doing? What do you do when you figure out a save is weak?
When you calculate casting, you calculate a variety of choices:
1. Weak save
2. Strength of spell: What if the creature has a higher fort save than will save, but you don't have a good quality will save spell versus using slow? Even on a success the slow is better than a failure on your will save? This I found to be a big problem because the high value spells are few and the four levels of success can vastly change the quality of a spell.
3. Immunities based on traits.
4. Casting time as some great spells like walls are 3 actions.
5. Range
6. Spread of enemies
7. Conditions on enemies: flat-footed, clumsy, stupefied, bon mot,
The wizard doesn't have to brute force anything. The wizard is part of a group of other well built characters who are bringing a ton to the table. The wizard has to shift the battle here and there and by wizard I mean caster.
Generally, weapons always work. Your martials are doing incredible things to like tripping dragons or smashing for nutty damage.
So as a caster you add in the parts they might be a little weak at or something else here or there. The PF1 idea of the wizard winning alone is gone. Yet this is still what some are making it sound like exists and it doesn't.
That's the part I'm having trouble understanding in these discussions. For me it's more fun to have something else to do now that I can't really build spell strategies to end encounters. I'd rather blast with a tempest surge or turn into a dragon or have a great focus spell I can shoot off without having to worry about it being a super limited resource.
As a caster I'm there to join in the damage party in the various ways I can and use a cool spell here or there to shift things in our favor. I'm part of the group now and I want fun things to do as a caster that I don't have to worry about being gone for the day or slowing the group down waiting for daily prep or what not.
This is sort of the issue I have with these discussions - yes, people will always have different playstyles and approaches to the game, but sometimes they're entirely antithetical to how the game was designed. This isn't definitely a "you're playing wrong" sort of thing, but DF's playstyle is likely not the norm. I, obviously, have zero data to back this up, but every post that DF makes about his view of how the game is played just isn't one I've ever seen.
Like, I enjoy Pathfinder and roleplaying games a lot, and I think 2e has a very strong, crunchy tactical element. But it's also not the sort of game where I ever think about "beating" it. Sure, a tactical video game or even board game with end states and a variety of different approaches would have me saying "Hmm, I don't need to use this."
But like, there is a separation of player knowledge and character knowledge and we all know there's an honor system of using meta information and each group will approach that differently. What becomes tedious is hearing repeatedly that something like Recall Knowledge doesn't have value because one could just use metaknowledge to "beat" the game more efficently. I will never quite grok that playstyle. On a personal level, I simply don't want to treat my social game days as exercises in mathematical precision where I should just disregard my character and ignore the abilities that allow me to utilize or uncover metaknowledge.
And you're telling me you still want to roll every campaign to figure out fire stops regen on the trolls? You're making character number 20 and you still want that character to be in the dark on how to stop regen on a troll? That's what you're telling me?
This is not about metaknowledge for something interesting. This is my group after playing this game a long time no longer finding rolling to figure if the belt of strength gives a +1 athletics check or the demon was a weakness to good damage as fun. It's not fun any more. It's not interesting. It doesn't provide an interesting game experience any longer.
We were all there when we thought finding a +1 sword in the Keep on the Borderlands purple module was fun or the first time we found a Staff of the Magi was cool. Now that isn't interesting any more.
You've never played with a group that engaged in tactical team play? I find that hard to believe. That's all we do.
We plan the group from the beginning. You're the healer or responsible for healing. You're the main tank martial damage dealer. You're the caster support. You're a secondary damage dealer. You're ranged damage dealer. You do traps. Do we have a person that will be able to cast fly and deal with invis?
You never built a group like this? With the intent of covering most of the bases and winning the battles?
Have you played with a DM that is building encounters so hard that you are dying if you don't engage in coordinated tactical play?
We have one guy that literally gets irritated when the group is engaging in poor decision making, not focus firing, and attacking separate enemies or isn't positioning well on the battlefield to be in range of healing and prevent flanking or bypassing our frontline.
You've never played with a group like this or seen a group play like this?
As by far the most tactically inclined member of my table, I understand this, but also I play Pathfinder as a storytelling game with tactical elements, not a tactical challenge game with story elements. I love how tactical the game allows players to be but I definitely have never played with a group that was particularly good at the tactics (you cast magic missile at the boss at the end of the room who isn't engaged in the fight instead if the monster that just used ferocity to survive with 1hp... Why?)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is sort of the issue I have with these discussions - yes, people will always have different playstyles and approaches to the game, but sometimes they're entirely antithetical to how the game was designed. This isn't definitely a "you're playing wrong" sort of thing, but DF's playstyle is likely not the norm. I, obviously, have zero data to back this up, but every post that DF makes about his view of how the game is played just isn't one I've ever seen.
Like, I enjoy Pathfinder and roleplaying games a lot, and I think 2e has a very strong, crunchy tactical element. But it's also not the sort of game where I ever think about "beating" it. Sure, a tactical video game or even board game with end states and a variety of different approaches would have me saying "Hmm, I don't need to use this."
But like, there is a separation of player knowledge and character knowledge and we all know there's an honor system of using meta information and each group will approach that differently. What becomes tedious is hearing repeatedly that something like Recall Knowledge doesn't have value because one could just use metaknowledge to "beat" the game more efficently. I will never quite grok that playstyle. On a personal level, I simply don't want to treat my social game days as exercises in mathematical precision where I should just disregard my character and ignore the abilities that allow me to utilize or uncover metaknowledge.
And you're telling me you still want to roll every campaign to figure out fire stops regen on the trolls? You're making character number 20 and you still want that character to be in the dark on how to stop regen on a troll? That's what you're telling me?
This is not about metaknowledge for something interesting. This is my group after playing this game a long time no longer finding rolling to figure if the belt of strength gives a +1 athletics check or the demon was a weakness to good damage as fun. It's not fun any more. It's not interesting. It doesn't...
I'm in the same position as Ruzza and can say that my groups don't do this ever, and I've never played with a group that did. Story and character first - even if that means learning for the 10000th time something is weak to fire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the whole troll regeneration and weakness to fire and acid a d&d-ism anyways? Idk, I think it is actually genuinely unreasonable your character would just know fire and acid work against them. It's such an esoteric game thing from d&d tradition. If someone asked me about trolls before I knew about d&d I would probably say they turn to stone in the sun, hide under bridges and get yeeted by goats or something
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the whole troll regeneration and weakness to fire and acid a d&d-ism anyways? Idk, I think it is actually genuinely unreasonable your character would just know fire and acid work against them. It's such an esoteric game thing from d&d tradition. If someone asked me about trolls before I knew about d&d I would probably say they turn to stone in the sun, hide under bridges and get yeeted by goats or something
It really depends how common such creatures are in your world. If trolls are common then most humans will know you need fire to beat them (but probably not acid). Or there just wouldn't be human settlements in many places.
So no I don't mind if players have a body of common knowledge.Havening said that as a GM sometimes I go to great length to hide the species of a monster. I got to the 3rd encounter once before they realised something was a reskinned Will O Wisp. I'm also not above deliberately changing a trope either.
At least Pathfinder has a huge list of monsters. It is not really practical to know them all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the whole troll regeneration and weakness to fire and acid a d&d-ism anyways? Idk, I think it is actually genuinely unreasonable your character would just know fire and acid work against them. It's such an esoteric game thing from d&d tradition. If someone asked me about trolls before I knew about d&d I would probably say they turn to stone in the sun, hide under bridges and get yeeted by goats or somethingI mean said esoteric game thing is how trolls work in universe so it would probably be pretty widely know compared to the real world were trolls aren't real. Like if someone came from a region with trolls it would be pretty reasonable for them to just know that (which is an issue with recall knowledge in general, it's kind of hard to determine what your character would just kind of know from their backstory. Student of the canon is another example, having my cleric kind of struggle to remember the tenets of their god because they don't have it can feel a bit strange.)
but even within universe it should be relatively unknown. People know very little about animals they see day to day, and are superstitious. Maybe dedicated and seasoned monster hunters who deal with trolls might know something about trolls, but common folk and new adventurers certainly would not. My wife tells me new things about birds I see everyday, and there is a lot about cats that cat owners even do not know
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is as heavily seasoned players, we take no pleasure in making that roll any more. It isn't interesting. It's a waste of our time and doesn't contribute to the fun of the game any longer. So we don't bother with it.
If something isn't fun or interesting in the game at this point, we gloss over it. And magic items and creature knowledge checks fall into that category.
Buy a fire rune on the weapon. It will cover most regen.
Throw the item in the bag. We'll figure it out during downtime.
Drop the creature. If it doesn't die, roll the RK check at that point or just test a bunch of methods to kill it.
You'll do fine without focusing too much energy on RK checks.
It's another one of those skill people talk up in these discussions to make the ability seem better than it is as though that skill alone makes the wizard valuable. I only consider it important if it the player enjoys using it, then I'll make it fun for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where I live we know brown recluse bites means go to the doctor, bites from rats cause rabies, don't try to pet the wild bears, and the different types of crabs and fish from general knowledge of the area. I think people pick up a lot of knowledge of things like this.
Even in America from movies and books we all know vampire and werewolf traits and to shoot zombies in the head. I think most of the world knows this.
In a magical world where a lot of this is studied, a lot of common knowledge likely exists as well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying wizards are only good if I set up these specific circumstances for them to be good? And if I don't, then sorcs are better?
No.
I'm saying I'm beginning to understand why your perspective has lead you to the conclusions you've come to.
I also disagree with your framing.
Those are natural parts of the game to me. Instead you've set up a specific set of circumstances that devalues preparation, versatility, knowledge & crafting.
"I don't need Recall Knoweldge because I can just metagame anything I would learn from it" tells me a lot.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Snip.And you're telling me you still want to roll every campaign to figure out fire stops regen on the trolls? You're making character number 20 and you still want that character to be in the dark on how to stop regen on a troll? That's what you're telling me?
I mean that's sort of why these discussions are frustrating to me, I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on what makes the game enjoyable to us. Because... yes? Yes, I like to have the character who shouts out, "The books are wrong! Trolls are weak to electricity!" after he fumbles a Recall Knowledge. I like the dice taking part of the storytelling for who my character is - and getting to know them over the course of the campaign. It doesn't really matter to me that an encounter could have gone more smoothly if I used my own player knowledge. I mean, I've also been on the GM-side of things for more than 20 years - that's a lot of knowledge I could use to game the system, especially when it comes to the more common encounter types.
This is not about metaknowledge for something interesting. This is my group after playing this game a long time no longer finding rolling to figure if the belt of strength gives a +1 athletics check or the demon was a weakness to good damage as fun. It's not fun any more. It's not interesting. It doesn't provide an interesting game experience any longer.
And the thing is, I do find those interactions still interesting after all these years. You don't, and that's fine, but it's a playstyle that I really don't think is the norm and probably shouldn't be taken into consideration when skills and abilities are discussed. I don't want to go point by point, here, but a few things to keep in mind.
You've never played with a group that engaged in tactical team play? I find that hard to believe. That's all we do.
As I said, roleplaying draws all different types of playstyles into the hobby. I've played with groups that definitely go in harder on the tactical play, but they haven't neglected the roleplay side of things. I suspect you play along these lines as well (or else, why play a TTRPG at all?). However, I have frequently played with people who have zero interest at all in the tactical encounters. They go in harder on other aspects of their character. In a group that still wants to play PF2, they allow many of their roleplay choices to help guide them through tactical combats. Like, PF2 is heavier on the crunch, but I'd be hard pressed to say it functions better than, say, an actual tactical wargame.
"Snip." <-- Quotes about combat heavy groups
You've never played with a group like this or seen a group play like this?
I will be very direct here: I respect that you play the way you do and have no interest in telling you that you're wrong. However, that sounds like the worst, most absolute horrible use of my time. If I joined a group like that, I would quit immediately and warn friends away from them. It sounds like a group of people going out of their way to unnecessarily ruin my leisure time. If I want a challenge with a group of friends, I won't choose an activity that is as freeform and open as TTRPGs. Online gaming, wargaming, and even more intense board gaming can provide that - that's not at all something I am even the slightest bit interested in.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I will say that I'm not advocating for a singular way to play. This is quite the key difference here. You can both sides "people play differently," but I'm not going to stand here and act as an absolute authority to tell others how to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying wizards are only good if I set up these specific circumstances for them to be good? And if I don't, then sorcs are better?
No.
I'm saying I'm beginning to understand why your perspective has lead you to the conclusions you've come to.
I also disagree with your framing.
Those are natural parts of the game to me. Instead you've set up a specific set of circumstances that devalues preparation, versatility, knowledge & crafting.
"I don't need Recall Knoweldge because I can just metagame anything I would learn from it" tells me a lot.
That's not what we do.
You all keep making it seem like you need RK to win. You don't. The vast majority of monsters don't need RK. They don't. Not at all.
A well built party which is where we start doesn't need RK to kill almost everything.
We use RK when it is necessary as such as running into something we can't kill easy.
You keep making it sound like we metagame. We don't. We just don't use RK because it isn't necessary.
We prepare well ahead of entering a dungeon by having a prepared party. Our party is prepared to handle almost everything from the moment the group is made.
You all making this about RK and metagaming if I don't use RK without ever asking, "How many fights do I really need RK in if my party is well built?" Once you answer that question, you will see why I don't value RK.
You want to create this niche situation where RK is necessary to make it appear as though we are metagaming. We aren't. We just don't care about using RK during the fight. It's irrelevant to a well built party.
Buying a fire rune for your weapon is hardly metagaming. Fire rune useful in a lot of situations. It just so happens to kill trolls and activate their weakness as well. So you never really have to make a RK check. But they use the fire rune against everything accepting that some fire immune or resistant creatures will sometimes resist it.
That is more how we play.
I keep imagining the majority if you in these parties where the wizard or intel class is constantly spending an action to RK. All your martials are waiting with baited breath not attacking while they wait for the info?
I can't believe listening to people on this forum that you don't have martials in your group who open with a Sudden Charge, hammer the monster, and start fighting. Don't care whatsoever that the wizard is using RK. They kill it. All done.
Do you have a discussion afterwards with the martials in the group or the healer? How is this working in the group dynamic? Or are you looking at this strictly from your individual perspective for individual spell choices?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Snip.And you're telling me you still want to roll every campaign to figure out fire stops regen on the trolls? You're making character number 20 and you still want that character to be in the dark on how to stop regen on a troll? That's what you're telling me?I mean that's sort of why these discussions are frustrating to me, I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on what makes the game enjoyable to us. Because... yes? Yes, I like to have the character who shouts out, "The books are wrong! Trolls are weak to electricity!" after he fumbles a Recall Knowledge. I like the dice taking part of the storytelling for who my character is - and getting to know them over the course of the campaign. It doesn't really matter to me that an encounter could have gone more smoothly if I used my own player knowledge. I mean, I've also been on the GM-side of things for more than 20 years - that's a lot of knowledge I could use to game the system, especially when it comes to the more common encounter types.
This is not about metaknowledge for something interesting. This is my group after playing this game a long time no longer finding rolling to figure if the belt of strength gives a +1 athletics check or the demon was a weakness to good damage as fun. It's not fun any more. It's not interesting. It doesn't provide an interesting game experience any longer.And the thing is, I do find those interactions still interesting after all these years. You don't, and that's fine, but it's a playstyle that I really don't think is the norm and probably shouldn't be taken into consideration when skills and abilities are discussed. I don't want to go point by point, here, but a few things to keep in mind.
You've never played with a group that engaged in tactical team play? I find that hard to believe. That's all we do.As I said, roleplaying draws all different types of playstyles into the...
We prefer tactical play in this type of game. It's more fun when the tactical play is more wide open. D&D was originally created as a tactical combat game with roleplaying. That is much of its content and design is focused om battle.
A lot times board games or video games are repetitious. The moving parts are set and once you beat them or know how to beat them, it's over.
Whereas TTRPGs have lots of different tactical options and considerations. That's fun for a player and DM like me to figure out. I like doing the math, measuring the various tactical options in the game, designing encounters, planning characters, making enemies, etc. I enjoy this aspect of TTRPGs.
I also like RP because I also write fiction. I love to create and play characters and develop plots. These also create challenging situations for players to deal with.
I would say the only type of group I tend to avoid is the ones that seem a little bit too into humor. I do not enjoy the overly humorous groups who take nothing seriously. Even if I play a gnome or a halfling, they are tactical minded adventurers to be taken seriously, not there for someone's amusement.
These discussions I engage in because I want a better wizard. The wizard class may be satisfying to a certain segment of the player base who often spends little time comparing the class's capability to other classes, but that is not in my nature.
As a DM I am always comparing capabilities to ensure class balance and capability. I know with absolutely certainty the wizard is a class that is lacking in the group dynamic. I know why it is lacking. I've broken these mechanical points down in a comparative fashion. All I get in response is, "What about RK? It's so good." And pages of an argument focused on RK as some aspect of the wizard that they are supposedly best at when it is patently false. Even a base reading of PF2 skills shows that some RK is wisdom based and often for the most powerful creatures. Then there is the fact that RK isn't necessary for the vast majority of fights, yet the ones on here arguing about the value of RK somehow overriding the wizard's lack of interesting feats and focus spells as what? Compensation?
RK is a skill action anyone can do. A lucky roll can make you seem better at RK than a wizard. Yet this somehow makes up for the deficient class chassis of the wizard? A skill action any class can do? I find that a very weak argument for the strength of the wizard to rely on a universal skill action in a game where skills are easy to acquire and the best skill classes in the game are the rogue and investigator.
This kind of stuff is an impediment to mechanical improvement for a class that could use it.
I'm not on here complaining about every class for the hell of it. Or complaining about casters as a whole. I'm very focused on criticism of specific aspects of certain classes because there is measurable underperformance with these classes in the group dynamic.
I would like them fixed or rather the weak or undesirable aspects shored up so that these classes become viable and useful choices within the PF2 group dynamic that don't make a player feel like you're choosing some lesser class for having been a wizard or a witch as an example.
When players like mine find the wizard or witch undesirable, while they enjoy the heck out of classes like the psychic or magus or sorcerer or oracle or cleric, then I have to figure out why because these classes were highly desirable and played quite a bit in PF1.
I've found out why. But at every point I request improvement, I get arguments like "most spell slots" with constantly changing theses to fit whatever argument they are making even though you only get a single thesis. Or I get pages of arguments over the value of RK which any class can use.
I get nothing on selling me on the great feats of the wizard. The great focus spells. The great class chassis. The amazing Arcane Spells they are using unique to the Arcane list.
I'd sure rather see the wizard sold for some unique aspects of the class that is more impactful like I see with the bard or druid or sorcerer. It's why I almost never see threads complaining about those classes because are the players perfectly satisfied with the class design for those classes.
Here we are three years plus later. Still threads on the problems with the wizard and witch. But all of us making these arguments just aren't using the universal skill action RK enough or can't find those uniquely powerful spells on the arcane list or aren't constructing enough consumables to cast more spells on scrolls.
I guess wanting better feats and class chassis abilities on the wizard is asking too much. Why? Because I don't use RK enough or craft enough scrolls for extra casting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players who use OOC knowledge is not the basis for the game, if only because it would put new players at an enormous disadvantage.
I totally understand why people who do not use RK rules think INT is worthless and the Wizard too.
I am also 100% convinced their assessment of the game can be safely ignored since it is based on games that do not actually play by the rules.
Buddy, this kind of insulting rubbish is unnecessary.
I know this game very, very well.
It's also why I know RK is unnecessary in 90 percent plus of fights. In those fights where it is needed or helpful, the DCs are often set way too high leading a high failure rate. I've seen classes other than the wizard with intelligence make a RK check just by lucky dice rolls while the intel class failed.
My assessment of the game is accurate and would be helpful to players who enjoy the wizard or witch if actioned.
A universal skill action that doesn't actually affect the enemy in any measurable way should not be the basis for the quality of a class. RK is information that may or may not benefit your future actions. Whereas charisma based skills are actions that directly debuff the enemy.
The original RK discussion was based on RK versus a charisma based skill that could debuff like Bon Mot or Demoralize or Deception for feint. I've found the charisma based skills more usable and more valuable than RK.
The reasons for this I've stated. That being RK is rolled once and it's pretty received the main benefit. Whereas something like Bon Mot or Intimidate, you can roll once per target or more often. It debuffs the enemy for anything your group might do.
If you all want to believe RK is better than the Charsima based debuff skills, have at it. I think the Charisma based skills are provably more valuable, can be used more often, and are more impactful than RK in the vast majority of situations.
A lot of time a RK check can be made by a party by virtue of the number of people rolling due to the ubiquitous number of skills.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to beat a dead horse, but...
I mean that's sort of why these discussions are frustrating to me, I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on what makes the game enjoyable to us.
Like all of the things that I find enjoyable and worthwhile about playing a wizard are things that your group doesn't enjoy. So it's fine to just say "Oh, we don't like this class." There are those of us that do - it fits exactly the sort of playstyle that we've been looking for. I can't speak for all fans of the wizard, but I know that if it were changed in ways to cater towards a playgroup like DF's I... well, I would be disappointed.
Now, as always, more flavorful feats and interesting spells are great, but I think we're just going to go in circles about what our groups value. But again:
...I'm not going to stand here and act as an absolute authority to tell others how to play.
|
|
For my Baba Yaga PFS Witch, who has no special RK ability, I max in that order Society, Arcana and Occultism and got Trained in Lore : Fey, Lore : Undead, Lore : Plants and Lore : Fiends at 1st level.
I took Additional Lore (Animals) with my background.
I could have taken another Additional Lore with my Human General feat but spent it on Canny Acumen to boost my Fortitude saves instead (old habit of mine).
At second level, I took Additional Lore (Fey) and retrained Lore : Fey to Acrobatics.
At third level, I took Additional Lore (Undead) with my General feat and retrained Lore : Undead to Thievery.
At fourth level, I will take Additional Lore (Fiends) and retrain Lore : Fiends.
At fifth level, I will take Additional Lore (Aberrations) with the General feat provided by General Training because my Occult proficiency will lag behind Society and Arcana for some time.
At sixth level, I will take Additional Lore (Oozes) for the same reason.
At seventh level, I will use my General feat to get Additional Lore (Plants) and retrain Lore : Plants.
So, at seventh level, I will be Master in RK with Society (all Humanoids), Expert in RK with Arcana (Constructs, Elementals, Beasts, Dragons) and Master with a reduced DC to RK Animals, Fey, Undead, Fiends, Aberrations, Oozes and Plants. And all of those with my casting stat.
Cool but now you get no help if you need Acrobatics to escape? Any class can take additional lore and Mastermind Rogues and Investigator have a lower opportunity cost to do so (and the same int bonus). This is not a special wizard thing. This is an any character that decides to invest in intelligence and lores thing.
I did not understand the Acrobatics to escape bit, sorry.
Yes. Witches and Wizards (and Psychics and Magus) are able to get good benefits from investing in RK due to having max INT.
Mastermind Rogues and Investigators can have max INT too. But then they do not benefit from the spellcasting abilities that Witches, Wizards and other INT-casters get.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Buying a fire rune for your weapon is hardly metagaming. Fire rune useful in a lot of situations. It just so happens to kill trolls and activate their weakness as well. So you never really have to make a RK check. But they use the fire rune against everything accepting that some fire immune or resistant creatures will sometimes resist it.
Nope, and I agree with that. Nor is buying a cold iron sword "just in case", throwing fireballs at ice dragons, or using hammers on skeletons.
I think the issue people have is more along the lines of looking at a marilith you've never encountered before, going "demon" and breaking out Banishment, a spell which is entirely useless against most creatures and whose sole purpose is to send demons back where they came from. If you know they're demons. Which you only know from metagaming.
It's not a BAD approach, and I'm certainly not judging you for it, but it's also not an approach most tables will default to, because most players don't know off the top of their heads with no context that six armed snakes are demons.
So those tables might get more out of recall knowledge, because they just don't have the monster manual memorized. I GM at a table with people who have played for years and years and many of them couldn't tell you six armed snakes are demons.
That's not a "niche" situation for RK given how often fiends, celestials, and elementals show up at higher level. You don't need it to be successful... but it's nice to know you can target the snake with Banishment.
I agree with you on RK not needing to be used all the time and it not being necessary to win most fights. It's not going to make you into a god. But it is helpful, especially for saving throw targeting. That's all.
I know how these forums are. They take something you write, blow it out proportion, then use it to dismiss or insult your arguments.
What they don't know and they don't bother to learn is my group also RPs. We like RP. We write backgrounds for our characters that the DM uses to tailor the game. We come up with a viable reason why we're together. We build all aspects of the game up from RP encounters and such.
I don't discussion RP on here because RP is free form. I don't let rules get in the way of what I consider good RP. There were never really rules for RP in the early editions of the game. It was considered something creative that was done in a naturalistic fashion. You can't dictate to players or a DM how to roleplay with excessive or restricting rules. That's why I don't consider that part of the rules important. I'm not interested in straight-jacketing my players into some kind of codified RP unless it enhances the game.
We use RK, especially if something is hard to kill. But our default for RK is drop it first, then figure out if we need something special to finish it.
It's a big mix of stuff. If we're attacking a base and we have time to scout it, we will prepare as much as we can. Some players pick up shifting runes to shift weapons to different types of damage to deal with oozes and monsters immune.
Preparation is such a wide topic and focusing it on the wizard like he's the best at it just isn't our experience. Sometimes just switching to blunt weapons for the martials is better than anything the wizard can do. Adjusting in combat is a party wide activity each class does differently or prepares for differently.
In these discussions, it's wizard focuses. But in our group our martials are also preparing for problems which they do by picking the right runes, making taking a caster archetype for see invis, maybe picking up a particular feat like Debilitating Shot to slow a target. Preparation is not the sole province of the wizard. Plenty of other classes can and do prepare including martials.
It's just such a strange thing to hang your hat on when I've seen plenty of classes provide immense versatility from a base quality class chassis without needing a day to do so or even 10 minutes.
I've done my part to push for a better wizard and witch. I hope once the Remaster is out, some of what has been asked for like improved feats and focus spells is on there. I'd also like to see the Swashbuckler panache generation issue improved.
Investigator is a niche class. In a module like Agents of Edgewatch, they are super helpful to a DM for feeding information to the party. In most campaigns, not so playable. So the motivation to make it better just isn't in me. It does the job in the type of campaign it is built for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean I feel like it would be kind of like knowing about platypus having venomous spurs, it's pretty common to know that in Australia because it's a fun thing to know about a kind of iconic animal here but I can't imagine most people in other countries knowing that because it's just not important, but knowing random trivia about regional animals might also not be common outside of Australia.
Our relationship to knowledge is also very different in our modern hyper technological society in which information has become a commodity and education a business. I could talk about feudal peasants and their inability to even read, but I would wager even nobles and priests wouldn't have the same readily available access to knowledge like this, and much of it may be false. Trolls can't be too common in a place without the ability to even maintain a civilization being threatened, see the Kingmaker campaign for an example. I would imagine that anywhere trolls regularly threaten a settlement it would still be a class of people who deal with that issue and that it is among their ranks who would know, leaving out priests, nobles etc. I will say rangers, particularly as they come from Tolkien, have the explicit job of defending civilization from monsters and the like, so I think rangers getting to know weaknesses is right within the class fantasy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reminder that Golarion is not feudal era (1600s) but closer to Renaissance (1800s). Also they might not have the interent, but they still do have colleges, schools, and libraries.I disagree. Golarion is a technological hodge podge.
Alkenstar is the old west and very clearly 19th century. Varisia is high middle ages and probably 13th century. The lands of the linnorm kings are Vikings and thus more like 9th or 10th century. The realm of the mammoth lords is pre-agriculture in terms of tech.
You can't really make blanket statements about the era. Though I agree with you, Temperans. Literacy is far more widespread than in any real life society before the 19th or 20th century.
I would say most of Golarion is likely feudal with some outliers, if not feudal then semi-feudal or early capitalism prior to the establishment of liberal democracy. But even early liberal democracies were plagued with illiteracy, and it took a few hundred years before things like k-12 being a public good became a thing
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Golarion is a fantasy world that blends a lot of different eras and ideas, so you can focus on a particular area simulating a lot of different campaigns. You could do Old West or feudal or barbaric tribes or magic schools or demonic invasions. It's a very wide open place intentionally designed to be so. I don't compare it much to earth because the comparisons would depend on the area.
I see what's prompting this discussion. Golarion has tons of books about. You can tell by their NPC design that books, libraries, spread of knowledge, and advanced medicine and such are common in Golarion fueled by magic with technology to a lesser extent.
I don't think illiteracy is very common save in tribal areas of lower magic and technology. In civilized areas, easy to learn to read.