[Spoiler] Remastered Dislikes


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

601 to 650 of 730 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

PossibleCabbage wrote:
It would be interesting to see an ancestry show up with noticeably more limited vision than humans. Like how Astomoi in 1e could perceive the world with perfect accuracy within 60' and had no ability to perceive further than that.

That is the way to do it properly in a balanced way. Give some superior distance vision. Some low light vision. Ensure real dark vision comes with penalties. There is no reason sun glasses can't exist in the same way as goggles of night. Trade off's....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It would be interesting to see an ancestry show up with noticeably more limited vision than humans. Like how Astomoi in 1e could perceive the world with perfect accuracy within 60' and had no ability to perceive further than that.

Yes but then everyone complains that their character can't see things.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
Cyder wrote:
I am kind of sad so many ancestries still have 'low light or darkvision' as their thing. I would rather Paizo have moved away from almost every ancestry has better sight than humans trope. Its lazy and boring.
Reminds me of a Farscape episode that lampshaded this trope. There was some kind of threat that mainly consisted of an optical phenomenon, and the one human on the crew was the one who had to deal with it because all the other crew had far better eyesight and therefore were more vulnerable.

In Rolemaster the night or dark vision had the counterpart of a (huge) penalty (a -50 in a percentile system) on saving throws against glare effects. My Mage used a lot the Sudden Light spell against orcs, very effective.

In PF2 would be the equivalent to step one degree to failure for ST or to success for attacks.


That sounds like Light Sensitivity, which was something that orcs had in PF1 but dwarves etc did not.


That is more associated to the lack of adaptability to light, usually for creatures of the dark.
In this case was associated to the improved vision with low light, so dwarves, elves and everyone was affected, including human with a darkvision spell effect, being weak against sudden brights due to their improved light collection nature.


Perpdepog wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It would be interesting to see an ancestry show up with noticeably more limited vision than humans. Like how Astomoi in 1e could perceive the world with perfect accuracy within 60' and had no ability to perceive further than that.
Yes but then everyone complains that their character can't see things.

I was just thinking of something small eg

Distance vision: reduce the range penalty for ranged attacks and perception checks by 2 in normal light.
Low light vision: double the range of light sources for determining visibility in the dark.
Dark vision: can see normally in darkness, but sensitivity to bright light which is something like a penalty of 2 ranged attacks and perception checks beyond 60ft in bright light.
and Dark vision is incompatible with Distance vision

Why not have an even larger number of options. Just make them each have benefits and limitations. Some of which you can work around. But not completely and you can't have everything.

You can fiddle with the details. The point being to give a choice to players not just say your PC is crap it you don't have darkvision.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Perpdepog wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It would be interesting to see an ancestry show up with noticeably more limited vision than humans. Like how Astomoi in 1e could perceive the world with perfect accuracy within 60' and had no ability to perceive further than that.
Yes but then everyone complains that their character can't see things.

Of all the "user error" problems in the world, creating a blind character then complaining that they're blind is probably at the top of the list.


Cereal wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It would be interesting to see an ancestry show up with noticeably more limited vision than humans. Like how Astomoi in 1e could perceive the world with perfect accuracy within 60' and had no ability to perceive further than that.
Yes but then everyone complains that their character can't see things.
Of all the "user error" problems in the world, creating a blind character then complaining that they're blind is probably at the top of the list.

Agreed. I've seen it happen with the astomoi's limited visual range, the oracle's Clouded Vision curse, and then again with the oracle's Curse of Flames in 2E.


Following with the low-light+ vision and counterparts, in PF2 could be applied weakness against bright effects as mentioned, i.e. having a degree worse for things like Hypnotic Pattern. It could be interesting to make more useful those kind of spells which are nice in D&D but mostly meh in PF2, as many foes are of type Goblin, Orcs and many many of them have low-light or dark vision.

If not is like all those having it just get it for free with the human discriminated (how many races don’t have it?).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

On the topic of vision, looking at all the ancestries I think gives some interesting statistics:

  • Out of the game's current 36 ancestries, only 8 don't have some form of low-light vision or darkvision. That's less than a quarter of the entire roster.
  • Out of the premaster's 6 common ancestries, 2 don't have low-light vision or darkvision, a mere one-third of the roster. This decreases to a quarter with the remaster's addition of the leshy and orc as common ancestries.
  • Out of the premaster's 16 versatile heritages, 6 don't have low-light vision or darkvision. That's slightly more than one-third of all versatile heritages.

    Effectively, it's not that some ancestries have exceptionally good vision, so much that a very select few ancestries and heritages have exceptionally bad vision. Humans are exceptional in just how blind they are compared to most creatures around them, including halflings and their keen eyes. The whole vision system is therefore designed to be largely ignored in most cases, as you have to try very hard not to end up with some combination of ancestry and heritage that won't let you at least ignore concealment in dim light, if not also see clearly in the dark. This is also ignoring how Perception is still largely relegated to sight, with hearing and smell being mostly ignored for features, feats, and rules interactions. This isn't a problem specific to the remaster, obviously, but is something that I think ought to be looked at in the future.


  • 3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Teridax wrote:

    On the topic of vision, looking at all the ancestries I think gives some interesting statistics:

  • Out of the game's current 36 ancestries, only 8 don't have some form of low-light vision or darkvision. That's less than a quarter of the entire roster.
  • Out of the premaster's 6 common ancestries, 2 don't have low-light vision or darkvision, a mere one-third of the roster. This decreases to a quarter with the remaster's addition of the leshy and orc as common ancestries.
  • Out of the premaster's 16 versatile heritages, 6 don't have low-light vision or darkvision. That's slightly more than one-third of all versatile heritages.

    Effectively, it's not that some ancestries have exceptionally good vision, so much that a very select few ancestries and heritages have exceptionally bad vision. Humans are exceptional in just how blind they are compared to most creatures around them, including halflings and their keen eyes. The whole vision system is therefore designed to be largely ignored in most cases, as you have to try very hard not to end up with some combination of ancestry and heritage that won't let you at least ignore concealment in dim light, if not also see clearly in the dark. This is also ignoring how Perception is still largely relegated to sight, with hearing and smell being mostly ignored for features, feats, and rules interactions. This isn't a problem specific to the remaster, obviously, but is something that I think ought to be looked at in the future.

  • That's just weeeeeird

    It makes sense, in a "well, elves see well in the dark", "dwarves live underground so they see well in the dark", "cats see well in the dark, so catfolk have to see well in the dark", and "tieflings are descended from fiends, they have to see well in the dark, right?" sense.

    But put it all together and it's sort of ridiculous.


    maybe more ancestry should give more stuff like heat vision smoke vision life sense as imprecise sense instead of all low light at level 1

    or even scent

    precise scent are very rare for some reason

    almost impossible for player to get until treasure vault


    25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

    maybe more ancestry should give more stuff like heat vision smoke vision life sense as imprecise sense instead of all low light at level 1

    I admit I have a fondness for some of the bizarre senses. They're kinda awesome.

    I think my favorite has to be protean Entropy Sense.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Maybe diversify and not make vision an ancestry thing? I mean its lazy that vision improvements are such a common thing rather than other adaptions.

    Also now they aren't under the OGL they can more easily update the fantasy of the ancestries to be more varied.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    This is probably grounds for another thread, given that this is having increasingly little to do with the remaster, but my thoughts on vision and senses are the following:

  • Vision I think should just be vision, and we oughtn't need stuff like low-light vision or darkvision, let alone greater darkvision, to ignore rules that end up affecting very few characters.
  • Instead, I think it'd be a lot more interesting to play with different senses: humans can have the default of precise sight, imprecise hearing, and vague smell, but other ancestries who currently see well in dim light or darkness may perhaps be able to detect creatures well due to precise hearing, imprecise smell, or even precise smell. Some ancestries may perhaps even have imprecise or vague sight, and other precise senses instead.
  • If an ancestry can sense beyond mere sight, hearing, and smell, give them new senses. Rather than low-light vision or darkvision, undead may instead have lifesense, for example.
  • Concealment and detection should be reworked to not be so vision-centric. A creature in dim light should not be concealed to a creature who can sense exactly where and what they are thanks to a precise sense that isn't sight. Similarly, invisibility shouldn't make a creature undetected, it should just make them undetectable to sight.
  • The same should be said for conditions that impair vision. A blinded creature should be able to move perfectly fine if they have other precise senses to guide them. Really, creatures should only be concealed to you if the precise senses you're using are being partially hindered, and you should similarly only suffer the perception and mobility downgrades of blindness whenever you have no precise sense to work with at the time. Other effects like the deafened condition should operate on that same framework and affect different creatures differently based on their senses.

    Effectively, we need a common framework of senses, how they interact with the world, and what happens when they're impaired, instead of just everything being about vision. I can sympathize with players feeling bad about wanting to play a blind or deaf character and not really being able to, because the current implementation of the rules is so vision-centric that there is strictly no way of working around those conditions' major drawbacks. It's not like there's an issue of verisimilitude, either, as IRL humans can train to develop accurate echolocation. Ancestries improving the precision of their senses and gaining new senses entirely to me sounds a lot more interesting to play with than just countering dim light and darkness with low-light vision and darkvision, and putting more emphasis on different senses should hopefully also encourage more varied and nuanced gameplay around perception.


  • Cyder wrote:

    Maybe diversify and not make vision an ancestry thing? I mean its lazy that vision improvements are such a common thing rather than other adaptions.

    Also now they aren't under the OGL they can more easily update the fantasy of the ancestries to be more varied.

    Except the game makes assumptions about what your senses are and don't make exceptions without feats doing so; even ancestries with potential additional limbs like the Fleshwarp or keen noses like Gnolls do not get any additional innate advantages because it breaks the balance of the game between players and what the game assumes PCs will have available to them.

    Yes, I can hear it now, "But Darkvision and Low-Light already do this between players, why is it such a big deal for other options with other senses?" Because being Blinded still means your Darkvision and Low-Light don't function, whereas ignoring that condition via another available precise sense is a significant power increase, one that is stronger than even a higher level ancestry feat.

    Just as well, this is a Remaster, not a new edition, meaning this is beyond the scope of what the new rules are meant to encompass. We will have to wait until PF3 at the earliest for this sort of change.


    Historical question: does the proliferation of low light and darkvision across both Pathfinder and D&D come from D&D 3e, or does it have its origins earlier? I'm guessing the reason for it being so common is that because it was common in the systems common ancestors.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    MadamReshi wrote:
    Historical question: does the proliferation of low light and darkvision across both Pathfinder and D&D come from D&D 3e, or does it have its origins earlier? I'm guessing the reason for it being so common is that because it was common in the systems common ancestors.

    Elves and dwarves in AD&D 2e got infravision. This dates all the way back to OD&D and chainmail. So yes that and LOTR is where that's from.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    ISTR the myths of dwarf-like and elf-like things that Tolkien worked from all imply better-than-normal eyesight, esp in the dark. So it's from real life, kind of.


    The old D&D Monster rules said something like: by default, all creatures have darkvision unless they are serving a PC.


    SatiricalBard wrote:

    I like a ton of things in the Remaster, but some things I dislike:

    1. The change to the dying & wounded interaction rules. I also dislike that there has been no advance discussion, no player surveys, and no explanations about why they have done this.

    I understand why a lot people don't like the "new" dying rules, but since PF2 began they've been a point of contention, especially because it became apparent that there were 2 version of the rules and it wasn't clear which one won out.

    Until now. I, for one, enjoy the final codification because it's certainly the way, I believe as do many others (including some devs) the way the wounded/dying rules were actually meant to work.

    That being said, it's your game, just keep the old rules!

    In my experience, PF2 is not deadly at all and it's tough to challenge the players. It will make hero points more important and force players to keep that one stocked away just in case they go down to stabilize.

    Liberty's Edge

    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    no good scallywag wrote:
    SatiricalBard wrote:

    I like a ton of things in the Remaster, but some things I dislike:

    1. The change to the dying & wounded interaction rules. I also dislike that there has been no advance discussion, no player surveys, and no explanations about why they have done this.

    I understand why a lot people don't like the "new" dying rules, but since PF2 began they've been a point of contention, especially because it became apparent that there were 2 version of the rules and it wasn't clear which one won out.

    Until now. I, for one, enjoy the final codification because it's certainly the way, I believe as do many others (including some devs) the way the wounded/dying rules were actually meant to work.

    That being said, it's your game, just keep the old rules!

    In my experience, PF2 is not deadly at all and it's tough to challenge the players. It will make hero points more important and force players to keep that one stocked away just in case they go down to stabilize.

    Those new rules have been errated back to the old rules. It's in the latest errata document


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Another itsy bitsy grumble I've got is that the Inexplicable Apparatus isn't as cool now. Its shortening all crafting times to one day isn't quite as impressive when you only setup for two rather than four. Granted it's still got all the other cool stuff going for it.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Having played a low level caster since the remaster, I can say that the nerf to cantrips is weakening casters when they are at their lowest. Definitely a very bad choice, it would have been so easy to increase their efficiency instead of reducing it.

    I'm quite happy about the change to Bless, but I don't understand why Bane, which is worse than Bless, has a lower radius...

    I'm puzzled about Revealing Light. On one hand I'm happy to finally see the Divine spell list on par with the others in terms of debuff but on the other hand I'm a bit annoyed that the go to debuff spell is now so accessible and generalized.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Would you say the cantrip change has widen even more the difference between casters that have a good focus spell (or have focus cantrips) and those who don't between levels 1-4?

    Also, a few of them were also buffed a bit, right? A few of them do 3d4 instead of 1d4 + mod. Do these feel better or is it mostly the same?


    roquepo wrote:
    A few of them do 3d4 instead of 1d4 + mod. Do these feel better or is it mostly the same?

    3d4 are better, the probability of throwing less than 5 is already adequately small and the mean is higher. If this were the minimun, there wouldn't be a problem. But it's not the base. Or, it is the base, but 'bare' base, anything above 60ft 1 target physical is considered extra and removes a die to 2d4. Especially energy damage seems that valuable.


    I also think that the cantrips nerfs are less impacting than we originally expected because many cantrips gets other improvements and focus spells are way more sustainable. Also magus and Eldritch Archers was benefited from some cantrips changes like Gouging Claw (this basically broke the main reason why many people get MC with psychic to get Imaginary Weapon).

    IMO only the wizards that was really affected by this change once they don't get good focus spells and are strongly dependent from the cantrips in adventures with a lot of encounters per day.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    roquepo wrote:
    Would you say the cantrip change has widen even more the difference between casters that have a good focus spell (or have focus cantrips) and those who don't between levels 1-4?

    Focus spells and focus cantrips don't really interact with Cantrips. Whatever the damage of TKP, you gonna Inspire with your Bard. So it affects all casters roughly equally.

    roquepo wrote:
    Also, a few of them were also buffed a bit, right? A few of them do 3d4 instead of 1d4 + mod. Do these feel better or is it mostly the same?

    Electric Arc has been nerfed, TKP has been nerfed, Ray of Frost has been nerfed, even Daze has been nerfed. I'm not even sure any cantrip has been buffed. I've defaulted to Needle Darts as it hasn't been changed, but it doesn't feel good (it's roughly as good as TKP was but it ages badly). Clearly, a useless and unfair nerf.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Perpdepog wrote:
    Another itsy bitsy grumble I've got is that the Inexplicable Apparatus isn't as cool now. Its shortening all crafting times to one day isn't quite as impressive when you only setup for two rather than four. Granted it's still got all the other cool stuff going for it.

    I mean, nerfing an item that less than 3% of the people will ever have the chance to use and only if they actually want to spend that gp for it is like a no brainer to me. Much better to have better crafting rules that aren't a hassle (and they still aren't better than just buying the item btw) than to have a single item that solves that problem 18 levels in the future.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    SuperBidi wrote:
    roquepo wrote:
    Would you say the cantrip change has widen even more the difference between casters that have a good focus spell (or have focus cantrips) and those who don't between levels 1-4?
    Focus spells and focus cantrips don't really interact with Cantrips. Whatever the damage of TKP, you gonna Inspire with your Bard. So it affects all casters roughly equally.

    Since you can fully refocus between fights, you should be able to get away with casting cantrips a bit less at low levels if you manage to get 2 or more focus spells and at least one of them is a generally usable one. That's what I tried to ask about.

    So better put, is the best case scenario for no resource fights (2 or 3 focus spells and either 1 or no cantrips used) vs the worst case scenario (3-4 cantrips) a wider or narrower difference from what the same scenario would look like pre-remaster (basically the difference between a caster with a good focus spell and a caster without it)?

    I won't be able to play with a remaster caster until next year (currently only playing 1 game and it has no casters), so I'm really curious about where the new caster "meta" will end up and how people are faring RN.


    roquepo wrote:
    SuperBidi wrote:
    roquepo wrote:
    Would you say the cantrip change has widen even more the difference between casters that have a good focus spell (or have focus cantrips) and those who don't between levels 1-4?
    Focus spells and focus cantrips don't really interact with Cantrips. Whatever the damage of TKP, you gonna Inspire with your Bard. So it affects all casters roughly equally.

    Since you can fully refocus between fights, you should be able to get away with casting cantrips a bit less at low levels if you manage to get 2 or more focus spells and at least one of them is a generally usable one. That's what I tried to ask about

    So better put, is the best case scenario for no resource fights (2 or 3 focus spells and either 1 or no cantrips used) vs the worst case scenario (3-4 cantrips) a wider or narrower difference from what the same scenario would look like pre-remaster (basically the difference between a caster with a good focus spell and a caster without it)?

    Lots of focus spells you have are still debuffs, defense, or utility stuff that don't actually help end the fight, so having an extra cast of them (once you actually have two focus points, so level 6-8 for Sorcerers and Wizards) isn't necessarily that useful. You might prefer casting a save cantrip anyway for guaranteed chip damage.


    roquepo wrote:
    Since you can fully refocus between fights, you should be able to get away with casting cantrips a bit less at low levels if you manage to get 2 or more focus spells and at least one of them is a generally usable one. That's what I tried to ask about.

    Psychic put aside, there are not so many classes with damage focused low level 2-action Focus Spells. I see Fire Ray for Clerics, but it asks for a specific deity. Overall, the nerf to Cantrips affect all caster in a very similar manner.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    I really don't see the cantrip nerf to be all that significant. The justification behind it was "it's weird to have most spells not add your casting modifier to damage, but some spells do." For example, Telekinetic Projectile went from 1d6+4 (average 7.5) to 2d6 (average 7)- that's not a huge nerf.

    Sure, you stat mod will eventually go to +5 and +6 (or +7) but at 10th level and beyond you should be relying on your cantrips much less than you were at low levels.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    I think the die replacing attribute mod feels like a nerf because it hits electric arc hard, which was doing a lot of the leg work of lifting caster DPR at levels 1 and 2. Daze getting a nerf isn't really effecting anyone, and really feels like there was a more aggressive change to the cantrip planned (hence the new language in the spell list) that either got nixed at the end, or will eventually come back as errata once whatever issue was holding it up gets sorted out.

    The biggest ray of frost nerf was the range. 60ft just isn't enough to give a cantrip niche as a long range sniping spell, but I guess that was an intentional design choice to remove.

    I think rank 1 cantrips regularly out damaging rank 1 spells was seen as an issue to fix, and static damage boosts of 4+ require d8 dice or higher to "fix" which leads to very high maximum damage potentials on things like fire breath. which actually would get to be a big issue for players when the spells get used against them and they crit fail, take 32 points of damage and instantly die.

    I am pretty comfortable with the "nerf" to cantrips because it greatly increases the value of spell slot spells, and the value of using wealth to buy scrolls. I don't think anything about the remastered options takes classes like the magus or the psychic into account, nor does it really need to at this time. I think that those classes are going to require the full remaster treatment and will not be adequately fixed with simple errata.


    14 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    I really don't see the cantrip nerf to be all that significant.

    I agree it's not significant, but it's still a nerf to something that was already weak that targets a character at the point in the life they're the least powerful or mechanically compelling.

    So arguing over degree I think is kind of missing the point.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    roquepo wrote:

    Would you say the cantrip change has widen even more the difference between casters that have a good focus spell (or have focus cantrips) and those who don't between levels 1-4?

    Also, a few of them were also buffed a bit, right? A few of them do 3d4 instead of 1d4 + mod. Do these feel better or is it mostly the same?

    None of the cantrips in player core are 3d4, that's just needle darts


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Karneios wrote:
    roquepo wrote:

    Would you say the cantrip change has widen even more the difference between casters that have a good focus spell (or have focus cantrips) and those who don't between levels 1-4?

    Also, a few of them were also buffed a bit, right? A few of them do 3d4 instead of 1d4 + mod. Do these feel better or is it mostly the same?

    None of the cantrips in player core are 3d4, that's just needle darts

    We've been told Rage of Elements spells were made to be pre-compatible with remaster changes, so it's understandable people add its spells into the pool of 'remastered spells'.


    graystone wrote:
    Karneios wrote:
    roquepo wrote:

    Would you say the cantrip change has widen even more the difference between casters that have a good focus spell (or have focus cantrips) and those who don't between levels 1-4?

    Also, a few of them were also buffed a bit, right? A few of them do 3d4 instead of 1d4 + mod. Do these feel better or is it mostly the same?

    None of the cantrips in player core are 3d4, that's just needle darts
    We've been told Rage of Elements spells were made to be pre-compatible with remaster changes, so it's understandable people add its spells into the pool of 'remastered spells'.

    The post I quoted said a few do 3d4 instead of 1d4+mod, I was pointing out that nothing has gotten that change and there is just the one cantrip that does 3d4 which is needle darts


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    Phase Bolt from Dark Archive has been errata'ed to do 3d4 instead of 1d4 + Ability Mod.

    In a similar vein, Astral Rain has been changed from 2d4 + Ability Mod to 4d4.

    Those are the only two examples of that type of increase I've been able to find (besides Needle Darts which everyone was already mentioning.)


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    It feels like they were deliberately trying to "remove ability mods from cantrips for consistency" not "change how much damage spells tend to do" because it looks like they set the remaster damage as close to the original damage, on average, as they could.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    It feels like they were deliberately trying to "remove ability mods from cantrips for consistency" not "change how much damage spells tend to do" because it looks like they set the remaster damage as close to the original damage, on average, as they could.

    If they wanted to do that they'd have changed Cantrips to deal dice + 4 damage. If you can add a fixed +1 to the damage magic missiles do you can do it for cantrips.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    It feels like they were deliberately trying to "remove ability mods from cantrips for consistency" not "change how much damage spells tend to do" because it looks like they set the remaster damage as close to the original damage, on average, as they could.

    Haven't they said the change was mostly so that archetypes' cantrips would do decent damage even if the archetype KAS and your class KAS were different?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    3-Body Problem wrote:
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    It feels like they were deliberately trying to "remove ability mods from cantrips for consistency" not "change how much damage spells tend to do" because it looks like they set the remaster damage as close to the original damage, on average, as they could.
    If they wanted to do that they'd have changed Cantrips to deal dice + 4 damage. If you can add a fixed +1 to the damage magic missiles do you can do it for cantrips.

    Don't most spells just do dice in damage? Like Fireball is 6d6, Disintegrate is 12d10, etc. For consistency it's good to have them all be mostly just dice.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    The new standard for cantrips appears to be:

    Multiple attack/aoe is 2d4 (Electric Arc, Slashing Gust, Timber) or 1d8 with +2 heightening (Caustic Blast; why, Paizo, why). I wonder which of these the AOEs in Secrets of Magic would have or will get.

    Single target save plus crit fail rider is usually 2d4 (lots of examples), unless it's Daze (sad, sad, sad).

    Single target attack roll is 3d4 plus an extra up front enhancement capability (Phase Bolt, Needle Darts) and maybe some minor extra on a crit hit (Needle Darts).

    Melee cantrips are 2d6 plus some extra (Gouging Claw has persistent on hit, Ignition has ranged switch hitting and bigger persistent on crit).

    Daze and Caustic Blast are the outliers that didn't really need to be. Yes, Daze has a stronger crit fail effect than the others, no, we don't want to pay for that. Caustic Blast is so close to doing the same average job, just in a more lumpy and annoying progression, that I really wish they hadn't bothered trimming off those 0.5 average damage steps.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    3-Body Problem wrote:
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    It feels like they were deliberately trying to "remove ability mods from cantrips for consistency" not "change how much damage spells tend to do" because it looks like they set the remaster damage as close to the original damage, on average, as they could.
    If they wanted to do that they'd have changed Cantrips to deal dice + 4 damage. If you can add a fixed +1 to the damage magic missiles do you can do it for cantrips.
    Don't most spells just do dice in damage? Like Fireball is 6d6, Disintegrate is 12d10, etc. For consistency it's good to have them all be mostly just dice.

    Cantrips are already different than slotted spells and we have at least one spell with a fixed amount of extra damage per die so cantrips with additional fixed damage shouldn't be an issue.


    exequiel759 wrote:
    Perpdepog wrote:
    Another itsy bitsy grumble I've got is that the Inexplicable Apparatus isn't as cool now. Its shortening all crafting times to one day isn't quite as impressive when you only setup for two rather than four. Granted it's still got all the other cool stuff going for it.
    I mean, nerfing an item that less than 3% of the people will ever have the chance to use and only if they actually want to spend that gp for it is like a no brainer to me. Much better to have better crafting rules that aren't a hassle (and they still aren't better than just buying the item btw) than to have a single item that solves that problem 18 levels in the future.

    I'm confused. Where did I criticize the new crafting mechanics? You seem to be arguing against a stance I didn't take. Yeah, overall the new crafting rules are great for the game, a big improvement. I'd even argue that Inexplicable Apparatus wasn't even nerfed, it just hasn't got as dramatic a change as it used to. It's effectively like carrying all formulas with you all the time now, which is still neat. I might have liked to see it eliminate the crafting time entirely or something, but eh.


    I may add ability damage to spells back in as an overall when I fully switch to remaster. I like caster ability mods adding to damage like martials. This change will make it easer to create a house rule to cover every spell with maybe a caveat of no stacking ability mods, just choose the higher of two two for something like spellstrike.

    I'm good the change as it makes a house rule mod easier and will give casters a bump in power like I prefer.


    ottdmk wrote:

    Phase Bolt from Dark Archive has been errata'ed to do 3d4 instead of 1d4 + Ability Mod.

    In a similar vein, Astral Rain has been changed from 2d4 + Ability Mod to 4d4.

    Those are the only two examples of that type of increase I've been able to find (besides Needle Darts which everyone was already mentioning.)

    I did not notice phase bolt in my previous read of the errata so that's my mistake, astral rain I wouldn't really count for the conversation since that's a level 6 psychic unique cantrip

    1 to 50 of 730 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / [Spoiler] Remastered Dislikes All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.