| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would Int be more well liked if it had a combat skill that used it?
Int is the stat that is good at identifying patterns and RK is only meant to establish knowledge not patterns that are happening in real time so maybe add skills that provide some 1 round benefit because you watched the target in action and see through their moves. The drawback is int based benefits take seeing it happen at least once to work, another limitation can be that it doesn't keep working beyond a single round of gaining the benefit as combat is fluid nad you have to keep analyzing to get the benefit again. Like other abilities maybe the benefit cant be done again tot he same target for a duration.
Example
Defensive Analysis or something. Choose a target to analyze. After one round of analyzing a target that uses a strike gain +1 status bonus to AC against strikes from that target at the beginning of your next turn until the following turn?
Maybe this can be combined with raise shield or the shield spell to make for a very defensive turn?
New skill feats could interact with these skills in interesting ways.
And this example doesnt matter its just a way to show what an analyze int skill could look like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would Int be more well liked if it had a combat skill that used it?
Int is the stat that is good at identifying patterns and RK is only meant to establish knowledge not patterns that are happening in real time so maybe add skills that provide some 1 round benefit because you watched the target in action and see through their moves. The drawback is int based benefits take seeing it happen at least once to work, another limitation can be that it doesn't keep working beyond a single round of gaining the benefit as combat is fluid nad you have to keep analyzing to get the benefit again. Like other abilities maybe the benefit cant be done again tot he same target for a duration.Example
Defensive Analysis or something. Choose a target to analyze. After one round of analyzing a target that uses a strike gain +1 status bonus to AC against strikes from that target at the beginning of your next turn until the following turn?
Maybe this can be combined with raise shield or the shield spell to make for a very defensive turn?New skill feats could interact with these skills in interesting ways.
Yes. Every stat should have a combat skill linked to it. Most stats already have one and some might argue that RK is supposed to be what Intelligence gets, but RK is far weaker than the other extant options and not exclusive to Intelligence.
Something like what you propose is a good start to making Int feel better in combat. I would also give Con a skill that allows one to raise a save by +1 the way Raise Shield does for AC.
The advantage of RK classes is that they have better action economy with RK, not that they succeed at their RK where others fail. As such, a reroll rule is more beneficial for them, since they can retry much more often.
The Investigator can use that reroll rule together with their 5 RK check action (Reason Rapidly) to guarantee success on anything below "incredibly hard".
I can tell you've never played either to any meaningful level. First off Reason Rapidly is a level 12 feat. How it functions is also entirely left to GM fiat, if the GM decides they are sequential and you fail on the first RK then the other 4 get shut down as per RAW. Second off 'free' recall knowledge checks that classes like Investigator get on Devise a Stratagem come at the cost of dreadful combat contribution.
Lore Oracle does not get any recall knowledge action economy. They simply get focus spells to get a better chance at succeeding. Both of them come at an addition action economy cost of either using up their reaction or costing another action to gain a lore access and thus being unable to anything that round.
So my point still stands is if you make RK easy for all classes and just dump all the knowledge of a creature on a success then you make said classes absolutely pointless to play within encounters, leaving the play feeling as if they do not have a good role or contribution.
I can tell you've never played either to any meaningful level. First off Reason Rapidly is a level 12 feat. How it functions is also entirely left to GM fiat, if the GM decides they are sequential and you fail on the first RK then the other 4 get shut down as per RAW.
We are discussing the value of a house rule where you don't get shut down when RK fails, so I'm confused by the counterargument that it's not good for the RK guy because they get shut down when RK fails.
Lore Oracle does not get any recall knowledge action economy.
The moderate curse is you automatically make a free recall knowledge each turn using Assurance rules. Which makes it valuable for the Oracle to be allowed to try again since proficiency+10 is likely to fail against anything that truly matters.
So my point still stands is if you make RK easy for all classes and just dump all the knowledge of a creature on a success then you make said classes absolutely pointless to play within encounters, leaving the play feeling as if they do not have a good role or contribution.
My experience is the fighter wants to fight and the RK guy wants to RK. Why would the fighter waste their turn RKing multiple times with a poor INT/WIS modifier when the RK guy desperately wants to identify it and is no longer forced to give up after 1 try?
Obviously our tables operate on very different mindsets, so let's agree to disagree.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reminded that in another tabletop I play (Lancer), the equivalent of RK on a creature just gives your their entire statblock for free with no check and it's still considered a mediocre use of actions and only used by people who tend to specialize in that kind of thing.
Obviously that's another extreme but I feel like in general this trend toward making it difficult for even RK specialists to get useful information is clearly not helpful or necessary.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which all just further cements in my mind that I'd rather just not have attributes to begin with and avoid this stumbling block altogether.Reducing the level of customizability by that level of magnitude would make the game a super shallow reflection of its former glory. I prefer the depth it has now.
Not every fighter should be forced to have the equivalent of 18 Strength or rogue the equivalent of 18 Dexterity. If I want a studious barbarian, or a charismatic dwarf, that should be an option.
Let us play the concepts we want, rather than forcing a bunch of cookie cutter templates based on ancestry and class.
#longliveattributes
That's the thing, there isn't actually depth. For most classes and builds, the array is +4 KAS, +3 or +2 to your save stats favoring your weakest or whatever gets secondary use in the build or class, then pick which of STR, CHA, or INT gets dumped the hardest. It is *complex*, but the depth it offers doesn't at all match up to how long the process takes. It actually punishes you for trying to play against type with a studious barbarian, by making you miss more and do less. You have to actovely sandbag to play that, you are mechanically inventivized to stick to an array that also happens to imply a particular personality.
And claiming a -1 to attack isn't a big deal but that attributes have depth is contradictory. Either the +1 you shiffle around is impactful or it isn't. I think it's very impactful on an attack stat, but I don't see that as depth as there are not many meaningful alternativr choices, the array you need is prefigured by your other buiod choices like weapons, spells, class, and feats.
It coild be replaced by any number of systems that could have far more depth, like again having feats that could make playing a studious barbarian not mean you take a significant penalty to attack, damage, and crits. Lancer sort of does this already with HASE as your attack stat, Grit, scales purely with your level and nothing else - and so as a result there are actual meaningful tradeoffs between the attributes worth considering. And Systems, the weakest attribute, is in a funky spot precisely becuase it breaks this rule to be the attack stat of hacking, making it of questionable utility to non-hackers and like INT being the domain of only those classes that are designed around it.
And so we don't have silly discussions in Lancer about how important for roleplaying reasons it is for your mech pilot to suck ass at piloting their mech and actually hitting things. It doesn't tie up attack accuracy with ephemeral concepts like being smart and likeable so nobody gets brainworms telling them to dumo Grit so that they can play as a sapient nerd emoji. You're just allowed to be smart amd take skills in things that make you smart.
Reminded that in another tabletop I play (Lancer), the equivalent of RK on a creature just gives your their entire statblock for free with no check and it's still considered a mediocre use of actions and only used by people who tend to specialize in that kind of thing.
Obviously that's another extreme but I feel like in general this trend toward making it difficult for even RK specialists to get useful information is clearly not helpful or necessary.
Honestly I'm just going to give that a shot. Crits give moveset as well or something, fails and crit fails do nothing because f+*& coming up with believable lies on the spot. Just make RK give as much value as it possibly can for spending an action. I bet it'll still be niche as reasonably experienced players can guess where the important facts are like weak saves.
An option could be the GM changing some creatures numbers and features in time to avoid the player knowledge. Just exchange saving numbers and some weakness/resistances. There is no need to be written with iron just to fit.
|
Obviously that's another extreme but I feel like in general this trend toward making it difficult for even RK specialists to get useful information is clearly not helpful or necessary.Yeah as someone who made a character who was the equivalent to an rk specialist in another system not getting the information I needed didn't make me go "wow this is really tough I should have invested more", it made me go "This mechanic sucks I should have focused on literally anything else"
Fondly reminds me of my first and only PC in Rifts a very long time ago. I could perfectly read my opponents' mind and I knew exactly how they were going to slaughter me. And I was utterly unable to do anything about it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I'm just going to give that a shot. Crits give moveset as well or something, fails and crit fails do nothing because f$@! coming up with believable lies on the spot. Just make RK give as much value as it possibly can for spending an action. I bet it'll still be niche as reasonably experienced players can guess where the important facts are like weak saves.Reminded that in another tabletop I play (Lancer), the equivalent of RK on a creature just gives your their entire statblock for free with no check and it's still considered a mediocre use of actions and only used by people who tend to specialize in that kind of thing.
Obviously that's another extreme but I feel like in general this trend toward making it difficult for even RK specialists to get useful information is clearly not helpful or necessary.
My SOP in my home games is to give characters the information that their character would most likely have studied. Saves and immunities to control casters, elemental weaknesses and resistances for blaster casters, AC and attack info more warriors, etc. As well as the thing the creature is most famous for. Also name, creature type, and alignment (RIP). And often the parameters of things they have already observed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the thing, there isn't actually depth. For most classes and builds, the array is +4 KAS, +3 or +2 to your save stats favoring your weakest or whatever gets secondary use in the build or class, then pick which of STR, CHA, or INT gets dumped the hardest. It is *complex*, but the depth it offers doesn't at all match up to how long the process takes. It actually punishes you for trying to play against type with a studious barbarian, by making you miss more and do less.
As long as you max your attack attribute and increase your save-attributes every 5 levels, there's really no punishment for playing whatever you want. Depending on your attack stat you have more choice, but you only need Heavy Armor Proficiency for a studious Barbarian to be perfectly playable.
Also, a +2 to a save is not important enough to end up with a one dimensional character. Actually, having more options will largely compensate the penalty to your save.
Despite all the problems people post about Int, am i the only one getting the impression a lot of people in these forums do not want to see any kind of official change to it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Despite all the problems people post about Int, am i the only one getting the impression a lot of people in these forums do not want to see any kind of official change to it?
No Int doesn't need a change. Int is a viable primary ability score.
Recall Knowledge clearly works now and its useful unless your GM is trying to be perverse.
I'd still like to see a more few useful skill feats especially for something like Society.
(Likewise Survival and Thievery)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in other words the benefits of int are things many of these tables don't value because they don't make situations in their campaigns that require int to succeed or at least get more desirable outcomes?
it does seem that way. It seems like int is more GM intensive they have work to do if they want the Int to not go to waste outside of KAS contribution. If the GM doesn't build the situations that let those extra languages matter then it doesn't matter right? If the campaign travels the world maybe that int is more valuable than if the campaign is set in one region where everyone speaks the same language.
i mean int can be great if you introduce a foe the party must flee from do research on how to defeat then come back with the right tools.
But that is not the norm and would get pretty stale if its repeated to often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, a lot of discussions on these forums can be chalked up to 'well, sure, anything is bad/useless/trap choice/ect. if the campaign/GM doesn't play into choices'.
Everything in the game can be useful, and everything in the game can be 'useless' - it all depends on the type of campaign, and what the GM and players want to emphasize.
A campaign that has 90/10 roleplaying/combat is perfectly valid, but then the Fighter might seem 'useless' despite it being largely considered one of the strongest classes.
YMMV, with everything.
So then is there an objective way of looking at this?
Can we break things into how good is this stat at different aspects of the game. Modes might be the best way to break it down even if there is a great deal of variability in what some modes might test.
Encounter - Combat
Encounter - Roleplaying
Exploration
Downtime
How "powerful" or "Bad" is each stat in each mode when we are not talking about KAS?
Maybe leave class out of it for now, how good a fighter is in exploration is more involved than how good is str during exploration.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are so many ways to handle out of combat situations, I only focus on what stuff does in combat. So many GMs do things differently that trying to come up with a consensus for non-combat activities is pretty impossible to discuss. You want to see a thread really devolve into pure subjective personal anecdote, discuss roleplaying and handling non-combat situations. You'll have no touchstone to agree upon and it will turn into a bunch of stories about crazy stuff players came up with that GMs allowed.
Non-combat discussions are like asking people what their favorite food is or what their favorite movie is. Consensus is nearly impossible and it's going to come down to subjective preference and GM allowances and play-style.
Stat value in combat is based on what a class can do with the stat. Intel means next to nothing to a druid, but it is everything to wizard. It's of mixed value to a Magus, likely in 3rd or 4th place for priority after main combat stat and Str or Dex depending on build. There is no way to discuss stat value outside of class.
Campaign flavor may value one stat over another, but then it is also likely to value certain classes over others as well. A campaign that valued intel highly would likely value wizards and investigators more highly as well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the thing, there isn't actually depth. For most classes and builds, the array is +4 KAS, +3 or +2 to your save stats favoring your weakest or whatever gets secondary use in the build or class, then pick which of STR, CHA, or INT gets dumped the hardest. It is *complex*, but the depth it offers doesn't at all match up to how long the process takes. It actually punishes you for trying to play against type with a studious barbarian, by making you miss more and do less.As long as you max your attack attribute and increase your save-attributes every 5 levels, there's really no punishment for playing whatever you want. Depending on your attack stat you have more choice, but you only need Heavy Armor Proficiency for a studious Barbarian to be perfectly playable.
Also, a +2 to a save is not important enough to end up with a one dimensional character. Actually, having more options will largely compensate the penalty to your save.
The discussion there is specifically *not* maxing out your attack stat. The studious barbarian in this case is taking a +3 to STR in order to boost INT, as their example of why my idea of not having attributes would take away depth.
It's a nonsense discussion that again just further illustrates the point that there isn't actually much meaningful choice in attibutes. Their inclusion and the labels they use will bait many players into sandbagging, thinking that maxing out their attack stat is powergaming and not maxing it makes their character more interesting.
To compare to Lancer again, Lancer has no real limitations on attributes other than a hard cap of 6. You can spend all your points on Hull if you want right from the start. Most builds do not do this because HASE, while not perfectly balanced, has each attribute do enough useful things in combat that aren't directly comparable with their own natural diminishing returns that the game does not need to force players to spread out their stats. Players just do that naturally after noticing they need more heat or having +1 Speed would be very useful.
PF2e meanwhile has an extremely involved aytribute distribution process because if you could just pump yiur points into whatever you want we would all put everything into attack. D&D style classes so lopsidedly favor one or two attributes that an chapter of the book is dedicated to obscuring that most attributes are capped, because the only way to get players to put points into most attributes is to force it.
That isn't to say I dislike the boost system, I actually am a big fan of it - but it really is only necessary because of the stark imbalances in value between attributes, that make taking less STR on a barbarian to get more INT just a bad idea rather tham a genuinely interesting tradeoff.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a nonsense discussion that again just further illustrates the point that there isn't actually much meaningful choice in attibutes. Their inclusion and the labels they use will bait many players into sandbagging, thinking that maxing out their attack stat is powergaming and not maxing it makes their character more interesting.
Maxing one's attack attribute is not powergaming in PF2. Bringing other games' paradigms to PF2 just doesn't work and I don't see why it should be a thing.
The discussion there is specifically *not* maxing out your attack stat. The studious barbarian in this case is taking a +3 to STR in order to boost INT, as their example of why my idea of not having attributes would take away depth.
But what's bad in having to max your attack stat? No one forced you to play a Barbarian, so it's your choice to create a character who's strong and as such having to max your Strength is a consequence of this choice. If you want to play a studious character first and foremost, the Wizard is there for you.
PF2 gives you enough freedom to play a studious Barbarian, it still doesn't allow "everything". But I don't know of any game where you can build anyhow you want and it's exactly as good. The question is more: What fantasies PF2 doesn't support? There are, obviously, but I'm not sure there are that many. Thanks to all the new classes, the game supports a very large number of fantasies. The only thing the game doesn't support are pure dabblers who can do absolutely everything, and it has more to do with the class system than with anything else.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an academic Unicorn, I am not sure more studious barbarians are what we want in our schools and colleges. They do not take criticism well and their ability to concentrate is very moment to moment. We can, of course make accommodations as necessary, but raging in the classroom is very disruptive to the other students.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
further illustrates the point that there isn't actually much meaningful choice in attibutes. Their inclusion and the labels they use will bait many players into sandbagging, thinking that maxing out their attack stat is powergaming and not maxing it makes their character more interesting.
I agree the choices are limited. You have to be playing a very easy game is you aren't going to max out your primary attack attribute. But if that is your table and the GM balance encounters right then it is perfectly fine. Play the game how you want but the default balance is a bit tougher than most RPGs.
To compare to Lancer again, Lancer has no real limitations on attributes other than a hard cap of 6. You can spend all your points on Hull if you want right from the start. Most builds do not do this because HASE, while not perfectly balanced, has each attribute do enough useful things in combat that aren't directly comparable with their own natural diminishing returns that the game does not need to force players to spread out their stats. Players just do...
I'm not really getting your point. Attibutes in PF2 quite well balanced. 3 are used for defences, 3 are used in various offensive ways. Typically you want all 3 defensive and one offensive attribute. There are some builds that need more and some less. There are real trade offs. You don't have to max your defenses constantly. Some builds will take multiple attributes to +5 or better, others will only do it with one.
Yes it would be nice if it was totally freeform but the balance in this game is too tight. I really did like the old style of rolling up the attributes and then building the best character you could from those attributes. Who are they what is their story? But that is gone.
I can still build a very effective fighter with 8 INT or 14 INT, likewise with 8 CHA or 14 CHA. I dont even mind building a 14 STR martial with 18 DEX, Or a 18 STR nartial with 10 DEX. No it is not the zillions of choices Paizo say it is but the are a lots of different and reasonable attribute positions.
As an academic Unicorn, I am not sure more studious barbarians are what we want in our schools and colleges. They do not take criticism well and their ability to concentrate is very moment to moment. We can, of course make accommodations as necessary, but raging in the classroom is very disruptive to the other students.
We, studious Barbarians (I happen to play one), find that these arguments are getting old. Sure, we lack concentration but why are your schools so focused on academic work? Are you meant to all end up in a library?
Theory is important but practice is as much. Our ability to operate at peak efficiency even after bad nights and rough days is extremely valuable. Our excellent constitution and physical abilities allow us to bring knowledge where less physically focused students would never reach.
I think your academy should open up to more profiles. Some people create new knowledge, others use it. The former serve no purpose without the latter.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really getting your point. Attibutes in PF2 quite well balanced. 3 are used for defences, 3 are used in various offensive ways. Typically you want all 3 defensive and one offensive attribute. There are some builds that need more and some less. There are real trade offs. You don't have to max your defenses constantly. Some builds will take multiple attributes to +5 or better, others will only do it with one.
Yes it would be nice if it was totally freeform but the balance in this game is too tight. I really did like the old style of rolling up the attributes and then building the best character you could from those attributes. Who are they what is their story? But that is gone.
I think that's kind of Helmic's point: Pathfinder has this complex system of attributes that, in theory, you could allocate as you desire, but in practice you're so constrained by your class's stat requirements that you're going to be boosting your attributes in generally the same way each time for any given class. The Fighter is one of the more diverse classes for this because you can afford to dump Dex if you max out Strength, which gives you room to boost a fourth attribute of your choice. By contrast, any non-Wis caster, like the Wizard or Bard, is going to have to boost the same key attribute and the same 3 defensive stats each time, as will many martial classes dependent on a fourth attribute as well. By contrast, there's not really much room for a high-Int Barbarian, a high-Strength Sorcerer, or a high-Charisma Magus (in fact, there isn't even that much room for a high-Int Magus either, despite how appropriate that would be to their theme).
We can talk about how the balance is "too tight" to allow for more attribute diversity, but the general point to Pathfinder 2e is that Paizo decided to bake optimization directly into our character choices: classes have essential progression components like attack and save DC proficiencies baked directly into their core class features, and feats are generally made to give more options that are nice to have, rather than necessary amounts of power. The main exception to this is when a feat relies on an attribute that one isn't boosting, which is the main source of unviable choices in the game. Attributes are too tightly-coupled to 2e to be taken out, but in a hypothetical 3e that had no attributes at all, we wouldn't have those false choices, and we'd therefore get to have more diversity of options and still have a balanced game.
I think that's kind of Helmic's point: Pathfinder has this complex system of attributes that, in theory, you could allocate as you desire, but in practice you're so constrained by your class's stat requirements that you're going to be boosting your attributes in generally the same way each time for any given class. The Fighter is one of the more diverse classes for this because you can afford to dump Dex if you max out Strength, which gives you room to boost a fourth attribute of your choice. By contrast, any non-Wis caster, like the Wizard or Bard, is going to have to boost the same key attribute and the same 3 defensive stats each time, as will many martial classes dependent on a fourth attribute as well. By contrast, there's not really much room for a high-Int Barbarian, a high-Strength Sorcerer, or a high-Charisma Magus (in fact, there isn't even that much room for a high-Int Magus either, despite how appropriate that would be to their theme).
The only thing the game doesn't really support is high Int and high Cha. For the rest, you can build nearly any combination of stats (there's also high Dex, high Str and high Cha or high Int that doesn't work well). High Strength Sorcerers and high Int Barbarians are pretty functional, I've seen some here and there.
The discussion there is specifically *not* maxing out your attack stat. The studious barbarian in this case is taking a +3 to STR in order to boost INT, as their example of why my idea of not having attributes would take away depth.
It's a nonsense discussion that again just further illustrates the point that there isn't actually much meaningful choice in attibutes. Their inclusion and the labels they use will bait many players into sandbagging, thinking that maxing out their attack stat is powergaming and not maxing it makes their character more interesting.
To compare to Lancer again, Lancer has no real limitations on attributes other than a hard cap of 6. You can spend all your points on Hull if you want right from the start. Most builds do not do this because HASE, while not perfectly balanced, has each attribute do enough useful things in combat that aren't directly comparable with their own natural diminishing returns that the game does not need to force players to spread out their stats. Players just do...
"System bad, needs fixing."
You haven't adequately demonstrated that there's a problem.
The only thing the game doesn't really support is high Int and high Cha.
One of my favorite characters is a high intelligence, high charisma sorcerer/wizard (pre-remaster)/witch (remaster)Remaster.
She is crazy effective at the things I want her to do. So respectfully, I disagree; the game supports high intelligence, high charisma characters just fine.
The only thing the game doesn't really support is high Int and high Cha. For the rest, you can build nearly any combination of stats (there's also high Dex, high Str and high Cha or high Int that doesn't work well). High Strength Sorcerers and high Int Barbarians are pretty functional, I've seen some here and there.
I'll be curious to see the builds for those high Strength Sorcerers and high Int Barbarians, at early and late levels too. I mentioned both because the Sorcerer uses Charisma as their KAS and then relies on the usual Dex/Con/Wis for their defenses, whereas the Barb does the same with a Strength KAS (they also lack the heavy armor proficiency to dump Dex entirely). Boosting any other attribute, such as Strength for the Sorcerer or Int for the Barbarian, means sacrificing boosts for those four other attributes, and getting high amounts of that other attribute means either dumping one of the important four altogether or sacrificing valuable boosts across a spread of those abilities. I'd thus be keenly interested in seeing what qualifies as a "functional" build here, as that would help illuminate what standard is being used to define a build as "functional".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the studious barbarian I made years ago for Skull and Shackles, Teridax.
Feel free to tear it apart all you like, but know that it played quite well and was a lot of fun for me despite whatever you or others decide to claim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be curious to see the builds for those high Strength Sorcerers and high Int Barbarians, at early and late levels too.
Barbarian is super simple: By the time you're level 3, at most, you can be in a heavy armor.
The Sorcerer is also a classical build, with Champion Dedication to grab Heavy Armor.Both are definitely very usable builds and I've seen some running perfectly.
One of my favorite characters is a high intelligence, high charisma sorcerer/wizard (pre-remaster)/witch (remaster)Remaster.
She is crazy effective at the things I want her to do. So respectfully, I disagree; the game supports high intelligence, high charisma characters just fine.
Unless you just keep one at 14, which is nice but not exactly "high" to me, you'll end up with a save stat you can't improve which is definitely a big liability at high level. Being 2 points behind in a save stat is acceptable, but 4 points behind starts to be really crippling.
But before level 10, you won't feel it. If you haven't played it higher than level 10 you may still think it's a perfectly fine build.
Here's the studious barbarian I made years ago for Skull and Shackles, Teridax.
Feel free to tear it apart all you like, but know that it played quite well and was a lot of fun for me despite whatever you or others decide to claim.
It’s not really a matter of tearing your concept apart, so much as pointing out that it’s got notably weak Ref saves in exchange for a Loremaster dedication that doesn’t work terribly well while raging. In a campaign that doesn’t aim to be especially difficult, which looks to be the way yours was run, that and virtually any other concept would be perfectly fine, but in an adventure that does put pressure to optimize, your character’s flaws would likely have become much more apparent.
Barbarian is super simple: By the time you're level 3, at most, you can be in a heavy armor.
Unless the remaster has fixed this, no general feat gives you heavy armor proficiency that goes beyond Trained. You’d therefore have even less AC by opting into heavy armor that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the remaster has fixed this, no general feat gives you heavy armor proficiency that goes beyond Trained. You’d therefore have even less AC by opting into heavy armor that way.
Sentinel archetype is there at 2 and general heavy armor can be used as a temporary measure until you can fit it in, if you're delaying it for whatever reason.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I swear I'm not picking on you/anyone personally, the post is just an exceptionally rare / pure distillation of common road bumps in trying to discuss things like this that is ubiquitous in online discourse.
-------------
"System bad, needs fixing."
No one said this. You've rebutted a strawman of your own creation.
It takes the many different and specific arguments, erases all their nuance by bundling them all up into one, and proclaims a "they're saying all that, but they really mean ___" label over the resultant improper grouping.Nothing is perfect. If nothing is perfect, then it must be possible to improve upon pf2e. This must mean that there are degrees of "bad" and "good" design present within pf2e. Understanding-sourced criticism is required for change to result in improvement; how a pf3e would be considered "better" than pf2e, instead of worse.
-------------
One of my favorite characters is a high intelligence, high charisma sorcerer/wizard (pre-remaster)/witch (remaster)Remaster.
There's a boat load of reasons why or why not someone may consider a PC their favorite.
How you may have enjoyed a particular chunk of game time in pf2e is irrelevant to the design-based discussion you are replying to.
Perfect example of an irrelevant personal anecdote. The strength of the speaker's personal feeling about the wider /umbrella containing the topic often compels these to be used in lieu of arguments about the actual specific topic. Misplaced need "defend" the umbrella from something that is in truth, not even an attack against said umbrella.
-------------
You haven't adequately demonstrated that there's a problem.
It has been repeatedly presented that the attribute system, by nature of each +1 being so consequential to so many aspects of combat, can be described as an "illusion of choice" or a "non-meaningful" choice.
Lancer was used as a point of contrasting comparison, with details such as combat-viable benefits for even small +1 bonuses. Meanwhile in pf2e, non-primay attacks are not worth attempting in most cases, while the non-interactive defensive +1s are always helpful. Even a 1:1 action trade like Trip is beyond non-viable, and can be outright hazardous to attempt for a 0 STR character.
Another Lancer detail was system nudges like diminishing returns, meanwhile pf2e's is a very crude/crowbar diminish return design of needing 2 spends to get the next +1 after a point. Which pf2e inherited from older systems and reused without significant improvement.
-
In pf2e, leaving defenses uninvested is a straightforward health hazard. Every additional +1 is equal to the last.
While defenses are foe-triggered, due to being player-triggered, one offense attribute is logically selected to the exclusion of the others due to budgetary limits.
Class-specific offense, like a WIS caster, and the wrinkle of STR/DEX being both offense and defense, do not break this atom of understanding.
Any +1 to an offense comes directly at the cost of another +1, meaning the cost of an always helpful defense. Hence phrases like "sandbagging" or "illusion of choice."
Any judgment of it being a "problem" is a matter of opinion. IMO, there's far too many PC build options rendered mathematically disadvantaged (aka non-viable) due to this design, hence "problem".
Quite relevant is the recently discussed CHA for innate spellcasting wrinkle, where only the few classes with CHA as their KAS can keep that offense up to par for no cost, while for most others such CHA based attacks will be non-viable.
It's the union of that +2 CHA spell being a generally bad idea to attempt in combat, added with that consequential pain of being -2 WIS / Will saves, that creates this "problem."
It's why flavor and RP are the cited reasons for the "INT Barbarians" or others. They are choices made in defiance of the mechanics.
-----
Another resulting "problem" of pf2e's attribute system that's come up here is the "INT is the brain / recall stat" tidbit that is quite literally, only half true. I must confess that I find the "checking to recognize that horror bug trying to eat you? Sorry bub, that's a not an INT Occult, it's a WIS Nature check" to be completely absurd.
IMO, it's a super easy fix, and that needlessness of the problem is one reason why it personally bugs me so strongly.
ANY Recall Knowledge or "memory check" could / should become INT based, and that big bug WIS Nature check would be an active expression of trained skill to *learn on the spot* called something like Analyze or Evaluate.
For skills, one with Trained+ could always perform a RK check to get a sort of self-aid bonus.
Example:
Joe the Witch has +0 CHA, +4 INT. Doesn't like to talk about it, but his upbringing in a noble house left him Trained in the forbidden art of Diplo-mancy.
Needs to do a Diplomacy check with a local lord, but first does a RK on relevant diplomatic info. Reg success, so he gets a +1 circumstance bonus to the CHA-based performance.
An Occult-trained Fighter really wanting a Trip to work could spend an action for RK, and use that INT to potentially get a +1/2 circumstance to knock it prone.
Ta-da, you've got a "better" system that actually categorizes INT as the memory stat, AND now incentivizes both training in non-KAS skills, and spending some +1s into INT.
If I had not read through this thread and honestly engaged with the arguments here, that idea/"improvement" would never have occurred to me.
For the attributes as a whole, another possible improvement would be a clear split between passive and active stats. Right now, the pooling of that resource to spend means players are pushed to minimize the active stats, and pump the passive stats. Two different budgets / pools to spend would remedy that specific issue. Each PC would then choose which passive defenses and which offenses/actions they wish to specialize in. (IMO not my preferred solution, but presenting that change helps to understand the "problem" with pf2e's current system. It would be a smaller change to do a Lancer style overhaul where every +1 actually matters, instead of leaving the non-primary attack stats in the dust).
----------
There's a biiig difference between reading a comment to the effect of:
"You haven't adequately demonstrated that there's a problem."
. . . versus:
"I disagree that this is a problem."
-
One indicates a disagreement that (everyone witnessing it) can benefit from further discussion exploring said disagreement.
One indicates a, perhaps subconscious, refusal to engage with the ideas being presented. This actively hinders participants/audience attempts to gain useful knowledge/understanding from the discussion.
Here and everywhere, no one can think for someone else. If one does not make en effort to actively engage with and consider the arguments being presented to them, it's not possible to learn novel information from it. Meaning it's not possible to change ones opinion without first being open to honest discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the remaster has fixed this, no general feat gives you heavy armor proficiency that goes beyond Trained. You’d therefore have even less AC by opting into heavy armor that way.
The remaster fixed it, Armor Proficiency goes to Expert at 13 at the same time you got Expert in Medium Armor as a Barbarian. The only thing you lose is Master at 19.
As an academic Unicorn, I am not sure more studious barbarians are what we want in our schools and colleges. They do not take criticism well and their ability to concentrate is very moment to moment. We can, of course make accommodations as necessary, but raging in the classroom is very disruptive to the other students.We, studious Barbarians (I happen to play one), find that these arguments are getting old. Sure, we lack concentration but why are your schools so focused on academic work? Are you meant to all end up in a library?
Theory is important but practice is as much. Our ability to operate at peak efficiency even after bad nights and rough days is extremely valuable. Our excellent constitution and physical abilities allow us to bring knowledge where less physically focused students would never reach.
I think your academy should open up to more profiles. Some people create new knowledge, others use it. The former serve no purpose without the latter.
I am sympathetic to the desire to see schools have more practical applications, but (at least in American schools) I don't know if you can appreciate how terrifying it is to have students enter into a rage in the classroom, professors too for that matter.
I made my comment more as a light hearted joke, and I even had a really fun Spirit Barbarian MC witch character that played very effectively, getting the life boost focus spell, and doing most of the detecting magic/magic identification for the party, since there was no caster in the party. Her rage was reflavored to be spirit possession, and I think there are very fun ways to reflavor Rage, but it is a class mechanic that can require some narrative delicacy and party-wide cooperation to avoid one character shutting down choices for other players, like when the player of the barbarian insists that their character is just the hulk and always wants to smash everything in a party that isn't looking to do that. So I actually agree that it would be better if Barbarian characters didn't have to go through as much work to see the value of the INT attribute, as it might lead to more interesting variations on Barbarian builds mechanically and narratively, but I think the perception that you need 3 defensive stats is a little too strong as a root issue for INT being a little bit better to be seen as anything other than an attempt to trap players into tanking a save.
Like there is a raging thrower barbarian Alchemist build that I think could be a lot of fun, but I haven't had the opportunity to build it myself yet, and I don't think you really want more than a 14 INT to pull it off any well anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Her rage was reflavored to be spirit possession
This is no reflavor but plain RAW: "Whether you are emotionally sensitive to the spirits around you; worship ancestors or apparitions; or are haunted by the specter of an ancestor, relative, friend, or foe, your rage takes the form of a spiritual possession."
Spirit Barbarians don't "Rage", they are possessed.
it is a class mechanic that can require some narrative delicacy and party-wide cooperation to avoid one character shutting down choices for other players
Sorry, but that's a player issue you are describing. Barbarians don't have to be bossy and stupid.
I think the perception that you need 3 defensive stats is a little too strong as a root issue for INT being a little bit better to be seen as anything other than an attempt to trap players into tanking a save.
Heavy Armor Proficiency is now very easy to acquire, so you can increase INT without tanking anything. High Int Barbarian is a perfectly valid build (as a side note, high Cha Barbarian is also a perfectly valid one and quite a common one). And I'm not sure it's worse than the basic Str, Dex, Con, Wis Barbarian, it's mostly different.
Like there is a raging thrower barbarian Alchemist build that I think could be a lot of fun, but I haven't had the opportunity to build it myself yet, and I don't think you really want more than a 14 INT to pull it off any well anyway.
You don't really need Str on this build, so you should be able to increase Int every 5 levels. Unless you also want to have Str, but then you are trying to do a bit too many things at the same time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Various argumentsand rebuttals]
If a person can't make their point succinctly, then it's not a very good point.
There's a biiig difference between reading a comment to the effect of:
"You haven't adequately demonstrated that there's a problem."
. . . versus:
"I disagree that this is a problem."-
One indicates a disagreement that (everyone witnessing it) can benefit from further discussion exploring said disagreement.
One indicates a, perhaps subconscious, refusal to engage with the ideas being presented. This actively hinders participants/audience attempts to gain useful knowledge/understanding from the discussion.
Quite right. I apologize for my poor phrasing.
...before level 10, you won't feel it. If you haven't played it higher than level 10 you may still think it's a perfectly fine build.
I've played my "witch" all the way from level 1 up to level 12 pre-remaster as a sorcerer/wizard. Post Remaster she has been converted into a witch, where I've only played her at 12th-level.
I've played the intelligent barbarian up to level 15.
I've had a handful of other characters surpass level 10 as well, though I've never played higher than level 16 in anything other than one-shots.
So I do have some experience with high level play. In every case, among multiple play groups of varying play styles, online and off, PFS and private, I've only ever found one thing to be constant: the problems of Pathfinder 2e are always greatly exaggerated on these forums.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I do have some experience with high level play. In every case, among multiple play groups of varying play styles, online and off, PFS and private, I've only ever found one thing to be constant: the problems of Pathfinder 2e are always greatly exaggerated on these forums.
Well, I've never played a character who was not raising all its save stats past level 10, but I've heard about players who did and had issues with it and I've witnessed the difficulties of one player. So I think on that point it depends on the player, at least.
Now, I also agree with your feeling of exaggeration. Viability is a very personal concept and I know there are characters I wouldn't play and some players are having fun with them.
My first ever dnd character was roll 3d6 and stats were generated in order
Str dex con int wis cha.
Also done many different ways of rolling and assigning results since.
It can be fun but I like to have the whole party roll a separate array with 4d6 and let each player choose whichever stat array they want from all the resulting arrays.
Everyone roots for the next person to roll better than they did and no one feels like their bad luck ruined the concept they wanted.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the player finds their character fun and acceptable, and their table doesn't find it an issue, the character is effective - maxed KAS, high Int/high Cha, or whatever else.
That's it, there's really no argument one way or another. Because ultimately that's what the goal of the game is - to have fun with your friends. I've said it before, but usually I can point to one character in my own games that would be labeled as 'ineffective' here that plays perfectly fine, and just goes to show that there's no one way really to have fun here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the player finds their character fun and acceptable, and their table doesn't find it an issue, the character is effective - maxed KAS, high Int/high Cha, or whatever else.
That's it, there's really no argument one way or another. Because ultimately that's what the goal of the game is - to have fun with your friends. I've said it before, but usually I can point to one character in my own games that would be labeled as 'ineffective' here that plays perfectly fine, and just goes to show that there's no one way really to have fun here.
Ultimately, that's all I was trying to say.