|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you sure that innate ray of frost cantrip is nice to have when you also have a cha of +0?
Having the cantrip makes you versatile but not powerful with it.
If I decided to take Ray of Frost I'm probably going to raise Charisma. Oh woe is me, my fighter can now actually talk and intimidate people as well as just kill them.
If my character has a Cha of +0 a better example is likely the 2 handed weapon fighter with the shield cantrip.
But even if I have a Dex of +0 and a Cha of +0 the Ray of Frost has SOME advantages over a bow (more damage without money, no actions to swap weapons around).
you sure that innate ray of frost cantrip is nice to have when you also have a cha of +0?
Having the cantrip makes you versatile but not powerful with it.
If I decided to take Ray of Frost I'm probably going to raise Charisma. Oh woe is me, my fighter can now actually talk and intimidate people as well as just kill them.
If my character has a Cha of +0 a better example is likely the 2 handed weapon fighter with the shield cantrip.
But even if I have a Dex of +0 and a Cha of +0 the Ray of Frost has SOME advantages over a bow (more damage without money, no actions to swap weapons around).
Too bad you're either dumping strength or gimping your saves to do that.
Breath Fire, rank 1 spell, 2 actions, deals 2d6 in 15 foot cone, basic Ref. H+1: +2d6.
Fire Ray, a rank 1 Focus spell, 2 action, 2d6 fire on successful spell attack roll. H+1: +2d6.
Rejuvenating Flame, rank 1 Focus spell, 1d4 fire 15 ft cone, basic ref. H+1: 1d4.
Slot spell is objectively better, AoE v. Single Target, and save instead of spell attack roll, or average damage of 7 instead of 2.5/rank.
I'm not convinced any of this will be better than that same Fighter using those 2 actions to attack one foe twice or two foes once each.
Let's take a human Fighter with a stat array of Str +4, Dex +2, Con +2, Int +0, Wis +1, Cha +0 and give them a Maul. You could also give them a Greatsword or Katana and very little changes.
At level 1 they have the following options:
They can swing that Maul at +9/+4 to hit for 1d12+4 damage per swing.
They can also shoot a Shortbow at +7/+2 to hit for 1d6 damage per attack at 60ft range.
They can also throw a Javelin at +7/+2 to hit for 1d6+4 damage per attack at 30ft range.
They can also throw an Alchemist's Fire for +7/+2 to hit for 1d8 fire damage with persistence and splash at 20ft.
The magical options are:
Dragon Spit (Ignition) [Cantrip]: Two actions at +3 to hit for 2d4 fire damage at 30 ft range.
Breath Fire [Rank 1 Spell]: Two actions for a basic save at DC 13 for 2d6 fire damage in a 15ft cone.
Fire Ray [Rank 1 Focus Spell]: Two actions at +3 to hit for 2d6 fire damage.
Rejuvenating Flame [Rank 1 Focus Spell]: Two actions for a basic save at DC 13 for 1d4 fire damage in a 15ft cone.
Kobold Breath: Two actions for a basic save at DC 13 for 1d4 fire damage in a 15ft cone or 30ft line.
-----
As presented none of these are competitive with the other options available to an otherwise standard Fighter. Even if we added a +1 stat bonus from our Wisdom they simply aren't viable options.
Even if we warp our character to have Str +4, Dex +1, Cha +3 you aren't getting a good trade because of the cost to your saves and the poor scaling of these options.
TLDR; There's no way to make a fire-breathing Samurai's defining trick combat viable. It will always be a gimmick that has too large an opportunity cost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, "Wizard with a Halberd" is not going to be a very good character if you insist that they have to be a Wizard and not a Magus.
I mean, "Wizard with a Halberd" is not going to be a very good character if you insist that they have to be a Wizard and not a Magus.
There are plenty of systems where that would be a very good character. One of my biggest issues with PF2 is that it is rigid and requires bending character concepts to fit the system because the system itself is inflexible.
Too bad you're either dumping strength or gimping your saves to do that.I am not sure at this point what you are looking for. For sure you can't achieve max all saves with max str and max cha. Are you implying that the system ought to give you a way to do this? It almost sounds like what is disappointing you about the system is the very notion of build tradeoffs?
I'm fine with trade-offs if you get something worthwhile out of them. In this case, you can maximally invest in any of these options for -1 to each of your save stats and you get abilities that are worse than investing in throwing Alchemists Fire or putting a Flaming Rune on a ranged weapon. If I'm spending a feat and three stat increases on an option I need it to be competitive with what I can do without making that investment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, "Wizard with a Halberd" is not going to be a very good character if you insist that they have to be a Wizard and not a Magus.There are plenty of systems where that would be a very good character. One of my biggest issues with PF2 is that it is rigid and requires bending character concepts to fit the system because the system itself is inflexible.
Magus is quite literally the class for this. You can't really call something inflexible when you can make the concept perfectly fine but are just ignoring how to do that.
Like, systems have conceits and tradeoffs? I'm not sure what else to say. Even in supposed 'flexible' systems, I've always found conceits and constraints, because that's just how systems work.
Not every single possible concept ever conceived can be made down to the minutiae - some things are give and take.
I'm not convinced any of this will be better than that same Fighter using those 2 actions to attack one foe twice or two foes once each.And what's that got to do with Kelseus' post? They're not arguing that a spell will do better than a fighter hitting someone twice, they're pointing out how a spell slot does more average damage than a focus spell.
Can the javelin or alchemist fire even hit twice? I’d think that would require 4 actions total, not 3.
Or are you able to stow the maul and then pull out 2 thrown weapons with the same action? I thought that took 2, but willing to be proven wrong.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, funny thing happened this morning... well, about 15 minutes ago... anyway, my wife comes downstairs and starts freaking out and says, "Oh my god, I think I'm having a stroke... I smell toast. Oh god..." and then I walk up to her with a fresh piece of toast in my mouth like, "Oh no... where could the toast smell be coming from? Can you smile for me real quick?"
Good times.
Anyway, you can't be good at EVERYTHING. My wife, great at her job, not always the most perceptive person. Your fire-breathing samurai? Probably really great with their sword, not so great at the fire breathing.
Want to be better at fire breathing? Invest more in Charisma. Will this take an attribute bump or two away from other state? Sure. Will this murder your character? Probably not. Do it for the concept. Do it for the meme.
Maybe, instead of taking the Fire Breath feat, you could ask your GM about doing a Free Archetype to multiclass Kineticist? At least then your attack roll is based around Constitution.
Also, I take some issue with a few of the things you mentioned as being strictly better than the fire breath. Most of the time, sure, your short bow or javelin will be a better choice. But if there's a fire weakness then your breath may eke out a slight advantage. Sure it's an edge case and requires a specific confluence of events, but we are nothing if not pedantic.
Also also, what's wrong with being able to do something mediocrely? If you're talking to your GM and they know that you want to have fun with Cool Gimmick, then they should give you opportunities to use Cool Gimmick even if Cool Gimmick is sub-optimal. If you are instead playing a game that demands perfect tuning and precise optimization, that's not the place to fool around with Cool Gimmicks and Wacky Hijinx.
Why are so many people against having their characters fail around 20% of the time? If you're 100% effective, that is one of the most boring games in the world. I know this, because that's how my Crimson Throne game was. We were 6 highly tuned and optimized characters and we steamrolled everything. From Book 3 onward, there was minimal if any challenge.
Let your character be bad at stuff and do it anyway. As long as you're going to succeed about 80% of the time, the 20% failure rate stays fun, funny, and character building.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Too bad you're either dumping strength or gimping your saves to do that.
They're not dumping or gimping anything.
They're simply allocating their character resources in a manner that you wouldn't in your own characters.
I'm sick and tired of seeing these types of loaded badwrongfun buzzwords any time someone feels threatened by different playstyles.
Seems to me they've been on the rise as of late.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out something for heritages that give innate spells. The spells being tied to cha means you have to make a charismatic character to be good at them. You cant have made an intelligent one or a wise one and be good at the heritage spell. That is what is weirdly limiting to me.
And its not a problem for me personally, i usually make charismatic characters. But if i wanted to make a martial and invest in 1 mental stat for flavor and want to have heritage spells i am limited to making a character that is a good talker.
So yes there are many ways as some have shown to get to a concept, but heriitages that give magic can inly be a part of it if you are taking cha, or dont care about the stat contribution for what you pick up.
That is weirdly limiting to me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with trade-offs if you get something worthwhile out of them.Too bad you're either dumping strength or gimping your saves to do that.I am not sure at this point what you are looking for. For sure you can't achieve max all saves with max str and max cha. Are you implying that the system ought to give you a way to do this? It almost sounds like what is disappointing you about the system is the very notion of build tradeoffs?
Literally what trade-offs means is that you have to give up something in order to get something else. You don't seem to want to give up anything. So what you are describing isn't a trade-off.
I'm going to re-state something that I posted recently on a Starfinder2e discussion thread.
Pathfinder2e is built with the design concept of equivalent character power. You have options in character build, but the options do not provide more power - just different flavor.
It is not possible for the same game system to allow and support both 'my build choices make my character more powerful' and 'I can freely pick what I want to play and all of them will be equivalent in power'. That is not a false dichotomy. Those two design concepts are in fact mutually exclusive.
Because if one set of build options results in a character that is more powerful than a different set of build options, then the two builds are not equivalent in power.
So I am not saying that you can't want a game system that lets you build more powerful characters because of your system knowledge and choosing the right combinations of build options. I am saying that if that is what you want, then you need to find a different game system that will provide that for you. Pathfinder2e does not support that. One of the fundamental core design principles that it is built with is actively preventing you from doing it.
Pathfinder2e has a strict power ceiling. You cannot build a character more powerful than the limits. It is possible to build a character less powerful, though you usually have to deliberately try to do that. You can also build a character that is not powerful for the specific concept that you are trying to fill. But that aside, the reason for the power ceiling is so that the power floor is also solid. The characters and encounter designers are not in an arms race with the players where the players are trying to create ever more powerful characters to trivialize the encounters, and the encounter writers are having to create ever more powerful encounters to still challenge them - leaving those who don't minmax in the dust in the process. Without the power ceiling, the power floor would be left behind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly agree.
There is always going to be tension between wanting to take flavor/fun options, and picking Feats because you can tell at a glance they will be far stronger mechanically/mathematically.
--------------------
This doesn't just mean it'll be a negative experience where one begrudgingly takes the power feats.
When flavor is cool enough, people can and do choose it over minmaxing.
---------------------
But there is a limit.
Something like the innate attack cantrips are a perfect example. Their primary function is to be used offensively in combat.
They don't have to be perfectly competitive, but even when someone is quite interested in the flavor, the spells cannot be mathematically dead weight, stuck with a +0 stat, +0 proficiency. (ty for correction)
In general pf2e does a good job with allowing PCs to invest in useful, but not optimal flavor.
I do think the idea of a Feat to allow further investment to change innate spellcasting to key off a PC's alternative casting stat would be an appropriate way to allow for more flavor investment without hurting the balance.
It's not just martials, but if innate is stuck on CHA, then non-CHA casters will be tempted to minmax and put their Shield, ect onto those innate while keeping the save spells away. That's not fun.
The more that players can be encouraged to pick flavor over power, the better.
---------------------
It's a separate discussion, but IMO every spell that can really ought to be mechanically improved by casting proficiency/stat scaling. It's surprisingly pervasive just how big an arbitrary chasm there is between the offensive spells that need every +1 to stick to a foe, and all the others that "just work" at maximum power.
It leads to a lot of IMO unfun decision-making for PCs around spellcasting in general, and I don't think Paizo wants players to "give up" on offensive spells, nor do they want to mechanically reward support casters who ride the min stat and pump power elsewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder2e is built with the design concept of equivalent character power. You have options in character build, but the options do not provide more power - just different flavor.
I think you are right on this. But I will qualify it in that that is the goal of the game and not always the result. Not all options result in equivalent character power and that is the reason versatility is not power in all cases.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something like the innate attack cantrips are a perfect example. Their primary function is to be used offensively in combat.
They don't have to be perfectly competitive, but even when someone is quite interested in the flavor, the spells cannot be mathematically dead weight, stuck with a +0 stat, +0 proficiency.
Um... You get trained proficiency automatically with all innate spells. And in the Remaster, you also automatically get expert proficiency at 12th level.
And taking an innate spell feat while leaving your Charisma at +0 for your entire career is a build choice that should be a meaningful tradeoff.
But there is a limit.
Something like the innate attack cantrips are a perfect example. Their primary function is to be used offensively in combat.
They don't have to be perfectly competitive, but even when someone is quite interested in the flavor, the spells cannot be mathematically dead weight, stuck with a +0 stat, +0 proficiency.
Thank you. You made the point much better than i was going to.
I only think the investment of the heritage feat should be enough of an investment for it to get there rather than requiring more investment. If it takes more investment the character is falling further behind in power to make this heritage spell work and it should just work because of the initial feat you gave to get it.
Something like the innate attack cantrips are a perfect example. Their primary function is to be used offensively in combat.
They don't have to be perfectly competitive, but even when someone is quite interested in the flavor, the spells cannot be mathematically dead weight, stuck with a +0 stat, +0 proficiency.
Um... You get trained proficiency automatically with all innate spells. And in the Remaster, you also automatically get expert proficiency at 12th level.
And taking an innate spell feat while leaving your Charisma at +0 for your entire career is a build choice that should be a meaningful tradeoff.
Having trained is helpful. Having trained and getting to use your best mental stat at level 1 is better.
The discussion of tradeoffs starting already on heritage feats as if they are bound to any class and need to have tradeoffs to be balanced the same way a class feat would be is odd to me.The problem with them is they are bound to a stat and that is too restrictive. I dont think of heritage spells as being the thing good talkers only should get to have the advantage with. I think it should be something all casters should have the advantage with. at that point if you didnt raise any caster stat much well thats on you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And taking an innate spell feat while leaving your Charisma at +0 for your entire career is a build choice that should be a meaningful tradeoff.
I agree.
I also think it's inherently unfun for a player to plan out a socially-awkward Cleric, and when looking at the ancestries and backgrounds, find a cool way to get some divine flavored spell as an innate spell feature.
Perhaps even after the game starts, but they eventually learn that despite the +4 WIS in their spell stat, and the matching divine flavor, that innate spell instead scales off their +0 (or even maybe a -1) CHA stat.
With zero options for that character to address it.
IMO the opportunity cost of a General/Ancestry Feat (dang Humans making the two essentially one in the same) is enough, and if limited to mental stats (sry Kineticists) I can't see any OP dangers.
Broad option games like pf2e **thrive** on that kind of flexible viability, and I think it would be a great addition.
And I'll mention yet again that if your character concept involves a spellcaster swinging a katana, then the Weapon Proficiency feat gives trained as soon as you take the feat and expert at level 11 (a full level before innate spells get their proficiency boost!), and if you want to swing with an attribute modifier more than +0 you will have to boost your Strength because that is the only attribute option for it.
So yes, your wimpy bookworm spellcaster with a katana is going to be at a disadvantage when sword swinging because of your choice to not boost Strength. Just like a socially awkward Fighter with a Divine cantrip.
As right as you are that is something I am ready to accept like and see as balanced for katana use and at the same not feel the same about heritage innate spell casting for cha.
Also you have a lot of options for which weapon you can use with that feat and some are dex to hit and others are str.
No mater which cantrip you pick the stat is cha so its actually more limiting still.
I dont think of heritage spells as being the thing good talkers only should get to have the advantage with. I think it should be something all casters should have the advantage with. at that point if you didnt raise any caster stat much well thats on you.
Two thoughts on this.
One is that this is due to the multi-purpose nature of attributes. Charisma is the attribute used for social skills like diplomacy, but it isn't necessarily a representation of 'how good of a talker you are'.
Two is that on the martial side of things, you are effectively saying that it feels bad that Rogue can't use their Dex for accuracy and get sneak attack when using a Greatsword. You want a spellcaster to be able to pick up an off-tradition spell from an ancestry feat and then be able to use all of their class perks and benefits with it.
Also Finoan I don't think we disagree as much as it sounds since we had come to this point before in this thread. i think there is a middle point we both would find acceptable.
im not though. I accept the martial side of things as they are.
Also Finoan I don't think we disagree as much as it sounds since we had come to this point before in this thread. i think there is a middle point we both would find acceptable.
Yes. Especially for a particular character or a particular game.
For the general purpose rules there is the risk that allowing people to 'pick your best mental attribute' for innate spells will allow synergistic combination improvements in power that will raise the power ceiling and leave the power floor behind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
im not though. I accept the martial side of things as they are.
Actually a Rogue with a Katana is a great comparison.
Ruffian Rogue can sneak attack with a Katana when it is used 1-hand... Until it crits. Then it is questionable.
Should that Rogue be allowed to get both the increased die size from Deadly d8 and still keep their Sneak Attack damage that can only be used with d6 weapons?
For general rules, the rule is d6 weapons only. For a particular character in a particular game with a particular set of players at the table, it is probably fine to relax that rule a bit.
The same can be said for using CHA as your casting attribute for innate spells. For a particular character in a particular game with a particular set of players, it may be reasonable to allow a different stat for an innate spell.
You know, some of the other discussions in these threads got me to realize why Cha is the innate casting stat.
Other than skills it literally doesn't do anything outside of KAS.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced any of this will be better than that same Fighter using those 2 actions to attack one foe twice or two foes once each.And what's that got to do with Kelseus' post? They're not arguing that a spell will do better than a fighter hitting someone twice, they're pointing out how a spell slot does more average damage than a focus spell. Or are you trying to prove that a fighter is going to be better at fighting someone than breathing fire on them. If that's the case then ... I mean, yeah? They should be? If I want someone who's good at breathing fire I'll turn to a kineticist.
This exactly. You were arguing that a single feat should give a spell slot spell that auto-heightens like a cantrip. My point is that is a significant power boost over a cantrip or focus spell.
A clear design choice in P2, which the developers have stated multiple times, is that you shouldn't be able to steal another class's shtick and do it as well as them. Your fighter wants to cast spells? Great! It's easier then ever and you are still a good fighter while doing it. No you're not as good as a wizard at it, you're a fighter.
Just because all choices are not as strong as being super optimized does not make it bad or unfun.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, some of the other discussions in these threads got me to realize why Cha is the innate casting stat.
Other than skills it literally doesn't do anything outside of KAS.
It did more in the playtest with Resonance. But Resonance was overly punitive and people hated it so much that instead of walking it back to something more reasonable Paizo killed it with fire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It did more in the playtest with Resonance. But Resonance was overly punitive and people hated it so much that instead of walking it back to something more reasonable Paizo killed it with fire.You know, some of the other discussions in these threads got me to realize why Cha is the innate casting stat.
Other than skills it literally doesn't do anything outside of KAS.
PTSD triggered.
Resonance did do some really bonkers stuff. I think one of the worst was that you couldn't drink a healing potion if you had run out of resonance. Well... you could drink it... It just wouldn't heal you.
Though it has been long enough that I may be wrong on the details. And I definitely don't feel like going back and checking.
Edit: maybe wouldn't heal you. So you couldn't even just find a different way of healing or retreat from adventuring for the day when you run out of resonance. There was something about flat checks if you were out of resonance, so you were tempted to try drinking the potion anyway hoping that it would work. Again, I could be wrong on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't there a "What Would Resonance Look Like to You?" thread around, or something?
Now that you mention it, I do vaguely remember banning it from my conscious thought.
It did more in the playtest with Resonance. But Resonance was overly punitive and people hated it so much that instead of walking it back to something more reasonable Paizo killed it with fire.You know, some of the other discussions in these threads got me to realize why Cha is the innate casting stat.
Other than skills it literally doesn't do anything outside of KAS.PTSD triggered.
Resonance did do some really bonkers stuff. I think one of the worst was that you couldn't drink a healing potion if you had run out of resonance. Well... you could drink it... It just wouldn't heal you.
Though it has been long enough that I may be wrong on the details. And I definitely don't feel like going back and checking.
Edit: maybe wouldn't heal you. So you couldn't even just find a different way of healing or retreat from adventuring for the day when you run out of resonance. There was something about flat checks if you were out of resonance, so you were tempted to try drinking the potion anyway hoping that it would work. Again, I could be wrong on that.
They also wanted the alchemist to run of resonance, which was weird since the alchemist stopped being magical. I think that + item bonus progression dropping from +5 to +3 contributed to a weaker class at launch.
I'm not convinced any of this will be better than that same Fighter using those 2 actions to attack one foe twice or two foes once each.And what's that got to do with Kelseus' post? They're not arguing that a spell will do better than a fighter hitting someone twice, they're pointing out how a spell slot does more average damage than a focus spell. Or are you trying to prove that a fighter is going to be better at fighting someone than breathing fire on them. If that's the case then ... I mean, yeah? They should be? If I want someone who's good at breathing fire I'll turn to a kineticist.
I was never arguing that it wasn't better. I was arguing that even a more powerful option still wouldn't be viable for Fighter to use in combat.
-----
Magus is quite literally the class for this. You can't really call something inflexible when you can make the concept perfectly fine but are just ignoring how to do that.
Like, systems have conceits and tradeoffs? I'm not sure what else to say. Even in supposed 'flexible' systems, I've always found conceits and constraints, because that's just how systems work.
Not every single possible concept ever conceived can be made down to the minutiae - some things are give and take.
I don't want multiple spells. I want a character with a single magical trick that is powerful enough to be useful in combat and which has a cost to acquire that is on par with other options that the character could take.
-----
Can the javelin or alchemist fire even hit twice? I’d think that would require 4 actions total, not 3.
Or are you able to stow the maul and then pull out 2 thrown weapons with the same action? I thought that took 2, but willing to be proven wrong.
If you're not just stumbling into fights randomly and instead choose to scout you can start with a Javelin drawn, throw it, and then draw and throw another. 2 Attacks in 3 actions, which at level 2 with the Duelist Archetype becomes two attacks in 2 actions.
The same applies to any other thrown weapon and the bow.
If you're caught off guard you don't get to make two attacks in a round at level 1 but I'm still not convinced that any of the options are better than throwing a single Javelin at +7 to hit for 1d6+4 damage.
-----
Too bad you're either dumping strength or gimping your saves to do that.They're not dumping or gimping anything.
They're simply allocating their character resources in a manner that you wouldn't in your own characters.
I'm sick and tired of seeing these types of loaded badwrongfun buzzwords any time someone feels threatened by different playstyles.
Seems to me they've been on the rise as of late.
Objectively a Fighter with maxed strength and charisma is and will continue to be less effective than that same character with a more traditional array of stats.
-----
You said in your later reply that that you are fine with tradeoffs, but you're ignoring the biggest tradeoff in the game: class. Picking a class makes you better at some things for the opportunity cost at being worse at others.
I fundamentally disagree with how PF2 silos things by class. I vastly prefer games that include classes to allow full multiclassing so you can take precisely the ratio of classes that fit how you see your character. I prefer classless skill-based systems to even that however.
If you want a character more balanced between both, Magus, shapeshifting Druid, maybe summoner, maybe kineticist* are better choices.
I don't want that though. I want a Fighter with a single unique trick that is viable throughout his adventuring career. Spending a feat to get Ignition or Kobold Breath and then investing in them by pumping Charisma is always strictly worse than taking a generically good general feat. I'm merely asking for options to provide equal utility.
Now, you are absolutely right in pointing out that at low levels (1-4ish), spell dpr doesn't compare to weapon dpr. If you want to argue that cantrips should start with a higher floor across the board (i.e. for everyone, regardless of class or how they got the cantrip), I'm all ears. I see little problem with making them 3d4 Heightened +1 (1d4) instead of 2d4 etc... I think a lot of people on these boards would agree with you there. But if you are asking for a single 1st level Fighter feat that allows a fighter to do about the same as d12+4 damage per 1 action magical spell-like damage (and then keeps up with their weapon dpr as they level!) using the logic "hey, that's what she does with her weapon and so to make her fire breath a viable combat option it must give her the same," no I strongly disagree with that. That would make her a better caster than actual casters.
You have one spell, a first-rank spell, that requires stat investment to function. A Wizard or Sorcerer could heighten 1st-rank spells into 9th-rank slots but will never choose to do so because it is a terrible idea to do so.
You're also a Fighter so would only have a single focus point gained by taking this hypothetical fire-breathing feat. You'd need to invest at least 1 more feat to use it more than once per combat. Which is throwing good money after bad.
-----
Literally what trade-offs means is that you have to give up something in order to get something else. You don't seem to want to give up anything. So what you are describing isn't a trade-off.
There isn't anything a Fighter can do to make any of these proposed fire-breathing builds better than buying Alchemist's Fire and taking Duelist at level 2 to Quick Draw them.
It is not possible for the same game system to allow and support both 'my build choices make my character more powerful' and 'I can freely pick what I want to play and all of them will be equivalent in power'. That is not a false dichotomy. Those two design concepts are in fact mutually exclusive.
I prefer games that provide freedom. I can work with my players to ensure that all their characters can thrive and contribute.
Pathfinder2e has a strict power ceiling. You cannot build a character more powerful than the limits. It is possible to build a character less powerful, though you usually have to deliberately try to do that. You can also build a character that is not powerful for the specific concept that you are trying to fill. But that aside, the reason for the power ceiling is so that the power floor is also solid. The characters and encounter designers are not in an arms race with the players where the players are trying to create ever more powerful characters to trivialize the encounters, and the encounter writers are having to create ever more powerful encounters to still challenge them - leaving those who don't minmax in the dust in the process. Without the power ceiling, the power floor would be left behind.
I don't think that a single scaling Rank 1 spell can break the game the way you're claiming it will. Except for the hypothetical Wizard who prepares only Magic Missile in every slot to top DPS charts nobody is willingly heightening Rank 1 spells into Rank 9 slots.
Now you might try to compare this to focus spells. Focus spells are already completely uneven in their utility with some being powerful all-day options and others leaving you questioning how many characters will cast them thrice in a campaign let alone a single day. I don't think a scaling 1st rank spell pushes things so far beyond what already exists that it threatens the foundations of the game.
-----
This exactly. You were arguing that a single feat should give a spell slot spell that auto-heightens like a cantrip. My point is that is a significant power boost over a cantrip or focus spell.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I don't find it to be an issue.
A clear design choice in P2, which the developers have stated multiple times, is that you shouldn't be able to steal another class's shtick and do it as well as them. Your fighter wants to cast spells? Great! It's easier then ever and you are still a good fighter while doing it. No you're not as good as a wizard at it, you're a fighter.
It's a good thing that a Wizard is more than just a single heightened Rank 1 spell cast a few times per day.
-----
They also got the size of the splash wrong, it's fifteen feet rather than twenty, and of course we'd still be wondering how they're juggling all the hypothetical weapons, or why a fighter who is ostensibly a samurai or similar is rocking a maul (Not saying a samurai couldn't, of course), but I didn't see much point in calling any of that out since that isn't the point of their post.
20 feet is the range increment to throw the Alchemist's Fire. I listed it in the same way as I did range for the Bow and Javelin, I don't know how that confused you...
I mean it was also just needing to rush out the class because the mechanic they were built around was removed.
Paizo needs to put a system in place to prevent this as it happened to both the Alchemist and the Witch and it's unacceptable for a company as balanced focused as Paizo to release stuff that is so far below par.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the thing PF2 decidedly does not do well is "enforce self-imposed limitations on the systems level." There's no way to build a character who is really good at climbing but cannot swim, since Athletics covers both activities. You can choose to roleplay your character as being unable to swim, but if you character sheet says "Legendary Athletics" then you'd be Michael Phelps if you applied yourself.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fundamentally disagree with how PF2 silos things by class. I vastly prefer games that include classes to allow full multiclassing so you can take precisely the ratio of classes that fit how you see your character. I prefer classless skill-based systems to even that however.
Serious question: why play Pathfinder 2e then? Why not one of those other systems?
I mean they have, its making books with less classes. After the APG I think gunslinger is the only class that get discussions about its power level (which honestly is probably more about reload weapon balancing than anything). Some of them get complaints, e.g inventor doesn't get a lot of support outside of guns and gears, people want summoner to be better at casting summon spells, but not really in a this class is bad way.I mean it was also just needing to rush out the class because the mechanic they were built around was removed.Paizo needs to put a system in place to prevent this as it happened to both the Alchemist and the Witch and it's unacceptable for a company as balanced focused as Paizo to release stuff that is so far below par.
They haven't messed up an entire class that badly since, but the Remaster is still rushed and the new Wizard schools are a nerf to the class so they haven't entirely solved the issue.
-----
I fundamentally disagree with how PF2 silos things by class. I vastly prefer games that include classes to allow full multiclassing so you can take precisely the ratio of classes that fit how you see your character. I prefer classless skill-based systems to even that however.Serious question: why play Pathfinder 2e then? Why not one of those other systems?
For the most part, I don't play it. I wasn't aware I had to have enjoyed the game enough to continue playing to post here.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean they have, its making books with less classes. After the APG I think gunslinger is the only class that get discussions about its power level (which honestly is probably more about reload weapon balancing than anything). Some of them get complaints, e.g inventor doesn't get a lot of support outside of guns and gears, people want summoner to be better at casting summon spells, but not really in a this class is bad way.I mean it was also just needing to rush out the class because the mechanic they were built around was removed.Paizo needs to put a system in place to prevent this as it happened to both the Alchemist and the Witch and it's unacceptable for a company as balanced focused as Paizo to release stuff that is so far below par.They haven't messed up an entire class that badly since, but the Remaster is still rushed and the new Wizard schools are a nerf to the class so they haven't entirely solved the issue.
-----
I fundamentally disagree with how PF2 silos things by class. I vastly prefer games that include classes to allow full multiclassing so you can take precisely the ratio of classes that fit how you see your character. I prefer classless skill-based systems to even that however.Serious question: why play Pathfinder 2e then? Why not one of those other systems?For the most part, I don't play it. I wasn't aware I had to have enjoyed the game enough to continue playing to post here.
You're not required to, but a lot of people won't take you seriously at this point. Why should people care about your opinion? You're the embodiment of a square peg in a round hole. It is fine to be square, but you keep demanding the round hole be made square instead of enjoying one of the many nice round holes out there.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So question: how do you have enough information to comment on how "unacceptable" and "below par" the balance of multiple classes is in play if you basically don't play yourself?
Or is this yet another person armchair theorizing and feeling they know best?