| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Sure, but only at the things you deem important. However, the character will be better at the things the creating player deems important to them.
You really gotta dial back the negative buzzwords dude. You're not doing yourself any favors by describing everything in terms of absolutes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, like my fiancée is playing a Rogue with Eldritch Trickster Racket (Psychic) and Lore Oracle Free Archetype all because it fits her roleplay - she's not the 'best' in combat - and she doesn't care at all about that, my Exemplar alone counts for like two martials with the insane damage I do - but no one can even hope to match her I Know Things ability.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing is that granularity leads to complexity (what if instead of 16 non-lore skills, we had 48 and you had three times as many skill ups?). But complexity by itself is a net-negative. Some complexity makes the game more interesting, but that's because the complexity in question creates depth, and depth is interesting.
I'm not sure if catering to "I want to be a warrior with exactly one magic trick that is offensive in nature and just as strong as my other options" is something that it's honestly worth the effort to enable. Like there's plenty of concepts for characters that I wanted to play that don't really well in the rules (e.g. monk with a polearm, crossbow inventor, gun sorcerer) but the point is not "can you play any concept you can think of" but "are there enough viable character concepts for you to have fun with the game."
The thing about a max STR and CHA fighter is that in addition to whatever cantrips you picked up from innate spells being rad, is that you can also put together a pretty spiffy intimidation build- go get yourself Dazzling Display!
So I think you have to ditch this idea that you're merely asking for one small feat that will add this incidental conceptual bit to your character and not impact game balance. That's not at all what this feat would do. The notion of a 'single feat' that would make a level 1 fighter be able to spell-blast equivalent to their d12+STR 1a strike is a fundamental design shift. In that respect, I don't think you're going to get such a thing officially. Ever. My advice for you is to homebrew it because that's the only way it's going to happen. Like it or not, PF2E is simply NOT a 'point-build-to-anything' ttrpg system. The devs don't want it to be, and from my limited understanding of the feedback you get on these fora, most of the vocal/active player base doesn't want it to be that either.
I think any character should have that ability. I don't understand the whole idea of niche protection. If you want your niche protected that's an easy rule zero conversation to have and most groups will make reasonable accommodations to ensure you get to shine in your area of expertise.
"Merely" is a complete misnomer. You're asking for a massively powerful 1st level feat. One that lets a noncaster create a cantrip blast that starts out doing more damage than any current cantrip, that continues to grow in damage without any further investment, and also continues to increase in effective proficiency rank again without any further feat investment (i.e. because you want it to stay viable as the PC levels). Allowing such feats completely breaks the magic system. There would largely be no need for casters at all if a single 1st level martial feat gives a "one and done for my whole career" magical blast attack. In that case, everyone could just be martials and take a 3-body feat any time they wanted a spell.
There are plenty of feats available at low levels that scale exactly this well. Fleet, Toughness, Titan Wrestler, and Incredible Initiative are all General Feats that stay powerful through a character's entire career. Sudden Charge and Reactive Shield are evergreen feats for their respective builds.
So why are these things cool but a scaling spell isn't?
Caster archetypes spread out proficiency gains over 3 feats at level 2 (trained), 12 and 18 and never give legendary. But AIUI you want all three given (incrementally, as the PC levels) in this single 1st level fighter feat. And you want the increments to be 1 (expert), 5 (master), 13 (legendary) to keep up with Fighter to-hit bonuses.
It doesn't have to keep up with the to-hit numbers of this character's melee attack, it just has to be close enough and scale well enough to be worth the action cost.
And you want to avoid investing in a caster stat but still get the full attack bonus.
I never said that. I pointed out that, as things stand, such an investment for extant options does not provide enough of a benefit to be worthwhile.
Plus you want the damage of the cantrip to increase equivalent to a runed d12 weapon.
I compared it at level 1 to weapons without runes and the options, mostly, didn't stack up well even against a short bow which has double the range and doesn't require having two actions to be useful. Unless enemies are grouping up so it's easy to catch 3 or more in a 15ft cone and you've invested into Charisma even Fire Breath, which people are saying is too good, doesn't compare overly well to making a couple of Javelin attacks and to get that close to parity you need to subtract -1 from all of your save stats.
Even at level 17 with automatic scaling, +5 Charisma, and using Fighter class proficiency, I'm not convinced a DC 36 basic save against 18d6 fire damage in a 15 ft cone is going to be worth 2-actions. Not when Sudden Charge + Crashing Slam at +33/+28 to hit is on the table dealing 3d12+13+3d6 per hit.
There is nothing "merely" about that. You are talking about a single 1st level martial feat that does the things an entire archetype feat sequence does, does them better than the full archetype sequence, and also throws in a few other benefits no archetype sequence can do.
You have zero flexibility because you get one Rank 1 spell that automatically heightens and gives you a focus point to cast it with. That is worth significantly less than the utility that one would normally be seeking with a full caster archetype.
Sure, but only at the things you deem important. However, the character will be better at the things the creating player deems important to them.
You really gotta dial back the negative buzzwords dude. You're not doing yourself any favors by describing everything in terms of absolutes.
I say this as a very player-friendly GM. You can make a player's build feel amazing by catering to their strengths without making them jump through hoops to track down every plus to their "thing" but you can't make a player feel good when they constantly fail saves or get hit by things because they've neglected their defenses. If I saw a player at my table investing heavily into Charisma with their Fighter because they wanted to be good at something I'd find a way to allow them to be good at that thing without nerfing their saves.
TLDR; A fighter that has maximized their Charisma to make a gimmick work is going to be worse than one that hasn't and their GM should work with them to make their character effective at that gimmick without making them hurt their saves.
The other thing is that granularity leads to complexity (what if instead of 16 non-lore skills, we had 48 and you had three times as many skill ups?). But complexity by itself is a net-negative. Some complexity makes the game more interesting, but that's because the complexity in question creates depth, and depth is interesting.
Complexity isn't a net negative. It allows for granularity and fine-tuning which is highly desirable in a TTRPG. The constant simplification of skills and character-build options makes 5e and PF2 objectively less interesting games than PF1 and D&D3.5 even as their better balance makes them more playable.
You can have the complexity without the worst excesses if that is your goal.
I'm not sure if catering to "I want to be a warrior with exactly one magic trick that is offensive in nature and just as strong as my other options" is something that it's honestly worth the effort to enable. Like there's plenty of concepts for characters that I wanted to play that don't really well in the rules (e.g. monk with a polearm, crossbow inventor, gun sorcerer) but the point is not "can you play any concept you can think of" but "are there enough viable character concepts for you to have fun with the game."
I find this concept of "enough" to be a failure of class-based rules-heavy TTRPGs. I want to be able to build a character that fits my vision without being told that I can have flavor or effectiveness but not both.
The thing about a max STR and CHA fighter is that in addition to whatever cantrips you picked up from innate spells being rad, is that you can also put together a pretty spiffy intimidation build- go get yourself Dazzling Display!
How does that help when you're now failing saves, down on HP, and could have simply taken Intimidating Prowess to negate the need for maximized Charisma?
PF2 is not a hard game. I have a player that doesn't always maximize combat stats, they do just fine. They like skills and being the skill guy who gets to roll on non-combat stuff, do crafting, and the like. I can work with that as a DM. If that's how the player has fun, let them and work it in.
I have very strong opinions about the NFL and everyone should listen to me about it. No, I don't play in the NFL or work for it. No, I don't even enjoy watching football. But you should listen to me anyway and make the sport more to my liking...
Hey, where's everybody going?
You picked a bad example because one could easily watch the CFL, XFL, or College Football instead and may well vocally wish that the NFL adopted specific rules from those leagues instead. I'm not that passionate about football but I do watch the CFL, XFL, and NFL and can spot things that each league could steal from the others to make a more interesting product.
Being a massive hockey fan I can say that half of what a sports fan does is complain about things the league does that displeases them. Everything from refereeing, to rule changes, to player discipline can and will be complained about. That's just the nature of being a sports fan.
If you were a sports fan you might understand that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with trade-offs if you get something worthwhile out of them.
At this point I have to assume that you aren't arguing in good faith. Either that or we are at such a fundamentally different understanding of the English language that we are unable to communicate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does that help when you're now failing saves, down on HP, and could have simply taken Intimidating Prowess to negate the need for maximized Charisma?
It's not really as bad as all that. The general consensus around here has long been that Fighters don't need to bump Dexterity... they can simply get +3 against damaging Reflex effects with Bulwark and that's good enough.
So, you bump Str, Con, Wis & Charisma every chance you get and you have some fun with those build possibilities and you call it a day.
How does that help when you're now failing saves, down on HP, and could have simply taken Intimidating Prowess to negate the need for maximized Charisma?It's not really as bad as all that. The general consensus around here has long been that Fighters don't need to bump Dexterity... they can simply get +3 against damaging Reflex effects with Bulwark and that's good enough.
So, you bump Str, Con, Wis & Charisma every chance you get and you have some fun with those build possibilities and you call it a day.
To max Charisma Constitution and Wisdom are still lower than they otherwise would be. If you just want to put your free boosts into it then your Charisma-based abilities end up even further behind.
I'm really not seeing the problem here. +4 Str/+3 Cha/+1 Con/+1 Wis you'll end up with +5 Str/+4 Cha/+3 Con/+3 Wis by Level 10. That's pretty solid. +5 Str/+5 Cha/+4 Con/+4 Wis by L15... I'd be happy with that spread.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing is that granularity leads to complexity (what if instead of 16 non-lore skills, we had 48 and you had three times as many skill ups?). But complexity by itself is a net-negative. Some complexity makes the game more interesting, but that's because the complexity in question creates depth, and depth is interesting.Complexity isn't a net negative. It allows for granularity and fine-tuning which is highly desirable in a TTRPG. The constant simplification of skills and character-build options makes 5e and PF2 objectively less interesting games than PF1 and D&D3.5 even as their better balance makes them more playable.
Just because you do not like the game does not make it "objectively less interesting".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember back in my D&D3.5 days that the GM that we played with also only valued combat. Combat that felt like an old-school Final Fantasy game where the enemies would line up on one side of the screen and the party would line up on the other side and they would take turns throwing damage at each other until one side lost.
That's probably why I gave up playing TTRPGs from 2006 until finding the Pathfinder Card Game of Skulls & Shackles in 2018 and then went to see what other fun games this 'Paizo' company was creating...
| 2 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?
It's not like I haven't played and GMed the system before and see struggle bus classes in action. I played right at launch with one of my players rolling up a pre-errata Alchemist in Fall of Plaguestone. It was not a good time and even once we applied the errata he still felt useless in that AP. I've played alongside a Gunslinger and watched them struggle against foes he couldn't easily roll crits against. I never saw a Witch because nobody I knew would touch the class pre-remaster.
I don't need to continue playing the system because I've already seen its flaws in action and they're the same flaws people keep pointing out on this forum and on Reddit.
So you've seen precisely two examples and clearly it's because of inherent flaws in the system.
I've seen a druid be unimpressive because he prepared very questionable spells and spent a lot of time with a melee weapon. But yes, clearly this is representative of all casters and I should be yelling about how casters suck and can't do things in play.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why even have classes, everyone should be able to do everything!
Sarcasm aside, I love some of the point based games out there. In many ways I prefer Mutants and Masterminds to Pathfinder (even for some fantasy)
But Pathfinder is also a great system and in many ways I prefer it to Mutants and Masterminds. They both scratch different itches.
Pathfinder most certainly isn't for all games or for all players. I strongly suspect that 3BP would be happier with some other system or with hugely modifying PF2.
3BP : if you've never checked it out I sincerely suggest you look at Mutants & Masterminds (I personally prefer the 2nd edition).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just weird to me that we have this significant tangent about how a fighter isn't good enough with an innate cantrip from their ancestry, despite the remaster making them objectively better with an innate cantrip from their ancestry than they were in the original version of PF2.
I guess it's sort of the same thing as "the ruffian can now sneak attack with more weapons, but apparently not enough more weapons."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Complexity isn't a net negative. It allows for granularity and fine-tuning which is highly desirable in a TTRPG. The constant simplification of skills and character-build options makes 5e and PF2 objectively less interesting games than PF1 and D&D3.5 even as their better balance makes them more playable.You can have the complexity without the worst excesses if that is your goal.
Counter example 1: FATAL. (Please do not look this up if you are not already aware of it.)
Counter example 2: AD&D.
Both examples have tons of granularity which provides absolutely no improvement to the game. In AD&D's case, for instance, Haste aging the target by 1 year and having a material component of licorice root does not make it more "interesting". The weapon tables of AD&D do not allow for more "desirable fine-tuning".
And before you attempt to say something to the effect of No True Granularity, I don't think you can prove that skill simplification and weapon simplification are meaningfully different.
Is that how you see yourself? I am pretty sure that NOT all players would agree. Based only on your postings here ( and so conceivably incorrect) I'm virtually certain that I would NOT find you player friendly. I'm pretty sure that I'd find you dictatorial and insisting that I play the game YOUR way and be constantly complaining about the badwrongfun I was having.
As a GM I view my role as a facilitator of player fun and encourage my players to create as much, if not more, of the plot than I do. I tend to be loose and improvisational in my GMing style so I fund myself preferring 5e because I can easily eyeball things or ignore rules where it suits the flow of gameplay. I also allow creative interpretations of rules with the understanding that if the PCs can do it so can their foes.
It's as a player that I will ride my GM hard and generally be a bit of a spotlight hog. I don't mean to but it's hard to adjust to how other GMs rule things and how unprepared a lot of less experienced GMs can be when you don't follow their script exactly.
Counter example 1: FATAL. (Please do not look this up if you are not already aware of it.)
Complexity isn't a net negative. It allows for granularity and fine-tuning which is highly desirable in a TTRPG. The constant simplification of skills and character-build options makes 5e and PF2 objectively less interesting games than PF1 and D&D3.5 even as their better balance makes them more playable.You can have the complexity without the worst excesses if that is your goal.
If I could convince anybody to read the rules I would run it as a one-shot just to see if it plays as badly as it reads.
Counter example 2: AD&D.
Both examples have tons of granularity which provides absolutely no improvement to the game. In AD&D's case, for instance, Haste aging the target by 1 year and having a material component of licorice root does not make it more "interesting". The weapon tables of AD&D do not allow for more "desirable fine-tuning".
AD&D has less granularity than most modern games because, by default, it doesn't even use skills or weapon proficiency. It's quirky and I like how stats aren't just +1 to a bunch of things bit it's also dated and all but requires splatbooks and houserules to run.
And before you attempt to say something to the effect of No True Granularity, I don't think you can prove that skill simplification and weapon simplification are meaningfully different.
You picked bad examples. AD&D isn't particularly detailed or granular for a modern TTRPG that isn't a rules light it's just from a different age and isn't very tightly writen with lots of fluff and ambiguity.
Fatal would be bad no matter what rules it used because it seems to be writen from a deeply racist and sexist place. The issue with fatal starts with the fluff and doesn't stop until you close the rulebook.
How about we pick an example that is neither out dated by 20+ years nor hateful.
The Riddle of Steel.
It is complex, deadly, and detailed to the point where many tables wouldn't enjoy it, but it uses it's details for a purpose. It wants to be a hand to hand combat simulator and, a few balance quibbles aside, does so very decently.
It's also spawned successors that each want to take what it did and put their own spin on them.
I think it is an example of how complexity can be very good for doing something well even if that thing is niche.
|
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.
You mean a Runelord? (The archetype gives Polearm proficiency to the Wizard and insists that it's like their symbol of office.)
Not that I'm ever daft enough to *swing* it mind you -- it's just there to confuse people, and occasionally provide flanking. And eventually you can merge it with a staff.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I was making my fighter, I almost took the Dragon Spit feat. I just thought it would be pretty cool and fun to be a fire-breathing samurai. Thank goodness I picked something else, or I'd be...I then tried to find out what it would take to make such a character work to my satisfaction and people started getting upset.
You weren't trying to get the 'character' to work. You want a specific combination of game mechanics to work. That is different.
The character works fine. Several suggestions have been put forward that do work. Many that work quite well.
When I was making my fighter, I almost took the Dragon Spit feat. I just thought it would be pretty cool and fun to be a fire-breathing samurai. Thank goodness I picked something else, or I'd be...I then tried to find out what it would take to make such a character work to my satisfaction and people started getting upset.You weren't trying to get the 'character' to work. You want a specific combination of game mechanics to work. That is different.
The character works fine. Several suggestions have been put forward that do work. Many that work quite well.
They don't work to my satisfaction. If they work to yours then you are welcome to enjoy such builds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You picked bad examples. AD&D isn't particularly detailed or granular for a modern TTRPG that isn't a rules light it's just from a different age and isn't very tightly writen with lots of fluff and ambiguity.
You literally insisted that skill simplification made the game objectively less interesting. Hence, anyone reading this would understand that by that logic, complexity/granularity is interesting by default.
But I specifically pulled out the weapon system for a reason. There is absolutely no fluff or ambiguity there - it is literally a table of how good each weapon type is against each AC bonus.
It is dated in exactly the same way that 3.5's skill system is.
Just to clear the air a bit and offer a chance to chime in on a specific point of reference:
ATM, many ancestries and some backgrounds offer innate spells. By default, this is locked to scaling off CHA. This does mean that certain *classes* are more incentivized to take ancestries and those feats, while non-CHA classes are presently discouraged from taking them. To restate my prior theoretical example, the low CHA, socially awkward divine blooded cleric, who has no way to get their innate spells to be combat viable without breaking that stat-related RP. A +-1 is "fine", yes. A -4 or -5? Not so much.
----------------------
Innate spells already require a serious investment of an ancestry Feat.
Would you personally want to see added, or wish to block, the addition of a universal ancestry Feat "Mental Prowess" that only alters the innate casting stat from CHA to either INT or WIS, locked upon taking the Feat?
-----------------------
Everything is in comparison, tradeoff, ect. Is that potential Feat too disrupting to the idea of niche protection/ consequences of decisions, or is that type of flexible build enabler in harmony with pf2e's existing Archetype-friendly design philosophy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are lots of builds that exist in the sense of "a collection of mechanics" or "a theme we've tried to fit mechanics to" that aren't going to be all that satisfying to many players. I'm not sure that's really a problem if those players can find something else they do find satisfying.
Like "Gun Bard" like in "El Mariachi" is not really a thing you can make work well in PF2- reload weapons really don't slot nicely into the bard chassis. Likewise "totally unarmored barbarian who just shrugs off damage" is something you see in a lot of fiction, but something that works poorly in PF2 unless your teammates really love healing you.
Some concepts really need to be implemented at the "new rules" systems level, and there's only so much page space to do that in unless you homebrew. The people writing the books are going to put in the themes and mechanics that they think people are interested in, which will never be all of them.
Like since M&M came up, it would be fine if that game decided that you can't be Superman (too powerful) or Batman (since you're fighting people with actual superpowers) and just let people fill in between, they might have even ended up with a cleaner game by trying to narrow what is possible. But since those characters are incredibly popular, they made a different choice.
But clearly you already knew it wouldn't work to your satisfaction, because you told us that PF2E should - your word, 'should' - allow this. Implying you know it doesn't. And you asked for the creation of a feat that doesn't exist in order to make the character work. Again, implying you know that without a new feat, it won't work.
Yes, and... I was opening up a wider discussion about why cantrips have to be weak by showing how an outrageously overpowered feat still has trouble keeping up with a pretty basic fighter build. People read that as me wanting to figure out how PF2 works rather than simply taking it at face value as a conversation about why PF2 does or doesn't support certain options.
In addition to which, it would've been simple to ask "is there a RAW feat I can take as a Fighter, at level 1, which allows me to blast a fire cantrip that hits about as accurately as my fighter hits with a weapon and does comparable damage to d12+4 twice per round."
That's not the conversation I was aiming to have though.
***
Now. There are many firebreathing samurai concepts that the game can answer yes to. Like:
1. Can PF2E build this level 1 fighter without the limit of "fire attack must be comparable to fighter weapon strike"? Yes. Several ways. We gave them to you. How about, instead:
2. "Can PF2E build this with the 'lvl 1' and 'comparable attacks' requirements in place but with the fighter restriction removed?" Why yes. Druid, Magus, and Kineticist might all work for this. How about, instead:
3. "Can PF2E build this with both the fighter and comparable restrictions in place, but it can be at a higher level?" Answer: probably. I haven't done the analysis but...
I don't care about the hypothetical character that I borrowed from another user's post as an example. I am not interested in the specifics aside from as a seed to hang ideas on. The real question at the heart of things is, "Why does PF2 fight so hard to avoid giving characters single specific unique strengths that define them?" I'm not talking about Niche protection or the Fighter's +2 to hit. I'm talking about a mechanically satisfying answer to the question, "What is your character's unique ability?"
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
FATAL is objectively an interesting game even if it isn't a good game or a game people should support financially.
People who have never even opened the rules for the game know about the mythical terror that is FATAL. That is objectively an interesting thing for a TTRPG to have accomplished.
The constant simplification of skills and character-build options makes 5e and PF2 objectively less interesting games than PF1 and D&D3.5 even as their better balance makes them more playable.
...objectively...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You even got PossibleCabbage, Kelseus, and Cyouni doing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Subjectively, it seems like everyone’s questions about cantrips and why they are balanced where they are has been thoroughly, and subjectively, answered. Yes?