Ranger is faaaaar away from being the second most action efficient class in the game.
You're right, it's the third. Summoner, Monk and then Ranger.
There are a ton of (sub)classes that tend to get an effective 4 or more actions per turn reliably.
I think you don't understand what action economy means. Reloading and drawing are action taxes, reloading or drawing for free is not getting an extra action it's removing a tax. No action gain there. And I don't see your point with the Magus doing 3 actions with... 3 actions.
The Ranger is one of the very few classes who can make 2 attacks and a 2-action activity. Well, one of the 3 classes, roughly. It has the third best action economy in the game.
And Reactions are not "action economy". They are trigger-based so you can't control them entirely. And the Ranger also has a Reaction like everyone else, so no change there. Reaction-based builds exist, but they are very party/enemy dependent as there's no reaction-based build that just work in a vacuum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hence it is puzzling that Ranger wasn't updated to this extent.
Yep Ranger is now the weakest martial class in PC1/2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I am concerned, those examples very much count. The balancing of those weapons assumes those extra actions. When you get them for free in addition to doing something else, that is a gain just like anything else.
And Magus Spellstrike turns are 4 actions - 2 Cast a Spell, 1 Strike, and 1 extra (Recharge for sustainable Spellstrike turns). If you really want more action efficiency, you can even use Force Fang for 5 actions every turn in a normal fight.
For reactions you have more of a point, granted, but there are quite a few reactions that are close enough to not make a major difference or whose pure existence is enough. Fake Out is the best example of the former, with Nimble Doge not being too far off. Reactive Strike and its Fighter upgrades is an example for the latter. The Ranger's reaction is very much in the "too unreliable" camp outside of solo enemy fights.
Hence it is puzzling that Ranger wasn't updated to this extent.Yep Ranger is now the weakest martial class in PC1/2.
I wouldn't go that far without seeing the full picture.
I think the easiest way to describe a barbarian's rage is like stoicism but somewhat in reverse; you learn how to control your emotions to overcome obstacles. Like Deriven said, pretty much all your barbarians from fiction had their own "learn how to control rage" arc. A very unorthodox example of someone that uses their emotions to fight but isn't a dumb himbo would be siths from Star Wars, who even look to be perfectly stoic most of the time.
The only real problem I have is that I don't really understand why Paizo felt the need to buff a class that certainly didn't need these buffs (except for the 1/minute rage restriction) but at the same time left the ranger pretty much ontouched from its original CRB self (with a few exceptions here and there) when, if anything, the class that needed these changes the most was the ranger and not the barbarian.
As far as I am concerned, those examples very much count. The balancing of those weapons assumes those extra actions.
No weapon is better because you draw them. I don't count "having one's weapon at hand" as a free action every round because you don't have to draw it.
As for reloading weapons, they are plain bad. If you don't have a way to somehow remove or alleviate the action tax of reloading them then you just don't take them.And Magus Spellstrike turns are 4 actions - 2 Cast a Spell, 1 Strike, and 1 extra (Recharge for sustainable Spellstrike turns).
Spellstrike is 3 actions: 2 to cast a spell and 1 to Strike. If you manage to use a Conflux Spell you can get to 4 actions but most Conflux Spells interact with MAP so it's more of a waste of actions than top-notch action economy. Only Force Fang works to get you 4 actions out of your turn. Unless you tell me that all Maguses take Force Fang, I think we can dismiss the Magus as having excellent action economy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hence it is puzzling that Ranger wasn't updated to this extent.Yep Ranger is now the weakest martial class in PC1/2.
It sure has a shot for the spot, it remains to see what the alchemist, investigator and swashbuckler are like
|
And Magus Spellstrike turns are 4 actions - 2 Cast a Spell, 1 Strike, and 1 extra (Recharge for sustainable Spellstrike turns).Spellstrike is 3 actions: 2 to cast a spell and 1 to Strike.
? The Strike is part of the two-action activity. Spellstrike is 3 actions for 2 actions.
Recharging Spellstrike is the tax that evens that back out, so I’m not saying Magus has good action economy. But you start combat with Spellstrike charged, and there are ways to combine recharging with a conflux spell. It’s possible to squeeze some extra actions out.
Throw the stance into things, though, and you either have to ignore that, or Magus’s action economy starts to feel poor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes in PF2E, are, in general, undertuned.
That the Barb is getting closer to the ideal power-level is a good thing.
Rangers should get there too.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes in PF2E, are, in general, undertuned.
What's that supposed to mean? Undertuned compared to what?
I for one am extremely happy with these changes. Barbarian was the first character I played in 2E but I found the class too fragile for my taste and it really didn't fit my ideal of a Barbarian. Now, Barbarian is in a good place.
I'll be really pissed if a month from now Paizo issues an errata saying the AC penalty for Rage is back and they never meant to remove it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ronald the Rules Lawyer just released a video on the remastered Alchemist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbufOX8_aZg
Why do I bring this up in the Barbarian thread? One of the things he revealed is that the Bestial Mutagen no longer gives an AC penalty. To me this indicates that Paizo has decided that trading AC penalties for increased offense is no longer a good trade-off in most situations, so Rage losing it's AC penalty is most likely intentional.
That's interesting! Thanks for pointing that out.
The AC penalty did make the barbarian feel a whole lot more like a glass cannon than I think they should. I'm receptive to moving away from such penalties. Maybe Weaknesses would be a better way to handle it in future designs, so you don't eat so many crits.
I love all of the changes I've heard about! I was disappointed that it sounds like barbarians effectively keep their "anathema" against Concentrate actions while berserking, and that Moment of Clarity remains pretty much an emergency option rather than truly enabling strong archetype versatility, but I know a lot of people see the upcoming bloodrager as the solution and are happy to leave it at that. I do really hope we see an instinct that does away with or limits the Concentrate actions ban without forcing me to play a sorcerer. Weird bloodline stuff just isn't my cup of tea, for the same reason I don't miss color-coded kobolds.
Honestly, I'd be happy with anything that removes the shibboleth of the "frothing at the mouth hit-things-good" flavor without restricting my character from being a wild-eyed hedge wizard with a bastard sword. I love barbarian's "risk-taking low-armored heavy hitter" mechanics, but the restrictions on flavor have always turned me off from playing one. Something to look forward to/design myself.
EDIT: I should clarify--I don't have an advance copy, I've just inferred all this from gossip, so take my assumptions with a grain of salt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Classes in PF2E, are, in general, undertuned.What's that supposed to mean? Undertuned compared to what?
Compared to player expectations.
This is, of course, as subjective as the next thing, but I think that the competitive edge of PF2E over DnD is players who want more decision points per turn and encounter.
The proliferation of Free Archetype games is a display of people wanting to get more out of class chasses / feat loadouts and really exacerbate that difference.
I think most classes in PF2E are just shy of delivering the depth that players want, and anything that powers them up is welcome.
It is a little weird to consider a barbarian without the AC penalty thematically! Like, balance-wise I think it's the right choice, but the barbarian's mechanical theme was always "big damage, big risks". The big risks were "hit less often" (but you hit hard when you do) and "get hit/crit more". Barbarian was very swingy. Without the AC penalty, it's still swingy, but its extremes are softened, which may impact the class identity.
Were the changes to Investigator THAT significant?Hence it is puzzling that Ranger wasn't updated to this extent.Yep Ranger is now the weakest martial class in PC1/2.
Nah, investigator is easily the worst still. The improvements they got are nice but the solution to "you can't attack your ally because you rolled poorly" received a patch of "well, then make only skill actions this round with a +1". An slightly more easy to achieve free action DaS is good too, but otherwise I don't feel the class is that much better honestly. For instance, I still don't see a reason to play this one over a rogue, meanwhile the swashbuckler, which does have a similar problem, at least was improved to be reliable now and some of the new feats seem really cool.
Compared to player expectations.Classes in PF2E, are, in general, undertuned.What's that supposed to mean? Undertuned compared to what?
What you're saying is that the base difficulty is too high? Because on that I kind of agree, PF2 base difficulty is harder than PF1's and D&D's.
As for the proliferation of Free Archetype, I'd avoid to deduce anything out of an increase in character power. From my experience, any such increase is always welcome by players, moar power = moar fun.
And considering that Paizo is literally streamlining and reducing the difficulty to play the PC2 classes, the assumption that players want more out of class chasses and feats seems hard to justify.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sort of wonder how Paizo chooses their priorities here.
Like no shade, but in what world do Barbarians need sweeping unequivocal buffs while people are still trying to figure out if the Investigator is even really meaningfully better at all.
It's a little bit bewildering, especially considering that the pre-remaster Barbarian was already largely considered one of the game's better classes.
PC1 was in a similar place too. Nobody had "rogues get better saves while wizards get their fourth slot restricted even more and crossbows get the most conservative adjustments possible" on their bingo card when it was announced.
I struggle to really make sense of the design direction.
I sort of wonder how Paizo chooses their priorities here.
Like no shade, but in what world do Barbarians need sweeping unequivocal buffs while people are still trying to figure out if the Investigator is even really meaningfully better at all.
It's a little bit bewildering, especially considering that the pre-remaster Barbarian was already largely considered one of the game's better classes.
PC1 was in a similar place too. Nobody had "rogues get better saves while wizards get their fourth slot restricted even more and crossbows get the most conservative adjustments possible" on their bingo card when it was announced.
I struggle to really make sense of the design direction.
Yeah. It's pretty weird. Wizard causing thread after thread after thread of angst even after PC2. Investigator viewed as terrible.
Cleric, sorcerer, rogue, and barbarian get meaningfully buffed to be even better. Barb needed some work on the instincts to balance them, but was overall tough.
But at least we have a bunch of good classes and can avoid the not so great.
As for the proliferation of Free Archetype, I'd avoid to deduce anything out of an increase in character power. From my experience, any such increase is always welcome by players, moar power = moar fun.
I disagree, otherwise, it'd be Gestalt everywhere. Engaging challenge is a non-trivial issue. I believe games are right-sized for their ability to deliver the core fantasy.
|
Like no shade, but in what world do Barbarians need sweeping unequivocal buffs while people are still trying to figure out if the Investigator is even really meaningfully better at all.
I'm confused as to how this is a question - they now get a free action DaS against anyone who could answer a question about on of their 2 mysteries, which is a substantial combat boost over how the vast majority of GMs were running old DaS from what I've seen online. They get a +1 bonus on any perception check or skill check that gets them closer to answering the question of their mystery, so they're going to be getting that super reliably, which is a nice boost out-of-combat. It also gives them a concrete answer to where they're stronger than rogue out-of-combat - despite having the same set of skill boosts, they're going to be getting that +1 bonus on a large chunk of their skill checks. On top of that, they can discard a bad dice roll on DaS without incrementing their MAP (they don't get the damage boost on their next attack, but that's still way better) and they get a useful bonus on a skill check as part of doing so! If they're making a mental-based skill check to discard that bad roll in a way that could get them closer to answering the question at the heart of their mystery (like recalling knowledge on an enemy that they need to beat to get info, or demoralizing them, or using Bon Mot, etc) they're a full proficiency rank ahead of anyone else in the game. And again, free action DaS on almost every turn of almost every combat! That's a huge boost, how is it a question if they've improved?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly think that investigator and ranger are fine, and wizard will always be the most flexible caster in the game no matter how good arcane sorcerer gets. Investigator is an incredibly versatile rogue equivalent with enormous utility in Exploration and Downtime, Flurry Ranger remains a DPS terror, and wizard can prepare wholly different lists from the most versatile spell list every day, even gathering brand-new spellbook spells for a fraction of the cost sorcerers have to pay on spells.
Like, I think the reason Paizo didn't touch those classes is because they don't really agree with the forum consensus, and I find I don't, either. Honestly, I think the biggest problem right now is the druid, but that's a whole other can of beans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like no shade, but in what world do Barbarians need sweeping unequivocal buffs while people are still trying to figure out if the Investigator is even really meaningfully better at all.I'm confused as to how this is a question - they now get a free action DaS against anyone who could answer a question about on of their 2 mysteries, which is a substantial combat boost over how the vast majority of GMs were running old DaS from what I've seen online. They get a +1 bonus on any perception check or skill check that gets them closer to answering the question of their mystery, so they're going to be getting that super reliably, which is a nice boost out-of-combat. It also gives them a concrete answer to where they're stronger than rogue out-of-combat - despite having the same set of skill boosts, they're going to be getting that +1 bonus on a large chunk of their skill checks. On top of that, they can discard a bad dice roll on DaS without incrementing their MAP (they don't get the damage boost on their next attack, but that's still way better) and they get a useful bonus on a skill check as part of doing so! If they're making a mental-based skill check to discard that bad roll in a way that could get them closer to answering the question at the heart of their mystery (like recalling knowledge on an enemy that they need to beat to get info, or demoralizing them, or using Bon Mot, etc) they're a full proficiency rank ahead of anyone else in the game. And again, free action DaS on almost every turn of almost every combat! That's a huge boost, how is it a question if they've improved?
There's also a 2nd level feat which allows you to designate a creature as your lead for 1 minute, allowing you to free action DAS in surprise encounters where you couldn't have been prepared. The 10 minute cooldown means this will be up almost every fight.
That feat alone is a nice enough of a change that I'm confident investigator will feel a little bit better at most tables (I had one at my SOT table from 1-13).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, a ton of those things investigators received as buffs were stuff a ton of tables were already doing. Pursue a Lead was vague enough to kinda guarantee having that +1 on all checks before, and that same rationale applies to DaS that I seen some GMs grant for free if it was related to the lead (it wasn't as common as the Pursue a Lead one though). For those people investigator didn't really receive buffs but rather clarifications. I don't disagree the +1 to most of your skills is really good and sets them up as a more skill "accurate" rogue, but its not like the rogue is bad at those skills and they are still better at combat. In a sense, investigator feels like an outwit ranger; it sacrifices combat power to be slightly better at skills, but its not like they do anything unique with them.
For example, I always considered investigators, swashbucklers, and inventors as the worst martials in the systems. In the case of the first two, it was because both of them sorta played like weaker and less reliable rogues, though at least for what I know about the swashbuckler even if they didn't make it stronger exactly they at least made its mechanics be more accurate so the class is much more reliable now. The investigator's response to those that didn't like being forced to not attack when they rolled poorly with their DaS is to make skill checks with a +1/+2 bonus, which I think is nice, but kinda pushes the investigator to prioritize skill increases into skills that have actions that can be used in combat, because otheriwse you'll dead turns in which you don't attack will feel even worse now because even the fix doesn't work for you (and you'll need to spend increases into a ton of these skills now that DaS is pretty much assumed to semi-always be a free action).
This doesn't make the investigator bad per se, but when I turn to see the barbarian that absolutely didn't need any changes whatsoever but received one of the most sizeable buffs in the whole book (like rogues did in PC1) then I can't understand why those efforts weren't instead for the classes that needed that boost, like the investigator in this case (or the swashbuckler, because I still don't understand because it doesn't have an auto-scaling skill).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
when I turn to see the barbarian that absolutely didn't need any changes whatsoever but received one of the most sizeable buffs in the whole book
Yes it is hard to understand.
Paizo have listened to the Fighter is just flat out better than the Barbarian argument - which I always thought was over done - by buffing what was already a strong class. No one else got +1AC and an extra action to start every combat. Fighter Barbarian and Rogue are a clear step up from the other martial classes. I still haven't seen the details of the new Investigator or Swashbuckler but I doubt it is going to be good enough.
It is amusing that none of the youtubers noticed the AC change.
It is only fractionally compensated by Deny Advantage being given up.
It was good that Paizo fixed the Superstition Anathema as it was almost unplayable.
None of the other Anathemas had to be changed but they did anyway. A good cleanup there.
They touched Fury but really didn't fix anything. That is a frustrating miss.
Elemental just wasn't covered - probably OK given the scope.
The biggest problem Cleave being part of the core identity and it remains a mostly useless trap for new players.
The new Dragon damage types are wild. Bludgeoning from Adamantine being the best as it can probably completely avoid the existing resistance problem if you wield a bludgeoning weapon like say a Maul. Poison damage is probably a non starter. This sort of disparity didn't exist with the old Dragon types.
Minotaur Adamantine Dragon Barbarians with a Maul and Stretching Reach are going to become a staple.
|
Design Manager
|
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, I think the reason Paizo didn't touch those classes is because they don't really agree with the forum consensus, and I find I don't, either.
I think assuming there is a "forum consensus" is itself a bit of a misconstrual of a lot of data, even if you only look at one particular forum.
We look at data from multiple communities; each with thousands, tens of thousands, even scores of thousands of members; and look at actual response numbers across a variety of topics, then contextualize that data against survey responses, play data from character builders and VTTs, and other data sources. Then we hash out what all of that actually means and how to prioritize it for things like class design and remastering through the lens of that collected data and the decades of game design experience contained within our team.
One of the anecdotes I use to frame this information is the kineticist playtest. Big survey, thousands of people chiming in. A lot of people thought that expanding the elemental damage types the kineticist had available for each element was something that there was a "forum consensus" on and everybody thought it really needed to be done. Only 13 people actually said anything about expanded element options in the survey feedback and it was clear from the way they copy-pasted their thoughts directly from their forum posts that those were the same people who had formed the bulk of the so-called "forum consensus" on the topic. It was definitionally a vocal minority. (Though note that we did expand the elemental damage types, because we had room in the class chassis to do it and a good idea that only a few people had can still be a good idea.)
But well over a hundred thousand people play this game and a small percentage of them having the same conversation over and over across multiple threads is very different from a community consensus or forum consensus.
That's a fair point! It wasn't my intent to over-generalize. I suppose "most vocal current subforum consensus" might be a better descriptor. People mostly post when they have beef, so you don't see a lot of "man, fighter is doing a-okay" threads popping up.
I also was definitely trying to avoid implying a forum consensus was the same thing as a community consensus. Like, in my personal circles, we don't really have any concerns about the changes whatsoever? We've been having a lot of fun picking stuff out, and for the most part, we feel like the game balance is in a better place than ever. I'm sure the Reddit boards are bickering over completely different subjects from the Paizo boards are bickering over completely different subjects from the Discord servers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But well over a hundred thousand people play this game and a small percentage of them having the same conversation over and over across multiple threads is very different from a community consensus or forum consensus.
I totally agree. I also note that the forums often disagree with themselves a lot. So concensus is illusive. Besides which it is a business not a democracy. This is your job and your call to make.
If you left it to us there would be a thousand different homebrews.
It is just not going to stop me from saying what I think you got right and what I think you got wrong. We are your most engaged customers.
We are still here because we think you guys are doing the best job in the industry.
That's a huge boost, how is it a question if they've improved?
Because a lot of those fixes are ultimately kind of marginal or within the purview of what was already available pre-remaster (and still don't really go the full way of addressing some of the class' underlying mechanical or narrative issues).
It's not that the changes are bad, it's just that they're remarkably conservative and light touch, which feels weird given the state of the class and given some of the more cavalier improvements to classes that were already excellent.
I think it would be elucidating if Paizo devs talked (in a blog, on a panel, etc.) what specifically were the pain points they were looking to address in the remaster. Since that would help to understand things like "why did this class that I thought was fine got buffs" and "why didn't this other class get more attention".
Like color me confused about why the Rogue got "When you roll a success on the saving throw, you get a critical success instead" on all three saves, when I never thought "super great at saving throws" was part of the Rogue's deal.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But well over a hundred thousand people play this game and a small percentage of them having the same conversation over and over across multiple threads is very different from a community consensus or forum consensus.I totally agree. I also note that the forums often disagree with themselves a lot. So concensus is illusive. Besides which it is a business not a democracy. This is your job and your call to make.
If you left it to us there would be a thousand different homebrews.
It is just not going to stop me from saying what I think you got right and what I think you got wrong. We are you most engaged customers.
We are still here because we think you guys are doing the best job in the industry.
I appreciate you, Gortle. Like I said "a good idea that only a few people had can still be a good idea"!
I appreciate you, Gortle. Like I said "a good idea that only a few people had can still be a good idea"!
I also appreciate some of my ideas are terribly unpopular and should be ignored. I am an odd fish.
|
|
That's a huge boost, how is it a question if they've improved?Because a lot of those fixes are ultimately kind of marginal or within the purview of what was already available pre-remaster (and still don't really go the full way of addressing some of the class' underlying mechanical or narrative issues).
It's not that the changes are bad, it's just that they're remarkably conservative and light touch, which feels weird given the state of the class and given some of the more cavalier improvements to classes that were already excellent.
I'd understand more if the attitude pre-remaster was "yeah, of course you can get a free action Devise a Stratagem almost all your rounds", but that was an attitude that would get pretty strongly negative responses from most people discussing investigator. I know, because I was on both sides of that discussion at various points in time! Functionally making your no-MAP attack with advantage in every combat for no action cost is a huge buff if they weren't otherwise getting it, which very much felt like how many of the same people who are now arguing that there is no meaningful change were running it.
I want to point out that I'm not against the changes made in this book (I don't even know all the changes to begin with) and that I don't think there's a class in the system that's unplayable either, but like PossibleCabbage said I would want to know the rationale behind some changes because, as someone that lacks the much bigger context that Paizo has, I can't understand some of them. I'm also the kind of person that's a bit hyperbolic at times so I usually exaggerate a little when I write comments online, so its very likely that I sound (or read I guess?) more angry at things than I really am lol.
I honestly think that investigator and ranger are fine, and wizard will always be the most flexible caster in the game no matter how good arcane sorcerer gets. Investigator is an incredibly versatile rogue equivalent with enormous utility in Exploration and Downtime, Flurry Ranger remains a DPS terror, and wizard can prepare wholly different lists from the most versatile spell list every day, even gathering brand-new spellbook spells for a fraction of the cost sorcerers have to pay on spells.
Like, I think the reason Paizo didn't touch those classes is because they don't really agree with the forum consensus, and I find I don't, either. Honestly, I think the biggest problem right now is the druid, but that's a whole other can of beans.
The druid seems pretty awesome to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills seeing this narrative that rangers are weak. I recently ran a homebrew campaign and my player with the bow precision ranger was an absolute terror. I feared him worse than the fighter, and he made me reevaluate my tactics with my monsters.
I get it, having to use Hunt Prey on every new enemy it's a considerable action tax. I think that makes them excel at taking down big targets, like bosses, where they'll use it once and just be done with it until the target drops dead, and less-effective action economy wise against multiple weaker enemies. I don't think that's necessarily bad. God forbid Rangers from having any weakness, I guess.
Or maybe people here spend too much time in the white room.
I'm not on board with the rangers are weak. Rangers have one thing that could use some work: changing targets mid round after killing something.
The ranger is good in my opinion. Both flurry and precision have good builds. Good class feats. Legendary perception and Legendary reflex saves. One of the best switch hitting martials in the game.
I'm playing one right now. And I've played rangers before. They have one issue that if fixed would make them about perfect, but even not being perfect the ranger is very good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The druid seems pretty awesome to me.I honestly think that investigator and ranger are fine, and wizard will always be the most flexible caster in the game no matter how good arcane sorcerer gets. Investigator is an incredibly versatile rogue equivalent with enormous utility in Exploration and Downtime, Flurry Ranger remains a DPS terror, and wizard can prepare wholly different lists from the most versatile spell list every day, even gathering brand-new spellbook spells for a fraction of the cost sorcerers have to pay on spells.
Like, I think the reason Paizo didn't touch those classes is because they don't really agree with the forum consensus, and I find I don't, either. Honestly, I think the biggest problem right now is the druid, but that's a whole other can of beans.
Druids are awesome. They're basically a perfect caster class for me, with some major (intentional) weaknesses but incredibly solid strengths. I love playing them. They have a fantastic spell list, super fun focus spells like cornucopia, really solid gameplay, and also their flavor is totally stagnant and has never really progressed beyond the dual options of "treehugger" and "treehugger, but with a gun", because half of their Order Anathemas are just reprints of the "please don't hurt nature" rule they all already follow. It's a little like if clerics were only allowed to worship a single god, and the only real choice was which domain to specialize in. It's like how paladins were in PF1. Druids are simply nature mages, shapeshifting/animal taming magicians, and flavorfully, there's no real reason they all have to worship nature as an "ideal". Some druids can be stewards, but mightn't some just practically view nature as a valuable resource to harvest, or even revel in the deliberate corruption and mutation of the natural world? Does the locust care about preserving nature, or does it just consume? I want the druid tea, man, I want to see druids battling one another in the Tanglebriar because half of them see it as an abomination and half of them delight in nature's perversion. I want to see druids siding with the corrupted half of the Fangwood, not because of some ecoterrorist spiel but because it's fun and evil fey are hot. I say, druids have been consigned to the narrow cubbyhole of nature-clerics for too long. It's time to free them from their limiting Anathema and let druids start having serious fundamental feuds with one another. It's time for the Druid Schism. If we can have unholy champions, bring on the corrupted druids.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Druids are awesome. They're basically a perfect caster class for me, with some major (intentional) weaknesses but incredibly solid strengths. I love playing them. They have a fantastic spell list, super fun focus spells like cornucopia, really solid gameplay, and also their flavor is totally stagnant and has never really progressed beyond the dual options of "treehugger" and "treehugger, but with a gun", because half of their Order Anathemas are just reprints of the "please don't hurt nature" rule they all already follow. It's a little like if clerics were only allowed to worship a single god, and the only real choice was which domain to specialize in. It's like how paladins were in PF1. Druids are simply nature mages, shapeshifting/animal taming magicians, and flavorfully, there's no real reason they all have to worship nature as an "ideal". Some druids can be stewards, but mightn't some just practically view nature as a valuable resource to harvest, or even revel in the deliberate corruption and mutation of the natural world? Does the locust care about preserving nature, or does it just consume? I want the druid...The druid seems pretty awesome to me.I honestly think that investigator and ranger are fine, and wizard will always be the most flexible caster in the game no matter how good arcane sorcerer gets. Investigator is an incredibly versatile rogue equivalent with enormous utility in Exploration and Downtime, Flurry Ranger remains a DPS terror, and wizard can prepare wholly different lists from the most versatile spell list every day, even gathering brand-new spellbook spells for a fraction of the cost sorcerers have to pay on spells.
Like, I think the reason Paizo didn't touch those classes is because they don't really agree with the forum consensus, and I find I don't, either. Honestly, I think the biggest problem right now is the druid, but that's a whole other can of beans.
You might actually be interested in the new druid orders in Wardens of Wildwood - one of them is basically Spore Druid that does stuff with lichen and decay.
That is fun! Thank you for sharing it! But, like, they're still fundamentally stewards, right? Druids change their aesthetics, they change their domains, sometimes they change their tactics (treehugger vs. ecoterrorist), but their core flavor doesn't really change, and it's a pretty restrictive flavor. Always the same god, always paladins no matter which weapon they wield. I do love the orders, but they aren't really the core problem. The "problem" (for me) is this little line in the base class:
Anathema despoil natural places, consume more natural resources than you require to live comfortably.
(I actually like the Wildsong thing being universal, so I'm not including it; I think it's cute and works for any type of druid. If anything, the idea that even the "utilitarian" druids and the "perversion" druids would follow the Secret Language Rule feels really cool to me.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
when I turn to see the barbarian that absolutely didn't need any changes whatsoever but received one of the most sizeable buffs in the whole bookYes it is hard to understand.
Paizo have listened to the Fighter is just flat out better than the Barbarian argument - which I always thought was over done - by buffing what was already a strong class. No one else got +1AC and an extra action to start every combat. Fighter Barbarian and Rogue are a clear step up from the other martial classes. I still haven't seen the details of the new Investigator or Swashbuckler but I doubt it is going to be good enough.
[...]
They touched Fury but really didn't fix anything. That is a frustrating miss.
Look, you have a perfectly good forum thread, right here under your nose, about people talking about how -AC on Rage fails to deliver on its premise by creating several "bad beat" games in which the Barb gets blown like a piñata.
@On Fury: they actually gave them new feats, don't knock it until you try it.
@On Investigators and Swashbucklers: I think knocking them before you try them.
And if they suck... just like the Ranger came back a little bit lacking... I think it's more about pushing for the changes that you want to see rather than advocating AGAINST buffs to other classes. It's not a zero sum game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, you have a perfectly good forum thread, right here under your nose, about people talking about how -AC on Rage fails to deliver on its premise by creating several "bad beat" games in which the Barb gets blown like a piñata.
Perhaps I'm just harboring older design sensibilities, but the risk of getting blown like a piñata is an important part of the fun of playing a character with Rage. Losing it is sad.
I can see why PF2E would remove it. The game has continuously sanded off things that trade risk for greater reward, in my estimation, to keep performance ceilings in check; and the game probably doesn't actually have the room to give a damage reward for the AC penalty that feels fun and appropriate in the moment while also maintaining said performance ceiling. It's a little disappointing to see it go, since I feel like that risk/reward was one of the most defining aspects of Barbarian. But I've kind of accepted PF2E is a very... streamlined and managed experience.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, you have a perfectly good forum thread, right here under your nose, about people talking about how -AC on Rage fails to deliver on its premise by creating several "bad beat" games in which the Barb gets blown like a piñata.Perhaps I'm just harboring older design sensibilities, but the risk of getting blown like a piñata is an important part of the fun of playing a character with Rage. Losing it is sad.
I can see why PF2E would remove it. The game has continuously sanded off things that trade risk for greater reward, in my estimation, to keep performance ceilings in check; and the game probably doesn't actually have the room to give a damage reward for the AC penalty that feels fun and appropriate in the moment while also maintaining said performance ceiling. It's a little disappointing to see it go, since I feel like that risk/reward was one of the most defining aspects of Barbarian. But I've kind of accepted PF2E is a very... streamlined and managed experience.
I understand where you are coming from, but, also, what's the reward?
Both the Fighter and the Barb lived for the same amount of turns, dealt basically the same amount of damage...
...but the Fighter dealt a little bit more damage, and the Barbarian had swingy turns where it'd be critted consecutively and die.
If there was some real incentive to take the risk, sure... but just to stay at parity with the Fighter? Doesn't make sense to me.
@On Fury: they actually gave them new feats, don't knock it until you try it.
Scars of Steel is so awesome !!!!!