@On Investigators and Swashbucklers: I think knocking them before you try them.
For sure. Investigator is better than it was. So is Swashbuckler.
@On Investigators and Swashbucklers: I think knocking them before you try them.For sure. Investigator is better than it was. So is Swashbuckler.
Swashbuckler is much better now.
I think the Investigator will always remain a pretty niche class or one that appeals to a small segment. It's better than it was for sure. I still found it to be a better class than I originally thought when one of my players ran it to 20.
Just saw the barbarian archetype. It still gets Rage with the Dedication. And it says you suffer a -1 penalty to AC while raging.
So the lack of AC penalty in base Rage seems intentional because otherwise the Archetype wouldn't need to give the penalty again - which would give you a total of -2 AC.
@On Fury: they actually gave them new feats, don't knock it until you try it.Scars of Steel is so awesome !!!!!
** spoiler omitted **
OK, just checked it out and it's not even trash, it's literally useless with Raging Resistance.
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.
I guess it was unclear, but I didn't think they were already getting that reward.
I'll admit, though, it's an actual nightmare finding reputable DPR calcs to doublecheck what I thought I remembered. A quick search is making it extremely difficult to find anything that clearly shows it takes into account a full build's worth of features. Really hate all the results you can see that are like, "hey, I did these calcs without accounting for feats!" as if that isn't the most spherical cow thing you could do. Also really hate "I don't include AoOs because it's inconsistent," which came up a lot; it'd make more sense to include AoOs and let you set what % of rounds you expect them to proc on average. Bit odd to just throw them away entirely. If you have a source that doesn't have these failings and can toss it my way, I'd love to see it, because 10 or 15 mins of research didn't get me to it.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how I see it: The purpose of the AC penalty was to get across that barbarians live risky lives. Their primary mechanics reward them greatly for doing that, since they do best at dealing with large groups of lower level enemies. Barbarians are designed to wade into the thick of things and somehow come out alive, and the AC penalty actually kind of sabotaged that by making the style of play much more punishing. The high risk is embedded in what you are rewarded for doing, and you have to be rewarded for taking the risk, or else you won't do it. That's the paradox barbarian struggles with.
I feel like having an AC penalty just kind of discourages you from making risky plays, and that's the whole point of the class. I would rather see a barbarian take risky plays with safe numbers than take safe plays with risky numbers, if that makes sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really hate all the results you can see that are like, "hey, I did these calcs without accounting for feats!" as if that isn't the most spherical cow thing you could do.
Feats are in general included when they have a significant impact on DPR. Bomb feats for Alchemist, Dangerous Sorcery and so on. For most characters, feats have a negligible impact on DPR and that's why they aren't considered.
Also really hate "I don't include AoOs because it's inconsistent," which came up a lot; it'd make more sense to include AoOs and let you set what % of rounds you expect them to proc on average.
Reactions are included when they have a significant impact on DPR. Reactive Strike rarely has such impact, even a Reach Fighter will hardly trigger it 10% of its round. Considering that it's triggered on a random enemy and as such is not focused damage it can quite safely be ignored. Characters who have extreme reach trigger it much more often and in general it's included in their DPR calculations (if it's done properly).
I've performed bazillions of DPR calculations. They are in general extremely accurate as I've been able to properly assess the damage impact of builds I've never seen played before. I think you shouldn't criticize those who do such work ;)
Really hate all the results you can see that are like, "hey, I did these calcs without accounting for feats!" as if that isn't the most spherical cow thing you could do.Feats are in general included when they have a significant impact on DPR. Bomb feats for Alchemist, Dangerous Sorcery and so on. For most characters, feats have a negligible impact on DPR and that's why they aren't considered.
Also really hate "I don't include AoOs because it's inconsistent," which came up a lot; it'd make more sense to include AoOs and let you set what % of rounds you expect them to proc on average.Reactions are included when they have a significant impact on DPR. Reactive Strike rarely has a significant impact on DPR, even a Reach Fighter will hardly trigger it 10% of its round. Considering that it's triggered on a random enemy and as such is not focused damage it can quite safely be ignored. Characters who have extreme reach trigger it much more often and in general its included in their DPR calculations if it's done properly.
I've performed bazillions of DPR calculations. They are in general extremely accurate as I've been able to properly assess the damage impact of builds I've never seen played before. I think you shouldn't criticize those who do such work ;)
Trip martials activate Reactive Strike a lot. It is a substantial part of their DPR.
I find recording the damage far more accurate because something like initiative and front-loaded damage has a large impact on DPR as does engagement range.
I didn't get the sense they're really criticizing those who do such work, so much as saying that they haven't been able to find any good estimates, and asking if you have recommendations. Maybe just link yours?
They should definitely not remove the AC penalty on barbarians, its part of its core theme,
but like someone have said they maybe could get something to lessen the crits they get like guardian or atleast have feat options for it.
(but maybe you can get that with guardian archtype, so those that want more defensive options have them)
my only gripe with barbarians atm is that Elemental Instinct Raging Resistance, it is a clusterf@!% of mumbles of words, i understand it RAW just that compared to the other its just wierd and unclear what they really intended with it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The giant barbarian still eats clumsy for its oversized damage bonus. I think it's fair for the barbarians that are breaking even with other martials to not have an extra penalty.
I didn't get the sense they're really criticizing those who do such work, so much as saying that they haven't been able to find any good estimates, and asking if you have recommendations. Maybe just link yours?
I have not found to the damage tools be very accurate like Super Bidi in real play. I don't criticize the folks for the work. I don't find this game works like something like WoW where you have a standard rotation and the damage is the same all the time.
I will say that relative damage rankings between martial classes is somewhat accurately predicted as the fighter was shown to be the damage king an they are indeed if built to hammer the damage king.
The only class I've seen outdamage fighters often is the well built starlit span archer, which I think is one of the most brutal damage dealers in the entire game. I'm not sure how well one of these tools accurately predicts Starlit Span magus damage given the versatility of their builds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have not found to the damage tools be very accurate like Super Bidi in real play.
I predicted the Starlit Span Magus "issue" through these tools.
I've predicted that my Mutagenist would do well with these tools, too. He is doing well, despite being an uncommon build of a low damage output class.
I've predicted that my Summoner would do well, despite once again being an uncommon build with an uncommon playstyle.
I've predicted (long ago) that blasters would do well with these tools.
Properly designed DPR calculations lead to good results. I'm still waiting for an error in my DPR calculations that would be perceptible in play.
Maybe just link yours?
DPR calculations are specific. If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
I have not found to the damage tools be very accurate like Super Bidi in real play.I predicted the Starlit Span Magus "issue" through these tools.
I've predicted that my Mutagenist would do well with these tools, too. He is doing well, despite being an uncommon build of a low damage output class.
I've predicted that my Summoner would do well, despite once again being an uncommon build with an uncommon playstyle.
I've predicted (long ago) that blasters would do well with these tools.
Properly designed DPR calculations lead to good results. I'm still waiting for an error in my DPR calculations that would be perceptible in play.
Maybe just link yours?DPR calculations are specific. If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Those tools were not necessary to "predict" these things.
All the abilities are self-evident and I witnessed them long before anyone was predicting anything with DPR tools.
I'm not sure what you mean by do well as a summoner. The main concern of the summoner was the shared hit point pool, not their overall ability. I found the shared hit point pool is much easier work around than I anticipated and not much of a disadvantage, in fact more of an advantage than a disadvantage in many circumstances.
You like the DPR tools. They suit your sensibilities. I tried them out and did not find them accurate to real combat, at least not the way I play which as has been demonstrated on these boards is rather different.
Which is why I reverted to recorded damage so I could understand why something was working or not working. It showed me a lot of things like the importance of initiative as simply winning initiative can place you at the top of the DPR because you go first each round and the hit points may run out before someone can catch up to you. The affect of crits on DPR which are fairly random and also can be affected by initiative as a PC that goes first and crits with some major attack or spell can absolutely spike up the DPR to a point no one is catching or a bad save like the first target rolling a 20 on a save against chain lightning can tank your DPR as the fight will be over before you can catch up.
I wonder if a class has a Legendary Perception if that is accounted for in the class design balance budget as initiative can have a fairly dramatic effect on combat.
Given so many classes are balanced against each for damage that initiative and movement speed along with action economy all have an effect on combat.
Like the monk starts to really catch up in damage at higher level with the fighter and other classes as their speed gets faster and their stacking damage starts to add up along with superior action economy.
The design in this game is more interesting than past editions as to what affects DPR. It's less straightforward and more variable from combat to combat. So doing a hard DPR number on a particular build did not provide a good picture of actual play looked like, which is why I switched to recording and analyzing.
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 think the Wizard changes feel extremely bad now in the context of PC2 changes.
Sorcerers get their strongest level 1 Feat put into their base class. Oracles are now, unless it actually is a typo, 4-slot casters who also get insanely cool Feats.
Even if Wizards are fine on a power level perspective (and I do truly believe they are, I’ve played and GMed for Wizards and they don’t feel weak)… what exactly was the rationale behind removing their fourth slot’s flexibility? Do they view Prepared Arcane casting to be that much of an advantage?
You like the DPR tools. They suit your sensibilities. I tried them out and did not find them accurate to real combat, at least not the way I play which as has been demonstrated on these boards is rather different.
Likewise. DPR calculations don’t really match up with in play experience at all for me in this game.
The closest match is that if you’re comparing 2 Actions to 2 Actions, the mean damage of those 2 Actions can be a decent metric. Even then, I find that mean damage alone is often the wrong answer and it needs to be looked at in conjunction with modal damage and “damage frequency buckets” (an easy example to see this is Vicious Swing versus 2 Strikes).
In anything more commons than a 2-Action v 2-Action comparison for options that only really do damage and have no additional “hidden” Action costs, I find DPR’s value drops off staggeringly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those tools were not necessary to "predict" these things.
Like every tool, they will suit some people and not others. I'm a theory first practice second guy.
All the abilities are self-evident and I witnessed them long before anyone was predicting anything with DPR tools.
Do I need to remind you how I helped you change your mind about the Summoner? Nothing possible without the ground work with Citricking's DPR calculator that allowed me to design my Summoner build in opposition to "common sense".
So, self-evident? Well, retrospectively self-evident. Because when I come up with my theory, you are rarely agreeing with me.
Likewise. DPR calculations don’t really match up with in play experience at all for me in this game.
Depends on the game. It was not the case in PF1, but in PF2 damage is central. It's clear to me that the game designers have used damage as the main metric for character combat contribution.
Likewise. DPR calculations don’t really match up with in play experience at all for me in this game.Depends on the game. It was not the case in PF1, but in PF2 damage is central. It's clear to me that the game designers have used damage as the main metric for character combat contribution.
I won’t speak for PF1E at all, since I haven’t played it. In PF2E, I find that DPR doesn’t line up with what I see in practice beyond the exact 2v2 Action scenario I mentioned above. Like a very simple example is how DPR crunching makes Double Slice Fighter appear to be the strongest damage dealer in the game or makes ranged look worthless next to melee DPR, even though in practice I find both of those claims to be false.
Also I really disagree on damage being used as the main metric for character combat contribution. Damage is a metric but the game takes into account a lot more, including action efficiency, action denial, reactivity vs proactivity, and reliability. The designers have said as much, they don’t just focus on DPR.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I won’t speak for PF1E at all, since I haven’t played it. In PF2E, I find that DPR doesn’t line up with what I see in practice beyond the exact 2v2 Action scenario I mentioned above. Like a very simple example is how DPR crunching makes Double Slice Fighter appear to be the strongest damage dealer in the game or makes ranged look worthless next to melee DPR, even though in practice I find both of those claims to be false.
I don't know what DPR calculations make Double Slice Fighter appear to be stronger than it is. Also, a DPR calculation doesn't have to be stupid. Double Slice Fighter has a DPR issue when they have anything but 2 actions, so you don't calculate a Double Slice Fighter DPR as if they always have 2 actions.
Proper DPR calculations take into account the pain points of various setups and tries to measure the impact of said pain points on overall damage output.Also I really disagree on damage being used as the main metric for character combat contribution. Damage is a metric
You haven't understood what I said.
Let's take an example: third actions. The most classical third action is a third attack and they do roughly 13% extra damage. Casting Courageous Anthem will increase your chances to hit by 1 (your damage also but it quickly becomes negligible), increasing the damage output of martials by roughly 15%. Demoralize gives Frightened 1 condition and as such increases damage by roughly 15%.
So I don't say that the game only takes damage into consideration but that every action in the game can be measured in terms of damage.
Something that was not the case in PF1. In PF1, the impact of a save or suck spell was not comparable to damage because they were orthogonal: Either the enemy was failing the save and damage dealt to that enemy was irrelevant or the enemy was succeeding at the save and their HP bar was at the same level. Basically, you had multiple ways of handling a fight and damage was just one of them.
In PF2, damage is the key metric. Outside extreme luck, you'll have to reduce the enemy hp bar to 0. Damage is really a solid metric to analyze the game. It's extremely stable across builds, situations and such. It obviously can't cover everything (it doesn't cover out of combat situations for example) but it can be used to understand the impact of 90+% of the game abilities.
I think the Wizard changes feel extremely bad now in the context of PC2 changes.
Sorcerers get their strongest level 1 Feat put into their base class.
I felt mildly happy for Sorcerer, then I found out what they did to Crossblooded Evolution and laughed until I cried. (It doesn't grant you an off list spell anymore - you get a second blood magic effect.) Oracle supremacy for cross tradition spells, I guess.
|
OK, just checked it out and it's not even trash, it's literally useless with Raging Resistance.@On Fury: they actually gave them new feats, don't knock it until you try it.Scars of Steel is so awesome !!!!!
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, this was a big let down. At first I thought, oh, cool, they actually gave some crit negation. But 1/day resistance that doesn’t stack with the resistance you already get is pretty terrible for a feat. If it is going to be 1/day, it could lower a crit success to a success and it wouldn’t be overpowered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fury instinct feels like a bad joke. In Paizocon they announced buffs for fury to which I think a lot of people were really happy because its not wrong to like vanilla flavor once in a while, and they go and the only improvements they receive is a +1 to damage and a joke of a feat.
Just saw the barbarian archetype. It still gets Rage with the Dedication. And it says you suffer a -1 penalty to AC while raging.
So the lack of AC penalty in base Rage seems intentional because otherwise the Archetype wouldn't need to give the penalty again - which would give you a total of -2 AC.
I just realized I can nearly recreate my Barbarian by switching to... Ranger/Fighter with Barbarian Dedication.
Ranger is not really good and Fighter with Barbarian Dedication is so common it sickens me. I'm not sure I got anything out of this...
OK, just checked it out and it's not even trash, it's literally useless with Raging Resistance.@On Fury: they actually gave them new feats, don't knock it until you try it.Scars of Steel is so awesome !!!!!
** spoiler omitted **
It's not useless, per se, just very situational.
Raging Resistance is 3 + Con Mod (so it makes out at +9 if you spend your apex on it, which means +8 is the actual cap). And with Unstoppable Juggernaut, it goes up to 8+Con, so 14.
Scars of Steel is Con-Mod + Half-Level, so it maxes out at 15. More importantly, you can pick it up at Lvl 4, whereas Raging Resistance comes online at 9th.
It's not a particularly good feat, (especially since it's 1/day) but it is better than Raging resistance at every single level you have it availalbe (it's worse at lvl 4 and equal at level 6, but as I said you don't get Raging Resist at those levels).
Also worth noting unlike Fury's "Weapon Only Physical Resist", this one does apply to any crit that deals physical damage.
The issue with the AC penalty is that it's so much more punitive in 2E than it was in 1E. In 1E, having a lower AC didn't make you get crit more often, it just meant you took more normal hits. In 2E, you also get crit more often, which is something I don't think the developers intended with the Barbarian.
Alchemist apparently got a similar buff with Bestial Mutagen, which no longer gives you an AC penalty either from what I heard.
OK, just checked it out and it's not even trash, it's literally useless with Raging Resistance.@On Fury: they actually gave them new feats, don't knock it until you try it.Scars of Steel is so awesome !!!!!
** spoiler omitted **It's not useless, per se, just very situational.
Raging Resistance is 3 + Con Mod (so it makes out at +9 if you spend your apex on it, which means +8 is the actual cap). And with Unstoppable Juggernaut, it goes up to 8+Con, so 14.
Scars of Steel is Con-Mod + Half-Level, so it maxes out at 15. More importantly, you can pick it up at Lvl 4, whereas Raging Resistance comes online at 9th.
It's not a particularly good feat, (especially since it's 1/day) but it is better than Raging resistance at every single level you have it availalbe (it's worse at lvl 4 and equal at level 6, but as I said you don't get Raging Resist at those levels).
Also worth noting unlike Fury's "Weapon Only Physical Resist", this one does apply to any crit that deals physical damage.
I would be okay with Scars of Steel if it stacked with Raging Resistances or if it was a 1/minute or 1/10 minutes kind of deal but as is I don't see why would I ever consider taking to mitigate a not so impresive amount of damage once per day and when as a feat it competes with much better options. More or less the amount of damage that SoS reduces is equal to the modifier monsters add to damage. It being once per day just doesn't make sense.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH, I really hate spending class feats on "once per day" stuff.
When I do it has to be something that's really a force multiplier when I use it (like quickened casting) not something purely reactive.
Yeah Fury is sad. I don't remember which resistances they get off hand but I would give them all three physical resistances. Then make Scars of Steel a passive increase to their Raging Resistance equal to their Str mod or something, or if you want to focus on protecting against crits maybe double their Raging Resistance against damage from a Crit, not once a day just every time they are crit.
Fury just doesn't excite me and the moment, and not really feeling Superstitious either.
Really interested in a Giant Barbarian with a bunch of reach and whirlwind. Or grabbing the Thrash stuff to hit someone with someone else. Really interested in an Animal Barbarian, especially with Ankylosaurus as an option since a little while back. Going all in on Animal Skin and being somewhat tanky for a Barbarian, maybe even go Awakened Animal. Dragon Barbarian still seems cool and feels like they made the Dragon Form better, possibly really good or thematic with the new Dragonblood Heritage. Also really like the idea of going for as fast of a speed as possible and being able to x8 Stride or do some great rundown stuff, maybe as a Centaur with a 35 base speed, not sure if any other Ancestries or Heritages can get better.
I do wish Giant Barbarian's large then huge feats could work somehow with Ancestries that are already large.
I felt mildly happy for Sorcerer, then I found out what they did to Crossblooded Evolution and laughed until I cried. (It doesn't grant you an off list spell anymore - you get a second blood magic effect.) Oracle supremacy for cross tradition spells, I guess.
I think the Wizard changes feel extremely bad now in the context of PC2 changes.
Sorcerers get their strongest level 1 Feat put into their base class.
That is a big nerf. That will weak the sorcerer quite a bit. That was definitely one of their power feats.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um a sparkling targe Magus can easily get 4 actions a turn for the cost of a focus point. A 2 action spell, plus raising or casting shield and a strike. As a matter of fact so can a laughing shadow magus, 2 action spell, movement and a strike,a twisting tree Magus can to an extent. And technically it's 5 because you'd also be recharging your spellstrikeAs 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.
Yes, but then it evens out eventually, because you waste an action recharging spellstrike. If you have a good 1-action Conflux Spell, then you can still save actions, but that’s going to be focus point limited. That did get better with the remaster as well, with how recharging focus points work.
It’s a clunky action economy. I wish they had done away with the recharging spellstrike (and maybe if Magus ever gets remastered they will). Make Spellstrike 1/turn, and forget about all the extra actions doing nothing. Having the class have a stance built in on top of all of that just makes it convoluted.
First round on my Laughing Shadow is usually either cast a ranged spell and Arcane Cascade, or cast shield, Arcane Cascade, then either move up, or Dimensional Assault. But if I Dimensional Assault round 1, I feel like I’m wasting a Spellstrike recharge. The solution to the awkward action economy with Arcane Cascade is usually just to ignore that you have Arcane Cascade. And that’s not a great situation.
What 1st level feat did sorcerers get built in?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What 1st level feat did sorcerers get built in?
Dangerous Sorcery is now a class feature (also has a new name) and it applies to both damage and healing.
This probably means it's no longer accessible via the archetype, but I haven't seen a confirmation on that either way.
What 1st level feat did sorcerers get built in?
Dangerous Sorcery, with the added benefit of getting that same bonus to healing spells like Heal and Soothe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scars of Steel may be better than Raging Resistance when you use it, but only by a few damage. The other way to look at it is that, at best, it will prevent 15 damage once per day at 20th level. That is not worth a feat of any level.
Positive aspects about Fury:
They did get +1 damage to their rage over what they had.All their damage is the one type which does help against resistance.
Their instinct resistance is good.
They get an extra level 1 feat.
Negative aspects:
Other instincts get more damage. Or have better defenses Animal/Superstition.
Giant and Adamantine Dragon do more damage all of the one type and so are better at getting through resistance.
Level 1 Barbarian feats are not that strong that you really need more than 1.
Their special feats trigger on criticals, and just aren't compelling in any way.
Most bland flavour.
That is a big nerf. That will weak the sorcerer quite a bit. That was definitely one of their power feats.I felt mildly happy for Sorcerer, then I found out what they did to Crossblooded Evolution and laughed until I cried. (It doesn't grant you an off list spell anymore - you get a second blood magic effect.) Oracle supremacy for cross tradition spells, I guess.
I think the Wizard changes feel extremely bad now in the context of PC2 changes.
Sorcerers get their strongest level 1 Feat put into their base class.
Apparently they get a whole host of other Feats to make up for it though.
I am not 100% clear on exactly what the Feats are, but some of them flat out allow DC increases with a one Action cost or something like? This is like... fourth hand information though, so please take it with a fistful of salt.
That is a big nerf. That will weak the sorcerer quite a bit. That was definitely one of their power feats.I felt mildly happy for Sorcerer, then I found out what they did to Crossblooded Evolution and laughed until I cried. (It doesn't grant you an off list spell anymore - you get a second blood magic effect.) Oracle supremacy for cross tradition spells, I guess.
I think the Wizard changes feel extremely bad now in the context of PC2 changes.
Sorcerers get their strongest level 1 Feat put into their base class.
Apparently they get a whole host of other Feats to make up for it though.
I am not 100% clear on exactly what the Feats are, but some of them flat out allow DC increases with a one Action cost or something like? This is like... fourth hand information though, so please take it with a fistful of salt.
I can understand it. That feat was one of the major feats that shot them up ahead of the wizard, even the arcane sorcerer.
I would pick up heal on my arcane sorcerers along with the spellbook. So I was basically a wizard with the 2 action heal by 8th level. Pretty ridiculous.
Apparently there’s a 16 or 18 feat that lets you steal a granted spell from anothe bloodline. So heal is on the menu, synesthesia is not.
Here's how I see it: The purpose of the AC penalty was to get across that barbarians live risky lives. Their primary mechanics reward them greatly for doing that, since they do best at dealing with large groups of lower level enemies. Barbarians are designed to wade into the thick of things and somehow come out alive, and the AC penalty actually kind of sabotaged that by making the style of play much more punishing. The high risk is embedded in what you are rewarded for doing, and you have to be rewarded for taking the risk, or else you won't do it. That's the paradox barbarian struggles with.
I feel like having an AC penalty just kind of discourages you from making risky plays, and that's the whole point of the class. I would rather see a barbarian take risky plays with safe numbers than take safe plays with risky numbers, if that makes sense.
Oh, well, um, they removed the Deny Advantage ability, apparently, which was a big part of the basis of this 'thesis'. I don't know if I wholly stand by this post anymore. I feel like taking away the AC penalty and Deny Advantage just badly obfuscates the class theme.
The buffs are cool, but. I dunno, man. Between the old barbarian and the new barbarian, I just feel like I need to vote third-party. It's just not quite there for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play a risky barbarian the AC penalty from clumsy is still there for the Giant Barbarian, and "I have all the reach" has been a fun character to play for a long time.
I honestly don't think the barbarian has nearly as compelling of a class identity without risk, so putting the risk element in strictly one subclass makes me a little puzzled. Removing Deny Advantage just doesn't sit right with me. Wading into the thick of things is barbarian's thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't think the barbarian has nearly as compelling of a class identity without risk
Well, you can always go with Fury Instinct and risk convincing yourself it was a wise decision.
The only real "risk" a barbarian has ever had was in PF2e due to how AC works, because in other systems the penalty to AC barbarians usually have is often meaningless because AC as a whole is meaningless unless you really invest into it. The whole concept of the barbarian is being a raging juggernaut that does a lot of damage, which the PF2e barbarian did except for the juggernaut thing because that -1 to AC translates into more crits, and you receive more crits then having 12 + Con HP doesn't really matter tbh. Of all the changes barbarians received, the removal of the AC penalty is the one that makes the most sense.
Like the idea of "I take hits and don't care" is fine, but it's sort incompatible with PF2s models of "+/- 10 for crits" and "out of combat healing is plentiful, in-combat healing is scarce."
Like generally "having lower AC than you could" is a "feels-bad" thing because you get crit more. Like you'll never see a Poppet PC starting with an 8 Dex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, y'all aren't responding to me, right? I've tried to be pretty clear about my definition of "risk".
I would rather see a barbarian take risky plays with safe numbers than take safe plays with risky numbers, if that makes sense.
Removing the AC penalty isn't really the issue, because mechanics like Deny Advantage were still there to encourage a "risky" playstyle--a playstyle of running into the thick of things and fighting mooks without flanking destroying you. But if you remove Deny Advantage, flanking becomes as dangerous to you as to anyone else, encouraging a slightly safer playstyle. That's my concern.
EDIT: Not addressing Perp with the "y'all aren't replying to me" bit, to be clear, they're clearly talking about what I said and make a good point in counter of it. I disagree, but it's a valid perspective on the issue!
Like the idea of "I take hits and don't care" is fine, but it's sort incompatible with PF2s models of "+/- 10 for crits" and "out of combat healing is plentiful, in-combat healing is scarce."
Like generally "having lower AC than you could" is a "feels-bad" thing because you get crit more. Like you'll never see a Poppet PC starting with an 8 Dex.
The crits made it not worth it. I didn't get low too often, but the number of crits without the DR just made it bad with no upside.
In P1 crits occurred within a set range. Your DR helped as well as fortification armor, but in PF2 you don't have any of that. The crits just hammered you with no real way to offset it.
Yeah, you could hypothetically make a class that doesn't rely on AC for defense, and uses things like (temp) HP, DR, etc. but what that class absolutely needs is "a reliable crit-negating option."