| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
People also seem to be forgetting the elephant in the room - D&D 2024 . Which one way or another will shift the commercial landscape when it comes out. Even if most of us here don't play it as our primary RPG, D&D is still a gateway to the rest of the industry.From what I'm seeing, the shift in the market from the release of D&D 2024 may not be to WoTC's benefit.
...which is another excellent reason for Paizo to be staying the course right now... because if D&D 2024 alienates a large chunk of its playerbase, then PF2, as a mature but still thriving game, starts being really appealing as a place for people to jump to.
There's a reason that WotC tried to murder Paizo via OGL, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not necessarily speaking for myself besides edition fatigue and not willing to buy more of the same with some small changes sim sticking with 5E. I already own PF 1and 2 and plan to buy the Remaster.
If I had only bought 5E I would stick with it. I would only look for alternatives if and only if I was hugely disappointed in how 5 E plays and runs.
Many Rpgers stick to games they are familiar with and like to play and run. Jumping on ever new bandwagon is rare and far between.
People also seem to be forgetting the elephant in the room - D&D 2024 . Which one way or another will shift the commercial landscape when it comes out. Even if most of us here don't play it as our primary RPG, D&D is still a gateway to the rest of the industry.From what I'm seeing, the shift in the market from the release of D&D 2024 may not be to WoTC's benefit....which is another excellent reason for Paizo to be staying the course right now... because if D&D 2024 alienates a large chunk of its playerbase, then PF2, as a mature but still thriving game, starts being really appealing as a place for people to jump to.
There's a reason that WotC tried to murder Paizo via OGL, after all.
I imagine that it will, like most other edition changes have before it. It might also attract new players as well, however. The argument works both ways until we get publication confirmation.
And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.
I imagine that it will, like most other edition changes have before it. It might also attract new players as well, however. The argument works both ways until we get publication confirmation.People also seem to be forgetting the elephant in the room - D&D 2024 . Which one way or another will shift the commercial landscape when it comes out. Even if most of us here don't play it as our primary RPG, D&D is still a gateway to the rest of the industry.From what I'm seeing, the shift in the market from the release of D&D 2024 may not be to WoTC's benefit....which is another excellent reason for Paizo to be staying the course right now... because if D&D 2024 alienates a large chunk of its playerbase, then PF2, as a mature but still thriving game, starts being really appealing as a place for people to jump to.
There's a reason that WotC tried to murder Paizo via OGL, after all.
IF WoTC was actually releasing a new edition , that might be true. They're trying to claim that it is still D&D 5E.
Right now, I'm not so sure.
And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.
But WoTC found, to their horror, that the sword had two edges. :)
If D&D 2024 lands with a thud, then a PF2R Strategy Guide like book is more likely then a whole new edition. It would likely be more useful too.
And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.
Sure, WotC was trying to eat everyone's lunch. I'm not going to argue that. Still, there were some pretty strong indicators that some of it was explicitly targeted. Like, at one point when WotC was backpedaling about the "and we get 20% off everything you make forever just because" they said, in essence "Oh, we didn't mean that to target the small producers - just the big companies that make millions of dollars." As far as I'm aware, at the time the set of "big companies that make millions of dollars" using OGL was pretty much just Paizo. Then, too, there was the fact that they kept up a pretty strong front until Paizo came out and said "actually, we don't *need* the OGL. It looks like it's time for us to make our own license." Then they crumpled hard shortly thereafter.
...and, of course, there were the occasionally unpleasant arguments in various places in the months and years leading up to the whole thing where people were trying to convince each other to switch, and influencers were occasionally hopping sides and so forth.
I mean, it's not a hard guarantee or anything, but it sure looked to me like WotC was perceiving Paizo as a competitor and a threat (at least potentially) and hoping to use this to break them.
Didn't turn out like that.
|
And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.Sure, WotC was trying to eat everyone's lunch. I'm not going to argue that. Still, there were some pretty strong indicators that some of it was explicitly targeted. Like, at one point when WotC was backpedaling about the "and we get 20% off everything you make forever just because" they said, in essence "Oh, we didn't mean that to target the small producers - just the big companies that make millions of dollars." As far as I'm aware, at the time the set of "big companies that make millions of dollars" using OGL was pretty much just Paizo. Then, too, there was the fact that they kept up a pretty strong front until Paizo came out and said "actually, we don't *need* the OGL. It looks like it's time for us to make our own license." Then they crumpled hard shortly thereafter.
...and, of course, there were the occasionally unpleasant arguments in various places in the months and years leading up to the whole thing where people were trying to convince each other to switch, and influencers were occasionally hopping sides and so forth.
I mean, it's not a hard guarantee or anything, but it sure looked to me like WotC was perceiving Paizo as a competitor and a threat (at least potentially) and hoping to use this to break them.
Didn't turn out like that.
Not break them. Just make more money.
That it would have broken them in time and thus killed the source of additional money is just lost on people who have very short-term objectives.
I imagine that it will, like most other edition changes have before it. It might also attract new players as well, however. The argument works both ways until we get publication confirmation.People also seem to be forgetting the elephant in the room - D&D 2024 . Which one way or another will shift the commercial landscape when it comes out. Even if most of us here don't play it as our primary RPG, D&D is still a gateway to the rest of the industry.From what I'm seeing, the shift in the market from the release of D&D 2024 may not be to WoTC's benefit....which is another excellent reason for Paizo to be staying the course right now... because if D&D 2024 alienates a large chunk of its playerbase, then PF2, as a mature but still thriving game, starts being really appealing as a place for people to jump to.
There's a reason that WotC tried to murder Paizo via OGL, after all.
IF WoTC was actually releasing a new edition , that might be true. They're trying to claim that it is still D&D 5E.
Right now, I'm not so sure.
And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.But WoTC found, to their horror, that the sword had two edges. :)
If D&D 2024 lands with a thud, then a PF2R Strategy Guide like book is more likely then a whole new edition. It would likely be more useful too.
Even if it's not a new edition, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the marketing schemes went along the lines of "Didn't like how 5E played? This fixes all the things you didn't like about 5E!" and it would actually work to either bring people back into the system, or trick new people into thinking it's a newer, better game from the one previously. It's basically like every time Activision would release a new Call of Duty game; it will harken all the diehard grognards without question, but it may also entice old players who got bored/fed up with the system, and new ones alike. Unfortunately, I don't think TTRPGs have the same draw to them that MMOFPS games do in that respect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not break them. Just make more money.
That it would have broken them in time and thus killed the source of additional money is just lost on people who have very short-term objectives.
I think they wanted to fully own everything in the space. They wanted to have the ability to exploit or destroy at their whim. I don't think it was *just* a matter of not realizing that they were going to kill the goose.
And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.Sure, WotC was trying to eat everyone's lunch. I'm not going to argue that. Still, there were some pretty strong indicators that some of it was explicitly targeted. Like, at one point when WotC was backpedaling about the "and we get 20% off everything you make forever just because" they said, in essence "Oh, we didn't mean that to target the small producers - just the big companies that make millions of dollars." As far as I'm aware, at the time the set of "big companies that make millions of dollars" using OGL was pretty much just Paizo. Then, too, there was the fact that they kept up a pretty strong front until Paizo came out and said "actually, we don't *need* the OGL. It looks like it's time for us to make our own license." Then they crumpled hard shortly thereafter.
...and, of course, there were the occasionally unpleasant arguments in various places in the months and years leading up to the whole thing where people were trying to convince each other to switch, and influencers were occasionally hopping sides and so forth.
I mean, it's not a hard guarantee or anything, but it sure looked to me like WotC was perceiving Paizo as a competitor and a threat (at least potentially) and hoping to use this to break them.
Didn't turn out like that.
If I remember correctly, there were statistics posted of people attending TTRPG events being hosted at gaming conventions, and D&D absolutely overshadowed most every other system of TTRPGs by a landslide, with Paizo being the second highest, yet still at a fraction of D&D's numbers (or third, depending on the location, there was another system that was up there, but I forget the name). If we used that as a metric, I suppose that Paizo would have been next on the chopping block anyway, but it would be silly to suggest D&D wouldn't mind subsuming more than just Paizo as a company (even though they were spawned from D&D, technically speaking).
The sad thing is, I imagine that even with this "scandal" happening, D&D is still the top dog on the food chain here, with Paizo maybe closing the gap some more, and some other IPs getting more recognition as a result, which is basically why Paizo went out of their way to make the ORC license, since they know that other companies/IPs were willing to back their play instead of D&D's. However, it seems that even with their combined efforts, they likely won't catch up to or even outpace D&D's monopolous edge with their OGL license, especially since some companies prove that they are both still willing to work with it despite all the scandal that has come to fruition, as well as become successful as a result of it *cough*Baldur's Gate 3*cough*.
|
|
I think they wanted to fully own everything in the space. They wanted to have the ability to exploit or destroy at their whim. I don't think it was *just* a matter of not realizing that they were going to kill the goose.Not break them. Just make more money.
That it would have broken them in time and thus killed the source of additional money is just lost on people who have very short-term objectives.
I think they just did not want other companies getting increased revenues thanks to Hasbro/WotC investing in high profile DnD projects such as the movie without getting some cut of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they just did not want other companies getting increased revenues thanks to Hasbro/WotC investing in high profile DnD projects such as the movie without getting some cut of it.I think they wanted to fully own everything in the space. They wanted to have the ability to exploit or destroy at their whim. I don't think it was *just* a matter of not realizing that they were going to kill the goose.Not break them. Just make more money.
That it would have broken them in time and thus killed the source of additional money is just lost on people who have very short-term objectives.
I recall on an earnings call I believe that a high level exec at Hasbro said D&D is undermonetized. So they wanted to do everything in their power to maximize the income from D&D. Destroying the old OGL was going to be done to remove competition from the D&D product to increase revenue and monetization of the brand.
I'm assuming long time Paizo owners and execs have inside information that the public doesn't always see or know about probably received credible information the threat was real and they need to act. This wasn't just some minor press release, but a very real existential threat to Paizo that included major, expensive legal action against Pathfinder and Paizo by the deep pockets of Hasbro.
That is what set all this in motion. I think any business facing an existential threat has to take it seriously and move strongly to limit or remove that threat. That is what Paizo did, likely at great expense to their business in terms of man hours and reduced product output on other product lines. I think it was a smart and I hope effective move to shield their business.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope if there is ever a PF3e that funky cool choices don't feel like they end up worse than the cookie cutter ones. As it is despite everything there are some builds that are universally better and overshadow other options.
There are spells which are better to have prepared or known in most situations.
Sure there is balance but there are still options that are almost always universally more useful. Same was true in PF1 and while the gaps are somewhat closer there are still options that feel bad.
Class chassis can often feel bare.
Recent class design has gotten more mechanically interesting and they are kind of breaking out the mould. Power is still super conservative to the point I feel like Battlezoo is doing a lot more interesting things that while sometimes more mechanically power than core options not as much above the curve as under powered Paizo options are under curve compared to optimised ones.
Mechanical balance is a little too tight on weapons for them to feel all that interesting or even fun.
I would like to seem them get a little less conservative so specialisation outside of chassis feels like a thing. Right now specialisation tends end up behind of the curve rather or is outright impossible or requires you to pick a totally different class that may be specialised in what you want but not really the same feel as what you wanted to play.
I like PF2e its a good system but it needs constant new classes to stop from feeling stale as variance within a class feels limited and specialisation punished. Encounters tend to see the same universally useful tactics used over and over (trip being just too damn good). Some skills are way overpowered (looking at athletics, it does too many useful things both for combat and exploration for 1 skill investment).
Class chassis, number of skill advances and the like could do with more of a mix up. Class archetypes are still generally universally better than non class archetype options (hoping fervently PC2 fixes this).
The class and ability design is generally getting better but new options still feel behind PC1 rather than equal. The same problem of power builds arises but now they are simpler and there are less of them. The player options feel like they lack depth and instead there is a breadth of classes. The large number of ancestries often feel the same and I feel like ancestries could just have traits and can take any ancestry feats that have a matching trait (I think that is how they could do species in SF2 while keep the breadth of options without chewing up page count repeating almost the same things). I want to get excited with each new rule book but kind of end up disappointed as each new ancestry or archetype feels like a remix of abilities I have already seen.
That said the core of the game, the 3 action system, the simplification of a lot of the combat rules is great. The monsters with unique or cool monster actions are fantastic. The buff/debuff system is a little flat and leads to the same universally superior options.
Looks like SF2e is heading in the right direction at least as far as making terrain in combat more interesting. Hoping SF2e improves what they think about doing in PF2e.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since new players will usually play Core classes, these (and especially the iconic classes of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard) need to be both simple to grasp and play and efficient. Because you do not want the new players to feel completely left behind by the system masters.
Then other classes fit more complicated playstyles that some people will favor but never through outperforming the Core classes.
And system mastery then shines best at group tactics level where optimisation benefits the whole party rather than a single PC.
PF2 hits many of these well IMO, even though there will always be room for change and improvement.
As long as Paizo keeps using open playtests to accurately assess customers' wants, I think they should succeed pretty well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I.. just want magic to actually feel fun and impactful again, tbh. That mixed with there not being such a vice-tight iron-grip stranglehold on the math. But eehhhh, I'm probably just jaded from previous experiences trying to use magic in the system.
I just want to feel like I'm actually doing something. If they could do something with the magic in 2E about that, I'd be very happy.
I haven't felt that way as a caster in PF2e, but it is different from 1e. I've only played as a Cleric as a healer and though I've felt super empowered (single target heals or big AOE Channels vs undead are a trip!) I've also seen the Witch in our party constantly fills the gaps in our formation with summons (to tank/soak up damage), AOE spells (to both damage & debuff), & powerful buffs (In a 10 round combat I've seen Stoke the Heart do a tremendous amount of work). I don't think it's a stretch to say they're one of the best performers in our party even if they aren't always the best at any one thing consistently.
I get it though, it's not like 1e where you could end an encounter with a single spell (Hold Person-ing a solo boss so the martial could CdG was BRUTAL) and you can't ever really catch up to martials in single target damage. But what you do get as a caster is versatility rather than straight power. I know that's harder to swallow but it is still quite fun if you can get used to it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will never forgive Wizards.
Ever.
Will blow every available dime I have on a system I don't even play or particularly care for to spite them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand missing the power of 1e spellcasting, but isn't that solvable trivially? It seems to me that if you:
-treat all spell successes as crit successes
-treat all spell failures as crit failures
-remove the incapacitation trait
Then you're right back in 1e.
I understand missing the power of 1e spellcasting, but isn't that solvable trivially? It seems to me that if you:
-treat all spell successes as crit successes
-treat all spell failures as crit failures
-remove the incapacitation traitThen you're right back in 1e.
Or remove incapacitation and allow item bonuses to save DCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or remove incapacitation and allow item bonuses to save DCs.I understand missing the power of 1e spellcasting, but isn't that solvable trivially? It seems to me that if you:
-treat all spell successes as crit successes
-treat all spell failures as crit failures
-remove the incapacitation traitThen you're right back in 1e.
That *would* be a way to achieve some of the old 3.x disparity between martials and casters, yes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played wizards from low level to high level in PF1 and casters at almost every level of PF2.
I don’t really think casters were nerfed after getting to know the system, I think PF1 adventure writers nerfed high level adventures because the floor and the ceiling of casters in particular were so far apart in PF1, that putting competent NPCs in high level modules would be TPK machines for most parties.
The most powerful spell in my PF1 wizard’s arsenal was silent dimensional door so I could put the buffed up Paladin on top of the most evil caster enemy and then the encounter was over. It was 30different types of bonuses and nothing in adventures ever seeming to be prepared to dispel magic or have antimagic protections in place that seemed to make such a big deal of casters in PF1.
Yes you could feel like you hit the “win button” in the build phase by over specializing to cast all of 3 or 4 different spells that had impossible DCs to overcome…as long as you could also beat spell resistance, didn’t meet any kind of immunity to your shtick, could make sure to go first, and your GM didn’t ever adjust encounters to meet your level of specialization, but, yeah, playing a caster against a GM that chose to challenge you at your level was tough and meant rocket tag.
In PF2, casting is much easier starting at level 1, and there are many ways to build effective casters that don’t run into “this is a terrible build,” unless you try to build a PF1 caster who is going to cast the same spell everytime, which the game discourages you from doing by making it hard to get better at just casting one spell all the time.
Casting is very different though so I get where the generalizations come from, especially trying to replicate casters from PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or remove incapacitation and allow item bonuses to save DCs.
I think that's the main thing but I also think delayed progression in proficiency is also something that is abrasive to 1e players. Spell attacks are way weaker than they were in PF1e largely because there isn't an easier AC to hit (Touch AC was often way lower than regular AC, so higher CR threats became much easier for casters to interact with than martials) it means spells like Scorching Ray sorta suck compared to 1e vs 2e solo enemies with good AC. So getting them back up to parity with martials would be another thing to help make them feel more like 1e casters.
Now all that is to say, I wouldn't recommend those changes. 1e casters were sometimes god-like (IIRC one of the first PF1e optimization guides I read was Treantmonk's God Wizard Guide which is why I use the term) and I don't want to go back to that as a DM or a player; but if that's what you want these changes would probably do the job. Thought I would recommend instead just focusing on things that don't really use your DC or spell attack modifier as that seems easier than getting your DM to rework 2-3 mechanics to make you stronger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's... how Blur worked in 1e, so at the least that's just normal. Forcing an extra 20% miss chance against attacks that would have hit is rather like +2 AC except it works against even targeted effects that don't have an attack roll.
Frankly, I think full spellcasters just need to emulate martial weapon scaling for their spell attacks/DCs, then Legendary at level 17 or so. It'll still fall behind martials slightly without potency runes, but it'll at least lessen the gap at levels 5-7 and 13-15.
A gate attenuator-like item bonus to DCs would also be neat -- maybe tie them to a tradition and limit them to one per user (like apex items) if you want to reign them in a little and specialize. Both together might be a bit rough, and Kineticist might be a little miffed with the change.
But even without these, I think magic is in an okay spot. The problems largely iron out as you level up and get more items and spell slots. Alchemists have a similar problem, though I think it takes them longer to get to a better spot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forgive me, I'm sorry. I've just been frustrated with my experiences.
This is not an appropriate thread for me to be venting in and I should not've foisted it on you guys. Y'all carry on.
It's cool, really.
I mean, look at the thread title. This thread started out as a "complain about PF2" thread, more or less, and to the degree that it had a real question other than that, that question was answered immediately, thoroughly, and relentlessly by a wide variety of respondents. So... honestly, your issues are at least as on-topic as anything else we have going on.
Honestly, my suggestion? We have a few people who enjoy playing casters in PF2, and think they're awesome. @SuperBidi and @Deriven_Firelion immediately jump to mind. (The latter plays with a few houserules that buff casters a bit, but not as much as the houserules people have been suggesting here would). Some folks have written some useful advice threads on the topic. I'd suggest you check those out. There is space in this system to be a successful and effective caster if you can learnt he way of it, and these people are happy to tell you the way of it. ( SuperBidi's guide on playing a blaster, for example)
...or, if you don't want to go digging that hard, then create an advice thread of your own, describe your issues as best you can, and let them offer suggestions on how to up your game in this strange new environment.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.Sure, WotC was trying to eat everyone's lunch. I'm not going to argue that. Still, there were some pretty strong indicators that some of it was explicitly targeted. Like, at one point when WotC was backpedaling about the "and we get 20% off everything you make forever just because" they said, in essence "Oh, we didn't mean that to target the small producers - just the big companies that make millions of dollars." As far as I'm aware, at the time the set of "big companies that make millions of dollars" using OGL was pretty much just Paizo. Then, too, there was the fact that they kept up a pretty strong front until Paizo came out and said "actually, we don't *need* the OGL. It looks like it's time for us to make our own license." Then they crumpled hard shortly thereafter.
...and, of course, there were the occasionally unpleasant arguments in various places in the months and years leading up to the whole thing where people were trying to convince each other to switch, and influencers were occasionally hopping sides and so forth.
I mean, it's not a hard guarantee or anything, but it sure looked to me like WotC was perceiving Paizo as a competitor and a threat (at least potentially) and hoping to use this to break them.
Didn't turn out like that.
It's critical role. What you're basically missing is that WOTC is seething that critical role has as good of brand recognition as DnD does, along with all the other homebrew companies. They've been on amicable terms but this was new management seeing the old managements decision to let Crit Role still operate without paying royalties and license fees and absolutely fuming about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's critical role. What you're basically missing is that WOTC is seething that critical role has as good of brand recognition as DnD does, along with all the other homebrew companies. They've been on amicable terms but this was new management seeing the old managements decision to let Crit Role still operate without paying royalties and license fees and absolutely fuming about it.And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.Sure, WotC was trying to eat everyone's lunch. I'm not going to argue that. Still, there were some pretty strong indicators that some of it was explicitly targeted. Like, at one point when WotC was backpedaling about the "and we get 20% off everything you make forever just because" they said, in essence "Oh, we didn't mean that to target the small producers - just the big companies that make millions of dollars." As far as I'm aware, at the time the set of "big companies that make millions of dollars" using OGL was pretty much just Paizo. Then, too, there was the fact that they kept up a pretty strong front until Paizo came out and said "actually, we don't *need* the OGL. It looks like it's time for us to make our own license." Then they crumpled hard shortly thereafter.
...and, of course, there were the occasionally unpleasant arguments in various places in the months and years leading up to the whole thing where people were trying to convince each other to switch, and influencers were occasionally hopping sides and so forth.
I mean, it's not a hard guarantee or anything, but it sure looked to me like WotC was perceiving Paizo as a competitor and a threat (at least potentially) and hoping to use this to break them.
Didn't turn out like that.
Also the VTTs and the rest of the digital ecosystem. Imagine AI OGL GM becoming the next big thing and them getting nothing out of it.
It's critical role. What you're basically missing is that WOTC is seething that critical role has as good of brand recognition as DnD does, along with all the other homebrew companies. They've been on amicable terms but this was new management seeing the old managements decision to let Crit Role still operate without paying royalties and license fees and absolutely fuming about it.
Which leads to Daggerheart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I.. just want magic to actually feel fun and impactful again, tbh. That mixed with there not being such a vice-tight iron-grip stranglehold on the math. But eehhhh, I'm probably just jaded from previous experiences trying to use magic in the system.
I just want to feel like I'm actually doing something. If they could do something with the magic in 2E about that, I'd be very happy.
If you don't feel impactful playing a caster in PF2, you're either too addicted to PF1's level of power or haven't played to a very high level.
PF2 casters are beastly. They still crush more stuff than any other class in the game. Spells are still the best thing to have access to past the low levels. Every single caster I've played to high level is literally the strongest group member able to crush encounters like no other character in the group can do other than another high level caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forgive me, I'm sorry. I've just been frustrated with my experiences.
This is not an appropriate thread for me to be venting in and I should not've foisted it on you guys. Y'all carry on.It's cool, really.
I mean, look at the thread title. This thread started out as a "complain about PF2" thread, more or less, and to the degree that it had a real question other than that, that question was answered immediately, thoroughly, and relentlessly by a wide variety of respondents. So... honestly, your issues are at least as on-topic as anything else we have going on.
Honestly, my suggestion? We have a few people who enjoy playing casters in PF2, and think they're awesome. @SuperBidi and @Deriven_Firelion immediately jump to mind. (The latter plays with a few houserules that buff casters a bit, but not as much as the houserules people have been suggesting here would). Some folks have written some useful advice threads on the topic. I'd suggest you check those out. There is space in this system to be a successful and effective caster if you can learnt he way of it, and these people are happy to tell you the way of it. ( SuperBidi's guide on playing a blaster, for example)
...or, if you don't want to go digging that hard, then create an advice thread of your own, describe your issues as best you can, and let them offer suggestions on how to up your game in this strange new environment.
Thanks Sanity Faerie,
You are right. My house rules to help, but don't fundamentally change the spells and just make everyone a spontaneous caster.
Spells are still extremely impactful. I keep hearing complaints about lack of variety, but it was the same in PF1. There were tons of spells in PF1 and may be 10% were high value that made the casters uber. My favorites in PF1 was quickened enervate which I used to set up other spells with saves against them.
In PF2 spells like slow, banish, synesthesia, chain lightning, eclipse burst, phantasmal killer, heroism, and several other high value spells are still encounter wreckers that you feel the impact of. I've done spells like synesthesia or [i]phantasmal killer/i] on a boss wit true target and it absolutely leads to a wrecker round unless they critically succeed on the save.
I've softened entire encounters with chain lightening or eclipse burst, especially eclipse burst where on a crit fail they are permanently blinded. AoE slow turns minion encounters into easy fights.
You can't do this kind of stuff as a martial. I've built plenty of hard hitting single target martial damage dealers. Sure, they hit hard and have better defenses. But they are usually doing the same thing at level 15 as they were doing at level 5 with better weapons. Their abilities do not change much. Whereas casters are wrecking entire battlefields at high level turning fights into cakewalks.
Sure, low level caster underwhelming. Once you hit about 5th level and on up, casting is a much more interesting ride up than a martial even in PF2...unless you're maybe a rogue. Rogues are pretty fun to build and do lots of interesting stuff across the levels. Still single target, but at least you have little tools to play with and lots of skills.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every single caster I've played to high level is literally the strongest group member able to crush encounters like no other character in the group can do other than another high level caster.
That's the issue right there, "high level". Only a very small percentage of campaigns get to high level, so most people are playing casters at levels where they SUCK. Martials work just fine right out of the box but casters have to be "aged" like 8 or 9 levels before they start working right. Not many people have that kind of patience, at least in my experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every single caster I've played to high level is literally the strongest group member able to crush encounters like no other character in the group can do other than another high level caster.That's the issue right there, "high level". Only a very small percentage of campaigns get to high level, so most people are playing casters at levels where they SUCK. Martials work just fine right out of the box but casters have to be "aged" like 8 or 9 levels before they start working right. Not many people have that kind of patience, at least in my experience.
I've advised people on how to manage the low levels, which many don't seem to want to do for some reason.
The class chassis show the progression:
A caster starts out trained in weapons, usually simple with the ability to take feats to obtain a better weapon. For early levels casters should be combining cantrip casting with weapon attacks to maintain damage parity with martials.
They should have a fully built out striking weapon, preferably ranged, and using 1 action ranged attack with a ranged cantrip save.
This allows round to round parity with damage. It may not be exactly equal, but you should do good damage combining the two options.
Early on and really throughout all your levels, casters are 2 points behind martials on weapon proficiency with most martials advancing to master weapon proficiency versus casters maximizing to expert.
So maintaining a decent 1 attack built out weapon option prior to obtaining higher level slots, more spells slots, and enough wealth to build scrolls or use casting items to extend casting should carry you in early levels to do decent damage.
I believe this is intended by design. Early casters are supposed to rely on weapons to maintain damage parity.
Why do I think they built it this way?
Because if they had made cantrips as strong as weapon attacks, then min-max casters would have taken a weapon anyway and cast their equivalent to weapon attack cantrips. So the choice was made to make cantrips slightly weaker than weapon attacks, while building in the ability of casters to be at least somewhat competent with weapon attacks to enhance their damage with one action attacks as part of the balance equation for PF2.
So low level casters I highly recommend they use a ranged weapon to feel more impactful and play a bit like a casting martial until they reach about 5th level and they expand their casting options. Even then they can still use the weapon to add damage here and there.
That is what I did to completely change my ability to be impactful as a low level caster. I found that combining a built out weapon attack to my options allowed me to maintain damage parity with martials in the early levels.
If you don't want to do that, then not much else I can tell you. That is the way the game is built for casters to maintain damage impact at low level. They should combine a weapon attack with a striking weapon with their cantrips and low level spells and focus options. You do that, you should record quality damage compared to martial players.
I've tracked this and found low level casters with a weapon combined with cantrips maintain a much higher damage output than trying to do damage with just low level spells and cantrips.
Every single caster I've played to high level is literally the strongest group member able to crush encounters like no other character in the group can do other than another high level caster.That's the issue right there, "high level". Only a very small percentage of campaigns get to high level, so most people are playing casters at levels where they SUCK. Martials work just fine right out of the box but casters have to be "aged" like 8 or 9 levels before they start working right. Not many people have that kind of patience, at least in my experience.I've advised people on how to manage the low levels, which many don't seem to want to do for some reason.
The class chassis show the progression:
A caster starts out trained in weapons, usually simple with the ability to take feats to obtain a better weapon. For early levels casters should be combining cantrip casting with weapon attacks to maintain damage parity with martials.
They should have a fully built out striking weapon, preferably ranged, and using 1 action ranged attack with a ranged cantrip save.
This allows round to round parity with damage. It may not be exactly equal, but you should do good damage combining the two options.
Early on and really throughout all your levels, casters are 2 points behind martials on weapon proficiency with most martials advancing to master weapon proficiency versus casters maximizing to expert.
So maintaining a decent 1 attack built out weapon option prior to obtaining higher level slots, more spells slots, and enough wealth to build scrolls or use casting items to extend casting should carry you in early levels to do decent damage.
I believe this is intended by design. Early casters are supposed to rely on weapons to maintain damage parity.
Why do I think they built it this way?
Because if they had made cantrips as strong as weapon attacks, then min-max casters would have taken a weapon anyway and cast their equivalent to...
I think you misunderstood me, I'm not the one frustrated with playing casters, I prefer martials anyway. I'm talking about the many players I've seen coming from 5E or PF 1E who get frustrated with 2E casters and quit.
I avoid casters because I have no patience for them, but all the disgruntled players leaving games cause the 2E casters aren't meeting their expectations is disruptive and frustrating to me as someone who wants to keep a regular game going.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
While this thread has certainly run its course, it feels like an awful rehash to turn this into a spellcasting conversation once more. It's a conversation that has been done to death. No side will sway the other at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are not for everyone. Its always been that way.
Back when i played my first ttrpg wizards got 1d4 hp per level. Back then there was no way i was taking that class to hopefully survive to higher levels.
I'm all for 1d4 hit points. But I am also in favor of a different approach to hit points altogether, living and dying as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People say PF2 casters are worse than PF1 casters at low levels? Did they ever play a PF1 sorcerer? Are they just talking about like 2 witch builds that were playable at low levels? Goal posts move so fast in “fix caster” conversations it can be hard to keep up. I think the one complaint I can identify consistently in those conversations is “why can’t my caster super specialize in casting a handful of spells and always have those work?” And I think the answer is “because that was identified as a problem, not a feature of PF1’s casting mechanic for the developers who wanted choosing spells to be an encounter by encounter decision, not a character build restriction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People say PF2 casters are worse than PF1 casters at low levels? Did they ever play a PF1 sorcerer? Are they just talking about like 2 witch builds that were playable at low levels? Goal posts move so fast in “fix caster” conversations it can be hard to keep up. I think the one complaint I can identify consistently in those conversations is “why can’t my caster super specialize in casting a handful of spells and always have those work?” And I think the answer is “because that was identified as a problem, not a feature of PF1’s casting mechanic for the developers who wanted choosing spells to be an encounter by encounter decision, not a character build restriction.
In 1E, the spells themselves were much better (even at low level), casters could cast more spells per day, and monster AC and save modifiers were generally lower. Add that all together and casters in 1E were far more powerful. I played alot of divine casters in 1E and really enjoyed them. I won't touch a caster in 2E tho, they're really weak at the levels I've played at.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also the VTTs and the rest of the digital ecosystem. Imagine AI OGL...It's critical role. What you're basically missing is that WOTC is seething that critical role has as good of brand recognition as DnD does, along with all the other homebrew companies. They've been on amicable terms but this was new management seeing the old managements decision to let Crit Role still operate without paying royalties and license fees and absolutely fuming about it.And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.Sure, WotC was trying to eat everyone's lunch. I'm not going to argue that. Still, there were some pretty strong indicators that some of it was explicitly targeted. Like, at one point when WotC was backpedaling about the "and we get 20% off everything you make forever just because" they said, in essence "Oh, we didn't mean that to target the small producers - just the big companies that make millions of dollars." As far as I'm aware, at the time the set of "big companies that make millions of dollars" using OGL was pretty much just Paizo. Then, too, there was the fact that they kept up a pretty strong front until Paizo came out and said "actually, we don't *need* the OGL. It looks like it's time for us to make our own license." Then they crumpled hard shortly thereafter.
...and, of course, there were the occasionally unpleasant arguments in various places in the months and years leading up to the whole thing where people were trying to convince each other to switch, and influencers were occasionally hopping sides and so forth.
I mean, it's not a hard guarantee or anything, but it sure looked to me like WotC was perceiving Paizo as a competitor and a threat (at least potentially) and hoping to use this to break them.
Didn't turn out like that.
I agree that they want to create a singular ecosystem for all of DnD, roll20 and foundry and the like are most likely seen as competition, and even dndbeyond was seen as competition even after they bought it.
But what I think really sparked the OGL and its wording specifically on royalties and all future profits was CritRole, and I can pinpoint the exact moment they got it in their heads to change the OGL. That being when Critical Role got to put the Legend of Vox Machina on Amazon. Not even in terms of like, a rivalry to their streaming or anything financially damaging. Just the fact they released a major commercially popular product using their IP, and there wasn't a single thing they could do to weasel their way into that Amazon deal.
I genuinely believe that was the moment WOTC decided to shoot themselves in the foot, a moment of just petty jealously that another company could use the game they own and make a successful property with it, and now do the kind of things DnD was aiming to try and do in becoming a multimedia brand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even though I seen SF fans being kinda upset that SF2e is going to effectively be more like a new setting for PF2e rather than its own system with the rules they like, I think its the best idea Paizo could have if they wanted to make Starfinder relevant. Only by looking at the release schedule of SF products you'll notice that is more likely Paizo does it more as a passion project than something that gives them money, though by making it compatible with PF2e you immediately make everyone that plays PF2e at least interested in it, which means its going to initially sell better, and likely the people that already likes to buy all the content from PF2e would want to buy everything from SF2e too since thats effectively more content they can use in PF2e too.
I'm personally in the process of making a setting that could incorporate stuff from both systems more easily since I'm planning to use SF2e content in PF2e, and I seen a ton of people online that are planing to do that too, so its likely Paizo would pivot from the (hyphotetical) success of SF2e and make more standalone-but-not-so-much systems that change some of the core rules.
Seems like it also,massively increases content that star finder aficionados could use and dip into.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People say PF2 casters are worse than PF1 casters at low levels? Did they ever play a PF1 sorcerer? Are they just talking about like 2 witch builds that were playable at low levels? Goal posts move so fast in “fix caster” conversations it can be hard to keep up. I think the one complaint I can identify consistently in those conversations is “why can’t my caster super specialize in casting a handful of spells and always have those work?” And I think the answer is “because that was identified as a problem, not a feature of PF1’s casting mechanic for the developers who wanted choosing spells to be an encounter by encounter decision, not a character build restriction.In 1E, the spells themselves were much better (even at low level), casters could cast more spells per day, and monster AC and save modifiers were generally lower. Add that all together and casters in 1E were far more powerful. I played alot of divine casters in 1E and really enjoyed them. I won't touch a caster in 2E tho, they're really weak at the levels I've played at.
TBH I remember seeing the PF2 version of cantrips during the playtest and thanking the deities that I could finally play a low level caster who could cast damaging spells every round rather than having to rely on a crossbow or just end the adventuring day after 15 minutes.
I most definitely did not feel that powerful playing a PF1 caster at low level.
And I still remember Ravingdork's strategy then to feel powerful at all levels in PF1 by playing a martial, getting killed after the low levels and then playing a caster at the higher levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 1E, the spells themselves were much better (even at low level), casters could cast more spells per day, and monster AC and save modifiers were generally lower. Add that all together and casters in 1E were far more powerful. I played alot of divine casters in 1E and really enjoyed them. I won't touch a caster in 2E tho, they're really weak at the levels I've played at.
We're talking about the same low levels? In PF1 a Caster with an 18 could cast their first level spell 2 times and then they were more or less useless for the remainder of the day. Sure, some of those level 1 spells worked really well sometimes, but you often wanted to have more than 2 fights in a day. Just cantrips being useful is an incredible buff to low level casters.