Am I alone in thinking Quickdraw should have been updated to either draw or swap?
Also allowing it to work with lighting swap if somehow a character had both?
Or are there feats that do exactly that?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably not alone, but personally I have no emotional attachment to the idea yet. The use case for quick draw is different than for swap.
As a side note, lighting swap sounds like a very interesting cantrip or focus spell. Very feng shui.
I don't take Quickdraw in this edition. I have player who take Quickdraw even when I advise not to waste the feat, uses it once in a blue moon telling me how useful it is. Then it almost never sees use at higher level as his weapons grow far apart in capability since his primary use for Quickdraw is weapon switching. Hopefully the swapping will finally make him see how useless Quickdraw is. Quickdraw would only be useful if it let you draw as a Free Action so you could use almost anything when you do so since many players use a maneuver or feat effect as their first action and don't want to mess up their MAP just to draw a weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably not alone, but personally I have no emotional attachment to the idea yet. The use case for quick draw is different than for swap.
As a side note, lighting swap sounds like a very interesting cantrip or focus spell. Very feng shui.
Sometimes you need to change the mood of the room.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't take Quickdraw in this edition. I have player who take Quickdraw even when I advise not to waste the feat, uses it once in a blue moon telling me how useful it is. Then it almost never sees use at higher level as his weapons grow far apart in capability since his primary use for Quickdraw is weapon switching. Hopefully the swapping will finally make him see how useless Quickdraw is. Quickdraw would only be useful if it let you draw as a Free Action so you could use almost anything when you do so since many players use a maneuver or feat effect as their first action and don't want to mess up their MAP just to draw a weapon.
Quick draw is great for thrown weapon users. It's fine for that niche. Gunslingers who might have some spell guns on hand could also make use of it to seamlessly switch back to their standard weapons
Also, as was mentioned, consumables in general are easier to use with the swap action and quick draw
I just though it may have been an overlooked opportunity.
Draw and swap are equal activities now. I am thinking of just allowing quickdraw to either take a draw or swap action. It feels restrictive for no reason other than maybe no one thought about adding swap to the list of actions quickdraw can be used with.
Is there some element of play thats being ruined by allowing it?
Additional thought: Im really just extending the reasoning for swap being introduced. Everyone was dropping weapons to switch weapons and that just was weirdness. So allowing players to use an action to swap kept a lot of weapons off the floor and just made gameplay better overall. Not allowing swap with quick draw just takes players who pick it up back to the same issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't take Quickdraw in this edition. I have player who take Quickdraw even when I advise not to waste the feat, uses it once in a blue moon telling me how useful it is. Then it almost never sees use at higher level as his weapons grow far apart in capability since his primary use for Quickdraw is weapon switching. Hopefully the swapping will finally make him see how useless Quickdraw is. Quickdraw would only be useful if it let you draw as a Free Action so you could use almost anything when you do so since many players use a maneuver or feat effect as their first action and don't want to mess up their MAP just to draw a weapon.Quick draw is great for thrown weapon users. It's fine for that niche. Gunslingers who might have some spell guns on hand could also make use of it to seamlessly switch back to their standard weapons
Also, as was mentioned, consumables in general are easier to use with the swap action and quick draw
Consumables are not something we use much, especially not in melee range as drawing an item provokes an AoO. I would be surprised to see them used in battle rather than as a pre-buff. I'm not super sure why someone would use a consumable in melee combat range. The risks are generally not worth the payoff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Consumables are not something we use much...Your personal experiences are functionally irrelevant. Almost every time you bring them up you basically set up a scenario that is equivalent to "my group deliberately skews the game to not have this thing be beneficial" but then concluding not "so maybe we should change our approach to more match what seems expected by the designers by making stuff actually be useful" but "so it's objectively useless and anyone that disagrees isn't as good at the game as my group."
Because you're saying stuff like the following:
I'm not super sure why someone would use a consumable in melee combat range. The risks are generally not worth the payoff.When the general case in the game is that your enemies don't have a reaction triggered by item usage.
Acting like it's a regular enough occurrence that something does have a reaction to make it make sense to have a general avoidance of using items in melee combat range is like acting as if the vast majority of encounters are specifically against undead - even if it is true because of how the GM of your table chooses to do things, it's still something which is variable according to GM choice, not an inherent constant.
The answer to why someone would use a consumable in melee combat range is because it's beneficial given their current circumstances and what else they'd like to do with this particular turn. Such as, just for an example that rings my own obvious bell, drinking a healing potion right now and taking defensive actions instead of Stepping away and having a higher potential of getting downed by the opponent using a ranged attack or closing the distance and hitting you before you actually had the chance to drink the potion. Or, you know, you're in melee when you realize a consumable would be beneficial and also want to attack and/or stay in a position beneficial to your allies.
So you're saying that most groups play in a way that requires them to use a consumable in melee combat a sufficient number of times that Quickdraw becomes relevant when after 40 years of play including at least 20 with quickdraw I rarely see this.
I'm sorry. You keep stating my experience is irrelevant. I think your constantly trying to make a feat or ability seem better than it is by stating nonspecific examples you maybe use once in a while as a relevant reason for the feat being "good" in your opinion.
I truly wish they would parse data as to how often Quickdraw was a good feat over other available options within games other than my own because let's say I'm not buying what you're selling. I think even a moderately intelligent player can see the low value of a feat like Quickdraw and I think any collection of data would show the low use of the feat and the circumstances where it would actually be beneficial, similar to what I see in my games.
Since that data does not exist and only a few classes have Quickdraw, it's not worth the feat. You vastly overstate the quality of the Quickdraw feat. The number of players that never take it due to not having it on their feat list or simply being able to parse that it is not very good value feat in PF2 is hopefully higher than the number thinking it is a quality feat.
Your consumable example doesn't make it a better feat given that group with even a moderately competent caster with a heal spell will keep a player from dropping without a consumable at low level and at higher level you have a sufficiently high hit point pool to not need a consumable during combat.
Most of the healing consumable use I see is during downtime to more quickly top off hit points if insufficient time for Medicine use.
You keep on overselling Quickdraw. I'd advise against the feat unless you have something better to take as I continue to advise my players. It's not a great feat in PF2 and not worth the investment having rare use cases.
As an aside, there are a lot of AoOs. You never really know when they will be there. I know drawing a potion to drink to heal when fighting trolls or some NPC designed with reactive strikes is a good way to take damage that makes the heal potion a very bad idea to the point you will be dropped trying to draw and drink it.
Your consumable example doesn't make it a better feat given that group with even a moderately competent caster with a heal spell will keep a player from dropping without a consumable at low level and at higher level you have a sufficiently high hit point pool to not need a consumable during combat.
My experience with healing consumables consumables is more that they are used in addition to any healing. Or as pre-emptive topups so casters don't have to waste slots on heals when they could be doing something more impactful/interesting (as a martial losing a second and third attack is far less impacted than a caster losing two attacks.)
Then we branch out into non healing consumables and thrown items which is where I have seen quickdraw being used for the most in mid and high level play. "I will swallow splash so I can trigger weaknesses" is something I have seen a lot. Chugging a mutagen to cover for a save weakness mid combat is another common one. And then there are the various situational potions that are nice to have on hand just in case and cost very little.
Consumables are not something we use much, especially not in melee range as drawing an item provokes an AoO. I would be surprised to see them used in battle rather than as a pre-buff. I'm not super sure why someone would use a consumable in melee combat range. The risks are generally not worth the payoff.
Quick Draw enables even melee users to drink / use one or two consumables in turn 1 without action loss.
Being able to hold a Numbing Tonic, drink it for 1A at initiative, and then Quick Draw Strike, is genuinely good.
It does limit consumable use to the more proactive and buff-y variety if you really want action efficacy, but that is still a whole lot more options than most people seem willing to experiment with.
There are plenty of Strike-heavy characters that may even like going as far as to spend turn 1 casting a spell from a wand, drop it, then shoot a ranged weapon to squeeze in that MAP 0 Strike, yet I've just about never heard of someone discussing how Quick Draw enable one to do that.
That said, it is maddening that Quick Draw is not available to Alchemists, the one class that really needs it, lol. It is absurd that Alchs are limited to Quick Bomber, which requires one to throw away their daily resources for every attempted Strike.
I've spent a lot of time with different setups, and it's just not pleasant to get Quick Draw from an Archetype.
IMO, my Alchemists have felt the most comfortable with a Returning throwing weapon in my left hand (which can be enhanced with an Alch siphon like an Alchemical Crossbow), while my right hand is where the familiar hands off elixirs, where Quick Bomber hurls from, ect.
Bonus points for the Jolt Coil on the Returning weapon for maximum nickle and diming. Strike + Strength + siphon + spellheart + injury poison does start to add up for a 1A throw.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quick Draw should be a 1st level feat, if not even a 1st level General Feat (I would put it on par with Shield Block), as making it a 2nd level class feat makes it boring and underpowered compared to, say, an archetype dedication. That said, I do think it has its uses. It just depends on a) GMs not handwaving having weapons out at the start of combat, even in situations where you wouldn’t, and b) whether you have a way to get runes onto multiple weapons. I have it on my rogue with doubling rings, and being able to carry cheap bludgeoning or slashing weapons when my main weapon is only piercing is nice. Or to have special material weapons. Or to be able to get a ranged weapon quickly. Or after being knock unconscious to not have to waste an action picking up a weapon off the ground. With Kip up and quick draw, I can basically have a normal full turn after getting knocked prone (I do carry a second weapon with runes).
Ultimately, I still don’t think it’s worth a 2nd level class feat, and now the tekko-kagi is available, which makes things much easier for a rogue. I will likely drop the feat when I do my free pfs remaster rebuild.
Your consumable example doesn't make it a better feat given that group with even a moderately competent caster with a heal spell will keep a player from dropping without a consumable at low level and at higher level you have a sufficiently high hit point pool to not need a consumable during combat.My experience with healing consumables consumables is more that they are used in addition to any healing. Or as pre-emptive topups so casters don't have to waste slots on heals when they could be doing something more impactful/interesting (as a martial losing a second and third attack is far less impacted than a caster losing two attacks.)
Then we branch out into non healing consumables and thrown items which is where I have seen quickdraw being used for the most in mid and high level play. "I will swallow splash so I can trigger weaknesses" is something I have seen a lot. Chugging a mutagen to cover for a save weakness mid combat is another common one. And then there are the various situational potions that are nice to have on hand just in case and cost very little.
I can see Quickdraw used for thrown items. It is a necessity to make a character relying on thrown weapons function. The Alchemist has this feat on quick bomber which is the most I've seen thrown items used.
Thrown items are pretty inferior method of attack for most classes. I know some folks like to do it for style reasons. It never much works as a primary method of combat and will always be vastly overshadowed by most other combat styles, which often makes my players give up on a such a style because they hate being overshadowed by such a wide margin.
Yes. Quickdraw is necessary for a thrown weapon fighting style.
I have a player who loves to prove to me Quickdraw is great. He used to take quickdraw in PF1 when it was a really good feat. He takes it in PF2, uses 3 or 4 times mostly at low level, then it becomes this feat sitting on his character not seeing any use as the casters and bow attack in the party no longer need him to switch weapons to do massive ranged damage. The casters usually get the melee martials flying so there is no real use for weapon switching.
Given we do prefer a PC caster doing the healing, we would consider ourselves having failed if a PC had to draw a healing potion to use in combat. Were we not paying attention letting a player's hit points get so low they had to use a potion in melee range hoping the enemy they are facing doesn't have an AoO?
I would genuinely feel bad if I was playing the caster with heal that left a fellow adventurer to pull his healing potion in melee range. It's not something we do across editions, though we do have a few really funny stories of players trying to pull the potion and drink it getting wrecked by enemies. It used to real bad when you got hit totally ruining the potion. Now it's sort of bad.
Consumables are not something we use much, especially not in melee range as drawing an item provokes an AoO. I would be surprised to see them used in battle rather than as a pre-buff. I'm not super sure why someone would use a consumable in melee combat range. The risks are generally not worth the payoff.Quick Draw enables even melee users to drink / use one or two consumables in turn 1 without action loss.
Being able to hold a Numbing Tonic, drink it for 1A at initiative, and then Quick Draw Strike, is genuinely good.
It does limit consumable use to the more proactive and buff-y variety if you really want action efficacy, but that is still a whole lot more options than most people seem willing to experiment with.
There are plenty of Strike-heavy characters that may even like going as far as to spend turn 1 casting a spell from a wand, drop it, then shoot a ranged weapon to squeeze in that MAP 0 Strike, yet I've just about never heard of someone discussing how Quick Draw enable one to do that.
That said, it is maddening that Quick Draw is not available to Alchemists, the one class that really needs it, lol. It is absurd that Alchs are limited to Quick Bomber, which requires one to throw away their daily resources for every attempted Strike.
I've spent a lot of time with different setups, and it's just not pleasant to get Quick Draw from an Archetype.
IMO, my Alchemists have felt the most comfortable with a Returning throwing weapon in my left hand (which can be enhanced with an Alch siphon like an Alchemical Crossbow), while my right hand is where the familiar hands off elixirs, where Quick Bomber hurls from, ect.
Bonus points for the Jolt Coil on the Returning weapon for maximum nickle and diming. Strike + Strength + siphon + spellheart + injury poison does start to add up for a 1A throw.
How is this working? You are at the start of initiative in melee range? Or the enemy closes with you? You draw and drink the potion? Then quick draw and strike once? You wouldn't prefer to Knockdown the target or position for flank with your opening turn?
We just don't use many consumables. We sell most of them. Or put them in our bag thinking we'll use them later, then never use them. Talismans never get used. I imagine some players remember to use these. We don't remember. They aren't impactful enough for us to care.
Most of our players have some Talisman they picked up at low level and attached to their weapons and armor that sits for 5 or more levels that we usually end up selling. We only blow through healing pots at low level. Higher level we just use heal or wait for out of combat Medicine.
Quick Draw should be a 1st level feat, if not even a 1st level General Feat (I would put it on par with Shield Block), as making it a 2nd level class feat makes it boring and underpowered compared to, say, an archetype dedication. That said, I do think it has its uses. It just depends on a) GMs not handwaving having weapons out at the start of combat, even in situations where you wouldn’t, and b) whether you have a way to get runes onto multiple weapons. I have it on my rogue with doubling rings, and being able to carry cheap bludgeoning or slashing weapons when my main weapon is only piercing is nice. Or to have special material weapons. Or to be able to get a ranged weapon quickly. Or after being knock unconscious to not have to waste an action picking up a weapon off the ground. With Kip up and quick draw, I can basically have a normal full turn after getting knocked prone (I do carry a second weapon with runes).
Ultimately, I still don’t think it’s worth a 2nd level class feat, and now the tekko-kagi is available, which makes things much easier for a rogue. I will likely drop the feat when I do my free pfs remaster rebuild.
Quickdraw should be like the PF1 feat and a general feat where you pick it up to learn to draw an item as a free action you can combine with other things. Then martials can quick draw their weapons and do their schtick. Casters can quick draw a wand. It's just more fun as a general feat free action usable with more fun other abilities.
How is this working? You are at the start of initiative in melee range? Or the enemy closes with you? You draw and drink the potion? Then quick draw and strike once? You wouldn't prefer to Knockdown the target or position for flank with your opening turn?
We just don't use many consumables. We sell most of them. Or put them in our bag thinking we'll use them later, then never use them. Talismans never get used. I imagine some players remember to use these. We don't remember. They aren't impactful enough for us to care.
The method is to walk around the danger zone while wielding the consumable instead of your weapon. If your plan is to Quick Draw Strike, there's not much reason to have the weapon in your hand.
When initiative is rolled, you have the opportunity to confirm you want to pop that consumable before doing so. You even have the options of dropping or swapping away the consumable if you do not want to use it, though generally you pick an item that's for sure going to appeal to you, be it a Sure Strike scroll, ect.
A 2-H heavy-hitter w/ Quick Draw may even want to start with both hands full of consumables; a sniping gunslinger really may want to drink something, pop a holly bush / smokestick, and still be able to Strike with hands empty and no action loss.
If you want a more optimized example than the Numbing Tonic, at L8, a Witch with Cauldron can make a Haste potion daily.
And Oil of Swiftness is a 50gp, 1 Action (and 2-H) method to apply a Strike-only haste onto the weapon on your hip.
Quick Draw is the key by which martials can get spell-potency effects for *less* actions than casting spells; I'm honestly surprised I've not seen at least those consumable haste options discussed more.
This does mean that for the first turn, this sort of a PC will be planning on only having 2A remaining to try to get that MAP 0 Strike. However, that is still usually doable, especially if one is not super invested into initiative. (and again, you can always drop it)
And the less optimized the pf2e play, the longer the fights in turn count, and the better the value of the 1A spend on the buff.
--------------------
While lacking Quick-Draw, the consumable-using style for those 2 Alchemists with a throwing spear is going very well (comparatively to everything else I've tried, like Bastion + Shield, ect).
There's a few cheats/oversights for Alchemist if you use a melee weapon that can be thrown, small things like the attachable siphons. Every first hit w/ the thrown spear imposes a save-or-suck injury poison, and if the fight does not look too severe, I can conserve and use the spellheart's cantrip for a bit more boosted damage (or when one foe close enough to down for an EA to finish, w/ a thrown strike as a safety against Crit Save).
Ratfolk's Quick Stow means I can cast wands and stash them without dropping, but that's not really needed. Mainly, I've ended up using Quick Stow to walk around with Spear + Guessing Wand, and can Quick Stow at turn start if I decide *not* to use the wand and want to clear the hand for either a familiar handoff, or just a Quick Bomb.
Caster Dedications for the ability to Jump + Back-blast, Blood Vendetta, and plenty of Sure Strikes is also important to mention.
Even running harsh RaW, the familiar can hand off at worst an item every other turn. It's largely variable with what's been unlocked recently, but there are plenty of elixirs that become genuinely good if it only costs the PC 1A to use them.
I just though it may have been an overlooked opportunity.
Draw and swap are equal activities now. I am thinking of just allowing quickdraw to either take a draw or swap action. It feels restrictive for no reason other than maybe no one thought about adding swap to the list of actions quickdraw can be used with.
Is there some element of play thats being ruined by allowing it?
I see the contrary: they decided not to allow it very intentionally.
"Draw, put away, or swap an item. You must be holding the item to put it away or wearing it to draw it. Swapping allows you to put away one item and draw another in the same action (such as putting away a dagger and drawing a mace). Abilities that specify what you do when you Interact only allow this if they say so; the Quick Draw feat lets a rogue Interact to draw a weapon, but doesn't allow them to stow one as well. Swapping lets you swap only one item for another; if you were wielding two weapons, you could put away one of them and draw a different item, but you would need to put away the second weapon separately."
Oh i see it now. Thanks Errenor.
I think they made a bad decision there. I cant remember where I saw it but they provided some kind of reasoning when they came out with swap and not allowing quickdraw to work with swap fly's in the face of it. I wonder if someone remembers what it was exactly. I stated what I remembered it as but I may just be off.
Quickdraw is for when you have a free hand and want to draw something and strike with one action. Such as you have a two handed weapon, free action release, quickdraw and throw a javelin, quickdraw again for a second attack, and then still have a third action. Or if you aren't walking around with a weapon in your hand 24/7 which.. I don't let my players do unless they are expecting danger.
Swap is if you want to switch items in your hands and does not include a strike. So if you are there hiking along a trail and get attacked without warning swap is no better then draw.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swap actually didnt change the way the game is played, it just made playing the game the way people were already playing it make more sense.
Players were dropping weapons to switch from whatever was in their hand to something worn. So stuff on the floor was part of the game perhaps more than it should be only because thats how the rules in the past made changing weapons work with the fewest actions taken.
Swap fixed it so players dont have to drop things anymore. It removed the weirdness. Not extending swap to quickdraw leaves in place the weirdness of dropping things for players who pick up the quickdraw feat.
I'm ruling swap as an acceptable sub action choice for my games, it just makes more sense than making quick draw players live in the past before swap.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes you need to change the mood of the room.Probably not alone, but personally I have no emotional attachment to the idea yet. The use case for quick draw is different than for swap.
As a side note, lighting swap sounds like a very interesting cantrip or focus spell. Very feng shui.
Change out the rug. It ties the whole room together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swap actually didnt change the way the game is played, it just made playing the game the way people were already playing it make more sense.
Players were dropping weapons to switch from whatever was in their hand to something worn. So stuff on the floor was part of the game perhaps more than it should be only because thats how the rules in the past made changing weapons work with the fewest actions taken.
Swap fixed it so players dont have to drop things anymore. It removed the weirdness. Not extending swap to quickdraw leaves in place the weirdness of dropping things for players who pick up the quickdraw feat.
I'm ruling swap as an acceptable sub action choice for my games, it just makes more sense than making quick draw players live in the past before swap.
You can choose to do whatever you want at your table however quickdraw compresses drawing a weapon and striking with it into one action instead of two. So no I will not be allowing swapping during a quickdraw at mine. Because that compresses putting away an item, drawing an item, and striking with said item into one action.
Martials already get crazy action compression while spellcasters get none, giving them even more just makes those that try to play non martials feel even worse while they are effectively stuck still playing 3.5 Standard action and move action.
Thats fine.
So in your estimate this is a power increase?
I dont see it that way. All i see is my quickdraw players not throwing weapons on the ground.
But whether i allow it or not they will still use the same number of actions and do the same things in combat.
I think the main problem (that I have with Quick Draw at least) is that it went from being a feat that allowed you to quickly retrive any kind of object in PF1e to being something that only works for thrown builds. I would have much prefered a flourish of some kind that allowed you to retrieve any kind of object and use it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying that most groups...Consumables are not something we use much...Your personal experiences are functionally irrelevant. Almost every time you bring them up you basically set up a scenario that is equivalent to "my group deliberately skews the game to not have this thing be beneficial" but then concluding not "so maybe we should change our approach to more match what seems expected by the designers by making stuff actually be useful" but "so it's objectively useless and anyone that disagrees isn't as good at the game as my group."
Because you're saying stuff like the following:
I'm not super sure why someone would use a consumable in melee combat range. The risks are generally not worth the payoff.When the general case in the game is that your enemies don't have a reaction triggered by item usage.
Acting like it's a regular enough occurrence that something does have a reaction to make it make sense to have a general avoidance of using items in melee combat range is like acting as if the vast majority of encounters are specifically against undead - even if it is true because of how the GM of your table chooses to do things, it's still something which is variable according to GM choice, not an inherent constant.
The answer to why someone would use a consumable in melee combat range is because it's beneficial given their current circumstances and what else they'd like to do with this particular turn. Such as, just for an example that rings my own obvious bell, drinking a healing potion right now and taking defensive actions instead of Stepping away and having a higher potential of getting downed by the opponent using a ranged attack or closing the distance and hitting you before you actually had the chance to drink the potion. Or, you know, you're in melee when you realize a consumable would be beneficial and also want to attack and/or stay in a position beneficial to your allies.
This assumption that everyone plays the same way as you is a strange one to me. There are definitely ways a campaign could go that would obviously bring benefit to Quick Draw; if one was playing in a heavily intrigue-focused campaign where combats always break out during tense deals or in public spaces where weapons would be strange, getting a free action on the first turn of every combat (which is what Quick Draw would give) is obviously worth quite a bit. I'll freely admit that Quick Draw isn't very useful in the campaigns I'm running at the moment, and that it is a bit of a niche feat in general IMO - but trying to pretend that there is a single objective value to all the abilities in PF2 is just a flawed premise. The value of an ability changes depending on the context in which it is available, and you can't just average the contexts across all campaigns because A) we don't know what happens in all campaigns, and B) it's value is decided on a campaign-by-campaign basis, dual slice wouldn't suddenly be a bad feat at your table if every other table but yours banned all weapons except earthshakers. We can discuss the relative value of feats given what we expect to be the norm for a PF2 campaign, but these big, totalising statements are pretty frustrating as a response to people saying that their personal experience is different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally use it to sucker punch enemies
Its a requirement for a functional poison Thrower Alchemist, but its still not that fun since you cant use any other attack action then basic Strike that come with quick draw, making your entire build kinda bland.
Would love them to make Quick Draw a free action like in previous editions, so you can combine it with something else.
|
|
Its a requirement for a functional poison Thrower Alchemist, but its still not that fun since you cant use any other attack action then basic Strike that come with quick draw, making your entire build kinda bland.
Would love them to make Quick Draw a free action like in previous editions, so you can combine it with something else.
It's a requirement for any thrown build really that would want to trade their returning rune for the throwers bandoliers. Thaumaturge is probably the best use case since they don't have much specific strikes to take
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a requirement for any thrown build really that would want to trade their returning rune for the throwers bandoliers. Thaumaturge is probably the best use case since they don't have much specific strikes to takeIts a requirement for a functional poison Thrower Alchemist, but its still not that fun since you cant use any other attack action then basic Strike that come with quick draw, making your entire build kinda bland.
Would love them to make Quick Draw a free action like in previous editions, so you can combine it with something else.
Yeah, IMO it is a glaring issue that Paizo split the Property/Striking runes into separate categories, but then put damage-improving runes in direct competition with Property runes. To the point that 1d4 weapons benefit *more* from elemental runes than Striking.
I really do not think that design is okay, it completely defeats the point of the separation. I sure would have loved for it to have been addressed in the Remaster in some way.
Even just a nerf to the damage half of the elementals would have helped the mental math of it, but I would prefer a full Strike damage conversion effect instead. Completely changes the purpose of the rune, but IMO it would be an improvement to the system.
==============
Instead, we are left with a situation that any weapon using a Returning rune is an admission of an inadequacy, and all PCs are motivated to find shenanigans to avoid using the rune at all costs.
The entire suite of fun and interesting property runes is left to seriously struggle to justify themselves against +1d6 damage, especially when significant crit effects are also included.
I would love to spend some gp on meaningful flavor at higher levels, and make a Merciful Pacifying weapon, but in pf2e's rules, I would have to be crazy to do so. No way would I surrender "more damage" on my attacks, putting the entire party in danger because I want to RP a character that is willing to put effort into not killing people when possible.
--------------
--------------
To emphasize how badly property runes are invalidated by elementals, while I *have* seen a Ghost Touch, and even Returning rune, that was it. Aside from those 2 "cannot avoid" cases, I have NEVER seen a player make nor buy a non-damaging Property Rune.
And even "alternatives" to the flat damage elementals are a joke. I *once* played alongside a Gunslinger who made a Bane rune, the earliest flat damage rune. The Gunslinger grumbled about it until they --sold it at the next town-- because they could never match with the foe category. The rune literally never did any damage. And I can be sure that the player now considers the rune to be trash going forward.
-----
The foreknowledge of the Property slot being in equal competition to always there, flat damage increases completely ends player interest in the quirky/unique options. Even effects like Crushing's crit-debuffs are never really considered.
I honestly think I would just house-rule that all weapons get an extra "genuine property" slot that cannot fit anything that adds damage.
That may be the simplest way to give PCs a (non-illusory) choice to consider the investment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the tangent of added damage property runes I find it so weird that paizo specifically forbids doubling or tripling up on the same type.
There is almost never a scenario where having 3d6 extra fire damage is worth it over having 3 different damage types (four if you are a blade ally champion) that can each trigger weaknesses and bypass resistances or immunities a creature might have.
It also incentivises getting opposing damage types to best cover your bases.
It feels super flavourless to me and explicitly denies flavourful options.
|
|
It's a requirement for any thrown build really that would want to trade their returning rune for the throwers bandoliers. Thaumaturge is probably the best use case since they don't have much specific strikes to takeIts a requirement for a functional poison Thrower Alchemist, but its still not that fun since you cant use any other attack action then basic Strike that come with quick draw, making your entire build kinda bland.
Would love them to make Quick Draw a free action like in previous editions, so you can combine it with something else.
Yeah, IMO it is a glaring issue that Paizo split the Property/Striking runes into separate categories, but then put damage-improving runes in direct competition with Property runes. To the point that 1d4 weapons benefit *more* from elemental runes than Striking.
I really do not think that design is okay, it completely defeats the point of the separation. I sure would have loved for it to have been addressed in the Remaster in some way.
Even just a nerf to the damage half of the elementals would have helped the mental math of it, but I would prefer a full Strike damage conversion effect instead. Completely changes the purpose of the rune, but IMO it would be an improvement to the system.
==============
Instead, we are left with a situation that any weapon using a Returning rune is an admission of an inadequacy, and all PCs are motivated to find shenanigans to avoid using the rune at all costs.
The entire suite of fun and interesting property runes is left to seriously struggle to justify themselves against +1d6 damage, especially when significant crit effects are also included.
I would love to spend some gp on meaningful flavor at higher levels, and make a Merciful Pacifying weapon, but in pf2e's rules, I would have to be crazy to do so. No way would I surrender "more damage" on my attacks, putting the entire party in danger because I want to RP a character that is willing to put effort into...
I get you but I'm not sure what that had to do with quick draw and throwers bandoliers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To emphasize how badly property runes are invalidated by elementals, while I *have* seen a Ghost Touch, and even Returning rune, that was it. Aside from those 2 "cannot avoid" cases, I have NEVER seen a player make nor buy a non-damaging Property Rune.
Many of my characters will have one weapon with a Merciful rune on it, so that there is the option of taking someone prisoner.
So one of my players picked up quick draw, they like to switch between a long bow and melee weapons.
After talking with them i decided quick draw will be allowed with swap or draw as subactions.
It didnt make any sense in our group that it couldnt after the remaster introduced swap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the tangent of added damage property runes I find it so weird that paizo specifically forbids doubling or tripling up on the same type.
There is almost never a scenario where having 3d6 extra fire damage is worth it over having 3 different damage types (four if you are a blade ally champion) that can each trigger weaknesses and bypass resistances or immunities a creature might have.
It also incentivises getting opposing damage types to best cover your bases.
It feels super flavourless to me and explicitly denies flavourful options.
Maybe that's the point; 3d6 of varying elements is mathematically strongest but boring.....incentivising getting a flaming rune on your vengeance sword AND two other interesting runes instead of squeezing out an average 6 extra damage
Maybe that's the point; 3d6 of varying elements is mathematically strongest but boring.....incentivising getting a flaming rune on your vengeance sword AND two other interesting runes instead of squeezing out an average 6 extra damage
Are you saying paizo wanted to incentivise other property runes so:
- They disallowed stacking the same rune because that was mathematically beneficial and players would gravitate towards it over other property runes.
- They allowed stacking of different runes because although being mathematically significantly more beneficial than stacking a single rune it is boring and players aren't likely to choose mechanically strong boring options.
Stacking single runes is an average of 3.5 extra damage per rune. But stacking multiple is potentially much higher thanks to weakness coverage and differing crit riders.
I can get behind the logic to a point, but the idea that one was disallowed because it was boring, and the other was allowed because it was boring and mathematically powerful feels odd.
Maybe the answer for my games is simply to give damage runes a trait that denies etching of other damage runes (and gives blade ally champions an exception for their feature ofc)
But this is all off topic at this point.
Maybe that's the point; 3d6 of varying elements is mathematically strongest but boring.....incentivising getting a flaming rune on your vengeance sword AND two other interesting runes instead of squeezing out an average 6 extra damageAre you saying paizo wanted to incentivise other property runes so:
- They disallowed stacking the same rune because that was mathematically beneficial and players would gravitate towards it over other property runes.
- They allowed stacking of different runes because although being mathematically significantly more beneficial than stacking a single rune it is boring and players aren't likely to choose mechanically strong boring options.
Stacking single runes is an average of 3.5 extra damage per rune. But stacking multiple is potentially much higher thanks to weakness coverage and differing crit riders.
I can get behind the logic to a point, but the idea that one was disallowed because it was boring, and the other was allowed because it was boring and mathematically powerful feels odd.
Maybe the answer for my games is simply to give damage runes a trait that denies etching of other damage runes (and gives blade ally champions an exception for their feature ofc)
But this is all off topic at this point.
I agree with The Grognard.
Right now most of my players buy three different energy runes for the damage, which means you have a sonic, cold, and fire rune on your +3 weapon. Which in all honesty looks kind of ridiculous.
I almost wish they had divided up the property runes into different types.
You can have one energy rune.
You have one holy or spirit type damage.
And one maybe like a critical enhancer rune like a grievous.
Something to make the swords make more sense thematically. Otherwise most players looking at the damage value of a rune stack property runes that do the most damage with the least chance of resistance.
It leads to this mix of odd looking blades. I imagine if you put some thought into it, a multiple energy blade can be interesting. It's so ubiquitous at this point that you only name so many blades the The Infernal Blade of Screaming Ice Souls to explain your fire, cold, sonic energy blade.