With Great Remaster Comes Great Power Creep

[Ravingdork]

Let's just stack all the things.

Excerpt:

The following refers to a 12th-level fire sorcerer with Oracle Dedication feats.

But obviously, fire is where his real strengths lay. Though all of his fire spells are formidable in their own way, breathe fire, elemental toss, and fireball are going to be your bread and butter spells for damage.

Things to note:
- Sorceress Potency adds as much as +6 damage to your damaging spell slot spells.
- Your fire element blood magic, Elemental Fury, adds as much as +6 more damage to your focus spells and gifted spells (primarily breathe fire, elemental toss, and fireball)
- In return for a few hit points of damage, you can add a second blood magic effect via Blood Sovereignty.
- Your diabolic blood magic effect, Tongue of Flame, adds as much as +6 MORE damage to the above three spells.
- If you're surrounded by enemies, you can get EVEN MORE damage in by substituting Explosion of Power for one of the other blood magic effects (up to 6d6 more fire damage)!

So let's say you start your turn surrounded by enemies after having prepped your chosen battleground with a safeguarded flammable fumes spell. You cast a safeguarded 6th-rank fireball over everybody, opting to use Explosion of Power along with one of your other blood magic effects (it doesn't much matter which one).

The spells deal 2d6+5 poison (when they enter the invisible fumes and 2d6 more each round they remain in the fumes), 10d6 fire damage when the fumes are detonated by fire, 12d6+12 fire damage from your fireball, 6d6 fire damage from Explosion of Power, and an additional 12 fire damage from Foretell Harm at the start of their next turn.

Altogether, that's as much as 30d6+30 damage before the target(s) get to act again, averaging to 135 damage before saves and other mitigating factors are taken into account.

If you don't have any enemies adjacent to you, you can still hit them from the safety of "way the heck over there" while gaining as much as +30 damage over other spellcasters through your blood magic. Sure you take a little damage from your curse's persistent fire damage and from Blood Sovereignty, but that's why you have heal.

Even if you are not using a focus spell or gifted spell, you can still gain sorceress potency and Foretell Harm bonuses to damage, setting you apart from every non-sorcerer blaster from the start. For example, enemies and allies are spread out, and you can't use fireball without hurting more allies than enemies. Chain lightning remains solid with 8d12+18 (avg 70) damage against all targets.

Now imagine what happens if you used two 6th-rank one action blazing bolts and an elemental toss with all that stacking damage all in one round! (blazing bolts 12d6+12 + elemental toss 9d8+6d6+24, or 139.5 average damage) And that's not even accounting for a properly prepared battlefield (such as flammable fumes) or active defenses (such as fire shield) that could further hurt your foes when they attempt to retaliate against you!

Be mindful of the limitations of your various abilities (like the fact that your blood magic damage bonuses only apply to a single target in an area) and learn when and where to use them effectively and there isn't much that will be able to stand up to you for very long before falling away to ash.

I don't believe there can be any question any longer that the Remaster in general, and Player Core 2 in particular, has brought along some level of power creep to our beloved game. In some cases, such as the alchemist and swashbuckler, it was sorely needed. In others, such as the oracle and sorcerer, it wasn't even asked for.

Do you believe this to be the case? What evidence or builds have you encountered or come up with that would suggest this is--or is not--the case?

[Ravingdork]

Imagine if he had 3 focus points and a bloodline robe to work with.

blazing bolts 6d6 + 6 + [ 3 x elemental toss, 27d8 + 18d6 + 48 ], or 259.5 average damage in one round and with minimal spell slot usage.

[Deriven Firelion]

I've already made my thoughts on the sorcerer known. It eats the wizard's lunch the majority of the time. Probably the clear best 6 hit point pure caster in the game. It just got a little better and is still the best 6 hit point caster in the game.

Wizard stayed about static, though maybe a little worse with the limited curriculum spells.

Witch is much better, but still not quite on par with the sorcerer in my opinion, but a little better than the wizard now in terms of build versatility including feats and party roles.

I think overall the Remaster was a lot of very nice design work with a lot added to the game to make classes feel more unique and make almost all of them more competitive when choosing a class to play as well as making builds more interesting and fun.

[Ryangwy]

I think Sorcerer (and Cleric) is a bit of power creep for sure, but looking through remaster Oracle it looks like a case of Psychic - stuff that works out to a decent class on the base chassis, but gets poached for far greater effect on people with better class features.

Realistically, a lot of that was... already done by the sorcerer with Dangerous Sorcery and the correct bloodline (it's elemental) already. You've gotten one more spell rank of damage off Diabolic that you didn't before, and Fortell Harm is a limited use extra damage competing with all the other things you could be spending a dedication for and also can be poached by other casters. And, as you've noted, you'll need to heal yourself next turn for this combo, so you're just charging your future self a turn of blowing stuff up. Like, +18 damage now, -1 turn later isn't that good a deal, you know?

(Your max damage combo is entirely off AC spells, unless I missed something, so you won't be hitting the broad side of a barn with those latter tosses)

[Teridax]

I will say that the example given illustrates more how bonuses to damage need to be given the same status/circumstance typification as most other mechanics in the game to prevent this kind of silly stacking, but otherwise I do agree that there's been a degree of spell slot creep lately, if not outright power creep. The Sorcerer I don't think needs to be given access to Fighter-level accuracy on spell attacks plus unmatched spell DCs (Imperial Bloodline's new Ancestral Memories) in addition to bonus damage and all of their spell slots, and the Oracle I think needed mystery benefits more than extra spell slots.

Starfinder 2e's classes are on a whole other level of overtuned that is better-discussed in their respective subforums, but clearly there seems to be this intent to stuff spontaneous casters with as many spell slots as possible regardless of how good their base stats or class features are, which is worrying. Not only does this reduce spontaneous casters with 3 or fewer slots per rank to a minority (it'd just be the Bard and the Psychic, plus the Summoner if you really want to count a wave caster), in my opinion it makes recently-reworked classes like the Witch and Wizard feel much worse by comparison. When other classes get 8 HP per level, light armor proficiency, and highly impactful class features on top of four slots per rank, it begs the question of why anyone would go for a class that has 6 HP per level, no armor proficiency, and three, maybe three and a half slots per rank plus a few extra benefits that may not even be that great.

[Ravingdork]

Ryangwy wrote:

And, as you've noted, you'll need to heal yourself next turn for this combo, so you're just charging your future self a turn of blowing stuff up. Like, +18 damage now, -1 turn later isn't that good a deal, you know?

Who says you need to heal on the very next round? If an ally doesn't top you off with their own actions, you could probably just wait and do it yourself in between combats. Why waste the actions in the middle of a fight? Damage equal to your level is hardly anything to write home about unless you're already on the ropes.

Ryangwy wrote:

Your max damage combo is entirely off AC spells, unless I missed something, so you won't be hitting the broad side of a barn with those latter tosses.

Touché! Can't forget about those traits! They're kind of important! LOL.

Still works pretty well with an Imperial sorcerer using three one-action force barrages. No MAP then. Getting a shadow signet would work well here too. Simply convert the attacks into saves to avoid the attack penalty.

Teridax wrote:

Starfinder 2e's classes are on a whole other level of overtuned that is better-discussed in their respective subforums, but clearly there seems to be this intent to stuff spontaneous casters with as many spell slots as possible regardless of how good their base stats or class features are, which is worrying. Not only does this reduce spontaneous casters with 3 or fewer slots per rank to a minority (it'd just be the Bard and the Psychic, plus the Summoner if you really want to count a wave caster), in my opinion it makes recently-reworked classes like the Witch and Wizard feel much worse by comparison. When other classes get 8 HP per level, light armor proficiency, and highly impactful class features on top of four slots per rank, it begs the question of why anyone would go for a class that has 6 HP per level, no armor proficiency, and three, maybe three and a half slots per rank plus a few extra benefits that may not even be that great.

It's all marketing. They're preparing to get rid of prepared casters in their next edition, so they're setting thing the classes up for failure now so that they won't be missed as much in the divorce. /tinhat theory

[magnuskn]

To be fair, I wouldn't be missing prepared casters all that much, but that's just me.

[Ascalaphus]

I dunno if I would call it power creep really. More a correction of things that had issues before. The actual issue is that some of the PC1 classes missed out on it.

You can tell pretty clearly that you're "supposed" to be casting a fair amount of spells from slots, not just cantrips. Catrips scale at about +1d4 per rank which comes nowhere near keeping up with enemy HP. Spells scale up at roughly 2d6 which is more like it. So with that in mind, I think giving more spell slots is not a bad thing. It means that casters still feel okay if you have 3+ encounters in a day.

Likewise, alchemist and swashbuckler becoming well-functioning classes isn't unintentional power creep. It's a well-planned correction of classes that previously did not deliver on their promises.

[Ryangwy]

Sorcerers were admittedly already the peak of of blasting damage, so I guess all those people upset you can't blast even harder without spellstrike won. I swear if anyone tries to claim blasting is bad in PF2e now, we just throw that above build at them. If 5xrank additional damage isn't enough for those people they really are hopeless.

Oracle going 4 slot makes more sense when you realised all the good curse benefits have been disappeared. Cursebound feats aren't bad but they're not that much better than sorcerer blood magic (literally so for Fortell Harm, it's exactly as much extra damage a sorcerer gets) and you get to play with curses in exchange. Give me back my +lightning with air/water spells, cowards. Anycase oracles are now just sparkling divine sorcerers who trade damage for HP/armour which is a fairly standard trade as things go. If they'd kept the always on curse benefits instead of making them usable x/battle then they probably would have stayed 3 slots (and more people would be happier)

Starfinder 2e is, of course, wild, though the better oracles aren't even the big thing there, someone decided to smoosh gunslinger with swashbuckler into a legendary attack with damage steroid ranged attacker who can chain additional actions like it's 3.5e all again. Man, I wonder why they need to give casters this much HP if their ranged attackers deal as much damage as melee Fighters with a monk's action economy...

[Teridax]

Ascalaphus wrote:

You can tell pretty clearly that you're "supposed" to be casting a fair amount of spells from slots, not just cantrips. Catrips scale at about +1d4 per rank which comes nowhere near keeping up with enemy HP. Spells scale up at roughly 2d6 which is more like it. So with that in mind, I think giving more spell slots is not a bad thing. It means that casters still feel okay if you have 3+ encounters in a day.

I don't think it's really cantrips that end up filling up your turns past a certain point, so much as focus spells and other actions that benefit your class. The Witch is meant to spend a lot of their time Commanding their Familiar and using their unique hex cantrip, each of which can be done alongside casting a slot spell too, whereas the Bard has incredibly powerful compositions that let them be effective without even expending a single slot. The Oracle in particular I think is really not well-positioned to be a 4-slot caster, because they have both unique focus spells and cursebound actions that will take up more than half their actions in any given encounter by themselves. Really, the more you push casters towards just firing spells from slots, the more generic they risk becoming, which is why the Sorcerer arguably should be the only 4-slot caster out there.

With the Oracle in particular, I think it's less a case of power creep (though I do think there's a bit of that) and more a case of poorly-allocated power: I don't think the class was really known for being an all-purpose, spell slot-spamming caster, so much as a caster that was really specialized from their subclass through the combination of their curse and mystery benefits. Were their focus spells turned into cursebound actions and automatically given as part of the class's progression, and their spell slots culled to re-enable unique mystery benefits, I think the class would've appealed much more to the players looking for a particular playstyle, especially those wanting a Battle Oracle with actual martial capabilities.

[Gortle]

So I don't think it is fair to call it power creep when the ceiling hasn't really changed.

IMO the Fighter and the Bard are still top rank classes and haven't changed much. If anything Fighter went down with the tighter restrictions on its top weapon group.

Barbarian is now as strong as Fighter.
Swashbuckler is now close to Rogue and both are close to Fighter
Champion hasn't changed much but at least neutral Champions are now reasonable.
Clerics are now very strong.
Witch now doesn't look weak. At least it has some good options now.
Alchemist is now playable at low level - I think.

Sorcerer got a free feat and its BloodMagic became more useable. So definitely a power increase. But it came at the cost of lost it's strongest power CrossBloodedEvolution. Prior to the remaster they were not being called out as the best class in the game, and only a few people thought they were the best pure caster. Now the Imperial Sorcerer is clearly the best arcanist. Not withstanding that the Elemental Fire/Metal Sorcerers are probably the best blasters in the game. It is tricky to call them better than Fighters though as it is more player preference. I'd be happy enough to call them equal though.

Oracle got a rewrite. Which hurts, but probably required as my players just didn't take the original. They are improved power wise, but I don't think they are too strong now. Unfortunately they still have a few problematic edges like the Battle focus powers, and the Ancestors curse, So less problems IMO than the original Oracle had, but still not more powerful than the Cleric.

Archetype wise Champion, Barbarian and Monk have gone down relatively speaking. Archetype Sorcerer for Ancestral Memories is going to be popular as will Archetype Oracle for Whispers of Weakness and others.
But are they really any more powerful than Archetype Psychic for Amped Guidance? Or Amped Imaginary Weapon?

Not every class or subclass got much.
Wizard just went in circles and remains medicore.
Ranger is flat.
Fury Barbarian is still underdone relative to its peers. One of my pet peeves, Cleave, is still a trap option.
Druid barely budged. But it is not considered weak except for Untamed at some tables.
Monk was always good and still is.
Investigator got something but apparently not enough. I still need to get into it, though there is negative talk still.

The system wide buffs were refocusing and agile athletics. Nice but hardly earth shattering.

[Ryangwy]

Gortle wrote:

So I don't think it is fair to call it power creep when the ceiling hasn't really changed.

Sorcerer got a free feat and its BloodMagic became more useable. So definitely a power increase. But it came at the cost of lost it's strongest power CrossBloodedEvolution. Prior to the remaster they were not being called out as the best class in the game, and only a few people thought they were the best pure caster. Now the Imperial Sorcerer is clearly the best arcanist. Not withstanding that the Elemental Fire/Metal Sorcerers are probably the best blasters in the game. It is tricky to call them better than Fighters though as it is more player preference. I'd be happy enough to call them equal though.

I think you're mostly right but blasting did get it's ceiling raised. You're not outdoing Starlit Span on single targets still but Sorcerers really did get better at pew-pewing with save spells. The only question is whether it matters.

[Ascalaphus]

Gortle wrote:

Archetype wise Champion, Barbarian and Monk have gone down relatively speaking.

I agree with most of your analysis but I think you missed something about the champion archetype;

- At level 12 you no longer need a feat to upgrade armor proficiency to expert
- You can get sanctified, and champion sanctification also does all their strikes. In some APs you face a LOT of fiends and other scum that's weak to Holy. Having it on all your attacks, including your backup / ranged weapons, does add up.
- For divine sorcerers, getting sanctified + armor in one package is pretty amazing.

It's more specialized interest than the Sentinel archetype, but it's supposed to.

[Ludovicus]

Gortle wrote:

So I don't think it is fair to call it power creep when the ceiling hasn't really changed.

Exactly. Power creep occurs when the power level required to be competitive in a game increases, with the result that options that had been competitive no longer are. (This is why power creep is so common in CCGs like Magic: to stay profitable, most of these games need hardcore players to keep buying cards, which they wouldn't do if they could stay competitive with a twenty-year-old-deck.)

In PF2, this would happen if they made wizards and rangers significantly stronger than fighters, or if they made most classes stronger enough for encounter design to be thrown out of whack (that is, if monsters that were supposed to be challenging for a typical party of a given level generally became quite easy--which happened a lot in 3.5 and PF1). But that's not what's happening here--what's happening here is that options that previously had been below the bar have now been brought up closer to it.

[Trip.H]

Ludovicus wrote:

Gortle wrote:

So I don't think it is fair to call it power creep when the ceiling hasn't really changed.

Exactly. Power creep occurs when the power level required to be competitive in a game increases, with the result that options that had been competitive no longer are. [...]

I'll push back a bit on this PvP take a little bit.

Powercreep is rather generic and simple, just that new content/options are steadily stronger than the existing stuff.

It means a different thing in the context of a CCG game, absolutely.

But it is still harmful to a game like PF2. Players always make selections based on a balance of presumed cool/fun/flavor with their perception of how functional/powerful that choice will be. And yes, these choices vary *wildly* by the individual player's tastes and value-judgements.

===============

If classes like Wizard (continue to) get powercreeped, even if the flavor is intact, there is no getting around that fewer new players will be satisfied with the class, and all those who do make the selection will be worse off.

It is a bad thing for a gamesystem to have classes that are significantly below the game's par, as this will cause may newbies who don't know the game's meta to have bad experiences that they associate with the game system as a whole.

As you mentioned, the other issue is that old content is static, and will never be patched to increase its difficulty. IMO this is a much bigger issue in a ttrpg like pf2, and is seriously being under-estimated.

Even if Paizo adopts a "buff all PCs" approach to keep the classes level with one-another, having a huge variance in the AP content will also result in bad / unfun play experiences.

Fun is fragile, even a theoretical GM who knows there's some "powercreep jank" and to watch out for old content would be tasked with more work to correctively compensate. And to be honest, I see the #1 greatest strength of PF2 as its approachability for GMs. Having a cohesive set of rules to cover just about anything, to the point where rule-holes can be filled with reasonable defaults is amazing. Paired with functional APs makes pf2 genuinely in a class of its own in regard to ease of GMing (for a system that has crunch).

Honestly, while I agree pf2 is quite plainly better than it's main competitor in this specific point, I would say that PF2 could actually stand to improve a large amount in regard to the instruction / formulas and materials on encounter balance.
It's just such a core nucleus to the experience, that I would really expect a page or two of actual table math to show the numbers for granular "build your monster/encounter" type information. And when we have so many useful but niche tables for things like creature carry weight, it really feels like Paizo is intentionally denying GMs that core math (that we all know they have charted out) in a "secret formula" type denial.

=============
=============

Brief tangent aside, it's not exactly that pf2 benefits from a lower power ceiling compared to 3.5 /etc, it is instead that games suffer when the top & bottom power differential is too wide to design around.

The greater the power gap between a vet and a smart newbie with the same PC budget, the harder it is for a system to function and provide fun. Thankfully this topic is familiar ground here so I don't need to make a big case for this point in specific.

===============
===============

I do agree that there is some noticeable (and dangerous) powercreep, and I'd argue it's much easier to present / demonstrate it if you look outside the classes and instead focus on items/spells/etc.

I really do think the topic is not being treated as the landmine for Paizo that it really is. Powercreep isn't just from actual patches and new content. Especially for ttrpgs like pf2, player meta evolution will introduce a kind of powercreep that devs cannot control/regulate the same. It's not talked about the same way (including by game devs!), but as a threat to game health, the meta progression / player skill kind of powercreep is genuinely more dangerous and fun-killing.

For Paizo to also powercreep with new content is a very bad/hurtful combo, IMO. The gulf between newbies and vets can (and inevitably will) grow too wide for the game system to accommodate
============
============

For the single most game-shaking and obvious example of content powercreep, I would like to present the difference between the old Gloves of Storing and the new Retrieval Belt.

Quote:

Price 340 gp

Gloves of Storing
Usage worn gloves;
Bulk —
An item can be stored inside these supple leather gloves, held in an extradimensional space. When an item is inside the glove, an image of the item appears as a simple, stitched pattern on the back of each glove. Many gloves of storing are found with an item already inside.

Activate [one-action] Interact; Requirements No item is stored in the gloves; Effect One item you’re holding with a Bulk of 1 or less vanishes into the gloves’ extradimensional space.

Activate [free-action] Interact; Requirements An item is stored in the gloves, and you have a free hand; Effect The item stored in the gloves appears in your hand. The gloves can’t be activated again for 1 minute.

This item is "worn: gloves" meaning not only is it limited to 1 per PC, but it has opportunity cost with other items that compete for the glove slot. The equipment provides a single free draw that is pre-planned, the item being otherwise unusable outside this draw.

The 1 min cooldown makes this an extremely potent tool that can save an action every combat for anyone who wants to draw items.

This item is game-changing (as in, it genuinely changes a PCs gameplan) for anyone that uses consumables and would otherwise need an extra action for the draw.

Most obviously, this combines with the mechanics and price of affordable low R spell scrolls to add a "pseudo-slot" to every spellcaster. The P-Slot can be filled with any R of scroll/wand they want, can be edited freely out of combat, and can be refilled after every combat. This is again, outright game-changing for spellcasters who have the item. The idea low R spells being limited fractures conceptually; it becomes a simple matter of "has the PC done their chores & payed a tax to restock on scrolls?".

Now comes the powercreep upgrade, the Retrieval Belt.

Quote:

340 gp

Retrieval Belt
Usage worn;
Bulk —
This belt is covered in small pouches that clasp with buttons of painstakingly carved stone. The belt is tied to an extradimensional space that can hold one item of 1 Bulk or less. Anyone holding the belt can sense its contents, but only those who've invested it can store or retrieve items. Many retrieval belts are found with an item already inside.

Activate—Store Item [one-action] (manipulate); Requirements There is room for an item in the belt; Effect One item you're holding with a Bulk of 1 or less vanishes into the belt's extradimensional space.

Activate—Retrieve Item [free-action] (manipulate); Requirements An item is stored in the belt and you have a free hand; Effect The item stored in the belt appears in your hand. Neither Store Item nor Retrieve Item can be activated again for 1 minute.

Same base function, but now has no gloves slot. No language to provide a unique PC limit.

All PCs can now choose to trade gp and as many investment slots as they wish to receive P-Slots that can be filled with any 1 bulk items, not even just scrolls.

Furthermore, the item now has greater & major versions that add more items stored into each belt, while still putting the belt on 1 min cooldown when used. This changes each P-Slot from being a 1:1 spell slot into being a flexible 3:1 (or 10:1) slot, very similar in function to the Split Slot Wizard feat. Even this ability to put a variety of choice for each free draw is unarguably power creep, though the 1 per PC limit removal with the change to the Belt is certainly a larger concern.

==================

And to preempt a quick dismissal of "GMs can ban/limit the Belt,"
that's an admission it is a new problem that needs GM to explicitly know of and counteract.

[Gortle]

Ravingdork wrote:

Let's just stack all the things.

** spoiler omitted **...

Yes lots of damage.

Sorcerous Potency already existed as a feat and it doesn't add to focus spells.

3 single action attack spells run into MAP and so that is not a viable tactic. The single action saving throw spells are low damage dealers that either don't trigger Sorcerous Potency or don't trigger Blood Magic or both.

Blood Sovereignty is going to do 2 damage to you for every 1 damage it inflicts. You are a 6 HP/level caster - the cost is real.

[Ascalaphus]

Trip.H wrote:

For the single most game-shaking and obvious example of content powercreep, I would like to present the difference between the old Gloves of Storing and the new Retrieval Belt.

Snipping this to keep the quote from being massive.

I don't believe that the specific body slots are intended to play such a big part in game balance. I think the main balancing factor is supposed to be investment points.

Why? Because 10 investment points is really not that much, I tend to hit the limit before double digit levels. At some point I need to start making choices and maybe say goodbye to some +1 skill items.

I just don't believe there is a big intentional power balance design around saying "well you should not be able to combine any of these glove items with each other, and you should not be able to combine any of these cloak items with each other, but feel free to combine any glove with any cloak". It's too arbitrary.

I think it's more supposed to be a flavor restriction, that it would be "weird" to be wearing four pairs of gloves.

[Trip.H]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Trip.H wrote:

For the single most game-shaking and obvious example of content powercreep, I would like to present the difference between the old Gloves of Storing and the new Retrieval Belt.

Snipping this to keep the quote from being massive.

I don't believe that the specific body slots are intended to play such a big part in game balance. I think the main balancing factor is supposed to be investment points.

Why? Because 10 investment points is really not that much, I tend to hit the limit before double digit levels. At some point I need to start making choices and maybe say goodbye to some +1 skill items.

I just don't believe there is a big intentional power balance design around saying "well you should not be able to combine any of these glove items with each other, and you should not be able to combine any of these cloak items with each other, but feel free to combine any glove with any cloak". It's too arbitrary.

I think it's more supposed to be a flavor restriction, that it would be "weird" to be wearing four pairs of gloves.

I'm trying to put aside flavor and presentation to get as close to the bare metal of the mechanical difference and power increase presented by the remaster version to demonstrate that play-significant powercreep is indeed happening.

The idea of a pseudo-slot like those provided by this item has enormous consequences when scroll-cast spells function identically to slot ones. It does not mean that such items ought not to exist, just that more care must be paid to their design.

Even if we carry the implication that this item powercreep was a result of verisimilitude-preservation turned design negligence (glove slot limit makes no sense for a belt --> power limiter deleted w/o a replacement limiter), the cause of the powercreep is irrelevant to its impact on the system.

==========
==========

pf2 puts a huge cost onto PCs acquiring new spell slots, and those hold a single spell each day.

Every R Belt worn is an X rank spell slot that can be cast from an unlimited number of times per day and is fueled by gp with 0 Feat cost.

I think is is very safe to say that the amount of power presented by the Retrieval Belt is far beyond the amount of power normally associated with the cost of the investment slot.

To the point I honestly hope there's an errata to add a 1 p PC limit to the Belt. Otherwise all my PCs (and especially Alchemists) will be seriously tempted by the call of the Belts, forever.

[Gorgo Primus]

I do think there is a problem when Wizard isn’t the best Arcanist. That and more slots than most is what it had going for it, and it has neither now. And that’s not due to nerfs to it, but buffs to others - so power creep seems like the appropriate term for it.

[Ravingdork]

Gortle wrote:

Oracle got a rewrite. Which hurts, but probably required as my players just didn't take the original. They are improved power wise, but I don't think they are too strong now. Unfortunately they still have a few problematic edges like the Battle focus powers, and the Ancestors curse, So less problems IMO than the original Oracle had, but still not more powerful than the Cleric.

Mechanically, I think the core oracle chasis in a decent place, though they sure gutted it of a lot of the cool thematic elements. Some of the mysteries, such as the battle oracle, need some pretty serious tweaking too.

Gortle wrote:

3 single action attack spells run into MAP and so that is not a viable tactic.

It can be with a shadow signet.

Gortle wrote:

Blood Sovereignty is going to do 2 damage to you for every 1 damage it inflicts. You are a 6 HP/level caster - the cost is real.

I think this is overstated. I would definitely advise against the risk if it means ending your turn next to several enemies while using Explosion of Power, but unless you haven't been raising your Constitution, damage equal to your level on occasion is chump change.

Another thing to be mindful of is that mobs of enemies are generally weaker individually than singular enemies. After you nuke them, there might not be enough left standing to pose a significant threat to you.

As with nearly all strategies and tricks in PF2e, it's not going to fit every situation or scenario; you still need to tailor your actions to the threat in front of you.

Gorgo Primus wrote:

I do think there is a problem when Wizard isn’t the best Arcanist. That and more slots than most is what it had going for it, and it has neither now. And that’s not due to nerfs to it, but buffs to others - so power creep seems like the appropriate term for it.

I don't think wizards need to be the best arcanist (I think if anyone ended up with such a title, it would be a failure of the system). I do think the class needs a much stronger mechanical and conceptual identity, and needs to lean into intelligence-based strengths much more than it does currently.

[TheFinish]

Ravingdork wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Oracle got a rewrite. Which hurts, but probably required as my players just didn't take the original. They are improved power wise, but I don't think they are too strong now. Unfortunately they still have a few problematic edges like the Battle focus powers, and the Ancestors curse, So less problems IMO than the original Oracle had, but still not more powerful than the Cleric.

Mechanically, I think the core oracle chasis in a decent place, though they sure gutted it of a lot of the cool thematic elements. Some of the mysteries, such as the battle oracle, need some pretty serious tweaking too.

Gortle wrote:

3 single action attack spells run into MAP and so that is not a viable tactic.

It can be with a shadow signet.

Gortle wrote:

Blood Sovereignty is going to do 2 damage to you for every 1 damage it inflicts. You are a 6 HP/level caster - the cost is real.

I think this is overstated. I would definitely advise against the risk if it means ending your turn next to several enemies while using Explosion of Power, but unless you haven't been raising your Constitution, damage equal to your level on occasion is chump change.

Another thing to be mindful of is that mobs of enemies are generally weaker individually than singular enemies. After you nuke them, there might not be enough left standing to pose a significant threat to you.

As with nearly all strategies and tricks in PF2e, it's not going to fit every situation or scenario; you still need to tailor your actions to the threat in front of you.

If you have Anoint Ally you can simply Anoint your frontliner and have them explode in the middle of all your enemies. And it lasts a minute too so having it up before combat is relatively easy.

[Ravingdork]

TheFinish wrote:

If you have Anoint Ally you can simply Anoint your frontliner and have them explode in the middle of all your enemies. And it lasts a minute too so having it up before combat is relatively easy.

Ooh! I totally overlooked that one. Excellent idea!

As an aside, I wonder what the range of that feat is.

[Unicore]

Shadow signet doesn't remove the attack trait from the spell. In fact, you are just making an attack roll against a different defense. Unless something has seriously changed in the PC2.

[Ectar]

Trip.H wrote:

I would like to present the difference between the old Gloves of Storing and the new Retrieval Belt.

While I think if the item in its current incarnation is stronger than the old one, the lack of Worn Belt I suspect to be an error. Every other belt has it so dollars to doughnuts it'll receive an errata at some point.

And it'll still be stronger, due to the upgraded versions, but I think that's more reasonable than wearing 10 belts to get the same effect.
Though, Buckle Armor exists, so who knows...?

[Ravingdork]

Unicore wrote:

Shadow signet doesn't remove the attack trait from the spell. In fact, you are just making an attack roll against a different defense. Unless something has seriously changed in the PC2.

Oh shucks. Seems I misrembered how it functioned.

Ectar wrote:

Trip.H wrote:

I would like to present the difference between the old Gloves of Storing and the new Retrieval Belt.

While I think if the item in its current incarnation is stronger than the old one, the lack of Worn Belt I suspect to be an error. Every other belt has it so dollars to doughnuts it'll receive an errata at some point.

And it'll still be stronger, due to the upgraded versions, but I think that's more reasonable than wearing 10 belts to get the same effect.
Though, Buckle Armor exists, so who knows...?

It's far from the only slotted item without a worn slot that's been published. I suspect that it was no accident.

[Ectar]

Ravingdork wrote:

It's far from the only slotted item without a worn slot that's been published. I suspect that it was no accident.

Oooh, what else is there?

[Captain Morgan]

I think power creep isn't just weak options becoming stronger. It is options becoming stronger than the previous strongest benchmark. Cleris were pretty good before and certainly got better. They might count. The Resentment's slow/synesthesia combo also always felt op to me.

Beyond that... Maybe? Spells definitely had lots of buffs. But a common opinion was that casters Are weaker than martials, and a weaker option being brought closer to par isn't power creep. So depends whether you held that opinion before.

What I think is the most clear cut systematic power creep is actually power shrink is on the other side of the GM screen. Vast swathes of Monster Core had a point chopped off their AC or to hit bonus. Fiends lost their bonus damage. So relative to their opposition, PCs definitely are stronger than before.

But I don't think that's a problem. PF2 being too hard was also a common opinion. And the nerfs to monsters largely brought them in line with Paizo's own creature creation benchmarks. Lots of AP critters or Bestiary critters violated those design principles, having too many high or extreme bonuses and not getting lower bonuses so PCs could actually get strategic against it.

[Deriven Firelion]

If this is Pathfinder 2 power creep, I'll take it. It's still a 1000 miles from the power creep in PF1.

Now if PF2 designers can pull off a fun set of mythic rules that doesn't break the game more than it should, I'll be pretty happy.

[Ravingdork]

Ectar wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

It's far from the only slotted item without a worn slot that's been published. I suspect that it was no accident.

Oooh, what else is there?

These.

I tried limiting the parameters to simply "Usage:worn" items, but I didn't have much luck. Nevertheless, you can clearly see numerous examples of things like, for example, "worn amulets" right next to amulets that are simply "worn".

[The Ronyon]

Off topic perhaps but how does Agile Athletics work?

[TheFinish]

The Ronyon wrote:

Off topic perhaps but how does Agile Athletics work?

I imagine they're referring to the sidebar on Player Core 1 page 234, which clarifies that if you use an Agile weapon for an Athletics maneuver with the Attack trait you benefit from Agile's MAP reduction.

This includes if you're using your free hand for such a maneuver, because the Fist weapon is Agile.

[Squiggit]

Trip.H wrote:

I really do think the topic is not being treated as the landmine for Paizo that it really is.

Because generally speaking it isn't. Power Creep is an interesting discussion for veterans or die hards of a system, but many average players don't particularly care, they just want the new thing they're getting to be fun and interesting.

Even on the forums and reddit (etc.), where the most balance critical players hang out, there has been far more discourse on options that people feel didn't get enough love as opposed to the ones that are clearly stronger than before. There's a reason for that.

To some extent, some amount of power creep may even be valuable in the long term to retain interest in new developments in the system, because you don't want users feeling like new options aren't worth it or that the mechanical side of the game has stagnated either.

More than that though, a lot of users simply don't notice or don't care. It's not relevant. Like we can go on talking about how some new option is out of bounds and going to dominate the meta, but then we can go around looking at actual tables and PFS lodges and just see another dozen regular fighters with greatswords.

You or I may personally want a more balanced game with careful consideration for both power creep and weak options, but it' somewhat difficult to find real evidence that it actually matters at all. Indeed, quite the opposite, the legacy tabletop roleplaying's past and present is dominated by games that don't even conceive of balance and power creep as concepts worthy of consideration at all.

[Ascalaphus]

I think the "power creep" that's currently the most in the spotlights as something actually bad, is when one class got boosted and a similar class didn't and feels left behind.

It's not really controversial that PF1 casters were super powerful and PF2 casters got majorly weakened. There's some range of opinions about whether it was too much weakening to the point where casters are lame compared to martials.

Well, PC2 is pretty generous to sorcerers. Compared to that, the wizard looks poor. Does the sorcerer look too good to be true compared to the bard or cleric, or fighter or rogue? Not really, that all seems fine.

So that's not really power creep, more like an incomplete correction. The rising tide that doesn't lift some boats.

[Perpdepog]

I've got to admit, as a wizard player I do feel a tad envious of all the new stuff other casters are getting. I still like wizards, I like their flavor and their mechanics, but it feels weird to see one of the big things wizards had, their four slots per caster level, showing up all over the shop now.

Granted, a fair amount of the places we're seeing this happen is in playtests, such as with SF2E's, but it's still a bit of a bummer to see the mystic and witchwarper get four slots per level, with fewer restrictions on those bonus slots than the wizard has, and get three focus spells sans feat investment into the bargain.

[Tridus]

Perpdepog wrote:

I've got to admit, as a wizard player I do feel a tad envious of all the new stuff other casters are getting. I still like wizards, I like their flavor and their mechanics, but it feels weird to see one of the big things wizards had, their four slots per caster level, showing up all over the shop now.

Granted, a fair amount of the places we're seeing this happen is in playtests, such as with SF2E's, but it's still a bit of a bummer to see the mystic and witchwarper get four slots per level, with fewer restrictions on those bonus slots than the wizard has, and get three focus spells sans feat investment into the bargain.

Not really just there, since Oracle just got it in PC2 for some reason. It's becoming significantly more common.

[Omega Metroid]

Ectar wrote:

While I think if the item in its current incarnation is stronger than the old one, the lack of Worn Belt I suspect to be an error. Every other belt has it so dollars to doughnuts it'll receive an errata at some point.

And it'll still be stronger, due to the upgraded versions, but I think that's more reasonable than wearing 10 belts to get the same effect.
Though, Buckle Armor exists, so who knows...?

Eh, it would be ridiculous for it to be a mistake, right? It's silly to just wear ten belts all at the same ti--.

[Trip.H]

I do want to emphasize that player meta side of powercreep as being the type I already see as a problem. But that only exists in the context of a system with increasingly power-unequal options.

I've been at tables where a player thinks they are playing pf2 in a savvy manner, and has taken the time to read their class and pick their options, carefully finding synergy.

Yet when they sit next to a vet/powergamer, the gulf between the PCs is enormous.

This is why I worry much much more on items, gear, and spells more so than Feats. Players who know these agnostic options exist and how to maximize them are getting a whole lot of power out of that shopping .

Meanwhile, players who don't literally read and explore rulebooks for the sake of finding new bits of power will never have reason to even know that spellhearts exist as a concept.

Basically, I'm seeing that there's already a problematic gap that GMs have to address when they have a table with 1 PC doing to work of 2/3. In my view, every new magic wearable is powercreep that is making that player gap wider with each new book or category of item.

No joke, most of these books have some genuinely powerful tool I'm adding to my Alch's power. From the Skunks, Numbing, Soothing, Thrower's Bandolier, etc in Treasure Vault,
to Grafted claws + Clawdancer thanks to HotW, I'm honestly surprised at how quickly this is happening.

Even many of the spells in HotW are a clear step of powercreep.

[Ravingdork]

Trip.H wrote:

Yet when they sit next to a vet/powergamer, the gulf between the PCs is enormous.

I would greatly appreciate more details regarding this gulf. Perhaps you could describe a specific example of what you've encountered?

[Witch of Miracles]

Trip.H wrote:

snip

I do want to say, I have to agree that consumables and wearables are often shockingly strong.

You complained about the retrieval belt, but the retrieval prism talisman is a 12 gp consumable that does the same thing. The downside is you can't have another armor talisman/spellheart, but for that effect? I'll take it. 12 gp gets to be like water when you're higher level. You'd need to use over 20 of these before the retrieval belt would've paid for itself over them. Personally, this strikes me as one of the most abusable items in the game.

All the success-upgrade talismans are worth a look for specific builds, as well. The one that works on on perform is quite good for casting fortissimo courageous anthem as a bard, though the expense is there.

Potion patches are 20 gp per potion (for level 10 potions or lower) and greatly enhance their action efficiency. The mutagen-injecting collar is well-known, I think, and goes well with the much-discussed Drakeheart mutagen. Life-boosting oil is uncommon, but is preapplied and triggers fast healing automatically for four rounds when you take damage.

More situationally, Cat's Eye Elixir and Revealing Mist are both very helpful against invisible creatures.

Some spell catalysts are worthwhile consumable purchases. I personally like these:
-Fearcracker (consume when casting mirror image, makes it so creatures who smash an image gain frightened 1 with no save)
-Firestarter Pellet (+1 action to use when casting fireball, adds 1/2/3d6 persistent fire damage on failed save)
-Soothing Scents (+1 action to use when casting soothe, removes frightened 1 from a target)
-Nightpitch (makes the area of Darkness into difficult terrain)
-Dimensional Knot (+1 action to dimension door, can take another creature but they're stunned 1 after)
-Noxious incense (creatures adjacent to a wall of fire are concealed to other creatures, and vice versa)
-Dragon Throat Scale (changes the damage type of magic missile to one determined when buying the item; situational, but a guaranteed weakness proc for 55 gp isn't awful at higher levels when 55 gp is cheap)

Spellhearts were brought up. Giving up a talisman can be rough, but some of them have pretty strong effects, like granting you scent as an imprecise (and later precise) sense. Enigma Mirror lets you cast mirror image from it once a day and gives an ally within 30 feet a single image that lasts a round when you do. There are more, but I'm not remembering them quickly.

I think there are a load of consumables you drink that grant you a breath attack to use as a reaction for a duration, as well. Helpful to pad action efficiency sometimes, though I wouldn't consider them go-to options.

Oh, there are also lozenges. Cinnamon seers isn't a super strong effect, but it's free real estate, so why not?

Insight Coffee is a must-know item for investigator, also. Once lesser insight coffee is cheap, turning strategic strike bonus damage into d8s for the duration is pretty good.

Also, personal favorite that anyone can buy: Potion of Emergency Escape. It's such a funny potion, and it -does- work to get you the heck out of dodge. It's not something you want to have to use, but if you ever do need it, you may be glad you have it.

[Trip.H]

Ravingdork wrote:

Trip.H wrote:

Yet when they sit next to a vet/powergamer, the gulf between the PCs is enormous.

I would greatly appreciate more details regarding this gulf. Perhaps you could describe a specific example of what you've encountered?

The entire angle of conveying player meta power as "power creep" means that this is a "gulf built with a dozen bricks" so it's the summation of every trick the vet has learned, and is not easy to compress in text.

=========

One specific point that's easy to convey is that savvy newbies expect the game to provide each class a full set of powerful enough options. When they first hear mention of the Archetype stuff, they assume the trade makes it a horizontal affair. As such, they tend to focus on their own in-class options, and do not think there's much to gain from diluting their Feat spending.

IMO the most clear example of why that's not the case is that a surprisingly large number of classes do not get good Reaction options, like, at all.

From a system standpoint, every turn that passes without a PC using a Reaction is one of "wasted" power. For the classes that lack good Reactions... that alone is a rather large chunk.

With amazing choices like Bastion giving +2AC until their next turn, Reactions are easy to get and a big upgrade.

============

A class-specific example is that of the Alchemist and Draw avoidance.

The gap in PC performance between Alchemists who spend/waste actions on Draw and Q-Alch versus those Alchs using their items for 1A is huge.

I personally ran through the entire evolution during my first Amb Vlts campaign w/ my Alchemist. Starting w/ holding 2 bombs, then to the alch crossbow, then attempting Valet for 1 session before finally reaching the M. Dex + Independent familiar.

The game system provides 0 clues nor hints about how big a difference it can make to use your items for 1A. It's entirely up to the player to read items like r. prisms and abilities like Valet.

While that's a huge power-point for Alchemist, the draw-avoiding "tricks" still benefit all PCs. I will never "unlearn" how to do it. Using items for -1 A is just 1 more brick in that gap.

[nicholas storm]

Also you list blood magic effects on area effect spells, but the blood magic only affects 1 enemy. If you fireball 5 guys, only one enemy takes the extra damage from blood magic.

[Gortle]

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Trip.H wrote:

snip

I do want to say, I have to agree that consumables and wearables are often shockingly strong.

Agreed about this.

Sometimes the new items feel like stealth errata patches to the game.

[BigHatMarisa]

I mean technically every new thing that's added to the game is going to introduce feature creep, which is inevitably going to lead to a slight form of power creep since more options IS going to increase the ceiling, even if not necessarily in-play but mostly on-paper.

I feel like items wouldn't feel like such surprises if there was more, like, GUIDANCE to using them. The game presumably expects you to fill up your investiture slots once you start accruing coin but like... unless you're a martial with rune needs, it feels like most characters can just kinda "miss the boat", as it were. How many alchemists just kinda don't know that alchemist's goggles even exist, let alone would help their bomb usage greatly? Or characters that use Athletics who completely miss out on the lifting belt? Or even the class-specific items that can give you good benefits like a 1/day emergency Focus Point or even more buffs during Rage and whatnot? Several Barbarian players I knew didn't even realize the instinct crown existed, and not really for lack of trying looking for cool items.

There's just not a lot of signposting within the player-facing parts of the book to get them digging so it always comes as a surprise when items actually do something interesting, even though there's tons of impactful ones.

[Gortle]

I do have a quick guide on Equipment but it is very far from complete, just selected highlights.

[Witch of Miracles]

BigHatMarisa wrote:

I mean technically every new thing that's added to the game is going to introduce feature creep, which is inevitably going to lead to a slight form of power creep since more options IS going to increase the ceiling, even if not necessarily in-play but mostly on-paper.

I feel like items wouldn't feel like such surprises if there was more, like, GUIDANCE to using them. The game presumably expects you to fill up your investiture slots once you start accruing coin but like... unless you're a martial with rune needs, it feels like most characters can just kinda "miss the boat", as it were. How many alchemists just kinda don't know that alchemist's goggles even exist, let alone would help their bomb usage greatly? Or characters that use Athletics who completely miss out on the lifting belt? Or even the class-specific items that can give you good benefits like a 1/day emergency Focus Point or even more buffs during Rage and whatnot? Several Barbarian players I knew didn't even realize the instinct crown existed, and not really for lack of trying looking for cool items.

There's just not a lot of signposting within the player-facing parts of the book to get them digging so it always comes as a surprise when items actually do something interesting, even though there's tons of impactful ones.

Yeah. Pragmatically, it would great to have a "common/important items for your class" list somewhere in the class description and rules. It'd be great as a sidebar on the second or third page of the class! Just... something to let that new kineticist player know to buy a Gate Attenuator without the rest of the group helping them, etc.

[magnuskn]

Trip.H wrote:

I do want to emphasize that player meta side of powercreep as being the type I already see as a problem. But that only exists in the context of a system with increasingly power-unequal options.

I've been at tables where a player thinks they are playing pf2 in a savvy manner, and has taken the time to read their class and pick their options, carefully finding synergy.

Yet when they sit next to a vet/powergamer, the gulf between the PCs is enormous.

This is why I worry much much more on items, gear, and spells more so than Feats. Players who know these agnostic options exist and how to maximize them are getting a whole lot of power out of that shopping .

Meanwhile, players who don't literally read and explore rulebooks for the sake of finding new bits of power will never have reason to even know that spellhearts exist as a concept.

Basically, I'm seeing that there's already a problematic gap that GMs have to address when they have a table with 1 PC doing to work of 2/3. In my view, every new magic wearable is powercreep that is making that player gap wider with each new book or category of item.

No joke, most of these books have some genuinely powerful tool I'm adding to my Alch's power. From the Skunks, Numbing, Soothing, Thrower's Bandolier, etc in Treasure Vault,
to Grafted claws + Clawdancer thanks to HotW, I'm honestly surprised at how quickly this is happening.

Even many of the spells in HotW are a clear step of powercreep.

To be fair, since the non-powergaming members of our groups are not blind or stupid, they notice those items existing and just copy them (if applicable to their class) for future or current characters. The powergamers often are not shy about pointing out good items to their fellow group members as well in my experience.

[Tridus]

Equipment is definitely a spot in the game where system mastery yields big rewards. The floor in terms of building a capable character has improved a lot, especially compared to PF1... but as the amount of equipment has grown over time, finding the good stuff for a specific build has gotten progressively harder (a lot like PF1).

Treasure Vault really showcased the problem well I think: there's lots of really interesting items in here, and almost none of my players know about any of it if I don't point it out or stick it in a loot pile somewhere. Like the Investigator had no idea Insight Coffee existed, so I had an NPC alchemist share some as a reward for helping the NPC out.

I'm not sure this is a problem since the player was happy to get something cool they didn't know about, but it does create a significant gulf in that players with the system mastery to use all these items will have a real boost over players that are just using basic stuff because they don't know what to buy/craft.

[Errenor]

Ravingdork wrote:

Gortle wrote:

3 single action attack spells run into MAP and so that is not a viable tactic.

It can be with a shadow signet.

No it can't. It's a bit hard to understand how Shadow Signet works and easy to get into a trap thinking it just makes spells into saving throw spells (on my own example too). It doesn't. It's actually much worse item than it looks:

" If your next action is to Cast a Spell that requires a spell attack roll against Armor Class, choose Fortitude DC or Reflex DC. You make your spell attack roll against that defense instead of AC. "
See? In only exchanges AC for DC. Meaning:
- MAP stays
- You still get NOTHING on a miss.
P.S. Of course people (Unicore) already wrote about that :)

[Ravingdork]

Errenor wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Gortle wrote:

3 single action attack spells run into MAP and so that is not a viable tactic.

It can be with a shadow signet.

No it can't. It's a bit hard to understand how Shadow Signet works and easy to get into a trap thinking it just makes spells into saving throw spells (on my own example too). It doesn't. It's actually much worse item than it looks:

" If your next action is to Cast a Spell that requires a spell attack roll against Armor Class, choose Fortitude DC or Reflex DC. You make your spell attack roll against that defense instead of AC. "
See? In only exchanges AC for DC. Meaning:
- MAP stays
- You still get NOTHING on a miss.
P.S. Of course people (Unicore) already wrote about that :)

Indeed. This has been pointed out to me a number of times by various people.

Thanks for keeping the public on the right track.