Unironically, D&D 5e does 3 actions better with the 2024 version, ensuring most classes have actions, bonus actions, and movement options. The classes the community has deemed as failures tend to have mandatory feeling bonus actions or poor uses of concentration on spells that don't seem to need it.I can see that. I feel like one of the elevator pitches for PF2's 3-action system is the potential for dynamism by having generic actions with variable lengths instead of discrete action types... but then in actual play it only somewhat shines through and I'm always kind of baffled by how little I see Paizo leaning into those mechanisms.
I keep expecting classes to have these dynamic systems where you juggle unique actions and situationally fit them in to create this semi-complex action puzzle.
But instead it's just like here's a way to spend two actions on your main offense and then one action moving or doing a third backup thing if you don't need to move.
I am unfamiliar with the 5E 2024 action economy.
Could you give me an example of how it would work with, say, a fighter and a spellcaster, and what they can do differently.
Yeah, I can do that.
I'll use a 3rd-level Battle Master Fighter for the martial example and a
3rd-level Evoker Wizard for our spellcaster. They'll both be Humans, just to make things equal and fairly vanilla.
-----
https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/147320961
Our Fighter has 17 AC, 28 HP, and +1 Initiative.
For actions they have:
Our Fighter can attack at +5 to hit and has weapon mastery with Greatswords, Greataxes, and Mauls, which means when they attack with them, they get an automatic bonus. The Greatsword deals Strength modifier damage to a foe even on a miss, the Greataxe can attack foes adjacent to other foes on a hit (that attack deals weapon damage with no ability modifier added to the damage), and the Maul forces a DC 13 Con check on a hit to avoid being prone. Due to their background, they can reroll their damage die once per round.
They have 4 superiority dice (currently d8s), which recover on a short or long rest, and can be spent on the following effects (there are more options, but these are 3 basic actions picked by me):
All of these only activate on a hit.
Manoeuvring Attack: Adds +1d8 damage to a hit.
Pushing Attack: Foe takes a DC 13 Strength save and is pushed 15ft away from you on a failure.
Trip Attack: Foe takes a DC 13 Strength save and is knocked prone on a failure.
For bonus actions, they have the following:
They have 2 uses of second wind, and recover 1 per short rest, which can be used to heal 1d10+3 damage. These can also be spent on adding 1d10 to a failed skill check and aren't spent if the skill still fails after they have been added.
For reactions, they have the basic Opportunity Attack, which punishes people trying to disengage from melee without doing so carefully. They can also use a reaction when a creature within 5 feet of them is hit by an attack; if they do, they can reduce that damage by 1d10.
They also have Action Surge as a free action:
Once per short rest: Take one additional action, except the magic action.
This Fighter also has proficiency in 6 of the 18 skills. In this case, I picked Acrobatics (+3), Athletics (+5), Insight (+4), Intimidation (+1), Perception (+4), and Survival (+4).
-----
This fighter is fairly basic and not something I would find interesting in a long game, but it shows that even a basic class built basically gets to do fun stuff. Action Surge at 3rd level allows for 2 attacks at no penalty with all applicable effects, including superiority dice and weapon specialisations.
Monks, for example, get more to do with their bonus actions but don't get anything like weapon specialisation or action surge unless they multiclass to grab it.
-----
https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/147321174
Our Wizard has 12 AC (15 with Mage Armor), 20 HP, and +2 Initiative.
For actions, they will mostly cast spells:
Cantrips:
-Blade Ward
-Fire Bolt
-Mage Hand
-Mind Sliver
-Prestidigitation
Ranked Spells: 1st level: 4/long rest
-Chromatic Orb
-Long Strider
-Mage Armor
-Magic Missile
-Shield
As Ritual:
-Alarm
-Comprehend Languages
-Detect Magic
-Find Familiar
-Identify
-Tenser's Floating Disk
-Unseen Servant
Ranked Spells 2nd level: 2/long rest
-Chromatic Orb
-Cloud of Daggers
-Longstrider
-Magic Missile
-Melf's Acid Arrow
-Scorching Ray
As Ritual:
-Augury
-Gentle Repose
[Note: 5e rituals can be cast from a Wizard's spellbook without using a spell slot by spending 10 minutes to cast them.]
Arcane Recovery:
Once per long rest, after finishing a short rest, recover up to 2 spell levels of spell slots.
Potent Cantrip:
When you cast a cantrip at a creature and you miss with the attack roll or the target succeeds on the saving throw, the target takes half the damage (if any) but suffers no additional effect.
-----
Our mage is also a fairly boring sort who mostly wants to deal damage to foes. They don't yet have any bonus action spells or cantrips, but can use shield as a reaction to increase their AC by 5 for one round.
Sorcerers and Bards are full casters that get more to do with their bonus actions.
-----
Both of our humans are also Lucky (2 free instances of advantage to you or disadvantage to a foe per long rest) and Resourceful (Start every long rest with Heroic Inspiration).
-----
If you want to learn more, go to dndbeyond.com and look at the basic rules for an idea of what each class can do.
Untamed Order Druids that want to play primarily as a martial character can have a pretty bad time, to be fair. The class doesn't really keep up on that front and there's nothing the player can do about it.
If you use it as an option in the right situation it works fine, but someone who wants to play an older style "being in forms is my thing and I want to do it all the time" type will struggle. I saw it happen in a game I ran. The outcome just doesn't live up to the fantasy. (We'd need a class archetype that shifts more of the class power in that direction and away from magic to probably actually get what that player was looking for.)
Being primarily a shifter with some spell support works pretty well up to about the low teens.
But you’re totally right that
1) even at lower levels you have to mix shifting and spells, even if it’s primarily utility spells
2) the shifting gets less and less useful the further past L12 you get. Still stays part of your toolkit but you use it less and less oftenEven a shifting focused Druid HAS to keep their wisdom at or very near maximum which means less con and makes you a bit fragile in the front lines
Maybe they are reserving the full marshal shifter for a later release?
But that class would probably not have spell slots.
Untamed Order Druids that want to play primarily as a martial character can have a pretty bad time, to be fair. The class doesn't really keep up on that front and there's nothing the player can do about it.
If you use it as an option in the right situation it works fine, but someone who wants to play an older style "being in forms is my thing and I want to do it all the time" type will struggle. I saw it happen in a game I ran. The outcome just doesn't live up to the fantasy. (We'd need a class archetype that shifts more of the class power in that direction and away from magic to probably actually get what that player was looking for.)
Being primarily a shifter with some spell support works pretty well up to about the low teens.
But you’re totally right that
1) even at lower levels you have to mix shifting and spells, even if it’s primarily utility spells
2) the shifting gets less and less useful the further past L12 you get. Still stays part of your toolkit but you use it less and less oftenEven a shifting focused Druid HAS to keep their wisdom at or very near maximum which means less con and makes you a bit fragile in the front lines
Maybe they are reserving the full marshal shifter for a later release?
But that class would probably not have spell slots.
I think you could do a primal wave caster chassis as a mostly martial shapeshifter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue is my worst class.
I just cant get passed them having a skill up and skill feat every level. Its too many IMO.
I don’t love the thief rogue having dex to damage either. It feels out of place to me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My 'worst' classes are the Gunslinger & Swashbuckler.
As mentioned above, the Gunslinger is crit-fishing. Which isn't a style of play I enjoy. Mind you, I quite enjoyed my PF1 Gunslinger, but he had a few things going for him that aren't available in PF2. Also, the Gunslinger has to pick a "Way of..." option, that locks him into a particular mode. Like the Druid above.
As to the Swashbuckler, he suffers from gated damage. He has to get Panache, or his damage is pitiful. Then he has to hit while expending Panache... which means he has to succeed in two different rolls in the same round to get anywhere. I played an Operative in Starfinder and learned to loath this frustrating mechanic. Nothing has changed since then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just like to see a lot more bounded casters. With how little they use it, it almost feels like Paizo just came up with it then promptly forgot it existed since the only thing they released past the first two classes was the Battle Harbinger. I think there's a lot of potential not being tapped into there with what unique class concepts they can make with that kind of chassis, as well as the unique things they can do when they don't have to allocate 90% of a caster's power budget just to the slots they get.
At least they're making another 2 slot caster in the Necromancer, but it still feels like their potential for uniqueness is dragged down by being tied to a spell list.
|
But some people might be interested in other styles of fighter/mage hybrid and only reluctantly going with Magus because it is what's there. Ie, our old school fighter mage might have a playstyle of unleash attack or control spell early, and then swap styles to weapon attacks to close out the fight. Or use weapons to save resources, unless the fight goes poorly and then go with spells.
This playstyle is pretty much how a shifter druid plays up to the low teens.
Although, of course, there is a LOT of baggage that goes along with playing a druid.
But in a home game it might make a good chassis for such a mage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
General Campaign?
Investigator without a doubt. Investigator to actually feel like the tag needs a GM just as invested in having mysteries and clues for the feats to function along with actually remembering what feats the investigator has. More then any other class the GM half plays the Investigator.
Played one through all of AoE and I have to say even without our GM trying adventure paths are horrible about there being any clues and mysteries that aren't just handed to the players just in case a party of murderhobo dum dums plays the AP.
...The way we play is clearing a whole level of a dungeon or encounter area in a 10 minute or less span, before a heroism runs out. Even if a 10 minute rest isn't required, we don't have 10 minutes to wait for them to come back. Without those vials, the Alchemist is hamstrung in combat and their other powers aren't powerful enough to make the class operate well when our group is hitting an entire area non-stop.I am pretty sure you don't need to take a 10 minute rest for recharging Versatile vials. They just become available every 10 minutes you are not actively in combat.The new alchemist seems to have problems with sustainability given how we play in my group with very little rest with the new 10 minutes vials. Sometimes we don't stop for 10 minute rests in big battles.
Psychic can have problems too in long battles with amps and few spells.
Both those classes tend to force you to ensure 10 minute rests are included or their performance drops off substantially.
I prefer to make long, drawn out battles to the death with very little rest for major encounters. It's a bit harder to do if you don't work in 10 minute rests for those classes.
I would think pretty much anybody but martials/kineticists would have serious issues with that as well. Any caster would pretty quickly devolve to just cantrips which the alchemist can basically do as well. Honestly the new version of the alchemist probably handles that mode of play better than the previous one. Just focus on your endless versatile vials and keep your better VV and daily stuff for utility/big bosses. This is probably how most casters would have to work too just cantrips saving spells for opportune moments.
For Mutagenists their daily stuff pretty quickly lasts for hours and even their quick things are 10 minute duration so should have plenty of endurance before needing to stop for a breath. If they take quick
Alchemists don't require rest though to regain VV. I mean if you are never out of combat then that would potentially be an issue but no more so than any spell caster between your daily and the VV you start with any alchemist should have as many items for bigger enemies as any casters do and free bombs all day allows them to do stuff now they never could before remaster. As long as they are not actively in combat every 10 mintues they recover some VV they don't need to take a 10 minute rest or refocus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deriven is still basically doing the PF1E dungeon powerclears, where you'd slap on your long buffs and make a mad rush through the dungeon to bonk everything you could before the buffs wore off—no breaks, no rests. So the alchemist is, indeed, not regenerating vials at Deriven's table.
FWIW, I see basically every focus-point-heavy class run into this issue in real play. It's not to the same degree as at Deriven's table, to be sure. But a lot of groups don't actually like taking rests when there's some kind of plot pressure, and anyone balanced around regaining focus points or a similar resource (like a psychic or oracle or alchemist) tends to suffer disproportionately.
Deriven is still basically doing the PF1E dungeon powerclears, where you'd slap on your long buffs and make a mad rush through the dungeon to bonk everything you could before the buffs wore off—no breaks, no rests. So the alchemist is, indeed, not regenerating vials at Deriven's table.
FWIW, I see basically every focus-point-heavy class run into this issue in real play. It's not to the same degree as at Deriven's table, to be sure. But a lot of groups don't actually like taking rests when there's some kind of plot pressure, and anyone balanced around regaining focus points or a similar resource (like a psychic or oracle or alchemist) tends to suffer disproportionately.
For some reason the new oracle doesn't suffer this problem. I think because it has so many resources. 4 spell slots per level, 3 focus points, and the curse on top of cantrips and general melee. They have a lot of resources to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The way we play is clearing a whole level of a dungeon or encounter area in a 10 minute or less span, before a heroism runs out. Even if a 10 minute rest isn't required, we don't have 10 minutes to wait for them to come back. Without those vials, the Alchemist is hamstrung in combat and their other powers aren't powerful enough to make the class operate well when our group is hitting an entire area non-stop.I am pretty sure you don't need to take a 10 minute rest for recharging Versatile vials. They just become available every 10 minutes you are not actively in combat.The new alchemist seems to have problems with sustainability given how we play in my group with very little rest with the new 10 minutes vials. Sometimes we don't stop for 10 minute rests in big battles.
Psychic can have problems too in long battles with amps and few spells.
Both those classes tend to force you to ensure 10 minute rests are included or their performance drops off substantially.
I prefer to make long, drawn out battles to the death with very little rest for major encounters. It's a bit harder to do if you don't work in 10 minute rests for those classes.
I would think pretty much anybody but martials/kineticists would have serious issues with that as well. Any caster would pretty quickly devolve to just cantrips which the alchemist can basically do as well. Honestly the new version of the alchemist probably handles that mode of play better than the previous one. Just focus on your endless versatile vials and keep your better VV and daily stuff for utility/big bosses. This is probably how most casters would have to work too just cantrips saving spells for opportune moments.
For Mutagenists their daily stuff pretty quickly lasts for hours and even their quick things are 10 minute duration so should have plenty of endurance before needing to stop for
High level spellcasters do enough damage or a big enough effect with a single spell to cast cantrips after unloading with their big spells. That's why I changed my tune on casters at higher level. A caster unleashing eclipse burst or chain lightning hits so many targets, so hard that their damage spikes way higher than martials for that 2 action slot. Then they can let the martials do clean up while doing cantrips or reading a book if they feel like it. So they may need only one major spell a combat. With items, focus points, and cantrips, they can preserve resources to ramp up when needed in hard encounters.
A caster that wanted to use a spell slot every turn of every battle might run out of resources, but they are doing overkill with all that casting. They wouldn't do too well in any group in my opinion, but definitely not in our group.
The alchemist and psychic need to use their 10 minute abilities just to maintain parity with other classes. It is a very limited, main resource that suffers immensely if you don't do the rests. They can't control the flow of the resource like a caster who may cast 1 or 0 spells in a battle, then ramp up big in a tough battle casting 3 or 4 or more spells really spiking their damage and effectiveness.
An alchemist needs to use those vials just do their very basic thing much less ramp up the damage. Psychic the same. We like to play in a very naturalistic fashion where we only stop if we have to. We don't like the idea of stopping for short rests or per encounter or things of that nature. We like to let the encounter are and difficulty dictate resource use, not artificial limiters like 10 minute rests or similar limitations.
For some reason the new oracle doesn't suffer this problem. I think because it has so many resources. 4 spell slots per level, 3 focus points, and the curse on top of cantrips and general melee. They have a lot of resources to use.Deriven is still basically doing the PF1E dungeon powerclears, where you'd slap on your long buffs and make a mad rush through the dungeon to bonk everything you could before the buffs wore off—no breaks, no rests. So the alchemist is, indeed, not regenerating vials at Deriven's table.
FWIW, I see basically every focus-point-heavy class run into this issue in real play. It's not to the same degree as at Deriven's table, to be sure. But a lot of groups don't actually like taking rests when there's some kind of plot pressure, and anyone balanced around regaining focus points or a similar resource (like a psychic or oracle or alchemist) tends to suffer disproportionately.
That makes sense. I mostly think about premaster oracle, since they're what shows up at my table more.
For some reason the new oracle doesn't suffer this problem. I think because it has so many resources. 4 spell slots per level, 3 focus points, and the curse on top of cantrips and general melee. They have a lot of resources to use.Deriven is still basically doing the PF1E dungeon powerclears, where you'd slap on your long buffs and make a mad rush through the dungeon to bonk everything you could before the buffs wore off—no breaks, no rests. So the alchemist is, indeed, not regenerating vials at Deriven's table.
FWIW, I see basically every focus-point-heavy class run into this issue in real play. It's not to the same degree as at Deriven's table, to be sure. But a lot of groups don't actually like taking rests when there's some kind of plot pressure, and anyone balanced around regaining focus points or a similar resource (like a psychic or oracle or alchemist) tends to suffer disproportionately.
Of course it sacrificed everything that made the mysteries unique and special on the altar of Remaster. More mechanically viable absolutely, it also lost its soul in the process. Also post remaster Battle Oracle is just trash so I don't know where you are getting melee from.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some of the complaints about Magus might go away if it was A fighter/mage class instead of THE fighter mage class.
A thought I had back in 3.5 with the Duskblade, and again with the Magus was that the Fighter/Wizard was a Fighter first, and a Wizard second. I kind of want to see a Wizard/Fighter, no armor, but magical defenses, no martial weapons, but able to do some *amazing* stuff with twin daggers, a staff or thrown daggers/darts (or maybe other simple weapons, like the spear). More of a War Wizard, with a martial feel, who gets all up in someone's face with magic, but still uses the weapons and armor associated with wizards (or sorcerers). The PF 1e Staff Magus flirted with that desire, but not as much as I'd hoped.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure how Paizo justified changing out the school system the Wizard had from - Classification of spells to a extremely limited spell pool...of maybe 18 spells if I recall there are 2 spells per rank. However I would say no matter what Sorcerer will always beat Wizard but since this is not a Wizard is Weak thread let's more on!
I have to say even after seeing an Inventor in action the Overdrivre mechanic is weird. The fact you need to roll to gain a pseudo-rage is silly but I suppose the Thaumaturge is just the better Inventor where it feels like it works compared to these odd unstable actions which have a 25% chance of letting you do another one! Why is it not based on Focus Points!? Why do Focus Points need to be exclusively magic?
Why make Alchemists and Inventors use a different resource? It seems a little odd that Paizo did this when they already made a near perfect system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure how Paizo justified changing out the school system the Wizard had from - Classification of spells to a extremely limited spell pool...of maybe 18 spells if I recall there are 2 spells per rank. However I would say no matter what Sorcerer will always beat Wizard but since this is not a Wizard is Weak thread let's more on!
The old classifications were OGL and had to go, and retagging literally every spell in the game with a new classification system may have simply been viewed as tooo much work given the situation they were in.
I don't think the school concept itself or "get extra slots to use on school stuff" is bad: Oracle's Gifted Power feat gives you 1 spell slot at your highest rank that you can only use for your Mystery (or Divine Access) spells, and it's generally considered to be quite good.
The issue with the schools is just that a lot of them aren't very interesting in play. If they came with interesting focus spells and interesting spell lists (including otherwise uncommon/rare options as standard for the school), I think they'd feel better. It's just that with a lot of schools they don't feel impactful or that you're getting much out of it.
Like, a high level Wizard is getting more extra slots than a high level Cleric is, and has a wider variety of spells that can go in them. But we don't really see this complaint with Cleric because the two spells they can use those extra slots for happen to be very good so those slots always feel impactful. That's where Wizard schools fall behind IMO, and I think that's fixable in future material by adding stronger schools.
I have to say even after seeing an Inventor in action the Overdrivre mechanic is weird. The fact you need to roll to gain a pseudo-rage is silly but I suppose the Thaumaturge is just the better Inventor where it feels like it works compared to these odd unstable actions which have a 25% chance of letting you do another one! Why is it not based on Focus Points!? Why do Focus Points need to be exclusively magic?
Why make Alchemists and Inventors use a different resource? It seems a little odd that Paizo did this when they already made a near perfect system.
In general I appreciate the idea that some classes work in unique ways, because it helps prevent things from feeling same-y with other classes. The risk of doing that is that sometimes when inventing a new system, you miss the mark.
I think this is less of a problem with Alchemist in the way the game is intended to be played, since "normal PF2" doesn't expect you to chain four fights together with no rest on a regular basis. In that situation it's going to struggle (as will Psychic).
Inventor definitely just does feel like a weird one with how overdrive & unstable work, and I find it hard to predict just what it can do in any given fight.
Lets just pray and hope this doesn't turn into yet another wizard thread.Watch me!
OK, genuine gripe with the wizard. I GM PF2e, and the biggest irritation with them is their 4th slot because it can only be drawn from that silly teensy list, but it's very easy to slip up and forget that. Back when it was an entire school it would rarely be an issue, because what self-respecting illusion wizard won't have one illusion slotted per level, but now with the tiny school list it's very easy to mess up and not slot one of the increasingly junk spells you're allowed when prepping spells, especially if the player is being a good wizard and actually changing out their spell list in response to new information.
Also their focus spells are still as exciting as watching a pot boil, and they have an incredibly bland feat list even by spellcaster standard, compounding that (while, say, the Witch can always grab a funny Lesson if all their feat choices suck). "What feat should my wizard grab' is soul-draining to hear.
They published three new wizard classes today that are already on Demiplane, one is excellent (gates) one is good (magical technologies) and one at least tried harder than the warmed over mentalism -> red mantis one we got several months ago (kalistrade).
I will not defend the three in Rival Academies overall, but they had some bright spots (unsettling knowledge focus spell, my love!) even if as a whole I can't get excited about them due to too many remaining weaknesses.
Alchemist and Witch have been the worst for me, and they're entirely arbitrary reasons.
Alchemist I want to love, but every item list they can pick formula's from is dense. Between Bombs, Elixirs, Poisons, Foods, Normal Alchemical Items, etc, it feels like if I made a caster who can draw from all 4 spell lists at once, and it's constantly filling me with choice paralysis and 2nd guesses.
Witch is just basic, I'm not a fan of familiars. I just don't really care for the "just a little guy" kinda mechanic. Purely it is a personal preference, but familiars and familair rules just aren't really my cup of tea.
...The way we play is clearing a whole level of a dungeon or encounter area in a 10 minute or less span, before a heroism runs out. Even if a 10 minute rest isn't required, we don't have 10 minutes to wait for them to come back. Without those vials, the Alchemist is hamstrung in combat and their other powers aren't powerful enough to make the class operate well when our group is hitting an entire area non-stop.I am pretty sure you don't need to take a 10 minute rest for recharging Versatile vials. They just become available every 10 minutes you are not actively in combat.The new alchemist seems to have problems with sustainability given how we play in my group with very little rest with the new 10 minutes vials. Sometimes we don't stop for 10 minute rests in big battles.
Psychic can have problems too in long battles with amps and few spells.
Both those classes tend to force you to ensure 10 minute rests are included or their performance drops off substantially.
I prefer to make long, drawn out battles to the death with very little rest for major encounters. It's a bit harder to do if you don't work in 10 minute rests for those classes.
I would think pretty much anybody but martials/kineticists would have serious issues with that as well. Any caster would pretty quickly devolve to just cantrips which the alchemist can basically do as well. Honestly the new version of the alchemist probably handles that mode of play better than the previous one. Just focus on your endless versatile vials and keep your better VV and daily stuff for utility/big bosses. This is probably how most casters would have to work too just cantrips saving spells for opportune moments.
For Mutagenists their daily stuff pretty quickly lasts for hours and even their quick things are 10 minute duration so should have plenty of endurance
With the remaster bombers very much can pool their more precious resources. It costs them nothing to throw adjustable damage type 1 action bombs that do cantrip damage all day long without a break. If you know you are in some kind of sprint run group save your daily and limited use VV for boss fights or spur of the moment needs like an emergency healing elixers. Mutagenists shouldn't have any issues at all their stuff lasts an hour for their daily mutagens and if they know they have to conserve a bit they are quite well setup to do so.
The recharging versatile vials come back at 2 per 10 minutes of exploration not rest. Even in a fast paced dungeon crawl it seems very odd that there are not periods where you need to be in exploration mode searching for traps/hidden stuff as you are moving around the dungeon. Just running full speed the entire time seems like a great way to get a party blown up by all sorts of traps/haunts/hazards.
...The way we play is clearing a whole level of a dungeon or encounter area in a 10 minute or less span, before a heroism runs out. Even if a 10 minute rest isn't required, we don't have 10 minutes to wait for them to come back. Without those vials, the Alchemist is hamstrung in combat and their other powers aren't powerful enough to make the class operate well when our group is hitting an entire area non-stop.I am pretty sure you don't need to take a 10 minute rest for recharging Versatile vials. They just become available every 10 minutes you are not actively in combat.The new alchemist seems to have problems with sustainability given how we play in my group with very little rest with the new 10 minutes vials. Sometimes we don't stop for 10 minute rests in big battles.
Psychic can have problems too in long battles with amps and few spells.
Both those classes tend to force you to ensure 10 minute rests are included or their performance drops off substantially.
I prefer to make long, drawn out battles to the death with very little rest for major encounters. It's a bit harder to do if you don't work in 10 minute rests for those classes.
I would think pretty much anybody but martials/kineticists would have serious issues with that as well. Any caster would pretty quickly devolve to just cantrips which the alchemist can basically do as well. Honestly the new version of the alchemist probably handles that mode of play better than the previous one. Just focus on your endless versatile vials and keep your better VV and daily stuff for utility/big bosses. This is probably how most casters would have to work too just cantrips saving spells for opportune moments.
For Mutagenists their daily stuff pretty quickly lasts for hours and even their quick things are 10 minute duration so
Not sure why you would think that. It's easy to spot traps or haunts and such with a rogue or ranger point person using single seek actions faster than exploration. If they go off, you move away from them and not waste time dealing with them. The way we set up, one player at most will get hit and we heal them up if they fail to resist.
Maybe someone will try a Remaster Alchemist and see if they can make it work. I don't play them because I don't care for their resource management system comparative to the power gained from it.
Exploration speed is absurdly fast in PF2 in comparison to older d20 versions. 150 feet per minute even if you want to guarantee to check everything before running into it, and this can be made even faster with feats. Even if your average combat encounter takes you 10 rounds including casting heal and stuff afterwards (a generous assumption) and you run into 5 of them on the way, that still leaves you 750 feet of dungeon that you can explore, check for hidden doors/hazards etc., before your first cast of Heroism runs out. For comparison, an entire floor of AV might fit into 200x250 ft
Average combats take 3 to 5 rounds give or take depending on how easy or hard something easy.
Exactly. The entire floor is 200 to 250. With one round, you can move usually 75 to 90 feet plus per round of movement. Your point person can move 50 feet to 60 feet a move, then use one seek action on the door. Then you open room and use multiple seek actions on the room.
In a minute you can move 600 feet doing 1 week action per move round. Much, much better than exploration. You don't need to search everything, just key areas like doors or chests or something unusual.
Exploration is slow compared to what you can do in encounter mode. Exploration move we mostly use for longer, overland travel. In dungeons we almost always stay in encounter mode or don't even think about it as we move between doors.
My understanding is that exploration mode is slower than encounter mode because encounter mode is everyone on a combat high and it's definitely not meant to be sustained for more than a minute, they just don't want to explicitly call out 'people will get fatigued if you try to do 3 actions a turn for that long' so made a bunch of soft impetus to stop and recover energy for 10min periods (which is actually realistic for combat of that era - no, people didn't fight for literal hours without rest, they cycled back to gather themselves or else got fatigued out and...Exploration speed is absurdly fast in PF2 in comparison to older d20 versions. 150 feet per minute even if you want to guarantee to check everything before running into it, and this can be made even faster with feats. Even if your average combat encounter takes you 10 rounds including casting heal and stuff afterwards (a generous assumption) and you run into 5 of them on the way, that still leaves you 750 feet of dungeon that you can explore, check for hidden doors/hazards etc., before your first cast of Heroism runs out. For comparison, an entire floor of AV might fit into 200x250 ftAverage combats take 3 to 5 rounds give or take depending on how easy or hard something easy.
Exactly. The entire floor is 200 to 250. With one round, you can move usually 75 to 90 feet plus per round of movement. Your point person can move 50 feet to 60 feet a move, then use one seek action on the door. Then you open room and use multiple seek actions on the room.
In a minute you can move 600 feet doing 1 week action per move round. Much, much better than exploration. You don't need to search everything, just key areas like doors or chests or something unusual.
Exploration is slow compared to what you can do in encounter mode. Exploration move we mostly use for longer, overland travel. In dungeons we almost always stay in encounter mode or don't even think about it as we move between doors.
They created Downtime, Exploration, and Encounter mode for inexperienced players to have some idea of how to run each type of mode.
For experienced players and DMs, you don't need these rules. You've been using them for years and know how they run. It helped some to have them codified, but it wasn't necessary. When you've played for years, you know how to run dungeons, overland travel, crafting during downtime, and the like.
They aren't helpful to my group. We run encounter mode all the time in dungeons or areas we clear. We clear them in less than 10 minutes. We would never let a DM try to put us in exploration mode when we don't need it.
They don't have anything about fatigue in encounter mode. It doesn't take hours to clear an area. Realism and these games have nothing to do with each other, so I wouldn't even try to focus on any real world comparison about "fatigue in battles like this." They don't apply because ancient world battle did not have wizards and clerics and monsters and other such things. It didn't take six seconds to swing a sword or engage a battle or 10 minutes to explore an area.
It's all artificial. It's there for you to have an idea that there are differences in how something should run when you're hitting a combat area, doing a long overland trip, or downtime in the city. I think it is useful for new players, but nothing long time players didn't already do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things I would have liked for the untamed druid are for the form spells to be reworked entirely. I would like them to all be heightened to level 10 with attack/AC/damage dice all uniformly set at the level of the spell. Attack should be a bonus + level like AC and if not that you may add the status bonus from untamed form when figuring if your attack is higher than the listed attack. Explicitly state that weapon specialization and runes are added to damage. With barbarians and eventually monks/fighter being able to enter rage or stances at initiative it'd be nice for untamed druids to gain an action compression for shifting focus spell like shift and attack for 2 actions.
mechanically the worst class has to be the investigator in a combat heavy game like PF2 but I love the flavor.
Flavor wise I feel the wizard misses the mark.
The Rogue (and to an extent the Investigator). Not because I hate their imagery, but because their mechanical presence prevents other non/lesser-casters suffer in their out of combat role coverage due to not enough skill growths.
Personally I think the Investigator treatment (= 6 skills minimum at start with lowest INT possible + skill increase each level + thematic skill feats on each odd level beyond 3rd) should have been the default for all non/lesser-casters. In exchange I'd gladly allow 10th rank spell slots to work "normally" for all full-casters, or more...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Rogue (and to an extent the Investigator). Not because I hate their imagery, but because their mechanical presence prevents other non/lesser-casters suffer in their out of combat role coverage due to not enough skill growths.
Personally I think the Investigator treatment (= 6 skills minimum at start with lowest INT possible + skill increase each level + thematic skill feats on each odd level beyond 3rd) should have been the default for all non/lesser-casters. In exchange I'd gladly allow 10th rank spell slots to work "normally" for all full-casters, or more...
Why non caster specifically? There's nothing about Barbarians to me that suggest they should have twice as many skill options as a sorcerer or wizard or druid.
I'm also not sure I entirely follow the base logic. I get maybe not being happy that rangers or fighters don't have many skill increases but I'm not sure why that would be the rogue's problem and not just Paizo being weirdly stingy with skills.
I feel PF2e does give the right amount of trained skills. Even a +0 Int barbarian with 4 skills can contribute in and out of combat with their skills because all skills (I'll ignore Survival for my argument's sake, sorry) have useful skill actions or skill feats that improve those actions or give you useful skill actions to use. This isn't 3.X or PF1e with its 40+ skills (100+ if you include subskills) and 4+Int skill ranks per level at best for most classes where even rogues feel dumb because they don't even cover 1/4 of the whole skill list. Not to mention like 4-5 skills were actually useful and most skills could be replaced with low level spells.
If anything, the only real problem the skill system has in PF2e are skill feats. There isn't a single character (or wasn't since my table ditched skill feats a long time ago) that I didn't feel like "man, which feat from this list of truly situational feats do I take now?". I really hope PF3e goes for baking most of the upgrade-like skill feats into the proficiency tiers themselves, like Continual Recovery and Ward Medic for Meicine, with the ones that grant new actions to be improved all around and become general feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the swashbuckler is in a way better spot now than it used to be, to the point I would love to play one in the future again, but a rogue is (and I have confirmed this) more preferable in both damage and utility unless you specifically want to play a swash for its mechanics.
Gymnast in particular is by far still the worst style. Since you can't use actions with the attack trait after using a finisher its very likely you won't be able to immediately regain panache after spending it on that same turn, not to mention the very action you use to gain that panache in the first place imposes MAP, so your finishers are also going to often have MAP too, which makes Combination Finisher a must. This means most gymnast would likely need to invest into Acrobatics since Tumble Through feels less punishing to use, unless grappling would be preferable in a particular situation.
Rascal has the same problems as gymnast but the penalty it imposes luckily stacks with off-guard, which makes it a nice support option, and braggart has the problem of having to wait 9 levels to use demoralize more than once per target. Luckily a ton of swash feats give panache now so a ton of this downsides can be "lessened", but I would really hope for the subclasses to work out of the gate and not require further investment besides skill increases into their skill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I can't edit my comment...
Before saying that the Fighter's main feature is the Legendary Proficiency, stop it... The Fighter's class features are Bravery, Reactive Strike and Combat Flexibility; proficiency isn't a "feature".Actually "Initial Proficiencies" appears just before "Reactive Strike" in the "Class Features" part of the Fighter class' description on AoN.Let's say that every class obtain Legendary Proficiency or that Proficiency caps at Master for every class...
What does the Fighter have left?
The Barbarian stills has Rage, the Rogue Sneak Attack, spellcasters spells, etc...
The Fighter has Bravery, Reactive Strike and Combat Flexibility, but those are jokes compared to other class features...
What I'd love to see as Combat Flexibility is "Hey, you know these cool tricks you can do with that big axe of yours? Yeah, I can now use them with my big sword! I can use your AXE training with my SWORD, just like I could use your POLEARM training with my SPEAR!".
THAT's Flexibility... It's not just about use multiple weapons, it should be about using the same weapon in multiple ways...
I feel like the idea of "the Fighter can use any weapon" is a very ill-conceived idea, because unless you're juggling weapons as a gimmick, you're... never going to use multiple weapons in long runs.
Sure, it helps to have "the right tool for the job", but the Fighter should be able to "use his favorite for multiple jobs".
That enemy is resistant to this damage type? No problem, I can counter it with my signature weapon, because I have this Fighter-exclusive feat that allows it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I can't edit my comment...
Before saying that the Fighter's main feature is the Legendary Proficiency, stop it... The Fighter's class features are Bravery, Reactive Strike and Combat Flexibility; proficiency isn't a "feature".Actually "Initial Proficiencies" appears just before "Reactive Strike" in the "Class Features" part of the Fighter class' description on AoN.Let's say that every class obtain Legendary Proficiency or that Proficiency caps at Master for every class...
What does the Fighter have left?
The Barbarian stills has Rage, the Rogue Sneak Attack, spellcasters spells, etc...
The Fighter has Bravery, Reactive Strike and Combat Flexibility, but those are jokes compared to other class features...
What I'd love to see as Combat Flexibility is "Hey, you know these cool tricks you can do with that big axe of yours? Yeah, I can now use them with my big sword! I can use your AXE training with my SWORD, just like I could use your POLEARM training with my SPEAR!".
THAT's Flexibility... It's not just about use multiple weapons, it should be about using the same weapon in multiple ways...
I feel like the idea of "the Fighter can use any weapon" is a very ill-conceived idea, because unless you're juggling weapons as a gimmick, you're... never going to use multiple weapons in long runs.
Sure, it helps to have "the right tool for the job", but the Fighter should be able to "use his favorite for multiple jobs".
That enemy is resistant to this damage type? No problem, I can counter it with my signature weapon, because I have this Fighter-exclusive feat that allows it.
Thats the same as the argument that a specialized lightning spellcaster should be able to use lightning magic in every situation equally cause they should have feats to make it work even when it an enemy has resistance or is immune or just has absurd reflex saves.
Thats just not this game and niether is the fighter that specializes in a signature weapon.
Thats the same as the argument that a specialized lightning spellcaster should be able to use lightning magic in every situation equally cause they should have feats to make it work even when it an enemy has resistance or is immune or just has absurd reflex saves.
Thats just not this game and niether is the fighter that specializes in a signature weapon.
Maybe I got it wrong then... because the way I see your "lightning spellcaster", it would be about "casting Ignition or Fireball, because dealing electricity damage instead of fire damage".
In my case, I'd be down for a sword-using Fighter being able to use Axe-exclusive feats and abilities, becasue "he's a Fighter".
BTW, since not all swords are Versatile, that would be a good way to add that trait, since the sword-using Fighter can wield his sword in more advanced ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(maybe) interesting observation after skimming over the replies:
Every single class with Int as key attribute has beeen mentioned. Some of them quite a lot. What is it about those intelligent characters that makes them disliked so much / weak?
I could talk about the reasons I think Int is an underbaked stat and so on, but that's not really the problem.
On a surface level there doesn't seem to be a connection. Wizard school slots being limited or having bad feats aren't really anywhere near inventors doing low damage or unstable feeling limited or complaints about magus action economy or the power of alchemical items or psychics feeling bad without their focus spells and having so few slots.
But there does seem to be some slight connection in the sense that all these complaints seem to boil down to slight-too-conservative design choices... a conservatism that seems somewhat less present in certain other classes.
Who knows if it means anything though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
(maybe) interesting observation after skimming over the replies:
Every single class with Int as key attribute has beeen mentioned. Some of them quite a lot. What is it about those intelligent characters that makes them disliked so much / weak?
I'm sorting the classes by their key attribute. I added the choice of attributes "Strength or Dexterity" or "Intelligence or Charisma", too, but reduced the rogue's "Dexterity or Other" to just "Dexterity."
STR (1) BarbarianDEX (2) Rogue, Swashbuckler
STR or DEX (7) Champion, Exemplar, Fighter, Gunslinger, Magus, Monk, Ranger
CON (1) Kineticist
INT (5) Alchemist, Inventor, Investigator, Witch, Wizard
WIS (3) Animist, Cleric, Druid
CHA (5) Bard, Oracle, Sorcerer, Summoner, Thaumaturge
INT or CHA (1) Psychic
The classes with STR, DEX, or STR or DEX are clearly martial classes. I guess Paizo knows how to design classes that hit with weapons well. The monk, which was weak in PF1 with "a flurry of misses," works better in PF2. The classes that cast magic spells generally work well, with some exceptions.
The remaining cases are Kineticist, Alchemist, Inventor, Investigator, and Thaumaturge.
Next, let's count mentions in this thread as worst classes. My count is inaccurate because some comments elaborate on mechanics rather than agree that a class is worst. Is that agreement, disagreement, or neither? And I counted every entry in a list for people who posted lists.
Alchemist (non-bomber) 4
Barbarian (fury, superstition) 3
Bard 1
Cleric (battle herald) 1
Druid 4
Fighter 1
Gunslinger 5
Inventor 6
Investigator 7
Magus 3
Oracle (battle) 1
Psychic 3
Ranger 1
Rogue 2
Swashbuckler 1
Witch 5
Wizard 4
The classes not in the running for worst class are Animist, Champion, Exemplar, Kineticist, Monk, Sorcerer, Summoner, and Thaumaturge. Thaumaturge has been mentioned as mixed feelings, but no definite vote for worst. Animist and Exemplar might be getting a pass for being new.
The classes with just one or two strikes against them can be set aside as possibly a matter of personal playstyle. That puts the ranking at:
Investigator 7 INT
Inventor 6 INT
Gunslinger 5 DEX
Witch 5 INT
Alchemist 4 INT
Druid 4 WIS
Wizard 4 INT
Barbarian 3 STR
Magus 3 STR or DEX
Psychic 3 INT or CHA
Investigator was criticized as too specialized, better for detective stories than adventuring stories. Inventor has unstable mechanics. Gunslinger and Magus have a rigid set of actions to take each turn. Druid, Psychic, Wizard, and Witch rely too much on their spell slots, and although Witch has the best familiar for extra flavor some people don't see the point of a familiar. Alchemist works as a bomber but its other options flop. And Barbarian is pulled down in its ranking by a few lame instincts.
All the INT classes ended up on the list, even the Psychic with INT or CHA. And the reason seems to be that for spellcasters Charisma offers more flavor for interesting alternatives to spellcasting, so the non-CHA spellcasters rank lower. WIS-based Druid was ranked low, too. INT also experimented with several martial classes: Alchemist, Investigator, and Inventor, which had their own individual failures.
Imagine when we get to see the fully released INT Martial known as the Commander. Let us see just how much it changed (If at all) from the Playtest. So trading away your action for actions of your allies, depends if any class is better then other classes. This is the question of design at this point. Since we are talking about INT Classes, would the Commander be able to be more useful then other classes? What about other INT classes?
Would a Commander commanding allies be better then having a different INT Class in the party, rather it be an Inventor, Investigator or Alchemist? Then you get into the realm of would it be better to bring a none-specialized Martial (A Martial focused on striking) or a Spellcaster?
This is all simple thought about INT Classes and not INT itself. As I feel a lot of the problems INT has is even removed by classes for some odd design choice. Thaumaturge which is the Lore Class is CHA based for some reason outside of INT which I do like and understand but the choice of doing so I believe undermines INT as an Attribute especially with the Level 1 Feat Diverse Lore existing which lets you use your auto scaling Lore (Which is free and uses your Key Ability Score) at a -2 as Lore (Anything) is frankly absurd.
If any other class got auto scaling Lore Anything, or rather if an Archetype like Loremaster had Loremaster Lore scale to Legendary then INT would feel slightly better. That way classes like Alchemist, Inventor, Investigator and other similar INT classes could more easily gather information for the same feat investment as the Thaumaturge with Diverse Lore perhaps makes INT more useful if the Lore scaled with Esoteric Lore but didn't take a -2 to be used as Lore (Anything).
But we run into the problem once more with Tome Implement which grants Expert Skills and a +1 to Lore checks while holding the Implement...Which means in essence you will be pairing it with Diverse Lore only giving you a effective -1 penalty. You could at level 8 get a Broach of Inspiration if it is allowed for the +1 Item Bonus instead I suppose which caps art +3 with the major one.
While we are at this let's see how the other INT Playtest classes got altered from their Playtest versions. I.E Necromancer & Runesmith. Which for "Worst" class I can not tell you that either of those two classes I mentioned here would actually be on the lift, the only thing I would mention if Necromancer's Playtest Thrall Mechanic is both somehow Overpowered as well as Underpowered.
What do I mean by this? Thralls have this weird habit to being this massive wall which with the right placing can make many encounters trivial. Sure they only got 1 hit point and is auto hit and destroyed but that in itself is a problem. Any use of the Attack Trait in an Action gives you a -5 (-4 if Agile) on your next attack. Not only does that mean that good placement can give you a greater chance of survival but if the enemy tries to Tumble Through they can only Tumble through a single Thrall per action (According to the rules). However if your GM ignores your Thralls they become a weak class feature with a weak 1 action bonus attack.
Thats the same as the argument that a specialized lightning spellcaster should be able to use lightning magic in every situation equally cause they should have feats to make it work even when it an enemy has resistance or is immune or just has absurd reflex saves.
Thats just not this game and niether is the fighter that specializes in a signature weapon.
That's dumb, though. One glance at a medieval treatise on fighting shows that many swords could cut, thrust, and flip around to bludgeon with their hilt and quillons. Why should a supernaturally skilled warrior, able to shrug off a dragon's breath, be unable to do something a 5th-level, at most, swordsman from real life can do with ease? Are the system's designers just unable to cope with a system that doesn't bind the player's hands at every turn? Or are they simply so uninformed as to not design around things any skilled martial artist should be able to do naturally?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's dumb, though. One glance at a medieval treatise on fighting shows that many swords could cut, thrust, and flip around to bludgeon with their hilt and quillons. Why should a supernaturally skilled warrior, able to shrug off a dragon's breath, be unable to do something a 5th-level, at most, swordsman from real life can do with ease? Are the system's designers just unable to cope with a system that doesn't bind the player's hands at every turn? Or are they simply so uninformed as to not design around things any skilled martial artist should be able to do naturally?Thats the same as the argument that a specialized lightning spellcaster should be able to use lightning magic in every situation equally cause they should have feats to make it work even when it an enemy has resistance or is immune or just has absurd reflex saves.
Thats just not this game and niether is the fighter that specializes in a signature weapon.
Or maybe they just want a game where the optimal solution to literally every problem isn't "just use the same weapon I always use."
It's not like the Fighter hitting something with a greatsword in every situation is going to be ineffective even if they could get a weakness by switching to another weapon. It's still going to do damage. It's just not optimal to ignore the weakness.
This is not a realistic game, and it's not trying to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe they just want a game where the optimal solution to literally every problem isn't "just use the same weapon I always use."
It's not like the Fighter hitting something with a greatsword in every situation is going to be ineffective even if they could get a weakness by switching to another weapon. It's still going to do damage. It's just not optimal to ignore the weakness.
This is not a realistic game, and it's not trying to be.
That shouldn't be the case, even if we make as many weapons as possible able to deal all three types of physical damage. Reach should be important with spears, polearms, arming swords, and daggers (at the minimum), each being advantaged at some ranged and disadvantaged at others. Dropping one's poleaxe and pulling out a dagger to meet a foe in a grapple can and should be rewarded, and turning one's hand-and-a-half sword upside down to use as a brutal club should also be rewarded.
Different schools of combat should offer you reasons to carry certain weapons over others, and duels should, as they often did in real life, seek to use odd weapons such that neither man is likely to be trained in their use.
This idea of whacking down monsters with foam weapons and going from full functional to unconscious is simplistic and boring. Give me called shots, mangled limbs, and the potential that any blow taken could be your last.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's dumb, though. One glance at a medieval treatise on fighting shows that many swords could cut, thrust, and flip around to bludgeon with their hilt and quillons. Why should a supernaturally skilled warrior, able to shrug off a dragon's breath, be unable to do something a 5th-level, at most, swordsman from real life can do with ease? Are the system's designers just unable to cope with a system that doesn't bind the player's hands at every turn? Or are they simply so uninformed as to not design around things any skilled martial artist should be able to do naturally?Thats the same as the argument that a specialized lightning spellcaster should be able to use lightning magic in every situation equally cause they should have feats to make it work even when it an enemy has resistance or is immune or just has absurd reflex saves.
Thats just not this game and niether is the fighter that specializes in a signature weapon.
You could have a game that represents the level of complexity your describing but that system would have different damage values for each use of that one weapon.
Like if you want to do bludgeoning damage with a great axe it wouldn't be a a d12, the thing is just not that effective if your not using it in a way that uses the blades edge properly.Or if your using a sword and want to hit with the pommel do you need to lower your AC to represent turning the blade away from your opponent and if it had a cross guard you've now lost any use of it for that moment?
Also if your fighting a human these techniques can be fine but what about an ogre? the pommel of a sword might not have any wear near the heft needed to do anything to something that big and given their height maybe characters couldn't really reach the head to concuss it easily.
And realistically (I say this knowing fantasy races are not real) a small character like a hafling couldn't have strength like a human could it? all of their weapons would need to have less wight to them, less reach to be wielded without awkwardness.
probably because the game has a lot of things that are not real in it already we excuse a lot of things that dont work with the complexity of reality too so we can just play a game that doesnt have so much complexity to it.