Okay, simple test of your guidelines: the party is deep in a forest, far away from civilization. They’ve been traveling through this forest for days to reach a long-sealed crypt thought lost to time. How do you convey to the party at that moment that deep in this crypt, the lower floors are full of clay effigies?
Right, so a complete deus ex machina. It’d certainly be good to have that kind of guideline, but as the above should show, “just figure out a justification” I think is easier said than done if you want some sense of narrative.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Which one of you is doing the Search action? Bob's character Balthazal? Okay, Balthazal finds an interesting bit of clay near the stone door leading underground."
This is at least my third time having to explain to you that when you are gathering information in the middle of the adventuring day, the adventuring day has already begun. Unless you are having the party reprepare their spells midway through the day, that information cannot have retroactively helped the casters who had to prepare beforehand.
Well yes, something has got to give. If someone doesn't want to bother with characters collecting information organically before they determine their daily prep for the subject of that information (or plays campaigns where it's just not feasible somehow), but they still want the characters to have that information for gameplay reasons, but they also don't want post-hoc justifications for where the information comes from, but they also still want there to be a good narrative about where it came from, they have maneuvered themselves into somewhat of an unwinnable spot.
Hold on, why blame the GM for the flaws in your suggestion? This is a situation that could easily arise in an official AP, and many don’t even give the players the time to gather information at all on some occasions.
There are many ways a DM could give info to his players through a few not-so-subtle clues.
- Two days away from the temple, the characters encounter a village. The natives worship a huge totem and believe it to be a god, for the legends say it used to move. It's a badly damage clay golem, thousands year old.
- The characters find carrions circling next to the road. If they investigate, they discover the body of an historian who seemingly died of thirst since he was so bad at survival. In his backpack are his notes about huge statues in a temple.
- The characters encounter a wounded thief. He tried to enter the temple and can tell them he found some huge pieces of clay - it so happens he took one with him. Then he ventured further and a trap nearly cut his arm, making him flee for his life.
A good DM can point them in the right direction without resorting to some kind of deus ex machina.
A good DM can point them in the right direction without resorting to some kind of deus ex machina.
For sure, but this requires rewriting the adventure in some amount. Fine if you’re homebrewing the campaign, not so great if you’re using a prewritten AP or official scenario that may not give you the chance or forewarning to do so.
All the remastered arcane list needs to be plenty powerful is for legacy spells to still be available and for only exactly the same named remastered spells to supersede legacy ones. With access to the legacy versions of spells the arcane list remains top tier.
I'm blaming a set of apparently mutually exclusive requirements for a solution that therefore cannot be fully satisfied by any universal method – your suggestion, mine, or any other.
I don't think the problem is that they're mutually exclusive -- make no mistake, I think you're onto something with your suggestion. I think it's really good to have at least some kind of guideline recommending that the GM feed the players information that would let them prepare for the next day. What disappoints me a little is that your suggestion ultimately still boils down to "figure it out" and leaves it at that. I think that with a bit more effort, your solution could be more complete -- and thus less work for a GM to implement. What you mentioned about a flashback, for instance, is something a game like Blades in the Dark uses to great effect, and that's something that could be fleshed out as a full mechanic. It doesn't have to be the only way to gather information or prepare ahead -- and neither does mine -- and the more mechanics we have that can help, the better.
You can indeed do things during the day, before your daily preparation. For prepared spellcasters, gathering information is an excellent idea for that.
I wouldn't consider it "an excellent idea" to set out into danger with no spells prepared. You certainly don't have to prepare your spells first thing in the morning, but preparing them later means you'd run the risk of getting ambushed with only leftover spells, cantrips, and focus spells to defend yourself.
Spell Substitution is common.
Spell Substitution is an arcane thesis for the Wizard. It is not a universal mechanic for prepared spellcasters.
This really isn't just about wizards, anyway.
I agree, it's also about Clerics, Druids, Witches, even Magi and Animists. None of them would be too happy to expect to adventure with no spells on the off-chance that some random RK check gives them one tidbit of information to work off of. This was just about one group of monsters, as well, not even the rest of the creatures in the scenario.
One of the problems with your proposed ritual solution is that it doesn't get the party very actively involved with engaging with the plot.
That's fair, but I'd also argue that can be an asset, as it means that ritual can be dropped into a game at any point, regardless of the plot, and still work as a plot-agnostic mechanic. It certainly avoids the problem of having to constantly contrive ways to inform the players in APs or scenarios that make doing so impossible or close to it. Moreover, the two solutions are not mutually exclusive: just because there'd be a way of feeding the party more reliable information doesn't mean there can't be a ritual to help party members prepare spells, or vice versa.
Yes, but Paizo is pretty clear in their published materials that GMs have the latitude and should modify encounters - yes even official ones - as needed to best fit the game.
Encounters, sure -- but not necessarily the campaign itself. Unless you're proposing to rewrite encounters so that they better accommodate the spell selection of your prepared casters, which sounds like a lot of work if I'm being honest, your solution here would not fix anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, simple test of your guidelines: the party is deep in a forest, far away from civilization. They’ve been traveling through this forest for days to reach a long-sealed crypt thought lost to time. How do you convey to the party at that moment that deep in this crypt, the lower floors are full of clay effigies?
Good thought experiment. I think there are a few ways. First and easiest is a relevant knowledge check and with a regular success I would be willing to give a list of possible kinds of things that could be in the dungeon. Likewise, you can have art such as carvings that give an indication or clue as to what is inside. This culture is known for making constructs such as these. The outside of the tomb could have statues that look like clay effigies
I don't think you can tell them directly the lower floors specifically have them, but you can give heavy handed hints that something like this ought to be within the dungeon somewhere and they can prepare accordingly if they pick up on the hints
The worst way I can think of if having some dead previous adventurer's stuff somewhere in there and it have detailed notes and the like which might have a map or whatever
With the concern about the adventuring day, I think it is reasonable one might rest, or wait to prepare spells specifically for the dungeon. I am assuming this is like a day or two out anyways so it's reasonable they would camp outside, rest and then enter in the morning. If it is within a day, I think you try to have everything available for them to prepare(knowledgeable NPCs, library, whatever) before they depart and if they don't seek this info out, oh well
On the play-style issue: If you are at a table that doesn't support pre-adventure research (which, BTW, most APs do at least to some extent; at the very least, the Player's Guides are full of clues as the themes and possible foes), then allow the Flexible Spellcaster class archetype.
As mentioned (by Deriven Firelion, IIRC), it "feels bad" to some people because of the reduced spell slots. However, a wizard can still get their prepared curriculum spell slots. Personally, I don't like the way it's an archetype with no archetype feats other than the 2nd-level dedication which means only humans can take another (multi-classed only) archetype by using their 9th-level ancestry feat. Having all of the spells in their daily collection as signature spells and being able to switch out the entire "repertoire" every day can be pretty powerful.
One other thing to keep in mind with the flexible spellcaster's daily collection: other than needing at least one 1st-rank spell, the player can really customize the character's available spells. For example (9th-level wizard with the Flexible Spellcasting archetype, Staff Nexus [needle darts, force barrage] arcane thesis, School of Battle Magic, Linked Focus, Split Slot, either Advanced School Spell or Bond Conservation):
Cantrips- choose 4 (other than needle darts in the staff; use one 1st-rank flexible slot to empower the makeshift staff)
1st- force barrage*; force barrage
2nd- mist*; blazing bolt, resist energy, web
3rd- (split slot, earthbind or fireball)*; haste, lightning bolt, rouse skeletons
4th- mystic armor*; fly, weapon storm
5th- impaling spike*; howling blizzard
or remove haste, fly and add hydraulic push, blood vendetta to daily collection...
or prepare resist energy in the 2nd-rank curriculum slot and add water breathing in its place in the daily collection...
or tailor the spells based on damage type to target a weakness or avoid a resistance (if the party can find out or Recall Knowledge ahead of time about the common foes)...
Or choose the daily collection to suit the player's/party's preferences.
*- curriculum spell slot
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, simple test of your guidelines: the party is deep in a forest, far away from civilization. They’ve been traveling through this forest for days to reach a long-sealed crypt thought lost to time. How do you convey to the party at that moment that deep in this crypt, the lower floors are full of clay effigies?
Classic dungeon situation.
The classic answer is: Retreat, relock the crypt/area with the clay effigies, and prepare more appropriate spells the next day to defeat the clay effigies more easily.
"Deep in a forest, far away from civilization" and clay effigies deep in the crypt does not indicate any time pressure. The party can afford to "nova" and make multiple runs at the problem.
Classic dungeon situation.
The classic answer is: Retreat, relock the crypt/area with the clay effigies, and prepare more appropriate spells the next day to defeat the clay effigies more easily.
"Deep in a forest, far away from civilization" and clay effigies deep in the crypt does not indicate any time pressure. The party can afford to "nova" and make multiple runs at the problem.
Given that the crypt has been sealed for eons, unsealing it and whatever may be inside it could have dire and imminent consequences -- once that's started, the pressure may very well be on. That too is a classic.
If it is within a day, I think you try to have everything available for them to prepare(knowledgeable NPCs, library, whatever) before they depart and if they don't seek this info out, oh well
Indeed, that would help in a homebrew adventure, and generally I'd say that if anybody is homebrewing a campaign, following this kind of guideline would help immensely in providing a framework where the party can inform themselves ahead of time. The problem is that this guideline isn't really followed in APs or official scenarios, nor can be adjusted easily in many circumstances. Really, if there were a simple, reliable way of letting party members prepare in advance even in those situations, that'd help out a lot.
Given that the crypt has been sealed for eons, unsealing it and whatever may be inside it could have dire and imminent consequences -- once that's started, the pressure may very well be on. That too is a classic.Classic dungeon situation.
The classic answer is: Retreat, relock the crypt/area with the clay effigies, and prepare more appropriate spells the next day to defeat the clay effigies more easily.
"Deep in a forest, far away from civilization" and clay effigies deep in the crypt does not indicate any time pressure. The party can afford to "nova" and make multiple runs at the problem.
Moving the goalposts by adding additional conditions to the "simple test."
Got it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, so a complete deus ex machina. It’d certainly be good to have that kind of guideline, but as the above should show, “just figure out a justification” I think is easier said than done if you want some sense of narrative.Well yes, something has got to give. If someone doesn't want to bother with characters collecting information organically before they determine their daily prep for the subject of that information (or plays campaigns where it's just not feasible somehow), but they still want the characters to have that information for gameplay reasons, but they also don't want post-hoc justifications for where the information comes from, but they also still want there to be a good narrative about where it came from, they have maneuvered themselves into somewhat of an unwinnable spot. Neither your nor my suggestion (nor any other, as far as I can tell) could satisfy such a person.
My players only do this when needed. Only a few classes benefit from foreknowledge of encounters. Most classes can operate at 100 percent efficiency with almost no foreknowledge of the encounters, especially martials. They can win without the class needing the foreknowledge to perform well. It is a negative aspect of a class if they need to know in advance what is needed when the other classes don't care.
You can blunt force almost every encounter with well-built martials and healing. A player playing a class that doesn't perform very well without advance information is slowing everyone else down.
Didn't used to be that way, but it is now.
All the remastered arcane list needs to be plenty powerful is for legacy spells to still be available and for only exactly the same named remastered spells to supersede legacy ones. With access to the legacy versions of spells the arcane list remains top tier.
What are you talking about? What legacy spells does Arcane have that are top tier?
It was the Divine list that took the big jump forward. Arcane list is barely changed. Most of the other lists are barely changed.
Divine got a big power up. That's mostly it.
Moving the goalposts by adding additional conditions to the "simple test."
Got it.
You cited a "classic scenario" and made far more assumptions than were given, while trying to trivialize unsealing a long-sealed crypt by stepping out and immediately resting like in some video game, in a decidedly unclassic way. You oughtn't be blaming others for this.
All the remastered arcane list needs to be plenty powerful is for legacy spells to still be available and for only exactly the same named remastered spells to supersede legacy ones. With access to the legacy versions of spells the arcane list remains top tier.What are you talking about? What legacy spells does Arcane have that are top tier?
It was the Divine list that took the big jump forward. Arcane list is barely changed. Most of the other lists are barely changed.
Divine got a big power up. That's mostly it.
All three of the power word spells are great spells and a couple more spell attack roll spells scattered through the ranks. That is all the arcane list needs to remain at the top of the pack.
All three of the power word spells are great spells and a couple more spell attack roll spells scattered through the ranks. That is all the arcane list needs to remain at the top of the pack.All the remastered arcane list needs to be plenty powerful is for legacy spells to still be available and for only exactly the same named remastered spells to supersede legacy ones. With access to the legacy versions of spells the arcane list remains top tier.What are you talking about? What legacy spells does Arcane have that are top tier?
It was the Divine list that took the big jump forward. Arcane list is barely changed. Most of the other lists are barely changed.
Divine got a big power up. That's mostly it.
The power word spells are still there. Only power word kill is any good. The other power words don't even do much to bosses. I wouldn't waste them on mooks. The spell attack spells are shared across lists.
Arcane is still good as it has a lot of utility with the blasting. But Primal is every bit as good at it has a lot of blasting with healing and utility.
I don't consider the arcane list bad for sorcs. Doesn't change that wizards are lacking. But that's a class thing, not an arcane list thing.
I get the feeling you haven't spent much time exploring the other lists. Every list has some high points and advantages. All are about par with each other depending on what you want to do. Lists are very balanced in PF2, which is the class features of the classes that use them are so much more important than the spell list.
This isn't PF1 where the sorc/wiz list was miles better than every other list with every great spell on it that others didn't even have. Every list is fairly balanced and useful.
The power word spells are technically legacy. They don’t appear in the player core or later books. I have never had a GM not allow them, so my experience with the arcane list has been very positive. Power word stun and blind are great for boss fights. Dazzled for a minute for one action and no save is good. Stunned 1 for one action is great. Power word spells are how any arcane caster can leverage 3rd actions very effectively.
The primal list I have played at high level, but only pre-remastered, it lacks one action spells. It is good, but can struggle to have to do too much when people expect primal casters to be the party’s only magical healer. Also, a lot of the fun blast spells are just way more fun for NPC casters than PC ones because they want to destroy everything.
I haven’t played a high level occultist, but the wizard in the fist of Ruby Phoenix game I ran had a witch MC and used a fair bit of synesthesia. That was pretty much the only occult spell she’d regularly cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The power word spells are technically legacy. They don’t appear in the player core or later books. I have never had a GM not allow them, so my experience with the arcane list has been very positive. Power word stun and blind are great for boss fights. Dazzled for a minute for one action and no save is good. Stunned 1 for one action is great. Power word spells are how any arcane caster can leverage 3rd actions very effectively.
The primal list I have played at high level, but only pre-remastered, it lacks one action spells. It is good, but can struggle to have to do too much when people expect primal casters to be the party’s only magical healer. Also, a lot of the fun blast spells are just way more fun for NPC casters than PC ones because they want to destroy everything.
I haven’t played a high level occultist, but the wizard in the fist of Ruby Phoenix game I ran had a witch MC and used a fair bit of synesthesia. That was pretty much the only occult spell she’d regularly cast.
I don't think a level 8 slot on Stunned 1 even for one action something I'd use a level 8 slot for. Same as dazzled for a minute for Power Word Blind. The 50 points for power word kill is all I use.
Not sure why a primal caster has problems. They have chain lightning and fireball and blazing ray and phantom orchestra and sudden bolt and slow. On top of generally good focus spells like Tempest Surge and Elemental Toss.
Occult has force barrage, synesthesia, heroism, wall of force, and other staples I use often on top of generally good class features attached to their classes. An occult caster is a better control/buff/debuff caster is where they stand out. They have the top tier spells for that type of play. I generally focus my slots on that when playing occult over blasting.
Primal and Arcane are the blast lists. Divine is pretty blasty now too. Divine has the best summons, heals, and some good blasting now.
I don't think a level 8 slot on Stunned 1 even for one action something I'd use a level 8 slot for. Same as dazzled for a minute for Power Word Blind. The 50 points for power word kill is all I use.
Not sure why a primal caster has problems. They have chain lightning and fireball and blazing ray and phantom orchestra and sudden bolt and slow. On top of generally good focus spells like Tempest Surge and Elemental Toss.
Occult has force barrage, synesthesia, heroism, wall of force, and other staples I use often on top of generally good class features attached to their classes. An occult caster is a better control/buff/debuff caster is where they stand out. They have the top tier spells for that type of play. I generally focus my slots on that when playing occult over blasting.
Primal and Arcane are the blast lists. Divine is pretty blasty now too. Divine has the best summons, heals, and some good blasting now.
Divine is the best list right now. I do however want to say that arcane has the strength of letting you be a primal caster and an occult caster simultaneously just without this or that exclusive spell. Most of the occult spells you listed I can grab on arcane, and those I can't, well I can grab these other blasting spells from primal, essentially. There is definitely something to this
Divine is the best list right now. I do however want to say that arcane has the strength of letting you be a primal caster and an occult caster simultaneously just without this or that exclusive spell. Most of the occult spells you listed I can grab on arcane, and those I can't, well I can grab these other blasting spells from primal, essentially. There is definitely something to thisI don't think a level 8 slot on Stunned 1 even for one action something I'd use a level 8 slot for. Same as dazzled for a minute for Power Word Blind. The 50 points for power word kill is all I use.
Not sure why a primal caster has problems. They have chain lightning and fireball and blazing ray and phantom orchestra and sudden bolt and slow. On top of generally good focus spells like Tempest Surge and Elemental Toss.
Occult has force barrage, synesthesia, heroism, wall of force, and other staples I use often on top of generally good class features attached to their classes. An occult caster is a better control/buff/debuff caster is where they stand out. They have the top tier spells for that type of play. I generally focus my slots on that when playing occult over blasting.
Primal and Arcane are the blast lists. Divine is pretty blasty now too. Divine has the best summons, heals, and some good blasting now.
I don't think of the Arcane list as a problem except when it gets brought up as a point in favor of the wizard. To me that's PF1 thinking when the sorc/wiz list was clearly number one. The arcane list is no longer number one. It's one of four that does certain things better.
I know the basis of the thread is the Arcane list is weak, but I think the wizard is the problem, not the arcane list as a whole because I don't see anyone complaining about arcane sorcs. I think the Imperial Sorc and Draconic sorc are both considered strong options with the arcane list.
I know Blue Frog likes the wizard a lot and if this thread were "The wizard should be heavily buffed", then I'd be in full agreement.
I feel like if they buffed the Arcane list as a whole, it would still make the Imperial Sorc feel even better more than it would make the other arcane casters better.
The low number of slots makes a long list look like food you have no room to eat even though it looks extremely tasty. You're still going to end up with meat and potatoes on the spell list unless something works exceptionally well.
You cited a "classic scenario" and made far more assumptions than were given, while trying to trivialize unsealing a long-sealed crypt by stepping out and immediately resting like in some video game, in a decidedly unclassic way. You oughtn't be blaming others for this.Moving the goalposts by adding additional conditions to the "simple test."
Got it.
Sorry, no assumptions.
Okay, simple test of your guidelines: the party is deep in a forest, far away from civilization. They’ve been traveling through this forest for days to reach a long-sealed crypt thought lost to time. How do you convey to the party at that moment that deep in this crypt, the lower floors are full of clay effigies?
A "long-sealed crypt thought lost to time" does not indicate any time pressure; especially after "traveling through this forest for days."
Don't add things to the scenario after the fact to complicate things because your "simple test" has a simple solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely love conversations about feeding information to players in campaigns and how to do that in ways that are more interesting and fun for everyone. What classes players choose to play (and how they talk about wanting to play that class with the other players during session 0) is players telling the GM quite a bit about how much lore and the connection between lore and mechanics is something that they want to interact with or not. The Inventor, the Thaumaturge, versions of the Ranger and Rogue, there are several martial classes that are geared towards this style of play. It is ok for there to be caster classes that look weaker in mathematical simulations because their mechanics are geared more towards learning more about the game world than powerful, repeatable combat loops as well.
I have a lot more to say about how to make the scenario of the lost crypt far away from civilization more fun and mechanically connected to the lore that led the players to find it and want to investigate it, but that feels pretty tangential to the primary conversation and easily manipulated by what the person posting about it is trying to prove about it. To spend more time connecting the mechanics and lore of the world is very largely a GM decision and something that adventure designers can only do so much about because some GMs will just skip it if it isn’t something their players are interested in or they are not interested in familiarizing themselves enough with the extra lore content to use it effectively.
Its kind of like when I have played some of those older RPGs where you can make a character.
At first i might think a min maxed character dumping anything that doesnt give a numeric advantage to combat is the most powerful character I can be only to find I end up being unable to play the character at all the way I would like to. Can't choose dialog options that make my character sound cool, can't find treasure, or unlock what I find, can't get better outcomes that require persuading, or the best deals in shops.
It all comes down to how the game is designed. The thing about P2E is that its much more open such that any particular game has infinitely more ways for a GM to reward or penalize character choices to make those in combat feel like winning at it gets anything they want, or to make skill outcomes and RP decisions or even spell selection also consequential in deciding outcomes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its kind of like when I have played some of those older RPGs where you can make a character.
At first i might think a min maxed character dumping anything that doesnt give a numeric advantage to combat is the most powerful character I can be only to find I end up being unable to play the character at all the way I would like to. Can't choose dialog options that make my character sound cool, can't find treasure, or unlock what I find, can't get better outcomes that require persuading, or the best deals in shops.
It all comes down to how the game is designed. The thing about P2E is that its much more open such that any particular game has infinitely more ways for a GM to reward or penalize character choices to make those in combat feel like winning at it gets anything they want, or to make skill outcomes and RP decisions or even spell selection also consequential in deciding outcomes.
No, not really. Once again, this is a group game. GM can't tailor adventures for one player hoping the other players go along with it.
There are no silver bullet spells. So if you put a creature in the game that might be impacted slightly more by a spell, doesn't change that when the fighter and rogue kill it that spell still may not have had an effect.
For some reason so many people talk about a class in isolation, whereas my thinking on classes is how they operate in groups. That's why I view classes that need advance information to perform equally well, because they rarely perform better, as not great. Most martials are in go mode all the time. They can get past hazards, monsters, obstacles, and such often by just hitting it or with skills.
I keep wondering what the other party members are doing around you while you're thinking of all these special spells or bits of information that might make a wizard stand out. I know in my groups the players around me are crushing stuff without having special spells or special information.
Are they standing around in your group waiting?
Its kind of like when I have played some of those older RPGs where you can make a character.
At first i might think a min maxed character dumping anything that doesnt give a numeric advantage to combat is the most powerful character I can be only to find I end up being unable to play the character at all the way I would like to. Can't choose dialog options that make my character sound cool, can't find treasure, or unlock what I find, can't get better outcomes that require persuading, or the best deals in shops.
It all comes down to how the game is designed. The thing about P2E is that its much more open such that any particular game has infinitely more ways for a GM to reward or penalize character choices to make those in combat feel like winning at it gets anything they want, or to make skill outcomes and RP decisions or even spell selection also consequential in deciding outcomes.No, not really. Once again, this is a group game. GM can't tailor adventures for one player hoping the other players go along with it.
There are no silver bullet spells. So if you put a creature in the game that might be impacted slightly more by a spell, doesn't change that when the fighter and rogue kill it that spell still may not have had an effect.
For some reason so many people talk about a class in isolation, whereas my thinking on classes is how they operate in groups. That's why I view classes that need advance information to perform equally well, because they rarely perform better, as not great. Most martials are in go mode all the time. They can get past hazards, monsters, obstacles, and such often by just hitting it or with skills.
I keep wondering what the other party members are doing around you while you're thinking of all these special spells or bits of information that might make a wizard stand out. I know in my groups the players around me are crushing stuff without having special spells or special information.
Are they standing around in your group waiting?
Adding here your right that its a group game. Its not a matter of silver bullets its more of a case of the wizard having thier chance to contribute to solutions with their magic. Sorcerer is doing the same, they are contributing but when the wizard is picking a spell a sorcerer doesnt care to have that allows the party to take on a different approach you make it seem like its not the wizard doing something they can do differently to contribute to the solution.
I don't know that having spells that solve some problems some of the time takes anything away from the group aspect of the game. Some group set ups are counting on a caster to cast knock to give the group a chance to open a lock because no one in the group wanted to train thievery or force open a barrier because no want in the group is especially great at athletics. Not all groups build a balanced composition of characters and do use magic to fill in gaps.
Also when the giant barbarian crits killing or almost killing the boss by them self cause they went first and rolled a nat 20 how much of a group game does it feel like at that point?
sometimes different characters overcontribute to resolving a problem moreso than everyone else at the table. Its part of group games that different characters drive a solution when its within their wheelhouse. Why can't wizards use the right spell to do something too?
As far as tailoring adventures I do that myself for each of my party members giving everyone a chance to have situations in thier characters wheelhouse. And in this game even spells like knock encourage cooperation between whoever has the best chance and the spellcaster providing knock. others are still doing things, whatever they choose to do with their exploration choices, so its not a situation where everyone is just standing around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Its kind of like when I have played some of those older RPGs where you can make a character.
At first i might think a min maxed character dumping anything that doesnt give a numeric advantage to combat is the most powerful character I can be only to find I end up being unable to play the character at all the way I would like to. Can't choose dialog options that make my character sound cool, can't find treasure, or unlock what I find, can't get better outcomes that require persuading, or the best deals in shops.
It all comes down to how the game is designed. The thing about P2E is that its much more open such that any particular game has infinitely more ways for a GM to reward or penalize character choices to make those in combat feel like winning at it gets anything they want, or to make skill outcomes and RP decisions or even spell selection also consequential in deciding outcomes.No, not really. Once again, this is a group game. GM can't tailor adventures for one player hoping the other players go along with it.
There are no silver bullet spells. So if you put a creature in the game that might be impacted slightly more by a spell, doesn't change that when the fighter and rogue kill it that spell still may not have had an effect.
For some reason so many people talk about a class in isolation, whereas my thinking on classes is how they operate in groups. That's why I view classes that need advance information to perform equally well, because they rarely perform better, as not great. Most martials are in go mode all the time. They can get past hazards, monsters, obstacles, and such often by just hitting it or with skills.
I keep wondering what the other party members are doing around you while you're thinking of all these special spells or bits of information that might make a wizard stand out. I know in my groups the players around me are crushing stuff without having special spells or special information.
Are they
If the wizard does this, great.
The balance of the class in combat should not be built around this as it is an optional part of the game and each class should perform well regardless of how you set it up.
My problem with these arguments is they try to argue the wizard is fine because of these ideal circumstances or this ability to change out spells or this other thing that none of the other classes need.
To me the wizard should be balanced like the other classes meaning if you drop them in the middle of combat knowing nothing about the fight, are they still going to be a top tier contributor like the sorc or fighter or rogue or cleric or magus or barbarian or champion. Will their focus spells and class features still be competitive and will they have useful spells ready to go in sufficient number.
When I look at the wizard, the answer is they'll be ok. Not top tier, but they can probably launch a few spells that will help in a few fights before they run out of that prepared spell and hope the ones left are good. Their focus spells are mostly useless and they don't have many innate means to get maximum focus points, so not great to rely on them. Their progression focus spells are not great. Their theses aren't very good in actual combat unless you have an extended need for top slots that a sorc can't sig spell or downcast to use.
Seems like the wizard is being talked up for stuff that isn't exclusive to them or doesn't come up very often or can be handled by other classes if the wizard isn't present.
I miss a wizard that is a top tier caster like they have always been. Even 5E made them a top tier caster. PF2 is the only version of this game where the wizard is a bottom tier caster along with the witch. I can't help but feel that the wizard and witch ending up on the bottom of the caster tier was intentional because they were so insanely powered in PF1.
...Its kind of like when I have played some of those older RPGs where you can make a character.
At first i might think a min maxed character dumping anything that doesnt give a numeric advantage to combat is the most powerful character I can be only to find I end up being unable to play the character at all the way I would like to. Can't choose dialog options that make my character sound cool, can't find treasure, or unlock what I find, can't get better outcomes that require persuading, or the best deals in shops.
It all comes down to how the game is designed. The thing about P2E is that its much more open such that any particular game has infinitely more ways for a GM to reward or penalize character choices to make those in combat feel like winning at it gets anything they want, or to make skill outcomes and RP decisions or even spell selection also consequential in deciding outcomes.No, not really. Once again, this is a group game. GM can't tailor adventures for one player hoping the other players go along with it.
There are no silver bullet spells. So if you put a creature in the game that might be impacted slightly more by a spell, doesn't change that when the fighter and rogue kill it that spell still may not have had an effect.
For some reason so many people talk about a class in isolation, whereas my thinking on classes is how they operate in groups. That's why I view classes that need advance information to perform equally well, because they rarely perform better, as not great. Most martials are in go mode all the time. They can get past hazards, monsters, obstacles, and such often by just hitting it or with skills.
I keep wondering what the other party members are doing around you while you're thinking of all these special spells or bits of information that might make a wizard stand out. I know in my groups the players around me are crushing stuff without having special spells or
This concept of not balancing at all around what they can do outside combat was carried through for the rogue. And I don't like that rogues are balanced with other top combat classes around their combat contributions and simply twice any other character(besides investigator) with skills. I don't think there is any justification for rogues getting more skills and skill feats than other classes when their class abilities for combat are not at all compensated for that benefit.
...Its kind of like when I have played some of those older RPGs where you can make a character.
At first i might think a min maxed character dumping anything that doesnt give a numeric advantage to combat is the most powerful character I can be only to find I end up being unable to play the character at all the way I would like to. Can't choose dialog options that make my character sound cool, can't find treasure, or unlock what I find, can't get better outcomes that require persuading, or the best deals in shops.
It all comes down to how the game is designed. The thing about P2E is that its much more open such that any particular game has infinitely more ways for a GM to reward or penalize character choices to make those in combat feel like winning at it gets anything they want, or to make skill outcomes and RP decisions or even spell selection also consequential in deciding outcomes.No, not really. Once again, this is a group game. GM can't tailor adventures for one player hoping the other players go along with it.
There are no silver bullet spells. So if you put a creature in the game that might be impacted slightly more by a spell, doesn't change that when the fighter and rogue kill it that spell still may not have had an effect.
For some reason so many people talk about a class in isolation, whereas my thinking on classes is how they operate in groups. That's why I view classes that need advance information to perform equally well, because they rarely perform better, as not great. Most martials are in go mode all the time. They can get past hazards, monsters, obstacles, and such often by just hitting it or with skills.
I keep wondering what the other party members are doing around you while you're thinking of all these special spells or bits of information that might make a wizard stand out. I know in my groups the players around me are crushing stuff
I think combat balancing should occur without any concern for the other parts of the game.
...Its kind of like when I have played some of those older RPGs where you can make a character.
At first i might think a min maxed character dumping anything that doesnt give a numeric advantage to combat is the most powerful character I can be only to find I end up being unable to play the character at all the way I would like to. Can't choose dialog options that make my character sound cool, can't find treasure, or unlock what I find, can't get better outcomes that require persuading, or the best deals in shops.
It all comes down to how the game is designed. The thing about P2E is that its much more open such that any particular game has infinitely more ways for a GM to reward or penalize character choices to make those in combat feel like winning at it gets anything they want, or to make skill outcomes and RP decisions or even spell selection also consequential in deciding outcomes.No, not really. Once again, this is a group game. GM can't tailor adventures for one player hoping the other players go along with it.
There are no silver bullet spells. So if you put a creature in the game that might be impacted slightly more by a spell, doesn't change that when the fighter and rogue kill it that spell still may not have had an effect.
For some reason so many people talk about a class in isolation, whereas my thinking on classes is how they operate in groups. That's why I view classes that need advance information to perform equally well, because they rarely perform better, as not great. Most martials are in go mode all the time. They can get past hazards, monsters, obstacles, and such often by just hitting it or with skills.
I keep wondering what the other party members are doing around you while you're thinking of all these special spells or bits of information that might make a wizard stand out. I know in my groups the players
I know some people view this game as a combat focused game and it is more than set up to encourage and accommodate that style of play with the majority of rules covering that aspect and the way adventure paths are made but I have never understood a table top RPG in the general sense as being limited to combat in that way such that balance shouldn't consider what can be done outside of it. Mainly because if choices really matter in a table top RPG then players who seek alternatives to fighting directly using combat rules would also have options to do so. I mean things like, oh you have to stop orcs raiding from the river south of the village? Maybe a dam is holding back that water and the party can take it out to flood the orc camp before they can attack. stuff like that. Or maybe an ancient ritual could be used to calm the spirits of the ancient tomb if players were able to read the scrips on the walls and figure it out instead of facing the spirits head on. But things like this only happen when a GM or adventure path writer incorporates the possibility.
I think when people call that special accommodation it strikes me as odd. Its normal for me to want build in or even on the fly add ways to be clever in situations, especially when players are asking about the surroundings and looking for clever ways to use their class abilities, magic items and skills. That has always been a staple and fun element of TTRPGs for me in all the time ive played them.
...Its kind of like when I have played some of those older RPGs where you can make a character.
At first i might think a min maxed character dumping anything that doesnt give a numeric advantage to combat is the most powerful character I can be only to find I end up being unable to play the character at all the way I would like to. Can't choose dialog options that make my character sound cool, can't find treasure, or unlock what I find, can't get better outcomes that require persuading, or the best deals in shops.
It all comes down to how the game is designed. The thing about P2E is that its much more open such that any particular game has infinitely more ways for a GM to reward or penalize character choices to make those in combat feel like winning at it gets anything they want, or to make skill outcomes and RP decisions or even spell selection also consequential in deciding outcomes.No, not really. Once again, this is a group game. GM can't tailor adventures for one player hoping the other players go along with it.
There are no silver bullet spells. So if you put a creature in the game that might be impacted slightly more by a spell, doesn't change that when the fighter and rogue kill it that spell still may not have had an effect.
For some reason so many people talk about a class in isolation, whereas my thinking on classes is how they operate in groups. That's why I view classes that need advance information to perform equally well, because they rarely perform better, as not great. Most martials are in go mode all the time. They can get past hazards, monsters, obstacles, and such often by just hitting it or with skills.
I keep wondering what the other party members are doing around you while you're thinking of all these special spells or bits of information that might make a wizard stand out.
I played D&D back when role-playing had very little to do with roll-playing. Narrative material and social situations were very fluid and creative. I don't really picture hard rules being necessary for outside of combat save for perhaps traps which are skill based. I let the players dream up an interesting and fun way to achieve a goal outside of combat without making sure they have the "right" skills to make the roll.
Thus I mainly need balanced combat so the combat challenges have some dynamic results that make the players feel threatened and allow each class to contribute without special circumstances like foreknowledge.
My parties scout and obtain information, but no class should be built with this requirement for maximum effectiveness like pro-wizard players keep arguing as the basis for the quality of the class. I don't even think it's true anymore anyway as the wizard could have days to prepare and still not perform as well as a sorc or other caster that uses high value spells with no prep. But I want to make it clear that no class should require this to operate well.
Balance is needed for combat because it is a touchstone for interaction with enemies in battle. The rest of the out of combat role-play and challenges are a negotiation with the DM/GM as to how to solve these issues with the whole party involved. There is no hard, fast required balance for this. Each table roleplays differently and allows the group to come up with a way to solve a non-combat challenge using their creativity and all available tools at their disposal. Magic is but one tool.
So I'm not sure how you balance out of combat stuff when you want creative, interesting solutions to out of combat problems with variation from table to table as to what the GM and players might allow. Guidelines are great, but as a GM I'm never going to disallow creative problem solving even if it doesn't fit what the module tells me works or what the "rules" might say in regards to out of combat challenges.
To conclude, I don't want combat balance because I don't consider the other parts of an RPG game important. I want combat balance because I only need carefully written balance for combat. The rest I will work out with the players using guidelines and not hard fast rules which I would consider too confining for role-play and non-combat challenges.
Combat is back and forth with initiative rolled and limited actions. So I need that to be balanced for all involved from the PCs to the NPCs and monsters.
|
I don’t think there is any real way to say this isn’t a combat focused game. Combat is in its bones, its ancestors are all combat focused games, by page count, by weight of content, the fact it just got a war gaming supplement.
PF2 is combat focused as part of its core design ethos. It’s not the systems be-all and end-all however.
It’s not wholly focused on combat, and there are several means of getting around encounters without combat itself, but when I look at actual non-combat focused TTRPG’s, they don’t look like Pathfinder.
Sorry, no assumptions.
A "long-sealed crypt thought lost to time" does not indicate any time pressure; especially after "traveling through this forest for days."
I’m sorry, do you not see the irony in your response? “No assumptions,” but then you assume there is no time pressure even after you unseal the ancient crypt sealed since time immemorial? You yourself said it: this is a classic scenario, so classic in fact that it’s a trope, that’s why I used it. There’s no reason to get all huffy about over-relying on unwarranted assumptions, and if you would rather complain at length about this than come up with a better idea, all that suggests is you don’t have a plan B. All this proves is that it is not always easy to feed information to the players in a manner that aligns with the context and pace of the adventure, which is why players don’t always easily get to prepare properly ahead of time in practice.
...Its kind of like when I have played some of those older RPGs where you can make a character.
At first i might think a min maxed character dumping anything that doesnt give a numeric advantage to combat is the most powerful character I can be only to find I end up being unable to play the character at all the way I would like to. Can't choose dialog options that make my character sound cool, can't find treasure, or unlock what I find, can't get better outcomes that require persuading, or the best deals in shops.
It all comes down to how the game is designed. The thing about P2E is that its much more open such that any particular game has infinitely more ways for a GM to reward or penalize character choices to make those in combat feel like winning at it gets anything they want, or to make skill outcomes and RP decisions or even spell selection also consequential in deciding outcomes.No, not really. Once again, this is a group game. GM can't tailor adventures for one player hoping the other players go along with it.
There are no silver bullet spells. So if you put a creature in the game that might be impacted slightly more by a spell, doesn't change that when the fighter and rogue kill it that spell still may not have had an effect.
For some reason so many people talk about a class in isolation, whereas my thinking on classes is how they operate in groups. That's why I view classes that need advance information to perform equally well, because they rarely perform better, as not great. Most martials are in go mode all the time. They can get past hazards, monsters, obstacles, and such often by just hitting it or with skills.
I keep wondering what the other party members are doing around you while you're thinking of all these special spells or bits of information that
I can respect that. I do think P2E does codify non combat situations and provides abilities for it though. Outwit ranger compared to other edges, spells and class features with exploration in mind or social situations, most skill feats, and the biggest example would be the many subsystems.
While you may not need these rules this game has them. In fact using a combination of subsystems, exposition, exploration, downtime, and/or roleplay you can go through an entire session and not have a combat encounter if you design it that way and there are rules and character options built in the game to run it.
I don’t think there is any real way to say this isn’t a combat focused game. Combat is in its bones, its ancestors are all combat focused games, by page count, by weight of content, the fact it just got a war gaming supplement.
PF2 is combat focused as part of its core design ethos. It’s not the systems be-all and end-all however.
It’s not wholly focused on combat, and there are several means of getting around encounters without combat itself, but when I look at actual non-combat focused TTRPG’s, they don’t look like Pathfinder.
I think its in the name. They are table top role playing games. So I would say role playing is the genre and umbrella these games fall under. But I guess It would be more correct to concede there is a major focus on combat and it is oart of the draw of the game but its is in the context of a roleplaying game promising endless options and has plenty of options if the GM uses them for players to not have to engage in the well developed combat rules.
...Its kind of like when I have played some of those older RPGs where you can make a character.
At first i might think a min maxed character dumping anything that doesnt give a numeric advantage to combat is the most powerful character I can be only to find I end up being unable to play the character at all the way I would like to. Can't choose dialog options that make my character sound cool, can't find treasure, or unlock what I find, can't get better outcomes that require persuading, or the best deals in shops.
It all comes down to how the game is designed. The thing about P2E is that its much more open such that any particular game has infinitely more ways for a GM to reward or penalize character choices to make those in combat feel like winning at it gets anything they want, or to make skill outcomes and RP decisions or even spell selection also consequential in deciding outcomes.No, not really. Once again, this is a group game. GM can't tailor adventures for one player hoping the other players go along with it.
There are no silver bullet spells. So if you put a creature in the game that might be impacted slightly more by a spell, doesn't change that when the fighter and rogue kill it that spell still may not have had an effect.
For some reason so many people talk about a class in isolation, whereas my thinking on classes is how they operate in groups. That's why I view classes that need advance information to perform equally well, because they rarely perform better, as not great. Most martials are in go mode all the time. They can get past hazards, monsters, obstacles, and such often by just hitting it or with skills.
I keep wondering what the other party members are doing around you while you're thinking of all these special
We have sessions like this. I try to make them fun. I do use some of the systems, but I'm not bound by them meaning the players will not fail to advance because someone didn't pick the perfect skills or no one is playing a wizard or rogue. I want the non-combat to be fun. I do tailor the non-combat RP to my players interests and talents as I think that is important.
Mainly I want my players to engage with the RP and world. If I were using rigid rules for that aspect the game and relying on roll-playing versus role-playing, they wouldn't have as much fun in my experience.
The most fun and memorable non-combat times at a table are the players coming up with crazy, creative role-play and problem solving. The stuff you remember and laugh about years later is the RP craziness. Combat doesn't get many table laughs, but RP does. You get a chance to really delve into your character and create a persona during RP and I would never rigidly make that based entirely on rolling. I want dynamic RP moments and jokes and strange attempts to use a magic item or a spell or a skill or some crazy RP that is believable and fun.
You can't codify that very well. I don't think you can balance classes around RP or out of combat because you just don't know all the different ways players might come up with a way to bypass an obstacle or solve a problem or RP.
Something I would never do as a DM if some player with a low charisma and trained diplomacy came up with an amazing monologue or RP is tell them the character failed. That would kill their motivation to do any further RP in the future and that would make the game worse.
When I DM, I like to encourage and reward good role-play so that my players are doing their best to be creative and interesting in their world interactions as that greatly improves the gameplay for the group. Nothing makes RPG gaming more boring than a disengaged group that makes rolls for everything while barely speaking. I don't enjoy DMing a group like that. I even like to try to get some of the introverts to role-play a bit by making them as comfortable as possible and encouraging them to create a persona through role-play interactions.
I’m sorry, do you not see the irony in your response? “No assumptions,” but then you assume there is no time pressure even after you unseal the ancient crypt sealed since time immemorial? You yourself said it: this is a classic scenario, so classic in fact that it’s a trope, that’s why I used it. There’s no reason to get all huffy about over-relying on unwarranted assumptions, and if you would rather complain at length about this than come up with a better idea, all that suggests is you don’t have a plan B. All this proves is that it is not always easy to feed information to the players in a manner that aligns with the context and pace of the adventure, which is why players don’t always easily get to prepare properly ahead of time in practice.Sorry, no assumptions.
A "long-sealed crypt thought lost to time" does not indicate any time pressure; especially after "traveling through this forest for days."
I see...
Then you are deliberately withholding information from your description in order to trick people by presenting a so-called "simple test" that is actually something more complicated.
Okay, simple test of your guidelines: the party is deep in a forest, far away from civilization. They’ve been traveling through this forest for days to reach a long-sealed crypt thought lost to time. How do you convey to the party at that moment that deep in this crypt, the lower floors are full of clay effigies?
That's worse than moving goalposts. That's intentional deception.
I see...
Then you are deliberately withholding information from your description in order to trick people by presenting a so-called "simple test" that is actually something more complicated.
Hold on, so because I didn't indulge your non-solution that tried to shift the goalposts by sidestepping the problem as presented entirely, I'm deliberately withholding information now? Do you not think that perhaps trying to approach the scenario as presented in good faith instead of making stuff up would have been the smarter approach?
That's worse than moving goalposts. That's intentional deception.
Ah yes, clearly it must be intentional deception to present a scenario under the expectation that players address the scenario, rather than an imagined aftermath that deliberately attempts to avoid the scenario in its entirety.
... but seriously, do you realize how you're sounding here? I'm sorry, but this is comical. If you can't come up with a solution that fits within the parameters of the scenario, just say so, it's not a slight against your abilities as a GM or your powers of imagination. It would certainly be a lot more productive than making these kinds of accusations and gratuitously bolding words like we're in a comic book.
And to be clear: the scenario was intentionally chosen to make it difficult to convey information that would let the party prepare spells in advance. If you can't come up with a proper solution to it, it's not necessarily for lack of imagination, it's because this is one of many different situations that happens in adventures, including official adventure paths, where the party doesn't really have great options for informing themselves, and the GM doesn't have very many ways of giving that information in a way that makes sense in-universe. A lot of people have tried to handwave this problem by essentially blaming the GM for not being imaginative enough, but the fact that this scenario has stumped those same people, yourself included, should be evidence that this isn't a GM-specific problem, which is why players so often can't really prepare spells accurately for the next day. Thus, we could use more strongly-defined mechanics for feeding information to players, as well as for letting players prepare spells that are well-suited to the following adventuring day.
|
|
I think its in the name. They are table top role playing games. So I would say role playing is the genre and umbrella these games fall under. But I guess It would be more correct to concede there is a major focus on combat and it is oart of the draw of the game but its is in the context of a roleplaying game promising endless options and has plenty of options if the GM uses them for players to not have to engage in the well developed combat rules.I don’t think there is any real way to say this isn’t a combat focused game. Combat is in its bones, its ancestors are all combat focused games, by page count, by weight of content, the fact it just got a war gaming supplement.
PF2 is combat focused as part of its core design ethos. It’s not the systems be-all and end-all however.
It’s not wholly focused on combat, and there are several means of getting around encounters without combat itself, but when I look at actual non-combat focused TTRPG’s, they don’t look like Pathfinder.
There are definitely "breds" of TTRPG.
Games like Wanderhome, Wizards & Wastes and (potentially a deep cut) Nobilis are in the vein of No-to-low combat through and through. They are a markedly different bred of TTRPG vs those that come the D&D lineage, they are all TTRPG's all the same.
I do think the wizard would be better if they could cast any spell out of their spellbook. They would at least be able to experiment a little more, but not necessarily a lot better because they would still action starved and limited by traits like incap. They even have a feat or two that lets you pull any spell form your spellbook a few levels lower and I'm not sure how many wizard players take it.
I mean, of course the Wizard would be better if they could spontaneously cast any spell from their book, but we both agree it's not a lot better. They really need better class feats that support some kind of specific play style, that doesn't currently exist (for the wizards).
I do think the wizard would be better if they could cast any spell out of their spellbook. They would at least be able to experiment a little more, but not necessarily a lot better because they would still action starved and limited by traits like incap. They even have a feat or two that lets you pull any spell form your spellbook a few levels lower and I'm not sure how many wizard players take it.I mean, of course the Wizard would be better if they could spontaneously cast any spell from their book, but we both agree it's not a lot better. They really need better class feats that support some kind of specific play style, that doesn't currently exist (for the wizards).
Yep. Casting is action throttled, so not the biggest concern.
You're right. This is exactly what many of us are asking for. Strong class features that scale that fit the wizard playstyle as the ultimate arcane caster.
Even focus spells like Augment Summon costing an action when every summon spell is 3 actions makes you scratch your head when it takes you two rounds and four actions to add a non-scaling +1 to an already poorly scaling summoned creature.
And if the wizard is the master of these curriculums, make them scale well for focus spells.
Then more focus spell feats that augment casting.
Something that stands out more than what we often hear of wizard casting more spells or a single higher level spell by blending lower level spells that are actually useful. Spells are action throttled. You may not even do more than a few fights a day to make the extra spells useful.
Wizards need a playstyle fitting the curriculum and the ability to augment casting in a useful, efficient, and interesting way that scales as you level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The balance of the class in combat should not be built around this as it is an optional part of the game and each class should perform well regardless of how you set it up.This is impossible though, as there are few true 'class-neutral' choices by the GM or party. Immune to spells, you've ganked the casters. You've set up a ranged encounter, the melee folks are disfavored. Three of four scenes in tonight's session are set up by the GM as non-combat, OR the party decides to solve scenes that could go fight or no-fight by no-fight? Oh well, Fighter, you go twiddle your thumbs. 6 no-rest fights per session, Kineticist is looking like a good choice over slot casters. Your party chooses go go go fighting but stop when the Sorc runs out of steam? Of course that favors the Sorc. How could it not? Even your choice, Deriven, to only play high level campaigns; that is slot-caster friendly choice. They play very differently at lower levels where you run out of slot spells long before the rest of the party is ready to call it a day, and you spend the last 90 minutes out of a 3 hour session casting cantrips.
There no such thing as "equally well regardless". The GM thinking through the encounter design is as important to the game as any player choice. If they're not doing it, that's like a PC doing a leeeeroy against the other PC's wishes; it's a choice by someone at the table to ignore the other players which is likely to negatively impact the game.
Now one hopes that most classes can contribute about the same and with effectiveness to most scenes. With the recognition that maybe once a session there's going to be a scene where one person maybe shines more than the others (and if so, that needs to be rotated). But a GM giving no-prepare when you've got a prepared caster is just like a GM giving no crafting opportunities for a crafter or throwing all mindless monsters at a party with psychics; it seriously calls into question whether the GM is paying attention to...
This doesn't exist in PF2. There are no martial only fights. There are not caster only fights.
Fighters do twiddle their thumbs in non-combat encounters, which is why I don't use too many in a single session.
Even if the fighter twiddles his thumbs in non-combat encounters while the sorc with charisma or rogue with skills shine, it doesn't in anyway mean that the sorc or rogue should have weaker combat skills because they get to participate in the non-combat portions of the game that could just as easily be solved by the fighter going, "I don't care. Smash it down or I tell the NPC to do what I tell it or they will die."
This is a huge problem in these discussion. The way the other side tries to paint the game as not concerned with non-combat encounters when they want balanced combat.
I have clearly explained how I do non-combat. I will once again reiterate there is massive variation in how non-combat is handled from table to table, person to person, GM to GM. Balancing classes based on non-combat is not something I care about as I will handle non-combat encounters in a much looser way with input from the PCs.
Combat is a fairly rigid system. I want it rigid so it takes GM favoritism out of the game and creates a dynamic sense of risk based on dice rolls. I want every class to be able to contribute in a relatively equal way. This has been mostly accomplished with the balance systems in PF2.
It's why I don't get why players claiming the wizard is fine keep pushing this narrative of special powers with spells they don't have. Like I said, you could give a wizard years and every bit of information available to them and they still won't show up better prepared because the spells to be better prepared don't exist anymore, especially on the arcane spell list.
You'd be better off scouting and letting the cleric or divine sorcerer have more information as the divine spell list does have a bunch of spells much, much better against certain creatures. If those creatures are present, their more powerful spells against undead and fiends would make a noticeable difference. Arcane list doesn't have those types of spells, so spending time letting the wizard do a different spell loadout is not a plus for them anymore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see...
Then you are deliberately withholding information from your description in order to trick people by presenting a so-called "simple test" that is actually something more complicated.
Hold on, so because I didn't indulge your non-solution that tried to shift the goalposts by sidestepping the problem as presented entirely, I'm deliberately withholding information now? Do you not think that perhaps trying to approach the scenario as presented in good faith instead of making stuff up would have been the smarter approach?
That's worse than moving goalposts. That's intentional deception.Ah yes, clearly it must be intentional deception to present a scenario under the expectation that players address the scenario, rather than an imagined aftermath that deliberately attempts to avoid the scenario in its entirety.
... but seriously, do you realize how you're sounding here? I'm sorry, but this is comical. If you can't come up with a solution that fits within the parameters of the scenario, just say so, it's not a slight against your abilities as a GM or your powers of imagination. It would certainly be a lot more productive than making these kinds of accusations and gratuitously bolding words like we're in a comic book.
And to be clear: the scenario was intentionally chosen to make it difficult to convey information that would let the party prepare spells in advance. If you can't come up with a proper solution to it, it's not necessarily for lack of imagination, it's because this is one of many different situations that happens in adventures, including official adventure paths, where the party doesn't really have great options for informing themselves, and the GM doesn't have very many ways of giving that information in a way that makes sense in-universe. A lot of people have tried to handwave this problem by essentially...
And now you resort to ad hominem attacks...
I'm not the one handwaving, you are by adding restrictions to the original scenario description.
Original scenario:
Okay, simple test of your guidelines: the party is deep in a forest, far away from civilization. They’ve been traveling through this forest for days to reach a long-sealed crypt thought lost to time. How do you convey to the party at that moment that deep in this crypt, the lower floors are full of clay effigies?
Revealed after the fact to prevent PCs from retreating and preparing more appropriate spells:
Given that the crypt has been sealed for eons, unsealing it and whatever may be inside it could have dire and imminent consequences -- once that's started, the pressure may very well be on.
But OK, since the time pressure doesn't start until after the crypt is unsealed (unless you change that, as well):
The party spends a few days outside before unsealing the crypt using Consult the Spirits (Religion) ("You have learned rites or meditations that enable you to perceive minor, invisible spirits within a place." "Religion reveals the presence of angelic, demonic, or other spirits in service to divine beings, who provide information about sources of powerful life energy or energy from the Void; sacred or profane influences; or the presence of undead." Note, clay effigies are associated with religions; "Traditionally, clay effigies are crafted in the image of a deity and used as guardians of tombs or sacred crypts.") and Consult the Spirits (Occultism) ("Occultism allows you to contact lingering spirits, psychic echoes of the departed dead, and spirits from beyond reality, who tell you about things like strange auras, effects, or the presence of unnatural occult beings."), preparing and casting translate to read any inscriptions on the crypt exterior, clairvoyance ("You create an invisible floating eye at a location within range (even if it's outside your line of sight or line of effect)." [emphasis mine] cast by a character with Darkvision), speak with stones ("Stones can mostly answer questions about creatures that touched them in the past and what is concealed beneath or behind them.") by the entrance, etc. to determine (at least some) of what is inside the crypt (and immediately inside the entrance), as well as some of the layout. Possibly also using Craft to create a scroll or two with scouting eye for more detailed reconnaissance once the crypt is unsealed and any challenges at the entrance are dealt with.
After that, the party rests and prepares appropriate spells for unsealing and clearing the crypt.