Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[Gorgon Zee]

And my point was that Paizo overcorrected their wizards. To the point where you are having more fun emulating a martial.
The traditional wizard has been overshadowed by martials and casters trying to be martial lites.

OK. So on the negative side: High-level characters from one class (wizards) are not as much fun.
On the positive side: All martial characters (low and high levels) and all casters who don't want to be "traditional" are more fun.

I'm not going to disagree with you that this is a thing. I'm just happy with it!

 

[Xenonnonex]

OK. So on the negative side: High-level characters from one class (wizards) are not as much fun.
On the positive side: All martial characters (low and high levels) and all casters who don't want to be "traditional" are more fun.

I'm not going to disagree with you that this is a thing. I'm just happy with it!

And that is the problem. They should all be equally fun.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

And that is the problem. [All classes at all levels] should all be equally fun.

I'm not as demanding as you, I guess. For me, when I see a product take a step in the direction you are looking for, making eleven classes more equally fun and reducing the fun for one (when played at high levels with a traditional build), I'm happy.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I'm not as demanding as you, I guess. For me, when I see a product take a step in the direction you are looking for, making eleven classes more equally fun and reducing the fun for one (when played at high levels with a traditional build), I'm happy.

It is not too demanding for one to expect equal competency in their classes to play. But to each their own.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And that is the problem. They should all be equally fun.

It's not like PF1 achieved that, either - it /sounds/ like PF2 had moved more classes to the 'fun' side of the line, even if one class has slipped - so a net gain.

 

[Eric V]

And my point was that Paizo overcorrected their wizards. To the point where you are having more fun emulating a martial.
The traditional wizard has been overshadowed by martials and casters trying to be martial lites.

This has been your experience in actual play?

 

[zztong]

This has been your experience in actual play?

I don't know about @Xenonnonex, but I found "blaster" type Wizards did okay, but other variations were lacking. For instance, "buff" spells generally affected fewer people (or just one person) and had short a duration, though sometimes they could be improved if slotted higher, though you don't always want to slot minor spells higher as you know the adventure assumes you put a damage spell up there.

Oddly enough, one of the better Wizard characters we had multiclassed into Fighter, carried a two-handed sword, and was quite effective in melee.

At our table, two people also tried non-blaster Sorcerers and weren't happy. One person tried a Druid and wasn't happy. The Bard was liked and healing-focused Clerics were really effective.

 

[Xenonnonex]

This has been your experience in actual play?

This is the PF2 Actual Play Experience Thread is it not?

 

[Rhianni32]

It's not like PF1 achieved that, either - it /sounds/ like PF2 had moved more classes to the 'fun' side of the line, even if one class has slipped - so a net gain.

Yeah I am really trying to figure out their point when I have never come across any RPG ruleset ever that has every class being balanced and equally competent. Then you toss in the 100% opinionated "fun" label and what they are asking for is impossible.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Yeah I am really trying to figure out their point when I have never come across any RPG ruleset ever that has every class being balanced and equally competent. Then you toss in the 100% opinionated "fun" label and what they are asking for is impossible.

Classes should be apples oranges. And this very difficult to compare. I think in my opinion they need to be good at different things which can make them difficult to compare. The game is more than dpr.