Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Certainly none with, well, classes. PF1, and, D&D in general, has tended to heavily favor caster classes, 3.5, "Tier 1" was held by the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid.

Interestingly, while 3.0 wasn't that different from 3.5, I do recall the 3.0 Fighter making a bit of a splash for being so new & different, getting feats, and the game including more combat maneuvers. It didn't last long and "Fighter SUX" threads became a fixture on the old D&D boards. When 4e first came out, there was an initial a hue & cry over the wizard being 'nerfed,' that subsided as it became clear that, in spite of all the new toys the fighter had gotten, and all the cuts to the wizard, the wizard was still the most versatile, most abuseable class in the game.

Maybe this kerfuffle is going to go the same way? After some initial hand-wringing over the wizard not being /as/ OP in quite the same ways as its Tier 1 3.5/PF tenure, the merits of the current incarnation of the class will become more clear?

 

[Phion]

I agree with the part about the 5e fighter and I haven't played PF2e yet, but I would caution you about everyone being in awe of the fighter. I had a similar experience in 4e (except it was ranger), and I only learned after we transitioned the game to 5e (after playing for 4 years in 4e) that what I had interpreted as a good feelings about the effectiveness of the ranger, was actually masking resentment for not feeling like the contributed as much. My point: don't assume the rest of the group is good with the awe inspiring character / player even if they say they are.

A fair point, it wouldn't be the first time I have mistaken other peoples true feelings.

 

[Campbell]

Arcane casters used to be on top of the caster hierarchy with spells that were demonstrably better than what other casters could provide. With the new curated spell lists that is no longer the case. Bards are now full casters who have access to some of the arcane caster's best stuff when it comes to buffs, debuffs, and disabling mental effects. Druids now have access to the same elemental spells that wizards have. I think the arcane casters are fine, but they are no longer top dogs.

 

[Phion]

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 is a fair point, adding melee into the mix seems the optimal path in this edition in the early levels for casters. I definitely feel the cleric as a warpriest is consistently better than the purely spell focused counter part even at higher levels but I would not say the same for other spell casters as weapons seem to become more redundant from a features perspective. From I biased point of view I am all for martial superiority as I believe it is long overdue BUT I acknowledge from a balancing point of view the scales have been tipped perhaps a tad bit too much the other way.

 

[Eric V]

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

That's the title of the thread, but it doesn't answer my question. I was asking if you have personally played both martials and wizards in PF2 and discovered the wizards to be "overcorrected" in comparison.

 

[Eric V]

Maybe this kerfuffle is going to go the same way? After some initial hand-wringing over the wizard not being /as/ OP in quite the same ways as its Tier 1 3.5/PF tenure, the merits of the current incarnation of the class will become more clear?

I strongly suspect that will be the case, if history is any indication.

 

[Xenonnonex]

That's the title of the thread, but it doesn't answer my question. I was asking if you have personally played both martials and wizards in PF2 and discovered the wizards to be "overcorrected" in comparison.

I would not have posted otherwise. Yes to both.

 

[Xenonnonex]

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.

I am not talking about balance. Which has been stated is rather difficult to achieve in a roleplaying game. I am talking about equally being fun to play. Which class competency is a major factor in. An overcorrection in certain classes as others have found makes certain classes less fun to play.

I am also not just talking about just dpr. Which a lot of PF2 has now become.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am not talking about balance. Which has been stated is rather difficult to achieve in a roleplaying game. I am talking about equally being fun to play.

That's balance, and then some. Like, having your balance cake with a thick layer of fun frosting on top.

And, I'm sorry, but I'll get, like, the world's smallest violin playing for you, in sympathy, since you've only had 45 years to enjoy OP wizards before PF2 pulled this heinous trick on you...

...which, honestly, I'm not even convinced has really happened, because, Iike I said, we've seen this reaction, before, and it still turned out, fairly quickly, that the wizard was still top of the heap, afterall.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

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.

What were the problems with the Sorcerer and Druid? I would be concerned if full spellcasters were 'over corrected'.