Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7947751" data-attributes="member: 12731">Already (partially?) answered above, but here goes nothing!1.a. You can't generally get a modifier to damage on ranged attacks (arrows as well as spells). You add Strength to melee attacks and thrown attacks. It's possible later on to get half your Dexterity to ranged attacks. Rogues can choose a build that lets them deal damage the way a 5E gamer would expect, though.The Longbow has a penalty to attacks made at close range. By the official APs I get the definite sense PF2 is geared towards adventures where monsters and heroes start encounter within charging distance. This could all by itself be enough of a factor, of course.But since you can't use Dexterity for melee (unless you're that Rogue) the whole balance shifts. If you have a sword, you want to be able to use it effectively. And so you shift a point or two from Dex to Str. And then you think "might as well go all in on Str" since heavy armor allows you to survive without Dex to AC. Welcome back to pre-5E!b. I can't say for sure why, but in my experience melee attacks are made at 2 points higher on average than ranged attacks. Could be because fightery classes get feats that grant bonuses. Could be because my players have avoided "ranged feats"; one reason is 1a. 2 points don't sound like much for a D&D gamer (what's ten percent?) but it is a big deal in PF2 thanks to the crits system.c. When we played 5E we (ab)used the system to make highly mobile heroes, that could run rings around most bruiser monsters, so they <s>never</s> less often got to unload their multiattacks. Pathfinder 2 just laughs evilly at that thought <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> With three actions you can move three times your speed, but no movement is "free". The way your first attack is often fearsome enough makes it less appealing to keep your distance. Also characters want to attack, making them unwilling to sacrifice actions on merely retreating.d. The "hot bod" theory above <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />2. Yes <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />3. Like in every version of D&D low-level spells aren't that great. Cantrips are definitely not as powerful/generous as in 5E.That said, at really low levels the difference between an armored fighter and a frail wizard isn't really that noteworthy. I'd say it is unwise for every 1st level character to be in melee <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The biggest deal IMHO is how Pathfinder 2's obsession with balance means that flat-out disabling foes simply isn't a thing. Your spells can deal damage. But when it comes to "crowd control" you're expected to contribute maybe one or two -1 penalties to monsters.Meaning that spells are meant to change the odds of martial fighting, not replace it. (Not at low levels anyway).4. I don't think so. That is, AFAIK a cantrip is roughly comparable to an arrow.5. This is part of it, but as explained, not the whole story.6. We've found non-damage combat spells underwhelming. (Utility spells are still great, I'm talking about debuff and CC spells here). I read on the Paizo forums how casters are expected to shift dangerous fights in the favor of the party simply by applying a -1 penalty there, a +1 bonus there, and maybe even stealing an action or two from a monster.Theoretically I can see why - the math in PF2 is incredibly tight, and since those effects amounts to lowering the level of the monster, I can really see how that can make a difference.Only problem: I haven't seen it in actual play yet! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> And since we've tested play at levels 1-6 (roughly)... well, you've read my OP <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In short, if you can be a Fighter during single-digit levels, and then magically transform into a Wizard at level 10, that is probably the best minmaxing build! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> (As far as I can see from my limited testing right now) Hence me talking "throwbacks" above since this is effectively what you could do in AD&D! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f606.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":LOL:" title="Laugh    :LOL:"  data-smilie="17"data-shortname=":LOL:" /></blockquote>

Verification