Are Blaster spellcasters not any good?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Why are blaster spellcasters are not rated well on the player guides? I want to play one, but this is keeping me from making one. Is there any good blaster caster classes/builds?

Owner - Gator Games & Hobby

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A crossblooded sorcerer with two bloodlines that add damage to your spells is generally considered a good way of going if that appeals to you.

In general blasters aren't rated well because the role they fill (dealing damage) is something that can be accomplished by anyone, whereas full spellcasters usually have several encounter ending options that can accomplish the same or more for less resources.

Blowing things up is fun though, so I say go for it!


It depends on what you mean by "good". You can certainly build an effective blaster caster, the issue is, is this good for the party? It's a cooperative game so play wisely. Also as Cwethan noted, full casters are the most versatile characters in the game, concentrating on what other classes can already do may not be the most "effective" use of your abilities.


I never really got the issue. If the whole point in everyone else was to drop hp from the enemy, doing the same thing just makes that goal go faster.

Mix in some evocation and don't worry. You've a lot of options too, in case something is missing otherwise.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's been posted to death already in this thread, but I'll support everyone else. I think Blasters do a fine job at dealing damage. The only problem is that casters can do much more than just damage, so focusing on it is a weak option within the class.

When compared to martial characters, you'll be doing fine. Perhaps less damage throughout the entire day, but very good AoE damage and some utility when you need it.


Just because you could achieve more with battlefield control and summons and whatever, it doesn't mean you have to. A blaster is usually a good addition to the party - in doubt speak with the other players and the GM.

If you want a straight-forward blaster, there is the kineticist.


Blasters can be good, and quite fun to play! They're just not as effective as controller casters, which is why they're not rated as high.

Go for it! Like I said, it's fun. :)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Blasters suffer from legacy issues from Pathfinder's D&D roots. Spells that were powered down from 1e AD&D to be relatively balanced for damage in 2e AD&D were never powered back up for the increased amount of monster hp in 3e, and now PfRPG.

That's not saying blaster mages can't be fun, as others have said, but they aren't what they once were.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A well built blaster can rain down flaming/freezing/sizzling/oscillating ruin upon who and whatever offends him in an awe-inspiring sort of way throwing big honking handfuls of dice of anything foolish enough to stand in his path. That being said if you have the keys to rewriting the universe at your whim do you really want to always just reality hack yourself a flame thrower ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Playing a Blaster Wizard is like playing a Skill Monkey Fighter. You're giving up what you excel at to be "just okay" at something that someone else in your party is going to be much better at.

If you want to blow stuff up with fireballs play a kineticist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You really don't have to give anything up to be a blaster wizard. You could literally devote every character selection to blasting, and you would still have a character who can cast from the entire wizard spell list and can carry around a stack of scrolls. The idea that a blaster wizard is not also a useful team member doesn't hold up.


RJGrady wrote:
You really don't have to give anything up to be a blaster wizard. You could literally devote every character selection to blasting, and you would still have a character who can cast from the entire wizard spell list and can carry around a stack of scrolls. The idea that a blaster wizard is not also a useful team member doesn't hold up.

I am pretty sure that giving up a whole bunch of feats, wealth for metamagic rods and spell slots on blasts count as "something".

Sure, you are still a wizard. You are just a weaker wizard. Still pretty strong, but weaker than someone who wasn't a dedicated blaster.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Those are just enhancements over basic options. Every version of a wizard gives up all the things they don't specialize in. A blaster wizard is clearly better at blasting than a non-blasting wizard.

While blasting may not usually be the most efficient thing to do, the idea that the party will need a particular energy type of damage, and you'll say, "I'm sorry, I don't do blasting," is absurd beyond belief.


RJGrady wrote:
You really don't have to give anything up to be a blaster wizard. You could literally devote every character selection to blasting, and you would still have a character who can cast from the entire wizard spell list and can carry around a stack of scrolls. The idea that a blaster wizard is not also a useful team member doesn't hold up.

Not really true you give up save or die/suck spells pretty much because your spell focus feats etc won't be in the right schools to make them viable and then there's the question of cost effectiveness. Plus you lose traits and feats which could be providing you with other benefits like crafting or metamagic effects that are pertinent to sod/sos spells. Sure you're probably not much worse than 15 or 20% less likely to succeed but that's pretty bad when the difference is winning immediately or doing nothing.

Mind you a wizard who's a blaster can still be a competent save caster, buffer, debuffer, and battlefield controller. But he certainly won't be the equivalent of a specialist in those roles and that's assuming that he even wants to memorize those spells and in my experience that's often not the case.

So for the OP it's not that they're not good it's just that they're less good relative to other wizard builds so when a guide tries to rate the best ways to build a character they aren't super high up there. That being said a blaster can shine in certain types of fights as well.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Play one if you want. They are fun. Personally, I'm tired of seeing people who read the Treantmonk guide (which is a good guide) and then go and take a steaming hot piss all over blasters. Play what you want, have fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Only" blasting is usually not as good as other spells that debuff, rework the battlefield, summon, etc.

Of course, that is an "only". So don't "only" deal damage with your blast. Grab some meta magics or pick spells so you add other things too.

Dazing fireballs are the prime example- they make enemies unable to act, and this effect is an AoE.

I also remember a lot of ice spells having good effects built in, and they also have access to the rimed spell metamagic. Aren't rimed frigid touches also often seen of a magus build a long with intensified shocking grip? Because you are staggering and entangling with the same spell for no save, giving great debuffs adn decent damage? Well, it is melee touch, so many full casters would avoid that, but snowball does the same damage as shocking grip and has a save or stagger effect on a ranged touch attack.

Overall, it is not hard to find options that let you do well with blasting.


It is not that they can't work, but they are not as efficient or as effective as someone not focused on blasting.

Sometimes the hyperbole meter gets turned up too high in the forums and "less able" gets turned into "most sucktastic thing ever and complete autofail".

I advise you to learn to recognize and ignore the hyperbole meter and also do not create your own imaginary hyperbole meter by reading more into what is said than what is said.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Any highly specialized character is going to be less efficient and more vulnerable. But they will be really good at that one thing.


There are a lot of fun things you can do as a blasty caster though.

I really enjoy the Metamagic Blaster, particularly Lingering Spell

and a Generator Invoker can get a lot out of your non-instant spells like Flaming Sphere or Contageous Flames (Generator's Contageous Flames is so very nice)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We had a blasty Sorcerer in our Rise of the Runelords campaign. She dominated about 75% of the encounters. So, I'd say a blaster can do well enough. Beware of campaigns which feature prominently "this campaign will have tons of outsiders with lots of energy resistances!", though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gun Dragon wrote:
Why are blaster spellcasters are not rated well on the player guides? I want to play one, but this is keeping me from making one. Is there any good blaster caster classes/builds?

Just to echo what everyone else is saying, possibly with a slightly different spins.

Wizards do "best" (from a game-theoretic standpoint) when they do wizard things and let the fighters do fighter things and the rogues do rogue things, et cetera. There are a lot of things that martials simply can't do, but mega hit point damage is not on that list. That's something that fighters actually do rather well.

So if your 7th level wizard casts scorching ray, he does 4d6 damage to two targets (call it 28 DPR) Your fighter archer can easily do that kind of damage without burning spell slots.

As Treantmonk so memorably put it, "Congratulations - you've been demoted from God to Glass Cannon." You can do more to end a fight efficiently using other tactics.

On the other hand, normally you don't need to be super-efficient (and if you do, your game master is probably being unnecessarily competitive, possibly downright hostile). And blasting is fun.

Brewer put it well: "That, in a nutshell, is why being a Blaster is better than being a "God" Wizard. Not more powerful, mind you, just better. [....] Who wants to go into the tavern and brag, "Yeah... after I cast that Wall of Stone for us to hide behind, I summoned a creature that can actually fight and then cast a spell to make us all run faster"? The Blockbuster Wizard gets to stride up and say, "Five goblins attacked our group outside of town; I created a ball of fire so explosive that the fifth one’s arm still hasn’t landed." Guess which caster gets to go home with the barmaid?"


Also, without resorting to cross blooded sorceror dipping shenanigans, blasting doesn't do that much damage compared to more mundane damage sources.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Blasters can be good, just not "as good" (from the efficient use of resources/spell slots perspective) as the super-focused SoD/SoS "God wizard." On the other hand, throwing handfuls of dice for damage can be more viscerally satisfying ("fun") than watching the GM roll for saves that will only succeed on a 20.

Depending on how you want to blast, there are several options:

Cross-blooded sorcerer is usually the go-to choice for those that want to just drop a bunch of the same small selection of spells.

Kineticist can work as well; the maximum possible damage for a single blast will be lower, but the kineticist can blast even more often.

Wizard (probably Evocation/Admixture school, for the ability to switch element damage type on the fly) is probably the most versatile, allowing you to tailor the type of blasting (area, ranged touch, or mixed) and/or buffing, control, etc. to the expected encounters.

Arcanists, clerics (with certain domains), druids, oracles (with certain mysteries), psychics (depending on how you define "blasting"), and witches (with certain patrons) can also perform as blasters.

Things get even more complicated when multi-classing and prestige classes are added to the mix. Brawler (snakebite striker) 1/rogue* 1/wizard (Evocation/Admixture) 4/arcane trickster 6/arcane archer 2/arcane trickster +4/arcane archer +2 (with vanish as a 1st-level spell and the Intensified Spell and Reach Spell feats) makes a fairly strong ranged touch blaster (being able to add Sneak Attack damage on a fairly regular basis); at 18th character level, the ability to stack sneak attack damage on an arrow (almost guaranteed to hit with a Quickened true strike) imbued with an Intensified Maximized detonate (also dealing extra sneak attack damage with Surprise Spells) does an admirable job of "softening up" the opposition in the first round of combat (assuming surprise and/or invisibility/greater invisibility, plus sniper's goggles). [Fighter or ranger]** 1/wizard 6/eldritch knight 2/arcane archer 3/eldritch knight +8 also makes a pretty good area "blaster" (arrow + Imbue Arrow) that can fall back on normal weapon damage against magic resistant foes or to conserve resources.

* - Or another class/archetype that grants Sneak Attack (vivisectionist aclchemist, etc.)
** - Depending on if you want the bonus feat or Favored Enemy (for campaigns that focus on a particular type of foe, such as Wrath of the Righteous or Giantslayer) and the ability to use wands of cure light wounds, etc. as a secondary healer.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

As a general note, (area) blasting effectiveness is proportional to the number of enemies encountered: the greater the number of enemies, the more effective blasting is. Mundane damage, on the other hand is most effective against a smaller number of targets.

If your party is facing 1-3 opponents at a time, then the martial characters can usually do more damage than a blaster. If your party is facing 4+ opponents, a blaster can usually do more total damage in a round. This is because the martial characters' damage is pretty much static (based on number of attacks from BAB, feats, etc.), while the blaster's scales (based on the number of opponents); the more opponents, the more "attacks" the blaster gets.


Counter question: Are two handed power attacking barbarians any good?


Yes. Very.

Question answered


I personally prefer to play blaster type casters, they're just a lot more fun to me. Saying that, though, I'd rather play a Psion or a Wilder if I wanted to blast things, and more likely a Wilder than Psion. Though the new stuff for the Destruction sphere from Spheres of Power is making me want to play an Elementalist with the Chain talent to just rack up AoE damage.

But yes, what everyone else said. They can work completely fine, but are viewed as a sub optimal choice when casters can end encounters with 1-2 spells. But if ya wanna play it that way, feel free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Blaster types are great at "wave-clearing," that is, getting rid of a lot of low-health monsters. Martials can do it, but they would have to invest a lot, and I mean a lot of feats to keep doing so relevant. Whirlwind Attack, as an example, requires 5 feats, and a lot of undesirable statistic requirements to do so. Cleave, as another, requires another 6 or so feats to keep relevant, not including Dwarf-specific feats.

Optimized, they can get rid of CR-equivalent monsters in a single turn, or a single BBEG with the right spells. But they suffer from a lack of diversity, since most optimized Blasters will be Sorcerers, and they will lack the Admixture Wizard school ability, which is almost vital to making an effective Blaster.

That being said, a smart Blaster can weave in his versatility on top of his damaging capabilities, so it's not the end of the world if you're Blast-focused.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I play blasters all the time. I've never read a guide on here and I don't plan on starting now. If you think its fun, play it. Frankly your GM should be tailoring encounter so everyone at the table has a chance to shine anyways. Good luck.


Blasting spells would be really powerful if GMs routinely used a couple of dozen low-powered enemies in a single battle. But that rarely happens, because keeping track of lots of characters is a lot of hassle.

Scarab Sages

Matthew Downie wrote:
Blasting spells would be really powerful if GMs routinely used a couple of dozen low-powered enemies in a single battle. But that rarely happens, because keeping track of lots of characters is a lot of hassle.

When I'm DMing and I have an AoE focused player, I absolutely add in scads of low powered enemies. It's DMing 101 to adjust the encounters to what the players are having fun doing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duiker wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Blasting spells would be really powerful if GMs routinely used a couple of dozen low-powered enemies in a single battle. But that rarely happens, because keeping track of lots of characters is a lot of hassle.
When I'm DMing and I have an AoE focused player, I absolutely add in scads of low powered enemies. It's DMing 101 to adjust the encounters to what the players are having fun doing.

That's a double edged sword though. If you add scads of NPCs, you have to manage them, so you cut into the play time of the players. It's the same reason you usually see master summoner get banned.


Whenever I see the occasional thread on all this, I have to think of the Dazing Spell feat.

Someone mentioned it earlier, but you have to take it into account.

If this feat is allowed in a game you are playing, take that Treantmonk guide and throw it out the window.

Because blast spells are controlling spells. Sure you have to build around it, but you can have a general purpose damage spell that can affect more targets than many of the "control" spells, since so little is immune to dazing, as opposed to mind affecting things.

Additionally it is perfectly feasible to build your character around one spell. Take Fireball. I'm sure there are better choices that people can pick out, but you can take feats to enable you to exclude allies, pump the dc to levels that virtually no opponent can make, have a number of metamagics apply to the spell free of charge, etc.

You can even take Intensify Spell, etc. Plenty of threads about the whole thing.

To me unless your game explicitly bans Dazing Spell (and maybe it should), the Treantmonk guide is totally incorrect with the distinction it makes. There's no need to pick one or the other.

Heck you can pick damage spells that explicitly attack whatever weak save the opponent has (although reflex is usually a good bet to be the low one anyway).

Depeninding upon how you interpret Dazing Spell (and there has been a lot of debate about it), it's monstrously powerful.

For example the Dazing Wall of Fire. The Persistant, Dazing Acid Arrow. The Dazing Black Tentacles. The Dazing Mordenkain... err Mage's Sword. Even on a real stretch the Dazing Summon Monster. Or the Dazing Shadow Conjuration or Shadow Evocation.

So if anyone is going to debate this topic, you'd better say Dazing Spell is on or off the table from the get go.

Heck since you can pick the save you want the opponent to make, I think Blaster Mages are better Control Mages than other ones. Though since a lot of Conjuration spells can be used to fill Blasting needs, you don't need to pick now.

Which is another thing to throw on the fire, aside from Dazing Spell.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Blasters aren't bad per se, they're just less spell slot efficient than control wizards tend to be.

It's more of an issue at higher levels (because blasts don't always scale that great) and at higher optimization levels (where martial full attack damage can be optimized much more than blaster damage) though.

That said, sunbeam is very much correct that the line between the two isn't that distinct, especially with metamagic like dazing spell. Control wizards should be casting blasts that have good riders and/or deliver the metamagic efficiently and blaster wizards should be doing the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Duiker wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Blasting spells would be really powerful if GMs routinely used a couple of dozen low-powered enemies in a single battle. But that rarely happens, because keeping track of lots of characters is a lot of hassle.
When I'm DMing and I have an AoE focused player, I absolutely add in scads of low powered enemies. It's DMing 101 to adjust the encounters to what the players are having fun doing.
That's a double edged sword though. If you add scads of NPCs, you have to manage them, so you cut into the play time of the players. It's the same reason you usually see master summoner get banned.

Managing them is easy. A Horde of low level gumbies isn't going to do much individually so they have to gang up on people. IE: Aid another

1 guy attacks the PC with full on Power attack and every other dmg trick you can give him. Rest Aid another him to pretty much garontee the hit.

Works even better if they have a decently powerful commander guy to back up.

and Horde of Gumbies are a great way to deal with your PCs once their ACs start to get too high to hit. By making excessive use of Aid another you reduce the book keeping by recording their Aid value: EX: if they have a +5 to attack then any D20 that comes up as 5 or higher is +2 bonus to the main attacker. This lets you roll the Aid Dice en-mass and simple discard all the ones that don't beat the Aid Value.

Giving the Aider's reach weapons pretty much doubles the number of guys who can aid each attack.

8th level party
20 regular Orcs with Reach Polearms (+4 to hit means Aid Value 6+)
2 Orc Commanders to be the real threat (say CR: 6 each)
roughly EL: 9

If the Orcs can get all their guys threatening the Party's front rank get as many into threat as possible.

Each round I grab a big handful of d20s and discard anything that is less than 6. Count up what's left and divide it evenly between the two Commanders.

Worst case if the PCs don't crowd control and let their front rank get surrounded, those commanders are looking at +20 extra to hit each. They can freely Power attack the crap out of your fighters, maybe even throw in things like Cleave and Bloody Assault in for good measure. All those feats you stop giving guys because you can't aford that penalty to hit.

Gives you a fight where the Blaster mage has to sweep the room clean of Orc helpers while the Fighters focus on the Commanders.

All I need to worry about is the possition of the gumbies so that they always threaten and the actions of the two Commanders. Plus the HPs of the regular Orcs are going to be low enough that I don't even need to make saves cause even half damage will kill them


Blasters aren't really bad, but they might not be great.

If your GM/group/campaign has really long adventuring days, you may find yourself running out of spells slots since you may need a few spells in each encounter. The fighter can just keep swinging.

If you specialize too much, it can be boring. You become such a one trick pony that it becomes a problem. I once had a player that made an ifrit elemental flame sorc. Every single spell known was some sort of fire spell almost all of them were also AoE. He lost all of the supposed versatility of a caster. There quite a few encounters where he had absolutely nothing useful to contribute.


As someone who loves blasty casters I have to say go for it. They are incredibly fun to play and I noticed that as long as you pick up the right spells and metamagic feats, you don't slow the game down as bad as summoning or control type caster who, in my experience, tend to take a while to act.

In regards to the timeless debate of the save or suck spell control summoning god wizard, I have a player who pretty much only plays this sort of character. He looks into guides and all that and he honestly doesn't contribute much to the party. He also refuses to pack a single evocation or other sort of spell, so if the enemies are able to shrug off his control spells, he becomes pretty useless. Just my two cents.

And as a blaster player, I will say that being a blaster at low-levels does suck, as until you hit fifth/sixth level and can grab fireball or a similar spell, your options are kind of limited. I compensated by picking up some utility spells to ensure I wasn't totally useless at lower levels.


ElterAgo wrote:

Blasters aren't really bad, but they might not be great.

If your GM/group/campaign has really long adventuring days, you may find yourself running out of spells slots since you may need a few spells in each encounter. The fighter can just keep swinging.

If you specialize too much, it can be boring. You become such a one trick pony that it becomes a problem. I once had a player that made an ifrit elemental flame sorc. Every single spell known was some sort of fire spell almost all of them were also AoE. He lost all of the supposed versatility of a caster. There quite a few encounters where he had absolutely nothing useful to contribute.

I'm not saying that they can't have multiple varieties of spells, because it can help (i.e. Fireball V.S. Delayed Blast Fireball) but that's a common example of a not-properly-optimized Blaster. A Blaster will learn to include spells such as Fly and Teleport into his repertoire, especially when he needs to realize that he should go to great lengths to protect himself while blasting. Mirror Images, Mage Armor, Shield, etc. are all great spells he should be buffing with, making enemies waste their time trying to kill him. He should also have more spells per day than a given Wizard. Tack on the Human FCB, and you're looking at eliminating one of the biggest crutches Sorcerers have, which is their limited spells known.

A truly optimized Blaster will be online from the get-go, and would have only a few varieties of damage spells, because you forget the golden rule of Pathfinder and 3.X: Optimization Rewards Specialization.

Spreading out his spell variety over the course of a dozen spells, whereas he could just as easily invest in Elemental Metamagic Rods, is not really proper, since I can assure you that they can cast an Empowered Fireball (normally 5th level) as a 3rd level Spell, using Heighten Spell as a means to utilize all of his Spells per Day, and with the Spontaneous Metafocus feat, still only spend a Standard Action to do so.

Here's an approximate build that I made for a Blasting Sorcerer with the help of the forums. There is a couple other things I should change, one of which has table variation (unfortunately) but from the given math (which won't change too much), it's still a very powerful option.

**EDIT** Fixed link.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I sometimes feel sad about the state of the game. God forbid someone play what they want and not be an aggressively optimized sheet of numbers.

If you want to play a blaster play a blaster. If you want to play a controller, play a controller. If you want to dabble in both, dabble in both.


Tollak Vargsson wrote:

I sometimes feel sad about the state of the game. God forbid someone play what they want and not be an aggressively optimized sheet of numbers.

If you want to play a blaster play a blaster. If you want to play a controller, play a controller. If you want to dabble in both, dabble in both.

Well, that might just be the state of the forum.

I mean...we had to actively seek out this site and frequent it. Many people buying this game may only do that occasionally to check for FAQs when they have specific rules problems.

So for those of us that routinely hang out on these boards, it can be said that we are not representative of the entire customer base. Also, the tendencies that bring us here include deep attachment to the game, lots of interest in the rules and builds, and other such factors.

I am not going to say that we are a bunch of munchkins and rules lawyers...but the tendencies that bring us here are often seen in those types as well. So we have a much higher trend for those personality types than the average consumer. We are a terrible, terrible sample when looking at the overall state of this game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Uh, pretty sure nobody here is saying you shouldn't play what you want. The opening post basically says "all the guides don't rate it as high as other stuff and that makes me not want to play them". The responses have generally been "the guides say that because the other options are better but blasters aren't bad". In fact, several posts open with exactly "blasters aren't bad, but..." and a list of things to look out for.


Tollak Vargsson wrote:

I sometimes feel sad about the state of the game. God forbid someone play what they want and not be an aggressively optimized sheet of numbers.

If you want to play a blaster play a blaster. If you want to play a controller, play a controller. If you want to dabble in both, dabble in both.

Honestly , the only thing i find usually useful to keep in mind is that the players are on the same spot about this.

Because if you have a player with a normal PC just put up for fun , which is far from any optimization and another came here and got one the monster builds , you probably will have issues with the players.

That is not to say there arent also optimized blaster builds which arent bad at all.


I played a kobold sorcerer once with a variant of Burning Arc that did cold damage. I would add Rime spell and do tons of damage and entangle every enemy on the field. I did not do any cross-blooded shenanigans. My build was basically Varisian Tattoo (from the archetype) and Spell Specialization. After I took sexy feats like Rime Spell and Intensify Spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tollak Vargsson wrote:

I sometimes feel sad about the state of the game. God forbid someone play what they want and not be an aggressively optimized sheet of numbers.

If you want to play a blaster play a blaster. If you want to play a controller, play a controller. If you want to dabble in both, dabble in both.

OP asks about why people don't consider blasters to be optimal solutions, people talk about optimization.

Seems like kind of the point of the thread, so it feels weird to complain about that. It'd be like going into a coemdy thread and telling people they should stop trying to be funny.


The Blockbuster Wizard guide linked earlier has a lot to say about blasting done right. I'd look that over. Especially since it does cover certain things a blaster should know -- weak spots to avoid, things like that.

Oh, and Treantmonk? 'I'm not saying you should never do pure blast. In fact, my own wizards usually have a blast or two at hand.' Look, if someone who's this 'against' blasting makes sure to pack one or two cannons on his God wizards, that should show that you can do the same. Say you have two Fireball and one Haste. There, you've got a little versatility. Don't force yourself to be one exclusive thing and neglect everything else -- I've seen someone suggest 70/30 as a decent split.

Even the barbarians carry bows and chakrams for when an enemy isn't in slashing range, you know ...


As Qaianna suggests, having some versatility can be helpful. Sorcerers are pretty good at that, especially human Sorcerers who can use their favored class bonus to buy more spells known. A Witch with the Energy patron might be interesting too since you could easily fall back on hexes when blasting isn't working or vice versa.


Gun Dragon wrote:
Why are blaster spellcasters are not rated well on the player guides? I want to play one, but this is keeping me from making one. Is there any good blaster caster classes/builds?

Because the paizo forums are filled with overzealous system-'masters' who want you to avoid a good character concept so that they can feel smart.

Ignore them. They're not rescuing you from anything awful, which is why I don't get why these folks always pop out of the woodwork, even on threads that are specifically devoted to blaster builds and NOT to discussing the *merits* of a blaster. Again, there's no good reason for these folks always showing up to chide against a blaster build. Yes, like it's 3rd edition ancestry, pathfinder surely has some attractive-appearing concepts that suck in reality. The blaster isn't one of them.

The guides stay away from blasting for the more legitimate reason that doing an optimized blaster is different enough (in terms of feat color-coding, etc) from a 'generic' wizard/sorcerer that it would really need an entirely different guide.

On to some general build ideas. There are both "long game" and "short game" ways to do blasting. For the long "game builds" (e.g spell perfection), some general principles are:

-Find a way to steadily stack save DCs and/or damage over the course of the build. The most common posts I've seen focus on damage in the bloodlines. I suspect that similar effectiveness could be achieved combining bloodlines for high save DC & 'persistent spell' feat (e.g stormborn/arcane crossblooded- less overall damage, but adds to DC w/ max DC in an energy type that less stuff is resistant to).

-Most of the best blasts are level 3-6 spells. The blaster builds are about metamagic-ing the hell out of mid-level spells. If doing a sorcerer, avoid the tempting first-level blasts that max out at 5dX and require getting really close to the target. When doing a blaster build the color coding in Treantmonk's guide for magic feats is essentially turned on its head. Empower is now very good. Quicken is still good. Spell focus is essential.

-Versatility in some way. It's not all about fireballs. Have more than one energy type. Mix area-of-effects with more focus-able ones (e.g fire snake, chain lightning). Include some control, or at least something to keep yourself out of harms way (e.g flying, teleporting). "1001 spells" is also a nice source for blast versatility.


This is an old thread.

These days, blasting varies between "My (unoptimized) level 6 sorcerer is finally high enough level to throw fireballs and now I find they do no more damage than a level 1 Barbarian could" and "My (optimized) level 6 sorcerer's fireballs do 9d6+27 damage, and my metamagic rod means they mostly knock enemies out of the battle entirely, and now the game is too easy to be fun..."


Yeah...optimized blasters pulling out all the stops can completely unbalance the game, but if you don't invest pretty hard into it blasting is on the verge of useless.


And this is why I suggest, when players are like "I want to play a Wizard, not another kind of arcane full caster, but I want it to be a CHALLENGE" I tell them to optimize around their familiar.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Are Blaster spellcasters not any good? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.