Arcane Spellcasters in PF2E – quo vadis?

[Rameth]

Possible Spoilers for Sombrefell Hall

I would like to add, and I understand that people might have differing experiences, I've run 5 sessions so far and every one of them has had spellcasters. In the latest one, at level 7, a player made an Evocation Wizard.

He's murdered everyone. Literally everyone.

He's fired off a Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and a lvl 4 Burning Hands in Sombrefell Hall. He's also used Color Spray and See Invisibility. He has made the combats soooo easy. After he's used his big attack he's used his Telekinetic Projectile and Disrupt Undead to mop up. I understand he's not able to keep this up forever but we're almost to the end of the campaign and he's still got a lvl 4 and lvl 3 spell. OH and he was going to use Knock earlier to open up something but he didn't even need to as he was Trained in Theivery, +4 dex and a skeleton key.

I just don't see how spellcasters are weak. I can understand they were nerfed but cmon guys Wizards were Gods in P1E. After like Lvl 8 they could almost one shot anyone and do damn near everything everyone else could do by themselves.

Is the current iteration really all that bad?

[Inconnu73]

Hi magnuskn, just leaving a quick encouragement note to keep up the work you have been doing so far. Unfortunately, myself and my group will be dropping out of the playtest. We've finished the second scenario and the overall mood was a mix of disappointment and disbelief with the direction this is taking. The latest errata did nothing to dissuade us from this.

More and more the feeling is that PF2 is little more than a PC/Console RPG adapted for the pen and paper format, with less and less in common with the setting most of my group have learned to love decades ago.

We consider it unbelievable how Paizo decided to even consider to implement a Low Magic game mechanic on a setting that was beyond a doubt high magic.

It would be interesting to know how, with the current game mechanic, they would explain all that is seen in "Rise of the Runelords", it is simply not possible...

The arguments made defending the low magic setting have merit, but this is not the solution, creating a different setting would have been a smarter way to approach this, in my opinion at least.

See you in a couple of years when Paizo decides to do a PF3.

[edduardco]

Rameth wrote:

Is the current iteration really all that bad?

Yes, it is.

[John Mechalas]

Rameth wrote:

He's murdered everyone. Literally everyone.

He's fired off a Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and a lvl 4 Burning Hands

He did this inside a flammable structure filled with flammable materials? Yes, he did murder everyone, just not in the way that you think...

Quote:

I just don't see how spellcasters are weak.

Spoiler:

(Though Color Spray has been nerfed, at the same time it was given a significant power-up from P1E: it always has an effect unless the target critically succeeds on it's save.)

The start of this particular scenario is blaster wizard friendly. The PC's don't have to do anything but barricade and blast, and remember you also have two clerics with you. The party makeup is unique and specifically geared for the encounter. It's not typically for a party of 4 PC's to consist of two clerics and a wizard.

A wizard who came prepared for it with spells specifically designed to slaughter undead and lots of them is going to walk all over the start of it. Wizards have always been at their best when their prepared spells were tuned for the encounter. I would not call this representative of the game as a whole, even if it were typical for a wizard who is calling on someone at their home to be pre-loaded with a wide range of offensive blast spells.

You have only yourself to blame here, though. The scenario is designed for a very specific purpose to test a very specific game mechanic, and is quite clear what classes should be allowed. Evocation Wizards don't really fit the bill. You should not have allowed this character in the game. And now you know why.

Edited to add:

Spoiler:

The final encounter is the one that matters, though. The first four events are designed to whittle down the party's offensive resources. Come back to us when it's over?

[Rameth]

John Mechalas wrote:

Rameth wrote:

He's murdered everyone. Literally everyone.

He's fired off a Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and a lvl 4 Burning Hands

He did this inside a flammable structure filled with flammable materials? Yes, he did murder everyone, just not in the way that you think...

Quote:

I just don't see how spellcasters are weak.

** spoiler omitted **

Also, you only have yourself to blame here. The scenario is designed for a very specific purpose to test a very specific game mechanic, and is quite clear what classes should be allowed. Evocation Wizards don't really fit the bill. You should not have allowed this character in the game. And now you know why.

Yeah that was the best part. He totally blew the entire door apart. Several fires. They were able to put them out but yeah it was great when he was like "I fireball" And I'm like okay the door and most of the wall is gone. You killed the ghasts but cannot barricade it anymore "oh s**t" lol.

Oh and I'm not at all upset at this. He's doing exactly what I expected him to do. And he really didn't want to play another Healer as he did once before in another of our games so I figured it would be fine.

It also doesn't matter that they were undead. Disrupt undead is the only spell he had that effected only undead. None of his other spells couldn't have been gained by another class. To me it just goes to show that Wizards, and spellcasters in general are absolutely a force Tobe reckoned with. In all of my games the spellcasters have been kicking a**.

Cleric at lvl 1 - mvp
Bard & Cleric/Fighter at lvl 4 - mvp
Sorcerer, Druid and Wizard at lvl 7 - mvp (to be fair they are all kicking a** in that game because as soon as I told them to make Healers they assumed they were fighting undead and prepped for it)

I just don't understand how the current iteration is bad compared to everything else in the system. Yes compared to where they were before sure but they were obviously to powerful. Is that not important?

There's a lot of quality of life additions in the game but a lot seem to be focused on the de-godifying of spellcasters and that's too bad.

[Moro]

So yeah, you know how many game settings have an ancient civilization, with super-powerful casters who accomplished crazy, unheard of feats of wizardry, but the secrets to such arcane prowess is lost to the ages?

This is the same thing, but that civilization was just last year, and the descent into magical diminishment took just a few weeks.

Karzoug read the playtest, and wept.

[Nethys, "Elder God"]

Moro wrote:

So yeah, you know how many game settings have an ancient civilization, with super-powerful casters who accomplished crazy, unheard of feats of wizardry, but the secrets to such arcane prowess is lost to the ages?

This is the same thing, but that civilization was just last year, and the descent into magical diminishment took just a few weeks.

Karzoug read the playtest, and wept.

Not that that two-bit has anything to complain about compared to some of us.

At least I finally get why I'm not core in Starfinder...

[AndIMustMask]

Moro wrote:

So yeah, you know how many game settings have an ancient civilization, with super-powerful casters who accomplished crazy, unheard of feats of wizardry, but the secrets to such arcane prowess is lost to the ages?

This is the same thing, but that civilization was just last year, and the descent into magical diminishment took just a few weeks.

Karzoug read the playtest, and wept.

so like morrowind to skyrim

[Data Lore]

Rameth wrote:

...I've run 5 sessions so far and every one of them has had spellcasters. In the latest one, at level 7, a player made an Evocation Wizard...

He's murdered everyone. Literally everyone.

...

Is the current iteration really all that bad?

Its funny. At low levels people complain how weak casters are (just like they did in pretty much every iteration of DnD and its variants at those levels). Then the playtest hits the low/mid levels (5+), casters get decent AoE and then we start getting ACTUAL PLAY examples of them not actually sucking all that much (just like in pretty much every iteration of DnD and its variants at those levels).

I remember playing Savage Tide way back when (3.5). I recall a couple combats on the boat. The wizard tossed out a color spray and a magic missile, then hid under decks for the duration of most combats. PF2 casters at least have Cantrips.

Other than a couple spells here or there, casters are pretty close to fine. Maybe a handful of spells could use some slight up tuning and the enemies need to be down tuned slightly (especially at low levels).

I will say again. I think they would play alot better if they just went with arcanist casting. That would reduce the sting of the lesser number of spell slots and give casters some flexibility - which is really what they lack at the moment.

[Saint Bernard]

The biggest problem I have is with the changes to teleportation spells and the loss of word of recall. The BBEG has no escape method. When word of recall was first introduced it was so the evil high priest could retreat from the battle field and regroup to fight another day. Now for both sides it is fight to the death unless fighting on a well prepared space with built in escape paths.

[Shisumo]

John Mechalas wrote:

You have only yourself to blame here, though. The scenario is designed for a very specific purpose to test a very specific game mechanic, and is quite clear what classes should be allowed. Evocation Wizards don't really fit the bill. You should not have allowed this character in the game. And now you know why.

Feyblooded sorcerer says hi.

[magnuskn]

Rameth wrote:

I just don't see how spellcasters are weak. I can understand they were nerfed but cmon guys Wizards were Gods in P1E. After like Lvl 8 they could almost one shot anyone and do damn near everything everyone else could do by themselves.

Hyperbole doesn't make an argument better, just more easily dismissible.

Rameth wrote:

Is the current iteration really all that bad?

Yes. As pointed out in my two OP's.

[Lausth]

Martials could one shot anyone from level 1 to 20. Ability to one shot someone from level 8 to 20 will not help your argument.

[John Mechalas]

Shisumo wrote:

John Mechalas wrote:

You have only yourself to blame here, though. The scenario is designed for a very specific purpose to test a very specific game mechanic, and is quite clear what classes should be allowed. Evocation Wizards don't really fit the bill. You should not have allowed this character in the game. And now you know why.

Feyblooded sorcerer says hi.

Feyblooded sorcerer would qualify under the criteria of the scenario. That being said...

Feyblooded sorcerer != Evocation specialist wizard

The Arcane and Primal spell lists are different, two of the spells mentioned so far are not on the latter, and the heightened spells would have to be learned at their heightened level. So combat would not go the same.

[Data Lore]

Primal spell list has fireball, burning hands and other blasty stuff. Also, sorc has some limited spontaneous heightening.

[Shisumo]

Data Lore wrote:

Primal spell list has fireball, burning hands and other blasty stuff. Also, sorc has some limited spontaneous heightening.

Plus Dangerous Sorcery. It's true that the primal list is missing color spray and see invisibility, but it does have faerie fire and glitterdust, so that's very nearly a wash.

Fundamentally, though, the point is that "a blasting-focused caster doesn't fit the parameters of the scenario" is a pretty questionable claim. Feytouched sorcerer and storm order druid would both be solid choices for that kind of build and would fit entirely within the strictures of the chapter's requirements.

[Ed Reppert]

Moro wrote:

So yeah, you know how many game settings have an ancient civilization, with super-powerful casters who accomplished crazy, unheard of feats of wizardry, but the secrets to such arcane prowess is lost to the ages?

This is the same thing, but that civilization was just last year, and the descent into magical diminishment took just a few weeks.

Karzoug read the playtest, and wept.

LOL!

[Freagarthach]

Data Lore wrote:

Rameth wrote:

...I've run 5 sessions so far and every one of them has had spellcasters. In the latest one, at level 7, a player made an Evocation Wizard...

He's murdered everyone. Literally everyone.

Is the current iteration really all that bad?

Its funny. At low levels people complain how weak casters are (just like they did in pretty much every iteration of DnD and its variants at those levels). Then the playtest hits the low/mid levels (5+), casters get decent AoE and then we start getting ACTUAL PLAY examples of them not actually sucking all that much (just like in pretty much every iteration of DnD and its variants at those levels).

I remember playing Savage Tide way back when (3.5). I recall a couple combats on the boat. The wizard tossed out a color spray and a magic missile, then hid under decks for the duration of most combats. PF2 casters at least have Cantrips.

Other than a couple spells here or there, casters are pretty close to fine. Maybe a handful of spells could use some slight up tuning and the enemies need to be down tuned slightly (especially at low levels).

As a player primarily interested in casters, who enjoys both PF1 and 4E as systems, I agree with the general arguments in favor of the playtest magic system being very close to a perfectly fine and functional standard. So far I have playtested a level 1 Druid and a level 4 Wizard multiclass Cleric that I am also playing at the level 7 Sombrefell Hall. My experiences have been positive and fun.

Will I miss using Shadow Projection + Teleport as a Psychic bloodline Sorcerer / Envoy of Balance to be transcendently powerful in story and combat terms by level 11? In some ways, certainly. I do not begrudge anyone who is arguing to move the PF2 final form back toward that level of incredible power...in the same way I will not begrudge the designers if they decide to move their new system in a direction away from that level of extremely high player agency.

Where the current system is now feels fun and impactful to me (subjectively). I would certainly accept being an incorporeal teleporting silent spell casting superpower as well, if PF2 moved radically that direction. For now, I am simply enjoying the chance to playtest and feedback something as yet unfinished.

[Lausth]

I wouldnt call you transcendently powerfull...dont get me wrong it is good. There are reason for not allowing evil PCs. That is certainly one of them.

So that beign said what did you do in sombrefell hall? What kind of spells did you pick.

[Freagarthach]

Lausth wrote:

I wouldnt call you transcendently powerfull...dont get me wrong it is good. There are reason for not allowing evil PCs. That is certainly one of them.

So that beign said what did you do in sombrefell hall? What kind of spells did you pick.

Envoy of Balance has to be neutral. They have an ability called Ethical Paradox that affects their interaction with spells and alignment descriptors. That character has been one of my favorites to play, and seems really powerful for my local environment...but I am curious to hear where your sense of transcendently powerful PCs goes :)

As to Sombrefell, we have not finished, but my Wizard multiclass Cleric focuses on Heal and Augmented Summon Monster - Hell Hound. So far the Hound has been great, and with two other dedicated Clerics in the party, my healing resources are so far under less strain than in the first two modules.

[Lausth]

Freagarthach wrote:

Lausth wrote:

I wouldnt call you transcendently powerfull...dont get me wrong it is good. There are reason for not allowing evil PCs. That is certainly one of them.

So that beign said what did you do in sombrefell hall? What kind of spells did you pick.

Envoy of Balance has to be neutral. They have an ability called Ethical Paradox that affects their interaction with spells and alignment descriptors. That character has been one of my favorites to play, and seems really powerful for my local environment...but I am curious to hear where your sense of transcendently powerful PCs goes :)

As to Sombrefell, we have not finished, but my Wizard multiclass Cleric focuses on Heal and Augmented Summon Monster - Hell Hound. So far the Hound has been great, and with two other dedicated Clerics in the party, my healing resources are so far under less strain than in the first two modules.

You are just very battering blastable. Well i wouldnt use that on you as your gm. Probably. Well you cant be killed in your shadowform so maybe. I dont think i would allow ethical paradox protecting you from alignment shift too but well thats just me.

So basicly smash smash heal smash? Huh with two clerics that should be fun. That is ofcourse if people like clerics. Happy to hear you having fun with sombrefell.

EDIT:I am realy not seeing how ethical paradox protects you from alignment shift. I think the act itself(Which is casting a high level spell with an evil descriptor) causes the alignment shift. I dont how to see that as a spell effect. Am i wrong?

[Freagarthach]

Lausth wrote:

You are just very battering blastable. Well i wouldnt use that on you as your gm. Probably. Well you cant be killed in your shadowform so maybe. I dont think i would allow ethical paradox protecting you from alignment shift too but well thats just me.

So basicly smash smash heal smash? Huh with two clerics that should be fun. That is ofcourse if people like clerics. Happy to hear you having fun with sombrefell.

EDIT:I am realy not seeing how ethical paradox protects you from alignment shift. I think the act itself(Which is casting a high level spell with an evil descriptor) causes the alignment shift. I dont how to see that as a spell effect. Am i wrong?

That very question illustrates how the complexities of the magic system in PF1, for all the enjoyment I and others get from the rule set, cause possibly intractable problems that the developers, and some players, may reasonably want to move away from. "...an envoy of balance remains unaffected by effects from spells and magical abilities based on her alignment or faith...She counts as the most favorable alignment or faith for the purposes of any harmful effects these alignment– or faith-based spells or abilities may have, but doesn’t gain benefits these effects might grant those of a particular alignment or faith unless she is actually of that alignment or faith."

In the games I have played, that was sufficiently worded in relation to, "Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change." - when combined with the fact that I would also cast Celestial Healing once per day (Balance, of course - both RP and magical) to remain neutral.

All of that is a lot of reading to cover a single 4th level spell and its effects, and even then - with an ability called Ethical Paradox in play along with casting one each of spells with directly opposed alignment descriptors, as a neutral character, you might still disagree that the character can remain neutral. As a GM that is your right, but it is a lot of magical hoops spinning for such an arbitrarily interpreted situation.

I like those sorts of shenanigans, and I like a magic system that is somewhat heavily dependent on rules lawyering your way through unavoidably subjective interpretations of how wording translates to thaumaturgy. I also understand, and respect, the view that having a magic system that is not so edge case, simpler and easier to pick up, more straightforward for everyone to interact with, is a more reasonable design goal.

[John Mechalas]

Shisumo wrote:

Fundamentally, though, the point is that "a blasting-focused caster doesn't fit the parameters of the scenario" is a pretty questionable claim. Feytouched sorcerer and storm order druid would both be solid choices for that kind of build and would fit entirely within the strictures of the chapter's requirements.

Rationalize it however you want to. Regardless, you have a scenario that is built for a very distinct purpose, mandates a party composition that would politely be described as "atypical", and is obviously blast friendly.

The scenario exists to stress test a particular game mechanic, and how that mechanic differs amongst the classes. Drawing conclusions about other aspects of the game from such an artificial construct is dubious at best.

[Rameth]

To me it seems the difference is now Spellcasters are only slightly better than Martials instead of just plain better.

To those of you who thought I was exaggerating about the spellcasters let's take a quick look at a level 9 Wizard in P1E. A level 9 Wizard can cast a lvl 9 fireball that does 9d6 damage 3 times. That's without any bonus spells. That's 27d6 damage. Okay but 3 times isn't so bad right? But wait he can also cast Scorching Ray 4 times a day. That's 2 rays at 4d6 each. So a total of 32d6 damage. Okay that's a little excessive. But wait, there's more. He can also cast Cone of Cold for an additional 9d6 damage at least once. So that's a grand total of 68d6 damage and he hasn't even used his bonus spells or level 1 or level 4 spells.

So that means on top of all of that damage he can still

Endure Elements: ignore temperatures
Mage Armor/Sheild: armor himself
Mount: have a steed
Comprehend Languages: understand everyone
Expeditious Retreat: move really fast
Feather fall: not die from falling

Or for his Lvl 4 spells
Dimension door: short teleport
Secure Shelter: make a cottage

Do I ready need to go on?

Now granted this was taken from a pure damage output so imagine ALL the other spells that the Wizard has and can use. And the downside is what? He has to rest a little while to do it again? How does a 9th level Barbarian, or Ranger for that matter, compare to that?

I can understand people being upset that they were brought down a level but spellcaster are still perfectly fine and are still better than Martials. They just aren't near Gods by lvl 9 anymore.

[magnuskn]

Meanwhile, the martials stand there with their thumbs up their keisters and fondle their weapons? Yeah, casters can do damage. Martials can do more damage, if they are not built like bananas.

Casters can do a lot of damage to groups, but hey, I don't know if you've noticed that, but that's an advantage to the group that they can weaken enemies before the martials wade in. If a caster manages to clear a room of weak enemies, that actually improves a play session, because you don't waste an hour rolling lots of dice for a trivial encounter.

And please stop with the hyperbole that utility spell makes casters "gods" or "near gods". Wow, I can make a cottage, so that my friends and I can sleep with a roof over our head. Quick, the nerf bat, he's a GOD!

If martials are so jealous that casters have options, why not just bring up martials so that they have more options, too?

[Corwin Icewolf]

Rameth wrote:

To me it seems the difference is now Spellcasters are only slightly better than Martials instead of just plain better.

To those of you who thought I was exaggerating about the spellcasters let's take a quick look at a level 9 Wizard in P1E. A level 9 Wizard can cast a lvl 9 fireball that does 9d6 damage 3 times. That's without any bonus spells. That's 27d6 damage. Okay but 3 times isn't so bad right? But wait he can also cast Scorching Ray 4 times a day. That's 2 rays at 4d6 each. So a total of 32d6 damage. Okay that's a little excessive. But wait, there's more. He can also cast Cone of Cold for an additional 9d6 damage at least once. So that's a grand total of 68d6 damage and he hasn't even used his bonus spells or level 1 or level 4 spells.

So that means on top of all of that damage he can still

Endure Elements: ignore temperatures
Mage Armor/Sheild: armor himself
Mount: have a steed
Comprehend Languages: understand everyone
Expeditious Retreat: move really fast
Feather fall: not die from falling

Or for his Lvl 4 spells
Dimension door: short teleport
Secure Shelter: make a cottage

Do I ready need to go on?

Now granted this was taken from a pure damage output so imagine ALL the other spells that the Wizard has and can use. And the downside is what? He has to rest a little while to do it again? How does a 9th level Barbarian, or Ranger for that matter, compare to that?

I can understand people being upset that they were brought down a level but spellcaster are still perfectly fine and are still better than Martials. They just aren't near Gods by lvl 9 anymore.

How does a 9th level barbarian compare to that, you ask? Well, that 9d6 fireball you're acting like is oh so powerful does about 31 damage, BEFORE taking into account reflex saves, fire resistance, SR, etc. Martials are more than capable of outdamaging that. A barbarian with power attack, a greatsword, and 18 strength will do 2d6 + 18 while raging. Average of 25 on a hit, and even with the power attack penalty barbarians usually hit. This is not even taking into account magic weapons, rage powers, and feats that aren't power attack. But your example didn't take into account all the optimization you can do for a blaster wizard either, so I think it's an okay comparison.

And consumables really can help, despite my dislike of the fact that martials have to rely on them, a barbarian can carry a potion of fly to use when the wizard he's fighting flies into the air. They usually do. Yeah it sucks that you can't be all conan and disdain magic items as a barbarian, or be all chase young and dismiss them as a crutch for true power as a monk, but mechanically the magic items do even things out to some degree. That's not to say the disparity disappears completely, there are many areas where casters inevitably outshine martials, but damage is not one of them.

For a ranger, I'll let someone else do that analysis, but I'm sure they'd do okay as well.

Also, big AoEs aren't always practical to cast. Even if you have a selective spell rod, adventurers sometimes are attacked in flammable buildings.

[Lausth]

@Freagarthach More i look at it more i dont see how this is complicated. You are not rules lawyering your way out of this. Ethical paradox does nothing to save you from alignment shift and no celestial heal wouldnt save you either but i guess every gm for himself. BTW there was this cheap item called ghostbane salt(i guess that was it), you can easly be hurt whenever your gm wants to challange you.

@Rameth I played with level 1 iconic barbarian amiri. My friend cast magic weapon on me then i moved into damage the slime in doomsday dawn.
Two hits and 43 damage with 4d12+16. At level 9 with fireball you do 9d6 damage which is 31 damage before reflex save and resistance or immunity.

[shroudb]

Lausth wrote:

@Freagarthach More i look at it more i dont see how this is complicated. You are not rules lawyering your way out of this. Ethical paradox does nothing to save you from alignment shift and no celestial heal wouldnt save you either but i guess every gm for himself. BTW there was this cheap item called ghostbane salt(i guess that was it), you can easly be hurt whenever your gm wants to challange you. Just sayin.

@Rameth I played with level 1 iconic barbarian amiri. My friend cast magic weapon on me then i moved into damage the slime in doomsday dawn.
Two hits and 43 damage with 4d12+16. At level 9 with fireball you do 9d6 damage which is 31 damage before reflex save and resistance or immunity.

You understand that half your "43" damage was due to the Caster right?

How does you example shows that casters are weak when they "double the damage of a level 1 character with 1 spell" and can continue to do other stuff for 9 more rounds?

(also you're mixing editions, I'm 100% sure you quoted a 1st ed example.)

[Lausth]

No actually i rolled for 5 and 6 with the extra dice.

I am not mixing editions. It was a cross editions example.

[magnuskn]

Okay, so now even the nerfed casters in PF2E can't have their nerfed nice things anymore, or what do I have to infer from shroudbd's comment?

Honestly, if you want a game without casters at all, why are you even discussing here with us?

[Rameth]

You can't say that just because a class is helping the group out doesn't mean it's not broken. Spellcasters just break the game when used correctly. So that means there is a flaw within the game.

Also it isn't hyperbole. They are essentially Gods compared to martial characters. They can destroy, create, heal, fly, turn invisible, teleport, control minds, summon beings, control the weather. How is that not a God?

I do agree that raising up Martials is a good idea. But raise them up to what? In a system such as 3.x damage is abstract so anything that does damage can flatly be compared. If you look at all the damage a lvl 9 Wizard can do without magic items and compare it to a Barbarian hitting once or twice against a single guy then I just don't know what to say. While yes the Barbarian could kill everything that the Wizard can kill that doesn't mean that the Wizard isn't doing it better. The caster can consistently damage/impede/weaken multiple people while Martials can at best do it to one. That kind of power gap in 3.x was just to wide.

The system of having spellcasters and Martials work together was broken (or iffy at best) and needed fixing. Improving the Martials and nerfing the Casters has helped that tremendously. Some may not like it but it was a needed addition.

I do indeed want a game with Casters. It's just nice that they aren't wrecking the game with their power. I guess my main point is that I wholeheartedly disagree that P2E spellcasters are weak. I've seen it in play. They are doing just fine.

[shroudb]

Lausth wrote:

No actually i rolled for 5 and 6 with the extra dice.

I am no miing editions. It was just a cross editions example.

You literally compared a 1st edition spell with a 2nd edition spell+double attack.

You're mixing editions.

Also, your definition of anecdotal rolls is irrelevant:

Actual statistics of magic weapon is:

1d12+8 (14.5) at +4 attack
Average level 1 AC: 14
0.5*14.5+0.1*14.5= 8.7
0.25*14.5+0.1*14.5 = 5.1
Total dpr: 13.8

At 2d12+8 (21) and +5 attack
0.5*21+0.2*21= 14.7
0.3*21+0.1*21= 8.4
Total dpr: 20.9

23.1/13.8= 67%

You can literally cast a single 1st level spell, and do nothing else in the whole combat, no cantrips, no attacks, no other spells, and "deal" 2/3rds the damage of a character that spends 2-3 actions per round moving and attacking.

[shroudb]

magnuskn wrote:

Okay, so now even the nerfed casters in PF2E can't have their nerfed nice things anymore, or what do I have to infer from shroudbd's comment?

Honestly, if you want a game without casters at all, why are you even discussing here with us?

No, I have no problem with said spell, or anything like that.

But having an example where the caster is actually pretty Damn impressive, presented in such a biased way trying to point out that they are weak, is simply wrong.

"oh no, the hasted, magic weapon, heroism buffed martial dealt X damage, while my Caster did nothing (except all previous said buffs)!

Is plain bias.

[Lausth]

I just compared a level 9 wizard with no optimization in 1e to level 1 barbarian with no optimization in 2e.

Damage comparison is your example. This god thing became popular after treatmonk. He didnt meant actuall gods. God wizard in 1e is a wizard who helps his team with buffs,debuffs,control and utility. That is his job. God wizard is a teamplayer and dont outshine anyone. Martials didnt break the game with their stupid amounts of damage in 1e? Thousand damage in a round is somehow weak?
What do you want your casters to do in 2e? Nothing? Do you always want to play 2e in a dungeon crawl mode? With durations like that that will be your experience.

EDIT: Apperently for some of us staying back and doing nothing in combat is somehow fun.

[magnuskn]

Rameth wrote:

You can't say that just because a class is helping the group out doesn't mean it's not broken. Spellcasters just break the game when used correctly. So that means there is a flaw within the game.

Also it isn't hyperbole. They are essentially Gods compared to martial characters. They can destroy, create, heal, fly, turn invisible, teleport, control minds, summon beings, control the weather. How is that not a God?

I do agree that raising up Martials is a good idea. But raise them up to what? In a system such as 3.x damage is abstract so anything that does damage can flatly be compared. If you look at all the damage a lvl 9 Wizard can do without magic items and compare it to a Barbarian hitting once or twice against a single guy then I just don't know what to say. While yes the Barbarian could kill everything that the Wizard can kill that doesn't mean that the Wizard isn't doing it better. The caster can consistently damage/impede/weaken multiple people while Martials can at best do it to one. That kind of power gap in 3.x was just to wide.

The system of having spellcasters and Martials work together was broken (or iffy at best) and needed fixing. Improving the Martials and nerfing the Casters has helped that tremendously. Some may not like it but it was a needed addition.

I do indeed want a game with Casters. It's just nice that they aren't wrecking the game with their power. I guess my main point is that I wholeheartedly disagree that P2E spellcasters are weak. I've seen it in play. They are doing just fine.

I wholeheartedly disagree with every assertion you just made.

shroudb wrote:

No, I have no problem with said spell, or anything like that.

But having an example where the caster is actually pretty Damn impressive, presented in such a biased way trying to point out that they are weak, is simply wrong.

"oh no, the hasted, magic weapon, heroism buffed martial dealt X damage, while my Caster did nothing (except all previous said buffs)!

Is plain bias.

But that is the problem in this discussion. Even if casters make martials look good by providing them with all this assistance, martial fans make it out to be like that is a bad thing as well. I mean, I get that some martial fans want their characters to have more agency, but everytime someone brings up the possibility of martials getting abilities to provide their own buffs, there are screams of "anime!" and "we don't want spells ourselves!". It's honestly like argueing with a schizophrenic person.

[magnuskn]

Lausth wrote:

I just compared a level 9 wizard with no optimization in 1e to level 1 barbarian with no optimization in 2e.

Damage comparison is your example. This god thing became popular after treatmonk. He didnt meant actuall gods. God wizard in 1e is a wizard who helps his team with buffs,debuffs,control and utility. That is his job. God wizard is a teamplayer and dont outshine anyone. Martials didnt break the game with their stupid amounts of damage in 1e? Thousand damage in a round is somehow weak?
What do you want your casters to do in 2e? Nothing? Do you always want to play 2e in a dungeon crawl mode? With durations like that that will be your experience.

EDIT: Apperently for some of us staying back and doing nothing in combat is somehow fun.

Yeah, by now I think treatmonk did way more damage than good with his guide and writing style, since apparently it convinced some people that casters are "literal" gods. Including some of the devs, apparently.

[Lausth]

2/3? in 4d12+16 magic weapon adds 2d12. BTW i wasnt talking to you. I was talking to rameth.

EDIT:Only the edit part was directed at you though shroudb. i forget about that part.

[shroudb]

magnuskn wrote:

But that is the problem in this discussion. Even if casters make martials look good by providing them with all this assistance, martial fans make it out to be like that is a bad thing as well. I mean, I get that some martial fans want their characters to have more agency, but everytime someone brings up the possibility of martials getting abilities to provide their own buffs, there are screams of "anime!" and "we don't want spells ourselves!". It's honestly like argueing with a schizophrenic person.

I never said that though. Again and again I say that casters have, in our games at least, really made a difference with their spells through their buffs, debuffs, and control.

Yes, they don't do the same raw damage, I never said that.

I also said that this is GOOD. This promotes teamwork.

Martials rely on the casters for their utility and Casters rely on martials for their damage.

Could it be a bit better by increasing martials in utility, narrative power, control/buffs /debuffs and simultaneously raising the damage of the Casters so that the 2 archetypes come closer together?

Perhaps.

But at least, it's certainly better as a whole compared to 1st edition disparity.

[Corwin Icewolf]

Rameth wrote:

I do agree that raising up Martials is a good idea. But raise them up to what? In a system such as 3.x damage is abstract so anything that does damage can flatly be compared. If you look at all the damage a lvl 9 Wizard can do without magic items and compare it to a Barbarian hitting once or twice against a single guy then I just don't know what to say. While yes the Barbarian could kill everything that the Wizard can kill that doesn't mean that the Wizard isn't doing it better. The caster can consistently damage/impede/weaken multiple people while Martials can at best do it to one.

So there's this really cool line of feats in 1e that start with cleave... I've seen a dwarf with all the cleave feats kill 6 enemies, not just hurt said enemies like a fireball would. And he didn't have to worry about friendly fire like the fireballing wizard would. Of course, he used a dwarf only feat called cleave through, and a dwarven dorndurger. Just saying, it's not as impossible as you're making it out to be.

Also, bosses exist so in many cases it is actually better to be good at dealing large quantities of damage to one creature, then to do mediocre damage to 5.

before you mention save or dies in pf1, know that I like pf2's increased granularity in saves, even if I do think the execution could be better in many cases.

And when I play a blaster in pathfinder I rarely get to cast fireball because there's usually a big pile of allies mixed in with the enemies.

[shroudb]

Lausth wrote:

2/3? in 4d12+16 magic weapon adds 2d12. BTW i wasnt talking to you. I was talking to rameth.

Yes, 2d12 and +1 attack.

That's how important the +1 attack is, you can actually check the math yourself, actual percentage of damage with is 167.39%

So a bit MORE than 2/3rd

[Lausth]

shroudb wrote:

Lausth wrote:

2/3? in 4d12+16 magic weapon adds 2d12. BTW i wasnt talking to you. I was talking to rameth.

Yes, 2d12 and +1 attack.

That's how important the +1 attack is, you can actually check the math yourself, actual percentage of damage with is 167.39%

So a bit MORE than 2/3rd

I didnt say it was weak. I just said it wasnt the 2/3 of the entire damage like you suggested. I was talking about what actually happened in game.

I dont see how i was biased in all this. Maybe i should have my breakfest now.

EDIT: Casters job isnt just the buff martial either.

[Tarn U Tarn]

Has anyone noticed the shrinkage in cold based spells?

There is 1 cold based cantrip and the next cold based spell is Cone of Cold (well, not very cold) at 5th level.

Do you remember when you had a choice with fireshield of going hot or cold flames? Or the icy bludgeoning of an Ice Storm spell?

Given the fire elemental in the 2nd play test module, I am surprised that no-one has noticed the serious dearth of cold based spells in the rule book.

Perhaps they are intending to put a fire resistent demon and fire elementals into the 1st commercial module they make, so everyone has to buy an enhanced book of spells to get those much needed cold damage spells?

I agree with many of the points listed in the detailed analysis of the nerfing of Arcane spells & the sorceror, so have not added more on that.
However, I would like to get people's impressions on the schools of wizardry. My impression is that Univeralist wizard is fairly pointless now. In PF1 the benefits of going evoker, abjurer, necromancer, etc were counterbalanced somewhat by the disadvantages of Opposition schools - so there were some benefits to being a universalist. In PF2 the benefits of the Universalist are not as great as the benefit of taking a school (which has no downside now).

As far as the Universalist's school power goes, it's a joke.
Given the nerfing of mages in PF2, you take Elf, Weapon Familiarity, spend a general feat on light/medium armour rather than waste a spell slot on mage armour (and go magic armour & weapon as soon as possible), make a bow attack as your 1st action then follow up with a "Save Vs" type spell like electric arc for your remaining actions. The whole throwing your weapon (e.g. as an elf, a finesse weapon like rapier) using the "worst" of your proficiencies is no match for a single bow shot. And the errata nerfing the Drain Focus (which is far less useful than the Arcane Bond of PF1) from 1 use per spell level to 1 for each spell level (i.e. 1 first level spell & 1 second level spell, etc) just tipped the balance against univeralist for me.

In an attempt to be fair however, I should mention that the option treat all touch spells as having the "Finesse" trait - meaning you only need to boost Dex as a secondary stat - is a massive improvement on the stupidity of PF1 where a mage needed a High Int + a high Dex for ranged touch (and AC of course) and a high Str for melee touch spells.

Comments or useful feedback anyone?

[Rameth]

Btw I'm just going off what's in the P1E Core Rulebook. I'm not basing anything I'm saying off of any other book. Core Martials vs Core Casters was a huge gap in P1E. Just looking at Casters in P1E and seeing what they can do it's ridiculous. Trying to argue they're on the same team still doesn't change the fact they were unbalanced.

I do have a question though. Is the topic simply that 2nd Edition Casters aren't as good as 1st Edition Casters? Or is it that 2nd Edition Casters aren't good at all?

[Dire Ursus]

Spellcasters needed a nerf. There's a lot of people in this thread just forgetting that in 1e casters were unanimously the best classes in the game. By far. And now they nerf casters are you all pretend they weren't OP as hell? Ridiculous. I've GMed through 3 chapters of the playtest with at least one caster in every single group. Not once has it felt like they were weaker than the martials. And not once have they complained about their abilities. Some spells need balancing for sure to bring them up to other spells of the same spell level, but overall the power level is right where it should be.

[Almarane]

And in my session of Lost Star the optimized Sorcerer felt like he was useless and none of his spells did anything better than a Failed result (except once when he did a critical success... negated by the ennemie's Hardness). As Jason said in another thread, please don't think your experience is everyone's experience.

For now, let's wait for the devs to analyze their data and tell us if most people did or did not like arcane spellcasters. This debate is going in circle between 4-5 people who will not change their opinion whatever you tell them.

[AndIMustMask]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Rameth wrote:

I do agree that raising up Martials is a good idea. But raise them up to what? In a system such as 3.x damage is abstract so anything that does damage can flatly be compared. If you look at all the damage a lvl 9 Wizard can do without magic items and compare it to a Barbarian hitting once or twice against a single guy then I just don't know what to say. While yes the Barbarian could kill everything that the Wizard can kill that doesn't mean that the Wizard isn't doing it better. The caster can consistently damage/impede/weaken multiple people while Martials can at best do it to one.

So there's this really cool line of feats in 1e that start with cleave... I've seen a dwarf with all the cleave feats kill 6 enemies, not just hurt said enemies like a fireball would. And he didn't have to worry about friendly fire like the fireballing wizard would. Of course, he used a dwarf only feat called cleave through, and a dwarven dorndurger. Just saying, it's not as impossible as you're making it out to be.

Also, bosses exist so in many cases it is actually better to be good at dealing large quantities of damage to one creature, then to do mediocre damage to 5.

before you mention save or dies in pf1, know that I like pf2's increased granularity in saves, even if I do think the execution could be better in many cases.

And when I play a blaster in pathfinder I rarely get to cast fireball because there's usually a big pile of allies mixed in with the enemies.

ah, i remember cleave! it took till what, level 12 (due to BAB limitations) to get the whole line? at the expense of everything else your character could have built for--such as means for damage to actually kill things, allowing you to actually use the feat line you specialized into? or reach, or greater accuracy bonuses, or better saves (which are usually what kills you), and so on.

at those same levels, the caster is getting multiple variable choices of damage spells usually better than your entire feat line simply for leveling, rather than needing any investment or resources on their part whatsoever (aside from perhaps a small investment of gold, generally less than a tenth of what you're spending keeping your weapons and armor up-to-date). as well as a whole toolbox of utility that can range from completely obviating the need to invest in skills (which they usually have plenty of anyway, while you don't).
EDIT: ah, im sorry, they do have to invest a single feat! selective spell.

this is one of my biggest gripes for why martials need a "Thing" of their own: the caster gets it free, while martials have to spend their entire career (years of that character's life--and possibly your own, depending on gaming schdule) trying to emulate but a single aspect of what a spellcaster can do effortlessly. and if you do it well enough, people complain that it's too anime, or that the rules are broken and need fixing.

you both are and continue to be increasingly reliant on casters' presence to actually get anything done (especially once monsters start getting magic of their own, because only you aren't allowed to be supernatural in the fantasy-verse). you need a magical crafter (see: caster) for your equipment to stay relevant, you need a caster to buff your accuracy and defenses further to have any sort of reliability on offense or defense, you need a caster to pick you back up when you get whammied by a monster SLA against your poor saves--if you weren't simply killed outright (which becomes more and more likely as you increase in level).

[Dire Ursus]

Almarane wrote:

And in my session of Lost Star the optimized Sorcerer felt like he was useless and none of his spells did anything better than a Failed result (except once when he did a critical success... negated by the ennemie's Hardness). As Jason said in another thread, please don't think your experience is everyone's experience.

For now, let's wait for the devs to analyze their data and tell us if most people did or did not like arcane spellcasters. This debate is going in circle between 4-5 people who will not change their opinion whatever you tell them.

"Optimized" as in level 1 Sorcerer because that's the level 1 adventure? And what enemy in Lost Star has Hardness? Do you mean resistance?

[Rameth]

Almarane wrote:

And in my session of Lost Star the optimized Sorcerer felt like he was useless and none of his spells did anything better than a Failed result (except once when he did a critical success... negated by the ennemie's Hardness). As Jason said in another thread, please don't think your experience is everyone's experience.

For now, let's wait for the devs to analyze their data and tell us if most people did or did not like arcane spellcasters. This debate is going in circle between 4-5 people who will not change their opinion whatever you tell them.

You could say the same thing about a Barbarian who tanked all of his rolls. The outcome of the dice in a single play test do not show whether a character is effective or not.

You can however go off of how game play is effected when the dice rolls go as expected, ie not too good or too bad, as it was for several of my gaming sessions. The Casters did very well. Like I said mvps.