Easl's page

Except that the whole point of removing the feature was to gain the advantage of a convincing illusion so that PCs are forced to waste actions interacting with the illusion to disbelieve it, so it being an advantage to add or remove features is subjective to the circumstances present.

I think the whole point of varying powers, resistances, attacks etc. in monsters is to make adventures more interesting and somewhat less predictable and repetitive. If doing so also means players can't rely on their ooc knowledge of what's in Monster Core in order to detect illusions, that's fine too. But not the motivation behind why I would change things. And I'd still always allow IC RK checks to provide useful information.

As for whether it creates 'wasted' actions, well they can always just guess. If a player doesn't think the non-fearful dragon is real, they can ignore it. Sounds like in a game that you ran, that would be a completely safe option the players could take and it would save them an action, because they can absolutely 100% rely on the knowledge that all dragons have frightful presence and therefore if this one doesn't, it's not a real dragon. Do that in one of our worlds, it could get them scorched.

Bending the rules is purposefully adjusting creature stat blocks to gain specific advantages, such as removing obvious weaknesses or adding immunities to creatures. If I can't do that with a Summon spell as a player, neither can the GM.

Well yes in fact they can. And I don't mean they can break the rules: I mean that the rules themselves support the idea that the GM should modify encounters and stat blocks to meet the needs of the campaign. Paizo writes essentially that at the start of just about every AP, as well as in books like MC. Now, should a GM do the example change you bring up - that's a different question. I would personally avoid adjusting creatures to gain a specific advantage over the PCs. As I said, without some compelling reason to do so, that seems hinky. Bad form. But adjusting creatures as a matter of campaign design, because you want every dragon to be different or whatever? Totally fine, IMO.

I'll also point out that a GM removing frightful presence from a stat block is not granting any sort of 'specific advantage' to the "npc" team.

a Troll that doesn't burn up when hit with fire is not a convincing illusion.

Well I'd expect the illusionist to incorporate the fire hit into what the illusion shows, if they are really trying to keep it visually convincing.

Ultimately you're right that there are plenty of actions the PCs can take which will render an illusion's 'fake' nature obvious. I'm not disputing that. However, I would generally not give PCs any sort of automatic illusion-detection based on "book knowledge" that the thing in front of them is different from the stat block for the thing in the Monster Core, because at least in the game worlds I and my friends create, what monsters it is possible to meet doesn't end at the published stat blocks. There are more things in campaign and adventure, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your Monster Core.

Easl wrote:

It depends on how you run your game world, really. In a Golarion where every critter is accurately, exactly and specifically described in lore, then noticing a mismatch to the lore is a perfectly valid way for adventurers to detect illusions...and in such a world, yes, illusion-casters should probably stick to critters that they can 'get right' in terms of noticeable characteristics. But as I suggested above, another option is to populate your world with many variations of each creature. In that sort of Golarion, "this dragon doesn't induce fear" is not necessarily an indication that it's illusory, and illusions can be credible even if they don't exactly match a "standard" monster.

This still comes across as the GM "cheating," simply because Frightful Presence is practically innate to all dragons everywhere

We may have to agree to disagree here. I don't consider it at all cheating for a GM to modify creatures from the book - in fact IMO that's how the books are supposed to be used. They are a starting point for the GM to design what they need for their campaign, not holy writ that can't be modified. Modifying a critter specifically in response to a PC's abilities or the group's strategy can get hinky. I wouldn't do that without some compelling reason. But just in general? Yes absolutely; books like Monster Core are intended to be a resource GMs can use to create new and different monsters for their campaigns. It specifically says that, in the book.

Also disagree about dragons, because again, it depends on what game world the GM wants to design. If you want it to be an ironclad rule for your game that all dragons must have Frightful Presence, that's perfectly fine. But not every game world has to be like that.

The point of the question was to wonder why it has to be a creature with an interactive external stimulus like Frightful Presence, simply because it ruins the intended effect of the illusion

I already agreed with you on the question you asked. In a game world where every single dingle dragon has frightful presence and this is a well known fact about dragons that adventurers are aware of, then yes, it's not a smart idea for an illusion-caster to create an illusion of a dragon. That seems an unnecessarily restrictive game world to me, but YMMV.

That doesn't work because illusory spells do not have the ability to remove or adjust creature stat blocks to suit their needs,

Ah, perhaps I was unclear. I'm saying that if the GM doesn't want the players instantly recognizing illusions due to some monster not matching it's stat block, the GM can fix that by changing regular, non-illusory monsters so that they don't exactly match the written stat block.

What I am more surprised about is how nobody has simply said "This type of creature is a poor choice given the circumstances of its purpose, maybe instead create an illusion of something else?"

It depends on how you run your game world, really. In a Golarion where every critter is accurately, exactly and specifically described in lore, then noticing a mismatch to the lore is a perfectly valid way for adventurers to detect illusions...and in such a world, yes, illusion-casters should probably stick to critters that they can 'get right' in terms of noticeable characteristics. But as I suggested above, another option is to populate your world with many variations of each creature. In that sort of Golarion, "this dragon doesn't induce fear" is not necessarily an indication that it's illusory, and illusions can be credible even if they don't exactly match a "standard" monster.

You don't need a Recall Knowledge check to know that something about that dragon doesn't make them scary to you compared to any other dragon. It doesn't matter if you are aware of why that is, the point is that you know it is, which is part of why you wouldn't believe it to be an actual dragon.

I agree with your first sentence. The end of the second sentence does not logically follow from it. MC, "adjusting creatures" - it is fully within the rules and the setting for a GM to take a stat block and adjust it. Remove Fear ability here, add something else instead. Or add a new resistance, take an old one away. And so on.

If your players are getting too reliant on their in-game or out-of-game knowledge of stat blocks to decide whether something is illusory or not, then as a GM it's maybe time to take them out of that comfort zone and spice it up by throwing adjusted creatures at them.

Ghost will always be a bad matchup for several classes because they are immune to precision damage. So not just Swashbuckler and their finishers and precise strike, but also Rogue and Sneak Attack, Precision Ranger, and probably still Investigator.

Yes. I feel like this is more of a 'table fail' than a class fail. Did the GM not give an overview of the AP? Illustrative example only: "Season of Ghosts will have a lot of ghosts." Did the GM do that...and the player ignored the hint? Did the GM instead come up with this dungeon on their own, after the players had built their characters? If so, what was the logic behind filling it with monsters that were largely immune to one of the PCs? Etc. Or maybe the GM did that, but dropped ghost touch runes as loot regularly in the lead up to the dungeon, and the players didn't take them? Lots of questions here, few of them about the design of the swash.

Don't forget all the other non-offense comparables.

Casters being low HP, low ___, compared to martials does matter.

D&D tried that. Nobody really likes playing a game where the glass cannon wipes the room as long as you can protect her, because the rest of the party doesn't want to be forced into the role of 'glass cannon protector.' It's much better for class balance if each class can mostly stand on their own in combat - mostly take care of their own defense, mostly contribute somewhat similar offense, mostly move around on their own, etc. It doesn't have to be exact match across the board, but it should be reasonably close, because otherwise class choice shoehorns the player in to a very specific role, and we don't want that (well...I don't).

Any system benefits from apples : oranges niches, and pf3 would be no different.

This is just personal opinion, but when it comes to combat scenes the fruit types are best left in subclass or leveling build choices, not at 'class.' I.e. the fighter should have both apple and orange builds, the wizard should have both apple and banana builds, etc. I think when it comes to non-combat scenes there is much more openness by both players and devs to release a class that's "just plain better" than the others at investigation, or research, or 'face,' or infiltration, or what have you. But combat is such a ubiquitous 'scene' in ttrpgs that systems which let every PC do it about as well avoid a lot more player 'my character stinks' or 'this class stinks' feelbads than those who don't.

And in pf2, all those "one fight per day" encounters are... rather common, and it's easy for players to know they do not need to conserve.

No resource management system survives contact with the player base :) No matter what you come up with, some players are going to figure out a way to abuse it. Some play group is going to figure out exactly how to space out scenes so that the limited-pool classes can bring max power to bear. Then the no-limited-pool class players are going to complain that they are outclassed. Or the no-pool class players are going to drive drive drive forward after pools are exhausted because hey it's not their problem. There's pretty much no way to combine low-cost low-payoff classes with high-cost high-payoff classes that doesn't create some friction at some point. Which is probably one reason why videogames have mostly abandoned the concept altogether and just given every possible 'class' the same range of low cost low damage -> high cost high damage -> limited use huge impact sets of abilities.

Which is maybe a long way around to say this is not merely a system problem or a problem that can be fixed by rules. It must also partly be fixed by psychology, by table decisions, by friends cooperating to make the game fun for everyone. Figure out as a group of friends and players what number and type of encounters per session and also per in-character day are best for the group. And by "best" I mean achieve maximum player fun for all the players, not necessarily maximum power or tat lets your character shine more than anyone else's. Then try to hit that sweet spot. The guy who never has fun unless he's doing 10 combats per day while the rest of the group is ready to go back to town after 4 is IMO just like the guy who decides to steal from the party when the rest of the players don't want to play that way. Rules don't fix clueless, nor do they fix antisocial.

I do prefer a point burn, as it's super flexible while only being a single number a player needs to track.

Which requires you track the number of points you have, AND the warmup (i.e. the rate at which you get them back). So twice as complicated! ;)

Kinda kidding. Points works fine, I never had a tracking problem playing GURPS. Though point systems can turbo-charge out of combat magic use if you're not careful.

I don't think any modified system gets rid of the fundamental problem though, which is that the player and designer base has three goals which are mutually incompatible. To wit: (1) blaster casters 'feel good' in every regular combat even when not using their big booms - meaning they average DPR about as much damage as martials, (2) casters ALSO get the unique* big boom room-clearing spells that have been their thematic signature in every d20 class and level system since the 1970s, and (3) martial and caster combat offense is well balanced so that one does not offensively dominate the other. Any system - ANY system - has to give up one of those points 1-3, because they are disjunctive. Doesn't matter if it's current system's slots, or your points, or my cooldowns, or any other system, its a case of "pick two of those statements; can't have all three." Old D&D picked 1 and 2. PF2E is trying to pick 2 and 3. Many non-'d20 class and level' systems pick 1 and 3. So here's a fundamental design question: which should PF3E take?

*One way out is to give martials the same sort of big boom room-clearing occasional use powers. Then 1-3 can sort of attain together...if you ignore the word "unique." This way 'raises the floor' of the PC's overall power level...but in terms of giving casters some unique offensive power, it doesn't. So it's functionally equivalent to picking 1 and 3 and dropping 2. This is common in video games. It is probably not what TTRPG players who may be unhappy with the current PF2E balance would want to see.

Personally I hope they standardize the mechanics into a single system, while keeping the full range from 'every round' spells all the way up to 'rare big boom' spells. Just give everything a cooldown trait. So instead of tracking slots and focus points separately and then having cantrips which work on a third, different, 'any time' mechanic, all spells just have a 'cooldown.' Some have a 1-rd cooldown, some have a 10-min (or whatever...5 min, 1 min) cooldown, and some have a 1-day (or whatever...1 hr, 8hr) cooldown.

"1a, 1-rd cooldown" would be an excellent improvement for current cantrips.

Is there a way to increase unarmored AC proficiency for wizards?

Core attack and defense proficiencies don't get accelerated by anything, AFAICT. Via archetypes you can get Trained in things you don't start with, but then they progress to Expert per your class.

Maybe there are some exceptions I missed? But that seems to be a design intent; the way you improve your attacks and defenses is through magical buffs, runes, maneuvers, enemy debuffs, etc.

The part of the mechanics that doesn't work is that the familiar would be unable to use their class feature type abilities while in a backpack. Tremorsense, for example, would require the familiar to be on the ground. Characters are still allowed to use their perception while using exploration activities. A character that has darkvision is still allowed to see in the dark while using Avoid Notice. But a character that is getting tremorsense from their familiar is now no longer allowed to use it while using Avoid Notice. So that still seems like a significant detriment.

Agreed, but if you have them use it to point out anything you have to direct them and then you end up arguing about whether Command the familiar comprises your whole exploration activity, in which case while you're doing that you can't Avoid Notice anyway. As Gortle says, the rules just aren't there. There's no discussion in the books about what sort of passive benefit in exploration you get from simply having them with you. Sigh. Maybe in PF4E (hah!) the description of the familiar abilities will include both an encounter and an exploration use for some of them. 'Partner in crime', 'Independent', the extra senses like tremorsense, they all seem like obvious candidates for having an exploration value. But right now, that requires a GM house rule.

So you're suggesting the familiar can't do it's own exploration activities but benefits from yours?

You mean like: if you Avoid Notice, you make one Stealth check and it applies to both? Sure. Take cat, stick in backpack. 'Minion: ride on shoulder now please.'

I'm not seeing much of a "benefit" here though. Consider the familiar as a feat or class feature; if it gets it's own action, THAT's a big benefit. If it gets no action but now requires you to make *two* Stealth checks with lower one setting the perception requirement for enemies to see the party, that would be a major detriment. If it gets no action but also doesn't *require* a second stealth check - so, one check per PC, familiar and all - that's more like a "neutral."

Ultimately I side with Gortle; familiar powers and rules are all about encounter mode. They don't cover this stuff. But here's a simple way to GM it.

Now I'm imagining a party trying to creep past a sleeping dragon while the wizard is shouting "Be quiet! Don't let him notice you!" to his familiar and the ranger is shouting "Tip toe! Tip toe!" to his animal companion.

You know, "neither" is an option. Doesn't get a roll, doesn't get separately rolled against either. Not a protagonist; more like equipment.

Thief rogues can also really benefit from a thrown weapon build, giving them more opportunities to deal damage and stay out of reach. Get them a Thrower's Bandolier to ameliorate most of the trouble with throwing weapons.

Yep. For now, OP's thief can just buy several more filching forks. They're usable at range. Then as you say ideally loot a bandolier to add runic bonuses to all of them, or alternatively loot +1 and Returning (though that uses a property slot which could be used on damage).

I loved that curses while crippling at low levels came with bonuses later that sort of compensated as your character learned to deal with the curse. That is completely gone now.

I never played PF1 but in a general sense, I disagree. I don't like the idea of a "tradeoff" being: terrible at low level, spectacular at high ones (I'd also disagree with the reverse). I'll be very glad if the PF2E remastered oracle gives a "smooth ride" at all levels, with the curses being painful at all levels but also the value of invoking it being (often) worthwhile at all levels.

Having said that, Sanity is absolutely right. This preview is really not enough to be judging the state of curses yet. "All different" could still be true. "Options (feats) thematic to their [X]" seems even more likely to be true than before, because there will be more feats and more feats linked into mysteries.

While I agree, it sounds like the intent is to target the original target of the spell, the fact that there is this much debate indicates a an Errata is needed if this is how it is in the books.

Well no, it means the posting community likes to argue over 'this panda eats shoots and leaves' grammar even when it is pretty darn clear what the author is saying 'the panda does'. :) I don't think there is any honest debate that the feat has no possible targets or can target anyone in Golarion.

No experience with them but it sounds like a lot more options with some good trade-offs.

Am I detecting a cross-class trend though? First Kineticist gets "take an open gate action...AND get a free action blast/stance." Swash is getting "take a skill action...AND get panache" (well, they already had it. But giving panache on a fail means taking the action is a much lower regret choice). Oracle is getting a feat which is "cast a non-cantrip damaging spell...AND do some extra damage in exchange for bumping up your curse."

Could 'perform a sudden rush AND enter rage' be next? Ooh, how about 'perform an RK check AND take a free action devise a stratagem'? I'm really liking the whole 'feats/class powers make other actions dual use' concept.

Years ago, I was part of a home game that played PF1. We had to deal with quite a few of those things. Also reminds me that I need to get Prince of Wolves off my TBR pile eventually.

I will creatively interpret that as "To Be Remastered." ;)

The simplest explanation for a counteracted Telekinetic Projectile dealing no damage is that the magic is no longer guiding the physical projectile, so it misses.

"I pluck some naval lint, and throw it at him...for 3d6". Hmm. That needs more than just "guides the trajectory." OTOH "I pick up the fallen bastard sword an throw that at him" maybe doesn't. I liked your previous sentence - it's magic. It doesn't obey physics. I also liked your suggestion to go with a dramatic description of whatever the mechanics is. IOW, come up with a fun magical answer for what happens when the magical effect ends, rather than (always) trying to come up with a consistent physics one. The bastard sword drops to the ground, inert. But the naval lint burns up in tiny sparks as it hits the field.

The sad part here is that a caster player is clearly trying to find some way to use spells in a scenario where an enemy caster (probably higher level) has pretty thoroughly thwarted them, and they have no good back up option, so this is feeding a “casters are terrible” narrative

Or they might have some back up options, and just in the round-by-round speed of play it's hard to think of them. As Kelseus points out, the counter to this could be as simple as "I take a move action to get next to them." But it's hard to think of every option all the time. This goes for all classes but maybe casters more than martials; don't get stuck in a mental rut.

Also the globe only counteracts spells entering the globe. If you move inside the globe then you can cast to your hearts content.

I like it. It's also an immobile 10-foot burst. Shove, fear, ground effect - find ways to make the enemy move, or want to move.

My question is, without changing the current rules, can the "wizard" be improved through better feat & spell selections? (… because I don't think this is a "rules" problem.)

If so, what should a prospective wizard do?
* - At character creation?

Think about your wizard concept. Then, think about "what would make a good 'bread and butter, I use it in every scene' Rank 1 and Rank 4 spell for this concept?" Then talk to your GM about creating an Arcane school with those as focus spells. Referring back to your concept again, design your curriculum the same way.

Why: focus spells are the new 'every-scene, don't run out in a long day' casts. So if you have ones that you think you'll enjoy/find useful casting every scene and maybe even multiple times per scene, I think this will go a long way towards making your play enjoyable.

Okay, I'll try a riff on two earlier ideas.

my current suggestion would be to have some mana pool or point system that refreshes every encounter. Make the pool large enough that a caster can cast lots of small spells if they like, or go big with a heavy-hitting spell or two, but not so large that they can go full bore with their top-level abilities each and every turn.

When you roll initiative, you get points equal to your level. It costs [spell rank] points to cast a spell. Because top rank = level/2 round up, this is just about functionally equivalent to Sayre's concept of casting one top rank and one top-1 rank spell per encounter. And if you stick to just that casting + cantrips, every encounter will be resource-neutral. Now, add to that pool...

I propose a system where casters have important resources that persist between encounters, that they will therefore wish to husband, but that they both consume and generate during encounters, such that the default average encounter is resource-neutral.

...A second point pool that grows slowly over the course of a day. Maybe 1 point/hour until you reach [Level] limit, and when spent, does not start growing again until the next day. Now this system also has Sanityfaerie's slowly growing big-boom resource. A L5 Wizard can cast a R3 + R2 + C's every encounter. But one encounter a day they can instead pull out the R3 + R3 + R3.

Perpdog I think you are still absolutely right about the psychology of hoarding. This sort of system would lead to wizard PC's wanting to "sleep in", i.e. wanting to go the first several hours of every day before a combat. It's less flexible in a lot of ways than the current system....but you never completely run out of top slot casting no matter how many encounters you go though. And you'd have to come up with a parallel point system for non-combat spells. But, it's what I could think of.

***

I don't think any of this solves the more fundamental human psychology problem though. Which is (1) "My class gets the rare big boom nobody else has" characters are really appealing to some players. This has traditionally been some sort of wizard. (2) "My class gets the rare big boom nobody else has AND I have the same every-round single-target capabilities every other class has" is fundamentally unbalanced against other classes. Yet, (3) "My class gets the rare big boom nobody else gets BUT NOT the same every-round single-target capabilities of other classes" is frustrating in all those encounters when you can't release the boom. So no matter how you do it, some player's not going to be happy. Either there's no unique booms in the system (bad for those who want to play that), or the big boom class is just superior in combat (bad for those who want to play anything else), or the big boom guy does lesser action-by-action damage (which is frustrating for those players in combats where they don't get to use their boom). A system has to pick one of those feelbads, it can't avoid them all.

...That's non-constructive garbage...

...I also think you're constructing straw-men...

...as you might even just malevolently lie about that. It cannot be mere nescience....

...This stuff here is all meant to be constructive...

Yes, I can feel the constructiveness flowing through you.

I really don't think there are huge problems with giving a blaster caster a bonus to spell attack rolls

And 3 extra slots per level! That was in your proposed solution.

How about this: why don't you run a mid-level one-shot. L5-15 range, 3-4 scenes with different adversaries. Have your players play a wizard, another caster, a couple martials. Give the casters a +4 bonus and +3 slots/level. Track damage by PC. Come back and describe the experiment. Then we can see what happens when your changes are implemented, at least on a small scale.

So this thread is about discussing ways to separate these two concepts - to let the people who want to play caster have their ability to prioritize some encounters over others while not making them overpowered in short adventuring days and underpowered in long.

No plan survives contact with the players. :) What I mean by that here is: whatever number of encounters N you use as your baseline for "an adventuring day", the moment your system hits the street you will have players wanting to do N+1 in a day and players demanding their resources be designed to last for N+1. I mean, that's how we're here, right? Paizo said 3/day, resulting in complaints that casters are resource constrained any time the party goes for 4/day, 5/day, etc. Any "fix" that says N/day is going to just rehash the same argument we have now, only with N > 3.

One possibility, which I personally don't like but might be popular given the encroachment of videogame-like play, is to give *every* class a mix of small attack/all the time, medium/# per fight, big/# per day. This doesn't set the "adventuring day" at any given amount of encounters, instead what it does is make it it much more likely that every PC will want to end the day after approximately the same number of encounters. But if P3 did this, it would probably result in caster AoE damage being nothing special compared to any other classes' AoE damage. So not satisfying to players who think a caster should fulfill the role of THE big gun of the party, not just A big gun among many.

***

I like AAAetios' "raise the floor" suggestion. In an earlier thread I think I suggested something similar; raising initial cantrip damage up to 3d6 or 4d4 (but keep the same progression). This would not change relative dpr of casters much after level 5 or so, but it would get them out of the damage doghouse in levels 1-4 or so, and give just a tiny bit more heft to them if the martials decide they really really want to do that 7th encounter of the day right now.

***

A third option is the long attack or 2-step spell. You do something in combat to give yourself the resource, then you spend it in the next increment for a big bang. The magus and swash models, kinda. Have all the big blasts you want; you need to spend an action this turn and position yourself correctly or do something else in order to use it next turn. The risk of being interrupted or having the 2-step not work is rewarded by a bigger damage hit than what you would've gotten out of 2 x 1-step. So it's maybe equivalent to 3x 1-step.

No, if things were balanced then all classes could go all day.

That's "similar mechanics", not "balanced mechanics." Balance does not necessarily require similar. It's perfectly fine for a system to include both "all day" and "few per day" powers, and to to give different classes different distributions of them. Players just need to be fine with the package they choose.

I have yet to meet anyone who knew of Vance's books before finding out that's where D&D casting came from and I've been playing since early 90's.

Me. Though I preferred Lyonesse over Dying earth. But I came of age in the '70s, so that's no real surprise, just like you coming of age in the '90s means it's no real surprise you and your peers never read them. Look under the '90s lamppost, you'll only find '90s keys.

Asides from the problems we have now, hopefully future editions will enable stories of casters facing off solo against their rival or getting away from the idea of casters being squishy and having to be safe in the back.

If you want all the defense of a melee martial, you'll probably get all the offense of one too. Meaning fewer and less effective AoEs.

Perhaps you've been wanting to talk about something else this whole time, but if so then it may be better for you to start your own thread.

Speaking of thought-terminating cliches. I'll probably bow out after this one.

You have been given a quote from the game's design manager, which they personally came to this thread to reiterate, which tells you otherwise.

I did. Did you read the whole thing? Because he talks about why Paizo went with kineticist rather than specialist wizard you're requesting, and the difficulties he sees in your idea. So when you say you "fail to see why Paizo would categorically refuse to accommodate such a gameplay fantasy in the future" just go look. Right there, June 28th post on this very thread. He tells you why they did kineticist instead of what you're asking for, and he tells you the difficulties they see with what you're asking for. But to end this thought on a supportive note, he also leaves the door open for specialized archetypes and classes in the future. (Which is...late 2025 at the earliest? Because animist, exemplar, guardian, and commander are all still ahead of any other new classes in the queue.)

Sayre's comment is why AP's "run by the book" will not be good fits for specialist casters made using the current rules. They must assume a caster brings all caster resources to bear. But APs run by the book are also, IMO, just a small part of the gaming community. And my point in defending dedicated casters as viable under the current rules was that once you get away from that single narrow slice of how to play, specialized casters made using current rules will be fine. Because outside of that narrow confine, it's the GM that decides what challenges you face.

Balanced rules are not a worthy rule design goal in itself. The only reason why things should be balanced is because unbalanced things diminish the fun.

There’s no objective balance though. Ars Magic and Mage: the Ascencion make wizards the focus of the story. D&D systems don’t in theory, but they do have a well-known reputation of having wizards absolutely dominate at high levels. PF2E wanted to get away from that. So it’s “balance point” is that wizards don’t dominate encounters the way they do in older class & level d20 systems. If your wizard fun is derived from dominating encounters and single-handedly ending them, then agreed, you may not have as much fun playing a PF2E wizard. Doesn’t mean it’s unbalanced. It means the balance set point between casters and martials is not what you are used to.

I mean, imagine going to your car dealer, complaining that your new car doesn't work half the time, and the car dealer responds to you like that? "Can you provide real ideas for fixing your car?"

The reason the dealer is saying that is that the dealer has driven your car many many times and never found anything wrong with it. In fact many dealers have driven your exact car over and over again and never had a problem. So yes, in that case, it is a perfectly legitimate response to ask the customer: show me, because I don't see it. Or to get away from the analogy: describe a combat in which your wizard underperformed.

Feedback is absolutely vital for any company.

Yes, but some feedback is more vital than others. If you register for a playtest, run it, fill out the feedback forms etc. etc. your feedback is probably going to be counted as equal to 1,000 angry posts. Random posts are almost too easy to make to count for much. Participating in organized events and providing feedback there, going to Paizo events, etc….if you want to really be heard, those sorts of things are probably a much more impactful way to do it.

Companies are desperate for that kinda stuff. And here you have people providing feedback for free, without offering them a raffle or discount or whatever, and they're met with dismissal.

First, the regular posters here are NOT Paizo. Superbidi is not Paizo. Deriven, Unicore, etc…. not Paizo. The posts disagreeing with your position here is not Paizo dismissing you. If you think it is, please rethink that.

Second, Paizo practically never responds to anyone’s posts on these fora. On the rare occasion they do, it is almost never about rules change requests. So don’t take their lack of response here as dismissal either. Everyone gets a nonresponse equally. If you are looking to have a two-way conversation with Paizo, these fora are not a good way to try that.

How does a bonus to spell attack rolls affect Fireball???

Spellcasting bonuses are added to your Spell DC too. If you didn't intend for that, that's actually worse. Because your "improvement" now makes vs AC spells so much stronger than Save spells that nobody would use Save spells.

But yes, why not give them more spell-slots? Kineticists can cast infinite Fireballs every day. What's wrong with wanting to play a blaster Wizard?

There's nothing wrong with it. Go for it! But kineticists pay for their 'all day casting' by having their damage lowered; it's equivalent to a caster's best rank -1, not a caster's best rank. Your idea of a blaster wizard isn't one where their damage is lowered, is it? Let me guess, the changes you think the wizard needs in order to achieve balance with other classes is if it blasts as often as the kineticist, with that accuracy bonus (which makes it far more accurate than a kineticst), and at max rank damage (i.e. a full rank higher damage than the kineticist). Then, finally, if Paizo would just do those things, your wizard would finally, finally be balanced well against other classes.

Did I characterize your requested changes correctly?

In other words: your "specialist caster", as you describe it, is going to be weak, and so by design: because there's nothing stopping your "specialist" from becoming a generalist whenever they feel like it by preparing more diverse spells, the game has to balance your caster around the assumption that they'll do exactly that and make use of the full breadth of spells available to them, even if they never will. Because your character wouldn't be making full use of their spells, they would therefore not be able to contribute on the same level as a generalist.

What we are talking about here is: does the game as written allow for players to build to such a concept, if they want to. And the answer to that is yes, it does allow them to do so. Unless by 'dedicated caster' they mean someone who gets a higher chance to hit or higher damage or blow-through-immunity power or infinite/many more slots for trait spells, in exchange for being a specialist. In which case the answer is no, the game does not allow a player to build to such a concept. But I can't see Paizo releasing such a thing as official content either, so for those players, I would suggest: instead of complaining on the boards about what you think Paizo should write for you, go look at Pathfinder Infinite. Or talk to your GM about homebrew. But also, just consider trying a specialist the way the game lets you build one. Like above, or like kineticist. Because you might find that the game as written can give you a character that fits your concept reasonably well and is fun to play.

I somewhat dispute that it's necessarily weak as-is. I think that depends a lot on the AP, how the GM runs the AP, and/or the GM's campaign. If your players are heavily skewing their capability one way, then a good GM can react to that appropriately. "Skewed party against skewed threats" plays just as well as "well-balanced party against well-balanced threats." But yeah, I probably wouldn't recommend one for PFS.

But it seems that Wizard changing from being a combat ending powerhouse role to being a combination and resource management role of limited quantity of effectiveness in a wide range of possibilities doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

"One shot bosskill" is not a class concept. Not accusing, probably agreeing with you. :)

Some GM like throwing fewer higher level creatures into a fight so their ability to succeed spell saves is a lot higher. Watching a creature succeed a lot of saves feels bad

Yes I think unicore emphasizes this. There are a few table/playstyle choices that can skew a game to make casters less impactful. One is 'playing scared', i.e. underuse of slot spells because you want to save them in case of emergency. Another is when the GM wants to beef up an encounter, they ignore the GMC advice to add more low-level enemies and instead they increase the level of the primary enemy. Additionally I agree with you that remaster focus point/spell changes have the potential to make wizards more robust in their offense. Which means the OP's "four years of..." may not be the best predictor of how they will play in ones' next game.

I very much agree with you that single-element Kineticists get more goodies, rather than just the same but stronger, which is why I think specialist casters need not receive direct buffs to their spell power so much as other useful benefits that'd cater towards their theme.

My opinion is that this would dissatisfy many people currently calling for specialist or dedicated casters. I could be wrong about that. But I think most people calling for them are tacitly assuming that such a class would come with higher expected dpr in those traits as compensation for giving up access to other spells. IMO, overbuffed mechanics have become part of the thematic concept.

I mean just look at elementalist. It has exactly the sort of feats you're talking about. But it's not popular. The people who are calling for elemental trait blaster specialists don't want "...and you can now spend a third action to create difficult terrain with your blast." So what do they want? We all kinda know, right? To bring down the house during combat encounters in your specialty. Not that you shoot fireballs exactly as well as any other wizard but you pick neat fire feats instead of metamagic feats.

By this logic, literally any kind of mechanic that improves your potential damage output, utility included, is a numeric buff in the same way, so our existing generalist casters are also specialized blasters.

They can be! That I think is one of the points Superbidi and Deriven and some others all hit on: sorcerer, witch, wizard can be played as specialist casters very effectively with no change in rules needed at all. Just pick appropriate slot spells and don't be afraid to use them. What makes a "blaster caster" is dedicating all your top slots to damage and then actually pulling the trigger on them in play, rather that keeping everything in reserve in case there's a boss fight at the end of the session. Want a L5 arcane air/cold/electricity wizard blaster? Take (3) Lightning bolt x2, (2) Ash Cloud x2, Propulsive Breeze, (1) Thunderstrike x2, Chilling spray x1, (C) any combination of EA, Frostbite, Gale Blast, Slashing Gust, and utility you want. Take Spellblending if you want more lightning bolts or Staff thesis if you want more thunderstrikes. Take school of battle magic, or work with your GM to fashion your own school focusing on air/cold/electricity spells. As importantly, tactics: play this blaster with the idea that every single 3-round combat you expect to cast one lightning bolt, one of ash cloud or thunderstrike, and one round utility or cantrip.

Aaaaand...you're done. Specialist caster.

Perpdepog wrote:

Very fun read!

I wonder if this means we'll be hearing about the remastered monk next.

We only have time slot for 3 more reveal, and seeing in paizocon they stated that monk is not that different in remaster form, it probably wont be getting any remaster preview.

It would also have been pretty easy to fold a new monk ability into Sajan's actions in this story, if they had wanted to showcase a monk ability.

But, I'm only guessing. Whichever iconics the next three stories cover, I'll be happy. Another Sajan story to showcase the monk works just as well as any other.

Like even in the topic, the OP is not saying "how can I resolve these player's disputes" but "Why are certain players so hellbent on being meta"...

Geez, it's "hellbent on meta" to say, in session zero, "I'll probably play a bard, oracle, druid, or cleric, unless C plays a phoenix sorcerer"? You guys have a much lower threshold for alarm than I do. For me, hellbent on meta would be a player buying the AP and reading it so that they can prepare for every encounter. This...this is more like regular old 'what are you thinking of playing?' discussion.

Whether you like it or not, Paizo very much supports "min maxing" with single-element Kineticists, and such a playstyle is expressly intended by the developers.

Personally I don't think of minmax the way you do. I think of it as giving away breadth to be better at some ability. But a single element air kineticist is not better at Ariel Boomerang than an air/earth, or air/fire etc. one. Can't hit with higher accuracy. Can't do more damage with it. Can't cast it more often. In that way, the class does not min max.

You are right that Paizo did try to ensure "if you take a 5th air feat instead of 4 air feats and one earth feat, you'll do just as well" minmaxing. In fact I'd dare say that making both of those choices equally playable was probably one of their goals. But that's not how I'd typically use the term minmax.

Being able to cast more spells per day is not the numerical bonus to spell attack rolls and DCs you've been insisting would happen as a result of specialization, so no.

It kinda is. The dude who pumps out 4x 6d6 fireballs/day is outdamaging the dude who pumps out 2x 6d6 fireballs/day. So an archetype which says 'get 2 extra spell slots of every rank you can cast, but you can only take fire spells" is likely to see a numerical benefit in their combat capability. At least, for situations outside of 'fire immune critter' and 'we only play one combat scene per game day.' But those sorts of hypotheticals are uncommon; across multiple common combat encounters per day, the 4 top slot specialist will outdamage the 2 top slot generalist.

For example, give Wizards/Sorcerers/Witches/... the same hit points per level as Fighters, but for every hit point per level they voluntarily forego, they get to add +1 to every spell damage die and +1 to their spell attack rolls. Give them the same armor proficiency & progression as Fighters, but for every armor proficiency traded away (heavy -> medium -> light -> unarmored) they get an additional spell-slot per rank.

So, your strategy for making casters better balanced is to let a L5 wizard have the same HP and armor they have now, but give them 9 more spells per day (that's 5 fireballs instead of 2) all at +16 to hit? Making monster saves essentially impossible and double damage crits more common than hits are today?

Because 12d6 expected to every foe in a 20' burst within 500' is just about even with a fighter's 2d10+4+1d6, two tries, against singe targets in melee range?

Your missing an important point.

C has not said they were planning to make or even considering a phoenix sorcerer.

So? First, what D discusses with C is not B's problem. But second, do you really consider it coercive or pushy, when the players are discussing their potential class choices in session 0, to mention a subclass for someone's hypothetical that that someone hasn't mentioned yet? I don't. It's kinda natural. I'm in session 0 and say "I'm thinking witch," I 90% guarantee someone else at the table comes back with "Ooh, [X patron] is great."

Part of the problem on this forum is the people making these claims are grouping all casters together. I'm sorry, you are playing wrong if you can't figure out how to make a bard, druid, cleric, or sorcerer feel strong.

Could be a level problem, like you mention above. No full caster can beat a martial for dpr in the first 4 levels or so. A magus can drop d12+2d6+4 in one action at level 1. A barbarian, d12+10 and they can keep that up three actions per round. A 2-H fighter also gets close to those values because of the higher chance to hit. Then on top of that, martials get an unmatched +1 to hit at L2 and a (somewhat matched, but nothing like a d10 or d12) extra damage die at L4. The only caster I've calculated that matches early on is sorcerer with dangerous sorcery using 3-action force barrage. The 100% chance to hit means it averages about the same dpr as the dudes listed above (but, keeping in mind the implications of this: it means "you still don't hit as hard when you hit, you just don't miss as much"). At lower levels, you get 2-3 of those per day. And I think as you or SuperBidi commented, many blasters "play scared" with their resources rather than just blasting out with their strongest spells first. So even the force barrage-armed wizard, sorcerer, or witch maybe doesn't keep up during an average session, because instead of trying to keep up, they hold it back 'in case this session is the one with the boss fight."

I'm generally not of the "wizards are underpowered" opinion, but adding an extra base die to cantrips - i.e. 4d4 or 3d6 - would probably fix this. The progression doesn't need to be improved. So in the long run you're talking about +2.5-3.5 points of damage to cantrips, which is negligible at high levels even when the caster has to resort to cantrips. But at levels 1-4 it probably feels much better, much more like you're pulling your weight. Let's face it, even at L1, using 2 actions to do an average of 5-10 damage isn't overpowered.

B is more or less saying do what you want but dont do it because you think you have to for the party to survive.

To which, were I "D", I'd reply: "okay thanks for the input. Now C, have you decided whether you're taking that phoenix sorcerer or not?"

This is not imposing anything. They just dont want D to feel obligated to make this or that and not get to play what they want.

In the OP description, D does not sound like he's feeling obligated to do anything. At least, not to me.

...whenever I see the topic of specialist casters come up, I often also see people either advocating or opposing the notion on the grounds that it would involve improving their raw spell power. I don't think that's something that ought to happen, nor do I think that's a necessary result of specializing casters. Rather, I think specialist casters would be more likely to be less restricted by per-day resources, which I think raises another question: if a class can cast a potentially unlimited number of spells per day, would they still feel like a caster?

Well this goes back to the discussion of names and nouns. For some players, it does seem like part of what "feels like a caster" is naming what they are 'wizard' and naming their mechanics 'spells.'

But side note, the option you mention above would likely render the kineticist obsolete. Smaller spell pool for unlimited casts, no other downside is better than smaller spell pool for unlimited casts at max spell rank-1.

Wands and staves fill some of this space right? At least if not unlimited it will get you to a saturation point where you dont care to cast more. its just going to be spell ranks below your max if your GM is following the treasure guidelines.

Yes, it could. Which is why I think it's not just concept people are requesting, but power buff.

Great story! Thumbs up for Water sprint.
It's a wonder the beasties were able to steal Sajan's sword, given it seems like most of the time it's stuck...

What B can decide is if they want to be at that table. Same for D.

Always true. I hope OP can find a way through where that doesn't happen though. I can't see this issue as worth giving up playing a game over. Build your characters, say "thanks for the suggestion but no thanks!" to kibitzing if you don't want it or "good ideas! How about..." if you do, and have fun playing together.

B doesn't want anyone to party plan. Was it this or was it that B doesnt want metagaming (the idea that preset "good" builds are the only ones that are acceptable and playing "good" is the only way to play) to take over personal agency in making characters and playing the game?...

Just going by the info we have, D didn't try and discuss A's choices with A or B's choices with B. So not taking agency from those folks, and not trying to get the whole table to metagame. From the OP's description, this was a one-on-one D-to-C interaction to which B objected. If there's coercion, fair enough to call it out. If not, then do an Elsa. Let it go, let it go...

Sub-group meta happens a lot. I was at a 6-player table, two of us had our own discussion about coordinating characters. We settled on the now-classic "one brother martial tank looks after other brother glass cannon caster". It was a lot of fun. Gave us a great backstory, impacted what we did and why, really added to the game. If any of the other four players had suggested that they didn't like us doing that, we probably would've looked at them strange and kept going. If a third player had wanted to join in, that would've been fine. The more brothers and sisters the merrier! But if a third player had said "I don't want you do to that", then the response is sorry, my character is not your decision to make.
Likewise here, if D and C discuss coordinating characters, B has no real cause to complain. If they want to join in, then I'm a big believer in inclusiveness. But 'hey you two, don't do that, I don't like it when other players coordinate their characters' takes it a bit far.

Exactly as Raven Black says.

A side point to this whole discussion I think is that specialist casters are not a solution to players feeling that spells are weak...

I don't think that was the OP's point. It's more the point that (1) a kineticist doesn't fill the conceptual space an all day blaster caster would occupy, because it really doesn't feel like you're a caster at all. (2) So this conceptual space is still lacking a class, or archetype, or other instantiation in the game. AFAICT he's not complaining about spell power at all.

(Minor OP points worth mentioning are (3) this doesn't take away from the kineticist, which OP sees as filling a different and fun conceptual space, and (4) OP recognizes that no game can have an 'it's own thing' for every one of of the infinite concepts players can imagine...but still, as PC concepts go, this is one that gets imagined a lot.)

if a player wants to one-shot a boss with a blast spell or the like, no amount of specialization is likely to let that happen, nor should it.

Fully agree with you here. Discussing what concepts would be good candidates for new classes and archetypes is great. Keep that part going. But as we do that, we should recognize that there ain't no way a new class is going to take an old classes' schtick and trade out some of it's versatility for doing that schtick better. So if you want to think about dedicated casters, start thinking about "same two 6d6 blasts at L5, with some fun different side dishes" and not "NO side dishes! Instead, gimmie moar L5 6d6 blasts! L5 6d8 blasts! Master blast proficiency at L7!" Because given the PF2E number balance, those are probably unrealistic expectations.

Errenor wrote:

Except it's wrong. Only one of the players tries to force others to do something (and for really stupid reasons). And it's not D. So yes, B is absolutely wrong.

Unless of course OP omitted something and we aren't presented with the full picture. But it would be on the OP in that case.

The OP actually did not provide the kind of information we would need to know this.

I think it did...mostly.

To which I say:
1. B doesn't have to party plan if they don't want to, but if C and D want to coordinate their class choices, that's their business.
2. D's conversation with C did not sound to me like it was pressuring. "If you play X, I'll probably play Y or Z" sounds like pretty normal pre-game discussion to me. As long as it's not D pressuring C, it's fine.
3. If D IS pressuring C and I simply missed that subtext, D should not do that. But both B and the GM should hesitate before stepping in, because...
4. Unless there's an age, power, or experience difference, B should probably let C and D take care of their own conversation. IOW, even if D is pressuring C, that's kinda C's business to deal with, not B's. In modern parlance: B should not take C's agency away.
5. There is such a thing as overthinking it. One solution may be: A, B, C, D, generate your characters already and let's get playing.

The PF2 path to accomplish such things are focus spells and powers granted through specific feats, that don't fully interact with the cast a spell activity, and thus are never going to feel like "specialized spell casting" to someone who needs their casting to be both regular spell casting, and some how more powerful than what the spells do.

It's worth pointing out that even using the 'powers granted through specific feat' model, Paizo did not make kineticist blasts more powerful than spells. They made them less powerful. Kineticist attacks are "Highest Rank-1" equivalent or so. The trade Paizo used was "the cost of limited selection gets you all day, lower power", not "the cost of limited selection gets you all day, higher power." I think this is important for people asking Paizo for dedicated casters. You aren't going to get "my icedancer can't cast non-ice spells, but her Rank 3 iceball does 8d6 instead of 6d6." You are instead going to get "my icedancer can't cast non-ice spells, and her Rank 3 iceball does 4d6 instead of 6d6. But she's got 5 focus points to spend on ice spells so running out is not an issue." Which I think a lot of people currently imagining what their favorite dedicated caster class might look like, would find underwhelming.

Or am I missing something?

Maybe this: a L2 spellcasting archetype dedication typically gives access to 2 cantrips which use an attribute/proficiency combo inferior to your class attack. So when people say this is like a cantrip with some extra bells and whistles, that seems exactly on par. No, it's not going to be your main attack (which I think is what many people are thinking when they say "enable new concept"). Archetype dedication feats are never really supposed to be able to replace your main attack (IMO).

While upthread there's a list of great archetypes, I think it would be a mistake to treat those as some 'new normal' and assume they are the standard Paizo will meet with new remaster archetypes. Rather, I think they will stay exceptional and new remaster archetypes will remain on par with more typical 'premaster' archetypes. I could be wrong though. PC2 should have a bunch of them, so that may be when we get a real good feel for how Paizo sees archetypes going in the future. But, judging by PC1, they aren't looking make them stronger than they were.

Easl wrote:

Though frankly, you don't really need it. You could play a wizard 'straight up', select elemental spells, and just use that as your backstory or to work with the GM to use it to create a school. The Arcane list has 144 spells with one of the air, earth, fire, metal, water, or wood traits. Plenty there to select from. Including electricity, cold, and acid brings it up to 214. Really, you don't need to modify the wizard at

I think for me picking a school that fits a theme I like and then taking lighting magic for my chosen spells or learning them as I go is what I would do. I would need to clear all the lightning spells with a GM before deciding to play an Air specialized elementalist. They dont get them naturally.

Or, again, work with your GM to design an Arcane School that has air, cold, and electricity spells as their curriculum. That's IMO better than trying to convince the GM to add them to the elementalist list, since the school system is really designed to be expandable and many of the core electricity spells are already on the Arcane list.

There really isn't anything stopping Paizo from making a cryomancer archetype with a bunch of feats with effects that trigger off of doing cold damage with spells other than time and interest.

I sort of agree? In principle I do. If you look at the elementalist feats which do exactly what you're asking - create an effect that triggers off of doing elemental damage - I'd bet most players would consider them underpowered. Because they cost an action for a benefit with isn't either huge damage or some big battlefield-changing benefit. IOW they do not make all your spell attacks strictly better, instead they provide an option which has some conditional value (really useful sometimes, other times not so much). So in practice, I think such an archetype would not scratch the itch because because player expectations about what such feats should do, would be much higher than what Paizo delivered. A lot of players seem to want Archetypes to provide that "strictly better" boost, and with some exceptions (I'm looking at you, acrobat), Paizo doesn't seem to think that way.

any issues with that are more than offset by how constrained and weak all PF2 characters feel, not unplayably so, but this game is such a slog, with no 'goddam I feel cool' moments that stand out to me,

Have you tried using more, lower level monsters? The idea that Level X characters should be fighting Level X monsters is kind of arbitrary. If your players want a more heroic feel and you want combats to last 1-2 rounds instead of 3-4, and have more combats per session, so that it feels like the PCs are crushing it, then set a different standard for encounters.

the fact that monsters are totally untethered from pc classes really doesn't help.

I am not sure what this means or what your preferred alternatives. I've played a lot of systems and with a few exceptions for individual foes (antipaladins etc) I've never seen one where the monsters are designed around specific character builds.

Rather, the problem is that though the character Stargazer was supposed to be 3rd level like the rest of the party, the player had no time to figure out what feats and spells Stargazer would take at 3rd level. And she likes to read and reread all the feats before picking one. She had not touched her character sheet.

Ah, I see. Yes, it being a fun hobby, I wouldn't want to assign homework reading either. :) Well it sounds like the problem got fixed in the latest session so party on.

Consider my problem. One player has been too busy to level up her character to 3rd level. Thus, she will be playing a 2nd-level character alongside six 3rd-level characters. I expect this to reduce her fun.

Furthermore, part of the reason she is too busy is she is driving another player to a medical appointment today. They have not yet arrived back and the weekly game starts in 10 minutes. Delaying the game will be a disappointment to me, but that is life. Helping others in real life is more important than a game.

TBH i'd probably just use goal leveling or level her up at the same rate even granted her nonparticipation. It's a cooperative game, no real biggie (at least with the folks I've played with). Though ironically my kid is showing signs of being a huge stickler about exactly this issue. So I guess I can't really argue with the counterpoint that the acceptability of such an approach is dependent on your players lol.

i wonder what a Hedge Wizard school would be like.

You learned to study magic from a mentor removed from academic institutions, out in the field you learned from nature directly having studied a particular natural cycle like the flow of air or water currents or the crash of hurricanes and other storms. You gain access to the primal spell list instead of the arcane list. Specifically air water cold and electricity elements could be included on the school spell list with this kind of lore.
A little mixed but still kind of cool and the focus spell could be offensive and let you choose the element you are most familiar with as the damage type.

I dont know enough about lore to know if the studying and learning approach of a wizard cant be done with primal magic though.

I would suggest the Elementalist archetype for that. It gives you most of those air, water, cold spells in exchange for losing non-elemental spells (though sadly and strangely elementalists don't get any lightning? That seems like an oversight). Feats allow you to add water and fire traits, and occasionally some extra damage for an extra action. What it doesn't do is trade away the non-elemental spells for higher proficiency with what's left, or more slots, or higher slots, or increased damage/effect without some action cost. Which, I think, is often what the ask is about and in fact why I think a lot of players see it as a bad trade for giving away Arcane's great list. But for someone who is really into the concept you describe, it could be a good fit.

Though frankly, you don't really need it. You could play a wizard 'straight up', select elemental spells, and just use that as your backstory or to work with the GM to use it to create a school. The Arcane list has 144 spells with one of the air, earth, fire, metal, water, or wood traits. Plenty there to select from. Including electricity, cold, and acid brings it up to 214. Really, you don't need to modify the wizard at all to create an effective 'hermit in tune with nature' elemental spell blaster out of it. The class and spell list as written is big enough to encompass that concept.