Like I get your point of "It feels bad when other classes have 3 actions they can do 3 different things with" but I kinda feel like it hasn't been as big deal when I played my druid with animal companion.
I'm not going to offer a point-for-point rebuttal to your post overall, in part because it's getting pretty far off topic but mostly because I'm experiencing some really bad OG 3.x forum PTSD from the entire discussion. :P
I'll just say this;
I currently have no experience with pf2 beyond my lvl 11 Cleric and a lvl 5 Rogue, and the Rogue is massively more fun to play.
This can, as previously noted, certainly be at least partially related to group/playstyle concerns. However, the action economy concerns re: casters have been very obvious to me when I'm playing the Cleric (along with some other, largely Cleric-specific issues regarding deities/spells/feats) and that's why I'm bringing them up.
I'm happy to hear your experience with the Druid has been better though!
I could speculate about whether that's due to the Animal Companion giving you more options in combat, your group dynamic or playstyle being different or some other mechanical peculiarities of the class.
It is, however, immaterial.
If you enjoy the experience that's all that matters!
This thread mainly concerns those who've had a different experience though, which is to say that your positive experience doesn't invalidate other persons negative ones.
I'm not trying to push you out of the thread or anything like that, I'd just personally appreciate it if you could contribute in a more constructive way.
Because right now you're effectively saying "I disagree" over and over and while that's absolutely a fine position to take it's not helpful in addressing the concerns of those of us who have a different experience.
Samurai wrote:
@Exodite: I agree completely, and I'm currently working on creating a 1-action Flourish spell casting variant. Until that is ready to be released, you can use my existing rule change that a caster can freely Sustain 1 spell per round, and it is only additional Sustains that start using actions.
I appreciate the tips, I saw your spell Flourish idea earlier in the thread and glanced over your house rule thread. :)
While I'm currently just playing, not GMing, there are several good suggestions to work on from there.
I think the post about casters going down from 4-6 things per turn to 2 is disingenuous, but regardless while I agree that caster action economy is pretty much same as in 1e, I don't think it really matters much because caster versatility is still pretty insane.
I don't have any real experience with pf1, unless you count Kingmaker (the CRPG that is), but if my 3.x experience matters at all that's just not true.
Assuming I, as a caster, wants to cast a spell to begin with;
* If I'm using a shield I can't move.
* If I'm using metamagic I can't move.
* If sustaining a spell I can't move.
* If I'm pulling out any potion/weapon/tool/etc. I can't move.
I'm using "move" here because it's the most direct and relatable example, though obviously it can be any action. And the, theoretical, versatility of the 3-action system means the opportunity cost of that lost action is actually higher.
Anyway, this represents a non-negligible reduction of the action economy for casters.
Regarding your second point I don't think of this as a power consideration or something that should be compensated for/against with spell power.
It's feels bad in play, which is probably a worse sin IMO.
CorvusMask wrote:
Like while I do want more single or multiple action spells, it really wouldn't change much. While it would be cool to cast 3 different single action spells in one round... I kinda think most people are thinking of doing something completely op instead...
There's been an unfortunate focus on the the idea of casting multiple 1-action spells a round and as I brought that up myself, even though is was largely an off-the-cuff remark, I feel compelled to head that off before discussion gets too bogged down on the matter.
The point I was trying to make wasn't about allowing casters multiple casts a round, certainly not multiple offensive spells.
As I mentioned in an earlier post I'm not convinced the action economy issues for casters can be completely fixed without addressing spell action costs, though a larger selection of meaningful 1-action and reaction spells would certainly help. And I have little doubt splat books will put in some work on the latter.
Rather, I would like to see casters enjoy the benefits of the 3-action economy in a similar way to martial classes. The ability to move and use meaningful combat actions (potions, tools, metamagic, raising shields - or Shield, skill actions like Demoralize and Battle Medicine and so on) without costing them their primary ability - casting spells.
This isn't solely a caster issue, I feel too many things eat into the action economy overall, but it's more punishing - and more obvious - when your primary function requires 2 actions to begin with.
That doesn't mean I have to be able to cast multiple spells per round though!
I appreciate the tips, both by yourself and others, but the play experience is just very different on my end.
I feel we're wading into the weeds a bit regarding specific caster concerns, and my situation in particular, so I'm going to spoiler-tag it just to cut down on the discussion space a bit going forward.
Character experience:
As for cantrip selection you're right that something with longer range would be useful, though as things play out it's not as I'm going to casting from 60ft anyway.
The important part is being in range for a 2- or 3-action Heal, ideally Glimpse of Redemption and/or a touch spell as well.
Which means I'm not stopping to cast a 2-action cantrip at 60ft when I can use those actions to get in range for the relevant stuff.
Funnily enough I did pick up Haste as one of my Sorcerer spells and I've come to realize that the most effective use of the spell isn't to buff the melee characters but rather myself, as it allows me to move and cast far more often.
Regarding speed I can't really dump my heavy armor at this point, as that would completely murder my AC. I don't have any investment in Dexterity.
Though if I were to recreate the character from scratch, with a similar role in mind, I'd go with;
NG Elf Cloistered Cleric|Bard of Sarenrae
It'd cost me 2 points of AC and my skill focus but I'd effectively double my movement speed and have access to slot-free buffs at 60ft.
Of course it'd be an entirely different character from a roleplaying perspective and I don't feel that's a trade-off anyone should have to make to feel like you're contributing.
As for our group we've definitely far more outdoors-focused, though with 6 players I thinks that's probably been for the best.
As I mentioned in my initial post I base my criticism on my personal experiences and I'm well aware those are bound to differ between groups.
To try and wrap around back to the topic at hand I want to make clear that I don't, overall, feel that casters are underpowered.
They, the Cloistered Cleric in particular as that's my primary experience, have issues mainly with;
* Action economy.
* Narrow/circumstantial spells and mechanics that overload the top end of the spell list.
* A lot of trap and feel-bad choices in deity/spell/feat selection.
These aren't insurmountable issues and I have at least some faith that the APG will mitigate the feat/spell issues. Or you know, upcoming splat books overall.
However, I'm doubtful the action economy concerns have an easy fix - though I'd happily be proven wrong of course! :)
As a cleric, if you frequently find your character spending a turn moving with 2 or 3 actions, you probably want to rethink your tactics, probably as a whole party. The number of encounters where you are better off moving 3 times to close into melee, rather than let the enemy spend those actions to do the same, is relatively low. It will occasionally happen, but it shouldn't be something you experience even half of the time.
This is one of the things that may well be group-dependent, though I don't believe it's singularly so.
In my experience a lot of creatures around our current level (11) either flies or moves much faster than the characters in general.
Or both.
Coupled with spellcasting, ranged attacks or the kind of massive AOEs that pf2 monsters seem very fond of and it's rarely been a choice to have the creatures come to us.
The reason I brought this up is because I feel the Cloistered Cleric in particular suffers from having a spell selection full of touch or 30ft spells coupled with poor mobility and role that really doesn't lend itself to being close to the action.
There are ways to mitigate the problem of course, Reach Spell and Directed Channel are obvious examples, but then we're back to taxing the players to fix design issues with the game/class.
I can't speak to the issue for other casters, I haven't gotten the impression it's a huge deal from the thread, but looking to my own group the other casters aren't as restricted by range for their primary function.
Salamileg wrote:
The distinction between offensive and defensive spells would feel arbitrary at times and combos like Dimension Door/Fireball like you said would be considered almost required. Getting far enough away to be out of a three stride range for almost every enemy while still dealing massive AoE damage? Would be busted.
I'm not addressing most of your post because I don't think there's much common ground there, I'm just offering some counterpoints as to why I don't feel this is an issue.
Much of the game is already arbitrary, I don't think that's an issue for or against anything.
* If I'm escaping from some nasty plant that has me grabbed I'm taking a -5 penalty to the Telekinetic Projectile I'm casting afterwards but if I go with Electric Arc I'm fine.
* Shields providing a passive defense is deemed too good, unless you're a level 12 Fighter and am willing to pay a feat tax.
* Finesse is crazy expensive as a weapon trait (see Elven Curve Blade), unless you multiclass into Monk and suddenly it's not a big deal anymore.
* Synaptic Pulse is deemed dangerous enough to warrant the Incapacitation trait for its ability to deny creatures 2 actions for one round, while a Heightened Slow denying the same creatures 1 action for 10 rounds is fine.
I don't agree with any of the above from a design perspective but my larger point is that rules, especially in a system that aims to be as tight as pf2 does, are always going to appear arbitrary in some way.
As for moving far enough to be outside of 3-stride move while delivering massive AoE damage that's like.. every other creature in the bestiary. :P
And monsters don't have to worry about their resource usage.
I think Casters having a 'reverse action economy growth' is a much more severe QOL issue than accuracy or Save DC's.
I couldn't agree more, and in my personal experience that's one of major issues you run into as a caster currently.
While I like the examples you gave regarding feats to improve the situation I ultimately feel this is the wrong way to go. Largely because I feel the 3-action economy is poorly implemented, even for martial classes, and the DLC nature of using a characters supposed versatility (ie. feats) to sell you back a functional combat system irks me no end.
But I digress..
I'm currently playing a (freshly dinged!) level 11 Cleric of Pharasma in a party of 6 where I'm the primary healer and the frustration expressed in the thread is something I can in large part relate to.
Character design/experience:
Having zero previous experience with Pathfinder, any edition, but a lot of DnD and genereal RPG experience and wanting to build a survivable support character I've ended up with a;
Level 11 NG Half-Elf Cloistered Cleric of Pharasma|Imperial Sorcerer|Redeemer,
picking up some options that look very strong on paper, like additional movement and Electric Arc as an innate spell from my Elf side along with a free multiclass dedication into Redeemer for Heavy Armor and Champion's Reaction from the Human side.
Things haven't worked out quite as imagined though, which leads me into some of my observations from playing this particular character and a Cleric in a more general sense.
Obviously these are my thoughts and experiences, based on our party and playstyle as well as what I'd prefer to change to address the issues encountered.
YMMV.
* The only real point of the Cleric class is Divine Font.
It's a very strong ability, given how hard it is to get additional spell slots in general, but unfortunately it can't carry the class overall.
The class offers the worst spell list, class feats that revolve almost exclusively around Divine Font in particular or casting Heal/Harm in general as well as overall poor proficiencies (skills/saves/armor/perception).
I feel the class, despite the plethora of deities available, somehow manages to lack flavor - a sin far worse than power considerations IMO.
To drive home my point regarding Divine Font, imagine Charisma being a key ability option for Clerics (or Cloistered Clerics in particular). I can't imagine a situation where I wouldn't pick that over Wisdom.
Character thoughts:
If I hadn't committed to Medicine as one of my 3 good skills, and not wanting to be stuck with terrible Perception (Clerics only get Expert), I would happily leave Wisdom at 10. Or perhaps 18 eventually, when adding some later ability boosts into the mix.
Charisma affects more skills, the DC and attacks of my Innate spells and multiclass options (Bard and Sorcerer are the primary options for a Cloistered Cleric IMO) and, crucially, gives me an additional spell slot from Divine Font.
Meanwhile very few spells I cast as a Cleric benefit from Wisdom in any way.
* The deity selection is punishing.
A large amount of your utility as a Cleric rides on deity selection (Bonus spells, Domains, Aligned spell access) and you end up with a huge number of trap choices.
This feels bad.
Character experience:
I chose Pharasma for flavor, going with a particular concept I had in mind.
Unfortunately a lot of what little utility the class has rides on deity selection and I chose.. poorly. :P
Sarenrae offers some well-needed versatility in the spell selection, Fireball is pretty much exactly the kind of spell that the divine list lacks, while enabling a large number of alignment-based spells. Spells that, while circumstantial, are inaccessible to anyone with a True Neutral deity.
* The spell selection is bad.
- Heal is great.
- Offensive spells are either few and far between or very circumstantial. Especially egregious are aligned spells like Divine Lance and derivatives, which are randomly inaccessible depending upon your choice of deity.
- Domain spells are bad. Admittedly not a Cleric issue specifically, most Focus spells are bad, but its a sore point when so many Focus spells are Domain-related. It's quite difficult to find a Domain with more than one desirable spell and way too many manage to be both weak and circumstantial at once.
- The Incapacitation trait and Counteract checks vastly narrow your effective range of spells, essentially to just your highest level.
Character experience:
I were set on the idea of being playing support, which definitely not should be a requirement for a Cleric- let alone any caster, yet the fundamental design of the game means it's largely impossible to prepare diverse answers.
I had expected to prepare a lot of Remove Paralysis, Resist Energy, Restoration and the like but as it turns out that's largely pointless.
Remove Paralysis, and many other "answer" spells, require a Counteract check which means I either prepare it in my highest-levels slots or don't bother.
Resist Energy doesn't inherently scale and since most combat encounters last 3 or 4 rounds you're better off preparing a Heal in that slot as you're going to get both more hit point mileage and more versatility out of that. Unless you're fighting elementals non-stop I suppose.
Restoration is an OOC spell useful mainly against long-term afflictions, best suited for a wand or staff rather than being prepared.
And so it goes...
Bless? You'll never have the action economy to use it.
Freedom of Movement? Cursed by level-dependency.
Example from personal experience;
At level 10 I were stuck in a Black Tentacles by a Black Dragon.
I had to roll 18+ to escape (unarmed attack, 20+ with Acrobatics or Athletics), try to do 12 points of damage with my dagger (18+ to hit, 1d4 damage) or.. cast Freedom of Movement?
Only Black Tentacles is a 5th level spell and Freedom of Movement does literally nothing.
Heroism? Arguably useful at 6th level but it's one fight for one person, and touch at that which means you're casting it before combat or not at all. Then again, 3-4 rounds of Heroism vs. a 6th level Heal or one of the, actually decent, offensive spells at the same level?
I find myself preparing things like Air Bubble, Comprehend Language and Water Breathing in my lower level slots unless we know exactly what we're going to need.
Not terrible options to have, it just means my effective number of spells each day is very low and my combat utility when not casting is nil.
* The action economy is poorly implemented.
I love the idea, it just doesn't work out in practice as too many random things count as an action - or multiple actions.
For casters I would seriously consider migrating the vast majority of spells to 1 action baseline. Exceptions being things like Heal/Harm or otherwise flexible casts.
Still limiting offensive to one cast/round but I can't see a lot of issues with move/cast Haste on ally/offensive cantrip or bless/melee strike/raise shield. Or even step-Dimension Door-Fireball for that matter.
For martial classes, and general action economy, I'd remove a lot of minor stuff from action tracking.
Switching grip? Free.
Draw a potion/tool/new weapon? Free.
I'd also seriously consider reworking Raise a Shield. Spontaneously I don't see an issue with making this free either, because I always felt the trade-off was less damage and/or one fewer hand accessible rather than fewer actions, but I'd have to look into balance more.
If Champions aren't busted with Legendary armor proficiencies, or Fighters with their superior offense, then shields not feeling bad can't be busted either.
Character experience:
Despite picking up Electric Arc as an innate spell I've never used it, or any other offensive cantrip for that matter.
I've raised my shield exactly twice, both times during the first round of combat when I were unable to position myself further and no enemies were in range.
I spend most of my time running, often 3-action stride on the first round or two just to be in reach of the melee. It's partially a self-inflicted problem due to using heavy armor with poor Strength, though even a 10ft-buff to my speed wouldn't change that and I've invested in the speed-buffing feats already.
It's kinda the original Sisters of Battle issue for those that can relate; I want to be really close to the battle, so the melee allies are in range to be healed and buffed, while not actually being in the battle myself.
The movement issue not only means I usually lack the actions to actually cast spells when I'd like to but also that my Glimpse of Redemption, from the Champion Archetype multiclass, very rarely gets used.
This seems like less of an issue for the Sorcerer and Wizard (and Ranger), who don't need to be anywhere near the actual fighting to contribute.
Essentially pf2's 3-action economy end up feeling more cramped than something like 5e, mainly because too many things end up eating into it. And it's often worse for casters, who're usually stuck with 2-action spells.
--
That got more rant-y than I had planned, my apologies for that. I should probably write more about my thoughts in another thread just to get it off my chest.
With that in mind..
TL;DR: Casters would benefit a lot from improved action economy. Possibly from feats, though personally I prefer fixing the baseline rather than feat taxing the players for an issue with the system.
The combination of Counteract checks, the Incapacitation trait and lack of base spell scaling means the effective number of spell slots for casters, especially support casters, is very limited.
Deity, feat and spell selection has way too many trap options. Aligned spells being especially annoying with the divine list.
Unlike some other posters I actually feel that blast spells and Heal heavily outweigh buffs/debuffs and "tricksier" spells. They'll always do what you need them to, often better than their more circumstantial alternatives.
