GnollMage's page

So they nerfed Sure Strike?
One of the very few (if not the only) spells that actually gives SA roll spells a chance at functioning?

My SA rolls are miserable enough with how their odds are designed. Do they just not want casters having fun, or something? How is it that every time I come back around to 2E, its always casters getting their skulls cracked with the errata bat? ;_;

Hi! \o
I had no clue where would be precisely appropriate to post this, so I opted to go for the rather broad 'Paizo General Discussion' subsection.

Might anyone here have suggestions on finding some of PF's fiction that deals with a specific subject matter?

Namely, /Wizards/. I'm hoping to find books (or short stories, I'll take just about anything), that go into detail about wizards, their spellbooks, their sheer /nerdiness/, etcetera, etcetera.

Sure, of course, there's the actual TTRPG corebooks, but those can really only provide a fragment of lore/explanation for stuff. (Secrets of Magic, I adore you for the lore and art alone). But I want to read moar about wizards say, poring over moldering tomes, scouring libraries, how their magic looks, manifests, how they cast, etcetera, etcetera.

Yes, please, feed this nerd, more lore about the nerds.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

GnollMage wrote:

I crave some kind of actual, proper Theurge class that's officially supported (no, I do not meant multi-class dedications, nor do I mean gestalting).

Unfortunately, though, pretty sure I'd get skewered alive and have my hopes dashed and deconstructed within seconds for even suggesting it. XD

Alternatively, some kind of prepared Arcane (or Occult) caster that can access its entire list the way a Cleric or Druid can access theirs. Which I'm.. not exactly convinced would "break" anything.

Not skewered, just questioned. What unique mechanics did the theurge have that wizard with cleric dedication can't scratch?

I think a full-list occult caster would be fine, so long as they kept its other class features to a minimum. A full-list arcane caster is more questionable.

As for the "theurge," I assume what GnollMage wants is a class that's exactly half arcane caster and half divine caster, instead of one dabbling in the other.

That's kind of what I had in mind, sorta, for a full <Arcane/Occult> tradition caster.

And you are correct. A theurge of sort that can.. kinda 'fully' pull from maybe 2 chosen lists?
Of course, what I'm thinking is that there would be no Spontaneous-casting option; it'd all be prepared and you'd effectively have to still find scrolls for both traditions if you want to further explore said traditions. (no auto-access via Cleric or Druid, for example).

Primary reasons I'd love a Theurge class range from,
'I think the idea's nifty' (noting that I'm not any expert on balance, of course),
to, more stupidly,
'I like two of the traditions, but several traditions have like, 2-3 spells (maybe a couple more) that I generally like the look of and would love to play with, but is not allowed 'cuz tradition''

I crave some kind of actual, proper Theurge class that's officially supported (no, I do not meant multi-class dedications, nor do I mean gestalting).
Unfortunately, though, pretty sure I'd get skewered alive and have my hopes dashed and deconstructed within seconds for even suggesting it. XD

Alternatively, some kind of prepared Arcane (or Occult) caster that can access its entire list the way a Cleric or Druid can access theirs. Which I'm.. not exactly convinced would "break" anything.

Forgive me, I'm sorry. I've just been frustrated with my experiences.
This is not an appropriate thread for me to be venting in and I should not've foisted it on you guys. Y'all carry on.

That's... how Blur worked in 1e, so at the least that's just normal. Forcing an extra 20% miss chance against attacks that would have hit is rather like +2 AC except it works against even targeted effects that don't have an attack roll.

Is it? I'll admit, it's been ages since I've checked 1E stuff so my memory very well could be fuzzy in that regard. While I certainly remember playing a caster in 1E, I will admit the sheer nuttiness that was 'amount of spells' (if d20pfsrd is anything to go by) made it hard to keep track at times.

I can definitely see Blur flying under my radar because of fuzzy memory (spell pun not entirely intended).

You could say I failed the DC 5 flat check to remember :B

GnollMage wrote:

I.. just want magic to actually feel fun and impactful again, tbh. That mixed with there not being such a vice-tight iron-grip stranglehold on the math. But eehhhh, I'm probably just jaded from previous experiences trying to use magic in the system.

I just want to feel like I'm actually doing something. If they could do something with the magic in 2E about that, I'd be very happy.

I haven't felt that way as a caster in PF2e, but it is different from 1e. I've only played as a Cleric as a healer and though I've felt super empowered (single target heals or big AOE Channels vs undead are a trip!) I've also seen the Witch in our party constantly fills the gaps in our formation with summons (to tank/soak up damage), AOE spells (to both damage & debuff), & powerful buffs (In a 10 round combat I've seen Stoke the Heart do a tremendous amount of work). I don't think it's a stretch to say they're one of the best performers in our party even if they aren't always the best at any one thing consistently.

I get it though, it's not like 1e where you could end an encounter with a single spell (Hold Person-ing a solo boss so the martial could CdG was BRUTAL) and you can't ever really catch up to martials in single target damage. But what you do get as a caster is versatility rather than straight power. I know that's harder to swallow but it is still quite fun if you can get used to it.

Yes, but versatility doesn't matter much if the spells feel bad, or worse, just don't entirely work. Now granted, I agree that casters may have needed to be knocked down a peg or two in the move over to PF2e- after all, just having 'Create Demiplane' on a whim- disregarding component costs of course, in an 8th (9th?) level spell slot is a little silly. But in the same stroke, I feel like it was a slightly too hard of a nerf.

I've tried a variety of spell tactics. Crowd control AoEs (Web, comes to mind as one of them). I cast it and.... the.. crowd is.. not controlled. As they reach me and my friends anyway just by spending another action or two. So effectively, it did hardly anything. Doling out -1s 'abound'? Also does not work when you face the dice rolls and see that it meant nothing in the face of the enemies beating the ACs/saves anyway.

Even something like Blur! I cast it, and
Concealed: 'Succeed a DC 5 flat check to hit'. A flat check of 5. A very small number. So, effectively, a spell that seems almost literally, designed to barely function.

When you're told 'magic is powerful/useful', while left face to face with countless examples entirely contrary to this in *some of your own campaigns, you start to squint at anyone who insists that it's some powerful aspect of the game.

Again, I love PF2e a lot. It does so many things better (Hurray for Anadi and playable gnolls and getting rid of alignment!) while still having things I disagree with in terms of mechanics, but the game runs so much smoother by comparison to 1E. So many neat sounding spells. I just.... wish they worked and did what they said on the tin. I don't know. Maybe I'm just bitter from experience.

I.. just want magic to actually feel fun and impactful again, tbh. That mixed with there not being such a vice-tight iron-grip stranglehold on the math. But eehhhh, I'm probably just jaded from previous experiences trying to use magic in the system.

I just want to feel like I'm actually doing something. If they could do something with the magic in 2E about that, I'd be very happy.

See above!

I've quietly been festering in my little hole of ignorance (that is to say, in this context 'absolute cluelessness'), scrounging around for little bits of Pathfinder 2E stuff here and there. 3rd party classes, or even 3rd party publishings/PDFs for new places to look at and read about. However, there's one particular area and/or theme that has captured my attention recently, that, conversely, I've not seen arrive to PF2E quite yet.

Conan the Barbarian's kind of stuff, alongside Cthulhu Mythos content.
That said, I am well aware that there is Numeria, which seems to have plenty of the trappings in relation to the former.

But I have not seen anything for current 2E (Remaster or pre-Remaster), yet, that explores or details the weird-fiction themed land of Numeria. Nor, in turn, have I seen anything for 2E that broaches the topic of the Mythos- both of which, to my understanding have at least /some/ content in one form or another for First Edition PF.

Sifting around here on the Paizo website has not helped me either in that regard I'm afraid, unless by chance it just dodged my radar entirely, and I am absolutely loathe to even touch Twitter (now known as 'X'), even in spite of my curiosity, simply because Twitter itself is..... well, Twitter.

Might anyone who's been keeping a closer eye on Paizo's publishings, teasings, and or shenanigans be able to help me scrounge around for anything in the aforementioned topics?

Given that, to my understanding, an <unknown amount of> time passed between 1E and 2E's setting, I am unsure if the First Edition's Numeria books/supplements/adventures would even work.

I can't very well make a character who comes from a province/ land that I know nothing about, now can I? ;w;

I'll admit, I was excited to hear about the Patron's Puppet thing coming. It sounded cool at first when I had heard about it;
'Get your patron to take over your familiar and command them!'. Of course, knowing myself, I put my expectations way, way, way too high. I thought we we're getting something absolutely bonkers. Something super cool looking, or something incredibly powerful. My mind raced with the possibilities!

Now I've seen a YouTube video talking about it and I have to say it's... one of the most disappointing let-downs I've seen in my TTRPG life.

Patron's Puppet lets me...
......... Pay... a precious focus point- of which I only get a mere 3 in any individual combat!
... To just... move my pet cat?

I.. p-pardon? Uhm... hello? Am I missing something here? Pay a precious resource to literally just have my cat take a few steps or something?

Maybe I'm just too intellectually lacking to think on tactics, but... my goodness this is a letdown. I like my familiar, but.. I cannot fathom ANY reason you'd sacrifice an FP just to move your familiar around a little bit.

This still feels like a psychology type of problem. You are comparing times when your spells were saved against vs when your martial ally crit their attack roll.

Yes, level 5 is a tough level for spellcasters. Martial classes just got their boost to Master proficiency with their weapons. They have a +2 perk over your spellcasting attack/DC. Fighter and Gunslinger have a +4 in comparison. And that isn't counting runes or other sources of adding bonuses to Strike accuracy that aren't available to spell attack rolls and definitely aren't available to spell DC.

Also, it seems like you are trying to build a spellcaster to do damage. The best actual spellcasters to do that with are ones that use focus spells. Such as some Druid Orders, Elemental Sorcerer, or Psychic. Trying to be a blaster caster using spell slot spells does feel very limiting because of how few relevant rank (highest two ranks) spell slots you have.

Alternatively, check out Kineticist. The entire point of that class is to give you that feel of being a damage slinging spellcaster that never runs out of magic. In tradeoff for that, they lose out on a lot of the utility spellcasting like Shadow Spy. But if you are constantly comparing yourself to the martials based on how much you contributed to killing an enemy or protected an ally, Kineticist is the way to go.

I've considered the Kineticist, briefly. Tbh, I'm not necessarily trying to build a solely damage caster.

In fact, this time around I actually took quite a few spells that weren't direct damage and were more of a supporting-role type- even spells that I would not normally consider- Shadow Spy being one of the main examples, for instance.

I actually chose a lot of my spells to try and cover a variety of bases; whether that's different save-types, or against AC (Ignition, for example), buffs for friends, and debuffs too. I did this in an effort to get myself out of the 'damage only' mindset and get myself to start rethinking PF2E so that I could get more accustomed to the shift in math.

My issue lies with the fact that they don't work when I use them. I like the variety and utility of full <list> casters>. It just sucks when.... none of it works when I use it.

Sure, I cast the buff Blur to help my friend. Then I watched as they get incap'd anyway because the DC 5 flat check was beaten every single time coupled with ye olde pirates beating my friend's AC.

It's the fact that no matter which route I've taken in trying to contribute in combat or in general, has been met with failure in almost all situations (excepting Shadow Spy, which in hindsight would've helped had I realized what its non-return meant), and then being met with allies having absolutely peak and amazing success rates, so I'm just left staring wondering
"... So... did I even actually help at all?"

I'll admit though, that Kineticist is something I've indeed considered, though it would be, for me, a difficult class to grapple with from a roleplay perspective, which is also part of the hindrance for me. There's only so many times and ways I can say 'My character conjures a tiny fire and makes it an even bigger fire'. :B

Gnoll mage, thank you for sharing your experience. I have not played with proficiency without level, but it certainly changes up some of the math.

Starting at level 5 is a tough break for learning a caster for sure, under any circumstances. By level 5, a caster would normally have had a fair bit of time to learn their spells and which ones are accomplishing what you want to do.

In a PWL game, multiple enemies are significantly more dangerous than in a normal PF2 game. As a caster, your spell slots are going to incredibly valuable to the whole party by focusing on AoE damage. Trying to do that damage with cantrips will be difficult, and ancient dust is a difficult one to get good value unless your enemies have terrible fort saves. Blur is another spell that is a tough one to use effectively against multiple enemies as it only provides concealment to one ally. I noticed that you cast 1 second level spell and one cantrip after an ally had already dropped unconscious. Were you out of 3rd level spells? Especially at level 5, it is your 3rd level spells that give you the leg up to catch up with your martials. Using single target defensive buff spell than a cantrip in a fight going south against multiple enemies sounds like an experience that could quickly result in frustration.

I was not aware of how drastically things changed when using PWL. I don't really have a scale to know or reference because I'm not exactly mathematically inclined. So truthfully, I have no clue whether this is normal or not.

As for level 3 slots, I have them; I went with Flexible Spell prep (cause I still like preparing spells and the one slot I lose out on can be remedied by Draining my bonded item).

I used a level 3 slot for Shadow Spy to try and spy on enemies before we reached them (context: We're on a boat and were coming across a sinking wreck with people waving from the top of it, which turned out to be an ambush). Now granted, my spy birb didn't return to me so -in the moment- I felt like I wasted the slot, but in hindsight that should've told me something was up.

Honestly?
I didn't want to use anymore 3rd level spells. My own history with dice, and watching enemies make saves against my spells, and even the results of damage dice have made me afraid to.

Why cast a 3rd level spell when previous history with dice indicates that it won't even work correctly, or the damage dice result will be incredibly low?
Why would I waste a 3rd level slot when I've seen with my own eyes that the conditions I've inflicted didn't change anything?
Disregarding the 'changed crit to a hit' remarks, which I understand is decent now.
My own history with dice means that the enemies will still succeed with their dice even if I inflict them with frightened or clumsy or enfeebled or whatever.

I'm afraid to use those 3rd level slots because my experience with my dice tells me they won't do anything.

Coming back to this thread after a couple weeks' worth of sessions in a new campaign that one of my friends has begun DMing, starting at level 5

It didn't exactly go well and drives home my frustration, sadly ;-;
I cast Blur on a friend!
.... The enemies succeeded every single flat check and incapacitated them anyway.

Then the enemy pirates proceeded to save against pretty much everything I cast, even if I targeted their weaker saves, due to terrible dice results.

Did I do damage? Certainly, of course.
...The damage was incredibly pathetic (Woo! Ancient Dust did a whopping 3 damage to the enemy that did save, 6 damage and a mere 2 persistent damage against the one singular enemy that failed their save in the entire fight). But I /did/ do damage. Which I'm marginally grateful for.

And before that Blur, I was faced with the sobering paltry damage I did, and the fighter in our group critting /twice/ and doing within the range of 30-45 damage with each.

We're running PWL.
So I have a whopping DC of 16, and SA roll of +6, versus my friend's attack bonus with their rune'd halberd or whatever, at +11.

Hurray...

Would I be hoping for too much, if I said I'm hoping to see Waxen Image return, or even the Cook People major hex make a return in some way? ;w;
....and no I don't mean the Ideal Mimicry ritual that requires a huge level 12+ to even /attempt/. :C

So.. I'm still trying to get used to the more granular math of 2E, but... Thunderstrike doesn't look.. all that good. I'm not experienced at all with tactical.. stuff, or set-up or anything from a mid-combat perspective; however,

A precious spell slot just to do... /possibly/ 16 damage, at best? Like, I see the Clumsy too, but I'm not sure if that'll do much. I'm still getting used to the smaller, granular nature of the math, so I have no scale or reference for what's 'good', but just at first glance I can't figure out how that'd be worth casting, and it depresses me a little bit. But again, I'm... still trying to get used to the small-scale math.

Even if it's ranged, it still looks *really* sad compared to what Shocking Grasp could do.

/Really/ not a fan of the "school" and "curriculum slot" changes, but we'll see how it turns out. I am highly irked that I'm being forced into a pseudo-Sorcerer by having some slots hyper-restricted.

*Polite snip to avoid bloating reply*

I suppose that's fair. My view of casters in 2E have been colored very poorly due to personal experience.

Now, with something like giving out -1s (say, Fear, for example), the reason I said that in my experience they were ineffectual, is that even in spite of giving out -1s, (with regards to attack rolls, AC, saves, etc), I say it 'didn't do much' because, I would still get successfully hit, or they still saved on proceeding spells. And I don't mean 'still hit me once or twice in that combat'. I mean 'Every single time'.

Now, the chances of them saving were of course a decent bit lower! But they still saved. And they still successfully hit. Now this in turn, to be fair, could just be blamed on the dice. And that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't negate the feel of impact (or lack thereof). It could very well be that my dice luck is just absolutely abysmal in the first place.

My all-or-nothing thinking however was born from an admittedly terrible DM of a PF1e campaign I was in. Tbh, I think it was one of- if not THE first 1E campaign I properly got into- even if I barely had any clue what I was doing for a while. Fully homebrew world and all. Things were obscenely overpowered for our level and off-balance. All while he claimed 'But Pathfinder rough tho :}' (If you read these forums, former DM, I'm sorry, but throwing 6 petrifying BASILISKS at a party of four level 1 characters is not fun).

So if I can't completely cripple enemies, or lock them down HARD.... Then as far as I'm aware we're about to die.
You know that saying 'No D&D is better than bad D&D'? I never gave that saying any merit or credence until then. And I will admit also, that I've never reached any level beyond.. I think 5-7ish as a Wizard (if I survived that long), so, admittedly I usually only ever took spells that I thought looked fun, but.. I didn't really get to experience the claim that 'High level casters were gods'.

GnollMage wrote:

I'll admit that my mind is stuck in an all-or-nothing mindset.

That is what you need to overcome. In general with PF2, not just casters.

PF2 is for telling stories. But the stories that it is suited for telling aren't the 'we main characters are superpowered and will roll through every enemy that dares to stand against us'.

I never said I wanted to be an absolute god or anything. At this point literally all I want is nothing more than just having my spells actually /work/.

I don't want to be OP. Or broken or anything. I just want my character's spells to do what they say on the tin and work more than once in a blue moon. :c

There are a lot of different answers to these questions, depending on the point of view.

From a purely practical point of view, casters used to (in 1E and other editions of D&D) one shot fights with the proper spells. Now, fights are meant to last 3-4 rounds with a contribution of an entire 4PC-team. Which means that spells have been nerfed 12-16 times. So, yes, spells give -1s and things like that. It works as intended from the core design of the game.

Changing your mindset is certainly a good idea if you want to continue playing a caster. I personally like my casters and chances are great that I do the same things you do. So a different mindset can give a different look on spellcasters.

What do you play (for an adventure)? Some adventures really put martials ahead. Abomination Vaults is really putting them in the spotlight with a combination of tight spaces, lack of non-combat encounters and high number of single-opponent fights. Other adventures may be better suited for casters.

What do you play (for characters)?
I was a great lover of Bards in the past, I can't touch PF2 Bard with a 10-foot pole. Chances are high that what you like in PF2 may be different than what you used to like in previous editions. Don't hesitate to switch, you could have nice surprises.

Honestly, at this point?

-- I'll take all of that, tbh. I just wish my spells would actually /work/. As in, critters failing a little more often, without me having to jump through hoops, RK-spam, or the like, just for a slightly better chance at it. That's all I want at this point, tbh. Just for my magic to actually /work/.

As for what I'm playing now- currently there is no 2E campaign that my group is doing- we're taking a break from the system because the DM was a little overworked. We're doing other systems, sure, but PF2e is currently on the backburner.
Most of what I'm talking about atm is from my own experience across various campaigns.

As for what I play; typically a Wizard or an Occult Witch. I can't stand spontaneous casters because of how their spells are locked in. Yes, I've also tried to use the Witch's Evil Eye hex cantrip. Pretty consistently, that -1 from being Frightened, didn't change anything.

So... just FYI, this post is coming from immense frustration as a player of casters and lover of them too. This post might not come across as too friendly, but being rude is not my intent, and I'm sorry.

How do I actually get my spells to hit and actually /feel like they matter/? I'll admit that my mind is stuck in an all-or-nothing mindset.

Every single time I've cast... pretty much everything, the enemy saves- or in the case of Spell Attack rolls, I miss.
Now, when I was first getting into 2E, I was overjoyed to see that my spells still did something even upon basic save!

....But then I saw what those effects were. Then I saw how little those 'success effects' did and how paltry a benefit they provided. Dazzled for 1 round. DC 5 flat check to hit me, when afflicted with Dazzled.
So to translate into more understandable terms; I'm still going to get hit anyway.

I cast spells again and again, against creatures that my party is perfectly fine for. Save. Save. Save. Crit save..! Singular fail. If I target a group, maybe one or two fail. The rest save.

I cast a spell that causes Difficult terrain? Cool! Behold as...!
The... enemies... simply use the rest of their actions to literally reach me anyway so that they can hit me on their next turn despite what I did. So what that tells me is that... not much changed.

I cast another crowd control spell! Cool! I took away an action from the enemy! ....and then I watch as they still have two actions, and they reach my friends (or me) and still hurt us anyway. Now they only have 2 actions! ......... That... they can still use to attack me anyway or cast a spell. And I'm.. expected to.. think this is powerful? Somehow?

I've been having the same sort of issue with debuffs like causing -1s. 'You turned their crit hit into a standard hit'.
So.. what I'm being told is that.. no matter what I did, my friends were going to get hit, regardless of whatever spell I cast?

You might be thinking; Just cast buffs on your friends, those don't fail.
No, I'm sorry, but being a mindless buffbot who does aught more than 'touch a sword to make it shiny and then just stand back and watch while doing nothing else' is.. boring.

True Strike!
.... So I should waste another precious spell slot just for the privilege of a /mere chance/ at rolling better?

Spamming Recall Knowledge is... quite frankly, not appealing.

And something else that struck me; that, quite frankly, made me rather angry;
"You should choose your spells based on their success effects."

... So what I'm being told is that my odds to actually do stuff is, by design, so abysmal and terrible, that I should base my spells on the fact that I should /EXPECT/ them not to actually properly work a majority of the time?
How... how is that fun? Like.. at all?

Is it so terrible to hope that my spells can actually /do things impactful/ without having to jump through hoops for it? :(

I'm frustrated. I want to love casters again and having fun with my archetype, I really do, but I'm severely losing my motivation. The suggestions I've been given in the past (the ones listed above) just frustrate me even more and honestly kind of make me angry.