totoro's page

You're fighting a large creature in a doorway or a 10x10 corridor. Are 4 fighters going to do more damage than 2 fighters and 2 wizards?

A pirate ship attacks and there are a few rounds at range before the ships connect. Is a fighter still going to do more damage than a wizard?

The enemy flies and has a ranged attack. Is a fighter still better? (This one may have a different answer at high levels when the fighter can fly.)

Underwater? The fighter is probably better at swimming, but is he still just as much better at damage?

In conclusion: how much does a max-strength fighter's damage decrease when using a ranged weapon? Does he still do more damage than a wizard?

As a GM who relies a great deal on printed modules, I would say this is not the comparison I care about. What I care about is what is actually going on in the adventure. I can say with certainty that the scenarios in which the spellcasters shine relative to fighters in Plaguestone are few. And I'm really just being diplomatic by saying "few." The new adventure path includes nothing that makes me think spellcasters are going to do any better.

Spellcasters start to get interesting at 5th level. Fireball can be "best" in some cases (e.g., when the foes are all bunched up and not breaking the ranks of the front-liners). Chain Lightning is insanely powerful in circumstances that actually will come up (e.g., when the foes are all over the place). However, spellcasters at levels 1-4 are terrible in comparison in almost every scenario, unless you build them for weapon-based combat.

I don't think spellcasters need a boost at higher level, necessarily, but at the early levels, I think a wizard should get about 6 spell slots, bump to 8 at 2nd level, then don't increase the number of spell slots at odd levels until 9th level, so it goes 6/0/0 at 1st, 8/0/0 at 2nd, 3/5/0 at 3rd, 3/7/0 at 4th, 3/3/4 at 5th, 3/3/6 at 6th, 3/3/3/3 at 7th, 3/3/3/5 at 8th, 3/3/3/3/2 at 9th. Something like that. Or just given them a bonus of 5 + spellcasting attribute bonus 1st level spells and leave it at that. That would work, too.

Well, let's examine the DPR on Disintegrate, then the DPR on Chain Lightning (per foe) and compare them to a Fighter. Both with an 11th level Wizard and an 11th level Fighter, shall we?

The Wizard should have DC 30 Saves and a +20 to hit with spells (+15 Proficiency +5 Int).

The Fighter should have +24 (+17 Proficiency +5 Str +2 Item) to hit for 3d12+5+2d6 damage with a greatsword.

Both will be attacking vs. AC 31, and the Wizard will, unfavorably for them, be dealing with a +20 Save (average low Saves are lower than that, so if you pick targets you can do better than this).

So, the DPR of Disintegrate is 28.97. That's not great, though at two actions, you do have a third one (though at a -5 penalty, the DPR is only 9.8). Total DPR of 38.77.

The DPR of a Chain Lightning, meanwhile, is 28.6 per target. So, assuming you hit three targets (which is easy) that's 85.8. And you have an additional action, which could be an attack (with their very shiny staff...they can have a +2 staff making this attack +21 for 3d8+4+3d6 with Bespell Weapon) for a DPR of 16.8 (since they have no MAP). That's a total DPR of 74 if you hit two enemies with Chain Lightning, 102.6 if you hit three.

On turns they use a cantrip (we'll say Electric Arc) plus a normal attack, their DPR is 16.5 per target on Electric Arc, then 14.7 from a staff attack (as above, -1d6). That's a mere 31.2 with a single target, but rises to 47.7 if there are two, and they can do it all day.

The Fighter, meanwhile, on three attacks, with Certain Strike, does a DPR of 56.975.

So...I think the lesson here is that Wizards look fine, at least if there are a total of two or more foes in the fight (if there's only one, they should likely be debuffing rather than doing damage). All these are vs. on-level foes so their minion sweeping is actually much better than this.

Disintegrate, specifically, looks seriously sub par vs. foes with even decent Fortitude Saves but that's one spell.

Wizards start to be not worthless at 5th level with fireball. They continue to be not worthless with chain lighting. I only mentioned disintegrate because that was the newest reason wizards don't suck (new and improved! with true strike!).

That said, I don't think you accounted for the fighter's weapon specialization (+3 damage with weapon of choice). Also, I'd probably go with Improved Knockdown until the target is prone; then Advantageous Assault. I got lost in your math, but prone targets are flat-footed. Advantageous Assault will be inflicting an additional 5 damage, regardless of whether the attack hits or misses. So 3d12+8+2d6 with Improved Knockdown, then 3d12+13+2d6 after target is prone, so easier to hit.

I'm just going to eyeball this. 52 damage from chain lighting on a success and it keeps bouncing around until there aren't any more targets within 30' or one of them critically succeeds. Fighter does 27 and target is prone, then 32 twice. Fighter seems to be able to dig in for about 1/2 the hp of an 11th level foe, leaving him prone, and wizard can theoretically knock out 1/4 the hp of a huge number of 11th level foes. Wizard only gets a handful of those, but the whole point of dailies is (or should be) the wizard can go supernova and match or be better than the fighter. Accordingly, this is a good result (for evokers anyway).

I don't see how anyone could say cloistered cleric > warpriest. Folks always try to find some difference and point to it as the thing that matters. In play, cloistered cleric < warpriest. If you are willing to take a penalty for a roleplaying choice, take it. If not, your GM might be willing to give you something to make up for the weakness of the choice.

Light and Medium Armor proficiency is not trivial. AC gets tested all the time in play, even if you are not a front-line fighter. The two proficiencies give you the character building flexibility to focus on STR or DEX. Shield block is exceptionally useful. Expert in fortitude doesn't come up all that much, but it's better than not having it. Deadly simplicity is quite valuable if the deity with the simple weapon is what you really want.

The cloistered cleric gets the ability to cast an almost-worthless spell. Healer's blessing, for example, gives you the ability to heal +1 hit point once per ally over the course of the next minute.

Can you play a cloistered cleric effectively? Of course! Is the cloistered cleric better than the warpriest by any reasonable metric? Nope. At a minimum, you the cloistered cleric should pick up deadly simplicity and I think they should get an extra domain. Even though the domain spells suck, taking a suboptimal doctrine has versatility as the reward.

totoro wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Doompatrol wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

A mean, a big thing about Cantrips is that they are literally free. You get them as spells known without additional expense, and they continue to upgrade them without spending money, unlike the archer who is going to spent at least 40,000 GP on their bow (likely much more) over the course of their career.

It would suck to play an archer if the cantrip blaster can be just as good as you at this with minimal investment.

How does the damage from blasting spells stack up to archers?

It depends. A True Strike boosted Disintegrate does quite a lot of expected damage.

I suspect caster damage gets pretty nutty once you get to the point your 1st level slots can just be True Strike.

At 6th level you buy a Staff of Divination and get three free True Strikes per day, goes up to four when you hit 7th level.

If you have an 11th level caster, which is what is required for disintegration, it is more cost-effective to research a new spell called "attack like an 11th level fighter with a +2 striking greatsword for one round." Rolling twice due to true strike improves the attack roll by an average of 3.325 and true strike + disintegrate takes all 3 actions. The fighter only has +2 above the wizard, but gets to attack three times instead of once.

3d12+5, 8-42 damage, average 25 even assuming all three attacks hit is an average of 75, 2 damage less than the average of a successful disintegrate, so no, not really. I guess weapon spec would bump it up to about 80, but that's not so much more.

I've been wrong before, so let me show my math. If a disintegrate hits, it does 12d10 (66 average) damage on a failed save and 33 average on a successful save. If you take the middle, that's about 50 with 3 actions. Fighter needs 2 hits to match that.

Is your calculation doing something with feats or critical hits?

I would much rather the answer to a character fundamentally changing who they are result in effectively retraining their class and rebuilding that character as if their new class was always their starting point. A war priest who has the multi-class archetype for fighter transitions to the opposite or maybe a champion. As long as I can square the fiction I am fine with this.

From where I stand your class is not just indicative of a particular skill set. It represents who you are, who you see yourself as, how you address the world. This does not change easily. Being a fighter requires dedication, daily practice, and a commitment to honing your martial skills. Abandoning that path and mentality means that you are no longer in your core a fighter. You have given it up. It should be a big deal. Your entire life up to that point has all been in dedication to skill at arms. I think transitioning from one class to another is the best way to handle what should be a big story moment.

That is precisely what happened in my game. War priest retrained as a fighter with a cleric dedication. It was easy, as is all character creation in this version, and nobody had any real reason to notice. I tend to let my players make whatever choices they want, but a good rule might be to take a dedication if you want to retrain to a new class (and retrain to the class in which you took the dedication).

whew wrote:

In PF2, the action cost for debuffing is much less: characters can do a debuff instead of taking a third attack at -10 or for free with a crit.

Arachnofiend wrote:

If a third strike at -10 is universally a better choice than inflicting Frightened on an enemy then that's a damning criticism of the system. I suspect that isn't actually true, though.

You Can. Will you want to is left to be mathed out. Especially later on when new splat books come out and there might be ways to over come that -10.

I mean for the sake of all the PF gods, we have people mathing out DPR already, to decimal points.

It's why I hang my head at times when talking about PF1. It's not Agency or the choice, it's the Math that makes people do stuff. And far too often it seems. Did it make sense to take this trait for my character? NO but it gives me the Math I wanted. Story be sod off, I need Fey Foundling on Paladin. We'd be here all day if I kept giving examples but I think people get it.

I might not like the changes but right now might actually be the best time to try PF2 as the math isn't figure out just yet. Or maybe it is but it hasn't been broadcast to the wider community just yet.

I can only speak for myself, but the math and attempts to break the system are precisely why I'm here. At some point, I am going to gather up all my toys, write up my houserules, and not come back for a while. That doesn't mean we do math when making player choices. It just means I want the game designed to maximize choice with minimum punishment for "roleplaying" choices. I'm sure the game designers would tell you that requires some math. The simplest way to put it might be: You don't come to the forums to roleplay.

totoro wrote:

I think it would be far superior game design to simply figure out how much X is worth and then charge the player the requisite number of feats necessary to match the value of X at every level.

That would become GUPRS then. I don't think that game is free from balance problems.

The issue with this approach is that the value of X to a specific character is not constant and depends on whether the character (or even someone in the party) also has Y or Z. It is possible to balance costs of a specific set of abilities in one book (to an extent), but every next book would require a re-balancing of everything published so far to take into account the new synergies. If this is not done then the same kind of universally good and universally bad option groups will eventually surface.

A complexity of balancing a set of options grows exponentially with the number of options in the set, so properly designing 1000 universal feats takes much more time than 10 classes with 100 feats each.

I can point to a number of feats within PF2 that prove the game designers think a feat is worth a constant amount. The simplest example is probably the ancestry weapon expertise feats. They let you auto-scale a bunch of martial weapons with your class weapons. If a dwarf wizard with an auto-scaling battle axe doesn't break the game, I don't see why a halfling cleric with an auto-scaling rapier would.

(And the main problem with GURPS is not balance; it's that it isn't very fun to play and power scaling is awful, IMO, of course.)

I do wonder why people keep pointing to utility of casters really.

I gave a look to the spells, paizo literally broke the utility to pieces. Spells have crappy duration, buffs were tossed down the hills, many of the tolls in the shed are gone, some arent even caster only anymore.

I mean, the state of how crappy is the utility of casters now can be seen in something as inoffensive as unseen servant, which now lasts ALMOST 10 minutes... IF you stay all ALMOST 10 minutes concentrating on it.

Well, it isnt my problem since im just checking on news of 2E so i can make sure i convince my group to never adopt it, but still, im not seeing the point people are trying to make here.

Seriously... alarm is what people are pointing to the use of casters in 2E. Wow! Amazing!

Casters are then meant to be inferior in combat in some weird trade for utility... very crappy utility, that is then very limited in access since they have less slots too. Well, happy i can see this thread, sure gives me much to talk about to my table.

Hopefully due to my serious disappointment in some areas of the game you can take this for what it is worth: This is the best version of the game I've ever played. The combat is smooth and fun. The modularity makes for easy adjustment. (We already have house rules in place to fix the parts I consider broken and we've only played four times.) If I were you, I'd give it a chance and just fix the broken parts. The chassis is stable.

Casters can contribute to combat quite a bit. Indeed, they're very powerful in combat if used properly...but the Fighter chassis is designed to make them almost equally powerful specifically in combat just doing what they do, because otherwise, what's the point of a Fighter?

This has the side effect that, if you give a Fighter spells, in combat he's often better off just attacking instead. Not because the spell wouldn't be effective, but because just attacking is equally so (or almost, anyway) and has no associated cost.

It does not mean that spells aren't good, it means Fighters are really, really, good even without spells.

Finally! This is the only rational explanation for the state of spellcasters in PF2. It is a rationale I despise, but it has to be the answer. Spells are "good." Fighters are "better."

I don't think there is a problem with player agency. What I've noticed is there is "bumpiness." You expect something to happen a certain way, not necessarily based upon 1e, but based on common sense. If it is OK for your wizard to use a morningstar as well as a staff at 1st level, then it should be fine for the wizard to use a morningstar as well as a staff at 20th level. That's common sense. The bumpiness is that at 11th level, the wizard who was just as good with a morningstar as with a staff is... until 11th level.

There are several straw men about how that is just fine because rogue doesn't use rapier but gets better blah, blah, blah, but it is not what a reasonable person would expect to happen. There is nothing special about 11th level that makes you think, "Ah, at 11th level it seems like a wizard should cease to be as skilled with a morningstar as with a staff, unlike he was from 1st-10th levels."

For this reason, an 11th level powergamer will say, "wizards need to start using staves again and retrain weapon proficiency feat," and roleplayers will say, "you just have to suck a little more than the rules allow to keep the 1st-10th level vision alive." That is an unfortunate bifurcation of the player base at this arbitrary point in a character's development. I think it would be far superior game design to simply figure out how much X is worth and then charge the player the requisite number of feats necessary to match the value of X at every level.

totoro wrote:

In my specific case, I had one player say they wanted to be an elf with lots of pets who loves nature (yes, she is a girl and no it doesn't make her a bad player to choose an option that makes her happy). She wanted to be pretty and not bad at anything, so she ended up with 18 WIS, 12 everything else (a poor min/max choice). Her background gave her animal training and her druid choice gave her an animal companion. I made a RAW mistake and allowed her to give her guard dogs a command ("sic 'em") that only took her one action, but that was what she wanted to do in combat. When I tried to fix my error it was a problem because her spell...

I'm genuinely curious, how does 12 CHA and 12 every translate to "be pretty and not bad at anything"? I'm not for min-maxing myself, optimization yes, and as a GM I try to find out ways that can work with requests such as these, but 18 WIS and 12 everything seems pretty far away from "pretty and not bad at anything.". Also not sure why the player's gender mattered in this situation at all.

Since you are genuinely curious: My player wanted to play a cute elf. Is she strong? Is she quick? Everything was yes. She didn't really want the details or to be pushed into something "more optimal," so I didn't push her. Anyway, 18 WIS for a druid is the "optimal" choice and the other attributes make less difference. She could have dumped INT or CHA and been more optimal, but that was not what she wanted.

The player's gender was relevant because I got the little girl who wants to play a cute little elf with animal friends vibe from her. I like that a non-traditional gamer wants to play. I wasn't about to discourage her from making choices that are stereotypically associated her gender identity, even if they were sub-optimal. Nobody is saying "every druid should start with a morningstar," so I am not intending this as a straw man, but I wouldn't suggest she start with a morningstar because it is optimal if she wants to use a sling and a spear. If options are presented as options, game design should ensure they are viable or at least close.

So far, the only understandable complaint I'm seeing about this party is that multiple minions are a bad idea, but that's what the player wanted to do.

Hopefully that's fixed in a future supplement without bogging play down the way any summon focused character used to.

I'm just not at all understanding the complaint that fighters are better at combat than spellcasters... Isn't that how it's supposed to be? They are support and elemental or AOE damage, not zweihander armed blenders.

You're not alone in failing to pay attention. If the fighter were given the option to cast any cleric spell at will (other than Heal and Magic Weapon), the fighter would likely never cast it. Why? Because it is almost always better to do what a fighter can do than what a cleric can do twice per day.

All classes should be "best" in their style of combat. Saying fighters should be best at combat might be good in Conan the Barbarian, but it is not good at a gaming table. The combat contribution should just be different, not inferior.

Arachnofiend keeps bringing up archetypes which seems like a solution for the future. I'm not annoyed by this idea, however, since I like the design space.

Giving up some class features to have different armor proficiency seems like a valid way to get certain builds and a small way that archetypes can bridge that gap.

That sounds awfully clunky.

Light and Medium armor cost practically the same because you trade off DEX resources for STR resources for the most part. I think any effort to distinguish the two by class beyond the initial training is a waste of space. Even heavy armor distinctions are unnecessary because, while you get better AC with heavy armor, high DEX characters might not appreciate the check and speed penalties.

The armors have enough resource gating to make archetype dedications unnecessary or perhaps even annoying. Feats are more than enough of a cost to increase the weight of your armor training. A whole archetype for a heavier armor just seems insane to me.

I would say just make them cheaper at your table? This is sounding more like a molehill than a mountain. Like, some people enjoy that choice when making a character.

I'd add a crude plate variant that is to heavy armor what hide/scale is to medium armor. Going from +2 AC/+3 DEX cap (light) to +3 AC/+2 DEX cap (medium) resulted in armor that was roughly the same cost. That is Hide/Scale cost about the same as Studded/Chain Shirt. A Crude Plate with +5 AC/+0 DEX cap (heavy) should, using a similar progression, cost 5-7 gp, -3 check, -10 ft., 18 Strength, 3 Bulk, Plate.

That way you don't mess with relative effectiveness of builds.

totoro wrote:

Perhaps you're right. My specific situation is complicated by the fact the fighter has a magic sword, but the numbers aren't quite as bad for a druid with animal companion as long as the druid casts magic fang. I'll just recommend she prepare magic fang in lieu of any other 1st level spells and maybe it won't be as bad. She's probably not going to be quite as afraid to let the cat enter combat now that it is getting the hp it is supposed to have and it will be more effective than her two guard dogs while it has magic fang on it.

Thank you for helping me work through this.

You also mentioned that you're very close to 4th level, so it going up to a mature companion at that level's feat will also help. It gets similar base stats to a rogue of the same level, plus gets the damage half of Magic Fang built in. Being able to manage 2d6+3 normally at a to-hit of +10 will also help, plus getting the extra action choice can let her have the option to reposition for spells if she wants.

The main thing you might want to remind her of is to try for flanking.

Yes. I am not nearly as worried about the druid anymore. Thank you for the help.

totoro wrote:

Maybe I'm just getting hung up on the shape of the wand, but why would you put these spells on a stick? They feel like they belong on a figurine or gemstone in almost every case. I would reserve the word "wand" for something other than a thing you rub once a day.

I don't think there's anything stopping a player from saying their wand is a talisman/figurine/gemstone/etc. as long as it's mechanically a 'wand' as in: wielded exactly as a wand, but looks different.

Absolutely, and I was certainly going to allow that, but what I meant was I think there was a design space for wands to be something interesting and unique. Specialty wands are closer to what I want, which means I just have to come up with a third alternative to 1/day wands and specialty wands. It doesn't have to be earth-shaking, but I want them to be the kind of thing a wizard doesn't treat like a mug (just using the clean one when they want a cup of coffee).

Maybe as simple a change as an evoker's wand that allows you to prepare an extra evocation cantrip as long as you have at least one other evocation cantrip prepared; +1 Focus Point as long as you know Force Bolt; plus that 1/day (evocation) spell.

How did you get animal companions so completely wrong? A 1st-level cat should have +6 to hit, 1d6+2 damage base, 11 HP, and 16 AC (17 with barding). The problem in this case is that the cat's effectively running off rogue numbers (it wants the 1d4 from hitting flat-footed targets), so it's worse than any other combat companion on its own.
A bear, for example, would be immediately more comparable, having +6 to hit, 1d8+3 base damage, 16 HP, and 15 AC (17 with barding). Magic Fang would put that to +7 to hit, 2d8+3 damage - 12 damage average. Though the hit chance is lower than the fighter's, the damage numbers are good enough to make up for it.

totoro wrote:

Fear is "useful" because it gives Frightened 1 even if the save is successful and Frightened 2 if the save is failed. Fear is the kind of spell where you roll

...

I used the cat stat block on pg. 215 and didn't modify the hp for level. It's not such a big error that your jaw need drop to the floor, but thank you for correction.

I don't really care if there is a "better option" than the one my player chose. Everybody keeps saying that. She chose a cat and that's what I've got in my game now. Magic Fang makes her animal companion almost as good as a fighter for 1 encounter if you have time to buff before combat. If battle has already started, you never make up for the fact magic fang took 2 actions to cast. It's not a bad spell, just as Magic Weapon is not a bad spell if you have time to prep for combat, at least until you have magic weapons.

My test nowadays is if a fighter could cast a spell some other class gets, would the fighter ever bother to cast it if he could cast it at will. A feat to get an animal companion and the ability to cast magic fang at will would be something a fighter would be tempted to take instead of, e.g., sudden charge, so at least it passes that test.

(While neither here nor there, plaguestone put a magic longsword in the fighter's hands, which I did not realize would throw the spellcasters so far behind in effectiveness, but it's right there for the taking. Beware handing that out if you are GM!)

I should mention because I thought this was kind of funny... the fighter took intimidating strike at 2nd level, which is kind of like casting the cleric's fear spell for free (only better).

totoro wrote:

I never said the cleric was terribly built. Please enlighten me. How could I have suggested to my player a better way to build the cleric? Give me a spell that would have changed the way all of the encounters to date in the fall of plaguestone would have gone better if he had just chosen to prepare them. Or how could he adjust his attributes for better effect? Maybe his skill choices were wrong. I'm dying to know what he did wrong and I will dutifully report to my player that you have a solution to his (and my) observation that the cleric just didn't have any options that made him escape from under the shadow of the fighter and the barbarian.

I feel like you're basing your appraisal of the class on a few introductory encounters where the cleric found that they weren't as good as the Fighter at hitting wolves with weapons, which seems like a poor way to do it. Of course they're not as good as the Fighter at hitting wolves with weapons, the fighter is literally the best at hitting wolves with weapons, it's their whole reason for existing. What clerics get is a whole bunch of additional flexibility that the Fighter can't even come close to having. Expecting them to have that additional flexibility and still be as effective in combat as classes who basically devote all of their abilities to being awesome in combat is rather unreasonable.

That is a reasonable assumption, but I assure you I am not. We are well into the module at this point. I only described the first encounter. We are only at the cusp of 4th level, but this is what I've observed and no amount of poo-pooing what I have to say will change that. It isn't just "better at combat." The cleric did cast heal once, so I'm not saying they never get to do anything associated with their class. I'm saying that what they do is far less impressive, noticeable, and impactful on the game as a whole than what the fighter and the barbarian do.

Also, I am quite sure an encounter with undead would flip the script. I'm only theorycrafting, but heal looks like it could be really effective against the undead. That's not going to matter, though, because the module is going to be over after 4th level, and I have absolutely no doubt that the fighter will get all of the merit badges. (I only include the barbarian when talking about it in this forum because the magic sword the fighter has is skewing the results in the fighter's favor in the game.)

Based upon my experience, I am going to adjust the adventure path to ensure the spellcasters are the beneficiaries of the first magic items because fighters who get a magic sword pretty early make the spellcasters practically irrelevant. In my experience, of course.

totoro wrote:

My anecdote is intrinsically more valuable to me because that is what I see.

That's fine, but you're acting like the terrible cleric in your campaign is some sort of objective commentary on the quality not only of that class as a whole, but other classes that aren't even in your game.

Quote:

I could use a laugh.

Does a pretty good job highlighting what I mean right here. The idea that your self-admitted terribly built cleric might not be the be-all end all of 2e is so beyond the pale for you you can't even comprehend the notion that there's anything else to the game. It makes discussion kind of pointless and just comes across as nonsense.

I never said the cleric was terribly built. Please enlighten me. How could I have suggested to my player a better way to build the cleric? Give me a spell that would have changed the way all of the encounters to date in the fall of plaguestone would have gone better if he had just chosen to prepare them. Or how could he adjust his attributes for better effect? Maybe his skill choices were wrong. I'm dying to know what he did wrong and I will dutifully report to my player that you have a solution to his (and my) observation that the cleric just didn't have any options that made him escape from under the shadow of the fighter and the barbarian.

I really don't know what you're on about. Every time somebody points out a problem with a class, you're there to say, but there's more to it or it's not an arena so it doesn't matter if the fighter can kill the wizard with ease. I'm running an official module using official rules and I have an observation and an opinion. Doesn't that make me qualified to post on a public forum?

I'm struggling to see the argument when your examples are:

- a buff cleric
- a druid that doesn't cast spells and only uses animal companion/level -1 guard dog

And comparing it to two martials instantly charging a level 1 wolf.

That was the start of plaguestone. The other fights went similarly. The cleric ignores spells because it is just better to attack because he has a 16 STR (and I let them switch to fighter with a cleric multiclass as a retrain because I agree the spells kind of suck). The druid doesn't cast because the spells kind of suck and if she didn't use the animals, her attacks would suck, too, given her 12 STR. I can only report what I'm seeing. If you theorycraft, people say "that's just theorycraft" and if you provide anecdotes people say "that's not the best example." I'm just calling it like I see it.

Forgot to mention: the wolves have 8 hp. The barbarian has giant instinct, which gives a total of +10 damage. Fighter gets +4 damage so 62.5% of killing the wolf on a hit with a longsword (6 or higher on d20), guaranteed on a crit (16 or higher on d20).

totoro, it seems weird to say that you have a weak wizard in your game and therefore feel wizards are weak, but when someone else reports the opposite experience in their own game you dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant and wizards still are too weak.

What makes your anecdote intrinsically more valuable than anyone else's anecdotes?

Obviously everyone is going to have their own subjective experiences, but you're treating it as an objective truth, which is bizarre in context.

There isn't a wizard in my game. There is an animal druid and a warpriest. In any case, I said it was undoubtedly true that he built a spellcaster in 1e that was really powerful, so I'm not sure what you think I was dismissing.

My anecdote is intrinsically more valuable to me because that is what I see. Feel free to explain how the wizard in your 2e party is dominating the campaign at this stage. I could use a laugh.

I played the boss of Rise of The Runelords, the first AP, agaisnt a full level 18 group, with over the top stats, well builded and played.

He is a Vanilla Transmutater, but I adjusted the spelllist of course, because he is a BBEG and a Wizard, master of magic and preparation.

With Anticipatied Peril, Aroden Spell Bane, Spell Protection, Mage Disjunction, some quick hard ass save or suck, he killed the party after 6 months of playing. It was juste boring, easy, and non fun.

Before that the Psychic of the group one shooted all the dragons in the Ap with Possession with stupid high DC without a sweat. Three dragons presented as worthy opponents got just shred without a sweat too.

At the end the game was blocked by question such as do Spellbane counter Spellbane while you are in an antimagic field bla bla bla....

It is a good things Spells got nerfed.All the cool things that the Unchained Rogue and the Monk of the group had come from the Psychic and the Oracle. And Monk & U Rogue are not top tier, but not trash classes either. As soon as Mage DIsjunction hit, fight was over.

The same happened in Iron Gods, where the Mage of the group just rekted the final boss with some clever spells combos.

In all serious talk, from our last three APs, we got at least 8 instances of spellcasters from the group or the ennemy wiping the opponents with a few hard save or suck and spell combos. At the end the question was just to know his this spell beats this other spell. And all the martials could do was to be enabled by caster. like Haste or Gre. Invisibility.

Magic had to be nerf. It should happenend 20 years ago to be honest. it was finally time. With 5E & PF2, magic got tuned down hard, and it is a good thing.

I have no doubt that's true, but breaking the game is different than just playing your vision. None of my players are trying to break the game, so hulk smash rules the day. At higher levels, there will undoubtedly be game-breaking tactics on the magical side, but if you just play the game as it seems to be intended, the spellcasters are simply too weak. There may be a math table somewhere that says I'm wrong, but I'm looking at it with my own eyes and I'm not bad at math, either. Maybe things will change at 4th level, but we have to get there first and so far it is very difficult to put it any differently than the spellcaster options (at least the animal druid and warpriest) under RAW are underpowered. It would be even worse with a wizard, of course. A party of four fighters who multiclass into cleric, wizard, bard, and druid is better than a party of cleric, wizard, bard, and druid.

Unicore wrote:

Hopefully new players get the sense that feats are designed for swapping out when they don't help build your character concept anymore. Rather than being essential parts of a character's identity.

If someone considers a weapon a part of their concept, that's going to be a bit heavy for them.

I'd be in favor of a General Feat of higher level that you could retrain this Feat into:

Specialty Weapon

Prerequisite: Expert Proficiency with your Class Weapons

Benefit: You can add one Simple Weapon that is not normally on your Class initial proficiencies to your list and treat it as if it were. If your Class list already includes all Simple Weapons, you may select a single Martial Weapon instead.

Now this means that a Wizard can never effectively use a Halberd, but they could add a Morningstar or some other Simple Weapon to their Class list.

It also means Rogues who go off list can now grab a new type of weapon, but of course they still can't Sneak Attack with a Great sword.

Archetypes can of course solve the problem, but Class Feats is a hefty price to pay, and robs you of Class concept just to get a weapon (seems a bit invasive to me).

I like your solution, but I would prefer it just act as an auto-scaler. For example: If you are not proficient with all simple weapons, treat all simple weapons as class weapons. If you are proficient with all simple weapons, treat one martial weapon as a simple weapon. If you are proficient with all martial weapons, treat one advanced weapon as a martial weapon.

Something like that.

GentleGiant wrote:

I wonder how many of those who are dissatisfied with the new incarnation of the Wizard (or other casters) have actually tried playing one for 12+ levels to see if they're actually fun to play in the framework of the new system (in the ~ 3 weeks it might have been out for some people)?

Or is it just dissatisfaction due to theorycrafting?

People just hate getting their toys nerfed. Doesn't matter if it ends up being better for the game or even better for their specific build, the initial reaction is always going to be outraged when you see that the thing you were doing before is going to be less effective now.

While I can only counter your opinion with an opinion, I expect you are wrong. Players probably outnumber GMs by 4:1 (maybe 3:1 if you include part-time GMs), but I'll wager most of the people who are providing commentary and preferences in this forum, or attempting to see what other folks think, are more GM-like. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the folks with strong opinions on these boards are actually GMs. So the "outrage" you are attributing to everyone with an opinion different than yours is probably attributed incorrectly. I don't feel any outrage at all for my toys being nerfed. At best I feel a slight annoyance that I have to houserule in non-trivial ways to ensure player choice is validated.

In my specific case, I had one player say they wanted to be an elf with lots of pets who loves nature (yes, she is a girl and no it doesn't make her a bad player to choose an option that makes her happy). She wanted to be pretty and not bad at anything, so she ended up with 18 WIS, 12 everything else (a poor min/max choice). Her background gave her animal training and her druid choice gave her an animal companion. I made a RAW mistake and allowed her to give her guard dogs a command ("sic 'em") that only took her one action, but that was what she wanted to do in combat. When I tried to fix my error it was a problem because her spell options were all bad. Her focus spell is heal animal and druid spells are fine in a vacuum, but let me turn to the other characters in her party...

Another player, who also wasn't min/maxing, but was playing to a specific vision that turns out to be pretty good in 2e (I refer to it as a Hulk Smash build) wanted to play a gnome with a huge weapon. He wanted lower INT because he is forgetful and stupid, which is why he avoids the bleaching... he forgets things so it always feels new. The flaw rules required he dump something else, so he dumped CHA. STR 18, CON 16, DEX 12, INT 8, WIS 12, CHA 10. He suited up in breastplate and found it difficult to make his big weapons work within cost and bulk constraints, so the only option he took that deviated from his vision was to swap out his first ancestry feat choice for gnomish weapons and start with a big gnome hooked hammer. We laughed about a podcast of Fall of Plaguestone because of how they got wrecked, but this gnome slaughtered everything (I would say "by himself," but the fighter was nearly as good). An important aspect of the character is that he is optimized for the new rules: He is itching for a fight, his weapon is always out, he will fly into a rage in a moment, etc. So when the wolves came, he was walking beside the wagon with weapon out. Rage, sudden charge, dead wolf.

A third player, also not a min/maxer, wanted to play a strong elf. It worked perfectly for plaguestone; she was forlorn and got the lost and alone background (not min/max choices), and STR 18, DEX 16, CON 10 (war wounds made her less tough), INT 12, WIS 12, CHA 10 (doesn't talk much, but likes intimidating glare). In real life she is susceptible to motion sickness, so she didn't want her character to be in the wagon, which is fine, so she was walking beside the gnome. Ready weapon, sudden charge, dead wolf.

My fourth player, who has recently asked to switch to retrain as a fighter/cleric, was a half-orc warpriest. STR 16, DEX 10, CON 12, INT 10, WIS 18, CHA 12. He basically acted like a light fighter because spells were not useful. He thought about using bless, but because of two powerful melee fighters in the group, fights always end too fast to make it matter.

So, in my experience, I had a cleric who quickly wanted to switch to a fighter (making two of them in a party of four) because losing out on what a fighter had basically just made him a weak fighter with spells equivalent to battle medicine (in his mind); and I have a druid who is only effective because we are breaking the RAW to let her command her trained guard dogs (essentially giving it two actions for one of hers), but who never casts spells. I cannot argue that their choices are sub-optimal. If the cleric cast bless instead of just swinging, it would have resulted in the fights taking one more round to finish and if the druid had to use her spells instead of guard dogs, she would be both less effective than every other party member; two actions to have a dog you have trained to "sic 'em" both move and attack is pretty lame.

Wands seem good for things that have 24 hour duration or "until your next daily preparations." (Also good for the Wizard's Scroll Savant feat if you have these in your spell book.)

24 hours

Contingency - gold standard, take Trick Magic Item for non-arcane casters
Energy Aegis - need to compare to the cost in gold and investment slots for having a fistful of energy resistance rings
Item Facade - probably not this one
Magnificent Mansion - great if you can get one
Private Sanctum - probably not this one
Sanctified Ground - I guess you could use it for a 1/day buffed fortress area
Spell Immunity - a great choice

Daily Preparations

Charm(4+) - sure, why not
Darkvision(5+) - need to check against permanent darkvision items
Detect Scrying - I guess
Dominate - if you can get one
Endure Elements - if you need one your probably need four
False Vision - probably not
Feet to Fins(6+) - uh, useful in Ruins of Azlant, I guess. But what about breathing?
Gentle Repose - a cheap "in case we need it" once you're at the level of affording a Raise Dead
Hallucination(6+) - probably not
Hallucinatory Terrain - I guess if you found one
Mage Armor - hell yeah, but compare to magic items granting this plus runes/talisman options
Magic Aura - great if you have access and you're playing the right campaign
Mind Blank - amazing if you can afford it and you have access
Misdirection - good for intrigue campaigns
Resplendent Mansion - you're not spending this much money on this
Undetectable Alignment - another great in certain campaigns but uncommon option

Maybe I'm just getting hung up on the shape of the wand, but why would you put these spells on a stick? They feel like they belong on a figurine or gemstone in almost every case. I would reserve the word "wand" for something other than a thing you rub once a day.

totoro wrote:

I'm kind of thankful my non-min/maxing players chose to have a Fighter and Barbarian in their midst, along with a 16 STR warpriest (mostly attacks with longsword) and a druid with 2 guard dogs and an animal companion (3 actions can make them all attack). I accidentally ran them through a portion of an adventure where they were supposed to be 2nd Level, but I had them at 1st Level. They steamrolled it.

If they had been a wizard, cloistered cleric, bard, and sorcerer, it probably would've been a tpk.

Not to stomp on your fun, but you can't have multiple bonded animals or a bonded animal and an animal companion. You would have to take two actions to command the guard dog to move then strike.

Thank you! It's causing me a headache with the player, though. She planned her character as an animal trainer and animal druid, so having to replace two actions to get two actions from a dog kind of sucks. We're going to have to break the rules to keep everyone happy and, frankly, the barbarian and fighter so dominate the encounters that it won't make any difference if I let her use one action to have a guard dog take two. We'll probably have to rein it in if she gets more powerful pets, though.

I would prefer a wand a wizard would have in hand frequently. The whole "I have a tool for this," [takes out wand, casts, and puts wand away for the rest of the day] doesn't match anything I envision when thinking about a wand.

The wand could be associated with a single spell (say, magic missile) and the wizard could spontaneously burn some other spell to turn it into a magic missile of the same level as the burned slot. That would give the wizard more versatility because they wouldn't need to prepare magic missile anymore, so it's valuable enough to keep in hand, but they wouldn't actually get any additional spell slots with this variant. I wouldn't make them dedicate a slot to the wand during preparation.

I'd go a little further, though, and give the wizard +1 focus point if a focus spell (magic missile in this case) matches that of the wand. That's the +1 spell per day wands currently grant 1/encounter instead, but you can only get it if you match a wand to your focus. I like that it would encourage wizards to double down on what they are good at instead of preferring wands that do things they are not good at. The focus point is because I think wizards are kind of weak, though. If I thought they were as good as fighters, I would just give them the versatility without the extra focus point.

totoro wrote:

I don't think it would dramatically impact power level if when your base class gained expertise with their weapons, they also gained expertise with martial weapon proficiencies gained via a dedication. It is kind of the point of MC into fighter to get weapon and/or armor training, so it would be annoying to MC specifically to become good with a maul and, at some point, you're back to being better off using a staff.

Treating armor the same way might be a little trickier, but is probably fine. I'm thinking of the dwarf monk MC as champion with armor advancing when unarmored does, but I haven't worked out whether that actually breaks anything.

I think they should have given the fighter an option at 1st level related to whether expertise is in weapons or armor, and that choice would determine in which they eventually reach legendary, as well. Champion doesn't need the armor niche to distinguish itself from fighter, but the heavy fighter without any religious convictions should be represented in the class, IMO.

Maybe I am wrong, but I highly doubt that increases to Expert proficiency in weapons or armor will be free or automatic increases as a part of other feats. It seems far more likely that Expert proficiencies will require an additional feat. That is how it works for fighter multi-class feat.

I agree with you. My point was that it seemed like an unnecessary burden on the player to have to spend a feat to improve proficiency to expertise with a martial weapon they chose as part of a dedication when their simple weapons improve to expertise at some point anyway. In some sense, they have already spent a feat to get +1 damage with a weapon (because martial weapons, simplifying of course, give you +1 damage over simple weapons), so the second fighter dedication feat is kind of like enabling a wizard/fighter to continue to get +1 damage with a weapon after having already spent a feat to obtain that benefit. That's what I should have said instead of "I don't think it would dramatically impact power level..."

I'm more of a min/maxer than my players, but I pointed out to the gnome barbarian player that because they wanted to wear breastplate, the cost and weight of the over-sized maul at 1st level was pretty oppressive, but a gnomish hooked hammer was manageable and adds some versatility for only slightly less damage. Indeed, the hooked hammer is probably the best over-sized weapon you can get period, at least at 1st level given the standard bulk and money constraints.

I don't think it would dramatically impact power level if when your base class gained expertise with their weapons, they also gained expertise with martial weapon proficiencies gained via a dedication. It is kind of the point of MC into fighter to get weapon and/or armor training, so it would be annoying to MC specifically to become good with a maul and, at some point, you're back to being better off using a staff.

Treating armor the same way might be a little trickier, but is probably fine. I'm thinking of the dwarf monk MC as champion with armor advancing when unarmored does, but I haven't worked out whether that actually breaks anything.

I think they should have given the fighter an option at 1st level related to whether expertise is in weapons or armor, and that choice would determine in which they eventually reach legendary, as well. Champion doesn't need the armor niche to distinguish itself from fighter, but the heavy fighter without any religious convictions should be represented in the class, IMO.

I think I would have preferred something like if you take a dedication you get a feat from a list of options (e.g., for a fighter): [Probably unnecessary to mention Unarmed Training, Unarmored Training, and Simple Weapon Training], Light Armor Training, Shield Block, Martial Weapon Training. You might even make it an ordered list that eventually gets you everything a fighter gets at 1st level (or a partially ordered list, where you have at least one of Light Armor Training, Shield Block, or Martial Weapon Training before you can choose from a next set in the list). At the end of the list you start adding in class feats with level caps (e.g., maximum class feat of dedication feat level/2). You could also incentivize baseline options by giving the option of take 2 of Light Armor Training, Medium Armor Training, Heavy Armor Training, Shield Block, or Martial Weapon Training OR choose a fighter class feat of dedication level/2.

Presumably, as part of the game design, each class was built on the same number of "points" that you can divvy up into dedication feats in a reasonable way. A wizard with essentially no fighter feats might need four "points" worth of dedications to gain the abilities of a first level fighter, which means four dedication feats to get to the baseline. A champion might only need one "point," reach fighter abilities after a single dedication, but you have to save the one special thing about the fighter to ensure MC champions don't match it. For example, the fighter's thing is expertise with weapons, so fighter dedications should keep that out of reach until a same-level fighter would gain mastery (and mastery out of reach until a same-level fighter would gain legendary).

Part 2:

I had already set the seeds to ignore the introduction of Noala, who I thought was an exceedingly uninteresting character. The druid of the party was interested in checking out a rumor regarding a blight in the area, which I had set up from the start of the adventure. The wolves were a great place to start checking for tracks, so, without Noala, the PCs went back to the first encounter location and followed tracks to the blighted den. I found this be much more interesting than the Noala angle, with more PC agency. The PCs used a similar tactic to make their way to the Pen. The encounters were a bit more interesting than before, but that damn barbarian averages 15.5 damage on a hit and the fighter, thanks to the benefit of having the Lost and Alone background, is at 13 hp with a +10 attack. Each fight took 1 or 2 rounds (the rats took 1 and the barbarian crit'ing an alchemist after sudden charge turned a modest challenge into a trivial one) until H7.

The PCs were still 1st Level, which I believe was an error on my part, but the adventure indicated Noala would train the PCs after the pen, so I kind of assumed they should still be 1st level when going there (even though I cut Noala from the story). That pitted the PCs against two severe-threat bosses at the same time, but the adventure splits them up to make them more manageable; if both of them were tactically arranged, the fight would be really, really tough. I followed the suggestions of the module, with the sculptor opening the door to the blood ooze's room, but he rolled poorly on initiative. Sudden charge fighter, sudden charge barbarian (plus a hero point), and the sculptor is over half dead. He flees with a tumble action and interacts with a secret door (his escape route) and is then cut down the following round. Surprisingly, when the party goes to mop up the blood ooze, it drops the barbarian to dying 1, but they finish it off in two rounds, as well. (In retrospect, they should have pelted it with sling bullets until it died.) Although the PCs won pretty handily, I think this encounter could have been quite a bit worse for them, so I recommend you get your PCs to level 2, especially if they don't have a fighter and a barbarian in their midst.

We're going to start Part 3 next weekend after a level up. I think they can handle it at 2nd level, but I am reasonably certain the adventure is designed for 3rd level characters at this point. The code is "Severe 3" and other encounters, which I believe means the encounter is considered tough for 3rd level characters. That is, Part 1 is for 1st level characters; Part 2 is for 2nd level characters; Part 3 is for 3rd level characters; etc. Once you get the code, it feels obvious, I guess, but it wasn't obvious to me at the time.

I can't offer a preview at this point, because the game is out, but I can offer some advice. This will, of course, be highly subjective. There are going to be some minor spoilers, but I'll try to keep it vague such that the advice only makes sense if you have it. Although far from powergamers, my players just so happened to have a fighter, a giant instinct barbarian, a half-orc warpriest, and a druid. The warpriest pretty much ignored spellcasting in favor of melee. And I should say, because it might sound like I'm being too critical, my players had a blast.

I'll just do Part 1 in this post and Part 2 in a following one.

First encounter is built on "Trivial" xp budget and it also splits the encounter such that it is even easier. My players took out the first wave in the first round and the second wave in the second round. The barfight was over in 1 round, as well. (Barbarian rolled a crit and dropped a farmer in one punch, then rolled well to knock out another with a one-two; the fighter hit twice and the warpriest assisted to knock out a third.) In both of these instances, I should have had a backup plan for if the fight goes too well because the story assumes the caravan is attacked for more than 12 seconds and that the barfight goes on for more than 6 seconds. If you have a barbarian that says, "Cool! Barfight!" and jumps right in with rage, he's at a minimum taking out a farmer a round. In retrospect, I should have ignored the "pacify 3 farmers to end the fight" suggestion.

Also, I didn't have a chance to use my houserule for the way fleas work in the first encounter because it was over so fast, but there is a bit of silliness there that you might want to ignore in favor of something else. I chose to make the wolves have a disgusting slime dripping from their mouths that did the same thing as suggested for fleas (retch instead of scratch to remove), which played well towards the whole blight thing that develops over the story. The players actually studied the wolves because of the weird drool and acid.

I also had a plan for the bee swarm to be blighted because their behavior was so odd. I'm a beekeeper and I thought the presentation of a bee hive was silly, but the druid had a smokestick, so the encounter was trivial anyway.

The following wall of text could be summarized as "Part 1 seems awfully easy:" 3 javelins at the old shrine = 3/4 of the threat gone, then the last one missed. At the rosemary bush, the druid took care of it. At Trin's house, the druid took care of it. Harrod's spear launcher worked, but damage was healed up by the cleric. Barbarian actually trained in Thievery and was ready at that point, so the falling debris did not work (it was a 50/50 chance to disable). More than one way to handle the guard dogs, but I let the druid make her case with wild empathy because she went all in on animals, from her background to her order (and, as an animal trainer, she is going to take ownership of them and train them now). The barbarian used a hero point on the poisoned lock because at this point everyone had 3, but had no reason to use them. At the snake pool, barbarian goes first, hits twice, ends threat. If you're keeping score, I'm at page 20 of the adventure, which ends on page 49, and my players have expended a smokestick (which is admittedly pretty expensive), a healing spell, and a hero point. Hallod's tactics are pretty good and the barbarian only hit once (with a hero point expended), so it took two rounds to finish the fight, but the party rested after that, so fully healed.

Consider if a wizard was able to cast a 1st level spell at will how much it would impact their power. It would make combat more boring because the wizard would always fire three magic missiles, but most other 1st level spells would have nominal impact. Magic missile at will would let the wizard consistently inflict 10.5 damage per round with all actions. A fighter can match that with one hit with a greatsword for 10.5 damage. (I'm just going to use greatsword as a baseline--you could do less damage but get other benefits with something else.) When you add in crits, the fighter will do better against low AC creatures and the wizard will do better against creatures that are hard to hit. It's a wash, but only if the wizard can cast magic missile at will.

Acid arrow works similarly compared to a fighter with power attack. That is, it is not clear a wizard who can cast acid arrow at will is any better than a power-attacking fighter. Wizard can do 17 damage on a hit (with 3.5 persistent) and can even double the non-persistent damage on a crit for 30.5 (with 3.5 persistent), but crit 10% less than a fighter. A power-attacking fighter does, probably not coincidentally, 17 damage as well (34 on a crit). Persistent damage is a nice benefit, but the fighter hits and crits more, which makes it close to a wash, assuming the wizard can cast acid arrow at will.

At fifth level, fireball is what makes a wizard stand out. Even vampiric touch could be spammed without making it obviously better than a fighter (21 damage and 10 temp hp for 1 minute, but it's basic fortitude and the fighter at this point gets another +2 to hit). At this point, I think the advantage tips slightly in favor of the wizard, but only if the wizard can cast a third level spell at will.

Consistent with every version of D&D and pathfinder, the wizard's 4th level spells don't provide a devastating attack spell, just a bunch of pretty cool utility spells. You could let a wizard cast a 4th level spell at will and it wouldn't make them obviously better than a fighter. Compare, e.g., phantasmal killer damage and effect. Weapon specialization also pushes average damage for a fighter beyond what a wizard can accomplish with any spell (though AoE spells can still have situational advantages).

My thesis: wizards are designed to go nova in order to match the abilities of martial classes and there are only a handful of spells at each level that actually allow them to do so. So a wizard is really a swiss army knife and should push for short work days. It isn't quite as frustrating to me when I think of it like this. My presumption was if you have cast a spell in your highest spell slot, you are better than a fighter for that round and if you cast a spell in a lower spell slot, you are not. It doesn't really work like that.

graystone wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Why are we having pcs fight each other and not monsters?

As far as I know NPC's can be built just like PC and are eligible creatures you can fight.

Yeah but it isn't a typical encounter. Maybe if they were fighting multiples. But one vs one fighter vs wizard seems to be choosing the absolute worst scenario and then using it to declare the wizard is bad.

Fights against multiple slightly weaker (or boss and some minions) are far more the wizard's forte and not at all out of place with the encounter rules.

Agreed. Wizards are good at taking out the trash and can do so with great efficiency once they get fireball.

All of these are still kind of silly, as this isn't "Arena Death Fights: Second Edition", but a cooperative roleplaying game.

No, they are simply not conclusive. A starting point for determining whether a class is underpowered is to line them up and knock them down. Just because no one scenario is conclusive doesn't mean it's silly.

I still disagree about the power you ascribe these spells. It just doesn't work like that in any reasonably likely scenario. Charm has a 60% chance of working against 12 WIS fighter as long as you don't get hostile is not very useful in a typical scenario. It only works if there is only one creature to charm and you have to keep it civil.

A dazzled fighter can still kill a wizard that isn't dazzled. You can't just "move away and attack from a distance, easily defeating the fighter." If you start adding in variables like the wizard can move away and the fighter has to just stand there, then the wizard is better, but if the fighter can also move and perhaps even leave and then come back, the wizard is even more toast than before because it's the same fight, but with one less spell available.

Spending two actions to tell the fighter to run away isn't a net gain. Fighters are better than wizards both close up and far away. AC is typically 4 higher, to hit is generally 2 higher, damage is typically 4 higher, hit points are generally 8 higher. If the wizard's "great" spell doesn't land, he's mincemeat and if it does land, he's probably still dead. For example, say the wizard casts command and has a 50% chance of making the fighter run away for one action, 10% to run away for three actions, and 40% the fighter ignores the wizard. The fighter on average hits with a 6 (25% crit, 50% normal hit) and deals around 10 damage (over half of the wizard's hp). With three swings, better than even odds of taking out the wizard either with two hits or one crit. If he had to run away for a round, he moves back and makes two attacks with even odds of killing the wizard. The vast majority of the time Command does nothing or does relatively little to forestall the inevitable.

Also, which of these "great" spells are you going to memorize for the day?

It becomes more interesting when you team the wizard up with other characters and do a death match, but I don't think they help their group nearly as much as one more fighter does. Moreover, good tactics now seem to me to be to flank the fighter and take him out, then go after the wizard. It is telling that in 1e you would at least geek the mage out of respect. Now it doesn't matter much, though if you are close and he has a spell slot or two unspent, you may as well swat him because it isn't terribly difficult.

The only nice thing I can say about wizards is they are more fun to play than before. They just shouldn't have been made so weak as an over-reaction to wizard hate.

Elemental Tempest focus spell of Evoker easily let you blast stuff, cast the lvl 4 fireball with that focus spell then you deal 8d6 + 4d6.

It's only one action and give you a extra 1d6 per spell level that triggered it and because it's a focus spell you can use it twice every battle.

Perhaps it was a design goal to force wizards to spend resources (feats) to be able to compete effectively with their best spells. I don't think fireball is as easy to use in play as it is in theory, but every now and then you can drop a good fireball. When it's buffed, the damage starts to look respectable, especially if you can spread it around.

totoro wrote:

Looks pretty good if you get the drop on someone like that. If you don't the wizard is a waste of space.
[\QUOTE]

I guess if fireball isn't an option, our wizard will have to settle for a single-target solution, like automatically hitting with 6d4+6 worth of magic missiles for an average of 21 Force damage - one point less than the shortbow fighter. A single 3rd level spell slot + drain arcane focus to do it again if need be. It's a pretty good spell for cleanup.

You're comparing a wizard burning his highest-level slots to a fighter with a shortbow and hero points? I'm more interested in who wins the combat, not whether a wizard can keep up with a fighter for a short period of time.

totoro wrote:

Actually, it is trivially easy to do the math

This post didn't age well.

Like a moldy cheese in the sun.

Still, charm is a situational spell at best, and cannot be used in combat.

Sleep can be negated by kicking the sleeper.

The others are still of dubious value and all take a 1st level spell slot.

My error doesn't change the fact wizards are weak, you just get a bit better effect for a few of the spells listed here.

totoro wrote:

Actually, it is trivially easy to do the math at 1st level[…]10% chance for charm to work

Orc Warrior, pretty typical level 1 enemy in a lot of adventures, has a will of +4.

How are you getting a 2 int wizard?

I don't understand your question. I'm comparing a Fighter with a WIS 12 to a Wizard with INT 18. Fighter fails if he rolls a 1 or 2.

Don't forget about incapacitation.

totoro wrote:

GentleGiant wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

Your mistake was not realizing that wizard players got so used to optimizing the s~++ out of Fireball so that a 20 ft radius spread competes in damage on singular targets that they'd throw a tantrum when it returns to "AOE spell" status.

Indeed, a lot of the grumblings seem to stem from not being able to do the same with the Second Edition core book as you could with PF1 core book + XYZ books (and the sometimes silly feats and combinations between them).

That's not my grumble.

Never said it was yours specifically. There are others who have voiced their (negative) opinions in this thread.

totoro wrote:

I am going to use PF2 for my next campaign, so I'm kicking the tires. I don't like the wizard nerf because my players are experienced, so they are going to know when one class is dramatically weaker than another. The roleplayer of our group is going to choose what suits his fancy and I don't want him to be mechanically inferior just because he feels like playing a wizard. I can already guess what the powergamer is going to pick and it ain't wizard; my guess is straight fighter, sword & board. The other classes don't seem as problematic as the wizard, which I find funny because I remember reading in surveys wizards were considered the most boring and second most powerful class. It just isn't true.

You keep claiming this ultimate truth... based on some highly unlikely theory crafting that you keep referencing, but haven't actually showed (and it would still be theory crafting, not how the various classes would actually play in an average game).

Actually, it is trivially easy to do the math at 1st level and it becomes increasingly difficult at higher levels because the goalposts move as you change the encounter. Do you really need me to write down the numbers? Just read the spells and compare the results to what a fighter can do. 10% chance for charm to work, blah, blah, blah. Pull out your map, drop a couple minis on it, and roll some dice if you prefer experimentation over math.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Your mistake was not realizing that wizard players got so used to optimizing the s~++ out of Fireball so that a 20 ft radius spread competes in damage on singular targets that they'd throw a tantrum when it returns to "AOE spell" status.

Indeed, a lot of the grumblings seem to stem from not being able to do the same with the Second Edition core book as you could with PF1 core book + XYZ books (and the sometimes silly feats and combinations between them).

That's not my grumble. I am going to use PF2 for my next campaign, so I'm kicking the tires. I don't like the wizard nerf because my players are experienced, so they are going to know when one class is dramatically weaker than another. The roleplayer of our group is going to choose what suits his fancy and I don't want him to be mechanically inferior just because he feels like playing a wizard. I can already guess what the powergamer is going to pick and it ain't wizard; my guess is straight fighter, sword & board. The other classes don't seem as problematic as the wizard, which I find funny because I remember reading in surveys wizards were considered the most boring and second most powerful class. It just isn't true.

totoro wrote:

It is important to note that fighters do more damage than blaster wizards per swing, per encounter, and per day. Just a quick comparison of 1st level spells to what a fighter can do shows unequivocally that except for some very niche cases you are much better off being a fighter at 1st level. I have yet to see anyone come up with a realistic scenario where a wizard is superior to a fighter at 1st level and we've been playing around with this for a little while now. (There was a niche case of a glass cannon with a really high AC that could be taken down with magic missile, but that was so niche as to be silly.) So it really doesn't matter to me if PF2 wizards are better than PF1 wizards 1st level; they still suck. However, it does matter that fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing (and per encounter and per day).

Having noted fighters are superior in practically every scenario at 1st level, I started to compare them at 5th level. Wizards do not seem to ever get better, even with fireball. I've really only modeled it up to 5th level so far.

I'm going to do some math of my own here. A party of 4 Level 5 PCs means your median encounter is 4 level 4 monsters. The Hobgoblin Archer seems like a generic sort of enemy for level 4:

HP 50, AC 23, Fort +10, Ref +12, Will +8

Level 5 Evocation Wizard with 18 Int:
Feat 4: Linked Focus
Spell DC 10 + 4 Int + trained 7 = DC 21

He casts Fireball as 2 actions for 6d6 fire damage, with all 4 enemies in the area. Average of 6d6 is 21, with a basic reflex save. The Hobgoblin will succeed on a natural 9.

Therefore:
nat 1: 1 * 42
2-8: 7 * 21
9-18: 10 * 10.5
19-20: 2 * 0

((1 * 42) + (7*21) + (10*10.5)) / 20 * 4
= 58.8 average damage per fireball.

Then the wizard, with his remaining action, picks a target and fires a 3rd level Force Bolt for an autohit 2d4+2 ~= 7 damage.

Damage on turn 1: 65.8 damage. 32.9% of the total enemy HP.

Turn 2: Drain Arcane Focus, casting Fireball again on any enemies that are...

No. You're right. I did say "any scenario," so touche. I was just playing around with the wizard having the opportunity to drop the fireball on four fighters before engaging with his three fighter allies. Looks pretty good if you get the drop on someone like that. If you don't the wizard is a waste of space. You could have made the wizard look a little better by bunching 20 hobgoblins up together for 5x damage, though. Then use up all the wizard's spell slots to mop up this encounter and call it a day. [tips hat]

totoro wrote:

swoosh wrote:

It seems weird to use a statement like "fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing!" as a balance argument, because all of those things were true in 1e too and did jack all to make fighters good.

I don't think anyone said that. It is important to note that fighters do more damage than blaster wizards per swing, per encounter, and per day. Just a quick comparison of 1st level spells to what a fighter can do shows unequivocally that except for some very niche cases you are much better off being a fighter at 1st level. I have yet to see anyone come up with a realistic scenario where a wizard is superior to a fighter at 1st level and we've been playing around with this for a little while now. (There was a niche case of a glass cannon with a really high AC that could be taken down with magic missile, but that was so niche as to be silly.) So it really doesn't matter to me if PF2 wizards are better than PF1 wizards 1st level; they still suck. However, it does matter that fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing (and per encounter and per day).

Having noted fighters are superior in practically every scenario at 1st level, I started to compare them at 5th level. Wizards do not seem to ever get better, even with fireball. I've really only modeled it up to 5th level so far.

1st level spells:

Charm
Color Spray
Command
Fear
Sleep
If you only compare on damage output, then you're making an unfair comparison. A wizard can do much more than just pure damage. All of the above spells can incapacitate the fighter to one degree or another.
Also, one on one combat between two PC-type characters is pretty damn rare, so you're basing your assessment on theory crafting, not on actual game play.

I am basing my assessment on combat playtesting for the purpose of determining whether a fighter + wizard is better than a fighter + fighter and the results are it is better to just play a bunch of fighters.

Charm practically never works except against mooks. It is an out-of-combat spell. Color spray is even worse. It never does anything other than dazzle against a decent opponent, and dazzle is far worse than what I fighter could dish out, plus it isn't even useful outside of combat. Command takes a first level spell and two actions for the chance of taking away an action (and maybe wasting an action to pick up a weapon again), but doesn't work half the time. Fear gives a relatively minor debuff for 1 round or maybe 2. Sleep doesn't work against a decent threat. These are not the spells you're looking for.

Glass Cannon Podcast in the Paizocon with Jason Bulmahn, the Sorcerer literaly one hitted the hydra with a single a 4th fireball causing 98 damage.

That's an instance, not a scenario. Fighter does better on average without expending any resources.

Glass Cannon Podcast in Silent Tide: Sorcerer does 2 damage with burning hands.

How much damage do bows do now? Can they still add strength?

Because surely a wizard is better from range?

Or does that go away once fighters pick twin shot?

What about in circumstances where there is element vulnerability so the wizard does extra? I guess those are the niche ones you mentioned?

Composite bows get half strength, but the new rules make thrown weapons more viable. (Bows also have a volley trait that makes them hit less at close range.)

A wizard is not better at a range if the fighter has the option of a bow for long range and a javelin at short range. This is true at 1st level without any special feats, but gets decidedly worse for the wizard if the fighter chooses any decent ranged feats. Point blank shot removes the volley penalty for bows, but, even better, lets you do +2 damage with other weapons. An 18 STR fighter with a javelin and point blank shot will do more damage than a wizard with a cantrip and matches first level spells, though magic missile has the advantage of no to hit roll and would average the same damage and the fighter has the advantage of a quiver of javelins.

It seems weird to use a statement like "fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing!" as a balance argument, because all of those things were true in 1e too and did jack all to make fighters good.

I don't think anyone said that. It is important to note that fighters do more damage than blaster wizards per swing, per encounter, and per day. Just a quick comparison of 1st level spells to what a fighter can do shows unequivocally that except for some very niche cases you are much better off being a fighter at 1st level. I have yet to see anyone come up with a realistic scenario where a wizard is superior to a fighter at 1st level and we've been playing around with this for a little while now. (There was a niche case of a glass cannon with a really high AC that could be taken down with magic missile, but that was so niche as to be silly.) So it really doesn't matter to me if PF2 wizards are better than PF1 wizards 1st level; they still suck. However, it does matter that fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing (and per encounter and per day).

Having noted fighters are superior in practically every scenario at 1st level, I started to compare them at 5th level. Wizards do not seem to ever get better, even with fireball. I've really only modeled it up to 5th level so far.

I don't think a game has to be balanced to be fun, but I believe a good game is both balanced and fun. Balance is one of the jobs of the game designers.