Spellcasters and their problems ...

I'm considering, as a House Rule, adding a Fervor metamagic Feat that lets you spend a use of Divine Font to reduce the number of actions to cast a spell that targets yourself to one or even zero.

This actually pretty neatly mimics how Fervor worked in PF1, and the price is high enough it's probably balanced. I wouldn't even be super surprised to see something like it in an official release.

I'd probably make it Warpriest exclusive and come up with some other 'spend Divine Font get cool effect' metamagic option for Cloistered Clerics, though I'd need to figure out what.

I'd probably make it Warpriest exclusive and come up with some other 'spend Divine Font get cool effect' metamagic option for Cloistered Clerics, though I'd need to figure out what.

Isn't that, substantially, what they already get with feats that allow them to do things like convert Divine Font spells into alternate counteract spells?

Yeah, warpriests also have access, but they're generally less good at it.

In your example, if you made it something like "When you buff yourself, spend a divine font spell to Strike" you wouldn't need to make it exclusive - Cloistered Clerics would just be inherently less likely to take or use it, as they'd generally be less good with it.

Isn't that, substantially, what they already get with feats that allow them to do things like convert Divine Font spells into alternate counteract spells?

Yeah, warpriests also have access, but they're generally less good at it.

I dunno if 'less good' quite cuts it.

In your example, if you made it something like "When you buff yourself, spend a divine font spell to Strike" you wouldn't need to make it exclusive - Cloistered Clerics would just be inherently less likely to take or use it, as they'd generally be less good with it.

That is another way to do it, but the primary problems Warpriests run into are definitely post 11th level (indeed, I was considering making it a 12th level Feat), which means that when it matters Cloistered Clerics are actually exactly as good at striking, assuming they invested in the stats to be.

Which is to say that it'd still need to be Warpriest exclusive to a be a specific buff to that subclass.

Personally, I think 2E Fervor would be OP as hell without some really severe restrictions (assuming we're talking about reducing the action cost of certain spells by 1). Quickened Casting got a bad rep initially for being worse than the 1E version (and of course it is), but it's a really solid feat.

I think for Fervor to exist in 2E without a once per day restriction, it would have to have some other really major drawback (possibly severely reducing the duration of the self-buff). Casting 2 spells in a turn can just be massively devastating in 2E - less so when one of them is a self-buff, but it's still massively efficient nonetheless.

Squiggit wrote:

Deriven is highlighting one of the problems with the PF2 warpriest though. The PF1 version had a suite of abilities designed to improve their combat ability and directly enhance their ability to fight and use magic in tandem. Bundled together in a packing designed to synergistically blend the capabilities of the class in a way that wasn't as overbearing as the core cleric, but also worked more cohesively in general.

The PF2 Warpriest meanwhile has... better fort saves.

No one has this ability any more. With the new 3 action system, you can buff yourself and attack in the same round. So no point in handing something out that is already an integrated part of the game.

I will see a war priest in action soon focused on battle. I will track their damage comparatively. We will see how it compares.

I expect a war priest to do more damage than a monk when buffed and using attacks like channel smite, but less than a two-weapon barbarian or fighter. Somewhere in that middle tier with spikes.

That is about where they should be with full 10 level casting. Some people want things to be as they were in PF1 without every really comparing what a class can do now mechanically. There are a lot of assumptions about inferior play that don't hold true when the game is played.

I would say you were right. If not for the fact that casters are spending 2 actions to cast spells, and "quicken" is 1/day. Meaning that casters (outside of Bard and a handful of spells) in fact cannot use the 3 action economy because the very idea requires that they don't cast spells.

Hence the problem. There is this cool new system for actions thats oh so flexible. But caster are unable to use it because Paizo deliverately didn't give them any way to actually use it. No feats to merge actions, no feats to cast certain spells quicker, no feats that lets self buffing actually be worth it.

It has the name Warpriest, but nothing of it is a Warpriest. Its the same problem the Playtest Magus and Summoner have. Sure they have the name. But nothing of them actually reflect those names.

Very much failing the age ol' story problem, "Show don't Tell". They are telling us its something, without actually showing us what makes it those things.

Squiggit wrote:

Deriven is highlighting one of the problems with the PF2 warpriest though. The PF1 version had a suite of abilities designed to improve their combat ability and directly enhance their ability to fight and use magic in tandem. Bundled together in a packing designed to synergistically blend the capabilities of the class in a way that wasn't as overbearing as the core cleric, but also worked more cohesively in general.

The PF2 Warpriest meanwhile has... better fort saves.

No one has this ability any more. With the new 3 action system, you can buff yourself and attack in the same round. So no point in handing something out that is already an integrated part of the game.

Those Magus battle spells and Summoner Eidolon boosts look like pretty good starting points for these. That was what I found so compelling about Martialmaster's suggestion to use Magus as the start to being an old style warpriest; we can take those battle spells apart, compare them to other existing buff spells and martial feats, and figure out what a fervor ability might look like (Hasted Assault can simply be brought over as is, of course).

I expect a war priest to do more damage than a monk when buffed and using attacks like channel smite, but less than a two-weapon barbarian or fighter. Somewhere in that middle tier with spikes.

That is about where they should be with full 10 level casting. Some people want things to be as they were in PF1 without every really comparing what a class can do now mechanically. There are a lot of assumptions about inferior play that don't hold true when the game is played.

Also, I don't think anyone has said that they wouldn't be comparable when buffed and using spell slots. The problem Martialmasters had was needing to use those spell slots, and feeling compelled to not use them on his own character because they'd be more efficiently used on a different character.

I'm sure you're quite correct on where the warpriest will fall on the damage scale, but I don't think that was ever the problem in the first place.

Martialmasters wrote:

But I value my enjoyment first as well. Hence retiring my warpriest.

Not surprising. PF1 warpriest was only good because of the insane number of high quality combat buffs you could load up on. Otherwise the class wasn't at all competitive with martial damage dealers.

The Magus and the Summoner were the boss power 6th level caster power GISHes of PF1. War priest was decent, but needed a ton of buffing like the Inquisitor to really do decent damage. That combo isn't going to happen in PF2, which is why I doubt we see the warpriest class as anything other than it is.

You keep talking about pf1 warpriest for some reason and I don't understand why.

I never even played pf1e warpriest. Ever

Personally, I think 2E Fervor would be OP as hell without some really severe restrictions (assuming we're talking about reducing the action cost of certain spells by 1). Quickened Casting got a bad rep initially for being worse than the 1E version (and of course it is), but it's a really solid feat.

I think for Fervor to exist in 2E without a once per day restriction, it would have to have some other really major drawback (possibly severely reducing the duration of the self-buff). Casting 2 spells in a turn can just be massively devastating in 2E - less so when one of them is a self-buff, but it's still massively efficient nonetheless.

I think costing a Divine Font use on top of the spell you're casting (which would indeed need to be a self buff) makes it expensive enough to work. In practice, that's a max of five times a day and every one is costing you a max level spell to do.

As compared to Quickened Casting it's better inasmuch as it has more uses, but worse inasmuch as each use has a steep cost and it only works with a subset of spells. I was also, as I said, thinking it'd be slightly higher level (probably a level 12 Feat).

My main beef with warpriest as it is comes from the way Channel Smite works, i.e. it expends the slot even if you miss.

That's brutal and pretty much requires you to choose a deity with True Strike in order to land those blows.

If it only expended the slot on a success, I feel the warpriest would be much more powerful.

To be clear, the Fervor I was thinking of would come with notably long frequency or another major cost, and there were thoughts last time this came up of giving the extra action via the Quickened condition to avoid stacking with Haste, for a little less power. I just got sick of trying to write that non-clumsily and rewrote it in a general, forgetting to add the conditions later on.

"When you self-buff, Stride or Strike" and "Expend a Divine Font slot" are good ideas, though I wonder about the latter cutting heavily into support resources/causing even more Wisdom-tanking in favor of Charisma to happen. I guess it's probably a good thing for there to be different specializations of Warpriest, and DMW's homerules already help the supportive ones with a bump to their counteract checks.

I'd probably make it Warpriest exclusive and come up with some other 'spend Divine Font get cool effect' metamagic option for Cloistered Clerics, though I'd need to figure out what.

One suggestion: spend a Divine font charge to give a spell bonus positive/negative damage. This would essentially be "Channeled Smite" but using a spell as the channel instead of a strike. Perhaps just 1 per damage dice it would have been in order to keep it balanced though, as Channeled Smite doesn't offer action savings and this essentially would (unless you used a touch spell for delivery for some reason). Edit: though you do get the item accuracy bonus from channeled smite, which is I suppose the main benefit, so perhaps an action savings is warranted after all.

A Fervor like ability costing a use of divine font is way to costly.

I cant see it costing focus points or limited to X use per day (Paizo has not gotten rid of that mechanic).

Heck the focus point version would match with lay on hands also costing focus points. After all Fervor had the ability to be used as Lay on Hands.

I think that there are good options available to war priests who want to focus on martial combat. The weapon surge focus power is an absolute beast of a power that stacks with striking runes and will make your martial allies jealous. If trying to be a tank and survive powerful hits all day is your goal, Enduring might is an incredible option. Combine these options with the right cleric class feats and your war priest can be a nearly unkillable hulk or a damage machine very close to full martial prowess, all while maintaining full casting abilities.

Now it is true that deity selection is going to massively shape the direction you can go with your cleric, but that is a feature of the system and Gods and Magic gave us a lot of ways to bend the rules around our deities quite a bit.

I think there is a less caster focused divine striker (or a martial first gish) class potential, but I think that would be best served by keeping it for the inquisitor, as the warpriest is a very good caster first gish with a lot of flexibility in how to build it.

A higher level metamagic feat that could be cool though is one that lets a spell that targets a single ally to also target the caster.

To be clear, the Fervor I was thinking of would come with notably long frequency or another major cost, and there were thoughts last time this came up of giving the extra action via the Quickened condition to avoid stacking with Haste, for a little less power. I just got sick of trying to write that non-clumsily and rewrote it in a general, forgetting to add the conditions later on.

How about a Focus spell? It could be a two-action spell and go something like "Pick one benefit from this list: (insert list here). Then either Stride or Strike, as part of casting this spell." Heightening it could add options to the list.

Spell on the Run used to be a thing, I don't see a reason why something to that effect can't exist as a Feat. It may need to be half your speed or something to that effect, but it's in the same vein as Running Reload in a sense.

Something like that would open up 3rd actions for Casters anyways (and make Summons less punishing to use).

No one has this ability any more.

Specifically fervor? Well yeah, duh, that's why you have some people in this thread complaining about it.

Generally though? Absolutely wrong, feats and features that synergistically blend components of classes together or improve your action economy are very common in PF2, it's basically a staple of feat design. Most martials have some options for juggling action economy or creating new ways to do things on the battlefield.

It's also a staple of PF2's monster design, with enemies getting clever abilities that give them unique ways to interact with the world or narrowly improve their action economy to tell a story through mechanics about their identity.

By contrast, it almost feels like PF2 forgot all of those design principles and everything they learned from PF1 (where its 6th level casters were often considered some of the best designed options in the game) when making casters, because barring a few exceptions there's a stark lack of any internal identity or specialization.

With the Warpriest just being a particularly glaring example because it does so little to actually create an identity for itself: It's almost indistinguishable from the caster cleric outside its spell DC being a little bit lower and its fort saves being a little bit higher.

With the Warpriest just being a particularly glaring example because it does so little to actually create an identity for itself: It's almost indistinguishable from the caster cleric outside its spell DC being a little bit lower and its fort saves being a little bit higher.

I disagree that this is true any longer, as of the APG. The expanded proficiencies and default Shield Block feat give it far superior access to Martial archetypes and dedications to Cloistered Clerics, making it far easier to actually build a more martial character starting from a Warpriest than it is to go with the Cloistered path.

Squiggit wrote:

With the Warpriest just being a particularly glaring example because it does so little to actually create an identity for itself: It's almost indistinguishable from the caster cleric outside its spell DC being a little bit lower and its fort saves being a little bit higher.

I disagree that this is true any longer, as of the APG. The expanded proficiencies and default Shield Block feat give it far superior access to Martial archetypes and dedications to Cloistered Clerics, making it far easier to actually build a more martial character starting from a Warpriest than it is to go with the Cloistered path.

Shield Block gives access to I think ONE archetype [Bastion] and it's a feat everyone can get at 3rd and at the same time they get trained in martial weapons. And trained in martial weapons opens up, what? Sentinel? That's not nothing but that's just 2 archetypes that warpriest opens up over the cloistered cleric? That doesn't seem to go far in disproving "It's almost indistinguishable from the caster cleric outside its spell DC being a little bit lower and its fort saves being a little bit higher."

APG had almost nothing for casters. Outside the Oracle/Witch, and their related spells.

Its not hard to get "more" when casters dont have much to begin with.

Getting Sentinel for Heavy Armor is the only other one I can think of. And it's not like you can't use it as a Cloistered, Warpriests just get more out of it.

At a glance, martial weapon proficiency opens up Duelist and Marshal archetypes. So not a ton of stuff.

While I do have a pretty good opinion on where War Priests stand compared to other classes, Cloistered does seem to get most of its advantages and better spell casting proficiency. Most of the War Priest advantages seem to be front loaded. Most of what it gets Cloistered can or will get eventually.

Yeah, the APG presented a few fun toys for casters but not a whole lot. I assume this was done because they knew a caster-centric book would release a year later.

Yeah, the APG presented a few fun toys for casters but not a whole lot. I assume this was done because they knew a caster-centric book would release a year later.

This, and twenty three new divine spells is not exactly nothing either. Invulnerability is a pretty awesome high level capstone spell for a warpriest.

I did say related spells.

But still.

Martials got a ton of archetypes and items they can use well. Casters maybe got some spells, maybe.

I do think they intentionally held back magic in the APG so we'd be hungrier for it when it came out in secrets of magic.

I'm flatly against this. Personally.

Well, that's your choice but I have to say its a position hard to understand from the outside. It seems to reify a set of game mechanical structures that for the most (there are a small number of exceptions) part have never had in-setting existence since the start of D&D.

Thomas5251212 wrote:

I don't consider classes for the most part to have an "identity". The class name is just a name hung on a particular range of capabilities, and if you can acquire that same (or close to) set of abilities in other ways, the name will be just as applicable to them and the distinction will be largely invisible in-setting.

Classes have an identity to some degree, but only inasmuch as they provide distinct stuff in-world (so mostly only casters). Clerics, for example, are pretty well defined in-world, and something like a Bard is visibly and meaningfully different in-world.

But, on the other hand, nothing in-world separates a Cleric and a Fighter multiclassing into Cleric. Someone multiclassing to Cleric is, in world, a Cleric.

Only to the degree that, as you note, they have distinct abilities. Bards are a good case because bardic song has no equivalent acquired other ways, but even some of those cases are subtle enough most people in the setting would never understand the difference (trying to get most people to see the difference between some clerics and some champions I suspect would be a challenge; for a good part of their progress the special abilities limited to the latter are hard to detect from the outside. As such a fighter with a Cleric Dedication who acted like a champion and said they were a champion would probably be called a champion).

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Deriven is highlighting one of the problems with the PF2 warpriest though. The PF1 version had a suite of abilities designed to improve their combat ability and directly enhance their ability to fight and use magic in tandem. Bundled together in a packing designed to synergistically blend the capabilities of the class in a way that wasn't as overbearing as the core cleric, but also worked more cohesively in general.

The PF2 Warpriest meanwhile has... better fort saves.

No one has this ability any more. With the new 3 action system, you can buff yourself and attack in the same round. So no point in handing something out that is already an integrated part of the game.

I will see a war priest in action soon focused on battle. I will track their damage comparatively. We will see how it compares.

I expect a war priest to do more damage than a monk when buffed and using attacks like channel smite, but less than a two-weapon barbarian or fighter. Somewhere in that middle tier with spikes.

That is about where they should be with full 10 level casting. Some people want things to be as they were in PF1 without every really comparing what a class can do now mechanically. There are a lot of assumptions about inferior play that don't hold true when the game is played.

I would say you were right. If not for the fact that casters are spending 2 actions to cast spells, and "quicken" is 1/day. Meaning that casters (outside of Bard and a handful of spells) in fact cannot use the 3 action economy because the very idea requires that they don't cast spells.

Hence the problem. There is this cool new system for actions thats oh so flexible. But caster are unable to use it because Paizo deliverately didn't give them any way to actually use it. No feats to merge actions, no feats to cast certain spells quicker, no feats that lets self buffing actually be worth it.

It has the name Warpriest, but nothing of it is a Warpriest. Its the same problem the...

Casters don't get to use it except for those times when their spells hits many targets that martials can't even do. Two actions for a chain lightning against six targets is an excellent trade off. Two actions for a mass confusion is also a good trade off. So this idea that casters don't get to use the action system in a very efficient and effective way is not true.

And a war priest can do some crazy stuff to with high dice channel smite or divine aura or cast a 2 action attack spell and swing. It's not like a war priest is super weak or something.

A war priest with a sentinel archetype even gains expert proficiency in heavy armor. That can be a pretty good AC with buff spells and the like.

Getting to target multiple foes doesn't mean they're using the action economy.

Also I really don't see the issue with the mentioned fervour for divine font, it'd do two things wonderfully, make self buffs actually useful (because you''re literally always better off just buffing the martial otherwise) and give people a good use for divine font if they don't want to play a healbot (because basically every good aligned deity forces you to go heal font, even many decidedly martial ones like Torag and Iomedae)

Temperans wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Deriven is highlighting one of the problems with the PF2 warpriest though. The PF1 version had a suite of abilities designed to improve their combat ability and directly enhance their ability to fight and use magic in tandem. Bundled together in a packing designed to synergistically blend the capabilities of the class in a way that wasn't as overbearing as the core cleric, but also worked more cohesively in general.

The PF2 Warpriest meanwhile has... better fort saves.

No one has this ability any more. With the new 3 action system, you can buff yourself and attack in the same round. So no point in handing something out that is already an integrated part of the game.

I will see a war priest in action soon focused on battle. I will track their damage comparatively. We will see how it compares.

I expect a war priest to do more damage than a monk when buffed and using attacks like channel smite, but less than a two-weapon barbarian or fighter. Somewhere in that middle tier with spikes.

That is about where they should be with full 10 level casting. Some people want things to be as they were in PF1 without every really comparing what a class can do now mechanically. There are a lot of assumptions about inferior play that don't hold true when the game is played.

I would say you were right. If not for the fact that casters are spending 2 actions to cast spells, and "quicken" is 1/day. Meaning that casters (outside of Bard and a handful of spells) in fact cannot use the 3 action economy because the very idea requires that they don't cast spells.

Hence the problem. There is this cool new system for actions thats oh so flexible. But caster are unable to use it because Paizo deliverately didn't give them any way to actually use it. No feats to merge actions, no feats to cast certain spells quicker, no feats that lets self buffing actually be worth it.

It has the name Warpriest, but nothing of it is a

...

That is not really interacting with the 3 action economy. That is just casting a spell and doing what it says. Is it good? Yes. But is it interaction with the 3 action system? No.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Thomas5251212 wrote:

I don't consider classes for the most part to have an "identity". The class name is just a name hung on a particular range of capabilities, and if you can acquire that same (or close to) set of abilities in other ways, the name will be just as applicable to them and the distinction will be largely invisible in-setting.

Classes have an identity to some degree, but only inasmuch as they provide distinct stuff in-world (so mostly only casters). Clerics, for example, are pretty well defined in-world, and something like a Bard is visibly and meaningfully different in-world.

But, on the other hand, nothing in-world separates a Cleric and a Fighter multiclassing into Cleric. Someone multiclassing to Cleric is, in world, a Cleric.

Only to the degree that, as you note, they have distinct abilities. Bards are a good case because bardic song has no equivalent acquired other ways, but even some of those cases are subtle enough most people in the setting would never understand the difference (trying to get most people to see the difference between some clerics and some champions I suspect would be a challenge; for a good part of their progress the special abilities limited to the latter are hard to detect from the outside. As such a fighter with a Cleric Dedication who acted like a champion and said they were a champion would probably be called a champion).

They've mentioned before that to the average prole, all casters are casters. They give the example of someone bringing a sick person to a wizard to heal.

While I do agree that someone that called themselves a champion would probably be called a champion by most, that's not exactly hard evidence. They'd call the same person a witch if that's what they wanted to be called, and most people in setting wouldn't really know the difference.

Getting to target multiple foes doesn't mean they're using the action economy.

Also I really don't see the issue with the mentioned fervour for divine font, it'd do two things wonderfully, make self buffs actually useful (because you''re literally always better off just buffing the martial otherwise) and give people a good use for divine font if they don't want to play a healbot (because basically every good aligned deity forces you to go heal font, even many decidedly martial ones like Torag and Iomedae)

How does it not? If spells are providing the same action economy improvement of martial feats, then how is that not taking advantage of the action economy system?

Haste also helps them as well by providing a move action they can use to move while positioning to cast and draw a spellcasting item.

It seems people have a specific idea of action economy improvement that does what? Tell me an example of martial action economy improvement that is better than being able to hit 6 targets at 100 foot plus range? What do they get?

For example, a haste[ caster could unload a fireball hitting a group of targets, then fly out of range of return fire all in the same round. How is that not similar to a monk running in, flurrying, then running out? I don't get it.

I thought it was obvious to all that spells for casters often replace feats for action economy improvements, mobility improvements, and the ability to do many things that a martial can't really do.

How does it not? If spells are providing the same action economy improvement of martial feats, then how is that not taking advantage of the action economy system?

A better way of putting it is that they mostly don't get to use the action economy as a resource the way fighters (and to a lesser extent other martials) do. The fighter always has to choose, in the moment, how to best utilize the action economy. They have some feats that combine actions at a discount (e.g. Sudden Charge), some that let them turn reactions into actions (e.g. Reactive Shield), some that give extra reactions for specific purposes (e.g. Quick Shield Block), and some that let them spend extra actions for particular effects (e.g. Intimidating Strike).

Casters generally don't get much of that. Almost all their spells cost two actions, and that's it. There are some meta-magic feats around that let them spend an extra action for a special effect, but that's pretty rare. You also have some spells with a variable action cost, but those are very much the exception.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

How does it not? If spells are providing the same action economy improvement of martial feats, then how is that not taking advantage of the action economy system?

A better way of putting it is that they mostly don't get to use the action economy as a resource the way fighters (and to a lesser extent other martials) do. The fighter always has to choose, in the moment, how to best utilize the action economy. They have some feats that combine actions at a discount (e.g. Sudden Charge), some that let them turn reactions into actions (e.g. Reactive Shield), some that give extra reactions for specific purposes (e.g. Quick Shield Block), and some that let them spend extra actions for particular effects (e.g. Intimidating Strike).

Casters generally don't get much of that. Almost all their spells cost two actions, and that's it. There are some meta-magic feats around that let them spend an extra action for a special effect, but that's pretty rare. You also have some spells with a variable action cost, but those are very much the exception.

It isn't the same. It's generally more powerful for the caster. The caster gets to use 2 actions to affect a large number of targets. Then use his 3rd action to erect a shield spell (Raise shield) with a reaction to block, use a weapon, move, demoralize, intimidate, or the like. So I'm not getting it. How is this not better than what a martial can do?

I play martials and casters. The biggest fun of playing a martial is getting a big damage critical hit usually on a single target. So I'm not getting what martials do that makes them interact better.

Thats a thing that only happens with AoE spells. Most of the complains are about single target spells. Which are also the ones most likely to use spell attack rolls.

It isn't the same. It's generally more powerful for the caster. The caster gets to use 2 actions to affect a large number of targets. Then use his 3rd action to erect a shield spell (Raise shield) with a reaction to block, use a weapon, move, demoralize, intimidate, or the like. So I'm not getting it. How is this not better than what a martial can do?

I play martials and casters. The biggest fun of playing a martial is getting a big damage critical hit usually on a single target. So I'm not getting what martials do that makes them interact better.

I'm not talking about "power". I'm talking about taking advantage of the three-action system. Most of the time, a caster's round will be move + cast, or on occasion cast Shield + cast a proper spell, or Demoralize + cast. I'd estimate that 75% of the time, it'll be move + cast.

And while their casting certainly has the potential to have a strong impact, they generally don't have the option to use actions as a resource to determine how strong an impact. With the exception of Magic Missile, they can't spend an extra action to cast a more damaging spell. They don't get to combine a Ray of Frost with an automatic Frightened 1 condition for an extra action. They don't have a "Casting charge" feat that lets them Stride and cast a spell for one action.

This is not a balance issue. It's a "having fun with game mechanics" issue.

This is not a balance issue. It's a "having fun with game mechanics" issue.

This.

Spells and metamagic feats usually reduce the number of different activities per round, often down to just one (spell tower syndrome). Martial feats usually increase the number of activities per round, usually going from 3 to 4.

So this is not about the impact of those activities (because there is no discussion about the power level of an additional stride or -5 strike versus one additional target or two while using Widen Spell) but the dynamics of gameplay.

Was just about to reply but others got there first.

@Deriven: Firstly:

I thought it was obvious to all that spells for casters often replace feats for action economy improvements, mobility improvements, and the ability to do many things that a martial can't really do.

Actually, it isn’t obvious to all. I’m certain it isn’t obvious to me. We may not even be talking about the same thing...

Like, it really is, for some folks, the difference between mechanical interaction and power. The end result might be the same (dead foes, max damage etc) but the jinking and wriggle of action economy is actually fun in and of itself, and if casters miss getting to interact with that then the fun of taking the action economy apart and putting it back together in new and interesting ways is removed. So for me is definitely not about power, or balance. Not ability but interaction and options.

Or, as Ubertron_X put it - the dynamics of gameplay. One of my chief demons to wrestle with PF2 is a perceived lack of mechanical nooks and crannies that can be found to eke out interesting narrative power. For me, the narrative breadth of my character is just as fun as my roleplaying depth which is just as fun as my actual mechanical abilities. The interplay of all three is joyous, and especially the almost mini-game of my action economy, of which we were starved for in PF1 until Unchained came out.

Note that I understand that if the action economy upset that power or balance there could be problems, but again this is, for me, more about having casters be enjoyable and not rote, pr limited by an action economy system touted as opening up the game but neing locked away from casters.

Does that make sense?

I play martials and casters. The biggest fun of playing a martial is getting a big damage critical hit usually on a single target. So I'm not getting what martials do that makes them interact better.

@Deriven: I can tell that we have very different playstyles. For me, the “biggest fun of playing a martial” is not “getting a big damage hit usually on a single target”. As someone that plays wing in Football/Soccer, and is a lifelong support person in my community, my Fighters (and almost exclusively I play martials, occasionally 3/4 casters in PF1) are not the hulking brute wailing on the enemy. You could say that that is a waste of investment or impairs the party makeup etc etc. I would respectfully disagree. And so, being able to interact with the action economy is key to doing much more than expressing the most damage. Movement. Flanking. Tactical approach. Sure, my goal is still to neutralise the enemy, but I want all the options in which to do it, with my allies, who may or may not require assistance, aid, etc.

I think that for me, casters would be the same. I’m going to get bored quick if all my sorceror does is sling spells, AoE or not. And it is my perception, misplaced or not, that the action economy is vital to that narrative agency. I do take the point though that casters might use spells rather than feats to “jink” the action economy, but that seems like it might be situational, even moreso than choosing the right feats.

I hope I’m making some sense.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I play martials and casters. The biggest fun of playing a martial is getting a big damage critical hit usually on a single target. So I'm not getting what martials do that makes them interact better.

@Deriven: I can tell that we have very different playstyles. For me, the “biggest fun of playing a martial” is not “getting a big damage hit usually on a single target”. As someone that plays wing in Football/Soccer, and is a lifelong support person in my community, my Fighters (and almost exclusively I play martials, occasionally 3/4 casters in PF1) are not the hulking brute wailing on the enemy. You could say that that is a waste of investment or impairs the party makeup etc etc. I would respectfully disagree. And so, being able to interact with the action economy is key to doing much more than expressing the most damage. Movement. Flanking. Tactical approach. Sure, my goal is still to neutralise the enemy, but I want all the options in which to do it, with my allies, who may or may not require assistance, aid, etc.

I think that for me, casters would be the same. I’m going to get bored quick if all my sorceror does is sling spells, AoE or not. And it is my perception, misplaced or not, that the action economy is vital to that narrative agency. I do take the point though that casters might use spells rather than feats to “jink” the action economy, but that seems like it might be situational, even moreso than choosing the right feats.

I hope I’m making some sense.

Thanks for sharing such a clear vision OceanShieldWolPF 2.0.

I think there is good news for you when it comes to casters in play for PF2. There are many sustain spells that once you get going, allow you to continue to control the battlefield for one action while you either cast more spells or do do other actions with your subsequent rounds. The kinds of spells in PF2 are incredibly diverse and the ability to cast spells from spell slots 2 to 4 times per combat easily means getting to do 2 to 4 completely different and powerful things in combat.

My primary character (as I am mostly a GM) is a cleric, and I honestly have too many options every round of combat. Even as a cloistered priest, at level 7, I do more damage with a long bow than I ever do single targeting an enemy with spells, mainly because it is a wonderful 3rd action for the many many more rounds where I am having to cast a heal spell on one of my allies, or a dispel magic to counter act a horrific effect that is trying to kill us. As long as my character is standing and the rest of the party hasn't completely run off too far ahead of me, we are almost unkillable. When monsters do close on me, I tend to use my animal companion (acquired through the animal trainer archetype, it was the only non druid option for it at the time I picked it up), to move, provide flanking and usually get a pretty nasty attack in. I never meant to pick up an animal companion when imagining the character to begin with, but PF2 is so, so much better at letting you make changes to your character concept as you level up based upon the narrative options available to you as you level up and it really does keep those options viable all the way through play, IF you choose to support your choices as you continue to level. Even offensive casting with only expert casting proficiency is viable at level 20 in PF2, as long as you choose saving throw spells that can do a lot of usefully typed damage to a large group of people (some people will roll badly) or carry effective debuffs on a success.

There are lots of less than maximum efficient options in PF2, but there are almost no choices that are just completely dead options. The absolute worst offender is probably ending up with an ability that gives you training in an armor type that you can never upgrade to expert, but Trained in Heavy Armor with a Dex of 10 for caster is actually better than expert unarmored proficiency, especially with the more powerful runes you can put on it and the ability to get a massive bonus to reflex saves.

The trick is that it always takes continued investment, and the problem with that is that you can end up spread out too thin, especially if you are having to use gold to support expensive armor, an expensive weapon, and use your wealth to supplement your casting ability, which is as much of a default assumption of the game for casters as it is for martials.

The vast majority of players that I have heard voice complaints about their characters in actual play have been from players complaining that dabbling options they took to fill in a character concept don't work terribly well against the most powerful enemies they face. This includes MC or ancestry feats to pick up armor, thinking that would be enough to be able to tank in the front lines, as well as memorizing the occasional acid arrow along side a bunch of debuff saving throw spells and not picking up a single true strike to help make it land (the only caster accuracy buff available to spell attack roll spells). For a wizard, a much better single target damage spell from 2nd level is flaming sphere, even though acid arrow with true strike is more powerful than flaming sphere will ever be, barring weaknesses and resistances. Once you have flaming sphere out, you can be pretty brutally efficient killing off enemies by hitting powerful ones with it and then finishing them off with electric arc, while even setting up another enemy to be weakened and ready to finish off next round. Especially when one of your allies is a flame oracle and everyone is alway burning (sorry those are my GM problems with my party).

Two caster's synergizing their spells together can be every bit as effective as martials giving each other flanking and using third actions to debuff each other. You just need to think about your action economy along side your character role goals as you select spells. PF2 makes it really easy for every character to be able to do either one massively powerful thing, or one powerful thing and another useful thing every round. Some characters get 3 or 4 useful things instead. Caster can fit all three of those categories, but it usually takes one round to set up with the spell that will let you do it.

...gameplay experiece...

The best thing when following threads like theese is the difference in gameplay experience, based on character, player, GM and style of adventure.

For example as a mostly reactive caster (healer Cleric) I absolutely hate and avoid sustain spells as the need to sustain effectively results in a permanently slowed 1 condition for my character. Your Barbarian friend just received a beating 40ft away and you have only finished casting Spiritual Weapon last round? Well, though luck for him or your spell. However I have to admit that our Wizard who is not "forced" to act in a certain way fares a little better while using them. Also spells that do not force a sustain, e.g. Bless, work a lot better if you have an action to spare.

Speaking of actions my character also feels brutally action starved in between top down casting, recalling knowledge, raising my shield, using meta magics, sustaining a spell or moving and I haven't even mentioned doing a regular attack yet. Despite all the available actions my rounds usually end up as spell + move, so what others see as options, I experience as limits.

However I think you can't blame people for missing system mastery, especially if it is their first character or RPG. How should they know that grabbing heavy armour does not make you a tank (knights have heavy armour and usually are depicted as tanks, right?) or that you need True Strike in order to reliably hit your big spell attacks?

Can't disagree on two casters synergizing though, once our Wizard and I both start dropping Fireballs enemies tend to go down rather quickly.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

It isn't the same. It's generally more powerful for the caster. The caster gets to use 2 actions to affect a large number of targets. Then use his 3rd action to erect a shield spell (Raise shield) with a reaction to block, use a weapon, move, demoralize, intimidate, or the like. So I'm not getting it. How is this not better than what a martial can do?

I play martials and casters. The biggest fun of playing a martial is getting a big damage critical hit usually on a single target. So I'm not getting what martials do that makes them interact better.

I'm not talking about "power". I'm talking about taking advantage of the three-action system. Most of the time, a caster's round will be move + cast, or on occasion cast Shield + cast a proper spell, or Demoralize + cast. I'd estimate that 75% of the time, it'll be move + cast.

And while their casting certainly has the potential to have a strong impact, they generally don't have the option to use actions as a resource to determine how strong an impact. With the exception of Magic Missile, they can't spend an extra action to cast a more damaging spell. They don't get to combine a Ray of Frost with an automatic Frightened 1 condition for an extra action. They don't have a "Casting charge" feat that lets them Stride and cast a spell for one action.

This is not a balance issue. It's a "having fun with game mechanics" issue.

Feat like these are basically the only thing missing from casters in my opinion, and is my #1 hope for Secrets of Magic.

Feat like these are basically the only thing missing from casters in my opinion, and is my #1 hope for Secrets of Magic.

A feat that grants use of Recall Knowledge and lets you cast a regular spell for 2 actions would open so many doors...

My dream feat is a free action metamagic that allows you to empower a cone or line spell to a point where the blast flings you in the opposite direction without provoking reactions. I just love the flavor of it, and it would also get me to use short-range cones and lines a lot more.

My dream feat is a free action metamagic that allows you to empower a cone or line spell to a point where the blast flings you in the opposite direction without provoking reactions. I just love the flavor of it, and it would also get me to use short-range cones and lines a lot more.

I could definitely see a "Melee mage" feat that let you cast spells with a range of "Touch" or a cone/line/emanation AOE without provoking reactions. It could possibly be a magus specialty, or maybe available at a lower level for a magus.

Or maybe make it part of a dedication or something. Or both, just like you get things like Power Attack as either a 1st level fighter feat or a 4th level mauler feat.

Which reminds me: one of the smoother interactions in 5e is Shocking Grasp, as a touch spell that deals 1d8/tier (pretty standard for cantrips) and makes the target unable to make reactions for a round. In 5e, spellcasting doesn't provoke opportunity attacks, which makes it a great spell for getting away should you find yourself in melee. PF2 could use something like that.

Martialmasters wrote:

I'm flatly against this. Personally.

Well, that's your choice but I have to say its a position hard to understand from the outside. It seems to reify a set of game mechanical structures that for the most (there are a small number of exceptions) part have never had in-setting existence since the start of D&D.

Maybe for you and your games this has been true. It has not for me and mine.

Well I wouldn't say Caster's "don't" get to play with action economy. Certain builds can definitely play with action economy more than others.

Even at the worst case they get the option to cast a spell and have 1 free action to do whatever they want. Even that one free action can be quite varied based on the class.

My characters Sorcerer/Champion (Lvl 2) Dedication and Bard/Beastmaster (Lvl 6) get to have varied turns all the time.

Sorcerer can pretty much do everything a martial can do but has the option to cast a spell at anytime.

Caster/Beastmaster has lots of options too. Bard especially can be quite effective depending on the build without casting spells. composition/trip/demoralize can add insane amounts of damage for the group. I am thinking about getting a mount which will free up my actions even more.

Once you get higher levels I guess things might change when you don't have to conserver spells as much.

Sorcerer can pretty much do everything a martial can do

You're going to have to explain this one to me...

Deriven Firelion wrote:

It isn't the same. It's generally more powerful for the caster. The caster gets to use 2 actions to affect a large number of targets. Then use his 3rd action to erect a shield spell (Raise shield) with a reaction to block, use a weapon, move, demoralize, intimidate, or the like. So I'm not getting it. How is this not better than what a martial can do?

I play martials and casters. The biggest fun of playing a martial is getting a big damage critical hit usually on a single target. So I'm not getting what martials do that makes them interact better.

I'm not talking about "power". I'm talking about taking advantage of the three-action system. Most of the time, a caster's round will be move + cast, or on occasion cast Shield + cast a proper spell, or Demoralize + cast. I'd estimate that 75% of the time, it'll be move + cast.

And while their casting certainly has the potential to have a strong impact, they generally don't have the option to use actions as a resource to determine how strong an impact. With the exception of Magic Missile, they can't spend an extra action to cast a more damaging spell. They don't get to combine a Ray of Frost with an automatic Frightened 1 condition for an extra action. They don't have a "Casting charge" feat that lets them Stride and cast a spell for one action.

This is not a balance issue. It's a "having fun with game mechanics" issue.

Can you provide some examples? I play martials and casters.

Martials hit things with perhaps the Champion doing the defense stuff. Can you explain what martials do that make them so much more fun?

The only thing I see martials doing better is single target damage. That's almost it. They have higher proficiencies for AC, marital attacks, and saves, but not much to boost those like casters have.

Can you give me some kind of comparison?

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I play martials and casters. The biggest fun of playing a martial is getting a big damage critical hit usually on a single target. So I'm not getting what martials do that makes them interact better.

@Deriven: I can tell that we have very different playstyles. For me, the “biggest fun of playing a martial” is not “getting a big damage hit usually on a single target”. As someone that plays wing in Football/Soccer, and is a lifelong support person in my community, my Fighters (and almost exclusively I play martials, occasionally 3/4 casters in PF1) are not the hulking brute wailing on the enemy. You could say that that is a waste of investment or impairs the party makeup etc etc. I would respectfully disagree. And so, being able to interact with the action economy is key to doing much more than expressing the most damage. Movement. Flanking. Tactical approach. Sure, my goal is still to neutralise the enemy, but I want all the options in which to do it, with my allies, who may or may not require assistance, aid, etc.

I think that for me, casters would be the same. I’m going to get bored quick if all my sorceror does is sling spells, AoE or not. And it is my perception, misplaced or not, that the action economy is vital to that narrative agency. I do take the point though that casters might use spells rather than feats to “jink” the action economy, but that seems like it might be situational, even moreso than choosing the right feats.

I hope I’m making some sense.

What do you mean? Casters are not just slinging spells. YOu can do way more tactically as a caster than as a martial.

You can use illusory creature to flank.

You can divide a battlefield with a wall spell.

You can create difficult terrain and create a natural obstacle that does damage for martials with move abilities to shove enemies into.

I don't get what you're talking about. A martial might get an ability like Intimidating Strike or Shield Knockback, where as a caster gets hydraulic push or phantasmal killer.

What is so much more satisfying about swinging your blade versus casting a spell that does the same thing or much better?

Literally the only thing martials do in a more interesting way is single target damage.