Spells Not Scaling Automatically per Caster Level


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 481 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Will PF2 spell casters have more or less spells per day than PF1 casters? If it's more then lower level spells not scaling doesn't seem such a big deal. If not I guess cantrip will be stronger like in 5e.


NetoD20 wrote:

Then instead of making spellcasters less powerful, give non-casters abilities that scale too. Otherwise I'll be forced to spend high level slots for my lower level spells to be relevant at all, but I would never do that, because there'll always be a better higher level spell. Why on earth would I cast magic missile as a 4th level spell if enervation and Evard's black tentacles exist? Also, lower level slots will be useless.

That was something I did like about DSP Psionics - because it wasn't slots, spending a couple extra points to increase a power was like burninga a 1st or 2nd level slot to up the power of a 3rd level spell - the "lower level" stuff never was useless - because the it was one big pool of avaible power rather than discreet slots based on level.


I think this is good and I will be using a Spell Point system with it (maybe even 5es one).

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As a fan of blasty casters, this is the exact opposite of the direction they should be going. There is already a problem in PF1 with spells not scaling properly. Can anyone tell me that magic missile is still relevant at level 16? Even fireball isn't very relevant by that level, because it's capped at only 10 dice. What they should have done is removed all the caps on scaling. As an example, a fireball should just do caster level DC. Yes, this means a level 19 wizard can cast fireball for 19D6 damage. That is the kind of damage that is appropriate for a spell cast by a level 19 wizard.


Charlie Brooks wrote:
though I think I prefer the idea of spending more actions to increase a spell's power rather than casting it at a higher level.

One of the things Kineticist does with SLAs via Gather Power. Kineticist is awesome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Frankly? Good riddance.

Whenever I optimized my evocation spells as a player, I always felt like a show stealer for the first 10 levels for the rest of the party.

Sure it starts losing steam at 11th level and onward but it still caused people to feel inadequate in the build they were originally proud of, that they start having less fun and feel less interested in the adventure. Even if your other party members did optimize.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redelia wrote:
As a fan of blasty casters, this is the exact opposite of the direction they should be going. There is already a problem in PF1 with spells not scaling properly. Can anyone tell me that magic missile is still relevant at level 16?

A level 1 spell cast using a level 1 spell slot should not in any way be relevant at level 16, at least not in the way you seem to be implying. As a minor utility effect, sure (which even magic missile can be if used correctly), but it should not have a significant impact on the combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
If you are okay with limiting casters to only 3-5 spells per day that are meaningful in combat, does that mean you are also okay with limiting martials to 3-5 attacks per day at their highest values?
That sounds like level 1 Pathfinder with a Wizard and a Barbarian. The Barbarian gets 5 rounds of rage, the Wizard gets three to five Level 1 spells.

Exactly. Now, imagine that 5 rage rounds was all you ever got.

Or, alternatively, your rage rounds did increase, but the only way your rage would ever get stronger is if you spent more rage rounds. If you want a higher strength bonus, to keep up with damage? Well, better pay double or triple the rage rounds.

It just means that resource heavy classes are rough later on as well as in the early game, and that the 15 minute adventuring day turns into a 1.5 minute adventuring day.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JRutterbush wrote:
A level 1 spell cast using a level 1 spell slot should not in any way be relevant at level 16

Why not? It's still going to be weaker than most at-will abilities at that level. If you're going to prep it over a utility spell, why shouldn't it deal a decent clip of damage?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
Redelia wrote:
As a fan of blasty casters, this is the exact opposite of the direction they should be going. There is already a problem in PF1 with spells not scaling properly. Can anyone tell me that magic missile is still relevant at level 16?
A level 1 spell cast using a level 1 spell slot should not in any way be relevant at level 16, at least not in the way you seem to be implying. As a minor utility effect, sure (which even magic missile can be if used correctly), but it should not have a significant impact on the combat.

Exactly.

Say you get black tentacles and you're thinking well magic missile doesn't scale so it's worthless now.

Except that fighter mcbigsword is likely doing 2d6+6 while your one big spell does 8d8 or something. Even if you then say "Well I can only do this 3 times so I'm effectively first level again!" Except you also have the non scaling 3rd level fireball spells at 6d6. And the non scaling scorching Rays 2nd level at 2d6 (2 of them). And the non scaling magic missiles at 1d4 each missile.

So combined you're still severely outstripping the fighter.

And that's just damage.

You still have spells like Fly which say, "I never have to make a climb skill check!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
If you are okay with limiting casters to only 3-5 spells per day that are meaningful in combat, does that mean you are also okay with limiting martials to 3-5 attacks per day at their highest values?
That sounds like level 1 Pathfinder with a Wizard and a Barbarian. The Barbarian gets 5 rounds of rage, the Wizard gets three to five Level 1 spells.

The effectiveness of the barbarians attacks still scales with level. He gets both more rounds of rage/day and more benefit from each round of rage.

The barbarian equivalent of non-scaling rage would be getting only 5 rounds of maximum benefit of rage at 10th level, and then scaling back the effectiveness of rage to the next lowest tier for 5 rounds, then scaling rage back to the benefits he was receiving at 1st level for his last five rounds.

This would include available rage powers.

Quote:
And I would be surprised if lower level spells (Invisibility, Haste, Fly, Fireball...) ever cease to be meaningful by, say, level 10.

Invisibility and fly scale in duration, haste scales in both duration and number of targets affected, fireball scales in damage.

By no longer scaling, by 10th level the duration of Invisibility is reduced by 70%, the duration of Fly is reduced by 50%, the duration and number of targets for Haste is reduced by 50%, average damage from Fireball is reduced from 35 to 16 (assuming the target does not pass his save).

To go a step further, a spell like Monster Summoning I, without scaling, results in the summoned monster blinking into existence for a single round at 10th level. With scaling, that same spell provides a flank buddy for 10 rounds of combat (or the opponent expends resources to neutralize it instead of attacking the PCs).

Liberty's Edge

Dαedαlus wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
If you are okay with limiting casters to only 3-5 spells per day that are meaningful in combat, does that mean you are also okay with limiting martials to 3-5 attacks per day at their highest values?
That sounds like level 1 Pathfinder with a Wizard and a Barbarian. The Barbarian gets 5 rounds of rage, the Wizard gets three to five Level 1 spells.

Exactly. Now, imagine that 5 rage rounds was all you ever got.

Or, alternatively, your rage rounds did increase, but the only way your rage would ever get stronger is if you spent more rage rounds. If you want a higher strength bonus, to keep up with damage? Well, better pay double or triple the rage rounds.

It just means that resource heavy classes are rough later on as well as in the early game, and that the 15 minute adventuring day turns into a 1.5 minute adventuring day.

Except no, it's more like "Imagine you get 5 rounds of SUPER RAGE, and those are all the rounds you get, but you still get rounds of regular rage based on your level." You have a few spell slots that are you best and most powerful, and the rest are just a bunch of lesser effects that you can use throughout the day.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fighters and barbarians at that level can do hundreds even thosands of damage.

EDİT:Didnt see the 10th level part.Staying safely at the hundreds of damage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is the problem in a nutshell. People are angry because of how they see it implemented in 5e and the fact that Paizo seems to be following that model. I'll use the 5e version of Fireball as an example. (and hopefully my math is correct)

Fireball (a third level spell) does 8d6 at a caster level of 5 (in a 20' radius).. and a caster level of 20. If you want to increase the damage fireball does at CL=20, you have to use a higher level spell slot at the rate of 1d6 per higher spell level.
So, casting it as a 4th level spell does 9d6 damage. Casting it as a 9th level spell does 15d6.

Meteor Swarm (a 9th level spell) does 20d6 fire damage and 20d6 bludgeoning damage per meteor in a 40' radius. You can throw up to 4 meteors per cast of meteor swarm. (damage doesn't overlap)

So, you have a choice between 15d6 for fireball as a 9th level spell or 40d6 for meteor swarm. Thats a no-brainer. No one would ever cast fireball if they had the option of casting meteor swarm. (also fireball's range is 150' whereas meteor swarm's range is 1 mile).

I would use a starfinder comparison, but their spell lists are so screwed up that there's no good analogue. The closest I can come up with is Explosive Blast (cough Fireball cough) a 3rd level spell that has medium range and does 9d6 damage and Chain Surge (cough Chain Lightning cough) that does 13d12 damage, is long range and shorts out electronics.

13d12 averages 84 points of damage, whereas 9d6 averages 32 points of damage. There is no way in heck that you'd pick the 9d6 over 13d12 unless whatever you were attacking was immune to electricity.

So again, the lower level spells are completely useless. And the character's depth is severely negatively impacted. We're not stupid people. We know terrible game design when we see it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dαedαlus wrote:


It just means that resource heavy classes are rough later on as well as in the early game, and that the 15 minute adventuring day turns into a 1.5 minute adventuring day.

It also means that the much-maligned 15-minute (or 1.5 minute) Schrodinger's Wizard is the norm, because overcasting systems mean that once you get the lowest version for the spell, you get EVERY version of the spell with just one spell choice, and therefore you can get more variety of spells. You will have the option of casting anything you could ever need, but only a couple times a day will it be useful in combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
If you are okay with limiting casters to only 3-5 spells per day that are meaningful in combat, does that mean you are also okay with limiting martials to 3-5 attacks per day at their highest values?
That sounds like level 1 Pathfinder with a Wizard and a Barbarian. The Barbarian gets 5 rounds of rage, the Wizard gets three to five Level 1 spells.

Exactly. Now, imagine that 5 rage rounds was all you ever got.

Or, alternatively, your rage rounds did increase, but the only way your rage would ever get stronger is if you spent more rage rounds. If you want a higher strength bonus, to keep up with damage? Well, better pay double or triple the rage rounds.

It just means that resource heavy classes are rough later on as well as in the early game, and that the 15 minute adventuring day turns into a 1.5 minute adventuring day.

Except no, it's more like "Imagine you get 5 rounds of SUPER RAGE, and those are all the rounds you get, but you still get rounds of regular rage based on your level." You have a few spell slots that are you best and most powerful, and the rest are just a bunch of lesser effects that you can use throughout the day.

That only works if lower-level spells are actually useful at higher levels. If 5th level spells are balanced against 10th level enemies, 4th level spells will be less than effective, and you start lagging behind.

Or, make higher-level spells overpowered compared to the monsters you're facing at that level. I'm sure that will work out just fine, and nobody will go on about Casters overpowering everything 5 times per day.


Dasrak wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
A level 1 spell cast using a level 1 spell slot should not in any way be relevant at level 16
Why not? It's still going to be weaker than most at-will abilities at that level. If you're going to prep it over a utility spell, why shouldn't it deal a decent clip of damage?

Especially when Illusion is right next door and is making ample use out of a 1st level spell called Color Spray.

Tiefling (Rakshasa) Oracle 1 (Heavens, Awesome Display) Sorcerer 1 (Serpetine Bloodline) / Mesmerist 14 (Cult Master) / Feysworn 4.

Where they can affect Oozes, Vermin, Plants, Undead, Animals, Magical Beasts and Monstrous Humanoids and a 50% chance for everything else, even if they are normally immune to mind affecting effects, with Color Spray and have enough Charisma to make them all go unconscious. The build can affect targets with HD of 29 or less.

Caster levels don't matter to the build aside from reaching effective level of 16-17 so it can get 6th level spells that it can just use to heighten the effects of color spray as though it were a 6th level spell.

Its basically using 2e rules. Feed big spells to small spells for greater effects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

If you are okay with limiting casters to only 3-5 spells per day that are meaningful in combat, does that mean you are also okay with limiting martials to 3-5 attacks per day at their highest values?

-What game are you playing that casters are limited to 3-5 meaningful spells per day? Certainly it's not Starfinder. A 7th lvl technomancer has 13 spells, all of them relevant. At lvl 7th, Magic Missile does 3d4+3 (average 10) with 100% chance to hit, and full damage vs incorporeals. Injected Nanobots does 4d8 + Confusion (rolls to hit, tho), and explosive blasts does 9d6, with 20' AOE. A regular shot does 2d8+7 at that level does, rolling to hit. This is counting just damage, not utility spells which are harder to quantify, such as invisibility.

And, in fact, I'm ok with martials having spendable resources as well. Be it Ki, Rage Points, Deeds, or whatever.


Dαedαlus wrote:

That only works if lower-level spells are actually useful at higher levels. If 5th level spells are balanced against 10th level enemies, 4th level spells will be less than effective, and you start lagging behind.

So pretty much all the utility spells?


Who would bother with damage spells in Starfinder? Complete waste of a slot.

Also I'm less than hyped for Knock I-X spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:


Except no, it's more like "Imagine you get 5 rounds of SUPER RAGE, and those are all the rounds you get, but you still get rounds of regular rage based on your level." You have a few spell slots that are you best and most powerful, and the rest are just a bunch of lesser effects that you can use throughout the day.

Except no, its not like that. As a blasty arcanist, I was never the primary damage dealer. I was 3 out of 4 in our party (which consisted of a hunter, a slayer, me and a cleric). The slayer and the paladin routinely did 100 points of damage more than me per round in every combat. And they didn't have to worry about running out of spells - their studied strike / smite worked for as long as the BBEG lived. Moreover their increased number of attacks didn't go away either, neither did the bonuses/enhancements on their weapons, their feats or their BAB.

Which is fine. They built martials able to one shot 90% of the enemies we faced. Casters should be allowed to do the same thing. They're already nerfed through metamagic as well as through limited number of spells a day and damage spells mazing out.

If they're going to do this, then when a caster has a metamagic feat he ought to be able to apply that feat to the spell without changing its casting time or its spell level. And if that means using all 3 actions to cast 3 fireballs a round, fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

If you are okay with limiting casters to only 3-5 spells per day that are meaningful in combat, does that mean you are also okay with limiting martials to 3-5 attacks per day at their highest values?

-What game are you playing that casters are limited to 3-5 meaningful spells per day?

A game without spell scaling - meaning spells that were effective in combat at lowers levels are no longer meaningful at higher levels.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zi Mishkal wrote:

This is the problem in a nutshell. People are angry because of how they see it implemented in 5e and the fact that Paizo seems to be following that model. I'll use the 5e version of Fireball as an example. (and hopefully my math is correct)

Fireball (a third level spell) does 8d6 at a caster level of 5 (in a 20' radius).. and a caster level of 20. If you want to increase the damage fireball does at CL=20, you have to use a higher level spell slot at the rate of 1d6 per higher spell level.
So, casting it as a 4th level spell does 9d6 damage. Casting it as a 9th level spell does 15d6.

Meteor Swarm (a 9th level spell) does 20d6 fire damage and 20d6 bludgeoning damage per meteor in a 40' radius. You can throw up to 4 meteors per cast of meteor swarm. (damage doesn't overlap)

So, you have a choice between 15d6 for fireball as a 9th level spell or 40d6 for meteor swarm. Thats a no-brainer. No one would ever cast fireball if they had the option of casting meteor swarm. (also fireball's range is 150' whereas meteor swarm's range is 1 mile).

I would use a starfinder comparison, but their spell lists are so screwed up that there's no good analogue. The closest I can come up with is Explosive Blast (cough Fireball cough) a 3rd level spell that has medium range and does 9d6 damage and Chain Surge (cough Chain Lightning cough) that does 13d12 damage, is long range and shorts out electronics.

13d12 averages 84 points of damage, whereas 9d6 averages 32 points of damage. There is no way in heck that you'd pick the 9d6 over 13d12 unless whatever you were attacking was immune to electricity.

So again, the lower level spells are completely useless. And the character's depth is severely negatively impacted. We're not stupid people. We know terrible game design when we see it.

Once again, people are assuming things that aren't in evidence. Why do you assume it will work exactly like it does in 5e? In the Know Direction interview, they even said that the guy who came up with this version didn't even know that's how 5e did spells, it's just a good idea of how to do it. Even PF1 used it with undercast spells, and Starfinder has it.

Judging from the things Paizo has already done with spells in a similar vein, it's far more likely that it will be less "3rd level fireball deals 6d6, 4th level deals 7d6, and 5th level deals 8d6", and more like "3rd level fireball deals 6d6 with a 20ft radius, 4th level deals 8d6 with a 30ft radius and sets targets on fire, and 5th level deals 10d6 in a 50ft radius, sets targets on fire, and makes disparaging remarks about their parentage".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:

That only works if lower-level spells are actually useful at higher levels. If 5th level spells are balanced against 10th level enemies, 4th level spells will be less than effective, and you start lagging behind.

So pretty much all the utility spells?

Yes.

The spells that are constantly cited in the C/MD threads because they enable player agency outside of combat.

Nothing changes on that front with non-scaling spells.

More relevant to this thread is caster usefulness in combat. Without scaling spells, and the ability to remain relevant in combat for more than 3-5 rounds/day, there will be no casters, other than the groups healbot, in out-of-combat gameplay.


JRutterbush wrote:


Once again, people are assuming things that aren't in evidence. Why do you assume it will work exactly like it does in 5e? Once again, people are assuming things that aren't in evidence. Why do you assume it will work exactly like it does in 5e? In the Know Direction interview, they even said that the guy who came up with this version didn't even know that's how 5e did spells, it's just a good idea of how to do it

Two reasons: (1) they know. they work in the industry. they play games. it would be irresponsible for them not to know. (2) the mechanic is similar to starfinder which is similar to 5e, and I've done the math for starfinder and it's just as bad. So even if they didn't know about 5e (extremely unlikely) they know about their own product as the chief designer is Jason Bulmahn who is the director of game design at Paizo.

It is completely unrealistic to believe that these people didn't know about 5e, much less their own product. The person in the podcast either misspoke or was being directly misleading.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zi Mishkal wrote:

13d12 averages 84 points of damage, whereas 9d6 averages 32 points of damage. There is no way in heck that you'd pick the 9d6 over 13d12 unless whatever you were attacking was immune to electricity.

So again, the lower level spells are completely useless. And the character's depth is severely negatively impacted. We're not stupid people. We know terrible game design when we see it.

At lvl 16, explosive burst does 9d6+8 in AOE. At that level, a Storm Shock Caster (a type of Cannon) does 5d12+16 in AOE. The explosive burst is not "useless". It's just not optimal. The 13d12+8 Chain Surge is better than any AOE gun at that level (by a huge margin), and you can use the 3rd level slots for things like Fly, haste or invisiblity, which are still relevant. Also, at lvl 16 you have 4 lvl 6 spells, plus 4 lvl 5 spells and 4 lvl 4 spells, so your roughly average for the level Explosive Burst won't be used until 13th round of combat of so (assuming you never attack with a rifle yourself, which you should, because Technomanceer is closer to a Magus than it is to a wizard).

The problem here is that you want Wizard's turn to be THE most relevant turn in every single round in every single combat for the entire duration of the adventure day. Just being "average" some rounds and "awesome" some others isn't enough for you. And that defeats the very idea of "expendable but more powerful resources", if "expendable" means "I have enough of them to really not caring".

Shadow Lodge

To play Devil's Advocate, or attempt to, not knowing that was how 5e did their spells does not mean it won't be the same.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
Once again, people are assuming things that aren't in evidence. Why do you assume it will work exactly like it does in 5e? In the Know Direction interview, they even said that the guy who came up with this version didn't even know that's how 5e did spells, it's just a good idea of how to do it. Even PF1 used it with undercast spells, and Starfinder has it.

If people wait until the rules are published, it is too late to voice concerns. At that point everything will be set in stone.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Lausth wrote:
Why do we have to bring up 5e all the time.İs it not obvious that most of us dont like 5e.

Because this particular mechanic already exist in 5e, and Paizo copied that into Starfinder, and it seems it's going to enter the playtest.

A lot of the guys who don't want PF2e exist do not like 5e, that's true. Not sure how that helps Paizo to build a 2e, something they seem to be determined to do.

Point of order, this was brought up in the Podcast. The person who came up with the magic system had never read 5e when he came up with it. Parallel development, and while it's similar, it's not necessarily the same.


Starfinder Superscriber

I think this could be very good, or very bad, depending upon the implementation.

The Bad: Similar number of spells (known, castable, and in the world). Except now you have to learn the higher level version to keep a spell viable, eating a higher slot to do what was automatic before. So now you're eating up more higher level slots quicker. This would add another variable to manage for every spell and make magic more complicated.

The Good: Spell redundancies removed. Wizard's Fire I-IX. Can be cast as a cone, ray or blast. Damages, ranges and AOE scale by level. Same thing for each element mimicking their classic spells. This cuts down the number of rando spells that do essentially the same thing. You can cast the spell appropriate to the effect you want. So in essence, if you want the Scorching Ray effect, you cast it as a 4th level spell and get 12d6 against a single target. Cast it as a blast at 4th level and you get 9d6 in a radius and so on. This slims down the spellbook a lot and means known spells can be paired down without reducing versatility.

On the reason for the change, logically it does make sense that you have to put more "power" into a spell to get a greater effect. Maybe small bonuses for actual level (skill). E.g. 2D6 per slot level + 1 per caster level kinda thing.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Once again, people are assuming things that aren't in evidence. Why do you assume it will work exactly like it does in 5e? In the Know Direction interview, they even said that the guy who came up with this version didn't even know that's how 5e did spells, it's just a good idea of how to do it. Even PF1 used it with undercast spells, and Starfinder has it.
If people wait until the rules are published, it is too late to voice concerns. At that point everything will be set in stone.

Well, given it's a playtest, I imagine it won't be 'set in stone,' but if significant amounts of the game are balanced against how spells now scale, it wouldn't be much more than tweaking.


The same spell functioning in wildly different ways depending on level is just plain confusing and annoying. It's just an attempt to save printing cost by reducing word count. They did this with Starfinder's undercasting spells, too, which actually made me think they used overcasting at first glance.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:


The problem here is that you want Wizard's turn to be THE most relevant turn in every single round in every single combat for the entire duration of the adventure day. Just being "average" some rounds and "awesome" some others isn't enough for you. And that defeats the very idea of "expendable but more powerful resources", if "expendable" means "I have enough of them to really not caring".

Not true... the caster's resources are finite for a reason. A martial doesn't run out of sword as the day wears on. The caster runs out of spells. Which means with every turn the caster has to weigh the relative merits of hitting with his hardest spell or holding back. Its a completely different playstyle than a martial.

However, when the caster's lesser spells are so weak they do almost no damage (we can assume that most higher level monsters will either make their save and turn those 32 points of damage into 16 or evade it completely turning it into 0 points of damage) they become useless. So now you have a caster doing the same amount of damage as a martial ~15 on ONE of his MULTIPLE attacks. Except the caster can't do that all day. He has a limited number of spells that he can use.

So if we have them make their saves, then the caster is doing 16 points of damage with "fireball" and 42 points of damage with "chain lightning". All limited by the number of times he can do it a day. Whereas the martial can keep on swinging every turn, every combat, all day.

oh, and you still want the caster to buff the martial, provide transport for the party, heal the party, etc. That's awful nice of you.

Yeah, there's a disparity. But it's not in favor of the casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
If you are okay with limiting casters to only 3-5 spells per day that are meaningful in combat, does that mean you are also okay with limiting martials to 3-5 attacks per day at their highest values?
That sounds like level 1 Pathfinder with a Wizard and a Barbarian. The Barbarian gets 5 rounds of rage, the Wizard gets three to five Level 1 spells.

Exactly. Now, imagine that 5 rage rounds was all you ever got.

Or, alternatively, your rage rounds did increase, but the only way your rage would ever get stronger is if you spent more rage rounds. If you want a higher strength bonus, to keep up with damage? Well, better pay double or triple the rage rounds.

It just means that resource heavy classes are rough later on as well as in the early game, and that the 15 minute adventuring day turns into a 1.5 minute adventuring day.

Except no, it's more like "Imagine you get 5 rounds of SUPER RAGE, and those are all the rounds you get, but you still get rounds of regular rage based on your level." You have a few spell slots that are you best and most powerful, and the rest are just a bunch of lesser effects that you can use throughout the day.

Except it's not 5 rounds of "Super Rage" and then rounds of regular rage. It's 5 rounds of regular rage and then rounds of crappy rage.

Shadow Lodge

Dαedαlus wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Once again, people are assuming things that aren't in evidence. Why do you assume it will work exactly like it does in 5e? In the Know Direction interview, they even said that the guy who came up with this version didn't even know that's how 5e did spells, it's just a good idea of how to do it. Even PF1 used it with undercast spells, and Starfinder has it.
If people wait until the rules are published, it is too late to voice concerns. At that point everything will be set in stone.
Well, given it's a playtest, I imagine it won't be 'set in stone,' but if significant amounts of the game are balanced against how spells now scale, it wouldn't be much more than tweaking.

I don't know. 4 months sure seems like a lot of time to get through all three of the playtest adventures, doesn't it? Surely we won't need that much time for the level one to twenty adventure.

Paizo is kicking the goblin so the book will be 'ready' for next year's convention, where "Oh, shiny new product" will get people to snatch up the book and give paizo a good profit.


Sadida wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
A level 1 spell cast using a level 1 spell slot should not in any way be relevant at level 16
Why not? It's still going to be weaker than most at-will abilities at that level. If you're going to prep it over a utility spell, why shouldn't it deal a decent clip of damage?

Especially when Illusion is right next door and is making ample use out of a 1st level spell called Color Spray.

Tiefling (Rakshasa) Oracle 1 (Heavens, Awesome Display) Sorcerer 1 (Serpetine Bloodline) / Mesmerist 14 (Cult Master) / Feysworn 4.

Where they can affect Oozes, Vermin, Plants, Undead, Animals, Magical Beasts and Monstrous Humanoids and a 50% chance for everything else, even if they are normally immune to mind affecting effects, with Color Spray and have enough Charisma to make them all go unconscious. The build can affect targets with HD of 29 or less.

Caster levels don't matter to the build aside from reaching effective level of 16-17 so it can get 6th level spells that it can just use to heighten the effects of color spray as though it were a 6th level spell.

Its basically using 2e rules. Feed big spells to small spells for greater effects.

Except not everybody likes that playstyle of feeding big spells to smalls spells, and even less people would do such an specific build, which is the exception, not the norm. I want the current playstyle, where you got higher level spells and lower level spells that are still effective without having to cannibilize the former.


Ah, the first Caster/Martial Disparity thread for Pathfinder 2e. Someone should trot out all the arguments about why it wasn't a problem when Fighters were the class that was weak; they always resolved the issues people had.


Blasting was already the "fun over optimization" way to go for casters. As I said before, removing scaling and adding an overcasting system just makes any spells that deal damage worse while giving casters access to even more spells because they don't have to pick up the better versions separately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

for the record, according to ENWorld they said in the podcast that "major parts of the rulebooks aren't going to change". My guess is that this is already set in stone.

Maybe we should start up a thread where people can say that they won't convert to 2e and cite the specific mechanic that is a deal-breaker for them. If that thread is long enough and there's enough people for a specific mechanic, they might reconsider.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zi Mishkal wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:


The problem here is that you want Wizard's turn to be THE most relevant turn in every single round in every single combat for the entire duration of the adventure day. Just being "average" some rounds and "awesome" some others isn't enough for you. And that defeats the very idea of "expendable but more powerful resources", if "expendable" means "I have enough of them to really not caring".

Not true... the caster's resources are finite for a reason. A martial doesn't run out of sword as the day wears on. The caster runs out of spells. Which means with every turn the caster has to weigh the relative merits of hitting with his hardest spell or holding back. Its a completely different playstyle than a martial.

You are advocating for spells being relevant at all levels. That means a lvl 19 wizard should cast relevant spells for 40 rounds or so. With average combat lasting for 3-4 rounds at best, that's 10-13 encounters. By the time the "expendable wizard spells" run out, he litteraly has leveled up. That's not counting Wands, scrolls, etc.

Quote:
However, when the caster's lesser spells are so weak they do almost no damage (we can assume that most higher level monsters will either make their save and turn those 32 points of damage into 16 or evade it completely turning it into 0 points of damage)

Why are you assuming that? Why don't you assume the guy with the gun misses?

Quote:
So now you have a caster doing the same amount of damage as a martial ~15 on ONE of his MULTIPLE attacks. Except the caster can't do that all day. He has a limited number of spells that he can use

The cannon I used as an example is Unwieldly. Can be shot only once per round (at -2 to hit vs every target in 20').

Quote:
So if we have them make their saves, then the caster is doing 16 points of damage with "fireball" and 42 points of damage with "chain lightning". All limited by the number of times he can do it a day. Whereas the martial can keep on swinging every turn, every combat, all day.

The Chain Lightning does twice the damage the equivalent AOE cannon does, so even if everybody makes their saves, always, and you never misses a shot with the cannon, they do roughly the same damage. Except the Chain Lighting dodges allies.

Quote:
oh, and you still want the caster to buff the martial, provide transport for the party, heal the party, etc. That's awful nice of you.

I'm not asking for that, but now you mention, they can do all of that with those "useless lvl 3 spells" you said are not worth it.


I'd also like to address the tangential problem of people saying that Paizo is just copying 5th edition. I mean, I believe they aren't, I believe what they said that they developed this system without knowing that it was implemented in 5th edition, and I'm far from thinking this is just a cash grab. HOWEVER, wether or not I believe they developed it separatedly, the system being the same/similar the effective end result is the same. And I assure that I and a lot of the PF 1st edition fan base will defelect from the new edition if this stands. I'd go even if I liked the rest of the rules, but if spellcasting is nerfed like in 5ed I say no. No, thank you, sir.

bookrat wrote:

Part of fixing the C/MD is boosting martials while scaling back casters.

They've already said they're boosting martial abilities by a significant amount. This is just the other half of the equation.

It is absolutely necessary and it is wonderful that they've listened to the community and paid attention to the analysis the prooved the disparity existed.

The way I see this "equation" is that, if they were to follow it, it would be taking a big part of my fun away and giving it to others. Instead of the better option: just boosting the non-casters and giving them a fun experience like I have with casters without taking anything from us (caster players).

People complaining casters are "quadratic", well then make non-casters as good and fun to play, but do not expect we will not complain if they want to take part of our playstyle away.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

They expect major parts of the rules books won't change... like the fact there will be classes. Erik Mona and Logan said that the details were not set in stone.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
You are advocating for spells being relevant at all levels. That means a lvl 19 wizard should cast relevant spells for 40 rounds or so. With average combat lasting for 3-4 rounds at best, that's 10-13 encounters. By the time the "expendable wizard spells" run out, he litteraly has leveled up. That's not counting Wands, scrolls, etc.

Please remind me, how many rounds/day does a barbarian get at that level?

How many rounds until the fighter runs out of sword?

What is the /day limit on a rogues backstab?

A 19th level wizard runs out of his last memorized Flesh to Stone spell long before he expends his last Dispel Magic.

Unless they are fighting Skeletons, in which case neither spell is of much use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NetoD20 wrote:
Except it's not 5 rounds of "Super Rage" and then rounds of regular rage. It's 5 rounds of regular rage and then rounds of crappy rage.

In which game? Certainly not in Starfinder, which was used to make a comparison here. A spell of the highest available slot is the best action anyone can do. Last sunday we were fighting an incorporeal creature. A lvl 1 operative did 1d4+1d4 with a laser pistol IF he succeed a skill check AND then hit with the attack. Magic Missile does 3d4+3, no chance to miss, and full damage to incorporeals. Sure, the Missile is expendable. But it is also much better. Which is the point: expendable resources that are better, but run out.

Spells one level below the max are still above average. At lvl 4, when lvl 2 spells enter the game, MAgic missile is still good. It becomes below average at max levl -2 or so, and by then, you ussually change those to utility. And that's taking in account that in SF there are no pure casters. The "wizard" has 3/4 bab, and combat abilities similar to a magus (enhancing weapons, casting spells through weapons, etc). A pure caster in PF2 will probably have even better spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
You are advocating for spells being relevant at all levels. That means a lvl 19 wizard should cast relevant spells for 40 rounds or so. With average combat lasting for 3-4 rounds at best, that's 10-13 encounters. By the time the "expendable wizard spells" run out, he litteraly has leveled up. That's not counting Wands, scrolls, etc.

Please remind me, how many rounds/day does a barbarian get at that level?

How many rounds until the fighter runs out of sword?

What is the /day limit on a rogues backstab?

They never run out.

However, a fighter can't teleport through the battlefield, because as he never runs out of abilities, his abilities suck. Wizards are "supposed" to be balanced around the idea that what they do is way more impressive, but runs out. If the later it's not true, the former is overpowered.

A knife vs a grenade is roughly balanced. Grenade is better, but knife is durable while grenade is single use. A knife vs a belt of grenades "might" be balanced too, if there are enough combats. However, a knife vs a truck full of grenades, more than enough to kill everyone in the opposing army, is not balanced.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bookrat wrote:
Except that fighter mcbigsword is likely doing 2d6+6 while your one big spell does 8d8 or something.

2d6+6 would be extremely low damage for an 8th level PF1E fighter.

A conservative build might have 18 strength, a +2 belt, a +1 flaming greatsword, +1 weapon training, and power attack. That's 3d6+18 damage before counting other feats or class features or buffs, so let's push that to 4d6+20 for our conservative fighter. This is about the same damage as that 8d8 blast, except with an attack roll except a saving throw, and the option for iteratives (which can be focused on a single target) rather than area of effect. This is a big deal, since enemies who have taken hit point damage are just as dangerous as when they have full health. A fighter who focuses his iteratives on one target to take it down has eliminated a threat, while a caster who has lobbed an AoE spell to damage all the nearby foes hasn't procured any immediate advantage. So as a practical matter, the fighter's at-will attack is actually better than the caster's highest level spell in most situations.

This is the problem that blasters had in PF1E, and why only specialized builds were good with them. This will only get worse if damage doesn't scale in PF2E.

Dave Justus wrote:
Except it's not 5 rounds of "Super Rage" and then rounds of regular rage. It's 5 rounds of regular rage and then rounds of crappy rage.

Even that doesn't really do it justice, since attack damage scales naturally and barbarians will still get some natural scaling even when not raging.

51 to 100 of 481 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Spells Not Scaling Automatically per Caster Level All Messageboards