|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Several playtest reports have mentioned that a cleric is almost mandatory, so calling them useless may not be entirely accurate. :)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: I like to play casters. I think that they need to be weakened from PF1.
It's not about caster players vs martial players, each side wanting to boost their own favorites and weaken the other side's. It's about wanting a better balance between them.
Some certainly disagree about the problem and where the balance should be, but I still don't see it the way you describe it.
TheJeff gets it. Aadgarven talkin' 'bout how HE is less powerful now is, apparently, playing a very different game than I am, one where he is personally wounded by better character balance, and one where his individual need to feel powerful is more important than everyone at the table feeling like they have a fair shot at contributing to the fun.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Charles Scholz wrote: I can't believe you are screwing the magic users AGAIN.
They can only cast 3 spells of any level per day?
Do you expect fights to only last 1-2 rounds?
Do you think an adventuring party will only have 1 fight on an adventuring day?
Let me tell you, that is not how things happen.
Example: Last week my group is playing Crimson Throne.
We are in the Labyrinth.
First we run into a Dark Sphinx (with SR and DR). That took several rounds.
Later we ran into a Rakshasa Monk (who had an insane SR score and DR), her Upasunda Asura minion (with SR and DR) and the 2 Asura Adhukaits (also with SR and DR) that were summoned.
That battle took over 15 rounds.
Our main fighter was killed, our spell-casters were empty, our cleric was empty.
We only killed the Upasunda and 1 of the Adhukaits, the other disappeared when the summoning ran out.
We barely injured the Rakshasa.
The only thing that kept it from being a TPK was a wand of dimension door our rogue had that allowed us to escape.
And you are proposing giving players less spells?????
You are saying to us it is pointless to be a spell-caster.
They are only good for sitting to the side while the battle is going on.
You ran a PF1 adventure using PF1 rules and abilities, against enemies that a properly optimized spellcaster could have easily trounced, and expect it to be a direct correlation to how bad PF2 spellcasting is?
I'm sorry, but you can't make the claim you're making until you actually run PF2 rules to begin with.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Systems Agnostic wrote: thejeff wrote: I like to play casters. I think that they need to be weakened from PF1.
It's not about caster players vs martial players, each side wanting to boost their own favorites and weaken the other side's. It's about wanting a better balance between them.
Some certainly disagree about the problem and where the balance should be, but I still don't see it the way you describe it.
TheJeff gets it. Aadgarven talkin' 'bout how HE is less powerful now is, apparently, playing a very different game than I am, one where he is personally wounded by better character balance, and one where his individual need to feel powerful is more important than everyone at the table feeling like they have a fair shot at contributing to the fun. Hey personal it's funnier, isn't it?
Look at my posts, I enjoyed PF1 even though I was had the lower DPR, I cast most spells for buffing, yes buffing others so they are better.
I really enjoy helping others fight better and then step aside.
But if want to play a spell caster is because .....
I want to cast spells!!!!, surprise eh!
If the developers think that PF2 spellcasters will be more appealing, well not to me at least.
Ryuujin-sama wrote: JRutterbush wrote: Ryuujin-sama wrote: With how some view Cantrip damage, I have to wonder if they even looked at the Alchemist's bombs? You're underestimating the power of persistent damage, I think. That's #d4 per round, with a very difficult check required to stop the damage: even if they sacrifice an action to lower the DC, it's still only a 30% chance per round to end the effect, and they're effectively Slowed 1 while doing so.
I'd say that's a great step up from a cantrip, myself. You apply that damage to one enemy, concentrate on ending another, and then you can go back and finish the (now heavily damaged) first enemy fairly quickly.
Acid flasks are amazing. Maybe I am. But it has long been considered that DOT damage, Damage Over Time, is not as good as just straight damage. Admittedly it is hard to get rid of Persistent damage. But the Acid Splash has Persistent damage as well, even if only on a crit.
But again the Acid Flask costs Resonance to use for most, and Resonance to create for the Alchemist if they aren't buying them and using Resonance to use. The Acid Flask, which is the most Persistent damage of the Bomb options for the Alchemist, is a very limited resource unlike Cantrips like Acid Splash.
And of course the Spellcasters have bigger spells they can call upon to easily overshadow the Alchemist, who is already only barely comparing to Cantrip damage with their limited resource. Actually, bombs don't require resonance to use ever (page 359, alchemical bomb section, 1st column, second paragraph, bottom of paragraph). Even if made by an alchemist using Advanced Alchemy. Elixir and Mutagens do require resonance. Poisons also don't require the use of resonance to use.
Joey Cote wrote: Poisons also don't require the use of resonance to use. Haha. How awesome (and weird) would that be.
You go to poison someone, but they are out of resonance, so they can't use the poison you gave them.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Charles Scholz wrote: And you are proposing giving players less spells?????
You are saying to us it is pointless to be a spell-caster.
They are only good for sitting to the side while the battle is going on.
I somewhat agree. However I've playtested at level 5/10 and:
- Cantrips are auto-heightened, which on paper doesn't look good, but is "OK". You can contribute.
- The truth is that sometimes you can only do 1-2 encounters per day now. I think this sucks, but it's the state of healing right now. So having more arcane slots isn't really necessary.
If you want to know how they've screwed spellcasters, you have to look at the spells themselves. Only a few spells per level aren't completely useless.
Take a spell like Fear, which isn't even as good as the Demoralize skill now. If they fail, the target gets Frightened 2 (it should be at least frightened 3). For those of you who don't know, Frightened doesn't stack and you lose 1 Frightened at the end of each round.
If the target crit fails, which only happens 1 in 20 on boss creatures, they flee for 1 round. When I heard they were adjusting "save or die" spells, this isn't what I had in mind. The penalty for failure should be high, very high, without taking you out of the fight. This is especially important considering how few times you can do this per day.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Charles Scholz wrote: I can't believe you are screwing the magic users AGAIN.
They can only cast 3 spells of any level per day?
Do you expect fights to only last 1-2 rounds?
Do you think an adventuring party will only have 1 fight on an adventuring day?
Your last question is my biggest concern. With PF1 and significantly more spells per day, players constantly want to sleep to get their characters back up to full strength. Then that disrupts everything potentially with a nighttime encounter. It also disrupts everything with ll of the extra tasks like the day, healing with unused spells, and resetting numbers. With PF2, all of that is more frequent, and you have the extra daily accounting for resonance. I would have preferred to have seen the game make it easier to flow from encounter to encounter, and the game is going in the opposite direction.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TheLoneCleric wrote: Hmmm. Wands, Scrolls, and Staves. How does that impact the spell economy? Not at all now that they are limited by resonance points, ALL items, potions, scrolls wands etc..., are now limited per day items.
Draco18s wrote: Quote: to as manay creatures as you damn well feel like 1) Three times per day
2) Critical success on a reflex save ends the chain
Any time you're spending a spell slot, you're ending the fight in a round. Any time you're not you're on the bench. Hear, hear! It's all or nothing. My players won't do wizards because 90% of the time they're twiddling their thumbs, then BOOM, one fight over in 1 round. Slightly better boost to low level combat spells, and some comparable spell strengths in higher levels would help a lot. (Getting rid of thr resonance oint nonsense would help as well>)
The Systems Agnostic wrote: thejeff wrote: I like to play casters. I think that they need to be weakened from PF1.
It's not about caster players vs martial players, each side wanting to boost their own favorites and weaken the other side's. It's about wanting a better balance between them.
Some certainly disagree about the problem and where the balance should be, but I still don't see it the way you describe it.
TheJeff gets it. Aadgarven talkin' 'bout how HE is less powerful now is, apparently, playing a very different game than I am, one where he is personally wounded by better character balance, and one where his individual need to feel powerful is more important than everyone at the table feeling like they have a fair shot at contributing to the fun. You obviously have a unusual gaming environment. In 45 years of play Wizards have always been the first to die, last to attack and couldn't use most of their big spells because the fighter types ran up to the enemy, leaving the choice of do noting or kill party members because they're in the area of effect. Power isn't the issue, being able to play a caster, you know, casting spells?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Okay here is the problem that everyone is forgetting about, HITTING the target. At 8th level casters only have +12 to hit TAC. Average 8th level monster has a TAC of 24. The TAC AC stays fairly consistently ahead after that. The fighter has a 16 to hit for the monster AC of 25 on average. So the wizard hits on a 12 or better, with the fighter hitting on a 9 or better. The fighter has a 10% chance to crit to the wizard 5%. So in order to hit even with the fighter you need Heroism cast at 5th level (+2 to hit), and then cast true strike (1 action) for 2 rolls and take the higher.
First thing casters should have is a change to Expert and Master Caster levels to level 6 and level 12. This will bring the average to hit to an 11 and damage to +5 and +7.
Second, the feat Quicken Casting needs to give multiple attacks every round. Quickened Casting should allow multiple 0 level castings with 1 higher level spell per day to keep up with the fighters. This will give the cantrips similar damage as a weapon.
Third, if the spell is direct physical damage, change the spell description from 2D per spell level to 1D per spell level and remove the saves. Currently there is a constant 60% to 70% chance of spell failure due to miss chance and critical saves.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kringress wrote: Second, the feat Quicken Casting needs to give multiple attacks every round. Quickened Casting should allow multiple 0 level castings with 1 higher level spell per day to keep up with the fighters. This will give the cantrips similar damage as a weapon.
Can't argue with that. We need a real Quicken Spell option, not a useful-once-per-day kind of feat.
Casters already have a limited amount of spells per day, it's not going to make them any more powerful since they'll just burn through their spell slots faster.
But at least, they'd have a decent option to contribute each round at higher levels of play.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Secret Wizard wrote: Cantrips and Spell Points bruh.
Use your Resonance.
Well,
Cantrips; only telekinetic strike does decent damage, and still less than a Cleric can do, let alone a fighter. AND it requires an attack roll, problematic for wizards.
Spell Points; max of 4 points unless you spend feats( that add anough to use it ONCE) and the list of things to uise is pathetically short.
Resonance points; magic items are now basically nerfed beyond compare, your level + char mod, wow a whopping max of 5 at first level, game breaking,,, not. Scrolls and wands ore the only thin that keeps low level casters from sitting at the rear of the party with their thumbs up their butts.
Unicore wrote: The scaling cantrips look pretty good to me. The spell point powers much less so thus far. Telekinetic strike is OK nut most of the rest are a bit wimpy, crossbows do better. Sorry I'm not really a Gandalf type player. Of course what they did to mage armor and shield is almost criminal. It is better to take the hit and use a feat to get armor proficiency and buy armor.
Meh casters shouldn't be getting involved in combat more than they have to anyway, that's the martials' corner. I'm far more concerned about the lack of stuff to do out of combat. Unless, they're planning to add a lot more Rituals, I can't help wondering what role casters are actually meant to fulfill in the new game
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Crayon wrote: Meh casters shouldn't be getting involved in combat more than they have to anyway, that's the martials' corner. I'm far more concerned about the lack of stuff to do out of combat. Unless, they're planning to add a lot more Rituals, I can't help wondering what role casters are actually meant to fulfill in the new game That is the bigger problem certainly. Their ability to deal damage is the only thing that seems passable, anything else they do looks sort of sad. Closer to parlor tricks than magic.
The attack cantrip discussion is sort of weird to me as well. Wouldn't most players prefer to use a bow simply for a single action attack to fill out their extra attack after casting a spell? Even using an attack cantrip would still leave you wanting a bow for a second attack. Is the gold economy so tight that a caster can't afford a proper bow?
I would fire off a bow shot with a Wizard and follow that up with an Electric Arc. No MAP issues if done in that order either.
Draco18s wrote: Making a Medicine check (DC 15, req: healer's tools) in order to reduce that flat 20 check to a flat 15. Oh boy! Not that it’s not still good, but do keep in mind that the active attaempts to remove persistent damage is one per ACTION, of which you get three actions per round, so it’s actually three flat DC15 checks per round to end persistent damage (remember what you quoted says they get an immediate check with that action), so that’s checks per full round.
Still tough, but statistically speaking about a 65% chance to put it out each round.
With spellcasters nerfed like this my group and I don't see ourselves ever playing PF2.
Kodyboy wrote: With spellcasters nerfed like this my group and I don't see ourselves ever playing PF2. Shame for you. I have been DMing the playtest for a couple groups of 5E players and they have been having a blast.
I agree on a better quicken option. Some of the magic feats cannot be used with cantrips. How about a quicken feat that can only be used with cantrips, and is limited to one per round. Make it a level 8 to level 12 feat.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It's hard for me to call Clerics useless with how powerful Heal is. Aside from that? eh. Cantrips for damage just don't feel impactful. Like I'm fighting a Manticore with an inflatable mallet. It was taking two actions to fire off and doing less damage than the persistant damage of Acid Arrow was doing, nevermind the initial damage of Acid Arrow or what else they were doing in that time.
I found on my Cleric that using one was effectively an entire turn since I couldn't do anything with a single action that was useful except move.
Doing 4 damage, then having the Rogue (who was given a free magic weapon) do big numbers, then having the Manticore do huge numbers, then using Heal and wiping out all the Manticore's huge numbers... it really just highlighted how unsatisfying cantrips are to use. It's technically better than doing nothing, but it doesn't play very well and doesn't feel like you're actually making an impact in the outcome.
With how limited spell slots are on top of that, resting was absurdly frequent in my experience. We never did more than one combat between rests, and nobody really *wanted* to. (Doubly so if the Cleric said "I'm out of Heal channels". That was it. Done for the day.)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Tridus wrote: It's hard for me to call Clerics useless with how powerful Heal is. Aside from that? eh. Cantrips for damage just don't feel impactful. Like I'm fighting a Manticore with an inflatable mallet. It was taking two actions to fire off and doing less damage than the persistant damage of Acid Arrow was doing, nevermind the initial damage of Acid Arrow or what else they were doing in that time.
I found on my Cleric that using one was effectively an entire turn since I couldn't do anything with a single action that was useful except move.
Doing 4 damage, then having the Rogue (who was given a free magic weapon) do big numbers, then having the Manticore do huge numbers, then using Heal and wiping out all the Manticore's huge numbers... it really just highlighted how unsatisfying cantrips are to use. It's technically better than doing nothing, but it doesn't play very well and doesn't feel like you're actually making an impact in the outcome.
With how limited spell slots are on top of that, resting was absurdly frequent in my experience. We never did more than one combat between rests, and nobody really *wanted* to. (Doubly so if the Cleric said "I'm out of Heal channels". That was it. Done for the day.)
Indeed, the iconic Heal-bot Cleric is more essential than ever. The other caster classes never really had clear cut niches which is hurting them now since they can't do the things they did in PF1, but there's no real indication what, if anything, they're supposed to be competent at...
Just clearing up some misconceptions here.
1. All cantrips scale with your class level automatically. They do not become spells you have to cast of X level. If you are level 5 and cast Ray of Frost, it does its level 5 damage, still as a cantrip.
2. Most ranged weapons do not add a stat at all, and if they do they add only half strength. So if a noncaster wants ranged damage they have to have Dex to hit and str of at least 14 just to get a +1 damage.
3. Volley traits on longbows and composite longbows make them almost unusable, so people tend to carry a short bow, which does a D6.
4. Almost all cantrips add the casters stat to the damage starting at level 3 or 5. No non-caster ever gets that.
5. Casters make their spell attacks using their primary casting stat and add the same stat to damage. Also in this edition EVERY class will have high dex unless they are plate wearers anyway.
6. Spellduelist wands and Gloves, give + to hit to spell attacks, which progress slowly but are still only going to be about a +1 behind a normal weapon.
7. Most cantrips are ranged touch attacks, which are always lower than the normal AC.
EX. Level 5: Lets say they are fighting a Troll.
Fighter:
+1 Composite Shortbow with 14 strength: + 12 to hit for 2d6 + 1 Damage (8 damage) (deadly D8)
(Had to max dex and take 14 in strength)
Vs AC of 18 so hit rolling a 6-15, crit rolling 16-20
Hit: 50% for 8 damage
Crit: 25% Crit for 20
Average: 9 Damage
Lets say they shoot twice:
Now has only +7 to hit so needs an 11 to hit.
45% to hit for 8 damage
Crit only on a 20 so: 5% to do 20
Averages to 4.6, but lets round to 5 to make it look nice.
Fighter 2 shots: Roughly 14 damage. unless they went into PBS stance and the enemy has no bonuses.
Wizard:
Ray of Frost: +9 to hit for 2D8 + 4 (13 damage)
(Spent nothing but having their high primary stats, no gear, no items, no chance of losing the ability to use it.)
Vs TAC of 16 so hit rolling 7 or better
45% chance to hit for 13 damage. 5.85 average
20% chance to crit for 26 damage. 5.2
Average for the spell: 11
SO the wizard can do roughly 80% of the fighter damage for much less effort.
The fighter can not also use a shield because of his bow, but the wizard can still cast the cantrip shield if they have to.
Heck if they want the wizard could just fire a bow as well, and do even better. with a ROF/Bow shot.
Looks very fair to me.
Honestly, martials need something more to do.
Whisperknives wrote: Just clearing up some misconceptions here.
1. All cantrips scale with your class level automatically. They do not become spells you have to cast of X level. If you are level 5 and cast Ray of Frost, it does its level 5 damage, still as a cantrip.
...
EX. Level 5: Lets say they are fighting a Troll.
Fighter:
+1 Composite Shortbow with 14 strength: + 12 to hit for 2d6 + 1 Damage (8 damage) (deadly D8)
(Had to max dex and take 14 in strength)
Vs AC of 18 so hit rolling a 6-15, crit rolling 16-20
Hit: 50% for 8 damage
Crit: 25% Crit for 20
Average: 9 Damage
Lets say they shoot twice:
Now has only +7 to hit so needs an 11 to hit.
45% to hit for 8 damage
Crit only on a 20 so: 5% to do 20
Averages to 4.6, but lets round to 5 to make it look nice.
Fighter 2 shots: Roughly 14 damage. unless they went into PBS stance and the enemy has no bonuses.
Wizard:
Ray of Frost: +9 to hit for 2D8 + 4 (13 damage)
(Spent nothing but having their high primary stats, no gear, no items, no chance of losing the ability to use it.)
Vs TAC of 16 so hit rolling 7 or better
45% chance to hit for 13 damage 5.85 average
20% chance to crit for 26 damage. 5.2
Average for the spell: 11
If 1) was true, cantrip use would top out at character level 9. Rather, the cantrip scales to the highest level of spell you can cast - ie. at level 5, the cantrip scales to a 3ed level spell - Thus cantrips top out character lvl 17.
So, in your example, the wizard is doing 1d8+4 = 8.5 dmg. Combined dmg is then .45*8.5+.2*17 =~ 8. Roughly half the fighter. Also, I'm not sure I'd assume a 5th level archer fighter wouldn't have point blank shot for another 4 or 5 to damage, not to mention double shot...
pad300 wrote: Whisperknives wrote: Just clearing up some misconceptions here.
1. All cantrips scale with your class level automatically. They do not become spells you have to cast of X level. If you are level 5 and cast Ray of Frost, it does its level 5 damage, still as a cantrip.
...
EX. Level 5: Lets say they are fighting a Troll.
Fighter:
+1 Composite Shortbow with 14 strength: + 12 to hit for 2d6 + 1 Damage (8 damage) (deadly D8)
(Had to max dex and take 14 in strength)
Vs AC of 18 so hit rolling a 6-15, crit rolling 16-20
Hit: 50% for 8 damage
Crit: 25% Crit for 20
Average: 9 Damage
Lets say they shoot twice:
Now has only +7 to hit so needs an 11 to hit.
45% to hit for 8 damage
Crit only on a 20 so: 5% to do 20
Averages to 4.6, but lets round to 5 to make it look nice.
Fighter 2 shots: Roughly 14 damage. unless they went into PBS stance and the enemy has no bonuses.
Wizard:
Ray of Frost: +9 to hit for 2D8 + 4 (13 damage)
(Spent nothing but having their high primary stats, no gear, no items, no chance of losing the ability to use it.)
Vs TAC of 16 so hit rolling 7 or better
45% chance to hit for 13 damage 5.85 average
20% chance to crit for 26 damage. 5.2
Average for the spell: 11
If 1) was true, cantrip use would top out at character level 9. Rather, the cantrip scales to the highest level of spell you can cast - ie. at level 5, the cantrip scales to a 3ed level spell - Thus cantrips top out character lvl 17.
So, in your example, the wizard is doing 1d8+4 = 8.5 dmg. Combined dmg is then .45*8.5+.2*17 =~ 8. Roughly half the fighter. Also, I'm not sure I'd assume a 5th level archer fighter wouldn't have point blank shot for another 4 or 5 to damage, not to mention double shot... The Fighter SHOULD be better at killing monsters - it's their primary job in the party after all, but even if the Wizard was just as skilled in combat it wouldn't matter as combat efficacy isn't really something that's seen as a priority when playing spellcasters
just as a reminder, magic weapons don't grow on trees.
you usually have ONE item of your level.
so, someone having a +3 weapon gives up another level 12 item, which for a caster it would be a spell duelist wand probably.
so, you can get +2 to all of your touch attacks, plus a really good level 4th spell/day (enervation), OR have that +3 shortbow.
plus, since you also have at least 1 item lower level than your max, for a caster that's a greater staff of fire/mentalism at level 11
a greater staff basically not only gives 7 "spell levels" (those could easily be another 8d6 fireball and another 6d6 fireball back to back)
but also greatly expands your options since you don't need to have those spells prepped at all. Hell, you don't even need them in your spellbook and you can still sacrifice prepared spells and keep casting them if the need arises.
Now
Don't get me wrong. Weapons DO more damage.
And I feel that if you want to max your single target damage as a wizard, you'll get a weapon instead of staffs and etc, and you'll also pick up magical striker which truthfully is bonkers power wise, but you're approaching Gish at this point, or at least gish-lite
An elf wizard that picks up shortbow familiarity, is perfectly fine casting a spell (that doesn't has the attack trait) and following up with an arrow with magical striker off his +3 shortbow.
This will give him equal attack rating as being expert in weapons, since he get +1 more than the rest, and he also gets an additional die of damage, which is not bad at all for "free" stuff on top of your spell for the round.
And that's not a gish build, that's simply a wizard that took a single class feat and invested in a weapon instead of a staff. (Gishes, as always, should be amongst the top dpr. Heroism (+2 attack for whole battle)+magical striker, followed by fear(-2opponent ac, -1 next round)+magical striker, followed by true strike (+4-5 attack)+double shot, all with PBS on and etc)
But the staff also gives him 1 cantrip and 10 spells known that he can cast spontaneously and 7 "spell levels" worth of extra resources, 6 of which he replenishes daily for free.
So, comparing weapon to cantrip, disregarding the cost of the weapon, is not right imo.
|
