Arcane Spellcasters in PF2E – quo vadis?

[John Mechalas]

Dire Ursus wrote:

Spellcasters needed a nerf. There's a lot of people in this thread just forgetting that in 1e casters were unanimously the best classes in the game.

Is there an echo in here? There is near-unanimous agreement in this thread, including by magnuskn who started it, that it was necessary to lower the power ceiling of casters. If there's been anyone arguing otherwise, their voice has been drowned out.

The primary complaint has been that Paizo also lowered the power floor, and quite significantly.

It's not just damage, but also ranges, durations, areas of effect, number of targets, school powers, and spells per day. And not just combat spells, but also the quality of life and tedium-removal spells that allow you to spend game time in the actual encounters instead of travel to and from. On top of that there are also less tangible (but far more important) aspects such as ease of disruption, not really having the additional freedom offered by the new action economy, and the difficulty in learning new spells (where the rules are particularly harsh unless you take a feat).

Most of the effects of these are not going to be seen in the playtest scenarios, which are isolated adventures of relatively short duration consisting of homogenous encounters. The only exception is Lost Star where everyone is 1st level. I am pretty sure no one has ever complained that 1st level casters were overpowered. :)

Edited to fix typo

[Dire Ursus]

John Mechalas wrote:

On top of that there are also less intangible (but far more important) aspects such as ease of disruption

Sorry but spell casters have never been LESS likely to get disrupted. Attack of opportunities are mostly gone. The only way to ready attacks are to spend 2 actions for 1 action making it very unlikely to happen. Have you played the playtest? Not one spell caster has been disrupted in my gameplay of 3 chapters.

[John Mechalas]

Dire Ursus wrote:

Sorry but spell casters have never been LESS likely to get disrupted. Attack of opportunities are mostly gone. The only way to ready attacks are to spend 2 actions for 1 action making it very unlikely to happen. Have you played the playtest? Not one spell caster has been disrupted in my gameplay of 3 chapters.

Yes, I have played the playtest. It wasn't an issue in our game, either, though Drakus did have AoO's.

Spell disruption was pretty rare in 1E in my experience, too, since casters knew not to get into direct combat. 2E has overall lowered the circumstances (though increasing mobility has slightly offset that) and compensated by lowering the bar. It's a change that probably favors PC's over NPC's, but it's still a change that will force a change in tactics.

[Almarane]

Dire Ursus wrote:

Almarane wrote:

And in my session of Lost Star the optimized Sorcerer felt like he was useless and none of his spells did anything better than a Failed result (except once when he did a critical success... negated by the ennemie's Hardness). As Jason said in another thread, please don't think your experience is everyone's experience.

For now, let's wait for the devs to analyze their data and tell us if most people did or did not like arcane spellcasters. This debate is going in circle between 4-5 people who will not change their opinion whatever you tell them.

"Optimized" as in level 1 Sorcerer because that's the level 1 adventure? And what enemy in Lost Star has Hardness? Do you mean resistance?

Optimized stats (18 CHA, 16 DEX), Imperial bloodline which can enhance his spells, damage dealing cantrips, and he casted Mage Armor and two Rays of Enfeeblements (which both failed on the boss). Even if he can't be as deadly as a 10th level optimized sorcerer for obvious reason, even with the best build for his level, he felt like he could not do anything about challenges intended for his level.

As for hardness :

Spoiler for Lost Star:

I was talking about the Mindfog Fungus, which has Hardness 6.

Rameth wrote:

You could say the same thing about a Barbarian who tanked all of his rolls. The outcome of the dice in a single play test do not show whether a character is effective or not.

You can however go off of how game play is effected when the dice rolls go as expected, ie not too good or too bad, as it was for several of my gaming sessions. The Casters did very well. Like I said mvps.

Sorry, but statistics-wise, your sessions only does not constitute enough data to be even a bit sure about how good a class do in game. One game, two games, ten games are not enough, and, in the grand scheme of things, ten games give as much certainty as one game. You would need hundreds, thousands of game data to make such an assumption.

For the "when the dice rolls go as expected" bit, I think we have seen enough statistical studies to know where this is going...

Dire Ursus wrote:

John Mechalas wrote:

On top of that there are also less intangible (but far more important) aspects such as ease of disruption

Sorry but spell casters have never been LESS likely to get disrupted. Attack of opportunities are mostly gone. The only way to ready attacks are to spend 2 actions for 1 action making it very unlikely to happen. Have you played the playtest? Not one spell caster has been disrupted in my gameplay of 3 chapters.

Even without AoOs and readied actions, you still can dispell a spell as easily as in PF1. If you manage to do an AoO or a readied action, the spellcaster has no more Concentration check (now your spell is dispelled if you take your level in damages from a disruptive attack). And here, you are only looking at "classic PF1 martial style disrupting". You no longer have to identify the spell you want to dispell if you have already prepared it or have it in your repertoire before spending the spell slot to counter it (p.197), and you would only take the Wizard or Sorcerer "Counterspell" feat (Edit : Which I'm not sure are mandatory for monsters and NPCs since they don't follow PC rules). If you don't want to go this course, Dispel magic as a counterspell is still a thing (at least for long lasting effects such as abjurations, I'm not sure about instant counterspell. I have to admit the rules are a bit fuzzy on this part) and is available in every magic tradition. And you have the Rogue's Dispelling Slice, the Sorcerer Counterspell feat tree, or the Barbarian Witch Hunter reaction. And spells and objects.

And as John Mechalas said, it was already pretty rare to dispell something. Spellcasters tended to Step in order to not trigger AoO or readied actions. I have been playing 6-level spellcasters for two years now and have never been disrupted once thanks to this technique.

[Dire Ursus]

Almarane wrote:

Optimized stats (18 CHA, 16 DEX), Imperial bloodline which can enhance his spells, damage dealing cantrips, and he casted Mage Armor and two Rays of Enfeeblements (which both failed on the boss). Even if he can't be as deadly as a 10th level optimized sorcerer for obvious reason, even with the best build for his level, he felt like he could not do anything about challenges intended for his level.

So he rolled bad a couple times and blames it on the class?

[Almarane]

Dire Ursus wrote:

So he rolled bad a couple times and blames it on the class?

No. He could not even dream of being as useful as the Fighter or the Cleric even with good rolls. Funny thing is, the Alchemist and the Monk felt useless too compared to those two. While the Fighter and the Cleric were blasting through the dungeon, the three other players were bored and felt useless. My Sorcerer told me that he used all his ressources and did not feel relevant.

So, right now, the gods in my group are the Cleric and the Fighter.

[Dire Ursus]

So enfeebled 3 on the last boss would not have been useful at all? That's a fight changing debilitation.

[Almarane]

Dire Ursus wrote:

So enfeebled 3 on the last boss would not have been useful at all? That's a fight changing debilitation.

It does Enfeebled 3 only on a critical failure, which was impossible against the boss (DD 16 for a +7 Fort save at best if he used his Imperial power) and unlikely against normal monsters. And he needed to do a ranged touch attack (which he failed twice) AND the ennemy to fail its Fortitude save to gain enfeeble 2. Judging by my hits and damages logs for the monsters, enfeebled 1 would not have changed anything.

[Dire Ursus]

It's not "impossible". If he crit with the touch attack the creature's save is counted as 1 less. So he would've just needed to fail to get enfeebled 3.

[Freagarthach]

Lausth wrote:

More i look at it more i dont see how this is complicated.

Lausth, let me give you another example from PF1 play that illustrates not only issues of power but also complexity and RAW vs GM RAI, as the last does.

My 9th level Wizard purchased a scroll of Polymorph Any Object and successfully cast it on himself to become a High Girallon, in the process gaining Resist 20 to acid, cold, fire, electricity, and poison, as well as an extra set of arms and a Climb speed. He then cast Reduce Person and Permanency on Reduce Person so that he would remain medium sized.

Combined with Overland Flight, those resistances make for an interestingly powerful defensive set. You may find a flaw in the magical application, or might rule against as a GM (which would, again, be your right)...but the situation points out just one example of the ways that casters in PF1 may perform in relation to the rule set that some players, GMs, and designers might not prefer.

Other reasonable voices have said that there is agreement about lowering the power ceiling...but does that example even touch on it? Is that example reasonable, and should be within the bounds of PF2? Arguments can, and will, be made either way. My larger point is that there are complexities, confusions, and disagreements about both how the rules of PF1 should be applied that will span across into discussions of how PF2 should (or should not) differ from PF1.

I do not think the answers are easy, personally, and at the same time I am comfortable anywhere on the spectrum from where we are at in the playtest (because I am having fun with casters as they are) all the way up to the examples I have given you, which as you pointed out are by no means the extremes of PF1.

Arguments as to where to expand, where to simplify, how to approach the design concepts as a whole, et cetera are where I think good work can be done before PF2 release.

[Corwin Icewolf]

Almarane wrote:

Dire Ursus wrote:

So he rolled bad a couple times and blames it on the class?

No. He could not even dream of being as useful as the Fighter or the Cleric even with good rolls. Funny thing is, the Alchemist and the Monk felt useless too compared to those two. While the Fighter and the Cleric were blasting through the dungeon, the three other players were bored and felt useless. My Sorcerer told me that he used all his ressources and did not feel relevant.

So, right now, the gods in my group are the Cleric and the Fighter.

I kind of felt the same in lost star as a wizard. None of the first level spells I prepared felt particularly useful, I remember I used grease a couple times, but enemies didn't fall. and with the cantrips I felt like I'd have been better off shooting a crossbow or swinging a sword. Not very castery.

In the end, things like:

letting the boss AoO me by casting grim tendrils in melee range, so the ranged people could move and not get AoO'd.

And leading goblins away from my mostly unconscious and dying party so they could heal.

proved far more effective than the spells I knew themselves. Again, not very castery.

[Zi Mishkal]

I dunno. My 2 cents is that, if magic continues as is, this game will tank and Paizo with it. Starfinder can't keep the company afloat. My group is looking at 5e or 13th age or some other alternative. My other group is interested in moving from 1e AD&D to 1e PF and not 2e PF.

2e PF is just too close to 5e, too far from 3e and satisfies neither group. And nearly all the trouble lies with magic, subdivided into two categories - the universal fatal gimping of spellcasters and the ill-advised implementation of resonance. The latter, supposedly, will be addressed - although it's appearing more likely that this addressing will come at the very end of, if not after the playtest. The former doesn't look like it'll be addressed at all.

Which is sad. On the other hand, I've had game systems crash and burn around me before and the great news is I can still play them. And presumably something will rise out of this wreckage. Some other group will "fix" PF in a manner that more closely approximates the fanbase's expectation. Heck, I've got ideas in that direction already.

[Lausth]

You could buy a level 8 scroll which would cost some money and cast some spells which can be dispelled that also cost a lot of money combined with caster health pool and making yourself a target? Well good luck with that.

There ways to counter those things. First of all it would be hard to find a level 8 scroll among other things. I dont think they are even hard to do it.

Can you guys please stop acting like we dont agree with everything. Yes some nerfs is nice and acceptable however current nerfs are pazios classic overnerfing things so they dont have to deal with it later on.
This kind of attitude even though it works on some magic items it will not work on players entire kit.

Nerfing everything then expecting players to have fun in a gaming environment is going too far. This is what we said and honestly we all are saying the samething about the entire 2e playtest.

People who likes martials complain about skill dcs and other things too.

[Vic Ferrari]

Zi Mishkal wrote:

2e PF is just too close to 5e

It's not really close, at all, they seem to be going out of their way for it not to be.

[Data Lore]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Zi Mishkal wrote:

2e PF is just too close to 5e

It's not really close, at all, they seem to be going out of their way for it not to be.

As a 5E player and DM, I am attracted to PF2 since it seems to lack some of the rules complexity of PF1 while having richer gameplay than 5E. 5E is a fun but decidedly simple game.

Characters in that game are all overpowered by design (more so if you allow optional rules like multiclassing and feats). Challenging a group of 5E PCs requires the DM to throw things at the party that should, according to the rules, be well above their CR. That got old after a bit.

One of the things I REALLY hated about 5E was how OP spells are. Banishment, Polymorph, Bless, etc were encounter ending spells. Even trying to dogpile the caster to break his concentration just didn't work if the caster had OP crap like War Caster or even proficiency in Constitution saves. Unless enemies were using those tactics against the party, the party normally waltzed over most things. After a bit, combat became either a magic fest or a snoozefest (especially at levels 5+).

Seeing all that, I am happy that magic isn't like that in PF2 and that this game is a bit deeper. So, when folks go on about how they want more powerful spells or whatever, that concerns me as easily landed super powerful spells really detracted from the 5E experience, IMO.

John Mechalas wrote:

Is there an echo in here? There is near-unanimous agreement in this thread, including by magnuskn who started it, that it was necessary to lower the power ceiling of casters.

Me and you must be reading different threads. Many of the posts here have been about raising martials to be like initiators ala-Tome of Nine Swords in order to maintain high levels of caster power. That is absolutely NOT something I want to see - either as a player or as a DM.

Fighters and Rogues feel good right now. When people here say martials this and martials that, its likely about those two classes at present because Monks, Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers most definitely are not outshining casters at present.

Everyone other than Fighters and Rogues could use *some* small tweaks to be as effective as them in somehow contributing to party success. The key is to tweak folks enough so as not to fall back on having quadratic casters.

[Corwin Icewolf]

Zi Mishkal wrote:

2e PF is just too close to 5e

5e didn't nerf all the fun quality of life spells to worthlessness. Unseen servant lasts an hour, and can be ritual cast, and prestidigitation can do at least most of the stuff it can do in pf1 and 3.5.

Actually, to be clear you CAN still clean and stuff with prestidigitation, but now it takes about as long as it would just to clean normally, and you have to sit there and concentrate on it, so it's pointless as a flavor thing because it just makes your character look stupid.

In PF2 spells that last more than a minute are few and far between, and most of the ones that last longer aren't that strong. So let's see, I get apprentice level spells(cantrips) at will, makes sense. Meanwhile since most of my higher level spells last around a minute, at first level I'm a full wizard for 3 minutes a day, then it's back to pinging enemies with apprentice level parlor tricks that are worse than using a weapon the rest of the day. And to get all three of those minutes I'd have to wear armor, and only use utility and buff spells. Not feeling much like a caster, frankly.

Of course, it's not all bad, gishes seem pretty solid in pf2, I just usually don't want to play a gish. I usually want to play a full caster.

[John Mechalas]

Dire Ursus wrote:

Is there some kind of conspiracy going on where people are trying to make it out like casters are ridiculously weak just so they can get buffed and become the god tier characters they were in 1e?

No.

[Dire Ursus]

John Mechalas wrote:

Dire Ursus wrote:

Is there some kind of conspiracy going on where people are trying to make it out like casters are ridiculously weak just so they can get buffed and become the god tier characters they were in 1e?

No.

That's exactly what a god wizard conspirator would say... hmmmm

[John Mechalas]

Dire Ursus wrote:

John Mechalas wrote:

No.

That's exactly what a god wizard conspirator would say... hmmmm

That's exactly what someone looking for a conspiracy would say. ;)

[graystone]

Dire Ursus wrote:

Is there some kind of conspiracy going on where people are trying to make it out like casters are ridiculously weak just so they can get buffed and become the god tier characters they were in 1e? Definitely sounds like a strategy some God Wizard players would think up :P

No, no, no, no. CASTERS is the wrong term. Non-cleric spell users feel weak. Clerics are gods walking among the mere mortals. And this is from someone that added cantrips/spells to their martial characters through feats.

The combo of the 4 tier save and the super high monster saves made many spell options seem bad and make even spells that have an effect not feel 'game/encounter changing' and that things would have turned out the same if you hadn't cast them.

IMO, these complaints aren't some sneaky conspiracy to make gods but people feeling they aren't doing well. It may be that's just the way the new game want casters to play but it's not making casters feel good and that's important. If they aren't getting the experience they want, there are plenty of games out there they can play instead. They used to come to pathfinder for that experience and changing that 180 degrees is a recipe for discontent: most everyone agrees that casters need rebalance but lowering every possible aspect makes it feel like a very different experience.

[dnoisette]

Dire Ursus wrote:

Is there some kind of conspiracy going on where people are trying to make it out like casters are ridiculously weak just so they can get buffed and become the god tier characters they were in 1e? Definitely sounds like a strategy some God Wizard players would think up :P

Is there some kind of conspirary going on where people are trying to pretend that the caster in their play group was MVP so they can get nerfed even more?

[pad300]

Freagarthach wrote:

Lausth, let me give you another example from PF1 play that illustrates not only issues of power but also complexity and RAW vs GM RAI, as the last does.

My 9th level Wizard purchased a scroll of Polymorph Any Object and successfully cast it on himself to become a High Girallon, in the process gaining Resist 20 to acid, cold, fire, electricity, and poison, as well as an extra set of arms and a Climb speed. He then cast Reduce Person and Permanency on Reduce Person so that he would remain medium sized.

Ok, this example was a problem for your game group, because you're a terrible game master. YOU chose the most powerful interpretation possible of a admittedly overpowered spell. (Not to mention, you LET him buy a scroll of it...). If you looked at the spell text and thought a bit, you'd realize that PAO overwrites the subject's brain : how could it create consciousness from an object otherwise? If he turns himself or another player into something (say a Girallon, never mind say a Dragon), the subject becomes an NPC, and with Girallon, that would be an INT of 2 and alignment N...

[Corwin Icewolf]

pad300 wrote:

Freagarthach wrote:

Lausth, let me give you another example from PF1 play that illustrates not only issues of power but also complexity and RAW vs GM RAI, as the last does.

My 9th level Wizard purchased a scroll of Polymorph Any Object and successfully cast it on himself to become a High Girallon, in the process gaining Resist 20 to acid, cold, fire, electricity, and poison, as well as an extra set of arms and a Climb speed. He then cast Reduce Person and Permanency on Reduce Person so that he would remain medium sized.

Ok, this example was a problem for your game group, because you're a terrible game master. YOU chose the most powerful interpretation possible of a admittedly overpowered spell. (Not to mention, you LET him buy a scroll of it...). If you looked at the spell text and thought a bit, you'd realize that PAO overwrites the subject's brain : how could it create consciousness from an object otherwise? If he turns himself or another player into something (say a Girallon, never mind say a Dragon), the subject becomes an NPC, and with Girallon, that would be an INT of 2 and alignment N...

The brain overwrite thing seems like a stretch, but yeah, I was wondering what he was doing letting a 9th level character buy a scroll for a spell that normally can't be learned till level 15 myself.

Another problem: you can't cast reduce person on a girallon as it is a magical beast and not a humanoid.

[Rikkan]

Freagarthach wrote:

Lausth, let me give you another example from PF1 play that illustrates not only issues of power but also complexity and RAW vs GM RAI, as the last does.

My 9th level Wizard purchased a scroll of Polymorph Any Object and successfully cast it on himself to become a High Girallon, in the process gaining Resist 20 to acid, cold, fire, electricity, and poison, as well as an extra set of arms and a Climb speed. He then cast Reduce Person and Permanency on Reduce Person so that he would remain medium sized.

Combined with Overland Flight, those resistances make for an interestingly powerful defensive set. You may find a flaw in the magical application, or might rule against as a GM (which would, again, be your right)...but the situation points out just one example of the ways that casters in PF1 may perform in relation to the rule set that some players, GMs, and designers might not prefer.

prd wrote:

In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.

So while under the effect of Polymorph any Object, Reduce person has no effect. Also, afaik a High Girallon is a magical beast, so reduce person would be ineligible anyway. And I don't think it actually qualifies for a permanent duration either.

There is no such thing as poison resistance either, afaik and he only gains resist 10 to acid, cold and fire.

Doesn't seem overtly powerful if you apply the rules correctly (but I agree the polymorph rules have always required some careful reading)

[pad300]

graystone wrote:

No, no, no, no. CASTERS is the wrong term. Non-cleric spell users feel weak. Clerics are gods walking among the mere mortals.

Clerics are extremely strong because they have a "Killer App", healing, because monster damage (due to "tight math" on AC's and to hit rolls) is inevitable and significant... Whereas other casters are trying (and failing) to keep up with the "martial" types, either dmg or buff/debuff effects - and can't because their spells have been nerfed to death.

The question that the devs need to ask is: "If I was building a party of 4 for maximum generic effectiveness, which classes would NOT make it in, no matter what choices were made?"

If you ask that question with the current playtest, your party looks like:
A) CLERIC - absolutely required - competent is combat (strong with appropriate God/Domain choice), HEALING, divine list spellcasting
B) Some sort of Martial (maybe a Gish? (ie. weapon focused arcane caster)) - strong in combat
C) Skill character of some sort - Bard (bard is particularly attractive due to bard song, # of Skills, and being an Occult Full caster), Rogue, Alchemist
D) A second Cleric or another Martial (or Gish), maybe a druid (animal companion + competent fighter + another spell list)

What doesn't make it : a wizard or sorcerer dedicated to casting - they just don't bring enough to the table... As to the people saying Casters were "gods" in PF1: how many parties did you see played that did not have a Martial character (particularly that started from Lvl 1)? In my experience the answer was in fact, ZERO, there was always a Barbarian, a Paladin, a Ranger (or a Gunslinger, Samurai, Brawler, Bloodrager, Swashbuckler, ...)

[graystone]

pad300 wrote:

Clerics are extremely strong because they have a "Killer App"

For me, it's channeling. It basically allows them to have the casting of 2 other normal casters

pad300 wrote:

The question that the devs need to ask is: "If I was building a party of 4 for maximum generic effectiveness, which classes would NOT make it in, no matter what choices were made?"

4 cleric/fighters, cleric/rogues or straight clerics.

[Freagarthach]

Rikkan wrote:

Freagarthach wrote:

Lausth, let me give you another example from PF1 play that illustrates not only issues of power but also complexity and RAW vs GM RAI, as the last does.

My 9th level Wizard purchased a scroll of Polymorph Any Object and successfully cast it on himself to become a High Girallon, in the process gaining Resist 20 to acid, cold, fire, electricity, and poison, as well as an extra set of arms and a Climb speed. He then cast Reduce Person and Permanency on Reduce Person so that he would remain medium sized.

Combined with Overland Flight, those resistances make for an interestingly powerful defensive set. You may find a flaw in the magical application, or might rule against as a GM (which would, again, be your right)...but the situation points out just one example of the ways that casters in PF1 may perform in relation to the rule set that some players, GMs, and designers might not prefer.

prd wrote:

In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.

So while under the effect of Polymorph any Object, Reduce person has no effect. Also, afaik a High Girallon is a magical beast, so reduce person would be ineligible anyway. And I don't think it actually qualifies for a permanent duration either.

There is no such thing as poison resistance either, afaik and he only gains resist 10 to acid, cold and fire.

Doesn't seem overtly powerful if you apply the rules correctly (but I agree the polymorph rules have always required some careful reading)

Good catch on Reduce Person, you are right. As to resistances, "If the creature has immunity or resistance to any elements, you gain resistance 20 to those elements." So unless I have misread elsewhere, its resist 20 and add electricity and poison to the list. Which may not be game breaking (that is the question at hand though, isnt it?) but is strong with all day flight capability situationally providing a defense against more mundane damage sources.

The fact that we have disagreements about these applications is the point. Definitely agree that these are particular cases, but they are merely examples from a huge rule set that will have many more, all of them arguable regarding application, appropriateness, et cetera.

Constraining the disagreements and confusions of the magic system and its apllication is in no way innately tied to a power level, one way or another. Part of my point is that we should disambiguate the two design points. What should be the effective power level of magic and how best to express that? And, independently, What is the aimed for complexity and consistency level for this new system, and how will that translate to application between GMs and players?

[magnuskn]

shroudb wrote:

I never said that though. Again and again I say that casters have, in our games at least, really made a difference with their spells through their buffs, debuffs, and control.

Yes, they don't do the same raw damage, I never said that.

I also said that this is GOOD. This promotes teamwork.

Martials rely on the casters for their utility and Casters rely on martials for their damage.

Could it be a bit better by increasing martials in utility, narrative power, control/buffs /debuffs and simultaneously raising the damage of the Casters so that the 2 archetypes come closer together?

Perhaps.

But at least, it's certainly better as a whole compared to 1st edition disparity.

I'd be happier with keeping the caster damage just the same as in PF1E (which is warranted, given that HP pools have actually expanded) and regaining more of the PF1E utility, while nerfing the broken stuff. While bringing martials up.

Rameth wrote:

Btw I'm just going off what's in the P1E Core Rulebook. I'm not basing anything I'm saying off of any other book. Core Martials vs Core Casters was a huge gap in P1E. Just looking at Casters in P1E and seeing what they can do it's ridiculous. Trying to argue they're on the same team still doesn't change the fact they were unbalanced.

I do have a question though. Is the topic simply that 2nd Edition Casters aren't as good as 1st Edition Casters? Or is it that 2nd Edition Casters aren't good at all?

Bit of both. I firmly believe that casters in PF1E were mostly fine, if you remove the stuff which can be abused (i.e. they needed some nerfs). And also that the developers went wildly overboard and nerfed about every aspect of everything but a few spells which (so far...) have escaped their attention.

Dire Ursus wrote:

Spellcasters needed a nerf. There's a lot of people in this thread just forgetting that in 1e casters were unanimously the best classes in the game. By far. And now they nerf casters are you all pretend they weren't OP as hell? Ridiculous. I've GMed through 3 chapters of the playtest with at least one caster in every single group. Not once has it felt like they were weaker than the martials. And not once have they complained about their abilities. Some spells need balancing for sure to bring them up to other spells of the same spell level, but overall the power level is right where it should be.

Spellcasters needed some nerfs. They got way too many. And the definition of "OP" is in the eye of the beholder. As is the "balance of power".

Zi Mishkal wrote:

I dunno. My 2 cents is that, if magic continues as is, this game will tank and Paizo with it. Starfinder can't keep the company afloat. My group is looking at 5e or 13th age or some other alternative. My other group is interested in moving from 1e AD&D to 1e PF and not 2e PF.

2e PF is just too close to 5e, too far from 3e and satisfies neither group. And nearly all the trouble lies with magic, subdivided into two categories - the universal fatal gimping of spellcasters and the ill-advised implementation of resonance. The latter, supposedly, will be addressed - although it's appearing more likely that this addressing will come at the very end of, if not after the playtest. The former doesn't look like it'll be addressed at all.

Which is sad. On the other hand, I've had game systems crash and burn around me before and the great news is I can still play them. And presumably something will rise out of this wreckage. Some other group will "fix" PF in a manner that more closely approximates the fanbase's expectation. Heck, I've got ideas in that direction already.

Yup. That sums up my fears pretty much.

graystone wrote:

IMO, these complaints aren't some sneaky conspiracy to make gods but people feeling they aren't doing well. It may be that's just the way the new game want casters to play but it's not making casters feel good and that's important. If they aren't getting the experience they want, there are plenty of games out there they can play instead. They used to come to pathfinder for that experience and changing that 180 degrees is a recipe for discontent: most everyone agrees that casters need rebalance but lowering every possible aspect makes it feel like a very different experience.

And this.

[Freagarthach]

Let me add what I have seen as a positive benchmark in the PF2 playtest and see what support can be rallied around it.

Premise: Summon Monster as implemented in the playtest is an ideal around which to balance the other aspects / schools of magic. Some examples - at level 4 I can summon a quasit, which had both utility (flight, invisibility) and variable, player creativity influenced combat contribution (poison in base form, vs Knockdown in wolf form, vs Echlocation in bat form...)

At 7th, I am really liking Hell Hound (recharchable AoE, fire adding bite) while also able to call on Animate Armor as a stylistic and combat functional alternative. At 9th my Druid is looking forward to summoning Redcaps (fast healing, odd but interesting blood soak ability, agile second attack).

Stance: Lets look at the playtest magic system and find ways to bring the consistent fun and power of Conjuration as a concept now, including things like Create Water and Create Food that also seem well implemented where they are now, to all the other styles and concepts of magic included in the system.

[pad300]

Freagarthach wrote:

Premise: Summon Monster as implemented in the playtest is an ideal around which to balance the other aspects / schools of magic.

I think your premise is wrong. As it stands, summon monster sucks a lot after the low levels (and only a little at the lower levels, 1-5). Effectively you are trading your level appropriate actions for less effective actions (approximately level - 4 actions). The rate of action exchange* is either

A) 3+N (your actions) for 2*N for (summon's actions)
or
B) 3+N (your actions) for 2+2*N (summon's actions)

(Where N is the number of turns the summon survives beyond the one you cast in). Which is to say, you are even on number of actions after 3 turns or 1 turn of summon survival... Minions of any sort are VERY gimped under the current rules

*Which formula you use depends on how you interpret : "When you finish casting the spell and when you spend an action to Concentrate on the Spell, the summoned creature then takes its 2 actions." . If they want the second, more beneficial, one they really should replace the bolded "and" with an "or"

[Freagarthach]

pad300 wrote:

Freagarthach wrote:

Premise: Summon Monster as implemented in the playtest is an ideal around which to balance the other aspects / schools of magic.

I think your premise is wrong. As it stands, summon monster sucks a lot after the low levels (and only a little at the lower levels, 1-5). Effectively you are trading your level appropriate actions for less effective actions (approximately level - 4 actions). The rate of action exchange* is either

A) 3+N (your actions) for 2*N for (summon's actions)
or
B) 3+N (your actions) for 2+2*N (summon's actions)

(Where N is the number of turns the summon survives beyond the one you cast in). Which is to say, you are even on number of actions after 3 turns or 1 turn of summon survival... Minions of any sort are VERY gimped under the current rules

*Which formula you use depends on how you interpret : "When you finish casting the spell and when you spend an action to Concentrate on the Spell, the summoned creature then takes its 2 actions." . If they want the second, more beneficial, one they really should replace the bolded "and" with an "or"

Is that opinion based on playing a summoning caster in the playtest? Me experience, through level 7, is that summoning is great (for a Wizard multiclass Cleric). While I appreciate your approach to the math, the length of time creatures are summoned is balanced in part by the damage they tank for the party. In my experience the Quasit took 3 hits against one group (and thus blinked out) that would otherwise have gone into a surrounded Paladin, and the Hell hound tanked 3 disease / status effects hits and kept fighting, where those hits coukd have debilitated a player.

In my view summons are working excellently, and my team members, if anything, are jealous of the action economy they offer.

What improvements would you suggest on that standard?

[pad300]

Freagarthach wrote:

Is that opinion based on playing a summoning caster in the playtest? Me experience, through level 7, is that summoning is great (for a Wizard multiclass Cleric). While I appreciate your approach to the math, the length of time creatures are summoned is balanced in part by the damage they tank for the party. In my experience the Quasit took 3 hits against one group (and thus blinked out) that would otherwise have gone into a surrounded Paladin, and the Hell hound tanked 3 disease / status effects hits and kept fighting, where those hits coukd have debilitated a player.

In my view summons are working excellently, and my team members, if anything, are jealous of the action economy they offer.

What improvements would you suggest on that standard?

No, that opinion is based on math. My question to you, is why are summons "tanking" hits? There's obviously no percentage in hitting them. They can't do reactions (so no AoO even if they would have had the capability), so just move around them. Are the enemies unintelligent or not knowledgeable about magic?

With respect to the action economy gains, they are mostly non-existent. When I read the raw, ""When you finish casting the spell and when you spend an action to Concentrate on the Spell, the summoned creature then takes its 2 actions.", because of the AND, I get:

Round 1 Player Casts Summon X, spends 3 actions, gets 0 actions. Net -3 actions
Round 2 Player Concentrates, spends 1 Action, gets 2 actions from summoned create, net -2 actions
Round 3 Player Concentrates, spends 1 Action, gets 2 actions from summoned create, net -1 actions
Round 4 Player Concentrates, spends 1 Action, gets 2 actions from summoned create, net 0 actions

Here you are, 4 rounds into the fight, it may be over already or your summons may have died (or YOU may have died!), and you are at a net zero actions gained... And the actions you have gained, are lower value than your own, due to the +level effects, as what you have summoned is 4 levels lower than you...

[pauljathome]

pad300 wrote:

No, that opinion is based on math.

I have no opinion on how good summoners are (nobody has played one at the well over a dozen tables I've played at or ran. On paper they're obviously bad enough that nobody has even tried).

But I DO have an opinion on your math.

You have an absolutely fatal flaw in your analysis. You are treating all actions as equal and that is very manifestly NOT the case.

The new action economy is totally predicated on the fact that actions are NOT equal.

It takes some actual play experience to really internalize that.

[pad300]

pauljathome wrote:

pad300 wrote:

No, that opinion is based on math.

I have no opinion on how good summoners are (nobody has played one at the well over a dozen tables I've played at or ran. On paper they're obviously bad enough that nobody has even tried).

But I DO have an opinion on your math.

You have an absolutely fatal flaw in your analysis. You are treating all actions as equal and that is very manifestly NOT the case.

The new action economy is totally predicated on the fact that actions are NOT equal.

It takes some actual play experience to really internalize that.

Reading Fail!

To quote myself, from the very post that you chopped a piece out of:

"And the actions you have gained, are lower value than your own, due to the +level effects, as what you have summoned is 4 levels lower than you...".

What I have done is however, is give the benefit of the doubt, that the action of a summon could theoretically be as valuable than the action of the summoner. Even given that benefit of the doubt, the fact remains, you don't gain actions by summoning, until the actions produced by whatever is summoned are greater than those the caster has put in...

[Cyouni]

John Mechalas wrote:

Dire Ursus wrote:

Spellcasters needed a nerf. There's a lot of people in this thread just forgetting that in 1e casters were unanimously the best classes in the game.

Is there an echo in here? There is near-unanimous agreement in this thread, including by magnuskn who started it, that it was necessary to lower the power ceiling of casters. If there's been anyone arguing otherwise, their voice has been drowned out.

The primary complaint has been that Paizo also lowered the power floor, and quite significantly.

I was under the impression that most people arguing against it in the thread were basically fine with how it was in 1E, and want a return to that, except the things that were completely and utterly broken. Most of the times people bring up a problem, it's "this existed in 1E, and we don't have it now, thus it's bad by default".

There is not near-unanimous agreement by any metric.

[John Mechalas]

Cyouni wrote:

I was under the impression that most people arguing against it in the thread were basically fine with how it was in 1E, and want a return to that, except the things that were completely and utterly broken.

I don't know what to tell you. The complaints being raised in this thread are against what's considered an overnerfing of spell casters. How you get from that to the extreme of "basically fine with how it was in 1E" save for things that were "completely and utterly broken" is not something I can explain, and those are strawmen that I have zero interest in defending.

[Freagarthach]

pad300 wrote:

Freagarthach wrote:

Is that opinion based on playing a summoning caster in the playtest? Me experience, through level 7, is that summoning is great (for a Wizard multiclass Cleric). While I appreciate your approach to the math, the length of time creatures are summoned is balanced in part by the damage they tank for the party. In my experience the Quasit took 3 hits against one group (and thus blinked out) that would otherwise have gone into a surrounded Paladin, and the Hell hound tanked 3 disease / status effects hits and kept fighting, where those hits coukd have debilitated a player.

In my view summons are working excellently, and my team members, if anything, are jealous of the action economy they offer.

What improvements would you suggest on that standard?

No, that opinion is based on math. My question to you, is why are summons "tanking" hits? There's obviously no percentage in hitting them. They can't do reactions (so no AoO even if they would have had the capability), so just move around them. Are the enemies unintelligent or not knowledgeable about magic?

With respect to the action economy gains, they are mostly non-existent. When I read the raw, ""When you finish casting the spell and when you spend an action to Concentrate on the Spell, the summoned creature then takes its 2 actions.", because of the AND, I get:

Round 1 Player Casts Summon X, spends 3 actions, gets 0 actions. Net -3 actions
Round 2 Player Concentrates, spends 1 Action, gets 2 actions from summoned create, net -2 actions
Round 3 Player Concentrates, spends 1 Action, gets 2 actions from summoned create, net -1 actions
Round 4 Player Concentrates, spends 1 Action, gets 2 actions from summoned create, net 0 actions

Here you are, 4 rounds into the fight, it may be over already or your summons may have died (or YOU may have died!), and you are at a net zero actions gained... And the actions you have gained, are lower value than your own, due to the +level effects, as what you have...

There are plenty of opponents that are not basing their attack decisions on knowledge of summoned creatures and reactions, and I think we can both agree on that.

You make a fine point on wording and clarity, however for the sake of argument here, I am operating under the assumption (as my playtest group has) that the summons attack on the round they are summoned. This needs clarity, yes, but for now that is the standard I am proposing. On those grounds, as you pointed out earlier, the action economy is recouped for the caster much more quickly.

The idea that the actions I have gained being lower value than my own due to level effects miss the fact that the actions can be, and have been, different than what I my caster is otherwise capable of. At level 4, the Quasit, being able to fly, helped track panicked mounts from the air in a way that my caster otherwise could not have, not being able to fly. At level 7, the group specifically asked me to scout rooms with the Quasit flying and being invisible, both things my Wizard cannot personally do, which led to us skipping the encounters in two rooms as superfluous to our team interests.

The Hell Hound has 50 hp, and when it is blocking a door, even intelligent monsters may have little choice but to attack through it, again making it a solid tanking choice given that it also has Evocation style AoE damage along with a solid single target attack, admittedly with a lower chance to connect.

In practice, in the course of playing in the playtest, summons have more utility and value for the modules as written than your on paper mathematical analysis is accounting for. Which brings up the question of how much of the rest of the magic system people may be discounting without having a practical insight into how it performs in actual play experience.

[LiquidLeoc]

I believe what casters need is a middle ground. Raise spell durations again give two extra school spell slots(to emphasise specialisation) and buff quality of life spells again to what they were.

Also a neat idea imo would be an extra spell school DC/spell roll buff (with the universalist getting a lesser one in everything)

[Cyouni]

John Mechalas wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

I was under the impression that most people arguing against it in the thread were basically fine with how it was in 1E, and want a return to that, except the things that were completely and utterly broken.

I don't know what to tell you. The complaints being raised in this thread are against what's considered an overnerfing of spell casters. How you get from that to the extreme of "basically fine with how it was in 1E" save for things that were "completely and utterly broken" is not something I can explain, and those are strawmen that I have zero interest in defending.

Given half the posts have been back-and-forths of "this was a major problem in 1E" and "well, I like it like that", I'm really not sure where you're looking.

Look at the whole teleport thing, for example. "It makes it insanely easy to get anywhere you want and breaks things as a result" was answered with "I like not having to deal with traveling". "It solves a wide variety of problems far too easily" was answered with "there are ways to play around it, so it's fine". "It makes it so you're always one spell away from safety" was answered with "I don't like being TPKed, and neither should you, so it's good as a safety net".

[Makarion]

Bluenose wrote:

AndIMustMask wrote:

the end result being that if someone at the table wants to play merlin by the endgame, he should totally be able to--and the guy next to him should be just as able to play beowulf, or cu'chulainn, or diarmuid, or siegfried, or fergus mac roich, or finn mac cumhaill (i'm not even touching japanese/greek/roman or even other european history and mythology, which gets even crazier!), as he likes around the same level.

Well, part of the problem here is that Merlin falls well short in terms of the spells he casts of what a high-level PF caster manages (Polymorph Other, Flesh to Stone, some illusions that aren't higher than 3rd level, and possibly Teleport are the top end of his repertoire except for one particular feat). If he's a model for the caster, he's either a mid-level one or the nerf to magic is quite extreme. And if the top end martials are supposed to be equal to Merlin, and the top end casters exceed his power by as much as they currently do, then you've not really solved anything.

Actually, I'd be all in favour of a setting where only the most legendary of spellcasters can cast a 5th level spell, and where martials are on par with that. Maybe want to eliminate levels as such a hard power-up experience a bit, or create half-levels somehow, but as a general power gage, I'd be cool with it.

Granted, that is not what most PF and D&D players are likely to enjoy, but I bet I'm not alone in longing for some good old Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, and similar, fantasy.

[Almarane]

John Mechalas wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

I was under the impression that most people arguing against it in the thread were basically fine with how it was in 1E, and want a return to that, except the things that were completely and utterly broken.

I don't know what to tell you. The complaints being raised in this thread are against what's considered an overnerfing of spell casters. How you get from that to the extreme of "basically fine with how it was in 1E" save for things that were "completely and utterly broken" is not something I can explain, and those are strawmen that I have zero interest in defending.

My opinion on what needed to be changed for magic :

- Find a way to remove the "crossbow-shooting wizard" problem [corrected]
- Divination magic was broken. I have no problem with spells like True Strike, but being able to spy anybody via magic kills the fun
- Detect Alignment destroys plot twists, and I don't like alignment-oriented mechanics
- I don't like spells dealing effects depending on your alignment for the same reason
- Aligned spells you can't cast because you don't have the right alignment
- Some spells designed to be long-duration spells (Mage Armor) would benefit being directly having a 1 day duration [corrected]
- DCs were way too low, making a blaster less effective and a debuffer feeling like a trap option most of the time [corrected]
- Some spell lists made me sad [corrected?]
- Some higher level spells such as Miracle, Wish, etc etc... were ridiculously powerful
- Resurection spells should be harder to find (but that can be achieved thanks to good GMing) [corrected?]
- Save or die spells [corrected]
- Prepared spellcasting
- Race/Ancestry restricted spells [corrected?]
- Dispelling magic is too hard (except via AoO and readied action)
- Dispelling magic via AoO and readied action is too easy [corrected?]
- Summon Monster/Nature's ally lists being static, not taking into account new bestiaries, and dominated by Evil-aligned creatures, and the spell itself being not long enough if you are not a Summoner

Other things I did not ask for but I like in the new magic system :
- Spells with modular actions allowing to add effects depending on how many actions you spend
- With the good combination of actions, you can either cast one powerful spell or two simpler spells
- 4 degrees of success
- Traits that make it easier to get what the spell does and to apply effects such as resistance, immunities and enhancements

Things I do not like in the new magic system
- Less spell slots (I already had problems having enough slots to do something)
- Duration of spells seriously nerfed
- Heigtening system makes your low-level spell slots useless (at first I was okay with it when they previewed it, but not anymore. I can understand heightening for Baleful Polymorph and Heal, but not for Endure Element and Fly. In my opinion, they overdid it)
- Some utility spells never used are now even more useless (Phantom Steed, Prestidigitation)
- Sorcerers have to learn the same spell multiple times to have the heightened version of a spell, sacrificying versatility

@Makarion : Such a setting can be interesting, but this is not what Pathfinder is. You are asking for a low-magic system where Pathfinder has always been a high-magic one.
Also, technically, in Golarion, only legendary spellcasters can cast 5th level spells =P You'd need to be a 9th level wizard at best, and you don't meet everywhere. The most important NPCs I saw in Golarion tend to be 10th level on average, with the exception of the BBEGs and their minions. And those are people who's names are known through the whole country.

[Vic Ferrari]

Makarion wrote:

Actually, I'd be all in favour of a setting where only the most legendary of spellcasters can cast a 5th level spell, and where martials are on par with that. Maybe want to eliminate levels as such a hard power-up experience a bit, or create half-levels somehow, but as a general power gage, I'd be cool with it.

Granted, that is not what most PF and D&D players are likely to enjoy, but I bet I'm not alone in longing for some good old Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, and similar, fantasy.

That's what Gygax liked (you did not have hordes of 20th level wizards in Greyhawk, each one was a big deal). Magic is much more limited in 1st Ed AD&D, in many ways (what spells you know/access, how many, easily interrupted during casting, components, less predictable results with some). I like that in the AD&D PHB it states the DM may omit, add, augment or diminish spells in the campaign.

[Lyee]

Makarion wrote:

Granted, that is not what most PF and D&D players are likely to enjoy, but I bet I'm not alone in longing for some good old Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, and similar, fantasy.

Now, I've not read them all, but my knowledge of Fafhrd involves them meeting Death itself and surviving, a Wizard that can send them not just between planets or dimensions, but between actual realities and to ancient Greece, and managing to shut down the front of a group of eldrich horrors that turned entire dimensions into... obsessive shoppers? My memory's not perfect on that one. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser themselves were low fantasy, sure, but they got into some high fantasy nonsense situations! Wizards in that setting seemed nigh short of actual gods at times.

Damn now I want to go read more Fafhrd.

[Vic Ferrari]

Lyee wrote:

My memory's not perfect on that one. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser themselves were low fantasy, sure, but they got into some high fantasy nonsense situations! Wizards in that setting seemed nigh short of actual gods at times.

Ha, yeah, Ningauble and Sheelba, but they are not the protagonists.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Makarion wrote:

Bluenose wrote:

AndIMustMask wrote:

the end result being that if someone at the table wants to play merlin by the endgame, he should totally be able to--and the guy next to him should be just as able to play beowulf, or cu'chulainn, or diarmuid, or siegfried, or fergus mac roich, or finn mac cumhaill (i'm not even touching japanese/greek/roman or even other european history and mythology, which gets even crazier!), as he likes around the same level.

Well, part of the problem here is that Merlin falls well short in terms of the spells he casts of what a high-level PF caster manages (Polymorph Other, Flesh to Stone, some illusions that aren't higher than 3rd level, and possibly Teleport are the top end of his repertoire except for one particular feat). If he's a model for the caster, he's either a mid-level one or the nerf to magic is quite extreme. And if the top end martials are supposed to be equal to Merlin, and the top end casters exceed his power by as much as they currently do, then you've not really solved anything.

Actually, I'd be all in favour of a setting where only the most legendary of spellcasters can cast a 5th level spell, and where martials are on par with that. Maybe want to eliminate levels as such a hard power-up experience a bit, or create half-levels somehow, but as a general power gage, I'd be cool with it.

Granted, that is not what most PF and D&D players are likely to enjoy, but I bet I'm not alone in longing for some good old Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, and similar, fantasy.

You are not alone. Thing is, you can use D&Ds 1-3.x and B/X-BECMI for those types of stories.

The fact that a system goes to beyond that doesn't mean you have to use everything. Run your games up to the point where you think it should end, then end them, have only partial casters in your game, whatever.

What I want from a D&D system is something that allows me to do the low-powered stuff (which they do) and the high-powered stuff (which P2 doesn't). I think lots of people tend to forget the system is a toolbox - just look at all the ridiculous high-powered builds which seem to run on the idea "it was published therefor it is universally available". Use the tools you want for the project you want, ignore the rest.
You can play F/GM or Conan and the systems work just fine. Removing so many fun powerful options just because some people don't like them/can't handle them is not the right way to approach a continuation of D&D, IMO.

[magnuskn]

Makarion wrote:

Actually, I'd be all in favour of a setting where only the most legendary of spellcasters can cast a 5th level spell, and where martials are on par with that. Maybe want to eliminate levels as such a hard power-up experience a bit, or create half-levels somehow, but as a general power gage, I'd be cool with it.

Granted, that is not what most PF and D&D players are likely to enjoy, but I bet I'm not alone in longing for some good old Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, and similar, fantasy.

And, though it scrapes at the "then go play something else" fallacy, I'd like to mention that there are games like that already. No need to hijack this one, too.

[Vic Ferrari]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Makarion wrote:

Bluenose wrote:

AndIMustMask wrote:

the end result being that if someone at the table wants to play merlin by the endgame, he should totally be able to--and the guy next to him should be just as able to play beowulf, or cu'chulainn, or diarmuid, or siegfried, or fergus mac roich, or finn mac cumhaill (i'm not even touching japanese/greek/roman or even other european history and mythology, which gets even crazier!), as he likes around the same level.

Well, part of the problem here is that Merlin falls well short in terms of the spells he casts of what a high-level PF caster manages (Polymorph Other, Flesh to Stone, some illusions that aren't higher than 3rd level, and possibly Teleport are the top end of his repertoire except for one particular feat). If he's a model for the caster, he's either a mid-level one or the nerf to magic is quite extreme. And if the top end martials are supposed to be equal to Merlin, and the top end casters exceed his power by as much as they currently do, then you've not really solved anything.

Actually, I'd be all in favour of a setting where only the most legendary of spellcasters can cast a 5th level spell, and where martials are on par with that. Maybe want to eliminate levels as such a hard power-up experience a bit, or create half-levels somehow, but as a general power gage, I'd be cool with it.

Granted, that is not what most PF and D&D players are likely to enjoy, but I bet I'm not alone in longing for some good old Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, and similar, fantasy.

You are not alone. Thing is, you can use D&Ds 1-3.x and B/X-BECMI for those types of stories.

The fact that a system goes to beyond that doesn't mean you have to use everything. Run your games up to the point where you think it should end, then end them, have only partial casters in your game, whatever.

Exactly, and you can approach it in a more casual way, like when character building is not like CCG deck building.

Part of what can make a campaign setting interesting for me, is what's not available, can crystallise the flavour and what-not.

[John Mechalas]

Cyouni wrote:

Given half the posts have been back-and-forths of "this was a major problem in 1E" and "well, I like it like that", I'm really not sure where you're looking.

You're not seeing the forest for the trees. You're lost in the weeds of individual debates about individual spells. These debates are what happen when people bring up a spell as an example of their overarching concerns about either PF1 or PF2. And because people like to argue back and forth.

The most useful posts are the longer analysis posts where people lay out their concerns. Those are the ones that start the above debates. Focus on those and use them as context for the back-and-forth. A fierce defense of the utility of teleport is not the same as claiming all of PF1E is fine.