| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my play experience, it seems increasingly clear that, whatever it says on paper, casters only feel a bit weaker at lower levels (first couple parts of Doomsday Dawn). Sure, they may not be gods from level 7+ like in PF1, but they still feel competent and impactful once they get some additional spell slots and higher level spells.
Even assuming that's true, that's playing a LOT of levels feeling weaker: if your games often don't make it to high double digit levels it's a lot of levels to feel weak.
PS: And for me at least, I often don't see those higher levels because it's a reality of online play that they fall apart for various real life issues [school starting up, someone got a new job, ect]. I don't expect anything in PF2's push for more meaningful high level play to change that.
From my play experience, it seems increasingly clear that, whatever it says on paper, casters only feel a bit weaker at lower levels (first couple parts of Doomsday Dawn). Sure, they may not be gods from level 7+ like in PF1, but they still feel competent and impactful once they get some additional spell slots and higher level spells.Even assuming that's true, that's playing a LOT of levels feeling weaker: if your games often don't make it to high double digit levels it's a lot of levels to feel weak.
PS: And for me at least, I often don't see those higher levels because it's a reality of online play that they fall apart for various real life issues [school starting up, someone got a new job, ect]. I don't expect anything in PF2's push for more meaningful high level play to change that.
Ya, I hear you. My current online 5e sandbox is 12 sessions in and only barely about to hit level 4. I hope it goes all the way to level 15 but you never know.
I really do feel that NPC saves are just too high right now at those levels. Knock those down by two or so and casters are in business right at level 1. Again, I think AC numbers are fine. By selectively adjusting NPC numbers that way, you are stealth buffing casters at levels when their spell slots are few.
Also, I suspect current casters start to actually feel good around level 5 (level 3 spells are money plus more slots and NPC numbers closer to where they should be). Sure, that may still be a while for folks (especially in a campaign run by me) but its important to note that things aren't necessarily as dire as they seem to some.
I'm just going to omit the spoiler at this point, as I don't think it's blocking any information that would end up relevant.
Light: Remember that a second Light means two possible sources, something that's quite relevant in a lot of scenarios.A fair point, but the bard's "I'm contributing as much as a torch" comment may have been mostly true as well.
It is true, but anyone who wants that second hand will appreciate not having to carry a torch. The greatsword user gets two hands, the sword-and-board actually gets a shield, and the caster can have light on the frontline while staying comfortably away from it.
It's not a massive game-changer, but it has its uses.
Interesting. After looking up dazzled I also have to concede that it's a much stronger condition than in pf1.
It also lets a Rogue, for example, sneak up right in the face of someone with scent or tremorsense. Definitely a lot stronger than it used to be.
Acid Arrow: Honestly, persistent damage is trickier to work with as a player than an enemy. 1d8+CAM plus 1d6 persistent is usually pretty decent, but if you have someone in perfect placing to get off max damage I can see why it wouldn't feel as strong. Usually better used on things at a decent range that won't die immediately. If you're expecting fast-paced, close-range fights, I wouldn't pick Acid Arrow.That describes most combat in pathfinder when there's not a bad luck streak, and requires fore knowledge about what kind of things you're fighting.
Definitely true. Still, I would have held my usages for where they'd be more useful, like on the water elemental. The elemental would have been one of the better usages on that - since the Rogue sounded like one of their higher-damage PCs, the persistent damage on something that the Rogue couldn't damage as well would have helped.
Heightened Burning Hands: This one was more a misplay than anything else, and sounds like it only targeted one creature.Heightened burning hands, yeah probably a mistake to prepare. However, in pf2, what spells should one pick instead? Because no matter how I look at it, it looks like the gish ends up better than the full caster every time.
Hmm. Heightened Burning Hands definitely has its uses, but is vastly more efficient when it targets at least two things. Ideally, you want three or more smaller things, and should settle at worst for using it against two. I'd use it on one only if I were extremely desperate for damage.
Regardless, 4d6 in an AOE is fine, assuming you're using it as an AOE. Pretty much any usage other than the one he picked would have been fine (despite the low damage roll of 8 on 4d6). Funnily enough, even though my player's Sorcerer rolled 3 on 2d6, it still ended up being useful, so I'm pretty sure 8 on 4d6 would have been usable as well despite how bad of a roll it was.
Yeah, 3 is definitely closer to an ideal scenario (interestingly enough, it happened twice to enemies, once to players in my Lost Star playthrough). Getting 2 in there is fine, 1 is kinda sketchy. When you're down to 1, you're throwing out a level 2 spell to deal avg 14 damage to a single target - not great.
The fact that most enemies don't have AOOs does let you try other things to get that perfect cone, though it's a risk you have to consider.
This is, again, another scenario where you have to consider usage. Basically, if 2 is your absolute minimum, you have to make sure you get situations to pull it off, even if you have to create those situations yourself. If you can't, don't bother preparing that spell.
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.
If you'd like to pm some things you see as "things to avoid" or "things to achieve," I'll take them. Though I admit to focusing on an almost opposite playstyle from what is popular.
Paizo heading for something closer to 5e is probably the less risky option, and fits their focus better since they like the more boardgamey style of play.
It seems bad mostly because they are focusing better on that style of play, which naturally makes the system less flexible playstyle-wisr.
Eh. It does still result in you usually being better off playing a gish, though, since it's better to be able to cast that burning hands and make an attack, than to just cast burning hands. About the only other useful thing a caster can do with that last action is cast the shield cantrip, and in most cases you're probably better off with the weapon attack.
How is this even a problem? At low levels (even a bit later), a caster may want to use a weapon now and again. That's fine.
You can also do things like Demoralize or use an attack to Assist.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, let's examine this closely.
Most of it has been addressed already by others but:
Light: So, two players get to roleplay portable lantern?
You might have missed the comment that came out from the Bard's mouth regarding that spell.
It's there. It's needed for martial characters to have both hands free in combat. But it's a really poor way to contribute for the player involved.
It's a passive thing, you cast a spell and it ends up having the same effect as a torch. No one in the party even remembered it had been a spell until the Fighter suddenly asked when the light went out: "Wait, did my torch burn out?" (we play with dynamic lightning so light sources are important to my players).
He genuinely forgot it had been a spell the Bard cast.
To be on the receiving end of this is not cool. Comparatively, no one forgot that they didn't have to make Climb checks at some point because the Ranger successfully used Survival.
Color Spray: Thanks for pointing out those are imprecise senses. I checked Blindsight and somehow assumed it would be the same. I'll be sure to let him know!
Burning Hands: Let's suppose the player had cast the spell against a group of regular mooks and not that particular creature.
He would have probably caught 2 or at best 3 creatures in the AoE.
He rolled for 8 damage before accounting for any Ref saves.
Yes, I know the average should have been 14 and I told him so yesterday as well.
His answer was: "Well, when the Fighter rolls badly, he knows he'll have another attack, but I won't have another spell. So when I cast it, it should do good damage even if my rolls are unlucky."
How is this even a problem? At low levels (even a bit later), a caster may want to use a weapon now and again. That's fine.
I'm not sure if you're being serious when you say it's not a problem but I'll try to put this as clearly and politely as I can.
We are playing a roleplaying game.
Some players will come to the table looking to play the traditional Wizard of old times.
That's a squishy guy, without armor or weapons, that will stand in the back and cast spells from a safe distance.
Players who have tried 1st edition and experimented with the Wizard and Sorcerer then will probably be accustomed to this playstyle and actively research it.
Not everyone wants to be a gish or a martial hero. Some players will want to be the "brains over brawn" character and being forced to use a weapon or pump up STR doesn't fit well with that idea.
The game does force you to go this route at the moment.
If you want to contribute, you have to pick up weapons and armors, it's that simple.
Pure casters go from somewhat relevant to dead weight depending on the specific encounter.
This is the reason why you see people here who are unhappy that the traditional Wizard is no more a strong concept and ask for it to be back.
Arcane magic has been so dumbed down that you are know required to also attack with weapons to be on par with the rest of the party, especially with your very limited number of spells per day.
That doesn't seem right to me.
That this is possible is great and I am all for it. I love gish characters and I loved the Magus in 1st edition.
But one of my players usually enjoys roleplaying aging spellcasters who are completely inappropriate for any sort of physical adventuring.
He goes to great lengths to describe that his character is in great difficulty when he's asked to run for a mile.
He used to be able to pull off that fun roleplay because his spells were potent and the rest of the party had to agree that "this old man is a pain but it's great we have him because he just saved our asses with that spell".
No he probably won't be able to contribute as effectively and, as a result, has moved on to playing martial characters only for the playtest.
I find that is sad because he is a great roleplayer and wanting to play a traditional non-combat oriented spellcaster should not be something that the game punishes you for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess a lot of problems with magic as of now arise from the fact that monsters seem to be too good.
I still think that casters are in a decent spot, being able to do multiple things on a turn (e.g. Cast + Attack, Truestrike + Attack spell, Shield + Spell, Wizard: Recall Knowledge to identify + cast appropriate spell, Sorcerer: intimidate + spell (which btw makes sure DC spells work better). I also agree that some spells need some attention, damage feels a little inconsistent especially if burning hands, shocking graps or the like is the only thing you do in a turn.
There could be some more metamagic, especially things like "heighten" as increase DC for an action or maximize (maybe costing one action + slow 1 on the next turn, or no non cantrip spells for 1 turn) that make you more consistent. Adding the spellmodifier for damage in turn for smaller dice might also work.
I would also say that the universalist ist likely one of the harder choices by default as relying on your focus needs some skill, while a specialist has a rather clear game plan.
Healing is too efficient compared to blasting from my perspective and that mostly because of the cha + 3 channeling that clerics get.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
His whole adventure was pretty classic actually, we were to be knocked unconscious, transported to an island (actually another plane), and it was survival and escape from then on.
So, we walk into the ballroom, and the "no save drop unconscious gas" was released. Only to have our wizard go "Ugh... Unconscious? That triggers my contingency . and this teleports me to my tower..."
Poor guy didn't know what to do with the wizard suddenly leaving the picture.
1. In 2e you cannot have a contingent teleport. At this point in time I'm specifically talking about uncommon spells besides teleport.
2. If the GM was willing to cheat away saving throws, I don't see why he wasn't willing to cheat away teleportation.
3. What if one of the players was wearing a necklace of adaptation, or was playing a wyrwood, or had a periapt of proof against poison, or succeeded on the 50-50 to hold their breath, or succeeded a search check to find the trap? I feel like a good dungeon master has to plan ahead, anticipate that not everything will go exactly the way he wants, and create flexible quests that accommodate high level players. Sure some new GMs may have trouble with this at first, but I have confidence they'll quickly learn how.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like paizo is trying to come up with rules that micromanage the game so that bad dm's can't fail. Never going to work and the good GM's aren't going to play that game.
What is stopping the good GM's?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like paizo is trying to come up with rules that micromanage the game so that bad dm's can't fail. Never going to work and the good GM's aren't going to play that game.
How is wanting separate rarities so that players have to approach you about something that could mess with the setting make you a bad GM? And why would a good GM not play because of it? A "good" GM who doesn't like the rarity system can just do away with it REALLY easily.
Light: So, two players get to roleplay portable lantern?
You might have missed the comment that came out from the Bard's mouth regarding that spell.
It's there. It's needed for martial characters to have both hands free in combat. But it's a really poor way to contribute for the player involved.
It's a passive thing, you cast a spell and it ends up having the same effect as a torch. No one in the party even remembered it had been a spell until the Fighter suddenly asked when the light went out: "Wait, did my torch burn out?" (we play with dynamic lightning so light sources are important to my players).
He genuinely forgot it had been a spell the Bard cast.
To be on the receiving end of this is not cool. Comparatively, no one forgot that they didn't have to make Climb checks at some point because the Ranger successfully used Survival.
So if a Cleric casts Create Food and Water, and no one has rations, do people forget they needed to eat? Same thing if a Ranger provides food for everyone through Survival.
Burning Hands: Let's suppose the player had cast the spell against a group of regular mooks and not that particular creature.
He would have probably caught 2 or at best 3 creatures in the AoE.
He rolled for 8 damage before accounting for any Ref saves.
Yes, I know the average should have been 14 and I told him so yesterday as well.
His answer was: "Well, when the Fighter rolls badly, he knows he'll have another attack, but I won't have another spell. So when I cast it, it should do good damage even if my rolls are unlucky."
Question then: if he rolled a 20 on 4d6, should he do 14 because it should do average damage even if his rolls were lucky?
(I'll point out that I had a sorcerer roll 3 and 9 on 2d6+1 and accept it as luck of the dice.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does everyone forget Gm's have a job as well your examples are what lousy GM with no imagination does.
I also just wanted to say this is the most railroady thing I've ever seen, possibly only topped by literally being no-save paralyzed and strapped to a train car. The gotcha moments are also pretty ridiculous as well.
When you're pulling out a high level mythic poison to deal with a level 9 character, you have to realize something's wrong. Not to mention nothing in that would have changed the result of the escort mission anyways.
It's a problem because maybe I want to play a full caster, not a spellsword, or a multiclass wizard/grumpus who glares at people scarily after casting fireball (though I might want to do the second one on one character after that description.) Plain and simple.Eh. It does still result in you usually being better off playing a gish, though, since it's better to be able to cast that burning hands and make an attack, than to just cast burning hands. About the only other useful thing a caster can do with that last action is cast the shield cantrip, and in most cases you're probably better off with the weapon attack.How is this even a problem? At low levels (even a bit later), a caster may want to use a weapon now and again. That's fine.
You can also do things like Demoralize or use an attack to Assist.
Which you can do with 3 spells a day + cantrips. Chose carefully. Identifying all the monsters can help too.
You know a lot of gms completely ignore the fact that characters are supposed to need to eat, right?So if a Cleric casts Create Food and Water, and no one has rations, do people forget they needed to eat? Same thing if a Ranger provides food for everyone through Survival.
Light: So, two players get to roleplay portable lantern?
You might have missed the comment that came out from the Bard's mouth regarding that spell.
It's there. It's needed for martial characters to have both hands free in combat. But it's a really poor way to contribute for the player involved.
It's a passive thing, you cast a spell and it ends up having the same effect as a torch. No one in the party even remembered it had been a spell until the Fighter suddenly asked when the light went out: "Wait, did my torch burn out?" (we play with dynamic lightning so light sources are important to my players).
He genuinely forgot it had been a spell the Bard cast.
To be on the receiving end of this is not cool. Comparatively, no one forgot that they didn't have to make Climb checks at some point because the Ranger successfully used Survival.
I mean, I could use alternate examples with different spells. Knock as opposed to unlocking a door, for example. Really, any of the item- or skill-replacement spells would suffice as examples.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, that may still be a while for folks (especially in a campaign run by me) but its important to note that things aren't necessarily as dire as they seem to some.
While it might not be that dire, it FEELS that dire and that is a problem. I've already seen people drop out of the playtest and heard of more. These days there are plenty of things competing for people's time so if something is making the game unfun or seem like work vs seeming like fun, it needs fixed. If you're 4th and it seems like your most effective rounds are casting a cantrip and firing a bow, you most likely aren't having fun with the character if you want/expect your spell slots to seem like they do something when you pull them out.
So it might be a matter of perception but perception is important in getting people to test and retaining said testers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great, except there's nothing a full caster can really consistently do with their third action and stay in character as a full caster.
To be fair... bard. The inspiring courage cantrip is single-action, and lets a bard use their third action as a caster. Of course... that action works out to "make the martials even better", but that's a bard's schtick.
Of course, having been fair, there's the other two actions being kind of "meh" that underlines what this thread is all about.
Metamagic lets you add another action to boost spells. But I think there could be room for a new one action cantrip that helps out with blasters. Shield is awesome for casters that want to be in melee distance but something that can maybe lower an enemies defences allowing your spells to more easily work. Someone earlier mentioned the Demoralize is a great action to spend for sorcerers since Frightened applies to saves and AC something like that in cantrip form could help wizards a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a problem because maybe I want to play a full caster, not a spellsword, or a multiclass wizard/grumpus who glares at people scarily after casting fireball (though I might want to do the second one on one character after that description.) Plain and simple.Eh. It does still result in you usually being better off playing a gish, though, since it's better to be able to cast that burning hands and make an attack, than to just cast burning hands. About the only other useful thing a caster can do with that last action is cast the shield cantrip, and in most cases you're probably better off with the weapon attack.How is this even a problem? At low levels (even a bit later), a caster may want to use a weapon now and again. That's fine.
You can also do things like Demoralize or use an attack to Assist.
I disagree with the notion that a caster should never have to touch a weapon - especially at low levels. Having played plenty of 3.5E, I remember using ranged weapons on my pretty much ALL my arcane casters for the first 4 levels of their careers (and melee weapons on my divine ones). You can be a "full caster" and still draw a bow, toss a dagger, use a sling or even swing a scimitar or mace. Plain and simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in pathfinder 1st edition I remember only having to use weapons as a spellcaster on very rare occasions even at low level. Why would you want to force everyone to use weapons?I disagree with the notion that a caster should never have to touch a weapon - especially at low levels. Having played plenty of 3.5E, I remember using ranged weapons on my pretty much ALL my arcane casters for the first 4 levels of their careers (and melee weapons on my divine ones). You can be a "full caster" and still draw a bow, toss a dagger, use a sling or even swing a scimitar or mace. Plain and simple.It's a problem because maybe I want to play a full caster, not a spellsword, or a multiclass wizard/grumpus who glares at people scarily after casting fireball (though I might want to do the second one on one character after that description.) Plain and simple.Eh. It does still result in you usually being better off playing a gish, though, since it's better to be able to cast that burning hands and make an attack, than to just cast burning hands. About the only other useful thing a caster can do with that last action is cast the shield cantrip, and in most cases you're probably better off with the weapon attack.How is this even a problem? At low levels (even a bit later), a caster may want to use a weapon now and again. That's fine.
You can also do things like Demoralize or use an attack to Assist.
They aren't forced to. They can cast shield, they can intimidate, use metamagic, etc.
However, classes have weapon proficiencies for a reason. Racial feats grant weapon proficiencies for a reason. Frankly, I just I don't see the problem with the system rewarding a PC caster for using a weapon to supplement his casting.
If you choose to ignore the weapon attack option and then ignore the other options, then your failure is on you.
There is ZERO wrong with a low level caster being expected to put those weapon proficiencies to work.
Great, except there's nothing a full caster can really consistently do with their third action and stay in character as a full caster.To be fair... bard. The inspiring courage cantrip is single-action, and lets a bard use their third action as a caster. Of course... that action works out to "make the martials even better", but that's a bard's schtick.
Of course, having been fair, there's the other two actions being kind of "meh" that underlines what this thread is all about.
I don't really like quoting myself but I just mentioned a couple of things earlier in this thread:
I still think that casters are in a decent spot, being able to do multiple things on a turn (e.g. Cast + Attack, Truestrike + Attack spell, Shield + Spell, Wizard: Recall Knowledge to identify + cast appropriate spell, Sorcerer: demoralize + spell (which btw. makes sure DC spells work better)
Bards can use Inspire courage as well.
Having some more 1 action cantrips with different abilities would certainly help, but we already have precedence for them so lets wait on those.
However I could also see more or different school powers with 1 actions, like dimensional steps or the compositions for the bard or some of the cleric domain powers.
Sorcerers can activate their dragon claws or their ancestral surge too.
You can cast shield, but if you block with it, you won't be casting it again in that fight.
Weapons aren't wizardy. I like my wizards wizardy thanks. It's punishing the wizard that wants to stay wizardy like wizards are. It's like making rogues more effective when they run up screaming and bash everyone on the head with a greatclub. Not roguey. It's like making barbarians more effective when they're calmly and collectedly parrying attacks with a rapier. Not barbariany. It's like making clerics more effective when they call their deities names. Not clericy. (Not to say that I don't think those unorthodox variants should be possible, they just shouldn't be more effective than the class doing what it iconically does.)
Intimidating folks isn't directly wizardy either, and difficult since they probably don't have a lot of charisma and aren't likely trained in it, but sure, you could I guess. I don't see it helping often enough to count.
Metamagic works, but it's pretty situational.
I do not understand why subsequent posts were deleted since I and the user had resolved our issues through understanding and dialogue. However, here is my revised response to the user's above post. The previous post did not contain personal attacks or slights but perhaps the language below will be more to the liking of forum moderators:
Corwin:
While I respect your wish to be "wizardy" or "clericy," I simply disagree that the use of weapons flies in the face of these thematic concepts. As mentioned, casters in previous editions of the game (DnD 1e to 3rd ed) regular used weaponry at early levels of play. This is why they had weapon proficiencies and one of the reasons why racial weapon proficiencies are valuable.
As I mentioned, if you opt to ignore weapon use options, to ignore metamagic options, to ignore shield casting options, to ignore your ability to assist, to ignore your ability to intimidate and so on, then any difficulty you experience may well be due to the unique choices you are making as a player rather than any fault in the system itself. This is not a slight against you. It is merely an observation.
We can, ultimately, agree to disagree. If hope you find enjoyment in the game and strongly suggest you approach the current caster implementation with a more open mind. You may not find the occasional use of weapons or the other listed options as objectionable once you give it a go in that fashion.
Have a good day sir.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo heading for something closer to 5e is probably the less risky option, and fits their focus better since they like the more boardgamey style of play.They are definitely not heading for something like 5th Ed, and 5th Ed is the least boardgamey edition of the game since 1989.
You clearly do not understand the full capabilities of 3.x.
Both the most and the least boardgamey campaigns I've played were 3.5.
But wait! How can one system be the most and the least, you ask?
Simple, 3.x was very versatile, in terms of playstyle. You coukd easily use 3.x for a very immersive non-combat and non-boardgamey campaign simply by how and when you applied the rules.
For example, the penalties for attacking while on an unstable platform, a boardgamey gm would apply this all the time if it applied, but a non-boardgamey gm would apply it only when it really matters. For example, during sea campaign, it would be ignored for most shipboard fights as not only would those be the norm for that campaign but also because all the characters are used to fighting on ships. But for a land based campaign where the shipboard fight is unique for being on a ship, at least for that campaign, then applying penalties for unstable platform makes sense as the characters are not used to fighting that way but more importantly, it helps define the uniqueness of that fight making it feel more like fighting on a ship and also feel different from other fights.
3.x was designed as a toolset, and was not intended to be run as a boardgame. A toolbox needs lots of tools, and likewise 3.x has plenty of tools.
If you apply all those tools, all the time, it will work, but you'll get only a particular feel of play, a small sliver of the vast possibilities the system can support.
However, 4e and 5e and now pf2 are built in a way that makes it a lot more difficult to apply only the desired tools, and a lot harder to adapt things without breaking other things.
By no means is 3.x perfect, but it is a much more powerful and versatile system than most modern players give it credit for, and I believe that is because modern players are so used to computer games and their limitations, that they see a rpg system and think/feel like it must apply all it's rules all the time, and therefore feel like freedom comes from a lack of rules. It is my belief that this is why all modern rpgs are going either rules light with an abstract focus (like fate) or keeping more rules but with a boardgamey focus (like 4e, 5e, and now pf2).
Personally, I don't see issue with casters using weapons at low levels; that's fine and not really a problem at that point. I'd say that there's definitely a problem with the relative lack of third actions for casters later on other than metamagic however. And metamagic's not going to be applying to every spell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I don't see issue with casters using weapons at low levels
I don't think it's an issue if the PC want to use a item. It is seen as an issue when using an item is your best option when you'd rather be casting.
Right now, I see the problem as this: using a limited resource [spell slots] doesn't seem to do more than using your at will resources [cantrip + weapon]. While a good 3rd action is needed, until you feel that your limited resources are worth using you aren't going to feel like a very good 'caster'.