Arcane Spellcasters in PF2E – quo vadis?

[necromental]

Your point is basically if the fighter and rogue cannot do it, it's cheese so not sure what your endgame is here.

[necromental]

Those are things I would never use and I consider balancing anything with gold cost a bad balance. I don't think anyone here is complaining about sno-cone wish machine being gone. But you consider teleport cheese. Which is staple high level spell which can and should be used if you don't want to play LotR your whole life. And yes we've been telebombed. Not to mention all other spells that magnuskn has layed out, whose nerfs severely limit the quality of life our casters had in PF1.

[shroudb]

necromental wrote:

Those are things I would never use and I consider balancing anything with gold cost a bad balance. I don't think anyone here is complaining about sno-cone wish machine being gone. But you consider teleport cheese. Which is staple high level spell which can and should be used if you don't want to play LotR your whole life. And yes we've been telebombed. Not to mention all other spells that magnuskn has layed out, whose nerfs severely limit the quality of life our casters had in PF1.

if you've read my posts, you would have seen that teleport in particular I said is a spell that I find so symbolic that I would most certainly want my players to have.

that's why I LIKE the changes to it.

because it keeps it's thematic, it keeps it's exploration value, and the only thing it nerfs is it's combat potential. Which yes, for a 5th level spell was way too much imo.

teleport, as a spell was, is and will be problematic, because of it's nature. Having every important place dimenshion locked is not really feasible from a world building perspective. But on the flipside, if it isn't, most things that PCs should realistically find in a lot of places would be empty rooms pilfered long agao by greedy wizards just because they could.

from a worldbuilding balance perspective, Teleport NEEDS to be uncommon, because if every 9th level wizard had it in the old setting, and actually used it correctly and in it's max power (as you would expect beings with godly 20+ intelligence would), could easily destroy countries by itself.

for the record, I don't consider someone running away with teleport cheese, I consider it to be extremely powerful and outside of the scope a 5th level spell should grant though. What i was calling cheese, was purposedly loading full nuking party arrays, spending all resources in two encounters per day, teleporting out, and repeating till things went clear.

You see, to you it may seem like "strategy", but when 1 class is balanced around having to use some form of conservation to get through "an average day" and you break that, I don't think that's strategy. I think that's cheese.

[Sanoskazi]

magnuskn wrote:

Now, compare that to PF2E, where Wizards now have Quick Study, which gives you much more freedom to fill your spell slots with less applied foresight. Sorcerers now have to deal with spells not advancing anymore without being heightened, which takes away a lot of their flexibility.

While I agree with most of the rest of your post, this one little bit is questionable, in PF1 wizards did not need to prepare all their slots in the morning, and could always prepare more spells in the middle of the day, yes it's a minor drawback leaving slots open, but on the other hand, it also didn't cost you a feat at 4th level. Granted very few people ever took advantage of the rule, so maybe having to keep slots open really is too big of a price.

[magnuskn]

Sanoskazi wrote:

While I agree with most of the rest of your post, this one little bit is questionable, in PF1 wizards did not need to prepare all their slots in the morning, and could always prepare more spells in the middle of the day, yes it's a minor drawback leaving slots open, but on the other hand, it also didn't cost you a feat at 4th level. Granted very few people ever took advantage of the rule, so maybe having to keep slots open really is too big of a price.

In my experience with every Wizard I've seen played it usually was too big of a prize. And we are not talking about leaving a slot open and that making you more flexible. We are talking about being able to fill all your slots and then with just a little time investment change our your complement as much as you want. I think about every Wizard player in PF1E would consider this a mandatory feat if it were available in that edition.

[necromental]

On teleport...we never used it to play an encounter and then went to rest. Yes 15min workday is a problem but not one that can be fixed with nerfing all the magic, if nothing nerfing seems to exacerbate it. But having it as emergency escape button, it's a very important part of the spell. I think it could have been a level higher, yes it can be uncommon, I actually have no problem with rarity as I understand for what it can be used, but 10min casting is just gutting the spell.

Continuing in 20ish hours, I'm getting up in 3h.

[GreatCowGuru]

Just mildly curious if this has come up in the thread as well, but Fighters in particuliar get expert, master, and legendary proficiency in their weapon group at levels much earlier then a Wizard, all spellcasters actually, get the same proficiency in their spellcasting, yet spellcasters lose their 12th and 16th level class feats while Fighters get the proficiencies as part of their free static progression. This stacks with weakened spells and fewer per day and really comes off as poor class design just because spellcasters get fewer core class options to justify being able to cast spells.

[shroudb]

GreatCowGuru wrote:

Just mildly curious if this has come up in the thread as well, but Fighters in particuliar get expert, master, and legendary proficiency in their weapon group at levels much earlier then a Wizard, all spellcasters actually, get the same proficiency in their spellcasting, yet spellcasters lose their 12th and 16th level class feats while Fighters get the proficiencies as part of their free static progression. This stacks with weakened spells and fewer per day and really comes off as poor class design just because spellcasters get fewer core class options to justify being able to cast spells.

i think that's because of "free" spell powers from bloodlines and such taking the space of "class feats", not because of proficiency.

but that's just a general pf2 problem:

in general, there are a lot of stuff in the class feats that should have been baked into the base classes (just take a look at poor alchemist as an example, half his "class feats" should have been base features, I mean, he has to pay a lvl8 feat just o get his class dc to his class abilities...)

I do think that a lot of class feat trees need in general to be remade almost from scratch, and regardless of balance, not getting a class feat because of a reason or another just feels bad.

[GreatCowGuru]

shroudb wrote:

GreatCowGuru wrote:

Just mildly curious if this has come up in the thread as well, but Fighters in particuliar get expert, master, and legendary proficiency in their weapon group at levels much earlier then a Wizard, all spellcasters actually, get the same proficiency in their spellcasting, yet spellcasters lose their 12th and 16th level class feats while Fighters get the proficiencies as part of their free static progression. This stacks with weakened spells and fewer per day and really comes off as poor class design just because spellcasters get fewer core class options to justify being able to cast spells.

i think that's because of "free" spell powers from bloodlines and such taking the space of "class feats", not because of proficiency.

but that's just a general pf2 problem:

in general, there are a lot of stuff in the class feats that should have been baked into the base classes (just take a look at poor alchemist as an example, half his "class feats" should have been base features, I mean, he has to pay a lvl8 feat just o get his class dc to his class abilities...)

I do think that a lot of class feat trees need in general to be remade almost from scratch, and regardless of balance, not getting a class feat because of a reason or another just feels bad.

Oh I agree, with both that I can understand the 1st level class feat for spellcasters effectively being their spell point and first power but to lose 2 class feats for a +1 number boost which doesn't even put you ahead of the monster scaling it just keeps it on par feels terrible.

Also while it's a bit of a tangent I agree wholeheartedly about alchemists the most disapointing thing for me is being forced to use quick alchemy instead of your daily prep to benefit from any of their extra bomb effects that you've spent class features on.

[AsmoSoulpyre]

Just to throw this out there, as someone who has both played in and GM'd several 'high level' 'mythic' and 'epic' level campaigns going back as long as there were rules for them, I've never been so underwhelmed looking at a spell list as I am when I look at magic in PF2E.

I tend to think of magic in terms of the narrative power that it has - for better or worse. Can it tell the story of a magic user?

Could the current magic system produce the casters that are in ANY of the iconic books that started many of us down the path to playing casters?

I'm not overly familiar with the lore in Pathfinder, but Elminster and Raistlin would never have survived this casting system long enough to become legends. Gromph would have been destroyed by his fellow dark elves long before Liriel would have been born.

Wrong system, I know...but...tell me I'm wrong.

[magnuskn]

AsmoSoulpyre wrote:

Just to throw this out there, as someone who has both played in and GM'd several 'high level' 'mythic' and 'epic' level campaigns going back as long as there were rules for them, I've never been so underwhelmed looking at a spell list as I am when I look at magic in PF2E.

I tend to think of magic in terms of the narrative power that it has - for better or worse. Can it tell the story of a magic user?

Could the current magic system produce the casters that are in ANY of the iconic books that started many of us down the path to playing casters?

I'm not overly familiar with the lore in Pathfinder, but Elminster and Raistlin would never have survived this casting system long enough to become legends. Gromph would have been destroyed by his fellow dark elves long before Liriel would have been born.

Wrong system, I know...but...tell me I'm wrong.

No, it's not wrong at all. The boss fight against the single high-powered caster is now officially dead, since the main tactic of those bosses, buffing themselves to the gills can't work anymore. At least not with a combination of the best combat buffs.

Yeah, I can't see PF2E character duplicating the legendary feats of such iconic casters of D&D fantasy fiction like Elminster, Raistlin Majere or just the Runelords from Golarion itself. Hell, I can't imagine how the Runelords managed to build such an empire like Thassilon at all if all they had was this nerfed magic.

[graystone]

magnuskn wrote:

Hell, I can't imagine how the Runelords managed to build such an empire like Thassilon at all if all they had was this nerfed magic.

Well, you just build them as monsters instead of PC's as monsters throw out the rule and then stomp on them: A caster 'boss' just gets built so that buff durations don't matter and give them many more slots. Only 'PC' magic is required to be nerfed. ;)

[Cyouni]

magnuskn wrote:

Well, as I laid out before, I think with no way to increase the damage or DC of blasting spells and with the huge opportunity cost of needing to cast Fireball as an eight level spell to have a chance to do anything close to decent damage at 15th level and the 50% success/failure chance on everything... the benefits are just not there anymore. The developers need to do something to make blasting more attractive again.

Honestly, we'll see, but blasting was probably the biggest swing back and forth in my part of the playtest so far. The single goblin sorcerer accounted for nearly 40 damage on the party across the two burning hands he got off (life sucks for them when he easily caught three party members in both), and the party goblin sorcerer and the druid blasting were pretty major parts in the combats in which those spells were used.

(Also, the sorc basically saved the last fight thanks to Fear and Colour Spray.)

Fortunately, this is going to let me test blasting all the way up to the highest levels and see how it turns out.

[Vic Ferrari]

graystone wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Hell, I can't imagine how the Runelords managed to build such an empire like Thassilon at all if all they had was this nerfed magic.

Well, you just build them as monsters instead of PC's as monsters throw out the rule and then stomp on them: A caster 'boss' just gets built so that buff durations don't matter and give them many more slots. Only 'PC' magic is required to be nerfed. ;)

Funnily enough, originally, for AD&D, I heard only NPCs were to have access to 8th and 9th level spells (hence clerics capping at 7th), but it got sort of muddled at some point/in the end.

[magnuskn]

Cyouni wrote:

Honestly, we'll see, but blasting was probably the biggest swing back and forth in my part of the playtest so far. The single goblin sorcerer accounted for nearly 40 damage on the party across the two burning hands he got off (life sucks for them when he easily caught three party members in both), and the party goblin sorcerer and the druid blasting were pretty major parts in the combats in which those spells were used.

(Also, the sorc basically saved the last fight thanks to Fear and Colour Spray.)

Fortunately, this is going to let me test blasting all the way up to the highest levels and see how it turns out.

Yeah, well. That is probably because that single goblin sorcerer will have exactly one fight per day, which is the last fight of his life. He doesn't have to worry about his resources and the next two rooms before him.

[avr]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

graystone wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Hell, I can't imagine how the Runelords managed to build such an empire like Thassilon at all if all they had was this nerfed magic.

Well, you just build them as monsters instead of PC's as monsters throw out the rule and then stomp on them: A caster 'boss' just gets built so that buff durations don't matter and give them many more slots. Only 'PC' magic is required to be nerfed. ;)

Funnily enough, originally, for AD&D, I heard only NPCs were to have access to 8th and 9th level spells (hence clerics capping at 7th), but it got sort of muddled at some point/in the end.

Not in AD&D. Possibly earlier?

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Rikkan wrote:

Fighters can never even get to the adventure if you're adventuring on another plane /

Unless you use gates and portals, like Planescape. As long as you know where one is and have the right key, you're good to go. This was explicitly done so people could go planehopping without the need of powerful magic.

Rikkan wrote:

in the underwater temple

Unless you get hold of some creature that grants water breathing. Make a deal with it/capture and threaten/bribe it.

Rikkan wrote:

in the cloud castle

Flying mounts are a thing.

Seriously, many of these problems are harder for non-casters to overcome but not insurmountable.

[Starfox]

magnuskn wrote:

The boss fight against the single high-powered caster is now officially dead, since the main tactic of those bosses, buffing themselves to the gills can't work anymore.

To me, that was dead in every edition past 2E. A solo creature of any sort is always in dire straits, and a caster more so than others. Too many combat maneuvers, too many effects that bypass your defenses, too few actions.

[Starfox]

Rikkan wrote:

while being able to walk to a cave and slay your enemies is perfectly fine at level 1, as you go up in levels that is no longer adequate for an adventurer.

This is why bus drivers are national heroes - not very often. Having to rely on your caster or a magic item to get you there is about as demeaning as having to rely on a car made by someone else at a factory. The caster then has to rely on the martials to win the actual fight - the heroic part. This was so in PF1 and looks to be even more so in PF2.

[neaven]

Starfox wrote:

Rikkan wrote:

while being able to walk to a cave and slay your enemies is perfectly fine at level 1, as you go up in levels that is no longer adequate for an adventurer.

This is why bus drivers are national heroes - not very often. Having to rely on your caster or a magic item to get you there is about as demeaning as having to rely on a car made by someone else at a factory. The caster then has to rely on the martials to win the actual fight - the heroic part. This was so in PF1 and looks to be even more so in PF2.

The issue I - and many others - have with this is that the spell nerfs seem to make it "even more so" to the point of "why did we bring you over someone else?" for arcane casters. The opportunity cost for someone playing an arcane caster is that they are not playing a class that can contribute in more useful ways (as spells are much weaker) for a longer period of time (as spell durations are lower and number of slots is smaller).

[Starfox]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Seriously, many of these problems are harder for non-casters to overcome but not insurmountable.

I think a lot of the problem here is stingy GMs and a lack of magic shops.

If cloaks of flying and pegasi steeds are commonly available, flying is not a problem for martials. But many GMs think magic items should be something the GM hands out and the players just have to accept what they get. In such a game, casters will shine, not because they are powerful, but because they are the only ones with access to all the candy. The other PCs have to beg them for handouts. Not cool.

[John Mechalas]

Rikkan wrote:

In my experience most martial characters do perfectly fine in the combat aspect of high level play.

I dunno about that. In high level play, the biggest problem is that monsters always hit with their primary attack because a PC's AC doesn't scale linearly while monster BAB's do, unless you spend like 3/4 of your cash on defense (+5 heavy armor, +5 amulet or natural armor, etc.). It's just not worth boosting AC because other things (like Fort saves) have a greater impact on your survival.

When the GM starts asking questions like "does a 40 hit?" you're just going to have to accept that you'll get hit every round, losing 1/4 to 1/2 of your max hp at a time. That's where you need a cleric or similar class healing you almost every round just to stay in the fight, and battlefield control to divide enemies up so you aren't being swarmed.

It's always been a cooperative game at every level.

Cutting caster spells/day, spell durations, and spell effectiveness mixed with the contention for high-level slots through forced heightening really has me nervous. We haven't playtested a high level scenario yet, but my instincts tell me it's going to be rough and that we're headed for the 15-minute adventuring day.

[Rikkan]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Unless you use gates and portals, like Planescape. As long as you know where one is and have the right key, you're good to go. This was explicitly done so people could go planehopping without the need of powerful magic.

Unless you get hold of some creature that grants water breathing. Make a deal with it/capture and threaten/bribe it.

Flying mounts are a thing.

Seriously, many of these problems are harder for non-casters to overcome but not insurmountable.

Yeah, that is exactly my point. Casters get class features to deal with those problems, while non-magical martials have to sit around / plead with their DM to fix those problems for them.

Because non-magical casters usually don't or barely get non-combat class features

[JulianW]

Starfox wrote:

If cloaks of flying and pegasi steeds are commonly available, flying is not a problem for martials. But many GMs think magic items should be something the GM hands out and the players just have to accept what they get. In such a game, casters will shine, not because they are powerful, but because they are the only ones with access to all the candy. The other PCs have to beg them for handouts. Not cool.

Very true

I've never experienced the caster-martial disparity & always been mystified by reports casters are overpowered - and I play far more martials than casters

But then I've never had a GM that's combined both high fantasy style encounters (i.e. lots of flying monsters, long underwater sections, planar travel) with low fantasy availability of magic items.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Starfox wrote:

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Seriously, many of these problems are harder for non-casters to overcome but not insurmountable.

I think a lot of the problem here is stingy GMs and a lack of magic shops.

But this is a DM issue, not an inherent problem with high level magic and/or adventures.

[Lausth]

Most of the spells having 1 minute duration is just an another way of saying that these powers are once per encounter right?Did i get this wrong?

[Moro]

Lausth wrote:

Most of the spells having 1 minute duration is just an another way of saying that these powers are once per encounter right?Did i get this wrong?

Sure seems that way. You have your at-will, encounter, and daily powers...

[Lyee]

Rikkan wrote:

Yeah, that is exactly my point. Casters get class features to deal with those problems, while non-magical martials have to sit around / plead with their DM to fix those problems for them.
Because non-magical casters usually don't or barely get non-combat class features

A character is not a bag of class features.

Why do the class features need to be the solution?

Let them call on characters from their background, characters they've made freinds of business partners with, characters in their debt. Let them utilize knowledge from their adventures, or the treasure therefrom. Let them use cool racial abilities. Let them use legendary and mythic skill feats to rend the universe to their will and solve these problems.

Let them be a character with depth and connections and utilize that. God knows none of my groups had issues with martials feeling useless in 1E, and that's through some 8 groups in 20 different campaigns. Can we stop making wizards unfun or forcing martial characters to get their narrative power via class?

[John Mechalas]

magnuskn wrote:

Continual Flame: It has more than doubled in price and there are bafflingly heightened (and more expensive) versions up until tenth level spells. I have no ideas why one would use them, since Light is a cantrip and can be heightened at will. The light doesn’t even get bigger with the heightened versions.

Oh, no one has brought this up yet (I think?) so I just wanted to clarify it. As with PF1, in the Playtest rules magical darkness can only be counteracted by a light spell of a higher level. The heightened versions of Continual Flame allow for that.

Obviously, this is only circumstantially useful.

[neaven]

Lyee wrote:

Rikkan wrote:

Yeah, that is exactly my point. Casters get class features to deal with those problems, while non-magical martials have to sit around / plead with their DM to fix those problems for them.
Because non-magical casters usually don't or barely get non-combat class features

A character is not a bag of class features.

Why do the class features need to be the solution?

Let them call on characters from their background, characters they've made freinds of business partners with, characters in their debt. Let them utilize knowledge from their adventures, or the treasure therefrom. Let them use cool racial abilities. Let them use legendary and mythic skill feats to rend the universe to their will and solve these problems.

Let them be a character with depth and connections and utilize that. God knows none of my groups had issues with martials feeling useless in 1E, and that's through some 8 groups in 20 different campaigns. Can we stop making wizards unfun or forcing martial characters to get their narrative power via class?

I mean... why not give martials more codified options to impact a narrative? That doesn't preclude using your non-class-feature solutions either - people can still call in favours, use racial abilities, skill feats, etc.

Spheres of Might, my favourite 3rd party supplement for 1e, was all about that. Instead of the average martial character being a machine for inserting bits of metal into your various enemies, using it opened up a lot of narrative and roleplaying opportunities for my players.

Our Techsmith is bringing steam power to Golarion, not just because I as a DM merely said "yes you can invent that" but because there was a codified set of rules that allowed myself and the player in question to agree how it would be represented in game mechanics as well as story.

Our Armiger on the other hand is playing a "right tool for the right problem" character. His fighting style and some of his out-of-combat skillset changes depending on the weapon he is using, and he can provide varying levels of out-of-combat non-skill utility as well via his investment in the Alchemy sphere.

Both of these examples have been more interesting for me as a GM and for the players in question than other martials they had previously played, because the features their classes and the system gave them allowed them to have a reliable, immediate and enjoyable effect on the story and the world.

[Lausth]

I dont get something.What exactly martials are having problems with that cant be solved by magical items?

[dnoisette]

Lausth wrote:

I dont get something.What exactly martials are having problems with that cant be solved by magical items?

Martial characters don't want to have to use magical items.

They want to be able to perform the same level of magic as spellcasters but retain all of their better combat abilities.

/end sarcasm

[Lausth]

So basicly they want anime powers while they hate anime?

[kaid]

ENHenry wrote:

This one is a silly point to bring up, but I bring it up because I have used it extensively in the playtest so far:

Quote:

Telekinetic Projectile: This is a decent nuke spell, but it depends on your GM being nice and giving you stuff to throw at your opponents. If you don’t have a nice GM, always bring several bags of small rocks, razors and needles with you. This is probably the best single target cantrip against targets with physical weaknesses (like zombies).

There is not a single forest, hillside slope, excavated tunnel... hell, PARKING LOT that I can walk through where I cannot find small, unattended objects to throw, whether there be sticks, stones, small hunks of asphalt, pebbles, loose bricks, etc. Plus, there's nothing to suggest it can't be the same projectile every single casting of the spell. If a GM argued this with me, we'd have to be either in the Astral or Ethereal Plane, or floating in the middle of the ocean to not be able to use this spell. :)

I don't have much to comment on the relative power levels of the spells, as I haven't been through the higher level playtests yet, and I am playing a Wizard, so I imagine I will have more to say at that point. I was popping off goblin warriors left and right with TK Projectile, though. :)

I had a GM make some noises about this but after talking it through it is pretty obvious unless you are in some kind of clean room/meditation cell there is basically always going to be something laying around to fling with this spell.

[shroudb]

dnoisette wrote:

Lausth wrote:

I dont get something.What exactly martials are having problems with that cant be solved by magical items?

Martial characters don't want to have to use magical items.

They want to be able to perform the same level of magic as spellcasters but retain all of their better combat abilities.

/end sarcasm

i like that when one of the main issues casters bring up is that they want more damage, to reach the martials, but when they confront the narrative issue their defense is: "but martials do more damage.!!!11!"

also, you can buy wands and staves and fling fireballs every round.

"i don't get why casters don't want to have to use magical items to solve their problems?"

/end sarcasm

[Lausth]

shroudb wrote:

dnoisette wrote:

Lausth wrote:

I dont get something.What exactly martials are having problems with that cant be solved by magical items?

Martial characters don't want to have to use magical items.

They want to be able to perform the same level of magic as spellcasters but retain all of their better combat abilities.

/end sarcasm

i like that when one of the main issues casters bring up is that they want more damage, to reach the martials, but when they confront the narrative issue their defense is: "but martials do more damage.!!!11!"

also, you can buy wands and staves and fling fireballs every round.

"i don't get why casters don't want to have to use magical items to solve their problems?"

/end sarcasm

Just to remind you.Not all casters are blasters.Please do more damage.I'll even buff you.

EDIT:Only once mind you.Me sucking more means you suck even more as we level up.Because Caster martial dispartiy as people like you claim still seems to be a thing.Me having less slots means one less spell that can make you fly,cure or solve anyother problems and martial purists hate anime so you dont get those powers per encounters.

[Moro]

shroudb wrote:

dnoisette wrote:

Lausth wrote:

I dont get something.What exactly martials are having problems with that cant be solved by magical items?

Martial characters don't want to have to use magical items.

They want to be able to perform the same level of magic as spellcasters but retain all of their better combat abilities.

/end sarcasm

i like that when one of the main issues casters bring up is that they want more damage, to reach the martials, but when they confront the narrative issue their defense is: "but martials do more damage.!!!11!"

also, you can buy wands and staves and fling fireballs every round.

"i don't get why casters don't want to have to use magical items to solve their problems?"

/end sarcasm

Were people asking for casters to do more damage? I don't recall that, but I am too lazy to go and look.

I can see perhaps arguing for this if the caster niche is going to be restricted to "blaster" in this edition, but most of the complaints I am hearing at tables and reading on the forums about the playtest are aimed towards the manner in which non-damage spells have been gutted in either duration or effect.

[shroudb]

Lausth wrote:

shroudb wrote:

dnoisette wrote:

Lausth wrote:

I dont get something.What exactly martials are having problems with that cant be solved by magical items?

Martial characters don't want to have to use magical items.

They want to be able to perform the same level of magic as spellcasters but retain all of their better combat abilities.

/end sarcasm

i like that when one of the main issues casters bring up is that they want more damage, to reach the martials, but when they confront the narrative issue their defense is: "but martials do more damage.!!!11!"

also, you can buy wands and staves and fling fireballs every round.

"i don't get why casters don't want to have to use magical items to solve their problems?"

/end sarcasm

Just to remind you.Not all casters are blasters.Please do more damage.I'll even buff you.

that's why i said "one of the issues".

as of now, casters are the easiest and more consistent way to debuff (and control to a degree) enemies.

martials have little outside of providing flat-footed, while casters have access to various conditional penalties to give to enemies. Conditional bonuses for allies, Quick and etc

[Vic Ferrari]

shroudb wrote:

that's why i said "one of the issues".

as of now, casters are the easiest and more consistent way to debuff (and control to a degree) enemies.

martials have little outside of providing flat-footed, while casters have access to various conditional penalties to give to enemies. Conditional bonuses for allies, Quick and etc

I was hoping Legendary would open up some epic shenanigans for martial-types.

[Inconnu73]

HI all

For starters my applause to you magnuskn for a splendid analysis that you have done, and the general civility of this thread.

I will not discuss the mechanics involved in the changes mainly because it has been done so extensively, and I think I can bring no more to it. Having both sides defended their viewpoints very well.

I will instead give my humble opinion on why I agree so much with magnuskn, and I'm also one that if things do not change a lot I will be unfortunately done with PF2 after the playtest (btw I'm just about finishing the 2nd scenario). I've been playing RPGs for almost 30 years now, played AD&D for the better part of a decade , skipped 3.0 all together and came back on 3.5, and from there to PF. Having also played several non-fantasy settings that also had magic (Shadowrun chief among them).

My five cents worth here is that for the ones that say (and I respect completely their opinions) that magic / wizards / etc are OP maybe, just maybe are neglecting one crucial detail. PF follows the tradition created by Gary Gygax back in 1974, he designed a game called Dungeons and Dragons.. emphasis on the DRAGONS... Dragons are creatures of High Magic, the setting was created with that in mind, that Magic pervaded everything and it was all powerful, it could move mountains, raze cities, it was capable of just about everything.

I was attracted by the image of the Wizard preparing all powerful spells while his trusty fighter / Paladin / Barbarian companions kept the enemies at bay to buy the wizard time for his Earth shattering spells, with the Cleric running around dispensing healing to the martials could hold on fighting for a little longer.

To be clear, along the years I've played the gamut of base classes, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, you name it and I probably had one or another character in that class. The imbalance between Wizards and Martials always, but always existed. But the Wizard, regardless of how powerful he was, would never be all powerful, he would always need the help of his companions to overcome challenges.

Again regardless of mechanics, this was built in the concept, in the backbone of the game, high fantasy, high magic.

If by any chance I wanted to play something more balanced, more "realistic" there were medieval settings aplenty where I could do just that.

My driving point here is, PF when it first appeared did something brilliant, it kept the "soul" of the D&D game while solving many issues that were made apparent along the years. Now for the sake of some nebulous and ambiguous concept of "Game Balance" they, again in my opinion, neglected completely what I consider to be the soul, the most basic concept of the tradition, High Magic.

Grudgingly I admit that looking exclusively at 2nd Ed. it is balanced... ish. But has a consequence it stopped being the evolution of D&D, for better or worse, it became something else.
Something that has it stands I don't want to play, I'm comfortable with that, has by my accounting (and the frequency my life lets me indulge in my favorite hobby) I have enough AP for the next decade or so.

Again for all, this an opinion, just that, no more.

[Lausth]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

shroudb wrote:

that's why i said "one of the issues".

as of now, casters are the easiest and more consistent way to debuff (and control to a degree) enemies.

martials have little outside of providing flat-footed, while casters have access to various conditional penalties to give to enemies. Conditional bonuses for allies, Quick and etc

I was hoping Legendary would open up some epic shenanigans for martial-types.

I was hoping for that too.

[glass]

Lausth wrote:

Most of the spells having 1 minute duration is just an another way of saying that these powers are once per encounter right?Did i get this wrong?

Yes, you got it wrong. Duration is completely orthogonal to usage restrictions.

You are probably not going to want to to cast a 1 minute spell on the same target more than once per encounter (unless it gets dispelled), but if you did want to there is nothing stopping you if you have the slots/prepared spells (which are a daily resource) available. And unless the spell in question is self only, there are probably other targets.

_
glass.

[Lausth]

glass wrote:

Lausth wrote:

Most of the spells having 1 minute duration is just an another way of saying that these powers are once per encounter right?Did i get this wrong?

Yes, you got it wrong. Duration is completely orthogonal to usage restrictions.

You are probably not going to want to to cast a 1 minute spell on the same target more than once per encounter (unless it gets dispelled), but if you did want to there is nothing stopping you if you have the slots/prepared spells (which are a daily resource) available. And unless the spell in question is self only, there are probably other targets.

_
glass.

Soo instead of casting that power once which will be the case due to less spell slots most of the time.Now I have a choice to cast it more than once and be useless rest of the encounters so i will be casting it once per encounter?

_
Lausth