Did wizards get nerfed?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 1,254 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

SteelGuts wrote:

I played the boss of Rise of The Runelords, the first AP, agaisnt a full level 18 group, with over the top stats, well builded and played.

He is a Vanilla Transmutater, but I adjusted the spelllist of course, because he is a BBEG and a Wizard, master of magic and preparation.

With Anticipatied Peril, Aroden Spell Bane, Spell Protection, Mage Disjunction, some quick hard ass save or suck, he killed the party after 6 months of playing. It was juste boring, easy, and non fun.

Before that the Psychic of the group one shooted all the dragons in the Ap with Possession with stupid high DC without a sweat. Three dragons presented as worthy opponents got just shred without a sweat too.

At the end the game was blocked by question such as do Spellbane counter Spellbane while you are in an antimagic field bla bla bla....

It is a good things Spells got nerfed.All the cool things that the Unchained Rogue and the Monk of the group had come from the Psychic and the Oracle. And Monk & U Rogue are not top tier, but not trash classes either. As soon as Mage DIsjunction hit, fight was over.

The same happened in Iron Gods, where the Mage of the group just rekted the final boss with some clever spells combos.

In all serious talk, from our last three APs, we got at least 8 instances of spellcasters from the group or the ennemy wiping the opponents with a few hard save or suck and spell combos. At the end the question was just to know his this spell beats this other spell. And all the martials could do was to be enabled by caster. like Haste or Gre. Invisibility.

Magic had to be nerf. It should happenend 20 years ago to be honest. it was finally time. With 5E & PF2, magic got tuned down hard, and it is a good thing.

Was there not a caster who could just cast Dispel Magic on the disjunction? You can straight up counter it with a 3rd level spell.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

And if you cast Magic Fang, the animal companion is now effectively equivalent (possibly better) than the fighter at the one thing the fighter can do...and the druid still can throw cantrips constantly at people. Summon Animal is utility more than anything else, but can easily put a flanking buddy onto the field to create significantly higher hit/crit chances.

Cleric has Fear, Heal, Command, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Magic Weapon, all of which are constantly useful.

Forgive me if I don't find that to be terrible.

Maybe you should stop expecting the animal druid and the cleric to be blaster wizards/sorcerers.

Your statement has no basis in reality, particularly if you follow the rules for animal companion action economy. First, you have to spend two actions to cast Magic Fang, then every action you make the animal companion take requires an action. The druid's cat, after magic fang has been cast, has 4 hit points, hits worse than the fighter, and does less damage than the fighter. In what world does that mean the animal is effectively equivalent (possibly better) than the fighter at the one thing the fighter can do?

How did you get animal companions so completely wrong? A 1st-level cat should have +6 to hit, 1d6+2 damage base, 11 HP, and 16 AC (17 with barding). The problem in this case is that the cat's effectively running off rogue numbers (it wants the 1d4 from hitting flat-footed targets), so it's worse than any other combat companion on its own.

A bear, for example, would be immediately more comparable, having +6 to hit, 1d8+3 base damage, 16 HP, and 15 AC (17 with barding). Magic Fang would put that to +7 to hit, 2d8+3 damage - 12 damage average. Though the hit chance is lower than the fighter's, the damage numbers are good enough to make up for it.

totoro wrote:
Fear is "useful" because it gives Frightened 1 even if the save is successful and Frightened 2 if the save is failed. Fear is the kind of spell where you roll the dice and say "this is close... barely hit. No, wait! You cast fear, right?" and there is the one time in the last 10 adventures where the spell actually mattered.

Frightened 2 is a -2 to literally everything, stacking with flat-footed. You cast fear, send in your animal companion, and suddenly the target has -4 AC between flat-footed and frightened. And it has a -2 to hitting back. And the animal companion has had a chance to do damage.

You've just created more than a 50% damage swing upwards.

totoro wrote:
Command is even worse. The only reason it doesn't seem as bad as it is (spend two actions to have even odds of the target having to waste an action) is because the cleric is not a fighter. If the fighter had that power, he'd be crazy to ever cast it. Indeed, if I gave the fighter the option to cast Command at will, I believe it would be better to attack twice and raise shield almost every time. (Fear, too.)

Command is certainly more situational, but it has the chance to completely waste a foe's turn depending on positioning. It primarily shines when there's no one adjacent to the target - flee causes them to run, and force them to use two actions to get back into melee. Release item cuts two of their three actions, and means a melee fighter can't do anything.

totoro wrote:
Ray of enfeeblement is bad, too. First you have to spend 2 actions, then you have to hit, then the target still gets a save. If the stars align, the result isn't bad, but good luck getting there.

If you found sickened/shaken to be bad in PF1, then sure. But average on you hitting is going to be a success at worst, and -1 in PF2 is worth -2 in PF1, between the chance to negate a crit and the chance to negate a hit. If they fail, -2 is basically cutting a full proficiency level. And enfeebled also reduces damage, on top of that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Idk that was the same argument people gave about multiclassing when someone got a bad build.

Not sure what arguments you're talking about: On this specific topic, we aren't talking about real traps IMO. The options are sound and as far as I can tell, no one said the characters weren't viable, just that they 'were not as good' as the martial characters. IMO, this is a function of the martials picking the best options [just 'happened' to pick 18 str] and the casters picking the worst [requires more actions than you get in 2 rounds].

Lets give an example: that druid could have hit 2 wolves 30' for 1d4+4 [electric arc] then sent the cat to attack 30' away [1d6+2] so if both hit, a wolf dies... It a issue is when she has summon animal when she already has 3... It's 3 actions to cast and 1 to sustain isn't a good fit but might be perfect if there was a rogue that needs a flanking partner.

The big issue with the druid is it's totally unworkable in the rules: you have to command the animals every round so if you do, you can't move yourself. As such, that druid can't even leave town unless she takes some of her animals to a place, THEN goes back and gets the rest of the animals and keeps playing leapfrog to get anywhere.

totoro wrote:
Do you mean shocking grasp? That only matches what the fighter can do, damage-wise, with worse to hit. That's once per day.

It'd worse than the FIGHTER only because they get a class special +2: She has the same hit as the barbarian. As I pointed out any damage cantrip plus the animal companion kills it. A Hydraulic Push works too: does damage and pushes them to keep them farther away from you if they live.

totoro wrote:
She took burning hands instead of summon; there is the off chance she might someday be able to have as much impact as the fighter with it, but none of the encounters put three creatures in just the right place to let her come close to matching the fighter that one time per day.

Well, I wouldn't suggest that for her since she's behind on actions and that spell often requires you to move into position and that takes actions. Hydraulic Push, IMO, is her best bet for a combat damage spell [60', not bad damage and a push.

totoro wrote:
You're obviously no chump when it comes to the rules, but I find it hard to believe nobody is experiencing what I am with spellcasters.

I'm actually the opposite as I often try to find a way to GET spellcasting on a character. Multiclass wizard makes an alchemist bearable.

totoro wrote:
The only thing cool about them is they get to use magic, but the impact of that magic is nothing compared to the fighter.

Fighter is a special case where it get a free +2 to hit. The rest of the class isn't that much different from other classes though they 100% lack the ability to target saves, elemental weaknesses, place most conditions, do serious healing/condition removal... A group of all fighters might lawnmover 'normal' encounters but if a situation isn't solved by 'hit it again with a weapon', they are out of luck.

totoro wrote:
I'm glad none of my players are min/maxing, but the game should have been more balanced so as to make the classes seem a little more equivalent.

You're looking at the game as just rolls to hit AC and normal damage done: that's only a small piece of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

How did you get animal companions so completely wrong? A 1st-level cat should have +6 to hit, 1d6+2 damage base, 11 HP, and 16 AC (17 with barding). The problem in this case is that the cat's effectively running off rogue numbers (it wants the 1d4 from hitting flat-footed targets), so it's worse than any other combat companion on its own.
A bear, for example, would be immediately more comparable, having +6 to hit, 1d8+3 base damage, 16 HP, and 15 AC (17 with barding). Magic Fang would put that to +7 to hit, 2d8+3 damage - 12 damage average. Though the hit chance is lower than the fighter's, the damage numbers are good enough to make up for it.

totoro wrote:
Fear is "useful" because it gives Frightened 1 even if the save is successful and Frightened 2 if the save is failed. Fear is the kind of spell where you roll
...

I used the cat stat block on pg. 215 and didn't modify the hp for level. It's not such a big error that your jaw need drop to the floor, but thank you for correction.

I don't really care if there is a "better option" than the one my player chose. Everybody keeps saying that. She chose a cat and that's what I've got in my game now. Magic Fang makes her animal companion almost as good as a fighter for 1 encounter if you have time to buff before combat. If battle has already started, you never make up for the fact magic fang took 2 actions to cast. It's not a bad spell, just as Magic Weapon is not a bad spell if you have time to prep for combat, at least until you have magic weapons.

My test nowadays is if a fighter could cast a spell some other class gets, would the fighter ever bother to cast it if he could cast it at will. A feat to get an animal companion and the ability to cast magic fang at will would be something a fighter would be tempted to take instead of, e.g., sudden charge, so at least it passes that test.

(While neither here nor there, plaguestone put a magic longsword in the fighter's hands, which I did not realize would throw the spellcasters so far behind in effectiveness, but it's right there for the taking. Beware handing that out if you are GM!)

I should mention because I thought this was kind of funny... the fighter took intimidating strike at 2nd level, which is kind of like casting the cleric's fear spell for free (only better).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
You're looking at the game as just rolls to hit AC and normal damage done: that's only a small piece of the game.

The other point that needs to be made here is that if that's all you're looking at, the fighter is always going to win (maybe the champion in a duel). That's literally the fighter's specialty.

It'd be like if you're having a fight based only on how much you can exploit elemental resistances. Some classes are vastly superior in those aspects to others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

How did you get animal companions so completely wrong? A 1st-level cat should have +6 to hit, 1d6+2 damage base, 11 HP, and 16 AC (17 with barding). The problem in this case is that the cat's effectively running off rogue numbers (it wants the 1d4 from hitting flat-footed targets), so it's worse than any other combat companion on its own.
A bear, for example, would be immediately more comparable, having +6 to hit, 1d8+3 base damage, 16 HP, and 15 AC (17 with barding). Magic Fang would put that to +7 to hit, 2d8+3 damage - 12 damage average. Though the hit chance is lower than the fighter's, the damage numbers are good enough to make up for it.

totoro wrote:
Fear is "useful" because it gives Frightened 1 even if the save is successful and Frightened 2 if the save is failed. Fear is the kind of spell where you roll
...

I used the cat stat block on pg. 215 and didn't modify the hp for level. It's not such a big error that your jaw need drop to the floor, but thank you for correction.

I don't really care if there is a "better option" than the one my player chose. Everybody keeps saying that. She chose a cat and that's what I've got in my game now. Magic Fang makes her animal companion almost as good as a fighter for 1 encounter if you have time to buff before combat. If battle has already started, you never make up for the fact magic fang took 2 actions to cast. It's not a bad spell, just as Magic Weapon is not a bad spell if you have time to prep for combat, at least until you have magic weapons.

My test nowadays is if a fighter could cast a spell some other class gets, would the fighter ever bother to cast it if he could cast it at will. A feat to get an animal companion and the ability to cast magic fang at will would be something a fighter would be tempted to take instead of, e.g., sudden charge, so at least it passes that test.

Magic Fang, action to Command the animal companion. It Strides and Strikes.

Exact same action economy.

And then every turn after that the druid can drop a cantrip to help out. So then you're doing 2d4+8 from electric arc (as the standard example) plus 2d6+2 from the animal companion, more if you can enable flanking.


graystone wrote:
You're looking at the game as just rolls to hit AC and normal damage done: that's only a small piece of the game.

Not true. I'm looking at the game as having all of the same pieces as anyone else. We might use more of the pieces than some groups and we might use less, but we certainly aren't just rolling to hit and damage. When it comes to rolling to hit and damage, though, the spellcasters would be better off being fighters in every encounter so far. At other times, the contribution of the various players is balanced.

I'm far more concerned about this ridiculous lack of balance than my players and I am hiding my annoyance with the system being so broken. They are having fun; it's me who's frustrated because I already see the seams being stretched as the spellcasters come to realize just how weak spellcasters are. We're already breaking the rules to let them contribute more meaningfully.


Cyouni wrote:
totoro wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

How did you get animal companions so completely wrong? A 1st-level cat should have +6 to hit, 1d6+2 damage base, 11 HP, and 16 AC (17 with barding). The problem in this case is that the cat's effectively running off rogue numbers (it wants the 1d4 from hitting flat-footed targets), so it's worse than any other combat companion on its own.
A bear, for example, would be immediately more comparable, having +6 to hit, 1d8+3 base damage, 16 HP, and 15 AC (17 with barding). Magic Fang would put that to +7 to hit, 2d8+3 damage - 12 damage average. Though the hit chance is lower than the fighter's, the damage numbers are good enough to make up for it.

totoro wrote:
Fear is "useful" because it gives Frightened 1 even if the save is successful and Frightened 2 if the save is failed. Fear is the kind of spell where you roll
...

I used the cat stat block on pg. 215 and didn't modify the hp for level. It's not such a big error that your jaw need drop to the floor, but thank you for correction.

I don't really care if there is a "better option" than the one my player chose. Everybody keeps saying that. She chose a cat and that's what I've got in my game now. Magic Fang makes her animal companion almost as good as a fighter for 1 encounter if you have time to buff before combat. If battle has already started, you never make up for the fact magic fang took 2 actions to cast. It's not a bad spell, just as Magic Weapon is not a bad spell if you have time to prep for combat, at least until you have magic weapons.

My test nowadays is if a fighter could cast a spell some other class gets, would the fighter ever bother to cast it if he could cast it at will. A feat to get an animal companion and the ability to cast magic fang at will would be something a fighter would be tempted to take instead of, e.g., sudden charge, so at least it passes that test.

Magic Fang, action to Command the animal companion. It Strides and Strikes.

Exact same action...

Perhaps you're right. My specific situation is complicated by the fact the fighter has a magic sword, but the numbers aren't quite as bad for a druid with animal companion as long as the druid casts magic fang. I'll just recommend she prepare magic fang in lieu of any other 1st level spells and maybe it won't be as bad. She's probably not going to be quite as afraid to let the cat enter combat now that it is getting the hp it is supposed to have and it will be more effective than her two guard dogs while it has magic fang on it.

Thank you for helping me work through this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
Not true.

Is it? How many creatures did they fight that had a save lower than AC? Elemental resistance? How much healing did they need? How many conditions did they deal with? Had to breathe underwater? Needed skills rolled? Needed to enter a tiny hole? Had to make ranged attack? This is just things 1ST level spells help with. :P

EVERYTHING you've mentioned is 'the fighter does more damage!!!' and you've had nothing to say about anything else. You're talking about all fighter parties so you must think they can cover each and every role for every situation because they have a +2 to hit... If that's not true then you haven't been saying it.


totoro wrote:

Perhaps you're right. My specific situation is complicated by the fact the fighter has a magic sword, but the numbers aren't quite as bad for a druid with animal companion as long as the druid casts magic fang. I'll just recommend she prepare magic fang in lieu of any other 1st level spells and maybe it won't be as bad. She's probably not going to be quite as afraid to let the cat enter combat now that it is getting the hp it is supposed to have and it will be more effective than her two guard dogs while it has magic fang on it.

Thank you for helping me work through this.

You also mentioned that you're very close to 4th level, so it going up to a mature companion at that level's feat will also help. It gets similar base stats to a rogue of the same level, plus gets the damage half of Magic Fang built in. Being able to manage 2d6+3 normally at a to-hit of +10 will also help, plus getting the extra action choice can let her have the option to reposition for spells if she wants.

The main thing you might want to remind her of is to try for flanking.


Interesting discussion. Sounds like a takeaway could be that martial characters can easily be built to be pretty strong, while casters require more expertise and thought for the players to leverage their strengths within the system in order to be fully competitive. If confirmed over time, I would rate this a big success for the game’s design.


It is really looked at for combat, and not surprisingly the combat focused class is more easily suited for that. Druids, rogues etc. have more utility, but that is ignored.

Turning a spellcaster (not necessarily combat focused) into an equal of a combat class should take some effort.....


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, yesterday morning I played Ezren in origin of the open road in pfs, so having a little more information I can at least say blasting isn't as bad as people are suggesting. As it's a pfs scenario, I'm putting what happened from my point of view in a spoiler tag.

PFS scenario, so don't click if you're likely to play it.:

The party consisted of iconics, we had merisiel, amiri, valeros, Kyra, and Like I said before, Ezren.

First encounter didn't go so well for me... the party was attacked by animated statues, we were separated so I had no meatshields to hide behind. I didn't want to go throwing fireballs around in a library, so my first turn was a 3 action magic missile, which did 8 damage to the statue. DR reduced it to 3(I rolled poorly.)

The second round, a statue was in my face, so I double moved away. Have I mentioned anywhere how much I like that most things don't have AoO now? Then I used hand of the apprentice, it dealt only 3 damage.

Third round, a statue was chasing me, another statue was fighting a rogue nearby. The barbarian and fighter had moved to help, but stopped five feet away.

This is where I got a bit upset, I admit, because of the action economy of cantrips, the best thing I could do was move into flank with the statue, hit it with a decidedly unwizardly melee attack, and then move behind the meatshields.

I half jokingly half frustratedly expressed concerns that killing an enemy with a melee attack might be against the wizard code. They joked back that Ezren writes the wizard code anyway. Frustrations were forgotten. Regardless, the statues were dead that round.

The the second encounter was bypassed by the rogue, though merisiel got yellow molded as a result.

The last encounter was against two alchemists, and an ooze generating machine. My first turn, fireball and hand of the apprentice. The fireball dealt 24, unfortunately both alchemists saved, but the ooze that the machine made crit failed, so it took 48 damage.

At this point I stupidly forgot I had arcane bond, so my next turn was to try and turn off the machine. But it was probably a better idea anyway since the machine was making oozes every round, and the fighter was fighting two at this point. The barbarian and the rogue had beaten the alchemists by this point. When my turn came around again I had remembered my arcane bond and I fireballed, one ooze failed and the other crit failed, I rolled painfully low (14 damage on 6d6), but still managed to kill the one.

So despite the people saying "a fighter is always better to have than a wizard in 2e" I don't think that was the case here, granted the party had two heavy melee iconics already. Another fighter would have been fighting the oozes with the first, which would have ended badly given that as oozes their hitpoints were stupidly high, the first fighter was already having trouble, and oozes can't be crit with weapons.

I don't remember or didn't find out what the oozes were, but I saw the gms die rolls, most GMs here roll in the open unless there's a good reason not to. They were likely gelatinous cubes, with 90 HP.

Without the cleric, I think the fighter would've died. The person playing her even commented she felt more appreciated as a cleric in 2e.

So, no blasting isn't terrible. It worked pretty well in the second fight, and would probably have been useful in the first, but I didn't want to throw acid and fire around in that place.


graystone wrote:
totoro wrote:
Not true.

Is it? How many creatures did they fight that had a save lower than AC? Elemental resistance? How much healing did they need? How many conditions did they deal with? Had to breathe underwater? Needed skills rolled? Needed to enter a tiny hole? Had to make ranged attack? This is just things 1ST level spells help with. :P

EVERYTHING you've mentioned is 'the fighter does more damage!!!' and you've had nothing to say about anything else. You're talking about all fighter parties so you must think they can cover each and every role for every situation because they have a +2 to hit... If that's not true then you haven't been saying it.

I am running four players who made characters with official rules through an official module and they did not come up against all of these things a 1st level spellcaster can address that would make them better than a fighter. What they did experience, officially, is NOT THAT. Even if I let them choose to prepare spells as a free action using any spell on their spell lists, the fighter would have been better through the entire module.

I know there are lots of things in a game world. I could make a list of things and ask you if you are aware of them, but why is that relevant? Did you realize if a monster is exactly 70' away, you could take the nimble elf ancestry feat and sudden charge then hit the monster twice in a single round? Would you choose it as a spell you could cast once per day? In a great many scenarios, that is better than casting Command, which is 1/2 of the cleric's arsenal of big spells at 1st level, except you can do it whenever you want.

I'm going to run the same group through Hellknight Hill with new characters next. I can already see it's NOT THAT, either. When the spellcasters suck, I'm sure it will make the players feel better if I say "yeah, you suck, but if you were in any of these scenarios and chose just the right spells, you wouldn't suck so bad."

I am comparing spellcasters to fighters because the fighter is so dominant. An 18 STR fighter who can cast Command and Fear at will would rarely cast either spell because they are not as effective as just attacking. In plaguestone, the fighter would have been stupid to cast either of these 1st level spells (even if he could cast them AT FREAKING WILL) if it meant losing two actions. Doesn't that mean anything? At 2nd level, the fighter can attack AND apply the same effect as fear, but better because it is with damage and the "save" is harder because it works on a hit/critical hit. I'm sure you will point out that a cleric who chooses Command and Fear as 1st level spell preparations is doing it wrong, but those are seemingly appropriate choices. Or is the cleric supposed to take Air Bubble because if they find themselves underwater, the cleric is really going to shine?

I've played every version of D&D and pathfinder. I have run characters through a huge number of adventure paths and modules and I have built many a campaign that took characters through all of the levels to 20 (though rarely over because it wasn't fun for me). I am aware there are [fill in the blank]s that will make it better if you pick this spell or do that thing, but they only matter if they happen. The most important abilities are the ones you use frequently. Breathing underwater is not something that makes up for sucking most of the time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
totoro wrote:

Perhaps you're right. My specific situation is complicated by the fact the fighter has a magic sword, but the numbers aren't quite as bad for a druid with animal companion as long as the druid casts magic fang. I'll just recommend she prepare magic fang in lieu of any other 1st level spells and maybe it won't be as bad. She's probably not going to be quite as afraid to let the cat enter combat now that it is getting the hp it is supposed to have and it will be more effective than her two guard dogs while it has magic fang on it.

Thank you for helping me work through this.

You also mentioned that you're very close to 4th level, so it going up to a mature companion at that level's feat will also help. It gets similar base stats to a rogue of the same level, plus gets the damage half of Magic Fang built in. Being able to manage 2d6+3 normally at a to-hit of +10 will also help, plus getting the extra action choice can let her have the option to reposition for spells if she wants.

The main thing you might want to remind her of is to try for flanking.

Yes. I am not nearly as worried about the druid anymore. Thank you for the help.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
totoro wrote:

I'm going to run the same group through Hellknight Hill with new characters next. I can already see it's NOT THAT, either. When the spellcasters suck, I'm sure it will make the players feel better if I say "yeah, you suck, but if you were in any of these scenarios and chose just the right spells, you wouldn't suck so bad."

I am comparing spellcasters to fighters because the fighter is so dominant. An 18 STR fighter who can cast Command and Fear at will would rarely cast either spell because they are not as effective as just attacking. In plaguestone, the fighter would have been stupid to cast either of these 1st level spells (even if he could cast them AT FREAKING WILL) if it meant losing two actions. Doesn't that mean anything? At 2nd level, the fighter can attack AND apply the same effect as fear, but better because it is with damage and the "save" is harder because it works on a hit/critical hit. I'm sure you will point out that a cleric who chooses Command and Fear as 1st level spell preparations is doing it wrong, but those are seemingly appropriate choices. Or is the cleric supposed to take Air Bubble because if they find themselves underwater, the cleric is really going to shine?

I've played every version of D&D and pathfinder. I have run characters through a huge number of adventure paths and modules and I have built many a campaign that took characters through all of the levels to 20 (though rarely over because it wasn't fun for me). I am aware there are [fill in the blank]s that will make it better if you pick this spell or do that thing, but they only matter if they happen. The most important abilities are the ones you use frequently. Breathing underwater is not something that makes up for sucking most of the time.

If the players are going into spellcasters at level 1 and expect to do the same raw damage as a fighter and barbarian then you obviously haven't played much D&D.

So the cleric doesn't get the fighters +2 to hit, boohoo! Cast bless and attack thus giving you and your party a +1 to hit. D&D isnt a competition on who gets the most damage unless its a toxic table. Its a team effort.

Saying spellcasters suck because 1 player made a suboptimal druid and another made a cleric with fighter envy doesn't really hold much weight.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So far, the only understandable complaint I'm seeing about this party is that multiple minions are a bad idea, but that's what the player wanted to do.

Hopefully that's fixed in a future supplement without bogging play down the way any summon focused character used to.

I'm just not at all understanding the complaint that fighters are better at combat than spellcasters... Isn't that how it's supposed to be? They are support and elemental or AOE damage, not zweihander armed blenders.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:

So far, the only understandable complaint I'm seeing about this party is that multiple minions are a bad idea, but that's what the player wanted to do.

Hopefully that's fixed in a future supplement without bogging play down the way any summon focused character used to.

I'm just not at all understanding the complaint that fighters are better at combat than spellcasters... Isn't that how it's supposed to be? They are support and elemental or AOE damage, not zweihander armed blenders.

It will most likely be a horde/swarm mechanic, multiple creatures but they act like one unit.


totoro wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

And if you cast Magic Fang, the animal companion is now effectively equivalent (possibly better) than the fighter at the one thing the fighter can do...and the druid still can throw cantrips constantly at people. Summon Animal is utility more than anything else, but can easily put a flanking buddy onto the field to create significantly higher hit/crit chances.

Cleric has Fear, Heal, Command, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Magic Weapon, all of which are constantly useful.

Forgive me if I don't find that to be terrible.

Maybe you should stop expecting the animal druid and the cleric to be blaster wizards/sorcerers.

The druid's cat, after magic fang has been cast, has 4 hit points,

The cat has 11 hit points. 4 is its ancestry hp, then all companions get 6+con per level

edit: sorry, didn’t see there were more posts after yours as it was at end of page. please ignore me


sherlock1701 wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:

I played the boss of Rise of The Runelords, the first AP, agaisnt a full level 18 group, with over the top stats, well builded and played.

He is a Vanilla Transmutater, but I adjusted the spelllist of course, because he is a BBEG and a Wizard, master of magic and preparation.

With Anticipatied Peril, Aroden Spell Bane, Spell Protection, Mage Disjunction, some quick hard ass save or suck, he killed the party after 6 months of playing. It was juste boring, easy, and non fun.

Before that the Psychic of the group one shooted all the dragons in the Ap with Possession with stupid high DC without a sweat. Three dragons presented as worthy opponents got just shred without a sweat too.

At the end the game was blocked by question such as do Spellbane counter Spellbane while you are in an antimagic field bla bla bla....

It is a good things Spells got nerfed.All the cool things that the Unchained Rogue and the Monk of the group had come from the Psychic and the Oracle. And Monk & U Rogue are not top tier, but not trash classes either. As soon as Mage DIsjunction hit, fight was over.

The same happened in Iron Gods, where the Mage of the group just rekted the final boss with some clever spells combos.

In all serious talk, from our last three APs, we got at least 8 instances of spellcasters from the group or the ennemy wiping the opponents with a few hard save or suck and spell combos. At the end the question was just to know his this spell beats this other spell. And all the martials could do was to be enabled by caster. like Haste or Gre. Invisibility.

Magic had to be nerf. It should happenend 20 years ago to be honest. it was finally time. With 5E & PF2, magic got tuned down hard, and it is a good thing.

Was there not a caster who could just cast Dispel Magic on the disjunction? You can straight up counter it with a 3rd level spell.

He lost initiative. So I don’t think you can counter when you have not played yet? If not it was a mistake on my part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
In my specific case, I had one player say they wanted to be an elf with lots of pets who loves nature (yes, she is a girl and no it doesn't make her a bad player to choose an option that makes her happy). She wanted to be pretty and not bad at anything, so she ended up with 18 WIS, 12 everything else (a poor min/max choice). Her background gave her animal training and her druid choice gave her an animal companion. I made a RAW mistake and allowed her to give her guard dogs a command ("sic 'em") that only took her one action, but that was what she wanted to do in combat. When I tried to fix my error it was a problem because her spell...

I'm genuinely curious, how does 12 CHA and 12 every translate to "be pretty and not bad at anything"? I'm not for min-maxing myself, optimization yes, and as a GM I try to find out ways that can work with requests such as these, but 18 WIS and 12 everything seems pretty far away from "pretty and not bad at anything.". Also not sure why the player's gender mattered in this situation at all.


Garretmander wrote:

So far, the only understandable complaint I'm seeing about this party is that multiple minions are a bad idea, but that's what the player wanted to do.

Hopefully that's fixed in a future supplement without bogging play down the way any summon focused character used to.

I'm just not at all understanding the complaint that fighters are better at combat than spellcasters... Isn't that how it's supposed to be? They are support and elemental or AOE damage, not zweihander armed blenders.

2 things.

1. Team game or not, being independent is nice, and a primary power fantasy for myself and likely many others.

2. People are saying even focusing on damage as a wizard is hard, while I now find that aoe works adequately in at least some situations, I think some people are wanting to be able to invest more into their cantrips and be basically something like a kineticist.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
2. People are saying even focusing on damage as a wizard is hard,

At what levels?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Corwin Icewolf wrote:

2 things.

1. Team game or not, being independent is nice, and a primary power fantasy for myself and likely many others.

2. People are saying even focusing on damage as a wizard is hard, while I now find that aoe works adequately in at least some situations, I think some people are wanting to be able to invest more into their cantrips and be basically something like a kineticist.

1. It is a team game though, you can be the best quarterback in the world, you still need someone to throw to and someone to block for you. Being independently awesome is great, but design space is what it is and no class should be amazing at everything.

2. I think Elemental Sorcerer is the blaster we are smashing for atm. People looking for the at-will ranged magic monstrosity will have to wait for the kineticist who will trade spikes of power like high level spells for more consistent high damage cantrip equivalents. I'd in fact guess that is the design space left open for it. Might even use the same cantrips as other casters just get a core class single action that double the damage of the next cantrip they cast, make them fairly static dealers of death.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Andarr wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Andarr wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Andarr wrote:
And they both took the nerf bat to magic to satisfy "martial" players and for the sake of "balance". Seriously? "Balance"? Is this a MMORPG? Or is this a pen and paper RPG?
It's cooperative game you play with others to tell a story.

That has always been the case.

I fail to understand why magic being, well, magic caused people such issues.

I would much rather they had gone the way "Tome of Battle" had gone, instead of nerfing magic.

1 character completely invalidating the rest of the group commonly enough was the issue.

And if you look over the Martial classes they are leaning into a ToB approach.

I seriously wish people would stop saying things like "the caster invalidated the rest of the party".

That statement is just blatantly false, and comes from either theorycrafting or poor DM'ing. But it was taken at face value and now look at wizards.

I mean... I could have (somehow) swallowed the pill if they had made it so you could use the heightened version of a memorized spell if you used a slot containing another, higher level memorized spell for it.

But you have to memorize it xD

Imagine. I am sure you will see plenty of people memorizing a heightened fireball... Or not. Because with three slots to memorize spells, I am sure you're going to waste one for it.

It is so NOT blatantly false. Oh I have the climb skill maxed out! Who cares I have mass fly. I have diplomacy! Yeah well I have charm, I have trap finding, Well I have a scroll of detect traps.

Wizards have way more then spell slots. Scrolls and wands are great for making up for what you don't want to memorize. With standard amount of money and planning you can handle most everything the rest of the party can do with scrolls wands and spell slots. A dm can curb this but now as a DM I have to play around the wizard.

This heavily upvoted post is theory crafting because I see the terrible "why use diplomacy when you have charm argument" so often. Not only does that not work in practice, it's bordering on suicidal.

The idea that being diplomatic can be replaced by robbing someone of their free will.

Party standing at court

Bard: Your majesty....
Wizard: Relax Bard (begins aiming a spell at the king)

As for mass fly the party has all gotten some method of flight on there own by then and traps are stopped by a 1st level wand let alone a rogue.


SteelGuts wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:

I played the boss of Rise of The Runelords, the first AP, agaisnt a full level 18 group, with over the top stats, well builded and played.

He is a Vanilla Transmutater, but I adjusted the spelllist of course, because he is a BBEG and a Wizard, master of magic and preparation.

With Anticipatied Peril, Aroden Spell Bane, Spell Protection, Mage Disjunction, some quick hard ass save or suck, he killed the party after 6 months of playing. It was juste boring, easy, and non fun.

Before that the Psychic of the group one shooted all the dragons in the Ap with Possession with stupid high DC without a sweat. Three dragons presented as worthy opponents got just shred without a sweat too.

At the end the game was blocked by question such as do Spellbane counter Spellbane while you are in an antimagic field bla bla bla....

It is a good things Spells got nerfed.All the cool things that the Unchained Rogue and the Monk of the group had come from the Psychic and the Oracle. And Monk & U Rogue are not top tier, but not trash classes either. As soon as Mage DIsjunction hit, fight was over.

The same happened in Iron Gods, where the Mage of the group just rekted the final boss with some clever spells combos.

In all serious talk, from our last three APs, we got at least 8 instances of spellcasters from the group or the ennemy wiping the opponents with a few hard save or suck and spell combos. At the end the question was just to know his this spell beats this other spell. And all the martials could do was to be enabled by caster. like Haste or Gre. Invisibility.

Magic had to be nerf. It should happenend 20 years ago to be honest. it was finally time. With 5E & PF2, magic got tuned down hard, and it is a good thing.

Was there not a caster who could just cast Dispel Magic on the disjunction? You can straight up counter it with a 3rd level spell.
He lost initiative. So I don’t think you can counter when you have not played yet? If not...

Unless he wiped the party in a single turn, it can be countered. Mage's Disjunction has a duration, therefore you can target the spell itself with a targeted dispel magic after it's been cast. As long as at least one caster with it survived his round 1, they could try to clear it out. I'd be very surprised if he managed to kill or disable them all in a single shot, especially given that after a Disjunction the only thing he could do is a quickened spell of level 5 or less.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

War Priests can be pretty scary in melee combat.

Here's one sample build that is still a fairly good healer.

Saravan

Versatile Human War Priest of Iomodae (Strength, Wisdom)
Background: Martial Disciple (Strength, Wisdom)
Cleric (Wisdom)
Final Boost : Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma

General Feat: Toughness
Skill Feat: Quick Jump
Class Feats: Domain Initiate (Zeal), Holy Castigation

Strength 16
Dexterity 12
Constitution 12
Wisdom 16
Intelligence 10
Charisma 12

At first level she will have two free slots and 2 slots she can use just for Heal. She'll generally use the free slots for Magic Weapon. This is really powerful early on, but she will have to find a use for these slots later on. She has two slots free to use for heal.

She will be slightly behind on hit points with only 18, but she will have the same AC as a fighter with the same ability to use a shield.
For two fights of every day she can use magic weapon to deal damage like a Barbarian while having the defenses of a fighter.

Once per encounter she can use Weapon Surge which stacks with Magic Weapon to get +1 to hit and deal 2d8+3 damage if Magic Weapon is not up or 3d8+3 damage.

At 2nd level she will pick up Emblazon Armament which she can use on her long sword to do +1 damage on every strike or on her shield to add +1 hardness.

At 4th level just as everyone (including her is getting striking runes) she picks up Channel Smite which allows her to channel a heal or harm spell into a weapon strike. Against demons, devil, and undead she can weaponize those free heal slots to smack them around.

At 6th level she picks up Cast Down which she can combo with Channel Smite to knock a creature prone if it takes any damage from the harm or heal spell she just delivered.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:

So far, the only understandable complaint I'm seeing about this party is that multiple minions are a bad idea, but that's what the player wanted to do.

Hopefully that's fixed in a future supplement without bogging play down the way any summon focused character used to.

I'm just not at all understanding the complaint that fighters are better at combat than spellcasters... Isn't that how it's supposed to be? They are support and elemental or AOE damage, not zweihander armed blenders.

You're not alone in failing to pay attention. If the fighter were given the option to cast any cleric spell at will (other than Heal and Magic Weapon), the fighter would likely never cast it. Why? Because it is almost always better to do what a fighter can do than what a cleric can do twice per day.

All classes should be "best" in their style of combat. Saying fighters should be best at combat might be good in Conan the Barbarian, but it is not good at a gaming table. The combat contribution should just be different, not inferior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
totoro wrote:
In my specific case, I had one player say they wanted to be an elf with lots of pets who loves nature (yes, she is a girl and no it doesn't make her a bad player to choose an option that makes her happy). She wanted to be pretty and not bad at anything, so she ended up with 18 WIS, 12 everything else (a poor min/max choice). Her background gave her animal training and her druid choice gave her an animal companion. I made a RAW mistake and allowed her to give her guard dogs a command ("sic 'em") that only took her one action, but that was what she wanted to do in combat. When I tried to fix my error it was a problem because her spell...
I'm genuinely curious, how does 12 CHA and 12 every translate to "be pretty and not bad at anything"? I'm not for min-maxing myself, optimization yes, and as a GM I try to find out ways that can work with requests such as these, but 18 WIS and 12 everything seems pretty far away from "pretty and not bad at anything.". Also not sure why the player's gender mattered in this situation at all.

Since you are genuinely curious: My player wanted to play a cute elf. Is she strong? Is she quick? Everything was yes. She didn't really want the details or to be pushed into something "more optimal," so I didn't push her. Anyway, 18 WIS for a druid is the "optimal" choice and the other attributes make less difference. She could have dumped INT or CHA and been more optimal, but that was not what she wanted.

The player's gender was relevant because I got the little girl who wants to play a cute little elf with animal friends vibe from her. I like that a non-traditional gamer wants to play. I wasn't about to discourage her from making choices that are stereotypically associated her gender identity, even if they were sub-optimal. Nobody is saying "every druid should start with a morningstar," so I am not intending this as a straw man, but I wouldn't suggest she start with a morningstar because it is optimal if she wants to use a sling and a spear. If options are presented as options, game design should ensure they are viable or at least close.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
totoro wrote:
If the fighter were given the option to cast any cleric spell at will (other than Heal and Magic Weapon), the fighter would likely never cast it.

This is just blatantly bad assumption.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
Garretmander wrote:

So far, the only understandable complaint I'm seeing about this party is that multiple minions are a bad idea, but that's what the player wanted to do.

Hopefully that's fixed in a future supplement without bogging play down the way any summon focused character used to.

I'm just not at all understanding the complaint that fighters are better at combat than spellcasters... Isn't that how it's supposed to be? They are support and elemental or AOE damage, not zweihander armed blenders.

You're not alone in failing to pay attention. If the fighter were given the option to cast any cleric spell at will (other than Heal and Magic Weapon), the fighter would likely never cast it. Why? Because it is almost always better to do what a fighter can do than what a cleric can do twice per day.

All classes should be "best" in their style of combat. Saying fighters should be best at combat might be good in Conan the Barbarian, but it is not good at a gaming table. The combat contribution should just be different, not inferior.

And that’s what is going on now. Casters are different. For all the words you expounded on the subject you’ve not actually come up with anything that shows casters as being inferior. My year running of a home campaign with both casters and martials shows to me as a DM that they’re far more balanced than they were in PF1.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
All classes should be "best" in their style of combat. Saying fighters should be best at combat might be good in Conan the Barbarian, but it is not good at a gaming table. The combat contribution should just be different, not inferior.

Now apply that to non-combat situations and see how long it takes for the Fighter to realise that they can't get the party to another plane no matter what they learn to do, they can't ask questions of thin air and get answers, they can't bring people back from the dead at all, and plenty of other things. Unless you privilege Combat much more than every other thing the campaign could be about, making the characters with a huge amount of non-combat versatility also have combat ability equal to the ones that are limited outside combat but good at it is rather unreasonable.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
Garretmander wrote:

So far, the only understandable complaint I'm seeing about this party is that multiple minions are a bad idea, but that's what the player wanted to do.

Hopefully that's fixed in a future supplement without bogging play down the way any summon focused character used to.

I'm just not at all understanding the complaint that fighters are better at combat than spellcasters... Isn't that how it's supposed to be? They are support and elemental or AOE damage, not zweihander armed blenders.

You're not alone in failing to pay attention. If the fighter were given the option to cast any cleric spell at will (other than Heal and Magic Weapon), the fighter would likely never cast it. Why? Because it is almost always better to do what a fighter can do than what a cleric can do twice per day.

All classes should be "best" in their style of combat. Saying fighters should be best at combat might be good in Conan the Barbarian, but it is not good at a gaming table. The combat contribution should just be different, not inferior.

I'll just ignore spells over level 1, since past that point at will anything on the list becomes insanely better. We're also on the cleric list, the least combative of the four IMO.

Harm is a decent choice for a third action.

Bless isn't a strong choice on round one, but at round two if my enemy is not trying to run away, I'd probably cast it as a fighter.

Shield is great for a two-handed fighter, or any fighter not carrying a shield of course.

Alarm at will would be amazing for a whole lot of out of combat situations, but I suppose we're discussing combat as if it was the only thing existing in the game.

Command is real iffy with no effect on a successful save, but causing them to go prone, and exploiting your attack of opportunity is decent. It's competing with a one action skill check of course, but that skill use brings in MAP.

Disrupting weapons vs. undead with a weakness... I'd use it like bless of course, but, like bless I'd rather have a supporting cleric cast it on me round 1.

Purify food and drink, another out of combat spell, but I'd want it for free as a fighter anyway.

Spirit link, has a chance of being up before battle, If so it's a bit risky, but might help out my fellow hyopthetical fighters with free at will level 1 spells.

But I'll be honest. I completely disagree with the notion that every class must be equally competitive in the DPR olympics.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
totoro wrote:
All classes should be "best" in their style of combat. Saying fighters should be best at combat might be good in Conan the Barbarian, but it is not good at a gaming table. The combat contribution should just be different, not inferior.
Now apply that to non-combat situations and see how long it takes for the Fighter to realise that they can't get the party to another plane no matter what they learn to do, they can't ask questions of thin air and get answers, they can't bring people back from the dead at all, and plenty of other things. Unless you privilege Combat much more than every other thing the campaign could be about, making the characters with a huge amount of non-combat versatility also have combat ability equal to the ones that are limited outside combat but good at it is rather unreasonable.

Casters can't do half that anymore with out the GM giving it to them. And anyone can use resurection if they have it since it's a ritual. Besides the trade off for all the caster's "versatility" is that they can only do it a few times a day, and now if the GM is nice they will only work half the time.

Besides I dont see anyone asking for "combat ability equal to a martial". At best they dont want to lag behind their own class because they choosed to be different. No one asked for martial level proficiency, and no one asked for martial combat feats. And yes if there are general weapon/armor proficiency improvement there should also be a general way to get cantrips and spellcasting proficiency improvements.


Garretmander wrote:
totoro wrote:
Garretmander wrote:

So far, the only understandable complaint I'm seeing about this party is that multiple minions are a bad idea, but that's what the player wanted to do.

Hopefully that's fixed in a future supplement without bogging play down the way any summon focused character used to.

I'm just not at all understanding the complaint that fighters are better at combat than spellcasters... Isn't that how it's supposed to be? They are support and elemental or AOE damage, not zweihander armed blenders.

You're not alone in failing to pay attention. If the fighter were given the option to cast any cleric spell at will (other than Heal and Magic Weapon), the fighter would likely never cast it. Why? Because it is almost always better to do what a fighter can do than what a cleric can do twice per day.

All classes should be "best" in their style of combat. Saying fighters should be best at combat might be good in Conan the Barbarian, but it is not good at a gaming table. The combat contribution should just be different, not inferior.

I'll just ignore spells over level 1, since past that point at will anything on the list becomes insanely better. We're also on the cleric list, the least combative of the four IMO.

Harm is a decent choice for a third action.

Bless isn't a strong choice on round one, but at round two if my enemy is not trying to run away, I'd probably cast it as a fighter.

Shield is great for a two-handed fighter, or any fighter not carrying a shield of course.

Alarm at will would be amazing for a whole lot of out of combat situations, but I suppose we're discussing combat as if it was the only thing existing in the game.

Command is real iffy with no effect on a successful save, but causing them to go prone, and exploiting your attack of opportunity is decent. It's competing with a one action skill check of course, but that skill use brings in MAP.

Disrupting weapons vs. undead with a weakness... I'd use it like bless of course, but,...

Well, I guess I understand why the game is in the state it is. "I'd probably cast it if I could cast it at will" is the response to what if you could cast the one of the things a cleric can do once per day? Pfft. I just ran a game to level 4 and your opinion just doesn't comport with what I actually saw. And keep pretending what I said is "duh, the only thing that matters is DPS." You, sir, are disingenuous.


Rysky wrote:
totoro wrote:
If the fighter were given the option to cast any cleric spell at will (other than Heal and Magic Weapon), the fighter would likely never cast it.
This is just blatantly bad assumption.

You are undoubtedly correct. Player of Fighter: "I'll cast fear." Response: "Um, you sure?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
Rysky wrote:
totoro wrote:
If the fighter were given the option to cast any cleric spell at will (other than Heal and Magic Weapon), the fighter would likely never cast it.
This is just blatantly bad assumption.
You are undoubtedly correct. Player of Fighter: "I'll cast fear." Response: "Um, you sure?"

More likely:

Player of Fighter: I Power Attack (or Stride then Strike), then cast Shield.
Player of Fighter: To help coordinate the ambush across a distance, I cast Message.
Player of Fighter: I cast Alarm to ward the area while we sleep.

Bless, Mending, Create Water, and Protection all have uses, too, though some are out of combat. And that's just the first level and cantrips.

I'm fine with the casters being refocused towards utility of their powers (and area blasts) rather than raw DPS. Raw DPS was supposed to be the martial's power anyway. I have no complaint about classes doing what they're supposed to.


james014Aura wrote:
totoro wrote:
Rysky wrote:
totoro wrote:
If the fighter were given the option to cast any cleric spell at will (other than Heal and Magic Weapon), the fighter would likely never cast it.
This is just blatantly bad assumption.
You are undoubtedly correct. Player of Fighter: "I'll cast fear." Response: "Um, you sure?"

More likely:

Player of Fighter: I Power Attack (or Stride then Strike), then cast Shield.
Player of Fighter: To help coordinate the ambush across a distance, I cast Message.
Player of Fighter: I cast Alarm to ward the area while we sleep.

Bless, Mending, Create Water, and Protection all have uses, too, though some are out of combat. And that's just the first level and cantrips.

I'm fine with the casters being refocused towards utility of their powers (and area blasts) rather than raw DPS. Raw DPS was supposed to be the martial's power anyway. I have no complaint about classes doing what they're supposed to.

Those are all good examples. The fighter can actually get them at 1st level under RAW, too, and I never said they were wasted feats. I don't even disagree with your last sentence, but you are paraphrasing a misrepresentation of my position. There is no question wizards can use fireball to great effect in specific instances. Clerics can use Heal and Magic Weapon effectively, too. Sometimes they seem to be fine. However, in my specific experience running a module, I can think of no instance where it would have been better for the fighter (not a spellcaster) to have wasted his precious actions to do the equivalent of a 1st level spell even if he could choose it on the fly in combat. It's nice there was a cleric around without more important things to do who could cast Heal, but it would be a much more difficult choice if the fighter had to spend those actions because she is so much more effective.

People seem to just be ignoring the observation that if you let a fighter cast Fear and Command at will, which would be a choice a cleric presumably could make for all of his spell preparations for the day, the fighter wouldn't bother to cast them. It just isn't worth the actions. The cleric might because the cleric's actions are so much less valuable. That's not just DPS.

I will never agree that out-of-combat capabilities make up for a lack of meaningful effectiveness in combat. That is also not a DPS argument. It comes from decades of experience at GM where I learned I don't like to split the party and I like everyone to contribute at every phase. The diplomacy check will matter when speaking with the king, but everyone gets to talk and sometimes what you say matters. Combat is the same.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah... Saying some classes are good for only the non-combat half of the game is pretty weird, everyone is supposed to contribute effectively in all modes of play this time around. It's why we got super empowered skills and skill feats.

Not to mention Pathfinder is one of the most combat-focused RPGs out there, not rare to have sessions where it makes up like 80%+ of the playing time using an Adventure Path.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Casters can contribute to combat quite a bit. Indeed, they're very powerful in combat if used properly...but the Fighter chassis is designed to make them almost equally powerful specifically in combat just doing what they do, because otherwise, what's the point of a Fighter?

This has the side effect that, if you give a Fighter spells, in combat he's often better off just attacking instead. Not because the spell wouldn't be effective, but because just attacking is equally so (or almost, anyway) and has no associated cost.

It does not mean that spells aren't good, it means Fighters are really, really, good even without spells.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

At which point it becomes what's the point of highly limited use magic with high resource (action, time, material, etc.) costs, and potentially requiring questing to even get; if it's just as useful (if not worse) than what a low level martial can do at will? (Both in combat and out, given that skills are so much better than before).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I do wonder why people keep pointing to utility of casters really.

I gave a look to the spells, paizo literally broke the utility to pieces. Spells have crappy duration, buffs were tossed down the hills, many of the tolls in the shed are gone, some arent even caster only anymore.

I mean, the state of how crappy is the utility of casters now can be seen in something as inoffensive as unseen servant, which now lasts ALMOST 10 minutes... IF you stay all ALMOST 10 minutes concentrating on it.

Well, it isnt my problem since im just checking on news of 2E so i can make sure i convince my group to never adopt it, but still, im not seeing the point people are trying to make here.

Seriously... alarm is what people are pointing to the use of casters in 2E. Wow! Amazing!

Casters are then meant to be inferior in combat in some weird trade for utility... very crappy utility, that is then very limited in access since they have less slots too. Well, happy i can see this thread, sure gives me much to talk about to my table.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

A giant trolling thread.


Eltacolibre wrote:
A giant trolling thread.

If I was a wizard, I would make sure to have enough ranks incrafting to make giant trolling thread, and then use it to sew up bright orange nerf giants that dealt nonlethal damage and regenerated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Casters can contribute to combat quite a bit. Indeed, they're very powerful in combat if used properly...but the Fighter chassis is designed to make them almost equally powerful specifically in combat just doing what they do, because otherwise, what's the point of a Fighter?

This has the side effect that, if you give a Fighter spells, in combat he's often better off just attacking instead. Not because the spell wouldn't be effective, but because just attacking is equally so (or almost, anyway) and has no associated cost.

It does not mean that spells aren't good, it means Fighters are really, really, good even without spells.

Finally! This is the only rational explanation for the state of spellcasters in PF2. It is a rationale I despise, but it has to be the answer. Spells are "good." Fighters are "better."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

I do wonder why people keep pointing to utility of casters really.

I gave a look to the spells, paizo literally broke the utility to pieces. Spells have crappy duration, buffs were tossed down the hills, many of the tolls in the shed are gone, some arent even caster only anymore.

I mean, the state of how crappy is the utility of casters now can be seen in something as inoffensive as unseen servant, which now lasts ALMOST 10 minutes... IF you stay all ALMOST 10 minutes concentrating on it.

Well, it isnt my problem since im just checking on news of 2E so i can make sure i convince my group to never adopt it, but still, im not seeing the point people are trying to make here.

Seriously... alarm is what people are pointing to the use of casters in 2E. Wow! Amazing!

Casters are then meant to be inferior in combat in some weird trade for utility... very crappy utility, that is then very limited in access since they have less slots too. Well, happy i can see this thread, sure gives me much to talk about to my table.

Hopefully due to my serious disappointment in some areas of the game you can take this for what it is worth: This is the best version of the game I've ever played. The combat is smooth and fun. The modularity makes for easy adjustment. (We already have house rules in place to fix the parts I consider broken and we've only played four times.) If I were you, I'd give it a chance and just fix the broken parts. The chassis is stable.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
Finally! This is the only rational explanation for the state of spellcasters in PF2. It is a rationale I despise, but it has to be the answer. Spells are "good." Fighters are "better."

That is not what I said. Or meant. A Fighter is the single most accurate and one of the best DPR Classes in the game (indeed, I think the highest DPR build in the game is a Fighter with a bit of multiclassing). They are very good when attacking, just in general.

Individual spells can be better than that (and many are), but by a fairly narrow margin on how much better given how good Fighter is already. And narrowly better but costing resources doesn't tend to be a better choice than free 'really good' stuff.

This isn't a choice the actual game makes you make, with a PF2 spellcaster having basic attack routines inferior to a Fighter, but spells just a tad better, and then utility spells as an option as well. But you give a Fighter spellcasting and it starts looking weird.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
totoro wrote:
Finally! This is the only rational explanation for the state of spellcasters in PF2. It is a rationale I despise, but it has to be the answer. Spells are "good." Fighters are "better."

That is not what I said. Or meant. A Fighter is the single most accurate and one of the best DPR Classes in the game (indeed, I think the highest DPR build in the game is a Fighter with a bit of multiclassing). They are very good when attacking, just in general.

Individual spells can be better than that (and many are), but by a fairly narrow margin on how much better given how good Fighter is already. And narrowly better but costing resources doesn't tend to be a better choice than free 'really good' stuff.

This isn't a choice the actual game makes you make, with a PF2 spellcaster having basic attack routines inferior to a Fighter, but spells just a tad better, and then utility spells as an option as well. But you give a Fighter spellcasting and it starts looking weird.

It is what you said, you just didn't mean to. (I should probably put a snark tag or something.)

Individual spells are better is kind of like playing a rigger in shadowrun. "Is anybody a rigger?" "Right here!" "OK, you make it safely to where you want to go. Now, what does the magician do?" (In this example, wizard with that "good" spell is the rigger and magician is fighter.) Wizards are awesome if you need to alarm your camp! Or if you need to breathe underwater! But in actual gameplay, there is never a spot in the adventure where it says, "Party needs to have someone cast waterbreathing to continue." It's a potion or hand-waving and you move to the next spot.

I'm sure you're right about spellcasters being better. My players just didn't make the right choices and I am not smart enough to see what choices would have done the trick, at least for Fall of Plaguestone. No doubt, those spells are awesome when we finally figure out how to play this game. Unfortunately, we are going to move onto Hellknight Hill with new characters now that we have gotten some experience and we are just going to houserule spellcasters to give them A LOT more power. Open spell slots (choose spell on the fly) feels about right. I'll be around to say how that goes.


totoro wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
totoro wrote:
Finally! This is the only rational explanation for the state of spellcasters in PF2. It is a rationale I despise, but it has to be the answer. Spells are "good." Fighters are "better."

That is not what I said. Or meant. A Fighter is the single most accurate and one of the best DPR Classes in the game (indeed, I think the highest DPR build in the game is a Fighter with a bit of multiclassing). They are very good when attacking, just in general.

Individual spells can be better than that (and many are), but by a fairly narrow margin on how much better given how good Fighter is already. And narrowly better but costing resources doesn't tend to be a better choice than free 'really good' stuff.

This isn't a choice the actual game makes you make, with a PF2 spellcaster having basic attack routines inferior to a Fighter, but spells just a tad better, and then utility spells as an option as well. But you give a Fighter spellcasting and it starts looking weird.

It is what you said, you just didn't mean to. (I should probably put a snark tag or something.)

Individual spells are better is kind of like playing a rigger in shadowrun. "Is anybody a rigger?" "Right here!" "OK, you make it safely to where you want to go. Now, what does the magician do?" (In this example, wizard with that "good" spell is the rigger and magician is fighter.) Wizards are awesome if you need to alarm your camp! Or if you need to breathe underwater! But in actual gameplay, there is never a spot in the adventure where it says, "Party needs to have someone cast waterbreathing to continue." It's a potion or hand-waving and you move to the next spot.

I'm sure you're right about spellcasters being better. My players just didn't make the right choices and I am not smart enough to see what choices would have done the trick, at least for Fall of Plaguestone. No doubt, those spells are awesome when we finally figure out how to play this game. Unfortunately, we are going to move...

More power too you but please consider that you then need to give spontaneous casters some sort of bonus otherwise they are far more inferior to prepared.


Aashua wrote:
totoro wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
totoro wrote:
Finally! This is the only rational explanation for the state of spellcasters in PF2. It is a rationale I despise, but it has to be the answer. Spells are "good." Fighters are "better."

That is not what I said. Or meant. A Fighter is the single most accurate and one of the best DPR Classes in the game (indeed, I think the highest DPR build in the game is a Fighter with a bit of multiclassing). They are very good when attacking, just in general.

Individual spells can be better than that (and many are), but by a fairly narrow margin on how much better given how good Fighter is already. And narrowly better but costing resources doesn't tend to be a better choice than free 'really good' stuff.

This isn't a choice the actual game makes you make, with a PF2 spellcaster having basic attack routines inferior to a Fighter, but spells just a tad better, and then utility spells as an option as well. But you give a Fighter spellcasting and it starts looking weird.

It is what you said, you just didn't mean to. (I should probably put a snark tag or something.)

Individual spells are better is kind of like playing a rigger in shadowrun. "Is anybody a rigger?" "Right here!" "OK, you make it safely to where you want to go. Now, what does the magician do?" (In this example, wizard with that "good" spell is the rigger and magician is fighter.) Wizards are awesome if you need to alarm your camp! Or if you need to breathe underwater! But in actual gameplay, there is never a spot in the adventure where it says, "Party needs to have someone cast waterbreathing to continue." It's a potion or hand-waving and you move to the next spot.

I'm sure you're right about spellcasters being better. My players just didn't make the right choices and I am not smart enough to see what choices would have done the trick, at least for Fall of Plaguestone. No doubt, those spells are awesome when we finally figure out how to play this game.

...

Agreed. I am contemplating doubling 1st level spells per day. I don't know if that will scale at higher levels, but seems fine at 1st.

451 to 500 of 1,254 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Did wizards get nerfed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.