| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I dont see the problem with Wizards being the best with attack spells and as such being tied to Fighters being the best with weapons.
But regardless, just a +1 to bring them to par with master level martial would be great. A +3 seems like a distant dream in anything but home games.
Wizards are just the same as any other caster class in attack spells or DC spells or anything.
However.
You are comparing Wizards very limited resources (spells) with Fighters standard attacks. Not special boosted attacks, not attacks limited in number, just plain out standard attacks.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I dont see the problem with Wizards being the best with attack spells and as such being tied to Fighters being the best with weapons.
But regardless, just a +1 to bring them to par with master level martial would be great. A +3 seems like a distant dream in anything but home games.
Wizards are just the same as any other caster class in attack spells or DC spells or anything.
However.
You are comparing Wizards very limited resources (spells) with Fighters standard attacks. Not special boosted attacks, not attacks limited in number, just plain out standard attacks.
Let's pretend that's true.
All day wizard attack= Let's say produce flame(close) or ray of frost(ranged)
Ray of Frost vs. Ranged Martial
1st...1d4+4 vs 1d8 (longbow) = 6.5 vs 4.5
3rd...2d4+4 vs 1d8+2 (composite longbow) = 9 vs 6.5
7th...3d4+4 vs 2d8+4 (striking composite longbow with specialization) = 11.5 vs 13
9th...4d4+4 vs 2d8+4 = 14 vs 13
11th...5d4+5 vs 2d8+5 = 17.5 vs 14
13th...6d4+5 vs 3d8+6 = 20 vs 19.5
15th...7d4+5 vs 3d8+6 = 22.5 vs 19.5
17th...8d4+5 vs 3d8+6 = 25 vs 19.5
19th...9d4+5 vs 3d8+6 = 27.5 vs 19.5
Produce Flame vs Close Martial (say longsword)
1st...1d4+4 vs 1d8+4 = 6.5 vs 8.5
3rd...2d4+4 vs 1d8+4 = 9 vs 8.5
7th...3d4+4 vs 2d8+6 = 11.5 vs 15
9th...4d4+4 vs 2d8+6 = 14 vs 15
11th...5d4+5 vs 2d8+6 = 17.5 vs 15
13th...6d4+5 vs 3d8+7 = 20 vs 20.5
15th...7d4+5 vs 3d8+7 = 22.5 vs 20.5
17th...8d4+5 vs 3d8+7 = 25 vs 20.5
19th...9d4+5 vs 3d8+7 = 27.5 vs 20.5
So mostly flat out average better damage per hit vs a ranged martial, and even split better or worse than an average melee martial with the added benefit of being able to use same weapon (produce flame) from 30 feet away.
All with cantrips. Their limited slot spells are general far superior to martials' attacks, meaning they get options and effectiveness, where martials are mostly stuck with effectiveness.
[sarctic Valeros]Sure, let's give casters steady effectiveness too. Maybe they'll let us play with them for more than ten minutes a day. Always worked that way before, when they had the best toys and could beat us at our own game.[/sarcastic Valeros]
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
End game, a +1 item to wizards would give them equal attack to every martial besides fighters, while a +3 makes them superior to all except fighters. That’s... dumb.
Not really. You keep obsessing over this notion that wizard attacks must be less accurate than Barbarian attacks, but there's no real reason that has to be the case. It's not an issue of invalidating martials, because the concern is over making the spells as reliable as other spells that already exist. It feels like a completely separate conversation topic tbh.
The math doesn't really pan out either.
A 5th level wizard casting a third level shocking grasp averages about 11 damage. Casting lightning bolt instead even against a moderate save bumps that up to about 19.
For comparison's sake. A non-raging Barbarian swinging once with a greatsword is averaging about 16 against the same target and a ranger doing hunt > hunted shot is doing about the same.
Giving the wizard an attack rune isn't going to invalidate anything lol.
Produce Flame vs Close Martial (say longsword)
Cool. You've shown that Produce Flame is a bit better than half as good as a martial using a low damage weapon and a generic strike... you also forgot to include weapon specialization but w/e right?
Not sure what you're trying to prove with that, but you sure did show... something!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
All with cantrips. Their limited slot spells are general far superior to martials' attacks, meaning they get options and effectiveness, where martials are mostly stuck with effectiveness.
[sarctic Valeros]Sure, let's give casters steady...
Cool story you go there, comparing two action cantrips to single action attack. And that's ignoring all other factors in there.
It is nice to see that this conversation has shifted from "wizards suck," to "there are some elements of spell casting that are not quite dialed in exactly to where they should be yet, but that could probably be easily fixed in future supplements."
Given that the game couldn't really go through a full second round of playtesting with no touch AC and generally lessened item bonuses replaced by increased proficiency bonuses, I think it is ok for a little more time to be taken to figure out how often people feel like their attack roll spells are under performing in play, whether that problem is primarily with spell slot spells or includes cantrips, and how much of a boost is necessary to lift it.
It would be a bad thing to release a whole line of spell boosting items early on, only to realize that they interact very badly when they let wizards use them on high level spells that they are already boosting with True Strike, which is what I think would probably happen if high level wizards had +3 Items to boost spells that were also benefiting from true strike. Maybe they are looking at other alternatives like an item that takes an action to give an item boost to spell attack rolls?
It is nice to see that this conversation has shifted from "wizards suck," to "there are some elements of spell casting that are not quite dialed in exactly to where they should be yet, but that could probably be easily fixed in future supplements."
That's pretty much always been my position. The issue has been more about about what fixes Paizo is willing to make and when they might happen more than anything else.
True Strike is a nice option, but it turns your spell into a full round affair and means you're burning two spell slots per cast instead of one. Yeah it's only a level one slot, but that's still a pretty meaningful increase in resource expenditure and action economy for a lot of the game. I don't think it's really the end-all be-all of solutions that some people are making it out to be.
It is nice to see that this conversation has shifted from "wizards suck," to "there are some elements of spell casting that are not quite dialed in exactly to where they should be yet, but that could probably be easily fixed in future supplements."That's pretty much always been my position. The issue has been more about about what fixes Paizo is willing to make and when they might happen more than anything else.
True Strike is a nice option, but it turns your spell into a full round affair and means you're burning two spell slots per cast instead of one. Yeah it's only a level one slot, but that's still a pretty meaningful increase in resource expenditure and action economy for a lot of the game. I don't think it's really the end-all be-all of solutions that some people are making it out to be.
The issue isn't whether it is the end all balancing force, but whether it tilts the scales when it is used enough to want to make sure that it isn't just a little too much of a push to make high level spell attacks too powerful. This is hard to judge at the moment because there are not that many high-level spell attack roll spells yet, and those that do, don't have super unbalancing things they can do on a critical...yet. I don't think players would enjoy facing disintegrate spells coming their way with an additional +3 to the spell attack roll and True Strike for example.
It is possible that they over corrected in each direction though, because spell attack rolls do become increasingly less common at higher levels of spells and the highest level one, polar ray is kind of a mess of a spell in that it requires a spell attack roll but does nothing on a critical so it is just generally a bad spell , so it might be an intentional design decision to phase spell attacks out from higher level casting. If so, then an item bonus to spell attacks really wouldn't be overpowered. However, if A new magic book comes out with spells that do devastating effects on critical hits with spell attack rolls, it could be a problem. We don't know where the developers are with that kind of stuff, so it is difficult to say what is the pivot point in their design decisions as far as balance.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is a bit odd because the martials can use their weapon bonus all day, every day, with every attack they make. So that could be up to 3 attacks in a round, plus 1 AoO or other reaction. By contrast the caster typically only gets 1 spell per round, and most of those are using a finite resource (spell slots).If there's feats and items that increase dcs, then those would end up as autopicks for the most part, which would limit meaningful customization.Yeah, but nobody really bats an eye at items that buff martial attacks being autopicks.
Like it or not they're part of the system math and right now the numbers on spellcasters can sometimes feel a little janky because the lack of them leaves them pretty meaningfully behind. Especially when it comes to spells with attack rolls.
If you would have actually played the game, you'd realize that cantrips are the main thing casters use and that they don't really compete in direct damage with martials. Cater strengths are buffs, debuffs, battlefield control and AoE clearing of moons.
But again, noticing that comes from gameplay, rocking the theorycraft chair can only get you so far.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please show me all the enemies that have success -> crit success on saves.
Here, I'll list them out for you - enemies that are built like PCs. That is the entire list.
This is actually not quite true, there are, I think, two monsters at the moment that have such abilities and are not built like PCs (or maybe only one...the Giant Eagle has Evasion, but I'm not able to remember what made me think there was a second).
Of course, that's two out of more than 500, a ridiculously tiny subset of monsters, so your core point remains basically correct. Monsters with such abilities are vanishingly rare and have little bearing on the usual effectiveness of spellcasters in the game.
.
.
.
On the more general topic, I don't think providing an item to increase the accuracy of spells that attack AC is a particularly unreasonable thing. Save-based spells are currently quite a bit better, mathematically, than those using attack rolls (partially because many have effects even on a Save, while attack roll spells obviously have no effect on a miss), and an item like this thus doesn't actually power up spellcasters, just increases their range of 'optimal' (or near optimal) options. That seems a solid idea we might see in print at some point.
But those paying attention will probably notice that the above sentence includes the fact that I don't think this addition actually powers up spellcasters. That's probably not quite true, really, as more options always equal more power, but any increase will be fairly minimal. Which is good, since the power of spellcasters is pretty okay where it is (a minimal increase from increased options such as this hypothetical item seems plausibly good, but not any larger increase).
Adding anything to increase Save DCs, in contrast, strikes me as a terrible idea likely to overpower casters badly and immediately.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool story you go there, comparing two action cantrips to single action attack. And that's ignoring all other factors in there.All with cantrips. Their limited slot spells are general far superior to martials' attacks, meaning they get options and effectiveness, where martials are mostly stuck with effectiveness.
[sarctic Valeros]Sure, let's give casters steady...
Nah, what I was comparing was basic damage from basic things. I was ignoring all the other things casters can do that martials can't, as well as all the things martials can do that casters can't. In essence, I was applying the metrics given (all day abilities).
Both of those cantrips can reliable be used from range, neither require ammunition, nor do they have a volley trait to mess with your accuracy, etc etc LOTS of things to ignore here...
But let's just ignore the things the casters want us to ignore, right? That makes the argument easier on your side of things.
|
|
The math doesn't really pan out either.
A 5th level wizard casting a third level shocking grasp averages about 11 damage. Casting lightning bolt instead even against a moderate save bumps that up to about 19.
Whose math doesn't pan out?
3rd level shocking grasp/lightning bolt does 4d12, or an average of 26 damage. The unraging barbarian does what 2d12+4(17)? Maybe you're factoring in accuracy (and ignoring how many targets you can hit with lightning bolt), otherwise, huh???!?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you would have actually played the game, you'd realize that cantrips are the main thing casters use and that they don't really compete in direct damage with martials. Cater strengths are buffs, debuffs, battlefield control and AoE clearing of moons.
But again, noticing that comes from gameplay, rocking the theorycraft chair can only get you so far.
Wow, I love how it's always "you need to play to understand" from you people. If you bothered checking my profile, you might've noticed I have a level 3 Wizard in Pathfinder Society.
Not to mention I DM not one but two different groups at home. In both the casters have the least fun and interest.
And that's not even touching the constant shifting of goal posts and strawmen. Those of us who notice Wizards are nowhere near fun to play and weak in mechanical sense are always accused of wanting PF1 levels of Wizard OP.
There is really no point in arguing with people here.
Nah, what I was comparing was basic damage from basic things. I was ignoring all the other things casters can do that martials can't, as well as all the things martials can do that casters can't. In essence, I was applying the metrics given (all day abilities).
Both of those cantrips can reliable be used from range, neither require ammunition, nor do they have a volley trait to mess with your accuracy, etc etc LOTS of things to ignore here...
But let's just ignore the things the casters want us to ignore, right? That makes the argument easier on your side of things.
Makes it easier on you, you mean. I wasn't the one that brought up damage comparison. Nor was I the one who was complaining about Wizard DPS metric, which is a very silly metric in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I love how it's always "you need to play to understand" from you people. If you bothered checking my profile, you might've noticed I have a level 3 Wizard in Pathfinder Society.
Keep at it then, and have an open mind. Moderate your expectations to what one fourth of the party should be able to accomplish on a regular basis, and understand that the new status quo is that you'll fail to hit on a regular basis. This applies to all classes, but casters are on the bottom end of the accuracy curve and notice it most.
I've GM-ed for two parties to 10+ at this point - I've yet to see my Casters struggle to hold their own. Yeah, sometimes things Critically Succeed on a save and their action is wasted - but there are more results that have an effect on that die roll than Martials get.
Spell attacks may be a bit unreliable, but there are ways to mitigate that. Let your allies spend an action to Aid (there's nothing that prevents them from aiding your attack roll other than potentially your GM), let them make the target flat footed, etc.
I've seen caster players flourish in actual play and it isn't flagging as they rise in level. I'm not saying they're perfect - but I've yet to see them as anything close to bad.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Makes it easier on you, you mean. I wasn't the one that brought up damage comparison. Nor was I the one who was complaining about Wizard DPS metric, which is a very silly metric in the first place.
Only, you kinda were....
However.
You are comparing Wizards very limited resources (spells) with Fighters standard attacks. Not special boosted attacks, not attacks limited in number, just plain out standard attacks.
The cantrip is the caster's standard attack. A damage comparison with an average martial's standard attack was, in my opinion, worthwhile in that discussion. [EDIT: because comparing accuracy without comparing damage is pretty silly/] Classifying a longsword as a "weak" weapon is a mischaracterization in that 1d8 is the best damage you can do with a one handed weapon ("plain out standard attacks") You called the metric, and I pulled up the numbers. I wasn't sure where they'd land until I typed them out. Turns out, the game designers seem on the ball at averaging these things out to be roughly equal without feeling all the same.
Plus, it's really not a dps comparison, clearly, as it doesn't factor in number of actions, iterative attacks, or any of the like. Simply put, the caster's typical attack has slightly less accuracy and does slightly more damage most of the time over a single attack. Over a single combat round, the martials' ability to make multiple attacks in the same number of actions means they will do more damage per round. Martials will out damage casters unless they're using area of effect spells, then casters will do a bunch more average damage in a round. Once they can hit more targets than the number of actions they use, the pendulum swings in their favor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only, you kinda were....
I "kinda" was, except I wasn't, if you bother reading the thread. Comparisons up to that point focused on higher level spells, with the usual argument of "but True Strike". You don't use True Strike on cantrips. Or if you do, you are using limited daily resource.
The cantrip is the caster's standard attack. A damage comparison with an average martial's standard attack was, in my opinion, worthwhile in that discussion. [EDIT: because comparing accuracy without comparing damage is pretty silly/]
You called the metric, and I pulled up the numbers.
And comparing 2-action action to 1-action action is just as silly. Not to mention ignoring all the other effects. As I pointed out in my previous post, your "metric" is completely arbitrary and doesn't show anything useful. Ignoring accuracy, effects on success/failure, crits, etc - all this means your numbers are just a misuse of statistics. It doesn't show anything, for either side.
Classifying a longsword as a "weak" weapon is a mischaracterization in that 1d8 is the best damage you can do with a one handed weapon ("plain out standard attacks")
And you're also confusing me with others.
|
|
And comparing 2-action action to 1-action action is just as silly. Not to mention ignoring all the other effects. As I pointed out in my previous post, your "metric" is completely arbitrary and doesn't show anything useful. Ignoring accuracy, effects on success/failure, crits, etc - all this means your numbers are just a misuse of statistics. It doesn't show anything, for either side.
Just going to agree to disagree with you on that. The only thing spell attack roll increases will do is increase dps as spell attack accuracy only affects damaging spells. A comparison of the damage capabilities of those spells vs. the damage capabilities of martial actions is not only relevant, but worthwhile in consideration of changing the accuracy rate of spellcasters, in my opinion.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, no I didn't but, but you know.... w/e
Your 19th level martial is listed as doing 3d8+7 damage. Greater Weapon Specialization alone is +6 to damage with weapons you're master in. So your martial has... 12 strength?
Classifying a longsword as a "weak" weapon is a mischaracterization in that 1d8 is the best damage you can do with a one handed weapon
But still a full 2 damage per die on average behind a greatsword. So... not a mischaracterization at all.
There are of course, other reasons to use a longsword, like better AC, a free hand to perform maneuvers or dual wielding... but since your comparison is purely focused on damage it seems worth pointing out that you chose to pick an option that sacrifices raw damage for other benefits.Maybe you're factoring in accuracy
I mean, the whole point of the comparison was to show how the Wizard's accuracy issues with spell attacks leaves those spells in a rough spot, so yeah.
(and ignoring how many targets you can hit with lightning bolt)
Admittedly I am, but hitting multiple targets just makes the numbers even more skewed toward lightning bolt.
Wow, I love how it's always "you need to play to understand" from you people. If you bothered checking my profile, you might've noticed I have a level 3 Wizard in Pathfinder Society.If you would have actually played the game, you'd realize that cantrips are the main thing casters use and that they don't really compete in direct damage with martials. Cater strengths are buffs, debuffs, battlefield control and AoE clearing of moons.
But again, noticing that comes from gameplay, rocking the theorycraft chair can only get you so far.
Gorbacz was quoting Samurai, not you.
Gorbacz was quoting Samurai, not you.
My mistake.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
wizards are not weak or weaker than other classes in PF2. They got nerfed compared to PF1 wizards for sure, but I don't think anyone should have a real problem with that right? The only problem you could have is that they got nerfed "too much".
I personally don't think that's the case, because all wizards that I've played or GM-ed so far were literally glass cannons, except they weren't so glassy anymore. Dmg was almost on par with party's main two-h fighter, but the wizard was constantly in the back, away from immediate danger, while the fighter was going down much more frequently.
yes, cantrips cost 2 actions, but you don't have to move mostly to fire them off, and if you combine non attack cantrips(electric arc) + strike w ranged weapon(like an elven wizard w shortbow/longbow) or your hand of the apprentice, you get 2 attacks at your highest bonus...starting immediately from 1st level.
one of my players is currently playing an ancient elf universalist wizard w rouge dedication and elven weapon training(currently lvl 5)...party's best striker for sure.
Also, we already finished a campaign at lvl 17 using PF2 rules(started w playtest then switched at 10th lvl in last august) and we didn't have wizards in the party, but we had 2 sorcerers. One of them was blaster sorc and boy did he blast...OK, 2 martials in the party weren't just bystanders at that level like in PF1, but they were hardly doing bigger dmg than the blaster.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As my old stats prof used to say,
The plural of anecdote is not data
When it comes to addressing a mechanical and numeric imbalance, no amount of "I feel this was fine" is going to make up for what the numbers actually say. This can be hard to take on board when your actual play experience may not feel it bears it out, but its important to note that your particular experiences will only consist of a small subset of all play experiences. Where there exists an identifiable and definable numeric asymmetry we are going to find, longitudinally, that the majority of play experiences will end up playing out as the numbers dictate.
I'm also noting a distinct theme running through this thread that I can only really call a "Chip on the shoulder" when it comes to class balancing. PF1 was a different edition, D&D is a different game, this odd "Haha, eat s*!! casters!" vibe is really weird.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As my old stats prof used to say,
The plural of anecdote is not dataWhen it comes to addressing a mechanical and numeric imbalance, no amount of "I feel this was fine" is going to make up for what the numbers actually say. This can be hard to take on board when your actual play experience may not feel it bears it out, but its important to note that your particular experiences will only consist of a small subset of all play experiences. Where there exists an identifiable and definable numeric asymmetry we are going to find, longitudinally, that the majority of play experiences will end up playing out as the numbers dictate.
I think you have it backwards. "What the numbers dictate" is not at all clear at this point in time. It has been demonstrated that when targeting AC, wizards have a lower success rate than martials. This is not even remotely close to conclusive evidence that wizards are in any way underpowered. Wizards have access to a large number of effects that are hard to quantify and compare to damage and accuracy numbers. Even a spell like magic missile which at first glance seems to be all about damage offers some pretty substantial advantages - in an adventure full of intangible creatures it becomes a vital tool. Summoning spells, Jump, Longstrider, Color Spray and many others are impossible to compare to a fighter's strike through pure theorycrafting.
People's play experiences are not conclusive proof of a healthy wizard either - but it's significantly more substantial than surface-level theorycrafting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's take some sample numbers, then, against equal level opponents. Some of these builds are optimized to the gills for damage, some are not.
Level 1 (AC 15):
Fighter, using composite longbow (14 Str) with Point-Blank Shot, 2 shots (+9/+4, 1d8+1 + d10 deadly): 6.875+3.3 = 10.175
Flurry Ranger, using composite longbow (14 Str), 2 shots (+7/+4, 1d8+1 + d10 deadly): 5.225+3.3 = 8.525
Rogue archer, assuming one attack vs flat-footed, using composite shortbow (14 Str), 1 shot (+9 effective, 2d6+1 + d10 deadly): 9.475
Rogue archer using composite shortbow (14 Str), 2 shot (+7/+2, 1d6+1 + d10 deadly): 4.425+2.3 = 6.725
Outwit ranger using shortbow, 2 shot (+7/+2, d6 + d10 deadly): 3.625+1.85 = 5.475
Wizard casting telekinetic projectile (+7, 1d6+4): 5.25
Level 5 (AC 21):
Fighter, using +1 striking composite longbow (16 Str) with Point-Blank Shot and Double Shot (+14/+14, 2d8+1 + d10 deadly): 9.2*2 = 18.4
Fighter, using +1 striking composite longbow (16 Str) with Point-Blank Shot (+16/+11, 2d8+1 + d10 deadly): 11.55+5.675 = 17.225
Flurry Ranger, using +1 striking composite longbow (16 Str), 2 shots (+14/+11, 2d8+1 + d10 deadly): 9.2+5.675 = 14.875
Rogue archer, assuming one attack vs flat-footed, using composite shortbow (16 Str), 1 shot (+16 effective, 4d6+1 + d10 deadly): 18.15
Rogue archer using +1 striking composite shortbow (14 Str), 2 shot (+14/+9, 2d6+1 + d10 deadly): 7.9+4.175 = 12.075
Outwit ranger using +1 striking shortbow, 2 shot (+14/+9, 2d6+1 + d10 deadly): 7+3.675 = 10.675
Wizard casting telekinetic projectile (+12, 3d6+4): 10.15
I suspect this pattern will continue as we go up the chain, so I'm not going to bother any more. So a wizard's standard cantrips are approximately on the level of an rogue or an outwit ranger with a shortbow. Is that really so far behind that we need to throw in more optimization avenues, given the wizard has significantly more versatility in the damage types?
For an example in what I mean regarding versatility, let's say these go up against a skeleton or a zombie. I don't even need to do the math to tell you that one of these builds has the ability to adapt to the situation with just that one cantrip, and will be doing quite a bit more damage as a result.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think when trying to compare martial attack's to cantrips you need to take all factors into account. But at a basic comparison.
Cantrip-10d4+6 vs 3d4+2d6?+14 I assume 2v elemental add-on runes is more likely than 3.
That's 16-46 vs 38-76? Single action is 19-38
Clearly 2 action cantrips are weighted similarly to 1 action attacks.
While I agree with overall spell changes. Cantrips specifically need some love. I don't think they should be worth two attacks outright but 1.5 sure.
Honestly I just think cantrips die size should be dependant on actions invested. And+hit runes for attack spells/cantrips only would but imbalance a thing
|
|
I think you have it backwards. "What the numbers dictate" is not at all clear at this point in time. It has been demonstrated that when targeting AC, wizards have a lower success rate than martials. This is not even remotely close to conclusive evidence that wizards are in any way underpowered.As my old stats prof used to say,
The plural of anecdote is not dataWhen it comes to addressing a mechanical and numeric imbalance, no amount of "I feel this was fine" is going to make up for what the numbers actually say. This can be hard to take on board when your actual play experience may not feel it bears it out, but its important to note that your particular experiences will only consist of a small subset of all play experiences. Where there exists an identifiable and definable numeric asymmetry we are going to find, longitudinally, that the majority of play experiences will end up playing out as the numbers dictate.
This was not my argument.
People's play experiences are not conclusive proof of a healthy wizard either - but it's significantly more substantial than surface-level theorycrafting.
Dude, I play in 2 games and run one. My play experience is evidentiality different from yours. Yours are not "more equal" because you feel it harder. Its why I've avoid taking about my in-play perspective until now. It doesn't get us anywhere. You can't just invoke personal experience as an answer in a thread full of people telling you all experiences are thus far not equal.
I think when trying to compare martial attack's to cantrips you need to take all factors into account. But at a basic comparison.
Cantrip-10d4+6 vs 3d4+2d6?+14 I assume 2v elemental add-on runes is more likely than 3.
That's 16-46 vs 38-76? Single action is 19-38
Clearly 2 action cantrips are weighted similarly to 1 action attacks.
While I agree with overall spell changes. Cantrips specifically need some love. I don't think they should be worth two attacks outright but 1.5 sure.
Honestly I just think cantrips die size should be dependant on actions invested. And+hit runes for attack spells/cantrips only would but imbalance a thing
I... don't really know what that second number is supposed to be? 3d4, so it's like a +2 Dagger or something, but +14 damage so it's a high level Fighter, or some kind of Barbarian? 4d8+2d6+14 seems like more of a high-end martial attack, unless that's not what you were trying to compare here.
|
|
I... don't really know what that second number is supposed to be? 3d4, so it's like a +2 Dagger or something, but +14 damage so it's a high level Fighter, or some kind of Barbarian? 4d8+2d6+14 seems like more of a high-end martial attack, unless that's not what you were trying to compare here.I think when trying to compare martial attack's to cantrips you need to take all factors into account. But at a basic comparison.
Cantrip-10d4+6 vs 3d4+2d6?+14 I assume 2v elemental add-on runes is more likely than 3.
That's 16-46 vs 38-76? Single action is 19-38
Clearly 2 action cantrips are weighted similarly to 1 action attacks.
While I agree with overall spell changes. Cantrips specifically need some love. I don't think they should be worth two attacks outright but 1.5 sure.
Honestly I just think cantrips die size should be dependant on actions invested. And+hit runes for attack spells/cantrips only would but imbalance a thing
The 10d4+6 is a tip off that he is basing this off 20th level characters, but you are right. The martial damage in this instance looks below a 20th level character.
My unoptimized Fighter still has 4d6 +1d6 (Fire) +15
EDIT:
I pulled the sheet for the 20th level version of my players Giant Instinct Barbarian. Her listed damage is 4d14 +1d6 (Fire) +1d6 (Sonic) +25 (+7 Str, +18 Rage). That averages out to about 58 per strike. Ouch!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was not my argument.
Then what was your argument? You wrote that "Where there exists an identifiable and definable numeric asymmetry we are going to find, longitudinally, that the majority of play experiences will end up playing out as the numbers dictate." - I interpreted this as you saying there was an overall numbers asymmetry between casters and martials, but perhaps that was incorrect on my part?
Dude, I play in 2 games and run one. My play experience is evidentiality different from yours. Yours are not "more equal" because you feel it harder. Its why I've avoid taking about my in-play perspective until now. It doesn't get us anywhere. You can't just invoke personal experience as an answer in a thread full of people telling you all experiences are thus far not equal.
I don't know who you're arguing with here, but it's certainly not me. This thread is full of people describing why casters are either performing well or not at their table - which is the only way we're going to get somewhat of an understanding of their health within the game.
I almost get the sense that you are talking to someone else. I have never stated that experiences at my table are more valid than that of others, I believe they are of equal validity. If my comment seemed to imply you have not played 2E, that was not my intention.
I... don't really know what that second number is supposed to be? 3d4, so it's like a +2 Dagger or something, but +14 damage so it's a high level Fighter, or some kind of Barbarian? 4d8+2d6+14 seems like more of a high-end martial attack, unless that's not what you were trying to compare here.I think when trying to compare martial attack's to cantrips you need to take all factors into account. But at a basic comparison.
Cantrip-10d4+6 vs 3d4+2d6?+14 I assume 2v elemental add-on runes is more likely than 3.
That's 16-46 vs 38-76? Single action is 19-38
Clearly 2 action cantrips are weighted similarly to 1 action attacks.
While I agree with overall spell changes. Cantrips specifically need some love. I don't think they should be worth two attacks outright but 1.5 sure.
Honestly I just think cantrips die size should be dependant on actions invested. And+hit runes for attack spells/cantrips only would but imbalance a thing
You are changing the Dice size. Keep them the same first to better compare. I know there are no d8 cantrips. Shuriken is the best comparison to a cantrip. Str based ranged attack with zero reload. If that baseline is out of wack then it's it only gets worse when you increase the die while losing better comparison.
A throwing weapon level 20 fighter dedication 2 individual actions to attack on average will do substantially more than a level 20 wizard cantrip. In fact a single attack is similar in Damage to the 2 action cantrip.
D4 baseline is fine so long as you can get something comparable going imo.
If I was home brew. I'd give casters cantrip specialization that only effects cantrips that Target ac (so not electric Arc). Thus it would become 10d4+14. Or 24-54 damage. Then I'd give all ac targeting cantrips variable action use similar to the heal spell in that 1 action is melee only. 2 is ranged. Then 3 would increase die size to d8.
But that's me.
I... don't really know what that second number is supposed to be? 3d4, so it's like a +2 Dagger or something, but +14 damage so it's a high level Fighter, or some kind of Barbarian? 4d8+2d6+14 seems like more of a high-end martial attack, unless that's not what you were trying to compare here.I think when trying to compare martial attack's to cantrips you need to take all factors into account. But at a basic comparison.
Cantrip-10d4+6 vs 3d4+2d6?+14 I assume 2v elemental add-on runes is more likely than 3.
That's 16-46 vs 38-76? Single action is 19-38
Clearly 2 action cantrips are weighted similarly to 1 action attacks.
While I agree with overall spell changes. Cantrips specifically need some love. I don't think they should be worth two attacks outright but 1.5 sure.
Honestly I just think cantrips die size should be dependant on actions invested. And+hit runes for attack spells/cantrips only would but imbalance a thing
The 10d4+6 is a tip off that he is basing this off 20th level characters, but you are right. The martial damage in this instance looks below a 20th level character.
My unoptimized Fighter still has 4d6 +1d6 (Fire) +15
EDIT:
I pulled the sheet for the 20th level version of my players Giant Instinct Barbarian. Her listed damage is 4d14 +1d6 (Fire) +1d6 (Sonic) +25 (+7 Str, +18 Rage). That averages out to about 58 per strike. Ouch!
Yeah your right 4d is correct my brain died on the drive to work this morning and I was thinking +3 rune went to 3d attack lol. I'll repost now accurate info at lunch
|
|
This was not my argument.Then what was your argument? You wrote that "Where there exists an identifiable and definable numeric asymmetry we are going to find, longitudinally, that the majority of play experiences will end up playing out as the numbers dictate." - I interpreted this as you saying there was an overall numbers asymmetry between casters and martials, but perhaps that was incorrect on my part?
Dude, I play in 2 games and run one. My play experience is evidentiality different from yours. Yours are not "more equal" because you feel it harder. Its why I've avoid taking about my in-play perspective until now. It doesn't get us anywhere. You can't just invoke personal experience as an answer in a thread full of people telling you all experiences are thus far not equal.I don't know who you're arguing with here, but it's certainly not me. This thread is full of people describing why casters are either performing well or not at their table - which is the only way we're going to get somewhat of an understanding of their health within the game.
I almost get the sense that you are talking to someone else. I have never stated that experiences at my table are more valid than that of others, I believe they are of equal validity. If my comment seemed to imply you have not played 2E, that was not my intention.
I feel like I'm being gas-lighted here.
I feel like I'm being gas-lighted here.
I don't really know what to tell you, other than that is not my intention in the least. If there is some kind of misunderstanding or miscommunication between us I would be more than happy to clear it up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My martial characters have to either run all over the place, or risk frequent harm trading blows, in order to be effective. They really have to work at it!
But the wizard? No. Hardly has to do anything at all! Just sits there, safe and comfy in the back row, plinking away with his two action spells and bow, sling, or crossbow. He doesn't even have to deal with the multi attack penalties if he doesn't want to. Lucky little s--t.
Why can't my martials ever have nice things?
.
.
.
XD ;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is like Thor complaining that Odin loves Loki more. :-)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why should wizards, with a cantrip at range, be able to keep up with a Barbarian in melee as far as single target damage goes?
Thank Desna (or more correctly, the developers) they do not.
Spell attack cantrips taking 2 actions at range is really not a devastating limitation. There are no martial weapons that can easily be used at many different ranges and still provide 3 attacks per round. The short bow would really be the weapon of comparison for everyone but the point blank fighter, who again, would be an ultra specialized martial striker being compared to a wizard that has invested one cantrip selection into their ranged generic attack.
Maybe some individual cantrips fall behind, and generally wizards are much better off choosing spells (especially cantrips) that target saves, although each of the spell attack cantrips does have niche value that the wizard (and Druid) gets to exploit better than any other casters because they can pick new ones each day.
A magic item that give cantrips a bonus to attack rolls would probably not be overpowered. It probably would be fine to extend it to regular spells as well, as long as the plan at piazo is not to start introducing really powerful high level spells that require spell attack rolls AND do impressive things on critical hits. With Disintegrate and Polar Ray built the way they are, it feels like that is the intentional design choice, but it makes a lot of sense to me to wait until they release the next magic focused book to decide how to implement such an item.
It is not the case that casters are currently unplayable. It is the case that bad spell selection can make many casters feel unplayable and choosing great spells can be tricky as the game is young and strategies from PF1 are not always going to translate over well to PF2.
Had coffee and lunch. Firing up my pathbuilder app.
I maintain that the best comparison benchmark we currently have to even try to compare cantrips to attacks is a shuriken throwing fighter.
At 20 they should be doing on a basic ranged attack 4d4+1d6+1d6+14. Or 20-42 damage. That's with +3 rune and say.. Frost and thunder runes on it.
At 20 a cantrip that costs two actions does 10d4+6. 16-46.
Unless I'm missing obvious further status enhancements on either character that would notably change the damage this is about correct. I'm not strictly counting the fact that the fighter is runed out as it's expected that the caster had to spend money on other things for other reasons this is just where you'd expect them to be at at 20.
So a single fighter action is equivalent damage to a caster 2 action cantrip while using a d4 ranged weapon. I think the damage per attack here is fair. A spell caster cantrip should not do equivalent to d12 two hand Melee weapon and the larger damage Dice ranged weapons half your str bonus and take two hands to use.
I'm not sure about the action economy though. I'm not sure why a caster committing two actions to a single Target ac targeting ranged attack cannot without breaking the game or unbalancing the fact they are 1/4 of the party simply do more damage here.
But what do we do to adjust this?
I like the idea that ac targeting attack cantrips having variable action economy similar in concept but not exactly execution to heal/harm spells to be an ok thing. You can easily make a universal baseline.
1 action d4+flourish trait.
2 action-add your level to damage
3 action increase the die size by x amount (I don't know how much tbh).
They will rival a shuriken fighter damage per action but only with one attack while the fighter will more often be making 2-4 attacks. The variable action economy will feel better giving you more flexibility. It won't feel as bad all the time if you miss. It's their equivalent of a basic attack. Yes this is a buff to cantrips but looking at them they are just quite weak for no apparent reason so I don't feel I need to take something away to buff it.
I also maintain that save or suck spells are currently fine and balanced. And that +runes that strictly give you+ to hit for AC targeting attacks of attack spells to also not be game breaking even with these suggested cantrip changes.
Imo anyways. As someone who hated how powerful casters were in 1e and DND
Because simplicity is a virtue, and not every attack cantrip should do exactly the same thing. I don't think cantrips, for the current set of casters, are supposed to be the single most versatile attack option. The versatility is supposed to come from which of them you choose. Allowing one cantrip to be your ideal attack action every round of combat is something that I can see coming around IF 2E attempts to recreate the Kineticist, but that would probably be a class without spell slots.
Because simplicity is a virtue, and not every attack cantrip should do exactly the same thing. I don't think cantrips, for the current set of casters, are supposed to be the single most versatile attack option. The versatility is supposed to come from which of them you choose. Allowing one cantrip to be your ideal attack action every round of combat is something that I can see coming around IF 2E attempts to recreate the Kineticist, but that would probably be a class without spell slots.
Imo they are prime candidates to adjust in a universal way as to let casters interact with the new action system better without breaking anything.
And every attack cantrip doesn't do the same thing. But I think they all should have the same variable action options.
Still doesn't make it your ideal attack. Unless you consider an ideal action as to use 1/3 of your actions. What it does is let it fit into the action economy better. A ranger who doesn't have to move gets at attack 3x as a reward. A caster who doesn't have to move gets rewarded with the ability to cast a single spell and use a single cantrip equivalent to a optimal d4 attack. And you'd still want multiple due to resistance's and unique critical riders.
This the all obviously my opinion. But I think most spells are fine. I think cantrips are both the issue and potentially the solution to make casters more engaging.
Because simplicity is a virtue, and not every attack cantrip should do exactly the same thing. I don't think cantrips, for the current set of casters, are supposed to be the single most versatile attack option. The versatility is supposed to come from which of them you choose. Allowing one cantrip to be your ideal attack action every round of combat is something that I can see coming around IF 2E attempts to recreate the Kineticist, but that would probably be a class without spell slots.Imo they are prime candidates to adjust in a universal way as to let casters interact with the new action system better without breaking anything.
And every attack cantrip doesn't do the same thing. But I think they all should have the same variable action options.
Still doesn't make it your ideal attack. Unless you consider an ideal action as to use 1/3 of your actions. What it does is let it fit into the action economy better. A ranger who doesn't have to move gets at attack 3x as a reward. A caster who doesn't have to move gets rewarded with the ability to cast a single spell and use a single cantrip equivalent to a optimal d4 attack. And you'd still want multiple due to resistance's and unique critical riders.
This the all obviously my opinion. But I think most spells are fine. I think cantrips are both the issue and potentially the solution to make casters more engaging.
I think the cantrips as they are are mostly fine (spell attack ones are maybe not fine), but I would love to see more 1- action and variable action cantrips printed.
I think the cantrips as they are are mostly fine (spell attack ones are maybe not fine), but I would love to see more 1- action and variable action cantrips printed.Because simplicity is a virtue, and not every attack cantrip should do exactly the same thing. I don't think cantrips, for the current set of casters, are supposed to be the single most versatile attack option. The versatility is supposed to come from which of them you choose. Allowing one cantrip to be your ideal attack action every round of combat is something that I can see coming around IF 2E attempts to recreate the Kineticist, but that would probably be a class without spell slots.Imo they are prime candidates to adjust in a universal way as to let casters interact with the new action system better without breaking anything.
And every attack cantrip doesn't do the same thing. But I think they all should have the same variable action options.
Still doesn't make it your ideal attack. Unless you consider an ideal action as to use 1/3 of your actions. What it does is let it fit into the action economy better. A ranger who doesn't have to move gets at attack 3x as a reward. A caster who doesn't have to move gets rewarded with the ability to cast a single spell and use a single cantrip equivalent to a optimal d4 attack. And you'd still want multiple due to resistance's and unique critical riders.
This the all obviously my opinion. But I think most spells are fine. I think cantrips are both the issue and potentially the solution to make casters more engaging.
I am strictly referring to attack cantrips that Target ac.
I think adding that would just relegate the current ones into non use or you'd have to power down the new ones even further somehow.
Need to move the baseline first, in my opinion
Again, cantrips are at the level of a outwit ranger with a shortbow, or a rogue with a shortbow that's not getting sneak attack.
Why is this so bad that wizards need all the buffs?
Again, cantrips are at the level of a outwit ranger with a shortbow, or a rogue with a shortbow that's not getting sneak attack.
Why is this so bad that wizards need all the buffs?
Personally i came into this late and specifically said I think spells are fine but that attack cantrips targeting ac are not.
Also technically if you look at damage per action there are half of the things you mentioned.
Since cantrip is 2 actions and a ranger is one.
Shortbow is half str right? So optimally 4d6+1d6+1d6 (two rune investment)+9?
15-45. Yes almost exactly on par with a cantrip for damage. Except that means due to it being a single action vs cantrips 2 action the cantrip is doing half of the rangers damage per action if they just hit twice of the 3-4 possible attacks they could dedicate.
But to reiterate. I think caster spells are fine.
I do think that even though casters as a whole are fine and dandy there is something weird going on with spell attacks. I've been advising my new players to stay away from those spells and mostly focus on save spells - which seems a little strange, trap options aren't a good thing IMO.
If these spells really are trap options that could (at least partially) explain why a fair number of people seem to have had a bad experience with casters while other don't.
Also Polar Ray is a really, really bizarre spell. It feels like a bad 1E spell that somehow snuck into 2E.
I do think that even though casters as a whole are fine and dandy there is something weird going on with spell attacks. I've been advising my new players to stay away from those spells and mostly focus on save spells - which seems a little strange, trap options aren't a good thing IMO.
If these spells really are trap options that could (at least partially) explain why a fair number of people seem to have had a bad experience with casters while other don't.
Also Polar Ray is a really, really bizarre spell. It feels like a bad 1E spell that somehow snuck into 2E.
The only possible issue I could even see for pure attack spells (not cantrips) is the inability to just have a rune that can give you +hit to said spells. Not saving throws. Just the to hit stuff.
That's mainly due to the games really tight math hiding behind large numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think that even though casters as a whole are fine and dandy there is something weird going on with spell attacks.
I think the core issue is that the spells seem to be balanced around succeeding and nothing else. If you compare them directly, a lot of attack based spells are reasonably comparable to their save-granting variants if they hit, but the save granting spells tend to have reduced effectiveness on a failure too.
Pair that with a spellcaster's relatively low accuracy and you end up with attack spells that end up, against equal level foes, basically have a 50/50 chance of doing something cool or being a waste of actions and a spell slot, while their save granting alternatives tend to have more like a 70-80% chance of having some kind of effect.