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.
Sure, let's look at it with specifically level 20 as the sample, using two damage runes.
Level 20 (AC 44), assuming 24 (+7 mod) in main stat:
Fighter, using +3 major striking composite longbow (18 Str) with Point-Blank Shot and Double Shot (+36/+36, 4d8+2d6+10 + 3d10 deadly): 30.475*2 = 60.95
Flurry Ranger, using +3 major striking composite longbow (18 Str), 2 shots (+36/+34, 4d8+2d6+8 + 3d10 deadly): 28.875+20.625 = 49.5
Rogue archer, assuming one attack vs flat-footed, using +3 major striking composite shortbow (18 Str), 1 shot (+38 effective, 10d6+8 + 3d10 deadly): 45.875
Rogue archer using +3 major striking composite shortbow (18 Str), 2 shot (+36/+31, 6d6+8 + 3d10 deadly): 24.925+13.625 = 38.55
Outwit ranger using +3 major striking shortbow, 2 shot (+36/+31, 6d6+6 + 3d10 deadly): 23.325+12.725 = 36.05
Outwit ranger using +3 major striking shortbow, 2 shot, only 1 damage rune (+36/+31, 5d6+6 + 3d10 deadly): 20.525+11.15 = 31.675
Wizard casting telekinetic projectile (+35, 10d6+4): 27.3
I'm still not convinced that's far enough behind the martials at ~38 to be that problematic.
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.
Sure, let's look at it with specifically level 20 as the sample, using two damage runes.
Level 20 (AC 44), assuming 24 (+7 mod) in main stat:
Fighter, using +3 major striking composite longbow (18 Str) with Point-Blank Shot and Double Shot (+36/+36, 4d8+2d6+10 + 3d10 deadly): 30.475*2 = 60.95
Flurry Ranger, using +3 major striking composite longbow (18 Str), 2 shots (+36/+34, 4d8+2d6+8 + 3d10 deadly): 28.875+20.625 = 49.5
Rogue archer, assuming one attack vs flat-footed, using +3 major striking composite shortbow (18 Str), 1 shot (+38 effective, 10d6+8 + 3d10 deadly): 45.875
Rogue archer using +3 major striking composite shortbow (18 Str), 2 shot (+36/+31, 6d6+8 + 3d10 deadly): 24.925+13.625 = 38.55
Outwit ranger using +3 major striking shortbow, 2 shot (+36/+31, 6d6+6 + 3d10 deadly): 23.325+12.725 = 36.05
Outwit ranger using +3 major striking shortbow, 2 shot, only 1 damage rune (+36/+31, 5d6+6 + 3d10 deadly): 20.525+11.15 = 31.675
Wizard casting telekinetic projectile (+35, 10d6+4): 27.3I'm still not convinced that's far enough behind the martials at ~38 to be that...
I guess we simply disagree :) since a cantrip is only ever one attack. And a basic attack is 1-4 attacks. Map incurred of course!
(And that's ok).
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.
I agree. I think true strike helps mitigate this somewhat (but doesn't fix the issue) - especially for spells like disintegrate which I consider to be a good example of a spell attack.
Maybe if there were more spells that made spell attacks more likely to hit that would help?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not convinced that's far enough behind the martials at ~38 to be that...
I still think this entire comparison is a bit flawed and irrelevant but putting that aside for a moment:
Your own numbers show them doing less than half the damage of a fighter and like, two thirds of the damage of the ranger or rogue. I'm not sure how that reads as good.
The takeaway I get from your comparison is more like "Wow outwit rangers need help" more than "wow Wizard cantrip damage is good."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not convinced that's far enough behind the martials at ~38 to be that...I still think this entire comparison is a bit flawed and irrelevant but putting that aside for a moment:
Your own numbers show them doing less than half the damage of a fighter and like, two thirds of the damage of the ranger or rogue. I'm not sure how that reads as good.
The takeaway I get from your comparison is more like "Wow outwit rangers need help" more than "wow Wizard cantrip damage is good."
That's the 0 investment thing that they do literally all day, isn't nearly their main focus, doesn't cost 40000 gp, and has significantly higher versatility. What do you want out of it?
Should wizards be able to no-effort hit 80% of fighter's optimum?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerer casting elemental blast (DC 45 vs +36/+33/+30, 18d6 - avg 63): high save 44.1, moderate 50.4, low 67.725
Elemental toss (+35, 10d8): 31.5
So assuming a sorcerer hits two enemies, they deal an average of 132.3 damage with 3 actions, expending 0 spells.
Fighter, using +3 major striking composite longbow (18 Str) with Point-Blank Shot and Triple Shot (+34/+34/+34, 4d8+2d6+10 + 3d10 deadly): 21.825*3 = 65.475
Wow, casters are terribly weak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not convinced that's far enough behind the martials at ~38 to be that...I still think this entire comparison is a bit flawed and irrelevant but putting that aside for a moment:
Your own numbers show them doing less than half the damage of a fighter and like, two thirds of the damage of the ranger or rogue. I'm not sure how that reads as good.
The takeaway I get from your comparison is more like "Wow outwit rangers need help" more than "wow Wizard cantrip damage is good."
That's the 0 investment thing that they do literally all day, isn't nearly their main focus, doesn't cost 40000 gp, and has significantly higher versatility. What do you want out of it?
Should wizards be able to no-effort hit 80% of fighter's optimum?
Depends on the weapon that accounts for a lot.
And depends on what the optimum is.
Damage per action of a d4 weapon? Yes. Maybe a bit behind due to weapon expertise.
And also not damage per round. Implying a limit on the cantrips damage per action that the weapon doesn't have.
Currently as it stands it means you could safely double the Dice damage of a cantrip and it would still be less damage than 2 shuriken hitting from a fighter. Wich is telling.
But that doesn't address casters not interacting with the new action economy either.
I'm still a fan of ac targeting attack cantrips having variable action consumption. And a fan of the single action flourish trait cantrip.
The biggest issue with that is that means every round you can cast a spell and a cantrip. But is that unbalanced? Looking at the damage of attack spells? Doesn't seem it.
Note: I am talking about two separate things here. I'm not talking about a single action cantrip doing double their current damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not convinced that's far enough behind the martials at ~38 to be that...I still think this entire comparison is a bit flawed and irrelevant but putting that aside for a moment:
Your own numbers show them doing less than half the damage of a fighter and like, two thirds of the damage of the ranger or rogue. I'm not sure how that reads as good.
The takeaway I get from your comparison is more like "Wow outwit rangers need help" more than "wow Wizard cantrip damage is good."
That's the 0 investment thing that they do literally all day, isn't nearly their main focus, doesn't cost 40000 gp, and has significantly higher versatility. What do you want out of it?
Should wizards be able to no-effort hit 80% of fighter's optimum?
And I think this is sort of the underlying issue. There really isn't a way to be a wizard and make blasting with your cantrips into your big gold and character defining shtick.
Which is probably good, because if the options existed, it would more likely be a trap than a must go route. Even with the ability to invest financial and character building resources towards being really good with cantrips, its not going to be a very effective character. Single damage striking potential is the niche of the martial characters.
Wizards cannot over specialize in being super great at x spell in PF2, like it was relatively easy to do in PF1. And the issue with it in PF1 was never damage output either, it was giving casters ways to turn save or suck spells into encounter/game winners.
I believe that it is an intention game design decision for damage spells to require targeting a major weakness, or overcoming a very difficult resistance or other defenses to be an optimal action. That is why magic missile is a far better spell than its damage output would lead many to believe, but damage spells themselves do not make for great character builds.
To make that easier to stomach, Casters can do a lot more than just cast damage spells, and parties built to take advantage of those other things will probably have more fun than parties where the characters just compete to see which individual character can do the most damage in each battle.
Currently as it stands it means you could safely double the Dice damage of a cantrip and it would still be less damage than 2 shuriken hitting from a fighter. Wich is telling.
Bull feathers.
Level 20 (AC 44), assuming 24 (+7 mod) in main stat:
Double Shot fighter (18 Str) with some weird massively enchanted +3 frost flaming shock shuriken and Double Shot (+36/+36, 4d4+3d6+12 - 30.5 average): 25.9*2 = 51.8 damage
Double Shot fighter (18 Str) with some weird massively enchanted +3 frost flaming shock shuriken and Triple Shot (+34/+34/+34, 4d4+3d6+12 - 30.5 average): 18.8*3 = 56.4 damage
Wizard casting telekinetic projectile with double damage dice (+35, 20d6+4): 51.8 damage
And that barely goes up with further attacks from the fighter. Basically with spells, a wizard would make a fighter completely and utterly useless.
Please know the math before you start making comments like this.
Currently as it stands it means you could safely double the Dice damage of a cantrip and it would still be less damage than 2 shuriken hitting from a fighter. Wich is telling.Bull feathers.
Level 20 (AC 44), assuming 24 (+7 mod) in main stat:
Double Shot fighter (18 Str) with some weird massively enchanted +3 frost flaming shock shuriken and Double Shot (+36/+36, 4d4+3d6+12 - 30.5 average): 25.9*2 = 51.8 damage
Double Shot fighter (18 Str) with some weird massively enchanted +3 frost flaming shock shuriken and Triple Shot (+34/+34/+34, 4d4+3d6+12 - 30.5 average): 18.8*3 = 56.4 damage
Wizard casting telekinetic projectile with double damage dice (+35, 20d6+4): 51.8 damageAnd that barely goes up with further attacks from the fighter. Basically with spells, a wizard would make a fighter completely and utterly useless.
Please know the math before you start making comments like this.
...a cantrips heighten is per spell level not caster level no? So not 20d6 but 10d6.
I assume cantrip heighten is not inexplicably unique in this way or they would have differentiated it in some way
Currently as it stands it means you could safely double the Dice damage of a cantrip and it would still be less damage than 2 shuriken hitting from a fighter. Wich is telling.Bull feathers.
Level 20 (AC 44), assuming 24 (+7 mod) in main stat:
Double Shot fighter (18 Str) with some weird massively enchanted +3 frost flaming shock shuriken and Double Shot (+36/+36, 4d4+3d6+12 - 30.5 average): 25.9*2 = 51.8 damage
Double Shot fighter (18 Str) with some weird massively enchanted +3 frost flaming shock shuriken and Triple Shot (+34/+34/+34, 4d4+3d6+12 - 30.5 average): 18.8*3 = 56.4 damage
Wizard casting telekinetic projectile with double damage dice (+35, 20d6+4): 51.8 damageAnd that barely goes up with further attacks from the fighter. Basically with spells, a wizard would make a fighter completely and utterly useless.
Please know the math before you start making comments like this.
...a cantrips heighten is per spell level not caster level no? So not 20d6 but 10d6.
I assume cantrip heighten is not inexplicably unique in this way or they would have differentiated it in some way
Well, you did say you could safely double the damage dice and it wouldn't match a fighter.
Reminder that the elemental blast focus spell (sorcerer) deals an average of high save 44.1, moderate 50.4, low 67.725 to a level 20 enemy, meaning if they hit 3 enemies in one blast they're good for about 3 turns worth of fighter damage from a single focus spell.
Sure, let's look at it with specifically level 20 as the sample, using two damage runes.
Level 20 (AC 44), assuming 24 (+7 mod) in main stat:
Fighter, using +3 major striking composite longbow (18 Str) with Point-Blank Shot and Double Shot (+36/+36, 4d8+2d6+10 + 3d10 deadly): 30.475*2 = 60.95
Flurry Ranger, using +3 major striking composite longbow (18 Str), 2 shots (+36/+34, 4d8+2d6+8 + 3d10 deadly): 28.875+20.625 = 49.5
Rogue archer, assuming one attack vs flat-footed, using +3 major striking composite shortbow (18 Str), 1 shot (+38 effective, 10d6+8 + 3d10 deadly): 45.875
Rogue archer using +3 major striking composite shortbow (18 Str), 2 shot (+36/+31, 6d6+8 + 3d10 deadly): 24.925+13.625 = 38.55
Outwit ranger using +3 major striking shortbow, 2 shot (+36/+31, 6d6+6 + 3d10 deadly): 23.325+12.725 = 36.05
Outwit ranger using +3 major striking shortbow, 2 shot, only 1 damage rune (+36/+31, 5d6+6 + 3d10 deadly): 20.525+11.15 = 31.675
Wizard casting telekinetic projectile (+35, 10d6+4): 27.3I'm still not convinced that's far enough behind the martials at ~38 to be that...
I think the major problem with this comparison is that Level 20 is a high point for caster cantrip effectiveness. The to hit progression of a caster versus a non-fighter martial looks like this:
Level 1: Same to hit roll
Level 2-4: caster at -1 to hit
Level 5-6: caster at -3 to hit
Level 7-9: caster at -1 to hit
Level 10-12: caster at -2 to hit
Level 13-14: caster at -4 to hit
Level 15: caster at -2 to hit
Level 16-18: caster at -3 to hit
Level 19-20: caster at -1 to hit
Averaging out the difference, we get casters having on average 1.95 less added to their attack rolls than martials with the highest level runes equipped for their level.
Your example also compares against an even leveled enemy. You do factor in the criticals now, and you're seeing a bump from those in the fighter and sneak attacking rogue in particular. Those bumps would go away with a higher leveled/more defensively focused enemy. With a 1 level lower/less defensively focused enemy you'll see bumps in all of the martials but not the caster due to crits. With some of this variance factored in, you'll see even more of an advantage towards the martials.
I think the major problem with this comparison is that Level 20 is a high point for caster cantrip effectiveness. The to hit progression of a caster versus a non-fighter martial looks like this:Level 1: Same to hit roll
Level 2-4: caster at -1 to hit
Level 5-6: caster at -3 to hit
Level 7-9: caster at -1 to hit
Level 10-12: caster at -2 to hit
Level 13-14: caster at -4 to hit
Level 15: caster at -2 to hit
Level 16-18: caster at -3 to hit
Level 19-20: caster at -1 to hitAveraging out the difference, we get casters having on average 1.95 less added to their attack rolls than martials with the highest level runes equipped for their level.
Your example also compares against an even leveled enemy. You do factor in the criticals now, and you're seeing a bump from those in the fighter and sneak attacking rogue in particular. Those bumps would go away with a higher leveled/more defensively...
I did also show off levels 1 and 5 in the earlier summary. They already factor in criticals.
Well, all I know is that form my GMing, casters throwing stuff at boss enemies pretty much always results in a succesful save, which sometimes still has some okay effect, but in their minds all they see is "All my spells failed, I wasted my slots."
Casters are new players to the hobby, I'm not gonna be like "It's still good because of all this math". I'd rather spells actually landed. Doesn't help that in AoA, most fights seem to be vs few or 1 big enemy.
So how we comparing a focus spell to cantrips to fighter attacks?
Or did you specifically do the thing I said I'm not talking about? That is doubling cantrip damage and allowing it to be one action.
The focus spell stuff is just confusing me just stick to the topic of cantrips and martial attacks maybe.
20d4+6= 26-86
Vs
4d4+3d6+14= 21-48x2= 42-96
10 more top end
16 more minimum.
Granted this discounts map. +Hit runes. Etc.
So how we comparing a focus spell to cantrips to fighter attacks?
Or did you specifically do the thing I said I'm not talking about? That is doubling cantrip damage and allowing it to be one action.
The focus spell stuff is just confusing me just stick to the topic of cantrips and martial attacks maybe.
20d4+6= 26-86
Vs
4d4+3d6+14= 21-48x2= 42-96
10 more top end
16 more minimum.
Granted this discounts map. +Hit runes. Etc.
And MAP is what matters. You don't seem to understand that.
That second attack has a massive damage cut compared to the first (a little over half average damage).
Adding up straight damage numbers gets you nowhere.
So how we comparing a focus spell to cantrips to fighter attacks?
Or did you specifically do the thing I said I'm not talking about? That is doubling cantrip damage and allowing it to be one action.
The focus spell stuff is just confusing me just stick to the topic of cantrips and martial attacks maybe.
20d4+6= 26-86
Vs
4d4+3d6+14= 21-48x2= 42-96
10 more top end
16 more minimum.
Granted this discounts map. +Hit runes. Etc.
And MAP is what matters. You don't seem to understand that.
That second attack has a massive damage cut compared to the first (a little over half average damage).
Adding up straight damage numbers gets you nowhere.
keep in mind I said you could double the Dice of a cantrip and still do less damage than a fighter. Wich I proved. I did not say that's what paizo should do.
Rather they should give cantrips of the type universal action economy variables.
In other words let them be flexible enough to cast as one action/ two action/ three action.
But you lamenting over your -4 on your second attack despite you having+2 to hit innately and +3 to hit due to rune. So your second attack is still +1 over the cantrips to hit
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did also show off levels 1 and 5 in the earlier summary. They already factor in criticals.
You did make a mistake there for the level 5 comparison.
The Wizard actually only has a +4 primary stat, +7 proficiency. That lowers average damage to 8.7 instead of 10.15
Level 5 is one of the low points for the caster, though, at a -3 to martial instead of the more typical -2.
I actually think these lower levels are where the majority of the issue come in since that is when casters will be relying on cantrips the most.
Edit: I'm just commenting on your analysis because it's one of the most useful things contributed to the thread. Thanks for posting it.
So how we comparing a focus spell to cantrips to fighter attacks?
Or did you specifically do the thing I said I'm not talking about? That is doubling cantrip damage and allowing it to be one action.
The focus spell stuff is just confusing me just stick to the topic of cantrips and martial attacks maybe.
20d4+6= 26-86
Vs
4d4+3d6+14= 21-48x2= 42-96
10 more top end
16 more minimum.
Granted this discounts map. +Hit runes. Etc.
And MAP is what matters. You don't seem to understand that.
That second attack has a massive damage cut compared to the first (a little over half average damage).
Adding up straight damage numbers gets you nowhere.
keep in mind I said you could double the Dice of a cantrip and still do less damage than a fighter. Wich I proved. I did not say that's what paizo should do.
Rather they should give cantrips of the type universal action economy variables.
In other words let them be flexible enough to cast as one action/ two action/ three action.
But you lamenting over your -4 on your second attack despite you having+2 to hit innately and +3 to hit due to rune. So your second attack is still +1 over the cantrips to hit
Expecting Paizo to ret-con every existing cantrip seems pretty improbable no? Like you could make your own house rule if you want, but that is not really something that is happening backwards to existing cantrips, so it probably doesn't need another 2 pages of discussion over in a thread about where casters, and wizards specifically, are in relationship to game balance.
I think it is far more productive to look at what might be added, rather than changed whole sale. Which leads us back to a possible Item bonus to spell attack rolls, something which seems possible, but might also be somewhat of a trap option for casters because spell attack roll spells are pretty niche outside of cantrips, and spending magic weapon prices on cantrips is probably a bad idea.
I did also show off levels 1 and 5 in the earlier summary. They already factor in criticals.You did make a mistake there for the level 5 comparison.
The Wizard actually only has a +4 primary stat, +7 proficiency. That lowers average damage to 8.7 instead of 10.15
Level 5 is one of the low points for the caster, though, at a -3 to martial instead of the more typical -2.
I actually think these lower levels are where the majority of the issue come in since that is when casters will be relying on cantrips the most.
Edit: I'm just commenting on your analysis because it's one of the most useful things contributed to the thread. Thanks for posting it.
Oop, very good point, thanks. I was probably copying over previous numbers and forgot that I'd accidentally transferred the +1 item bonus as well.
Variable-action cantrips could potentially be printed in the future, too (though I expect Paizo might be careful about printing Cantrips, at least ones that are common).
So how we comparing a focus spell to cantrips to fighter attacks?
Or did you specifically do the thing I said I'm not talking about? That is doubling cantrip damage and allowing it to be one action.
The focus spell stuff is just confusing me just stick to the topic of cantrips and martial attacks maybe.
20d4+6= 26-86
Vs
4d4+3d6+14= 21-48x2= 42-96
10 more top end
16 more minimum.
Granted this discounts map. +Hit runes. Etc.
And MAP is what matters. You don't seem to understand that.
That second attack has a massive damage cut compared to the first (a little over half average damage).
Adding up straight damage numbers gets you nowhere.
keep in mind I said you could double the Dice of a cantrip and still do less damage than a fighter. Wich I proved. I did not say that's what paizo should do.
Rather they should give cantrips of the type universal action economy variables.
In other words let them be flexible enough to cast as one action/ two action/ three action.
But you lamenting over your -4 on your second attack despite you having+2 to hit innately and +3 to hit due to rune. So your second attack is still +1 over the cantrips to hit
Expecting Paizo to ret-con every existing cantrip seems pretty improbable no? Like you could make your own house rule if you want, but that is not really something that is happening backwards to existing cantrips, so it probably doesn't need another 2 pages of discussion over in a thread about where casters, and wizards specifically, are in relationship to game balance.
I think it is far more productive to look at what might be added, rather than changed whole sale. Which leads us back to a possible Item bonus to spell attack rolls, something which seems possible, but might also be somewhat of a trap option for casters because spell attack roll spells are pretty niche outside of cantrips, and spending magic weapon prices...
Advanced players guide variant rules will be a thing.
And a simple universal change to ac targeting attack cantrips would not be much to ask either.
Oh right dont forget the MAP penalty is mutable. A Flurry Ranger would only have a MAP of -2 (-4 on 3rd atk). Meanwhile, a Fighter just grabs Double Shot and get a trades a MAP of -5 for -2 on the first 2 attacks.
Notice how MAP is just an issue for Martials who dont bother lowering it. The equivalent of a Caster not bothering to target weak saves. But how can a Wizard get better with attack spells? Oh wait, they cant because that option doesnt exist.
Also, if a base 1-action strike is the equivalent to a base 2-action cantrip it means that martials deal twice cantrip damage on 2 strikes. They also have a higher crit chance (more attacks == more crits), which means more chances of dealing triple or quadruple cantrip damage.
Cyouni already factored that into his analysis. He didn't have the ranger make their third shot, which would actually be a more accurate comparison since those 3 attacks are 2 actions, but his model should hold up for the most part.
I'm still not convinced that's far enough behind the martials at ~38 to be that...I still think this entire comparison is a bit flawed and irrelevant but putting that aside for a moment:
Your own numbers show them doing less than half the damage of a fighter and like, two thirds of the damage of the ranger or rogue. I'm not sure how that reads as good.
The takeaway I get from your comparison is more like "Wow outwit rangers need help" more than "wow Wizard cantrip damage is good."
That's the 0 investment thing that they do literally all day, isn't nearly their main focus, doesn't cost 40000 gp, and has significantly higher versatility. What do you want out of it?
Should wizards be able to no-effort hit 80% of fighter's optimum?
And I think this is sort of the underlying issue. There really isn't a way to be a wizard and make blasting with your cantrips into your big gold and character defining shtick.
Which is probably good, because if the options existed, it would more likely be a trap than a must go route. Even with the ability to invest financial and character building resources towards being really good with cantrips, its not going to be a very effective character. Single damage striking potential is the niche of the martial characters.
Wizards cannot over specialize in being super great at x spell in PF2, like it was relatively easy to do in PF1. And the issue with it in PF1 was never damage output either, it was giving casters ways to turn save or suck spells into encounter/game winners.
I believe that it is an intention game design decision for damage spells to require targeting a major weakness, or overcoming a very difficult resistance or other defenses to be an optimal action. That is why magic missile is a far better spell than its damage output would lead many to believe, but damage spells themselves do not make for great character builds.
To make that easier to stomach, Casters...
methinks cantrip buffing is ideal terrain for an archetype specifically, also the 4e academy master.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, all I know is that form my GMing, casters throwing stuff at boss enemies pretty much always results in a succesful save, which sometimes still has some okay effect, but in their minds all they see is "All my spells failed, I wasted my slots."
Casters are new players to the hobby, I'm not gonna be like "It's still good because of all this math". I'd rather spells actually landed. Doesn't help that in AoA, most fights seem to be vs few or 1 big enemy.
Psychologically, I agree that it's more fun for ALL the classes players to be able to hit and have an appreciable effect. I think it would feel like a better game if the casters could actually hit or succeed at the save spells more often. Similarly, if the Fighter missed 75-80% of his attacks but still did a tiny bit of damage on a miss they too would feel something was wrong with the game's math system. Saying "Ok, you missed again this round, but you still did 2 points of damage, you are slowly whittling him down!" wouldn't help much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best condition to apply to an opponent is death, the second best is to dying. Kill fast someone is way better than any other strategy and fighters are way better to do this.Fighters have more actions per hounds, more accuracy per action and more damage per hit. Apart from the fact that fighters are simply a better class (AC, HP, proficiency, saves, etc).
I am honestly very happy that you find the fighter to be your favorite character. Be careful thinking that accuracy and damage are the only things your party needs to be able to do well. The game makes it very difficult to take out boss monsters quickly and having the whole team rush forward to melee slam the enemy can quickly turn into a TPK against the wrong monster.
Almost dead is not a condition of any significance in PF2 and leaving a boss monster with 3 actions to what they will with your character can be brutally devastating. We all know that real wars are won by the application of overwhelming force to an unprepared enemy, but PF2 is a game designed to make that tactic very difficult to pull off.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, a fighter needs all that. Thank the gods they finally get it and keep it throughout the game.
A Wizard can still fly, turn invisible, conjure bags of hit points and damage from thin air, travel the planes, stop time, and generally make reality their servant all on their own, yah?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that is what @Bluenose was saying that. They were saying that the best things wizards do are things other than damage:
"If the Fighter's successful attacks were doing much more than 'slowly whittling <the enemy> down' then it'd be a lot easier to justify high success rates for casters whose best effects are considerably more significant than a little attrition."
When the enemy does fail its save against a wizard, it is usually a much bigger deal than just damage. Especially with a solo boss (against whom, the odds of getting that failed save are much worse than the chance of the fighter hitting), it might not be the sexiest, or most exciting turn, but having one character consistently take away an action per turn from a boss is winning, even if it is coming on the boss succeeding at saving throws.
That is really the worst case scenario of caster effectiveness, and if 20-25% of the time durning boss fights, the monsters fails and loses more than a turn, it becomes an encounter that stands out in the party's memory. In that regard, the caster seems better off against bosses than every martial except maybe the fighter, who are usually struggling even to do a little bit of damage each round.
In my most recent combat, the fighter definitely did a ton of damage!
He also ended up wounded 2 vs the boss that had a propensity for critting.
A fighter’s success rate of inflicting death on a solo boss in two actions is 0% anyway. (Or as close to 0% as is possible anyway - perhaps there is a specific fighter build that can kill a specific boss in two actions if they crit two times in a row and proceed to roll perfect damage rolls)
So always cast slow because it is the best effect when you fail to do what you want and you will fail.
Fear, Stinking Cloud, Confusion, Command and Crushing Despair are all examples of crippling debuffs that aren't spell attacks, aren't incapacitation and and have equal or greater effects than slow for when you fail.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically spells with incapacitation do still work but basically higher level enemies get moved up one step for their saves. So their not the best but they are not useless.
Also don't go around saying such and such is worse then 4th edition cause we all know that is crap. (Like how I also said it like it was a statement of fact?)
So always cast slow because it is the best effect when you fail to do what you want and you will fail.Fear, Stinking Cloud, Confusion, Command and Crushing Despair are all examples of crippling debuffs that aren't spell attacks, aren't incapacitation and and have equal or greater effects than slow for when you fail.
...and spells like Magic Missile, Electric Arc, and other spells which do damage on successful saves are potent damage options against bosses that are particularly hard to hit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slow is a great one, but there are many others as well. Oftentimes the best option will be dependent upon matching it to the right target. Blindness can disrupt an enemy’s entire turn on a successful save for example, and ray of enfeeblement can pretty much knock a level off many enemies for a full minute, on a save.
I think a big part of the issue is how engrained we are in thinking of actions as either success or failures, and many aspects of PF2 are structured that way, but magic in PF2 is the one place where more than 2 options are frequently possible, and that is a strength of the PF2 magic system, not a weakness.
I get that it is frustrating when less creatures as a whole fail their saves than in PF1, but, having played a lot of PF1 casters, and playing one PF2 caster now, I appreciate how much more nuanced and diverse spell options are, even with the more limited selection of spells that have been released in PF2 so far. Using greater possession to take over the body of the Boss monster’s top body guard was cool, but the fact I had an 85% chance of that working on the first try and that it was essentially an encounter buster for the GM, was pretty deflating to the entire campaign. It’s not really much of a game at that point as it was my wizard just writing the story of every encounter for the whole party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know the best tactic, but it's just awful.
Forgetting any spell with incapacitation flag and spell attack are also worthless.
incapacitation flag, they only work on normal mob with high sloth, which is for anyone who understands something about any game, a bad trade.
With spell attack your accuracy is even more horrible and usually there are no conditions when it fails and remember we are always betting that you will fail because that is literally what propability says.
So always cast slow because it is the best effect when you fail to do what you want and you will fail.
pf2's magic system is actually worse than dnd 4e. That's the truth.
True Strike kind of trivializes spell attacks and double your critical chances.
Also, being able to target AC is always valuable. It allows you to choose spell attacks against a very low AC opponent.And casters getting to legendary only end up 1 point behind martials when it comes to hitting. I don't find that awfully low.
Incapacitation spells are far away from useless. They are the most potent spells, able to remove an opponent from the fight in one failed save. My Sorcerer will always have a highest level incapacitation spell for when I "absolutely need to get rid of this guy over there". Sometimes, it's not the big guy that causes problem, it's the mook.
He was talking about slow being the best spell to throw when you're almost sure the enemy will pass the save (bosses) and you're talking about failure effects I assume because command doesn't do anything when the enemy succeeds.So always cast slow because it is the best effect when you fail to do what you want and you will fail.Fear, Stinking Cloud, Confusion, Command and Crushing Despair are all examples of crippling debuffs that aren't spell attacks, aren't incapacitation and and have equal or greater effects than slow for when you fail.
You're correct, I misread command - it hasn't been used in any of my games yet. What I said is true for all the other spells I listed, however. The list isn't exhaustive though - I'm sure there are ever more debuffs that meet the criteria, I didn't even list Synesthesia which is probably one of the best use of 2 actions at that stage of the game.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a lot of the griping about Incapacitation spells comes down to misreading of the trait. It only kicks in when you're facing enemies more than double the level of the spell and it just slides a save up by one degree. It isn't an automatic critical success and majority of the 24 incapacitation spells have an effect on a success.
Hell, in 1e you wouldn't even be casting some of these spells after a certain level without applying a bunch of debuffs because the dc would be too low. At least now you can Color Spray till your heart's content.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you aid the part by wiping out all the minions, so others can focus on the larger threat (which you likely damaged too), or you debuff the boss so that everyone can more effectively deal with the larger threat.
I'm failing to see how this is anything other than win win.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what do people want? For the wizard to be capable of doing all the interesting debuffing/buffing/battlefield control that they can do in PF2, but also be able instead to choose damage spells and keep up with martial characters as primary strikers?
In my mind that is just suiting up to travel back down the road of making wizards/casters tier 1 classes that can change between being masters of combat or masters of exploration or masters of social interaction with a single nights rest.
Keep in mind, a wizard can already have a level 1 spell known slot go to magic missile and have the most reliable damage spell in the game available to them any day they want, at whatever spell level they want to heighten it to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what do people want? For the wizard to be capable of doing all the interesting debuffing/buffing/battlefield control that they can do in PF2, but also be able instead to choose damage spells and keep up with martial characters as primary strikers?
In my mind that is just suiting up to travel back down the road of making wizards/casters tier 1 classes that can change between being masters of combat or masters of exploration or masters of social interaction with a single nights rest.
Keep in mind, a wizard can already have a level 1 spell known slot go to magic missile and have the most reliable damage spell in the game available to them any day they want, at whatever spell level they want to heighten it to.
Being able to effectively fight Mooks and Bosses regardless of your specialization would be a step up. There has to be some good single-target damage spells (Disintegrate is NOT one of them) to use vs them.
Other chars function just fine. It's not like fighter can't oneshot those mooks for no resources and they depend on your fireball.
Can't be afraid of making classes be good and fun to play, not even if you desire "revenge". The worst you can get is PF1, that I like to believe was a succesful game (and we're not going back to that for 10 reasons). But ideally you get closer to the 5E balance sweetspot.