| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, running away from a wizard after they shoot someone with a lightning bolt wouldn't be too strange - though an enemy who would do so is probably pretty outmatched by the party. Running away from a flaming sphere definitely isn't out of the question, but there isn't anything about the spell that makes it particularly suited for battlefield control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, running away from a wizard after they shoot someone with a lightning bolt wouldn't be too strange - though an enemy who would do so is probably pretty outmatched by the party. Running away from a flaming sphere definitely isn't out of the question, but there isn't anything about the spell that makes it particularly suited for battlefield control.
Yeah, that's fair and sort of my point. Running away from a wizard because wizards are scary and you weren't expecting to fight one is reasonable.
But calling out flaming sphere specifically over any other damage dealing spell as a reason to run away from a wizard feels arbitrary.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside to everything discussed thus far; at current rate of growth, in under 6 weeks this thread will have more comments than the rest of the General Discussion section combined.
If nothing else, I'm sure we can all agree that the state of Wizards is divisive and probably due a little extra attention from Paizo in future releases.
|
Where did I say that?
Creatures also have move to avoid the sphere if they do not want to make the save, leading to actions lost and control of the battlefield via clever placement.I'm not sure most creatures are really going to bother. 30-foot range is too big for any melee or close range enemies to be in a situation where it's worth the effort to try to avoid the sphere and the fact that long-range combatants can just stand far away from it and you can't reach them is a downside, not an upside.
If I am standing closer to a bon fire than I am comfortable with, I'm going to move the hell away.Good to know I guess? Not really relevant here though. Flaming Sphere isn't a bonfire. It doesn't even do anything until the Wizard throws energy into sustaining it the next round.
This read to me like the character doesn’t care they’re getting burned alive.
That doesn't mean people WANT to be hit by a flaming sphere, but it's incredibly arbitraty to have an enemy be apparently okay standing in lightning bolt range but as soon as the flaming sphere comes out they run for their lives.
You can kill the Wizard. You can’t really punch the giant ball of fire.
I mean, it literally can't hurt you when it's just sitting there.
I’d say if you moved through it you’d take damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside to everything discussed thus far; at current rate of growth, in under 6 weeks this thread will have more comments than the rest of the General Discussion section combined.
If nothing else, I'm sure we can all agree that the state of Wizards is divisive and probably due a little extra attention from Paizo in future releases.
Many, if not the majority, of the arguments that are thrown around in here, apply to casters in general, so there seem to be two different populations in here airing their grievances:
- Those who have problems with the wizard
- Those who have problems with spells and spellcasting
I'm actually not convinced that wizards specifically need that much of a change when compared to the other casters and the people who are not happy with casters in general probably won't be appeased by additional material unless they are looking for small fixes, like more 1 action spells.
The way I interpret flaming sphere in the game world is like a smallish burning ball that flares up whenever the caster sustains the spell. Obviously all of that is fluff but having the sphere constantly have a diameter of 5 feet isn't consistent with how it functions. (In a recent one-shot I refluffed it to be a flying, burning axe instead since the caster was playing a barbarian-esque wilderness shaman)
This read to me like the character doesn’t care they’re getting burned alive.
They're obviously not literally going to stand inside the flaming sphere. A 5x5 foot square is quite big so it isn't unreasonable for a character to share a space with a flaming sphere depending on the size of it.
You can kill the Wizard. You can’t really punch the giant ball of fire.
If you run away from the ball of fire, you won't be able to punch the Wizard either. You can't punch a lightning bolt either but that doesn't mean every creature will run away from a 5th level wizard.
I’d say if you moved through it you’d take damage.
That's a houserule - absolutely fine to use at your table but doesn't really apply to the broader conversation about casters and the power of flaming sphere.
|
|
As an aside to everything discussed thus far; at current rate of growth, in under 6 weeks this thread will have more comments than the rest of the General Discussion section combined.
If nothing else, I'm sure we can all agree that the state of Wizards is divisive and probably due a little extra attention from Paizo in future releases.
Many, if not the majority, of the arguments that are thrown around in here, apply to casters in general, so there seem to be two different populations in here airing their grievances:
- Those who have problems with the wizard
- Those who have problems with spells and spellcasting
I'm actually not convinced that wizards specifically need that much of a change when compared to the other casters and the people who are not happy with casters in general probably won't be appeased by additional material unless they are looking for small fixes, like more 1 action spells.
True, I'm guilty of rolling issues with caster in general into Wizard issues as a whole.
Its an understandable slip though, since issues with casters in general effect all Wizards, even though issues with Wizard won't effect all casters.
Either way, a way tweaks here and there are needed!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is very reasonable to ask fo what you want to see more of in the future, especially since the developers consistently tell us to do that when they appear on the twitch stream, but it is also very reasonable and healthy for the game for people to raise concerns they have with other people’s suggestions if they feel like it would have a negative impact on the game.
A lot of people want more one action spell options. With spell slots I think this is very feasible, and we are likely to see it very soon with the gods and magic book dropping this month.
With cantrips, we already have some 1 action cantrips, so again possible, but they are not attack cantrips so expectations should be incredibly limited. I am playing a harm cleric right now (someone else wanted to be the wizard), and the ability to nova harm spells, even at first level is very powerful, as I got to see in my game last night, when all the cards for making that work lined up perfectly for my character. It is important that is a limited resource. A one action attack cantrip would definitely need to have the attack trait and probably do so little damage that many of its advocates will not feel like it is worth the time, like 1d4 damage with no attribute modifier at melee range.
About flaming sphere and the effectiveness of many spells at doing more than a specific set of mechanical effects, it is definitely something that is going to vary by table, and has throughout the history of RPGs. Do people in game generally know what a spell is, how it works mechanically and how powerful it is? Players certainly act as if they do, maybe rightfully, maybe frustratingly, depending on one’s position at the table. Trying to legislate that from outside each groups game and ability to communicate about rules expectations is probably a hopeless battle. At some tables flaming sphere is an amazing battle field control spell and at others not so much. The same could be said of 1E silent image spell.
Luckily, there are enough spells right now that we don’t need 1 of them to be every caster’s go to spell for feeling worthwhile. In fact the game is much better when the discussion of best spell is a hotly contested argument that people feel passionately about.
Certainly dynamic and interesting sustain spells are one possible way for casters to get a spell on the battle field that then gives them interesting options for things that can be done with one action. A lot of people seem reluctant to embrace that as their one action spell solution because the opportunity cost of having to take more than 1 action to cast it feels high, and they feel like their free, extra action toys spells from PF1 have all been taken away. Which is true. They have been taken away. But if you don’t see the balancing of action economy as a positive thing for the game, you are probably not going to enjoy PF2 no matter how many new spells come out.
There are some gold standards of spells right now at each level and some head scratchers that might one day be errata’d to make more sense or fall by the eventual wayside of spells people do not choose. Even more than skill feats, it is almost impossible to balance spells to ensure that no situational trap options ever develop, because there will be so many of them published, and because they interact so delectably with SO many aspects of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
Just an FYI the reason I said it was battle field control was because it allows you to semi-actively block off a square as opposed to a Wall of Flame which has a bigger areas but is immobile (therefore passive).
Flaming Sphere doesn't work like Wall of Fire at all. If you pass through a Wall of Fire you take damage; that isn't true of Flaming Sphere, which only damages after Casting a Spell or Sustaining.
On the other hand, you can move it a large distance, as long as it stays within 30 ft. of the caster.
Just an FYI the reason I said it was battle field control was because it allows you to semi-actively block off a square as opposed to a Wall of Flame which has a bigger areas but is immobile (therefore passive).Flaming Sphere doesn't work like Wall of Fire at all. If you pass through a Wall of Fire you take damage; that isn't true of Flaming Sphere, which only damages after Casting a Spell or Sustaining.
On the other hand, you can move it a large distance, as long as it stays within 30 ft. of the caster.
Not wanting to end my turn within 30 feet of an enemy wizard for fear of getting zapped by two or three flaming spheres strikes me as pretty good battlefield control on the wizard's part.
Charging into that situation would be like charging a machine gun nest. Best to go around unless you have overwhelming force, stealth, or no other choice.
Not wanting to end my turn within 30 feet of an enemy wizard for fear of getting zapped by two or three flaming spheres strikes me as pretty good battlefield control on the wizard's part.
Charging into that situation would be like charging a machine gun nest. Best to go around unless you have overwhelming force, stealth, or no other choice.
If we're talking about multiple flaming spheres, then I 100% agree. Not only has the burst damage potential reached fatal levels, keeping your distance means the wizard needs to spend actions walking up to you and not blasting you with fire spheres.
|
The way magic is balanced in this edition will probably be contentious for years to come. As it stands, everything is tied into the 4 degrees of success and monster weakness system. We could either get scaling dcs with lower damage die that can be doubled on a crit fail or locked in trivial dcs with increasing damage die that deal partial damage on a save.
I never play blaster casters so I don't really feel the loss of high damage die. Was the prior tactic really to open fire on the boss and eradicate them without any debuffs?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way magic is balanced in this edition will probably be contentious for years to come.
So far, I've only seen it being contentious on these boards, so I guess I would rephrase it to: "The way is balanced in this edition will probably be problematic for certain former PF1 players for years to come."
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way magic is balanced in this edition will probably be contentious for years to come.So far, I've only seen it being contentious on these boards
Oh sweet summer child.
Also, there seems to be a growing theme of gate-keeping going on in here. Lets knock that on the head, it doesn't help anyone!
The game needs wall spells and field control spells.
The game has wall spells already: Wall of Wind, Wall of Fire, Wall of Stone, Wall of Ice, Chromatic Wall, Wall of Force, Prismatic Wall.
That said, wall spells are awesome and I would love to get more. More field control spells are also extremely welcome, especially at level 1 where all we have is Grease and Gust of Wind.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great news! The game has wall spells and battlefield control spells, and a bunch of spells that let you do creative things. Illusions just might be exactly what you are looking for, and they are usable without having huge arguments with your GM because no one is sure how they are supposed to work before you try to cast one.
And damage spells absolutely work in PF2. They even buffed the damage from the playtest to the final ruleset. Most of the people who seem to have actual play experience with casters are not making grand arguments about the casting situation, they are making these specific arguements:
Issue 1. Spell attack roll spells are often underwhelming in play because they are difficult to get off and don't do anything on a miss.
I generally agree with this and don't really think an item bonus to spell attack rolls is going to fix the problem, because the spells will still fail to connect enough to make play feel off. I almost wonder of the best solution to this problem is a feat or item that allows you to no lose a spell slot when a spell with a spell attack roll misses. It would still be a waste of a turn, but at least you are not watching your resources dwindle for half effects? Maybe combining that with an item that allows cantrip attack roll spells an item bonus would balance everything out without over powering casters?
Issue 2. There is a optics/gameplay where some players are left feeling like their characters are not as effect if their spells are being saved against/ only doing half damage.
This one is a much more contentious and difficult issue to address. The more certain you are to get your spells off with a success or better, the less powerful the effects of those spells are going to be on a success. Probably, in the early development stage, it could have happened by pushing even more of the better effects into the critical success range, and basically getting rid of effects on a failure, but that just feels like a boring rehashing of how spells in PF1 worked, and it makes the spells less dynamically interesting. Maybe it is just me, but after playing with the spells now, I basically feel the exact opposite from this position now. I want a lot of spells that do cool things on success, amazing things on critical success, and minorly useful things when they fail to go my way. And I am perfectly happy that the trade off for the awesome stuff on a crit, and good stuff on a success is that my spells are going to fail to go off successfully more often than in PF1. Because...
The basic design principle of PF2 is to greatly increase the balance of defenses and offenses so that the roll of the dice matters more than it did in PF1. Issue number 2 is not really limited to casters. All martials not fighters feel this too, and for players that hate the general swingy-ness of PF2, there is still the Fighter class, and the wizard who buffs and utilizes spells like magic missile to always contribute to every fight.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And issue 3: Casters have less spells available to them per day.
But I think most the die hard folks arguing this point have decided to keep playing PF1/left PF2 because that design decision clearly sits at the heart of bringing casters down from the peaks they sat upon in PF1 and isn't really going to change in any significant way in the life cycle of this edition.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unicore pretty well describes my in play issues with wizard which you can find in either this topic or others in the forum.
I'm less concerned with issue three *except* for how it plays into the system designed to have a roughly 50% failure rate. For myself this is mostly an optics issue as fairly consistent failure doesn't feel great and, to be quite honest, I absolutely do not see 50% success as anything remotely approaching acceptable performance for a specialist.
As for the intentional importance of die rolls - it's only fun when you don't have to stop adventuring for the day because of it. If I'm playing a martial character I'm sad when I get consecutive misses. If I'm playing a primary spell caster I'm asking the party to stop for the day if I'm out of spell slots and have any sort of indication that anything difficult is still ahead as a series of poor attack rolls or lucky saves means that I'm out of my primary contribution to the party. Yes, there are cantrips but while they're great filler between rounds they're a terribly unfun option to be the only thing you have left.
Personally, I'd like to see more interesting class feat options for Wizard (comparing Bard and Wizard class feats was a real eye opener for what could be done), and at least some sort of adjustment to success rates for per day spells as I feel that limited resources should have more reliable success rates than unlimited resources. And yes, there's a difference between "reliable" and "guaranteed" before we start assuming that I just want automatic success.
Personally, I'd like to see more interesting class feat options for Wizard (comparing Bard and Wizard class feats was a real eye opener for what could be done), and at least some sort of adjustment to success rates for per day spells as I feel that limited resources should have more reliable success rates than unlimited resources. And yes, there's a difference between "reliable" and "guaranteed" before we start assuming that I just want automatic success.
I have my fingers crossed that they've cannibalized the old arcanist for new wizard feats in the APG.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that limited resources should have more reliable success rates than unlimited resources. And yes, there's a difference between "reliable" and "guaranteed" before we start assuming that I just want automatic success.
This. Some people will argue it's already true because the pity effect on a lot of spells can be technically considered a "success", but that's not what my players are feeling. If your spell was saved against/missed, you failed as far as their perception is concerned, and you only get a few tries. Call it "perception" or "opinion not supported by the math", but fun is the only thing that really matters for these games, game balance being subordinate to it.
People really disliked failing spells in PF1 (or any edition of D&D), but it wasn't a very common occurrence unless they targeted a very good save.
Would be some work to figure out which is more "satisfying":
- Spells are worthless on a miss, but hit 70%+ of the time for something strong .
OR
- Spells almost always do something with up to 3 possible effects, but the good ones are less than 50%.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would be some work to figure out which is more "satisfying":
- Spells are worthless on a miss, but hit 70%+ of the time for something strong .
OR
- Spells almost always do something with up to 3 possible effects, but the good ones are less than 50%.
Obviously this comes down to personal taste, but the new system has been much preferred at my table. Spells that did nothing on a save were very demoralizing in 1E, I didn't like how swingy it was.
Would be some work to figure out which is more "satisfying":
- Spells are worthless on a miss, but hit 70%+ of the time for something strong .
OR
- Spells almost always do something with up to 3 possible effects, but the good ones are less than 50%.
I feel like this is part of what the playtest was attempting to figure out. But I guess the larger test run of this is going to be 2E's run as a system.
Obviously this comes down to personal taste, but the new system has been much preferred at my table.
This has been my experience too. Save-granting spells are super reliable and that's really satisfying. Having something like an 90% chance for your spell to work is really nice, even if that 90% is split between 5% great/40% good/45% okay.
This is, incidentally, why I really don't like spells that target AC as they're balanced right now, because they don't have failure effects so they feel very coin flippy. Heads you get something, tails you throw your spell slot and the round in the bin.
I definitely wouldn't want more spells to feel like how Polar Ray feels to cast right now, even if they were slightly more accurate to compensate.
|
|
Obviously this comes down to personal taste, but the new system has been much preferred at my table.This has been my experience too. Save-granting spells are super reliable and that's really satisfying. Having something like an 90% chance for your spell to work is really nice, even if that 90% is split between 5% great/40% good/45% okay.
This is, incidentally, why I really don't like spells that target AC as they're balanced right now, because they don't have failure effects so they feel very coin flippy. Heads you get something, tails you throw your spell slot and the round in the bin.
I definitely wouldn't want more spells to feel like how Polar Ray feels to cast right now, even if they were slightly more accurate to compensate.
I agree with this sentiment. I just played a session of Ruins of Azlant where none of my spells landed against the boss and I got knocked out. It was extremely demoralizing.
It would be nice to have some sort of focusing wand equivalent to a martial's rune to give a bonus to spell attack rolls but I guess that's what True Strike is basically supposed to be.
I don't understand the thought process that went into writing the spell Polar Ray. It is an extremely good example of a trap spell that will draw some attention by folks who feel it fits a thematic idea of their character. Disintegrate at least offers you so much potential damage and interesting things that could happen if you crit that, with true strike, I can see the appeal. But Polar Ray looks like they had an extra inch and a half on the page and just threw in a throw away spell there. It doesn't even have a crit effect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the thought process that went into writing the spell Polar Ray.
Yeah, I am so confused by that spell in particular. Spell attacks is probably the weakest aspect of casters right now, and Polar Ray is just bizarre.
At spell level 8 you could cast Horrid Wilting on every single creature on a fairly large battlefield, which has a good chance of killing several mooks while also dealing respectable damage to the boss. If there happen to be any water or plant creatures they are instantly toast.
...or you could cast Polar Ray, and maybe deal some damage to a guy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the thought process that went into writing the spell Polar Ray. It is an extremely good example of a trap spell that will draw some attention by folks who feel it fits a thematic idea of their character. Disintegrate at least offers you so much potential damage and interesting things that could happen if you crit that, with true strike, I can see the appeal. But Polar Ray looks like they had an extra inch and a half on the page and just threw in a throw away spell there. It doesn't even have a crit effect.
But to me this feels like a problem with a lot of spells and a lot of sorcerer and wizard feats. They were rushed to meet a deadline so these things got less attention than perhaps they deserved. Doesn't mean there are some good ones but there are a lot of 'but why?' spells. I think they needed perhaps another month on reviewing spells and really testing them.
I would rather True Strike not buff spells than to feel like it is mandatory to make attack roll spells worth it. Having to use a limited resource to make another limited resource a competitive option is a trap and not a great gaming experience regardless of how practical it was.
I feel this is particularly the case with Wizard feats more so than pretty much any other class. Wizard feats have no real ability to specialise. An illusionist is as good as evocation spells as an evoker or a generalist and I think that is the problem. Wizards all play much the same, feel rather similar. The only thing that differentiates an evoker for a necromancer is 1 focus spell (2 if I take a feat for the second) and that is literally all my options.
I would rather a school specialisation metamagic feat where I could spend an action to increase the DC to save against the next spell I cast from that school. But as of right now wizard feats do little to differentiate 1 wizard from another other than 1 per day utility for the most part.
I feel sorcerer feats could do with a lot of work as well. Bards and druids feel like they have a lot of good options to differentiate or specialise but wizards and sorcerers not so much and I think that is part of the problem.
This thread really needs to be 3 threads. Class design for wizards, magic balance and save DCs, and good and bad spell choices. Why we are having a debate about Flaming Sphere in this thread is odd.
I do feel like a lot of Polar Ray's power budget went into inflicting Drained, which is why it's so lackluster otherwise. Against a level 15 enemy, its average damage (45+30 = 75) does outdamage Horrid Wilting (10d10 = 55) by a good amount, but the chance of missing plus the fact that it's single target makes it incredibly leery. (Side note, it does do around the same as an 8th-level disintegrate, which is 77.)
Even though it inflicts Drained 2, I'm not sure it's worth the cost. To be fair, the only experience I've had with it was during the TPK playtest, where it utterly destroyed my character.
And issue 3: Casters have less spells available to them per day.
But I think most the die hard folks arguing this point have decided to keep playing PF1/left PF2 because that design decision clearly sits at the heart of bringing casters down from the peaks they sat upon in PF1 and isn't really going to change in any significant way in the life cycle of this edition.
You forget scrolls. Since Starfinder, scrolls are there to complement your spell list. In Starfinder, I don't hesitate to bring 2 to 3 times my spell list in scrolls (well, the highest level spells, actually). If you bring the good amount of scrolls, you can push adventuring day to the limits, as you always have a backup if you face a last unexpected and deadly fight.
In PF2, most casters don't have anything to buy but scrolls. And even those who can wear armors can easily live with a lower level one as they are not supposed to be that much targeted (at least their AC, the save bonus is a bit more important).People tend to consider that consumable items are a bad investment. I don't know if they will ever change their mind. But I'm sure all my casters will have a bunch of scrolls with them for the times of need. Actually, I'm expecting to spend most of my money on them as there's not much important items you can buy anyway if you are a robe caster.
As well as scrolls, wands.
Investing in a few good wands for clutch spells will come out ahead of scrolls.
I favour scrolls for niche spells (stuff like see invisibility or earthbind which won't be relevant all the time) and wands for staples like heal and fly.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You forget scrolls. Since Starfinder, scrolls are there to complement your spell list. In Starfinder, I don't hesitate to bring 2 to 3 times my spell list in scrolls (well, the highest level spells, actually). If you bring the good amount of scrolls, you can push adventuring day to the limits, as you always have a backup if you face a last unexpected and deadly fight.
In PF2, most casters don't have anything to buy but scrolls. And even those who can wear armors can easily live with a lower level one as they are not supposed to be that much targeted (at least their AC, the save bonus is a bit more important).People tend to consider that consumable items are a bad investment. I don't know if they will ever change their mind. But I'm sure all my casters will have a bunch of scrolls with them for the times of need. Actually, I'm expecting to spend most of my money on them as there's not much important items you can buy anyway if you are a robe caster.
First of all, there is a huge number of permanent items to buy for purely mechanical reasons, and not to mention roleplay reasons.
Personally, I hate consumeable items. I always want to save them for more important time, and I just don't like wasting my permanent resources on something that goes away.
Especially if you're playing a long term campaign, this also means that your base wealth is diminishing on average compared to other group members, or if the scrolls are bought by the group, that basically means the groups is spending additional money to make the Wizard viable.
If Paizo wanted to make Wizards, or any casters, scroll-dependant, they should've approached it as Alchemist and allowed free daily creations (and they did that, with a Wizard feat).
In general, I dislike the idea of spending large amount of resources on regularly used consumeables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character should not need to depend on consumables except in case of emergency. Consumables should serve the role of, "oh I cant use this so let me buy it in case I need it: Not, "unless I buy a bunch of these (waste money) I'm hurting my friends (being barely useful sometimes)".
Don't forget Scroll aren't new, and they correctly served this role in previous editions.
* P.S. One of the many caster archetypes is the guy who buys/crafts a bunch of tools and magic items for quirky effects, which is different from a caster buying/crafting scrolls to always have a useful spell.
Counterpoint: Consumable items could be part of the intentional design math around how they expect casters to cope with having fewer baked-in spell resources.
You may not *like* that design but there is nothing intrinsically bad about it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You may not *like* that design but there is nothing intrinsically bad about it.
Not sure I agree here. It further nails down the character thematically by tying them to certain assumptions about how they spend their money. If 'wizard with lots of scrolls' is your concept, it's no big deal, but if it isn't you're in trouble.
Mechanically, it creates a further stumbling block for gishes and any other character who's incentivized to spend their money on something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like scrolls, but they take several days to craft now, and come in batches (probably don't need 4x comprehend languages). In PF1 it was pretty viable to try and push out a cheap scroll every day but now it's a pretty big commitment so you can't just carry a healthy amount of them on every adventure, depending on the campaign and downtime.
Not to mention you can't do it until at least level 3 or 4, so they are not as available during the levels where you have less spell slots.
Would be nice to replace that errata'd out level 1 wizard feat for a new version of "Scribe Scroll" like in PF1.
And issue 3: Casters have less spells available to them per day.
But I think most the die hard folks arguing this point have decided to keep playing PF1/left PF2 because that design decision clearly sits at the heart of bringing casters down from the peaks they sat upon in PF1 and isn't really going to change in any significant way in the life cycle of this edition.
You forget scrolls. Since Starfinder, scrolls are there to complement your spell list. In Starfinder, I don't hesitate to bring 2 to 3 times my spell list in scrolls (well, the highest level spells, actually). If you bring the good amount of scrolls, you can push adventuring day to the limits, as you always have a backup if you face a last unexpected and deadly fight.
In PF2, most casters don't have anything to buy but scrolls. And even those who can wear armors can easily live with a lower level one as they are not supposed to be that much targeted (at least their AC, the save bonus is a bit more important).People tend to consider that consumable items are a bad investment. I don't know if they will ever change their mind. But I'm sure all my casters will have a bunch of scrolls with them for the times of need. Actually, I'm expecting to spend most of my money on them as there's not much important items you can buy anyway if you are a robe caster.
I mean, this was even more true in PF1, so I don't think it changes much about how people perceive the wizard. PF1 wizards would have every level 1 and level 2 spell worth casting on a scroll for barely any of their total resources. Scrolls and wands were made better as far as being able to cast spells at full power, but I think the root frustration of Casters having less spells is that lower level spells become trickier to use as effectively and it is necessary for all casters to change their tactics as they level up.
Just like in PF1, you do want to be careful not to invest your own resources into making scrolls and especially wands of offensive spells , or at least plan on using them immediately, because hoarding them becomes increasingly meaningless as you level up. The other issue being that consumables were made significantly more expensive to make, so folks like @NemoNoname, who cringe at using wealth on anything not permanent (which is a lot of players for sure) are going to be extra hesitant to spend resources on them.
Overall, I'd argue that items in PF2 do not make extra spells more accessible than in PF1, which is were most of the negative sentiment is coming from: adding it all together, PF2 casters certainly have less spells, and less level appropriate combat options, than in PF1.
Whether this strikes you as a good thing or a bad thing is the actual point of contention. Personally, I think it was a necessary step in making casters a more balanced class.
I also think the limited casting plays a bigger role than is being acknowledged in defining spell caster (and especially wizard) specialization. Sure I could be an illusionist and cast fireball at the same DC as an evoker, if our attributes are the same, but if I have it memorized, it means that I have committed a lot more of my daily resources to having that spell prepared at my highest level than an evoker, because they have a free slot for an evocation at that level. In PF1 who really cares? with attributes giving you bonus spells per level and especially damage spells improving with caster level more so than spell level, you had so many spells that one extra really didn't mean much. But if my illusionist is 5th level and memorizing a fireball, that is a much more defining factor of your character than it used to be.
I think this thread as a whole is going to experience a new life when the gods and magic book drops and we can see what kinds of future content for spell casters will continue to be developed. I don't think wizards will see much as far as any development except new spells, and maybe items, but it might lay the ground work for whether existing domains will get substitution focus spells or (more likely, from having watched the twitch stream), if PF1 variant schools will emerge as their own thing, so that being a shadow wizard would be a separate thing from being an illusionist.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Counterpoint: Consumable items could be part of the intentional design math around how they expect casters to cope with having fewer baked-in spell resources.You may not *like* that design but there is nothing intrinsically bad about it.
Kind of like how martials are expected to buy and re-buy their consumable magical shields now?
Yeah, that could just be a PF2 dev's design choices, but it doesn't match most player's game expectations in my experience. Players are like dragons, hording their treasures, only using something up if it is truly necessary or it is easily replaceable.
Counterpoint: Consumable items could be part of the intentional design math around how they expect casters to cope with having fewer baked-in spell resources.You may not *like* that design but there is nothing intrinsically bad about it.
Kind of like how martials are expected to buy and re-buy their consumable magical shields now?
Yeah, that could just be a PF2 dev's design choices, but it doesn't match most player's game expectations in my experience. Players are like dragons, hording their treasures, only using something up if it is truly necessary or it is easily replaceable.
And that is a behavior taught by the d20 system. Just takes intentional effort and openness to alter your mindset to a largely different core system.
PF2 casters certainly have less spells, and less level appropriate combat options, than in PF1.
Not sure I agree about less level appropriate combat options. If I have a good combat ready focus spell (which admittedly is a big if) I effectively get an extra 3-5 castings of stuff per day. Low level debuffs are more relevant than ever with auto scaling DCs and of course, cantrips as a bottomless fallback option. Longevity is one of the areas where PF2 wins pretty clearly from actual play experience. The only time it really feels like an issue is at very low levels, but that was where it felt the worst in PF1 too.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that is a behavior taught by the d20 system. Just takes intentional effort and openness to alter your mindset to a largely different core system.
Well, like I said, the "dragon"/PCs either need to believe it is truly necessary, or the GMs can make them easily replaceable. If the magical treasures are not easily replaced, then it's not going to be very easy to change a lifetime of ingrained playstyle. And this stretches much further back than the d20 era... back in the old days of BECMI, AD&D 1e/2e, there was not yet a culture of "every town has a magic shop to buy/sell/restock in". We generally had to hope we found the magical items we needed by adventuring. That actually became easier with the d20 era, but it didn't change most ingrained character behavior IMO.
I don't think 2E is built to handle players frequently losing their shields, but I guess that's a topic for another thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I answer everyone without taking the proper quotes, as the quoting system of this forum is annoying:
Martials are expected to spend money on magic weapons, so why casters could not be expected to spend money on magic scrolls? Casters have more money if you don't buy consumables, and nothing to spend them on.
Wands are bad for offensive spells. They come online to late, costs a fortune, and get useless very quickly. You'll get better milage out of a bunch of scrolls than out of a wand of offensive spell.
Scrolls in PF1 were only for utility spells. The DC 14 Scroll of Fireball that costs a fortune, no one ever bought it. In PF2, scrolls are cheaper (as a few levels later, the cost becomes negligeable) and are cast with all your casting attributes.
From personal experience in Starfinder, a caster with the proper amount of scrolls casts nearly twice more spells than a caster without any scroll. Because you don't have to care about expending your whole spell list, you cast more of your own spells, and that contribute a lot to your amount of spells cast per day.
And the gain in power for having scrolls is matched by no item. When you try it, you buy it, as it's really increasing your spellpower by a big margin.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both the Wand of Manifold Missiles and the Wand of Smoldering Fireballs look worth buying. The kickers on them are quite good.
Staves with shifting runes on them to wear as a glove are worth buying, of course. You probably want 1 of those for each hand.
There you go, permanent items to spend money on.