Did wizards get nerfed?

[Temperans]

Who said anything about boosting cantrips? Which by the way, scale worse than martial atks.

Being versatile when properly prepared is the point of casters (specially prepared casters). A caster is only as versatile as the spells they have prepared, and for every attack spell prepared it means less utility or control. That wizard who prepared Polar Ray 2 times, has only 2 spots for utility or control. But as it stands few Wizards if any would take Polar Ray, it just takes too many resources for too little benefit. And as it stands every attack spell is the same; You have two spend 2 spell slots to make 1 spell work less than an equal level spell. Without looking even looking at martials, spells attack spells are just overall worse than all other spells.

Also right the casters who can cast their best ability aprox. 4 times a day dont run out of it. They can use those all day no questions asked. Oh wait, if you spend every spell level (not counting cantrips) on a 1st level spell you only get about 38 uses; Meanwhile, they only get ~2 uses of their lv 10 spells. How many times can martials use their level 19-20 abilities? Oh wait they have no limits.

So a caster can have 38 uses of their weakest spells (with the appropriate scalling) and their effect often fail or dont work: While martials can have infinite uses (with max scaling) and their effects often succeed or even have a decent chance to crit succeed.

****************
I am all for better martials with great end game abilities. But that should have no effect on mages being able to do their thing.

I personally always felt that people who wanted to keep martials with weak abilities and instead nerf casters to the ground were doing a disservice to the game. There was never a reason to limit martials, and yet to now hear arguments that spell attacks spells are justified to be weaker makes me unbelievably sad.

[gnoams]

Lycar wrote:

Let be brutally clear here: The martial classes can do one thing. One. Thing. And that is inflict HP damage to enemies...

We appear to be playing very different games. I suppose it is possible to build a character that can only do damage. It was something I would see occasionally in first edition with inexperienced players playing fighters in the early days when there wasn't many options. These days every character has lots of ways to contribute besides whack it with stick. Second edition even more so due to skills no longer being tied to class and all the skill feats that give you extraordinary abilities. Abilities have become more diverse too with non-spellcasters being able to do things like turn into a dragon, speak with animals, or stomp so hard they create an earthquake (not to mention the myriad ways for martials to learn spells). In my experience however, having impact on the narrative has very little to do with character abilities and everything to do with player roleplaying.

That being said, yes wizards and spellcasters in general, got nerfed badly. I do feel this was an overreaction to popular complaints about martial caster disparity in previous editions (personally I never saw this as an issue). I am very disappointed at how magic was implemented for pf2. The interaction with the 3 action economy was an awful decision, effectively leaving casters stuck in the past. Their low chance to effect was the worst part of playing a caster in pf1 and now it has been reduced even more in pf2 to the point that most of your spells will land with less than 50% accuracy unless you guess lucky on the right defense to target or cheat and look at the monster's stats. So playing a caster, you spend your whole turn to make one roll with a low chance of success, while the martial could be making up to three rolls with higher chances of doing something. It'd be fine if everyone operated the same way, but you look at the martials playing with their shiny new toys, and down at your broken old ones, and it really takes the fun out of things.

I think items that give +1 to +3, matching weapon attack magic item bonuses is something that should definitely be in the game (and should affect both spell attack and DC). While it is lame to have required purchase items like that, I don't see any other way to fix this problem in the game design.

[The-Magic-Sword]

This thread seems to be talking about some alternate dimension version of 2e.

Even if single target damage is lower for casters than it is for martials, their easy access to AOE makes up for it- especially since in terms of RAW dps numbers, every foe hit by a fireball is another chance to critically fail and even the successes are dealing a respectable chunk.

I have two blasting Sorcerer's in my group at level 6 right now, a frost mage (elemental bloodline, houseruled cold type) and a fire mage (dragon bloodline goblin sorcerer.)

Recently they (5 players) had an encounter with three ceustodaemons (at level foes) and the AOE blasting played a major role in the encounter, one standout was a fire or ice ball that dealt 15 on success to one, and crit the other for like 60. The other was two failed rolls for a similar amount of damage.

The frost mage finished the encounter the next round by firing off an acid arrow on one and elemental tossing the other, finishing them both in one round. The martials were still super useful and every one had a great time.

It's not just damage either, the first thing the frost mage did in that encounter was haste our rogue, who used that and flanking to chunk with sneak attack an extra time because of the extra -10 attack.

Our Warpriest did like 60 something healing in one turn when the paladin went down, and the frost mages was low using heal + battle medicine.

Casters are very strong in this game.

[gnoams]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

This thread seems to be talking about some alternate dimension version of 2e.

Even if single target damage is lower for casters than it is for martials, their easy access to AOE makes up for it- especially since in terms of RAW dps numbers, every foe hit by a fireball...

This does bring up a good point. The usefulness of casters both in pf1 and pf2 largely depends upon the enemies you face (which can vary a lot depending on the scenario you are playing and who wrote it). If you face lots of weak opponents, then the casters' ability to aoe is a major boost to their damage. The more enemies you are facing, the more damage your fireball does. Unfortunately, pf2 still does not have a good minion system. In my experience, minion type enemies are extremely terrible and of no threat to the party, so they see little use. Most fights are against a small number of tough opponents, so the caster's ability to aoe is useless. There is theoretically a number of opponents where caster and martial damage is perfectly balanced.

If you play in a version of the game where you regularly face large groups of enemies with low reflex saves, then casters might seem overpowered to you. If you play in a version of the game where you regularly face one enemy with high defenses, then casters might seem like worthless garbage to you. So yes, different people are likely playing in "alternate dimension" versions of the game.

[Ravingdork]

Fighters can only deal damage? That IS an alternate dimension version of 2E!

The changes to the skill system alone allow them to do SO much more, to say nothing of archetypes, ancestry abilities, general feats, skill feats, or even some class abilities.

[TSRodriguez]

Blaster Wizards do good damage, not against the boss, but in this game everything lowers the AC and Saves (Sickened, Frightened, Flat-footed) So, with a good team, the wizard can still be the king of spades... just not alone, like in previous editions.

[Temperans]

AoE blasters being fine does not mean Single target blasters are also fine.

Also no one had said they want a wizard to work fine alone. Just the simple acknowledgement that this specific branch of Wizards (and other casters) desperatly needs help to stay relevant. Not to mention AoE is fine vs mooks because their Saves are naturally lower than a few strong targets. As soon as the fight is vs just a few enemies AoE quickly loses power; Although again not as much as Single target.

Again just to reiterate, some Wizards using AoE being sometimes okay does not mean that Single target Wizards are in a good place.

[Rysky]

But do they actually need help? And what form would that help take?

Seeing a bunch of different wants and answers here.

[Unicore]

gnoams wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

This thread seems to be talking about some alternate dimension version of 2e.

Even if single target damage is lower for casters than it is for martials, their easy access to AOE makes up for it- especially since in terms of RAW dps numbers, every foe hit by a fireball...

This does bring up a good point. The usefulness of casters both in pf1 and pf2 largely depends upon the enemies you face (which can vary a lot depending on the scenario you are playing and who wrote it). If you face lots of weak opponents, then the casters' ability to aoe is a major boost to their damage. The more enemies you are facing, the more damage your fireball does. Unfortunately, pf2 still does not have a good minion system. In my experience, minion type enemies are extremely terrible and of no threat to the party, so they see little use. Most fights are against a small number of tough opponents, so the caster's ability to aoe is useless. There is theoretically a number of opponents where caster and martial damage is perfectly balanced.

If you play in a version of the game where you regularly face large groups of enemies with low reflex saves, then casters might seem overpowered to you. If you play in a version of the game where you regularly face one enemy with high defenses, then casters might seem like worthless garbage to you. So yes, different people are likely playing in "alternate dimension" versions of the game.

If you are playing the game and regularly only fighting solo enemies 2 to 4 levels higher than you, than most martials are going to be pretty terrible as well, and there are ways that the caster will be the only reliable source of debuffing or damage. If you spell does something 85 to 95 percent of the time and a martial is only hitting when they roll a 14 or 15, then the caster is far more likely to come out the hero of the encounter.

[Queaux]

One fallacy that keeps getting brought up is that spell attacks are strictly worse than save based spells. That may be true if you compare straight up versus a healthy enemy, but that's not the whole comparison. It's way easier to get buffs to hit spell attacks and debuffs to AC than it is to get buffs to your save DC and debuffs against monster saves. If a bard puts up Inspire Courage with Inspire Heroics to give a +2 to hit and a fighter knocks down the target, then the spell attack spell is more effective even without the presence of True Strike. With the presence of True Strike, another buff only accessible to attack rolls, spell attack style spells are conditionally some of the best spells in the game. Acid Arrow, in particular, is one of those spells, and there should be times in the game where the rest of the party tries to set it up to land against a boss because it's the most efficient way for the party to get damage. A true striked spell is more accurate than even the fighter's first attack at most levels, and the payoff is much greater on average rolls.

The levels where the true striked spell is not more accurate than a standard fighter attack are the problems, 5, 6, 13, and 14. A +1 item at 5 would make it so that the true striked spell is still more accurate at 5 and 6 and pretty much equivalent at 13 and 14. Without that buff, it's not worth throwing party resources behind trying to get an acid arrow to stick if it forces a party fighter to act sub-optimally. I think that's a pretty minor imbalance, but it is worth correcting. Asking for anything more than the +1 (from the currently designed caster classes) is just a misunderstanding of the role of the balanced caster in the party, I think. There isn't yet a specialized caster in the game; they are all balanced around broad utility that must be used opportunistically.

[Queaux]

Unicore wrote:

gnoams wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

This thread seems to be talking about some alternate dimension version of 2e.

Even if single target damage is lower for casters than it is for martials, their easy access to AOE makes up for it- especially since in terms of RAW dps numbers, every foe hit by a fireball...

This does bring up a good point. The usefulness of casters both in pf1 and pf2 largely depends upon the enemies you face (which can vary a lot depending on the scenario you are playing and who wrote it). If you face lots of weak opponents, then the casters' ability to aoe is a major boost to their damage. The more enemies you are facing, the more damage your fireball does. Unfortunately, pf2 still does not have a good minion system. In my experience, minion type enemies are extremely terrible and of no threat to the party, so they see little use. Most fights are against a small number of tough opponents, so the caster's ability to aoe is useless. There is theoretically a number of opponents where caster and martial damage is perfectly balanced.

If you play in a version of the game where you regularly face large groups of enemies with low reflex saves, then casters might seem overpowered to you. If you play in a version of the game where you regularly face one enemy with high defenses, then casters might seem like worthless garbage to you. So yes, different people are likely playing in "alternate dimension" versions of the game.

If you are playing the game and regularly only fighting solo enemies 2 to 4 levels higher than you, than most martials are going to be pretty terrible as well, and there are ways that the caster will be the only reliable source of debuffing or damage. If you spell does something 85 to 95 percent of the time and a martial is only hitting when they roll a 14 or 15, then the caster is far more likely to come out the hero of the encounter.

You're right about this. Where casters really suck is with level+1/level+2 enemies that are immune to their incapacitation effects but aren't high enough level that spells that debuff on failure are efficient. Versus these kinds of enemies, it's usually best if the casters don't do anything offensive and instead get some marginal output through their buffs. I think the existence of scenarios where casters suck is fine, though. There are other scenarios where casters absolutely shine.

[Hastur! Hastur! Hastur!]

In our game (half way through age of ashes 10th level now) it feels as if casters is firmly in the support category. They are not bad but it definitely sucks when you throw off your big bad cone of cold to virtually no effect. We have now house ruled all pure casters start at expert and progress one step ahead getting a new step called archemage at 17th gaining an additional +2 over legendary.

Fixes the to hit issue and helps blaster as they have a better chance of crit fails on fireballs. it also helps when you pull out baleful polymorph or similar spells that you have a chance to at least incapacitate them for a round.

Even with this change martials are still far and away king damage dealers.

[SteelGuts]

Ok so first post:

Quick Fix that worked for us for casters:
- Potency Runes on Spell Attacks Rolls
- Rune of Lesser Power, Power, and Greater Power, at the same level than the Strikings Runes. Each increase DC by 1,2 and then 3. Same price.
- Remove Incapacitation Trait. Boss will suceed anyway, unless they got a 1. That's fun sometimes that they fail totally on a very low roll that target their low save.

[SteelGuts]

Now, my take on the issue:

Are the casters overnerfed?
Short answer: Yes

Long answer:
Ok so now why people think this? It probably comes from a comparaison with PF1, DnD 3.5 et 5E.

But, I want to point out a few things from theses games. First, at very low level, casters were basically trash. One shot by a hometown guard with a crossbow. They start to feel go around 5-6 (Fly, Fireball) and by 10 they are very strong. 18+ is just god level.

Now, I ran from 1 to 6 Iron Gods, Reign of Winter and Rise of the Runelords. I played through Jade Regent, and for 5e Tomb of Annihilation and Curse of Stradh.

In each of these campaigns, never ever I have seen a martial/caster disparency before level 18+. Yes of course Casters have way more things to do. More shenanigans, more ways to break the game. Yes yes and yes. Do you play often in the 15+ levels?

But at the end of the day, in each campaign, they used almost all their spells (or Concentration buff in 5e) on the Barbarian/Slayer/Ranger/Monk/Fighter, who then proceed to kill whatever with a Full Attack. Each time.

Because this is a Team based game, most of the time. Casters were unablers most of the time. They dispell magics, cast Haste, watch out for Counterspells, Immobilize Personn for the Barbarian to Coup de Grace, Charm so that the Rogue can Bluff, Inspira Courage so that the all team got bonus on rolls. How is that overpowered, or not fun, to make EVERY Martials at the table a murder machine? Who get the cool description in slow motion on how exactly he rip the BBEG in half while glowing like a Christmas Tree from the Buffs?

And yes in exchange they got to start be able to oneshot encounters at level 10+. My Psychic friend in Rise one shoted all Dragons with Possesion and Intensified Metamagic Scepter. That is ok, after spending 4+ entire dungeons being a buff bot. And I will not even start on the bookeeping that requires Use Magic Items and being the only full caster in PF1 with the numbers of spells today.

The only time in three AP that I felt there was an issue was when I TPK the entire group against Karzoug, who won the Initiative with Anticipate Peril, and then Mage Disjunction. Because I was a stupid DM who thougth it would be fun to play the BBEG like a strategic mastermind, and I got a nat 20 on Initiative. And it is an overpowered inflated NPC in his home, who is a Wizard 20, overstuff with relics artefcasts and wish spells. Just for fun we redid the fight without Mage Disjunction. The Barbarian and the SLayer wiped the floor with hime after a few buffs and spells.

So yes they went too far in PF2. A Blaster Mage (which is almost always weaker than a support one) should be able to blast. An Enchanter should be able, sometimes, to Charm a boss. And a Necromancer Boss should be able, sometimes, to Finger of Death a Barbarian. Now the Boss still can, but the lower level lieutenants and PCs can't. This is very unfair for the PC & NPCs that are not BBEG I think.

And my god this is a team game. A TEAM game. I started RPG 15 years ago, and sincec then I see people complaining about a lack of symmetry between classes, but it is not important, as long as everyone as fun. If you want perfect balance, go on a MOBA or MMO (... lol, yeah, balance), or play chess against each others.

Or just let Willy the Wizard overbuff Brutus the Barbarian, and look at them smile while Malgus the Necromancer, your boss, does the same to Darem the Bonebreaker, his lieutnant.

Now Martials still hit hard, gained a lot in possibilities, are even stronger than before to butcher their way to the end of the campaign, and casters are a way weaker versions of themselves. Nerf bat hit too strong in my opinion. My go to player for the Fighter Barbarian type complains that his fellow casters adventurers can't buff his as well as before. So yeah, too much.

Now we got a hard time having even one caster in the group, even from people who played Wizard in 10 years. Everyone wants to play Fighter, how is that for balance?

Sorry if I did mistakes or my lack of style, English is not my mother tongue.

[Ravingdork]

SteelGuts wrote:

Ok so first post:

Quick Fix that worked for us for casters:
- Potency Runes on Spell Attacks Rolls
- Rune of Lesser Power, Power, and Greater Power, at the same level than the Strikings Runes. Each increase DC by 1,2 and then 3. Same price.
- Remove Incapacitation Trait. Boss will suceed anyway, unless they got a 1. That's fun sometimes that they fail totally on a very low roll that target their low save.

Removing the incapacitation trait is going to wreck a lot of PCs at the higher levels of play.

[Temperans]

Its fine if the caster isn't always useful. But a caster focused on damage shouldn't need to rely on spending resources on buff/debuffs to just get 50%. Sure a caster who is built around buff/debuff would be more successful; But those caster are spending less resources on damage.

The simplest way to correct the numbers is to add a rune that enhances spell attacks. Spell DC can work of the same rune (Ex Armor) or a separate rune (Ex weapon runes).

Agreed that incapacitation trait feels bad. I personally would had made it so that it only protected creatures from crit fails, or made it the equivalent of bypassing spell resistance (that would fit the name much better). Maybe casters will get a fix for it someday.

[SteelGuts]

Ravingdork wrote:

SteelGuts wrote:

Ok so first post:

Quick Fix that worked for us for casters:
- Potency Runes on Spell Attacks Rolls
- Rune of Lesser Power, Power, and Greater Power, at the same level than the Strikings Runes. Each increase DC by 1,2 and then 3. Same price.
- Remove Incapacitation Trait. Boss will suceed anyway, unless they got a 1. That's fun sometimes that they fail totally on a very low roll that target their low save.

Removing the incapacitation trait is going to wreck a lot of PCs at the higher levels of play.

We are playing around 12 right now. The DM just has to not abused with these kind of spells, frequency wise.

[Ravingdork]

SteelGuts wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

SteelGuts wrote:

Ok so first post:

Quick Fix that worked for us for casters:
- Potency Runes on Spell Attacks Rolls
- Rune of Lesser Power, Power, and Greater Power, at the same level than the Strikings Runes. Each increase DC by 1,2 and then 3. Same price.
- Remove Incapacitation Trait. Boss will suceed anyway, unless they got a 1. That's fun sometimes that they fail totally on a very low roll that target their low save.

Removing the incapacitation trait is going to wreck a lot of PCs at the higher levels of play.

We are playing around 12 right now. The DM just has to not abused with these kind of spells, frequency wise.

I mean, I guess that's better than killing everyone, but isn't a game in which the GM pulls his punches diminished?

It would sure take a lot of the fun out of it for me anyways.

[Cyder]

Your mileage may vary but as a GM I have always done whatever made a good story and was fun for the players I had. Difficulty and challenge are all relative.

Personally I dislike the incapacitation trait. Would rather just give a bonus of +1 to the save per level difference if you need to keep it. Its a tiny bit extra math but its not like the math is hard or time consuming in d20 systems.

I think the hard part its hard to make a ruleset that appeals to everyone which is why we have rule 0. Its what makes this way better than any computer game, the ability for the story telling to make the game their own to improve the exoerience for players.

[SteelGuts]

Ravingdork wrote:

SteelGuts wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

SteelGuts wrote:

Ok so first post:

Quick Fix that worked for us for casters:
- Potency Runes on Spell Attacks Rolls
- Rune of Lesser Power, Power, and Greater Power, at the same level than the Strikings Runes. Each increase DC by 1,2 and then 3. Same price.
- Remove Incapacitation Trait. Boss will suceed anyway, unless they got a 1. That's fun sometimes that they fail totally on a very low roll that target their low save.

Removing the incapacitation trait is going to wreck a lot of PCs at the higher levels of play.

We are playing around 12 right now. The DM just has to not abused with these kind of spells, frequency wise.

I mean, I guess that's better than killing everyone, but isn't a game in which the GM pulls his punches diminished?

It would sure take a lot of the fun out of it for me anyways.

You might be right, and it is a shame. But on the other hand, incapacitation is even less fun for us as it is.

The state of caster, and more specifically this trait, is probably the only thing that I really dislike in this game. All the rest is fine. But this thing, is like a big thing.

I had a Mesmerist in Hell's Revenge, we did not did the whole campaign but the first three volumes I think. At one point (SPOIL) the PC's, who are the bad ones, got to infiltrate a city with as Lord a Paladin which is the final boss of the volume. My Mesmerist Charmed, then Dominated him during his tour of the town, and basically they killed him in a dark alley at the middle of the volume. It was very fun, because yes they destroyed the boss of the volume, but it was a very particular character, with theses spells, this DC's, on this boss, at that time, with that roll, that made it possible. It was one of the very few boss of Ap to be OS like that. And the players are still enjoying it years later.

Incapacitation ruined these kind of stories. Sometimes the price for balance is fun, I guess.

[Unicore]

Charm can occasionally work on a boss, that occasion is just a critical fail (turned into a regular fail) probably on a natural 1. The regular failure result of the charm spell is the full effect of the PF1 charm person spell. Letting level 1 PCs have much more than a 5% chance of success charming enemies 3 to 4 levels higher than them makes that level difference too insignificant.

Being levels ahead already gives an inherent +1 per level bonus so there is no reason to try to double it awkwardly instead of creating a clear sense that different kinds of enemies require different kinds of spells.

I think there is a lot of dislike towards the incapacitation trait without thinking through what it’s place in the game is, which is allowing for extremely powerful spells to still be in the game without having them be your every serious challenge go to spell. Incapacitation is SO much better than arbitrary hit dice limits on spells like in 1e.

[Ravingdork]

I've seen high level encounters where three or four enemies 4 levels lower than the party could really ruin someone's day if not for the incapacitation trait.

Without that trait, or some similar balancing house rule, I just don't see how you'd long survive high level play, as even the mooks could one shot you, and there's usually a lot of mooks, which together are capable of spamming your saves until you fail.

But I'm going to leave it at that. Don't want to be a broken record, and I recognize that different groups have different play styles and needs.

[gnoams]

Ravingdork wrote:

SteelGuts wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

SteelGuts wrote:

Ok so first post:

Quick Fix that worked for us for casters:
- Potency Runes on Spell Attacks Rolls
- Rune of Lesser Power, Power, and Greater Power, at the same level than the Strikings Runes. Each increase DC by 1,2 and then 3. Same price.
- Remove Incapacitation Trait. Boss will suceed anyway, unless they got a 1. That's fun sometimes that they fail totally on a very low roll that target their low save.

Removing the incapacitation trait is going to wreck a lot of PCs at the higher levels of play.

We are playing around 12 right now. The DM just has to not abused with these kind of spells, frequency wise.

I mean, I guess that's better than killing everyone, but isn't a game in which the GM pulls his punches diminished?

It would sure take a lot of the fun out of it for me anyways.

Um, as a GM I am always pulling my punches. Yeah, I could drop a pit fiend on your level one PCs and kill you all, or tpk your level 20 party with a swarm of harpies. The GM can always easily break the game with stupid rule combinations, overpowered enemies, etc, but that's not exactly fun. A large part of being the GM is figuring out just how hard to punch to keep the game challenging without going to far.

[Ravingdork]

gnoams wrote:

Um, as a GM I am always pulling my punches. Yeah, I could drop a pit fiend on your level one PCs and kill you all, or tpk your level 20 party with a swarm of harpies. The GM can always easily break the game with stupid rule combinations, overpowered enemies, etc, but that's not exactly fun. A large part of being the GM is figuring out just how hard to punch to keep the game challenging without going to far.

That's not the same thing. What you describe is essentially "not being an a*@%!#& that wastes everyone's time." It's expected that the GM will make balanced and challenging encounters. What I'm talking about are things like fudging dice rolls, off-the-cuff deus ex machina to save an otherwise doomed PC, changing the established narrative to make things much easier than designers intended (in a published adventure), or quite literally never killing any PC ever, even when the situation would warrant it.

[Temperans]

I feel that if the incapacitation trait wasn't a thing, most of those spells and abilities would be much easier to balance. As it stand the trade off for incapacitation is to make life miserable for equal or lower level opponents.

Aka if incapacitation is changed than the spells would need to be changed accordingly. To not change the spells would definitely cause problems as you point out Ravingdork.

[gnoams]

Ravingdork wrote:

gnoams wrote:

Um, as a GM I am always pulling my punches. Yeah, I could drop a pit fiend on your level one PCs and kill you all, or tpk your level 20 party with a swarm of harpies. The GM can always easily break the game with stupid rule combinations, overpowered enemies, etc, but that's not exactly fun. A large part of being the GM is figuring out just how hard to punch to keep the game challenging without going to far.

That's not the same thing. What you describe is essentially "not being an a!*+$~# that wastes everyone's time." It's expected that the GM will make balanced and challenging encounters. What I'm talking about are things like fudging dice rolls, off-the-cuff deus ex machina to save an otherwise doomed PC, changing the established narrative to make things much easier than designers intended (in a published adventure), or quite literally never killing any PC ever, even when the situation would warrant it.

How is choosing not to have your enemies spam lots of incapacitating abilities not the same thing?

[Ravingdork]

gnoams wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

gnoams wrote:

Um, as a GM I am always pulling my punches. Yeah, I could drop a pit fiend on your level one PCs and kill you all, or tpk your level 20 party with a swarm of harpies. The GM can always easily break the game with stupid rule combinations, overpowered enemies, etc, but that's not exactly fun. A large part of being the GM is figuring out just how hard to punch to keep the game challenging without going to far.

That's not the same thing. What you describe is essentially "not being an a!*+$~# that wastes everyone's time." It's expected that the GM will make balanced and challenging encounters. What I'm talking about are things like fudging dice rolls, off-the-cuff deus ex machina to save an otherwise doomed PC, changing the established narrative to make things much easier than designers intended (in a published adventure), or quite literally never killing any PC ever, even when the situation would warrant it.

How is choosing not to have your enemies spam lots of incapacitating abilities not the same thing?

At high levels, a great many monsters possess incapacitating abilities (note that I'm not necessarily referring to only those with the incapacitation trait). I'm basically just sayin' it would be really difficult to build a balanced encounter with multiple enemies and not have them have some really nasty spammable abilities (note, even if each enemy only uses the ability once, it can still feel like spamming and be crippling to the party if there's more than two of them). Building a dozen or so such encounters (or however many is necessary to get the party to the next level) while avoiding such a scenario would be next to impossible without resorting to contrived setups (like having all your encounters be things like an endless swarm of high-level fighters, or some such) or pulling punches and completely avoiding how the creatures are meant to be played (such as using a cadre of banshees that never wail).

EDIT: I think this thread sums up really high level encounters rather well.

[Salamileg]

SteelGuts wrote:

In each of these campaigns, never ever I have seen a martial/caster disparency before level 18+. Yes of course Casters have way more things to do. More shenanigans, more ways to break the game. Yes yes and yes. Do you play often in the 15+ levels?

...

And yes in exchange they got to start be able to oneshot encounters at level 10+. My Psychic friend in Rise one shoted all Dragons with Possesion and Intensified Metamagic Scepter. That is ok, after spending 4+ entire dungeons being a buff bot. And I will not even start on the bookeeping that requires Use Magic Items and being the only full caster in PF1 with the numbers of spells today.

These statements seem at odds with each other. You say there wasn't a disparity until level 18, but you could one shot dragons at level 10?

Having wildly different power curves for different classes is, in my opinion, bad game design. 3.PF suffered from this a lot, 4e had the problem of everyone having almost the exact same power curve, and PF2 does well in my opinion by making power curves different but close to one another (5e is kind of in the middle of 3.PF and PF2, but spellcasters are mostly limited by concentration).

[Unicore]

Also there seems to be some confusion about how the incapacitation trait works on spells. It is not just higher level.

You have to be more than twice the spell level:

So a lvl 1 spell - 3rd lvl enemy.
2nd lvl - 5th enemy
3rd lvl - 7th level enemy
4th lvl - 9th
Etc.

At every other level your top incapacitation effect still works against an enemy a level higher than you.

[Temperans]

Salamileg wrote:

These statements seem at odds with each other. You say there wasn't a disparity until level 18, but you could one shot dragons at level 10?

Having wildly different power curves for different classes is, in my opinion, bad game design. 3.PF suffered from this a lot, 4e had the problem of everyone having almost the exact same power curve, and PF2 does well in my opinion by making power curves different but close to one another (5e is kind of in the middle of 3.PF and PF2, but spellcasters are mostly limited by concentration).

I agree that one shotting a dragon is too much. But the way to do it had nothing to do with damage but save or suck spells (Ex Possession), which usually applied an effect (there are some exceptions like power word kill). Hence why people are complaining of casters being overnerfed, .

Many (if not most) admit save or suck spells were a problem that needed to be fixed, but that has nothing to do with a caster being able to do a regular damage spell or with some of the utility spells losing funtionality. How does a Floating Disk being able to carry someone or water just as broken as 1 shotting usimg Possession?

[Salamileg]

Temperans wrote:

I agree that one shotting a dragon is too much. But the way to do it had nothing to do with damage but save or suck spells (Ex Possession), which usually applied an effect (there are some exceptions like power word kill). Hence why people are complaining of casters being overnerfed, .

Many (if not most) admit save or suck spells were a problem that needed to be fixed, but that has nothing to do with a caster being able to do a regular damage spell or with some of the utility spells losing funtionality. How does a Floating Disk being able to carry someone or water just as broken as 1 shotting usimg Possession?

While I agree that Floating Disk has been nerfed too hard, I can also say that I have seen some solid shenanigans in 5e from people riding on the disk. That spell plus Phantom Steed becomes an extremely fast chariot for you and your entire party.

I think utility spells like that could just use more heightened effects, like how Illusory Disguise does it. Like, for Floating Disk, heightening could have increased the maximum bulk it can carry, or allow people to ride it at like 3rd level or something (and even if the spell did allow creatures to ride it, most things aside from a naked goblin are too much Bulk anyways).

[Temperans]

The fact a creature cant ride it even if you increased the bulk goes imidiately against the fact PF1 had an entire low level feat dedicated to people who would ride it.

Also for comparison.
* 5e Floating Disk: 1 hour, 500 lbs, 100 ft speed.

* PF1 Floating Disk: 1 hour/caster level, 100 lbs/caster level, twice your normal speed (30 ft speed means the disk can move 60 ft).

* PF2 Floating Disk: 8 hours, 5 bulk that must fit and balance on the disk, 30 ft speed or no limit (depends on interpretation).

[SteelGuts]

Making a rapid chariot with Phantom Steed and Disk seems not overpowered for me but a clever combo of spells that make for a really good scene. This is exactly the kind of things that should not get nerf. And your Bowmaster can go on top of it and be the king of the world.

As for Possession that OS a Dragon at level 10, don’t forget than à proper buff well built martial at the same level can do the same in one full attack. So really it is not such a large disparency.

Too much nerf, from clever use of spells to utilitarian magic to very strong spell, to less accurate spells to boss immune to a lots of spells except the ones that are going to be taken each time by each character (Slow, Fear...)

The state of casters is disapointing. Even more for Wizards, as I think that Bards and Druids have really good feats, Sorcerer are meh but they got better spells and thematic roleplay, and Clerics are good healers.

[Unicore]

But there are still very clever ways to use spells, both in and out of combat, they have just changed, and for the most part become more clearly defined in how they interact with the world.

The anger seems to stem from folks upset that the way you get them to work is different.

You absolutely can still do obscene amounts of single target damage in PF2, you just usually have to set up your attack for a round before pulling it off and often times casting other spells to make sure it really sticks.

[The-Magic-Sword]

gnoams wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

gnoams wrote:

Um, as a GM I am always pulling my punches. Yeah, I could drop a pit fiend on your level one PCs and kill you all, or tpk your level 20 party with a swarm of harpies. The GM can always easily break the game with stupid rule combinations, overpowered enemies, etc, but that's not exactly fun. A large part of being the GM is figuring out just how hard to punch to keep the game challenging without going to far.

That's not the same thing. What you describe is essentially "not being an a!*+$~# that wastes everyone's time." It's expected that the GM will make balanced and challenging encounters. What I'm talking about are things like fudging dice rolls, off-the-cuff deus ex machina to save an otherwise doomed PC, changing the established narrative to make things much easier than designers intended (in a published adventure), or quite literally never killing any PC ever, even when the situation would warrant it.

How is choosing not to have your enemies spam lots of incapacitating abilities not the same thing?

Because spells are in the game to be cast, and having a caster who can cast a 7th level spell, cast a 7th level spell shouldn't be something the GM is wary of?

Whereas throwing a high level monster against a low level party is something the book calls out, and is understood to basically be a violation of social contract.

I wouldn't enjoy GMing in a world where I was always being pressured to just not use some spells that the players expect to use, and even had buffed.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Temperans wrote:

AoE blasters being fine does not mean Single target blasters are also fine.

Also no one had said they want a wizard to work fine alone. Just the simple acknowledgement that this specific branch of Wizards (and other casters) desperatly needs help to stay relevant. Not to mention AoE is fine vs mooks because their Saves are naturally lower than a few strong targets. As soon as the fight is vs just a few enemies AoE quickly loses power; Although again not as much as Single target.

Again just to reiterate, some Wizards using AoE being sometimes okay does not mean that Single target Wizards are in a good place.

Why is "single target blasting" a discrete role, in your eyes?

That seems arbitrary, and I think with the way spell preparation works it would be very rare to have a blaster that never preps AOE. Nor do I think a caster's single target damage is so much lower than a well built Martial that it needs to be changed.

I think that ultimately, part of the blaster playstyle should be an asymmetric balance where they have easier access to high AOE than their counterparts.

Spell Potency would be fine, if they chose to go that route, but i'd actually be leery of raising it above +1 or +2.

But I'd be more tempted to buff it through specific options for specific classes, archetypes, and etc designed to let you twist a caster into a single target damage dealer, than just having it be default.

We do not need to go back to caster domination of every role.

[Hbitte]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Casters are very strong in this game.

because they are good at killing weak enemies.

In a version where weak enemies were never less important.They be killed anyway and with very little risk. It is literally killing time.

[Henro]

Hbitte wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Casters are very strong in this game.

because they are good at killing weak enemies.

You mean enemies that are the same level as the party? That are as powerful as each individual in the party? Do you truly believe that a party of 4 at-level enemies is a trivial encounter that will be cleared with little risk?

[Deadmanwalking]

They're also significantly better buffers and debuffers than martials, even vs. high level foes. Often by quite a lot. And better at providing tactical movement options (like flight), and several other utility effects.

Martials are, all things considered, probably better than casters at 'damage' in general. I mean, casters are better at minion sweeping, but that probably is less important than the kind of higher level enemies martials are superior at dealing with (though casters remain solid vs. on-level enemies, and the high attack bonuses of many enemies make level -2 foes and the like significantly more than 'speedbumps' or 'killing time'...killing them quickly saves lots of resources long term).

But 'damage' is hardly the only aspect of the game, or even of combat, that's important, and spellcasters are somewhat better at a wide range of those non-damage things.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Do you guys really play in games where monsters are exclusively 1 to 4 levels above the party?

Because really, an encounter of 3 at levels for a group of five was harder for my players than the single +4 was for a group of six, and could've been worse with smarter tactics on my part.

[ChibiNyan]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Do you guys really play in games where monsters are exclusively 1 to 4 levels above the party?

Because really, an encounter of 3 at levels for a group of five was harder for my players than the single +4 was for a group of six, and could've been worse with smarter tactics on my part.

People don't really care about Level -2 enemies when there's a fighter in the group. Contrary to what an above post says, these tend to really be just a "speedbump". Can easily cover the HP loss from them with a 10 minutes treat wounds, but you can't get your spells back.

[Squiggit]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

But 'damage' is hardly the only aspect of the game, or even of combat, that's important, and spellcasters are somewhat better at a wide range of those non-damage things.

How much does that matter though if the player in question is looking to play a blaster and prepares damage dealing spells in most or all of their spell slots?

[Midnightoker]

Squiggit wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

But 'damage' is hardly the only aspect of the game, or even of combat, that's important, and spellcasters are somewhat better at a wide range of those non-damage things.

How much does that matter though if the player in question is looking to play a blaster and prepares damage dealing spells in most or all of their spell slots?

I actually think given the right damage (element) and choice of save, they can be formidable here. Just more complicated for them to realize the damage.

[Squiggit]

Midnightoker wrote:

I actually think given the right damage (element) and choice of save, they can be formidable here. Just more complicated for them to realize the damage.

That's fair and I generally agree with you, I was mostly just questioning DMW's premise.

For the most part I think blasters are okay, with the obvious exception of spell-attacks which generally underperform and are particularly unfun to cast.

[Henro]

To play a blaster, you have to leverage the advantages you actually get as one: Range, area, save targeting and diverse damage types. If you don't change your tactics and use the tools at your disposal you will have a rough time.

I think it's a plus that casters require different tactics than martials.

[Squiggit]

Henro wrote:

To play a blaster, you have to leverage the advantages you actually get as one: Range, area, save targeting and diverse damage types.

While I generally agree, I think the theorycrafters on this forum tend to overvalue the last two. Sorcerers and Bards only get to pick so many spells and Wizards, Druids and Clerics need to prepare their spells ahead of time.

It's not always possible in a practical sense to have access to the right damage and/or save type, because you'll rarely know precisely what types and combination of saves and weaknesses/resistances you'll be running into at the start of the day. Maybe vaguely speaking, but even then the actual values can vary pretty wildly.

Like I said I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've noticed some of the theory work here tends to act as though targeting a variety of saves is always an option and it really isn't always going to be that way.

[Midnightoker]

Squiggit wrote:

It's not always possible in a practical sense to have access to the right damage and/or save type, because you'll rarely know precisely what types and combination of saves and weaknesses/resistances you'll be running into at the start of the day. Maybe vaguely speaking, but even then the actual values can vary pretty wildly.

So, excellent point here, but I will say I consider this a "feature" and not a "bug".

If my Sorcerer has Fireball, Acid Arrow, and Shocking Grasp, they have 3 types of damage. If those are each their "Signature Spell", they've now set up a method to achieve this goal.

It is way harder for prepared casters to, well, be prepared, but I do kind of see that as a testament to predicting and utilising that versatility.

Leveraging in-game knowledge and tactics to pick the right spells means that in order to be "more powerful" they actually have to engage with the story/campaign/setting more. That to me seems like a good thing.

Now whether or not some will consider that overly punishing, to me, comes down to the GM. It now is extremely important the GM rewards players with good knowledge to prepare when they earn it, as not granting them knowledge like this effectively makes it harder for them to succeed.

It also adds more value to Recall Knowledge by extension, which I like, since it's rather expensive.

[Captain Morgan]

ChibiNyan wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Do you guys really play in games where monsters are exclusively 1 to 4 levels above the party?

Because really, an encounter of 3 at levels for a group of five was harder for my players than the single +4 was for a group of six, and could've been worse with smarter tactics on my part.

People don't really care about Level -2 enemies when there's a fighter in the group. Contrary to what an above post says, these tend to really be just a "speedbump". Can easily cover the HP loss from them with a 10 minutes treat wounds, but you can't get your spells back.

A bunch of level -3 enemies were responsible for one of only 2 second edition deaths I've been a part of. While their low AC does mean they are easy to kill, monsters have much better to hit bonuses than most PCs of the same level, which means that ignoring them gives them ample opportunity to inflict damage. A gug, for example, hits with the accuracy of a fighter and the damage of a barbarian.

I also think ignoring mooks is a good way to get isolated and killed, as they are more likely to target a downed PC than a lone boss would be.

[Henro]

Squiggit wrote:

Like I said I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've noticed some of the theory work here tends to act as though targeting a variety of saves is always an option and it really isn't always going to be that way.

I basically agree. As you level, you have a greater opportunity to diversify your saves but targeting weak saves isn't always feasible early on. Targeting weaknesses isn't always feasible - you can only have so many spells. However, a blaster should try to maximize their chances of hitting a weakness by having access diverse damage types.

[Cyouni]

ChibiNyan wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Do you guys really play in games where monsters are exclusively 1 to 4 levels above the party?

Because really, an encounter of 3 at levels for a group of five was harder for my players than the single +4 was for a group of six, and could've been worse with smarter tactics on my part.

People don't really care about Level -2 enemies when there's a fighter in the group. Contrary to what an above post says, these tend to really be just a "speedbump". Can easily cover the HP loss from them with a 10 minutes treat wounds, but you can't get your spells back.

Based on what my players have gone through, they would definitely disagree. The most recent encounter with "speedbumps", with an at-level alchemist and two minions (that were level-4), came awfully close to dropping the fighter.

A lot of that extra damage came from the fact that they were trying to kill the alchemist, and the alchemist's combos let the rogue minions put out a lot more damage than the party expected.