Math stacked against spellcasters

[Neo2151]

Here's the thing about guessing - it usually doesn't work without metagaming.

Yes, the lumbering troll probably has a lower Reflex save and a better Fortitude save.
How about the Vampire? The Fiend? And, as already mentioned, creatures with more alien physiology? How do you guess the weak save here? You just don't honestly, with Undead being my favorite example as they tend to have solid Will saves for literally no obvious reason, just as a quirk of the way they're designed.

[Angel Hunter D]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I think this is more of a problem with Recall Knowledge than spellcasters; just making it so that a successful knowledge check allows you to identify the creature's weakest defense (whether that be one of its saves or its AC) would resolve this issue.

Knowledge used to be the first thing I did in a fight, now it's basically the last. It's just so bad now, AND it takes an action.

[Draco18s]

Neo2151 wrote:

with Undead being my favorite example as they tend to have solid Will saves for literally no obvious reason, just as a quirk of the way they're designed.

Well, for one, the mindless ones...

They have no minds!
Its kind of hard to tamper with a thing's mind when it doesn't have one.

The intelligent undead? Their mind is all they have.

[Edge93]

Draco18s wrote:

Neo2151 wrote:

with Undead being my favorite example as they tend to have solid Will saves for literally no obvious reason, just as a quirk of the way they're designed.

Well, for one, the mindless ones...

They have no minds!
Its kind of hard to tamper with a thing's mind when it doesn't have one.

The intelligent undead? Their mind is all they have.

And on top of that, undead are typically animated by Divine magic, which is often associated with Will in a lose sense.

[Pan, definitely not a Kitsune]

Lucas Yew wrote:

Ashborne wrote:

*** Caution - - - - Rant Ahead ***

Extreme Magocracism

Wuxia heroes will want a long talk with this person...

No, seriously, in wuxia stories, it's the warriors who have a way easier (and safer) path for ascending to a higher plane of existence, not the caster equivalents. Quite the striking opposite of European chivalric stories, really.

Also, European myths tend to portrait immortality as an impossible goal for the vain and foolish… when in wuxia stories, "eternal youth" sometimes seems like the minimum "you must be this tall to ride" test, and the Monkey King acquired immortality several times over before the main part of the journey to the west even really started.

[Red Griffyn]

Edge93 wrote:

Liegence wrote:

While this thread seems to be just more focused on chance of success of a spellcaster compared to other classes attacks and feats, it’s too in a vacuum and without context to say how this actually impacts balance. Generally speaking, spells do much more than a few sword hits - spells are still power, utility and diversity all wrapped up in a class feature. Can’t really tell by review of rules how this is going to pan out, but put me down for highly doubting spellcasters in P2E are just worth less on the balance scale than weapon strike focused classes. I could be wrong, but I just don’t have the experience to say it.

This is likely so. People griped about nerfed casters all the time in the Playtest, but in actual play experience they were extremely effective. I doubt the full rules are any less so, especially since Paizo specifically gave ear to complaints about caster nerfs.

That may have been your playtest experience, but it wasn't mine. The casters constantly felt underpowered. Monsters constantly made saves against their biggest spells (causing the spell to have almost no effect), and they felt generally neutered. That led them to being far less egaged in the game.

This Analysis shows that the caster is far worse off than a martial. Although the author concludes that there isn't much difference, that is a pretty surface read of the results at level -2 threats.

Spells are two action with a potentially higher net damage effect. However casters must guess the weak save or suffer significant decreases in efficacy (<50% chance, crit fails only on a 1 for level equivalent threats). For spells that don't target DCs casters need to make ranged attacks which are likely to suffer cover issues (dropping efficacy further) and can't get a bonus to hit like martials due to lack of item support. Other caster styles of play have been absolutely removed from play (e.g., buffing due to duration, # of PCs effected, game timescale changes, etc.). Thus the main contribution of a caster in combat will be governed by their DC which opens them up to having an incredibly swingy/feel bad style of play if they can't metagame the monster's weak save.

On the other side of the fence you have the martials who's success rate on a basic strike devalues the true effect of their combat abilities. The fighter for example is always at a +2 to hit with their chosen weapon/group for the entire game, which significantly increases their DPR. Beyond that they have various low level feats that decrease MAP or remove failure effects (e.g., exacting strike, certain strike, double shot, triple shot). Outside of the fighter, other martials have their own similair feats (e.g., swipe, twin takedown, hunted shot, flurry, impossible flurry, etc.). That means the martial isn't just outputting 1-2 strikes a turn, they can do 4-6 depending on level with various reductions in MAP without expending any real resources.

In addition to the on turn action, martial reactions are far more likely to trigger allowing an AoO for another free attack likely to crit.

Beyond the base features of martials are the gish meta/corner cases for min-maxing that aren't considered here. For example, the fighter who casts true strike, uses bespell weapon, then swipes to hit two enemies with advantage at their full attack bonus. Or the dual multiclassed PC of Gorum/Iomadae who uses the weapon surge focus spell to trigger bespell weapon before swiping.

At level equivalent threats The analysis compares a relatively mediocre turn sequence (Strike Strike Strike) and finds that martials for one strike are comparable, ahead on two strikes, and far ahead on three strikes. Throw in actual feats and the disparity will be bigger. The biggest part of all of this is that the martials will simply hit better and feel much more consistent. Spending 3 spells and none of them doing much of anything is different then attacking 9 times and hitting 5/9 times to varying degrees of effect. The first feels s~*~ty, the second feels awesome.

There were so many math posts in the playtest which tried to show that a 50% success rate feels 'not fun' on casters. The numbers currently show that there is a >50% chance on the weakest save and a < 50% chance on the other two saves (for equivalent level threats). It'll be worse for new players who won't have the metagame knowledge to 'pick' the best save every time and are essentially <50% chance to land a spell.

Its disappointing that Paizo didn't take the IMMENSE amount of feedback on this issue seriously enough. It will be the make or break issue for a number of veteran players. It will also be something all GMs will need to carefully control for at their table if they have new players to make the game more engaging/fun.

[Xenocrat]

Really weird that the classes that can use spells to go invisible, heal people, wall enemies away, provide defenses, heal, transport people, and a lot of other things can't also damage people as well as classes who mainly focus on damaging people.

[Aashua]

Xenocrat wrote:

Really weird that the classes that can use spells to go invisible, heal people, wall enemies away, provide defenses, heal, transport people, and a lot of other things can't also damage people as well as classes who mainly focus on damaging people.

Bruh I just wanna play a kineticist if im being real, blaster sorc with almost nothing but damage is as close as I can get atm.

[Nox Aeterna]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the game really shouldn't work differently with a party of a Monk, an Alchemist, a Champion, and a Rogue than it does with a party of a Wizard, a Druid, a Cleric, and a Bard.

Guess we really see things completely differently.

I don't think a game could be a greater failure than that actually.

Imagine a class based game where the game doesn't greatly care about which classes you have on the table and what should be the greatest choice a player can make is treated as this irrelevant.

At that point might as well abolish classes. The game will run about the same anyway, just pick some powers and go.

[The Raven Black]

Ashborne wrote:

I originally thought that moving to a Spell Attack roll using your spellcasting ability modifier was a good thing, but the fact that there is no way to improve your Attack Roll with items is a huge downer. If Touch AC had been kept, that would have balanced nicely, keeping the damage dice higher for the attacks that still targeted regular AC, but as the game progresses, the action economy works even more against spells. Martial characters get 2 to 4 chances to hit, depending on build, have a better AC, and much better Hitpoints. Spellcasters get only one shot with a spell that requires a Spell Attack roll (for the most part), and they will be eclipsed by martial types as soon as they can A:) find a weapon with a +1 Potency rune on it, or B:) spend the 35 GP for a +1 Potency rune. Granted, I do not know what the 'normal' treasure is in a Pathfinder Society game, as my group has a free-form game, but trying to follow the rules as written has left my spellcaster struggling to keep up at 5th with attack progression and ACs. Combining this with the duration nerf for buff spells, the so-called 'Balancing' has rendered playing a spell caster as a sideboard character from low-mid to upper levels.

*** Caution - - - - Rant Ahead ***

All the complaining about spellcasters being too powerful in late-game forget that in order to get to that point, they had to suffer agonizingly to get there. They deserved to be rewarded for not having the same amount of fun as the others for most of the game. Also, when you look at the practicality of it, they should be anyway. Martials are mortal, bound to the physical world. Spellcasters, as they progress, shuffle off mortal constraints and draw closer, metaphysically, to becoming ascended beings, and a fighter or barbarian can't, and shouldn't be able to compete with that. Also, a GM should be able to balance fights to keep a spellcaster from dominating the playing field, or any class really. Either by specific enemies that spellcasters can't...

Are you familiar with the Ravingdork solution ?

Start with a martial character and shift to a caster when they become more powerful.

[GameDesignerDM]

Nox Aeterna wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the game really shouldn't work differently with a party of a Monk, an Alchemist, a Champion, and a Rogue than it does with a party of a Wizard, a Druid, a Cleric, and a Bard.

Guess we really see things completely differently.

I don't think a game could be a greater failure than that actually.

Imagine a class based game where the game doesn't greatly care about which classes you have on the table and what should be the greatest choice a player can make is treated as this irrelevant.

At that point might as well abolish classes. The game will run about the same anyway, just pick some powers and go.

I don't think that's at all what they're saying. I think they're saying that the game shouldn't work different because one set of classes is so drastically more powerful than the entire paradigm shifts for both the players and GM.

[Temperans]

A paradigm shift from using different classes sounds normal for a class based game; A wizard doesn't play like a cleric anymore than a barbarian plays like a fighter. It however doesn't mean they can't have the same/similar tools, but it also doesn't mean one should be outright stronger than the other.

A fighting game comparison: Each character plays differently, while having the same basic move set, just different special abilities. If their are "low tier" characters, they can be just as strong as the "top tier", it requires more dedication/skill (system mastery).

[PossibleCabbage]

To put it another way, the game should not function fundamentally differently if the entire party can fly or the entire party can breathe water versus if they can't. The number of challenges one should be able to simply bypass because "I'm a gillman" should not be significant, and should be counterbalanced with other challenges.

So the "All-ten level caster party" should be able to do things that the "all martial" party can't do, but the all martial party should be able to manage things the all caster party can't- neither should have a drastically easier time with the adventure.

It's like how a "everybody is stealthy" and an "everybody is socially adept" party is going to play differently, but won't necessarily have an easier time than the other one. Or for a simpler example- being really good at picking locks should not be an auto-win; we make sure there are situations in which "picking a lock" doesn't help much. Correspondingly we make "no one can pick locks" not a auto-lose by having that not be the only way to progress.

Adventures should not need to be written assuming an arcane caster, a divine caster, a skill person, and a beeftank. That party should do just fine in the adventure, but so should basically every other combination of 4 different classes.

[citricking]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

Liegence wrote:

While this thread seems to be just more focused on chance of success of a spellcaster compared to other classes attacks and feats, it’s too in a vacuum and without context to say how this actually impacts balance. Generally speaking, spells do much more than a few sword hits - spells are still power, utility and diversity all wrapped up in a class feature. Can’t really tell by review of rules how this is going to pan out, but put me down for highly doubting spellcasters in P2E are just worth less on the balance scale than weapon strike focused classes. I could be wrong, but I just don’t have the experience to say it.

This is likely so. People griped about nerfed casters all the time in the Playtest, but in actual play experience they were extremely effective. I doubt the full rules are any less so, especially since Paizo specifically gave ear to complaints about caster nerfs.

This Analysis shows that the caster is far worse off than a martial. Although the author concludes that there isn't much difference, that is a pretty surface read of the results at level -2 threats.

I said casters are not falling behind. The lack of an item bonus does not change how their success rate is affected by level. Martials do have an item bonus, and their success rate is also consistent across levels. That's not a surface reading at all, that was true for all comparisons (haven't done vs PCs yet)

[Corwin Icewolf]

Xenocrat wrote:

Really weird that the classes that can use spells to go invisible, heal people, wall enemies away, provide defenses, heal, transport people, and a lot of other things can't also damage people as well as classes who mainly focus on damaging people.

Casters can mainly focus on damaging people by being blasters, though, or they can do those other things you said. If they choose to be blasters and primarily and primarily focus on damaging people, should their dpr then be significantly lower because they could have chosen a different route? I don't really think so...

Of course, this assumes caster damage is actually less, I've seen some argue that it is, and others argue it isn't, but since your argument there assumed that it is I decided to do so as well.

[Aashua]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Really weird that the classes that can use spells to go invisible, heal people, wall enemies away, provide defenses, heal, transport people, and a lot of other things can't also damage people as well as classes who mainly focus on damaging people.

Casters can mainly focus on damaging people by being blasters, though, or they can do those other things you said. If they choose to be blasters and primarily and primarily focus on damaging people, should their dpr then be significantly lower because they could have chosen a different route? I don't really think so...

Of course, this assumes caster damage is actually less, I've seen some argue that it is, and others argue it isn't, but since your argument there assumed that it is I decided to do so as well.

I really wish there was someway to actually hard focus into doing blasting. I'm hopeful that kineticist will do pretty well since I would imagine they will be balanced more similarly to martial then casters (Like rogue, barb, and paladin who have access to some more mystical effect in addition to their martial prowess) since honestly for the most part they functioned more like some sort of ranged single shot martial with a few fancy tricks and the power to cast fireball than wizards in 1e.

[Ashborne]

The Raven Black wrote:

Are you familiar with the Ravingdork solution ?

Start with a martial character and shift to a caster when they become more powerful.

The problem with this is that A) multiclassing has been nerfed, and B) for my current character, that doesn’t fit the concept.

You can’t just ‘switch’ in this game. The multiclassing, while it works ‘meh/okay’ if you dedicate to a spell casting multi class, the other way around has lost many benefits that made multiclassing not as full of suck, like the AoO for fighter dedication or the retributive strike/shield thing that paladins(now champions) had.

[Sara Marie]

I removed a couple of posts. Keep in mind that some gamers really enjoy poking around in the math and statistics behind rules and getting into game theory and number crunch and that's okay. This isn't a discussion that everyone has to participate in, and if it isn't something you're interested in, there's other discussions about gaming you can join. Let people who enjoy this stuff enjoy it, drive-by insults are not needed or welcome.

[citricking]

Ashborne wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Are you familiar with the Ravingdork solution ?

Start with a martial character and shift to a caster when they become more powerful.

The problem with this is that A) multiclassing has been nerfed, and B) for my current character, that doesn’t fit the concept.

You can’t just ‘switch’ in this game. The multiclassing, while it works ‘meh/okay’ if you dedicate to a spell casting multi class, the other way around has lost many benefits that made multiclassing not as full of suck, like the AoO for fighter dedication or the retributive strike/shield thing that paladins(now champions) had.

That isn't something you do with multiclassing, it's you playing a different character.

[Temperans]

Multiclassing effectively let's you build a new class, although depending on the edition and resources available it can have a wide ranging effect (PF1e was very wild, while 5e looks to be much flatter and potentially worse, PF2e is also flatter).

[Zwordsman]

theelcorspectre wrote:

I'm curious to know if anyone has figured out what the most reliable ways to lower the saving throws of enemies.

Well this was way back thread but eh.

Intimidate is nice.
Goblin Song is nice.

[totoro]

Kelseus wrote:

totoro wrote:

I'm kind of thankful my non-min/maxing players chose to have a Fighter and Barbarian in their midst, along with a 16 STR warpriest (mostly attacks with longsword) and a druid with 2 guard dogs and an animal companion (3 actions can make them all attack). I accidentally ran them through a portion of an adventure where they were supposed to be 2nd Level, but I had them at 1st Level. They steamrolled it.

If they had been a wizard, cloistered cleric, bard, and sorcerer, it probably would've been a tpk.

Not to stomp on your fun, but you can't have multiple bonded animals or a bonded animal and an animal companion. You would have to take two actions to command the guard dog to move then strike.

Thank you! It's causing me a headache with the player, though. She planned her character as an animal trainer and animal druid, so having to replace two actions to get two actions from a dog kind of sucks. We're going to have to break the rules to keep everyone happy and, frankly, the barbarian and fighter so dominate the encounters that it won't make any difference if I let her use one action to have a guard dog take two. We'll probably have to rein it in if she gets more powerful pets, though.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Xenocrat wrote:

Really weird that the classes that can use spells to go invisible, heal people, wall enemies away, provide defenses, heal, transport people, and a lot of other things can't also damage people as well as classes who mainly focus on damaging people.

Invisibility isn't the greatest when you can't capitalize on it, and there are ways to counter it. Great for escape, but that's it. Not a way to vanquish enemies without damage power to back it up.

Healing people is solid, but not everyone enjoys playing healers, and there are more non-caster ways to heal these days compared to the previous edition that can potentially compare (as well as stack). Certainly an area that spellcasters shine, but again, it's healing.

The walls used to last a long time and were pretty powerful. Now a minute might be enough with a party, but solo it's basically a variant of the invisibility get-away tactic. On top of that, at the levels you're getting this stuff, it will become countered within a round, tops. Making enemy spellcasters waste their stuff is about the best these things are for.

Most buff spells are now personal or are very weak or are blocked by rarity. Some staples are still strong (such as Haste), but are nowhere near as powerful as they used to be, and are much more plentiful later on in the game.

You listed heal twice. Chalking it up to fun shenanigans.

Teleport is blocked off by rarity plus has poor cast time now. Dimension Door is (like most other spells) self only and screws people over unless you're using evasion tactics. It otherwise costs somewhat precious spell slots to use effectively, and doesn't last all day long compared to martials.

Spellcasters not doing as much damage as martials is fine. Spellcasters lagging behind so bad that they might as well just be utility bots instead of standalone combatants is just a slightly better inversion of the Caster/Martial disparity from 1E.

There's also classes (like Rogue) who don't specialize in damaging people, but in other aspects of the game, like Skills.

[Red Griffyn]

Xenocrat wrote:

Really weird that the classes that can use spells to go invisible, heal people, wall enemies away, provide defenses, heal, transport people, and a lot of other things can't also damage people as well as classes who mainly focus on damaging people.

The whole point of the thread is that the math is point out that the math is against casters.

That includes DCs for any and all control spell (not just damage). For example 6 of the 10 wall spells have basic saves associated with them. Thus they have a >50% chance of working for the worst save or a < 50% chance of working for the other two saves. Most of them are L5+ spells. That low level of success means you aren't going to suddenly 'wall off the battlefield' like in 1e.

Something everyone is saying in this thread and outside of it is how buffs are also extremely nerfed and often not worth selecting. This is because the duration, # of targets, mechanical benefit (i.e., all status bonus), timescale of the game (i.e., from 1 minute to 10 minute for basic activities) has caused them all to go from pro-active spells to situational/irrelevant reactive spells. For example, resist energy in 1e is a 10 min/CL or communal resist energy could be given to various people. Enough that if you did enough research, good survival checks, talked to NPCs (i.e., interacted with the world) you might know of the red dragon in the dungeon and prepare accordingly. Now, all of that kind of gameplay is lost. To successfully, know and use the spell you have to: do all the world interaction, prep the spell, avoid using it until the dragon encounter since basic activities between combats (regain focus, heal, fix shields, etc.) take 10 minutes and would blow your spell, hope you go first, cast it in one of your highest spell slots AND STILL not get everyone in your party. Or you could just spec into killing things quickly because control, buff, debuff, and utility spells have all been made significantly less effective in play (although so have damage spells per this thread). So what are casters supposed to focus on to feel like they are contributing. It puts them in a position of barely feeling like they are barely contributing for large level segments of the game (i.e., bad game design).

Lets also not forget how martials also have spell like feats that are straight up better than what a caster can do too:
- Many abilities like flurry, Sudden Strike, etc. (All Day Haste)
- Dispelling Slice (All Day Dispel)
- Felling Shot and Felling Strike(Anti flying)
- Rage (All day replenishing temp hp > False Life)
... (you could make a very long list of spell equivalent abilities that martials have).

citricking wrote:

I said casters are not falling behind. The lack of an item bonus does not change how their success rate is affected by level. Martials do have an item bonus, and their success rate is also consistent across levels. That's not a surface reading at all, that was true for all comparisons (haven't done vs PCs yet)

I disagree with your evaluation. There is a downward trend for the majority of the caster's graphs on your level equivalent page for each of the three saves with mild bumps back up at L7 (casting to expert) and L19 (casting to Legendary). Its especially prominent in the median and worst save categories where the chance of a critical success is only on a rolled 20. I would reccomend adding more resolution to your Y Axis as the graduations are 25% increments, whereas I think a better resolution would show drops of 5-10% more clearly.

Outside of that, my last post identified many ways in which Martials are better off than what is in your analysis. Primarily they get to use the cumulative success/effect of all 3 strikes (not just one). In most turns won't simply being doing a 3xstrike turn and instead be improving upon that by using flourish/press abilities to negate or decrease MAP, output 4-6 attacks a round, and make use of any reaction based attacks (which could be >1 per turn at L10+ with various multi reaction feats available to them). If you've only controlled for one variable (i.e., and item bonus) then there are still all of the above variables not captured that should be expressed and I strongly suspect they will show that casters fall behind within their own graphs and especially relative to martials.

[citricking]

You really are seeing a downward trend? I'm really confused, I wouldn't call that a meaningful trend. You can't just say it goes down except for where it goes up and call that a trend.

I think it would be good if there was a downward trend. Spells increase a lot more in power then the actions a martial has. A spell like haste quadruples it's value, you can clearly see the increase in spell power with something like Heroism. Spell damage increases much more quickly than martial damage and increases in number of targets effected.

I don't care if spell casters are weaker than martials, but they clearly gain more with levels than martials do. The could be behind for levels 1-20, but they are the opposite of falling behind. They relatively increase in power with level.

If you look at expected damage by level charts you see martials falling behind equal level creatures, but catch up if you adjust for increasing power of spells.

[no good scallywag]

GeneticDrift wrote:

Ashborne wrote:

*** Caution - - - - Rant Ahead ***
All the complaining about spellcasters being too powerful in late-game forget that in order to get to that point, they had to suffer agonizingly to get there. They deserved to be rewarded for not having the same amount of fun as the others for most of the game. Also, when you look at the practicality of it, they should be anyway. Martials are mortal, bound to the physical world. Spellcasters, as they progress, shuffle off mortal constraints and draw closer, metaphysically, to becoming ascended beings, and a fighter or barbarian can't, and shouldn't be able to compete with that. Also, a GM should be able to balance fights to keep a spellcaster from dominating the playing field, or any class really. Either by specific enemies that spellcasters can't...

[edit] I reread my post and decided to just say I disagree completely. From experience and my understanding of character class assumptions. Casters start strong and become OP and have since at least dnd 3.0. I’ve never seen fluff on casters being beyond mortal flaws and limitations. Sounds like you are thinking of Gandalf and other divine beings.

It's been my experience (ADnD through PF1) that wizards sucks at early levels compared to martials, then either reach a balance or eclipse martials depending on the player. There can be no doubt that casters are nerfed in PF2 overall, but I also (as a player who prefers casters) have kept a very close eye on the disparity of caster/martial power. As I said, it's very clear to me and my players that martials have an overwhelming ability to DPS, while a caster, in general, does not. I would agree a caster in PF 1 at level 20 is often better then a level 20 martial (IN GENERAL). Player type offers variables. This is also a function of those who play casters, in that they are typically more in-tune with all the rules and strategies. That being said, I do think we casters still have some good things going in PF2. Grappled doesn't work like it did in PF1 and is quite benign now. Also, no Attacks of Opportunity from everyone, plus spell damage has been increased with additional dice and crit features. My group and I have yet to reach high level play with PF2, but I can handle the nerfs to casters so far.

That being said, it's hard to quantify "power." Most view it as damage, but how does 3 strikes compare to a grease spell, or flurry of blows to a charm spell? Something I'd like to point out that is often forgotten is that a martial can do his attack and damage multiple times per TURN, whereas a caster usually has only one shot all day.

At GenCon, our group only faced one caster vs. other enemies. I had my monk charge him and grapple him. I withstood all the spells he threw at me and we killed him. From just one battle it's hard to tell, as I was rolling rather well and our group was good.