Druid / Bard vs. Cleric vs. Sorcerer Vs. Wizard Spell Slots Issue

[Red Griffyn]

Hi Guys,

I haven't seen anyone identify this exact problem and I was wondering if this was done on purpose. The problem is that different full casters have wildly varying number of spell slots. I think some support needs to be provided to boost spells slots for many of the classes. Right now Wizard Universalist >> Wizard Specialist >> Sorcerer >> Cleric >> Druid/Bard. Outside of class feats, arcane casters can also boost spell slots with things like the ring of wizardry. Why is there such a big discrepancy? Is 2hp/level worth a slot/level? None of the previously more martial bard/cleric/druid actually get master weapon proficiency in armor/weapons. It just seems like a big oversight to me.

The only thing I can think of is that cleric/druid/sorcerer are meant to use more spell point focus spells per day and bards to use more powerful bard cantrips. But that doesn't seem fair for a wizard to be at x2 the number of slots/day. Throw in a staff/familiar/ring of wizardry/multiclass feat for an alternate focus spell and the wizard basically sails away into the sunset.

Given that spells are so under-powered in this edition, the only true balance is having more of them so you can cast more frequently.

20th Level Wizard (Universal + Bond Conservation + Superior Bond + L20 Feat for a L10 slot):
L1 - 8
L2 - 9
L3 - 7
L4 - 8
L5 - 6
L6 - 7
L7 - 5
L8 - 6
L9 - 4
L10 - 3

*NOTE to get these numbers requires a liberal use of bond conservation to downcast a L10 >> L8 > L6 >> L4 >> L2 (rinse and repeat for L9 to L1 and L8 to L2 and so on).

20th Level Wizard (Specialist + Bond Conservation + Superior Bond + L20 Feat for a L10 slot):
L1 - 4
L2 - 6
L3 - 4
L4 - 6
L5 - 4
L6 - 6
L7 - 4
L8 - 6
L9 - 4
L10 - 3

*Note - requires the same use of bond conservation above.

20th Level Sorcerer (L20 Feat for another L10 Slot)
L1 - 4
L2 - 4
L3 - 4
L4 - 4
L5 - 4
L6 - 4
L7 - 4
L8 - 4
L9 - 4
L10 - 2

20th Level Cleric (18 CHA + L20 Feat for another L10 Slot)
L1 - 3
L2 - 3
L3 - 3
L4 - 3
L5 - 3
L6 - 3
L7 - 3
L8 - 3
L9 - 3
L10 - 7 (5 are heals or harms)

20th Level Druid/Bard (L20 Feat for another L10 Slot)
L1 - 3
L2 - 3
L3 - 3
L4 - 3
L5 - 3
L6 - 3
L7 - 3
L8 - 3
L9 - 3
L10 - 2

[citricking]

Bond conservation is a real hassle to use.

[ChibiNyan]

Bond Conservation is nowhere near as reliable as you think. Need to spend several turns without moving or being able to do anything besides cast spells with that feat.

[Evilgm]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Given that spells are so under-powered in this edition, the only true balance is having more of them so you can cast more frequently.

I disagree with this entire premise.

[Edge93]

Also, I'm not sure if there's anything that stops this but I don't think Arcane Bond is intended to give you an extra L10 slot. (Similarly I expect the extra spell slot per spell level of Sorc and Specialist Wizard is not meant to grant an extra L10 spell, but IDK if that's spelled out in the book either)

But yeah, giving Bond Conservation so much credit is a huge mistake, as is not giving any regard to the action cost to use it in battle.

And the joke about spells being underpowered doesn't work very well, either.

[John Lynch 106]

10 minute spells are meant to last for up to 2 fights so long as your players dont do anything that is hard coded as taking 10 minutes (recover focus points, treat wounds) or do something that would reasonably take 10 minutes (carefully search an area, carefully check a door for traps as opposed to giving it a quick look).

So using bond conservation to get multiple heroisms off before a fight would be a valid use of the feat to get it to last 1 fight. If you were to do it mid fight then you'd reasonably get 2 combats out of it (but then the action cost becomes a genuine cost).

[Red Griffyn]

I agree it is too early to evaluate it's effectiveness, but I'm sure there will be some decent chains that people find. Off the top of my head Timestop + L8 + L6 + L4 and then a L2 spell on your first real turn. Make one of those a haste and now you can move. Out of combat I'm sure there is a buffing chain that could work.

[Wheldrake]

Theory crafting for 20th-level spellcasters and pulling the alarm cord on apparent discrepancies just doesn't fly for me. The game is too young to bear this sort of remark. Not to mention the fact that it's based on several questionable premises.

Whether wizards will be better spellcasters than sorcerers remains to be seen. Whether they *should* be better spellcasters is also a valid question.

[vagrant-poet]

Druid and Bard have the most class features that aren't spell casting, and better proficiencies. (At least better than the wizard/sorcerer, while divine seems like the weakest tradition for personal power at least).

I'd be more alarmed if this wasn't the order of class with what numbers of spell slots to be honest.

[Red Griffyn]

Evilgm wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Given that spells are so under-powered in this edition, the only true balance is having more of them so you can cast more frequently.

I disagree with this entire premise.

That's your pejorative. I've been passionately defending this statement through the playtest and first few weeks since launch. It appears self evident to me from the math of the playtest/final game and is an extremely common thread/comment from many players trying to make the edition leap.

In case it isn't as evident, the following mechanical nerfs have been applied to Spells/Spellcasters:

1. Unless you target the strongest save, monsters still have at least a 50% chance to succeed (or you only get a critical failure on a 1)

2. Casters spell proficiency rolls are delayed behind fighter and other martial bumps by two levels (5 vs. 7 for expert or master fighter, 13 vs. 5 , until L18 with legendary). They also don't get an item bonus or magic rune to boost these rolls. That means you're only likely to crit on a natural 20 and far less able to capitalize on easy melee bonus conditions (e.g., flat-footed) and take ranged cover penalties.

3. There aren't as many trues trike worthy attack roll spells in the game right now, so it doesn't make up for accuracy via proficiency issues.

4. Without metagaming you can't know the monster's weakest save via the recall knowledge action based on RAW. Even if your wizards thesis was "Battle Acumen and the Magical Application of and Common Golarion Hostile Creatures" it still falls under the purview of your GM to be nice enough to give you the information you want.

5. Spell mechanics for control spells are all about action removal are not strong enough to really delay a creature from battle for more than one or two rounds. As identified in #1-4 since critical failures or critical hits are mathematically 5% for most instances of spell use really spell power is based on a save failure or success (since they have a much higher than 50% chance if you targeted their strong save unknowingly). What this means is that you end up with a large percentage of 'control' spells that remove 1 total action through some kind of effect that requires them to clear the debuff via one action, move out of the AoE, etc. Many spells that I've looked at boil down to a 1 action loss in their most common 2 bins for 1 round. On the rare instance a spell has some mechanical value beyond this, it almost certainly has the incapacitation trait, which forces the overall success rates discussed in #1-4.

6. Blasting spell mechanics suffer the same issue. The math points out that lots of creatures will make their save so alot of basic save blasting will feel under powered.

7. Buff spells have had their duration lessened by 1 duration/level (i.e., a 10 min/CL spell in 1e is likely a 10 minute spell). The timescale of the game has also gone from ~1 minute to 10 minutes as many basic actions that people will take will be done in a 10 minute duration (fix shield, apply medicine, identify, perceive room, etc.). That make buffing a reactive once per combat vs. 1 per dungeon spell. It punishes players who interact with the world by giving them very few options to work with to make that interaction meaningful. If you spend time in town/investigating the country side to discover signs of a red dragon, you can't reliably have resist energy on (10 min spell) because if there is only 1 speed bump encounter that could easily eat up your buff in the subsequent short rest period. Throw in 3 encounters and a cave that takes you an hour to traverse and many of these buff spells that always had value become situational. To get use of it you need hope you go first when you see the dragon, otherwise the breath weapon opening salvo is done. It rewards steamroll/murder hobo groups because the kill it faster mentality will work better and have less useless prepared spell choices being made.

8. Caster chassis are much weaker off compared to martials/fighter. They generally get a TEML of: MME in saves and a E in unarmored, E in perception. They also have 6 or 8 hp/level vs. 10 or 12.

9. Auto-scaling cantrips are not doing as much damage as people think they are. They don't make up for weaker spells that monsters are likely to save on. The damage is really low when you start looking at people's martials full turns (which often don't include AoOs to bump their damage up).

10. Spells cost 2-3 actions vs. 1 action. This amounts to most martial feats equating to big action economy boosters (e.g., sudden charge a L1 feat is all day haste) or significant MAP reductions (e.g., swipe is a two strikes for 1).

11. A lot of spells have the minion or similair trait applied, making them hard to use and reducing what casters can do without a L14-16 feat. Imagine a cleric who wants to cast spiritual weapon AND do a 3 action heal to channel. They can't and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me without quickened channel.

12. Invisibility and similar spells are heavily negated by the definition of a "hostile action" being direct/indirect. It'll be pretty hard to argue that using the inspire courage cantrip isn't indirectly hostile so casters can't go invisible and help buff up parties without causing direct damage. Expect great and wide table variations here.

13. Various utility spells have been gutted via duration, higher level slots, or actual effect. For example all flying type spells are L4 and 5 minute in duration. Good luck trying to actually fly somewhere. This is true for a lot of different common spells in various ways.

14. Spell slots have been reduced. Finally to the point of the thread. If spells are going to be so under-powered in this edition can we at least give casters more, not less?

[Red Griffyn]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

10 minute spells are meant to last for up to 2 fights so long as your players dont do anything that is hard coded as taking 10 minutes (recover focus points, treat wounds) or do something that would reasonably take 10 minutes (carefully search an area, carefully check a door for traps as opposed to giving it a quick look).

That is a significant problem. The default timescale of the game in exploration mode has moved from 1 minute to 10 minute increments. I don't think you'll see many instances where people don't want to use a out of combat heal/shield repair/refocus/whatever 10 minute action. It was like that through the playtest for the people I played with despite casters requesting they play through to keep their buffs.

Wheldrake wrote:

Theory crafting for 20th-level spellcasters and pulling the alarm cord on apparent discrepancies just doesn't fly for me. The game is too young to bear this sort of remark. Not to mention the fact that it's based on several questionable premises.

Whether wizards will be better spellcasters than sorcerers remains to be seen. Whether they *should* be better spellcasters is also a valid question.

The intent of the post is to ask whether the slot to slot comparisons between classes is fair and good game design. Drawing comparisons between the best and worst is just a means to show the full differential in effect. The wizard has a very effective means to bump their spells up from L8 onward and I simply selected the level where the impact would be more fully realized to make my point vs. having people overlook it.

The classes I'm more concerned for are the Druid/Bard who have 3 slots per level. I honestly think they should get a Master proficiency in a weapon if this is the case or just bump them up to 4/slot so they are in line with other classes. The cleric is generally ahead until late game when it suddenly isn't at L7 spells and beyond (though the heal/harm spells are auto-heightened which makes up for it).

[Kyrone]

If you want more spells buy a staff, get wands, spend that gp. Martials have to spend money in weapons, casters spend their money on having more spells, it seems fair.

[Red Griffyn]

Kyrone wrote:

If you want more spells buy a staff, get wands, spend that gp. Martials have to spend money in weapons, casters spend their money on having more spells, it seems fair.

The post isn't a caster vs. martial post. Its all about caster vs. caster. The statement at the end is to provide context only. All things being as they are (i.e., spells being much weaker per my above detailed post via - spell dc, spell attack roll, mechanics, etc.), that having more spell slots is a significant discrepancy BETWEEN casters as it is the only fair response to under powered spells. Casters with 1 or 2 or more slots less at each level per day is like a free MC dedication feat + 3-4 feats worth of 'power'. So why is there such a large discrepancy? It looks like someone made a typo to me and meant it to be 4 across the board. Or it could be game design and I wanted to know if the game designers had any feedback on that.

All casters have equal access to staves and wands so It doesn't address the discrepancy.

The wizard also has feats like "Scroll Savant" at L10 where they can get 2 to 4 scrolls at highest spells slot - 2 which equates to more spell slots per day. They appear to have so much built in support for broadening the game, whereas the druid/bard don't.

[Edge93]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Arcane Treatise On The Nerfedness of Spellcasters

And then you actually play the game and find how vital casters are. You realize that spells having an effect even on a successful save is a vast improvement, you aren't constantly wasting turns as enemies save against your spells. You realize that with the tight math system even providing a foe with a -1 to stats for a round makes a big difference, and if you hit them with a -2 or worse it's a huge difference. You realize just how much work blast spells can actually do on a group. And if you have a second caster or a debuffing martial it's easy to debuff an enemy to make landing your spells much easier too without even having to do it yourself.

Seriously, casters were MVPs in multiple chapters ofy Doomsday Dawn group, and they've actually been buffed since then. In actual play casters are great.

[Red Griffyn]

Edge93 wrote:

Needless anecdotal dismissal of previous detailed post

You seem to thrive on making up antagonistic "TLDRs" for my posts, and 'hanging up your argument on your own personal anecdotal evidence that casters were fine from your playtest group. Across multiple threads I've made it abundantly clear that your sample size of 1 doesn't outweigh or trump my same anecdotal sample size of 1 which identified the exact opposite problem. For example, I saw a sorcerer unload 6+ of their highest level spells in the harpy encounter and the harpy saved against all spells with crit saves against 4 of 6 of them. They switched to Cantrips and never played a caster in the playtest again because it felt awful to play. The same scenario arose nearly every playtest scenario/chapter when someone played a caster (i.e., save up those limited slots, use them and..... little or no effect... get carried by the martials).

So lets talk about math. If a caster is <50% for saves on 2 of 3 saves for an equivalent opponent or suffering a -1 o -3 due to lack of item support or proficiency lag behind a martials on spell attack rolls then that -1 to -2 debuff only serves keep their crit success/crit fails on rolls of 1 and 20. Casters aren't likely in melee and may suffer a -1 to -2 for cover negating that benefit. It also means they don't get easy opportunity buffs like flat footed from flanking which gives martials/the fighter another +2 discrepancy to compete with.

Having a mandatory debuff martial in the party isn't a good answer to a class standing on its own two feet and being good in of themselves. That isn't good game balance/design. It especially makes for bad play in PFS where party composition is totally unknown. As well, in PFS there will be level discrepancies of 1-4 levels where the PFS buff of +1 to all things for out of tier people may still not be enough to compensate vs. the -1 to -3 on attacks/DCs (or worse on proficiency bump/straddling levels).

AoE can be great when it works, but its still expecting 5% crit fails, ~30% fails, 50% saves, 15% crit saves (likely 50-50 in the fail/save category for ~2-3 monsters per combat if they get into an arrangement where that will work). But monsters also have a lot more HP and spells don't autoscale damage with CL so its all a big wash using your limited resource of spell slots for blasting.

Maybe if there was a codified way to actually roll a recall knowledge for a monster's worst save DC it would help casters out. But that isn't a RAW right now.

[ikarinokami]

1. druids have some great class feats and focus spells, so them having more slots probably would have been too much.

2. bards have a lot ways to effect things besides combat, more slots probably would make them too much also.

3. Clerics, have two things, if they invested in charisma, they dont really need slots for heal. if they went war priest, they do have a lot of feats to support that, so they dont need as many slots

4. sorcerer has feats that boosts they spells per day. in addition some of those focus spells are seriously good.

5. wizards there focus spells aren't quite as good, there class feats while good are really about being more versatile

overall I thinks its very balance in regards to the varying spell slots each class gets.

[Corvo Spiritwind]

I wouldn't use Bond Conservation as a base, it's really strict and doesn't kick in until you have used said level 10>8>6>2>1 level spells in the day. The conserved energy needs to be used next round, so if you want to keep the chain going, you need to free action drain bond>oneaction conserve bond>twoaction cast a spell.

If you don't do this for one round, the chain breaks off and your conserved energy is gone.

[Dragonchess Player]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Evilgm wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Given that spells are so under-powered in this edition, the only true balance is having more of them so you can cast more frequently.

I disagree with this entire premise.

That's your pejorative.

Careful, your inner troll is showing...

Unless you meant "your prerogative."

[Red Griffyn]

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

I wouldn't use Bond Conservation as a base, it's really strict and doesn't kick in until you have used said level 10>8>6>2>1 level spells in the day. The conserved energy needs to be used next round, so if you want to keep the chain going, you need to free action drain bond>oneaction conserve bond>twoaction cast a spell.

If you don't do this for one round, the chain breaks off and your conserved energy is gone.

It gets better at high levels for sure and time stop + 3 turns is obviously a 'you'll never see capstone combo'. But, I feel like there is likely a be a 1 hour buff spell chain that could be made on odd or even spell slots which lets your rebuff or duplicate buffs to another party member for free essentially.

[e.g.] Some choice picks from the arcane list for buffs

L1 - Floating Disk, Ant Haul, Illusory Disguise, Item Facade, Longstrider, Mage Armour, Negate Armoa
L2 - Illusory Disguise, Illusory Object, Item Facade, Longstrider, Comprehend Language, Darkvision, False Life, Phantom Steed, See Invisibility, Water Breathing
L3 - Item Facade, Comprehend Language, Darkvision, False Life, Water Breathing
L4 - Mage Armor, Comprehend Language, False Life, , Phantom Steed, Water Breathing, Water Walk
L5 - Illusory Object, Negate Aroma, Darkvision,False Life, Phantom Steed, See Invisibility, Spider Climb
L6 - Mage Armor,False Life, Phantom Steed
L7 - False Life
L8 - Mage Armor, False Life
L9 - False Life
L10 - Mage Armor, False Life

It also depends on your GM's adjudication of indirectly hostile. Does casting buffs on your party members count as hostile? If not, you can be peddling out party buffs while remaining invisible and immobile. Otherwise a 4th level Invisibility won't break via hostile and if you open up with that you're free and clear to run your highest to lowest spells.

If you prepped a 7th level haste and include yourself you now have your mobility for a L5,L3, and L1 spell.

Some spells are good no matter what and if arcane bond drain applies to prepared spells on a multicalss then you can use primal or divine spells as well (e.g., 2 action heals or 1 action if you need to move). Or if you've decided to be the anti magic user, you can start casing dispel magics at every level to bridge random gaps.

It opens up some interesting ideas.

[Corvo Spiritwind]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

I wouldn't use Bond Conservation as a base, it's really strict and doesn't kick in until you have used said level 10>8>6>2>1 level spells in the day. The conserved energy needs to be used next round, so if you want to keep the chain going, you need to free action drain bond>oneaction conserve bond>twoaction cast a spell.

If you don't do this for one round, the chain breaks off and your conserved energy is gone.

It gets better at high levels for sure and time stop + 3 turns is obviously a 'you'll never see capstone combo'. But, I feel like there is likely a be a 1 hour buff spell chain that could be made on odd or even spell slots which lets your rebuff or duplicate buffs to another party member for free essentially.

[e.g.] Some choice picks from the arcane list for buffs

L1 - Floating Disk, Ant Haul, Illusory Disguise, Item Facade, Longstrider, Mage Armour, Negate Armoa
L2 - Illusory Disguise, Illusory Object, Item Facade, Longstrider, Comprehend Language, Darkvision, False Life, Phantom Steed, See Invisibility, Water Breathing
L3 - Item Facade, Comprehend Language, Darkvision, False Life, Water Breathing
L4 - Mage Armor, Comprehend Language, False Life, , Phantom Steed, Water Breathing, Water Walk
L5 - Illusory Object, Negate Aroma, Darkvision,False Life, Phantom Steed, See Invisibility, Spider Climb
L6 - Mage Armor,False Life, Phantom Steed
L7 - False Life
L8 - Mage Armor, False Life
L9 - False Life
L10 - Mage Armor, False Life

It also depends on your GM's adjudication of indirectly hostile. Does casting buffs on your party members count as hostile? If not, you can be peddling out party buffs while remaining invisible and immobile. Otherwise a 4th level Invisibility won't break via hostile and if you open up with that you're free and clear to run your highest to lowest spells.

If you prepped a 7th level haste and include yourself you now have your mobility for a L5,L3, and L1 spell.

Some spells are good no matter what and if...

No argument that it opens up things, I like the feat myself. Just saying that there's an inherent risk of not being able to safely cast spells for 5ish rounds without moving(with exception of extra actions such as haste). It's good stuff, but not something I would use as a base for "More slots than others"

[Edge93]

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

No argument that it opens up things, I like the feat myself. Just saying that there's an inherent risk of not being able to safely cast spells for 5ish rounds without moving(with exception of extra actions such as haste). It's good stuff, but not something I would use as a base for "More slots than others"

This is true to be sure. I've only seen this feat in action in Heroes of Undarin, but chains definitely got canceled a couple times because that third action was important or the Wizard needed to cast a higher level spell than the feat allowed.

I do like the idea of using it for buff chains before a fight though.

[thenobledrake]

knowing that an ogre or other clearly tough, acting a lil oblivious, and not spry on their feet creature is going to have a worse chance to pass a reflex or will save than a fortitude save is NOT metagaming.

That whole application of the idea of metagaming is just forcing people to metagame, but to their known deficit rather than to a benefit. The moment you say "you can't target the weakest save because your character wouldn't know which one it is" (which is BS because there are basically always readily apparent cues that the character should be able to use to figure it out, or could just guess) you are effectively saying "if you as a player know what a good choice is, you have to deliberately make a bad choice instead."

You haven't removed the influence that what a player knows has on what a character does, you've just changed the outcome from a character being allowed to seem competent to a character seeming clueless.

[Deadmanwalking]

Yeah, you shouldn't use direct numbers from the books in your calculations (ie: no opening the Bestiary while fighting something). But Saves represent in-world things and targeting ones that the creature in question seems likely to have low is entirely normal and appropriate.

Knowing which Saves they're best or worst at for sure is also good fodder for successful Recall Knowledge checks on the creature in question.

[John Lynch 106]

Do the saves actually follow a logic that should be readily apparent? Or are there non obvious exceptions all over the place?

[Deadmanwalking]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Do the saves actually follow a logic that should be readily apparent? Or are there non obvious exceptions all over the place?

They're mostly pretty logical. You'll run into the occasional exception and receive surprises, but it's a pretty reliable strategy for the most part.

Animals and stupid creatures usually have low Will, huge things usually have low Reflex, etc.

[LuniasM]

Red Griffyn wrote:

For example, I saw a sorcerer unload 6+ of their highest level spells in the harpy encounter and the harpy saved against all spells with crit saves against 4 of 6 of them. They switched to Cantrips and never played a caster in the playtest again because it felt awful to play.

Wait a minute, I feel like remember this from the playtest forums. Didn't they cast five spells that targeted Reflex, which the harpy is hyper-specialized in? And that creature didn't have Evasion or anything, which means the GM rolled a 15+ several times on saving throws before adding their save bonus. Plus, this was before the rebalance of proficiency ranks, which would have increased everyone's DCs by 2.

[Corvo Spiritwind]

Edge93 wrote:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

No argument that it opens up things, I like the feat myself. Just saying that there's an inherent risk of not being able to safely cast spells for 5ish rounds without moving(with exception of extra actions such as haste). It's good stuff, but not something I would use as a base for "More slots than others"

This is true to be sure. I've only seen this feat in action in Heroes of Undarin, but chains definitely got canceled a couple times because that third action was important or the Wizard needed to cast a higher level spell than the feat allowed.

I do like the idea of using it for buff chains before a fight though.

No argument there at all, I personally like it. Just wouldn't use it as a reference for base amount of slots of a class.

[kaid]

ChibiNyan wrote:

Bond Conservation is nowhere near as reliable as you think. Need to spend several turns without moving or being able to do anything besides cast spells with that feat.

It also seems like converting a level 10 spell to lesser spell slots would be um an odd choice? In general level 10 spells are things like wish or cataclysm. The impact of them should likely be way more useful than a bunch of level 1 spells.

Ooops never mind I had to go back and check and I had misunderstood how the bond conservation worked. It does allow for some pretty nifty stuff but the moons and stars would have to align to get a full casting chain off I would think.

[ikarinokami]

thenobledrake wrote:

knowing that an ogre or other clearly tough, acting a lil oblivious, and not spry on their feet creature is going to have a worse chance to pass a reflex or will save than a fortitude save is NOT metagaming.

That whole application of the idea of metagaming is just forcing people to metagame, but to their known deficit rather than to a benefit. The moment you say "you can't target the weakest save because your character wouldn't know which one it is" (which is BS because there are basically always readily apparent cues that the character should be able to use to figure it out, or could just guess) you are effectively saying "if you as a player know what a good choice is, you have to deliberately make a bad choice instead."

You haven't removed the influence that what a player knows has on what a character does, you've just changed the outcome from a character being allowed to seem competent to a character seeming clueless.

I agree with this. if we assume you grew up a spell caster in Golorion, I think it's safe to say that some assumptions are universal.

1. Giants are probably tough

2. enemy spell casters probably have strong minds

3. don't try to fire ball agile creatures etc.

[Edge93]

LuniasM wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

For example, I saw a sorcerer unload 6+ of their highest level spells in the harpy encounter and the harpy saved against all spells with crit saves against 4 of 6 of them. They switched to Cantrips and never played a caster in the playtest again because it felt awful to play.

Wait a minute, I feel like remember this from the playtest forums. Didn't they cast five spells that targeted Reflex, which the harpy is hyper-specialized in? And that creature didn't have Evasion or anything, which means the GM rolled a 15+ several times on saving throws before adding their save bonus. Plus, this was before the rebalance of proficiency ranks, which would have increased everyone's DCs by 2.

Okay, I frickin wondered. Cause I looked at the Harpy and saw they had nuts Reflex and not so the rest but I thought nah, surely if the poster was acting in good faith thus couldn't be a Sorcerer that was dumb enough to repeatedly bash their head against what would clearly be the logical choice for their best save.

That'll teach me. XP

[ChibiNyan]

Almost everything after level 5~ has a low Reflex Save in the Bestiary. Monsters just get bigger and badder and start getting slower. It is at low levels versus Goblin, Kobolds and other tiny/medium people where you see most of the creatures with good Reflex.

[Kelseus]

Assuming you're not using a RAW, but somewhat dubious and extremely situational bond conservation doesn't the specialist wizard and sorcerer end up with the same # of spell slots? Also with free Heals and great focus powers/cantrips for Druid and Bard it doesn't really feel like they are behind.

Do they have less --spell slots--? Yes.

Do they have less --MAGIC--? clearly no.

[jimthegray]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Given that spells are so under-powered in this edition, the only true balance is having more of them so you can cast more frequently.

.

not really seeing the "so under-powered "

its certainly not a given imho
are casters less op'ed in this edition? a bit less but there still quite good

[Edge93]

jimthegray wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Given that spells are so under-powered in this edition, the only true balance is having more of them so you can cast more frequently.

.

not really seeing the "so under-powered "

its certainly not a given imho
are casters less op'ed in this edition? a bit less but there still quite good

Basically yeah. Less OP, still great. Especially with spells having effects on successful saves amd buffs/debuffs being so effective.

[Edge93]

Kelseus wrote:

Assuming you're not using a RAW, but somewhat dubious and extremely situational bond conservation doesn't the specialist wizard and sorcerer end up with the same # of spell slots? Also with free Heals and great focus powers/cantrips for Druid and Bard it doesn't really feel like they are behind.

Do they have less --spell slots--? Yes.

Do they have less --MAGIC--? clearly no.

This.

[Debelinho]

regarding "weak" magic in 2E, the only thing that I agree on with OP is that casters do seem to lack a way to get that item bonus to spell attacks and spell DC....i wonder will that be an issue in higher levels(up to level 9-10 it should be ok for sure).

difference between casters are all cool and well designed IMO

yes, 6hp/level and crappy prof's in everything else gets you the most spell slots...why is that so weird to you?

yes, magic is designed in a way that it's much harder to finish a boss fight with 1 spell like in 1E, but tell me....how many rounds does it take for an average martial to clear a small group of lvl-3 or lvl-4 goons? martials can't even clear 1 per round reliably.

every class and every spellcaster has it's own strengths and weaknesses...that smells like cool design and good balance...

[Arakasius]

About item bonuses there I wouldn’t be surprised if the devs were a bit cautious to start. There was an item in the playtest that buffed casters but it didn’t make it to the final game. They did however drop saves and made spells (but not 1.6 dmg spells) better. If they gather feedback that casters are lagging it’s very easy to add that item back in the APG. But if casters were still too strong it wouldn’t be possible to remove it.

[Captain Morgan]

Debelinho wrote:

regarding "weak" magic in 2E, the only thing that I agree on with OP is that casters do seem to lack a way to get that item bonus to spell attacks and spell DC....i wonder will that be an issue in higher levels(up to level 9-10 it should be ok for sure).

difference between casters are all cool and well designed IMO

yes, 6hp/level and crappy prof's in everything else gets you the most spell slots...why is that so weird to you?

yes, magic is designed in a way that it's much harder to finish a boss fight with 1 spell like in 1E, but tell me....how many rounds does it take for an average martial to clear a small group of lvl-3 or lvl-4 goons? martials can't even clear 1 per round reliably.

every class and every spellcaster has it's own strengths and weaknesses...that smells like cool design and good balance...

They also get their casting proficiency up to legendary at high levels, where most other characters only get their offensive proficiency up to master. That seems like it would help offset the item thing, though I haven't looked closely at the item tables to compare when those boosts come online.

The other advantage casters have is that they have several different options to Target and at least one of them is probably lower than AC.

[Debelinho]

Captain Morgan wrote:

They also get their casting proficiency up to legendary at high levels, where most other characters only get their offensive proficiency up to master. That seems like it would help offset the item thing, though I haven't looked closely at the item tables to compare when those boosts come online.

The other advantage casters have is that they have several different options to Target and at least one of them is probably lower than AC.

well....regarding defenses....only arcane casters really have that many options to try and combat the weakest defense...and also exploit weaknesses.

regarding prof's...they do get legendary but at lvl19....and master at lvl15, which is at least 2 levels worse than any martial class....same thing with expert prof

we'll see, but it sure looks that some +1/+2/+3 wands could be needed :)

[Kelseus]

I believe there was a prior thread where someone actually did the math and found that Casters have a crit/success/fail/critfail rate that is pretty much consistent with martials through level 20.

Remember a fighter that fails his Strike gets exactly ZERO. If you succeed at a spell save the target still takes something. 1/2 damage, effect from only 1 round. SOMETHING. So a wizard only getting a success on a 12 while a martial needs only a 10 is actually tilted in the CASTER'S favor.

[Debelinho]

Kelseus wrote:

I believe there was a prior thread where someone actually did the math and found that Casters have a crit/success/fail/critfail rate that is pretty much consistent with martials through level 20.

Remember a fighter that fails his Strike gets exactly ZERO. If you succeed at a spell save the target still takes something. 1/2 damage, effect from only 1 round. SOMETHING. So a wizard only getting a success on a 12 while a martial needs only a 10 is actually tilted in the CASTER'S favor.

that is true.....hmmm....maybe item bonus only for spell attacks then?

those don't get anything on a miss...

[Xenocrat]

Fighter's have feat options to get damage or debuffs on a failed attack.

[Cyrad]

The sorcerer and wizard should get the most spell slots. They have the worst proficiencies in the game.

[Red Griffyn]

Debelinho wrote:

Kelseus wrote:

I believe there was a prior thread where someone actually did the math and found that Casters have a crit/success/fail/critfail rate that is pretty much consistent with martials through level 20.

Remember a fighter that fails his Strike gets exactly ZERO. If you succeed at a spell save the target still takes something. 1/2 damage, effect from only 1 round. SOMETHING. So a wizard only getting a success on a 12 while a martial needs only a 10 is actually tilted in the CASTER'S favor.

that is true.....hmmm....maybe item bonus only for spell attacks then?

those don't get anything on a miss...

I also commented in that thread. The CR = level threats had a downward trend. It also did not incorporate some fairly basic things like feats that improve action economy, drop MAP, AOOs, low opportunity cost buffs available to martials like flatfooted,or the cumulative effect of the "strike, strike, strike" attack (only compared one strike at a time). A martial could easily by getting out 3-6 attacks a round with 2-4 of those being with no MAP (e.g., Swipe (two strikes equivalent) >> Certain Strike (press) >> AoO + AoO OR truestrike >> Swipe >> AoO + AoO)

The other thing to keep in mind that for some martials, failure isn't a zero. Fighters have Certain Strike which changes this at L10 and provides minimum damage on misses. Up until L10 they have Exacting Strike at L1, which doesn't progress MAP on a failed attack (which changes average damage on a strike strike strike turn). One of those is available to any MC into fighter (which many martials will do due to class locked feats). This isn't an exhaustive survey of all available martial feats so there is probably something else/other options available.

[Donovan Du Bois]

Spells have been nerfed across the board and every class lost spell slots. I feels pretty bad. My bard can cast 3 spells per scenario. Why am I a caster again? I could just build a rogue and be better in combat.

[Aristophanes]

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Spells have been nerfed across the board and every class lost spell slots. I feels pretty bad. My bard can cast 3 spells per scenario. Why am I a caster again? I could just build a rogue and be better in combat.

So all the scenarios you play happen in 1 day "in game"?

Bards have lots of skills and great cantrips!
The scenario I recently played with mine did only last 1 day in game, but he felt very effective most of the time.
On the other hand, the scenario did have a fair amount of social interaction, but I know he made an effective contribution in combat. But YMMV.

[Deadmanwalking]

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Spells have been nerfed across the board and every class lost spell slots. I feels pretty bad. My bard can cast 3 spells per scenario. Why am I a caster again? I could just build a rogue and be better in combat.

Well, 'better' in what sense? Inspire Courage is ridiculous and buffs the whole party.

Also that's actually more 1st level spells than a Bard got at 1st level in PF1. So no, every Class did not lose spells. Bard didn't (they gained them due to becoming a full caster).

Plus, cantrips are actually super relevant now, something that makes quite a bit of difference in how casters work.

And spells can be quite good if you pick the right ones and use them properly. What spells are you not finding useful?