Article with Analysis on Casters vs Martials:


Advice

1 to 50 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi everyone, I just finished today a new article based on research I did on all discussions and data I could find on the question of PF2E game balance between casters and martial characters.

I'd like to thank the user Citricking for the amazing amount of data that he gathered and made public, without which it would not be possible to finish this article in a timely manner.

Link to the Article:
PF2E - Casters Vs Martials: The Sage Answer
https://www.thegamersage.com/post/pf2e-casters-vs-martials-the-sage-answer

Critiques and suggestions will be appreciated.
I will update the article if the discussion here provides more accurate information in any aspect.

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _____________________

And if anyone is interested, I have two other articles for PF2E:

Warlock Class - Compatible with PF2E (Not based on 3.5, 4e or 5e warlock, different concept)
https://www.thegamersage.com/post/warlock-class-pf2e-compatible

PF2E Game Design focused Review.
Pathfinder 2E RPG: Elegant and full of choices.
https://www.thegamersage.com/post/the-gamer-sage-review-pathfinder-2e-rpg-e legant-and-full-of-choices

Thank you all.


Michael. I am quite a bit surprised by your ideas, as a fellow brasilian(I think i heard somewhere you where one but not 100% sure) i hope you keep going steady ^^
Also if you keep going forward with the warlock class i hope you can create a homebrew product or start a 3pp. Since pf2 3pp/homebrew scenary is still fresh and empty.


Interesting enough the usual Cantrips (1d4 + modifier) only surpass a spell like Fireball when the Caster is lvl 13 and have access to 7th level spells.

Nice article, I think that will take some time before the veterans get used to the new caster playstyle.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:

Michael. I am quite a bit surprised by your ideas, as a fellow brasilian(I think i heard somewhere you where one but not 100% sure) i hope you keep going steady ^^

Also if you keep going forward with the warlock class i hope you can create a homebrew product or start a 3pp. Since pf2 3pp/homebrew scenary is still fresh and empty.

Yes, i am a Brazilian Game Designer, i co-founded Arcano Games, and i do game development works for Meeple Br Jogos. =D

I want to create good quality content for Pf2 as a 3pp, let's see if people will be interested.

Kyrone wrote:

Interesting enough the usual Cantrips (1d4 + modifier) only surpass a spell like Fireball when the Caster is lvl 13 and have access to 7th level spells.

Nice article, I think that will take some time before the veterans get used to the new caster playstyle.

Yep, exactly that!

The idea that lower level spells lose utility is not true on PF2.

That is why i felt that this article could contribute to the general consensus of how things are balanced on PF2E.

Hope people like it.


Seems like the cantrip damage should be rated 3.5+mod. Not 2.5.

All the d4 cantrips come with additional stuff. Like slow -10, enfeebled 1, or 2 targets with half damage on a "miss".
The pure damage ones do more.


Mellored wrote:

Seems like the cantrip damage should be rated 3.5+mod. Not 2.5.

All the d4 cantrips come with additional stuff. Like slow -10, enfeebled 1, or 2 targets with half damage on a "miss".
The pure damage ones do more.

Lets see:

Acid Splash: 1d6 acid damage plus 1 splash acid damage. (No ability to damage) Extra effect only on critical. (1 persistent acid damage.)

Divine Lance: Pure 1d4+attribute. No effect on crit.

Electric Arc: The outlier and best cantrip. 1d4+attribute, basic reflex, so half-damage on target saving. But no extra effects on crit. The best cantrip because it targets 2 targets. (But remember the damage comparisons on the article are not taking into account that 2d6/spell-level of wizard spells are all AOE too.)

Produce Flame: 1d4+attribute, on crit it does extra 1d4 persistent fire damage.

Ray of Frost: 1d4+attribute, on crit it reduces the target movement speed by 10-foot for 1 round.

Telekinetic Projectile: 1d6+attribute, no extra effects.

The only two outliers are Telekinetic Projectile that is d6 instead of d4, and Electric Arc that can target 2 creatures.

The effects of the other cantrips only happen on a crit and are mostly irrelevant.

But I agree with you that the math could take into account 3.5+mod not 2.5+mod, as Telekinetic Projectile can be used as a baseline.


Thanks for the credit, but credit vi isn't me, that was someone else, my success rate charts are here


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The article takes the standard assumption that a PF2 combat lasts ~4 rounds.
It correctly says that a mid-to-upper level wizard will have about 7 spells of approximately the impact as a fighter's strike (not necessarily doing damage).

It then calculates that on a given round, the spellcaster will be competitive with an equivalent martial character.

For that round.

But the article assumes 7 or so encounters/day. With the caster using one of those "Big Gun" spells each encounter.

However, with 7 encounters/day, that's not 7 rounds of combat. It's 35.

Each round the martial character is the Energizer Bunny - they just keep going and going and going, with approximately the same effectiveness.

However, the tacit assumption of the article is that, other than the 7 highlighted rounds, the caster is doing - significantly less effective things? Because it is counting 7 "big gun" spells that are competitive with what a martial can do on that same round.

So each other round, the caster is - less impactful. (Again, I use "impactful" rather than "damage" - of course spells do other things. But martial characters also have other abilities, and many of not most of these are also energizer-bunny abilities. Of course, these abilities are not spells. But we're running with the assumption that other than the "big gun" spells, the caster's spells taper off in impact after that).

The article also highlights that casters have some major situations - the ones where all party members need to be most efficient and effective - where they are probably better off, given opportunity costs, doing - what? 20% chance of a hit vs a barb's 40% (but it gets better! Casters rising to the heights of 25% soon after, vs the barb's 40%. And the barb was chosen because they have a lower chance to hit than, say, the fighter). So during those levels, the caster is supposed to do...what? Offer sage advice? Which yes is valuable. But they're best bet would seem to be to hide somewhere so they wouldn't be reduced to a fine spray.

From what I can tell, the article highlights that during those situations (critical encounters at several key levels) the caster is being carried by the martials.

Correct me where I am wrong. I probably am. As I said in another thread, I'm far from an expert at the rules. Though the article does its best with adjectives and flavor text to minimize the underperformance of casters, the numbers spell disaster for casters at SACRIFICE

(Yes yes, I know: it's because fighters are genetic freaks and they're not normal So casters only have an 8.333333333% chance of contributing at SACRIFICE while the fighter has a 141% chance of contributin, and as others pointed out in that other thread, it's a cooperative team game, not a solo game, so the caster should be happy the team has a 141% chance of winnin at SACRIFICE because Scott Steiner is in the same party they're in, holding his cape as his valet I guess).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFoC3TR5rzI


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Porphyrogenitus wrote:
...

I point in the article that 2d6/spell-level spells are lower then what casters can actually do.

I also point that the table is already taking into account the lower hit chance of casters.

That is why I included a table against Player Level+2 Enemy. It shows that even when taking all that loss of hit chance into account, the damage of the spells when they actually hit is so big that, plus the fact that it does half damage on a successful save it, compensates for all the lower chance of hitting.

Don't worry the game is well balanced, as the article suggests.

When I suggested 7 encounters per day I did it showing a WORST CASE SCENARIO, showing that even in those cases casters were still good.

You are underestimating the lower level spells. Like I said in the article even level 1 debuffing spells can be crippling for enemies, and you will have plenty of those at higher levels. (7+?)

Read the article again with a bit more patience, you will see that I make arguments both in favor and against casters, I was not being biased, and my conclusion was more technical them wishful thinking or just good "flavourful" words.

The sky is not falling, to speak the truth I was abit skeptical and feeling that casters might be a bit underpowered before I started doing proper research, and I am 100% convinced that they are still better then Martils in practice to speak the truth, since all calculations point that they are as efficient as martials on single target, having more nova damage potential, but being weaker if facing too much encounters or too long encounters, but this all is ignoring the fact that on 3+ targets they blow away the competition without even trying.

So martial classes are now finally viable, and casters are still on a pretty good spot IMO.


citricking wrote:
Thanks for the credit, but credit vi isn't me, that was someone else, my success rate charts are here

Fixed it!

Thank you, it was Gisher's Table of proficiencies. They were pretty clean to make the comparisons.

I must have messed up while checking the different links to build the references. Sorry about that.

Your work was amazing with the data, and I thank you again. If you find anything wrong on the article please let me know.


It's a good read and analysis.

There is one thing that bothers me, though. I think you're underrating the importance of high level spell slots.

You completely fail to mention the Incapactation trait on many of the best debuff/disable spells. That first level Color Spray won't do much against level 3+ enemies. They treat their save as one degree better, so even on a failed save, they are only dazzled for a round. And on a success, they are unaffected.

Similarly, some of the spells you list as examples for useful low-level spells are actually relatively weak when not heightened to a high level spell slot.

A 4th level Globe of Invulnerability isn't going to do much against a 12th level caster since it has an extremely low chance to block anything higher than 4th level. And even 3rd and 4th level spells have roughly a 50% chance to get through.

Freedom of Movement also only allows automatic escape against effects that are no higher than its level. A 4th level FoM isn't going to help you against Black Tentacles or more powerful spells.

Now there's still plenty of good spells for the lower level slots, so it doesn't change your conclusiong much. But those top level spell slots might be a bit more valuable and important than your article implies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blave wrote:

It's a good read and analysis.

There is one thing that bothers me, though. I think you're underrating the importance of high level spell slots.

You completely fail to mention the Incapactation trait on many of the best debuff/disable spells. That first level Color Spray won't do much against level 3+ enemies. They treat their save as one degree better, so even on a failed save, they are only dazzled for a round. And on a success, they are unaffected.

Similarly, some of the spells you list as examples for useful low-level spells are actually relatively weak when not heightened to a high level spell slot.

A 4th level Globe of Invulnerability isn't going to do much against a 12th level caster since it has an extremely low chance to block anything higher than 4th level. And even 3rd and 4th level spells have roughly a 50% chance to get through.

Freedom of Movement also only allows automatic escape against effects that are no higher than its level. A 4th level FoM isn't going to help you against Black Tentacles or more powerful spells.

Now there's still plenty of good spells for the lower level slots, so it doesn't change your conclusiong much. But those top level spell slots might be a bit more valuable and important than your article implies.

Just finished making an update about incapacitation spells.

Such spells are more or less useless, as they also are not great even if used on your best slot since they will face the same problem against any Level+1 enemy, or even a same level enemy on an even level.

Freedom of movement is not good only against spells, give it another read.

The Globe of Invulnerability is still good because enemies will also use low slot spells. =D

Like you said, there is many other low-level spells to pick, I updated the list a little, but I never treated it as a consolidated list, just as few examples.

I forgot to look for the incapacitation trait when I was making the list so it was incorrect as you pointed. I fixed it.


Michael Alves wrote:

Just finished making an update about incapacitation spells.

Such spells are more or less useless, as they also are not great even if used on your best slot since they will face the same problem against any Level+1 enemy, or even a same level enemy on an even level.

I disagree on them being useless. They are still very powerful - if heightened. They won't help you when you're fighting a dragon, true. But many other evil wizards/warlords/BBEGs often oppose you with a bunch of underlings. Taking those out so your party can focus on the boss can actually be a pretty effective strategy, especially if those underlings happen to include casters that would otherwise buff/heal the boss.

Quote:
Freedom of movement is not good only against spells, give it another read.

I know. But against spells and all other magical effects (which includes a huge number of monster abilities) it does nothing if not heightened to an appropriate level.

Quote:
The Globe of Invulnerability is still good because enemies will also use low slot spells.

That's not my experience. Enemies usually have only one encounter: That against the PCs. So nothing keeps them from using their highest level spells. An enemy needs to be multiple levels below the party to be affected by Globe (at least if the party is on a level where 4th level slots have lsot their importance). Such a caster is most likely no danger to the party, with globe or without.

Anyway, thanks for fixing the article. All those spells are still good, but I felt that it should be mentioned that they only perform at full capacity when heightened. :)


Michael Alves wrote:


Just finished making an update about incapacitation spells.
Such spells are more or less useless, as they also are not great even if used on your best slot since they will face the same problem against any Level+1 enemy, or even a same level enemy on an even level.

I think you have to level that effects Incapacitation spells as one too low here.

Targets treat their success one better if they are higher level than 2 times spell level. So for a lvl 5 wizard casting a 3rd level spell, the target has to be lvl 7 (2 above the wizard) to change the outcome of those spells. A lvl6 wizard affects equal level targets normally with 3rd level spells.


Michael Alves wrote:

That is why I included a table against Player Level+2 Enemy. It shows that even when taking all that loss of hit chance into account, the damage of the spells when they actually hit is so big that, plus the fact that it does half damage on a successful save it, compensates for all the lower chance of hitting.

...You are underestimating the lower level spells. Like I said in the article even level 1 debuffing spells can be crippling for enemies, and you will have plenty of those at higher levels. (7+?)

With only a 1/5 or 1/4 chance of hitting during what are critical junctures, the spell better be pretty devastating to be worth casting.

I am *not* an expert in these rules. But I do look at impact in a not-in-a-vacuum way, but in a form of comparative analysis: If this were 5E, Treantmonk would be reminding people that the dodge action exists and is a perfectly viable choice when there's little chance of doing anything impactful (i.e. cantrips - and PF2 cantrips scale a bit better than 5E cantrips, but, if there were a dodge action, Treantmonk would probably say that using the dodge would be strictly superior to using a cantrip in almost all cases once you reach mid-level. But cantrips are not the point, really; ignore cantrips, they're a diversion, as your article suggests. They could easily have been left as they were).

The same would be true any time your chance of landing that impactful effect is abysmal. But the thing is, it doesn't take a Master-tier caster to use the dodge action: any numpty can use it and be a decoy for one round.

As far as I know, there's no full equivalent to the 5E Dodge action in PF. so then your opportunity-cost actions (the best available alternatives you have to casting a spell that has a extremely low probability of landing, and then, if it does, still gives the target a save - and we're counting a best-case scenario after the save: 0 resistances, or other abilities strong foes tend to have that can mitigate effects. They're likely not automatically taking half the impact). So your opportunity-cost action would be something like moving as fast as you can in the other direction and hiding behind something. You're less likely to be helping the party by being a decoy, but more likely to survive the encounter, an encounter where your chances of meaningfully contributing would be considered laughable if the hit-chance was on any character other than a caster.

Maybe out from behind cover you use that l.1 grease spell that still might be effective, you've got me there. It doesn't change the fact that during these extremely critical and tough encounters (that the party *will* face from time to time), when everyone needs to count on everyone else, you're really not likely to be effective when it matters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Porphyrogenitus wrote:
...

No.

You have 1/4 or 1/5 of hitting for full effect with a Save spell, and then if they did not critically succeed, they take half damage.

You are contributing way more by casting your spells on it than running away. You are thinking with a 5e/3.5e mentality, where spells miss effect are not impactful.

A real combat against a Level+3 enemy will still net you good chances of hitting with save spells because of buffs. And even when the enemy succeeds they will still take the miss effect.

It would NOT be better to waste your actions running away, as you would be contributing zero. I am very sure treantmonk would not suggest it for spell casters on PF2E against bosses.

As I said, what matters is the normalized DPR and not the actual "hit chances" and on a normalized DPR wizard, top slot spells are better than a fighter using actions to attack.


masda_gib wrote:


I think you have to level that effects Incapacitation spells as one too low here.

Targets treat their success one better if they are higher level than 2 times spell level. So for a lvl 5 wizard casting a 3rd level spell, the target has to be lvl 7 (2 above the wizard) to change the outcome of those spells. A lvl6 wizard affects equal level targets normally with 3rd level spells.

True, it was pretty late, and I was working on writing articles for like 14 hours by that time. Sorry for this obvious mistake.

It always affect your level+1 on odd levels, and your level+0 on even levels.

Still, most "boss" enemies are Level+2 or Level+3 so the point stands.
Yet I agree that they are not useless, just situational.

Most of the time, a big blast spell that hits boss + minions is better than a crowd control that has no effect on boss. But it is not set in stone and depends heavily on many factors, so you are right.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Porphyrogenitus wrote:
Michael Alves wrote:

That is why I included a table against Player Level+2 Enemy. It shows that even when taking all that loss of hit chance into account, the damage of the spells when they actually hit is so big that, plus the fact that it does half damage on a successful save it, compensates for all the lower chance of hitting.

...You are underestimating the lower level spells. Like I said in the article even level 1 debuffing spells can be crippling for enemies, and you will have plenty of those at higher levels. (7+?)
...

It really does seem like you’re looking at this in a vacuum. From my experience, spells work great even against higher level creatures. For instance, in a recent game with a level four party, I used three spells (two level 1 and one level 2) to fight against a greater barghest (cr 7). My first spell, a level 2 phantom pain was succeeded against, only resulting in 4d4 (I think 12) damage. My next attack, however, was a level 1 grim tendrils (after bad information from a teammate’s failed save), was failed against for 2d4 damage and 1 persistent, which only looks small without taking its full advantages into account: grim tendrils is a line spell. I only looked for persistent damage in case of a prolonged fight, as my main cantrip (telekinetic projectile) hits fairly hard without needing to get into combat or spend gold on increasing runes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That is one thing that seems to be hard to wrap peoples brains around but in this version a succeeded save still generally means you took some effect. Generally half damage + some lesser or shorter duration debuff. So even if a lower level debuff or movement spell gets saved against it generally is still having an effect.

So unless you are fighting something so high that they are crit succeeding on their saves even low level debuffs are going to be pretty worth throwing out there.


Narxiso wrote:
It really does seem like you’re looking at this in a vacuum. From my experience, spells work great even against higher level creatures.

That's probably true, in retrospect.

Indeed it is true since I have zero experience so far with PF2 at medium-to-high level play. Only interpretation from reading things like the article in question.

So I'll pipe down now and do what Michael suggested earlier, and have more patience.

I do thank him (and you) for your answers to my posts.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Michael Alves wrote:

Hi everyone, I just finished today a new article based on research I did on all discussions and data I could find on the question of PF2E game balance between casters and martial characters.

I'd like to thank the user Citricking for the amazing amount of data that he gathered and made public, without which it would not be possible to finish this article in a timely manner.

Link to the Article:
PF2E - Casters Vs Martials: The Sage Answer
https://www.thegamersage.com/post/pf2e-casters-vs-martials-the-sage-answer

Critiques and suggestions will be appreciated.
I will update the article if the discussion here provides more accurate information in any aspect.

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _____________________

And if anyone is interested, I have two other articles for PF2E:

Warlock Class - Compatible with PF2E (Not based on 3.5, 4e or 5e warlock, different concept)
https://www.thegamersage.com/post/warlock-class-pf2e-compatible

PF2E Game Design focused Review.
Pathfinder 2E RPG: Elegant and full of choices.
https://www.thegamersage.com/post/the-gamer-sage-review-pathfinder-2e-rpg-e legant-and-full-of-choices

Thank you all.

Very impressive thank you for your work and for sharing this with the community!


Incap spells are partly useless because they do nothing to bosses. Crippling bosses is far, far more useful than crippling their minions

The other part of their uselessness is that there are usually better options at the level you have to heighten them to for them to be at all effective. Essentially, they're generally only worthwhile at their base spell level. They're just too unreliable to bother with.


sherlock1701 wrote:

Incap spells are partly useless because they do nothing to bosses. Crippling bosses is far, far more useful than crippling their minions

The other part of their uselessness is that there are usually better options at the level you have to heighten them to for them to be at all effective. Essentially, they're generally only worthwhile at their base spell level. They're just too unreliable to bother with.

It's just in my tables that people tend to die to mooks instead of bosses? I mean most times deaths happened where mobs of enemies. On regular bosses normally 1 death happens and it's pretty rare.


Guide for using expected damage comparison grapher

I made a guide for my tool for comparing expected damage of different attack routines. You can compare against different AC targets for levels 1 to 20, or against different ACs for a set level.

Here's a link to the tool
The guide linked above can explain how to use it.

Thread here

This might be helpful, it doesn't have spells vs saves yet, but you can at least compare with some cantrips that target AC


1 person marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:

Guide for using expected damage comparison grapher

I made a guide for my tool for comparing expected damage of different attack routines. You can compare against different AC targets for levels 1 to 20, or against different ACs for a set level.

Here's a link to the tool
The guide linked above can explain how to use it.

Thread here

This might be helpful, it doesn't have spells vs saves yet, but you can at least compare with some cantrips that target AC

Great news!

Does this new tool changed anything that was already on the tables and graphs? (If so please let me know so I can improve the article accordingly.)

For future reference, I will be using your tool.
Thank you again for the time invested.


Michael Alves wrote:
citricking wrote:

Guide for using expected damage comparison grapher

I made a guide for my tool for comparing expected damage of different attack routines. You can compare against different AC targets for levels 1 to 20, or against different ACs for a set level.

Here's a link to the tool
The guide linked above can explain how to use it.

Thread here

This might be helpful, it doesn't have spells vs saves yet, but you can at least compare with some cantrips that target AC

Great news!

Does this new tool changed anything that was already on the tables and graphs? (If so please let me know so I can improve the article accordingly.)

For future reference, I will be using your tool.
Thank you again for the time invested.

I think it shows you're underselling cantrips.

I made a graph comparing Telekinetic Projectile to a Longbow Fighter

TP is consistently doing half the longbow fighters damage if they both use two actions. That's good and worth using. Granted the fighter isn't using feats like certain strike or exacting strike. But that games math doesn't seem to assume you'll take those feats.

I'd say cantrips are certainly a valid option.


citricking wrote:
Michael Alves wrote:
citricking wrote:

Guide for using expected damage comparison grapher

I made a guide for my tool for comparing expected damage of different attack routines. You can compare against different AC targets for levels 1 to 20, or against different ACs for a set level.

Here's a link to the tool
The guide linked above can explain how to use it.

Thread here

This might be helpful, it doesn't have spells vs saves yet, but you can at least compare with some cantrips that target AC

Great news!

Does this new tool changed anything that was already on the tables and graphs? (If so please let me know so I can improve the article accordingly.)

For future reference, I will be using your tool.
Thank you again for the time invested.

I think it shows you're underselling cantrips.

I made a graph comparing Telekinetic Projectile to a Longbow Fighter

TP is consistently doing half the longbow fighters damage if they both use two actions. That's good and worth using. Granted the fighter isn't using feats like certain strike or exacting strike. But that games math doesn't seem to assume you'll take those feats.

I'd say cantrips are certainly a valid option.

Doesn't seem to assume to take the Feats? What do you mean by that?

Michael:Great article.

The fighter you compare to, isn't really damage optimized I assume?

Dark Archive

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Casters have suffered the following nerfs and I wouldn't call the current situation balanced:

1. Per your cited values, monsters have a 70% chance to succeed (strong save), 60% chance to succeed (mid save), and 45% chance to succeed (weak save). This makes critically failing a save almost non-existent (only on a natural 1 in most cases). This only gets worse for a boss battle due to non-linear treadmill scaling where you absolutely shouldn't waste your real spells on them unless you want to get shut down.

2. Casters spell proficiency rolls are heavily delayed. That means you are only likely to crit on a spell attack roll on a natural 20 and can't take advantage of easy to inflict conditions that martials can (e.g., flanking for flat-footed)

3. There aren't many true 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. 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 to drive it into obscurity.

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 and significantly increases the likeliehood of a wasted spell slot if used proactively vs. reactively once combat starts.

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 (25-40% less per level).

-----

All through the playtest, some PFS2e sessions, and The Fall of Plaguestone I watch casters fail to have a meaningful impact on combat in the way they want. They are frustrated and most of them don't find it particularly fun.

The biggest impact spells out there right now are buffs/heals to the fighter (i.e., magic weapon, inspire courage, haste, etc.). Every other spell has a huge failure chance due to increased saves or poor proficiency on spell attack rolls. If you want to play a standard controller/blaster, I see a very swingy/love hate play experience ahead. You'll have very little control over your efficacy in the system (beyond a starting 18) and can only hope that the scenario or GM lines up an AOE effect that you can exploit before your front line is in the way.


puksone wrote:
citricking wrote:
Michael Alves wrote:
citricking wrote:

Guide for using expected damage comparison grapher

I made a guide for my tool for comparing expected damage of different attack routines. You can compare against different AC targets for levels 1 to 20, or against different ACs for a set level.

Here's a link to the tool
The guide linked above can explain how to use it.

Thread here

This might be helpful, it doesn't have spells vs saves yet, but you can at least compare with some cantrips that target AC

Great news!

Does this new tool changed anything that was already on the tables and graphs? (If so please let me know so I can improve the article accordingly.)

For future reference, I will be using your tool.
Thank you again for the time invested.

I think it shows you're underselling cantrips.

I made a graph comparing Telekinetic Projectile to a Longbow Fighter

TP is consistently doing half the longbow fighters damage if they both use two actions. That's good and worth using. Granted the fighter isn't using feats like certain strike or exacting strike. But that games math doesn't seem to assume you'll take those feats.

I'd say cantrips are certainly a valid option.

Doesn't seem to assume to take the Feats? What do you mean by that?

Michael:Great article.

The fighter you compare to, isn't really damage optimized I assume?

I compared a fighter's and a monster's expected damage for levels 1 to 20, they match up pretty well if you don't use feats like certain strike.


There article made for some good reading, thank you!

I want to note that I had an issue reading on mobile (Android's Chrome). When I got to the hit bonus chart, I had a black bar on the right side of the screen, covering text. Then further down it covered the whole page. Trying to get around it eventually too me to another page, so it seems to have been an ad. Loading the desktop page worked just fine.

Don't know if I'm the only one, but I know you likely never hear about it if no one speaks up, so...


lshaver wrote:

There article made for some good reading, thank you!

I want to note that I had an issue reading on mobile (Android's Chrome). When I got to the hit bonus chart, I had a black bar on the right side of the screen, covering text. Then further down it covered the whole page. Trying to get around it eventually too me to another page, so it seems to have been an ad. Loading the desktop page worked just fine.

Don't know if I'm the only one, but I know you likely never hear about it if no one speaks up, so...

Tried on my android, same is happening.

I don't know what is wrong. There is no advertising on the blog post pages except for a small banner at the begging. (That is an image not a code for random AD)

I tried to remove everything at the end of the posts on WIX and nothing is working to fix this.

Anyone is proficient on WIX and can help me? =(


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Red Griffyn wrote:


1. Per your cited values, monsters have a 70% chance to succeed (strong save), 60% chance to succeed (mid save), and 45% chance to succeed (weak save). This makes critically failing a save almost non-existent (only on a natural 1 in most cases). This only gets worse for a boss battle due to non-linear treadmill scaling where you absolutely shouldn't waste your real spells on them unless you want to get shut down.

Yes, but the damage tables already take hit chance into account.

You are also ignoring that in actual combat you will have buffs and the enemy can be debuffed by you and the rest of the party.

Red Griffyn wrote:


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

Not true, there is great single target damage and/or debuff spells. Polar Ray for an example or even Disintegrate.

Red Griffyn wrote:


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.

False. Look at the creature, does it appears to be agile in its movements? Is it very intelligent or is it casting spells? Does it looks very strong and tough?

This is claimed by some people but makes absolutely no sense. Your character is there, it is looking at how the enemy moves, what he does, and everything else.

If your DM refuses to give you information you would obtain by looking at the creature in front of you, then he is the metagaming one and not you, change DM/Table.

Red Griffyn wrote:


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.

False, the damage on the tables are already taking saving throws into consideration.

Red Griffyn wrote:


7. 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 and significantly increases the likeliehood of a wasted spell slot if used proactively vs. reactively once combat starts.

That was both overpowered on prior editions, and was in favor of martials and not casters, so what is your point?

And what it has to do with world interaction?

Red Griffyn wrote:


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.

Better chassis then prior editions.

Red Griffyn wrote:


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).

Did you read the article or you just seen the name of the topic and come here to rant? =(

Red Griffyn wrote:


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).

Again all taken into account in the dpr calculations. Wizards are still doing well with top two higher slots.

Red Griffyn wrote:


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.

It is called choices, and is what makes interesting gameplay.

Red Griffyn wrote:


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.

It is pretty clear. Hostile action is an action that causes harm to the target. Cutting the ropes of a bridge to cause them to fall is hostile, stabbing them with a knife is hostile, healing your ally or casting a haste spell is not.

If your table disagree, and you feel it is unfair, change table and DM. The rules are pretty clear on that, and they are making up things.

Red Griffyn wrote:


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.

Great change. Have you ever read Elminster books? He mostly uses foot or horse to traverse distances, or teleportation when very necessary, but he does not go around flying to places like a Dragon Ball character.

It is cool that a flying focused character can fly and bring his group with him to cross greate distances.
It is strange that every wizard could do the same. The skies would be crowded on some of Toril areas.

Red Griffyn wrote:


14. Spell slots have been reduced (25-40% less per level).

This proves that you had not read the article.

And it is a ~25% less spells, because you often will have more spells on your higher slots them on PF1.

It only reaches 33%-40% if on PF1 you had broken values in your main ability score. (most probably because of house rules)

Red Griffyn wrote:


The biggest impact spells out there right now are buffs/heals to the fighter (i.e., magic weapon, inspire courage, haste, etc.). Every other spell has a huge failure chance due to increased saves or poor proficiency on spell attack rolls. If you want to play a standard controller/blaster, I see a very swingy/love hate play experience ahead. You'll have very little control over your efficacy in the system (beyond a starting 18) and can only hope that the scenario or GM lines up an AOE effect that you can exploit before your front line is in the way.

ONE AOE spell against 4 targets will do more damage them the fighter will do on the entire rest of the combat.

If your group does not know or want to position themselves to allow for your AOE to works, them your wizard should call them in-game for doing things that may risk everyone's life.

If your group does not want to be tactically efficient, change tables, or blast them with the monsters, if that is your thing.

You are pulling data from nothing, citing no source, and saying that many agree with your opinion based on... your opinion. When numbers show otherwise.


I can't access your article with adblock activated.

Is there anything interesting/unexpected in the article? Or does it only explain that wisards are as impactful as a fighter 3 rounds/day?


Michael Alves wrote:
ONE AOE spell against 4 targets will do more damage them the fighter will do on the entire rest of the combat.

One level 5 Fireball 6d6 vs 4 enemies, two making their saves, two will not is dealing about 18d6 or 63 damage as an average.

A fighter using a decent +1 striking weapon (d8, d10, d12) will deal in between 2d8+4 to 2d12+4 damage per single attack (13 to 17 damage per hit), so it takes only 4 to 5 successful hits to deal that 63+ damage, which seems more than managable even if the average combat only lasts about 4 rounds.

I give you that the mage dealt a lot of frontloaded damage in only two actions, but any reasonabily build fighter should easily be able to keep up over time. However in contrast to the mage he will be able to do so be it the 1st, 10th or 100th battle this very day just by continuing to turn that circular saw that is attached to his arm.

Note that I am not saying mages are OP/UP, I haven't played enough so far to make such a statement, however I found your example a little off.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Michael Alves wrote:
ONE AOE spell against 4 targets will do more damage them the fighter will do on the entire rest of the combat.

One level 5 Fireball 6d6 vs 4 enemies, two making their saves, two will not is dealing about 18d6 or 63 damage as an average.

A fighter using a decent +1 striking weapon (d8, d10, d12) will deal in between 2d8+4 to 2d12+4 damage per single attack (13 to 17 damage per hit), so it takes only 4 to 5 successful hits to deal that 63+ damage, which seems more than managable even if the average combat only lasts about 4 rounds.

I give you that the mage dealt a lot of frontloaded damage in only two actions, but any reasonabily build fighter should easily be able to keep up over time. However in contrast to the mage he will be able to do so be it the 1st, 10th or 100th battle this very day just by continuing to turn that circular saw that is attached to his arm.

Note that I am not saying mages are OP/UP, I haven't played enough so far to make such a statement, however I found your example a little off.

Please, do proper math.

Take into account success and failure chances for each target for the fireball, and miss chance of each fighter attack against AC, and the average length of fights in PF2E.

You make a fighter with 100% hit accuracy and a wizard that had all two saves being successful and then claimed I was wrong?

(Oh, and add cantrips to the other 3 wizard rounds, that was the context of the claim if you read the article and the entire topic.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:

I can't access your article with adblock activated.

Is there anything interesting/unexpected in the article? Or does it only explain that wisards are as impactful as a fighter 3 rounds/day?

It depends on your opinion.

You can pause adblock. The site does not even have ads yet anyway.

It shows that mathematically casters and martials are much better balanced than some people that screams that the sky is falling.


Michael Alves wrote:
citricking wrote:
Thanks for the credit, but credit vi isn't me, that was someone else, my success rate charts are here

Fixed it!

Thank you, it was Gisher's Table of proficiencies. They were pretty clean to make the comparisons.

I must have messed up while checking the different links to build the references. Sorry about that.

Your work was amazing with the data, and I thank you again. If you find anything wrong on the article please let me know.

Cool! Glad you got some use out of them. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay let's check the accuracy for both everything okay...

6d6 fireball.
fighter with +1 striking weapon. 2d12(Let's grab the best one for comparison)

Assume that AC and ref is moderate okay?
Caster DC = (5+2)+4+10 = 21
Fighter to-hit = (5+6)+4 = +15

Moderate AC = 21
Moderate save = +12

fireball on average deals to 1 target:
5%(12d6)+35%(6d6)+50%(3d6)+10%(0)
so the average damage is (0.05*12*3.5)+(0.35*6*3.5)+(0.5*3*3.5)+0 = 14.7
or 58.8 to 4 targets of the same level.

Now a fighter using swipe with an great-axe
30%(4d12+8)+50%(2d12+4)+20%(0)
He will also use a greataxe to deal as much damage as he can:
So the fighter will do on two turns
((0.3*4*6.5+(2*6.5)+8)+(0.5*2*6.5))*2 = 70.6
While the fighter does 70.6 to targets of the same level.

Big considerations:
While the fighter does more damage this means he has to spend two actions in melee. While the mage can do it with much more ease at a safe distance... The fighter gets exposed to attacks and flanking and probably needs to run towards the creatures. The wizard can run away after throwing the fireball from range.
The wizard can choose to target weaker saves and wasn't build with multiple enemies in mind. While the fighter requires both a feat and an optimal weapon...
The wizard hits all enemies while the fighter hits only two... Finally both of them do work really well together as the bonus damage from the wizard makes the fighter kill both enemies next turn while without it he will need(On average!) a third turn to finish them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

As far as I can tell, a major issue is that people are citing success on saving throws on spells as being an indication that casters are weak, using some misleading "chance of success" argument.

In reality, half damage on a miss means that even succeeding on their saving throw will often cause the monster to take a fair amount of damage, so long as they don't critically succeed.

We have the same arguments going on with martials, where people are citing 50% hit chances and ignoring that chance jumps up over multiple actions.

The game is balanced around hitting once per turn or in a caster's case, half damage, as a kind of new minimum success state, that mixes with the more direct successes, and crits, to shape your DPR- especially against at level or higher foes.

The mental framework is tripping people up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Alves wrote:
The skies would be crowded in some of Toril's areas.

Fly The Crowded Skies.

tbf, setting the books aside, the impression given by FR is one of crowded skies in some areas (griffon-mounted watch & other peeps in Waterdeep). They're not *more* crowded with Wizards than they would otherwise be because of all the gates (currently: teleport circles) that are reputed to be there.

Admittedly the novels follow a more narrative structure where Ed backed off of some of the things that were obviously in his magic system (ever read Seven Sisters? Or any of the other Greenwood-written accessories focusing on his favorite pNPCs? the kind of magic-at-the-fingertips he clearly used in his own campaigns was one of the contributing factors to braking 3E since a lot of the magic and spells in that were inspired by what he had written up for 1E/2E products. Whew, lads! Ed is one of the greats of the game, but, like Gary and *his* wizard pNPCs, they were the ur-creators of the idea that wizards should be quadratic and at higher levels overshadow everyone else. FR is a great example of that but...)....

And my own once-favorite setting of Mystara: whew, lads, when it comes to air stuff.

but...see also Golarion, where even an unpstart usurper in a backwater burg like Pitax had 100+ wyverns to mount an air cavalry on in canon.

Here in this comment I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong that all these ease-of-travel and airfarce stuff should be curtailed. But it's wrong to say it hasn't been present. So it is a noteworthy nerf.

*here "pNPC" stands for PC-NPC. A character that is sort of in the grey area between an NPC and someone's PC-insert. See also Tricksy of Kintargo/Ravounel.


Considering how movement is easy in PF2, AoE spells should be easier to land properly if your martials take a step back.

Also, Casters have Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma as main attribute. Most martials have Strength. There's one Strength-based skill, and 4 for each mental attributes. In terms of out of combat effectiveness, martials are still rolling less often. And many spells have out of combat utility when martial abilities with out of combat utility are the exception.
And martials need up to date weapons and armor to be fully efficient, when casters don't need weapons and can live with honorable armors. All these computations are always assuming the Fighter has a top of the notch rune, which may not happen all the time.

So, in my opinion, it's fair for martials to be stronger during combat than casters.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Red Griffyn wrote:
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.

As Michael Alves notes, this is not by any means impossible information to get via Recall Knowledge, but just as importantly, you can usually just eyeball the monster and figure it out with decent odds of success.

I mean, what do you think a Bear's low Save is? What about a Goblin?

The Bear is Reflex, while the Goblin is mostly Will (Goblin spellcasters sometimes have Fortitude). Most other creatures likewise follow some pretty direct logic as to what their bad saves are.

Are they big and brutish? Will or Reflex, depending.

Are they small and quick? Probably Will or Fortitude, and you can often tell which.

Are they very stupid, like animal level? Usually Will unless the animal is known for stubbornness.

Are they a dedicated spellcaster? Probably not Will, which of Reflex and Fort can usually be guessed just by looking how big and buff they are.

Doing this you will sometimes get it wrong (one reason why Recall Knowledge remains useful for this), but you'll very rarely hit the creature's high Save, and you'll hit their low one more often than not.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Out of curiosity, why is the caster generally assumed to have no offensive magic items in these comparisons? Fighters are always assumed to have the best weapon and runes, and presumably a backup ranged weapon for when they can't engage in melee.

As far as I can tell, the most damage efficient magic items per action in the game over 4 turns are the Wands of Manifold Missiles. You can use a pair, one in each hand. Spend 2 actions on the first turn, and for the rest of the fight get 2,4,6 or 8 even extra magic missiles every turn for no effort. Its like haste for wizards.

At 6th, you can afford 2 of the 1st level spell versions, at 10th you can afford 2 of the 3rd level spell versions, at 14th you can afford 2 of the 5th level versions, and at 18th you can afford 2 of the 17th level versions, instead of keeping your melee and backup ranged up to date in terms of runes.

Assuming a 4 round boss fight against an enemy level+2, going nova with both wands is like 28 damage at 6th, 56 at 10th, 84 at 14th, and 112 at 18th. If it goes long, say to 5 rounds, they simply get more efficient.

Alternatively, mix them in with 2 action cast spells on the 1st and 2nd turn to boost overall damage with that 3rd action instead of making a strike with a bow or whatever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyone else find it a bit crazy the way someone will jump into a thread and loudly declare that the math shows that something is really bad without ever actually presenting any math and flagrantly ignoring the math that's already been done?

I suppose you have to admire the absolute brazenness some people have in their willingness to just try to b@!##@@$ their way through a conversation while hoping enough people don't notice that they can get away with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Assuming 4 rounds * 3 encounters per day....

Dragon Barbarian 13, using swipe with a Guisarme to help normalize multi-target damage.
Using the chart, 50% chance to hit, 10% chance to crit.
(.5 + .1*2) = 0.7
3d10+5+3(specialization)+8(dragon rage) =
32.5 * 0.7 = 22.75 (2 targets)

Level 13 arcane caster using a level 7/6/5/4 multi-target spell. Which they can do 3 times per day (likely hitting more than 2 targets).
Eclipse Burst (7th, 8d10+8d4) + Chain Lighting (6th, 8d12) + Cone of Cold (5th, 12d6) + Fireball (4th, 8d6)
(64+52+42+28)*.25 = 46.5
45% chance to hit, 45% chance for half, 5% chance for double, 5% none.
(.45 + .45 * .5 + .05 * 2) = 0.775
46.5 * 0.775 = 36.0375 (2+ targets)

So yea. Blaster does 58.4% more damage than a barb. And still has the level 3/2/1 spells for utility. Casters easily win.

Let's try 5 round * 3 encounters (15 rounds of combat) a day.
So if I assume 1 cast of electric arc (7d4+5).
(64+52+42+28+22.5)*.20 = 41.7 * 0.775
= 32.317

So at 15 rounds a day, blasters still win with 42% more damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To find the balance point...

(64+52+42+28)*3*0.775 + R * (22.5 * .775) = 12*(32.5 * .7)+ R*(32.5 * .7)
432.45 + R * 17.4375 = R * 22.75 + 273
159.45 + R * 17.4375 = R * 22.75
159.45/R + 17.4375 = 22.75
159.45/R = 5.3125
30.014/R =1
30 = R

So 30 rounds of combat before barbarian beats the blaster.
Seems like casters are still doing really well.


Mellored wrote:

Assuming 4 rounds * 3 encounters per day....

Dragon Barbarian 13, using swipe with a Guisarme to help normalize multi-target damage.
Using the chart, 50% chance to hit, 10% chance to crit.
(.5 + .1*2) = 0.7
3d10+5+3(specialization)+8(dragon rage) =
32.5 * 0.7 = 22.75 (2 targets)

Level 13 arcane caster using a level 7/6/5/4 multi-target spell. Which they can do 3 times per day (likely hitting more than 2 targets).
Eclipse Burst (7th, 8d10+8d4) + Chain Lighting (6th, 8d12) + Cone of Cold (5th, 12d6) + Fireball (4th, 8d6)
(64+52+42+28)*.25 = 46.5
45% chance to hit, 45% chance for half, 5% chance for double, 5% none.
(.45 + .45 * .5 + .05 * 2) = 0.775
46.5 * 0.775 = 36.0375 (2+ targets)

So yea. Blaster does 58.4% more damage than a barb. And still has the level 3/2/1 spells for utility. Casters easily win.

Let's try 5 round * 3 encounters (15 rounds of combat) a day.
So if I assume 1 cast of electric arc (7d4+5).
(64+52+42+28+22.5)*.20 = 41.7 * 0.775
= 32.317

So at 15 rounds a day, blasters still win with 42% more damage.

I do agree with the point.

But still... Why does the charch leads to 50% to save? The charch is crearly in favor of the melee characters the AC is lower than the save DC by a bit normally. And remember that a barb of the same level has items to balance his to hit compared to the blaster. And also a level 13 barb will have at least one damage rune so at least 1d6 extra per target...

Just to point out i am disagreeing with the way you calculated it, not with the point overall. I do believe even if the mages do less damage their sheer utility, variety, ability to hit from distance compensates for it.


Hiruma Kai wrote:

Out of curiosity, why is the caster generally assumed to have no offensive magic items in these comparisons? Fighters are always assumed to have the best weapon and runes, and presumably a backup ranged weapon for when they can't engage in melee.

As far as I can tell, the most damage efficient magic items per action in the game over 4 turns are the Wands of Manifold Missiles. You can use a pair, one in each hand. Spend 2 actions on the first turn, and for the rest of the fight get 2,4,6 or 8 even extra magic missiles every turn for no effort. Its like haste for wizards.

At 6th, you can afford 2 of the 1st level spell versions, at 10th you can afford 2 of the 3rd level spell versions, at 14th you can afford 2 of the 5th level versions, and at 18th you can afford 2 of the 17th level versions, instead of keeping your melee and backup ranged up to date in terms of runes.

Assuming a 4 round boss fight against an enemy level+2, going nova with both wands is like 28 damage at 6th, 56 at 10th, 84 at 14th, and 112 at 18th. If it goes long, say to 5 rounds, they simply get more efficient.

Alternatively, mix them in with 2 action cast spells on the 1st and 2nd turn to boost overall damage with that 3rd action instead of making a strike with a bow or whatever.

I think it's mostly because you assume fighters will have items while wizards got several other options instead of a buffing weapon. But definetely manyfold is now a musthave in any of my characters that can cast it.


I wonder why everyone is comparing the melee fighter/barbarian, when a ranged fighter/ranger does about the same damage and has equal or better range, although yeah it maybe doesn't have the feats.

Just something I noticed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:

I do agree with the point.

But still... Why does the charch leads to 50% to save? The charch is crearly in favor of the melee characters the AC is lower than the save DC by a bit normally.

I was going off the charts posted in the original post. With the barb effectively having an extra 2 points "to-hit".

But the spells half damage on a "miss" more than makes up for it. And that is multiplied by just flat higher damage.

Quote:
And remember that a barb of the same level has items to balance his to hit compared to the blaster. And also a level 13 barb will have at least one damage rune so at least 1d6 extra per target...

True. But I am already giving the barbarian more than I am giving casters. Like they should have an wand of Chain Lighting.

Quote:
Just to point out i am disagreeing with the way you calculated it, not with the point overall. I do believe even if the mages do less damage their sheer utility, variety, ability to hit from distance compensates for it.

If mages use all their spells to blast, they don't have much left for utility.

Not saying blasting is the best option, but it's the easiest way to compare.

1 to 50 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Article with Analysis on Casters vs Martials: All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.