| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The system is far from being so unbalanced as the OP says. Is a very good system, with a solid math fundation. However, the OP is not alone on thinking that casters where overnerfed. Quite a good number of people thinks similar, just on a lesser scale. I hope that on the GMG could be some options to return some power to casters. I don't think they are unplayable (that seems an exageration on my experience) but while they can contribute to a team, they feel lackluster to me right now.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
There have been a ton of posts on the disparity between martials and casters already. It all boils down to the fact that casters are no longer the end-all be-all members of a party. They no longer always shut down combat completely or control the narrative. Yes, martials have great sustainable dpr, but they don’t have access to the same availability of versatile tools that casters have to cover as many different roles. That is not to say that martials can’t fulfill multiple roles in combat; it’s just easier for casters. Casters are just as necessary to the party, and if they aren’t useful, then someone is doing something wrong, whether that is a player or the GM. Also, if you haven’t been buying scrolls, wands, or staves with your money, then you haven’t been using your full potential as any caster despite not being necessary. Casters need to be played tactically like every other character in this game; they’re not gods with an entourage, at least not anymore.
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice strawman, people.
Most of us complaining about casters (and especially Wizards), do not mind they've been nerfed, but the fact they have been overnerfed.
Pathfinder 2 is a wonderful game, but pure casters such as Cloistered Cleric and Wizard have been overnerfed. Spells have been so nerfed that any class that relies on spells alone (such as Wizard, compared to other mixed classes such as Bard or Druid) simply isn't fun to play. You have limited resource which has a comparatively small chance of doing something, and most times simply does a minor effect, or a relatively useful effect for super-short duration. Not to mention most of their features don't really interact well with the new flagship feature of the game, the three action system.
| 33 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just woke up and it's a bit too early in the morning to properly discuss the topic, but there is one part of your post that I feel the need to call out.
The issues I see are numerous, but I'll talk about a specific gripe as I think it is going to be the one that causes me to give up on paizo and maybe role playing all together, after more than a decade with my current group.
This is perhaps the most overreactive and hyperbolic statement I have ever seen in an RPG discussion. Even if no one here can convince you to like PF2, 1st edition still exists. Other systems still exist. There's 5 editions of D&D, GURPS, the various White Wolf systems, etc. I just cannot wrap my head around this paragraph.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's... kind of ridiculous, with all due respect.
Not every system is for everyone, and that's fine.
That's why there's so dang many of the things in the first place : if there was a magic universal recipe, it's been long enough since Chainmail that someone would have figured it out and we'd all be playing that, not the various hundreds (thousands?) of systems out there.
Bottom line is : No system is perfect.
Just chose the issues you're okay with and move away from the systems you don't want to deal with.
If you loved 1e and don't want to move to PF2, you don't have to. It's not like Paizo's gonna send goons to kneecap you and burn your old books, and there's enough material there to keep you entertained for a while.
If you want a system where magic is even more powerful than it ever was in PF1 and with zero concern for balance, those exist.
If you just want magic to have more of an edge than it does PF2, but with a cost to keep it in line, I'm sure that can be found. Fairly easily.
And if you want the look and feel of PF1, I recommend PF1.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Currently playing a Warpriest I am not complaining so much about the power of spells but about the action economy. Due to 99% of all spells requiring 2 actions (some even 3) I feel hopelessly action starved in comparison to the melees. Want to do a AE heal? Neither can move nor raise shield nor attack. Do a normal spell? Chose to either move or raise shield or attack. Sustaining spells? Lol, you kidding? All the while our fighter is zooming around, using skills, multi-attacking or blocking as he sees fit. Caster gameplay is just so static.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to know, what should be the chance of success for a spell that completely takes out an enemy of equal level, for it to be 'fun'?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the biggest thing that could help casters is better skill feats for the knowledge skills.
Most of the other skills in the game have at least one or two skill feats that add a lift in a combat situation (even if just assurance for things like Feint).
If casters got something akin to battle medicine but for recalling knowledge as a free action once per target per day, that’d help reinforce their role while also giving them a leg up on what spell to choose.
I think the spells are fine though I’m still toying with the idea of incapacitation only downgrading the worst tier instead of every tier of success (like Phantasmal Killer). Overall though I think they’re in an okay spot. Need more play under the belt, but cantrips are really good.
I put in 5e style casting in my home game and it works well to give casters added flexibility. The change both reduces book keeping and makes casters more enjoyable to play. I made some other changes too that my players asked for but those can be ignored if you want stuff closer to stock.
The main items:
- Prepared casters can have up to base spell ability mod + level spells prepped.
- Spontaneous casters know base spell ability mod + level spells (sorcerer bloodline spells do not count against this)
- All casters can spontaneously heighten all thier spells by using higher level slots.
Lots of changes were needed to the wizard to balance out schools, fix feats, remove arcane bond, etc. The other classes needed far fewer changes.
Homebrew linked here.
Theres a customizable spell tracker for use with the homebrew in the linked thread as well.
Martials do not feel crappy with this change by comparison. But casters do feel more enjoyable and dynamic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP's gloom and doom is overly dramatic. However, I do agree that casters have been nerfed a bit too hard in 2e.
I used to enjoy playing divine casters in 1e, but the divine spell list sucks so bad in 2e, I won't play one anymore. That said, martial characters are so much more fun in 2e than they used to be. I love playing my Animal Barbarian.
I think the biggest issue is how crappy cantrips are: 1d4 damage, really? I think d6 or even d8 would've made casters much more relevant in combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cantrips are fine, imo. They measure up well (ie, worse but still useful) when compared to martial ranged options.
Cantrips are fine, imo. They measure up well (ie, worse but still useful) when compared to martial ranged options.
I can see that. I still think melee range cantrips like Chill Touch need to be buffed up though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Naw, because then the caster can cheat and just use reach spell on it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Naw, because then the caster can cheat and just use reach spell on it.
Which results in even worse action economy, 3 action casting instead of 2. That's a fair trade imo, not a cheat.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
ITT people automatically disregarding other's opinion. The post may be melodramatic histrionics, but it's no reason to insult or dismiss the OP like has happened with many "casters overnerfed" discussions.
Will see the classic things like "You only want to be OP", "that's just your opinion", "They deserve to suck after PF1", "go play something else", "they're actually the most fun and best classes, just fight only level -2 enemies", "you're just a grognard", "you don't understand the intricate math of PF2" and other points that make it difficult to have a good faith discussion on this topic.
It doesn't even matter if they're actually good or bad when playing levels 1-20, their mechanics may function but I also think casters are very "feel bad" because their gameplay amounts to gambling for fighting situations and hoping the rogue doesn't overshadow your utility spells. Being a buffer/healer (thing that 100% work and hard to replicate) does work, but it's not what many people want out of their caster.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that casters are not fun to play is an opinion, not a fact.
Pretty much everything ever said about the relative success of both editions at being a fun fantasy game is opinion and not a fact. This statement is meaningless, even as a condescending reminder: everyone already knows. RPGs aren't exact science.
As far as the party issue, most people (if not all) are already arguing in that context. Casters were overnerfed even relative to the party. It goes on and on. No one is arguing they should be able to solo the game. Don't worry, I already know that's just my opinion.
As for me, I don't like blasters and trying to compete with martials for DPR. Ironically, I feel blasting and buffing are the only things casters do well in this edition. Enchantment is still okayish but I miss the really incredible things you could pull off with it. Felt like it does when you crit with a scythe or greataxe. That kind of feeling. It just isn't the same now.
I still like PF2, though, it's a great game. I just *mostly* play non-casters in it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a buffer/healer (thing that 100% work and hard to replicate) does work, but it's not what many people want out of their caster.
Well, apart from pure HP even "healing" does not work 100% anymore. All "cure/remove" spells that did work automatically in the past are now subject to a counteract check and I know already how much it will svck to lose the one neutralize poison you happen to have memorized to a bad roll.
Naw, because then the caster can cheat and just use reach spell on it.Which results in even worse action economy, 3 action casting instead of 2. That's a fair trade imo, not a cheat.
Eh, I dunno, that wouldn't work at my table. If a martial cant easily exceed that at will from 30 foot range (the effective engagement distance of most dungeon crawls), then thats a problem for me. But if it works at your table, cool.
I will be releasing some cards soon with some InDesign templates. If you want to pump up melee cantrips, its trivially easy to make some 4x6 spell cards, give them to your players, and have at it.
As a GM though, I think cantrips are mostly fine. If anything, I nerfed Electric Arc since it stepped far too hard on ranged martial toes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the pieces of my comment that has not been responded to yet that I was hoping to get some feedback on was regarding the way that the martial classes have relatively quick and inexpensive access to a dramatic increase to their damage through potency runes, while really the casting classes have nothing that increases either their damage, or their dcs. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
As far as damage goes, it is hard to see, but it is built into spell progression. You gain access to better spells in PF2. Yes, you have the added versatility of heightening lower ones, but they fall behind what higher level spells can do damage wise. Your best spells will be better than what a martial can do with two actions. Your lower level spells will only be so in very specific situations.
As far as DCs go, it is intentionally built in. Making your DC too dependent on things like items and spells to boost attributes made it too easy to have players who were too good at playing casters and able to dominate everything, but leave more casual players way behind, thinking they would be fine casting offensive spells with a casting stat of 14 and no feat or item investment. PF2 moved all variability in casting DC to attribute. If you want to mess around with boosting attack spells, you find ways to debuff your enemies. In play, it has been pretty fun at our game. The sorcerer managed to basically win us 2 boss encounters with careful tactics applied before hitting level +2 enemies with calm emotions, and allowed us fight them separate from their very powerful minions.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my games the melee characters are outshining the casters -- in combat -- due to both the action economy and the horribly flawed critical system.
The action economy has been somewhat addressed above: melee characters have far more options than casters who spend 2/3 or all of their actions each turn using their primary ability, spellcasting. In my experience the melee characters are able to additionally stretch the action economy to its limits by playing dual wielding PCs that limit the impact of the MAP:
* A fighter dual wielding shield boss w/ agile secondary weapon crits of most attacks against level, level-1. Consider: an extra +2 from expert training and he is making two attacks for two actions (Double Slice) at maximum MAP.
* Ranger w/ animal companion dual wielding can get +2 from their opponent being flat-footed, spend one action for two attacks at MAP max, max-2.
...and so on. Basically there's a lot of ways to gain bonuses that almost guarantee crits, and thus double damage, for the melee characters at least once per turn.
I've also found that the critical system slows down play because instead of the GM rolling an attack and checking hit vs. a single number, they now have to determine the range of success, a secondary math calculation. Even a minor calculation, it seems to slow down encounters significantly.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like all things, YMMV. I find 2E combat goes much quicker. The action economy system seems to encourage definitive actions. Course that could be due to the more limited available options at this point, but even 1st level PFS1 combat seems to take longer.
In most cases, the mental math to calculate the crit threshold does not seem to slow things down. Most people can do +10 so quickly it’s not a consideration. As a GM I find I don’t even think about crits. I just announce what AC I hit and my players do the math, telling me when it’s a crit. And since I don’t have to know what the critical multiplier is nor do I have to roll extra dice (deadly not withstanding) I find resolving crits to be quicker. Though I admit to only playing low level so far and the addition of higher level abilities and the addition of weapon specialization might affect things.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Naw, because then the caster can cheat and just use reach spell on it.Which results in even worse action economy, 3 action casting instead of 2. That's a fair trade imo, not a cheat.Eh, I dunno, that wouldn't work at my table. If a martial cant easily exceed that at will from 30 foot range (the effective engagement distance of most dungeon crawls), then thats a problem for me. But if it works at your table, cool.
I will be releasing some cards soon with some InDesign templates. If you want to pump up melee cantrips, its trivially easy to make some 4x6 spell cards, give them to your players, and have at it.
As a GM though, I think cantrips are mostly fine. If anything, I nerfed Electric Arc since it stepped far too hard on ranged martial toes.
Oof that's harsh. 2e casters already border on useless, and Electric Arc was the only cantrip actually worth spending 2 actions to cast. The rest are a waste of actions.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a buffer/healer (thing that 100% work and hard to replicate) does work, but it's not what many people want out of their caster.Well, apart from pure HP even "healing" does not work 100% anymore. All "cure/remove" spells that did work automatically in the past are now subject to a counteract check and I know already how much it will svck to lose the one neutralize poison you happen to have memorized to a bad roll.
Just to clarify, most of those cure/removes you are referring to, were not a sure thing in PF1. True, they were automatic success in D&D 3.5 and earlier, but they have not been a sure thing for 10 years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2e casters already border on useless
Not with my table's rules. But, hey, different strokes for different folks.
Like it says in the CRB, the official rules are there but every table has the power to mold those rules to fit its style and sensibilities.
Thanks to the modularity of the rules, its trivial to get them where you want them.
2e casters already border on uselessNot with my table's rules. But, hey, different strokes for different folks.
Like it says in the CRB, the official rules are there but every table has the power to mold those rules to fit its style and sensibilities.
Thanks to the modularity of the rules, its trivial to get them where you want them.
Are you the guy that has the house rule where all spells are heightened to max level? If not, then what is different in your table?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the pieces of my comment that has not been responded to yet that I was hoping to get some feedback on was regarding the way that the martial classes have relatively quick and inexpensive access to a dramatic increase to their damage through potency runes, while really the casting classes have nothing that increases either their damage, or their dcs. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
The get more powerful spells by leveling, getting higher level spells and spell slots and the ability to heighten spells into them.
Martial has to buy multiple runes, Potency and Striking, to add extra dice while casters get it automatically.
Are you the guy that has the house rule where all spells are heightened to max level? If not, then what is different in your table?2e casters already border on uselessNot with my table's rules. But, hey, different strokes for different folks.
Like it says in the CRB, the official rules are there but every table has the power to mold those rules to fit its style and sensibilities.
Thanks to the modularity of the rules, its trivial to get them where you want them.
No, but I go 5e style where every caster can spontaneously heighten to use higher slots. Also, spells are not prepped individually either. So using a prepped spell uses a slot but doesnt "unprep" the spell.
Also, players can prep a number of spells by level. They are less restricted as to what they prep (so long as theyve learned it).
Its not about increased power but, instead, increased flexibility for casters and reducing book keeping.
Ill be putting up a new thread with all my table's resources laid out soon, for those interested.
I think this approach really improves casters without making them flat out more powerful.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The casters at my table haven’t seemed weak at all. A well-placed spell was the decisive factor in the big fight, in fact.
The two main factors helping casters that I have noted during play are:
1) Crit effects on spells are often some of the most crippling effects in the game. This means crit-fishing by going for weak saves can feel like going back to the 1E wizard glory days
2) So many things have effects on a successful save, so a caster is very unlikely to ever have a wasted turn
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the pieces of my comment that has not been responded to yet that I was hoping to get some feedback on was regarding the way that the martial classes have relatively quick and inexpensive access to a dramatic increase to their damage through potency runes, while really the casting classes have nothing that increases either their damage, or their dcs. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
They don't need to, because that's baked into proficiency and higher spell levels. A level 7 caster has a DC of 25 or thereabouts. A level 7 fighter, an equal-level creature, has saves of something like +15/+14/+14, perhaps, and that's equipped properly and ballparking high. (16 Con, 14 Dex, 14 Wis on the fighter.) Using a level 3 fireball against a group of 4 of these fighters averages 16.2 damage to each of them, totalling 65.1 damage in that turn. And that's really not a optimal scenario for that wizard - that's a level 3 spell against an extreme encounter for the party. (Likely actual saves are +18/+15/+12 in some order, but we'll use this as an example for now.)
A properly equipped fighter with Double Slice (and master sword proficiency) might have +18 to hit vs AC 25, with 2d8+7 and 2d6+7 as damage. Assuming the fighter can get flanking off, they'll deal 33 damage in their turn. I should point out that's literally the best that fighter can do, and I think that comes up on the high end of martials.
And that’s assuming PvP. A vast majority of monsters have at least 1 weak save.
Currently playing a Warpriest I am not complaining so much about the power of spells but about the action economy. Due to 99% of all spells requiring 2 actions (some even 3) I feel hopelessly action starved in comparison to the melees. Want to do a AE heal? Neither can move nor raise shield nor attack. Do a normal spell? Chose to either move or raise shield or attack. Sustaining spells? Lol, you kidding? All the while our fighter is zooming around, using skills, multi-attacking or blocking as he sees fit. Caster gameplay is just so static.
This is true... I don't know maybe casters need more versatile spells actionwise. I mean my favorite spells right now in order are heal, magic missile, harm. Because i get options... They should probably make more of those so casters can choose the more 'bardic' route(The bards having 1 action cantrips often can do 3 actions a turn and not stick to the 2 action and raise shield).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any actual experience playing a caster in 2e, my current character is a Barbarian, and he's been alot of fun. The Sorcerer in our group seems to be having less fun though, plinking away with trash cantrips like Daze. I kinda feel bad for him, but then again, we're low level. Maybe his character will get better at higher levels.
If we do another campaign, I think I'll play a caster just to get the experience and see how bad it really is. Looks bad so far though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any actual experience playing a caster in 2e, my current character is a Barbarian, and he's been alot of fun. The Sorcerer in our group seems to be having less fun though, plinking away with trash cantrips like Daze. I kinda feel bad for him, but then again, we're low level. Maybe his character will get better at higher levels.
If we do another campaign, I think I'll play a caster just to get the experience and see how bad it really is. Looks bad so far though.
I haven’t had any sorcerers in my groups so far, though I imagine they would ideally rely more on focus spells than cantrips early game. Not all focus spells are created equal of course - perhaps your friend got one less suited for combat?
The druid in my group was pretty spell-starved early but didn’t seem to mind so much since he had an animal companion to order around. The big breakpoint was level 3 when his known spells almost doubled and he got level 2 spells. Levels 1-2 it seems very hard to solely rely on spells.
