Woefully disappointed


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Wait, you literally haven't played a caster yet, but you already concluded that it's going to be bad? OK Boomer.

Seeing someone else at the table play a class is still actual play experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:

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 tried two casters(Recently of course). Bard felt really great, cleric felt well... Decent? But the thing is, in pf2 casters don't seem to depend as much on spells anymore(I did had a great time with searing ray 10d6 vs undead) but most times i solved problems with skill checks instead. Medicine checks, religion to discover more about the monsters, lore from the bard to learn everything, when my cleric got the consacrate i made 2 zones to protect the party.

The only moments i could remember that a spell shined alone were a spell that predics omens and the searing ray that does a s+&~on of dies. Besides that most spells i used where healing or buffs. And even if my buff caused 3 fighters hits to become crits... It feels like the fighter job instead of the spell job.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Henro wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Wait, you literally haven't played a caster yet, but you already concluded that it's going to be bad? OK Boomer.
Seeing someone else at the table play a class is still actual play experience.

You could look at somebody play a PF1 caster, run around casting burning hands and magic missile and conclude that casters are super weak and all those people on forums are out of their mind when calling casters OP.


Gorbacz wrote:
You could look at somebody play a PF1 caster, run around casting burning hands and magic missile and conclude that casters are super weak and all those people on forums are out of their mind when calling casters OP.

You could also be that caster ;P. I’ve seen my fair share of people concluding 1E casters are worthless after doing precisely that.

Playing or seeing a character played isn’t a surefire way to know how they work, but both tend to give some indication.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Just finished our game and my wizard player was absolutely the MVP, his well placed grease dismounted 3/4 of the opposition cavalry on turn 1 which took the major shock factor out of the encounter.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Laran wrote:
You are correct that spellcasters have been nerfed but since they were FAR superior to martials in PF1, that is not a bad thing.

Agreed. I loved playing wizards in PF1, and played a conjuration specialist wizard in Jade Regent. As I advanced in level I had to take special care not to overwhelm the battlefield with summons, and to choose my spells so as to support my teammates rather than outshine them.

We've only played PF2 up to 2nd level so far, and none of the players is a wizard, so it'll be a while before I will be able to attest to wizards' power from personal experience. But my feeling is that they will be forced to adopt a team player profile, rather than a star hero profile. And that isn't all bad.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Henro wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
You could look at somebody play a PF1 caster, run around casting burning hands and magic missile and conclude that casters are super weak and all those people on forums are out of their mind when calling casters OP.

You could also be that caster ;P. I’ve seen my fair share of people concluding 1E casters are worthless after doing precisely that.

Playing or seeing a character played isn’t a surefire way to know how they work, but both tend to give some indication.

Fortunately, I've played and seen PF2 casters played up to mid levels. I will say that they do play differently from PF1 casters, but it is only a problem if you come with your luggage of PF1 expectations and then discover that things aren't what they used to be.

Coincidentally, the very same is true for martials - if you come at a PF2 martial with PF1 expectations of standing still and making 3 attacks per round ad nauseam, you'll quickly find them frustrating and limited. It's only after you move away from the PF1 paradigm that you discover just how much have they changed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Henro wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Wait, you literally haven't played a caster yet, but you already concluded that it's going to be bad? OK Boomer.
Seeing someone else at the table play a class is still actual play experience.

Definitely. The guy I'm talking about loves Sorcerers and played them exclusively in 1e. Also, I've played casters in 1e, and I can see how little his Sorcerer is doing in 2e.

Also, I've read the core book and could see that casters got beat with the nerf bat pretty hard. I'm just not sure how hard yet: completely unplayable? Or just not nearly as good as they used to be.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am among those that say that the over-nerf is real, but "completely unplayable" seems quite the hyperbole, honestly.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:
Henro wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Wait, you literally haven't played a caster yet, but you already concluded that it's going to be bad? OK Boomer.
Seeing someone else at the table play a class is still actual play experience.

Definitely. The guy I'm talking about loves Sorcerers and played them exclusively in 1e. Also, I've played casters in 1e, and I can see how little his Sorcerer is doing in 2e.

Also, I've read the core book and could see that casters got beat with the nerf bat pretty hard. I'm just not sure how hard yet: completely unplayable? Or just not nearly as good as they used to be.

He's aware of just how massive the caster-martial disparity was in PF1, right? And I'm not even talking about stuff like Sacred Geometry + Dazing Spell, I'm talking about how color spray ends 80% of combats at low levels.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
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.

I like how you open with this and then immediately begin disregarding, mocking and distorting the arguments of people with different opinions and experiences than you and the OP.

Weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alaryth wrote:
I am among those that say that the over-nerf is real, but "completely unplayable" seems quite the hyperbole, honestly.

Well yeah, that's why I included a range of possibilities in my post, from "not as good" to "completely unplayable". I'm observing my friend to try to figure out where on that spectrum 2e casters are. At some point though, I wanna try it out and see for myself.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Color spray was one of the spells that fell of hard due to the HD limit, which is why it was so strong, after ~lv 5 or something it became useless.

But I will agree that a well played high level caster could out shine a martial and that needed to be fixed. But, martials were always effective even at lv 20, to say they were useless beyond lv 7 is just as bad a hyperbole.

I still remember the Centaur lance charge build, huge weapon axe build, 80% of reach builds, 80% of ranged builds. In fact the only builds that didnt quite work were those that spread too thin or were played incorrectly (Ex: Fighter with a Wizard dip and no Eldritch Knight/Arcane Archer lv wanting to play like a full wizard or vice versa).


18 people marked this as a favorite.

Gorbacz has made a point that has been said again and again on these forums and yet bears repeating: If you approach the game with a PF1 mindset, you will be left confused.

I have a sorcerer and a cleric in the group that I GM for. The sorcerer was having a blast while the cleric complained about her spell list. She went cloistered cleric and prepared only harm spells. Any time a target made a save versus her harm, she pitched a fit. "Everything has such a high Fort save! I'm barely doing damage!" When the Sorcerer made some Recall Knowledge checks and pointed out things like, "Their Will save is their weakest," she just sighed and kept going with two action harms.

The group recently had an "intervention" with her, asking her what she wanted out of the class. We went through the divine spell list (something she hadn't read beyond the little blurbs) and found spells she could use to debuff and attack opponents without playing in an unfun (and unsuccessful manner). We've also started using all sorts of conditions to lower saves. Just like the martial wants flat-footed enemies, so too does a caster want debuffed enemies.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

You guys played a different 1E than me. Martials were destruction machines in the games I ran, while wizards were good at utility, and decent at combat.

As for things needing to be fixed, how does it explain spells that weren't broken? Feather Fall only hitting 1 target? Unseen servant being a three action + sustain spell? See invisibility leaving them concealed to you?

Then we can look at casters going martial dedication vs martials going caster. The martials gain up to mastery in casting, while the casters gain only expert in martial weapons (and then, only if fighter, expert armor for champion, expert nothing for rogue/ranger).

Or how about counterspell being almost gauranteed to fail against higher level casters?

And why do casters get their expertise increase later than martials? And no items to buff their hit/dc, yet enemies gain spell resistance? And martials usually get a flank, while casters need a spell, or to hide, or something else to have the enemy be flat-footed, with their already reduced actions (their main actions cost 2)?

Or how about summon spells being horrible at higher level (summon a level -5, probably against an enemy +1 to +3)?

And it all feels so much like a video game. All of the utility spells are so thorough in their limitations, that most player creativity is nullified. You do the thing in the exact intended way, and in no not-yet-imagined way. Combining that with level bump, duration and effect reduction, and often being on the uncommon list, and most utility spells go out the window. So casters are blasters, and the game is computer-ready.

Add in-between combat medicine checks (and the silliness of non-touching battle medicine), and it really does feel like a slow-moving CRPG. At least it's turn based :)


10 people marked this as a favorite.

It's kind of funny how we have one group of players saying utility spells are terrible and all casters can do that's any good is blast.

And then another group saying blasts are terrible and all casters can do that's any good is cast utility spells.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

To be clear, I have played a lot of every other edition, but not this one(or 4th, because...)
I am planning on playing in PFS with my kids, so I'm trying to learn the system.

I am into the idea of casters doing magic rather than damage, but my concern is how hard it seems to be for casters to do magical stuff.

Ventriloquism is a first level spell that can be duplicated with a Performance and/or Deception check.
Floating Disk is nerfed into uselessness.
Mage Armor is mostly irrelevant.
The Fey you summon with a second level spell slot can't even use their invisibility.
Attack cantrips mostly take two actions by default, and that sucks.
I want a single action choice.
I wish attack cantrips were structured something like magic missle or harm, rewarding time on task, but allowing single action uses.

Even the utility cantrips are nerfed .
Prestidigitation can't even light a fire while ghost sounds can't play music or make voices.
Why?
Debuffs are often only last a turn, even the ones that are just -1.
Focus spells generally suck, I would usually prefer to have an extra slot of the highest level that can be renewed with Focus.
That utility spells are nerfed right along side the blasting or save or die spells feels punitive.
Support spells seem to have fared relatively well.
That would seem to encourage casters to be henchmen to martial characters.

It seems easy to make a character that can trip-attack-move all day.
The character that can magic-magic-move all day is harder to create because of spell slots and casting actions.
I would love to toss off a bard cantrip,launch my attack cantrip and move, but I don't think I can.
If I want a single action ranged strike, I can do that with a shortbow, but I don't want that.
Why not let me do a d6 with one action cantrips, and more with two?
Martial get choices like these(cross bows do more damage but reload more slowly).
Other casters are in a worse condition, with no single action cantrips that can make difference in a fight.

I think magic takes longer,does less and for a limited number of times per day.
Meanwhile there are often mundane alternatives that are fast, do more and can be done all day.

These are my impressions from reading and asking questions.
I'm sure there are things I'm getting wrong, either about rules as written or actual game play.

I'm still going to play, and I will play a caster, because hitting people is still boring compared to magic.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

It's kind of funny how we have one group of players saying utility spells are terrible and all casters can do that's any good is blast.

And then another group saying blasts are terrible and all casters can do that's any good is cast utility spells.

To be clear, blast spells have also been nerfed, relative to increased HP. However, I haven't read anyone saying to use utility spells. Some people say to use buffs or debuffs (and usually, it's debuffs), but when I say "utility", I'm referring to things mostly out of combat, or things that can change the nature of a combat, not tuning the dials of a combat (+/- 1 to x).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
... When the Sorcerer made some Recall Knowledge checks and pointed out things like, "Their Will save is their weakest," she just sighed and kept going with two action harms.

To be fair, the recall knowledge section on creature identification says you get a piece of knowledge about what the creature is best known for (such as a troll's regeneration being stopped by acid or fire), which in my game (of course it's up to you how you run it) would never be, "it has a low ref save." I doubt I'd even give such meta-game type knowledge with a crit success, and just some other relevant info about weaknesses or special attacks.

Of course, even using recall knowledge means either you're not sustaining (or using another 1 action, like move, or shield), or not casting a real spell that round (unless you spent 2 skill feats and a skill increase for automatic knowledge of the right type for that creature, and it's inside the assurance level range for you).

All of that is to say, meta-game or bust, on targeting a creature's worst save (though, over the course of a fight, with a descriptive GM, you might be able to make a decent guess, depending on how well it's telegraphed).

Edit:
Btw, I've been unclear on this since the start: does the player need to specify which skill they're using for recall knowledge? Much of the time, of course, they can guess, but often, it can be unclear (this Sabosan thing kind of looks fiendish, and it's speaking abyssal.. oh, it's a humanoid). I sometimes do recalls secretly, but the effect of having to pick the skill means that they may completely waste the action.


Bast L. wrote:


To be clear, blast spells have also been nerfed, relative to increased HP. However, I haven't read anyone saying to use utility spells. Some people say to use buffs or debuffs (and usually, it's debuffs), but when I say "utility", I'm referring to things mostly out of combat, or things that can change the nature of a combat, not tuning the dials of a combat (+/- 1 to x).

Blast spells have been nerfed in damage less than they may seem to be. Since DC scales with the caster the reliability of the damage is actually better than with many 1e spells that scaled with caster level.

The burst potential is arguably lower for some even with crits accounted for, but the average tends towards being higher.

The HP values scale faster in PF2e sure, but that kinda effects everyone including martials.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

It's kind of funny how we have one group of players saying utility spells are terrible and all casters can do that's any good is blast.

And then another group saying blasts are terrible and all casters can do that's any good is cast utility spells.

Magic-Users still have a lot of paradigm-shifting spells (trap a dead person's soul or travel to another plane), but a lot of the incapacitation spells only removes someone from an encounter on a critical failure. Magic is much less effective as a means of combat, but is very useful in solving problems that can't be solved by dealing damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bast L. wrote:
(Snip)

Sorry, I realize that I've made that into something of a house rule and never adjusted it. On success, the player can ask a question about the creature (from a list, like what is it weak to, what is it's weakest save, what is one of it's abilities, etc.). I recognize that isn't everyone's table norm.

In reference to your other question about secret rolls, I've handled it this way. When a player makes a Recall Knowledge check, I make the secret roll and refer to a list of the player skills that I have made a copy of beforehand. If the Wizard with no Religon is trying to figure out something about an angel, well, he may end up with a failure (or a crit fail, in which he'll get to ask the same question, but be given the wrong answer). I hope that helps!


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


Blast spells have been nerfed in damage less than they may seem to be. Since DC scales with the caster the reliability of the damage is actually better than with many 1e spells that scaled with caster level.

The burst potential is arguably lower for some even with crits accounted for, but the average tends towards being higher.

The HP values scale faster in PF2e sure, but that kinda effects everyone including martials.

It's been a while for me, but did spells count as the level you prepared them at in PF1? If so, a level 5 fireball prepared by a level 10 PF1 or PF2 wizard would do 10d6, and the DC would scale in both.

Comparing the first creature of level 10 I saw in the PF1 bestiary, the Brachiosaurus has 171 hp, while the Brontosaurus from PF2 has 220 hp.

Of course, you're right that the scaling affects both martials and casters, but do martials scale their damage better in PF2? Striking being a die, instead of +1 to damage, might suggest that they do, but I really don't remember the numbers from all kinds of bonuses in PF1.

The point being, if the answer to both questions is yes, then casters scale roughly the same as they did in PF1, while martials scale better, and monster hp scales better, so effectively, blasting is nerfed.

If either isn't true, then disregard this :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The dc will scale regardless the lvl

A lvl 3 fireball cast by a lvl 20 wizard will have the same dc of a lvl 5 fireball or a lvl 9 meteor swarm.

Also, you will be the one choosing thr spell, so you will be the one deciding between 3 TS or even an AC check, depends the situation.

Finally, if you don’t use a spell with the attack trait, you could consider to use your last action to attack. As it was a combatant class,but fighter, second attack.


Bast L. wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


Blast spells have been nerfed in damage less than they may seem to be. Since DC scales with the caster the reliability of the damage is actually better than with many 1e spells that scaled with caster level.

The burst potential is arguably lower for some even with crits accounted for, but the average tends towards being higher.

The HP values scale faster in PF2e sure, but that kinda effects everyone including martials.

It's been a while for me, but did spells count as the level you prepared them at in PF1? If so, a level 5 fireball prepared by a level 10 PF1 or PF2 wizard would do 10d6, and the DC would scale in both.

Comparing the first creature of level 10 I saw in the PF1 bestiary, the Brachiosaurus has 171 hp, while the Brontosaurus from PF2 has 220 hp.

Of course, you're right that the scaling affects both martials and casters, but do martials scale their damage better in PF2? Striking being a die, instead of +1 to damage, might suggest that they do, but I really don't remember the numbers from all kinds of bonuses in PF1.

The point being, if the answer to both questions is yes, then casters scale roughly the same as they did in PF1, while martials scale better, and monster hp scales better, so effectively, blasting is nerfed.

If either isn't true, then disregard this :)

The answer to your first question isn’t a simple yes or no, as there are two components to fireball damage. The damage dice and the dc.

In PF1 the damage dice scaled with character level, even if you cast the fireball with a level 3 slot. But the DC didn’t scale.

The reverse is true of PF2. The damage dice only increase if you prepare it in a higher slot, but the dc increases with character level, regardless of the slot you use.


Maybe I wasn't clear. So in PF1, the DC was partially based on the spell level, aye? While the damage scaled with caster level. However, you could use a higher level slot to memorize the spell. What I was wondering was, would the spell, cast using a higher level slot, increase the DC as if it had been a higher level spell?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You needed to use heightening metamagic to increase the effective level of the spell prepared in a higher level slot. Aka you needed that metamagic to increase the DC and for things like countering lower level opposing spells (Ex: continual light vs darkness).


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

casters just aren't as fun compared to martials. a martial moves a specific location and gets a concrete benefit. a caster spends 2 actions to get a vague notion of whats going to happen to the opponent.

the cleric in my game has been doing most of their damage with daze, considering most of their encounters so far have ended up through their own navigation, ended on level+1 enemies, the damage and effects haven't been great.

he's the party's healer, is a cloistered cleric and finds little to do until someone takes damage.

he has fun, but noticeably less so in combat compared to dealing with out of combat stuff.

with the change from proactive to reactive combat (targeting saves instead of boosting magic you know you'll use) i've seen a hit to people trying to maintain a theme. like the harm cleric mentioned above, and my group's cleric who wants to focus on non-violent options(you can't buff your sanctuary's ability to protect you without doing something to enemies).

not to mention prepared casters targeting saves gets harder and harder the later in the day it gets.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
casters just aren't as fun compared to martials. a martial moves a specific location and gets a concrete benefit. a caster spends 2 actions to get a vague notion of whats going to happen to the opponent.

I can't for the life of me parse these statements. A martial character makes a move action and then gets a bonus? The caster casts a spell and... doesn't know what happens?

I see that as, a martial uses two actions to move and attack. It could hit or miss. A caster casts a spell with two actions and the opponent could save against it for (typically) half damage. I'm not sure what you're saying.

Bandw2 wrote:

the cleric in my game has been doing most of their damage with daze, considering most of their encounters so far have ended up through their own navigation, ended on level+1 enemies, the damage and effects haven't been great.

he's the party's healer, is a cloistered cleric and finds little to do until someone takes damage.

Dedicated healers haven't been "a thing" for a long time. I don't know about you, but I spent a lot of time explaining to new players throughout 3.X and PF1 that making a "healbot character" was going to end up being an exercise in boredom. Combat healing was about triage, and still is for the most part. Daze is a fine thing to handle lower level encounters or getting in chip damage, but I don't see why it would be anyone's bread and butter. Cantrips like Guidance and Forbidding Ward are better off for a supporting cleric. For clerics who want to deal damage, they have Divine Lance as a cantrip! That's not counting fantastic first level spells like Fear, Command, or Bless.

Bandw2 wrote:

with the change from proactive to reactive combat (targeting saves instead of boosting magic you know you'll use) i've seen a hit to people trying to maintain a theme. like the harm cleric mentioned above, and my group's cleric who wants to focus on non-violent options(you can't buff your sanctuary's ability to protect you without doing something to enemies).

not to mention prepared casters targeting saves gets harder and harder the later in the day it gets.

Theme is maintained in combat as well as in character building. My "Harm Cleric" that I talked about had the goal of being a buffing and debuffing spellcaster. He wanted to alternate between healing and harming, while keeping the party shored up with buffs. He, however, approached the idea of small bonuses and penalties ("+1 bonus to attacks on Bless? Pfft!"/"Frightened 2? What's even the point of Fear?") as a waste of a spell. In reality, these spells are game changers even on successful saves. When my party barbarian is cheering when an opponent succeeds on a save versus Fear ("-1 AC? I'll be glad to take that!"), it shows that the spellcasters are bringing something to the table regardless of saving throws.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:
If you really want to be a more efficient blaster, you could go for Draconic sorcerer and get 3 focus point for 3 dragon breath per rest.

Focus points don't work that way. You only get 1 point back in a 10-minute rest, even if you rest longer, so you might be able to use three dragon breaths in your first encounter of the day, but then you'd only get 1 in your next encounter.

Remember, the refocus activity has this requirement: You have a focus pool, and you have spent at least 1 Focus Point since you last regained any Focus Points.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ruzza wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
casters just aren't as fun compared to martials. a martial moves a specific location and gets a concrete benefit. a caster spends 2 actions to get a vague notion of whats going to happen to the opponent.

I can't for the life of me parse these statements. A martial character makes a move action and then gets a bonus? The caster casts a spell and... doesn't know what happens?

I see that as, a martial uses two actions to move and attack. It could hit or miss. A caster casts a spell with two actions and the opponent could save against it for (typically) half damage. I'm not sure what you're saying.

right, a martial character has options. move hit move, hit move hit, demoralize hit hit, etc.

they get to look at the board and make decisions.

the caster is, do i have LoS and range? then i do the thing. casters have the "benefit" of getting what feels like pitty effects for failure.

the barbarian has just twice outright killed enemy's in single blows, out of the 4 or so enemy's in the campaign they've fought.

the druid got to cast fear and give the enemy frightened 1 and then move to engage in melee. after he cast a few spells, he just kinda stopped and prefered to go into melee instead even though he's less likely to succeed at melee than casting a spell.

being able to more in your turn just makes it feel funner from what i can tell.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Henro wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Wait, you literally haven't played a caster yet, but you already concluded that it's going to be bad? OK Boomer.
Seeing someone else at the table play a class is still actual play experience.
You could look at somebody play a PF1 caster, run around casting burning hands and magic missile and conclude that casters are super weak and all those people on forums are out of their mind when calling casters OP.

To be fair a lot of them appeared to be. Casters weren't nearly so overpowered in PF1 as many people pretended (the hysteria on this forum could be amazing to watch), and aren't nearly so unplayable in PF2 as many people here pretend (the hysteria over the nerfs can be amazing to watch.)

They were too strong in PF1 and needed to be re-balanced, and they were re-balanced poorly, but not cripplingly so in PF2.

It's not the "exciting" opinion to have, but I feel mine is the correct one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
If you really want to be a more efficient blaster, you could go for Draconic sorcerer and get 3 focus point for 3 dragon breath per rest.

Focus points don't work that way. You only get 1 point back in a 10-minute rest, even if you rest longer, so you might be able to use three dragon breaths in your first encounter of the day, but then you'd only get 1 in your next encounter.

Remember, the refocus activity has this requirement: You have a focus pool, and you have spent at least 1 Focus Point since you last regained any Focus Points.

I think he means with Bloodline Focus and bloodline wellspring. They are both a bit late to come but still, you normally don't get to use more than 2 points in a fight.

MadMars wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Henro wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Wait, you literally haven't played a caster yet, but you already concluded that it's going to be bad? OK Boomer.
Seeing someone else at the table play a class is still actual play experience.
You could look at somebody play a PF1 caster, run around casting burning hands and magic missile and conclude that casters are super weak and all those people on forums are out of their mind when calling casters OP.

To be fair a lot of them appeared to be. Casters weren't nearly so overpowered in PF1 as many people pretended (the hysteria on this forum could be amazing to watch), and aren't nearly so unplayable in PF2 as many people here pretend (the hysteria over the nerfs can be amazing to watch.)

They were too strong in PF1 and needed to be re-balanced, and they were re-balanced poorly, but not cripplingly so in PF2.

It's not the "exciting" opinion to have, but I feel mine is the correct one.

And about this... Yeah. Casters wen't overpowered in PF1 as long as you didn't try to make them. Problem is it was quite easy to make them overpowered and at least in my tables well people did...

They also made other characters overpowered but the problem with casters was the not the silver bullet for a situation, they where the silver bullet for every situation. Blaster casters weren't a problem, problem is when you are a blaster caster that can open doors, remove curses, fly, become invisible... And mostly perform all roles.


Ravingdork wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
If you really want to be a more efficient blaster, you could go for Draconic sorcerer and get 3 focus point for 3 dragon breath per rest.

Focus points don't work that way. You only get 1 point back in a 10-minute rest, even if you rest longer, so you might be able to use three dragon breaths in your first encounter of the day, but then you'd only get 1 in your next encounter.

Remember, the refocus activity has this requirement: You have a focus pool, and you have spent at least 1 Focus Point since you last regained any Focus Points.

There are feats which allows you to refocus for extra points.

And a sorc progression goes from 1 to 3 as druid, monk and cleric.

Ps: if you still have not them you could rely on 3 Bullets in a row of needed, or just 1 per encounter, saving your burst for a more difficult one.

It is gold even if you can't still refocus 2x ( lvl 12 ) or 3x ( lvl 18 ).

You will eventually rest to recover your spells, and being able to rely on even a single dragon's breath per encounter is godlike.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:
Magic-Users still have a lot of paradigm-shifting spells (trap a dead person's soul or travel to another plane), but a lot of the incapacitation spells only removes someone from an encounter on a critical failure. Magic is much less effective as a means of combat, but is very useful in solving problems that can't be solved by dealing damage.

Those are uncommon spell - ie non-existing spells. Those spells exist only if the author of the AP include them - as a sword of soul binding or an armor of plane shift exist only if the author of the AP include them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gaterie wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:
Magic-Users still have a lot of paradigm-shifting spells (trap a dead person's soul or travel to another plane), but a lot of the incapacitation spells only removes someone from an encounter on a critical failure. Magic is much less effective as a means of combat, but is very useful in solving problems that can't be solved by dealing damage.
Those are uncommon spell - ie non-existing spells. Those spells exist only if the author of the AP include them - as a sword of soul binding or an armor of plane shift exist only if the author of the AP include them.

They aren't non-existing spells, access is determined by the GM not the Author of an AP.


FYI, HERE is my full caster homebrew. It isn't perfect but its what my group settled on after playing through large portions of the playest and Fall of Plaguestone.

I happen to agree that PF2 casters are a bit lackluster but it really is trivial to make them more attractive to play.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I always thought I detested drama and tried to avoid it, but I keep coming back to this thread like a soap opera addict. Such shame...

My thought is: You guys worry to much. Wizard will get more spells and feats etc that will buff them up in the future. + I won't really believe their weak till I play one myself so meh.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I will say I agree with the sentiments of some people that spellcasters aren't really as designed to leverage the new action economy as much as I think they could be.

I'm hoping going forward we see more variable action spells, along with feats that grant unique actions like most martial characters have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bast L. wrote:
Maybe I wasn't clear. So in PF1, the DC was partially based on the spell level, aye? While the damage scaled with caster level. However, you could use a higher level slot to memorize the spell. What I was wondering was, would the spell, cast using a higher level slot, increase the DC as if it had been a higher level spell?

To answer this question, no. Memorizing a spell at a higher level slot doesn't increase its DC, mainly because you don't need to. All your spells track off the same DC now; you don't have lower DCs for your lower-level spells.

Generally using a higher level slot for a spell increases some other benefit, like letting it do more damage, or affect more targets, or create more manifestations of its effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlorax wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:
Magic-Users still have a lot of paradigm-shifting spells (trap a dead person's soul or travel to another plane), but a lot of the incapacitation spells only removes someone from an encounter on a critical failure. Magic is much less effective as a means of combat, but is very useful in solving problems that can't be solved by dealing damage.
Those are uncommon spell - ie non-existing spells. Those spells exist only if the author of the AP include them - as a sword of soul binding or an armor of plane shift exist only if the author of the AP include them.
They aren't non-existing spells, access is determined by the GM not the Author of an AP.

As is the existence of a sword of soul binding or an armor of plane shift.


Squiggit wrote:

I will say I agree with the sentiments of some people that spellcasters aren't really as designed to leverage the new action economy as much as I think they could be.

I'm hoping going forward we see more variable action spells, along with feats that grant unique actions like most martial characters have.

I couldn't tell you where I read it, but I'm pretty sure Paizo os planning on adding much more variable action spell in future books (possibly the APG) but wanted to only have a few in the CRB to avoid confusing players too much.

And I can confirm that it can be confusing for new players, the cleric in my group is always asking me to remind her how Heal works.


I love variable spells! I really hope you're right and we'll be seeing more of those in the APG. (Honestly, I would buy a variable-action magic focused book, gimmie gimmie)


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

What I'd love is the ability to forgo some amount of heightening to cast quicker. Perhaps as a feat. Like say I've got web prepared in a 4th level slot but I dont actually want the increased area I can (still using the 4th level slot) cast it as the unheightened version for one less action.


Malk_Content wrote:
What I'd love is the ability to forgo some amount of heightening to cast quicker. Perhaps as a feat. Like say I've got web prepared in a 4th level slot but I dont actually want the increased area I can (still using the 4th level slot) cast it as the unheightened version for one less action.

Hmmmm, well quickened casting already exists, but I suppose widen/reach spell exist too and Heal effectively has those built in.

They could add a lot of variable castings to spells based on action changes, even swapping different types of actions out, like Material for Verbal.

51 to 100 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Woefully disappointed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.