Woefully disappointed


Rules Discussion

101 to 150 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

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.

That sounds like it's just PF1 metamagics, costing a higher level slot (nothing wrong with that, I think it was a fine design, just pointing it out) .


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BellyBeard wrote:
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.
That sounds like it's just PF1 metamagics, costing a higher level slot (nothing wrong with that, I think it was a fine design, just pointing it out) .

Yeah it's pretty similar. The only really difference is for prepared casters would get the choice to downgrade on the fly rather than pre choose.

I think it could exist alongside quicken, which is more limited but lers you use the spell for full heightened effect.

It's also pretty good with cantrips. Pretty sure you could finish that for with 4d4 instead of 6d4? Cool only spend one action.


On one hand, I wish for some kind of one action cantrip like the proposed quickened-for-lower-level version. On the other that would make many caster's turns even more static and boring then they already are, as you would do that basically every turn.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

Temporarily closing.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

5 people marked this as a favorite.

No one is objectively wrong for wanting to enjoy Pathfinder in a particular style, even if they have an opinion that you perceive as in the minority. Remember when someone likes or doesn't like a part that you do, it doesn't mean your opinion is suddenly invalid, it just means your preferences for what you want Pathfinder to be or do might not align with theirs.

We're all here because we love tabletop RPGs, and that is going to take as many different forms and be as variable as there are people playing these games. Allow for other people to have their own preferences and styles of play they enjoy. When engaging on our forums, you need to give other people the grace to have different opinions.

Please do not accuse other community members of being trolls on the forums. This includes describing what a Pathfinder troll is without using the actual word.


BellyBeard wrote:
On one hand, I wish for some kind of one action cantrip like the proposed quickened-for-lower-level version. On the other that would make many caster's turns even more static and boring then they already are, as you would do that basically every turn.

Having some focus spells that take a single action, on the other hand...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Woggins wrote:
I've been a longtime PF1 player and our group recently made the shift to PF2. Sadly, it seems like the system is terribly unbalanced, and I'll start by saying that of particular note to me seems to be how the magic system and related casters appear to be tantamount to uselessness....

Yeah I'm still on the fence about it myself. We do have a more balanced system overall. Which is what most people were asking for. In every other variant of the game high level play is very unbalanced, with the difference between casters and martials, or the difference between optimised and unoptimised characters being extreme. Perhaps this wil work better here.

I don't mind the inequity in the items so much because its hard to get every possible dimension of the game fair. PF2 has a better item system that I've seen elsewhere. They will fix this eventually with more items.

For me the flavour of the game has changed a lot - wizards used to be powerful at mid to high level - and I'm just not feeling the buzz of the cool things they can do anymore.

I would not go back to PF1 though, there is too much to like in PF2.

May I suggest instead - add a few house rules to rebalance things - at least how you see it. Like take 2 off the saving throws of all monsters versus spells. You'd get a lot more critical fails and the casters would have their mojo back..... Or add an evocation staff of striking which adds a dice of damage to spells.

Trival change - balance restored. Whatever your group thinks is fair or fun. Its a lot easier than making your own system and you can still use all the published materials.

Cheers


The composition of the party i am the GM:

Dwarf Fighter (Shield and Bastard Sword usually)
Human Cleric (Cloistered)
Human Sorcerer (Imperial Bloodline)
Goblin Rogue (Thief Racket)

So far, everyone is having fun in PF2, they had fun in PF1, and by they about the arcane casters the general idea was that they were way up, kind of they need a party to tag along so they could have an audience.

So and returning to PF2, no caster in the game feels like they are doing nothing or not contributing something.

I did not make any changes to the rules (besides the ones from the errata), we are still in the early levels, they are level 2, close to level 3, and we are doing the Age of Ashes Adventure Path.

They are loving the dinamics in the fights, how they can do several more in the same day, how each monster feels different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the big issue with casters is the new action econamy. Martial characters get 3 actions while casters realistically only get 2(cast and something else.) Martial characters can swing for the fences and attack 3 or ever 4 times a round, even if the vast majority of the time those attempts will be wasted from the -10 to hit, it's at least an option. Casters don't really have those sorts of options. If we get a bunch of new 1 action or 1-3 action spells that people like then that will likely fix the problem.

Until then if your casters aren't feeling up to par, make all spells one action with the caveat that they can only cast once a round or if your table is fine with it do something like 5e with cantrip + spell in specific order, and treat the extra action they get from faster casting as a hasted action. Also factor in a +5 to enemy saves for that second spell in a round to simulate MAP, or if your table is fine with it let casters go crazy with 3 spells a round, Just don't forget that 10 point penalty.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
OrochiFuror wrote:

I think the big issue with casters is the new action econamy. Martial characters get 3 actions while casters realistically only get 2(cast and something else.) Martial characters can swing for the fences and attack 3 or ever 4 times a round, even if the vast majority of the time those attempts will be wasted from the -10 to hit, it's at least an option. Casters don't really have those sorts of options. If we get a bunch of new 1 action or 1-3 action spells that people like then that will likely fix the problem.

Until then if your casters aren't feeling up to par, make all spells one action with the caveat that they can only cast once a round or if your table is fine with it do something like 5e with cantrip + spell in specific order, and treat the extra action they get from faster casting as a hasted action. Also factor in a +5 to enemy saves for that second spell in a round to simulate MAP, or if your table is fine with it let casters go crazy with 3 spells a round, Just don't forget that 10 point penalty.

It's fools gold. Any martial that's spending those rounds on attacks spends the subsequent turns with the dying condition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
OrochiFuror wrote:


It's fools gold. Any martial that's spending those rounds on attacks spends the subsequent turns with the dying condition.

Agreed. On paper it seems like martial classes have a distinct edge, but trying to leverage 3 actions next to an enemy often means blowing your hero points in the next round of so.

Martial have some great 3 action sequences, but without magical assistance (taste, greater invisibility etc) they have very few practical opportunities to use them.


Inkfist wrote:
OrochiFuror wrote:


It's fools gold. Any martial that's spending those rounds on attacks spends the subsequent turns with the dying condition.

Agreed. On paper it seems like martial classes have a distinct edge, but trying to leverage 3 actions next to an enemy often means blowing your hero points in the next round of so.

Martial have some great 3 action sequences, but without magical assistance (taste, greater invisibility etc) they have very few practical opportunities to use them.

The two persons i ever saw constantly taking 3 actions to attack where a ranger(with the multiattack edge) and a fighter with a bow. Barbarians normally go for a single powerful strike and then rage or rage power, paladins normally raise shield and move to prepare for a reaction, fighters don't want to risk -10 so they go for shield or something skill related...

But i do feel like mages have less options with the 3 actions than martials. A fighter for example got PA(2 actions), strike(action), move(action), raise shield(action)... Since each has a different cost they need to evaluate a lot.
Since most spells take 2 actions it's quite hard to go away from the cast a spell and then move...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm playing a warpriest so I sit between martial and pure caster for action usage, and anyone defaulting to just move+cast is hurting themselves and their party.

Sure there are times you need to move, but recalling knowledge,demoralizing groups of enemies, sustaining spells, 1 action focus powers, spells, and cantrips or even weapon attacks are all conditionally more useful.

At low levels blending crossbow strikes with electric arc (and reloading every second round) will likely out dpr many martial builds due to the half damage on a save effect.


Currently I am playing a paladin, and I am in Constant need of an ally to fully shine.

The ally ( a fighter ) can easily resist the hit because of me, and I can trade back some the damage they receive.

I am planning to go even further in protection stuff, cause my role would be to ensure the fighter life more than dealing damage.

Without support or healings ( which also means DR ), a combatant, especially with a 2h and cause of that with no circumstance AC bonus, won't last too much if not supported ( and i prefer to leave casterz the blasting part ).

We also only have a druid which is a shapeshifter, so it is likely some of us will go down during a moderate encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wizard is the red-headed step-child of PF2. The class needs a rework within the new framework of PF2. Most of the casters are balanced save for the wizard. It's the worst class of the bunch.

Bard is really fun and helpful. I took Wizard archetype as a multiclass feat. I was able to gain enough wizard to have a great spell selection to supplement my bard abilities. This combination far, far exceeds what I could have done as a base wizard. All my support abilities from feats far exceed what a wizard gets.

Druid is good too as is cleric.

Sorcerer I'm not sure about, but they look more interesting than wizards.

They have this new paradigm in PF2 with actions. The wizard lacks the ability to take advantage of the new action paradigm. They really need to do a wizard class re-design to give the wizard something useful to do like other casters.

I'll list some examples of what I'm talking about:

1. Cleric: Does a 1 action touch heal and launches a cantrip. Does a 2 action heal and swings his weapon or raises his shield. His abilities give him options. Even some of the domain spells are 1 action abilities.

2. Druid: Commands animal companion to attack and launches a spell or cantrip.

3. Bard. Casts a composition while launching a spell.

See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.

Even [i]haste[/] works better on the cleric who can move, cast a two action heal, and still raise his shield or swing his weapon or move, cast a 1 action heal, and cast a spell.

Unless you want your wizard to use a weapon, which they usually aren't built for given their sad weapon selection.

They could rebuild the wizard with expanded martial capability creating a Gandalf which might help. I think it would be better if they did a rework of the wizard's magical school capabilities providing much better 1 action support or offensive abilities they can do each round to provide them some options that are fun, appropriate, and cool for a wizard.


HumbleGamer wrote:

Currently I am playing a paladin, and I am in Constant need of an ally to fully shine.

The ally ( a fighter ) can easily resist the hit because of me, and I can trade back some the damage they receive.

I am planning to go even further in protection stuff, cause my role would be to ensure the fighter life more than dealing damage.

Without support or healings ( which also means DR ), a combatant, especially with a 2h and cause of that with no circumstance AC bonus, won't last too much if not supported ( and i prefer to leave casterz the blasting part ).

We also only have a druid which is a shapeshifter, so it is likely some of us will go down during a moderate encounter.

Champions are tough to deal with. That high armor class with high hit points makes them a pain. Then if you try to go after their allies, it just gets worse. Then they can deal good damage all on their own, especially against enemies vulnerable to good.


HumbleGamer wrote:

Their damage increase level after level.

Also, and because of the 3 saving throws + spell attack, and how success and critical success work, a spellcaster won't be needing to upgrade anithing.

The enemy could have low

Fortitude
Reflex
Will

Or

AC

And depends the enemy, you decide what spell to use.

Only for players who metagame. You do not know which of these to attack without a recall check, and those take actions.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

Their damage increase level after level.

Also, and because of the 3 saving throws + spell attack, and how success and critical success work, a spellcaster won't be needing to upgrade anithing.

The enemy could have low

Fortitude
Reflex
Will

Or

AC

And depends the enemy, you decide what spell to use.

Only for players who metagame. You do not know which of these to attack without a recall check, and those take actions.

Well in a bit of serendipity Recall Knowledge is 1 Action while most spells are 2 Actions.


Rysky wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

Their damage increase level after level.

Also, and because of the 3 saving throws + spell attack, and how success and critical success work, a spellcaster won't be needing to upgrade anithing.

The enemy could have low

Fortitude
Reflex
Will

Or

AC

And depends the enemy, you decide what spell to use.

Only for players who metagame. You do not know which of these to attack without a recall check, and those take actions.
Well in a bit of serendipity Recall Knowledge is 1 Action while most spells are 2 Actions.

Hope you don't have to move to cast that spell this round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
Only for players who metagame. You do not know which of these to attack without a recall check, and those take actions.

It is not metagaming for a player to have their character think a creature that is lumbering around the battlefield is more susceptible to spells that call for a reflex save, nor to think a creature that seems dim-witted will have little will, nor to think that a creature that seems physical slight or even sickly won't have much fortitude.

That's all stuff that the description of what the character sees should be all it takes to pick a save to try targeting, not a Recall Knowledge check.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Only for players who metagame. You do not know which of these to attack without a recall check, and those take actions.

It is not metagaming for a player to have their character think a creature that is lumbering around the battlefield is more susceptible to spells that call for a reflex save, nor to think a creature that seems dim-witted will have little will, nor to think that a creature that seems physical slight or even sickly won't have much fortitude.

That's all stuff that the description of what the character sees should be all it takes to pick a save to try targeting, not a Recall Knowledge check.

For those yes, what their specific AC is or various Weaknesses/Resistances and special abilities are would be Metagaming.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

Their damage increase level after level.

Also, and because of the 3 saving throws + spell attack, and how success and critical success work, a spellcaster won't be needing to upgrade anithing.

The enemy could have low

Fortitude
Reflex
Will

Or

AC

And depends the enemy, you decide what spell to use.

Only for players who metagame. You do not know which of these to attack without a recall check, and those take actions.
Well in a bit of serendipity Recall Knowledge is 1 Action while most spells are 2 Actions.
Hope you don't have to move to cast that spell this round.

Being a squishy hopefully you're well out of harm's way and don't need to.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

Their damage increase level after level.

Also, and because of the 3 saving throws + spell attack, and how success and critical success work, a spellcaster won't be needing to upgrade anithing.

The enemy could have low

Fortitude
Reflex
Will

Or

AC

And depends the enemy, you decide what spell to use.

Only for players who metagame. You do not know which of these to attack without a recall check, and those take actions.

Firstly, as mentioned, there's always Recall Knowledge. Which you can leverage into a free action on large segments of creatures if you choose to do so.

Secondly, a lot of the time, the creature's description and behavior make at least some of these intuitively obvious, no actions necessary. What's a bear's low Save? How about a goblin?

Almost everyone can at least eliminate their high Save intuitively without any reference to the books at all. The same is true of most creatures. And since those Saves represent in-universe things (like 'how fast can this thing dodge a fireball'), basing your character's choices on what the creature seems like ('it looks slow, so a fireball is probably a solid choice') is not metagaming at all.

Now, occasionally, looks will be deceiving in this regard, but that's very much the exception rather than the rule...and what the aforementioned Recall Knowledge checks are for.


Rysky wrote:
For those yes, what their specific AC is or various Weaknesses/Resistances and special abilities are would be Metagaming.

Nah, sometimes that stuff is obvious if the monster has been described too. Most times, actually.

For example: most creatures that are fire resistant have some physical indication of it, whether it's coloration or currently being shrouded in flames. Similarly most creatures that have a weakness to fire look particularly flammable.

Of course, there's cases like the resistance coming from a magic item rather than being innate to the creature, and those are the ones a character isn't going to have any idea about without engaging some specific rules.

And AC you might not be able to tell down to the number, but you absolutely can tell the general range (such as "pretty high") based on the appearance of the creature because a creature having a high AC and not looking like it should have a high AC just isn't really a thing - they're all either clearly tough looking, clearly nimble looking, clearly heavily armored, or some mix of those traits.


Deriven Firelion wrote:


See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.

Fortunately, all the metamagic is 1-action modifiers that let the wizard do exactly that, or they can Recall Knowledge, or they can move to be in the best spot for that spell.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Not using fire magic against fire elementals isn't a matter of Recall Knowledge, it's commmon sense.

As for AC you also have enemies that have thick hides, which isn't immeditaly discernable.


thick hides usually are pretty immediately discernible, actually - unless can't even see said hide, at least.


Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.
Fortunately, all the metamagic is 1-action modifiers that let the wizard do exactly that, or they can Recall Knowledge, or they can move to be in the best spot for that spell.

Not to mention the 80% of Wizard Focus spells that are 1 action... also including a 1-3 variable action spell. The schools you expect to be offensive have offensive effects, others with debuffs, or buffs, or utility. I feel he must have discounted these at first glance before really familiarizing with entire system to know they actually are pretty solid, and never went back to re-assess his first impression.

Of course Wizards can also use regular shields, and can also attack with weapons at full bonus: HvyXbow Reload doesn't matter if you only expect 1 attack per combat, and 2H staff isn't bad... many martial weapon traits are irrelevant for single attack, so no big loss: agile, sweep, forceful, backswing. And it isn't hard to get other weapon proficiency if you want, so Gandalf works just fine. Universalist Hand of Apprentice also leverages melee weapon at range, only needing Trained.


thorin001 wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

Their damage increase level after level.

Also, and because of the 3 saving throws + spell attack, and how success and critical success work, a spellcaster won't be needing to upgrade anithing.

The enemy could have low

Fortitude
Reflex
Will

Or

AC

And depends the enemy, you decide what spell to use.

Only for players who metagame. You do not know which of these to attack without a recall check, and those take actions.

No it is just logic more or less

Big enemies will probably have high Fortitude due to their size, but they will probably lack reflexes and probably AC.

Small or agile enemies will probably have higher reflexes than Fortitude, and a moderate AC.

About will, you should be able to understand if the enemy could be intelligent or not. Maybe you won't use a will save on a spellcaster, but a ogre or a troll could be less resistant than a Naga.

No need to metagame.
I don't know any of the enemies saves and I am just basing my thoughts on rational stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

Their damage increase level after level.

Also, and because of the 3 saving throws + spell attack, and how success and critical success work, a spellcaster won't be needing to upgrade anithing.

The enemy could have low

Fortitude
Reflex
Will

Or

AC

And depends the enemy, you decide what spell to use.

Only for players who metagame. You do not know which of these to attack without a recall check, and those take actions.

Common fallacy.

Sure you might not know exactly, but anyone can make a guess that the person in full plate or with heavy chitin/scales will have a higher AC... how fast a creature is moving, the types of weapons they are using generally show off their reflexes, and how bulky they are tends to show their fortitude.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.
Fortunately, all the metamagic is 1-action modifiers that let the wizard do exactly that, or they can Recall Knowledge, or they can move to be in the best spot for that spell.

And how does that help the wizard provide equal fun and support as other caster classes? Any class can do those things.

Metamagic is fairly useless. I tried to use metamagic. It didn't do much at all. I figured Reach or Widen would do something moderately useful, but they didn't. The martials cut everything down without the need for my spell help. My bard inspire courage composition was far more helpful than anything a wizard can do. Bows are inherently longer range than most spells even with a reach ability.

My bard has as many skills as my wizard. He can recall knowledge just as easily if needed. Given the stat boosts, I gave him intelligence as one of his boost. He has a nice high intel, charisma, and wisdom. The only physical stat I need on the bard is Con for more hit points.

Not sure why people keep making excuses for a wizard class that is poorly designed given the new paradigm. It should be absolutely required that if a caster is going to be support, he should have 1 action support options that are useful. The wizard is sorely lacking. Metamagic that most caster classes can access is not comparable.

Silver Crusade

18 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I don't like this =/= poorly designed


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.
Fortunately, all the metamagic is 1-action modifiers that let the wizard do exactly that, or they can Recall Knowledge, or they can move to be in the best spot for that spell.

And how does that help the wizard provide equal fun and support as other caster classes? Any class can do those things.

Metamagic is fairly useless. I tried to use metamagic. It didn't do much at all. I figured Reach or Widen would do something moderately useful, but they didn't. The martials cut everything down without the need for my spell help. My bard inspire courage composition was far more helpful than anything a wizard can do. Bows are inherently longer range than most spells even with a reach ability.

My bard has as many skills as my wizard. He can recall knowledge just as easily if needed. Given the stat boosts, I gave him intelligence as one of his boost. He has a nice high intel, charisma, and wisdom. The only physical stat I need on the bard is Con for more hit points.

Not sure why people keep making excuses for a wizard class that is poorly designed given the new paradigm. It should be absolutely required that if a caster is going to be support, he should have 1 action support options that are useful. The wizard is sorely lacking. Metamagic that most caster classes can access is not comparable.

That is your point of view.

A wizard has a more balanced set of spells than a bard ( offense, defense, utility, debuff ) and it is way more skilled in knowledge stuff ( and crafting, which also means repairing shields ).

On the other hand, a bard has better social skills, and a better use of the last action because of compositions.

A wizard by lvl 8 could take inspirational performance ( or inspire defense ) and have an alternative to

- shield
- recall knowledge
- stride/step
- metamagic
- etc

However, what players need to understand is that the game is not balanced around 3x melee + 1 buffer/debuffer.

An approach like that could only eventually offer less challenging fights and oppurtunities.


So just to make sure, a Wizard can multiclass Bard to get an alternative to current metamagic, which all casters have more or less access to?

Would this not mean that they lack 1 action options?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.
Fortunately, all the metamagic is 1-action modifiers that let the wizard do exactly that, or they can Recall Knowledge, or they can move to be in the best spot for that spell.

And how does that help the wizard provide equal fun and support as other caster classes? Any class can do those things.

Metamagic is fairly useless. I tried to use metamagic. It didn't do much at all. I figured Reach or Widen would do something moderately useful, but they didn't. The martials cut everything down without the need for my spell help. My bard inspire courage composition was far more helpful than anything a wizard can do. Bows are inherently longer range than most spells even with a reach ability.

My bard has as many skills as my wizard. He can recall knowledge just as easily if needed. Given the stat boosts, I gave him intelligence as one of his boost. He has a nice high intel, charisma, and wisdom. The only physical stat I need on the bard is Con for more hit points.

Not sure why people keep making excuses for a wizard class that is poorly designed given the new paradigm. It should be absolutely required that if a caster is going to be support, he should have 1 action support options that are useful. The wizard is sorely lacking. Metamagic that most caster classes can access is not comparable.

You're saying the fights were too easy, and you never fought enemies difficult enough to justify using metamagic, therefore metamagic is underpowered because it's too powerful to bother using? What kind of argument is that?

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Paraphrasing myself from elsewhere on these forums:

Welcome to the "casters were once too easy to make extremely powerful, and so we've created a system wherein they're now sub-par, and we absolutely love that, because after the entirety of first edition we're okay with seeing them weak, and anybody who isn't okay with it is merely upset that they're not OP like they were in first edition" edition of Pathfinder. Woo!


Temperans wrote:

So just to make sure, a Wizard can multiclass Bard to get an alternative to current metamagic, which all casters have more or less access to?

Would this not mean that they lack 1 action options?

No.

The point was to underline that through dedications you can unlock stuff that help you refine your character.

You are not needed to take bard dedication, but if you find it a must because you dislike any other single actions ( which exist, and I pointed out few of them ) you have a choice.

Finally, if you don’t like the actual wizard it doesn't necessarily mean that the class is not worth it.

@Perception check: it is more about people comparing 2 different systems and have hard time to accept that they are different.


HumbleGamer wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.
Fortunately, all the metamagic is 1-action modifiers that let the wizard do exactly that, or they can Recall Knowledge, or they can move to be in the best spot for that spell.

And how does that help the wizard provide equal fun and support as other caster classes? Any class can do those things.

Metamagic is fairly useless. I tried to use metamagic. It didn't do much at all. I figured Reach or Widen would do something moderately useful, but they didn't. The martials cut everything down without the need for my spell help. My bard inspire courage composition was far more helpful than anything a wizard can do. Bows are inherently longer range than most spells even with a reach ability.

My bard has as many skills as my wizard. He can recall knowledge just as easily if needed. Given the stat boosts, I gave him intelligence as one of his boost. He has a nice high intel, charisma, and wisdom. The only physical stat I need on the bard is Con for more hit points.

Not sure why people keep making excuses for a wizard class that is poorly designed given the new paradigm. It should be absolutely required that if a caster is going to be support, he should have 1 action support options that are useful. The wizard is sorely lacking. Metamagic that most caster classes can access is not comparable.

That is your point of view.

A wizard has a more balanced set of spells than a bard ( offense, defense, utility, debuff ) and it is way more skilled in knowledge stuff ( and crafting, which also means repairing shields ).

On the other hand, a bard has better social skills, and a better use of the last action because of compositions.

A wizard by lvl 8 could take inspirational...

The wizard has more spells, but can only memorize the daily the same amount plus one. The number of useful spells is relatively equal.

The bard can equal a wizard in crafting, so not sure why you believe that. They are also equal in knowledge since it is easy to put stat points in intel to build it up. If your the type of bard that focuses on knowledge, then you're also better at skills overall.

I focused on crafting with my bard. My focus skills are Performance, Crafting, and Occultism. I have most of the knowledge skills. I took the wizard multiclass feat which gives me far more access to what a wizard does well than vice versa.

Bottom line is the wizard needs better designed class powers, so they can do stuff that makes them standout. They seemed to have a done a good job with nearly every class but the wizard. I think they should do some more thinking within the new PF2 paradigm on now to make a wizard standout and feel useful compared to the other caster classes. At the moment the best use of the wizard class is as an multiclass archetype.


Strill wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.
Fortunately, all the metamagic is 1-action modifiers that let the wizard do exactly that, or they can Recall Knowledge, or they can move to be in the best spot for that spell.

And how does that help the wizard provide equal fun and support as other caster classes? Any class can do those things.

Metamagic is fairly useless. I tried to use metamagic. It didn't do much at all. I figured Reach or Widen would do something moderately useful, but they didn't. The martials cut everything down without the need for my spell help. My bard inspire courage composition was far more helpful than anything a wizard can do. Bows are inherently longer range than most spells even with a reach ability.

My bard has as many skills as my wizard. He can recall knowledge just as easily if needed. Given the stat boosts, I gave him intelligence as one of his boost. He has a nice high intel, charisma, and wisdom. The only physical stat I need on the bard is Con for more hit points.

Not sure why people keep making excuses for a wizard class that is poorly designed given the new paradigm. It should be absolutely required that if a caster is going to be support, he should have 1 action support options that are useful. The wizard is sorely lacking. Metamagic that most caster classes can access is not comparable.

You're saying the fights were too easy, and you never fought enemies difficult enough to justify using metamagic, therefore metamagic is underpowered because it's too powerful to bother using? What kind of argument is that?

How do you interpret this in this fashion?

No, what I'm saying is the wizard's spells didn't do nearly the same damage as the martials. After casting wizard spells, I found they were far less useful than the bard using his composition cantrips. Launching a fireball did less over the course of combats than a bard using a cantrip or a cleric healing.

Once we got rid of the wizard, no one even noticed. He added nothing to the table. In fact, some of his damage rolls for spells, especially after saves were made, were so low as to be laughable compared to martial weapon damage backed up by a bard.

In fact, I started casting cantrips for damage as a bard and using my Inspire Courage cantrip to boost my bard cantrip damage and attack roll and the entire party's abilities. Whereas my wizard could cast one spell here and there of variable effect.

It's a fairly easy situation to see. You have a bard who can use one cantrip to provide everyone with +1 attack and damage, while also casting an attack cantrip or support spell or make a few attacks. Then you have a wizard who can do nearly nothing with his single action and cast one spell or cantrip a round. Isn't that an easy disparity to see?

You have the same thing with a cleric who can take someone from nearly dead to full health with a two action heal while also swinging a weapon or firing a bow from range.

Or a druid who can send his animal companion in to set up flanks and make an attack while also launching a 2 action spell or cantrip.

Whereas the wizard can do a reach spell to extend his 30 foot attack cantrip to 60 feet which often isn't necessary or use 1 action to widen his fireball to 30 foot radius which also often isn't necessary.

I gave the wizard a try. I used metamagic. I tried different spell strategies. They are not as effective as an a bard, cleric, or druid. I honestly can't speak on the sorcerer because I haven't seen one in action.

The best way to use the wizard class for mechanical effectiveness is to take the multiclass archetype.

I think the class could be easily fixed by reworking their school and thesis options and feats to give them more 1 action abilities that are useful and don't require focus points. Class would be more fun and useful. I would even recommend turning the familiar option into more of a summoner type of companion equal to an animal companion. Then they don't need to make a summoner class, they can just use the wizard as a chassis for a summoner type of archetype.

Not as though the wizard class isn't easily fixable. It just needs its powers tweaked with more 1 action options like the other casters seem to have that are useful in a party environment.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

So you don't like the Metammagic options and your solution is to tweak the thesis options instead?

And turn Wizards into Summmoners? When they're two distinct classes with different play mmethods?


Guess you don't know what are you talking about.

A wizard chooses from Arcana, which has a wider pool of spells for any situation, while bard chooses from occult, which is a hybrid between support/control.

A wizard is versatile and can set up his spells depends the fight.

The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

You acan increase int but you will be renouncing other stats. Your choice in terms of balance. But you can also have 8 in const an 10 in dex. All choices are allowed.

The class doesn't need a rework since it is fine.

The problem here is, apart from earlier levels, the fact that a party could chain spam medicine to rest.

But sometimes people forget that if both blaster and healer run out of spells, then a long rest is required.

Imagine at some point 3/4 fight per day.

A wizard will be able to handle them easily.


HumbleGamer wrote:
Temperans wrote:

So just to make sure, a Wizard can multiclass Bard to get an alternative to current metamagic, which all casters have more or less access to?

Would this not mean that they lack 1 action options?

No.

The point was to underline that through dedications you can unlock stuff that help you refine your character.

You are not needed to take bard dedication, but if you find it a must because you dislike any other single actions ( which exist, and I pointed out few of them ) you have a choice.

Finally, if you don’t like the actual wizard it doesn't necessarily mean that the class is not worth it.

@Perception check: it is more about people comparing 2 different systems and have hard time to accept that they are different.

Thank you for explaining that makes more sense now.

And yeah I can see multiclassing being useful for that purpose.

The one problem is that, Clerics which have the always useful Divine Font and Druid with the sometime useful Animal Companion (depends on the situation) also have more thing to do than a Wizard.

**********
Btw for people talking about metamgics. They are usable by all classes, the only questions are which metamagic they have and how useful are they.


HumbleGamer wrote:


The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

Wizards get an extra spell of every slot(Limited to a spell from the school school) and can recast a spell from the arcane bond, unless he is an unversalist then he can recast spells of every level. So wizards got at least 1 extra spell per slot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I don't see a problem with Wizard in the slightest...

Despite being blatantly ignored here, it gets great widely usable Focus spells which are mostly 1 actions (even a 1-3 action in there).
As well as widest non-healing spell list including most and best cantrips (esp. for damage, making comparison VS bard cantrip damage extra strange),
plus the most general spells with School/Bond/Conservation/Superior (not just 1 by a long shot), Scroll Savant and Reprepare Spell, and
most flexible angle on Prep casting with Bond, Infinite Possibilities and Spell Tinker, and Spell Sub/Blending Thesii(?) for tactical/strategic optimization.
Also has broadest Metamagic (Conceal/Silent and Universal Focus Extend) with Thesis potentially freeing many Feats (for Wizard or Archetypes),
and inherent benefits of higher modifier to INT skills... with INT investment in non-INT class (especially CHA based with CHA having no passive value)
at expense of universal stats (and everybody but Rogues only has 3 skills on max track, Trained is only low level competency ESPECIALLY for lower Stats).

Most other normal actions also work just fine with a Wizard, from Shields to Weapons as 3rd action (combo'd with non-attack spells etc).
DEX "cloth" build is classic and is nice for Reflex Saves, Stealth and Acrobatics, Finesse or Ranged weapons...
But I also like STR/Heavy Armor build that can have Athletics parity with martials, meatier weapon attacks and equivalent/better AC early on, later getting Fortification...
Which I'd rather take over +1 AC (max DEX), although Archetypes (potentially enabled by Thesis freeing Feat slots) offer Expert Heavy to stay ahead there.


oholoko wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:


The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

Wizards get an extra spell of every slot(Limited to a spell from the school school) and can recast a spell from the arcane bond, unless he is an unversalist then he can recast spells of every level. So wizards got at least 1 extra spell per slot.

Hasn't also the bard a feat which allows him to cast extra spells in a similar way?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Strill wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.
Fortunately, all the metamagic is 1-action modifiers that let the wizard do exactly that, or they can Recall Knowledge, or they can move to be in the best spot for that spell.

And how does that help the wizard provide equal fun and support as other caster classes? Any class can do those things.

Metamagic is fairly useless. I tried to use metamagic. It didn't do much at all. I figured Reach or Widen would do something moderately useful, but they didn't. The martials cut everything down without the need for my spell help. My bard inspire courage composition was far more helpful than anything a wizard can do. Bows are inherently longer range than most spells even with a reach ability.

My bard has as many skills as my wizard. He can recall knowledge just as easily if needed. Given the stat boosts, I gave him intelligence as one of his boost. He has a nice high intel, charisma, and wisdom. The only physical stat I need on the bard is Con for more hit points.

Not sure why people keep making excuses for a wizard class that is poorly designed given the new paradigm. It should be absolutely required that if a caster is going to be support, he should have 1 action support options that are useful. The wizard is sorely lacking. Metamagic that most caster classes can access is not comparable.

You're saying the fights were too easy, and you never fought enemies difficult enough to justify using metamagic, therefore metamagic is underpowered because it's too powerful to bother using? What kind of argument is that?
How do you interpret this in this fashion?

From the part where you say that you stopped bothering to cast anything but cantrips because the martials had already killed everything. If your party can easily kill everything without you, then you're obviously not being challenged.


Gorbacz wrote:
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.

Indeed, and a level 13 Cave Druid/Monk that could do 500+ DMG in a round. That game was seriously broken.

101 to 150 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.