So I missed the*caster is underpowered now* debates.


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Lanathar wrote:
So whilst a fighter with no magic items, feats or buffs have +3 that is not really a representation of the actual play experience

LOL Well you're not really representing 'normal' play either. ABP, bonus feats, ect aren't the norm and a quite high point buy [the fighter needs at least a 16 wis for that +10 save]. I was just giving the base as there was no way to predict stat, equipment, ect you had: if it had been closer to the 'norm', you wouldn't have as much of an issue. Just taking the feat off leaves a +8 save for a save on a 8 rolled: that still isn't bad IMO and far from a "a complete waste of time”.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a lot of gamers view a 65% chance that your action doesn't have a result as "a complete waste of time"

I mean, I've seen arguments on this very forum that treat a similar chance of reduced effect - rather than no effect at all - as if it were unbearable.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

I think a lot of gamers view a 65% chance that your action doesn't have a result as "a complete waste of time"

I mean, I've seen arguments on this very forum that treat a similar chance of reduced effect - rather than no effect at all - as if it were unbearable.

1 Action not achieving anything 65% of the time sucks, but what about your entire turn + high level spell slot going to waste 65% of the time?

Might even have worse odds than the non-spell since other actions you can increase DC/bonus with items/buffs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
I think a lot of gamers view a 65% chance that your action doesn't have a result as "a complete waste of time"

Martials suffer a 65% chance that one of their actions does nothing (and 65% might be high). Assuming a -5 MAP, and a 45% base failure rate, a three-swing round would be:

45% miss
70% miss
95% miss

Total 29.925% chance that all attacks miss.
Compare that to a caster which gets 1 spell per round with roughly the same base odds as the martial's first attack. Sure, they get half-effect on a miss, but is it worth it?

Quandary wrote:
and then I can buff it up and sustain it and one other action (2 if hasted), and then sustain + 2 actions (+3 if hasted) indefinitely.

How boring. You've action'd yourself into having zero choices.


ChibiNyan wrote:

1 Action not achieving anything 65% of the time sucks, but what about your entire turn + high level spell slot going to waste 65% of the time?

Might even have worse odds than the non-spell since other actions you can increase DC/bonus with items/buffs.

I'm not sure what you're getting at... but yes, the hypothetical situation of spending your entire turn and a high-level spell slot for a 65% chance that literally nothing happens would be uncool to me.

Which is why I'm glad that PF2 doesn't have that happen, and also doesn't make avoiding it require realizing that things presented as options need to be taken in order to avoid it unlike how PF1 presented ability increases (might as well have just been hard-coded to a particular ability score based on class instead of saying "+1 to any score") and feats like spell focus.


ChibiNyan wrote:


Might even have worse odds than the non-spell since other actions you can increase DC/bonus with items/buffs.

I want to be clear that I'm asking this question genuinely, so I'm still getting used to spell lists. Are there any common spells that can buff up your saving throws?

As far as I've seen, it's mostly been debuffing versus spells that's the name of the game. An enemy could Raise a Shield or Take Cover, but I haven't seen anything they could do to gain an increase to their Fortitude, Reflex, or Will.

Personally I haven't engaged too much in the martial versus caster debate because I haven't had enough time seeing them in action. Now that I've been running 2e for about three months with two groups and four spellcasters, I can say that they're enjoying themselves.

The trouble only seems to occur versus enemies that are higher level than them (i.e. the "boss fights"). However, these fights have given my martial players just as much trouble (at least until they started Demoralizing and buffing). One of my players who didn't play any 1e asked to change around his spell list since he needed spells that played around better at all levels; picking up spells that still were decent effects even on successful saves and ditching spells that didn't have at least basic saves.

I also have a player who came from 5e who tried out summoning and she seemed pretty disappointed to spend three actions to get a fairly weak creature and one she needed to spend another action the next turn to maintain. I pointed out the versatility of the spell, to get creatures that could target weaknesses or help in areas you lack, but she mostly just wanted to make a little guy for fighting. As a GM, I'm in love with these rules and I understand why they're there. I just was pointing out what my players haven't enjoyed. But really, they keep showing up for games and they keep casting spells (even if our 8 Strength gnome bard keeps trying to find ways to fight with her whip).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

I think a lot of gamers view a 65% chance that your action doesn't have a result as "a complete waste of time"

I mean, I've seen arguments on this very forum that treat a similar chance of reduced effect - rather than no effect at all - as if it were unbearable.

So I believe in terms of player satisfactions about a 50-65 percent chance of success is meant to be the sweet spot. Low enough so there is a significant risk of failure but high enough that you aren't often getting round after round of demoralising failure (Flurry of misses).

When it comes to spells I imagine the the sweet spot would be on the higher end of that band because when you fail not only are you wasting your action but you are also wasting a finite resource which you need for all your best effects. So I do find it weird that these resource burning actions are less accurate 7 time out of 10.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Martials suffer a 65% chance that one of their actions does nothing

That not being a "no matter what you choose" thing is relevant. You don't, for example, have that chance if your actions are things like Stride, Raise a Shield, and a Strike, or getting in a stance, casting ki strike and using flurry of blows, or some other set of actions that isn't repeated Strikes.

Draco18s wrote:
Sure, they get half-effect on a miss, but is it worth it?

Almost definitely.


graystone wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
So whilst a fighter with no magic items, feats or buffs have +3 that is not really a representation of the actual play experience
LOL Well you're not really representing 'normal' play either. ABP, bonus feats, ect aren't the norm and a quite high point buy [the fighter needs at least a 16 wis for that +10 save]. I was just giving the base as there was no way to predict stat, equipment, ect you had: if it had been closer to the 'norm', you wouldn't have as much of an issue. Just taking the feat off leaves a +8 save for a save on a 8 rolled: that still isn't bad IMO and far from a "a complete waste of time”.

I don’t think I claimed it was “normal”

But that is a distraction. Even leaving aside the bonus feat from the AP my players haven’t had to move heaven and earth to get absolutely crazy saves. Across the board. So whilst it is not normal it is normal for the current group and the as written enemies cannot cope

I might need to try and do a review of character sheets but my players might get touchy about that

My point was about low level spells in 1E not being that useful if they go after rival combatants . And that broadly stands. So this isn’t a big change. And I get that this isn’t necessarily a good argument because 2E could have tried to avoid this. But in this particular instance it is not really a nerf (not saying there aren’t others)

Anything further on this risks a de rail due to extensive mentions of the previous edition


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:


My point was about low level spells in 1E not being that useful if they go after rival combatants . And that broadly stands. So this isn’t a big change. And I get that this isn’t necessarily a good argument because 2E could have tried to avoid this. But in this particular instance it is not really a nerf (not saying there aren’t others)

Anything further on this risks a de rail due to extensive mentions of the previous edition

Given a fight with 4 mooks and a caster with hold person DC 16 against your level 11 fighter with ... +11 will save?

So have one intimidate - now he's shaken -2 to will saves. Give one of the mooks a cruel weapon - hit him - now he's sickened and at -4 to will saves - now cast on him. Not enough? Make that hold person persistent via metamagic. Use touch of idiocy (no save 1d6 penalty to wisdom) - there are ways to work things out - not every fight should have these - but if you aren't using tanglefoot bags, and intimidate, and or trip/bull rush (etc) against your players pf 1 fights can feel pretty bland.

I'll admit - using all the options available to you as the GM takes alot of system knowledge and work though.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Gloom wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
SO I MISSED THE*CASTER IS UNDERPOWERED NOW* DEBATES...
You didn't miss anything of value. This is an old and tired debate that has people divided into two camps. For the most part however, anyone I've played with who has played a caster in a game for a reasonable amount of time has enjoyed it.

Agreed.

This is what? The 6th or 7th thread about this now?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Sure, they get half-effect on a miss, but is it worth it?

Yes, clearly, and you have to capitalize on that miss effect.

Take the Fear spell, for example. Frightened 2 if the enemy fails his save, Frightened 1 if the enemy succeeds it. At first, if your spell "fails", it's twice as bad as if it "succeeds". But if you have a Dread Stricker Rogue, both effect are nearly the same for him: +4 vs +3, not a big deal. So, if you think combo, you need a caster. If you think solo, you can just play martials. But thinking combo works wonder in 2E.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ruzza wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:


Might even have worse odds than the non-spell since other actions you can increase DC/bonus with items/buffs.
I want to be clear that I'm asking this question genuinely, so I'm still getting used to spell lists. Are there any common spells that can buff up your saving throws?

There is a good few I can think of, off the top of my head. Some are even cantrips.

Mage Armor, at higher levels.
Sanctified Ground, for a bit of an odd one.
Heroism, perhaps the strongest of them.
Forbidding Ward, Cantrip
Guidance, Cantrip


Old_Man_Robot wrote:
Gloom wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
SO I MISSED THE*CASTER IS UNDERPOWERED NOW* DEBATES...
You didn't miss anything of value. This is an old and tired debate that has people divided into two camps. For the most part however, anyone I've played with who has played a caster in a game for a reasonable amount of time has enjoyed it.

Agreed.

This is what? The 6th or 7th thread about this now?

The last one was my one and I noticed at least 2 more before.


Lanathar wrote:
I don’t think I claimed it was “normal”

My point is that you can't claim "low level spells in 1E not being that useful" and in the same breathe point out how you've gone out of your way to make it that way: it's not that PF1 made them useless, it's YOU that did so with a non-standard set-up. In a 'normal' game, that hold person IS useful on the right combatant and you use the SAME tactics as the party. Why assume the party is pre-buffed to the hilt and NOT the bad guys? Is there a reason they don't use a high level debuff to increase the chances of those lower level spells taking affect?

IMO, saying that "low level spells in 1E not being that useful" is being myopic and doesn't "broadly stand". I've never bemoaned all the lower level spells that I had on my high level casters and regularly use them.

As to a derail, I don't think it is as the topic is "SO I MISSED THE*CASTER IS UNDERPOWERED NOW* DEBATES" and that indicates it's a complaint based on the power of casters now vs PF1 so talk of PF1 is part and parcel of the conversation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
siegfriedliner wrote:
When it comes to spells I imagine the the sweet spot would be on the higher end of that band because when you fail not only are you wasting your action but you are also wasting a finite resource which you need for all your best effects. So I do find it weird that these resource burning actions are less accurate 7 time out of 10.

Let's use a practical example: a 9th level party facing off against a cloud giant (level 11) as a little boss fight.

Given ability score increases and the suggested treasure distribution, we're looking at +2 striking weapons and ability scores of 18-19 being involved.

So we have a fighter with +21 attack bonus against an AC of 30, for a 40% chance of nothing happening and a 10% chance of a critical hit.

And we have a wizard with a save DC of 25 against saving throws of Fort +25, Ref +18, and Will +21, for respective chance of nothing happening of 55%, 15%, and 35%, and respective chance of a critical failure of 0, 5%, and 5%.

So while there is a "my thing didn't work" feeling that some people associate with hearing that an enemy made their saving throw, the fact that PF2 spells are typically only actually avoided on critical success means that even if you pick the wrong kind of spell for a particular enemy you're still not below the point of having good enough odds that something happens to not feel like you wasted the effort (at least not unless you are one of those folks that feels like an effort is wasted every time a roll doesn't go in your favor, no matter what the odds were).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are ways to increase saves, for example the playtest Swashbuckler can get 2 feats (Nimble Roll and Charmed Life) that let's them as a reaction get a +2 on saves vs the trigger (Roll only gives it to Reflex). Charmed Life also has an upgrade feat at lv 18 that let's them roll twice with the +2, so effectively a +6 to saves as a reaction.

Oracle get a feat (Divine Aegis) that as a reaction until start of next turn gives the +1 vs any non divine magical effects but also get a -1 vs any divine magical effects.

So I do expect them to add many more ways to increase saves. But I have not seen any ways to increase spell DC.

edit: made it more clear.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:
When it comes to spells I imagine the the sweet spot would be on the higher end of that band because when you fail not only are you wasting your action but you are also wasting a finite resource which you need for all your best effects. So I do find it weird that these resource burning actions are less accurate 7 time out of 10.

Let's use a practical example: a 9th level party facing off against a cloud giant (level 11) as a little boss fight.

Given ability score increases and the suggested treasure distribution, we're looking at +2 striking weapons and ability scores of 18-19 being involved.

So we have a fighter with +21 attack bonus against an AC of 30, for a 40% chance of nothing happening and a 10% chance of a critical hit.

And we have a wizard with a save DC of 25 against saving throws of Fort +25, Ref +18, and Will +21, for respective chance of nothing happening of 55%, 15%, and 35%, and respective chance of a critical failure of 0, 5%, and 5%.

So while there is a "my thing didn't work" feeling that some people associate with hearing that an enemy made their saving throw, the fact that PF2 spells are typically only actually avoided on critical success means that even if you pick the wrong kind of spell for a particular enemy you're still not below the point of having good enough odds that something happens to not feel like you wasted the effort (at least not unless you are one of those folks that feels like an effort is wasted every time a roll doesn't go in your favor, no matter what the odds were).

To be fair looking at those statistics in another light they show against an appropriate boss a wizard has a 5% chance of getting their full spell effect vs a strong save, a 35% chance vs a weak save and a 15% chance on a medium save.

The wizards chances of a critical failure are the same as a fighters chance of a success whilst also burning limited resources.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's cool that some spells have a failure effect, it's a nice that your spell is not completely wasted, but consolation prizes are not very "feel good". When you cast a spell you want it to at least get the "regular" effect. I realize the optimal strat versus bosses is "pick spells expecting they'll succed on the save, but not crit save", it doesn't feel super fun to me.

A martial class that had -2 to hit over the regular ones but got half damage on every miss would probably be effective, but not exciting. It would add up if they can do it infinitely!


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

I think a lot of gamers view a 65% chance that your action doesn't have a result as "a complete waste of time"

I mean, I've seen arguments on this very forum that treat a similar chance of reduced effect - rather than no effect at all - as if it were unbearable.

considering the original topic was for a GM to paralyze a player(because npc stat blocks aren't made super well), i don't think you're arguing for what you think you are.

it was a 35% chance a player would be paralyzed for a long time. generally i don't think abilities like that should have high DCs when used on players.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:

It's cool that some spells have a failure effect, it's a nice that your spell is not completely wasted, but consolation prizes are not very "feel good". When you cast a spell you want it to at least get the "regular" effect. I realize the optimal strat versus bosses is "pick spells expecting they'll succed on the save, but not crit save", it doesn't feel super fun to me.

A martial class that had -2 to hit over the regular ones but got half damage on every miss would probably be effective, but not exciting. It would add up if they can do it infinitely!

yeah this whole, you're worse at applying effects so get a pity effect just isn't fun compared to actually being able to apply effects only on a success.

I'd rather only apply on a success and have a decent time of doing it over, this.


It's sort of interesting to me how there aren't similar complaints about how much worse archery is relative to other options compared to PF1.

Since archery was the king of DPR strategies in PF1, since not only could you get a full attack off wherever, but you could get a lot of shots off in a given round with pretty good accuracy, and stack up a lot of static bonuses.

But now static damage bonuses are gone for the most part, nobody gets more than 3 attacks off, and the -10 attack isn't that valuable so you're no longer at a severe advantage compared to "run up and whack them" as a combat strategy.

Archery had a similar damping down to spellcasting, but doesn't seem nearly as controversial.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's sort of interesting to me how there aren't similar complaints about how much worse archery is relative to other options compared to PF1.

Since archery was the king of DPR strategies in PF1, since not only could you get a full attack off wherever, but you could get a lot of shots off in a given round with pretty good accuracy, and stack up a lot of static bonuses.

But now static damage bonuses are gone for the most part, nobody gets more than 3 attacks off, and the -10 attack isn't that valuable so you're no longer at a severe advantage compared to "run up and whack them" as a combat strategy.

Archery had a similar damping down to spellcasting, but doesn't seem nearly as controversial.

There's enough stuff that archery builds are still decently playable. Ton of feat support and you cna still get a Ranger to fire relatively accurate machine-gun shots. I don't see anything wrong with PF2 archery except like Volley. Striking runes + deadly trait should keep it really competitive to melee weapons (STR mod way less relevant), but I haven't played one.

I think it also helps that people thought archery was pretty dumb in PF1 and so are satisfied with the current version. It shows people are willing to accept "nerfs" as long as it's still resonable and fun.


ChibiNyan wrote:
It's cool that some spells have a failure effect,

Actual question here, I'm not being rhetorical or sarcastic or anything because I'm actually not sure myself.

Doesn't every or at least extremely close to every offensive spell with a save have a result on a success? I feel like I might have seen one that didn't but I don't remember which one in that case. Whenever I've looked at the spells it always seemed to me that an incredibly large majority of save spells have an effect on a success.

ChibiNyan wrote:
I realize the optimal strat versus bosses is "pick spells expecting they'll succed on the save, but not crit save", it doesn't feel super fun to me.

In my experience, the optimal strategy against bosses has been "pick spells that have good effects and raise you chances of success by as much as possible with debuffs and by targeting weak saves".


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's sort of interesting to me how there aren't similar complaints about how much worse archery is relative to other options compared to PF1.

Since archery was the king of DPR strategies in PF1, since not only could you get a full attack off wherever, but you could get a lot of shots off in a given round with pretty good accuracy, and stack up a lot of static bonuses.

But now static damage bonuses are gone for the most part, nobody gets more than 3 attacks off, and the -10 attack isn't that valuable so you're no longer at a severe advantage compared to "run up and whack them" as a combat strategy.

Archery had a similar damping down to spellcasting, but doesn't seem nearly as controversial.

IMO Bows are in a really great place in PF2e. With striking weapons increasing the damage dice of a weapon and both Fighter and Ranger having really great ranged options you can do some pretty impressive things.

Can't you also get down to a -3/-6 or -2/-4 on your Hunt Prey target with the Flurry Ranger Edge?

Also with the Deadly trait Bows can do some pretty sick damage on critical hits.


Henro wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
It's cool that some spells have a failure effect,

Actual question here, I'm not being rhetorical or sarcastic or anything because I'm actually not sure myself.

Doesn't every or at least extremely close to every offensive spell with a save have a result on a success? I feel like I might have seen one that didn't but I don't remember which one in that case. Whenever I've looked at the spells it always seemed to me that an incredibly large majority of save spells have an effect on a success.

ChibiNyan wrote:
I realize the optimal strat versus bosses is "pick spells expecting they'll succed on the save, but not crit save", it doesn't feel super fun to me.
In my experience, the optimal strategy against bosses has been "pick spells that have good effects and raise you chances of success by as much as possible with debuffs and by targeting weak saves".

I'm at work so can't check every spell, but pretty sure there's some with no effect on a save success (I recall some cantrips), this is in addition to all that require a Spell Attack Roll, all of which just "miss".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Henro wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
It's cool that some spells have a failure effect,

Actual question here, I'm not being rhetorical or sarcastic or anything because I'm actually not sure myself.

Doesn't every or at least extremely close to every offensive spell with a save have a result on a success? I feel like I might have seen one that didn't but I don't remember which one in that case. Whenever I've looked at the spells it always seemed to me that an incredibly large majority of save spells have an effect on a success.

ChibiNyan wrote:
I realize the optimal strat versus bosses is "pick spells expecting they'll succed on the save, but not crit save", it doesn't feel super fun to me.
In my experience, the optimal strategy against bosses has been "pick spells that have good effects and raise you chances of success by as much as possible with debuffs and by targeting weak saves".
I'm at work so can't check every spell, but pretty sure there's some with no effect on a save success (I recall some cantrips), this is in addition to all that require a Spell Attack Roll, all of which just "miss".

There’s also the possibility of having the party helping with debuffs. Also using Staffs helps resources not feel so limited. Pretty sure casters aren’t designed as ‘consolation prize’ classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a lot of the complaint about how a spellcaster feels comes down to the terminology:

A weapon-user gets a success, and that's the "normal" result, with a critical success being "a bonus" result and failure and critical failure (since there's not often specific effects differentiating those two) are "didn't work" result. The perception, and the mechanics line up perfectly here - you've got "didn't work" doing no damage, "normal" dealing damage, and "a bonus" doubling damage. The 4 degrees of result are split into 2 where nothing happens, and 2 where the thing you were aiming for happens.

A spell with a saving throw is being looked at as a successful save being the equivalent of the "didn't work" result, despite their being an actual effect still (at least in all the cases I can think of). The 4 degrees of result are split into 1 where nothing happens, and 3 where the thing you were aiming for happens.

Mechanically, the outcomes are (from the spell-casting player's perspective) failure, success, better success, and best success - but they are labeled critical success, success, failure, and critical failure.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
There’s also the possibility of having the party helping with debuffs. Also using Staffs helps resources not feel so limited. Pretty sure casters aren’t designed as ‘consolation prize’ classes.

Casters don't need much equipment. So they can load dozens of scrolls for times of need. Resources can be pretty numerous if needed.


And, for what it's worth, I am aware that my perception is a "it doesn't feel good" even when the results (the actual, mechanical, outcome) is overall more beneficial.


SuperBidi wrote:

In fact, the more I think about it, and the more I feel the title is misleading. Casters don't have an issue. Some casters have.

Bard is S tier. There's a topic about ideal 4-character party and even the more martial inclined posters gave their party a Bard.
Cleric is at least A tier. Nearly always there in the ideal party.
Druids seem fine. No complaint.

So, the issue with "casters" looks like it's an issue with Wizards and maybe Sorcerers (even if I feel that Primal and Divine Sorcerers who accept the healing part of their traditions are doing fine). And when we look at Bast L. list, he conveniently forgot healing which is present in 3 traditions out of 4...

Bards seem to really click with the 3 action economy. Powerful 1 action buffs means they always have a really strong use for their third action. Good spell list with some healing power to top people off in emergencies and good CC and some attack spell options. They excel at making everybody better where they themselves are still really good so you are not making major sacrifices for their team support abilities.

Druids seem like they have a bunch of good options to go from shape shifting melee monsters to healers to ranged damage casters. Again people with good 1 attack options to fill in with their spell casting helps a lot.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

In fact, the more I think about it, and the more I feel the title is misleading. Casters don't have an issue. Some casters have.

Bard is S tier. There's a topic about ideal 4-character party and even the more martial inclined posters gave their party a Bard.
Cleric is at least A tier. Nearly always there in the ideal party.
Druids seem fine. No complaint.

So, the issue with "casters" looks like it's an issue with Wizards and maybe Sorcerers (even if I feel that Primal and Divine Sorcerers who accept the healing part of their traditions are doing fine). And when we look at Bast L. list, he conveniently forgot healing which is present in 3 traditions out of 4...

But the list was just for wizards.. Explicitly about wizards.

Also, I didn't mention divine sorcerer, but they may just be the worst thing ever. Worst tradition, no font, no armor. I just don't see the point of them.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I think in this thread we have kind of narrowed down the "feel bad" spellcasters to be offensive spellcasters with no proficiency options for physicla combat. So pretty much Wizard, Sorcerer and Witch: d6HP club with no armor, they fight by casting spells on enemies.

Druids and Bards do get weapons, armor, HP and way better focus spells. They don't gave to ever use 2-action offensive spells, even if they have some (Storm druid does, but focus points are less punishing than high level slots). They also actually have some real class feats to speak of!

We haven't talked about the dreadful class feat and focus spell "choices" for Sorc and Wizard...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Casters dont need much equipment because they were not given anything that stands out. Martials have different weapons with different enchanments and can use armor without having to spend feats to not lose AC. They can also use shields better if they want which can also be enchanted.

Also relying on scrolls and consumables doesnt feel the best. You are literally spending money to get 1 use spell slots. Aka it doesnt fix the, "spells feel bad", just makes you not useless if you used all you spell slots.

**************
Btw how they did consumables is also part of why the Alchemist feels so horrible at times, as their entire class is "use consumables"; but unlike scrolls they have to spend feats to get a scaling DC and be more usable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Yeah, I think in this thread we have kind of narrowed down the "feel bad" spellcasters to be offensive spellcasters with no proficiency options for physicla combat.

Kinda, I think it mostly has to do with what other stuff your character gets beyond spell slots especially at low levels when spell slots are a premium.

Sorcerers are hit and miss based on their bloodline, because some of them give you reliable new actions and some of them... don't. Though even then comparing Tempest Surge and Elemental Toss feels pretty bad.

Wizards get the least focus spell support (they even get their refocus 2 feat later than anyone else) and have the worst weapon proficiencies in the game (for no real reason), which definitely makes them feel kind of lacking in the same way though.

Also, not sure if anyone else feels this way but I think the way PF2 handles spells is really bad for prepared casters. Spell choice is designed to be much more specific, it's not good enough to prepare enough attack spells in a day, but you have to prepare the right attack spells, because targeting the right save is a huge part of whether or not you can reliably land spells this edition.

Obviously this effects every prepared caster, but again, Wizards don't really have fallback options like Druids or Clerics do... doesn't help that they have to manually learn spells too.


Bast L. wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

In fact, the more I think about it, and the more I feel the title is misleading. Casters don't have an issue. Some casters have.

Bard is S tier. There's a topic about ideal 4-character party and even the more martial inclined posters gave their party a Bard.
Cleric is at least A tier. Nearly always there in the ideal party.
Druids seem fine. No complaint.

So, the issue with "casters" looks like it's an issue with Wizards and maybe Sorcerers (even if I feel that Primal and Divine Sorcerers who accept the healing part of their traditions are doing fine). And when we look at Bast L. list, he conveniently forgot healing which is present in 3 traditions out of 4...

But the list was just for wizards.. Explicitly about wizards.

Also, I didn't mention divine sorcerer, but they may just be the worst thing ever. Worst tradition, no font, no armor. I just don't see the point of them.

Yeah, I know, but there's a focus on Wizard while the subject speak about casters.

Divine sorcerers are excellent healers, on par with Clerics, especially with the Undead Bloodline.
And Heal and Harm are absolutely excellent spells, using all the strength of the new action economy.


Bast L. wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

In fact, the more I think about it, and the more I feel the title is misleading. Casters don't have an issue. Some casters have.

Bard is S tier. There's a topic about ideal 4-character party and even the more martial inclined posters gave their party a Bard.
Cleric is at least A tier. Nearly always there in the ideal party.
Druids seem fine. No complaint.

So, the issue with "casters" looks like it's an issue with Wizards and maybe Sorcerers (even if I feel that Primal and Divine Sorcerers who accept the healing part of their traditions are doing fine). And when we look at Bast L. list, he conveniently forgot healing which is present in 3 traditions out of 4...

But the list was just for wizards.. Explicitly about wizards.

Also, I didn't mention divine sorcerer, but they may just be the worst thing ever. Worst tradition, no font, no armor. I just don't see the point of them.

So we’re just gonna completely overlook the fact that Angelic Sorc can spam 1st level 3-action heals for guaranteed better minimum than a Cleric’s Divine Font then?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
We haven't talked about the dreadful class feat and focus spell "choices" for Sorc and Wizard...

Yeah, I just *love* my Undead Sorcerer's level 1 focus spell. After playing through to level 4, I have never spent a single focus point on it, as I've yet to encounter a situation where I would need to heal someone with a Harm spell instead of just using a Heal spell. If there was an archetype that exchanged the focus spell for something useful, like a cantrip from a different tradition, I would take it in an instant.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
So we’re just gonna completely overlook the fact that Angelic Sorc can spam 1st level 3-action heals for guaranteed better minimum than a Cleric’s Divine Font then?

I dunno from spam, a first level sorcerer has 3, first level cleric has 3+ (could have fewer, but that would be a bad choice), not a bad choice to have 4 (not to mention spell slots with it, most useful spell, though magic weapon is a strong contender). Also, healing hands (human cleric) offsets this bonus. Also, who uses three-action heals? :) Really though, in the months since the game's been out, I've only seen them a handful of times, mostly when undead were around. Of course, the bonus applies to regular heals too, but that range limitation is rough, for someone who should really be in the back, with his 6 hp/level.

Edit: Also, it takes a round to set up, because you're using 3-action heals, so really, this isn't very good, compared to font (1 point more per die (assuming cleric takes the nearly-mandatory healing hands), with the setup buff, and careful positioning). And, of course, we're ignoring a cleric being focused on healing, like this sorcerer is, and getting things like healer's blessing (bad), rebuke death (pretty okay, especially not increasing wounded condition), communal healing (feh), improved communal healing (eh? not horrid), selective energy (three action heals much more usable!).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's sort of interesting to me how there aren't similar complaints about how much worse archery is relative to other options compared to PF1.

Since archery was the king of DPR strategies in PF1,**EDIT**

Archery had a similar damping down to spellcasting, but doesn't seem nearly as controversial.

Just had to respond to this - because I had similar discussions in PF 1 re: fighters in regards to how to make them 'fun' - and the discussions always came back down to 'they need pounce' - because barbarians could get pounce - even though the actual complaints were 'more ways to actually impact the game outside of combat'.

I dunno what to say about it other than people are weird - casters were nerfed - hard - spells/dc/spells per day/etc. were all messed with - and people are processing that change and trying to feel it out. Some of that comes out as 'I can't blast or damage like a fighter!' - because fighters are the new king of the hill (perception wise anyway) that makes a certain kind of sense - see which kid has all the cool toys - and try to figure out why they seem to have more fun than you right?

I stand by that it's not the DPR or the actual spells - it's how they interact with the system that feels off.

The entire spell section reads like this:

Quote:
ADAM: I don't see anything about Heaven or Hell. This book reads like stereo instructions. Listen to this: "Geographical and Temporal Perimeters: Functional perimeters vary from manifestation to manifestation." Oh, this is going to take some time, honey.
Quote:

Failure The target is slowed 1 and must attempt a Fortitude

save at the end of each of its turns; this ongoing save has
the incapacitation trait. On a failed save, the slowed condition
increases by 1 (or 2 on a critical failure). A successful save
reduces the slowed condition by 1. When a creature is unable
to act due to the slowed condition from flesh to stone, the
creature is petrified permanently. The spell ends if the
creature is petrified or the slowed condition is removed.

Yeah - the "Handbook for the Recently Deceased" reads easier than the spell section :) I feel like they'd have been better off saying "Flesh to Stone - if the target fails it's save it's slowed 2, if it makes the save it's slowed 1". Except they felt the need to keep this crit system working for every spell instead of just attack spells - hey we are where we are - and instead of having a spell you can use the action system with you get a 2 action spell and move (just like PF 1) but with weird and hard to read wording that doesn't make you feel like you did anything cool.

Lets rewrite flesh to stone so it interacts with the new 3 action system:

Quote:


You try to turn the target’s flesh into stone. The target must attempt a Fortitude save.

1 action: The target is unaffected, Flat Footed (1 round), Clumsy 1, Clumsy 2

2 action: The target is unaffected, Slowed 1 (1 round), Slowed 1, Slowed 2

3 action: The target is unaffected, Slowed 1, Slowed 2, Restrained (a break free success reduces this to Slowed 2).

*note* if the target is lower level than the wizard failure or above results in the target being made into a statue gear and all.

I mean - that looks cooler to me and would give you options, keep the 'can't end a boss fight' and would feel more satisfying - but I'm just a schmuck on the internet.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Whether or not casters are underpowered I can't say, but I will say is that the D&D caster as he/she existed since the founding has been replaced the computer game MMO caster for better or worse. that is exactly what the wizard is now. the D&D wizard used to be an alter of reality, it's not that now. the wizard now plays and very much feels like the wizard classes in a lot of mmo.

the good thing is that martials and casters are playing the same game. bad thing is that you can't really say that you are playing a traditional D&D wizard.


Martialmasters wrote:

I was excited to see in 2e martials being able to do more than full attack more easily.

I was excited to casters reigned in.

I've seen many players complain of casters being over nerfed. But vast majority just state it without examples or any explanation.

I've discussed it with my play group and nobody seems to be of the opinion that they were over nerfed. In fact several typically martial only players have expressed interest in playing casters in 2e.

So my question to the people of this forum is to fill me in. Enter a discussion. Even a debate. Though let's be civil as I've seen a bit of animosity in regards to this subject. I'll share my opinion but keep in mind it is just that.

I think casters are largely balanced now.

I think perhaps some utility spells have suffered. Biggest example I've seen used is unseen servant. I think paizo looked at this stuff less from a Nerf it it's too powerful and instead thought they did too much and were too open to interpretation or shenanigans. This more speaks to paizos idea of what their game should be and it is clearly at odds with some players.

I think making one dimensional caster's who focus on mainly one thing has always bad. I think the blaster caster was never as good as the utility caster. But it's clear you in for a rough time if you like comparing your dpr to the fighters. Especially on single Target. You can actually best out any martial in AOE effects though.

I think a lot of players dislike prepared casting and due to this they feel worse to those players. Me personally I feel it's a skill gap. The truly skilled players will make a prepared caster shine.

I think if anyone tries to compare 2e to 1e and expect equivalency your going to be upset.

These are my opinions. I welcome anyone to challenge them and change my mind if you can.

Besides the wizard, I think casters are balanced now too. I reserve opinion on the sorcerer until I see one in action. Wizard is boring and slightly weak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluescale wrote:


Yeah, I just *love* my Undead Sorcerer's level 1 focus spell. After playing through to level 4, I have never spent a single focus point on it, as I've yet to encounter a situation where I would need to heal someone with a Harm spell instead of just using a Heal spell. If there was an archetype that exchanged the focus spell for something useful, like a cantrip from a different tradition, I would take it in an instant.

When I first got to the spell I didn't read it very closely and thought it reversed a creature's polarity instead of just turning everything into heals. That would have been kind of cool, since you could have dropped it on an enemy and then healbomb your allies the next round while also damaging the enemy.

That would have been kinda cool.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
So we’re just gonna completely overlook the fact that Angelic Sorc can spam 1st level 3-action heals for guaranteed better minimum than a Cleric’s Divine Font then?

A sorcerer who spends a focus point and then all three of their spell slots at first level gets all of 6 extra healing per target over four rounds.

That's.. slightly better than a single use of divine font, I guess. And then the sorcerer has nothing but cantrips for the rest of the day.


Squiggit wrote:
Bluescale wrote:


Yeah, I just *love* my Undead Sorcerer's level 1 focus spell. After playing through to level 4, I have never spent a single focus point on it, as I've yet to encounter a situation where I would need to heal someone with a Harm spell instead of just using a Heal spell. If there was an archetype that exchanged the focus spell for something useful, like a cantrip from a different tradition, I would take it in an instant.

When I first got to the spell I didn't read it very closely and thought it reversed a creature's polarity instead of just turning everything into heals. That would have been kind of cool, since you could have dropped it on an enemy and then healbomb your allies the next round while also damaging the enemy.

That would have been kinda cool.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
So we’re just gonna completely overlook the fact that Angelic Sorc can spam 1st level 3-action heals for guaranteed better minimum than a Cleric’s Divine Font then?

A sorcerer who spends a focus point and then all three of their spell slots at first level gets all of 6 extra healing per target over four rounds.

That's.. slightly better than a single use of divine font, I guess. And then the sorcerer has nothing but cantrips for the rest of the day.

So you can make a sorcerer healer? Interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:


Insofar as complaint re: Summon School Focus spell, I guess I look at 3-action spell (Summons) alone and I think:
"that doesn't look convenient to cast in thick of combat where I want to use my other 3rd actions, maybe this is best used before combat,
and then I can buff it up and sustain it and one other action (2 if hasted), and then sustain + 2 actions (+3 if hasted) indefinitely.
I also don't think casting 3-action Summon and next round Augment, Sustain, and use 1-action spell/weapon/skill/etc is bad.
(of course Summons were pain to cast in thick of combat in 1E and earlier, very disruptable unlike 2E)

This solution highlights the action economy problem more than refuting it. Summons have a 1 minute max sustain on them. I'd complain that you were losing your exploration activity while sustaining the spell, but the likelihood that you'll need that activity in the next minute is about as low as the likelihood that you'll need the summon.

Maybe there's a cool summon duration extender that I've missed. That would be nice.


I wasn't considering long duration exploration, just as immediate pre-combat spell while allies have own buffs/prep, also like 3.x/1E.
And FYI, there is a cool Wizard-only duration extender: Universalist has Extend metamagic Focus spell (1min->10min, not just Summons).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I think the issue isn’t that spells are bad, it’s that wizards don’t have any other actions to combo.

One thing that’d be nice is getting “Spell on the Run”ish type feat that allows you to take a single stride while using a meta magic feat or a value skill feat based on one of the knowledge skills.


Quandary wrote:

I wasn't considering long duration exploration, just as immediate pre-combat spell while allies have own buffs/prep, also like 3.x/1E.

And FYI, there is a cool Wizard-only duration extender: Universalist has Extend metamagic Focus spell (1min->10min, not just Summons).

That appears to be an Imperial Bloodline focus spell. Easy enough to multiclass and grab though, good find. Though it seems to only effect spells with a single target, and summon spells don't have a target. I'm not sure it's intended to work with spells without a target listed. And summoned spells have a duration of sustained up to 1 minute, not one minute, so I think it fails there too.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's sort of interesting to me how there aren't similar complaints about how much worse archery is relative to other options compared to PF1.

Since archery was the king of DPR strategies in PF1, since not only could you get a full attack off wherever, but you could get a lot of shots off in a given round with pretty good accuracy, and stack up a lot of static bonuses.

But now static damage bonuses are gone for the most part, nobody gets more than 3 attacks off, and the -10 attack isn't that valuable so you're no longer at a severe advantage compared to "run up and whack them" as a combat strategy.

Archery had a similar damping down to spellcasting, but doesn't seem nearly as controversial.

like, with what my theory is, that people aren't actually complaining about being weak, but being boring or static, this isn't a surprise.

archery still does what it used to be good at, it's as fun to do before if not more so now, you have options on how to leverage your ranged attacks.

casting just feels hampered into a corner.


Bast L. wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
So we’re just gonna completely overlook the fact that Angelic Sorc can spam 1st level 3-action heals for guaranteed better minimum than a Cleric’s Divine Font then?

I dunno from spam, a first level sorcerer has 3, first level cleric has 3+ (could have fewer, but that would be a bad choice), not a bad choice to have 4 (not to mention spell slots with it, most useful spell, though magic weapon is a strong contender). Also, healing hands (human cleric) offsets this bonus. Also, who uses three-action heals? :) Really though, in the months since the game's been out, I've only seen them a handful of times, mostly when undead were around. Of course, the bonus applies to regular heals too, but that range limitation is rough, for someone who should really be in the back, with his 6 hp/level.

Edit: Also, it takes a round to set up, because you're using 3-action heals, so really, this isn't very good, compared to font (1 point more per die (assuming cleric takes the nearly-mandatory healing hands), with the setup buff, and careful positioning). And, of course, we're ignoring a cleric being focused on healing, like this sorcerer is, and getting things like healer's blessing (bad), rebuke death (pretty okay, especially not increasing wounded condition), communal healing (feh), improved communal healing (eh? not horrid), selective energy (three action heals much more usable!).

I mean, if we’re talking about first level, then sure; i mean the Cleric’s gonna need the handicap by how quickly the Sorc’s gonna out pace them. Though let’s be real for a moment that that Cleric’s gonna be using Treat Wounds more often than their Divine Font; barely even a Class Feature at early levels unless you go Harm.

I would also assume that your party knows how to group up and wouldn’t want to waste those precious recourses. If even your back line is scattered enough to not see the use in a 3-action heal when necessary, then i’m sorry for the healer on duty i guess.

Also who was talking about Focused healing? I was simply pointing out that an Angelic Sorc is gonna be better at healing than a Cleric’s Divine Font. All the Sorc needs is a Healing Staff to be a dedicated healer at best, but i guess if your Cleric needs all those feats and gear just to keep up to a Sorc; i guess just don’t really see the point. : /

51 to 100 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / So I missed the*caster is underpowered now* debates. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.