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


Rules Discussion

101 to 150 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Squiggit 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?

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.

I mean, let’s be honest. Most casters are going to be using mostly Cantrips beginning levels. Also didn’t say anything about 3-action at early levels. Though it works, most people will resort to Treat Wounds. Really, Divine Font isn’t even that useful early levels except as free harm spells; or if the party is really screwing up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


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.

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. : /

Er, you mentioned first level spells. Going up levels, the situation remains roughly the same, getting slightly better for cleric at 5 (more font). Mind you, the cleric can cast those spells without filling any slots with heal (and he probably should fill slots with heal). Those feats aren't necessary, it was comparing your dedicated healing sorcerer to a dedicated healing cleric. Even without those feats, the cleric still has way more healing than the sorcerer, just slightly less on a spell by spell basis. Also, your example uses 3 action heals (on targets within 15 feet, mind you, for your angelic bonus), something far less likely than 2 action heals, unless you're only fighting undead, and in close quarters (and something that the cleric can do much more easily than the sorcerer, by picking up selective energy, and by having more hp to be in melee with).

As for font being "barely even a class feature"... I don't like to assume intent.. have you played the game? Healing Font is, by far, the best class feature in the game. It's the thing that makes clerics worthwhile.

Edit: thinking of paladin reactions, maybe it's a slight exaggeration, but not much of one. Font is great, at low or high level.


Extra casting of Heal is not the same as what Healing Font gets.

Spoiler:

You have Selective Energy (can choose to not heal enemies)
Directed Channel (60-ft cone instead of 30-ft area)
Regular and improved Communal Healing (makes 1 and 2 action heal more efficient)
Echoing Channel (makes 2 action Heal even more efficient, until lv 20 when it makes 3 action heal more efficient)
Channel Succor (Divine Font can spontaneously become status removal, so even more heal)

Sorcerer catches up to a Cleric by brute force. But Clerics are more efficient.

Also remember that Divine font are all heightened. So a lv 20 Cha +4 Cleric would get 5 10th lv heal spells.


ErichAD wrote:
[Extend Spell] 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.

Whoops, not sure why I confused it with Wizard, same theme I guess... Definitely something to consider re: game at large though, and Sorc MCD is not bad option at all (also for CHA skill 3rd actions) where I guess it would become Level 12 (though I can see future MC Feats lowering that to 8 since full Sorc gains Greater at 10... although I guess controlling total # of Focus points is also relevant). I wouldn't think the concentration thing negates the 1 minute duration, but like you say, target probably does re: Summons.

Over all I think alot of people overlook the many 1 action options Wizards have, especially weapons as 3rd action, or for that matter merits of a real Shield VS Shield spell (more AC and Blocks multiple hits). Also just basics of movement and general tactics outside of direct personal effectiveness (e.g. drawing enemy actions), item usage like smokesticks etc, and skill usage... whether Athletics/Acrobatics for maneuvers and Leaping/Balancing/Flying/Tumble to make most of Movement chess or Flanking, or CHA skill debuffs, or INT/WIS Recall Knowledge. Although 2ndary CHA Wizard actually is viable, I think people write Wizards off for those usages which feel more immediately impressive than Recall Knowledge. I see latter as very useful, but I guess it doesn't satisfy some.

Although I can easily see future Skill Feats that allow using Knowledge checks to gain buff/debuff VS relevant enemy e.g. forseeing their attack or defensive pattern, which might scratch some people's itch more.


Temperans wrote:
Extra casting of Heal is not the same as what Healing Font gets.

Um, what?

Quote:

Healing Font: You gain additional spell

slots each day at your highest level of cleric spell slots.
You can prepare only heal spells (page 343) in these
slots, and the number of slots is equal to 1 plus your
Charisma modifier.

You gain additional spell slots that are required to be Heal. How is that not "extra castings of Heal"?

Quote:
**Spoiler**

You forgot Fast Channel and Heroic Recovery.


Bast L. wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


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.

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. : /

Er, you mentioned first level spells. Going up levels, the situation remains roughly the same, getting slightly better for cleric at 5 (more font). Mind you, the cleric can cast those spells without filling any slots with heal (and he probably should fill slots with heal). Those feats aren't necessary, it was comparing your dedicated healing sorcerer to a dedicated healing cleric. Even without those feats, the cleric still has way more healing than the sorcerer, just slightly less on a spell by spell basis. Also, your example uses 3 action heals (on targets within 15 feet, mind you, for your angelic bonus), something far less likely than 2 action heals, unless you're only fighting undead, and in close quarters (and something that the cleric can do much more easily than the sorcerer, by picking up selective energy, and by having more hp to be in melee with).

As for font being "barely even a class feature"... I don't like to assume intent.. have you played the game? Healing Font is, by far, the best class feature in the game. It's the thing that makes clerics worthwhile.

Edit: thinking of paladin reactions, maybe it's a slight exaggeration, but not much of one. Font is great, at low or high level.

Is there something stopping me from using 1st level slots at higher levels? Are all classes and features to only be judged by how they work at level 1? There’s quite a number of assumptions so far.

Have i played so far? Yes, currently going through Plaguestone. Have i played Cleric? Yes, during the Playtest, before Divine Font got the nerf; nice that heal spells got the buff though. At early levels, Divine Font seems pretty meh; unless the dice go south, Divine Font is basically a weaker and more limited Treat Wounds. That is, unless you use Harm spells.

If you look back at the initial post i responded to you claimed, ‘Divine Sorcerer may just be the worst thing. No Font, no Armor. I just don’t see the point in them.

While peoples opinion on them doesn’t have to be favorable, i was simply pointing out that you, much like others, overlooked the scaling power of Angelic Halo to be much better than Divine Font on a number of aspects; one of which is making low level spells at late game super potent and leaving larger spell slots for bigger and better things.

Why you and Squiggit thought i was trying to claim Angelic Sorc was better than a Cleric and their Divine Font at every level is a mystery to me.

EDIT: i also know how Divine Font works. I quite like the class feature, but calling it possibly the most useful one is quite the stretch.


Draco its extra low level vs extra max level.

And while Angelic Halo is good due to being an AoE effect, Cleric do also have the Healer's Blessing which is single target but works with any healing spell. So there are some trade offs.

As for the reason every level is compared is that otherwise the statement makes little sense; a 0 charisma Cleric can cast the same number of 1st lv heal as a Sorcerer. The sorcerer spending a focus point has better minimum (1d8+2), but the Cleric gets to save his focus point (d10s).

Reason it's most useful is that having extra max level spells is quite rare. Like I said a Cha +4 Cleric can have 6 10th lv spells (even if 5 are just healing/status removal). Anyway the point is that a Sorcerer is not the best magical healer, but he is definetly not the worse (that's either the Wizard or Druid).


Temperans wrote:
Draco its extra low level vs extra max level.

Uh.

Quote:
at your highest level of cleric spell slots.


Pumpkinhead11:

First, it needs to be stressed again, that 15 ft 3-action heals, are exceedingly unlikely to be useful in combat. Outside of combat, you'll use treat wounds, focus spell healing, etc.

However, let's consider the ideal scenario for your angelic sorcerer: Level 20, immobile group surrounding the sorcerer, fighting undead, with all players damaged enough each turn to need 3 action heals, and combats lasting long enough that low-level healing (even boosted with angelic halo) is worth bothering with.

Now, you said in the earlier post that sorcerer will quickly outpace the cleric. Using your low level spells is only an apples to apples comparison if the cleric also uses those spells, so whatever the sorc uses, the cleric uses (so much as he can).

Cleric font (5 cha bonus at 20):

6 10th level spells: 10d8 *6 (should be 10d10, but we're being silly already) = 45*6 = 270

Sorcerer:

4 1st level spells: (1d8 + 20)*4 = 24.5 * 4 = 98
Sorc total: 98

3 for cleric: 13.5
Cleric total: 283.5

4 2nd level spells: (2d8 + 20)*4 = 29 * 4 = 116
Sorc total: 214

3 for cleric: 27
Cleric total: 310.5

4 3rd level spells: (3d8 + 20)*4 = 33.5 * 4 = 134
Sorc total: 348

3 for cleric: 40.5
Cleric total: 351

4 4th level spells: (4d8 + 20)*4 = 152
Sorc total: 500

3 for cleric: 54
Cleric total: 405

There you have it, under ridiculously ideal circumstances, the sorcerer can outstrip the cleric in a very silly fight where everyone is immobile, and the fight lasts 13 rounds (actually 15, since he needs two to cast angelic halo, as the fight has lasted longer than a minute at this point), and also doesn't need large heals, just a lot over time.

In any actual fight at that level, casting the level 1 spell is the sorcerer letting other characters die.

The point of the heal spell is not to top people up outside of combat, it's to heal people during combat, and during combat, they need at-level or close to it heal spells. 3-action heals are rarely useful, though nice when they are. Mostly, it's two-action.

If you use two-action heals (which is what's actually cast, in any game I've run/played in), the landscape changes quite a bit:

Same spells used as above, Cleric total: 1125, Sorc Total: 820.

More sensibly, level 8, 9, 10 spells used for heal:
Cleric: 1512.5
Sorcerer: 1350

Admittedly, not as horrible as I thought, though far from outpacing the cleric. If you still insist that casting level 1, 3 action heals in a 15-ft zone at level 20 is reasonable though, I have no further arguments to offer.

Edit: to be clear, it doesn't have to be 1 fight, the math is the same if it's over multiple fights, but a sorcerer finding the opportunity to use 13 low-level 3-action heals in a day is not a very likely scenario.


Also as Draco mention, Clerics do get Fast Channel, aka the cleric is doing a 3 action spell using only 2. So they win the efficiency game.


Temperans wrote:

Draco its extra low level vs extra max level.

And while Angelic Halo is good due to being an AoE effect, Cleric do also have the Healer's Blessing which is single target but works with any healing spell. So there are some trade offs.

As for the reason every level is compared is that otherwise the statement makes little sense; a 0 charisma Cleric can cast the same number of 1st lv heal as a Sorcerer. The sorcerer spending a focus point has better minimum (1d8+2), but the Cleric gets to save his focus point (d10s).

Reason it's most useful is that having extra max level spells is quite rare. Like I said a Cha +4 Cleric can have 6 10th lv spells (even if 5 are just healing/status removal). Anyway the point is that a Sorcerer is not the best magical healer, but he is definetly not the worse (that's either the Wizard or Druid).

I never said anything against Divine Font. If we’re talking about me calling it ‘barely a class feature’ i was being facetious. In a practical scenario Cleric is clearly better a single target healing; hands down. I never claimed it didn’t.

When it comes to managing multiple targets, Angelic Sorc is better; hands down, unless Cleric grabs Angelic Halo via MC. Cleric has to prepare additional Heal spells other than Divine Font, where Sorc doesn’t. Angelic Halo is just a straight buff to heal spells; combined with Angelic Wings you can even heal the front lines safely while keeping your ally within the 15ft radius.

To state again, i was only addressing Bast’s statement of ‘not seeing the point’ towards Divine Sorcs. With the fact that Bast seems fixated on the fact that i dared to mention 3-action heal as a viable and practical option, it seems they have lost the plot and are unable to see the forrest through the trees.

On a side note i’m actually curious to how well a Druid healer would work. I haven’t really looked at the Leaf Order since the Playtest, but i never found their form of healing useless or even impractical. The amount and variation of Healing spells in the Primal list is sadly lacking though.

@Bast L. - I’m sorry that you cannot find the value in Divine Sorcs. Best of luck in your healing endeavors! :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh nah I get what you mean, in my case I just had problem with the "Sorcerer can spam 1st lv Heal and be better than a Cleric". Which ignores the fact the Cleric was literally designed to be the best healer. So the better phrase would be, "Angelic Sorcerers makes for potentially the better AoE healers" as proofed by Bast.


Bandw2 wrote:
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.

Propose a solution that makes the Wizard more interesting without also making them more powerful. I'm sure the people complaining about casters being underpowered will take it up enthusiastically.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Why you and Squiggit thought i was trying to claim Angelic Sorc was better than a Cleric and their Divine Font at every level is a mystery to me.

I mean, you didn't say "only at high levels" or "under these specific circumstances" or make any qualifying statements at all. You just made the blanket assertion that sorcerers had "guaranteed" better healing and dismissed divine font as not particularly good.

Now that you've walked that back a bit, your point makes a bit more sense but I don't think it dismisses the concern people have with Divine Sorcerers either, especially since it only applies to one of the four divine bloodlines, is primarily a mid/late game trick and is something that Clerics can freely poach as you pointed out.

Also:

Quote:
Cleric has to prepare additional Heal spells other than Divine Font, where Sorc doesn’t.

How? A sorcerer who isn't spending spell slots to heal isn't healing (outside the usual suspects like treat wounds or lay on hands but none of those interact with Halo).

Bluenose wrote:
Propose a solution that makes the Wizard more interesting without also making them more powerful. I'm sure the people complaining about casters being underpowered will take it up enthusiastically.

People have and... people have? On both points. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.


Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
Cleric has to prepare additional Heal spells other than Divine Font, where Sorc doesn’t.
How? A sorcerer who isn't spending spell slots to heal isn't healing (outside the usual suspects like treat wounds or lay on hands but none of those interact with Halo).

I can't answer for Pumpkinhead11, but there's a very big difference between prepared and spontaneous casters when it comes to repeating the same spell over and over again. As long as a Sorcerer has 1 available slot, he can cast as many Heals as he wants. And they don't clot your spell list. Having the same number of Heals out of a prepared caster would ask you to memorize tons of Heal, which would completely kill its versatility.

A Divine Sorcerer is able to cast far more Heals than a Cleric at high levels, even Divine Font taken into account.

It's also important to take into account overhealing. Heal can cure 60% of a character's hit points. And it's variable. Chances to overheal are already high, so you'll very often use lower level Heal spells with the same efficiency than higher level ones, especially at high level and even more if you add static bonuses to hit points healed (like Angelic Halo).

So, Clerics have higher peak healing, but Divine Sorcerers are not far away behind, and they have a better sustainability. In my opinion, both classes healing abilities are equivalent. And Primal Sorcerers are also excellent (even if they don't have access to Angelic Halo).

Dark Archive

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
On a side note i’m actually curious to how well a Druid healer would work. I haven’t really looked at the Leaf Order since the Playtest, but i never found their form of healing useless or even impractical. The amount and variation of Healing spells in the Primal list is sadly lacking though.

At the very least, the primal list affords adequate healing. In my current game of Age of Ashes, we have a fey sorcerer who applies the timeliest of healing, saving our party in many dire situations. All of our current members, having lost our fighter, do have healing, however, for emergency situations.

Our sorcerer’s other spells have also come in handy, making difficult fights far easier, and we do our parts (well, mostly because we are playing characters, not numbers, and I’ve played up the chaotic neutral firebrand many a time): I do damage and get in trouble, the Paladin reduces damage, tanks,and keeps me out of trouble, and the sorcerer handles the big trouble that we overlook and saves us when we think all hope is lost. We talk and come up with strategies not because we need casters to feel useful, but because our sorcerer casting “situational” spells proves useful in many different situations. He doesn’t have every spell on the primal list, but through his access to the spell list, he has been able to use some clutch scrolls that turned challenged in our favor, whether facing diseases, traps, or hazards.

Our sorcerer didn’t focus on crafting though, but I have invested into magical crafting. Unfortunately for the whole team, I don’t have a spell list, so We have to buy every scroll for spells we want that he doesn’t have. A wizard (as well as other prepared casters) doesn’t have that problem, as wizards only need to buy each spell once to create multiple copies of every spell on the arcane list (though the cost and time are limiting factors). The combination of factors that other spellcasters get seems to be what makes the wizard special.


SuperBidi wrote:
As long as a Sorcerer has 1 available slot, he can cast as many Heals as he wants.

Not really. A sorcerer with one available slot can heal once.

There's definitely a lot of inherent flexibility in being a spontaneous caster, which is really valuable for a healer. I don't think anyone would dispute that, but that's different than what was being claimed before.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


On a side note i’m actually curious to how well a Druid healer would work. I haven’t really looked at the Leaf Order since the Playtest, but i never found their form of healing useless or even impractical. The...

For a very anecdotal answer, my party has a druid 'healer' in that he has Medicine feats, the Heal spell, and the Heal Animal focus spell. I will admit to a bit of houseruling in that it's been converted over to a spontaneous caster to mimic hunter better (and so has Heal as a signature spell), but it's been working out decently well. He usually uses his spells in combat, Medicine out of combat, and Heal Animal as needed.


Squiggit wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
As long as a Sorcerer has 1 available slot, he can cast as many Heals as he wants.

Not really. A sorcerer with one available slot can heal once.

There's definitely a lot of inherent flexibility in being a spontaneous caster, which is really valuable for a healer. I don't think anyone would dispute that, but that's different than what was being claimed before.

I also disagree with many things that Pumpkinhead11 said. I just think Divine Sorcerers are excellent healers. They can easily be main healer in a party, which makes them very good to have. So, not "bad casters" at all.

Then, there's the question of the Divine spell list. Heal is one of it's main features. I think Harm is also excellent. Being able to cast 3 Harms in a round against an adjacent creature is overwhelming. Especially when you consider the flexibility of being a spontaneous caster allowing you to pull that out in times of dire need without needing to memorize them.


So what changes do people think would benefit those casters that are considered to be “over reliant” on spells without other options like the bard and Druid get

Forgive me if some have been mentioned but they get most in all the back and forth

People complain about some focus spells being useless which is fair enough. But would better ones really fix this? Or is more needed for classes like wizard, sorcerer and (apparently) cloistered cleric? Or is healing font “enough” for cloistered cleric?

Not meaning to derail but to try and move the discussion in a more positive direction. It is easy to go back and forward and there have been loads of these threads. But how to “solve” it? Have there been many attempts

I recall someone did something about auto heightening and a few other things that seemed on paper to perhaps be too far in the other direction...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:


People complain about some focus spells being useless which is fair enough. But would better ones really fix this? Or is more needed for classes like wizard, sorcerer and (apparently) cloistered cleric? Or is healing font “enough” for cloistered cleric?

It wouldn't solve everything but more usable focus spells are a big step in the right direction, especially for low level casters.

Reasonably, for the first couple levels a caster is often limiting themselves to one spell per combat, maybe two. Having a highly usable focus spell basically doubles the number of rounds you can spend in any given encounter not spamming cantrips.

Beyond that, I think one of the biggest things casters in general lack are new ways to interact with the action economy. Look at Fighters or Barbarians and you'll see lots of feats that give you entirely new powers. Casters don't really have anything comparable to that and that seems like an obvious design space to explore here.

Personally I'd like to see the whole proficiency system reworked to make nonstandard builds less punishing and give casters (and everyone else) more room to build outside their pre-designated concepts, but that's a little bit more ambitious.


Lanathar wrote:
So what changes do people think would benefit those casters that are considered to be “over reliant” on spells without other options like the bard and Druid get

In my opinion, a change in mentality. You need to think about your third action. If you lose your third action every round but the ones you move, then your character is only functionning at 2/3 of its efficiency.

Focus spells are a solution, but they are not always good.
You can attack if you have the proper weapon and stats for that.
Skills are useful, Recall Knowledge during the first round, then Demoralize, Trip...
Using Animal Companion (from multiclassing), Familiars or just Command an Animal.
Sustain spells as some are quite nice in the long run.
Drawing a scroll/wand to get the spell for the job is also a valid third action.


Squiggit wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Propose a solution that makes the Wizard more interesting without also making them more powerful. I'm sure the people complaining about casters being underpowered will take it up enthusiastically.
People have and... people have? On both points. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

It's funny how the threads about underpowered casters pop up and go on for pages every week then. All that's needed to end them is for that solution to be posted and they should stop.


SuperBidi wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
So what changes do people think would benefit those casters that are considered to be “over reliant” on spells without other options like the bard and Druid get

In my opinion, a change in mentality. You need to think about your third action. If you lose your third action every round but the ones you move, then your character is only functionning at 2/3 of its efficiency.

Focus spells are a solution, but they are not always good.
You can attack if you have the proper weapon and stats for that.
Skills are useful, Recall Knowledge during the first round, then Demoralize, Trip...
Using Animal Companion (from multiclassing), Familiars or just Command an Animal.
Sustain spells as some are quite nice in the long run.
Drawing a scroll/wand to get the spell for the job is also a valid third action.

I guess the inevitable counter (not necessarily mine) to all of the above is that Bards and Druids can do all of these as well as more useful other abilities like performance cantrips...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Propose a solution that makes the Wizard more interesting without also making them more powerful. I'm sure the people complaining about casters being underpowered will take it up enthusiastically.
People have and... people have? On both points. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.
It's funny how the threads about underpowered casters pop up and go on for pages every week then. All that's needed to end them is for that solution to be posted and they should stop.

Not really, considering the solution would have to be codified by paizo so the people who can only do PFS can use it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What would help Wizard actually feel good + be able to shine in a larger variety of situations?

We should look at the things that are currently unsatisfying and work to improve them. Also we want the solutions to fit into the theme of these characters, so it should always be in-class magical stuff.

- A feat or item that allows them to get better save DC/spell attack, even if limited number of times per day. This so they can at least get 1 good spell off when it matters. Maybe Wizard could leverage their knowledge skills to get boosts like the Ranger.

- I know every non-mage hates summons, and I did too in PF1, but there should be some options to make these spells more generally usable. Maybe a feat that allows you to power them but a bit + undo some of the ability restrictions. There's already 1 way to make your summon stronger, but it's very unwieldy.

- A method for significantly increasing single target damage for blasters. Since they're only good vs mobs, they need something for single target, perhaps an ability to add bonus damage when an AOE blast is hitting only 1 creature... Or some sort of empower/maximize metamagic.

- Actually spammable focus spells that don't suck. Arcane casters have a lot of weak ones, including things like "claws". Everyone deserves one that'll allow them to contribute in every fight of the day. Makes low levels a lot less painful.

- More feats that are more interesting than their current barren lists, that actually offer ways to specialize and get more mileage out of your favorite spells and strategies. Perhaps some "focus metamagics" that are actually pretty strong could help with the above points.

- Some more in-class or spell-list 1 action abilities. There is a hard "1 spell per turn" limit, but these would still be nice when you gotta do things like sustain + move or you want to grab an item. You'll often be left with 1 action to spare. Metamagic already offers a lot of "stand in place and use all 3 actions for 1 thing", so don't need more of those.

- A way to get value out of low level slots with blasts or other stuff that is only good in higher level slots. Evokers and Enchanters are affected greatly by this (damage and incap) and Sorcerers are not able to replace enough spells with high level versions. The wizard thesis to combine lower level slots into a higher one is a good start, but need some more widely available options.

My goal is for the spellcaster to be able to perform great in the role they've chosen for their character. A PC is not expected to get "all of the above", but be able to make class/feat choices that will make them good at their specific specialty while retaining baseline competence with the rest.


SuperBidi wrote:


I also disagree with many things that Pumpkinhead11 said. I just think Divine Sorcerers are excellent healers. They can easily be main healer in a party, which makes them very good to have. So, not "bad casters" at all.

I want to echo this as well, the team member of my group who went Angelic Sorcerer has been clutch. With the Rogue helping a great deal out of combat with Treat Wounds, it basically leaves her to the emergency healing (and she also has Battle Medicine, which is a great one action to pair with spells).

In my other group, the Primal Elemental Sorcerer is also finding a lot of value, due to Elemental Toss being able to be combined in a single round for a decent boost in damage.

I think now casters have to mix it up a bit, where as in PF1, it was "spam the same spell over and over and pump it with feats if you can".


I lack the experience to have any real opinion on the relative strength and usefulness of casters. I do wonder about the level of fun a caster has when using certain spells and cantrips in combat.

Our party has a Storm Druid, who will typically use Electric Arc for half her combat turns. Since Electric Arc targets the saves of a creature or two, she doesn't even roll her dice. And that doesn't seem fun. Would it make any statistical difference if she rolled against the creature's save+10?


Temperans wrote:
So the better phrase would be, "Angelic Sorcerers makes for potentially the better AoE healers" as proofed by Bast.

Did you read the same post I did? Bast literally showed that sorcerer is 200 healing behind a cleric who decided to say "I don't need feats to make my healing better." As soon as the cleric takes Fast Channel the cleric is getting aoe healing for 2 actions! Or they could take the great that gives them d10s. Or. Or. Or...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

To make it a bit more fun for me and provide choices:

Burning Hands

1 action (Verbal) flames erupt from your hand in a 15 foot line
2 action (Verbal, Somatic) You bolster the flames, widening them into a 15 foot cone from your hands

I can choose between hitting 3 squares or 6/7 squares based on the layout of the board.

Slow
1 action Range is Touch
2 action Range is 30'

This also builds on the metamagic feats and shows a natural progression for taking Widen Spell to make evocations a little better or reversing the effect of Reach Spell by shortening down from 30'to Touch and taking an action off. Evaluating spells with 2 actions as their base, and making a 1 action version that has the same effect on a smaller range, less area, or in some cases a shortened duration provides flexibility to the Wizard without making them more powerful.

Sure, you could say that if I only have 1 enemy then it's more powerful to spend 1 action on a Burning Hands instead of 2, but that's putting the wizard within a single Stride for most creatures. Then the wizard can Stride up, Blast, Stride away, similar to other characters.


Maybe I misread it? (He does say that after enough rounds the bare Sorcerer has more AoE healing than the bare Cleric)

But I was one of those saying that Clerics get many things benefitting heal/healing. So a dedicated healing Cleric will always win, unless misplayed.


BishopMcQ wrote:

To make it a bit more fun for me and provide choices:

Burning Hands

1 action (Verbal) flames erupt from your hand in a 15 foot line
2 action (Verbal, Somatic) You bolster the flames, widening them into a 15 foot cone from your hands

I can choose between hitting 3 squares or 6/7 squares based on the layout of the board.

Slow
1 action Range is Touch
2 action Range is 30'

This also builds on the metamagic feats and shows a natural progression for taking Widen Spell to make evocations a little better or reversing the effect of Reach Spell by shortening down from 30'to Touch and taking an action off. Evaluating spells with 2 actions as their base, and making a 1 action version that has the same effect on a smaller range, less area, or in some cases a shortened duration provides flexibility to the Wizard without making them more powerful.

I think this is the route that ultimately allows them to buff Casters and make them more fun at the same time.

I will say that it does devalue Metamagic Feats a tad by extension if they did it to every spell though.


Temperans wrote:
Maybe I misread it? (He does say that after enough rounds the bare Sorcerer has more AoE healing than the bare Cleric)
Quote:
There you have it, under ridiculously ideal circumstances, the sorcerer can outstrip the cleric in a very silly fight where everyone is immobile, and the fight lasts 13 rounds (actually 15, since he needs two to cast angelic halo, as the fight has lasted longer than a minute at this point)

That is, the sorcerer spends 15 rounds using low-level spells slots and the cleric spends only from Divine Font.

Which is a very unrealistic comparison. The cleric will have low level heals, mid level heals, and high level heals they can also use.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
BishopMcQ wrote:

To make it a bit more fun for me and provide choices:

<snip>

I think this is the route that ultimately allows them to buff Casters and make them more fun at the same time.

I will say that it does devalue Metamagic Feats a tad by extension if they did it to every spell though.

I agree, every spell may be too much. But if 1/4 to 1/3 of the spells available did this, it would provide options. Some times I want to throw out a buff on the party, 2 actions. If I want to blast and dash or take the chance to debuff and run, I have a 1 action option that isn't quite as good as my 2 action choice but adds mobility.


BishopMcQ wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
BishopMcQ wrote:

To make it a bit more fun for me and provide choices:

<snip>

I think this is the route that ultimately allows them to buff Casters and make them more fun at the same time.

I will say that it does devalue Metamagic Feats a tad by extension if they did it to every spell though.

I agree, every spell may be too much. But if 1/4 to 1/3 of the spells available did this, it would provide options. Some times I want to throw out a buff on the party, 2 actions. If I want to blast and dash or take the chance to debuff and run, I have a 1 action option that isn't quite as good as my 2 action choice but adds mobility.

3 Action versions would for sure get in the way of metamagic (unless they make focus metamagic that is a free action), but it could be interesting to have to decide between 2-action version or 1+metamagic for the same cost. Definitely ups the versatility of each spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Metamagics would still provide the benefits they do now, and then some. For example, Widen Spell on the example burning hands gives you the options of 15' line 1 action, 20' line 2 actions (with Widen), 15' cone 2 actions, 20' cone 3 actions (with Widen). So it becomes even better actually, giving you even more options (the example with reach spell would not change what it gives now though).

This would also be a buff to gishes, who want to move and attack with two actions and will be happy to have spell options for that third action without mandating haste be up all the time. Especially if many provide a touch range 1 action option like the proposed slow.

I would really like it if they went in this direction going forward, I think it makes for much more dynamic choices for the average caster.


Draco18s wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Maybe I misread it? (He does say that after enough rounds the bare Sorcerer has more AoE healing than the bare Cleric)
Quote:
There you have it, under ridiculously ideal circumstances, the sorcerer can outstrip the cleric in a very silly fight where everyone is immobile, and the fight lasts 13 rounds (actually 15, since he needs two to cast angelic halo, as the fight has lasted longer than a minute at this point)

That is, the sorcerer spends 15 rounds using low-level spells slots and the cleric spends only from Divine Font.

Which is a very unrealistic comparison. The cleric will have low level heals, mid level heals, and high level heals they can also use.

No, sorry. In my attempt at apples to apples, the cleric was using all the spells of the levels that the sorcerer used. It's just not a realistic scenario. A few aoe heals per day? Maybe. But 13 of them? And all within 15 ft? No chance. Also, clerics are better aoe healers just because of selective energy (though sorcerer can pick it up with MC).

Forums aren't great for showing math stuff. The cleric actually casts more spells in my example, but reducing rounds of casting to make it more apples to apples would help the cleric, not the sorcerer (and if we let the cleric cast more because of the rounds the sorcerer is casting angelic halo, it bumps the cleric even more).


Bast L. wrote:
No, sorry. In my attempt at apples to apples, the cleric was using all the spells of the levels that the sorcerer used.

Not in the scenario where the sorc wins. The spells cast by the cleric that got 270 hp healed was 6 10th level spells. Right under that the sorc casts all of its 1sts, 2nds, 3rds, and 4ths (though the 4ths are unnecessary). Every other comparison the cleric wins.

Quote:
It's just not a realistic scenario. A few aoe heals per day? Maybe. But 13 of them? And all within 15 ft? No chance.

Oh, agreed.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Bluenose wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
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.
Propose a solution that makes the Wizard more interesting without also making them more powerful. I'm sure the people complaining about casters being underpowered will take it up enthusiastically.

that not the point >_>

really spellcasting would have to be redone from the ground up, and let you do spells that actually let you effect things again.

for instance, i'd have preferred that wizards had decent DCs and accuracy but didn't use the basic save paradigm, with only effects happening on a success.

spells like floating disk would actually be able to carry a meaningful load.

likewise, we could potentially have spells with basic saves be able to be cast as a 1 action for their saves to be 1 degree worse for you. (so if they succeed they take no damage, etc.)

I wish there were 1 action damaging cantrips as well, and feats that changed what you could do with these cantrips in the same way a warrior or wizard can alter their strikes.


BellyBeard wrote:

Metamagics would still provide the benefits they do now, and then some. For example, Widen Spell on the example burning hands gives you the options of 15' line 1 action, 20' line 2 actions (with Widen), 15' cone 2 actions, 20' cone 3 actions (with Widen). So it becomes even better actually, giving you even more options (the example with reach spell would not change what it gives now though).

This would also be a buff to gishes, who want to move and attack with two actions and will be happy to have spell options for that third action without mandating haste be up all the time. Especially if many provide a touch range 1 action option like the proposed slow.

I would really like it if they went in this direction going forward, I think it makes for much more dynamic choices for the average caster.

Definitely.

But it has to be careful on the tiers. The example gave is a great one.

However, Heal, when combined with Reach Spell works almost identically in the case of a 1 action heal to a 2 action heal. That by extension devalues Reach Spell, since Heal gets it for "free".


Temperans wrote:
Oh nah I get what you mean, in my case I just had problem with the "Sorcerer can spam 1st lv Heal and be better than a Cleric". Which ignores the fact the Cleric was literally designed to be the best healer. So the better phrase would be, "Angelic Sorcerers makes for potentially the better AoE healers" as proofed by Bast.

Bibi pretty much covers the idea with the dangers of over healing and flexibility. Divine Font gives some flexibility, but not nearly as much as a Full Spontaneous Caster. Angelic Halo and Healer’s Blessing are pretty identical, with the big exception that H.B. can only target a single person; thus why I referred to Cleric as best Single Target Healer. Cleric also has the most options for augmenting their healing, by far, but i wouldn’t slot them as the best simply because of it; though I also wouldn’t say Sorc is better than Cleric for the role; i would say it more depends on the build.

@Squiggit - Assumptions are a powerful thing. If i don’t phrase something properly asking is the easiest way to get a direct answer. :p


The 1 action un-heightened 2 action heightened cantrip idea that was proposed in homebrew forum certainly was interesting to solve cantrips. But I believe it has the problem of making cantrips even worse.

A 1 action cantrip would be the same as a non magical weapon, which at high level is just pitiful; Even if you are getting an "extra" action compared to 2 action cantrips, it just makes magic feel worse.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The change wouldn't work for every spell, but it could provide versatility if implemented on a reasonable number of them. This also makes the player have to choose, do I burn the slot on a single action slightly less powerful version to get some mobility, or do I move now and get to a spot where I can spend two actions on the beefier version next round.


BishopMcQ wrote:
The change wouldn't work for every spell, but it could provide versatility if implemented on a reasonable number of them. This also makes the player have to choose, do I burn the slot on a single action slightly less powerful version to get some mobility, or do I move now and get to a spot where I can spend two actions on the beefier version next round.

I agree, but the easiest ones to apply this to are the numerically inclined ones.

Particularly healing and damage spells.

And while this would certainly create more versatility for casters, I do not believe the numerical spells are the ones lacking "oomph" per say.

Now an easy thing to do might be to degrade the tier of success for spells that function as a tier (i.e. a one action spell is treated as a failure on success, a critical failure on failure, and a success on critical success).

In the case of "upgrading" these spells to 3 actions, perhaps spells that have the Incapacitation trait lose that trait if done so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

2 action heal is indeed better than 1 action heal + reach metamagic. But if your target is farther away than 30', without reach you must get closer (and if you can't you simply can't affect them) while 2 action heal + reach perfectly fits this scenario. So even with some overlap the metamagics can still be useful in specific situations.


Sapient wrote:

I lack the experience to have any real opinion on the relative strength and usefulness of casters. I do wonder about the level of fun a caster has when using certain spells and cantrips in combat.

Our party has a Storm Druid, who will typically use Electric Arc for half her combat turns. Since Electric Arc targets the saves of a creature or two, she doesn't even roll her dice. And that doesn't seem fun. Would it make any statistical difference if she rolled against the creature's save+10?

It's almost exactly a 10% bump in effectiveness, which is actually pretty big in Pathfinder terms. You could have saves be save+12 to keep the math the same, or just be okay with more powerful spells.

save+11 is a good small bump if you play with a group who doesn't want to be really tactical about spells, and most importantly: Rolling is fun.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
vagrant-poet wrote:
Sapient wrote:

I lack the experience to have any real opinion on the relative strength and usefulness of casters. I do wonder about the level of fun a caster has when using certain spells and cantrips in combat.

Our party has a Storm Druid, who will typically use Electric Arc for half her combat turns. Since Electric Arc targets the saves of a creature or two, she doesn't even roll her dice. And that doesn't seem fun. Would it make any statistical difference if she rolled against the creature's save+10?

It's almost exactly a 10% bump in effectiveness, which is actually pretty big in Pathfinder terms. You could have saves be save+12 to keep the math the same, or just be okay with more powerful spells.

save+11 is a good small bump if you play with a group who doesn't want to be really tactical about spells, and most importantly: Rolling is fun.

One day I'd really like to know where the idea that rolling dice is fun came from. It's my least favorite thing to do in the game, although judging by consistent design changes across the genre I'm in the minority.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rolling dice is usually made fun when there are things at stake - that has been the experience at my table anyway


Its the mechanics by which tension in the moment-to-moment arises.

"I hit him with my sword"
"Ok, he dies."
"Cool! I hit the next guy with my sword"
"He dies too."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Draco18s wrote:

Its the mechanics by which tension in the moment-to-moment arises.

"I hit him with my sword"
"Ok, he dies."
"Cool! I hit the next guy with my sword"
"He dies too."

You pretty much described how I feel watching martial characters play.

I normally play enchantment/illusion characters as dice rolling just isn't my thing, and adding more reasons for me to touch the accursed things isn't fun - for me at least.

101 to 150 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.