"Value" being whatever damage is listed next to the entry. 1d6 > 1 and 6 > 1d6. ("1d6" is probably greater than "3", but you don't roll the d6 before figuring it out, because 1d6 is unequivocally larger than 1d4 even though it can roll lower).
Huh? You roll the persistent damage to get a value and then keep whichever result is higher. 1d6 is not greater or less than 3, they aren't directly comparable that way. The way you are suggesting means a roll of 1 could replace the 3 since it's "greater", and a roll of 6 could not replace a 4. 1d6 isn't even "greater" than 1d4, since there's not really a direct meaning for "dice pool X is greater than dice pool Y". You could say it has a higher average, or a larger die size, but without speaking to some more specific characteristic like that it's ambiguous what you mean.
In programmer's lingo, these would be invalid operations.
What if the ability to create 1-action versions was an Arcane Thesis?
Rapid Thaumaturgy
You've learned the fundamental words of magic which allow you to cast your spells without gestures, however they have a smaller effect.
- -Cones are reduced to lines of the same range
- -Target spell rangess are reduced by half if they are greater than 30ft, or reduced to touch if they are 30ft
- -Burst spells halve their radius, if the radius is 5ft, it becomes a target square
Spells cast using this ability have the Flourish trait. At 1st level, this applies to your specialty school. Universalist wizards can choose one school of magic to apply this to. Every odd level, you add an additional school of magic which this can be applied to.
Midnightoker - would that address the concern of applying limits? The character could choose to do it faster with a flourish, or follow the normal rules.
I don't know if the staggered progression of schools is necessary or not, but it would allow for choices.
I like it, except not as a Thesis or a Feat.
I completely forgot about the Flourish trait, which effectively limits the "one action spells" to once per round (thus allowing them to be used as intended and not multiple times in one turn).
My issue with the Thesis is it makes the other Thesese(Sp?) seem weak by comparison.
And if it's a Class Feat, it's basically a Tax, because who wouldn't want it?
Maybe this could be the "Generalist" Dedication and the other schools all get something along the same power level or concept (reduced action economy) but specific to the school?
Just throwing out ideas.
Not really. If a creature is suffering persistent damage (fire) and gains persistent damage (fire), it takes only the larger of the two values; its a condition like all other conditions.
It also allows riders a lot easier. so a 1 action Burning Hands and a feat/ability that allows you to deal persistent fire damage on a fire spell equal to your ability score, now gets thrice the value.
There are two problems with this. First with the Persistent Damage example: if a Coterie of Vampires, with a weakness to fire, were in three non overlapping directions then a 1-action Burning Hands to apply Burn Damage to all three in a single turn would be a bit too strong. The second issue is even taking away Persistent Damage from the example; spamming a creature with Burning Hands that has a weakness to fire 3 times with no penalty is still a bit too much, even if said spell did severely less initial damage.
It would make sense for each school to be able to use 1-action flourish spell for their school.
The problem is universalists. The two best solutions I can come up with are: You can do it with any spell but a limited number of times (probably Int); Or, you can do it at any time with any school, but only with a handful of spells (probably Int).
The second option has the nice benefit of allowing Sorcerer to use it but only with bloodline spells. Other classes could get similar things.
Ex: A Magus could in theory get the benefit but only with attack spells (for an atk subclass magus) or only with self buff (for def subclass magus). The scope should probably be smaller but the important part is the concept.
I think I like this the best. It's programmatic, easy to understand, thematic with the desired affect. Especially your Magus example, that's quite on point.
"Value" being whatever damage is listed next to the entry. 1d6 > 1 and 6 > 1d6. ("1d6" is probably greater than "3", but you don't roll the d6 before figuring it out, because 1d6 is unequivocally larger than 1d4 even though it can roll lower).Huh? You roll the persistent damage to get a value and then keep whichever result is higher.
If you are taking 1d6 persistent damage, you roll that damage every time. You don't roll it, get a 1 and go "whew, I'm only taking 1 damage a turn." You take 1 damage and roll again next turn.
1d6 is not greater or less than 3, they aren't directly comparable that way. The way you are suggesting means a roll of 1 could replace the 3 since it's "greater", and a roll of 6 could not replace a 4. 1d6 isn't even "greater" than 1d4, since there's not really a direct meaning for "dice pool X is greater than dice pool Y". You could say it has a higher average, or a larger die size, but without speaking to some more specific characteristic like that it's ambiguous what you mean.
In programmer's lingo, these would be invalid operations.
Again, I posted the relevant portion of the rule book. You are never taking "1d6 persistent fire AND 3 persistent fire." You're taking only the largest one (as it replaces the smaller one).
If you would gain more than one persistent damage
condition with the same damage type, the higher amount
of damage overrides the lower amount.
If the two values are ever ambiguous (1d6 vs. 3) you still only keep one of them. You keep which ever one you want LESS (this is why 1d6 is strictly worse than 1, because 1d6 can never do less, and why 6 is strictly worse than 1d6, because 1d6 can never do more).
And IMO, 1d6 is worse than 3 because it both (a) averages more than 3 and (b) can do more damage than 3.
Universalist can apply it to any of their cantrips but not higher level spells?
If it were to get done, the play would be to heighten the level restriction.
so in the case of the Illusionist, they might be able to do this with any Illusion spell of at least 2 levels lower.
But a Universalist can do it with any spell at least 3 levels lower.
Perhaps this could be the "Spell Thesis" and you have to choose a particular spell each morning of the requirements above. Sort of like a "Signature Spell" but for the Wizard.
The only thing I've changed in my home games is Bless targeting works just like 1st edition. Cast it on your targets, give them their +1, and move on. That whole 5 foot radius that increases by 5 ft every round.
Worthless.
But other than that, I think casters are very useful and balanced.
If the two values are ever ambiguous (1d6 vs. 3) you still only keep one of them. You keep which ever one you want LESS (this is why 1d6 is strictly worse than 1, because 1d6 can never do less, and why 6 is strictly worse than 1d6, because 1d6 can never do more).
And IMO, 1d6 is worse than 3 because it both (a) averages more than 3 and (b) can do more damage than 3.
OK, I reread and found the "rolling damage dice anew each time" part, so I understand now. Thanks for correcting me on that rule. It does kind of make things a little vague if persistent damage is different die sizes VS fixed value or something, but the cases where this would happen in play are extremely niche as it would have to be close to the same value and the same damage type so I don't think it's a real issue.
Just spitballing ideas here, but what if casters were all given the ability to spend a focus point as a free action to reduce the number of actions the next spell they cast takes (to a minimum of 1 action)? I'd probably specify that these don't stack, so you can't spend a focus point at the end of one turn and the beginning of the next turn to try to reduce a 3-action spell down to 1.
Just spitballing ideas here, but what if casters were all given the ability to spend a focus point as a free action to reduce the number of actions the next spell they cast takes (to a minimum of 1 action)? I'd probably specify that these don't stack, so you can't spend a focus point at the end of one turn and the beginning of the next turn to try to reduce a 3-action spell down to 1.
That's not a bad idea. Since focus points are so limited, abuse would be kept to a minimum. I could see spending a class feat for the option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Work has been crazy but finally got around to reading all this.
1-there is an obvious issue where people are ignoring failure effects and stating they don't care about them. Martials largely do not get them. So martials just miss on two of the stages of success. I cannot wrap my head around players ignoring this. It's huge boon whether you want to like it or not.
2-action economy is almost a false comparison. Majority of class feats martials take that offer a new attack as 2 action abilities. So you are comparing to level 1. Having martials who don't ever take these numerous action skills. Or think flexibility is being able to vanilla attack 3x.
3-my number 2 being said. Martials do have feats that interact with their attack or movement actions more. Whether it just be a combining if the effects or static number adjustments. I do think more spells should function like heal/harm as they are beautifully done
4-my biggest thought on casters is they want to cast spells not make basic attacks. Personally I don't think it would be unbalanced to have cantrips or at least attack cantrips be one action flourish moves so you can cast and then cast a cantrip as well. Giving you more interaction with the map system as well.
Most of the replies that pertain to the topic do come off as just warped expectations still.
That said. I think the lack of interaction with the new 3 action system is in large part of the reason why many say wizard's are boring. And bards are fun. So you don't even need to directly change wizard to deal with this. Just the two suggestions I made would be fine and I maintain. Wouldn't unbalance then any notable amount.
Thank you all for your thoughts. I have a diabolic sorcerer and it's a lot of fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4-my biggest thought on casters is they want to cast spells not make basic attacks. Personally I don't think it would be unbalanced to have cantrips or at least attack cantrips be one action flourish moves so you can cast and then cast a cantrip as well. Giving you more interaction with the map system as well.
My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.
Spell + Cantrip becomes the best answer any time you don't absolutely need to move. A big part of what makes 2e's action economy work is that spending them is context dependent. For martials whether you move or make another attack or attempt a skill check with that third action is all going to depend heavily on the situation you're in, but a one action cantrip would just trump everything else for that third slot.
Also would basically kill gishes (not that Paizo already hasn't pretty much done that).
4-my biggest thought on casters is they want to cast spells not make basic attacks. Personally I don't think it would be unbalanced to have cantrips or at least attack cantrips be one action flourish moves so you can cast and then cast a cantrip as well. Giving you more interaction with the map system as well.My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.
Spell + Cantrip becomes the best answer any time you don't absolutely need to move. A big part of what makes 2e's action economy work is that spending them is context dependent. For martials whether you move or make another attack or attempt a skill check with that third action is all going to depend heavily on the situation you're in, but a one action cantrip would just trump everything else for that third slot.
Also would basically kill gishes (not that Paizo already hasn't pretty much done that).
I fail to see that as an issue since triple attack is the best answer when you don't have to move. As for the Gish thing. I have the to witness a convincing Gish in 2e but I should have a thread in regards to that specifically.
I expect if we get any real gishes they will be out of the box type of things with their own mechanics to enforce the playstyle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.
I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate.
Since when is triple attack the best answer?I fail to see that as an issue since triple attack is the best answer when you don't have to move. As for the Gish thing. I have the to witness a convincing Gish in 2e but I should have a thread in regards to that specifically.
I expect if we get any real gishes they will be out of the box type of things with their own mechanics to enforce the playstyle.
It's the best answer if you don't care about efficiency but just about your damage metter. Otherwise, it's the worst action you can do.
If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of.
I agree with you, 1-action spells should not be cantrips. So they'll use spell slots and will be limited in power by expanding your slots faster.
It will also increase the appeal of playing Sorcerer and Wizard as they have the highest number of spell slots.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think using 3 actions for attacking is good. You have great options to make it better. Depends obviously on the class/build.
Demoralizing an opponent and doing 2 Strikes deals more damage than doing 3 Strikes. There's no point in using 3 actions to attack without feats to greatly reduce MAP.
4-my biggest thought on casters is they want to cast spells not make basic attacks. Personally I don't think it would be unbalanced to have cantrips or at least attack cantrips be one action flourish moves so you can cast and then cast a cantrip as well. Giving you more interaction with the map system as well.My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.
Spell + Cantrip becomes the best answer any time you don't absolutely need to move. A big part of what makes 2e's action economy work is that spending them is context dependent. For martials whether you move or make another attack or attempt a skill check with that third action is all going to depend heavily on the situation you're in, but a one action cantrip would just trump everything else for that third slot.
Also would basically kill gishes (not that Paizo already hasn't pretty much done that).
I fail to see that as an issue since triple attack is the best answer when you don't have to move. As for the Gish thing. I have the to witness a convincing Gish in 2e but I should have a thread in regards to that specifically.
I expect if we get any real gishes they will be out of the box type of things with their own mechanics to enforce the playstyle.
Triple attack is the worst option... Demoralize, raise shield, two action attacks, parry so many options can be better than 3 attacks. I mean even the aid action can help so much more than a third attack with -10...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think using 3 actions for attacking is good. You have great options to make it better. Depends obviously on the class/build.Demoralizing an opponent and doing 2 Strikes deals more damage than doing 3 Strikes. There's no point in using 3 actions to attack without feats to greatly reduce MAP.
No, it doesn't.
People need to stop lying to slander attacking three times. It is a reasonable option that is sometimes the best choice. Attacking three times does more damage than demoralizing and attacking twice, even if you were guaranteed success (in most situations, it can be better in certain situations). Now you might want to demoralize for other reasons, but I won't do more damage in most situations.
Also you can only demoralize a target once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think using 3 actions for attacking is good. You have great options to make it better. Depends obviously on the class/build.Demoralizing an opponent and doing 2 Strikes deals more damage than doing 3 Strikes. There's no point in using 3 actions to attack without feats to greatly reduce MAP.No, it doesn't.
People need to stop lying to slander attacking three times. It is a reasonable option that is sometimes the best choice. Attacking three times does more damage than demoralizing and attacking twice, even if you were guaranteed success (in most situations, it can be better in certain situations). Now you might want to demoralize for other reasons, but I won't do more damage in most situations.
Also you can only demoralize a target once.
There are other people in a party that get benefits from demoralizing.
Also it could vary depending on how much damage you are doing and your chances to hit etc.
The point is that there are options attacking 3 times isnt always the best, but it's not always the worst either. It really depends a lot on what creature is being fought, what weapon the character is using, and what the rest of the team needs at the moment.
And that's a good thing, which is fundamentally my point. If you make it too easy to solve for the 'best' combination of actions, then combat starts to become static.
Which was a big problem with 1e. First edition martials just looked for ways to sit still and full attack as much as possible for the most part.
No, it doesn't.
If we consider first attack doing 100% damage, second attack deals in general around 50% damage and third attack around 25% damage. So third attack is less than 15% of your damage output.
Demoralizing gives a +1 to hit, which is close to 15% extra damage. So, you're right, it doesn't do more damage, it does roughly as much damage (when I said "demoralizing" I was considering a success to the check, not using the demoralize action). What I mean is that the third attack, even when thinking just about damage, is a poor choice. You can get to equivalent levels of damage by using your third action more intelligently, like taking a flanking position or using the demoralize action, for example.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it doesn't.
If we consider first attack doing 100% damage, second attack deals in general around 50% damage and third attack around 25% damage. So third attack is less than 15% of your damage output.
Demoralizing gives a +1 to hit, which is close to 15% extra damage. So, you're right, it doesn't do more damage, it does roughly as much damage (when I said "demoralizing" I was considering a success to the check, not using the demoralize action). What I mean is that the third attack, even when thinking just about damage, is a poor choice. You can get to equivalent levels of damage by using your third action more intelligently, like taking a flanking position or using the demoralize action, for example.
Best case scenario for demoralize is if you normally hit on a 10, 60% expected damage for first strike, 35% for second, and 10% for third. 105% total.
With a demoralize that's 70% and 40%, 110% total. But if you look at the expected ACs of monsters you'll face then you'll see that you are likely to have a better chance to hit, and that attacking 3 times will be better for damage (not even including the fail chance of demoralize).A third attack is a valid choice, for a fighter it's better than moving for flanking.
It's not always the best choice of course, but you shouldn't dismiss it and say it's bad.
I know you know the game well, but it's important to use phrases like "in many cases" so we don't accidentally say something that isn't true and mislead people who might not know the rules so well.
A third attack is a valid choice, for a fighter it's better than moving for flanking.
Move for flanking gives 40% chance to hit. So you need to hit on your third attack on 13 or less, or 3 or less on your first attack. So, hardly better (even if I agree that it's in a complete vacuum, as "going for the third attack" means that if the monster falls after the first two attacks, you can move instead of doing your third attack).
What I mean is third attack can be the best thing you have to do, but it happens only in extreme situations or in bad tactical ones. If you manage to always avoid attacking 3 times, you're doing something good for your efficiency. I obviously don't speak about cases where you can reduce your MAP on the third attack, but you still need quite a big reduction to justify for a third attack. A third attack at -8 is mostly useless, too.
I know you know the game well, but it's important to use phrases like "in many cases" so we don't accidentally say something that isn't true and mislead people who might not know the rules so well.
I tend to think the opposite. A third attack is more often a bad idea than a good one. So, for those who won't take the time we take to calculate its actual efficiency, they will play better by never doing third attacks than by doing them on a random basis (or I should say not tactical enough to be valid).
Also, at character building, it's better for them to think about alternate third actions than to let them consider that third attack is a valid one.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A third attack is a valid choice, for a fighter it's better than moving for flanking.Move for flanking gives 40% chance to hit. So you need to hit on your third attack on 13 or less, or 3 or less on your first attack. So, hardly better (even if I agree that it's in a complete vacuum, as "going for the third attack" means that if the monster falls after the first two attacks, you can move instead of doing your third attack).
What I mean is third attack can be the best thing you have to do, but it happens only in extreme situations or in bad tactical ones. If you manage to always avoid attacking 3 times, you're doing something good for your efficiency. I obviously don't speak about cases where you can reduce your MAP on the third attack, but you still need quite a big reduction to justify for a third attack. A third attack at -8 is mostly useless, too.
I know you know the game well, but it's important to use phrases like "in many cases" so we don't accidentally say something that isn't true and mislead people who might not know the rules so well.I tend to think the opposite. A third attack is more often a bad idea than a good one. So, for those who won't take the time we take to calculate its actual efficiency, they will play better by never doing third attacks than by doing them on a random basis (or I should say not tactical enough to be valid).
Also, at character building, it's better for them to think about alternate third actions than to let them consider that third attack is a valid one.
Yeah, you would think flanking is better, but against moderate AC equal level targets you have a higher expected damage by attacking 3 times as a two handed weapon using fighter vs moving to flank and attacking twice.
Here's a chart I quickly made.
Obviously it's better to flank against higher AC targets, and attack against lower AC ones.
A third attack is not a bad idea more often than not for a martial character, there are lots of situations where moving to flank is not a good idea.
Of course, we are speaking in a vacuum. Situation is more important in PF2 than it was in PF1. But it's important in my opinion to sell tactical movements, especially to beginners who may think it's not the role of their character to provide buff/debuff, or who may think that a +2 to hit is negligeable.
By the way, I use your charts of average DPR to assess some moves on my characters. So thanks for having made them ;)
Since when is triple attack the best answer? What about demoralize, or raising a shield, using Battle Medicine, or or using many of the two-action martial feats? What about using a magic item, or commanding an animal companion, or sustaining a spell?I fail to see that as an issue since triple attack is the best answer when you don't have to move. As for the Gish thing. I have the to witness a convincing Gish in 2e but I should have a thread in regards to that specifically.
I expect if we get any real gishes they will be out of the box type of things with their own mechanics to enforce the playstyle.
And what about all that for the caster instead of using electric Arc in my home Brew idea?
What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of.My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate.
How so? Your still at minus 10 since they are not agile.
Of course, we are speaking in a vacuum. Situation is more important in PF2 than it was in PF1. But it's important in my opinion to sell tactical movements, especially to beginners who may think it's not the role of their character to provide buff/debuff, or who may think that a +2 to hit is negligeable.
By the way, I use your charts of average DPR to assess some moves on my characters. So thanks for having made them ;)
It is not their role.
IT SHOULD NOT BE CASTER'S ROLE TO BE BUFFER OR DEBUFFER. Unless he wants to.
If the only way the caster can be efficient is as a support, it is undoubtedly weak and without any flexibility.
I was speaking about martials with Citricking :)
And "It is not their role" is not yours to determine. If Paizo gave a buffer/debuffer role to casters, then it's their role.But I agree that there should be specialized casters. But they must sacrifice on versatility to gain their specialization (otherwise, it gets like previous edition, with very potent and very versatile casters).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, we are speaking in a vacuum. Situation is more important in PF2 than it was in PF1. But it's important in my opinion to sell tactical movements, especially to beginners who may think it's not the role of their character to provide buff/debuff, or who may think that a +2 to hit is negligeable.
By the way, I use your charts of average DPR to assess some moves on my characters. So thanks for having made them ;)
It is not their role.
IT SHOULD NOT BE CASTER'S ROLE TO BE BUFFER OR DEBUFFER. Unless he wants to.
If the only way the caster can be efficient is as a support, it is undoubtedly weak and without any flexibility.
Disagree. As martials are largely incapable of mirroring a caster and vice versa. Therefore having roles to both is not explicitly a bad thing provided there he some variation within.
A martial cannot equal a caster in utility or buffing or debuffs or buffs or AOE damage capability. A martial can perform limited aspects of certain things on a smaller or more strict scale such as combat maneuvers for debuffs or limited feat tax AOE options but still cannot reach the equivalency of a caster. Given the above. What is their shortcomings? When compared. Single Target damage? Struggle vs strong single Target? Though you still can use a spell that has a failure effect and still contribute and damage options are still a thing as well
Biggest issues with casters are players trying to compare to 1e. And action economy interaction.
How so? Your still at minus 10 since they are not agile.What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of.My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate.
electric arc doesn't use MAP because the enemy must save, so if it were 1 action, you can attack twice and force a save out of 2 opponents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, we are speaking in a vacuum. Situation is more important in PF2 than it was in PF1. But it's important in my opinion to sell tactical movements, especially to beginners who may think it's not the role of their character to provide buff/debuff, or who may think that a +2 to hit is negligeable.
By the way, I use your charts of average DPR to assess some moves on my characters. So thanks for having made them ;)
It is not their role.
IT SHOULD NOT BE CASTER'S ROLE TO BE BUFFER OR DEBUFFER. Unless he wants to.
If the only way the caster can be efficient is as a support, it is undoubtedly weak and without any flexibility.
Disagree. As martials are largely incapable of mirroring a caster and vice versa. Therefore having roles to both is not explicitly a bad thing provided there he some variation within.
A martial cannot equal a caster in utility or buffing or debuffs or buffs or AOE damage capability. A martial can perform limited aspects of certain things on a smaller or more strict scale such as combat maneuvers for debuffs or limited feat tax AOE options but still cannot reach the equivalency of a caster. Given the above. What is their shortcomings? When compared. Single Target damage? Struggle vs strong single Target? Though you still can use a spell that has a failure effect and still contribute and damage options are still a thing as well
Biggest issues with casters are players trying to compare to 1e. And action economy interaction.
they're just not as fun to play as martials who get new ways to attack as they level.
they have worse DCs and to-hit in general compared to martials and so they have to lean into the failure effects, which isn't fun. oh yeah, i get to do pity damage.
skills provide, in general just as much an impact on combat as spells, and against lower level enemies you can guarantee they work instead of having to still rely on rolls for a more or less equal effect.
I don't in general think it should be the best case scenario for a wizard to grapple or trip an adjacent foe(their chance to-hit will stay relevant if they use a traited weapon).
not to mention their spell DPR and debuffing only stays relevant in their highest slots.
basically casters seem relegated to more or less mostly just give yourself and allies 1-2 extra to-hit or AC or reduce it by the same amount on enemies(while also using actions occasionally to reduce the number of actions enemy's have), and if you feel like a gambler, you can use other spells, that could potentially do something really cool, if your enemy rolls really badly.
if you in general have no problem with only ever moving numbers up or down, then this probably seems fine, but if you want to actually make choices in combat, the action economy and how spells are designed (more or less just choose what save to target, or buff allies with no roll) make most of those choices mostly only flavor and constrained.
Of course, we are speaking in a vacuum. Situation is more important in PF2 than it was in PF1. But it's important in my opinion to sell tactical movements, especially to beginners who may think it's not the role of their character to provide buff/debuff, or who may think that a +2 to hit is negligeable.
By the way, I use your charts of average DPR to assess some moves on my characters. So thanks for having made them ;)
It is not their role.
IT SHOULD NOT BE CASTER'S ROLE TO BE BUFFER OR DEBUFFER. Unless he wants to.
If the only way the caster can be efficient is as a support, it is undoubtedly weak and without any flexibility.
Disagree. As martials are largely incapable of mirroring a caster and vice versa. Therefore having roles to both is not explicitly a bad thing provided there he some variation within.
A martial cannot equal a caster in utility or buffing or debuffs or buffs or AOE damage capability. A martial can perform limited aspects of certain things on a smaller or more strict scale such as combat maneuvers for debuffs or limited feat tax AOE options but still cannot reach the equivalency of a caster. Given the above. What is their shortcomings? When compared. Single Target damage? Struggle vs strong single Target? Though you still can use a spell that has a failure effect and still contribute and damage options are still a thing as well
Biggest issues with casters are players trying to compare to 1e. And action economy interaction.
they're just not as fun to play as martials who get new ways to attack as they level.
they have worse DCs and to-hit in general compared to martials and so they have to lean into the failure effects, which isn't fun. oh yeah, i get to do pity damage.
skills provide, in general just as much an impact on combat as spells, and against lower level enemies you can guarantee they work instead of having to still rely on rolls for a more or less...
fun is subjective, but i agree anything thats been substantially lowered in power from a previous edition most players will find unfun when they enjoyed the previous iterations.
as for new attacks as they level, its called spells.
technically you have better to hit with spells and dc's with spells than any martial, even if they multiclass. and the only one your behind is fighter, wich everyone is behind, as that is their thing. at least when comparing spell to hit with martial to hit. i do wish wizards would have been the mirror to fighter though, extra +2 on spell dc's. though i imagine that would cause complaints, though for the life of me i dont know why i dont see people complaining more about fighters then.
as for failure effects, this is again perspective bias. pity damage? martials dont even get pity damage save for fighter, with feat investment, and only on a specific attack. you either hit or your miss.
if you are talking skills such as athletics, deception, intimidation, etc. they can provide similar effects at much less of a scale. a spell can do it to an entire group, meanwhile you can intimidate or grapple a single creature.
last bit i assume is referring to assurance feat, true enough, but a caster can be equally good at one of the face skill maneuvers.
now this all said, its obvious that the lack of action economy interaction can and does make a caster combat less dynamic and i wish they would have done it another way, but only thing possible is asking and hoping for a spell revision. wich i do hope for.
electric arc doesn't use MAP because the enemy must save, so if it were 1 action, you can attack twice and force a save out of 2 opponents.How so? Your still at minus 10 since they are not agile.What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of.My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate.
if used as a flourish it gains the attack trait
/fix?