Balance issues (cantrips - spells - weapons)

[Zapp]

(I realize I'm probably - hopefully - late to the party, so if there's an existing thread or three discussing these issues, feel free to link)

Getting more and more play experience, I must say, there are some balance issues that vex me and my group.

For example: cantrips. A caster is invariably weaker at making attacks, while having a competitive DC.

So why are cantrips that target only one creature and do nothing on a miss not significantly more lethal than Electric Arc, which targets two creatures and deals half damage on a miss/fail? (And why aren't there similar cantrips for other damage types?)

At first blush, it seems a cantrip with no special features (such as splash damage or incredible range) should do double damage if it targets only a single creature, and probably a third helping of damage if a miss does nothing. (A cantrip that requires close combat would probably not be overpowered even if its damage die was a d12!!)

Second, a spell like Fireball. 6d6 at fifth level is ~20 damage. That's only slightly better than what a good whack from a martial deals, given that the Striking rune is the first a player will save up to. Giant Instinct Barbarians aside, the 2d10+6 our Fighter deals with his reach Halberd is probably more representative. If he hits twice (or Power attack etc) that's more than a Fireball against that one target, and his chance of critting is higher too.

But he can do that every round of the day. Given six fights of three rounds each, that's eighteen rounds. The Wizard can do it three times.

In the round where the Barbarian critted twice she dealt over a hundred damage, which even an optimal Fireball will struggle to match.

I understand Paizo didn't follow in 5E's footsteps, but when not even Fireball can impress, and the caster keeps feeling significantly underpowered even at fifth level, we're definitely still in the old days where casters are simply brought along for their future potential, rather than being powerful in their own right during the levels most people play at.

I must say, I'm starting to see WotC's point - okay so cantrips aren't meant to impress, but if you can do something impressive three times a day, I'd prefer it if what you did then actually impressed. In short, where are the "striking runes" for spellcasters?

Or this thought: It seems the design space for a wand (say) that upgrades the damage die of a short-range one-target nothing-on-a-miss cantrip from the d4 to at least a d8 if not a d10 is wide open. (Obviously there would be at least three tiers of such items just like with almost all other items)

Again, there must be existing threads on these subjects, so feel free to not repeat what you said there and instead link me. Thx

[citricking]

Electric Arc is definitely overpowered. Acid splash and daze are underpowered.

[Kyrone]

Damage is not the only thing that balance a spell, secondary effects and area are included as well.

Lighting Bolt is in the same spell lvl than Fireball and does on average 26 damage, but it's a line instead of a huge burst.

Sudden Bolt that is a single target spell with no secondary effect and use a second level slot do 4d12, the same damage than Lightning Bolt does but uses a lvl 2 spell slot instead of 3.

Now let's look the way that Martials do Area damage, Whirlwind Strike, it is high level, uses all 3 actions and do one strike against all enemies around the martial.

[Deadmanwalking]

Damage to one creature is inherently more valuable than damage spread among multiple targets like Lightning Arc does, and cantrips are intended to be weaker and less valuable than martial attacks, just as spells are intended to be stronger and more valuable (hence their limited nature).

That said, the disparity among cantrips remains a notable issue. Those that use an attack rather than a Save are not more powerful in terms of damage or other effects to make up for the fact that they get nothing on a miss, and they probably really should be. So...definitely an issue, but perhaps not as big of one as you're making it out to be. There's definitely room for some bonuses to-hit on cantrips (and, IMO, spells in general), and a die size up on cantrips seems vaguely plausible, but going up to d12 is a step or three too far, I think.

As for damaging area spells...you don't use them on one creature. Their DPR is indeed generally worse vs. each individual creature...but it's not bad, and you hit two or more and the DPR skyrockets way past a martial targeting single enemies. Especially a ranged one, which is the most relevant comparison given the range on such spells.

A 5th level Fighter's DPR on two ranged attacks is from something like +14/+14 (from Double Shot) for 2d8+1 (or 2d6+3) damage via Point Blank Shot vs. a Moderate AC of 21 for a total DPR of 18 or thereabouts on two attacks. Melee characters do better damage (I got 29.4 with two actions on a Dragon Instinct Barbarian), but they pay for that in risks taken, and still do less as compared to an area spell on several foes.

A fireball, meanwhile, is DC 21 vs. a Moderate +12 Save, which is a DPR of 14.7 per target. Sure, that's worse...but that just means you need to wait for two or three for this to be good. With three, your DPR is 44.1. Sure, like I said before it being spread around makes it worse, but not enough worse that that's not much better than the Fighter's standard turn. This situation also gets much better against those with low Saves, which are actually a common thing, and you can mix and match spells to hit all of them, especially at higher levels.

Also, a Wizard can do fireball, or equivalent thing, four times at 5th level, unless they're a Universalist, due to how Bonded Items work (they can only do fireball specifically four times as an Evoker, but there are equivalently powerful effects in most schools).

[SuperBidi]

Zapp wrote:

Second, a spell like Fireball. 6d6 at fifth level is ~20 damage. That's only slightly better than what a good whack from a martial deals, given that the Striking rune is the first a player will save up to. Giant Instinct Barbarians aside, the 2d10+6 our Fighter deals with his reach Halberd is probably more representative. If he hits twice (or Power attack etc) that's more than a Fireball against that one target, and his chance of critting is higher too.

But he can do that every round of the day. Given six fights of three rounds each, that's eighteen rounds. The Wizard can do it three times.

I'll be honest (and blunt): I think you just don't know how to play a caster.

A properly way to play a caster, in my opinion, is to start each fight with the strongest spell you have. Most of the time, it's a highest level spell. The effect of this spell is way higher anything a martial can do in one round on average (clearly, if you crit all your attacks, you do crazy things, but that's not supposed to happen often, at least, it doesn't happen to me).
Then, most of the time, we clearly see if a fight will be easy or hard after round 1. For an easy fight, we stop there, casting cantrips or low level spells during the end of the fight. For tough fights, you may have to cast a few extra powerful spells. In general, you have one tough fight per day, sometimes two. Really tough fights may also happen, where you'll need to cast at least half a dozen powerful spells in a row, but they are rare, from my experience, you have one really tough fight every 4 levels roughly (unless your DM is sadistic or your party is a bunch of pussies).

So, let's take your example of six fights a day and make a quick calculation.
Let say that the right spell is 80% of the time a spell of your highest level and 20% of the time a spell of a lower level. I'll focus on highest level spells because I don't see the point of counting lower level spells.
You need 6 spells per day + 1-2 for the 1-2 tough fights. Let's say 9 spells, which means 7 spells of your highest spell level. Wizards have between 3 and 6 spells of their highest spell level. So, you need to cast a few extra spell only on average. As 6 fights in a day should award you nearly all the xp you need for a level (unless your DM doesn't award story xps), you have all your wealth to spend on this couple extra spells, it should cost something like 30% of your total wealth to sustain that.
Now, for the very tough fights, you need a buffer of scrolls, half a dozen of them is quite ideal, to not spell starve in this situation. That is a bit harder to get. If you play PFS, you can, in general, buy them. It'll cost you a lot, but it's not like if you had anything else to buy. As PFS tends to have less than 6 combats per adventures, you can save on the extra spells per adventuring day. Outside PFS, there is always quite some extra money that noone needs. Also, when you save the day by casting a whole bunch of fireballs in a row for the extra hard fight, your comrades tend to consider the scrolls were worth it. In general, you can get this buffer quite easily.

And that's it. You removed the worst issue you have: The Wizard can do it more than three times per day. Actually, you should nearly never spell starve with this strategy.

[Unicore]

There are a couple of threads that go into these issues in much greater detail but to summarize some of them here:

1.A sizable population of forum goers agree with you about the damage of spells and cantrips. Others counter that, particularly for wizards, damage spells are supposed to be more situational and lest consistently more damage than martial classes, because wizards have so much flexibility on their spell load out. IE: an 8 hour rest should not make the wizard suddenly the powerhouse striker, after they were the super utility caster the day before.

1b. Raw Damage dealing spells, without debuffing support from other party members, are generally not the most powerful spells for a wizard in particular, to be casting. At best, single target nova damage is a secondary or tertiary wizard ability, without the rest of the party focusing on ways to move and group enemies as well as debuff them. Looking at what a wizard can do with a heightened shocking grasp alone is not really the best picture of what wizards can do with spells.

2. 5th and 6th level are considered by many to be some of the hardest levels for casters. The accuracy issues get better at level 7.

3. Cantrips are interesting and subtle. It is hard to place them on a straight line of value, although electric arc is squarely at the top of damage cantrips, for traditional dungeon crawling. Acid splash is written confusingly and is thus being used differently/not used at many tables (there is a thread or three about that). People debate the value of range and damage type on cantrips which largely affects the debates around daze and ray of frost. Lastly, it seems like a design decision to make the critical effects of cantrips a large factor in their balance. Some folks hate it, but big critical effects significantly reduce the damage on daze and produce flame.

[Exocist]

If we're strictly comparing damage across cantrips, Electric Arc is indeed an outlier in how much it does. If we look at the rest of the cantrips, we can see a theme amongst the save based cantrips compared to the spell attack ones:

- Acid Splash (SA) - Worst cantrip in the game, should be omitted.
- Chill Touch (Fort) - Same damage as electric arc, but it's melee range and no potential to hit a second creature.
- Daze (Will) - Another save based cantrip, deals significantly less damage.
- Disrupt Undead (Fort) - Limited in the creatures it can target.
- Divine Lance (SA) - Theoretically not that limited in the creatures it can target (If you pick Good at least...). Deals the same damage as Electric Arc, same range.
- Produce Flame (SA) - Not limited in what it targets, rider similar to electric arc (crit persistent vs second creature).
- Ray of Frost (SA) - Not limited in what it targets, much longer range than electric arc, minor rider, same damage.
- Telekinetic Projectile (SA) - Does more damage than electric arc.

So the only other non-limited save based spell that does comparable damage to a Spell Attack one is Chill Touch, which has a (large IMO) penalty of requiring melee range.

I sincerely believe Electric Arc is either a mistake, or was thrown in there as a "more powerful" cantrip to try to gauge the community's reaction as to how powerful they think a cantrip should be. If people feel Electric Arc is the right power level, then they'd print more at that level of power going forward, whereas if they think it's overpowered they'd print more at Telekinetic Projectile/Ray of the Frost/Produce Flame level.

[Exocist]

Zapp wrote:

Second, a spell like Fireball. 6d6 at fifth level is ~20 damage. That's only slightly better than what a good whack from a martial deals, given that the Striking rune is the first a player will save up to. Giant Instinct Barbarians aside, the 2d10+6 our Fighter deals with his reach Halberd is probably more representative. If he hits twice (or Power attack etc) that's more than a Fireball against that one target, and his chance of critting is higher too.

You do realise Fireball is a spell that can be launched up to 500 feet (though practically this is a cap of maybe 60-100ft for most tables - don't think many people start combat that far) away, hits everything in a large AoE and deals half damage on a "miss".

Even if we do the strict mathematical comparison at level 6 (level 5 is a little bit of an outlier regarding martial to-hit), the Barbarian:

- Has +15 to-hit (+1 Potency, +4 strength, +6 level, +4 expert) against moderate AC 23, giving a 65% hit chance on the first attack. This means the first attack deals 80% of weapon damage (50% success + 15% critical success) and the second attack deals 45% of weapon damage (35% success + 5% critical success) for a total of 125% of weapon damage for 2 actions.
- Not using Giant, the Barbarian deals 2d10+8 (1d10, +1d10 Striking, +4 dragon, +4 strength) damage with his halberd, for a total of 19 damage. This means he does 23.75 DPR with 2 actions.

The wizard

- Has DC 22 (10+6 level+2 trained+4 int) against moderate save +14 (apparently it bumps at level 6 not level 7). This gives the enemies 5% crit failure, 30% failure,50% success,15% critical success (this is sort of a slump for casters that corrects at the next level). The fireball therefore deals 0.05(42)+0.3(21)+0.5(10.5) = 13.65 DPR with 2 actions.
- If the wizard catches just 2 enemies in his Fireball, he outpaces the Barbarian's melee damage from (up to) 500ft away.

[Porridge]

This has been discussed in several threads, but Deadmanwalking and Unicore do a nice job of summarizing the analysis that’s come out of these threads.

Perhaps the only further thing worth mentioning from these discussions are:

1. Worries about a potential disparity in how attack (vs save) values are assigned to PCs and NPCs (who, of course, are using the same spells), suggesting it may be that PC spellcasters should get a boost to spell attack rolls (or NPC spellcasters should get lower spell attack rolls).

2. During the open playtest, there was a period where they made these spells more damaging, as you (Ziff) suggested. But apparently the majority of playtesters thought they were too powerful, so they were scaled back down.

So it’s not the case that Paizo didn’t think of doing this, or made a bad call without thinking about what their players would enjoy. Rather, they tried it several ways, and got clear feedback from their players that this was what the majority of players preferred.

But if you’d prefer to make them higher damage, you can get a copy of the playtest document, and use those damage numbers instead. (Some people have stated that they’ll be doing precisely that.)

[Ravingdork]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet (in this thread) is that spellcasters aren't meant to do the damage of martial characters. If they did, there'd be no point in playing a martial character. Why would anyone want to play a damage dealer when they could be a damage dealer AND manipulate reality?

Combat spellcasters are meant to assist their allies, dictate the course of the battle with area denial, buffs and debuffs, and clear the field of the army of weaker enemies giving the big bad additional staying power and support. Its a different paradigm, and we're all still getting used to it, but this is the clear design intent.

Think about it. A martial has to wade through even weak enemies, all while the big bad lays on the big hurt with those extra rounds. I've seen plenty of martial characters defeated, not because they couldn't take on the big bad 1 on 1, but because they were delayed long enough by the normally-beneath-your-notice minions.

However, when the wizard opens up with a lightning bolt or similar spell, there's suddenly a clear path for the fighter to directly engage his true foe. Coincidentally, the wizard likely softened up the big bad a bit for him as well.

That's much more awesome than the wizard simply hitting an "I win" button and thanking everyone else for coming out to watch the show.

[Gaulin]

I don't think there's anything wrong with a caster being a glass cannon, staying back and attempting to control the battlefield and dealing damage. But if someone gets in the casters face, the caster is in real danger.

I personally wish that casters had an option to have less spell slots, but gain more consistent dpr cantrips. Like lessening actions of cantrips to one (Maybe just ones that require attack rolls, not electric arc) or making metamagics that make them aoe or something. I do think making actual spells deal more damage would be a mistake.

[Squiggit]

Ravingdork wrote:

Why would anyone want to play a damage dealer when they could be a damage dealer AND manipulate reality?

Point of order: A spellcaster who's spending all of their spell slots trying to be a competitive damage dealer isn't also manipulating reality, because they've spent their resources focusing on dealing damage.

Quote:

That's much more awesome than the wizard simply hitting an "I win" button and thanking everyone else for coming out to watch the show.

Please stop beating up that poor man, there's hardly any straw left in him at this point.

[Krugus]

Exocist wrote:

You do realise Fireball is a spell that can be launched up to 500 feet (though practically this is a cap of maybe 60-100ft for most tables - don't think many people start combat that far) away, hits everything in a large AoE and deals half damage on a "miss".

My table is the one that likes to start fights 300-500' away when they are outdoors. The wizard likes to wait till they are within 300' so they can soften them up with more than one fireball before they get within melee range.

Don't happen all the time but when it does, oh boy :)

[First World Bard]

SuperBidi wrote:

Now, for the very tough fights, you need a buffer of scrolls, half a dozen of them is quite ideal, to not spell starve in this situation. That is a bit harder to get. If you play PFS, you can, in general, buy them. It'll cost you a lot, but it's not like if you had anything else to buy. As PFS tends to have less than 6 combats per adventures, you can save on the extra spells per adventuring day.

There is one mitigating factor in PFS. If your character elected to take Pathfinder Training, and spent some time learning under the Master of Spells (a fairly reasonable thing for a Pathfinder Wizard to do, roleplay-wise), they get a free scroll at the wizard's highest spell level (from a list of options) each scenario. Now, you have to return it if you don't use it, but that one free scroll should give you a pretty good buffer in spellcasting ability, allowing you to save your gold for permanent items. (My evoker wizard is eyeing a Staff of Fire or Evocation, and a Wand of Manafold Missiles).

[Ubertron_X]

Ravingdork wrote:

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet (in this thread) is that spellcasters aren't meant to do the damage of martial characters. If they did, there'd be no point in playing a martial character. Why would anyone want to play a damage dealer when they could be a damage dealer AND manipulate reality?

Lets count the damage and kill figures in an all afternoon battle, aka after the wizard has had his 3 rounds of fireball, lets see what the martial can do in the additional 1797 rounds of this 3 hours long battle. Note that this is not to question PF2s design decision, just to show a long time "selling point" of martials as far as RPGs go and that is often overlooked when just taking a look at skirmish level damage meters: Staying power.

Regarding cantrips I feel that the cantrips that are not just dealing damage as e.g. Electric Arc does ought to be balanced by their secondary effects. However this does not seems to be working. For example the secondary effects on Daze or Ray of Frost are great and may even be crippling in case of single enemies like bosses, however they are most likely to occur on a natural 20 or 1 (5%), so most random aka not reliable aka not considered great by the majority of the player base, or in cases when they are not especially needed, e.g. when hitting mooks or when hitting enemies that die of the damage anyway or will die once the next party member acts. In my opinion low damage cantrips need a failure effect in addition to a crit failure effect in order to be competative to cantrips just dealing damage.

[WatersLethe]

I'd like it if there were more staves or wands that can give a little boost to your cantrips. Takes up a hand, costs money, and can get lost, but gives you +1 or so to hit and an extra couple points of damage.

[SuperBidi]

First World Bard wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Now, for the very tough fights, you need a buffer of scrolls, half a dozen of them is quite ideal, to not spell starve in this situation. That is a bit harder to get. If you play PFS, you can, in general, buy them. It'll cost you a lot, but it's not like if you had anything else to buy. As PFS tends to have less than 6 combats per adventures, you can save on the extra spells per adventuring day.

There is one mitigating factor in PFS. If your character elected to take Pathfinder Training, and spent some time learning under the Master of Spells (a fairly reasonable thing for a Pathfinder Wizard to do, roleplay-wise), they get a free scroll at the wizard's highest spell level (from a list of options) each scenario. Now, you have to return it if you don't use it, but that one free scroll should give you a pretty good buffer in spellcasting ability, allowing you to save your gold for permanent items. (My evoker wizard is eyeing a Staff of Fire or Evocation, and a Wand of Manafold Missiles).

Yes, in PFS, you will rarely need much scrolls for the "6 fights a day" as there will be less fights than that in general. But you still need the buffer of scrolls for the near-TPK (at least, if you don't want it to become a TPK because of your inability to cast high level spells past first rounds).

In my opinion, one of the strength of the casters is that they can suddenly unleash a crazy amount of resources in one single fight. Every deadly fight I've played in Starfinder with my Mystic (so, 3 fights) she has always been way ahead of anyone in terms of damage output, scoring even 70% of the damage of the party in 2 of the 3 fights. Casters can be absolute monsters when they have no limits.

[Hiruma Kai]

Ubertron_X wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet (in this thread) is that spellcasters aren't meant to do the damage of martial characters. If they did, there'd be no point in playing a martial character. Why would anyone want to play a damage dealer when they could be a damage dealer AND manipulate reality?

Lets count the damage and kill figures in an all afternoon battle, aka after the wizard has had his 3 rounds of fireball, lets see what the martial can do in the additional 1797 rounds of this 3 hours long battle. Note that this is not to question PF2s design decision, just to show a long time "selling point" of martials as far as RPGs go and that is often overlooked when just taking a look at skirmish level damage meters: Staying power.

This seems like a fun mental exercise. Ok, so 3 fireball wizard implies level 5. Given you've mentioned 1797 rounds, that implies non-stop combat without 10 minute rests, since clearly the fighter is fighting in all of them. Given they've got to last 1797 rounds, that means melee or returning thrown weapons since ranged weapons will run out of ammo. So lets assume a 2-handed d12 weapon wielding fighter.

So +5 (level)+6 (master)+4 (strength)+1 (rune)=+16 to hit. 2-hander does 2d12+4=17 average damage. 1-hander 2d8+4 = 13 average damage

AC is full plate, so 5+2+6+1+10=24 AC. Will assume 18 Str/12 Dex/14 Con/10 Int/14 Wis/10 Cha for stats, so 8+5*12=68 hit points. We'll assume fleet, so 25 movement speed, with sudden charge.

Let throw them up against hobgoblin soldiers (a proper giant skirmish against an army of hobgoblins), 1 at a time. These are CR 1, so level-4 opponents, 1 at a time. As easy as it comes. We'll assume the hobgoblins begin by shooting at 60 feet with their shortbows, then drop the bow, draw sword and start swinging after being engaged.

3 attack shortbow expected damage from hobgoblin: 1.675.

Fighter moves (to 50' from 60'), then sudden charges. 57.5% of the time, he'll kill the hobgoblin in 1 blow. So 42.5% of the time, the hobgoblin will draw their sword, and swing back 2 times, dealing on average 2.625 damage. We'll just assume the fighter's next 3 attacks finish the hobgoblin.

So, expected damage per encounter is about 2.79. At 68 hit points, the fighter lasts through 24-25 hobgoblins before dropping, over the course of 36 rounds or so. For an effective 500 damage (25*20 hit points), which is pretty impressive. Although 216 seconds, or about a minute and a half isn't really anywhere near 3 hours.

Depending on enemy density, a fireball in a battlefield situation might catch a shield wall or archery line (given Hobgoblins get a benefit for having at least 3 of them adjacent). Certainly against martials, grouping up is better than spreading out and coming at them 1 at a time.

Hobgoblins have a reflex save of 6+2 (formation)=+8, against 6d6 fireball. Lets assume there are lines of archers, so a 20 foot burst, increased to 25 with widen spell, hits 10. Damage is capped at 20 per target, since that is all they have. Spellcaster has a save DC of 21. Assuming average damage rolls, so 6/10 fail or crit fail, 3.5 succeed, and 0.5 critical succeeds. Times 3 fireballs on 3 different groups gives, 18*20=360 damage. 10.5*10=105. Total damage is 460, 18 defeated and 10 at half hit points in 3 rounds.

Seems pretty comparable given the wizard still has 2nd and 1st level spells after bombing the archery line from outside their attack range. I mean, the fighter probably appreciates not taking 30 ranged attacks a round and the survivors splitting up so they come at the fighter 1 at a time.

If the wizard happens to be a spell blending evoker at 5th, they can cast 5 fireballs for 775 damage in 5 rounds, taking out 30, and severely wounding 17. That is basically basically soloing an entire platoon of the enemy in 30 seconds.

How did you see a 3 hour non-stop battle playing out?

[Ravingdork]

But when would something like that ever actually happen in roleplaying games? The heroes are almost always pitted against small groups of enemies (a dozen or less) at relatively close ranges (within 100 feet).

When you get to mass battles, like your theoretical example, that's usually when completely separate (and oft-simplified) mass battle rules come into play.

[Ubertron_X]

Hiruma Kai wrote:

...

Take your +1 just for doing the PF2 related math! :)

[Ubertron_X]

Ravingdork wrote:

But when would something like that ever actually happen in roleplaying games? The heroes are almost always pitted against small groups of enemies (a dozen or less) at relatively close ranges (within 100 feet).

When you get to mass battles, like your theoretical example, that's usually when completely separate (and oft-simplified) mass battle rules come into play.

This thing is, theoretically we have this in PF2 too if only enough battles are chained into one adventuring day (Zapp even started a thread about this). However most groups simply decide to camp when limited ressources have run dry (be it fireballs OR heals) instead of dragging a spent wizard or cleric along while hoping that the next battle will not be a serious one.

[Hiruma Kai]

Ravingdork wrote:

But when would something like that ever actually happen in roleplaying games? The heroes are almost always pitted against small groups of enemies (a dozen or less) at relatively close ranges (within 100 feet).

When you get to mass battles, like your theoretical example, that's usually when completely separate (and oft-simplified) mass battle rules come into play.

I didn't present the situation, I merely analyzed the implications. Ubertron_X said a 3 hour battle and 1797 rounds, implying a martial would be far more effective than the wizard, and thus implied it should be a balancing point. I was curious if that was true, given the best case assumption in favor of the fighter. And even in that case, it doesn't seem to hold.

If it never occurs in play or is unrealistic (i.e. say it take 30 seconds to resolve a round of combat for the GM and players, then it stands to reason a 3 hour battle would take 15 hours straight to complete, not to mention be the most boring thing ever after awhile), then it is reasonable to assume it shouldn't be a balancing point.

I happen to agree with you as I've never been in a session or campaign that had something done that way. I've been in plenty of sessions where there was a single combat in a day. Or only 2. I've been in climatic end boss raids where there's were 5 combats in single day, but at that point you're pulling out all the consumables and expendables since you know its going to be rough going in, and we definitely prepared for it.

I believe the expectation is 3 or maybe 4 per day on average, with fewer per day being much easier with casters going nova, and more per day meaning you pull out those expendables you've been hoarding for the last 3 levels. Certainly I've had far more 1 battle days than 5 battle days in PFS and SFS. So far in PFS2/home campaign, our GM hasn't thrown more than 3 encounters a day at us from level 1 to 3, but of course that might change once we get back to playing.

[Temperans]

You forgot to take into account the Wizard having much less health and AC. Fighter HP of 68 vs Wizard HP of 48 (assuming Con 14); Heavy armor Fighter AC of 24 vs Unarmored Wizard AC of 21 (assuming Dex of 16).

So Wizards has a 15% higher chance of getting struck by a crit Shortbow strike for 2d6+1d10 (12.5 average).

(The math is too complicated to do on mobile so if someone else wants to show it, that would be great.)

[Gaulin]

Fireballing is also a lot more situational. In that theoretical scenario it's pretty much best case scenario for the wizard, with fireball hitting multiple enemies before they get a chance to attack. In real battles there tends to be allies in the way, walls blocking line of sight, etc. So both situations are pretty well catered to both sides

[Samurai]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Damage to one creature is inherently more valuable than damage spread among multiple targets like Lightning Arc does, and cantrips are intended to be weaker and less valuable than martial attacks, just as spells are intended to be stronger and more valuable (hence their limited nature).

That said, the disparity among cantrips remains a notable issue. Those that use an attack rather than a Save are not more powerful in terms of damage or other effects to make up for the fact that they get nothing on a miss, and they probably really should be. So...definitely an issue, but perhaps not as big of one as you're making it out to be. There's definitely room for some bonuses to-hit on cantrips (and, IMO, spells in general), and a die size up on cantrips seems vaguely plausible, but going up to d12 is a step or three too far, I think.

As for damaging area spells...you don't use them on one creature. Their DPR is indeed generally worse vs. each individual creature...but it's not bad, and you hit two or more and the DPR skyrockets way past a martial targeting single enemies. Especially a ranged one, which is the most relevant comparison given the range on such spells.

A 5th level Fighter's DPR on two ranged attacks is from something like +14/+14 (from Double Shot) for 2d8+1 (or 2d6+3) damage via Point Blank Shot vs. a Moderate AC of 21 for a total DPR of 18 or thereabouts on two attacks. Melee characters do better damage (I got 29.4 with two actions on a Dragon Instinct Barbarian), but they pay for that in risks taken, and still do less as compared to an area spell on several foes.

A fireball, meanwhile, is DC 21 vs. a Moderate +12 Save, which is a DPR of 14.7 per target. Sure, that's worse...but that just means you need to wait for two or three for this to be good. With three, your DPR is 44.1. Sure, like I said before it being spread around makes it worse, but not enough worse that that's not much better than the Fighter's standard turn. This situation also gets much better much better against those with low Saves, which are actually a common thing, and you can mix and match spells to hit all of them, especially at higher levels.

Also, a Wizard can do fireball, or equivalent thing, four times at 5th level, unless they're a Universalist, due to how Bonded Items work (they can only do fireball specifically four times as an Evoker, but there are equivalently powerful effects in most schools).

It's interesting that in the very same post you both call out Electric Arc as being less valuable because it spreads damage between 2 targets, and then you say that Fireballs are great because they can hit multiple targets at once! Don't you see any inconsistency there?

[Unicore]

He was saying that just comparing raw DPR numbers between AoE and single target attacks can be misleading. Doing 1 point of damage to 100 enemies is not likely as valuable as doing 100 points of damage to 1 in terms of ending a battle or preventing your allies from taking additional damage. However, you still did 100 points of damage and using a spell that does 1 point of damage to all targets is better cast where it can hit as many people as possible.

[Draco18s]

Electric Arc is great...if you can get two people with it.
But if the targets have an elemental weakness, you might want to consider some of the other cantrips, as a mere Weakness 5 brings the total damage done up to be very close to on-par with Electric Arc.

[Exocist]

Ubertron_X wrote:

Lets count the damage and kill figures in an all afternoon battle, aka after the wizard has had his 3 rounds of fireball, lets see what the martial can do in the additional 1797 rounds of this 3 hours long battle. Note that this is not to question PF2s design decision, just to show a long time "selling point" of martials as far as RPGs go and that is often overlooked when just taking a look at skirmish level damage meters: Staying power.

That's because "staying power" is one of the most overstated assumptions of "reason to be a martial". I doubt many games are going to have more than about 4 encounters per day, and all of those encounters are not going to last more than 3-5 rounds each (let's say average 4). That means the fighter can only get a max of 4*4*3 = 48 actions to deal his resourceless damage per day. Of those, a few actions are spent moving, a few actions might be spent raising a shield or demoralising, and also there's MAP to contend with. Once you crunch that all down, I'd be surprised if even half of those 48 actions are spent making effective attacks.

If the wizard could do comparable or better damage than the fighter, then in most real game scenarios they would be better simply because the constraints of the game and people's time would make them so.

There's also something to consider regarding boss combats. Let's say only the wizard's top level of slot can deal better damage than the fighter. That means, when a combat that matters such as a boss combat - you know, those big impactful combats that everyone should remember, the apex of an arc or the campaign - that the wizard is stealing the spotlight from the fighter. Which obviously feels awful for the fighter.

Ubertron_X wrote:

This thing is, theoretically we have this in PF2 too if only enough battles are chained into one adventuring day (Zapp even started a thread about this). However most groups simply decide to camp when limited ressources have run dry (be it fireballs OR heals) instead of dragging a spent wizard or cleric along while hoping that the next battle will not be a serious one.

Aside from it making no sense to take the risk of continuing to adventure when half your party is going to feel pretty useless, there's also the fact of group enjoyment to consider.

When casters are running on fumes (cantrips) they'll start to feel awful. The GM probably doesn't want to leave them in that state for prolonged periods of time unless it's as punishment for "trigger-happy" casters (to discourage 15 minute adventuring days) or it's part of a particular arc of the campaign. The ability to be "resourceless" isn't so much "you get to feel good all day", it's more like "when the rest of the group starts to feel bad, you feel less bad". Presumably, everyone playing at the table is friends, and you don't want your friends to feel bad for extended periods of time - so even though, as a martial, you can keep going for another 10 encounters, realistically you're going to try to quit whenever you can so you can get the party back at full strength and so your friends can continue having fun.

[Deadmanwalking]

Samurai wrote:

It's interesting that in the very same post you both call out Electric Arc as being less valuable because it spreads damage between 2 targets, and then you say that Fireballs are great because they can hit multiple targets at once! Don't you see any inconsistency there?

All things being equal, damage to one enemy is better than spreading it among two...but all things aren't always equal. Fireball can easily do two or three times the damage spread among multiple foes.

Damage that is dealt to one foe is better than damage that is spread out, but not two or three times better.

[Jason S]

Zapp wrote:

I must say, I'm starting to see WotC's point - okay so cantrips aren't meant to impress, but if you can do something impressive three times a day, I'd prefer it if what you did then actually impressed. In short, where are the "striking runes" for spellcasters?

This forum is going to disagree with you, but I agree with you. I like 2E, but spellcasters are under powered in it. It's like you say, since their spells are limited, these spells should be impressive, but they aren't, they're often not even as good as a martial attacking.

Fireball isn't a good example btw. A good example would be Acid Arrow or Spider Sting.

But yeah, what can you do about it? At home, make house rules, at conventions, play martial characters.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Blasters suffer, not as much as people make them out to suffer in play but they do suffer.

- Few blasting spells
- Lots of niche blasting spells
- Next to no feat or item support

Personally I wager that if we get a bit of archetype support this issue will mostly go away. Likely with a cost attached which will upset people as they will see their utility and flexibility drop substantially but I am fine with that personally.

[Zapp]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Damage to one creature is inherently more valuable than damage spread among multiple targets like Lightning Arc does, and cantrips are intended to be weaker and less valuable than martial attacks, just as spells are intended to be stronger and more valuable (hence their limited nature).

That said, the disparity among cantrips remains a notable issue. Those that use an attack rather than a Save are not more powerful in terms of damage or other effects to make up for the fact that they get nothing on a miss, and they probably really should be. So...definitely an issue, but perhaps not as big of one as you're making it out to be. There's definitely room for some bonuses to-hit on cantrips (and, IMO, spells in general), and a die size up on cantrips seems vaguely plausible, but going up to d12 is a step or three too far, I think.

As for damaging area spells...you don't use them on one creature. Their DPR is indeed generally worse vs. each individual creature...but it's not bad, and you hit two or more and the DPR skyrockets way past a martial targeting single enemies. Especially a ranged one, which is the most relevant comparison given the range on such spells.

A 5th level Fighter's DPR on two ranged attacks is from something like +14/+14 (from Double Shot) for 2d8+1 (or 2d6+3) damage via Point Blank Shot vs. a Moderate AC of 21 for a total DPR of 18 or thereabouts on two attacks. Melee characters do better damage (I got 29.4 with two actions on a Dragon Instinct Barbarian), but they pay for that in risks taken, and still do less as compared to an area spell on several foes.

A fireball, meanwhile, is DC 21 vs. a Moderate +12 Save, which is a DPR of 14.7 per target. Sure, that's worse...but that just means you need to wait for two or three for this to be good. With three, your DPR is 44.1. Sure, like I said before it being spread around makes it worse, but not enough worse that that's not much better than the Fighter's standard turn. This situation also gets much better against those with low Saves, which are actually a common thing, and you can mix and match spells to hit all of them, especially at higher levels.

Also, a Wizard can do fireball, or equivalent thing, four times at 5th level, unless they're a Universalist, due to how Bonded Items work (they can only do fireball specifically four times as an Evoker, but there are equivalently powerful effects in most schools).

Thank you but there are several areas which you skim a bit too fast.

"Cantrips are intended to be weaker" - yes, but that says nothing about how much weaker. Your statement makes the situation come across as much more "as intended" and much less problematic than the real situation: Electric Arc deals only half of a martial, and every other cantrip is just garbage (except when used in their optimal corner cases). For a game so obsessive about math and balance, it comes across as a real tangible failure. That is a problem I'd call in urgent need of errata.

At least at 5th level spells (with slots) are competitive with martial damage, but certainly not significantly better.

And the notion that you should devote all four of your high level slots to Fireball is just boring. Plus, Fireball is always (in every D&D iteration) ahead of the curve compared to other spells. If that's the case in PF2 too, it doesn't look too good for casters of level 3, 7, and 9...

You think you compare apples to apples when you compare martial and magic ranged, but really, you're not. That presupposes that you don't need to risk melee, which of course you do.

Instead you need to count melee as the default for martial damage. Then you ask the caster if she wants to use melee or ranged spell damage. She will invariably tell you "I'm good at a distance", which leads us to the real comparison that defines actual play: melee martials and ranged casters.

For instance, looking at just the models I'm sure a d12 damage die for a cantrip comes across as overpowered. But since it requires the caster to either move into melee and then stay there, or already be in melee and then move out, the benefit for taking such a huge risk (which for a caster is much greater than a martial) must be very very good. You simply don't do that as a Wizard just to deal +1 DPR per spell level.

Just glossing over this with a "they pay for that in risks taken" doesn't really work. SOMEONE must stand in melee - PF2 monsters are sufficiently mobile that the 5E strategy of denying melee bruisers their attacks isn't viable (at least not at low levels). Especially given official Adventure Paths, where combats nearly always start within charging distance.

So no, a Fighter entering melee doesn't pay a risk. He's taking up the melee slot someone else would have to take otherwise. As a party there's no extra risk here - as if melee combat was a choice you could avoid, as if melee combat needed to incentivize you with extra damage or you would simply say "no thanks".

In summary: of course you want to wait for two or three (or five!) targets before you cast Fireball. The question is: why are you content with merely good when you're spending one out of three or four slots? Such limited resources should produce more than merely good! (And it still does not help casters at levels 1-4)

I'm not saying this to exactly argue with you, Deadmanwalking.

It's more that I would have wished you to acknowledge this as more of a real fundamental problem. Your post comes off as "yes its an issue but not a huge deal".

It is a huge deal. Not just all those wasted cantrips.

[Zapp]

SuperBidi wrote:

I'll be honest (and blunt): I think you just don't know how to play a caster.

A properly way to play a caster, in my opinion, is to start each fight with the strongest spell you have.

If I start each fight with a Fireball, after three or four fights, I have no more Fireballs...

Nuff said

[Zapp]

Unicore wrote:

There are a couple of threads that go into these issues in much greater detail but to summarize some of them here:

1.A sizable population of forum goers agree with you about the damage of spells and cantrips. Others counter that, particularly for wizards, damage spells are supposed to be more situational and lest consistently more damage than martial classes, because wizards have so much flexibility on their spell load out. IE: an 8 hour rest should not make the wizard suddenly the powerhouse striker, after they were the super utility caster the day before.

1b. Raw Damage dealing spells, without debuffing support from other party members, are generally not the most powerful spells for a wizard in particular, to be casting. At best, single target nova damage is a secondary or tertiary wizard ability, without the rest of the party focusing on ways to move and group enemies as well as debuff them. Looking at what a wizard can do with a heightened shocking grasp alone is not really the best picture of what wizards can do with spells.

2. 5th and 6th level are considered by many to be some of the hardest levels for casters. The accuracy issues get better at level 7.

3. Cantrips are interesting and subtle. It is hard to place them on a straight line of value, although electric arc is squarely at the top of damage cantrips, for traditional dungeon crawling. Acid splash is written confusingly and is thus being used differently/not used at many tables (there is a thread or three about that). People debate the value of range and damage type on cantrips which largely affects the debates around daze and ray of frost. Lastly, it seems like a design decision to make the critical effects of cantrips a large factor in their balance. Some folks hate it, but big critical effects significantly reduce the damage on daze and produce flame.

Thank you. That kind of summary is exactly the question you answered.

[Zapp]

Exocist wrote:

You do realise Fireball is a spell that can be launched up to 500 feet (though practically this is a cap of maybe 60-100ft for most tables - don't think many people start combat that far)

If only every spell and cantrip could compare to Fireball...

In reality, 90% (99%?) of official Adventure Path encounters start at way less than 100 ft distance, and few fights feature more monsters than heroes, meaning that when it's the Wizard's turn to act, he will be lucky to catch three monsters in his Fireball without frying his own party.

Surprisingly often the total damage dealt is only slightly more than what the Fighter or Barbarian deals. This feels wrong when you're using a very limited resource, not to mention how Fireball is often (always?) ahead of the curve when it comes to damaging spells.

---

I note with dismay how many of you posters (no longer addressing Exocist personally) jump to Paizo's defense here, by only bringing out the very best spells in theoretically optimal conditions.

What about the situation on the ground? What about the other 99% of damage spells?

Why is it so hard to simply say the following:

In PF2, spellcasters should leave the damage-dealing to the martials, at least at low levels. In this aspect, PF2 is unapologetically "pre-5E" in its approach to caster-martial balance.

In fact, if you get to retire a character mid-campaign and roll up a new one, play a martial during single-digit levels, and then switch to your Wizard character only during double-digit levels!

[Zapp]

Ubertron_X wrote:

In my opinion low damage cantrips need a failure effect in addition to a crit failure effect in order to be competative to cantrips just dealing damage.

Thank you.

[Zapp]

WatersLethe wrote:

I'd like it if there were more staves or wands that can give a little boost to your cantrips. Takes up a hand, costs money, and can get lost, but gives you +1 or so to hit and an extra couple points of damage.

Yes, to me that design space appears to be wide open.

[Zapp]

Ravingdork wrote:

But when would something like that ever actually happen in roleplaying games? The heroes are almost always pitted against small groups of enemies (a dozen or less) at relatively close ranges (within 100 feet).

This.

(I'm playing Extinction Curse. It's almost decidedly videogamey in how it assumes heroes enter room after room where encounters practically start in melee range, and the next set of monsters just sit on their hands maybe not even sixty feet away until the heroes have defeated the first room - and maybe even taken ten minutes to Treat Wounds...)

If you're playing a ranged Ranger, you'd better fight like Legolas, using your arrows to stab Orcs through the eye ;) since you will almost never get to fire your Longbow at a distance where it actually gains an edge over other ranged attacks...!

[Zapp]

Exocist wrote:

I doubt many games are going to have more than about 4 encounters per day, and all of those encounters are not going to last more than 3-5 rounds each (let's say average 4).

Official APs seems to contain about a dozen encounters per level.

At the very lowest levels, this was "combat as war" where the heroes were lucky to survive, but now at level 5, out of combat healing is no longer an issue. Given the ability to take 20-60 minutes of rest, the martials are ready to go, all day long.

The only reason a party would not wipe the map (all 12 encounters) in a single adventuring day is if they feel it's more fun for the caster players to have spells.

(I expect this to change as heroes level up, just like in pre-5E games of D&D where casters eventually eclipse martials)

But right now what I'm saying is that unless the adventure/story actively slows down the heroes (by having a social challenge to find their next batch of foes, or by featuring long travel times) there's no reason for a martial-heavy level 5 party to not go through all 12*4=48 combat encounters in the same day.

Almost single-handedly thanks to the +8 bonus of 2-action Heal, a Cleric is good to have, but it's way better to have a third martial in the party than, say, a Wizard.

At low levels, there simply aren't any reality-defying spells to justify a non-healing spellcaster (if judged on pure adventuring utility rather than, say, what's fun to play). They're brought along for the promise of a high-level caster, just like in AD&D or 3rd Edition.

[SuperBidi]

Zapp wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

I'll be honest (and blunt): I think you just don't know how to play a caster.

A properly way to play a caster, in my opinion, is to start each fight with the strongest spell you have.

If I start each fight with a Fireball, after three or four fights, I have no more Fireballs...

Nuff said

Nice self fulfilling prophecy, then. I don't see anything for you to do but continue whining.

What is the point to open a "discussion" when you don't want people to answer you? You should open a blog instead.

[Zapp]

Jason S wrote:

Zapp wrote:

I must say, I'm starting to see WotC's point - okay so cantrips aren't meant to impress, but if you can do something impressive three times a day, I'd prefer it if what you did then actually impressed. In short, where are the "striking runes" for spellcasters?

This forum is going to disagree with you, but I agree with you. I like 2E, but spellcasters are under powered in it. It's like you say, since their spells are limited, these spells should be impressive, but they aren't, they're often not even as good as a martial attacking.

Fireball isn't a good example btw. A good example would be Acid Arrow or Spider Sting.

Thank you. Yes, this.

And you're absolutely right: when Paizo defenders bring out Fireball of all spells and still can't easily win the argument, something is decidedly dodgy...

Quote:

But yeah, what can you do about it? At home, make house rules, at conventions, play martial characters.

The only think you can do is relentlessly make your point in the hopes the publisher (Paizo here, WotC when discussing at ENWorld) listens to the ever-growing number of people understanding the issues, the ever-shrinking number of posters that blindly defend the indefensible, and eventually changes course!

A package of expanded, revamped and boosted cantrips would be a great start :)

[Zapp]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Blasters suffer, not as much as people make them out to suffer in play but they do suffer.

- Few blasting spells
- Lots of niche blasting spells
- Next to no feat or item support

Personally I wager that if we get a bit of archetype support this issue will mostly go away. Likely with a cost attached which will upset people as they will see their utility and flexibility drop substantially but I am fine with that personally.

Yes, if Paizo issues "stealth errata" by introducing feats and items that become "feat taxes" because it brings up caster damage a notch or three, that would be a good first step!

(Yes, feat taxes are bad, but still better than nothing.)

[Zapp]

Thank you all for interesting discussion!

(This has been a catch-all reply since there are too many posts to reply to individuallY)

[Exocist]

Zapp wrote:

If only every spell and cantrip could compare to Fireball...

In reality, 90% (99%?) of official Adventure Path encounters start at way less than 100 ft distance, and few fights feature more monsters than heroes, meaning that when it's the Wizard's turn to act, he will be lucky to catch three monsters in his Fireball without frying his own party.

Surprisingly often the total damage dealt is only slightly more than what the Fighter or Barbarian deals. This feels wrong when you're using a very limited resource, not to mention how Fireball is often (always?) ahead of the curve when it comes to damaging spells.

---

I note with dismay how many of you posters (no longer addressing Exocist personally) jump to Paizo's defense here, by only bringing out the very best spells in theoretically optimal conditions.

What about the situation on the ground? What about the other 99% of damage spells?

Why is it so hard to simply say the following:

In PF2, spellcasters should leave the damage-dealing to the martials, at least at low levels. In this aspect, PF2 is unapologetically "pre-5E" in its approach to caster-martial balance.

In fact, if you get to retire a character mid-campaign and roll up a new one, play a martial during single-digit levels, and then switch to your Wizard character only during double-digit levels!

Lightning bolt does 25%ish more damage than Fireball in return for a worse AoE.

Flaming Sphere can do 4d6 every round (at 3rd) for 1 action and doesn't interfere with cantrips due to no MAP.

An upcasted Grim Tendrils can do the same damage as Fireball (6d4+3 persistent vs 6d6). Heck, an upcasted Burning Hands does the same damage as Fireball. Fireball is not an overtuned spell.

I will say, from when martials get Striking runes (should be 4, but playing Age of Ashes we all got Striking runes at level 2 - currently level 3) until about level... 7? Casters might feel a bit lacking. Level 1 and 2 spells are a little bit underwhelming currently. Level 3 spells are good, but the game seems to be balanced around you having 2 top levels of spells that are good, not one.

The advantage of range isn't so much the fact that you don't have to move up to the monster to attack it (although that is partially true as well) it's that you also don't have to spend actions moving between monsters once you've killed one. Also, battlefield control spells become infinitely better with range as you prevent the opponent from getting to you, while you can still hit them.

Therefore, I ask you this question: How much damage should a cantrip do at level 5 (character level)? How much should a spell do?

[Unicore]

There are very few people on these forums that argue that single target striking/maximal damage is what wizards are particularly good at in PF2. In fact it is pretty clear that sorcerers are expected to outpace wizards when it comes to blasting. (And a lot of folks just don’t like how much mechanical options are tied to specific narrative elements, but that crosses over to martials too). That said there are some niches to casters and damage that are interesting and unavailable to martial:
AoE. Damage+Debuff. Reliability of inflicting some damage, even against monsters with incredible defenses and resistances. The value of Those don’t show up that often at lower levels, but become increasingly important at higher levels. Martial do start to gain access to some of those too at higher levels, but with more of an investment cost that wizards who can switch load out in 10 minutes if they make that their thesis. (A highly underrated thesis)

What spell casters are best at in PF2 is debuffing, buffing and battlefield control, largely due to their usage of the 4 tiers of success. There is controversy about whether this is fun or exciting, but, with the right loadout, a caster in PF2 can define a battle even if the enemy saves against everything they cast.

Some folks say this was a bad design decision because it means that the math doesn’t need to rest on the accuracy of martial sand casters being the same, and that players will feel like they are losing when enemies, especially bosses, are typically making their saves against highest level spells. I don’t personally agree, and very much like that there are almost no “best spells for every occasion,” but it does lead to problems for players who want to thematically specialize in doing the same thing every combat with their spells, ( although feats do exist to make that kind of play possible, but not as obvious or as optimally as in PF1, where every caster was pretty much shoehorned into only casting spells from schools they had spell focus in.

About the unlimited resources of the martial in PF2, a lot of that is riding on assumptions about having someone in the party not just having medicine and healer’s tools, but keeping up with all of the feats and proficiencies of the skill, which is a heavy player investment. Martial HP quickly out paces the healing effects of minimal investment in the skill and in my experience, party’s relying on often end up having to rest for several hours, not 10 minutes, before moving on. It is a shame that casters didn’t get ways to recover singular spells within a couple hours of rest since that would more keep up with how healing in PF2 works.

[Temperans]

That is a good question Exocist, but its a really hard question to answer, because the problem isnt only damage but actually hitting and lack of support in general.

Increasing damage would make when the spells hit a lot harder which would help the "feels weak". But then people will complain that casters do too much damage.

Increasing to hit would make the spells hit a lit more. But people would complain that casters hit too much.

Increasing support would remove the barren feeling. But then people will complain about power creep.

There are too many variables and people can't agree what the best solution is; and some dont even think there is a problem, mostly martial players who just know they are having fun doing 3-6 things on their turn and cant imagine the caster wanting to do something other than buff/debuff.

(No offence to martial players who do care)

[Temperans]

Unicore the problem is not that buff, debuff, and battlefield are good. Its that they are the only option to play as a good caster. All martial character can work well as generalist, but they can also specialize by investing feats to get action economy boosters and new abilities. Casters in general are told to buff/debuff and damage is secondary or even tertiary (Clerics are told to heal).

The blaster caster has been a things for decades, maybe centuries, and its a very well liked troped by many people. But it just didnt get any support what so ever, besides the shoehorn of "just use True Strike".

*********************

* P.S. Versatility is only a factor if you have 1 specific thesis and learned those spells everyone keeps saying to use. Any caster that doesnt get that thesis or learn those spells is screwed, because "you are playing casters wrong, you should get X debuff/buff/true strike".

[Salamileg]

Temperans wrote:

All martial character can work well as generalist, but they can also specialize by investing feats to get action economy boosters and new abilities.

What do martials get that allows them to work as generalists? Some of them get feats that allow them to use intimidation better, but aside from that, the only thing they get is skill feats which are equally available to casters. I'd say rogue is the only martial that could potentially be called a generalist due to their sheer amount of skill feats and increases.

Furthermore, don't pretty much all classes have "If you're not doing this, you're playing them wrong?" If you go to enemies instead of letting them come to you, you're playing martials wrong. If you don't try to make enemies flat-footed, you're playing rogues wrong. If you're not focusing on the target of your Hunt Prey, you're playing rangers wrong. If you're not staying within 15 feet of your melee allies, you're playing champions wrong. It's just a part of the game that classes have ways they're meant to be played.

[Unicore]

Temperans wrote:

That is a good question Exocist, but its a really hard question to answer, because the problem isnt only damage but actually hitting and lack of support in general.

Increasing damage would make when the spells hit a lot harder which would help the "feels weak". But then people will complain that casters do too much damage.

Increasing to hit would make the spells hit a lit more. But people would complain that casters hit too much.

Increasing support would remove the barren feeling. But then people will complain about power creep.

There are too many variables and people can't agree what the best solution is; and some dont even think there is a problem, mostly martial players who just know they are having fun doing 3-6 things on their turn and cant imagine the caster wanting to do something other than buff/debuff.

(No offence to martial players who do care)

It is important to point out that the issue isn't that people will think that caster's will hit to often, it is that spells were designed around a lower expected accuracy than other games are used to, and thus the hit/ enemies failing their saving throws effects (and especially the critical effects) of spells in PF2 were intentionally ramped up, with the miss effect factoring into the overall balance. I agree that bad luck can make any player feel like they are not being effective, but that seems like a default difficulty setting of PF2 as opposed to something that has deliberately targeted casters.

Pf2 Barbarians without party support are in a very similar place where they have basically wasted their turn if they miss with their first attack, and have a pretty decent chance of doing so against more powerful enemies. They need tactical bonuses in play, or lots of buffing/debuffing from casters for their damage focused builds to really pay off.

[Staffan Johansson]

Personally, I think Electric Arc is about right for a cantrip. It's the rest of the cantrips that need a boost. For most of them, I think that boost could just be moving the debuff you get on a crit to a normal hit (or from critical failure on the save to a regular failure). In some cases, the debuff might need to be reduced on a regular hit.

The thing with debuffs is that they are often situational. Take ray of frost for example. When a melee character is chasing you, a speed penalty is just what the doctor ordered. But you can't rely on getting a critical hit, so in most cases it's just 1d4/spell level + stat damage.

So here's how I would buff the various cantrips:

Acid splash - Clarify that the splash damage is proper splash damage, and is applied on a miss. Persistent damage on a hit. Double regular (but not splash or persistent) damage on a crit.

Chill touch - Increase damage to d6. Enfeebled 1 for 1 round on a failed save, Enfeebled 2 on a critical fail.

Daze - Increase damage to d4/spell level. Unfortunately, Stun is way too powerful an effect to use as the normal effect on a cantrip, so that has to remain as a critical failure effect.

Disrupt undead - Enfeebled 1 on a failure, 2 on a critical failure.

Divine Lance - Increase damage to d6s.

Electric arc - Fine where it is. If you want to make it a little more exciting, remove the "1 or" from targets, so you need two targets to cast it.

Produce flame - Increase damage to d6s.

Ray of frost - 5 foot speed penalty on a hit, 10 foot on a crit.

Telekinetic projectile - Increase range to 60 ft. Specify that the attack counts as a magic weapon. Perhaps, at spell level 3+, add a rider on a crit akin to the critical specialization of an appropriate weapon group. I'm thinking Bow (nail target to a nearby surface) for piercing, Sling (Fort save or Stunned 1) for bludgeoning, and Knife (bleed 1d6) for slashing.