Related (I hope); I just released a rebooted version of my Metamagic School feats. My biggest issue with the current wizard is the lack of differences between schools, so I figured I'd put my money where my mouth is.
Also I made the original during the early days and I've learned a lot about 2E homebrew since then, so I wanted to give it the love it deserved.
------------
Link to the thing
------------
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard is the PF2 version of the Medium - meh until level 19+, when all the bonus 10th level spells and the 20th level feats vault it ahead.I'm not waiting until 19th level. I'm going to wait for more books to come out and hope they make a wizard/sorcerer type focused on magic damage that doesn't require more than one target. I don't feel like playing a martial buff bot. I'll leave that to those that enjoy that style of play or make a bard when I want to buff the party.If your goal is to play a Wizard or Sorcerer that is competitive with Martial classes at single target damage I think you may need to adjust your expectations a little. Single target damage is only thing Fighters and Barbarians really do. They can specialize a little to pick up some combat control or mobility but fundamentally their one niche is dealing large amounts of damage to one enemy at a time.
If future spells allow Wizards to deal similar single target damage while still having all of the utility, buffing, control and general flexibility they currently possess it will really invalidate those other classes in play.
Spellcasting is flexible and very potent when used with a party in the current state of the game. Wizards have the particular feature of bringing to bear more spells of the highest levels than any other class and have tools to further accentuate that advantage in the form of Spell Blending or to take on more flexibility in Spell Substitution. Both theses are excellent in actual play. I think both Metamagic and Familiar specializations could use a little work but by all signs it appears we're getting some of that in the APG.
not sure where this idea that fighters can only do single target damage is coming from,. I feel people still think this is P1E. Martials now have the tools to be very versatile in and out combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
not sure where this idea that fighters can only do single target damage is coming from,. I feel people still think this is P1E. Martials now have the tools to be very versatile in and out combat.The Wizard is the PF2 version of the Medium - meh until level 19+, when all the bonus 10th level spells and the 20th level feats vault it ahead.I'm not waiting until 19th level. I'm going to wait for more books to come out and hope they make a wizard/sorcerer type focused on magic damage that doesn't require more than one target. I don't feel like playing a martial buff bot. I'll leave that to those that enjoy that style of play or make a bard when I want to buff the party.If your goal is to play a Wizard or Sorcerer that is competitive with Martial classes at single target damage I think you may need to adjust your expectations a little. Single target damage is only thing Fighters and Barbarians really do. They can specialize a little to pick up some combat control or mobility but fundamentally their one niche is dealing large amounts of damage to one enemy at a time.
If future spells allow Wizards to deal similar single target damage while still having all of the utility, buffing, control and general flexibility they currently possess it will really invalidate those other classes in play.
Spellcasting is flexible and very potent when used with a party in the current state of the game. Wizards have the particular feature of bringing to bear more spells of the highest levels than any other class and have tools to further accentuate that advantage in the form of Spell Blending or to take on more flexibility in Spell Substitution. Both theses are excellent in actual play. I think both Metamagic and Familiar specializations could use a little work but by all signs it appears we're getting some of that in the APG.
Skills are more potent than they were. Barbarians have feats that let them hit multiple targets, fire off a breath weapon, and fly. Then there is whirlwind attack. So this single target damage thing is over-rated.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that martials can only do single target damage, but they are better than casters at it. By a lot.
Meanwhile, casters are, with spells, generally better at most of the other stuff you're listing. Martials are capable of debuffing, but casters are usually better at it, they're capable of area effects, but casters are usually better at them, and so on.
Single-target damage gets talked about because it is the area where martials reign supreme. I disagree with EKruze that it's all they do, but as compared to a caster, it's the only offensive area in which they are flatly superior.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that martials can only do single target damage, but they are better than casters at it. By a lot.
Meanwhile, casters are, with spells, generally better at most of the other stuff you're listing. Martials are capable of debuffing, but casters are usually better at it, they're capable of area effects, but casters are usually better at them, and so on.
Single-target damage gets talked about because it is the area where martials reign supreme. I disagree with EKruze that it's all they do, but as compared to a caster, it's the only offensive area in which they are flatly superior.
The one area where casters are clearly better is buffing martials and debuffing creatures, though the wizard and sorcerer aren't even best at that.
I have to say this is one of the things I prefer about 5E. They had at least one caster that could deal equivalent magic damage to martials in the warlock. I hope PF2 adds in a magic damage dealer who is directly built to deal equivalent single target damage as martials using magic. I don't care if that class is highly specialized like martials, but I want that class option to exist. Maybe it will be the Magus or a war mage or something.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one area where casters are clearly better is buffing martials and debuffing creatures, though the wizard and sorcerer aren't even best at that.
This is just not true. Versus the vast majority of martials throughout most of the game, casters are better at area effect damage as well (indeed, the only build that comes close is a 16th level plus Barbarian with Whirlwind Attack and a reach weapon...and that version usually only on Giant Instinct), and they get utility spells which are a straight utility and non-combat advantage that's just superior to those of most non-Rogue martials as well (since everyone gets Skill Feats...they're behind some people in Perception, but spells make up for that). They're also, collectively, better at in-combat healing and flatly better at condition removal.
Now, that last one doesn't apply to Wizards, and you can argue that other Classes are better than Wizard at all the others if you like, but casters collectively are pretty obviously better than martials in several spheres that are not just 'buffing and debuffing'.
I have to say this is one of the things I prefer about 5E. They had at least one caster that could deal equivalent magic damage to martials in the warlock. I hope PF2 adds in a magic damage dealer who is directly built to deal equivalent single target damage as martials using magic. I don't care if that class is highly specialized like martials, but I want that class option to exist. Maybe it will be the Magus or a war mage or something.
I hope they are very careful doing anything close to this. A caster who sacrifices some of their spellcasting options to be able to burn spell slots and equal martial damage is a valid concept in PF2, but it needs to be handled very carefully lest it make martials obsolete.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is just not true. Versus the vast majority of martials throughout most of the game, casters are better at area effect damage as well (indeed, the only build that comes close is a 16th level plus Barbarian with Whirlwind Attack and a reach weapon...and that version usually only on Giant Instinct), and they get utility spells which are a straight utility and non-combat advantage that's just superior to those of most non-Rogue martials as well (since everyone gets Skill Feats...they're behind some people in Perception, but spells make up for that). They're also, collectively, better at in-combat healing and flatly better at condition removal.
Now, that last one doesn't apply to Wizards, and you can argue that other Classes are better than Wizard at all the others if you like, but casters collectively are pretty obviously better than martials in several spheres that are not just 'buffing and debuffing'.
AoE damage is pretty good as long as the monsters are spread out right, don't have immunity, don't succeed at their save, your allies aren't in the area of effect, and are you starting to see why this is rare? I have been able to use Phantasmal Calamity to maximum effect one time. When I did, it was great. Most of the time it is hard to set up for maximum effect.
The vast majority of damage is done by the martials. The best thing you can do is buff them and let them do their thing.
The best buffs you can give the martials to do their job is fly and haste if not a bard. I spend most of my spell slots casting haste and fly.
That's why when I hear Spell Versatility is the best, I wonder what they are using it for. Maybe they are replacing another 3rd and 4th level slot with haste and fly since they use it so often.
I hope they are very careful doing anything close to this. A caster who sacrifices some of their spellcasting options to be able to burn spell slots and equal martial damage is a valid concept in PF2, but it needs to be handled very carefully lest it make martials obsolete.
The warlock is a good example of how to build a very limited damage caster. The template is there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@EKruze
Bards and Sorcers both get a feat that let them add spells to their repertoir 1/day. And those feats allow a repertoir spell to become a signature spell.
Bards get a follow up feat that let them change a repertoir spell for another in their spellbook.
Druids get 5 Summon Spells compared to the Wizards 4.
Control Wise Druid has Entangle which has always and continues to be one of the best control spell and doesn't need heightening. While Bards have plenty of illusions which have always been good for controlling (if the GM didnt nerf illusions).
Clerics do have the worst spell list. However they are much better at their role having the most top level spells of any class. Getting bonuses to cast those spells. And having a lot of spells that act as buffs and debuffs.
******************
No matter how good the Arcane spell list is by itself. The problem is that Wizard package does not deliver on what it promised.
When a School Wizard is able to use their spells and actually feel meaningfull that is when the Wizard will have delivered. As it is right now they just dont.
Divine spell list sucks for damage. I used Divine Wrath, found it is one of the few AoE spells that doesn't do a critical double damage. Though it's critical fail effect is pretty good with sickened and slowed condition.
Best part of Divine Spell list for killing undead and fiends and healing or clearing conditions. Not much different from PF1 cleric. It is about what is expected.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
AoE damage is pretty good as long as the monsters are spread out right, don't have immunity, don't succeed at their save, your allies aren't in the area of effect, and are you starting to see why this is rare? I have been able to use Phantasmal Calamity to maximum effect one time. When I did, it was great. Most of the time it is hard to set up for maximum effect.
I think you'll find that other people's experiences with area effects differ quite a bit from yours. I've never seen my players have too much trouble using most area effects, just as one example. Of course, those characters weren't Bards.
Speaking of which, are you playing a Bard? You seemed to indicate you were earlier. Because they are a lot more limited in area effects than an Arcane caster is, which is also a factor. Arcane casters can have area effects with widely varying damage types, that effect all three Saves, and that because they are different spells have different areas of effect. That combines to remove a lot of the obstacles you speak of if you use them correctly, particularly since Reflex is the most common low Save, and the one Bards can't target.
Bards are great, and can do buffing a Wizard can't even touch, but that doesn't come without a price, and that price is being worse at some other categories of spell, like this one.
The vast majority of damage is done by the martials. The best thing you can do is buff them and let them do their thing.
Depends on your Class, and your specific spell choices, and the other party members.
The best buffs you can give the martials to do their job is fly and haste if not a bard. I spend most of my spell slots casting haste and fly.
That's the best some characters can do under some circumstances, it's not the best for all characters all the time by any means.
That's why when I hear Spell Versatility is the best, I wonder what they are using it for. Maybe they are replacing another 3rd and 4th level slot with haste and fly since they use it so often.
More max level debuffs, SoD, and area effect spells. All of which there are a number of really good ones of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you'll find that other people's experiences with area effects differ quite a bit from yours. I've never seen my players have too much trouble using most area effects, just as one example. Of course, those characters weren't Bards.
Speaking of which, are you playing a Bard? You seemed to indicate you were earlier. Because they are a lot more limited in area effects than an Arcane caster is, which is also a factor. Arcane casters can have area effects with widely varying damage types, that effect all three Saves, and that because they are different spells have different areas of effect. That combines to remove a lot of the obstacles you speak of if you use them correctly, particularly since Reflex is the most common low Save, and the one Bards can't target.
Bards are great, and can do buffing a Wizard can't even touch, but that doesn't come without a price, and that price is being worse at some other categories of spell, like this one.
Bards have phantasmal calamity and shadow blast. They get other AoE if they feel like it. I haven't found AoE effective, so don't stack for it. I prefer to have a mix of spells because winning is easier if I can buff the martials and toss in some AoE those few times when it is ideal.
Depends on your Class, and your specific spell choices, and the other party members.
I guess if you're in a party of Champions or sword and board fighters, then maybe your casters do equal damage.
If you're in a group with well-built archers, rogues, fighters, or barbarians, no chance at all of a caster matching them on damage. I'm bet you a good amount of money on it to show the clear data driven results. Not sure about the monk as I haven't seen them in play yet. I know with 100% certainty the rogue, combat-focused fighter, barbarian, and ranger substantially out damage any caster the majority of the time if built even with a half-way attempt to build them for good damage.
That's the best some characters can do under some circumstances, it's not the best for all characters all the time by any means.
Nothing is 100%. It's a very easy way to win against a great many things as flight, invis, and haste are some of the hardest effects to counter if used by an enemy.
That's not a surprise as that has been the case in D&D since those spells were introduced. Those three spells are three of the highest value spells across D&D since its beginnings.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bards have phantasmal calamity and shadow blast. They get other AoE if they feel like it. I haven't found AoE effective, so don't stack for it. I prefer to have a mix of spells because winning is easier if I can buff the martials and toss in some AoE those few times when it is ideal.
Phantasmal Calamity is 3d6 less than a heightened Cone of Cold, and averages 38.5 damage to Chain Lightning's 52. Similarly, Shadow Blast pays for its shaping versatility by being absolutely terrible damage, being 5d8 (average 22.5) to Cone of Cold's 12d6 (average 42).
A sorcerer with Elemental Blast will outdo a bard any day, being 28 damage at level 5 (vs Shadow Blast's 22.5), and 35 damage to Phantasmal Calamity's 38.5.
Bards are not good at AoE.
|
This is just not true. Versus the vast majority of martials throughout most of the game, casters are better at area effect damage as well (indeed, the only build that comes close is a 16th level plus Barbarian with Whirlwind Attack and a reach weapon...and that version usually only on Giant Instinct), and they get utility spells which are a straight utility and non-combat advantage that's just superior to those of most non-Rogue martials as well (since everyone gets Skill Feats...they're behind some people in Perception, but spells make up for that). They're also, collectively, better at in-combat healing and flatly better at condition removal.
Now, that last one doesn't apply to Wizards, and you can argue that other Classes are better than Wizard at all the others if you like, but casters collectively are pretty obviously better than martials in several spheres that are not just 'buffing and debuffing'.
AoE damage is pretty good as long as the monsters are spread out right, don't have immunity, don't succeed at their save, your allies aren't in the area of effect, and are you starting to see why this is rare? I have been able to use Phantasmal Calamity to maximum effect one time. When I did, it was great. Most of the time it is hard to set up for maximum effect.
The vast majority of damage is done by the martials. The best thing you can do is buff them and let them do their thing.
The best buffs you can give the martials to do their job is fly and haste if not a bard. I spend most of my spell slots casting haste and fly.
That's why when I hear Spell Versatility is the best, I wonder what they are using it for. Maybe they are replacing another 3rd and 4th level slot with haste and fly since they use it so often.
I disagree. Buffing is not always the best thing you can do. In fact, I have been in multiple cases where it was completely unnecessary. And in every single fight that my wizard got to act, he was putting out the same damage as martials in at least one round, as I mixed in debuffs, buffs, and utility when I thought they were necessary.
At the same time that the bard is getting Phantasmal Calamity, wizards are getting Chain Lightning for a more targeted approach, and personally my favorite spell for that level to blast. As EKruze mentioned, it is better to look at everything each class can do, not compare what you think is weak of one to the best features of another.
I hope they are very careful doing anything close to this. A caster who sacrifices some of their spellcasting options to be able to burn spell slots and equal martial damage is a valid concept in PF2, but it needs to be handled very carefully lest it make martials obsolete.The warlock is a good example of how to build a very limited damage caster. The template is there.
If you mean the 5e warlock, I really hope Paizo doesn't go with this idea, as the 5e warlock is just better than 5e martials. At most, I would like a magic user to be comparable to a bow martial. Otherwise, what would be the point of non-magical range?
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bards have phantasmal calamity and shadow blast. They get other AoE if they feel like it. I haven't found AoE effective, so don't stack for it. I prefer to have a mix of spells because winning is easier if I can buff the martials and toss in some AoE those few times when it is ideal.
As Cyouni notes, Bard AoE are not great compared to the options an Arcane or Primal caster can bring to bear in that regard. You haven't found AoE great because you're playing one of the least suited caster classes to using them and one of the most suited to buffing.
You are mistaking the strengths of the Bard (buffing and debuffing) for the strengths of casters as a whole. Other casters are better at other things, and worse at buffing.
I guess if you're in a party of Champions or sword and board fighters, then maybe your casters do equal damage.
Versus minion types a proper AoE caster will outshine martials quite a bit in terms of damage. Versus boss monsters they're probably gonna focus more on debuff effects, and their damage will shine a lot less.
If you're in a group with well-built archers, rogues, fighters, or barbarians, no chance at all of a caster matching them on damage. I'm bet you a good amount of money on it to show the clear data driven results. Not sure about the monk as I haven't seen them in play yet. I know with 100% certainty the rogue, combat-focused fighter, barbarian, and ranger substantially out damage any caster the majority of the time if built even with a half-way attempt to build them for good damage.
I mean, this whole conversational thread started with me saying that martials were flatly superior to casters at single target damage. Which they are. So...I'm not sure why you think I'll argue with this in general. In general, this is true.
AoE effects are an exception if you can hit multiple enemies, and I can show you that math if you want, but it's really pretty straightforward.
Nothing is 100%. It's a very easy way to win against a great many things as flight, invis, and haste are some of the hardest effects to counter if used by an enemy.
That's not a surprise as that has been the case in D&D since those spells were introduced. Those three spells are three of the highest value spells across D&D since its beginnings.
Buffs are absolutely a very effective strategy and nobody said otherwise. You seem to be arguing they are the only effective strategy, however, and that's just not correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're in a group with well-built archers, rogues, fighters, or barbarians, no chance at all of a caster matching them on damage. I'm bet you a good amount of money on it to show the clear data driven results. Not sure about the monk as I haven't seen them in play yet. I know with 100% certainty the rogue, combat-focused fighter, barbarian, and ranger substantially out damage any caster the majority of the time if built even with a half-way attempt to build them for good damage.
Considering that Magic Missile progresses every 2 levels, a Wizard can easily follow a martial single target damage using his 2 higher spell slots.
A few other spells compared to the same Barbarian against level -1 creatures with average stats.
Green: Barbarian.
Blue: Fireball/Burning Hands + Dangerous Sorcery on 3 targets.
Red: Lightning Bolt + Dangerous Sorcery on 2 targets.
Orange: True Striked Polar Ray (counting the Drained as hp loss) + Dangerous Sorcery.
Purple: Meteor Swarm + Dangerous Sorcery on a single creature centered on one meteor.
Level 19/20 are quite invalid as they consider the use of a level 10 spell slot.
Casting a Lightning Bolt on 2 targets is as hard as drawing a line between 2 points, especially if they are Large or bigger.
So for a caster to outdamage a martial the only thing he has to do is to achieve sustainability, which is another question. But the damage potential of a caster is clear.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we comparing disintegrate, an option which has a 120 ft range, to a martial's melee attack and expecting disintegrate to be better? Shouldn't we be comparing it to ranged attacks?
Furthermore, if casters' top level slots can outdo martials, then doesn't that mean when it matters (i.e. boss fights, the most pivotal points of the campaign where everyone should feel impactful) are dominated by casters, who can outdamage martials as there's no need to conserve resources against a boss?
As you can see, true strike disintegrate still falls behind, but this is just one tool in the caster's toolbox. If they want, they can prepare new spells tomorrow, or cast a different set of spells with those slots tomorrow. The fighter though? No such luck, they're locked into their ranged attack build for pretty much the rest of the game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, it seems like people are lumping battlefield control in with either general debuffing, or else direct damage. That seems like a big mistake, especially because it is where the wizard shines the most (followed by maybe the animal Druid). Battlefield control is where wizards bend reality into the party’s favor, which is very much their thematic niche, and where the ability to prepare different spells every day, even if you are choosing them from the same school, is most useful. And it can’t be done with cantrips at all so it really is dependent upon having as many spells as possible and isn’t dependent on only your top spell levels.
“I find it difficult in play to have the wizard do what I want it to do most of the time,” is a very valid criticism of the wizard because being stuck with the wrong spells ruins your whole adventuring day. It has also been a valid criticism of wizards since forever. PF1/3.5 only ever got around this, at higher levels, by giving magic the ability to bend the math so heavily that you could force what you want magic to do onto every situation. I for one don’t want that coming back.
“I find it difficult in play to have the wizard do what I want it to do most of the time,” is a very valid criticism of the wizard because being stuck with the wrong spells ruins your whole adventuring day. It has also been a valid criticism of wizards since forever. PF1/3.5 only ever got around this, at higher levels, by giving magic the ability to bend the math so heavily that you could force what you want magic to do onto every situation. I for one don’t want that coming back.
In my opinion, it's an outdated state of mind. The "right spell for the job" was something in PF1, because a single spell was able to turn the tide of battle.
In PF2 it's not enough as Deriven showed with his Fireball. If you cast the "right spell for the job" and then a cantrip the following turn you have basically wasted a spell slot.PF2 works like Starfinder for me: You have to cast spells after spells to keep up with martials efficiency. And if you do that you actually overperforms compared to martials in dire situations (as you can unload your higher spell slots in that case).
As a side note, a Wizard's 2nd highest level spell slots have the same efficiency than a martial round of attacking (here are 2 comparison graphs with a Dragon Barbarian: Magic Missile on the second higher spell slot and Lightning Bolt on 2 enemies on the second higher spell slot). That's the efficiency to aim for in combat.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asking for Wizards and casters to be able to sustain to 'keep up' with Martials is ignoring that they give up 'sustain' in order to warp reality on a whim.
If a caster can 'keep up' with a martial for an entire adventuring day, but also has the potential to Teleport on demand, then they aren't balanced with martial characters. They're flat superior.
The current target of "Better at AOE and other combat tricks, able to keep up but not for long in some other areas" seems to be where balance lies.
Bards being able to go forever is not actually balance - a well played Bard will be the dominant member of any party, forever, because of how compositions are designed.
Bard's are game warpingly powerful in any party that benefits from them. If all casters were as powerful as Bards, we'd be back where we were last edition with casters being unquestionably dominant. If Bards don't get reigned in, it will only be because they're support focused and let their party members do all the show stealing - and especially the martially focused ones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asking for Wizards and casters to be able to sustain to 'keep up' with Martials is ignoring that they give up 'sustain' in order to warp reality on a whim.
Casters warp reality on a whim, martials warp reality on a whim, everybody warps.
Truth is:- Casters don't warp anything before high levels.
- Casters pay for their high level power by being bad at low level.
- Casters pay for their versatility by being quite fragile.
And they don't give up sustain at all. I've played sustainable casters enough to know it's just a false limitation, like the opposition schools. If you properly build and equip your caster he will last as much as martials.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Asking for Wizards and casters to be able to sustain to 'keep up' with Martials is ignoring that they give up 'sustain' in order to warp reality on a whim.Casters warp reality on a whim, martials warp reality on a whim, everybody warps.
Truth is:
- Casters don't warp anything before high levels.
- Casters pay for their high level power by being bad at low level.
- Casters pay for their versatility by being quite fragile.And they don't give up sustain at all. I've played sustainable casters enough to know it's just a false limitation, like the opposition schools. If you properly build and equip your caster he will last as much as martials.
I may have misrepresented in general, that as far as sustainability goes, I am content with the current state of affairs. What I am afraid of is the 5E Warlock, who can go forever at full blast - I do not agree the design of that class is great.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards don't have a damage problem. Wizard have a vancian spell problem. They have the best spell list, but it's a differnt spell list than it was in P1E. In pathfinder 1e at ever spell level there were spells that were designed to broadly they had innumerable applications, summoning spells, battlefield terrain control spells, long duration spells.
Those spells have either been largely eliminated (battlefield terrain control spells) or significantly reigned in summoning spells or had their. durations significantly shorted.
The issue now is then, is that most spells have specific applications where there are good. this forces wizards into either of two unsatisfactory playstyles, keep picking the same 2 kinda ok general spells or just guess.
The simple fact is that wizards unlike every other spell casting class do not have the ability to properly leverage their spelllist, giving them arcanist spell casting would easily solve the issue without affecting game balance.
Even though the survey was somewhat flawed, i was nevertheless flabbergasted that my fellow players voted overwhelming to keep the vancian spell system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like Vancian spell system, but I dislike Arcanist spell system even more. It's still Vancian in its basis, but it just makes Wizard a different Sorcerer. In fact, with Arcane Sorcerer and the spellbook feat, you are basically there.
Personally, I would've preferred they moved off the spell slots all together, but hey, that ship sailed long ago.
So, we work with what we have.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue now is then, is that most spells have specific applications where there are good. this forces wizards into either of two unsatisfactory playstyles, keep picking the same 2 kinda ok general spells or just guess.
I completely agree.
Wizards and Sorcerers have switched their specialty between PF1 and PF2. Now, Sorcerers are the versatile casters and Wizards are the specialized ones. A Sorcerer can easily take a few spells with very limited applications without suffering in terms of overall efficiency. Wizards, on the other hand, either need to know for sure what they are up against or take very general spells on their higher slots to be sure they'll be able to use them always. Otherwise, you end up using one spell before switching to cantrips, which is very ineffective for a playstyle.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As you can see, true strike disintegrate still falls behind, but this is just one tool in the caster's toolbox.
So basically... this one option kinda sucks but that doesn't matter because you can just not do it and cast different spells?
Isn't that basically just "trap options are good for the game" in a new packaging?
If a caster can 'keep up' with a martial for an entire adventuring day, but also has the potential to Teleport on demand, then they aren't balanced with martial characters. They're flat superior.
I see this argument a lot, but one obvious thing it seems to miss is that if the Wizard is spending all of their slots trying to keep up with the martial, they aren't going to be teleporting anywhere, because they've spent all their resources trying to be better at dealing damage. If they start spending slots on those fancy reality bending high level spells you're talking about, then they aren't using them to kill enemies and their damage output goes down.
I see this argument a lot, but one obvious thing it seems to miss is that if the Wizard is spending all of their slots trying to keep up with the martial, they aren't going to be teleporting anywhere, because they've spent all their resources trying to be better at dealing damage. If they start spending slots on those fancy reality bending high level spells you're talking about, then they aren't using them to kill enemies and their damage output goes down.
The number of times the Wizard doesn't know in the morning an outline of what theyre likely to need that day is overrepresented.
The current setup for Wizard can generally come up with a flexible spell list that brings enough high level offense with a touch of emergency utility that theyre in a good place, with the option to Bonded Item something if they need to play a trump card twice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that basically just "trap options are good for the game" in a new packaging?No.
There is a difference between options that don't do what they appear to do, and options which do what they appear to do but are designed with a particular methodology that says how many different things you could choose to be doing, especially if any of those aren't things another type of character can choose to do, directly affects how good you can be at any one of those things.
So, for a vague example:
If class I can do thing A, thing B, and thing C, and class II can do thing A, thing B, thing C, Thing D, and Thing E, then class I must be able to be better at whichever thing they choose to focus on than class II can be if they focus on the same thing or class II is unquestionably superior.
Analogy for illustration:
If you've got a hammer, and you've also got a hammer with a built-in and accurate level - you've got one tool that is unquestionably better than the other unless the hammer w/level isn't as good at hammering.
Also to add to this, not-optimal isn't the same as "trap"
Trap options in 3.5/4e/pf1e are practically nonfunctional, require a massive investment for no pay off, or are directly harmful to you.
"I do somewhat less damage than a fully optimized fighter or w/e" is way north of trap, in the old MWAO Guide rating system it would be Black to Dark Blue (Decent to Good), the strongest contenders would be Sky Blue to Gold (Great to Mandatory), and a proper trap option would be Red to Purple (Garbage to Poor)
I would argue that as a whole Wizards (and other spellcasters honestly) are Black to Dark Blue on Single Target Damage (True Strike access and usage might be the difference.) Whereas a Fighter (and other Martials)is probably a proper sky blue, it honestly seems like the game has cut down majorly on the Red to Purple end of the scale, helped in part by the feat silos making combat feats and non combat feats not really compete, the amount of weight your base class features pull, and the game's tight math system.
Hell even the spells you probably wouldn't want to take are Green (Varies too much situation-ally/by campaign to rate) because they just fit into narrow situations that might be really important, or never come up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except spellcasters can definitely equal martials in damage by the time you hit 11th level if you build them right. Arcane spellcasters and crossblood evolution sorcerers have access to true strike disintegrate at that level. A thief racket rogue of the same level with Precise Debilitation and a +2 striking rapier does 5d6+7 per hit for an average of 27.5 dmg. The...This is just not true. Versus the vast majority of martials throughout most of the game, casters are better at area effect damage as well (indeed, the only build that comes close is a 16th level plus Barbarian with Whirlwind Attack and a reach weapon...and that version usually only on Giant Instinct), and they get utility spells which are a straight utility and non-combat advantage that's just superior to those of most non-Rogue martials as well (since everyone gets Skill Feats...they're behind some people in Perception, but spells make up for that). They're also, collectively, better at in-combat healing and flatly better at condition removal.
Now, that last one doesn't apply to Wizards, and you can argue that other Classes are better than Wizard at all the others if you like, but casters collectively are pretty obviously better than martials in several spheres that are not just 'buffing and debuffing'.
AoE damage is pretty good as long as the monsters are spread out right, don't have immunity, don't succeed at their save, your allies aren't in the area of effect, and are you starting to see why this is rare? I have been able to use Phantasmal Calamity to maximum effect one time. When I did, it was great. Most of the time it is hard to set up for maximum effect.
The vast majority of damage is done by the martials. The best thing you can do is buff them and let them do their thing.
The best buffs you can give the martials to do their job is fly and haste if not a bard. I spend most of my spell slots casting haste and fly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except spellcasters can definitely equal martials in damage by the time you hit 11th level if you build them right. Arcane spellcasters and crossblood evolution sorcerers have access to true strike disintegrate at that level. A thief racket rogue of the same level with Precise Debilitation and a +2 striking rapier does 5d6+7 per hit for an average of 27.5 dmg. The...This is just not true. Versus the vast majority of martials throughout most of the game, casters are better at area effect damage as well (indeed, the only build that comes close is a 16th level plus Barbarian with Whirlwind Attack and a reach weapon...and that version usually only on Giant Instinct), and they get utility spells which are a straight utility and non-combat advantage that's just superior to those of most non-Rogue martials as well (since everyone gets Skill Feats...they're behind some people in Perception, but spells make up for that). They're also, collectively, better at in-combat healing and flatly better at condition removal.
Now, that last one doesn't apply to Wizards, and you can argue that other Classes are better than Wizard at all the others if you like, but casters collectively are pretty obviously better than martials in several spheres that are not just 'buffing and debuffing'.
AoE damage is pretty good as long as the monsters are spread out right, don't have immunity, don't succeed at their save, your allies aren't in the area of effect, and are you starting to see why this is rare? I have been able to use Phantasmal Calamity to maximum effect one time. When I did, it was great. Most of the time it is hard to set up for maximum effect.
The vast majority of damage is done by the martials. The best thing you can do is buff them and let them do their thing.
The best buffs you can give the martials to do their job is fly and haste if not a bard. I spend most of my spell slots casting haste and fly.
We shall see soon enough. Another player has decided to play a wizard to see if he can make it to the magical higher levels where this all changes. I've only been able to make it to level 8 on a damage caster before giving up.
Between critical hits and better to hit chances, the martials have been greatly outperforming any caster except the druid, bard,and cleric for different reasons.
I'm still waiting to see these numbers on someone other than an enemy caster with higher DCs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's some more math. One of the biggest complaints I'm seeing is spellcasters can't do diddly squat against boss-lvl threats. Let's take the above scenario with the 11th lvl spellcaster and the 11th lvl martial facing off against a 14th lvl boss. Now according to analysis done in another thread, the most common AC and Fort save numbers would fall under the high category for an AC of 36 and a +28 Fort. Most martials (except fighters) will have a +22 to hit with a 20 in Str/Dex and a +2 striking weapon. So their first attack roll needs a 14 to hit which is a 35% chance. Second attack roll would require a 19 without agile/flurry for a 10% to hit. Third attack roll isn't even worth bothering with, you're likely going to have a more useful action to take. Even the second attack roll is questionable, and it would be much more worthwhile to use a 2-action attack feat like Power Attack.
So assuming you attempt to strike twice, then the odds of hitting one of them as a non-fighter martial are 38%. For the thief racket rogue, it would probably be 39.5% since they're likely using an agile weapon for their second attack. Meanwhile the odds of a true strike disintegrate hitting against the same AC is 37.5% because the caster only has a +20 to their spell attack roll, requiring a 16 or higher on the die (no magic item bonus). Seems like everyone's in the same ballpark. The Fort save DC for the disintegrate will be 30, so the boss's average roll will succeed but not crit succeed. So the non-fighter martial if they land one attack is outputting 30 dmg for the barb and 27.5 dmg as a rogue while the arcane spellcaster is doing 33 dmg. The sorcerer with Dangerous Sorcery fares slightly better with 36 dmg. There's a 3.5% for the barb to land two attacks, a 5.25% for the rogue to land two attacks, and a 5% chance for the boss to crit fail his Fort save. Both the martials and casters have a 9.5% chance of critting with two attack rolls. While the arcane spellcaster is certainly competitive in terms of damage in this scenario,...
More theory-craft which doesn't emulate the experience in games. I would rather see damage tracked in a party over the course of an entire module to see where casters stand or even multiple boss fights against level +2 or +3 creatures. That is the data I want to see. Not theory-craft.
With martials using flanks, item bonuses, and caster buffing, they benefit far more than casters benefit.
In PF1 casters could attack some creature weak point like Touch AC or make someone flat-footed losing their dex, which balanced out lower attack rolls. Now they have lower attack rolls with nothing to balance it out. No item bonuses and no flanking. Just a lower attack roll with ACs of monsters much higher for two action attacks don't do much damage with a higher chance of failure in a round to relying on a single roll.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asking for Wizards and casters to be able to sustain to 'keep up' with Martials is ignoring that they give up 'sustain' in order to warp reality on a whim.
If a caster can 'keep up' with a martial for an entire adventuring day, but also has the potential to Teleport on demand, then they aren't balanced with martial characters. They're flat superior.
The current target of "Better at AOE and other combat tricks, able to keep up but not for long in some other areas" seems to be where balance lies.
Bards being able to go forever is not actually balance - a well played Bard will be the dominant member of any party, forever, because of how compositions are designed.
Bard's are game warpingly powerful in any party that benefits from them. If all casters were as powerful as Bards, we'd be back where we were last edition with casters being unquestionably dominant. If Bards don't get reigned in, it will only be because they're support focused and let their party members do all the show stealing - and especially the martially focused ones.
Exactly. Bards are built better than wizards or sorcerers. That's all us wizard people would like.
The casting is not the main problem unless for some reason PF2 game designers thinks that all wizards should be able to do. It's about making the wizard extra abilities and feats worthwhile if magic isn't going to be as potent as it was. Then give the wizard magical ways to do something that is as effective as the bard, druid, and cleric, but that thematically fits them.
From a pure casting perspective, most of the other classes are equally ineffective launching their reality warping spells, but at least they have focus spells, feats, and powers that make up for the fast magic is very "meh" this edition.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't feel like it's too surprising people who think 2E magic sucks would consider the class with the most magic at the expense of everything else to also suck.
|
|
As you can see, true strike disintegrate still falls behind, but this is just one tool in the caster's toolbox.So basically... this one option kinda sucks but that doesn't matter because you can just not do it and cast different spells?
Isn't that basically just "trap options are good for the game" in a new packaging?
I agree. Disintegrate is absolutely terrible. I would never pick the spell for my list. In actual play, a creature used disintegrate against my character and hit, but because I rolled critical success on the fortitude save, I did not receive any damage. Disintegrate is written so that there are two chances to avoid damage opposed to only one.
I think the better comparison would be chain lightning or phantasmal killer, which have lower average damage, but better odds.
If a caster can 'keep up' with a martial for an entire adventuring day, but also has the potential to Teleport on demand, then they aren't balanced with martial characters. They're flat superior.I see this argument a lot, but one obvious thing it seems to miss is that if the Wizard is spending all of their slots trying to keep up with the martial, they aren't going to be teleporting anywhere, because they've spent all their resources trying to be better at dealing damage. If they start spending slots on those fancy reality bending high level spells you're talking about, then they aren't using them to kill enemies and their damage output goes down.
Wizards don't have to spend all their resources trying to keep up. Between spell slots, staffs, and rings (some being wizard exclusive) wizards have more than enough spells to keep up with damage as well as bend reality, at least by the time they have teleport. That is not even including consumables.
Here's some more math. One of the biggest complaints I'm seeing is spellcasters can't do diddly squat against boss-lvl threats. Let's ...More theory-craft which doesn't emulate the experience in games. I would rather see damage tracked in a party over the course of an entire module to see where casters stand or even multiple boss fights against level +2 or +3 creatures. That is the data I want to see. Not theory-craft.
With martials using flanks, item bonuses, and caster buffing, they benefit far more than casters benefit.
In PF1 casters could attack some creature weak point like Touch AC or make someone flat-footed losing their dex, which balanced out lower attack rolls. Now they have lower attack rolls with nothing to balance it out. No item bonuses and no flanking. Just a lower attack roll with ACs of monsters much higher for two action attacks don't do much damage with a higher chance of failure in a round to relying on a single roll.
I've already pointed out that it is quite easy keeping up with the damage of martials, at least non-fighter martials against boss enemies. Devilbunny what I consider the worst spell to use against boss creatures at higher levels; as (s)he pointed out, fortitude and AC are usually high, which would make a will or reflex save DC damaging spell a better choice.
I don't like Vancian spell system, but I dislike Arcanist spell system even more. It's still Vancian in its basis, but it just makes Wizard a different Sorcerer. In fact, with Arcane Sorcerer and the spellbook feat, you are basically there.
Personally, I would've preferred they moved off the spell slots all together, but hey, that ship sailed long ago.
So, we work with what we have.
I don't disagree, I thought dreamscarred implementation of psionics was incredibly and could have been ported over to be the new magic system easily but they chose to keep spell slots. the short comings of the arcanist system they might be, it works a lot better than the vanacian systems for the current wizard spell list.