Are Casters Behind the Curve Now?

[Ubertron_X]

ikarinokami wrote:

Trutfully pound for pound blasting is way better in pathfinder 2E vs 1e.

1. if you look through the monster manual you will that creatures with elemental immunities are quite rare.
2. almost all monsters have a weak save that is significantly lower
3. i would say most blast spells esp the AOE's were outright buffed from 1E.

the Key to being a good blaster in P2E is making sure you are targeting the right save.

What was definitely buffed is monster blasting. Artificially increased monster spellcasting DC and the new critical rules make my Warpriests life miserable whenever enemy AoE is involved.

In the old edition I would have said: "Yeah, failed my save, 21 damage fireball, what gives", whereas in the new edition I am more often than not looking at 42 damage from exactly the same spell. And on level5 this level of damage really, really hurts.

Made me pick up canny acumen (reflex) real fast...

Player AoE blasting was behind expectation so far, mainly because of the lower DC in comparison to monster casters and really good rolls by our GM.

[Henro]

Another reason AoE blasting can feel so deadly in the hands of monsters is the fact that PCs very often outnumber the enemies. It's not that uncommon to be up against 1 strong foe and 1 or 2 underlings, and sometimes the enemy is a solo, even. But the PCs are always 4 (or whatever number of players you have) so AoE is always going to be good against them.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

ikarinokami wrote:

Trutfully pound for pound blasting is way better in pathfinder 2E vs 1e.

I cannot agree with that, if you are talking CRB I guess. But There are so many ways to boost your blasting in PF1e that while it was still the weakest caster avenue to go down it was still super powerful.

You don't even have to go to the silly broken stuff like sacred geometry.

[pauljathome]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

I can only imagine what getting near-unlimited access to it (as a Focus spell instead of having to use one of my top slots on it) would bring.

It's great. My highest level PFS characters are a L7 cleric with wild shape and a level 5 druid. Both get at least some value out of wild shape or pest form pretty close to every scenario. Sometimes it's a cheap way to preserve spells in an easyish encounter, sometimes as you say it's the movement of sensory or disguise possibilities that can be great out of combat. Pest form is actually useful from time to time.

Man,is a druid archetype useful for a druid if you don't want to be just a healbot.

[Thomas5251212]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Saedar wrote:

Habbledgrin wrote:

Again, sharing recognition of achievement around the table is going to help your games out. Highlighting a "That attack is a critical hit because of the bless spell" or a "That positive energy damage from Disrupting Weapons is really doing a number on these guys" can really provide a sense of accomplishment to characters who are supporting in that capacity.

This is important. Whenever our Bard's songs help us finish an enemy or avoid a dangerous attack, we hype her all to hell.

It's nice that you do that, but bards know how badass they are just as do clerics. When you're pumping everyone's damage, attack rolls, saves, AC, and giving them physical resistance to damage every round, they know it. Just as they know when you get back a 100 hit points. Cleric and bard can be boring, but they are very powerful with unique and useful abilities.

Actually, as mentioned in this thread they often don't know it (at least on an emotional level); that's part of the problem, it can often feel like the enhancements they provide are kind of invisible (particularly things that manipulate attack or AC, because though the effect for small numbers is much bigger than it seems, the numbers are still small. Emphasizing when those actually mattered can make it all feel worthwhile.

Part of the problem is that a lot of people really focus on single-target take-outs, which is the thing PF2e spellcasters are the worst at; as such emphasizing the real differences they make in other areas can help mitigate this feeling.

(Well, at least those who don't insist on comparing them to PF1e spellcasters; I don't think anything is going to make them happy.)

[pauljathome]

ikarinokami wrote:

the Key to being a good blaster in P2E is making sure you are targeting the creatures weakest save.

Unfortunately, other than cheating by metagaming there is no truly reliable way of knowing what a monsters worst save is.

Oh you can often guess. But what information you get on knowledge checks is very, very undefined and up to the GM.

[Thomas5251212]

Unicore wrote:

I think a lot of people's complaints about casters right now is that everyone wants to play a big damage martial and expect someone else to play a cleric and a bard so that they can stay on their feet and roll the attack dice over and over again.

This is the issue, of course; even if casters are useful in terms of group damage delivery, buffing and some terrain control, if a lot of people are focused on single target delivery, its still a problem even if you think (as I do) that likely the caster power level is where it should be compared to martials.

If anything, its a bigger problem, since the game seems like it really wants group support to be part of a properly built party, so if no one wants to play them because they see them as boring--well, that's an issue.

(Honesty here: I tend to prefer martials generally myself, and found it quite disappointing in 3e D&D and (by implication) in PF 1e how often they could come across as just buying some spellcasting types time to do their stuff. But I also played a cleric in D&D 4e who primarily spent time augmenting other people operating effectively as her main thing. D&D derivatives really aren't designed great for groups where no one wants to do that kind of thing).

[Gorignak227]

pauljathome wrote:

Unfortunately, other than cheating by metagaming there is no truly reliable way of knowing what a monsters worst save is.

Oh you can often guess. But what information you get on knowledge checks is very, very undefined and up to the GM.

Just to double check is @Pauljathome correct on this?

I definitely don't know PF2 like i knew 1st so wonder how most GMs handle the Recall Knowledge (and other ways to get the weak save?).

Everyone seems to be implying that knowing and being able to target the worst save is easy (on a recall knowledge?) and usually part of the base calculations so to speak.

[SuperBidi]

Gorignak227 wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

Unfortunately, other than cheating by metagaming there is no truly reliable way of knowing what a monsters worst save is.

Oh you can often guess. But what information you get on knowledge checks is very, very undefined and up to the GM.

Just to double check is @Pauljathome correct on this?

I definitely don't know PF2 like i knew 1st so wonder how most GMs handle the Recall Knowledge (and other ways to get the weak save?).

Everyone seems to be implying that knowing and being able to target the worst save is easy (on a recall knowledge?) and usually part of the base calculations so to speak.

What is easy is to avoid the monster's highest saves.

For the lowest save, it's a bit more complicated. If you know the game well, you can guess with 70% chance of success, roughly. If you don't know the game well, you'll be closer to 50%.
Now, is "knowing the game well" metagaming? That's an entirely different question.

[Thomas5251212]

I'd certainly be surprised if Recall Knowledge couldn't give a PC an idea of what sort of things a monster is good at resisting/avoiding and what not.

[Bast L.]

Gorignak227 wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

Unfortunately, other than cheating by metagaming there is no truly reliable way of knowing what a monsters worst save is.

Oh you can often guess. But what information you get on knowledge checks is very, very undefined and up to the GM.

Just to double check is @Pauljathome correct on this?

I definitely don't know PF2 like i knew 1st so wonder how most GMs handle the Recall Knowledge (and other ways to get the weak save?).

Everyone seems to be implying that knowing and being able to target the worst save is easy (on a recall knowledge?) and usually part of the base calculations so to speak.

Under creature identification, page 506, it says "one of its best-known attributes—such as a troll’s regeneration (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore’s tail spikes."

I hardly think "it has a low fort save" would qualify. Most creatures have some kind of special ability, even if they are slow, or weak-willed.

However, with good descriptions, the player could probably guess sometimes. "The creature shambles towards you, stumbling as it goes," or "the dead-eyed monster stares past you as it makes a wild swing."

[SuperBidi]

Bast L. wrote:

However, with good descriptions, the player could probably guess sometimes. "The creature shambles towards you, stumbling as it goes," or "the dead-eyed monster stares past you as it makes a wild swing."

You don't need a good description. A simple picture of the monster is in general enough. Someone made a test on this forum, giving a few monster names and first line of description and asking people to guess the worst saves. People were guessing right at 70%, always avoiding the best save. So it's pretty easy to know what is a monster's worst save.

[pauljathome]

SuperBidi wrote:

Bast L. wrote:

However, with good descriptions, the player could probably guess sometimes. "The creature shambles towards you, stumbling as it goes," or "the dead-eyed monster stares past you as it makes a wild swing."

You don't need a good description. A simple picture of the monster is in general enough. Someone made a test on this forum, giving a few monster names and first line of description and asking people to guess the worst saves. People were guessing right at 70%, always avoiding the best save. So it's pretty easy to know what is a monster's worst save.

Being able to guess a monsters worst save just from the name sounds at the very least very close to metagaming to me.

Now, a good argument can be made that characters in world would (or, at least, should) know a lot more than their characters knowledge skills indicate. As an example, I've always thought "fleshy undead, slashing weapon. Bony undead,bashing weapon" is NOT metagaming. But I've had others disagree with that.

But how effective this technique is will vary a lot from group to group.

[NemoNoName]

Gorignak227 wrote:

Just to double check is @Pauljathome correct on this?

I definitely don't know PF2 like i knew 1st so wonder how most GMs handle the Recall Knowledge (and other ways to get the weak save?).

Everyone seems to be implying that knowing and being able to target the worst save is easy (on a recall knowledge?) and usually part of the base calculations so to speak.

It's not everyone who implies it, just the people who also somehow always have the right spell prepared.

[First World Bard]

Yeah, knowing which is the weakest save is more the domain of Battle Assessment (Rogue 4). I might give it on a crit success for a knowledge check, maybe.
Edit: I feel like I’d be more willing to give a creature’s strongest save as a piece of information on a regular Recall Knowledge.

[KrispyXIV]

A consistent theme in PF2 is that the system works assuming the players are making informed decisions.

If casters struggle because you're making it difficult for them to choose the correct save to target, maybe its not the system that is broken.

The numbers support the idea that things are balanced for casters when they target weak saves, so I'm going to assume that the design is such that determining weak saves isn't supposed to be difficult or restrictive.

And since withholding save info unreasonably favors veteran players who already know the information over new players, its pretty safe to assume that with PF2s focus on inclusivity and accessibility that there shouldn't be significant hurdles to learning basic information.

Short Version - Withholding save info on Recall Knowledge checks causes the systems math to struggle, which is an indication that this information probably isn't supposed to be withheld.

[SuperBidi]

pauljathome wrote:

Being able to guess a monsters worst save just from the name sounds at the very least very close to metagaming to me.

Triceratops, lich, kobold sorcerer, leopard... Is it metagaming to determine their worst save from their name?

Finding the lowest save is relatively easy. Avoiding the highest save is trivial.

[Temperans]

KrispyXIV wrote:

A consistent theme in PF2 is that the system works assuming the players are making informed decisions.

If casters struggle because you're making it difficult for them to choose the correct save to target, maybe its not the system that is broken.

The numbers support the idea that things are balanced for casters when they target weak saves, so I'm going to assume that the design is such that determining weak saves isn't supposed to be difficult or restrictive.

And since withholding save info unreasonably favors veteran players who already know the information over new players, its pretty safe to assume that with PF2s focus on inclusivity and accessibility that there shouldn't be significant hurdles to learning basic information.

Short Version - Withholding save info on Recall Knowledge checks causes the systems math to struggle, which is an indication that this information probably isn't supposed to be withheld.

The fact that the system works better when the players know what they are fighting and what their save is, does not diminish the fact that the game makes it hard for players to know that info.

It is hard to find out what encounters you will fight, so you have to prepare a bunch if different spells even if that is not the caster you want to be. Recall knowledge is worded in a super vague way that heavily implies you dont get save information. And even if you have all that knowledge, you have no idea how many fights you will have in any given day.

Its not that 1 part is hard, its that there are many parts making the quality of life for casters bad. Like how they never really get action economy fixes until like level 16, and only for concentration spells.

[Staffan Johansson]

pauljathome wrote:

It's great. My highest level PFS characters are a L7 cleric with wild shape and a level 5 druid.

As a side note, multi-class wild shape will likely stop being a strong move at around level 10. Sure, wild shape auto-scales since it's a focus spell, but Animal Form stops scaling at spell level 5. In order to get stronger forms you need to pick up feats, and the maximum level for a class feat picked up via multi-classing is level/2. And that's not enough to keep up with the spell levels needed.

I can't help but wonder if that might be the reason the Wild druid is so feat-based, to keep martials (and particularly fighters) from combining Wild Shape with their high-level attack proficiencies.

[thenobledrake]

Gorignak227 wrote:

Just to double check is @Pauljathome correct on this?

Not even a little bit when it comes down to principal or motivation behind what was said.

It's not "cheating" for a player to believe that their character can get a rough idea of which save is likely to be the best for a creature and which is likely to be the worst - they might not always have the right kind of spell to capitalize on it, but the idea that the player is doing something against the rules by interpreting the GM's description of a typical ogre as 'probably high fort, probably low reflex, and will might not be too hot either' is completely bankrupt.

May as well call it "cheating by metagaming" for a player to think an axe blade is made out of steel if the GM says "this creature has an axe."

[pauljathome]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Short Version - Withholding save info on Recall Knowledge checks causes the systems math to struggle, which is an indication that this information probably isn't supposed to be withheld.

I definitely agree with you. Unfortunately, not all GMs do.

I think that this is an area that could benefit from some official guidance.

[pauljathome]

SuperBidi wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

Being able to guess a monsters worst save just from the name sounds at the very least very close to metagaming to me.

Triceratops, lich, kobold sorcerer, leopard... Is it metagaming to determine their worst save from their name?

Finding the lowest save is relatively easy. Avoiding the highest save is trivial.

A strong argument can be made that, RAW, the answer is

"Make a recall knowledge to see what your CHARACTER knows about a Triceratops, lich, leopard, etc". Don't forget that on Golarion books and movies are NOT readily available. Why the heck would somebody in The Land of the Linnorn Kings have ANY clue whatsoever what a leopard is?

The argument continues with positing that acting on anything other than the result of that recall knowledge is metagaming.

Personally, I
1) Think that using player knowledge is arguably metagaming. Its right on the border and so whether or not it is largely depends on definitions being used.
2) The game pretty much assumes and relies on SOME amount of this use of player knowledge. How much is the "correct" use of this player knowledge is very much NOT universally agreed. To be clear, I fully and totally support SOME level of use of this player knowledge. I've also seen players who have memorized the Bestiary and, in my opinion, have absolutely crossed the line into cheating via metaknowledge.

But this is very much one of the reasons that experienced players do better than inexperienced players. They have HUGE amounts of meta knowledge available and some of it is SO ingrained that the players don't even know they're using it or (like me) think that some use of this knowledge is a GOOD thing.

[pauljathome]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

It's great. My highest level PFS characters are a L7 cleric with wild shape and a level 5 druid.

As a side note, multi-class wild shape will likely stop being a strong move at around level 10. Sure, wild shape auto-scales since it's a focus spell, but Animal Form stops scaling at spell level 5. In order to get stronger forms you need to pick up feats, and the maximum level for a class feat picked up via multi-classing is level/2. And that's not enough to keep up with the spell levels needed.

I can't help but wonder if that might be the reason the Wild druid is so feat-based, to keep martials (and particularly fighters) from combining Wild Shape with their high-level attack proficiencies.

Agreed, its utility in combat definitely decreases at higher levels (I'm seeing this in the game that I'm GMing). And at higher levels it becomes much easier to get the out of combat utility with magic items, high level feats, spells, etc.

Fortunately for me the cleric is in PFS :-). I don't expect to hit level 10 or 11 for at least a couple of years :-) :-).

Seriously, though, at some point I'll probably retrain at least one of the feats. Primal cantrips and spells are still useful as is access to things like a 2nd level wand of longstrider.

[HammerJack]

Depends.

A character guessing a high fort save from the name "triceratops" without having seen or heard of one before would be metaknowledge, sure. A character guessing a strong fortitude save from the size of the triceratops that is in front if them isn't. So in that case, there's no reasonable argument that there is an unacceptable use of metaknowledge.

If there was something like "the one with 4 horns instead of 3 is intelligent and has a high will save" that didn't have outward visible signs, that would be a different matter.

[ikarinokami]

pauljathome wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

the Key to being a good blaster in P2E is making sure you are targeting the creatures weakest save.

Unfortunately, other than cheating by metagaming there is no truly reliable way of knowing what a monsters worst save is.

Oh you can often guess. But what information you get on knowledge checks is very, very undefined and up to the GM.

I don't agree with this. Monsters for the most part are designed with common sense. big strong things have good fort saves, sleek things have good reflex saves.

I don't think as a blaster you need to metagame, just using common sense we would ascribe to any fantasy character will be enough the vast majority of the time.

You don't need to know the name of the monster, but your GM does need to give a good description of monster.

when im playing my druid, I always ask for information my druid would be looking for, how does the monster move, how is it built, does it move like a cat or is it more lumbering, what size is it, what color, does the monster look like any other common type of monster, and then i make an educated guess.

[Corwin Icewolf]

HammerJack wrote:

Depends.

A character guessing a high fort save from the name "triceratops" without having seen or heard of one before would be metaknowledge, sure. A character guessing a strong fortitude save from the size of the triceratops that is in front if them isn't. So in that case, there's no reasonable argument that there is an unacceptable use of metaknowledge.

If there was something like "the one with 4 horns instead of 3 is intelligent and has a high will save" that didn't have outward visible signs, that would be a different matter.

It's going to be a gray area in general because everyone has a different threshold for what metagaming is. I don't think guessing that the big lumbering thing has a low reflex save is metagaming, nor do I think an 11 or higher int character realizing that bones are easier to break than cut is metagaming. But I've known gms who argue that it is.

I also once read an article once that suggested metagaming wasn't real on the grounds that your knowledge influences your actions in game whether you want it to or not.

I don't know if I agree, but it brought up trolls' fire weakness, and basically asked how many useless actions you have to take before you're allowed to use fire. I believe it also suggested giving trolls caster friends that cast fire resistance on them if you have to, rather than yelling at players for metagaming.

[thenobledrake]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

I also once read an article once that suggested metagaming wasn't real on the grounds that your knowledge influences your actions in game whether you want it to or not.

It is true that the thought process through which a player supposedly separates what the character knows from what the players knows and determines a course of action is demonstrably the same thought process allegedly being avoided.

Example: if you have no idea whether or not using your character's sword, or your character's hammer would be better, as the two are equal in every way you can currently judge them, it is not metagaming to choose one over the other regardless of which you choose.

But if you know the using your sword will have a negative effect (such as an ooze splitting) and the hammer won't, people that believe metagaming is a real thing that needs to be avoided will balk at you choosing the hammer unless you've previously established a trend to use the hammer more than the sword. They will call it metagaming, and allege that you chose the hammer because of what you knew.

Yet if you know that using your sword will have a negative effect and you choose your sword, that is just as much a choice that is because of what you know. People just excuse that fact because the net result is that you've given yourself a penalty relative to the player that doesn't have the knowledge you do.

And in the meanwhile, the character doesn't actually know this info, but also doesn't need to know in order to choose either weapon - and people that are worried about metagaming completely ignore that detail.

Because, and I'm not sure if this is me repeating the article or adding my own twist to it, the concept of metagaming wasn't written into the game to keep play 'fair' - it was deliberately designed as a means for a GM to exert authority over players actions. That's why the basic effect of it, in practice, is to make a character have to do more and more incorrect/unhelpful stuff the more experienced and knowledgeable the player becomes.

[Gorignak227]

ikarinokami wrote:

I don't agree with this. Monsters for the most part are designed with common sense. big strong things have good fort saves, sleek things have good reflex saves.

I don't think as a blaster you need to metagame, just using common sense we would ascribe to any fantasy character will be enough the vast majority of the time.

You don't need to know the name of the monster, but your GM does need to give a good description of monster.

when im playing my druid, I always ask for information my druid would be looking for, how does the monster move, how is it built, does it move like a cat or is it more lumbering, what size is it, what color, does the monster look like any other common type of monster, and then i make an educated guess.

Asking a little bit about the description like that is a style of play i like from a player, i think its more fun myself, but a lot of the GMs that i have played with around here would instantly get the old beady eyes and probably wouldn't tell you much and might throw down the "metagamer!" gauntlet and feel like you are fishing for information you shouldn't have. (I usually see people play like its a board game and just rules vs seeing it like a fantasy novel).

And now that i just read the Battle Assessment feat i think those same GMs (who probably are a little adversarial) would probably use that feat and the other feats that use Recall Knowledge as ammunition that your common sense assessment is actually/should be using the feat/skill instead.

I was a fairly lenient GM in pfs 1st ed who often got eye rolls from some of the other GMs when i actually gave out relevant info on knowledge checks rather than some sort of blind attribute pick 'em game (which only worked for the experienced meta gamer players and left the new players always thinking picking up a knowledge skill wasn't helpful). I have a feeling i'll be getting eye rolls in this edition as well.

[Deriven Firelion]

Exocist wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Druid even taking heals as top spells still feels very powerful. Druid class is pretty good. At least Storm and Animal druid Order Explorer. Shapechanging looks bad, but maybe it can be build up. From what I understand Handwraps of Mighty Fists work for unarmed attacks when shapechanged as a druid at least the item bonus to hit, not the extra dice.

Why do you say shapechanging is bad? It looks like the best one, you have a focus spell to turn you into a martial character (in fact better at level 3 and 4, as well as 11 and 12) on demand which means you can prepare more support and utility spells, falling back on your focus spell to deal damage against single targets. There’s also the interaction with Mountain Stance which makes you equal to or better than a heavy armour champion with their shield raised at nearly all levels. A build of:

Storm Order (for second focus point) Ancient Elf (Voluntary flaw INT + Cha or INT twice so you can get +Dex, Wis, Str) then

(1): Monk Dedication from ancient elf

2: Order Explorer (Wild)

4: Basic Kata (Mountain Stance)

6: Form control

8: Soaring Shape

10: Monk’s Flurry

12: Dragon Shape

14: Primal Focus

16: Monstrosity Shape

18: Perfect Form Control

20: True Shapeshifter

Looks like it would work well.

So shapechanging works well? Some of those spells do look good. I would love to hear some play experience as to how well it plays.

[Deriven Firelion]

ikarinokami wrote:

X Hums wrote:

I'm trying soooo very hard as a sorcerer to stay positive, but I'm level 5 in PFS and it's getting incredibly difficult to stay positive. I can literally feel that I'm getting weaker. Enemies are becoming hit-point bags that are best overcome with a fighter's crits, or a rogue's or barbarian's consistency. My puny little fireball, though good in fights with a bunch of little things, finds itself almost completely ineffective against anything of a higher level than me.

Why is it that fighters get to fight well, but it feels like spellcasters don't get to spell well? I feel like I've got to be missing something. I don't want to play debuff. I don't want to play support. I want to be a blaster, and I'm feeling more and more like that position has been removed from the game in any way that can outclass the martials...

It's not that I want to "Be the best". It's that I honestly feel, in comparison, that casters are now at the lower end of the spectrum. I just want to be halfway decent. My GM worries every time the fighter's turn comes around. Never worries for mine.

Trutfully pound for pound blasting is way better in pathfinder 2E vs 1e.

1. if you look through the monster manual you will find that creatures with elemental immunities are quite rare.
2. almost all monsters have a weak save that is significantly lower that thier best save
3. i would say most blast spells esp the AOE's were outright buffed from 1E.

the Key to being a good blaster in P2E is making sure you are targeting the creatures weakest save.

Maybe for straight spells, but you could make some nutty blaster builds in PF1 with a cross-blooded sorcerer, quicken, empower, intensify, and traits reducing metamagic levels along with spell specialization. Maybe base blasting spells might be a little better, blaster bulidings and blasting is not. If you know how to build a great blaster in PF1, you are a living nuke able to wipe things out.

Not to mention if you make the holy blaster build around Holy word stacking level enhancing effects to get holy word 10 levels above your level nuking things of equal challenge out of existence with fair easy.

Blasting in PF1 was pretty amazing with the right build.

[Deriven Firelion]

Henro wrote:

Another reason AoE blasting can feel so deadly in the hands of monsters is the fact that PCs very often outnumber the enemies. It's not that uncommon to be up against 1 strong foe and 1 or 2 underlings, and sometimes the enemy is a solo, even. But the PCs are always 4 (or whatever number of players you have) so AoE is always going to be good against them.

And the monsters can blow off all their slots without having to worry about them for the next fight on top of having higher DCs than the players.

[Deriven Firelion]

pauljathome wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

the Key to being a good blaster in P2E is making sure you are targeting the creatures weakest save.

Unfortunately, other than cheating by metagaming there is no truly reliable way of knowing what a monsters worst save is.

Oh you can often guess. But what information you get on knowledge checks is very, very undefined and up to the GM.

Not to mention if you recall knowledge and the DM goes, "They don't have a weak save" or you don't have a spell to target that weak save in an effective manner.

[Exocist]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Exocist wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Druid even taking heals as top spells still feels very powerful. Druid class is pretty good. At least Storm and Animal druid Order Explorer. Shapechanging looks bad, but maybe it can be build up. From what I understand Handwraps of Mighty Fists work for unarmed attacks when shapechanged as a druid at least the item bonus to hit, not the extra dice.

Why do you say shapechanging is bad? It looks like the best one, you have a focus spell to turn you into a martial character (in fact better at level 3 and 4, as well as 11 and 12) on demand which means you can prepare more support and utility spells, falling back on your focus spell to deal damage against single targets. There’s also the interaction with Mountain Stance which makes you equal to or better than a heavy armour champion with their shield raised at nearly all levels. A build of:

Storm Order (for second focus point) Ancient Elf (Voluntary flaw INT + Cha or INT twice so you can get +Dex, Wis, Str) then

(1): Monk Dedication from ancient elf

2: Order Explorer (Wild)

4: Basic Kata (Mountain Stance)

6: Form control

8: Soaring Shape

10: Monk’s Flurry

12: Dragon Shape

14: Primal Focus

16: Monstrosity Shape

18: Perfect Form Control

20: True Shapeshifter

Looks like it would work well.

So shapechanging works well? Some of those spells do look good. I would love to hear some play experience as to how well it plays.

Yeah my experience with it is a little limited (just played low levels) but it definitely helped a lot on the longevity angle. Some encounters I didn't need to use any slots, just the focus and the damage is really quite good as well.

[SuperBidi]

pauljathome wrote:

A strong argument can be made that, RAW, the answer is

"Make a recall knowledge to see what your CHARACTER knows about a Triceratops, lich, leopard, etc". Don't forget that on Golarion books and movies are NOT readily available. Why the heck would somebody in The Land of the Linnorn Kings have ANY clue whatsoever what a leopard is?

Well, honestly, I have absolutely no clue what a leopard is. I have never read the bestiary entry about it and in real life the only ones I've seen were in a zoo or on the discovery channel.

Facing a leopard for a few seconds actually gives my character more information about the creature than I have.
And I hardly think anyone has ever learned monster's saves by heart while reading the bestiary, but I may be wrong.

Still, I will use some of my player knowledge only if my character has the corresponding skill. If my character is trained in Religion, I'll consider he knows undeads have high will save in general. This is common to most undeads and as such should be automatic knowledge.

[Staffan Johansson]

ikarinokami wrote:

I don't agree with this. Monsters for the most part are designed with common sense. big strong things have good fort saves, sleek things have good reflex saves.

Agreed for most things, though there are exceptions. For example, last session we fought a vrock. It's a big demon, which can fly pretty fast and has a dance-related special attack, and use some tricky magic. I would not know off-hand which save to target on one of those.

But yeah, guessing that a giant or ogre has a good Fortitude save and probably not the best Reflex save? That's perfectly reasonable.

[Thod]

@OP I only scanned a few bits after reading the start of the conversation.

Your problem is the trip fighter who optimized his actions against your GM style.

You say he trips - followed by AoO etc.

So why stand up? ALL it does is a -2 attack penalty as well as flat-footed.

What happens if you stay down?

a) you deny the fighter his AoO - he becomes weaker compared to other characters
b) you allow others to attack the prone enemy - they gain on his flat-footed condition and gain in strengths

Once in a while with a strong enemy and athletics score try a disarm maneuver. They do not suffer the -2 !! Yes - you need a crit - but I ran Plaguestone against someone with the same tactic and there were 2 or 3 monsters which had a 30-40% chance of crit success.

There is a fine line between targeting a character and showing him monsters have other options. An intelligent monster who knows he has AoO will stay down and rather fight from the floor. Makes tremendously more sense for that creature.

And yes - I just have done a few PFS scenarios where I feel casters are overpowered as they end encounters very quickly. 2 of them with fireballs can turn a fight against 5 decent monsters into a cake walk. But it is important everyone has their moment to shine.

[andreww]

Henro wrote:

Another reason AoE blasting can feel so deadly in the hands of monsters is the fact that PCs very often outnumber the enemies. It's not that uncommon to be up against 1 strong foe and 1 or 2 underlings, and sometimes the enemy is a solo, even. But the PCs are always 4 (or whatever number of players you have) so AoE is always going to be good against them.

The big reaason why 2E blasting is more effective, particularly in the hands of enemies, is that their DCs remain competative throughout the levels. In 1E blasting was generally weak, outside of optimised PCs, because DCs were largely based on gear, feats and stat increases. This is no longer the case. Level 1 characters can easily be facing enemy casters with DC20 spells (see for example the level 2 cleric in tier 1-2 escaping the grave). Even with a better starting value than 1e characters that is still a much greater chance of failure, and therefore critical failure.

Personally I find in 2E that maximising you saves is pretty crucial for most characters. You can no longer affod to ignore reflex as you largely could in 1E. The knock on for that is that it makes stat choices quite restrictive. If you arent a plate user benefitting from bulwark you take a major risk ignoring any of con, wis or dex. Even plate users will eventually start falling behind.

[SuperBidi]

One thing people never bring in these discussions are the out of combat utility of casters compared to martials.

Fighters, Barbarians, Champions and Monks have nearly no out of combat utility. Of course, they will have 3 Legendary skills at level 20 but they will in general choose combat focused skills (Athletics, Acrobatics and Intimidation) that have very few applications outside combat. And choosing to raise out of combat skills will decrease their combat efficiency (imagine a Fighter without Athletics...). They have extremely few class abilities with an out of combat utility and most of their feats are combat focused. Their primary attributes are in general Strength, Constitution and Dexterity limiting their ability to multiclass into spellcasters or get high skill bonuses.

On the other hand, casters have Wisdom, Charisma or Intelligence as main attribute, all 3 governing very important out of combat skills. Many caster classes have class abilities or feats giving them out of combat utility. And of course their spell list is even better than skills when it comes to problem solving.

So, if a Wizard was as good as a Fighter during combat considering the Fighter is a henchman half of the time, I would find that unfair.
Now, if you try to build a Fighter with the same out of combat utility than a Wizard, you'll realize that it's no more the absolute combat beast it's supposed to be.

In my opinion, if you only focus on combat and completely ignore out of combat utility then you will prefer playing a martial. But if you like to roll dice outside combat you'll certainly lean more towards casters.
Rogues and Rangers are the exception. But Ranger is extremely rare when it comes to comparing martials to casters. So, Rogue is the only exception.

[KrispyXIV]

SuperBidi wrote:

One thing people never bring in these discussions are the out of combat utility of casters compared to martials.

Partially, I think this is because while its still true that Casters have the edge here, the situation for noncombat options has more or less massively improved all around.

Its never been a better time for anyone who wants to pursue any skill-career path, with everyone other than rogues having essentially the same skill progression and generally open opportunities all around.

Plus, Legendary skills bring you closer than ever before to gaining some of the reality defining traits Casters have long enjoyed as a Martial, even if much of that comes much later.

But you're absolutely correct in general. Casters advantages out of combat remain extremely powerful, and shouldn't be discounted.

[pauljathome]

KrispyXIV wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

One thing people never bring in these discussions are the out of combat utility of casters compared to martials.

Partially, I think this is because while its still true that Casters have the edge here, the situation for noncombat options has more or less massively improved all around.

Its never been a better time for anyone who wants to pursue any skill-career path, with everyone other than rogues having essentially the same skill progression and generally open opportunities all around.

Plus, Legendary skills bring you closer than ever before to gaining some of the reality defining traits Casters have long enjoyed as a Martial, even if much of that comes much later.

But you're absolutely correct in general. Casters advantages out of combat remain extremely powerful, and shouldn't be discounted.

While I completely agree that casters still have significant advantages, for most martials it is actually quite affordable to branch out into one cluster (usually based around one stat) of skills if they want. And multiclassing is usually an option with in combat and out of combat advantages.

PFS even allows hirelings to (partially) fill the gaps.

At the PFS table, it is the case that most of the time a 6 person table will have just about every skill covered at least twice (sometimes by hirelings). Even the pregens somewhat branch out (eg, Valeros has Occultism)

[andreww]

pauljathome wrote:

At the PFS table, it is the case that most of the time a 6 person table will have just about every skill covered at least twice (sometimes by hirelings). Even the pregens somewhat branch out (eg, Valeros has Occultism)

This is something we were discussing last night. This is largely fine at low level but as we start seeing more mid and higher level content in PFS it simply wont cut it anymore. DCs will scale beyond your ability to come anywhere near the DC for skills that you dont advance and which are not linked to your primary stat.

We already see it in Starfinder. I suspect a lot of PFS players might but in for a shock as we see more 5-8+ games, especially more skill intensive ones. This will become a paticular issue if we see a lot of the "more than half the PCs pass" skill challenge systems.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

andreww wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

At the PFS table, it is the case that most of the time a 6 person table will have just about every skill covered at least twice (sometimes by hirelings). Even the pregens somewhat branch out (eg, Valeros has Occultism)

This is something we were discussing last night. This is largely fine at low level but as we start seeing more mid and higher level content in PFS it simply wont cut it anymore. DCs will scale beyond your ability to come anywhere near the DC for skills that you dont advance and which are not linked to your primary stat.

We already see it in Starfinder. I suspect a lot of PFS players might but in for a shock as we see more 5-8+ games, especially more skill intensive ones. This will become a paticular issue if we see a lot of the "more than half the PCs pass" skill challenge systems.

You sure? Simple DCs shouldn't scale to a point where every check is master past level 7, and there is still follow the expert, items and buffs to fall back on.

And getting bonuses into your non primary stats is hardly as hard as it was in pf1e.

E.G. person trained in a skill with a +3 in the stat, a +1 item for the skill at level 12 is succeeding at a master simple DC 45% of the time without assistance, 60% following a master, 70% with easily accessible status buffs.

It isn't a replacement for having high skills obviously, but it should stop it from being unviable unless PFS ignores their own difficulty guidelines imo.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

andreww wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

At the PFS table, it is the case that most of the time a 6 person table will have just about every skill covered at least twice (sometimes by hirelings). Even the pregens somewhat branch out (eg, Valeros has Occultism)

This is something we were discussing last night. This is largely fine at low level but as we start seeing more mid and higher level content in PFS it simply wont cut it anymore. DCs will scale beyond your ability to come anywhere near the DC for skills that you dont advance and which are not linked to your primary stat.

We already see it in Starfinder. I suspect a lot of PFS players might but in for a shock as we see more 5-8+ games, especially more skill intensive ones. This will become a paticular issue if we see a lot of the "more than half the PCs pass" skill challenge systems.

You sure? Simple DCs shouldn't scale to a point where every check is master past level 7, and there is still follow the expert, items and buffs to fall back on.

And getting bonuses into your non primary stats is hardly as hard as it was in pf1e.

E.G. person trained in a skill with a +3 in the stat, a +1 item for the skill at level 12 is succeeding at a master simple DC 45% of the time without assistance, 60% following a master, 70% with easily accessible status buffs.

It isn't a replacement for having high skills obviously, but it should stop it from being unviable unless PFS ignores their own difficulty guidelines imo.

[Gortle]

SuperBidi wrote:

One thing people never bring in these discussions are the out of combat utility of casters compared to martials.

Fighters, Barbarians, Champions and Monks have nearly no out of combat utility. Of course, they will have 3 Legendary skills at level 20 but they will in general choose combat focused skills (Athletics, Acrobatics and Intimidation) that have very few applications outside combat.

For sure. Often martials don't bother, but they can if they want.

I'd like to add that Intimidation has plently of out of combat uses. In fact you can run an entire social life with it. Not an nice character unless you are a bit judicious about it, but you can.

[Riobux]

So I've been a bit silent because the first session since this topic being posted is today (and there has been some rejigging by the bard and cleric), but thought I'd reply to one comment that stuck out and was directly to me:

Thod wrote:

So why stand up? ALL it does is a -2 attack penalty as well as flat-footed.

So, this is really down to a secondary AOO quirk. -2 from the floor is not too bad of a shake, even if it shuts down step-based manuevering (and therefore any other move actions on top to create distance) and often leads to easy positioning (e.g. flanking). The problem is spell-casting enemies who trigger AOO with spells (since it is a manipulate action), which if they crit (which if it's a spell-caster, their AC is going to be low enough that critting is more of a 50% to 25% spin) the spell fizzles and two actions and a spell slot just got wasted. It actually leads to me provoking by standing, just so I can cast any spell. The DPS is still firm, because I want to be able to cast a spell at all (and there is currently no way to cast a spell without provoking to my knowledge).

Basically, it leads to one character either inflicting a "stand-still" for melee characters or a near-to-total shutdown for casters. Just through tripping. It's kind of potent enough that I do get the feeling my casters do feel generally unimportant besides buffing and keeping up the fighter so they can keep this going. It is their job, but it's not a psychologically pleasing one for them and they can't do off-hand DPS due to an intense unreliability to hit or inflict.

[Ravingdork]

Sorry, I just don't buy the notion that my character would look at a big muscular monster, like an elephant say, and thinking "it might just resist poison better than my housecat" as metagaming. Not even for a moment.

[Exocist]

Ravingdork wrote:

Sorry, I just don't buy the notion that my character would look at a big muscular monster, like an elephant say, and thinking "it might just resist poison better than my housecat" as metagaming. Not even for a moment.

Housecats have killed many wizards and commoners, they're a fearsome threat across all of golarion

How many wizards have elephants killed? Housecats are clearly much tougher

[Claudius16309]

Unicore wrote:

In my party for age of ashes, we started off with a wizard, a sorcerer, a cleric and a barbarian. The barbarian decided to go two handed weapon and could really unleash a lot of damage...and end up on the floor by the second round of combat unless my cleric just camped on top of them casting 2 action heal every round. I was a harm cleric, and so it pretty much meant that I had to memorize all heal spells and then just unleash one nova a day when an enemy tried to rush me with 3 1 action harm spells.

The wizard player didn't work with our time slot very well, so we lost the wizard and picked up a newer Pathfinder player who built a rogue. The barbarian gave up the 2 handed weapon and picked up a shield, we adjusted my cleric (after Gods and Magic came out) to pick a different deity that provided the necessary domain for the flavor of the character and I got the heal font. We managed to stay alive a lot better, but my character still ended up being a heal bot 50 to 75% of all encounters, but atleast I got a bow and a companion (MCing into animal trainer has been so much fun. Getting constant speak with animals at 4th level has been incredibly fun and very useful. In PF 2, there is no "vermin" category so insects, worms and spiders are all animals but that is a side track.) so I usually have something interesting to do with my 3rd action, but a cleric in a party of melee martial characters is going to be healing most of the time in most encounters. If you don't have a ranged weapon, then you almost want to be able to cast a sustain spell with your first turn, so then you have something interesting to do with your 3rd action for the rest of the fight. Summons can be fun in that context, although at least half the time, you are just taking up an action or two from your enemies as they smash your summons. Which is a good thing, but it doesn't feel amazing in play.

The Barbarian died in a particularly notorious encounter that we went into without resting, so I was out of healing options, and the player is...

This is a great presentation of the problem you have been having. One question I would like to offer is "Is every player trained in medicine and have they taken the feat Battle Medicine?". My group participates in 2 games, one I run and a second game one of the other players runs. We have very good healing in our groups, but one thing that is understood is EVERYONE contributes to the healing in what ways they can. If you're on the front-lines and cannot waste an action on a Battle Heal, you're not doing the best you can to help your party, and your healer.

Also, if you have more than 1 melee character, make them spread the damage. If melee 1 is getting hammered hard, on his next turn he can spend 1 action to move away from the monsters. This forces them to choose between one of the other melee characters, or wasting a move to chase the wounded martial. Technically, this is damage mitigation, but also helps the healer. When the damage is spread among 3-4 characters, it allows the healer to do all of the healing AFTER combat.

Finally, our melees are trained to help the casters/healers in other ways. We use trips, intimidates etc., anything to deprive the monsters of actions, which FURTHER saves on in-combat healing.

You may already be doing all of this, but these are just a few things we have found to severely lessen the need for in-combat healing.

[Exodite]

KrispyXIV wrote:

I think Casters having a 'reverse action economy growth' is a much more severe QOL issue than accuracy or Save DC's.

I couldn't agree more, and in my personal experience that's one of major issues you run into as a caster currently.

While I like the examples you gave regarding feats to improve the situation I ultimately feel this is the wrong way to go. Largely because I feel the 3-action economy is poorly implemented, even for martial classes, and the DLC nature of using a characters supposed versatility (ie. feats) to sell you back a functional combat system irks me no end.

But I digress..

I'm currently playing a (freshly dinged!) level 11 Cleric of Pharasma in a party of 6 where I'm the primary healer and the frustration expressed in the thread is something I can in large part relate to.

Character design/experience:

Having zero previous experience with Pathfinder, any edition, but a lot of DnD and genereal RPG experience and wanting to build a survivable support character I've ended up with a;

Level 11 NG Half-Elf Cloistered Cleric of Pharasma|Imperial Sorcerer|Redeemer,

picking up some options that look very strong on paper, like additional movement and Electric Arc as an innate spell from my Elf side along with a free multiclass dedication into Redeemer for Heavy Armor and Champion's Reaction from the Human side.

Things haven't worked out quite as imagined though, which leads me into some of my observations from playing this particular character and a Cleric in a more general sense.

Obviously these are my thoughts and experiences, based on our party and playstyle as well as what I'd prefer to change to address the issues encountered.

YMMV.

* The only real point of the Cleric class is Divine Font.

It's a very strong ability, given how hard it is to get additional spell slots in general, but unfortunately it can't carry the class overall.

The class offers the worst spell list, class feats that revolve almost exclusively around Divine Font in particular or casting Heal/Harm in general as well as overall poor proficiencies (skills/saves/armor/perception).

I feel the class, despite the plethora of deities available, somehow manages to lack flavor - a sin far worse than power considerations IMO.

To drive home my point regarding Divine Font, imagine Charisma being a key ability option for Clerics (or Cloistered Clerics in particular). I can't imagine a situation where I wouldn't pick that over Wisdom.

Character thoughts:

If I hadn't committed to Medicine as one of my 3 good skills, and not wanting to be stuck with terrible Perception (Clerics only get Expert), I would happily leave Wisdom at 10. Or perhaps 18 eventually, when adding some later ability boosts into the mix.

Charisma affects more skills, the DC and attacks of my Innate spells and multiclass options (Bard and Sorcerer are the primary options for a Cloistered Cleric IMO) and, crucially, gives me an additional spell slot from Divine Font.

Meanwhile very few spells I cast as a Cleric benefit from Wisdom in any way.

* The deity selection is punishing.

A large amount of your utility as a Cleric rides on deity selection (Bonus spells, Domains, Aligned spell access) and you end up with a huge number of trap choices.

This feels bad.

Character experience:

I chose Pharasma for flavor, going with a particular concept I had in mind.

Unfortunately a lot of what little utility the class has rides on deity selection and I chose.. poorly. :P

Sarenrae offers some well-needed versatility in the spell selection, Fireball is pretty much exactly the kind of spell that the divine list lacks, while enabling a large number of alignment-based spells. Spells that, while circumstantial, are inaccessible to anyone with a True Neutral deity.

* The spell selection is bad.

- Heal is great.

- Offensive spells are either few and far between or very circumstantial. Especially egregious are aligned spells like Divine Lance and derivatives, which are randomly inaccessible depending upon your choice of deity.

- Domain spells are bad. Admittedly not a Cleric issue specifically, most Focus spells are bad, but its a sore point when so many Focus spells are Domain-related. It's quite difficult to find a Domain with more than one desirable spell and way too many manage to be both weak and circumstantial at once.

- The Incapacitation trait and Counteract checks vastly narrow your effective range of spells, essentially to just your highest level.

Character experience:

I were set on the idea of being playing support, which definitely not should be a requirement for a Cleric- let alone any caster, yet the fundamental design of the game means it's largely impossible to prepare diverse answers.

I had expected to prepare a lot of Remove Paralysis, Resist Energy, Restoration and the like but as it turns out that's largely pointless.

Remove Paralysis, and many other "answer" spells, require a Counteract check which means I either prepare it in my highest-levels slots or don't bother.

Resist Energy doesn't inherently scale and since most combat encounters last 3 or 4 rounds you're better off preparing a Heal in that slot as you're going to get both more hit point mileage and more versatility out of that. Unless you're fighting elementals non-stop I suppose.

Restoration is an OOC spell useful mainly against long-term afflictions, best suited for a wand or staff rather than being prepared.

And so it goes...

Bless? You'll never have the action economy to use it.

Freedom of Movement? Cursed by level-dependency.

Example from personal experience;

At level 10 I were stuck in a Black Tentacles by a Black Dragon.

I had to roll 18+ to escape (unarmed attack, 20+ with Acrobatics or Athletics), try to do 12 points of damage with my dagger (18+ to hit, 1d4 damage) or.. cast Freedom of Movement?

Only Black Tentacles is a 5th level spell and Freedom of Movement does literally nothing.

Heroism? Arguably useful at 6th level but it's one fight for one person, and touch at that which means you're casting it before combat or not at all. Then again, 3-4 rounds of Heroism vs. a 6th level Heal or one of the, actually decent, offensive spells at the same level?

I find myself preparing things like Air Bubble, Comprehend Language and Water Breathing in my lower level slots unless we know exactly what we're going to need.

Not terrible options to have, it just means my effective number of spells each day is very low and my combat utility when not casting is nil.

* The action economy is poorly implemented.

I love the idea, it just doesn't work out in practice as too many random things count as an action - or multiple actions.

For casters I would seriously consider migrating the vast majority of spells to 1 action baseline. Exceptions being things like Heal/Harm or otherwise flexible casts.

Still limiting offensive to one cast/round but I can't see a lot of issues with move/cast Haste on ally/offensive cantrip or bless/melee strike/raise shield. Or even step-Dimension Door-Fireball for that matter.

For martial classes, and general action economy, I'd remove a lot of minor stuff from action tracking.

Switching grip? Free.
Draw a potion/tool/new weapon? Free.

I'd also seriously consider reworking Raise a Shield. Spontaneously I don't see an issue with making this free either, because I always felt the trade-off was less damage and/or one fewer hand accessible rather than fewer actions, but I'd have to look into balance more.

If Champions aren't busted with Legendary armor proficiencies, or Fighters with their superior offense, then shields not feeling bad can't be busted either.

Character experience:

Despite picking up Electric Arc as an innate spell I've never used it, or any other offensive cantrip for that matter.

I've raised my shield exactly twice, both times during the first round of combat when I were unable to position myself further and no enemies were in range.

I spend most of my time running, often 3-action stride on the first round or two just to be in reach of the melee. It's partially a self-inflicted problem due to using heavy armor with poor Strength, though even a 10ft-buff to my speed wouldn't change that and I've invested in the speed-buffing feats already.

It's kinda the original Sisters of Battle issue for those that can relate; I want to be really close to the battle, so the melee allies are in range to be healed and buffed, while not actually being in the battle myself.

The movement issue not only means I usually lack the actions to actually cast spells when I'd like to but also that my Glimpse of Redemption, from the Champion Archetype multiclass, very rarely gets used.

This seems like less of an issue for the Sorcerer and Wizard (and Ranger), who don't need to be anywhere near the actual fighting to contribute.

Essentially pf2's 3-action economy end up feeling more cramped than something like 5e, mainly because too many things end up eating into it. And it's often worse for casters, who're usually stuck with 2-action spells.

--

That got more rant-y than I had planned, my apologies for that. I should probably write more about my thoughts in another thread just to get it off my chest.

With that in mind..

TL;DR: Casters would benefit a lot from improved action economy. Possibly from feats, though personally I prefer fixing the baseline rather than feat taxing the players for an issue with the system.

The combination of Counteract checks, the Incapacitation trait and lack of base spell scaling means the effective number of spell slots for casters, especially support casters, is very limited.

Deity, feat and spell selection has way too many trap options. Aligned spells being especially annoying with the divine list.

Unlike some other posters I actually feel that blast spells and Heal heavily outweigh buffs/debuffs and "tricksier" spells. They'll always do what you need them to, often better than their more circumstantial alternatives.

[Saedar]

Exocist wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Sorry, I just don't buy the notion that my character would look at a big muscular monster, like an elephant say, and thinking "it might just resist poison better than my housecat" as metagaming. Not even for a moment.

Housecats have killed many wizards and commoners, they're a fearsome threat across all of golarion

How many wizards have elephants killed? Housecats are clearly much tougher

This may actually be true, oddly enough.

Situation...
Be a wizard. Have a housecat familiar, because you are a person of culture. Be walking around your house/tower/demiplane/whatever. Be about to go down some stairs. Ope. Sudden familiar. Now you dead at the bottom of the stairs. Silly cats.