Are Casters Behind the Curve Now?

[gutzumerken]

Exodite wrote:

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.

** spoiler omitted **

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.

...

Great post, Exodite. Exactly my experience

[Unicore]

Claudius16309 wrote:

One question I would like to offer is "Is every player trained in medicine and have they taken the feat Battle Medicine?".

Thanks for the suggestions. My character is trained in Medicine, but not battle medicine. The Rogue is trained in Medicine and has been taking medicine skill feats quite a lot so he handles a lot of out of combat healing now that we are 5th level, but he had to grow into the role and started with a wisdom of 12. Now its 14 and we found a pair of healer's gloves we gave to him so he's pretty decent at it as well.

The Player of the RIP Barbarian has decided to play a paladin next, so I am probably going to be able to lay off the healing a little in the future, but we'll see. I have no idea what character the new 4th member of our party will play, our first session with them is Wednesday.

I agree strongly that PF2 is designed so that there is a lot of flexibility in the ways in which martial characters can provide support for the rest of the party, and that is a much better way to play as a team than to have one or two martials who play to rush into combat and attack with every action possible. Very often, martials can move to draw enemies into position for spells, or trip, or intimidate, or even aid with a third action, in a way that will let a caster be more effective than anything that martial can do with their third action.

Exodite wrote:

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.

One thing that can really be different about the new action economy is that turn order is even more important than ever before and it is very easy to end up wasting actions in PF2. As a cleric, if you frequently find your character spending a turn moving with 2 or 3 actions, you probably want to rethink your tactics, probably as a whole party. The number of encounters where you are better off moving 3 times to close into melee, rather than let the enemy spend those actions to do the same, is relatively low. It will occasionally happen, but it shouldn't be something you experience even half of the time. Maybe electric arc isn't as good for your cleric as a cantrip like ray of frost, or for your character in particular, Daze, since range is clearly an issue you are running into a lot. Daze has a big advantage for you as a cloistered cleric in that it also primes off of wisdom and progresses as a divine spell. Using that will be better than moving twice or three times on your first round.

If the rest of your party is rushing way ahead of you, the problem is more of a team tactical issue. It probably doesn't make a lot of sense for them to far outpace their support and expect you to spend all of your actions keeping up, especially if you decided to go the heavy armor route, while they are playing faster skirmishers.

Personally, I love how much more tactical PF2's action economy is, and that is largely because the value of spending more than one action to do any one task starts to decrease very quickly. That includes spell casting, which is a little jarring, but it makes the choice to cast or not far more significant.

[Salamileg]

@Exodite

I disagree with your stance on the three action system, but this isn't really the place for that, and I do agree that casters need more action economy enhancers. However, I disagree with a lot of your post. I'll focus on the things directly related to casters since that's the topic at hand.

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

Well, maybe I don't really disagree with this, but I also don't think this is a bad thing or something unique to the cleric. The only real point of barbarians is their rage. The only real point of bards is their composition cantrips. The only real point of fighters is their high accuracy. Classes in PF2 are designed to have a core mechanic, and for cleric that's divine font.

"The deity selection is punishing."

While I certainly wouldn't mind it if deity selection and character mechanics were separated a bit more, I wouldn't call it punishing. No cleric needs a specific deity to be effective. A cleric I GM for worships Torag because she liked the edicts and anathema and he's the dwarfiest core deity. She has never prepared any of the spells granted by him and hasn't suffered for it. And while she uses her Protector's Sacrifice when she can, I'd hardly say it's character defining. It was just another case of "Hey, this fits my character" and she wasn't punished for picking it.

"The spell selection is bad."

This one is pretty subjective. I'd definitely say the divine list is the most narrow, but I'd hardly call it bad. I GM for two divine casters, a cloistered cleric and a diabolic sorcerer. The cleric is primarily a healer and a utility caster, but she doesn't prepare many heals outside of her font. She likes to make use of other healing spells like spirit link due to her high HP (compared to the witch and sorcerer in the party). In her other slots, she primarily prepares stuff like ventriloquism, comprehend languages, and status, the former of which has been used to circumvent entire encounters.

"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."

I'd hardly say focus spells as a whole are bad. I can definitely agree there's a disparity (in your average campaign, fire ray will get a lot more use than redact) but the ones that are powerful are very good. Fire Ray as mentioned, Cloak of Shadow is useful on any stealth-focused cleric, and Cry of Destruction is very good on a warpriest, just to name a few.

"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."

While I agree that casters need action economy improvements, this isn't the way to do it. The distinction between offensive and defensive spells would feel arbitrary at times (I don't see why Haste wouldn't be considered an offensive spell) and combos like Dimension Door/Fireball like you said would be considered almost required. Getting far enough away to be out of a three stride range for almost every enemy while still dealing massive AoE damage? Would be busted.

[Temperans]

@Salamileg

How about spells as 1 action flourish. And then 1 action to heighten the spell to the spell slot used.

Quicken spell would remove the flourish trait 1/day.

[pauljathome]

Claudius16309 wrote:

Lots and lots of stuff

I think a lot of your issues boil down to not thinking through enough what role you wanted your character to play.

Clerics are fairly versatile as a class but an individual cleric has to have a strong focus and build to that focus.

My cleric is a multiclassed druid and built to that. I wanted SOME blasting so I worshipped a God (Gozreh, initially) that both had the nature theme AND some blasting.

I've been VERY happy with him so far (currently level 7 in PFS). His primary role in a group is still healer but he gets to do naturey and charisma'y skill stuff, he can blast when there is nothing else useful to do, he can wild shape and go into melee if that is what is required.

I'm running the Age of Ashes AP and the cleric seems to be having fun. He is completely a support character but that is what the player wanted. The spell that he constantly spams (to significant effect) is fear.

The 3 action economy is here to stay. The trick is to plan your character around that to at least some extent. Have at least something interesting to do with your 3rd action. In my case, it was throwing a trident for at least some damage (about on par with a martials second attack). For the cleric I GM for it is often used for bless, sometimes for a skill.

[pauljathome]

Temperans wrote:

@Salamileg

How about spells as 1 action flourish. And then 1 action to heighten the spell to the spell slot used.

Quicken spell would remove the flourish trait 1/day.

Currently, people disagree whether casters are under powered or just right (I can't recall anybody arguing that they're currently over powered). I think that the consensus is that support/utility casters are about right, blasting casters are generally considered a little underpowered.

If we allowed 1 action combat spells that consensus would rapidly change. Some would think that spell casters were about right, many others (most certainly including myself) would think that they were significantly over powered.

And that "overpowered or not" almost completely resolves around combat. I think everybody agrees that casters still have more out of combat utility than non casters (with the possible exception of the rogue). I think it would be a BAD thing for the consensus to be "about right OR overpowered in combat" given that out of combat utility.

[dmerceless]

I agree that casters in general need some action economy improvements, though I didn't have as many issues with it as Exodite did. One thing I can 100% agree with him about, however, is the issues with the Cleric's design. Between Divine Font, deities being such a meaningful choice for your character and only like 10-20% of the Domain Spells being actually useful, there are so many design choices that, in my opinion, make the Cleric incredibly narrow as a class. Many games at this point have figured out how to do "I serve a deity and have divine powers" while still keeping variety, but PF2 insists in relegating them to a Healbot role, which is kinda sad.

Also, I remembered something now. I don't know if this is a thing other people have experienced, but I ran a lot of short campaigns for the same group of people, and it seems like the more we play, the less people want to play spellcasters. We're preparing to start a longer-running campaign now, and unless the APG changes a lot about this paradigm, the party is gonna be 3 martials, a Rogue (which is kind of a martial) and one person using the Kineticist from Legendary Games.

[Salamileg]

dmerceless wrote:

Also, I remembered something now. I don't know if this is a thing other people have experienced, but I ran a lot of short campaigns for the same group of people, and it seems like the more we play, the less people want to play spellcasters. We're preparing to start a longer-running campaign now, and unless the APG changes a lot about this paradigm, the party is gonna be 3 martials, a Rogue (which is kind of a martial) and one person using the Kineticist from Legendary Games.

I've had the opposite response in my group. In fact, one of the members in our group is planning a caster-only mini campaign to go between book 3 and 4 of Extinction Curse

[Exodite]

Unicore wrote:

As a cleric, if you frequently find your character spending a turn moving with 2 or 3 actions, you probably want to rethink your tactics, probably as a whole party. The number of encounters where you are better off moving 3 times to close into melee, rather than let the enemy spend those actions to do the same, is relatively low. It will occasionally happen, but it shouldn't be something you experience even half of the time.

This is one of the things that may well be group-dependent, though I don't believe it's singularly so.

In my experience a lot of creatures around our current level (11) either flies or moves much faster than the characters in general.

Or both.

Coupled with spellcasting, ranged attacks or the kind of massive AOEs that pf2 monsters seem very fond of and it's rarely been a choice to have the creatures come to us.

The reason I brought this up is because I feel the Cloistered Cleric in particular suffers from having a spell selection full of touch or 30ft spells coupled with poor mobility and role that really doesn't lend itself to being close to the action.

There are ways to mitigate the problem of course, Reach Spell and Directed Channel are obvious examples, but then we're back to taxing the players to fix design issues with the game/class.

I can't speak to the issue for other casters, I haven't gotten the impression it's a huge deal from the thread, but looking to my own group the other casters aren't as restricted by range for their primary function.

Salamileg wrote:

The distinction between offensive and defensive spells would feel arbitrary at times and combos like Dimension Door/Fireball like you said would be considered almost required. Getting far enough away to be out of a three stride range for almost every enemy while still dealing massive AoE damage? Would be busted.

I'm not addressing most of your post because I don't think there's much common ground there, I'm just offering some counterpoints as to why I don't feel this is an issue.

Much of the game is already arbitrary, I don't think that's an issue for or against anything.

* If I'm escaping from some nasty plant that has me grabbed I'm taking a -5 penalty to the Telekinetic Projectile I'm casting afterwards but if I go with Electric Arc I'm fine.

* Shields providing a passive defense is deemed too good, unless you're a level 12 Fighter and am willing to pay a feat tax.

* Finesse is crazy expensive as a weapon trait (see Elven Curve Blade), unless you multiclass into Monk and suddenly it's not a big deal anymore.

* Synaptic Pulse is deemed dangerous enough to warrant the Incapacitation trait for its ability to deny creatures 2 actions for one round, while a Heightened Slow denying the same creatures 1 action for 10 rounds is fine.

I don't agree with any of the above from a design perspective but my larger point is that rules, especially in a system that aims to be as tight as pf2 does, are always going to appear arbitrary in some way.

As for moving far enough to be outside of 3-stride move while delivering massive AoE damage that's like.. every other creature in the bestiary. :P

And monsters don't have to worry about their resource usage.

[CorvusMask]

I don't think caster action economy is that bad, though I do admit more 1 action or 1/2/3 action spells would be cooler :p

Either way, I'm just baffled by notion that 3 action economy is bad when its definitely gives more thought to game than 1e's 2 action economy which was just "get close to enemy, then spend every action to five foot step and full attack, otherwise stay far away and cast spells"

[Unicore]

I think a really cool Metamagic feat would be a free action feat that lets you take a 5ft step as a part of casting any spell with a somatic component.

Things like that would be subtle, deliberate and fun for the wizard. My guess is that would be a 4th level feat. If it is 1st or 2nd, it becomes a little too easy to be a MC grab.

[Draco18s]

CorvusMask wrote:

Either way, I'm just baffled by notion that 3 action economy is bad when its definitely gives more thought to game than 1e's 2 action economy which was just "get close to enemy, then spend every action to five foot step and full attack, otherwise stay far away and cast spells"

Mostly because for spell casters nothing changed, except that a lot of spell ranges came down. Others didn't though (Fireball's 500 foot range still baffles me, when every other 3rd level spell that does damage has a range of 120 and most damage spells tend to be 30 or 60 foot).

[Temperans]

The action economy for many casters actually got worse.

All prepared casters went from cast a metamagiced spell, raise a shield, move, maybe some swift action stuff, and maybe an AoO (cause why not); To, cast a spelln maybe use a reaction, and pick one of: Move, raise a shield, use a metamagic.

So from 4-6 things per turn, to at most 3.

Martials in the other hand heavily benefict from the new action economy. Partly because the 3 action economy acts very similar to the PF1 economy when you ignore Full Attacks. Then they got many feats that let them move and attack, get multiple attacks, get multiple moves, etc.

So yeah Casters are in desperate need of low level action improvements. Stuff they dont have to wait till level 10 for a 1/day improvement, or level 16 to sustain a spell and still have actions for other stuff.

[Corwin Icewolf]

Quote:

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.

I actually find it a bit problematic if everyone is expected to be a combat medic regardless of their character background, personality, etc.

It's less weird in pfs and home games where you're playing as Pathfinder agents because it makes sense that the society would train most of their people in first aid. But it's weird if every random group of six adventurers happens to have medical training.

[Gortle]

Claudius16309 wrote:

One question I would like to offer is "Is every player trained in medicine and have they taken the feat Battle Medicine?". ....

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.

Everyone? That's too much. A couple yes. It kind of takes away the need to have to have a cleric in a group. A cleric is still useful of course.

[Samurai]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Quote:

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.

I actually find it a bit problematic if everyone is expected to be a combat medic regardless of their character background, personality, etc.

It's less weird in pfs and home games where you're playing as Pathfinder agents because it makes sense that the society would train most of their people in first aid. But it's weird if every random group of six adventurers happens to have medical training.

Also, they need to remember that Battle Medicine can only be used once a day on any creature by any individual medic. Whether that means you can then hand your Healing tools to another character who is also trained in the feat, and they can then try to heal you as well, or you become immune to any Battle Medicine checks for the rest of the day, is apparently up to the individual DM to decide.

If everyone can give you healing, even using the same Healer's Tool, then it makes sense to have everyone in the party Trained in it. If the DM decides that Battle Medicine can only work once per pay for any character, then everyone being Trained in the feat is a total waste.

[HammerJack]

Wait, what's this about "even using the same healer's kit?" I don't see how you'd read even a vague implication of a "per healer's kit" limitation on anything.

Also, Battle Medicine explicitly states that the immunity is to YOUR Battle Medicine. It is not ambiguous.

"BATTLE MEDICINE [one-action]
FEAT 1
GENERALHEALINGMANIPULATESKILL
Prerequisites trained in Medicine
You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even in combat. Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and provide the corresponding amount of healing. As with Treat Wounds, you can attempt checks against higher DCs if you have the minimum proficiency rank. The target is then temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 day."

[Gortle]

Exodite wrote:

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).

The divine spell list is the worst no question. However it does have plently of very good spells. Starting with:

Bless/Fear/Command/Heal
Calm Emotions(yes even with incapacitation)/Spiritual Weapon
Circle of Protection/Heroism
All well worth while as a caster. Get used to the fact that buffing is probably the best kind of magic.

But if you don't like these spells then play another class. Cloistered cleric is where it is at (especially after a few levels). There is no reasonable Battle Cleric.

The point of a cleric is the bonus heals.

Exodite wrote:

* 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

Totally agree. Far too many real bad choices. Some only suit a very narrow characer concept, some don't fit any. Neutral alignments suffer a lot.

Exodite wrote:

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

Well here is your problem. Character choices for an outdoor campaign are very different to a dungeon crawl. Ray of Frost would have been a much better choice for your cantrip, to give you some range. The rest of the party should learn to play better as a team, and wait for you a bit more. But really you need to do something with your speed. If you are out of combat all the time them armour is much less important.

Normally the expected action economy should be for a move and 2 for a spell.

Yes shield is oftened a wasted action.

Is your group really skirmishing that much? I find it rare.

Not all incapacitation spells totally suck. Calm emotions is good. But take it in your top slot, and bring it out for groups. If all the enemy make their saves then run. Thats when the heavy armour really hurts.

[Draco18s]

Samurai wrote:

If everyone can give you healing, even using the same Healer's Tool, then it makes sense to have everyone in the party Trained in it. If the DM decides that Battle Medicine can only work once per pay for any character, then everyone being Trained in the feat is a total waste.

I'm sorry, what healer's kit?

[Kendaan]

Gortle wrote:

The point of a cleric is the bonus heals.

I really feel this is a design miss there, Cleric are kinda expected to invest in Charisma on top of Wisdom + defensive stats, and take Heal font.

I think Cleric might have been more interesting with a 2 axis build option similar to Wizard with Thesis / Schools, were Cleric could have been Doctrines (Cloistered/Warpriest), and another Axis like Font/Domains.

I think they also suffer from having no feat (pas level 1 with Reach/Widen) that Focus on their spellcasting as a whole instead of Just Heal/Harm. (they are for now the only Spellcaster that do not have effortless concentration at level 16...)

[Gortle]

Kendaan wrote:

Gortle wrote:

The point of a cleric is the bonus heals.

I really feel this is a design miss there, Cleric are kinda expected to invest in Charisma on top of Wisdom + defensive stats, and take Heal font.

I don't see it that way. Cleric heal is for in combat, the one/two action targeted heal or the 3 action burst in response to area damage. The healing font is IMHO over the top and mostly just unnecessary. It is more interesting to do something else with it. Out of combat you don't need to spend spell slots on healing. Unless your DM doesn't give you ten minutes to rest.

Kendaan wrote:

I think Cleric might have been more interesting with a 2 axis build option similar to Wizard with Thesis / Schools, were Cleric could have been Doctrines (Cloistered/Warpriest), and another Axis like Font/Domains.

There is no warpriest option - you are not likely to get strength/dexterity as high as your wisdom score. You are already a long way behind the martials and it just gets worse. In PF1 this was a strong option, maybe it was too powerful, but in PF2 it is pathetic.

Kendaan wrote:

I think they also suffer from having no feat (pas level 1 with Reach/Widen) that Focus on their spellcasting as a whole instead of Just Heal/Harm. (they are for now the only Spellcaster that do not have effortless concentration at level 16...)

More options are needed.

[Exodite]

@Gortle

I appreciate the tips, both by yourself and others, but the play experience is just very different on my end.

I feel we're wading into the weeds a bit regarding specific caster concerns, and my situation in particular, so I'm going to spoiler-tag it just to cut down on the discussion space a bit going forward.

Character experience:

As for cantrip selection you're right that something with longer range would be useful, though as things play out it's not as I'm going to casting from 60ft anyway.

The important part is being in range for a 2- or 3-action Heal, ideally Glimpse of Redemption and/or a touch spell as well.

Which means I'm not stopping to cast a 2-action cantrip at 60ft when I can use those actions to get in range for the relevant stuff.

Funnily enough I did pick up Haste as one of my Sorcerer spells and I've come to realize that the most effective use of the spell isn't to buff the melee characters but rather myself, as it allows me to move and cast far more often.

Regarding speed I can't really dump my heavy armor at this point, as that would completely murder my AC. I don't have any investment in Dexterity.

Though if I were to recreate the character from scratch, with a similar role in mind, I'd go with;

NG Elf Cloistered Cleric|Bard of Sarenrae

It'd cost me 2 points of AC and my skill focus but I'd effectively double my movement speed and have access to slot-free buffs at 60ft.

Of course it'd be an entirely different character from a roleplaying perspective and I don't feel that's a trade-off anyone should have to make to feel like you're contributing.

As for our group we've definitely far more outdoors-focused, though with 6 players I thinks that's probably been for the best.

As I mentioned in my initial post I base my criticism on my personal experiences and I'm well aware those are bound to differ between groups.

To try and wrap around back to the topic at hand I want to make clear that I don't, overall, feel that casters are underpowered.

They, the Cloistered Cleric in particular as that's my primary experience, have issues mainly with;

* Action economy.
* Narrow/circumstantial spells and mechanics that overload the top end of the spell list.
* A lot of trap and feel-bad choices in deity/spell/feat selection.

These aren't insurmountable issues and I have at least some faith that the APG will mitigate the feat/spell issues. Or you know, upcoming splat books overall.

However, I'm doubtful the action economy concerns have an easy fix - though I'd happily be proven wrong of course! :)

[Samurai]

HammerJack wrote:

Wait, what's this about "even using the same healer's kit?" I don't see how you'd read even a vague implication of a "per healer's kit" limitation on anything.

Also, Battle Medicine explicitly states that the immunity is to YOUR Battle Medicine. It is not ambiguous.

"BATTLE MEDICINE [one-action]
FEAT 1
GENERALHEALINGMANIPULATESKILL
Prerequisites trained in Medicine
You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even in combat. Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and provide the corresponding amount of healing. As with Treat Wounds, you can attempt checks against higher DCs if you have the minimum proficiency rank. The target is then temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 day."

No, I'm not suggesting it is "per healers tools", I just mentioned that because in our party, every character is struggling with their Bulk limit, so we only have 1 set of Healer's tools for our party. The Champion is the one Trained in Battle Medicine, but I'm the one carrying the tools because I'm also Trained in Medicine and he had no Bulk to spare.

I just wrote to our GM to see what his ruling on the feat would be. Initially, we had read the feat as "the character then becomes immune to the Battle Medicine feat for 1 day", meaning multiple characters having the feat does no real good. Whether the feat meant to imply that you only become immune to that individual character's use of Battle Medicine, and that another character also Trained in the feat can still try to heal you again now seems to be the question. That interpretation doesn't make much sense to me. If you already have bandages and a poultice competently administered, how many more layers of bandages can you put on top of them to "further heal" a given character?

The skill itself is more clearly written, by saying the target becomes immune to Treat Wounds actions for 1 hour. That means 2 characters can't attempt Treat Wounds 1 right after another to heal more wounds on a character. Battle Medicine should have used similar sentence structure, i.e. "You then become immune to the Battle Medicine feat for 1 day"

[Samurai]

Draco18s wrote:

Samurai wrote:

If everyone can give you healing, even using the same Healer's Tool, then it makes sense to have everyone in the party Trained in it. If the DM decides that Battle Medicine can only work once per pay for any character, then everyone being Trained in the feat is a total waste.

I'm sorry, what healer's kit?

I know, it doesn't even say you need Healer's tools to use the feat, which is why I, who am trained in Medicine, carry the Healer's tools, and the other character has Battle Medicine.

[Samurai]

My GM just replied to my query and he said he's going to rule that multiple characters can try the feat, but only the better result will apply. So, if healer #1 gets a success and heals you for 10 HP on the 2d8 roll, and another character tries it and also gets a success and rolls for a heal of 12 HPs, you would only be healed for the 12 points total, no the combined 22 HPs. If the 2 healing results were reversed and the first one healed 12 and the 2nd one healed 10 HP, then you'd get no additional benefit.

[HammerJack]

That does make it a discussion of the balance of healing option with houserules, which is a bit different than a discussing of what other people should expect.

[Bast L.]

Heh, I just started playing a druid in Extinction Curse (we're level 2 now), and he had to use his healer's tools to treat poison on his animal companion. Then he tried to battle medicine the creature, and I was told I had to have a free hand (the GM and I disagree on whether manipulate requires a hand, or a free hand, but he's the GM).

So, my druid holding his 2-hand required healers tools, had to drop them in order to use battle medicine.

I hope they errata/clarify some stuff soon.

[Gaulin]

All this talk about cleric effectiveness (which I can't really chime in on, they definitely have subpar options but it seems to me you can make a variety of strong characters with the class, but I have yet to play one as I don't like that you have to plead with an all powerful figure every morning to get a fraction of their power) makes me wonder how the people having a hard time with cleric are going to find oracles. I think the divine spell list works a lot better as a prepared list. Granted we have only had a taste of what the oracle is going to look like, but the curses in the playtest at least were a little lackluster compared to the stuff you get as a cleric (doctrine, healing font)

[Nocte ex Mortis]

Some of y’all have a reaaally weird view of Clerics. Where the Hell did this idea of having to beg and plead for a fraction of divine power meme come from?

“I follow your doctrine and have been imbued with divine force for doing so. These are the spells I think I’m going to need for the day. Gimme.”

That is a totally legit preparation. So is full-on supplication, but I think only someone like Asmodeus is going to want that.

[Deriven Firelion]

Personally, I hope PF2 is treating the game like a video game. They will listen to feedback during real play to make modifications at later dates. They did a lot of testing, but obviously still could use some feedback on casters to improve the casting experience. I hope they take feedback on it and make some modifications. Not a single player in my group right now enjoys the pure battle casting classes like sorcerer or wizard and now one player is starting feel too limited with the witch. The main complaint continues to be a lack of interesting and useful single action options that fit the theme of their character, are an inherent part of the class, and synergize well with their abilities.

[Gortle]

Exodite wrote:

They, the Cloistered Cleric in particular as that's my primary experience, have issues mainly with;

* Action economy.
* Narrow/circumstantial spells and mechanics that overload the top end of the spell list.
* A lot of trap and feel-bad choices in deity/spell/feat selection.

I don't have too much problem with the action economy. Yes if you have to do 2 moves each round then you aren't getting much in the way of spells off. I think that is OK. Maybe that is the best way for martials to tackle casters... keep them moving.

Lots of bad choices in a game, is a perennial problem. PF2 at least gives you very generous retrain options.

[Gaulin]

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Some of y’all have a reaaally weird view of Clerics. Where the Hell did this idea of having to beg and plead for a fraction of divine power meme come from?

“I follow your doctrine and have been imbued with divine force for doing so. These are the spells I think I’m going to need for the day. Gimme.”

That is a totally legit preparation. So is full-on supplication, but I think only someone like Asmodeus is going to want that.

To each their own, I just personally don't like the idea that a character gets their power from something else. That their power has conditions and if you displease the source of your power they can take it away. In an actual game it gives a character fun roleplay options and story hooks, and rarely does it mechanically harm a character (I don't think many GM's make their clerics powerless that often), but I just don't like the theme. It's just my perspective, I don't expect anyone to agree with me. That being said, it's not really pertinent to the topic at hand

[Gortle]

Gaulin wrote:

To each their own, I just personally don't like the idea that a character gets their power from something else. That their power has conditions and if you displease the source of your power they can take it away. In an actual game it gives a character fun roleplay options and story hooks, and rarely does it mechanically harm a character (I don't think many GM's make their clerics powerless that often), but I just don't like the theme. It's just my perspective, I don't expect anyone to agree with me. That being said, it's not really pertinent to the topic at hand

Sorry, were you referring to politics or just religion?

[Gaulin]

Just the game mechanics! Clerics get power from a deity that they pray for, I didn't mean anything else by what I said! I like characters that rely on their own power is all. I don't mean to relate to any real world stuff

[ExOichoThrow]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Personally, I hope PF2 is treating the game like a video game. They will listen to feedback during real play to make modifications at later dates. They did a lot of testing, but obviously still could use some feedback on casters to improve the casting experience. I hope they take feedback on it and make some modifications. Not a single player in my group right now enjoys the pure battle casting classes like sorcerer or wizard and now one player is starting feel too limited with the witch. The main complaint continues to be a lack of interesting and useful single action options that fit the theme of their character, are an inherent part of the class, and synergize well with their abilities.

I don't understand what you mean by pure battle casting class.

Witch is playtest and it has really strong focus spells.

[Deriven Firelion]

ExOichoThrow wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Personally, I hope PF2 is treating the game like a video game. They will listen to feedback during real play to make modifications at later dates. They did a lot of testing, but obviously still could use some feedback on casters to improve the casting experience. I hope they take feedback on it and make some modifications. Not a single player in my group right now enjoys the pure battle casting classes like sorcerer or wizard and now one player is starting feel too limited with the witch. The main complaint continues to be a lack of interesting and useful single action options that fit the theme of their character, are an inherent part of the class, and synergize well with their abilities.

I don't understand what you mean by pure battle casting class.

Witch is playtest and it has really strong focus spells.

A cast made to cast damage spells like a fighter uses weapons. Very limited spell list or unique type of magical attack.

The witch only has a few really strong focus spells. The 24 hour limitation on top of the focus point requirement greatly limits them.

Let's take the focus spell for the healing witch. It grants fast healing equal to the spell level for 1 focus point, 2 actions to cast, and a sustain action every round. Even at lvl 19 it will only heal 100 points over a minute. It can only be used on one target per 24 h ours.

Battle Medicine is one action. By level 15 it can heal 50+2d8 for 1 action and a DC 40 Medicine check per 24 hours. By 19th level that check will be very easy.

I hope they remove those 24 hour limitations. They aren't necessary with focus points and actions already limiting their effectiveness. One per 10 minutes which is about once per encounter is much better.

[Salamileg]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

ExOichoThrow wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Personally, I hope PF2 is treating the game like a video game. They will listen to feedback during real play to make modifications at later dates. They did a lot of testing, but obviously still could use some feedback on casters to improve the casting experience. I hope they take feedback on it and make some modifications. Not a single player in my group right now enjoys the pure battle casting classes like sorcerer or wizard and now one player is starting feel too limited with the witch. The main complaint continues to be a lack of interesting and useful single action options that fit the theme of their character, are an inherent part of the class, and synergize well with their abilities.

I don't understand what you mean by pure battle casting class.

Witch is playtest and it has really strong focus spells.

A cast made to cast damage spells like a fighter uses weapons. Very limited spell list or unique type of magical attack.

The witch only has a few really strong focus spells. The 24 hour limitation on top of the focus point requirement greatly limits them.

Let's take the focus spell for the healing witch. It grants fast healing equal to the spell level for 1 focus point, 2 actions to cast, and a sustain action every round. Even at lvl 19 it will only heal 100 points over a minute. It can only be used on one target per 24 h ours.

Battle Medicine is one action. By level 15 it can heal 50+2d8 for 1 action and a DC 40 Medicine check per 24 hours. By 19th level that check will be very easy.

I hope they remove those 24 hour limitations. They aren't necessary with focus points and actions already limiting their effectiveness. One per 10 minutes which is about once per encounter is much better.

Wouldn't that "battle caster" be the kineticist? Also, to your comment on the witch, the hexes are confirmed to be focus cantrips in the final version.

[Draco18s]

Salamileg wrote:

Also, to your comment on the witch, the hexes are confirmed to be focus cantrips in the final version.

Link me.

[Corwin Icewolf]

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Some of y’all have a reaaally weird view of Clerics. Where the Hell did this idea of having to beg and plead for a fraction of divine power meme come from?

“I follow your doctrine and have been imbued with divine force for doing so. These are the spells I think I’m going to need for the day. Gimme.”

That is a totally legit preparation. So is full-on supplication, but I think only someone like Asmodeus is going to want that.

Count me among "some of y'all," I guess. Most deities seem kind of jerkish to me. Maybe not as much as in, say... Forgotten realms, but still, it's hard for me to want to play a character who worships someone I think of as a jerk.

And I'm not sure most of the gods would be down with a mortal talking to them like that. Cayden Caillean might not care. and Nethys certainly wouldn't care. but I'd think most of the gods would probably respond with some smiting.

Salamileg wrote:

Wouldn't that "battle caster" be the kineticist? Also, to your comment on the witch, the hexes are confirmed to be focus cantrips in the final version.

That's really awesome.

Gaulin wrote:

Just the game mechanics! Clerics get power from a deity that they pray for, I didn't mean anything else by what I said! I like characters that rely on their own power is all. I don't mean to relate to any real world stuff

I'm the same way, but sadly I'm not sure characters can rely on their own power in second edition anyway. Flanking, getting bonuses from other PCs actions, and for martials getting a magic weapon are all pretty hardcoded into how the game expects you to behave.

[Salamileg]

Draco18s wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

Also, to your comment on the witch, the hexes are confirmed to be focus cantrips in the final version.

Link me.

Here you are. Around 21:26 if the link doesn't work properly.

[CorvusMask]

You people weird me out, worshipping a deity is main reason to play clerics roleplaying wise :p Why would you want to play cleric just for class abilities and treat deities as literal fluff that you ignore existing.

I think the post about casters going down from 4-6 things per turn to 2 is disingenuous, but regardless while I agree that caster action economy is pretty much same as in 1e, I don't think it really matters much because caster versatility is still pretty insane. Like you do at earlier levels burn out spells much faster and spells aren't as "and now encounter is over because of single spell" as in 1e, but I don't think 1e's approach was balanced in any reasonable way :p

Like while I do want more single or multiple action spells, it really wouldn't change much. While it would be cool to cast 3 different single action spells in one round... I kinda think most people are thinking of doing something completely op instead of just "and all three spells have attack roll". Like having 3 1 action spells that all force roll from enemy or don't just do small amount of damage like single magic missile would be weird. I guess there could be "and now I teleport short distance" spell, but it'd have to be worth it for using spellslot for movement :p

(on another sidenote, problem with casters is that they get more versatile and powerful over time automatically more spells are released :p Especially casters that can prep any spells on their list)

[Kendaan]

CorvusMask wrote:

(on another sidenote, problem with casters is that they get more versatile and powerful over time automatically more spells are released :p Especially casters that can prep any spells on their list)

I'm pretty sure that's one of the reason for the Uncommon tag, to restrict that power creep as the edition progress, so I don't think it will be much of an issue in that edition.

[Exodite]

CorvusMask wrote:

I think the post about casters going down from 4-6 things per turn to 2 is disingenuous, but regardless while I agree that caster action economy is pretty much same as in 1e, I don't think it really matters much because caster versatility is still pretty insane.

I don't have any real experience with pf1, unless you count Kingmaker (the CRPG that is), but if my 3.x experience matters at all that's just not true.

Assuming I, as a caster, wants to cast a spell to begin with;

* If I'm using a shield I can't move.
* If I'm using metamagic I can't move.
* If sustaining a spell I can't move.
* If I'm pulling out any potion/weapon/tool/etc. I can't move.

I'm using "move" here because it's the most direct and relatable example, though obviously it can be any action. And the, theoretical, versatility of the 3-action system means the opportunity cost of that lost action is actually higher.

Anyway, this represents a non-negligible reduction of the action economy for casters.

Regarding your second point I don't think of this as a power consideration or something that should be compensated for/against with spell power.

It's feels bad in play, which is probably a worse sin IMO.

CorvusMask wrote:

Like while I do want more single or multiple action spells, it really wouldn't change much. While it would be cool to cast 3 different single action spells in one round... I kinda think most people are thinking of doing something completely op instead...

There's been an unfortunate focus on the the idea of casting multiple 1-action spells a round and as I brought that up myself, even though is was largely an off-the-cuff remark, I feel compelled to head that off before discussion gets too bogged down on the matter.

The point I was trying to make wasn't about allowing casters multiple casts a round, certainly not multiple offensive spells.

As I mentioned in an earlier post I'm not convinced the action economy issues for casters can be completely fixed without addressing spell action costs, though a larger selection of meaningful 1-action and reaction spells would certainly help. And I have little doubt splat books will put in some work on the latter.

Rather, I would like to see casters enjoy the benefits of the 3-action economy in a similar way to martial classes. The ability to move and use meaningful combat actions (potions, tools, metamagic, raising shields - or Shield, skill actions like Demoralize and Battle Medicine and so on) without costing them their primary ability - casting spells.

This isn't solely a caster issue, I feel too many things eat into the action economy overall, but it's more punishing - and more obvious - when your primary function requires 2 actions to begin with.

That doesn't mean I have to be able to cast multiple spells per round though!

[CorvusMask]

I mean, sure, in first edition you can move, cast a quickened spell, cast a prepped metamagic spell and probably had casted shield spell previously, but movement isn't really required for caster in 1e since spell ranges are really high. So saying that their actions went down to 2 is kinda disingenuous because part of it is that 1) 1e casting allows you to do shenanigans like casting two fireballs a turn (which while cool, is also arguably too powerful by 2e edition standards, at least until they somehow decide to allow option that reduces spell action costs :p) with a rod 2) shields work differently between editions and in 2e you wouldn't use shield if you can avoid being hit by moving anyway 3) if you sustain spell, you don't necessarily need to cast another spell. And you'd probably cast it from spot where you are safe and don't need to move anyway.

(with metamagic I think its worth trading versatility was worthy tradeoff. Like not wasting higher level spellslot on metamagiced lower level spell in exchange for being able to cast any spell as metamagic with one action seems fine to me)

Like I get your point of "It feels bad when other classes have 3 actions they can do 3 different things with" but I kinda feel like it hasn't been as big deal when I played my druid with animal companion.

Anyhoo, I guess you could argue that "they should have made it so that you can only cast one spell and cantrips per round and otherwise have all spells only take one action" but I think that is more of preference question.

[Samurai]

@Exodite: I agree completely, and I'm currently working on creating a 1-action Flourish spell casting variant. Until that is ready to be released, you can use my existing rule change that a caster can freely Sustain 1 spell per round, and it is only additional Sustains that start using actions.

[Cyder]

I kind of think more spells should have been 1 action with the flourish trait.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Cyder wrote:

I kind of think more spells should have been 1 action with the flourish trait.

I haven't seen this idea before this thread. But I really like how elegant it is.

[Exodite]

CorvusMask wrote:

Like I get your point of "It feels bad when other classes have 3 actions they can do 3 different things with" but I kinda feel like it hasn't been as big deal when I played my druid with animal companion.

I'm not going to offer a point-for-point rebuttal to your post overall, in part because it's getting pretty far off topic but mostly because I'm experiencing some really bad OG 3.x forum PTSD from the entire discussion. :P

I'll just say this;

I currently have no experience with pf2 beyond my lvl 11 Cleric and a lvl 5 Rogue, and the Rogue is massively more fun to play.

This can, as previously noted, certainly be at least partially related to group/playstyle concerns. However, the action economy concerns re: casters have been very obvious to me when I'm playing the Cleric (along with some other, largely Cleric-specific issues regarding deities/spells/feats) and that's why I'm bringing them up.

I'm happy to hear your experience with the Druid has been better though!

I could speculate about whether that's due to the Animal Companion giving you more options in combat, your group dynamic or playstyle being different or some other mechanical peculiarities of the class.

It is, however, immaterial.

If you enjoy the experience that's all that matters!

This thread mainly concerns those who've had a different experience though, which is to say that your positive experience doesn't invalidate other persons negative ones.

I'm not trying to push you out of the thread or anything like that, I'd just personally appreciate it if you could contribute in a more constructive way.

Because right now you're effectively saying "I disagree" over and over and while that's absolutely a fine position to take it's not helpful in addressing the concerns of those of us who have a different experience.

Samurai wrote:

@Exodite: I agree completely, and I'm currently working on creating a 1-action Flourish spell casting variant. Until that is ready to be released, you can use my existing rule change that a caster can freely Sustain 1 spell per round, and it is only additional Sustains that start using actions.

I appreciate the tips, I saw your spell Flourish idea earlier in the thread and glanced over your house rule thread. :)

While I'm currently just playing, not GMing, there are several good suggestions to work on from there.

Thank you!

[CorvusMask]

Exodite wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Like I get your point of "It feels bad when other classes have 3 actions they can do 3 different things with" but I kinda feel like it hasn't been as big deal when I played my druid with animal companion.

It is, however, immaterial.

If you enjoy the experience that's all that matters!

This thread mainly concerns those who've had a different experience though, which is to say that your positive experience doesn't invalidate other persons negative ones.

I'm not trying to push you out of the thread or anything like that, I'd just personally appreciate it if you could contribute in a more constructive way.

Eh, my experience so far on player side is level 5 rogue and level 4 druid. I haven't gotten chance to play in campaign yet, most of my 2e experience is on gm side. On player side PFS is only mode where I've gotten chance to play so far

But yeah, thats fair, no problem here. I felt pointing out my own experience so far since its easy to think that *everyone* agrees on matter if most people posting in thread agree on subject.

(that said, I hold my right to be confused by idea of cleric who doesn't want to worship a god ;D)

(also flourish spells are definitely a thing that NEED to happen eventually, would be so disappointed if they never become a thing)

[Ubertron_X]

CorvusMask wrote:

Eh, my experience so far on player side is level 5 rogue and level 4 druid. I haven't gotten chance to play in campaign yet, most of my 2e experience is on gm side. On player side PFS is only mode where I've gotten chance to play so far

But yeah, thats fair, no problem here. I felt pointing out my own experience so far since its easy to think that *everyone* agrees on matter if most people posting in thread agree on subject.

Which basically comes down to your own expectations about a class and how to play it.

If for example you play a glass cannon, spell tower type of caster, e.g. Elven Wizard or Cloistered Cleric with low AC, HP and Saves that primarily stays at range, occasionally using reach spell to boost spell range and disengaging from melee wherever possible you might indeed wonder why some people are complaining about caster action economy.

If however you try to to play a tanky caster, e.g. Warpriest or Druid, staying in melee wherever possible in order to better utilize the parties HP pool, delivering low range spells to enemies and allies alike and passive-agressively providing flanking opportunities while simultaneously being a hard target (my Warpriest's AC with a shield raised is 3 more than our raging Barbarian's and 2 more AC than our Ranger's) you will soon learn the limits of the new action economy.