| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And on the topic of Whirlwind Strike: The only way to make that a comparable AoE to Fireball in terms of size is to be a giant barbarian with a reach weapon and the Giant's Stature and Titan's Stature feats. While most giant barbarians will want those feats, it's still an incredibly specific build compared to a 3rd level spell any arcane or primal caster can pick up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those wizards are only specialists in schools, however, not playstyles. Even if you only ever prepared evocation spells, you still have non-damaging spells like penumbral shroud, glitterdust, telekinetic maneuver, and wall of wind.Again.
Why is the only "valid" wizard the wizard that buff/debuffs?
That's not what I said. What I'm trying to express is that wizards do best when they prepare a variety of things. I think only preparing buffs and debuffs is just as big of a mistake as only preparing damaging spells.
If you only want to do one thing in particular, in my opinion that's what the sorcerer is for. But as a wizard, you have the tools to completely change up your toolkit each day using the most versatile spell list. That's what their strength is.
People really have to update on the Sorcerer.
If you want to have the right spell for the job, you want to play a Sorcerer.If you want to play a specialized spellcaster, you are looking for a Wizard.
A Sorcerer has roughly twice more choice of spells every time he casts one compared to a Wizard.
Those wizards are only specialists in schools, however, not playstyles. Even if you only ever prepared evocation spells, you still have non-damaging spells like penumbral shroud, glitterdust, telekinetic maneuver, and wall of wind.Again.
Why is the only "valid" wizard the wizard that buff/debuffs?
That's not what I said. What I'm trying to express is that wizards do best when they prepare a variety of things. I think only preparing buffs and debuffs is just as big of a mistake as only preparing damaging spells.
If you only want to do one thing in particular, in my opinion that's what the sorcerer is for. But as a wizard, you have the tools to completely change up your toolkit each day using the most versatile spell list. That's what their strength is.
People really have to update on the Sorcerer.
If you want to have the right spell for the job, you want to play a Sorcerer.
If you want to play a specialized spellcaster, you are looking for a Wizard.
A Sorcerer has roughly twice more choice of spells every time he casts one compared to a Wizard.
The way I've seen it from seeing a sorcerer and playtest witch in play (who plays very similarly to a wizard) is that sorcerers are more versatile in an encounter while wizards are more versatile throughout an adventure. The sorcerer can pick any of their known spells to cast, but can't swap out their fire spells once the party starts fighting a lot of devils like a wizard can. Is this an incorrect analysis?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically all classes in PF2 have one major strength, it's just how the system is designed.
Barbarians are big melee damage dealers. You can make a bow-wielding barbarian, but you have to expect it to be less effective.
Bards are a specialized support class, as your said. You can build a melee bard that only casts true strike, but you have to expect it to be less effective.
Wizards are versatile arcane casters whose power comes from the variety of their spells. You can choose to only prepare one kind of spell, but you have to expect it to be less effective.
Whether or not you like this sort of class design, it's not only the wizard that's affected by it. All classes have a "best" way to play, but this doesn't mean that other ways to play them aren't viable. They just aren't the best.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well a lot of people seem to ignore that specialist Wizards want to only cast 1 type of spell. They want to master the type of spell they see as valueable. As it stands they cant do it because they must pick all these other spells to fit the meta. True specialist Wizards currently do not exist.
Maybe that’s how you play your Specialist, but that’s not universally true. Even going back to PF1, specializing just meant picking a couple of Opposition Schools that casting from was harder. (Or maybe even impossible, if you were into Sin Magic). And sure, you took a bunch of feats like Spell Focus to improve a particular school. But saying that you only ever prepared spells from your chosen school? I would think that is kind of silly. I play an Evoker in both PF1 and PF2, and while I certainly prep Fireballs and Flaming Spheres and the like, I of course prep Mage Armor and Grease and other useful spells. “Specialist” doesn’t mean “I cast these spells exclusively”. And if it does to you, I can see why playing a specialist Wizard is deeply unsatisfying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I've seen it from seeing a sorcerer and playtest witch in play (who plays very similarly to a wizard) is that sorcerers are more versatile in an encounter while wizards are more versatile throughout an adventure. The sorcerer can pick any of their known spells to cast, but can't swap out their fire spells once the party starts fighting a lot of devils like a wizard can. Is this an incorrect analysis?Those wizards are only specialists in schools, however, not playstyles. Even if you only ever prepared evocation spells, you still have non-damaging spells like penumbral shroud, glitterdust, telekinetic maneuver, and wall of wind.Again.
Why is the only "valid" wizard the wizard that buff/debuffs?
That's not what I said. What I'm trying to express is that wizards do best when they prepare a variety of things. I think only preparing buffs and debuffs is just as big of a mistake as only preparing damaging spells.
If you only want to do one thing in particular, in my opinion that's what the sorcerer is for. But as a wizard, you have the tools to completely change up your toolkit each day using the most versatile spell list. That's what their strength is.
People really have to update on the Sorcerer.
If you want to have the right spell for the job, you want to play a Sorcerer.
If you want to play a specialized spellcaster, you are looking for a Wizard.
A Sorcerer has roughly twice more choice of spells every time he casts one compared to a Wizard.
The thing is: Sorcerers know enough spells to know both the fire spells and the spells the Wizard would get after swapping out their fire spell. So, Sorcerers are more versatile in an encounter and not really less versatile throughout an adventure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All casters have to be generalists and take advantage of as much of their spell list as they can to be most effective.
Now a lot of people want to make casters who specialize in a certain of magic, but the system doesn't give much to incentivize tha. That should be addressed.
There should be ways to limit your spell list in exchange for more power with the type of spell you want to specialize in.
I don't think it'll happen though.
All casters have to be generalists and take advantage of as much of their spell list as they can to be most effective.
Now a lot of people want to make casters who specialize in a certain of magic, but the system doesn't give much to incentivize tha. That should be addressed.
There should be ways to limit your spell list in exchange for more power with the type of spell you want to specialize in.
I don't think it'll happen though.
I mean, maybe we will see Sin Magic in a Lost Omens book somewhere down the line. But I don’t think we will see that sort of thing in Core.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's part of what makes the Alchemist special. They can do their buffing before the fight starts and then still have actions available to do something else during the fight.But that doesn't make them buffers. It makes them turn other PCs into self-buffers.
If I'm a cleric, the whole point of me healing and protecting the fighter is that the fighter then gets to keep hitting things instead of either going down or having to retreat or spend actions to use some mediocre self-healing ability. But if I'm an alchemist, I can't actually heal the fighter. I can only give the fighter elixirs of life, and the fighter then has to spend their own actions drinking them instead of doing what they do best: hit things.
A 3d10+24 point heal from a 5th level cleric followed by two attacks from a fighter, preferably with some shenanigans applied, is usually a much better use of a round than a mediocre attack from an alchemist followed by a fighter chugging an elixir of life for 3d6+6 hp and hoping they don't provoke an attack of opportunity doing so.
Turning other PCs into self buffers is still a feature of the class; this feels like a quibble to me. If the Alchemist were not in the party the other PCs would not have access to a daily fountain of free, semi-on-demand alchemical items. That's a class feature and one of the benefits of playing the class.
I don't see how anything you said conflicts with what I said. The Alchemist works very differently from the Cleric and has tradeoffs, which was my point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters, all casters, have to pick the right spell for the job. There was a deliberate decision to take away a lot of the ways spell casters could overload an option so that it was always the best thing they could do in a round. There are flexible spells in PF2, but they are not universally the best spell you can memorize all the time. There have been efforts to make certain spells fit this category, like fear, slow, heal, etc, but they tend to have relatively limited effects. People just like them because they are almost certain to be useful in a day.
Why I love wizards more than sorcerers is because sorcerers generally need to pick the more general spells and less niche spells off the arcane casting list. I agree that sorcerers are fairly flexible in their spell lists, but they are almost never going to want to have spells like ant haul or mending in their repertoire. Sure they can get scrolls and even make some, but not if you don't have the spell, and it is tough to be a sorcerer and have the INT and skill levels to be good at those things, especially when your party probably expects you to be keeping on top of all the face skills you can.
Wizards on the other hand, tend to end up with spell books full of lower level spells, to the point that by level 9, they often have most of the 1st level spells close at hand. This makes spell substitution fun in play, because when you are thinking about strategies, you really get to think about all the ways any spell could be useful. No you won't always have that spell ready to go when you need it, but if the idea is cool enough, then it becomes worth waiting long enough to do. Plus the wizard heightens all the spells they know. Spells like charm, color spray, sleep, and even the summons are better for prepared casters than they are for spontaneous ones. There are just too many spells like dispel magic to spend many of your signature spells on the random, "that could be fun some time" spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think the primal list was a little too versatile to give druids full access to all the time. I wish there would have been a way to make some spells a different rarity based upon the spell list they are on, accessible by order type, but that ship sailed. The lack of true strike on the primal list is a big hit to the druid blaster though, that requires a fair bit of resources to compensate for.
Yes fear sucks, you're talking about a level 1 spell, most level one spells are bad because they're basically free at high levels. Most good level one spells are the ones that don't scale like magic weapon/missile/heal.
Then why is Unicore casting it along side Heroism (for +3!) and claiming that this is super mega awesome powerful funsauce wizard?
In fact, their entire argument is that the wizard casts Fear to make it easier for the fighter to use Demoralize.
(Also Fear doesn't scale, so either you meant "the good ones are the ones that DO scale" or you've contradicted yourself)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Specialist to me means having most, not all, spells be of a given school or theme and having the abilities to support those spells. Feats, Features, and Items that help or supplement pertain schools/themes is all important to what I deem a specialist.
As for not picking certain spells. A Pyromancer wants to use fire spells of all kinds, but there are only a handful of good ones. Meanwhile, a Lightning mage wants to pick electric spells, which is well support by the system. Neither of them might want to pick illusion spells.
****************
* P.S. Even if opposition schools were easy to bypass for some Wizards, it did mean that there was a clear difference between specialists.
Alright, so you’d like to make a Pyromancer or a Lightning Mage, got it. As you say, some of those are better stocked than others. As an Evoker, I miss Scorching Ray; I wonder if it will come back in the APG, or if it only lives on in the Fire Domain focus spell. But yeah, as more spells and feats are released, it will be easier to build such a character. I’d say that the PF1 Core Rulebook didn’t have all the tools you’d need to make that sort of character viable, either. PF2 has one very significant benefit for those Wizards: the Overwhelming Energy feat.
Druids are pretty limited in their total number of spells they get to cast per day. by 5th level they are significantly behind the wizard and it only gets worse past that point. Their style is pretty different though, with them usually having enough else to do in combat that it doesn't feel bad to not be casting high level spells every encounter, but it is a big difference from the wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes fear sucks, you're talking about a level 1 spell, most level one spells are bad because they're basically free at high levels. Most good level one spells are the ones that don't scale like magic weapon/missile/heal.Then why is Unicore casting it along side Heroism (for +3!) and claiming that this is super mega awesome powerful funsauce wizard?
In fact, their entire argument is that the wizard casts Fear to make it easier for the fighter to use Demoralize.
(Also Fear doesn't scale, so either you meant "the good ones are the ones that DO scale" or you've contradicted yourself)
I am confused about my inclusion in this statement. I think fear is an ok spell that can be useful at all levels of play. I don't think it is what makes casters awesome though, I am not sure where you got that from.
I much prefer getting weird and unpredictable with spells than having the "rinse and repeat" spell list.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes fear sucks, you're talking about a level 1 spell, most level one spells are bad because they're basically free at high levels. Most good level one spells are the ones that don't scale like magic weapon/missile/heal.Then why is Unicore casting it along side Heroism (for +3!) and claiming that this is super mega awesome powerful funsauce wizard?
In fact, their entire argument is that the wizard casts Fear to make it easier for the fighter to use Demoralize.
(Also Fear doesn't scale, so either you meant "the good ones are the ones that DO scale" or you've contradicted yourself)
It scales with character level and doesn't lose value. Damage spells don't scale because damage as a percentage of enemy hp goes down with character level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well a lot of people seem to ignore that specialist Wizards want to only cast 1 type of spell. They want to master the type of spell they see as valueable. As it stands they cant do it because they must pick all these other spells to fit the meta. True specialist Wizards currently do not exist.Maybe that’s how you play your Specialist, but that’s not universally true, Even going back to PF1, specializing just meant picking a couple of Opposition Schools that casting from was harder. (Or maybe even impossible, if you were into Sin Magic). And sure, you took a bunch of feats like Spell Focus to improve a particular school. But saying that you only ever prepared spells from your chosen school? I would think that is kind of silly. I play an Evoker in both PF1 and PF2, and while I certainly prep Fireballs and Flaming Spheres and the like, I of course prep Mage Armor and Grease and other useful spells. “Specialist” doesn’t mean “I cast these spells exclusively”. And if it does to you, I can see why playing a specialist Wizard is deeply unsatisfying.Specialist to me means having most, not all, spells be of a given school or theme and having the abilities to support those spells. Feats, Features, and Items that help or supplement certain schools/themes is all important to what I deem a specialist.
As for not picking certain spells. A Pyromancer wants to use fire spells of all kinds, but there are only a handful of good ones. Meanwhile, a Lightning mage wants to pick electric spells, which is well support by the system. Neither of them might want to pick illusion spells.
****************
* P.S. Even if opposition schools were easy to bypass for some Wizards, it did mean that there was a clear difference between specialists.
I understand the appeal of this style of play, but it really does run counter to design of PF2 magic, and the PF2 system as a whole. The game is really designed around trying to make the spells and feats do exactly what they say they do, and not need to be referenced against 2 or 3 other abilities. The cleric has the one big deviation from that with the way they bend their heal/harm spells, but if that became accessible through feats to individual schools or elements, it would have to be level 10+ stuff so folks couldn't MC over to grab it and then have the super fire sorcerer of sick burns. Otherwise it would have to be built into a choice that could only be made at 1st level as an innate class feature that was not available to MCing, like the divine font is.
|
I am confused about my inclusion in this statement. I think fear is an ok spell that can be useful at all levels of play. I don't think it is what makes casters awesome though, I am not sure where you got that from.Yes fear sucks, you're talking about a level 1 spell, most level one spells are bad because they're basically free at high levels. Most good level one spells are the ones that don't scale like magic weapon/missile/heal.Then why is Unicore casting it along side Heroism (for +3!) and claiming that this is super mega awesome powerful funsauce wizard?
In fact, their entire argument is that the wizard casts Fear to make it easier for the fighter to use Demoralize.
(Also Fear doesn't scale, so either you meant "the good ones are the ones that DO scale" or you've contradicted yourself)
Fear is generally over hyped in its usefulness.
In certain conditions, at the right level, it can rain chaos on a fight, but its hardly a game breaker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fear is solid early on (not the best spell you can cast in every situation, but useful in most). Later on it's passable, but certainly not spectacular. I find it's a good 1st level spell to cast in fights where you can afford to conserve resources, at higher levels.
3rd level fear is straight up amazing though. Combine with reach spell for pure misery against a group of enemies.
Yes fear sucks
It scales with character level and doesn't lose value.
Wait. Does it suck, or does it not suck?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes fear sucksIt scales with character level and doesn't lose value.Wait. Does it suck, or does it not suck?
Those statements are in no ways contradictory. Read them again and try to understand what I'm saying instead of trying to fight?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another way in which there is tactical complexity with spell casting, that can radically change the way a party looks at the value of any spell is timing.
PF2 is a system where it is really easy to waste your own actions, and that spills over into not getting the most out of your spells.
If there is a boss monster, a wizard, and a team of melee martials, and the initiative order goes melee martials, wizard and then monster, and everyone acts in that order, then the wizard casting fear is getting the least possible utility out of that spell as possible.
If the martials wait, or take up defensive positions to protect the wizard, and then the wizard waits, and then the monster has to move and then attack the martials, and then the wizard goes and casts fear, the martials get a full round of attacks against a debuffed enemy, without wasting as many actions moving, and the monster is still penalized on the round where it will be making the most attacks.
In one example, the spell maybe effects 3 rolls. In the other it could affect as many 15. It won't affect that many, but if it effects 6 instead of 3, it is twice as useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's part of what makes the Alchemist special. They can do their buffing before the fight starts and then still have actions available to do something else during the fight.But that doesn't make them buffers. It makes them turn other PCs into self-buffers.
If I'm a cleric, the whole point of me healing and protecting the fighter is that the fighter then gets to keep hitting things instead of either going down or having to retreat or spend actions to use some mediocre self-healing ability. But if I'm an alchemist, I can't actually heal the fighter. I can only give the fighter elixirs of life, and the fighter then has to spend their own actions drinking them instead of doing what they do best: hit things.
A 3d10+24 point heal from a 5th level cleric followed by two attacks from a fighter, preferably with some shenanigans applied, is usually a much better use of a round than a mediocre attack from an alchemist followed by a fighter chugging an elixir of life for 3d6+6 hp and hoping they don't provoke an attack of opportunity doing so.
Turning other PCs into self buffers is still a feature of the class; this feels like a quibble to me. If the Alchemist were not in the party the other PCs would not have access to a daily fountain of free, semi-on-demand alchemical items. That's a class feature and one of the benefits of playing the class.
I don't see how anything you said conflicts with what I said. The Alchemist works very differently from the Cleric and has tradeoffs, which was my point.
Something being a feature does not mean its fun to play.
I am sure its fun for all those allies getting to use free items. But what about the alchemist player? Is he having fun being a vending machine?
The alchemist is not just a vending machine. They can still do a bunch of other stuff *during* the fight since they did all their "buffing" beforehand. They can throw bombs, use weapons, etc.
Just because it is not fun for you does not mean it is not fun for someone else. Not every class is going to be fun for every person. People will like playing some classes more than others. This is not new.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another way in which there is tactical complexity with spell casting, that can radically change the way a party looks at the value of any spell is timing.
I agree. From personal experience, martials often tend to play ignoring the casters.
Amongst the classical examples, you have the Rogue putting himself in the middle of your AoE to flank an enemy, the Sudden Charging Fighter/Barbarian, the first initiative Rogue who can't delay because of Surprise Attack, the mobility-built Monk who always move at the maximum distance...| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait. Does it suck, or does it not suck?
it sucks at low levels. When that is the major part of your daily resources.
It's good at high level, as something to do in between blowing stuff up.
Really. Spell slots are kind of a janky system.
Alchemist have weak proficiencies, meaning their bombs and weapon often wont hit. While their mutagen cripples them.
Also asking whether the players are having fun is a totally valid question. Whats the point of a class if most of the players dont like to use it?
Alchemists have the same proficiencies as most Martials at levels 1-4 and 7-12. From level 13+ they fall behind by +2, which means they're less likely to hit and crit, but not that they always miss.
Do you have some kind of representative survey of PF2 players saying the majority of them don't like being Alchemists? If so, how many people have to have it as their favorite class for it to justify its existence to you?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist have weak proficiencies, meaning their bombs and weapon often wont hit. While their mutagen cripples them.
Also asking whether the players are having fun is a totally valid question. Whats the point of a class if most of the players dont like to use it?
Alchemists have the same proficiencies as most Martials at levels 1-4 and 7-12. From level 13+ they fall behind by +2, which means they're less likely to hit and crit, but not that they always miss.
Do you have some kind of representative survey of PF2 players saying the majority of them don't like being Alchemists? If so, how many people have to have it as their favorite class for it to justify its existence to you?
There has been a survey, and alchemists were at the bottom for fun and power.
Alchemists have the same proficiencies as most Martials at levels 1-4 and 7-12. From level 13+ they fall behind by +2, which means they're less likely to hit and crit, but not that they always miss.Alchemist have weak proficiencies, meaning their bombs and weapon often wont hit. While their mutagen cripples them.
Also asking whether the players are having fun is a totally valid question. Whats the point of a class if most of the players dont like to use it?
You're forgetting that alchemists don't have DEX as their primary stat. Their key stat is actually INT, and depending on build, DEX might still end up being lower priority than WIS or CON.
So "just as good as" goes from being "they're not behind" to "actually, they're behind by a good chunk." (You said +0/+2 difference, its actually closer to +2/+3, and just so we're clear, that's ignoring Fighters being +2 better in general).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention Alchemist use limited resources with weaker damage than martials do on their atttacks.
Another way in which there is tactical complexity with spell casting, that can radically change the way a party looks at the value of any spell is timing.I agree. From personal experience, martials often tend to play ignoring the casters.
Amongst the classical examples, you have the Rogue putting himself in the middle of your AoE to flank an enemy, the Sudden Charging Fighter/Barbarian, the first initiative Rogue who can't delay because of Surprise Attack, the mobility-built Monk who always move at the maximum distance...
That moment of pause when you ask, "Hey everybody, would you mind delaying for me so I can cast bless and walk up to where you'll benefit from it while attacking the monsters?"
Because the rest of the party didn't look at the turn order or consider that waiting for you to go first would mean they get that status bonus on all their attacks for this encounter, as opposed to starting next round...
Other players not understanding or considering what their party mates- especially casters, who have a range of powerful but design-limited options- are offering is a big issue, and its one I have also seen.
And its especially common with characters that resolve most of their problems primarily through Attack Roll vs AC.
You don't need to have DEX or STR as your primary class stat to be helpful in combat now and then.
Last night I GMed a party of level 6 PCs fighting a lvl 8 mook with an AC of 25.
A lvl 6 Alchemist with 18 strength and a +1 item would roll +13 and hit that mook on a 12 or higher, before flanking, status effects, etc. Alternatively, he could successfully aid in melee on an 8 or higher, with a 15% chance to critically succeed on an aid. In contrast, the party's melee ranger gets a +15, hitting on a 10 or higher.
A lvl 6 Alchemist with 18 dexterity and a +1 item would also have a +13 to hit and hit on a 12 or higher. She wouldn't be able to flank, but she would also be relatively safe from the mook's nasty melee attacks.
Let's look at lvl 14, because it is one of the other levels where Alchemists feel particularly behind compared to other Martials, who just picked up Mastery in weapons, and our martially-inclined Alchemist hasn't got to lvl 15 to get a 20 in a martial stat. We'll go for a level + 2 foe, an Astradaemon with AC39.
A lvl 14 Alchemist with 19 strength and a +2 item would roll +24 and hit the Astradaemon on a 15 or higher, before flanking, status effects, etc. about a 30% chance, which is not great, but it's not like he is just stuck twiddling their thumbs doing nothing. The party's melee ranger by this point gets a +27 and hits on a 12 or higher, which is what the lvl 6 alchemist would hit his mook on back at level 6, and only +3 higher than the Alchemist. At level 15, the Alchemist will catch up a bit when he bumps his strength to 20.
A lvl 14 Alchemist with 19 dex and a +2 item would likewise roll +24 to hit with a 15 or higher, with the same tradeoffs described at level 6.
Either Alchemist at either level could have given mutagens to their allies to make *them* more effective. Either Alchemist could pour an elixir down their allies's throats if they went down in the middle of the fight. Either Alchemist could toss a bomb to try to weaken or otherwise disrupt the mook.
No, none of these options is individually as effective as a Fighter or Barbarian swinging their sword, but neither the Fighter nor the Barbarian can swing their sword *and* have all the Alchemist's other options on the table at the same time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has been a survey, and alchemists were at the bottom for fun and power.
While I don't doubt this, I wager this will change as time goes on and people who know the alchemists strengths choose to play it. That and it gets a larger and larger repetoire of items to craft.
It is like a wizard in that sense, but it gets so many more resources to spend.
Surveys at different points in the game with different options available and at different knowledge points will result in differing feelings.
----
I do have to say I am loathing this clear cut "fun" metric that a few people in this thread seem to be insisting is clear cut and not entirely subejective.
It is fine in the case of the survey mentioned above of course. But there are too many absolute statements in this thread suggesting whole playstyles are "badwrongfun".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if it is really relevant to this thread or not, but I agree that the Alchemist is complex in ways that make it easy to end up making a character that you can feel bad about, i.e there are bad choices you can make. But that is an inherent part of having classes that have an incredible amount of options, like alchemist's and wizards.
Fighters shine so brightly in PF2 because it is really, really difficult to build a bad one.
One huge difference between martial's Whirlwind attack and a caster's AoE is that Whirlwind specifically says it only attacks your "enemies" within reach, meaning it excludes all of your allies that may be in the same area. Caster's AoE's hit everyone in the area of effect, friend or foe.
Hopefully they'll create some kind of feat or ability soon that allows casters the same ability to only target enemies that a raging barbarian has...
Chain lightning
Phantasmal calamity
Does Phantasmal Calamity affect only enemies? It says fills the mind of each creature in the area.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another way in which there is tactical complexity with spell casting, that can radically change the way a party looks at the value of any spell is timing.I agree. From personal experience, martials often tend to play ignoring the casters.
Amongst the classical examples, you have the Rogue putting himself in the middle of your AoE to flank an enemy, the Sudden Charging Fighter/Barbarian, the first initiative Rogue who can't delay because of Surprise Attack, the mobility-built Monk who always move at the maximum distance...
Martials don't care. They move in to do their damage without regard for caster tactical requirements. I sometimes feel like dropping bombs on them and say, "You get to swing your sword. I get to cast my spells."
Martials don't care. They move in to do their damage without regard for caster tactical requirements. I sometimes feel like dropping bombs on them and say, "You get to swing your sword. I get to cast my spells."Another way in which there is tactical complexity with spell casting, that can radically change the way a party looks at the value of any spell is timing.I agree. From personal experience, martials often tend to play ignoring the casters.
Amongst the classical examples, you have the Rogue putting himself in the middle of your AoE to flank an enemy, the Sudden Charging Fighter/Barbarian, the first initiative Rogue who can't delay because of Surprise Attack, the mobility-built Monk who always move at the maximum distance...
This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that, if PF2 has become the "martial edition," it is primarily because martials have been given enough options where they feel like they have a right to define the entire combat style of the party, but when they do so without consideration of the other party members, they are kind of digging their own graves, probably literally, when the casters don't go along with having to play that way.
I don't know if it is really relevant to this thread or not, but I agree that the Alchemist is complex in ways that make it easy to end up making a character that you can feel bad about, i.e there are bad choices you can make. But that is an inherent part of having classes that have an incredible amount of options, like alchemist's and wizards.
Fighters shine so brightly in PF2 because it is really, really difficult to build a bad one.
Fighters are pretty limited though. They do great damage when they can do their thing. But they don't do much else. Definitely better than they were, but still a very focused class. I'm seeing that more and more as I play with one.
Monk is an interesting class. You can do some things with the monk. Not sure how well it will work out, but I like some of their feat and build options.
I don't know if it is really relevant to this thread or not, but I agree that the Alchemist is complex in ways that make it easy to end up making a character that you can feel bad about, i.e there are bad choices you can make. But that is an inherent part of having classes that have an incredible amount of options, like alchemist's and wizards.
Fighters shine so brightly in PF2 because it is really, really difficult to build a bad one.
Fighters are pretty limited though. They do great damage when they can do their thing. But they don't do much else. Definitely better than they were, but still a very focused class. I'm seeing that more and more as I play with one.
Monk is an interesting class. You can do some things with the monk. Not sure how well it will work out, but I like some of their feat and build options.
Fighter is an interesting class to me as a chassis for building characters that are useful/effective in combat while using class feats to do... anything else. A level 14 Fighter that's a spy built for intrigue. I haven't actually used him much, so I can't compare him to the other classes alongside him yet. And a level 4 Fighter that's built to get (eventually mostly non-combat) utility from spellcasting; his high Int gets him a lot of skills right now, which I am enjoying.
Fighter is an interesting class to me as a chassis for building characters that are useful/effective in combat while using class feats to do... anything else. A level 14 Fighter that's a spy built for intrigue. I haven't actually used him much, so I can't compare him to the other classes alongside him yet. And a level 4 Fighter that's built to get (eventually mostly non-combat) utility from spellcasting; his high Int gets him a lot of skills right now, which I am enjoying.I don't know if it is really relevant to this thread or not, but I agree that the Alchemist is complex in ways that make it easy to end up making a character that you can feel bad about, i.e there are bad choices you can make. But that is an inherent part of having classes that have an incredible amount of options, like alchemist's and wizards.
Fighters shine so brightly in PF2 because it is really, really difficult to build a bad one.
Fighters are pretty limited though. They do great damage when they can do their thing. But they don't do much else. Definitely better than they were, but still a very focused class. I'm seeing that more and more as I play with one.
Monk is an interesting class. You can do some things with the monk. Not sure how well it will work out, but I like some of their feat and build options.
You can definitely build some cool multi-class archetypes with a fighter.
I like how the monk gets a spell list proficiency of Occult or Divine. This opens up some interesting multiclass options that don't require you to focus too much on building up a skill.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played PFS yesterday with my level 5 Angelic Sorcerer. He's a blaster/healer (in that order). I've clearly been a massive contributor to damage during the game (my 47 damage Searing Light and 43 damage Fireball helped a lot). I can't say if I've been the biggest contributor to damage but I was clearly above what most martials did (and we had a Bard).
I really don't understand why people think blasters don't work. As my Sorcerer just got access to Fireball I really start to see the damage piling in. One guy's experience can't be everyone's experience but I never have the feeling that martials contribute more than my Sorcerer to damage. During most fights, you have a martial who's lucky but when you look at the big picture for one lucky martial you have one martial with an average contribution and one who's struggling to contribute. My Sorcerer on the other hand is hardly lucky (spells have a low variation in terms of damage thanks to the 50% damage on failed save) so he's rarely the outstanding damge dealer. But he's also very rarely the struggling damage dealer.
This may be a matter of opinion, but casters are way better blasters than buffers to me. Outside Magic Weapon, Circle of Protection 4 and Haste 7, I don't see any buff spell worth casting. But blast spells are at the right spot in terms of damage output to me. If you focus on blast (Dangerous Sorcery, knowing a proper bunch of them to switch between saves and energies) you clearly pack a punch.
I've avoided speaking too much about my Sorcerer as level 5 is still not very high but I had so much fun blasting a Dandasuka yesterday that I wanted to add my experience in here.
I played PFS yesterday with my level 5 Angelic Sorcerer. He's a blaster/healer (in that order). I've clearly been a massive contributor to damage during the game (my 47 damage Searing Light and 43 damage Fireball helped a lot). I can't say if I've been the biggest contributor to damage but I was clearly above what most martials did (and we had a Bard).
I really don't understand why people think blasters don't work. As my Sorcerer just got access to Fireball I really start to see the damage piling in. One guy's experience can't be everyone's experience but I never have the feeling that martials contribute more than my Sorcerer to damage. During most fights, you have a martial who's lucky but when you look at the big picture for one lucky martial you have one martial with an average contribution and one who's struggling to contribute. My Sorcerer on the other hand is hardly lucky (spells have a low variation in terms of damage thanks to the 50% damage on failed save) so he's rarely the outstanding damge dealer. But he's also very rarely the struggling damage dealer.
How did you get access to Fireball? It's not on the divine list, nor is it given by the Angelic bloodline.
How did you get access to Fireball? It's not on the divine list, nor is it given by the Angelic bloodline.I played PFS yesterday with my level 5 Angelic Sorcerer. He's a blaster/healer (in that order). I've clearly been a massive contributor to damage during the game (my 47 damage Searing Light and 43 damage Fireball helped a lot). I can't say if I've been the biggest contributor to damage but I was clearly above what most martials did (and we had a Bard).
I really don't understand why people think blasters don't work. As my Sorcerer just got access to Fireball I really start to see the damage piling in. One guy's experience can't be everyone's experience but I never have the feeling that martials contribute more than my Sorcerer to damage. During most fights, you have a martial who's lucky but when you look at the big picture for one lucky martial you have one martial with an average contribution and one who's struggling to contribute. My Sorcerer on the other hand is hardly lucky (spells have a low variation in terms of damage thanks to the 50% damage on failed save) so he's rarely the outstanding damge dealer. But he's also very rarely the struggling damage dealer.
Through Blessed Blood. I'm a Divine Sorcerer of Sarenrae.
I also have Electric Arc and True Strike. I love to cherry pick spells in other tradition's spell lists.
Through Blessed Blood. I'm a Divine Sorcerer of Sarenrae.
I also have Electric Arc and True Strike. I love to cherry pick spells in other tradition's spell lists.
Huh. Since the divine sorcerer I played was a Rahadoumi undead-bloodline sorcerer (we remade our PF1e campaign characters and I made the mistake of choosing backstory over mechanics, leading to the party artillery piece suddenly becoming the backup healbot), I didn't even bother looking at any feats that had "worship a deity" as a requirement. Good to know there is a way to get an off-tradition spell before level 10, even if I can't use it.
|
|
I just had a game last night with a level 6 party, the level when most people who complain about blasting say that casters are at their worst, and I can say that everyone liked their characters and what they could do with the exception of the monk-rogue player, who sexualized the flurry of blows and therefore didn't like the class (in addition to having an aversion to martial arts. The whole cast, including the elven monk-rogue, was a gnome giant barbarian-champion, a leshy maestro bard-ranger, and a lizardfolk evocation wizard-cleric. On happenstance, the wizard was able to move, catching three of the enemies in a straight line, unleashing a lightning bolt, which all three failed. The barbarian and bard, both of which had been doing a lot of damage, were awed by how strong the wizard's blasting was while doing consistent damage on every other round.
My friends usually base who good characters are on damage, and every one of them being able to get off what they considered amazing damage made them like PF2e a lot more than they thought they would because of the math. The casters liked they were doing damage, at least equal to the martials (though the bard used hunted shot a lot), and still had other tricks to pull off that were not available to the martial characters. Fortunately, they came from 5e without complete system mastery, instead of first edition, where casters are objectively better than martials by a far margin. As such, they don't have an ingrained belief that casters, and especially the wizard, should be able to everything every other class can just as well or even better because magic.