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
How does one "sexualize" flurry of blows??
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Gleeful Grognard
Also I might be the one you are talking about with the "clear cut 'fun' metric", but I do think fun is subjective. Which is why I asked whether players found the class fun, that was a genuine question.Also yeah there are too many people suggesting whole play styles are "badwrongfun". I always value having the choice to play how I want.
Nah it wasn't just one person, I wouldn't have commented it if it was just one.
I want there to be pure blasting options, but I don't want people to read threads like this and come away thinking that casters are where martials were in pf1e. They aren't, not even slightly. It isn't even that they cannot contribute to damage.
Reminds me of a discussion where there was someone insisting that a 16 in a main stat would make a character unplayable. Sure it drops the average damage and hit rate a bit, but the number of rolls to have that matter when you are talking about a d20 means dice entropy is going to have a bigger impact on overall feel than a +1. It matters, it has consistent impact, but less than people are making it out to be when talking viable or fun.
they came from 5e without complete system mastery, instead of first edition
I do find it funny when people complain about the ranger in 5e, sure phb beast master is actively bad design. But outside of that it is nothing compared to what people wrestled with in 3.x/pf1e when it came to martials (which themselves were better than they were in 3.5 on a base level).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(my 47 damage Searing Light and 43 damage Fireball helped a lot).
A crit fail on the fireball spell and a quite good damage roll on the searing light vs an undead/fiend I presume.
I think that everybody agrees that blasting spells can be quite effective as PART of a spell casters contribution. But they're just PART of it. You yourself point out that your character is also a healer.
It is my experience that blaster casters absolutely shine from time to time but, over all encounters, they just do less damage than does a martial tuned to damage.
Obviously, either or both of us may be suffering from selection bias. But my opinion seems to be closer to the consensus than is yours.
And given the non damaging options casters have I HOPE that I'm correct. If casters can compete on damage then they're overpowered
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(my 47 damage Searing Light and 43 damage Fireball helped a lot).A crit fail on the fireball spell and a quite good damage roll on the searing light vs an undead/fiend I presume.
43 total damage for the Fireball. And yes, a fiend for the Searing Light.
It is my experience that blaster casters absolutely shine from time to time but, over all encounters, they just do less damage than does a martial tuned to damage.
And I disagree with you. My Sorcerer has the same contribution to damage than any martial, even the most optimized ones (most martials have very close damage output anyway, only Champion is behind). His main role is damage and every encounters I focus on damage. His healer role is mostly the use of his third action for self healing or close quarter healing.
If anything, a 43 damage fireball is pretty modest when you're targeting more than 1 creature.
If anything, a 43 damage fireball is pretty modest when you're targeting more than 1 creature.
Clearly. But it was against flying archers. So, the rogues were shooting with their non magical bow while the monk was watching. This non impressive Fireball was actually a big part of our damage.
| 1 person 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.
You would have to give the specifics of your combats. I feel great as a blaster too with AoE spells when I have a bunch of targets to hit. I would feel great blasting undead or demons with searing light. I ran a sorcerer with the divine spell list. It didn't feel great at all fighting a single giant hitting it with searing light for 5d6 fire damage.
Even when my bard launches a phantasmal calamity on a room full of mooks, I feel like a champion. I had one critical fail, 2 regular fails, and 2 regular successes for a 52 point hit. That was 104, 52, 52, 26, and 26 for a total of 260 points of damage in a single round. Martials can't really touch that. At the same time that is a rare circumstance and generally doesn't occur in BBEG fights where martials pretty much reverse that situation.
If you were running in an adventure with lots of mook fights and demons or undead, you're going to feel good as a divine spell list caster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even when my bard launches a phantasmal calamity on a room full of mooks, I feel like a champion. I had one critical fail, 2 regular fails, and 2 regular successes for a 52 point hit. That was 104, 52, 52, 26, and 26 for a total of 260 points of damage in a single round. Martials can't really touch that. At the same time that is a rare circumstance and generally doesn't occur in BBEG fights where martials pretty much reverse that situation.
For me, you have very strong bias. When you state that dealing 260 points of damage made you feel like a Champion I just don't understand. In the same position, I would feel like a demigod.
You focus on what you call BBEG, which is basically solo monsters. But there are tons of other types of combats. And I've seen dead characters on many different fights and not only against solo monsters.
So, I won't be more specific as I think it'll be useless. We certainly got similar experiences, I felt good about it and you felt bad.
Having martial characters build to expect to be a part of AoE blasts is an example of a way they can contribute to making casters play better.
Even when my bard launches a phantasmal calamity on a room full of mooks, I feel like a champion. I had one critical fail, 2 regular fails, and 2 regular successes for a 52 point hit. That was 104, 52, 52, 26, and 26 for a total of 260 points of damage in a single round. Martials can't really touch that. At the same time that is a rare circumstance and generally doesn't occur in BBEG fights where martials pretty much reverse that situation.For me, you have very strong bias. When you state that dealing 260 points of damage made you feel like a Champion I just don't understand. In the same position, I would feel like a demigod.
You focus on what you call BBEG, which is basically solo monsters. But there are tons of other types of combats. And I've seen dead characters on many different fights and not only against solo monsters.
So, I won't be more specific as I think it'll be useless. We certainly got similar experiences, I felt good about it and you felt bad.
I didn't mean the champion class if that is how you inferred it. It felt very powerful to land that much damage. It was my bard doing it. He does lots of stuff anyway. Bard always feels good and useful and can do some nasty AoE damage.
The BBEG is usually the final encounters of most modules. Why exactly is it surprising that you would like to do more damage against the main enemy of a module?
I played an undead sorcerer with the divine spell list. He didn't get to fight a bunch of fiends and undead. Thus his damage felt underwhelming. That is casters for you. In the right circumstances, you can feel quite powerful. Those circumstances aren't as plentiful as martials who rarely feel weak or neutered doing damage. Though they do love that haste from the casters. The martial classes do usually love casters because their buffs allow them to do so much more damage.
|
|
If anything, a 43 damage fireball is pretty modest when you're targeting more than 1 creature.Clearly. But it was against flying archers. So, the rogues were shooting with their non magical bow while the monk was watching. This non impressive Fireball was actually a big part of our damage.
I think you just made my point for me.
Casters absolutely rock in the right circumstances. Blasting is very effective when you get lots of enemies in an AoE. It's INSANELY effective when circumstances mean your melee types are hosed.
Although in that particular circumstance (if you were just a bit higher level) I strongly imagine that the better (purely from a mathematical point of view) spell would have been fly on a fighter or barbarian.
Just a side note, while it is an AP spell. Spells like sudden bolt (level 2 spell from extinction curse) give an indication of where the intended balance might be for future single target optimal pure damage spells.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see it or similar amongst the APG spells.
It won't make it stand up to a damage optimised melee martial at higher levels. But that would be horrible balance if it did at this point. It does however give a nice bridging option into the higher levels and fares well vs other ranged options even when cast from a level 2 slot.
Basic reflex, 4d12 +1d12 heightened, 60ft range. low minimum, solid average, very high maximum, scary crit. 4min, 26ave, 48max
VS say a level 7 ranger, hunting a target with a shortbow. 7min, 15.5ave, 24max.
Now of course the ranger would likely get 2 shots that turn (three with haste). But -5s aren't reliable damage, they won't be doing half damage on a success and -10 shots are all up to dice luck. Especially when fighting single target boss type foes where that half damage is more likely to come into effect than the -5 or -10 attacks.
Of course at level 7 they could also cast it in a level 4 slot for 6d12, or in a level 3 slot for 5d12.
It isn't barbarian or fighter levels good, but it isn't something to scoff at.
On a thematic note, I find people downplay the danger/damage a weapon represents as if electricity and fire are somehow innately more damaging than sharp steel or a spiked ball and chain ;).
Although in that particular circumstance (if you were just a bit higher level) I strongly imagine that the better (purely from a mathematical point of view) spell would have been fly on a fighter or barbarian.
Depends on their fly speed and ranges.
A barbarian might end up playing catch up or be stuck outside of the reach of supporters. Which would be bad.
Maybe there are also enemies on the ground and splitting attention would be a bad idea. Maybe it is very windy requiring the barbarian to make acrobatics checks just to fly (also remember that flying vertically is moving against difficult terrain at best even if we ignore maneuver in flight rule that are currently unclear).
As I have said before, if every fight is designed to allow martials to excel then martials will excel. At that point it is less about system balance and more about encounter balance and how the GM is handling things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't mean the champion class if that is how you inferred it. It felt very powerful to land that much damage. It was my bard doing it. He does lots of stuff anyway. Bard always feels good and useful and can do some nasty AoE damage.
Ho, yes, I understood the class, hence my answer.
The BBEG is usually the final encounters of most modules. Why exactly is it surprising that you would like to do more damage against the main enemy of a module?
I play PFS, so the fights I do are more balanced. The final encounter is not always against a solo monster.
Also, solo monsters are a low level issue. It is due to the incredible progression in damage and hit points of enemies at low level.
To make my point, I'll take an example:
A level 4 enemy has an average of 60 hp and 14 points of damage while a level 1 enemy has an average of 20 hp and 6 points of damage. Per the encounter rules, a level 4 enemy is supposed to be equivalent to 3 level 1 enemies. Once we factor in the progression in AC, Saves and attacks, we see that a level 4 enemy is way tougher than 3 level 1 enemies and deals more damage.
But if you compare a level 18 enemy to 3 level 15 enemies, things are completely different. A level 18 enemy has 335 hp and 40 damage while a level 15 enemy has 275 hp and 36 damage. The progression in both hp and damage is negligeable and the only thing increasing the enemy durability and damage output are it's AC, Saves and attack progression. So, now, it is the other way around with the 3 level 15 enemies being both tougher and dealing more damage than the level 18 enemy.
So, the solo monster is just a low level issue. Once you get to level 10, BBEG are just a formality.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have read all the posts, and I'm genuinely surprised this topic blew up kind of spectacularly. I'm sorry for not posting, but past a particularly point it was more crunch than my dimness would understand. However, figured I'd update my situation in an epilogue sort of way.
Fighter puts their character on the back-burner and trades it for a sorcerer. I talk to the cleric and convince them to trade it in for a ranger as they seem to enjoy caring for animals and straight-forward DPS than aiding-n-healing people. Still have Bard-Redeemer (who has tweaked their spells around) and Redeemer. The last session that had just been (and the one before) were a short dungeon crawl with a straight bandit fight, something to not really demonstrate raw power-force but just player enjoyment.
In this trading of roles, well, my party had a blast. In places, literally. The Ranger was gleefully running deep into fights with no shield, just a warhammer & knife, an AC that was either the highest or second-highest and a bucket of health. The sorcerer was using their ability to fly to cast fireball from above in ways that, in one case involving fleeing unarmed bandits, led to players with great mirth comparing it to the modern military (complete with happily exploding a team-mate, if it meant he could blow up one of the fleeing unarmed bandit). Everyone is definitely having fun now, even if I'm having that moment where I had to take a break from a fight due to how unexpectedly dark things had gotten.
Again, thanks for all the comments. I think it definitely helped to try to nit-pick the feedback each class offers and if that plays into what a player enjoys or doesn't enjoy.
I'm glad your group has found something that works for y'all!
I didn't mean the champion class if that is how you inferred it. It felt very powerful to land that much damage. It was my bard doing it. He does lots of stuff anyway. Bard always feels good and useful and can do some nasty AoE damage.Ho, yes, I understood the class, hence my answer.
The BBEG is usually the final encounters of most modules. Why exactly is it surprising that you would like to do more damage against the main enemy of a module?I play PFS, so the fights I do are more balanced. The final encounter is not always against a solo monster.
Also, solo monsters are a low level issue. It is due to the incredible progression in damage and hit points of enemies at low level.
To make my point, I'll take an example:
A level 4 enemy has an average of 60 hp and 14 points of damage while a level 1 enemy has an average of 20 hp and 6 points of damage. Per the encounter rules, a level 4 enemy is supposed to be equivalent to 3 level 1 enemies. Once we factor in the progression in AC, Saves and attacks, we see that a level 4 enemy is way tougher than 3 level 1 enemies and deals more damage.But if you compare a level 18 enemy to 3 level 15 enemies, things are completely different. A level 18 enemy has 335 hp and 40 damage while a level 15 enemy has 275 hp and 36 damage. The progression in both hp and damage is negligeable and the only thing increasing the enemy durability and damage output are it's AC, Saves and attack progression. So, now, it is the other way around with the 3 level 15 enemies being both tougher and dealing more damage than the level 18 enemy.
So, the solo monster is just a low level issue. Once you get to level 10, BBEG are just a formality.
Hmm. One of my parties is level 13. They haven't been facing quite as many solo BBEGs now. This could be. We will see how it goes against this final encounter, which is against a powerful BBEG.
One of the reason I haven't made any sweeping changes yet is because I want to see how this plays across the entirety of the levels. It may well be that battle casters come in to their power at much higher level much like they did in PF1.
One of the reason I haven't made any sweeping changes yet is because I want to see how this plays across the entirety of the levels. It may well be that battle casters come in to their power at much higher level much like they did in PF1.
As @SuperBidi already remarked blaster casters can be effective even low level if:
a) they are using the right spell (fireball) or spell combination (true strike + "ray" of x)
b) versus the correct targets or target (multiple low Reflex enemies or one single low AC enemy)
c) at the right time (fireball @ level 5 is probably peak effective)
d) while having supporting feats or features (like dangerous sorcery)
e) and while "average" rolls are involved (damage, saves, to-hit)
Also note that this are a lot of ifs which can easily lead to the impression that blasting is underpowered, especially at low level.
One of the reason I haven't made any sweeping changes yet is because I want to see how this plays across the entirety of the levels. It may well be that battle casters come in to their power at much higher level much like they did in PF1.As @SuperBidi already remarked blaster casters can be effective even low level if:
a) they are using the right spell (fireball) or spell combination (true strike + "ray" of x)
b) versus the correct targets or target (multiple low Reflex enemies or one single low AC enemy)
c) at the right time (fireball @ level 5 is probably peak effective)
d) while having supporting feats or features (like dangerous sorcery)
e) and while "average" rolls are involved (damage, saves, to-hit)Also note that this are a lot of ifs which can easily lead to the impression that blasting is underpowered, especially at low level.
Agree. But most of these ifs are manageable:
d) Just a question of build and not even necessary.
a and b) You obviously need to use the right spells at the right time but it isn't hard. Fireball, Lightning Bolt and Magic Missile cover the most common circumstances once you're level 5.
c) In PF2, only your higher spell slots are worth casting in combat.
e) Luck is always a factor. Casters are less affected by luck than martials but they are still affected. Luck can screw you or make you godlike.
So, you should be able to blast most of the time without issues.
One of the reason I haven't made any sweeping changes yet is because I want to see how this plays across the entirety of the levels. It may well be that battle casters come in to their power at much higher level much like they did in PF1.As @SuperBidi already remarked blaster casters can be effective even low level if:
a) they are using the right spell (fireball) or spell combination (true strike + "ray" of x)
b) versus the correct targets or target (multiple low Reflex enemies or one single low AC enemy)
c) at the right time (fireball @ level 5 is probably peak effective)
d) while having supporting feats or features (like dangerous sorcery)
e) and while "average" rolls are involved (damage, saves, to-hit)Also note that this are a lot of ifs which can easily lead to the impression that blasting is underpowered, especially at low level.
The low level blast spells aren't great.
But another nice event occurred. The cleric blasted off a sunburst on a group of ghost mages for around 290 damage in a round. Completely untouchable by martials unless you're some whirlwind giant barbarian set up well that got lucky. 4 ghost mages.
That seems to be the way of it. Right creature at right time with right spell, big damage. Rarely happens at low level, but can happen more often at higher level. Just like my bard launching a phantasmal calamity on a group.
Doubt I'll play a bard again though. Great class. Very powerful. But just not my style. I've never much enjoyed playing bards. They are the best support class in the game, can occasionally do damage, and are well-designed. I just don't enjoy the play-style or imagery. I tend to do the same thing over and over again. Harmonize with offense and defense song. It's boring me to tears as effective as it is. My party loves it, but goodness it is super boring.
The low level blast spells aren't great
There are just not that many of them really. We have a few direct damage spells, many are AoE, others are niche and others have riders that they seem to sacrifice direct damage for.
But do you include sudden bolt as "not that great"? If we get more spells like that later on (ideally common, maybe in the APG) would that help alleviate things in your eyes, or do you want them to be more powerful than that on a hit? And if so what sort of numbers should they have attached in your opinion?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sudden Bolt is kind of an anomaly, in that it breaks the damage progression for single target spells established in the CRB. I don't think it's impossible we'll see more like it, but it's hard to know for sure if it isn't just an AP author accidentally shooting fast and loose with damage progression.
The low level blast spells aren't greatThere are just not that many of them really. We have a few direct damage spells, many are AoE, others are niche and others have riders that they seem to sacrifice direct damage for.
But do you include sudden bolt as "not that great"? If we get more spells like that later on (ideally common, maybe in the APG) would that help alleviate things in your eyes, or do you want them to be more powerful than that on a hit? And if so what sort of numbers should they have attached in your opinion?
Sudden Bolt is new. It seems more like what I want to see from single target spells, sort of like spirit blast. Single target spells should have a damage premium for focusing on one target. I hope to see some kind of design rule incorporated for single target damage spells that has them doing more damage than AoE spells.
The rogue, ranger, and champion are hitting for an average of 25 to 35 damage for regular hits with Greater Striking Weapons. Their crits are in the 50 to 70 range for single action hits. Be nice if single target two action spells were built to cause average damage of 2 martial hits with a maximum of 2 martial crits in exchange for a spell slot or maybe slightly higher with spell slots being limited and weapon hits being as often as you can swing.
Sudden Bolt is kind of an anomaly, in that it breaks the damage progression for single target spells established in the CRB. I don't think it's impossible we'll see more like it, but it's hard to know for sure if it isn't just an AP author accidentally shooting fast and loose with damage progression.
The thing is, other single target damage spells (as few as they are) have other riders.
(a look at all the level 2 single target damaging spells)
- Acid arrow: Easier to buff to hit more frequently being an attack roll and has persistent damage which also heightens (and paizo seem to be quite conservative when it comes to persistent damage).
- Flaming Sphere: Lower damage but can be sustained round after round for a single action and move between targets.
- Spiritual Weapon: force damage, can be used as a single action sustain multiple times in the same round, has a higher minimum damage thanks to the ability score increase.
And that is it for single target damage spells of level 2
Heck if we include AoE there is only soundburst at level 2.
Expanding this to level 3 spells.
- Chilling Darkness: Counteracts light, has riders to do extra damage to celestials.
- Crisis of Faith: Riders to do extra damage to people who can cast divine spells and damages their spellcasting capabilities.
- Searing light, does extra damage to fiends and undead, counteracts darkness
- Vampiric Touch: Gives temporary hit points
My point is we just don't have many single target damage spells, and all the ones in the CRB have other riders or benefits to them. I am not saying that sudden strike will be the baseline. But we don't really have a lot of examples to go on when it comes to just raw damage spells. It is one of the reasons blasters feel as bad as they do imo.
And AoE is always going to be balanced against hitting multiple foes.
The rogue, ranger, and champion are hitting for an average of 25 to 35 damage for regular hits with Greater Striking Weapons. Their crits are in the 50 to 70 range for single action hits. Be nice if single target two action spells were built to cause average damage of 2 martial hits with a maximum of 2 martial crits in exchange for a spell slot or maybe slightly higher with spell slots being limited and weapon hits being as often as you can swing.
I don't think we will ever see a level 2 spell doing the equivalent of twice the damage martial specced characters who are over level 12.
As for single target spells, maybe if they get dedications that reduce their options or class feats / items that restrict what they can otherwise do. But it would be a tough tightrope to walk imo.
If sudden bolt becomes a bit of a rough benchmark for single target damage in the future I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with spells that single target do the lower end of double the average damage with one casting at the highest level.
A level 6 sudden bolt would do 8d12 and has 52 average after all.
Personally I would rather more of the damage spells to be lower with good heightened progression as it stops casters from having to pick up "upgrade" spells all the time and either choose to prep it in higher levels or stick it in a signature slot.
Saving higher level damage spells for things with extra riders or fun interactions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The low level blast spells aren't greatThere are just not that many of them really. We have a few direct damage spells, many are AoE, others are niche and others have riders that they seem to sacrifice direct damage for.
But do you include sudden bolt as "not that great"? If we get more spells like that later on (ideally common, maybe in the APG) would that help alleviate things in your eyes, or do you want them to be more powerful than that on a hit? And if so what sort of numbers should they have attached in your opinion?
Sudden Bolt is new. It seems more like what I want to see from single target spells, sort of like spirit blast. Single target spells should have a damage premium for focusing on one target. I hope to see some kind of design rule incorporated for single target damage spells that has them doing more damage than AoE spells.
The rogue, ranger, and champion are hitting for an average of 25 to 35 damage for regular hits with Greater Striking Weapons. Their crits are in the 50 to 70 range for single action hits. Be nice if single target two action spells were built to cause average damage of 2 martial hits with a maximum of 2 martial crits in exchange for a spell slot or maybe slightly higher with spell slots being limited and weapon hits being as often as you can swing.
If you compare Sudden Bolt to a fully-runed Greatsword Dragon Barbarian 2 attacks, they deal roughly the same amount of damage until you hit level 13 where the Barbarian starts to be ahead. with Dangerous Sorcery, you have to wait for level 13 for the Barbarian to be on par with Sudden Bolt.
In my opinion, it's the right spot. You use a spell slot to deal as much single target damage than a character whose main purpose is dealing single target damage. If you go above that, you have casters being better martials than martials and I think it's not something we want.
I think there's good reason for that conservative approach though.
Oh 100%, I understand why they are conservative. I just thought it was worth mentioning that while it's damage is lower and scales differently due to it being heighted +2, paizo doesn't treat persistent damage the same as flat damage.
It is the closest thing we have to a 2nd level pure damage single target spell outside of sudden bolt :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is we just don't have many single target damage spells, and all the ones in the CRB have other riders or benefits to them. I am not saying that sudden strike will be the baseline. But we don't really have a lot of examples to go on when it comes to just raw damage spells. It is one of the reasons blasters feel as bad as they do imo.
I fully agree with this. Right now, we don't know for sure what the baseline is, though we might after the APG releases. Until then, we can't be sure if Sudden Bolt falls within expected parameters or if it's the result of a slightly too overzealous AP writer. I will say that AP character options as a whole tend to be a lot looser on balance though, producing both undertuned and overtuned options (which isn't that big a deal due to the uncommon trait).
For Sudden Bolt not having a rider though, it sort of does. Basic Save is a pretty serious upside compared to the riders of other single-target spells.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comparing sudden bolt to a barbarian’s damage output is incredibly generous to the barbarian because it has a range of 60 ft and does half damage on a successful save. Against the fabled higher level boss monster, the ability to be at distance and do consistent damage are massive advantages. Most boss monsters are terrible foes to end a turn adjacent to, or else are especially good at moving so that you spend 2 actions to keep up with their 1 of movement.
Comparing sudden bolt to a barbarian’s damage output is incredibly generous to the barbarian because it has a range of 60 ft and does half damage on a successful save. Against the fabled higher level boss monster, the ability to be at distance and do consistent damage are massive advantages. Most boss monsters are terrible foes to end a turn adjacent to, or else are especially good at moving so that you spend 2 actions to keep up with their 1 of movement.
It was a comparison "taking everything into account". Average damage against a same level monster, High AC, Average Reflex.
The range is a bonus, but AC is also easier to reduce than Reflex saves (at least through Flat-Footed).| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn’t hating on the comparison, just pointing out that a barbarian has a much harder time landing 2 attacks a round than a caster does getting off a single sudden bolt.
Also sudden bolt is very much a spell to save for solo monster or boss fights, rather than against equal level foes where you might be facing 2 or 3 enemies.meaning that the barbarian is going to struggle even more with accuracy, especially on that second attack.
Previous, the blaster was trying to work with shocking grasp, spectral hand and true strike in these situations. Sudden bolt takes care of the accuracy and the range in one go. Shocking grasp is still really good against armored foes, but sudden blast is squarely in the better than martial damage output in most relevant game scenarios. (Not wasting actions to have to move and reposition and effectively laying down better damage than magic missile, even on a miss.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That barbarians damage output is going to be a somewhat steady curve vs the casters periodic spikes.
By and large, I don't think people put enough stock in the value of weapon attacks being a non-expended resource.
My experience has been that people like to put a lot of stock into melee weapon attacks being a non-expended resource that is happening multiple times a round, with flanking. In play I have rarely seen that happen for multiple rounds without casters investing limited resources in controlling the battle field, and supporting the melee characters. There is no more obvious target on the battlefield than a 2 handed weapon barbarian standing right next to you at the start of your turn.
If casters can reach the damage output of the biggest glass cannon in the game with a spell, it seems pretty disingenuous at this point to say that casters are behind a curve. What curve? Not single target damage, not Area of Effect damage, not utility, not support, not battlefield control. Maybe casters can't exactly tank as effectively as a martial? But really a martial can't really tank for very long in PF2 without healing magic, so with a decent AC and a shield, clerics really aren't that bad at Tanking by themselves. Maybe not Champion levels, but comparable/possibly better than rogues, barbarians, fighters and rangers.
I don't really believe a party of all martial characters is better off than a party of all casters. I think the curve between all casters and all Martials is pretty parallel. The casters can probably get through more encounters in a shorter period of time, while the martials can get through more encounters spread out over a longer period of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, I think damage dealing characters need support from their party to do their best. This just leads to the perception that martials are better at dealing damage because casters have more options to support them than martials have to support casters.
In general, I think damage dealing characters need support from their party to do their best. This just leads to the perception that martials are better at dealing damage because casters have more options to support them than martials have to support casters.
Ergo the "wizard is now the bard" comparison, which inevitably leads to the "but the bard is way better at that" comparison.
That barbarians damage output is going to be a somewhat steady curve vs the casters periodic spikes.
By and large, I don't think people put enough stock in the value of weapon attacks being a non-expended resource.
Spells are non-expendable resources, too. The next day they're back. You have to think about sustainability when playing a caster. If you don't manage to be sustainable, it's not a problem with casters but with the player not managing properly his resources.
In PF2, 11 fights give you a level. And that's without story xp or non-combat encounters. An adventuring day should rarely put you in more than half a dozen fights. Some APs are not following the guidelines, I know. But outside specific situations, you should be able to easily achieve sustainability with a caster.
And for the specific situations, you have scrolls.
An adventuring day should rarely put you in more than half a dozen fights.Do you have a citation for that?
The rules are light on, "Every party must have 5.4 encounters per day with exactly 11 minutes of time off between encounters," for good reason. Different parties will require different paces. A part of careful casters with good tactics might be able to ace 4 encounters in quick succession with less than 5 minutes of rest split between all 4 encounters, but then be exhausted for the rest of the day. A party of martials might be able to fit 10 encounters in a day, but need as much as half an hour to an hour between each one. GMs letting players have more time between encounters are being kind to melee martial parties that like to fight wars of attrition. GMs that push several encounters together, but let the party leave the dungeon and come back if they survive are favoring parties with casters.
I think GMing PF2 is a lot different than past games. The dice and in combat tactics are going to play such a large role in your character's success that you must be careful about the assumptions you make about what your party is going to have difficulty with.
An adventuring day should rarely put you in more than half a dozen fights.Do you have a citation for that?
"Experience Points are awarded for encounters, exploration, and progress in an adventure. When the PCs face direct opposition, such as a fight or a social conflict, the XP earned is based on the level of the challenge the party overcame. Characters can also gain XP from exploration, such as finding secret areas, locating a hideout, enduring a dangerous environment, or mapping an entire dungeon."
"Normally, when a player character reaches 1,000 XP or more, they level up, reduce their XP by 1,000, and start progressing toward the next level."
"Table 10-1: Encounter Budget
Threat XP Budget Character Adjustment
Trivial 40 or less 10 or less
Low 60 15
Moderate80 20
Severe 120 30
Extreme 160 40"
And then basic maths. Moderate encounters count for 8% of a level, 12.5 of them is a full level (I realize I made a maths mistake, it's not 11 but 12.5).
As it's weird to level up in the middle of an adventuring day, it means that you should not put more than 12.5 fights during a single level. And that's a level with no progress xps, no exploration xps, nothing but an endless stream of fights. Achievements xps, exploration xps and progress xps will eat the xp budget of these 12.5 fights. There are no guidelines about the proper balance between combat, exploration, accomplishments and such, but it is at least quite obvious that it shouldn't be 100% combat.
These are just guidelines, but at least you know that if you get to 10 fights in a single adventuring day you are getting out of the developer's intent.
uh... none of that actually says "an adventuring day should rarely put you in more than half a dozen fights." Bidi.
Even "As it's weird to level up in the middle of an adventuring day" is a you thing, not a universally held opinion, and not something the book or authors of the book have laid out as something they believe.
You're just talking out your... er... top hat, and then citing how much XP it takes to level up to try and justify it.
And no, we don't know that if we get to 10 fights in a single adventuring day we "are getting out of the developer's intent" - that is explicitly proven by the developer's intent not being something that you could just quote me from the book.
Contrast with D&D rules (let's use 4e as a specific example because I just read this part of the rules yesterday) which say things like use 1 easy encounter per level of play, use 1 hard encounter per level of play, and make the rest of the encounters moderate difficulty - PF2 has no such explicit suggested number of each difficulty class of encounter. An adventure absolutely could have 10 encounters and be a 1-day adventure - whether because the encounters happened to be low-cost by design, or because the players had good luck with dice rolls that helped them fly right through.
If you consider that you can level in the middle of an adventuring day then there is no more intent to read.
Now, I'd love to know how to do that, especially for prepared casters. Are they just screwed with no extra spells when the spontaneous ones get their new spells?I'd really love to know how people do that.
On the Ultimate Unicore Extreme Adventure Path, you can go from level 1 to level 20 in just 7 days! Thats right folks, gain maximum reps of over 3 levels per day, and blow your low level blues away!
WARNING: This AP is intended for maxed out Martials only, and results in TPKs in less than 100% of all theoretical trial runs.
On the Ultimate Unicore Extreme Adventure Path, you can go from level 1 to level 20 in just 7 days! Thats right folks, gain maximum reps of over 3 levels per day, and blow your low level blues away!
Friend of mine in college did that campaign.
Admittedly it was in the Scion setting/rules, but no joke, Hero to God in 11 sessions.(Roughly speaking he handed out 250 exp a session, in a rules system where you directly spend EXP on powers and attributes, and costs are generally in the 5-20 range)
Funny how everyone missed the fact that Unicore called the Barbarian a glass cannon.
If casters can reach the damage output of the biggest glass cannon in the game with a spell,...The Wizard by definition should be the glass cannon having literally the worst stats in the game and a limited use of their best ability.
However, we are at a point were having similar damage to a Barbarian 4 times a day is too much. When the Barbarian can quite literally just do that damage forever (with some healing).
But what can the Wizard do after they have spent their spells? Oh right the Wizard can take an 8 hour nap. While everyone else is ready to go for another 8 hours after a 1 hour healing session.
To be fair, I said wizards being able to do that 4 times a day is about right, not too much.
And healing a barbarian is nearly a full time job in the party. Especially one with a 2 handed weapon, at least in the experience of my cleric. They just have so many hit points to lose that keeping them on their feet while they try to stand toe to toe with monsters takes up a lot of healing spells.
It turns out glass cannons are a lot more likely to shatter if they need to stand 5ft away from an angry ogre to fire.
|
If casters can reach the damage output of the biggest glass cannon in the game with a spell,...The Wizard by definition should be the glass cannon having literally the worst stats in the game and a limited use of their best ability.
However, we are at a point were having similar damage to a Barbarian 4 times a day is too much. When the Barbarian can quite literally just do that damage forever (with some healing).
But what can the Wizard do after they have spent their spells? Oh right the Wizard can take an 8 hour nap. While everyone else is ready to go for another 8 hours after a 1 hour healing session.
The barbarian (and every other martial) is as limited to HP (standing in the front row of combat) as casters are by their spell slots. In Age of Ashes, we were not stopping adventuring days because our spell casters were running out of spells; we were stopping because we were taking hours to heal up (natural medicine without continual recovery) to the point where it was better to take rests.