There's also the Electric Arc debate. People generally agree it's more powerful than other cantrips, but there's disagreement on whether it needs a nerf or if all the other damage cantrips need a buff.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blasting being weaker than previous is not consensus. It both scales better and benefits massively from the new critical rules. There also a larger variety of blasts across classes, and mental blasts are a thing.
Spell slots should not feel limited to the point you should run low on blasts unless you go all out every fight.
Largely, it feels much better to me excepting extremely gamey Crossblooded or similar schemes in PF1E.
I think everyone is still feeling like there is no clear consensus on how Battle medicine and the manipulate trait work as far as hands requirements, and whether it is balanced around working for character's with their hands full, or it it is supposed to require a commitment to having an open hand when used. I just think everyone has decided that everything that can possibly be said about it has been and people are pretty comfortable house ruling it as they feel necessary. Also, I don't think little things like that have nearly as much weight on whether people feel the game as a whole is well balanced.
Although honestly, most of the debates I see now, with the possible exception of the Alchemist, center around whether the game is too well balanced as a whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blasting being weaker than previous is not consensus. It both scales better and benefits massively from the new critical rules. There also a larger variety of blasts across classes, and mental blasts are a thing.
Spell slots should not feel limited to the point you should run low on blasts unless you go all out every fight.
Largely, it feels much better to me excepting extremely gamey Crossblooded or similar schemes in PF1E.
Sure, if you want to exclude traits and feats and archetypes you feel are "gamey" and "min/max", you're right. Of course, if you don't, it's not even close and the OP is right.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overall balance is very good, without feeling too much like everything was made with a cookie cutter. So the rest of these comments are in a reasonably narrow range.
Fighter are the strongest class. The +2 to hit dominates the game.
Alchemists are the worst. No one in our group is prepared to even try one again. They don't seem to do anything well and their powers are just not strong in any dimension.
The casters with d8 hit points are fine. The casters with d6 hit points don't really feel like they are quite getting enough to justify their increased vulernability. So they will feel a bit weak if the party doesn't protect them. From mid level they are fine.
I don't agree Bards are too strong. It is just that buffing, control and utility magic still works very well.
Magic for direct damage is a little weak early on (before level 5). There are more hitpoints around so you notice it more, but overall it is fine. There are more necromatic and mental direct damage spells
Magic in the debuff role is a bit weak. Incapcitation makes it worse. Yes I know people will disagree with that but whatever.
Illusions are good which is fantastic for the game.
Cantrips are fine. Much stronger which is good. For sure Electric Arc is the best but the others have their place too so I am fine with that. A dedicated caster will take several different offensive cantrips.
Healing is easy out of combat - which devalues clerics a bit. But they have other things they can do. I'm happy it is now OK to adventure without a dedicated healer cleric.
The pet classes now have a real cost - actions and feats. So they seem balanced.
There are still a number of individual feats and powers (eg Cleave, Fury Instinct Barbarian) which are just too weak to be seriously used compared to other options. I live in hope but I am yet to see a game without a large portion of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Zapp"]We shouldn't have to debate this.
Let Paizo fix it, let Paizo choose; they're the ones creating this easily-spotted lack of variety in the first place.
I'd argue the only lack of variety is due to the low number of cantrips that exist. The only caster who has taken Electric Arc in my games more frequently casts Ray of Frost because of how often she doesn't have two enemies within 30 feet of her (and if she does, her bigger concern is getting out of stride distance of them).
Magic for direct damage is a little weak early on (before level 5). There are more hitpoints around so you notice it more, but overall it is fine.Note the starting damage of Fireball:
d20 (3E and PF1) 5d6 (quickly rising to 6d6 and finally 10d6)
PF2 6d6
5E 8d6I'd argue 5E but not PF2 designers took the proper consequence of having a game with significantly larger hit point pools (compared to d20). This is the main reason magic damage feels "a little weak early on"; damage expressions weren't updated (much) from PF1.
And oh, I'd say this feeling persists a couple of levels longer than level 5. Level 7 is the new level 5. Still, that's a third of the game (and maybe 80% of the game if you believe the surveys telling us people mostly play in the single digit levels). So it isn't nearly the small issue it can be presented as - casters definitely need an official low-level boost from Paizo. Especially Wizards, who have worse options to fall back on.
The 5e designers have said that fireball was made intentionally overpowered for legacy reasons. If you go by the DMG's homebrew spell guidelines, Fireball should be a 5th level spell, not 3rd. Using as an example of 5e doing things right isn't really a good call.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to change my mind a bit on casters as I hit level 14 and learn more about how the mechanics work. There are some standout nasty spells out there. High level AoE blasting does some beastly damage martials can't even dream of.
Some spells that are really harsh:
1. Synesthesia
2. Confusion
3. AoE Fear is actually pretty nice.
4. Wall spells are still good.
5. Sunburst is still extremely nasty against Undead.
6. True Target is fricking nasty.
7. True Strike is good.
8. Low level slots are good for spells like see invisibility, faerie fire, haste, and slow.
9. Scrolls are extremely good, cheap to make, and useful for lower level casters to expand their spell slots.
10. Advancing to Legendary Caster with a 24 main casting stat can get nasty. You're looking at 19+8+7 a +34 attack roll and a DC 44 save on spells.
11. Weaknesses add a lot of damage.
The above is why I like to play a caster up to high level before I make changes. I'm starting to see a high level caster can devastate things in a way that a martial can't accomplish. Martials mostly do damage. They do it from level 1 to level 20.
Casters on the other hand have lots of tools that really start to add up and shine when you're facing a group of lvl 11 to 14 creatures at lvl 14. You really start to accelerate and shift fights substantially in the party's favor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I ask you instead to relay your opinion on casters pre level 7?
Most people defending the current balance ends up inadvertently confirming the criticism, since they point towards good cantrips and other abilities. But the criticism regards the spells. Are the spells good enough during the first part of the game? Good enough to justify playing a frail caster, that is?
I think levels 5 and 6 are a bit of a rough point for casters, but 1-4 they're fine. Casters have repeatedly swung combats in their favor. I'll mark games where I'm a player with (P), and games where I GM with (G). Games where I'm a player are Extinction Curse book 1 (I'll be avoiding spoilers) and games where I'm a GM are a homebrew campaign.
(P) At third level, our witch cast Sleep using a 1st level slot to take a minion that was wrecking us out of the fight. These things dealt persistent damage on every hit, meaning going down to 0 HP was a big threat to us.
(P) In the same fight, the same witch cast a second level Sound Burst that took out the boss's summon and did hefty damage to that boss.
(P) Final mention of that witch, but his Nudge Fate hex has come in handy countless times, and knowing what the APG version of it is we're pretty excited.
(P) Our druid doesn't have as many moments because the character hasn't been with us as long, but her healing has come in clutch several times and summons have been surprisingly useful for keeping enemies busy and doing things like knocking them prone.
(G) Flaming Spheres from both the witch and diabolic sorcerer have been brutal in combat, absolutely shredding the final boss of Plaguestone.
(G) The witch has gotten a lot of use out of Phantom Steed both in and out of combat. In combat, it gives her a lot of extra movement speed to get into better position (especially when outdoors). My campaign features a lot of overland travel, so this spell has saved them a lot of time by plopping the low-speed dwarf on its back.
(G) The sorcerer has gotten a lot of mileage out of command. Despite not having a success effect, it's failure effect can be brutal in a lot of circumstances. Not being able to take reactions is a nice cherry on top.
(G) The witch has Slow, which everyone already knows is a fantastic spell so I won't dwell on this too long. But it was absolutely vital in the first fight she used it since the enemy had a movement advantage from being underwater and was immune to the barbarian's rage damage.
(G) The party was tracking a Basilisk. The witch had succeeded on some Recall Knowledge checks and knew that weasels and ferrets were immune to its gaze. So, on first turn of combat, she cast flaming sphere. On her second turn, she cast Pest Form to turn into a ferret, leaving her completely safe.
(G) Also, she's only used it a couple times yet, but the witch's Lightning Bolt has been very effective in combat, usually softening up enemies that the barbarian can get them in a single swing.
EDIT: (G) Don't know how I could have forgotten the cleric! If she wasn't in the party, the barbarian would have died a long time ago. And she's been an excellent utility caster outside of combat too. As I mentioned, my campaign features a lot of travel, so being able to prepare navigation spells whenever necessary has been very helpful.
(G) The cleric once circumvented an entire encounter with creative use of Ventriloquism.
So while I think 5 and 6 are rough levels for proficiency reasons, and don't think it would break the game for casters to get expert at 5, I absolutely think casters pull their weight.
Also,
In this context, discuss the 5E fireball is nothing but a diversion.
You were the one who brought up 5e fireball.
Sure, if you want to exclude traits and feats and archetypes you feel are "gamey" and "min/max", you're right. Of course, if you don't, it's not even close and the OP is right.Blasting being weaker than previous is not consensus. It both scales better and benefits massively from the new critical rules. There also a larger variety of blasts across classes, and mental blasts are a thing.
Spell slots should not feel limited to the point you should run low on blasts unless you go all out every fight.
Largely, it feels much better to me excepting extremely gamey Crossblooded or similar schemes in PF1E.
And yes, I do.
Blasting with the simple expenditure of a couple feats for things like Dangerous Sorcery and Overwhelming Energy feels much better than any build in PF1 which didn't flex extreme system mastery.
I'd argue the only lack of variety is due to the low number of cantrips that exist. The only caster who has taken Electric Arc in my games more frequently casts Ray of Frost because of how often she doesn't have two enemies within 30 feet of her (and if she does, her bigger concern is getting out of stride distance of them).I'm playing an official AP where you rarely have bigger rooms than 30 ft across.
I actually agree that there is a problem here, but it is probably that the early published adventures are relying on providing maps that are packed into adventure content where there isn't room for full page spreads except for multi-room dungeons.
If the whole system is broken, it is probably because the way people are interfacing with the APs is primarily in digital spaces where GMs don't feel up to the task of making larger encounter maps, and thus the maps that are getting published in the APs and modules are the only maps that are getting in the vast majority of games, and it is vastly undervaluing some spells, weapons and character options that are designed for a larger and more epic environment than narrow 25 square by 25 square maps that start in the middle and only give 60ft of movement before you fall of the edge. And unfortunately, the upcoming material is very likely to continue in this vein, as urban APs, dungeon crawls and combat arenas tend to do.
But it would be a mistake to try to balance every character option around fights in 30ft square rooms, because it would make the game completely unplayable for anyone who introduces their own encounters or maps or plays with elements of movement or mobility in more interesting ways. It also means that instead of dedicating hours and hours as a GM to try to balance underused material around the battle maps you are given, you can make your players consider other options a lot easier by introducing some random encounters on larger battle mats or outdoors, and make it clear that they need to be prepared for such possible encounters. You can even make these encounters feature lots of lower level enemies and not just big solo monsters and your party will be much happier that they thought to include an arcane caster with some AoE coverage. I mean, if it is a random encounter happening during overland travel, it is likely a single encounter adventure day, so make it a severe or even extreme encounter with no enemy higher than level -1 and you will be giving a whole different set of character options a real chance to shine in a significant encounter.
If you are an XP counter, you will have to adjust your balance somewhere else, but you can probably add one or two of these encounters per AP book and your party will recognize that it is a situation that they need to be prepared for, and there is a good chance your PCs move past at least one or two encounters anyway and need the extra XP before they enter the big boss dungeons anyway.
If you are a milestone GM, then you don't even have to worry about it.
Re: Map Size - larger areas do occur occasionally in Age of Ashes, and give some longer range options a chance to shine.
There is one especially notable area in early Age of Ashes where both of the parties I ran for used a combination of Stealth and Long Ranged spells to deal with things in a more "narrative" style than combat, really.
One party used fireball artillery to devastate encounter groups well before they could close. The sorcerer essentially soloed 3-4 encounter groups, as what made it into contact with the party after that barely qualified as trivial.
The other made use of an Illusory creature-archer with arrows exploiting a signature Spectacle in this areas multiple weaknesses to create an Awesome Spectacle while keeping the illusion outside of the enemies range where they could perform any action that would allow them to disbelieve (actually extremely limited). Since an attack or spell that causes the spell to end without disbelief, the caster would then recast and make a Deception check to convince the enemy he had simply teleported to safety - creating a giant distraction while the party accomplished their objectives under Illusory Disguises.
Long-winded Moral of the Story - Big, open areas allow for some really powerful and interesting use of some spells and abilities... but you also need encounters capable of also taking advantage of those options, or they become extremely easy to trivialize.
|
(G) The party was tracking a Basilisk. The witch had succeeded on some Recall Knowledge checks and knew that weasels and ferrets were immune to its gaze. So, on first turn of combat, she cast flaming sphere. On her second turn, she cast Pest Form to turn into a ferret, leaving her completely safe.
While I absolutely love this, I'm pretty sure RAW it doesn't actually work, as nothing in Petrifying Gaze or Pest Form actually has the clause. Kudos for doing that though!
I have tendency to forget to include the fluff aspects of monsters when giving recall knowledge checks. Its something I should do more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic for direct damage is a little weak early on (before level 5). There are more hitpoints around so you notice it more, but overall it is fine.Note the starting damage of Fireball:
d20 (3E and PF1) 5d6 (quickly rising to 6d6 and finally 10d6)
PF2 6d6
5E 8d6I'd argue 5E but not PF2 designers took the proper consequence of having a game with significantly larger hit point pools (compared to d20). This is the main reason magic damage feels "a little weak early on"; damage expressions weren't updated (much) from PF1.
And oh, I'd say this feeling persists a couple of levels longer than level 5. Level 7 is the new level 5. Still, that's a third of the game (and maybe 80% of the game if you believe the surveys telling us people mostly play in the single digit levels). So it isn't nearly the small issue it can be presented as - casters definitely need an official low-level boost from Paizo. Especially Wizards, who have worse options to fall back on.
fireball was changed to 8D6 in the playtest, however i recall mark saying that some spells were changed back, because they got too powerful with the 4 tier system of saves.
My experience with low level casters is that they are great, they just run out of big resources pretty quickly if they are focusing on casting spells that don't last for a whole battle.
My 5th level cleric is so versatile that I feel like I do everything except have the strongest repeatable attack routine, which is fine, because my party is quickly turning into a a bunch of Martials who would do that better than me even if I tried. But I am more effective at scouting than the rogue, who is better at out of combat healing than I am, I am as good at social skills as the charisma focused paladin, but I can talk to and negotiate with Animals and he can't, so we have our different areas of expertise, And I can lead us as silently and effectively through the wilderness as our ranger. Not to mention my combat healing is the unstoppable, and my bow attack is only -2 compared to my martial counterparts best attacks, despite the fact that I am in the pit of worst possible proficiency deficient levels. I still at least one crit about every 3 encounters, and since I am using a Longbow, everyone notices when I do.
My level 1 bard is in her 2nd PbP society scenario, and never lacks for a useful action in combat, nor a useful thing to do in myriad of environmental or social encounters one faces in society play. But there are so many ways to build your caster to have fun and effective things to do all of the time. Not yet for every possible caster build that existed in the past, but every class has multiple great build options, even at low levels.
You could get some really high damage which scales way above what available in 2e if you were willing to use the stuff the buffed your spell level and the stuff that gave you a static damage boost be spell dice. Damage in the several hundred vs numerous enemies. But 1e was always a game of two halves the silly high power over the top optimized groups had a completely different game experience from everyone else.Sure, if you want to exclude traits and feats and archetypes you feel are "gamey" and "min/max", you're right. Of course, if you don't, it's not even close and the OP is right.Blasting being weaker than previous is not consensus. It both scales better and benefits massively from the new critical rules. There also a larger variety of blasts across classes, and mental blasts are a thing.
Spell slots should not feel limited to the point you should run low on blasts unless you go all out every fight.
Largely, it feels much better to me excepting extremely gamey Crossblooded or similar schemes in PF1E.
And yes, I do.
Blasting with the simple expenditure of a couple feats for things like Dangerous Sorcery and Overwhelming Energy feels much better than any build in PF1 which didn't flex extreme system mastery.
I'm currently playing Pathfinder Kingmaker with mods that add in Blood Havoc on top of Primal Elemental bloodlines (+2 damage per die), spell specialization, and all the crazy metamagic (Dazing Spell).
Its a ton of fun, but I wouldn't call it appropriately balanced. Its fine when I'm the only player, can dial up the difficulty to make things less of a cakewalk, etc.
If it were tabletop opposition though, I'd be annihilating entire encounters on first initiative most times. That's not a good thing in a team game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is highly debatable. Martial characters can easily reach the 100s or 1,000s of damage in PF1....You could get some really high damage which scales way above what available in 2e if you were willing to use the stuff the buffed your spell level and the stuff that gave you a static damage boost be spell dice. Damage in the several hundred vs numerous enemies. But 1e was always a game of two halves the silly high power over the top optimized groups had a completely different game experience from everyone else.Sure, if you want to exclude traits and feats and archetypes you feel are "gamey" and "min/max", you're right. Of course, if you don't, it's not even close and the OP is right.Blasting being weaker than previous is not consensus. It both scales better and benefits massively from the new critical rules. There also a larger variety of blasts across classes, and mental blasts are a thing.
Spell slots should not feel limited to the point you should run low on blasts unless you go all out every fight.
Largely, it feels much better to me excepting extremely gamey Crossblooded or similar schemes in PF1E.
And yes, I do.
Blasting with the simple expenditure of a couple feats for things like Dangerous Sorcery and Overwhelming Energy feels much better than any build in PF1 which didn't flex extreme system mastery.
I'm currently playing Pathfinder Kingmaker with mods that add in Blood Havoc on top of Primal Elemental bloodlines (+2 damage per die), spell specialization, and all the crazy metamagic (Dazing Spell).
Its a ton of fun, but I wouldn't call it appropriately balanced. Its fine when I'm the only player, can dial up the difficulty to make things less of a cakewalk, etc.
If it were tabletop opposition though, I'd be annihilating entire encounters on first initiative most times. That's not a good thing in a team game.
Pathfinder 2 makes God Mode games pretty easy to manage. Just run all encounters at level -3 compared to normal.
Its just predictable now, if you want to run at that power scale. The playing field is more level.
Casters need a way to help vs more powerful single target enemies. True strike is an example, but not one all casters can get.
As such my group just runs a NPC caster/buff monkey so we don't have to worry about a player feeling weak and frustrated.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters need a way to help vs more powerful single target enemies. True strike is an example, but not one all casters can get.
As such my group just runs a NPC caster/buff monkey so we don't have to worry about a player feeling weak and frustrated.
Damage spells work better than perceived against these enemies when targeting saves. AC goes up just like saves do, meaning martials will actually miss more by a similar margin that caster accuracy falls by - except that casters still enjoy a large margin of half-damage on a miss.
Theres a general perception that dealing half damage doesn't "count" for some reason, when the truth is caster damage over time is fully relevant because of it...
Casters need a way to help vs more powerful single target enemies. True strike is an example, but not one all casters can get.
As such my group just runs a NPC caster/buff monkey so we don't have to worry about a player feeling weak and frustrated.
Damage spells work better than perceived against these enemies when targeting saves. AC goes up just like saves do, meaning martials will actually miss more by a similar margin that caster accuracy falls by - except that casters still enjoy a large margin of half-damage on a miss.
Theres a general perception that dealing half damage doesn't "count" for some reason, when the truth is caster damage over time is fully relevant because of it...
Not been our experience and until the optimized NPC can show us the error of our ways we are gonna stick with what we are doing.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters need a way to help vs more powerful single target enemies. True strike is an example, but not one all casters can get.
As such my group just runs a NPC caster/buff monkey so we don't have to worry about a player feeling weak and frustrated.
I feel like this is a pretty big misconception. Everyone in the party should change their tactics when confronting powerful single target enemies. Caster have exceptionally useful spells that can do useful things with better accuracy than martial characters can in these situations. Goblin Pox, for example, is sickened 1 on a successful save, which is pretty much as useful as a failed save against something likely to make its next save anyway. Sickened is a beast of a condition because it is a penalty to everything, or else the target has to spend an action to make a check to clear it. For a level 1 spell that is a whole lot of bang for your buck that has no incapacitation trait. No it is not useful against all enemies and its range requires placing yourself in danger or using the reach metamagic feat, but those are fine trade offs. Fear is less debilitating, but longer range and stronger effect if the do fail. Grease is great against lumbering creatures, and right there you have 3 level 1 spells that target different saves that are all useful from level 1 to level 20 against powerful solo enemies. They won't kill it, but no one in the party is going to be mad that you used your turn to do one of these things. Things get better as you go up in level with the spells.
Spells don't one shot powerful solo creatures anymore, not even high level ones. It is a big paradigm shift from PF1, but one that was essential to making big solo monsters more worthy opponents. They still struggle to stay alive at higher levels for very long, but they don't get one-shot eliminated by any one player acting on their own.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to change my mind a bit on casters as I hit level 14 and learn more about how the mechanics work.Thank you. You certainly have more experience than I do.
But the real question remains:
What do you think of low-level casters?
That depends.
Wizard and sorcerer: I didn't like them. I would build them differently this time around.
Bard: Good all the way up.
Druid: Good all the way up.
Cleric: Best healer.
Witch: My buddy is underwhelmed overall, but I think the witch has been useful. Most bang for the buck crafting potions. Evil Eye is a beast of a spell for helping the party.
I do want to try a wizard or sorcerer again because I didn't like them because I didn't understand the new magic paradigm. As an example, I did not realize Frightened lower AC and attack rolls. I didn't know Sickened could only be gotten rid of by spending an action. I didn't fully comprehend how conditions worked.
Now I'd like to see if some low level spells like Illusory Foe isn't cooler than it looked initially. I'd like to see how combining Flaming Sphere with a weapon of some kind. It's very easy to build a wizard that can use a weapon, which adds nice damage to my druid. I also found more effective spells that don't have the Incapacitation trait like fear, confusion, phantasmal killer, synesthesia, and ill omen.
I would make sure to build up magical crafting early, so I can make scrolls. I'm finding wands and scrolls using my spell DC pretty useful. You can heighten them and they pack a nice punch for no spell slot. And they get cheaper and cheaper as you level. Your DM and party has to take an interest in obtaining gold to fund consumable crafting. You can make 4 scrolls of the same type per crafting attempt. A spell cast from a scroll is as good as a spell cast from your slot.
I would build a wizard or sorcerer very differently now than when I first built them to level them up. I would focus on different skills and spells than I did when I first made an evoker. Things have changed, but there are good spells and effects out there that can really shift the tide in these short combats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to change my mind a bit on casters as I hit level 14 and learn more about how the mechanics work.Thank you. You certainly have more experience than I do.
But the real question remains:
What do you think of low-level casters?
That depends.
Wizard and sorcerer: I didn't like them. I would build them differently this time around.
Bard: Good all the way up.
Druid: Good all the way up.
Cleric: Best healer.
Witch: My buddy is underwhelmed overall, but I think the witch has been useful. Most bang for the buck crafting potions. Evil Eye is a beast of a spell for helping the party.
I do want to try a wizard or sorcerer again because I didn't like them because I didn't understand the new magic paradigm. As an example, I did not realize Frightened lower AC and attack rolls. I didn't know Sickened could only be gotten rid of by spending an action. I didn't fully comprehend how conditions worked.
Now I'd like to see if some low level spells like Illusory Foe isn't cooler than it looked initially. I'd like to see how combining Flaming Sphere with a weapon of some kind. It's very easy to build a wizard that can use a weapon, which adds nice damage to my druid. I also found more effective spells that don't have the Incapacitation trait like fear, confusion, phantasmal killer, synesthesia, and ill omen.
I would make sure to build up magical crafting early, so I can make scrolls. I'm finding wands and scrolls using my spell DC pretty useful. You can heighten them and they pack a nice punch for no spell slot. And they get cheaper and cheaper as you level. Your DM and party has to take an interest in obtaining gold to fund consumable crafting. You can make 4 scrolls of the same type per crafting attempt. A spell cast from a scroll is as good as a spell cast from your slot.
I would build a wizard or sorcerer very differently now than when I first built them to level them up. I would focus on different skills...
Deriven Firelion, it has been really cool to see your developing ideas and experience with casters in play. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 Blasting was the worst build short of basic mind control and illusion with a poor rulling.
The 4 reasons PF1 blasting stayed relevant were:
1) Damage scaled with caster level. So even low level spells could be used to deal not insignificant amount of damage.
[...]
Conversely, low level spell DCs in PF1 didn't scale at all with level, so it didn't take long for a 3rd level fireball to become a complete waste of a spell slot. Comparatively, a 3rd level fireball in PF2 has the same DC as any of the 9th level spells, so in any fight where the 10d6 PF1 version would have done full damage, the 6d6 PF2 version is doing 12d6 damage, and can still do 6d6 damage when the 10d6 version is doing half damage or nothing.
My long post aboveOf course the game should not be devoid of support for ranged magic, and it isn't.
Just that it's impossible to try to shunt "cramped conditions" away into some niche slot.
It isn't. It's the official default.
The argument "my caster rocks cause foes die before they catch up to us" is flawed in many ways.
First off, your language "the early published adventures" seems to suggest there's a mistake that's getting fixed as we speak.
Zapp, I explicitly state that this is an ongoing problem not being fixed currently or very likely to change systemically in the next set of APs either, Right at the end of the paragraph that gets cut off in your quote.
My suggestion was in thinking about what feels like a problem for you as a player and a GM, like a GM instead of always as a developer because it is one that GMs can do a lot about in this system. Switching up encounters can be fun and present PCs with new and interesting challenges. If your party hates it, that is fine, but you can then remind them that they are choosing to play the game in a way that devalues certain options and pushing the party to prepare for facing different kind of challenges.
Which again, is a perfectly goodright fun way to play the game, it is just not the only one and some options in the game will look bad if you only play the game in a way which devalues those options.
Witch: My buddy is underwhelmed overall, but I think the witch has been useful. Most bang for the buck crafting potions. Evil Eye is a beast of a spell for helping the party.
HOW?
The fact that she can craft 6 at a time instead of 4 doesn't pay off until you craft 2 batches and your savings (after something like 3 months) is basically 4 days of earning income. You still need to supply the base starting costs for six potions up front.
...I'm starting to change my mind a bit on casters as I hit level 14 and learn more about how the mechanics work.Thank you. You certainly have more experience than I do.
But the real question remains:
What do you think of low-level casters?
That depends.
Wizard and sorcerer: I didn't like them. I would build them differently this time around.
Bard: Good all the way up.
Druid: Good all the way up.
Cleric: Best healer.
Witch: My buddy is underwhelmed overall, but I think the witch has been useful. Most bang for the buck crafting potions. Evil Eye is a beast of a spell for helping the party.
I do want to try a wizard or sorcerer again because I didn't like them because I didn't understand the new magic paradigm. As an example, I did not realize Frightened lower AC and attack rolls. I didn't know Sickened could only be gotten rid of by spending an action. I didn't fully comprehend how conditions worked.
Now I'd like to see if some low level spells like Illusory Foe isn't cooler than it looked initially. I'd like to see how combining Flaming Sphere with a weapon of some kind. It's very easy to build a wizard that can use a weapon, which adds nice damage to my druid. I also found more effective spells that don't have the Incapacitation trait like fear, confusion, phantasmal killer, synesthesia, and ill omen.
I would make sure to build up magical crafting early, so I can make scrolls. I'm finding wands and scrolls using my spell DC pretty useful. You can heighten them and they pack a nice punch for no spell slot. And they get cheaper and cheaper as you level. Your DM and party has to take an interest in obtaining gold to fund consumable crafting. You can make 4 scrolls of the same type per crafting attempt. A spell cast from a scroll is as good as a spell cast from your slot.
I would build a wizard or sorcerer very differently now than when I first built them to level them
It's hard to argue with the results I'm seeing. Higher level mooks have a lot of hit points. It's a slog for martials to cut through a group of Level-2 creatures at lvl 14. It's much easier when a caster drops a high damage AoE spell, especially if the mobs have a few critical fails.
And reducing actions at high level can really slow down a powerful creature or group of creatures.
And having ranged attack spells to finish off runners that have high mobility a martial can't keep up with is helpful.
At higher level the things a caster does stand out a lot more than at lower level from what I am seeing. More useful information to reinforce why I wait to make changes until I see how a class does across all levels than just a handful that may be particularly bad.
At lvl 14 the martials are still doing single target damage while the bard is a Swiss Army Knife that can still pack a wallop in AoE damage.
Witch: My buddy is underwhelmed overall, but I think the witch has been useful. Most bang for the buck crafting potions. Evil Eye is a beast of a spell for helping the party.HOW?
The fact that she can craft 6 at a time instead of 4 doesn't pay off until you craft 2 batches and your savings (after something like 3 months) is basically 4 days of earning income. You still need to supply the base starting costs for six potions up front.
Hmm. I only make the witch pay for four potions to get six. Maybe that wasn't intended.
I really hope some of the APG rules are written better. Some of them are too vague and not well explained or are not so good as written.