| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is it an assumption of 2nd that casters were too powerful and should be punished?Punished is pretty loaded language. Part of PF2's design goals though were to have fewer egregious balance issues than PF1, if that's your question, yes.
There does seem to be a balance issue with wizards being too weak now for sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the crafting subdiscussion (and Witches):
Since PF2 is so obviously geared towards crafting not giving you any actual benefits, I have a hard time understanding why we're even debating the issue.
Just ignore any ability or feat etc that grants you bonuses to crafting.
In any game with magic shoppes (such as official APs) you're MUCH better off just purchasing what you want.
You can still get Craft as a skill to do field repairs to shields or whatever. Just don't expect crafting to influence your chosen character's actual power - not in a game that explicitly wants crafting to be entirely secondary. You take Craft much like you would take a Lore skill; mostly just to enrich your character's personality.
PS. Obviously there exists campaigns where no magic shoppes are available. And crafting is there a must (to the extent that the GM probably needs to use the Automatic Bonus Progression variant otherwise). But generic optimizing discussions doesn't take campaign variations into account. Hence me saying "just drop the idea there exists a class whose crafting leads to actual power".
Are you using the presumption that crafting provides no value because you can use earn income at the appropriate level at any time you want and then purchase the exact item you want at the time you want it? Is that where the crafting has no value idea comes from?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this kind of thing will probably become more and more common as caster players get more and more fed up with the system, unless things start to change dramatically very quickly.Now it looks like most casters and the Alchemist are falling into a similar boat.One good first step would be to wrench the consensus of this forum around, to make the staunch Paizo defenders see and acknowledge the game needs a general power-up for spellcasting.
After all, I firmly believe the devs don't need to confront the truth when it is repeatedly and consistently attacked and questioned. (If you want to know which posters I have in mind, I bet you can just watch who will be replying to this post).
Once the forum agrees the Core Rulebook went a bit too far in reining in casters and spells, we can start constructive healing, that hopefully ends up with errata (and not the WotC approach where you deny anything being wrong for year after year).
Best regards
Zapp
I'm mixed on this now at lvl 14. I generally agree low level casters could use a power up. I think cantrips need some revision because as you stated all anyone uses unless they need longer range is electric arc.
But man, some of these AoE spells do some beastly damage against groups. There are some non-incapacitation spells that are quite nasty like Phantasmal Killer, Confusion, and Synesthesia.
I also calculated DCs when you reach Legendary casting ability with an Apex Item. The DC for a spell at 19 would be 19+8+7=DC44.
Even against an Ancient Red Dragon your ability to affect them is as follows including their magic resistance:
Fort Save: Fail on an 7 or less.
Reflex Save: Fail on a 10 or less
Will Save: Fail on a 7 or less.
For a lvl 19 caster those are pretty good odds against an extremely powerful creature. And every AP is now built for you to obtain lvl 20, so you will play a full two levels at this point.
5E summon and shapechange spells seem way better in 5E than PF2. I remember the 5E exploit of summoning pixies, which was annoying as a DM. And Shapechange was better because you shapechange into a powerful creature and get their stats including a huge hit point buffer. Though the sustain and concentration rules somewhat limited the ability of casters to shapechange and enter combat. And not many people play to high lvl in 5E I imagine not many DMs have to do deal with the balance issues at high lvl 5E.
Whereas PF2 APs are all now built to take you to lvl 20, so you will see those high level abilities in every single AP you finish. It's much easier to run them all to lvl 20 because the balance makes it so.
I even started to homebrew in PF2 again. Something I did not do in PF1 or 5E because building encounters was annoying. Even in 5E once we added feats and multiclassing, the game wasn't balanced at all. The players destroyed everything with ease. I don't find that enjoyable at all. It wasn't the casters, it was the Sharpshooter Archers and GWF multiclass-paladins obliterating things once buffed up with bless, a 1st level spell that should have been a 5th or 6th or higher level spell.
Now that I can create challenging creatures easily in PF2, I can focus on story over mechanics. In PF1 or 5E when I wanted to homebrew, I had to plan for every feat choice, mechanic, and magic item the players had. I spent way more time planning tactically than focusing on story to challenge the players. It made me despise home-brewing.
I much, much prefer the deadliness of PF2 over 5E and PF1 easy modes. Though I do sympathize with you for low level casters which I think require a different mindset to build, high level casters are starting to look like a game changing force to me. Martials are still doing their good single target damage, but they are doing the same thing at lvl 14 they were doing at lvl 1 with slight improvements. Now my bard is starting to do things with AoE damage, spells, and overall abilities the martials can't touch and shifting the battles in our favor to make them much easier with much less risk. When the cleric and bard are able to open up with AoE spells, it clears battlefields, then the martials go in and mop up.
Just wanted to add my changing perspective. I want to be clear. I still think low level casters can use some work, especially wizards and sorcerers. I'm starting to see high level casters can do some serious hammering and battlefield shifting, which is extremely helpful against higher level mooks.
I'm going to continue to wait and develop ideas as I level about what I think needs changes. So far what I'm sure needs changes:
1. Cantrips: d6 should be the standard damage for single target cantrips.
2. Wizard school abilities need substantial improvement.
3. Single target damage spells should be 150% of the damage of single target or at least 125% of single target depending on riders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you're saying is that casters are relegated to buffing and debuffing when it comes to solo encounters. But not every caster finds it worthwhile to play a frail hero with limited big attacks just to hand out -1's and +1's. If you no longer can save the day, alternating your regular mediocrity with...
Bold mine.
If YOU can no longer save the day as a spellcaster in PF2, YOU are playing them wrong.
Clerics "save the day" like its their job (which it is) by rendering everything the enemy just did irrelevant with one healing spell.
Bards and other debuffers save the day by shifting the math robbing dangerous foes of actions.
Blasters save the day by quickly and efficiently removing dangerous supporting enemies from fights against dangerous foes, and by dealing mathematically relevant damage to those enemies as well.
You just aren't, you know, Angel Summoner to everyone else's BMX bandit. Everyone is now in "Hero" territory together.
The "entire archetype" of caster you're complaining about being gone is an archetype notorious for defeating foes or entire encounters with one spell, with good reliability. That archetype is gone, hopefully for good, and good riddance. I played an enchanter in PF1 and looking back on it, it was fun for literally no one but me.
If Spells cant have big fancy effect and only give +/-1 and healing why punish them with the worst stats?
The entire reason why casters traditionally have low stats is to support the idea of a frail but powerful backline. But casters are only frail.
I swear that casters are so frail, that the only reason I see for them not dying more often is the GMs only aiming at martials because "not smart". Creatures usually dont attack just the strongest enemy, they go for the weakest link, aka the casters in the back line.
Greater Invis is only a 4th lvl spell now. Not many creatures can see invis now. Once 4th level spells become fairly trivial to cast, you can be invisible as a caster in a lot of battles providing flat-footed status to enemies and keeping you from being hit.
I tend to build up Stealth for my casters and use invis a lot for defense once I saw more creatures could not detect invis easily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think when people say “casters..” they aren’t talking about bards. Bards are great. And Druids are fine, same with Clerics; both their spell lists are probably better than 1e.
Maybe, but it sounds like a general casters idea for Zapp. Not sure how he views druids, bards, and clerics.
My feeling at this moment is you need to build wizards and sorcerers differently in 5E. Some general and ancestry feats I thought were not useful when I first started I believe are meant to allow casters to do a little martial damage just as some feats allow martials to have a little casting ability. Neither is a must, but both enhance the base classes more.
I think low level casters including wizards and sorcerers should take feats like ancestry or general feats that allow them to use a weapon. A weapon allows a caster to use a single action to do some martial damage on top of their spellcasting damage. It also expands their action options in a meaningful way as well as providing them a good reason to pick up a good magic weapon.
I think ancestry and general feats providing ways to use weapons were put in the game for this specific purpose. A caster not willing to pursue this option is putting themselves at a disadvantage against a caster willing to do this.
Given you get four stat increases per five levels, it shouldn't be too hard to build up physical stats as well as a combat stats to make martial weapon use viable when combined with spellcasting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some general and ancestry feats I thought were not useful when I first started I believe are meant to allow casters to do a little martial damage just as some feats allow martials to have a little casting ability. Neither is a must, but both enhance the base classes more.
I think ancestry and general feats providing ways to use weapons were put in the game for this specific purpose. A caster not willing to pursue this option is putting themselves at a disadvantage against a caster willing to do this.
I happen to vehemently disagree with that design choice. In that forcing casting classes--with their lower AC and HP--into melee is somehow a 'required' part of how to play the class well. Its not quite as suicidal as it was in 1E, but I'd call it pretty darn suicidal all the same.
I don't mind folks wanting to build such a character, but as a "oh we assumed that people would..." perspective? No. Absolutely not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some general and ancestry feats I thought were not useful when I first started I believe are meant to allow casters to do a little martial damage just as some feats allow martials to have a little casting ability. Neither is a must, but both enhance the base classes more.
I think ancestry and general feats providing ways to use weapons were put in the game for this specific purpose. A caster not willing to pursue this option is putting themselves at a disadvantage against a caster willing to do this.
I happen to vehemently disagree with that design choice. In that forcing casting classes--with their lower AC and HP--into melee is somehow a 'required' part of how to play the class well. Its not quite as suicidal as it was in 1E, but I'd call it pretty darn suicidal all the same.
I don't mind folks wanting to build such a character, but as a "oh we assumed that people would..." perspective? No. Absolutely not.
Yeah melee is definitely a bad call.
Ranged attacks with crossbow/bow can be an OK (not great) attack though and often a caster can find the action to do it.
But casters should not resort to this as a default.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are people suggesting crossbows when cantrips are more effective for casters in every way? (Excepting divine, which doesn't really have a consistent attack cantrips.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are people suggesting crossbows when cantrips are more effective for casters in every way? (Excepting divine, which doesn't really have a consistent attack cantrips.)
I get it, the nebulous "third action" for spellcasters is tricky, especially if you have a GM that isn't on the same page with you on Recall Knowledge.
Edit: Especially so at low levels with less options
Why are people suggesting crossbows when cantrips are more effective for casters in every way? (Excepting divine, which doesn't really have a consistent attack cantrips.)
If the caster does not want to move, and chooses not to do something defensive like raise a shield. They have 3 actions. Most cantrips and spells are two actions. Many casters will not have a useful one action spell to use as a third action.
In this circumstance firing a bow for one action - with no multiple attack penalty if their spell did not have an attack roll - can be a reasonable option.Only talking about one action, not broader use of weapons.
Divine casters can pick up attack cantrips via some ancestry feats or a single multiclass feat if they want them. Probably a good idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are people suggesting crossbows when cantrips are more effective for casters in every way? (Excepting divine, which doesn't really have a consistent attack cantrips.)
At low levels, A heavy crossbow or a longbow is not a bad weapon for a caster to carry into combat. Your one shot with it can hit pretty hard. Cantrips take two actions. They can be great for follow up rounds, but if you want to lead off with a spell and an attack it is nice to have one that can hit pretty hard.
Once you get enough spell slots, it can be fine to switch over. You don't have to commit to doing the same combat routine from level 1 to 20.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 has also inspired me to start homebrewing again, which is something I haven't done in over a decade. The balance of the game and the ease of feeling out the difficulty of creatures in comparison to PCs is outstanding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are people suggesting crossbows when cantrips are more effective for casters in every way? (Excepting divine, which doesn't really have a consistent attack cantrips.)At low levels, A heavy crossbow or a longbow is not a bad weapon for a caster to carry into combat. Your one shot with it can hit pretty hard. Cantrips take two actions. They can be great for follow up rounds, but if you want to lead off with a spell and an attack it is nice to have one that can hit pretty hard.
Once you get enough spell slots, it can be fine to switch over. You don't have to commit to doing the same combat routine from level 1 to 20.
The key is, Casters in general are encouraged to plan for their third action - move if you have to, and have some sort of attack, defense, or skill action ready to go. Demoralize is pretty solid in general, but I'm pretty sure nothing stops casters with athletics from tripping with a whip using dexterity or strength, and they can now afford to level at least one of those as they go.
For my Cleric, I went Multiclass Bard and picked up Versatile Performance to Demoralize with, and to lean hard into Performance for EC.
I guess I’ll just vent here on my latest Balance issue: the Witch.
Am I just missing something? This class is basically a worse Bard. Imagine being a Bard, but having less HP, no armor prof, and instead of your abilities affectIng a wide area and possibly all allies or all enemies (with no save for dirge even), they affect one target at a time and enemies get a save, and the way Hexes work you can’t use them again on the same target. And most of them don’t heighten. But hey at least you can take three feats to give your familiar six extra abilities if you’re into that...?
Hate to vent, but this was my favorite PF1 class. It seems explicitly worse than a Wizard - please tell me what I’m missing here.
Well I think you'll have to wait for the apg to come out for most people to meaningfully discuss this with you, but judging from previews the witch and Oracle definitely seem weaker than the bard and cleric.
But I think that the bard is more op relative to most casters than the witch is under powered. The witch and Oracle seem more fitting compared to the druid.
Some general and ancestry feats I thought were not useful when I first started I believe are meant to allow casters to do a little martial damage just as some feats allow martials to have a little casting ability. Neither is a must, but both enhance the base classes more.
I think ancestry and general feats providing ways to use weapons were put in the game for this specific purpose. A caster not willing to pursue this option is putting themselves at a disadvantage against a caster willing to do this.
I happen to vehemently disagree with that design choice. In that forcing casting classes--with their lower AC and HP--into melee is somehow a 'required' part of how to play the class well. Its not quite as suicidal as it was in 1E, but I'd call it pretty darn suicidal all the same.
I don't mind folks wanting to build such a character, but as a "oh we assumed that people would..." perspective? No. Absolutely not.
I use a bow myself. But you could use a sword like Gandalf.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are people suggesting crossbows when cantrips are more effective for casters in every way? (Excepting divine, which doesn't really have a consistent attack cantrips.)At low levels, A heavy crossbow or a longbow is not a bad weapon for a caster to carry into combat. Your one shot with it can hit pretty hard. Cantrips take two actions. They can be great for follow up rounds, but if you want to lead off with a spell and an attack it is nice to have one that can hit pretty hard.
Once you get enough spell slots, it can be fine to switch over. You don't have to commit to doing the same combat routine from level 1 to 20.
The key is, Casters in general are encouraged to plan for their third action - move if you have to, and have some sort of attack, defense, or skill action ready to go. Demoralize is pretty solid in general, but I'm pretty sure nothing stops casters with athletics from tripping with a whip using dexterity or strength, and they can now afford to level at least one of those as they go.
For my Cleric, I went Multiclass Bard and picked up Versatile Performance to Demoralize with, and to lean hard into Performance for EC.
This is what I'm talking about. Casters should consider that 3rd action. A sorcerer charisma based caster could focus on Intimidation. A wizard can focus on recall knowledge. Tossing in a weapon attack of some kind also provides options. You could even make your wizard an alchemist who can toss a bomb every other round. Or just erect shield.
It's just a matter of thinking outside the box to find a useful third action option like I did with my druid. I gave the druid a bow. This expanded her third action option immediately. I noticed that almost every ancestry and general feats can expand your weapon options. This can help manage your caster through those tricky lower levels.
This is one of the things that I hope we can see start to change as more options come out (don't have the APG, so I'm not sure this is something already being addressed). I think some of the focus spells were meant to cover those gaps, but obviously they don't apply in every situation. More interaction within the class itself would help ground its identity at lower levels.
That said, I greatly enjoy the balance that PF2 is at right now.
Yep
So is it an assumption of 2nd that casters were too powerful and should be punished?
Should those of us who don't see an imbalance skip this edition then?
Yes, Pathfinder 2 and D&D 5 are both pretty much predicated on the near-universal assumption that the magic system in d20 were horribly irredeemably overpowered.
I wouldn't tell you to skip the edition since I'm not in the position to tell you to do anything. But I wouldn't go into any D&D game written the last twenty years expecting anything even close to the d20 caster experience.
Best regards
Worth mentioning my views come from our groups focusing almost entirely on play at level 1-12 - doing very little beyond that.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm mixed on this now at lvl 14. I generally agree low level casters could use a power up. I think cantrips need some revision because as you stated all anyone uses unless they need longer range is electric arc.Thank you.
Let's hope Paizo can hear this above the din of denial.
But man, some of these AoE spells do some beastly damage against groups. There are some non-incapacitation spells that are quite nasty like Phantasmal Killer, Confusion, and Synesthesia.I look forward to them, for my Wizard player's sake. (We're only level 8 yet)
Just to repeat what others have said because you insist on claiming this - having a different position than you doesnt represent people being in "denial".
While higher level casters do get the really "flashy" AND reliable stuff, casters are perfectly effective at low levels.
Hell, people complain about Incapicitation spells but low level Incapacitation spells at level 1 (Color Spray, Sleep) are still fight winners against a huge range of potential foes at low level.
Level +1 enemies are not jokes. Taking out multiple lower level foes in one spell is also not nothing.
Work with the system, not against it, and things work better than you expect.
I guess I’ll just vent here on my latest Balance issue: the Witch.
Am I just missing something? This class is basically a worse Bard. Imagine being a Bard, but having less HP, no armor prof, and instead of your abilities affectIng a wide area and possibly all allies or all enemies (with no save for dirge even), they affect one target at a time and enemies get a save, and the way Hexes work you can’t use them again on the same target. And most of them don’t heighten. But hey at least you can take three feats to give your familiar six extra abilities if you’re into that...?
Hate to vent, but this was my favorite PF1 class. It seems explicitly worse than a Wizard - please tell me what I’m missing here.
Are you discussing the Playtest witch or do you already have access to the APG?
Are you discussing the Playtest witch or do you already have access to the APG?I guess I’ll just vent here on my latest Balance issue: the Witch.
Am I just missing something? This class is basically a worse Bard. Imagine being a Bard, but having less HP, no armor prof, and instead of your abilities affectIng a wide area and possibly all allies or all enemies (with no save for dirge even), they affect one target at a time and enemies get a save, and the way Hexes work you can’t use them again on the same target. And most of them don’t heighten. But hey at least you can take three feats to give your familiar six extra abilities if you’re into that...?
Hate to vent, but this was my favorite PF1 class. It seems explicitly worse than a Wizard - please tell me what I’m missing here.
Based on the distinctions they are making about Familiar Abilities, I would assume they have the final product already.
But I'm going to read it for myself before I assume that any of the above. They make no mention of the Focus Hexes, and they first compare them to a Bard but then say they are worse than a Wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The key is, Casters in general are encouraged to plan for their third action - move if you have to, and have some sort of attack, defense, or skill action ready to go. Demoralize is pretty solid in general, but I'm pretty sure nothing stops casters with athletics from tripping with a whip using dexterity or strength, and they can now afford to level at least one of those as they go.
The Bon Mot skill feat in APG (-2/3 to Will saves) is going to lead to a lot of Diplomacy focused Bards and Sorcerers being built in the future.
The Bon Mot skill feat in APG (-2/3 to Will saves) is going to lead to a lot of Diplomacy focused Bards and Sorcerers being built in the future.
The key is, Casters in general are encouraged to plan for their third action - move if you have to, and have some sort of attack, defense, or skill action ready to go. Demoralize is pretty solid in general, but I'm pretty sure nothing stops casters with athletics from tripping with a whip using dexterity or strength, and they can now afford to level at least one of those as they go.
I'm suddenly extremely intrigued. What is that?
From the Pathfinder Discord's associated google doc collecting reveals.I'm suddenly extremely intrigued. What is that?The Bon Mot skill feat in APG (-2/3 to Will saves) is going to lead to a lot of Diplomacy focused Bards and Sorcerers being built in the future.
The key is, Casters in general are encouraged to plan for their third action - move if you have to, and have some sort of attack, defense, or skill action ready to go. Demoralize is pretty solid in general, but I'm pretty sure nothing stops casters with athletics from tripping with a whip using dexterity or strength, and they can now afford to level at least one of those as they go.
Bon Mot (Feat 1) One action. Roll diplomacy vs Will DC by ushering a short quip to distract the target. Critical success, the target takes a -3 penalty to perception and will saves for 1 minute. Success, as above but -2. Critical failure, your quip is atrocious and you take the penalty from a success. This ends if you issue another Bon Mot and get a success.
Enemies can end this early by retorting to your quip, with an action that has the concentrate trait.
This can be a different trait if appropriate.
GM determines the skill that qualifies for the retort, typically a linguistic charisma-based skill action.
Example:
your Bon Mot: "hah, look at him, he can't even succeed at a grapple"
enemy: "yes I can, watch this" athletics action to flex muscles
From the Pathfinder Discord's associated google doc collecting reveals.I'm suddenly extremely intrigued. What is that?
The Bon Mot skill feat in APG (-2/3 to Will saves) is going to lead to a lot of Diplomacy focused Bards and Sorcerers being built in the future.
Bon Mot (Feat 1) One action. Roll diplomacy vs Will DC by ushering a short quip to distract the target. Critical success, the target takes a -3 penalty to perception and will saves for 1 minute. Success, as above but -2. Critical failure, your quip is atrocious and you take the penalty from a success. This ends if you issue another Bon Mot and get a success.
Enemies can end this early by retorting to your quip, with an action that has the concentrate trait.
This can be a different trait if appropriate.
GM determines the skill that qualifies for the retort, typically a linguistic charisma-based skill action.
Example:
your Bon Mot: "hah, look at him, he can't even succeed at a grapple"
enemy: "yes I can, watch this" athletics action to flex muscles
Superior to Demoralize if you're only caring about landing your own will save targeting spells or hoping to cost them an action to remove, still inferior to Demoralize if you want total debuffs to everything.
From the Pathfinder Discord's associated google doc collecting reveals.I'm suddenly extremely intrigued. What is that?
The Bon Mot skill feat in APG (-2/3 to Will saves) is going to lead to a lot of Diplomacy focused Bards and Sorcerers being built in the future.Superior to Demoralize if you're only caring about landing your own will save targeting spells or hoping to cost them an action to remove, still inferior to Demoralize if you want total debuffs to everything.Bon Mot (Feat 1) One action. Roll diplomacy vs Will DC by ushering a short quip to distract the target. Critical success, the target takes a -3 penalty to perception and will saves for 1 minute. Success, as above but -2. Critical failure, your quip is atrocious and you take the penalty from a success. This ends if you issue another Bon Mot and get a success.
Enemies can end this early by retorting to your quip, with an action that has the concentrate trait.
This can be a different trait if appropriate.
GM determines the skill that qualifies for the retort, typically a linguistic charisma-based skill action.
Example:
your Bon Mot: "hah, look at him, he can't even succeed at a grapple"
enemy: "yes I can, watch this" athletics action to flex muscles
Its still a pretty massive "Get" for anyone focused on Will Saves, such as you know, Enchanters.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To those who feel wizards are still a balanced class.
If I want to
1) play an arcane caster
2) not be the +1/-1 guy*What build should I make and why is it cool?
* I don't give a damn how epic and awesome a +1 bonus might be in the incredibly miserly maths of 2E - it just does not feel fun and will never be exciting to me. You might as well be playing the fighter's talking magic sword or shield.
So I've heard a lot of people say 1) Wizards suck and 2) Casters suck because buffing/debuffing sucks, and that's all casters can do against bosses. The irony is that wizards are the best caster class for damaging such creatures.
Use True Strike + Acid Arrow (or Heightened Acid Arrow, Disintegrate, or Heightened Disintegrate depending on level). The Staff of Divination, a Level 6 item, gives you plenty of True Strikes to use.
I think only Arcane casters have True Strike and the good attack roll spells I mentioned. As for other Arcane casters, Sorcerers have trouble with Heightening (it costs them spell slots) and I reckon Arcane Witches won't have the action economy necessary, what with their focus hexes.
I admit I'm a tough audience - I saw NO caster-martial disparity in 1E and I need to stress I normally played the martial character there.
This is a great topic for any of the 1E fora.
Superior to Demoralize if you're only caring about landing your own will save targeting spells or hoping to cost them an action to remove, still inferior to Demoralize if you want total debuffs to everything.
Its still a pretty massive "Get" for anyone focused on Will Saves, such as you know, Enchanters.
I'd say it's only superior to Demoralize if it's a status penalty.
If it's a circumstance penalty or, though I highly doubt it, untyped penalty, then it's a separate debuff channel and the two can't be meaningfully compared.
That whole thing isn't actually my quote - I messed up somehow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still keep reading the thread title as "Balance Couscous".
Superior to Demoralize if you're only caring about landing your own will save targeting spells or hoping to cost them an action to remove, still inferior to Demoralize if you want total debuffs to everything.Its still a pretty massive "Get" for anyone focused on Will Saves, such as you know, Enchanters.I'd say it's only superior to Demoralize if it's a status penalty.
If it's a circumstance penalty or, though I highly doubt it, untyped penalty, then it's a separate debuff channel and the two can't be meaningfully compared.Edit: fixed quotes
Circumstance penalties to saves seem pretty rare, actually. It would be amazing to get a circumstance penalty you can stack with Demoralize.
Hell, people complain about Incapicitation spells but low level Incapacitation spells at level 1 (Color Spray, Sleep) are still fight winners against a huge range of potential foes at low level.
Yes they are reasonably good at level 1. It is once you get higher level spells they are irrelevant. That was pretty much always the case with those spells. It is just now it happens to things like Charm Person, and Calm Emotions as well. If you want to use them they have to be in your top slots or forget them. PF2 has seriously devalued this type of magic from lower level slots and its a big change to the game.
Level +1 enemies are not jokes. Taking out multiple lower level foes in one spell is also not nothing.
Lower level foes almost invariably are easy. level -2 foes are a cakewalk
I'm always fighting against equal or higher level foes. The GM is always beefing up and adding extra to encounters for our groups. Yes this is a reflection of our play experience and it does colour my opinions.
Work with the system, not against it, and things work better than you expect.
No.
I've tried it. Most of what Paizo has done has been good. My expectations have been mostly spot on. But Incapacitation is something I will be house ruling to water down.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hell, people complain about Incapicitation spells but low level Incapacitation spells at level 1 (Color Spray, Sleep) are still fight winners against a huge range of potential foes at low level.
Yes they are reasonably good at level 1. It is once you get higher level spells they are irrelevant. That was pretty much always the case with those spells. It is just now it happens to things like Charm Person, and Calm Emotions as well. If you want to use them they have to be in your top slots or forget them. PF2 has seriously devalued this type of magic from lower level slots and its a big change to the game.
The opposite is kind of true. In PF1, a first level charm person had a DC 8 points behind whatever your highest level spell was. This meant it naturally capped out relatively early on, though you could still get lucky with lower level NPCs and the like. It was also only useful against humanoids, which left aasimars, tieflings, and a whole host of other creatures completely immune to it at all levels.
In PF2, charm in a 1st level slot has the same DC as your highest level spells, it just also has the incapacitate trait. That still means a 20th level wizard has a 35% chance of shutting down a crimson worm with a single level 1 spell slot. That's effectively taking out 1/4 of a standard encounter or 1/6 of a boss fight with a single 1st level spell, at least as far as the caster is concerned. Not a bad use of your 1/day Quicken that needs to be applied to a lower level spell anyways. In the case of the purple worm, it could even turn into gains in the current or next encounter based on how the situation is roleplayed. If it doesn't go off, you've lost very little, and if it does take effect you've made huge gains in the encounter with negligible resource expenditure.
Incapacitate doesn't mean the spell doesn't work, it just means the spell effect is improved for the target by one step. Virtually all incapacitate spells have some kind of significant effect on a failure, which means they can often still play a meaningful role well into the late game while being cast from your 1st level slots. Spell DCs scaling by character level instead of spell level is a monstrously huge gain for spellcasters in PF2 across all manner of spells and schools of magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you using the presumption that crafting provides no value because you can use earn income at the appropriate level at any time you want and then purchase the exact item you want at the time you want it? Is that where the crafting has no value idea comes from?I have studied the system extensively, yes. While the rules are sufficiently opaque that a newcomer could skim them and walk away believing there is actual money to be made, a more careful consideration reveals that not to be the case.
That is because Crafting only lets you earn more income relative to your fellow party members. Thus, if you're stuck in a backwater village without access to Earn Income tasks at your own level, then you can rely on Craft to effectively create an Earn Income task for yourself at your own level. If, and this is a big if, you have plenty of downtime.
But that neither
a) helps the group (the party is much better off traveling to a larger town)
nor
b) lets you actually come out ahead, which is the expectation many gamers have on crafting subsystems. You might feel like you're getting a great deal, but what's actually happening is that your fellow party members are shafted.In any campaign where access to the Treasure chapter (through magic shoppes) is not a problem†, the only reasons to take Crafting is:
* to do field repairs
* to use the skill as a general knowledge skill (encounters asking for Craft checks aren't common, but they do exist. And obviously there's Recall Knowledge about Golems and such)You should easily see that the default conditions present in most official Adventure Paths make Crafting a very secondary activity. This is of course entirely intentional.
†) The CRB has exactly zero rules on magic item availability (not even the very common "house rule" shoppes are limited to stocking items of the settlement level). Had it had rules that let you create shoppe stocks based on probabilities or something, meaning heroes would occasionally...
There is a lot of downtime in Age of Ashes and Extinction Curse. So I can generally build items for half the cost. Most of the cities I've been in have been lower level. And it's not as easy to travel as it used to be, at least at lower level. So I like being able to craft at will without worrying about finding an equal level area to Earn Income. Which means the main advantage of Crafting seems to be more player autonomy if sufficient down time as seems to be the case in these APs. Which is not as good as PF1 where crafting was a flat 50% reduction in item costs.
I'm not as unhappy with it as you are. I have built it up on my bard because I'm not sure how easy it is to find magic shops with everything I want. And spending my down time creating an item is more interesting than Earning Income.
I would say it is even more costly as well given I've had to purchase formulas, but I picked up Inventor so I can create formulas much like Crafting. I rather enjoy seeing my Bard as a master crafter with his magical crafting eyepiece. There is a fun factor in being a high end crafting I did not experience in PF1, even though there is not a subtantial power increase.
I still recall in PF1 that someone would always have to buy Craft Wonderous item to make sure everyone could get all their stat enhancing items for half-price. Not because it was good for role-playing or fun, but because it was like checking the box for a party creation role.
I imagine that is one area where we differ you've previously noted. I greatly like that choices are no longer forced for optimal power. I like that you can build a character concept purely for personal entertainment and be neither weaker nor stronger than someone who chooses a different option. I can make a Crafter because I like control over crafting and find it interesting to be one. Someone else can make a scholar to writes treatise on Ancient Thassilonian Lore and make a good amount of coin imagining himself as a famous author to fund his adventuring exploits. That is more fun than checking a box making sure someone in the party has Craft Wondrous Item to ensure that your stat enhancing items cost 50% less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hell, people complain about Incapicitation spells but low level Incapacitation spells at level 1 (Color Spray, Sleep) are still fight winners against a huge range of potential foes at low level.
Yes they are reasonably good at level 1. It is once you get higher level spells they are irrelevant. That was pretty much always the case with those spells. It is just now it happens to things like Charm Person, and Calm Emotions as well. If you want to use them they have to be in your top slots or forget them. PF2 has seriously devalued this type of magic from lower level slots and its a big change to the game.
The opposite is kind of true. In PF1, a first level charm person had a DC 8 points behind whatever your highest level spell was. This meant it naturally capped out relatively early on, though you could still get lucky with lower level NPCs and the like. It was also only useful against humanoids, which left aasimars, tieflings, and a whole host of other creatures completely immune to it at all levels.
In PF2, charm in a 1st level slot has the same DC as your highest level spells, it just also has the incapacitate trait. That still means a 20th level wizard has a 35% chance of shutting down a crimson worm with a single level 1 spell slot. That's effectively taking out 1/4 of a standard encounter or 1/6 of a boss fight with a single 1st level spell, at least as far as the caster is concerned. Not a bad use of your 1/day Quicken that needs to be applied to a lower level spell anyways. In the case of the purple worm, it could even turn into gains in the current or next encounter based on how the situation is roleplayed. If it doesn't go off, you've lost very little, and if it does take effect you've made huge gains in the encounter with negligible resource expenditure.
Incapacitate doesn't mean the spell doesn't work, it just means the spell effect is improved for the target by one step. Virtually all incapacitate spells have some...
I'm starting to see some of this myself. One of the problems I'm noticing is that at low level you don't realize this will happen with incapacitate spells. Once you get to higher level and you start seeing your Caster skill and main spellcasting stat rise, even higher level monsters don't have a great chance of succeeding.
Some spells even on a successful save hurt. You have to read some spells closely and understand the game better to see this.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And spending my down time creating an item is more interesting than Earning Income.
It's also getting you more value out of scaling your Earn Income skill with proficiency bumps, since Crafting has a lot more practical applications and supporting skill feats than Lore skills.
While Crafting is essentially neutral compared to any other skill used for Earn Income as far as the net monetary value obtained, it's also a way to maintain party gear, identify a broad category of items, interface with a broad array of skill challenges, etc. So, investing in Crafting overall is a better return on investment than most Earn Income options, because the things that make your Crafting more cost effective are having positive benefits across an array of other game functions. And it doesn't cost you a feat to apply a broadly applicable skill like Crafting to Earn Income like taking Bargain Hunter for Diplomacy does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a lot of downtime in Age of Ashes and Extinction Curse. So I can generally build items for half the cost. Most of the cities I've been in have been lower level. And it's not as easy to travel as it used to be, at least at lower level. So I like being able to craft at will without worrying about finding an equal level area to Earn Income. Which means the main advantage of Crafting seems to be more player autonomy if sufficient down time as seems to be the case in these APs. Which is not as good as PF1 where crafting was a flat 50% reduction in item costs.
I'm not as unhappy with it as you are. I have built it up on my bard because I'm not sure how easy it is to find magic shops with everything I want. And spending my down time creating an item is more interesting than Earning Income.
A bit of a side note, I really love how PF2 encourages downtime. It's given me a lot more reason to include it in my games as a GM and take advantage of it as a player.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to use them they have to be in your top slots or forget them.
People keep acting like this is a bug. Yes, prepare your incapacitation spells in your top slots or they won't be effective.
This is true of more or less ALL spells you should be relying on in combat - there are some standouts that are useful from lower slots, but by and large this isn't something limited to Incap spells.
Plus, the reason that Charm Monster and Mass Charm Person are gone is because thats all under heightened Charm now. Color Spray lost its HD limit because Color Spray (6th) is now an entirely valid choice to put in a 6th level slot.
The system works, and its working at its best when its preventing you from incapacitating boss or sub-boss level enemies in one spell. The majority of high level encounters - at least in Age of Ashes - that feature more than one creature feature creatures the players level or lower. Almost none of them, except for single foe encounters, lacked valid targets for incap spells to land with full effect.