| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards and Sorcerers issue is not that they’re weak. The two classes are actually quite strong past when they get their 3rd level spells, especially when you get level 4 spells. Their problem is their choices don’t feel exciting. Bloodlines are inconsistent and the Wizard schools feel undertuned and low power. The classes themselves are strong because even with spells being weaker having a ton of them is actually quite powerful.
It’s just that outside of that when you level up one the class feat options don’t seem too exciting (I mean one of the best wizard ones is the spell pen that removes the +1 that over half of higher level monsters get, this the feat often does nothing). School powers don’t seem great, school feats less so and so on. It leads to a very meh feeling about the leveling concept because you’re rarely super excited about any level up to get new class features other than new ranks of spells.
I think if paizo gave them some more exciting class features that brought out the power of traditions/bloodlines it would make the class feel a lot better even if they didn’t make them a lot more powerful.
Well, I'm only speaking for sorcerer here since I never played a wizard, but I really thought every level had really powerful, impactful and meaningful feats.
Level 1 has dangerous sorcery. Nothing fancy, but interesting enough that a lot of other classes try to poach it.
Level 4 has Arcane/Divine/Primal/Occult evolution, which is so incredibly good I wish I could take it more than once.
Level 6 gives you your advanced bloodline focus power, which really changes the way you'll play every encounter from now on, provided you chose a meaningful bloodline (Draconic or Nymph, for instance).
Level 8 gives you one of the best feat of the whole game, period, with crossblooded evolution.
Level 10 has more choices, like a third focus spell or signature expansion. In both cases, it's very powerful.
I could go on and on, but the class feat options of a...
Sorcerer is better than the wizard. Mostly their focus spells could use some damage bumps here and there and some slight improvements. Overall they aren't too bad. d4 is a pretty terrible damage dice for a focus spell.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest complaint about PF2 spell casting is that the spells are too insular in a system designed for modularity*. The traits work very well as a modular component, but everything from targeting to the way that saves work and the effects spells can have is so unique to the spell that every change to spell casting pretty much has to come in the form of entirely new spells, rather than in allowing you to do interesting and different things with spells.
As someone who took a long time to come to terms with PF1, this encapsulation of PF2’s spell/magic system unfortunately completely aligns with my experience of PF2 overall.
Now I’m not a person who gets to play a lot, so the lack of constant play severely impairs my understanding of rule interactions. But for a system that was projected as being streamlined...it really isn’t. Not to mention the layout of the CRB - I’m constantly having three fingers in between two different chapters AND the index trying to find relevant rules, rule interactions and exceptions. (Big ups to Paizo for putting rule mechanics IN the index entries - that does save a lot of time). Quite apart from some rules you might think should be in “Playing the Game” instead being found in “Skills”, “Spells” or “Class” (mostly feats here).
But quite apart from all of that, none of my reading (or admittedly very limited) playing has alerted me to any of the potentials, perils, pitfalls or options you folks list in these threads. It is arcane and esoteric and mostly repels me. I want to play PF2, but the level of complexity that isn’t available to the casual observer is frightening.
I'd like to play a character that is, at the very least, functional - a big step from my PF1 approach which was definitely flavor over mechanics - but I’m seeing that “the math” is punishing, and my experiences of play are definitely more akin to when I started playing almost four decades ago - you go down easy! Which I enjoy and find refreshing. But it shouldn’t be because I didn’t choose the right feats. Or spells. Or bloodline. Or spell-feat. Or class, with the right mix of feats, spells, sub-class or spell-fests.
But if the method to “be useful” (and I care not a jot for “equitable” or “equal” with my fellows characters - such comparisons are the death of creativity and the championing of mediocrity) is so fraught, how can one create in an atmosphere of calm or confidence?
I understand each game is different, and creativity and spark can to a degree trump sheer numbers. I don’t feel like I can read the CRB and still understand how not to accidentally make a character whose apparent synergies are completely unaligned.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
wait i'm confused so you are saying they were balanced back then? or are you saying people who says its fine now are like pf1 wizards who don't want to admit the truth?Numerous threads at 10+ pages of responses says to me that pf2 did something wrong with spellcasting.No offense, but there were also numerous threads at 10+ pages of responses arguing that wizards were perfectly fine and completely balanced in PF1.
So I'll take that standard of measurement with a bucketload of salt.
I think the perception is that perceptions are just that. Perceptions. Skewed both ways. And up, down, north, south, east, west, infrared, ultraviolet, planar, abdimensional, non-binary etc etc.
The truth is out there. But it’s fairly relative.
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
But quite apart from all of that, none of my reading (or admittedly very limited) playing has alerted me to any of the potentials, perils, pitfalls or options you folks list in these threads. It is arcane and esoteric and mostly repels me. I want to play PF2, but the level of complexity that isn’t available to the casual observer is frightening.
I'd like to play a character that is, at the very least, functional - a big step from my PF1 approach which was definitely flavor over mechanics - but I’m seeing that “the math” is punishing, and my experiences of play are definitely more akin to when I started playing almost four decades ago - you go down easy! Which I enjoy and find refreshing. But it shouldn’t be because I didn’t choose the right feats. Or spells. Or bloodline. Or spell-feat. Or class, with the right mix of feats, spells, sub-class or spell-fests.
I really and sincerely would not worry about this. The differences that get discussed in threads like this are real, but they're so arcane because most of them are, in absolute terms, tiny. They are, for the most part, infinitesimal little things that make a mathematical difference, sure, but not enough of one that most people playing the game would even notice it, and certainly not enough that it will keep you from 'going down easy' if the dice are against you.
To make a useful, competent, character you put an 18 (or, if you can't due to Class, a 16) in whatever stat you use to attack/cast spells and keep it maxed out as you level, make sure your AC is maxed out for the armor you're able to wear by around 5th level (unless you're unarmored, in which case try to take Dex 14+ and, if not a Monk, some other defensive options), and that's really it.
If you do those two things, your character will, frankly, be fine. They might not be perfectly optimal, but the difference between 'perfectly optimal' and what you have will be small enough that things will go fine.
To make a useful, competent, character you put an 18 (or, if you can't due to Class, a 16) in whatever stat you use to attack/cast spells and keep it maxed out as you level, make sure your AC is maxed out for the armor you're able to wear by around 5th level (unless you're unarmored, in which case try to take Dex 14+ and, if not a Monk, some other defensive options), and that's really it.If you do those two things, your character will, frankly, be fine. They might not be perfectly optimal, but the difference between 'perfectly optimal' and what you have will be small enough that things will go fine.
This is one of the better things about PF2E. Since almost all mechanical power is in your base class features, so long as you do as you've described (18 in main stat, max armor) you're set as far as building a solid character is concerned.
Everything else is just gravy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Numerous threads at 10+ pages of responses says to me that pf2 did something wrong with spellcasting.
I GM for something like 9 other people in two campaigns on a regular basis, and none of them even look at these forums.
Each and every one of them would also have to be convinced there are problems with spellcasters, since casters are consistently lynchpin party members when it comes to synergies and making parties really work well.
Including the Wizard.
The Forums probably aren't terribly representative.
@DMW - thanks for the morale support. That is good to know, so then if I understand this right, folks here are quibbling at the very highest level?
I can just ignore these thread happily, And butt out of your high-level discussions. Thanks again D.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@DMW - thanks for the morale support. That is good to know, so then if I understand this right, folks here are quibbling at the very highest level?
Well, it depends on your point of view. If you're playing at a really high optimization level, then this sort of thing matters.
Also, some of it is subjective and fun based. For example, one complaint is that Wizards lack good things to do with their third action. That's a mechanical complaint, sure, but for some people casting a spell and then doing nothing else is also boring and they don't like Wizard for that reason.
But on an objective, mechanical, level the difference between the most and least powerful characters in PF2 following my posted advice (maxed attack stat, maxed AC) is probably on par with the difference between, say, Wizard and Sorcerer in PF1. It's real, but not super huge. Alchemist is maybe an exception, to that but even they come pretty close if built as a bomber.
I can just ignore these thread happily, And butt out of your high-level discussions. Thanks again D.
Yeah, if you're not having trouble accomplishing things in games and everyone is having fun definitely don't worry too much about the minutia of optimization.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
wait i'm confused so you are saying they were balanced back then? or are you saying people who says its fine now are like pf1 wizards who don't want to admit the truth?Numerous threads at 10+ pages of responses says to me that pf2 did something wrong with spellcasting.No offense, but there were also numerous threads at 10+ pages of responses arguing that wizards were perfectly fine and completely balanced in PF1.
So I'll take that standard of measurement with a bucketload of salt.
Just because there's 10+ pages of people arguing that a certain thing is true, it doesn't make that thing true.
There were tons of people arguing that PF1 martial-caster disparity wasn't a thing, and the fact that casters could solve campaigns singlehandedly while martials hit harder with sticks was totally fine and balanced.
Similarly, just because very vocal people like to scream about how casters are nonfunctional doesn't make them so.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
wait i'm confused so you are saying they were balanced back then? or are you saying people who says its fine now are like pf1 wizards who don't want to admit the truth?Numerous threads at 10+ pages of responses says to me that pf2 did something wrong with spellcasting.No offense, but there were also numerous threads at 10+ pages of responses arguing that wizards were perfectly fine and completely balanced in PF1.
So I'll take that standard of measurement with a bucketload of salt.
Just because there's 10+ pages of people arguing that a certain thing is true, it doesn't make that thing true.
There were tons of people arguing that PF1 martial-caster disparity wasn't a thing, and the fact that casters could solve campaigns singlehandedly while martials hit harder with sticks was totally fine and balanced.
Similarly, just because very vocal people like to scream about how casters are nonfunctional doesn't make them so.
Is anyone saying casters are nonfunctional? I had not noticed that.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is anyone saying casters are nonfunctional? I had not noticed that.
I'm pretty sure I'd consider statements like:
- "The way to play a Wizard, we've found, is to play something else at first, and then retire that character at about double-digit levels (roughly speaking), and introduce your new character only when the game lets it be capable of actually making you feel like playing a proper Wizard."- "Your never, ever, ever going to get my to agree that a wizard, sorcerer, witch, or oracle are acceptable benchmarks for caster balance."
- "To me if only half of your class options are balanced and fun, then there is something wrong with the class."
- "congratulations the roles are reversed and they are now in your place good for you"
You know, statements like this. Statements where people keep going "there is a fundamental problem where casters are supremely broken, and only very special circumstances put them up to normal character level".
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is anyone saying casters are nonfunctional? I had not noticed that.I'm pretty sure I'd consider statements like:
- "The way to play a Wizard, we've found, is to play something else at first, and then retire that character at about double-digit levels (roughly speaking), and introduce your new character only when the game lets it be capable of actually making you feel like playing a proper Wizard."
- "Your never, ever, ever going to get my to agree that a wizard, sorcerer, witch, or oracle are acceptable benchmarks for caster balance."
- "To me if only half of your class options are balanced and fun, then there is something wrong with the class."
- "congratulations the roles are reversed and they are now in your place good for you"You know, statements like this. Statements where people keep going "there is a fundamental problem where casters are supremely broken, and only very special circumstances put them up to normal character level".
Once again, I only see mention of the wizard. Not other caster classes.
That is not non-functional, only that they are not fun to play at low level and they don't have attractive feats. I would say both ideas are provably true. And neither is a statement they are non-functional.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree with Blue_Frog. I apologise if I've ever come of as believing that there are zero problems, I just think the problems aren't as bad as people say. My general quibbles are:
Levels 1-4 for casters are rough, particularly ones that don't get strong focus spells/divine font.
Many casters, wizards in particular, could use some more interesting feats. For wizards, I'd like to see stuff that expands off of their chosen schools and thesis in SoM.
Attack spells are underwhelming considering how good PF2 made save spells, as they do nothing on a miss. I've considered adding potency runes for spell attacks specifically that go up to +2, but I'm unsure if that really fixes the problem.
Those are the main issues I have with casters. They're there, but nowhere near the point of being unplayable. And importantly, I probably would have noticed those things even if I weren't on these forums. A significant amount of things discussed on these forums that a lot of users view as game breaking, even unrelated to casters, I would have never even considered if I was a casual player.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Wizards have a huge gap between their 'bad' options and their good ones." Is a vastly different discussion from "Wizards are Bad and need to be better."
I doubt you'd find many posters who don't agree with the first statement or who would oppose action taken to correct it - but theres a lot of noise that sure seems to be framed in the context of the second statement.
I think that if you find a Wizard who is built along their most powerful lines currently to be "underpowered", your expectations for characters in PF2E are out of whack. Such a Wizard is, in my personal experience, a potent and powerful character with a lot of strong options (some of which, like Spell Penetration, are pure system-relevant gold) that can heavily contribute to a wide range of encounters.
If you buff all Wizards, Wizards are almost immediately going to be right back at being the alpha class.
Therefore, the goal should be to explore ways to make the worst neglected Wizard niches better - things like addressing the lack of a usable Transmutation cantrip, or the fact that the action cost on Augment Summoning makes it unusable in a practical sense.
But it should also be kept in mind that for the most part, wide ranging balance errata that addresses non-function related issues is generally treated as anathema by most developers in non-competitive games...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think homebrew is simply a far more successful way to approach this problem. The opinion of how much of a buff casters need or don't need has varied more than any other 2E question so far in my experience, so I frankly do not believe there is a solution that would satisfy even a majority of people posting.
On the one extreme end you have suggestions like autoscaling spell slots (such that a 1st level spell cast by a 20th level Wizard is heightened to 10th). That is an absolutely cosmic buff in my eyes, and probably the biggest one I've ever seen suggested. Still, I couldn't call a table foolish for adopting this as a houserule... I personally think it'd be a bad idea but that ultimately has no bearing on another table's fun.
You have the various math-based suggestions; item bonus to spell attacks and more occasionally saving throws. If a person believes casters are in a spot where they need to be 10%, or 20% or so on better at landing their spells; this is a clean and easy fix.
You have class-targeted suggestions, like additional wizard feats that give the class a small push in power at certain stages of the game. I see most casters as having a good baseline power level when compared to martials, so this is what I do at my table.
Finally, some people either don't experience a disparity at all, or the disparity is small enough that they don't see a need to change anything. "Nothing" is a very easy to implement homebrew solution after all.
Ultimately, the spectrum and variation of opinion is great enough that I don't believe there is a consensus to reach here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The way to play a Wizard, we've found, is to play something else at first, and then retire that character at about double-digit levels (roughly speaking), and introduce your new character only when the game lets it be capable of actually making you feel like playing a proper Wizard."
I would definitely say this is an overexaggerating and casters by level 7 seem great, personally I like most from level 1.
Actually imo from level 1-4 casters are just at good at attacking as martials not counting fighters and maybe have -1, so they just have more options early levels. 5-6 are the only levels that casters feel kind of weird, but at least they get level 3 spells to somewhat make up for it.
I would say there are "some classes/subtypes that really just add nothing to the early levels though"
Sorcerer are the biggest example of this, so many bloodlines are just meh until level 6, by the time they are level 6 imo "most" bloodlines offer a pretty good focus spell, but for level 1-5 it can seem like your bloodline is useless.
Wizards also have this issue imo. Their Thesis/School imo sometimes barely feel like anything early levels, once they are level 5 most will start to feel good. Haven't got a chance to play one yet.
So yes imo Sorcerer/Wizard have a weird thing where their "subtypes" sometimes just don't feel great at early levels. Even their "extra spell slot" really doesn't start to matter until level 5. If 2e was a video game I would 100% play an "early game build" and respec at level 5/6. This is 100% true in every TTRPG too though. Casters at least feel "better" early game compared to 5e/PF1.
The only thing that really feels bad are attack spells imo, the funny part about that is because they feel bad because they made save spells feel good with effects on success. If save spells were still "save or suck" the feeling of power probably wouldn't be so lopsided.
So overall I feel casters are great and have a hard time playing a martial. Only issue imo is how some classes/subtypes "back loaded" some classes. Just look at Divine Sorcerer vs Cleric. Cleric starts out with so many spell slots until like level 5+ where Sorcerers start to catch up.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A) Attack rolls.
In order to be effective as a caster, you HAVE to focus on spells with a save. The spells needing an attack roll are all crappy since 1) they're usually less likely to land (accuracy problem) and 2) they have no effect on a miss. This is a huge problem when you're using a finite resource that costs two action. The price of failure is too steep, and nobody in our group ever used a spell with an attack roll. Even True Strike doesn't help to mitigate that. What this means is 25% of the whole spell list is bogus.
Solution ? Enhancing accuracy is all well and good (for instance allowing spellcasters to get item bonuses) but it doesn't fix the main problem, which is that using a high level finite resource and two whole actions shouldn't have no effect. So my suggestion would be to change all those spells altogether and make them target saves, with an effet on a miss.
[Emphasis mine]
So, in the interests of moving this forward - and assuming the percentage of these problematic spells is 25% - are there comparable, finite, missable martial attacks that are two action - i.e. with the same potential for damage/battlefield control/tactical advancement? IF not, is the proposed fix (target saves, with an effect on a miss) possible/plausible? Or are there other benefits (like cantrips’ ubiquity) that balance this out and make it not a “problem” even if it is still highly not fun. Which might be reason enough...
The vast majority of spell attack roll spells that get used are cantrips. past level 1 spells, the number of spell attack roll spells are under 5%. They have some niche value if you cast them with true strike, but are rare enough not to be a 25% issue with spell casting.
It is very common to see on the boards people get really upset that one specific thing they were trying to do with their character is not working out the way they wanted it to and trying to self analyze that problem, often suggesting larger structural ways to address that problem. This is a perfectly fine thing to use these message boards for and no one is hurt by people presenting issues, presenting ideas for fixing them, and people discussing the proposed solutions and how they might positively or negatively impact the game.
No one posting here, by themselves is magically going to change the face of pathfinder forever, just so long as everyone agrees with them. The developers are far more aware of the subtle complexities of the system they designed then we are, and have had all of these conversations internally as well. If other forum posters don't agree with your critiques and ideas, that is ok. Your ideas might work really well as a variant rule for your own table that has different expectations for classes or abilities, and the ways your ideas might cause problems at other people's tables, might never come up at your own because no one plays X class or uses X spells or faces monsters with X abilities, that highlight the problem.
One interesting, but not always positive consequence of Paizo's use of playtests, is that a lot of us have adopted the mentality of being game designers. Mostly, I think that is really cool, but it can be a problem when we internalize the idea that other people need to adopt our ideas or content, rather than having more of a "game modder" attitude of, "if you find x a problem, try this."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't there a power level & fun level survey here on the forum about the individual classes and Alchemist and Wizard ended up as being the worst rated classes?
Baring a huge data sample and considering how statistics and forums work in general however any such results are of course still open to interpretation. Are the "nay-sayers" just the vocal majority or is there perhaps indeed something amiss with those classes? Would be interesting to have such a poll using only players new to PF2 (and no prior DnD experiences).
Also regarding the question of "valid" builds: How many valid builds within any given class are required to consider the class "valid"? 9 schools times 4 thesis' (CRB) gives 36 possible permutations, so one sixth (6/36)? One third (12/36)? One half (18/36)? Or even more?