Spellcasters and their problems ...


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,256 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>
Customer Service Representative

Removed posts and their replies.

Do not personally attack others and keep your posts with a tone of respect for other thread participants. Avoid derailing threads with tangents. Do not use profanity, even using it in a way that works around the filter. When a post is removed, all replies or posts that rely on that post for context are removed. Please flag and ignore guideline breaking posts to limit content removal.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh no I do get guys that the game is very level dependent. Of course we can turned the levels down by 1 or 2, use less unique monsters (with bigger levels) and the like. It is just that we found that to be not quite fun as 5e or PF1.

No matter how you look at it, stacking debuffs to be able to hit, or having the base precision for a same level being around 50% for a same level monster unless you are a Figther, is, in our opinion, not fun. When you play 5e levels and CR are guidelines. When you play PF1 the entire focus of your development is to choose something (like Illusion spells, or Power Attack, or Bow, or Smite Evil or Grapple) and becoming so good at it that at one point you stop failing it unless you face a hard counter. In both there is either a sense of roleplay, you can hurt the dragon even if you are weaker, or gameplay progression, your gimmick will hit, no matter what.

And then you got PF2, Where level is everything, wehere casters are lacking core mechanics to hit, and where we think that having monsters hit more often and spamming True Strike and Inrimidate check to decrease AC is fun.

For example, why the Figther is legendary with weapons and everyone else master, but almost all casters can go to legendary in spells DC? It is because they lack the potency bonuses from the runes. And the truth is that the Magus felt weak in playtest because à Magus équivalent from PF1 would finished Legendary in both to hit and spells DC, but if you do that in PF2 you got instant bloat.

And I am sorry to say that there were never that much critics over the weakness of magic, or even the martial caster disparity, in PF1. Wizard are weak. Clerics are glorified healbot. Sorcerer are meh. Alchemists are a failure compared to PF1 (where it was one of the funniest class). Magus will be bad.

Just pick a class from core like Cleric. Make a Cleric level 4-5 and compare that with what a Cleric from 5e or a Cleric or Warpriest from PF1 can do. In terms of impact, action economy, tankyness, burst magic, buffs and removal. And come back telling me that the cleric is fine. Now do the same for the Wizard, it almost hurt me because the gap is so stupidly big.

They overnerfed accuracy as whole, and even more casters. And I think I am not the only one being sad about it. It is not a rant for the pleasure of it, it is truly a pain for us to not play PF again. But we disagree that being a crippled cut in half debuffing stacking,machine is fun when we want to play heroes. Even more when I almost TPK the group iw almost each boss. Because the Martials charge and take a three attacks sequences. Because kitting and stacking debuff is not fun.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
SteelGuts wrote:
Just pick a class from core like Cleric. Make a Cleric level 4-5 and compare that with what a Cleric from 5e or a Cleric or Warpriest from PF1 can do. In terms of impact, action economy, tankyness, burst magic,

I don't really feel this is a fair comparison at all. They are VASTLY different games, and of course the same classes are going to be different because the systems have wildly different expectations. And this is honestly the first time I've heard someone express an equivalent class in 5E is better.

I'm sorry your group feels that way about PF2E, but my own couldn't disagree more with your opinion.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
SteelGuts wrote:
They overnerfed accuracy as whole, and even more casters. And I think I am not the only one being sad about it. It is not a rant for the pleasure of it, it is truly a pain for us to not play PF again. But we disagree that being a crippled cut in half debuffing stacking,machine is fun when we want to play heroes. Even more when I almost TPK the group iw almost each boss. Because the Martials charge and take a three attacks sequences. Because kitting and stacking debuff is not fun.

It sounds like you have a group of players who want to play a more superpowered game than the default rules of PF2. PF2 is actually really flexible for GMs to be able to dial up the power levels of the party. You can introduce dual class characters, free archetypes, or even just give the party a free level or 2 if everyone is feeling just generally underpowered. All three of these options would allow you to play a full AP with no extra modifications on your end as GM.

But it also seems like you have a party that isn't interested in as tactical a game as PF2 and that is ok too.

My experience with PF2 and introducing it to new players, is that they struggle for a little bit, but then can find options to make most play styles work out pretty well, if they are allowed the time to retrain or rebuild characters that are just not doing what the players thought they could do at first.

As far as your confusion about proficiencies. You need to understand that Fighter's progression to Legendary attack proficiency is based on the premise that they will be using this proficiency 2 to 3 times every combat. In fact, if the characters are making 3 or 4 attacks a round, the flurry ranger is often going to have better accuracy overall than the fighter, especially in boss fights where the ranger is not going to be spending as many actions switching targets. Fighters have a slightly better first attack which can translate into more critical hits, but will probably not hit as often as the ranger.

Your accuracy is tied to the kinds of attacks you have and how much damage they can do. All casters are limited with their spell casting to spell slots and focus powers for their higher level best attacks. Having limited numbers of spell slots and lower accuracy is a double punishment over martials because casters don't just get to roll again if they mess up the first time...Unless they invest in True strike and spell attack roll spells. Instead, most of their spells have 3 actual tiers of success that get put into play pretty regularly and with proper spell selection you can be reliably doing damage even when no one else can hit the monsters, or you can be debuffing so other folks can hit. Both options can be made to work out pretty well. Don't underestimate the value of heightened magic missiles against a boss monster as far as actual damage goes.

My Cloistered Cleric has been an incredibly valuable part of the party, being the only character that has survived from level 1 to 7, and the divine list is chock full of powerful gems. A harm font cleric can be every bit as devastating a damage dealer as a martial, As long as "Everyone try to win initiative and spend all of our actions moving forward to give powerful higher level monsters as many free attack actions as possible on us" is not your typical team strategy.


SteelGuts wrote:


They overnerfed accuracy as whole, and even more casters.

The only case where casters lack accuracy is with attack rolls.

Once you start considering that for the most part, a Critically Succeeded save is the only result of the four possibilities where an ability used by a caster actually fails, you'll realize casters actually are extremely reliable.

Its a paradigm shift from previous editions. Its designed to encourage tactics, and specifically to make choices like making three attacks a turn strictly sub-optimal.

If you look at it like PF1E, accuracy appears nerfed. When you make a few decent decisions - like flanking and using demoralize - everyone starts to have a much better time.

I'm running for players on their third campaign, and the only time anyone has accuracy issues now is when they're rolling comedically badly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You are all maiming very good point. Maybe it is just not a game for us anymore. I liked the fact that in PF1 there is a point where you start to be able to force your build almost everywhere, because you are that strong.

I think a lot of things that are intended in PF2 are not for us. My Figther wants to multi attack each turn, just like in PF1. We struggle and dislike some core changes that makes indeed the two games very different.

But you make a good point Unicore, maybe using optional rules like free feats could help us out. I mean you saw how much we played with a game we have difficulties with, we want to keep up with Paizo, it is just not our cup of tea in this iteration sadly. Maybe using optional and homebrew rules is a solution.


Due to how encounter building math works, it's also very simple to just make the game easier - give the party an extra level versus the stuff they end up fighting, treating the party as 1 level lower for the purpose of building encounters. If a group is not happy with the way accuracy is balanced, the sliders to fix it are very simple.


Your group sounded very opposed to most of what PF2E is going for, and "this system isn't for us" is a valid conclusion to reach, but it is still possible that homebrew could cover that. The people at Know Direction are apparently planning a set of houserules to make the game more relaxed, but I don't know when those will come out or how effective they'll be. Just making all of the player checks 2-5 points higher (and maybe raising the "hit this number to get a crit" value 2-5 as well if you don't want to mess with the crit chances) might help a little.

Myself, I'm planning on having any campaigns I run include modified Free Archetype rules, among other things, since I just prefer more customization being available. I made a Fighter that essentially has multi-attacks each turn as her gameplan by going unarmed with Medic and Martial Artist archetypes, planning on Agile Grace at Lv 10, and retraining Martial Artist to Monk around 12 for (pretty optional) Flurry of Blows and speed boosts — Snagging Strike, Combat Grab, Dazing Blow, Wolf Drag Capoeira Beat, and maybe Flurry of Blows offers a lot of ways to attackattackattack. ~w~


9 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest I don't think considering player accuracy in PF2 as bad is exclusive to people who came from 1e. I never played 1e, and I dislike 3.5 and everything remotely related to it, but I still think player accuracy in 2e is pretty bad. Extra bad if you compare it to monsters, who get to have Fighter accuracy and Wizard Spell DC at the same time. In fact, one monster can be better than both classes at both things at higher levels.

People usually say "just make enemies lower level", but that's not a solution that works for everyone. That works if you expressly want to make the game easier, but using my group as an example, we don't want the game to be easier, we just want characters to be more self-sufficient and difficulty being balanced around other factors that aren't "players missing all the time". Accuracy is not the only balance axis that can exist.


17 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:


It sounds like you have a group of players who want to play a more superpowered game than the default rules of PF2.

I don't agree with all of SteeGuts' points but I see this counterargument brought up a lot and it's pretty misleading.

"Superpowered" and "Consistent" aren't synonyms. Difficult and random aren't synonymous either.

There are many very difficult games that aren't built around having high variance and many very easy games that have a lot of variance baked into them.

The two concepts are completely unrelated, but constantly whenever someone has an issue with the system math they're dismissed as wanting to play an easier game instead. It's starting to feel more like a tactic than a misunderstanding.


SteelGuts wrote:
Just pick a class from core like Cleric. Make a Cleric level 4-5 and compare that with what a Cleric from 5e or a Cleric or Warpriest from PF1 can do. In terms of impact, action economy, tankyness, burst magic,...

I have played 5e and surprised anyone would come to the conclusion ANY class was better in that game for having more "options of what you can do", except MAYBE Paladin, since that class was stronger than any edition.

PF2E gives so many options and things to do in combat it is just insane.

What can Clerics do in 5e at level 1... cast a spell, attack and use a channel divinity.

What can a Cleric do in 2e at level 1... cast a spell, use skill actions which aren't even in 5e, use a domain spell and actually have GOOD healing spells. As you level PF2e just has more and more options comparatively.

When deciding to switch to PF2 I actually compared a few classes and PF2 easily beat 5e options by a large margin.

Even compared to PF1 I feel 2e actually gives you more options for how new it is and martials are 10x better than any other edition imo.

PF2E definitely has the thing where it is harder to hit in general. Yes if your players don't like "feeling weak" then that is a valid criticisms. Yes it can be frustrating sometimes but at the same time it has made combats actually interesting. In PF1 characters can be so super specialize that a Fighter can barely even miss on first attack. Saying 5e characters do more than PF2E counterparts seems like an absurd claim.

Your arguments seem to be that 5e is better than 2e because monsters are underpowered... you can do all the same things in 2e but monsters are actually challenging.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Unicore wrote:


It sounds like you have a group of players who want to play a more superpowered game than the default rules of PF2.

I don't agree with all of SteeGuts' points but I see this counterargument brought up a lot and it's pretty misleading.

"Superpowered" and "Consistent" aren't synonyms. Difficult and random aren't synonymous either.

There are many very difficult games that aren't built around having high variance and many very easy games that have a lot of variance baked into them.

The two concepts are completely unrelated, but constantly whenever someone has an issue with the system math they're dismissed as wanting to play an easier game instead. It's starting to feel more like a tactic than a misunderstanding.

Steelgut explicitly said that his table likes feeling more like powerful heroes and even agreed with my post afterwards that some of the options I suggested would be worth trying out. The advantage of my suggestions is that they will give the players the feel of the characters they want to play, but that the GM can still run APs relatively unmodified.

For homebrew, it is even easier to figure out what style of play your characters like and make the game fit it. My homebrew table often enjoys being a "kick in the door and go for it" party as well, and I regularly throw 200xp encounters or even more at them, but I use equal or lower level enemies and I often stagger the encounters by having the monsters arrive consecutively with a round or two between them, and the result is that it never feels like the party is playing on easy mode.

I do throw higher level monsters at my party too, sometimes level +2 or even +3, but when I do, I foreshadow the threat level and sometimes my party is just playing to escape harm from a creature they might have to come back to later on. I spooked them so bad by having a grape vineyard in the middle of the jungle, that they got one whiff of magical music coming from the cottage in the middle of it that they just decided to move along. Will they come back? What is going on in there? What were the Gripplies inside eating? Honestly, I am not sure they will ever come back to find out, but that part of the jungle is now considered spooky and to be avoided. I am getting side tracked now, but I guess the message is that homebrewing PF2 is also a whole lot of fun and you can even start with some of the plot ideas from an AP if you want (or steal some from a very old one), and make the play experience a better fit for your table.


Squiggit wrote:

There are many very difficult games that aren't built around having high variance and many very easy games that have a lot of variance baked into them.

The two concepts are completely unrelated, but constantly whenever someone has an issue with the system math they're dismissed as wanting to play an easier game instead. It's starting to feel more like a tactic than a misunderstanding.

I have pretty much only play PF1/PF2/D&D 5e. Those seem to be what he was comparing too. 5e from my experience is super easy though unless they put you against things way higher level than you.

PF1 on the other hand I just get the feeling it is 100% based on how the players made their characters of how easy the game is. It has been challenging but at the same time we are a party of three and we aren't min maxed at all. I had summon character that easily destroyed "some" encounters by himself so I had to get rid of him.

I am curious of what games had low variance while being challenging. Any game with spells that just take enemies out of combat I feel have to be high variance.

I would actually love a high fantasy system that is challenging, low variance and having amazing amount of class options/choices. Currently PF2E in my opinion excels in the class options and challenge but the variance can be a little frustrating. Our Monk last game rolled a 2, 5, 3, 4 and 5 for 5 attacks in a round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Unicore wrote:


It sounds like you have a group of players who want to play a more superpowered game than the default rules of PF2.

I don't agree with all of SteeGuts' points but I see this counterargument brought up a lot and it's pretty misleading.

"Superpowered" and "Consistent" aren't synonyms. Difficult and random aren't synonymous either.

There are many very difficult games that aren't built around having high variance and many very easy games that have a lot of variance baked into them.

The two concepts are completely unrelated, but constantly whenever someone has an issue with the system math they're dismissed as wanting to play an easier game instead. It's starting to feel more like a tactic than a misunderstanding.

The issue with this stance is twofold.

First, increase consistency directly and instantly leads to an easier game, unless you change things such that each individual action has less effect - which creates a "grindy" experience which is also distasteful to many (this is my experience with high level 5e, where the "challenge" is just waiting for enemy hp to run out).

Second, increased consistency is already attainable within the rules if you use tactics and abilities as apparently intended. Just use tactics and teamwork.

Asking for more consistency with no tactical investment is functionally identical to asking for an easier game - both because it inherently makes the game easier, and because it inflates the potency of game aspects that already exist to do exactly that.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I saw a lot of comments of wanting to have an easier game, and maybe I articulated my ideas poorly. I want a game where heroes feels more heroic.

I saw a Cleric in 5E use Channel Divinity to fear 3 undeads, raised a fallen ally and kill a monster with his hammer the same round at level 2. The value of the round was just amazing. He died like a dog on a Hobgoblin crit.

I saw a Mutagen Alchemist Barbarian in PF1 rekt an hard difficulty encounter in one round by himself. He died the last fight with a failed save on Hold Person and Coup de Grace.

In PF2 I saw a Divine Sorcerer spam heal because it is the best value, a Druid with a useless familiar, an Alchemist without any power and a Barbarian missing 70% of his hits against same level opponents.

These are a few examples of 15 years of RPG and almost 7 of Pathfinder 1 and 3 of 5e. I swear to god that players felt more heroic in Warhammer RPG playing Docker and Scribe than in PF2. Or in Shadow of the Demon Lord. Or in L5R. Games where anything can OS you all the time, when you can become mad or corrupted or commit suicide.

We had at least 5 TPKs over the years. And 3 deaths on Rise of the Runelords and 5 in Jade Regent. 3 in Curse of Stradh.

And despite all of that they felt heroics in all these games. It was grindy, sometimes grim, hard, tough. But they felt like heroes. In PF2 they felt like blind weaklings that miss more than 50% of what they do.

Difficulty and having the feeling of accomplish something are not the same thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am confused how you say PF2 character don't feel heroic.

Just this week I had 2 great examples.

In my current campaign I used suggestion as a Bard to stop a caster from killing our entire team while riding his dinosaur. I admit it was a gamble since I had no idea what level the monster was and he failed the save.

In PFS my level 3 sorcerer cast fear and the main boss rolled a one so he was frightened 3 and fleeing. I also could have tripped him and the ENTIRE party could have got a net gain of 5 from a level 1 spell...

There are just crazy amount of examples I could mention. Yes hit rates in general are lower but characters still feel quite heroic.

Also in PF2E clerics can decimate whole rooms of undead at level 1 too while healing the party.

PF1 I admit characters feel super powerful in that game and depending how they build it can even be unfair.

5e on the other was just crazy easy. I played Storm King's Thunder and 2 homebrew campaigns with players who had 0 experience in games and it was just a cake walk unless you throw absurd encounters like a dragon at level 3.

You dont seen to like PF2E because the hit rates are lower than you like. Honestly if you care that much about accuracy why not just increase everyones hit rate by a certain amount and just make crits require 10+ whatever you added? You would pretty much just have a better 5e.

I cant even remember one exciting battle in my 2 years of 5e. Unless you do something stupid it is very hard to die. Only reason I got close one time is one party member ran up the stairs to a boss when we were low on spell slots and were less than 50% health. You just take the shield cantrip and you barely get hit in that game.

5e the only challenging fights were boss fights because legendary resistance which was just a bad mechanic because the more casters have the easier overcome it.

Just wanted to reiterate if you are comparing 2e to 1e then yes a decently built 1e character will feel more heroic but at the same time the challenge/balance is a mess because of it.


SteelGuts wrote:

I saw a lot of comments of wanting to have an easier game, and maybe I articulated my ideas poorly. I want a game where heroes feels more heroic.

I saw a Cleric in 5E use Channel Divinity to fear 3 undeads, raised a fallen ally and kill a monster with his hammer the same round at level 2. The value of the round was just amazing. He died like a dog on a Hobgoblin crit.

I saw a Mutagen Alchemist Barbarian in PF1 rekt an hard difficulty encounter in one round by himself. He died the last fight with a failed save on Hold Person and Coup de Grace.

In PF2 I saw a Divine Sorcerer spam heal because it is the best value, a Druid with a useless familiar, an Alchemist without any power and a Barbarian missing 70% of his hits against same level opponents.

These are a few examples of 15 years of RPG and almost 7 of Pathfinder 1 and 3 of 5e. I swear to god that players felt more heroic in Warhammer RPG playing Docker and Scribe than in PF2. Or in Shadow of the Demon Lord. Or in L5R. Games where anything can OS you all the time, when you can become mad or corrupted or commit suicide.

We had at least 5 TPKs over the years. And 3 deaths on Rise of the Runelords and 5 in Jade Regent. 3 in Curse of Stradh.

And despite all of that they felt heroics in all these games. It was grindy, sometimes grim, hard, tough. But they felt like heroes. In PF2 they felt like blind weaklings that miss more than 50% of what they do.

Difficulty and having the feeling of accomplish something are not the same thing.

You seem to be equating heroic and success percentage. I don't think the two are connected myself. If you win the battle, you're still a hero for completing the heoric goal even if it more challenging to do so than being able to game the system to nearly guarantee success as you level.

I have fun explaining bad rounds myself, even though players don't like to miss or fail.

I'm more disappointed that the new classes are so much worse than what they were comparatively in PF1. Seems like sticking with the Core Rulebook classes is the way to go if you want to be as effective as possible. They are making the new classes abilities too complicated with built in weaknesses that can be exploited that lead to a not so fun style of play.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Its been discussed before but there are different types of "heroic".

To some barely surviving is heroic. To others being great at your thing is heroic. Yet to another group its all about your planning.

At the moment PF2 only really delivers on the "barely surviving" which is great if you are into Grimdark or stories were the heroes are struggling to live. But it fails to deliver on the others. If you give lower level enemies its too easy. If you place less enemies than they get overwhelmed by numbers.

The core book was written be be the cap, the maximum that things can reach. But the entire base is already super stiff with very little give.

Which is why I pushed so hard for the variant proficiency, that kind of helps a bit to make the numbers work. Would be great to make the proficiency scales differ more, but that takes a lot of work to make sure things stay balanced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dunno, I think its pretty Heroic when the party faces off against an ancient immortal Wizard who has Ancient Dragons as minions, and they feel like minions due to the relative power of the party (being easily struck down by the Fighter in few blows) - all accomplished without changing any rules due to the amazing level based scaling in 2E.

Thats not a hypothetical scenario, btw, its one I've witnessed. A Level 19 Ancient Dragon is a terror to a level 15 party, and a minor threat to a level 20 character. By design. And it works.

If you want a "more heroic" game in PF2E, that dial already exists in game - and its using lower level creatures against the party.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Except that dial has a hair trigger sensitivity. 1 level too low and it jumps from an okay fight to "why even bother rolling". That sensitivity to a single +1 is not great when the goal is to allow multiple types of playstyles.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Except that dial has a hair trigger sensitivity. 1 level too low and it jumps from an okay fight to "why even bother rolling". That sensitivity to a single +1 is not great when the goal is to allow multiple types of playstyles.

There's nothing stopping any party from experimenting and finding out what works from them. Since the GM is in control, you can just change what doesn't work for you.

The issue with the discussion is that you can't say, "I don't want things to be easier, I just want to succeed more often." in a game where success (accuracy) is the gatekeeper for difficulty. Which you are totally allowed to dislike, I suppose, but I've never seen a game where the opposite isn't "every encounter is a grindfest because each action matters less" or "rocket tag".

Both of those options exist - 5E for the first, and PF1E for the other.

2E is designed to neither be a grindfest, or rocket tag.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
Except that dial has a hair trigger sensitivity. 1 level too low and it jumps from an okay fight to "why even bother rolling". That sensitivity to a single +1 is not great when the goal is to allow multiple types of playstyles.

If you recognize that a single point of accuracy is a big deal, and that the game regularly gives you ways to shift accuracy up by 1 to 3 points and defenses down by around the same, and you recognize that spells that are tuned to be powerful on a second-to-best result for the caster and devastating on a critical result in the caster's favor, then your argument is really not against the state of caster accuracy as whole, but that you wish that tactical accuracy bonuses in the game were more limited and that innate accuracy bonuses were a bigger part of game play.

Martial crits can be awesome, but they absolutely pale in comparison to critical effects from casters casting spells from spell slots, especially at higher levels. The only difference between the balance point of accuracy between casters and martials is that martials will generally be making more attacks, so those bonuses are usually more important for casters than they are for martials, because you don't usually roll the D20 3 times in a round when you are casting, fishing for one good roll. You (or your enemy) usually roll one die to see what happens, and if you haven't maximized your opportunities for successs, AND you haven't cast a spell that is going to do something useful even if the numbers don't fall your way, then you are definitely going to feel frustrated by your choices.

But the thing is, the GM really does play a roll in that too. If the player wants to throw around a lot of high damage spells and feel like a hero, throw lots of level -1 monsters at the enemies often. I promise you that the martials in the party will be thanking their lucky stars that they have a wizard in the party to rain down AoE's all day.

But you don't slay dragons in PF2 (And by dragons I mean any, much higher level, solo monsters) by charging in, throwing your highest damage spells or attacks against them with no set up, and then expect to overwhelm them before they get to move. If that is the style of game play you are looking for as a player, then your GM probably needs to set the dungeon up where you have to fight through 6 to 8 encounters of lower threat levels, so that the end boss monster can be an equal level solo monster that must be fought now, or else it will get away or accomplish its goals. The XP budget of the adventure can be about the same as the single, higher level threat, and you haven't made an easy mode adventure, you've made an adventure that fits the play style of your party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Its been discussed before but there are different types of "heroic".

To some barely surviving is heroic. To others being great at your thing is heroic. Yet to another group its all about your planning.

At the moment PF2 only really delivers on the "barely surviving" which is great if you are into Grimdark or stories were the heroes are struggling to live. But it fails to deliver on the others. If you give lower level enemies its too easy. If you place less enemies than they get overwhelmed by numbers.

The core book was written be be the cap, the maximum that things can reach. But the entire base is already super stiff with very little give.

Which is why I pushed so hard for the variant proficiency, that kind of helps a bit to make the numbers work. Would be great to make the proficiency scales differ more, but that takes a lot of work to make sure things stay balanced.

How are you barely surviving except at the lowest levels?


Yeah, I found "barely surviving" to stop around levels 4 or 5. Stuff was still difficult, but we weren't having multiple people hitting zero every combat anymore.


Salamileg wrote:
Yeah, I found "barely surviving" to stop around levels 4 or 5. Stuff was still difficult, but we weren't having multiple people hitting zero every combat anymore.

The correlation for me is once the party has ways of 'stealing' significant numbers of actions, via reliable ways to apply stun or slow or concealment or similar action 'traps' to themselves, harder targets tend to become significantly less threatening.

Level 5 is also where a lot of parties are finding their stride for the internal synergies of their party, since at that point they've had four levels of working together to see what works and what doesn't.

Our Extinction Curse party really struggled from level 1-3, but at 4 a lot of our issues kindof got worked out things became very smooth.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Still only playing low level (reaching 8 next session) I sometimes think the 4 levels of success are somewhat working against casters in a way how spells are designed to function and how much accuracy they do allow for.

What do players want? Their actions to succeed on a regular basis. Lets say 60% hit and 40% miss is a good start. However if you do this in a ±10, 4 levels of success invironment you have just tremendously increased chances for a critical success. Coupled with the fact that spell critical successes often impose devestating effects including pure damage it is clear that this is a huge no-go. So I wonder if "caster satisfaction" would be higher without overpowering criticals but with a better rate for regular sucesses.

On the other side of the pond martials seem to have much more natural way to manipulate success chances than casters (e.g. flanking or otherwise imposing flat-footed condition, magic weapons, accuracy buffs), plus they roll their own checks plus they usually roll more often. Weak saves sometimes do exist, but even then they often just equalize the 4 to 6 points in accuracy that martials may be ahead.

It does not help my perception that I have yet to see a relevant (and fresh) enemy or boss crit failing any save within the first 2 rounds of combat, i.e. a game changer. And it isn't that our Wizard or my Cleric aren't trying (and our GM rolls all enemy saves in the open). Critical hits from our martials - while usually also not game changing or always landing on the "correct" enemy - simply seem to roll in much more consistently.

Just as an observation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:


What do players what? Their actions to succeed on a regular basis. Lets say 60% hit and 40% miss is a good start.

I think there's definitely a correlation in 'caster satisfaction' between those who are willing to see half damage/partial effect on a successful save as part of the 'I succeeded' spectrum, and those who won't.

Casters are designed with a whole lot of extra 'successful spell' results on the enemies save-die in mind, and failing to recognize that will result in spells 'succeeding' way less often than the designers had in mind.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

The sorceress in the party I am homebrewing for uses magic missile more than any other spell, because the campaign is mostly out in large open spaces and enemies often take cover and fire from range. Spells having massive ranges with no range penalties is a massive advantage if your party is not constantly in tiny dungeons with 30ft wide rooms.

The martials often have to spend many actions moving and thus flanking is something that has to be worked for. I also have enemies scamper up into trees, jump into flowing rivers, and even had an encounter shift from a fight on the docks up on to a boat that got set adrift and began spinning in water, making a fight against some wounded and trying to retreat enemies, much more challenging because it included the possibility of being stuck out on a boat that no one in the party could pilot (Seriously, piloting vehicles in PF2 is not a gimmie action). Letting the pirate boat loaded up with loot sink, or float away created a more terrifying encounter for the players I think than the time they poked (well, messaged repeatedly) the sleeping hydra that was 3 levels higher than them.

Edit: I think the sorceress is pretty excited about the idea of hitting 5th level and picking up fireball, as much for the range as for any other advantage of the spell.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:

I saw a lot of comments of wanting to have an easier game, and maybe I articulated my ideas poorly. I want a game where heroes feels more heroic.

I saw a Cleric in 5E use Channel Divinity to fear 3 undeads, raised a fallen ally and kill a monster with his hammer the same round at level 2. The value of the round was just amazing. He died like a dog on a Hobgoblin crit.

I saw a Mutagen Alchemist Barbarian in PF1 rekt an hard difficulty encounter in one round by himself. He died the last fight with a failed save on Hold Person and Coup de Grace.

In PF2 I saw a Divine Sorcerer spam heal because it is the best value, a Druid with a useless familiar, an Alchemist without any power and a Barbarian missing 70% of his hits against same level opponents.

These are a few examples of 15 years of RPG and almost 7 of Pathfinder 1 and 3 of 5e. I swear to god that players felt more heroic in Warhammer RPG playing Docker and Scribe than in PF2. Or in Shadow of the Demon Lord. Or in L5R. Games where anything can OS you all the time, when you can become mad or corrupted or commit suicide.

We had at least 5 TPKs over the years. And 3 deaths on Rise of the Runelords and 5 in Jade Regent. 3 in Curse of Stradh.

And despite all of that they felt heroics in all these games. It was grindy, sometimes grim, hard, tough. But they felt like heroes. In PF2 they felt like blind weaklings that miss more than 50% of what they do.

Difficulty and having the feeling of accomplish something are not the same thing.

You seem to be equating heroic and success percentage. I don't think the two are connected myself. If you win the battle, you're still a hero for completing the heoric goal even if it more challenging to do so than being able to game the system to nearly guarantee success as you level.

I have fun explaining bad rounds myself, even though players don't like to miss or fail.

I'm more disappointed that the new classes are so much worse than what they were comparatively in...

A level 1 PC fighting an Ancient Red Dragon is effectively suicide. A level 16 PC fight an Adult Red Dragon is risky, but at least reasonably doable.

And this is solo. A group of level 16 PCs could fight an Ancient Red Dragon and still have it be a risky yet possibly victorious combat.

I do believe he has a point in that the game relies too much on having math swings to be competent. Let's take this Ancient Red Dragon for example. A Barbarian having about +25 to hit will be very hard pressed to succeed against that Dragon's AC of about 40. But if they had Fighter bonuses, with Bard shenanigans and flanking tactics plus Intimidation skills, it goes from being a 15+ to succeed to a 9+ to succeed, getting only better with stronger Frightened conditions, Synesthesia, and Inspire Heroics, cutting it down to 6+ at best.

In short, the game is heavily reliant on party tactics and system mastery for effectiveness. This might not seem bad, considering this is a team game, after all, but some players and groups won't always have those tools or bonuses at their disposal to have those heroic moments when the group joined forces and used their wits and powers to slay the evil dragon and save the land from its oppression.

If you have a group with a Barbarian and Druid compared to a Fighter and Bard, they can't assault the creature the same way, or have the same effectiveness. Maybe the Druid and Barbarian players chose their routes for cool flavor and character themes. But they aren't anywhere near as effective as the other combo, and the math shows when facing the big bad.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

While I do otherwise agree with your point, I should also note that a level 16 Barbarian with +25 to hit is rocking an amazing +1 Str mod.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Its been discussed before but there are different types of "heroic".

To some barely surviving is heroic. To others being great at your thing is heroic. Yet to another group its all about your planning.

This is a fantastic point right here and I totally agree, much of this is always going to come down to personal and individual preference in storytelling at large.

Some people want One Punch Man Characters who can and will likely slog through any obstacle with ease and the only way to really fail at all would be to fail to act or to be your own enemy.

Others want an "against all odds" story where the day is saved only by the skin of their teeth and at the very last moment much like the Lord of the Rings stories.

Both of these things are equally heroic and can be spun into very fun games but when pitched/played to the wrong group will easily fall flat on its face. Should the group feel like they're failing too much and dislike close calls then perhaps it's best to scale back the level of the challenges the Party is facing and increase the number of opponents and exchange. If they want things to be close to the wire then equal or higher level opponents and challenges is more approiate as well as being generous with Hero Points and player narritive control.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
While I do otherwise agree with your point, I should also note that a level 16 Barbarian with +25 to hit is rocking an amazing +1 Str mod.

I did adhoc a bit of math there. It has +29 to hit otherwise, since we figure at Master Proficiency being +22, Potency granting another +2, and Strength being at about a 5. However, the Ancient Red Dragon instead has AC 45, not 40, so the point still stands, just the points on the number line have changed, in my favor no less.

So, a +29 to hit needs a 16 or higher to hit the target number, AC 45. Definitely not great odds for Mr. Barbarian, and Mr. Fighter needs 14 or higher to hit. And this is all in first swing territory, the second and third swings need a 20 (which is only a critical for Mr. Fighter on the second attack, though a feat like Exacting Strike would be helpful here) just to be able to graze Mr. Dragon.

But let's go ahead and put this into perspective to see how much the math can swing for them to make it less of a hopeless battle. We can add in Flanking for a -2 to its AC, making the number 43 to hit. If we can get a Dirge of Doom, or some form of Frightened, that's 42. If we want, we can also throw in Inspire Courage with Inspire Heroics for another +2 to our martial.

So, Barbarian needs to hit AC 42. A bit more manageable, since he is at 13 or higher to hit, not including Inspire Courage with +2 Heroics active, making it an 11. So, it's about an even roll, 50/50. Fighter will be at 9 or higher, making it a 60% chance.

However, this is a lot of set-up to get these favorable numbers, for maybe a round tops, and also managing the math in a way that's not universally applicable for all parties involved. And also not taking into consideration the Dragon's tactics to be able to Fly, utilize Breath Weapons (something that Mr. Barbarian isn't that great at and Mr. Fighter will be passable with if the dice are in his favor), spellcasting to buff or debuff others, or his Frightful Presence (though Mr. Barbarian and Mr. Fighter have good tools to combat these things, so it's a minor concern at best).

If the players do defeat this powerful entity, they will definitely be heroes. But considering how much tactics and set-up it takes to make it a possible victorious battle, it's a lot of work that can end up in smoke (quite literally, considering the threat) if the dice do not favor the PCs at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:

I dunno, I think its pretty Heroic when the party faces off against an ancient immortal Wizard who has Ancient Dragons as minions, and they feel like minions due to the relative power of the party (being easily struck down by the Fighter in few blows) - all accomplished without changing any rules due to the amazing level based scaling in 2E.

Thats not a hypothetical scenario, btw, its one I've witnessed. A Level 19 Ancient Dragon is a terror to a level 15 party, and a minor threat to a level 20 character. By design. And it works.

If you want a "more heroic" game in PF2E, that dial already exists in game - and its using lower level creatures against the party.

I've done this kind of encounter too, it really does make players feel badass-- ESPECIALLY if they fought one of those or something similar at a lower level, when it was a boss encounter, but now they're mooks that go down easy.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RPGnoremac wrote:

I am confused how you say PF2 character don't feel heroic.

Just this week I had 2 great examples.

In my current campaign I used suggestion as a Bard to stop a caster from killing our entire team while riding his dinosaur. I admit it was a gamble since I had no idea what level the monster was and he failed the save.

In PFS my level 3 sorcerer cast fear and the main boss rolled a one so he was frightened 3 and fleeing. I also could have tripped him and the ENTIRE party could have got a net gain of 5 from a level 1 spell...

There are just crazy amount of examples I could mention. Yes hit rates in general are lower but characters still feel quite heroic.

Also in PF2E clerics can decimate whole rooms of undead at level 1 too while healing the party.

Honestly, it sounds like your GM wasn't using (or didn't know) the Incapacitation trait in 2e. A boss riding a dinosaur that was "killing your whole party" was not high level enough for Incapacitate to kick in and change the Failed save into a Success?

And a "main boss" at 3rd level wasn't at least 2nd level, turning the Crit Fail into just a Fail? (or did you Heighten the Fear spell, meaning he could have been as high as Level 4?)

In our games, the party is very afraid of using Incapacitate spells on anyone but obvious mooks, because almost all the bosses are higher levels than we are, sometimes significantly higher.


Samurai wrote:
RPGnoremac wrote:

I am confused how you say PF2 character don't feel heroic.

Just this week I had 2 great examples.

In my current campaign I used suggestion as a Bard to stop a caster from killing our entire team while riding his dinosaur. I admit it was a gamble since I had no idea what level the monster was and he failed the save.

In PFS my level 3 sorcerer cast fear and the main boss rolled a one so he was frightened 3 and fleeing. I also could have tripped him and the ENTIRE party could have got a net gain of 5 from a level 1 spell...

There are just crazy amount of examples I could mention. Yes hit rates in general are lower but characters still feel quite heroic.

Also in PF2E clerics can decimate whole rooms of undead at level 1 too while healing the party.

Honestly, it sounds like your GM wasn't using (or didn't know) the Incapacitation trait in 2e. A boss riding a dinosaur that was "killing your whole party" was not high level enough for Incapacitate to kick in and change the Failed save into a Success?

And a "main boss" at 3rd level wasn't at least 2nd level, turning the Crit Fail into just a Fail? (or did you Heighten the Fear spell, meaning he could have been as high as Level 4?)

In our games, the party is very afraid of using Incapacitate spells on anyone but obvious mooks, because almost all the bosses are higher levels than we are, sometimes significantly higher.

The fear spell does NOT have the Incapacitation trait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Suggestion does though, which might have been what Samurai was referring to.


Squiggit wrote:
Suggestion does though, which might have been what Samurai was referring to.

Maybe but as levels where unknown for that spell example, that's impossible to judge if Incapacitation was taken into effect. Samurai also said "And a "main boss" at 3rd level wasn't at least 2nd level, turning the Crit Fail into just a Fail? (or did you Heighten the Fear spell, meaning he could have been as high as Level 4?)" which in my mind makes it clear the implication to draw from it was the comments are directed at fear. If it WAS meant to be about suggestion, the post was worded in a way that that wasn't clear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well I think the Dinosaur was technically the boss in the battle. The spell was level 4 so incapication only applies level 9+ as far as I know. I have no idea what level the monster actually was.

I do have to explain the rules a lot to everyone which is kind of odd as a player, but no one else is anywhere near as "invested/excited" as I am.

I never said it was a big boss it was just a caster on top of a dinosaur. It definitely is possible the monster was 9+ but as a player I have no way of knowing.

Incapicitation spells are good since you can "take out decently leveled enemies in one spell". I dislike them for one reason though as a player you 100% have no idea when they will be effective unless your GM is nice. Recall Knowledge kind of works but honestly that is also GM dependendent and not all characters are great at it, also it takes an action.

Fear on the other hand does not have the trait and really is great for a level 1 spell.

This does bring another question... does anyone else have a really hard time explaining incapicitation to people? I told the GM players multiple times to always check for incapicitation trait and how it works.

Even still the GM cast blindness and didnt use it correctly on a player. I dont have monster sheets so of course I have no idea what spell/level it is being cast. I love Pathfinder 2e but when things like this keep happening it drives me a little crazy.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, RPGnoremac, I knew Suggestion had Incapacitate, but didn't remember that Fear didn't. That seems pretty inconsistent to me.

And yes, it is hard to remember and use it properly. I'd prefer if the trait were either removed or changed in some way. Fireballs don't suddenly become much easier to save against just because the target is a certain level. A higher level target can't get a +1 step bonus on saves against your illusions, etc.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
Yeah, RPGnoremac, I knew Suggestion had Incapacitate, but didn't remember that Fear didn't. That seems pretty inconsistent to me.

The difference is actually really simple:

Fear is, unless you critically fail, a debuff (merely applying a numerical penalty), Suggestion is, at least potentially, a Save Or Die effect.

And that's the general standard of all Incapacitation spells, they will, in a one on one fight, auto win that fight if the enemy merely fails the Save against them. Spells where that's not true very rarely have Incapacitation (even if they take people out of the fight on a crit failure), and almost no spells exist that outright win fights but lack Incapacitation (Baleful Polymorph is a notable exception, but it's the only one I know of).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Samurai wrote:
Yeah, RPGnoremac, I knew Suggestion had Incapacitate, but didn't remember that Fear didn't. That seems pretty inconsistent to me.

The difference is actually really simple:

Fear is, unless you critically fail, a debuff (merely applying a numerical penalty), Suggestion is, at least potentially, a Save Or Die effect.

And that's the general standard of all Incapacitation spells, they will, in a one on one fight, auto win that fight if the enemy merely fails the Save against them. Spells where that's not true very rarely have Incapacitation (even if they take people out of the fight on a crit failure), and almost no spells exist that outright win fights but lack Incapacitation (Baleful Polymorph is a notable exception, but it's the only one I know of).

color spray is very far from autowin even in critical fail and have incapacitation tag

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hbitte wrote:
color spray is very far from autowin even in critical fail and have incapacitation tag

I said debuffs rarely had Incapacitation, not never had it. How many other exceptions have you got?

Color Spray is also sort of grandfathered in, since it had an HD limit in PF1 and Incapacitation is the PF2 equivalent of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Well given that the errata dropped and there were some huge changes to Wizards, Clerics, and Bards. What does every think?

I feel like they took away some of the few reasons to actually play a Wizard given they are no longer getting the most 10th level spells. Also the fact that now no spell can affect objects unless it says otherwise destroyed a lot of the power that casters had.

I never considered getting more stuff at, what, level 19? to be a good reason for playing any class.

Spells affecting objects have been a realism issue for at least four decades of roleplaying.

In the end, the only conclusion is: it needs to be left up to storytelling.

Whether a fireball destroys all the loot, or whether you can melt the bad guys magical axe right out of his hands, is something that some groups will find unacceptable and some groups will find a big draw.

It's no accident most games don't proscribe this sort of thing in the rules anymore, because of how easily it wrecks a story. It really is much better left up to houserules.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

As far as the discussion goes, it seems the topic has drifted over to how difficult things are (I'm assuming official adventures here).

But this (and many other) topics started because of a more specific problem:

That spellcasters in general and wizards in particular are terribly low-powered during low levels.

We can debate whether the pain becomes bearable already at level 7 or if only at level 11 does it feel a Wizard is pulling his weight.

That loses sight of the real problem: a Wizard shouldn't be a drag to the group for fully a third (or half!) of the game.

In other editions of D&D, level 5 is usually where the spellcaster and wizard "comes online".

And don't start on "but in Supplement X they get spell Y".

The sad conclusion is that playing with the Core Rulebook, there effectively exists no reason to play a Wizard at all, unless you're so excited to play one you're blinded to actual performance analysis.

This is one of the greatest failings of Pathfinder 2. In their burning desire to avoid the Quadratic Wizard of PF1, Paizo accidentally nerfed the PF2 Wizard into oblivion.

This is especially sad when you realize there was a game that did successfully solve the martial-caster balance (D&D 5E), a game Paizo could have studied and learned from, but never did.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
That loses sight of the real problem: a Wizard shouldn't be a drag to the group for fully a third (or half!) of the game.

They're not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Hbitte wrote:
color spray is very far from autowin even in critical fail and have incapacitation tag

I said debuffs rarely had Incapacitation, not never had it. How many other exceptions have you got?

Color Spray is also sort of grandfathered in, since it had an HD limit in PF1 and Incapacitation is the PF2 equivalent of that.

I dont know, I wouldn't want to see Color Spray without Incapacitation. Dazzled isn't a bad result on a successful save, and the stack of debuffs (including Dazzled for a minute!) on a failed save are pretty darned crippling.

If it didn't have Incapacitation, it'd be an insane debuff from a first level slot for a characters entire career, significantly better than other first level debuffs and many higher level ones IMO.

And its AOE!

I'm just saying, I think its fully intentional its Incapacitation, and not just grandfathered in.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:


The sad conclusion is that playing with the Core Rulebook, there effectively exists no reason to play a Wizard at all, unless you're so excited to play one you're blinded to actual performance analysis.

I'm 100% dead serious when I say this - I haven't seen a single case where I'd actually prefer a Arcane Sorcerer or Witch over a Wizard. They just don't offer anything that looks like it will actually surpass the extra spell slots and power of a thesis.

Once a Wizard is 3rd level and has a 2nd level of spells, they have enough of a spell advantage (it doesnt take a massive margin) that in a typical adventuring day the advantages from other classes having stronger Focus spells aren't likely to actually come up (its not like these classes have extra actions to magically cast these where a Wizard would not cast a spell) - and contrary to popular portrayal, Wizard class features and feats can be extremely strong, if boring. I'm looking at Spell Penetration.

Beyond that, no other class can reconfigure itself like a Wizard can overnight at need. Yes, a Cleric or Druid can change their spell list - but neither can take quite as hard a turn on role as a Wizard. A Wizard can be a Blaster or Buffer, but also a debuffer, illusionist, or Diviner if the upcoming day calls for it. Or on demand, with the right thesis.

And that's putting beside the fact that "Intelligence" being a BAD main stat is a bizarre and unusual main stat in my book, as I'm constantly craving more Trained skills and love being the "smart" guy.

If the class itself is boring, bring your own excitement when you build your character. A "boring" chassis is more room for the Player to bring "character" to the character.

So yeah, seriously, eye of the beholder.


Umm because of the errata the witch and sorcerer are getting 10th level focus spells. While the Wizard is cant get more 10th level spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my experience, Wizards are actually at their height of strength at level 1, comparatively. Magic Weapon is so ridiculously strong at that point that it carries the entire class. The rest of your kit isn't incredibly strong though, you do have some good tools in Fear, Grease and the like but your slots are a big limiter, and your non-Magic Weapon resources get stretched rather thin if you ended up with a poor focus spell. An objection to this would be that it's not actually a good thing the class is carried by one spell, and that new players might play the class without using Magic Weapon and get frustrated, and I would probably agree with that. This status quo only lasts for about 2 levels, but I think the discrepancy in Wizard focus spells exacerbates this.

Still, if I was playing in a game that I knew would not make it further than level 2; my number 1 priority for what class to put in a party would be "caster capable of casting magic weapon". So I think it's wrong to call the class weak early on. I will again reiterate that even if I don't think Wizards are weak at level 1, I don't think their gameplay is in an especially good spot due to the discrepancy in focus spells.

Levels 3-4 are a little wonky in my experience. 2nd level spells offer a lot of power and utility but you're still limited enough by your spell slots that using them efficiently can be difficult. Whiffing spells just hurts really badly at this point, so you may find yourself resorting to safe bets with guaranteed value; buffs like Blur for example. I don't consider Wizards abysmal at this stage, but I would probably say it's when they're at their weakest.

By level 5 and onwards, I think Wizards find themselves in a good spot. 3rd level spells is a game-changer, and at this point your extra spell slots over other casters really start to shine through. With 11 spell slots total, you have enough spell power to start phasing out cantrips entirely out of your encounter strategy unless your GM is sending a lot of encounters per day against you frequently. This is also when scroll usage starts really becoming viable as a part of your strategy - 1st level scrolls are very cheap at this point, which means you can purchase a lot of backup utility and combat scrolls like Fear without having to sacrifice much in the way of permanent items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Umm because of the errata the witch and sorcerer are getting 10th level focus spells. While the Wizard is cant get more 10th level spells.

And which 10th level focus spells, exactly, are they lording over the Wizard that make them so much better?

The Wizard still maintains an advantage in spell slots, and the gap between 9th and 10th is not so steep as to erase that advantage.

Also, this matters for 2 levels out of 20 - it hurts that Wizards don't get extra 10ths, and didn't feel necessary, but it doesn't break the game or the class.

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,256 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Spellcasters and their problems ... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.