| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, since Wizards and other Spellcasters are "just fine" and Bards are so OP that parties lose out on them so much in place of any 4th member, should we nerf the Bard?
I won't say yes or no. But I will suggest that if people are saying Bard is bonkers OP that they trivialize encounters, it's not such an insane idea to propose.
I think the main thing that may be keeping Bards in maybe-it-all-works-out territory is diminishing returns. A Bard is an extremely strong addition to a party, but adding a second out does not give that same spike in party power (well, the second one is probably about as good as adding an average or slightly below average caster, so it's not exactly terrible either).
I do think that Bard may have come out quite a bit stronger than Paizo intended, though maybe not in ways that dominate to the point of needing a nerf. Beyond that, issuing nerfs tend to generate a lot more discontent than issuing buffs; and this is even more true in the realm of homebrew than it is in errata.
Diminishing returns doesn't sound like a balance consideration when the game assumes 4 differently classes characters in a party scenario, not 4 musketeers in a vacuum. A Bard's contribution is varied between parties but still universally liked and constantly applied and almost impossible to replicate from anyone else.
So, since Wizards and other Spellcasters are "just fine" and Bards are so OP that parties lose out on them so much in place of any 4th member, should we nerf the Bard?
I won't say yes or no. But I will suggest that if people are saying Bard is bonkers OP that they trivialize encounters, it's not such an insane idea to propose.
Bards are very strong, but I think it's more because Paizo went nuts with the occult list. I'm totally ok with a bard having a much better chassis than other spellcasters, great cantrips and focus spells.
I think they went a bit overboard with spells like Synesthesia, that is so powerful that the other lists are blamed for not including it. But it's not the only gem you can find in the occult list, with great debuff, blasts and utility.
So if I were to balance things out (but then nobody likes nerfs so it won't ever happen), I would nerf synesthesia, move some spells from the occult list to the arcane list and there, done.
I think the main thing that may be keeping Bards in maybe-it-all-works-out territory is diminishing returns. A Bard is an extremely strong addition to a party, but adding a second out does not give that same spike in party power (well, the second one is probably about as good as adding an average or slightly below average caster, so it's not exactly terrible either).
I think a second is about as strong as they can buff different things like one Courage and one Defense. And 2 times the number of Synesthesia cast is pretty good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And, in fact, access [to consumables] is not universal or should be assumed. Some games make heavy use of them, some do not. The game does assume that they will be available, but tables that do not have a lot of them are not playing the game wrong.
Which is why I try to redirect a lot of the big calls for a complete rebalancing of the wizard class to suggestions that players and GMs can look at for ways to make sure people have fun at their table, especially when they are not following the base assumptions of the game (like that consumables will be a readily available resource).
In that particular instance, where neither the GM nor the players have an interest in using consumables at the table, it might be a good idea for the GM to focus on Fewer, higher level/more challenging Encounters per day, especially ones where several extra level -2 monsters are thrown in the mix. Having two to three difficult encounters with lots of mooks running around with a couple of serious threat monsters will be a lot of fun for the whole party but not push the daily resources limits into places where consumables are as necessary for sustainable play.
I'm totally ok with a bard having a much better chassis than other spellcasters, great cantrips and focus spellsWhy them and not others?
Because they have less spells per level ?
You clearly said you didn't value those slots much, but some players, myself included, are totally ok with trading spells for features.
So, since Wizards and other Spellcasters are "just fine" and Bards are so OP that parties lose out on them so much in place of any 4th member, should we nerf the Bard?
I won't say yes or no. But I will suggest that if people are saying Bard is bonkers OP that they trivialize encounters, it's not such an insane idea to propose.
Its hard to argue for nerfing a class thats OP by making other players better.
Until you want to do that as a non-bard, and realise bards are waaaaay better at it.
I'm undecided on that front. I'm risk averse at heart, and the game is largely functional and nerfs that big risk unintended consequences.
I favor marginal boosts to other casters that correct some of their issues through new content over time, with the Bard as a cautionary goalpost to avoid going quite that far.
That means I'm pro things like new Transmutation Cantrips for Wizards, new feats that expand on school specialization or thesises, or which expand spell access where appropriate (it wouldn't break anything for Transmuted to have feats to open up capability similar to Wild Shape).
I'm against Errataing the base class for Wizard, because as printed I feel it falls into the range of "healthy", if flawed. It doesn't need math fixes, or proficiency fixes, or anything like that IMO.
I'm totally ok with a bard having a much better chassis than other spellcasters, great cantrips and focus spellsWhy them and not others?
The bard is pretty limited in the roll of versatile spell caster. They have few spells per day and a pretty small list of spells known.
The problem is the occult list is just too chock full of singular spells that can cover 5 or 6 utility options, so that this limitation is not as heavy as it looks on paper. Summon fey probably shouldn't be an occult spell as it is a real "cheater" spell, like a limited version of the wish spell that taps out in the mid level spells.
At the same time, for it to be useful to you, you have to have it as a signature spell which means losing out on a lot of other options. Alone it wouldn't be too much. But then you get shadow blast and illusory creature as well and suddenly a well constructed bard caster has 3 spells that can act like 50 spells, and they do have significant limitations in comparison to the wizard that might have all 50 of those spells in their book and the ability to prepare and cast any of them with 10 minutes notice, but for a quick "good enough" option, the bard ends up with at least having something worth trying in a pinch pretty easily.
I agree that the occult list was not the one I would have given a bard, but in actual play, I do find my own bard running out of spells very, very quickly, especially in comparison to my cleric. I am still waiting to find a game where I can play a wizard, as every table I join ends up with someone else really excited to play a wizard, and thus me wanting to help them do so and enjoy it by playing a class that will help support them, or falls apart and ends up with me GMing.
|
I'm totally ok with a bard having a much better chassis than other spellcasters, great cantrips and focus spellsWhy them and not others?Because they have less spells per level ?
You clearly said you didn't value those slots much, but some players, myself included, are totally ok with trading spells for features.
What about the other 3 slot casters?
Why are you okay with power disparity is the question.
Also, that’s not at all what I said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you okay with power disparity is the question.
I'm okay with a general power disparity because Perfect Balance isn't an attainable goal, and someone is always going to be the worst class.
Always buffing whoever is currently the worst leads to power creep (by definition, since you're always buffing whoever is currently in last place), which most people consider to be undesirable.
Much better, IMO, to ensure that all classes are in the "playable" range and buff anyone who falls short to be somewhere in that range.
If we have one or two outliers that are in the "overpowered" area outside of that range out of all the classes, and that number isn't growing? Its probably not worth worrying about it, except as education so GMs and parties can be aware of how Bards (and maybe Fighters) change the game.
Again, I'm risk averse - and making sure all classes are at least viable is a realistic goal that doesnt guarantee constant power creep.
I feel one thing that makes Bard's way stronger than everyone is lingering composition. Without that feat they would just be "strong" but not feel like the king compared to everyone else.
Ignoring 100% of bards feature every combat they can give all allies +1 attack or defense or enemies -1 to everything for 3-4 rounds for 1 action.
At the same time I admit if they nerfed lingering composition I would probably never play a Bard again. It just isn't fun casting the same cantrip every single round imo.
Maybe I am overally optimistic but I feel every class has their place and am 100% happier with PF2E compared to every other system. I feel it is a good sign when the most "broken" thing we have is a class that adds +1 to everyone.
I am curious how the Magus/Summoner will turn out because those classes will be a true test of balance.
-Magus could overshadow every Gish and every new Gish class will have to follow suite.
-Or they could be so weak that players are just going to stick with Martial/Caster instead.
-I really hope they can make the Magus fun without make every gish combo currently turn bad
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, since Wizards and other Spellcasters are "just fine" and Bards are so OP that parties lose out on them so much in place of any 4th member, should we nerf the Bard?
I won't say yes or no. But I will suggest that if people are saying Bard is bonkers OP that they trivialize encounters, it's not such an insane idea to propose.
Its hard to argue for nerfing a class thats OP by making other players better.
Until you want to do that as a non-bard, and realise bards are waaaaay better at it.
I'm undecided on that front. I'm risk averse at heart, and the game is largely functional and nerfs that big risk unintended consequences.
I favor marginal boosts to other casters that correct some of their issues through new content over time, with the Bard as a cautionary goalpost to avoid going quite that far.
That means I'm pro things like new Transmutation Cantrips for Wizards, new feats that expand on school specialization or thesises, or which expand spell access where appropriate (it wouldn't break anything for Transmuted to have feats to open up capability similar to Wild Shape).
I'm against Errataing the base class for Wizard, because as printed I feel it falls into the range of "healthy", if flawed. It doesn't need math fixes, or proficiency fixes, or anything like that IMO.
Well, consider this.
Players want to be efficient buffers and supports for their party. We have had threads about this. The suggestions are always the same: Just roll a Bard.
There is no alternative.
When there is only one class that actively buffs everyone at all times, and does so on levels nobody can match or hope to aspire to, it really defeats the value of other buffers, when they don't have any unique values to bring to the table. Haste is an assumption from the game, just like item bonuses and high attributes are. Same with Invis and Flight. Inspire Courage? Not so much, since it is Bard only.
Also, the fact that cantrips like Inspire Courage trump full-on buff spells like Heroism is, in actuality, a breach of intended design. Spells are supposed to surpass cantrips and focus abilities, because they are far more limited in use each day. This has been the design for balance since the original playtest, and across the entire board besides this one instance, that balance is in check. Not to mention, an ability that can combine both cantrips and focus powers to overpower any spell combination is broken to the point of either buffing everything else to compensate, or nerfing the outlier. And guess which is much, much easier to do at this point in development.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, beyond Lingering Performance, Inspire Heroics is a bit of a big deal too. It only lasts for a round, but raising the ceiling even higher is quite a thing. It feels like there are many more debuffs than buffs in the game, and Bard hits the biggest and most usable buffs at the relatively small cost of class feats and upkeep actions.
Occult is definitely a good list, but I feel like if it was just Occult itself (or any other list) being strong, Sorcerers would be hailed as powerhouses more often. They know and can cast more spells than anyone other than Wizard, after all. Bard being strong comes mainly from its compositions outshining spells in flexibility and effect, though how generous Paizo was with their chassis and feat selection certainly helps with that.
And despite that, I'm not really in favor of a big nerf to Bard's effects either. That cat's kind of out of the bag, and it would be a shame if their stronger effects weren't valid in the game, as something for other new design to have in mind.
I'm really curious to see what Secrets of Magic contains for other classes, and am somewhat hopeful that it includes additions to casters that help them get closer to the strength, versatility and 'fun' of Bards. (Especially for Witch. Witch is cool but it could really use extra power and options.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the fact that cantrips like Inspire Courage trump full-on buff spells like Heroism is, in actuality, a breach of intended design. Spells are supposed to surpass cantrips and focus abilities, because they are far more limited in use each day. This has been the design for balance since the original playtest, and across the entire board besides this one instance, that balance is in check. Not to mention, an ability that can combine both cantrips and focus powers to overpower any spell combination is broken to the point of either buffing everything else to compensate, or nerfing the outlier. And guess which is much, much easier to do at this point in development.
I think its important to keep in mind that the relationship between Spells, Focus Spells, and Cantrips varies based on the class in question.
Electric Arc and Inspire Courage arent really comparable because both are Cantrips - that was just a common mechanic to use since both are repeatable magical effects. Not an indication that all Cantrips (or Focus Spells for that matter) are of relatively equal power.
I do, personally, wish the gap was less large in this case. The gap between Bless, Heroism, and Inspire Courage/Heroics is too large as it stands - you can't even really be a "bad" bard by using these spells, the only real substitute is to multiclass Bard...
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its tiring that these conversations always seem to devolve to the point of "The class isn't mechanically non-functional, ergo its fine." as if just working is the be-all-end-all.
I'm with you. I keep trying to convince myself to play a wizard, but it's so hard when other classes can do cooler stuff.
The arcane list for all the talk isn't more interesting than the Occult list in my opinion. Heal is a very powerful spell on the primal list. There are a lot of good feat and focus options on other classes that are more interesting than extra spell slots.
All the players touting wizards may just be more inventive and charismatic players who the DM goes along with who would do just as well playing a rogue or bard or any class in a clever fashion while talking the DM into going along with their plans. The wizard isn't necessary for their success.
I personally have never had to switch out a spell in 10 minutes to be successful. There's so many ways to accomplish the same thing in PF2 whether with spells or skills. I've found wild shape, tempest surge, inspire courage and defense, and healing font more useful than almost anything a wizard can do.
Wizards aren't the advantage to party success they were in PF1. I've played in three Paizo APs and four or so other campaigns and only one has had a wizard past lvl 5. The wizard in that campaign is the lowest performer in the group with her best contributions being casting haste on the martials.
The wizard isn't a needed or even desirable class in PF2. It's playable, sure. A wizard will surely have their moments at higher level like every caster does. But they have no real advantages over other classes now. They are nothing special. You won't miss a wizard in your group like you will a bard or cleric. Druids are more versatile in class role. A druid can be a caster, a martial, or a healer. A wizard can be only a caster effectively. Wizard is just a lower tier class in PF2 now. Play one if you like the class, but don't expect to outshine anyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like by default a casters have moments where they outshine everyone. If they get a lucky spell etc. Even something as simple as a crit fail fear is devastating.
I will also admit Bard/Clerics are probably the "best" classes at the support role. I would also say you wouldnt miss any class as much as those two. Everyone loves having supports on their team.
I would rather have a Bard in my group than a Fighter too.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you're playing an official AP, raw damage output matters greatly for your survival, especially during low levels.
We have found that the Wizard is utterly insufficient. We have found that it would greatly benefit the party if the Wizard were replaced by a third martial heavy-hitter.
Do me a favour and try that against a Greater Barghest at level 4, or really any higher-level enemy with a strong reaction. A failure on Hideous Laughter is worth far more than an additional source of damage, especially since anything with AoO usually has Will as one of their worse saves.
I can comfortably say that in that last fight my party had, if we had a fighter instead of a wizard, we would have TPKed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do me a favour and try that against a Greater Barghest at level 4, or really any higher-level enemy with a strong reaction. A failure on Hideous Laughter is worth far more than an additional source of damage, especially since anything with AoO usually has Will as one of their worse saves.
I can comfortably say that in that last fight my party had, if we had a fighter instead of a wizard, we would have TPKed.
Large size, reach, AoO, hits like a truck due to level advantage, been there, done that, fun times. Minus the Wizard who actually had Hideous Laughter prepared part. Our Wizard tried to use Flaming Sphere instead and oh boy did it not work out...
P.S.: Cyouni is of course 100% correct, this was like our 4th session into PF2 and nobody already had sufficient system mastery to know how to boss fight yet.
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.
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 have never even mentioned Arcane Sorcerers or Witches.
You said there was no reason to play a Wizard. I countered that in my opinion, they're the best Arcane caster available.
Also, I've run AoA twice now, and I can safely say both parties I ran for would have benefitted greatly from having a Wizard with any level of system mastery over their next weakest party member, a great deal.
In the party with a Bard, the Bard would have been able to be even better if they weren't devoting significant resources to being the parties utility caster in addition to being a Bard. It cost them significant spells known, and also cost them actions using magic the party needed instead of crippling Bard stuff in some scenarios. A Wizard would have been the perfect 4th party member after Fighter/Champion/Bard.
In the other party, the Arcane Sorcerer was often left saying, "Wow, this would be easy, if only I had access to spell X. I even wanted spell X, but I had to choose between X and Y and made the mistake." Had they been a Wizard, they could have had a spellbook with both.
You're talking about APs at low levels, and damage and survivability mattering... well, both my parties did fine with only a Wizards level of offensive ability, but without the Wizards flexibility and options. A Wizard would have been better than the Alchemist (by a lot) and no worse than the Arcane Sorcerer (literally the same).
Age of Ashes is pretty demanding at low levels... when you don't know PF2E yet. If either of my parties were to do it again, I have little doubt they'd crush it - regardless of class choice. And a well played Wizard would be an asset in any case.
When you're playing an official AP, raw damage output matters greatly for your survival, especially during low levels.We have found that the Wizard is utterly insufficient. We have found that it would greatly benefit the party if the Wizard were replaced by a third martial heavy-hitter.
Low level play just doesn't need utility spells to any degree that justifies the wizard's inclusion in the group.
Zapp, I think this is mostly true of the way that you have run your AP/APs? I don't think it is generally true for all tables. Which is great!
In PF2, it is really not hard for a GM to help make the strengths of a wizard shine in the way they run their table, unless the wizard is really struggling with their spell selection and constantly doing things like picking acid arrow in their second level slots, without even knowing true strike, when the party is 7th level. Then someone really needs to sit down with the player and go over some basic principles of magic, the PF2 edition. This is equally true of the player who wants to make a Dex based barbarian that is going to dual wield agile daggers while turning into a shark while playing through a modified version of the legacy of fire AP.
Other than real outliers, responding to the players you have can help everyone have fun with the character's they want to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do me a favour and try that against a Greater Barghest at level 4, or really any higher-level enemy with a strong reaction. A failure on Hideous Laughter is worth far more than an additional source of damage, especially since anything with AoO usually has Will as one of their worse saves.
I can comfortably say that in that last fight my party had, if we had a fighter instead of a wizard, we would have TPKed.
Large size, reach, AoO, hits like a truck due to level advantage, been there, done that, fun times. Minus the Wizard who actually had Hideous Laughter prepared part. Our Wizard tried to use Flaming Sphere instead and oh boy did it not work out...
P.S.: Cyouni is of course 100% correct, this was like our 4th session into PF2 and nobody already had sufficient system mastery to know how to boss fight yet.
Our group did the same. My sorcerer had two flaming spheres out at the same time. Did hardly nothing at all.
We only scraped by, by the skin of our teeth with only one character left standing due to a lucky crit.
We later mathed it out and realized we should have all died. We only made it out of sheer lucky die rolls.
I feel you can't say a class is bad because "Bard is better". From a pure numbers standpoint I am pretty sure Bard "might" just be the best class.
In general I feel spellcasting is good overall and the only problem I see is that spell attacks are only good when using true strike and just mediocre without it.
Normally when I pick a class I go by their base features and what they get because I love combining dedications. So here are my short list for casters of what stands out for them.
Bard
-Composition cantrips, yes they are really good.
-Muses: Originally I loved all the muses but after playing I feel Maestro just feels too good to pass up. Of course you can get more than one with a feat.
Cleric
-Domains: They just seemed ok for the most part and I haven't looked thoroughly at them.
-Healing/Harm Slots: Basically just extra spell slots, admittingly quite powerful spell slots.
Druid
-Druidic Order: Animal/Storm/Wild are all great but I don't really get Leaf.
-They get great focus spells and just fun in general.
Oracle
-Mysteries: I am not sure how powerful they are but they are super cool and thematic. If they weren't divine casters I would play them in a heartbeat.
Sorcerer
-Bloodline: Thematically they are great and main issue I have is some level 1 focus spells just feel SO bad. Normally by level 6 you are good though.
-One extra spell slot
-Special note: This is probably my favorite class. Just love the bloodlines so much. They are super cool to build around.
Witch
-Cantrip Hex: They are fun haven't played enough to know how powerful they are.
-Good familiar: I just don't really see what to do with familiars so I kind of wish they gave them something else :(
Wizard
-School: Mostly just give an okay focus spells and
-Thesis: Overall they seem powerful but not exactly super fun to me.
-One extra spell slot
So overall every class has fun features and I personally am not a fan of Wizard but if people want to be the "generic arcane caster" it fits the bill for them. They don't seem particular weak though.
I do admit if I want to be a sneaky Illusionist character Wizard will probably be the class I pick. Even though Sorcerer might be good too the early access to silent spell sounds so fun.
Spell slots are definitely good but imo they aren't exactly a "fun" feature to me. I also feel the same way for Clerics. Their main thing is cast more heals/harms but I just don't find that appealing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And as usual the element that your success or failure as a caster is dependent on the GM's die rolls, not yours doesn't help.
This is somewhat incidental, but I find this varies greatly from player to player. Some of my players enjoy rolling, some are ambivalent on who gets to roll, and I even have a guy who hates his dice luck and prefers to do as few rolls as possible.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if I'm allowed to join a discussion I have not fully read on, but my views on spellcasting, both as an AoA GM (players are almost level 14) and level 6 monk player on Extinction Curse, are as follows:
- The Divine list is simply awful. Not sugarcoating it. I don't really think I could, at this point, agree with anyone that argued otherwise. I feel like it needs 20+ spells that have the flavor and quality of Holy Cascade to feel fine.
- Casters, no matter how you feel about their power level, interact poorly with PF2E's action economy. With most spells and even the crappiest cantrips costing 2 actions, they don't get the opportunity to have many cool feats because of that, and they play in a pretty predictable way compared to martials.
- Cantrips suck at dealing damage. Electric Arc is the only *decent* one, and only when there are 2 or more enemies. The problem is that the equivalence of cantrips and a regular Strike by a martial is awful. I'm not running math on here because I'm sure many others have done it previously, maybe on this very thread, but the point is, cantrips cost two actions to do a very questionable version of a one-action Strike by any competent martial. Sure, you can and should argue that cantrips SHOULD be weaker than strikes, because being better than them is a job for spells that expend a slot, but it's still pretty awful, particularly until level 7 or so.
- Spell attacks suck because they are still hit-or-suck, and they are very hard to hit on desirable targets. They should either deal more damage than they do, be affected by runes or interact in a meaningful way with the action economy.
- Incapacitation is a very punishing trait, and IMO should only prevent crit failures, but still allow enemies to normal fail.
- It genuinely DOES feel better for casters on higher levels, with my level 13 players being very happy with their abilities right now, except for the cleric (which absolutely LOVES the class and is a monster when healing, but feels the divine list sucks (he is right)).
- Most of the cool martial feats give them new actions. Casters mainly get metamagic options that force them to spend a full round without doing anything else.
With all these mainly negative points, would I say I hate casters? No, not at all. They can and do feel very powerful every once in a while, and in general after level 7 they play very comfortably. But would I change a heck of a lot? Yes, for sure.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making Incapacitation only turn critical failures into failures would make it pointless. The reason Incapacitation exists is that the spells that have it take enemies out of fights on a normal failure. I do think they shouldn't turn successes into crits, though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing about the divine spell list is that a lot of the spells unique to it are so specialized towards having a deity. I mean, I get it but non-cleric spellcasters with the divine spell list unnecessarily suffer from it. I'm not particular with having or not having deities but the idea of playing a godless divine spellcasters is a unique possibility that shouldn't get naturally shafted by their own spell list. This also applies to true neutral deities to a lesser extent.
I only started playing 2e after the APG released so the divine spell list got some fun new tools at that point so it didn't look too bad to me. But looking back, the divine spell list was so ridiculously barren I couldn't imagine how divine sorcerers managed.
- The Divine list is simply awful. Not sugarcoating it. I don't really think I could, at this point, agree with anyone that argued otherwise. I feel like it needs 20+ spells that have the flavor and quality of Holy Cascade to feel fine.
This all the way. And I assume you mean unique divine spells because the amount of overlap they currently have with the other traditions is another factor that makes the divine list more underwhelming that it has the right to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making Incapacitation only turn critical failures into failures would make it pointless. The reason Incapacitation exists is that the spells that have it take enemies out of fights on a normal failure. I do think they shouldn't turn successes into crits, though.
This is also a reasonable approach. Once my players test out the version I mentioned, where it only prevents crit fails, if I find it to be too strong, I may change to something like that.
Another thing about the divine spell list is that a lot of the spells unique to it are so specialized towards having a deity. I mean, I get it but non-cleric spellcasters with the divine spell list unnecessarily suffer from it. I'm not particular with having or not having deities but the idea of playing a godless divine spellcasters is a unique possibility that shouldn't get naturally shafted by their own spell list. This also applies to true neutral deities to a lesser extent.
I only started playing 2e after the APG released so the divine spell list got some fun new tools at that point so it didn't look too bad to me. But looking back, the divine spell list was so ridiculously barren I couldn't imagine how divine sorcerers managed.
- The Divine list is simply awful. Not sugarcoating it. I don't really think I could, at this point, agree with anyone that argued otherwise. I feel like it needs 20+ spells that have the flavor and quality of Holy Cascade to feel fine.This all the way. And I assume you mean unique divine spells because the amount of overlap they currently have with the other traditions is another factor that makes the divine list more underwhelming that it has the right to be.
I agree that godless divine magic should be better supported. And when I mentioned Holy Cascade, I not only meant that it's exclusive and that's great, but also the thematic ways in which it works. It is a spell that you can use against any enemy, though it is very weak against most of them (dealing less than half the damage of a same-level Fireball, which is the same AoE and same save). However, if you use it against undeads and fiends, it's 12.5% stronger than that fireball, AND your friends inside the AoE only have to deal with the weak damage. It reinforces a narrow theme of fighting undead and fiends, sure, but I wouldn't really mind that as long as we got many more spells like it. Things that say "sure, don't call the cleric to deal with the goblins, but HOLY SH*T are we glad we brought them to deal with de demons. Give me spells that show that clerics (and divine casters) are absolutely unmatched against enemies of the divine and I'll be happy.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that godless divine magic should be better supported.
Speaking of godless divine magic, I think my biggest pet peeve with the divine list is how Neutral gods get shafted. Neither Nethys nor Pharasma get to make use of Divine Wrath or similar spells, and that really makes no sense to me.
This also extends to any other casters on the divine list. (How does it even work with Oracle, anyways?)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of godless divine magic, I think my biggest pet peeve with the divine list is how Neutral gods get shafted. Neither Nethys nor Pharasma get to make use of Divine Wrath or similar spells, and that really makes no sense to me.
This also extends to any other casters on the divine list. (How does it even work with Oracle, anyways?)
Yep. They even get one less cantrip to cast with Divine Lance being unusable. They REALLY should have figured out something for these situations besides 'sorry, you're out of luck because you picked a neutral god!'. :P
On "any other casters on the divine list", every character can pick a deity [Step 10 Finishing Details of character creation]. As such, they only run into an issue if they didn't pick one or picked a neutral one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One can only hope true neutral only divine spells get released someday. I'd actually be very curious on what kind of spells those would turn out to be.
But more than likely, we'll just get generically good divine spells that are thematic and unique. I'm personally hoping for the divine spell list to eventually become the home for unique buff spells similar to how the occult spell list houses a good chunk of exclusive debuff spells.
They should just let neutral have to pick an alignment when casting such spells or force them to pick evil or good if they want to make it more narrow. Or choose between positive or negative damage. Neutral gods need something
I never really understand the action economy thing. Yes their turns can sometimes be just spell+move but isnt that true for pretty every TTRPG ever made? Also they still get fun third actions.
I feel having casters having super impactful effects that take two actions seem logical. Cantrips are 100% supposed to be worse than strikes. Martials are in general good at messing with action economy and good "unlimited" damage rather than spell slots
This is just what sets the classes apart.
They could have went the 5e route which made spells one action but "can only cast one spell a turn" but not sure if that would have been better. I LOVE 2e variable spells personally so am happy they kept it this way.
You still have a lot of options of what to do with your third action and hopefully they will add some more interesting 1 action spells and it should be even better. The main issue is balance is tight because if they make an op 1 action spell the game could really suffer since players could cast that spell three times in a row.
About the divine list it isnt really a defense but again I always felt like cleric list were super "bad/unfun" compared to all the other list and that holds true in 2e also. Nice thing is heal imo is so much better by default in PF2 but admittingly you could go Primal. The real question is it that bad other than heal? Also after looking at it I see A LOT of good spells buy they arent unique to divine. In 2e IMO +/- 1 are actually good so casters really get to mess with this to make monsters.
About spell attacks, I feel they seem so bad because IMO they knocked it out of the park with save spells. It feels SO good having enemies get effected by successes. I love it so much. I will say spell attacks fill a "niche" of feeling powerful if you hit but yeah failures suck.
The thing I dislike about incapicitation is because there isnt any real way to know if it will work unless your GM is nice. You can "guess" and recall knowledge but in general you just kind of hope. If a GM let me know beforehand incapicitation spell would not work I wouldnt mind it. So I am tempted to take them off my list. IMO it is so much better than PF1 (disable 1 round) and 5e (legendary resist). Just feel there "had" to be a better solution.
If you are a neutral divine caster, and you are trying to be good at damage, you do have one of the best flexible damage spell options in the game, in the form of harm. Harm is the only spell slot spell that can do damage (and pretty decent damage) with only one action. The neutral divine caster can also have a bunch of heal spells memorized for when harm is not useful and still use those spells for support.
The only problem I see some harm casters get into is thinking that they need to spend any actions moving up to use their spells, rather than trying to invite the enemy into charging into them so that they can nova harm the enemy on their next turn.
Personally, I think the utility spells of the divine list are also top notch, so, at least for my cleric, I never feel like I don't wish I just had more spell slots to load up with good spells. My cleric, of Ketaphys, definitely benefits from having a strong ranged weapon option, but keeping the divine spell list relatively narrow, with lots of ways of adding other spells to the list for specific flavorful options feels like it was the right move to me. Letting so many other casters get access to the list is a decision I could have lived without, but those are all options that don't have to be made, so it doesn't matter to me if they take extra work to make useful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never really understand the action economy thing. Yes their turns can sometimes be just spell+move but isnt that true for pretty every TTRPG ever made? Also they still get fun third actions.
Just as an example, I think it be a lot more fun if some of the utility cantrips/spells were 1 action instead of 2. Like Detect Magic, Ghost Sound, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, and Sigil. I don't think it would be unbalancing to be able to combo some of these with an offensive spell, but they would make caster turns a lot more flexible when they actually were used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well yes everything you mentioned is a direct buff to casters so of course they would be better but would be much stronger.
Comparing to other games pretty much every caster just moved and casted a spell. 5e there were some utility bonus spells which allowed you to cast a crappy cantrip.
PF1 there were a few spells that weren't standard actions but most were. Quicken spell in that game required you to be really high level to be useful.
If a caster has to step they can still cast a spell and if a fighter has to step they attack twice so it is fair.
Also spontaneous casters couldnt move and cast metamagic either in PF1 except for 5 feet.
For the most part I feel they probably could have made some utility spells / cantrips one action and more 1-3 action spells in the future. I hope more and more get made.
Yes martials are super cool but isnt that okay for them to be interesting for once? PF1 martials "could" be interesting but had to be built very specificly.
PF2E martials get to have diverse actions and casters get to cast varied unique spells. Seems good to me.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just as an example, I think it be a lot more fun if some of the utility cantrips/spells were 1 action instead of 2.
We houserule exactly that, including the attack cantrips, with the Flourish trait added to them. It's hella liberating, and our martials are not even close to being outdone with respect to damage. Everyone should at least try it for one session at their table. I can virtually guarantee you're group won't go back once they've had a taste of freedom. The 2 action cantrip idea should have never seen print, IMO.