| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
at this point you guys may as well just take this to DM's.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
at this point you guys may as well just take this to DM's.
And invalidate the forums? 90% of the content here is slap fighting and you would dare take that from us?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, or just let it go.
Anywho, my contributions to this thread has made a realization dawn on me. Spellcasters play differently from pf1 because of the mechanics change. But, the difference is small enough that it isn't noticeable right away.
Firstly, attack roll spells are much less reliable. In pf1 they were against touch AC. Thus, generally easy to hit. This is a dramatic shift compared to pf2. Touch AC doesn't exist. That and attack roll spells are less likely to hit. When peeps transition from pf1 to pf2, it is unsurprising that they are very surprised when they hit less. And, as such a little outraged.
Secondly, DCs are in a similar boat. It was fairly easy to get your DCs up such that enemies failed on average. The math in pf2 is much tighter and more intentional in relation to challenge levels. Enemies saving against basic saves is factored into the math. Pf1 spellcaster players are blindsided by this change. Thus the "feels bad". They are used to enemies failing on saves being what is expected. They struggle to grasp the idea that the mechanics of the game expect above level challenges to succeed. Which scratches the surface of the feelings towards incapacitation trait spells and the corresponding outrage.
Thirdly, action economy. This seemed to me to be an obvious shift that folks would look into and adapt to. But it seems that some are just ingrained with the "I cast a spell...done." I think the most overlooked 3rd action is sustaining a spell. I have seen spell sustaining be the most useful action a spellcaster has done in a turn. Heck I've seen a spellcaster spend their turn rolling around two flaming spheres. Another time it was two animated assaults. Two animated assaults are two aoe damage iterations every turn. Sustaining plus useful 1 action focus spells (or True Strike) round out the action economy nicely.
In summary, you cannot play spellcasters the same as you did in pf1. If you do, you will likely get the "feels bad". Read the book. Understand the mechanics. Realize that spellcasters have been nerfed. Get over it. Make your team better by understanding that you are no longer a 1 person team. You need them and they need you. It is a cooperative game after all.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thirdly, action economy. This seemed to me to be an obvious shift that folks would look into and adapt to. But it seems that some are just ingrained with the "I cast a spell...done." I think the most overlooked 3rd action is sustaining a spell. I have seen spell sustaining be the most useful action a spellcaster has done in a turn. Heck I've seen a spellcaster spend their turn rolling around two flaming spheres. Another time it was two animated assaults. Two animated assaults are two aoe damage iterations every turn. Sustaining plus useful 1 action focus spells (or True Strike) round out the action economy nicely.
I think this is less about meaningful 3rd actions but about the literal static caster gameplay if you ever use your 3rd action for anything besides a move, while (at least some) martials seem to boom and zoom all over the place.
Cast a (regular) spell + recall knowledge = "spell tower"
Cast a (regular) spell + raise a shield = "spell tower"
Cast a (regular) spell + sustain a spell = "spell tower"
Cast a (regular) spell + make a strike = "spell tower"
Cast a (regular) spell + cast a one-action spell = "spell tower"
Cast a (regular) spell + use a metamagic feat = "spell tower"
Cast a 3 action spell = "spell tower"
etc.
Note this is entirely not about those actions being effective or not but about how due to most spells being 2-action caster gameplay feels static to some of us, especially considering the action enhancing feats that martials can get (Flurry of Blows, Hunted Shot, Sudden Charge etc).
Or if you are somehow "forced" to move: "Sorry guys, I know that these are outsiders and my Warpriest should be good at identifying those, however I was low in initiative order and had to spam Heal to keep you alive while moving out of melee range or into healing range every single turn (or use reach spell), so unfortunately no knowledge checks this time..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellcasters play differently from pf1 because of the mechanics change. But, the difference is small enough that it isn't noticeable right away.
Firstly, attack roll spells are much less reliable. In pf1 they were against touch AC. Thus, generally easy to hit. This is a dramatic shift compared to pf2. Touch AC doesn't exist. That and attack roll spells are less likely to hit. When peeps transition from pf1 to pf2, it is unsurprising that they are very surprised when they hit less. And, as such a little outraged.
Touch AC was complexity for very little value. I'm glad it is gone. To hit rolls, 3 types of saves - that is enough.
Yes have a look at Gisher tables Specialist Casters are 0 to 4 points behind the typical Martial classes.
Secondly, DCs are in a similar boat. It was fairly easy to get your DCs up such that enemies failed on average. The math in pf2 is much tighter and more intentional in relation to challenge levels. Enemies saving against basic saves is factored into the math. Pf1 spellcaster players are blindsided by this change. Thus the "feels bad". They are used to enemies failing on saves being what is expected. They struggle to grasp the idea that the mechanics of the game expect above level challenges to succeed. Which scratches the surface of the feelings towards incapacitation trait spells and the corresponding outrage.
Yes if you are in a group with optimised efficient tactical players you are almost always fighting uphil against a level difference, making these numbers tight and things like incapacitation a total waste.
Thirdly, action economy. This seemed to me to be an obvious shift that folks would look into and adapt to. But it seems that some are just ingrained with the "I cast a spell...done." I think the most overlooked 3rd action is sustaining a spell. I have seen spell sustaining be the most useful action a spellcaster has done in a turn. Heck I've seen a spellcaster spend their turn rolling around two flaming spheres. Another time it was two animated assaults. Two animated assaults are two aoe damage iterations every turn. Sustaining plus useful 1 action focus spells (or True Strike) round out the action economy nicely.
Yes not everyone was yet worked out that you need to be using your reaction often.
Then the MAP workaround: ranged attack/spell with a save combination should be more widespread for casters.
In summary, you cannot play spellcasters the same as you did in pf1. If you do, you will likely get the "feels bad". Read the book. Understand the mechanics. Realize that spellcasters have been nerfed. Get over it. Make your team better by understanding that you are no longer a 1 person team. You need them and they need you. It is a cooperative game after all.
To me its the durations and longer term usefulness of magic which has been nerfed alot.
Then there is the ever increase in hit points which makes directdamage less efficient.
spells attack rolls are same as martials attacks (I am talking only about the accuracy, not about the spells themselves), but at cretain levels they are low in comparison to martials (at level 20 the spell attack bonus is equal to champion or ranger attack bonus -1). Hypothetical change which I didn't playtested is to seperate saves and spell attack rank increase: saves rank increase stays same and spell attack rank changes to level 5, 13 and 19 instead. Additionaly, create a second level item that adds +1 to spell attacks. The changes make the spell attack almost equal to champion, ranger and etc (only 1-2 less at some levels) and the main reason to add +1 item is to reduce the diffrence even more.
It could make the caster too powerful in cretain levels (probably 3rd and 7th). I don't associate myself to a camp - I just want to give an option (sometimes this forum gets a bit crazy).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
spells attack rolls are same as martials attacks (I am talking only about the accuracy, not about the spells themselves), but at cretain levels they are low in comparison to martials (at level 20 the spell attack bonus is equal to champion or ranger attack bonus -1). Hypothetical change which I didn't playtested is to seperate saves and spell attack rank increase: saves rank increase stays same and spell attack rank changes to level 5, 13 and 19 instead. Additionaly, create a second level item that adds +1 to spell attacks. The changes make the spell attack almost equal to champion, ranger and etc (only 1-2 less at some levels) and the main reason to add +1 item is to reduce the diffrence even more.
It could make the caster too powerful in cretain levels (probably 3rd and 7th). I don't associate myself to a camp - I just want to give an option (sometimes this forum gets a bit crazy).
I've been thinking about this for a while and I wonder why Paizo didn't make saves and spell attacks scale separately to begin with
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's easier to track one number than it is to track two and generally speaking AC and Saves scale at similar rates, in that respect it makes sense to track them together.
The problem is more that spells that target saves tend to have Failure effects while spells that target AC don't, so an AC targeting spell might work half the time against a certain foe while a save targeting counterpart does something almost all the time and the attack-based spells are rarely commensurately more powerful to make up for their unreliability.
IMO the weirder thing is staggering proficiency bumps. Having martials go up at 5 and 13 while casters go up at 7 and 15 makes those two level windows feel kinda awkward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly Ubertron_X. The problem is not that 3rd actions are not effective.
Its that casters need to cast spells to stay relevant, but doing so means they can only do 2 things for the turn. Doing 2 things that are not casting spells means they can't use their main ability that turn.
Unlike Martials which have many feats that help out their action economy.
You gave the example of Cleric using heal, but casters like Transmutation Wizard doesn't really have any spell to use.
But all martials do with their action economy is swing more or maybe demoralize.
Even at high level they are still using that action economy to make a swing.
While you are casting synesthesia and true target or casting horrid wilting on every enemy attacking everyone over a 500 foot distance.
Dousing targets with fireballs while being virtually free from harm.
Casting 4th level invisibility then hitting targets from range flat-footed.
Your actions vary a lot more than a martial. And you have a lot of highly effective options martials can't even dream of doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly Ubertron_X. The problem is not that 3rd actions are not effective.
Its that casters need to cast spells to stay relevant, but doing so means they can only do 2 things for the turn. Doing 2 things that are not casting spells means they can't use their main ability that turn.
Unlike Martials which have many feats that help out their action economy.
You gave the example of Cleric using heal, but casters like Transmutation Wizard doesn't really have any spell to use.
But all martials do with their action economy is swing more or maybe demoralize.
Even at high level they are still using that action economy to make a swing.
While you are casting synesthesia and true target or casting horrid wilting on every enemy attacking everyone over a 500 foot distance.
Dousing targets with fireballs while being virtually free from harm.
Casting 4th level invisibility then hitting targets from range flat-footed.
Your actions vary a lot more than a martial. And you have a lot of highly effective options martials can't even dream of doing.
Yes precisely. A lower levels you are using your cantrips more becasue you have less spells so your to hit numbers are important
At higher levels this eases off.The numbers don't have to be tightly matched for it to be reasonable.
Having said that its not the same for the Magus playtest class.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's easier to track one number than it is to track two and generally speaking AC and Saves scale at similar rates, in that respect it makes sense to track them together.
The problem is more that spells that target saves tend to have Failure effects while spells that target AC don't, so an AC targeting spell might work half the time against a certain foe while a save targeting counterpart does something almost all the time and the attack-based spells are rarely commensurately more powerful to make up for their unreliability.
IMO the weirder thing is staggering proficiency bumps. Having martials go up at 5 and 13 while casters go up at 7 and 15 makes those two level windows feel kinda awkward.
If we want easy or simple, 5E is that way. This game was built to be simpler, but not so simple as to nerf stuff for the sake of making it more appealing to those who cannot handle the complexity. This "too many numbers" shenanigans was something that should have been argued back in the playtest (and I imagine it was). That ship has long sailed, and Paizo has made their decision on it as a whole.
If Paizo finds it okay for Druids who take Animal Companions to have to keep track of their own AC, Saves, Skills, Attacks/To-Hit, etc. Then a Summoner should just as easily be able to do the same for an Eidolon, especially when they have to do that for whatever other creatures they have to summon, if there is a path that says "Screw the Eidolon, just give me more summons."
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking of a spell accuracy +1 rune that behaves as a fundamental rune that can be etched on (?). Item level 5. It gives a +1 item bonus to spell attack rolls.
5 is a fine time to give spellcasters a +1. Their martial counterparts are getting expert in weapons, and they already have a +1 potency rune on their weapons. Once they hit 7, they get expert and completely catch up for a couple levels before the martials get the +2 potency.
Either that or give it as a level 10 item to give spellcasters a little boost when martials get their +2. This will keep spelllcasters behind on the attacks roles but not far until they get legendary at 19 which will catch them up to the standard martial, accounting for the potency +3 at 16.
So, for those paying attention, notice how even the +1 is squiffy as, with anything more, it can put spellcasters ahead at the points in which they are slinging around some already potent spells. This is a good representation of how meticulously balanced things are. It may not seem like it when you pluck small parts and look at those parts without the greater context.
I'm actually leaning toward the level 10 item (or even not at all) now that I've seen it all. Spellcasters do not need to have an equal to-hit bonus to their martial counterparts. It gives a purpose to being a martial. Spellcasters have other options for their identity in combat. Martials don't really.
As for the action economy, honestly, what do ya'll want?
If they make more 1 action spells, are you really going to prepare a 1 action spell when you can only cast 3-4 of each level per day? They will have to be less powerful than their 2 action counterparts.
Then 1 action cantrips. If they make 1 action cantrips, those cantrips have to be, at most, half as powerful as the 2 action ones. This is because you have to consider what a turn of casting it 3 times would look like.
They cannot make quickening spells more of a thing because then you could just spend your turn essentially casting two 2 action spells which is inevitably a solid nova.
So I ask again, what options do you see for "better action economy"?
The underlying point of this entire post is about power creep. If not careful, power creep will begin. Power creep is one of the main reasons we have a PF2. I, personally, would much prefer less powerful options to power creep. Power creep destroys systems, and I like PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's easier to track one number than it is to track two and generally speaking AC and Saves scale at similar rates, in that respect it makes sense to track them together.
The problem is more that spells that target saves tend to have Failure effects while spells that target AC don't, so an AC targeting spell might work half the time against a certain foe while a save targeting counterpart does something almost all the time and the attack-based spells are rarely commensurately more powerful to make up for their unreliability.
IMO the weirder thing is staggering proficiency bumps. Having martials go up at 5 and 13 while casters go up at 7 and 15 makes those two level windows feel kinda awkward.
If we want easy or simple, 5E is that way. This game was built to be simpler, but not so simple as to nerf stuff for the sake of making it more appealing to those who cannot handle the complexity. This "too many numbers" shenanigans was something that should have been argued back in the playtest (and I imagine it was). That ship has long sailed, and Paizo has made their decision on it as a whole.
If Paizo finds it okay for Druids who take Animal Companions to have to keep track of their own AC, Saves, Skills, Attacks/To-Hit, etc. Then a Summoner should just as easily be able to do the same for an Eidolon, especially when they have to do that for whatever other creatures they have to summon, if there is a path that says "Screw the Eidolon, just give me more summons."
Did you post in the right thread? I don't know what druids or animal companions have to do with whether or not spell attack rolls are too unreliable for what their returns are.
Are you trying to argue that having separate proficiencies for spell attacks and spell saves would... somehow make druids and summoners stronger?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think a bonus to hit for attack spells would be helpful, especially for round to round cantrips which are the caster equivalent of swinging a blade.
Right now at the highest level it's not as terrible as is it appear.
Caster attack roll by 20:
20+7(state apex item)+8 Legendary= +35 attack roll
Every master proficiency class:
20+7 stat+6+3 item=+36
Fighter +38 (as above +2)
Then add in other bonuses like status, circumstance, and the like. Casters have more ways to lower AC and saves than martials. I think it balances out, but at the same time cantrip item bonuses are more fun.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think a bonus to hit for attack spells would be helpful, especially for round to round cantrips which are the caster equivalent of swinging a blade.
Right now at the highest level it's not as terrible as is it appear.
Caster attack roll by 20:
20+7(state apex item)+8 Legendary= +35 attack roll
Every master proficiency class:
20+7 stat+6+3 item=+36
Fighter +38 (as above +2)
Then add in other bonuses like status, circumstance, and the like. Casters have more ways to lower AC and saves than martials. I think it balances out, but at the same time cantrip item bonuses are more fun.
Do the same comparison at level 6 though. There's certain ranges where the numbers get significantly off.
|
|
Do the same comparison at level 6 though. There's certain ranges where the numbers get significantly off.I do think a bonus to hit for attack spells would be helpful, especially for round to round cantrips which are the caster equivalent of swinging a blade.
Right now at the highest level it's not as terrible as is it appear.
Caster attack roll by 20:
20+7(state apex item)+8 Legendary= +35 attack roll
Every master proficiency class:
20+7 stat+6+3 item=+36
Fighter +38 (as above +2)
Then add in other bonuses like status, circumstance, and the like. Casters have more ways to lower AC and saves than martials. I think it balances out, but at the same time cantrip item bonuses are more fun.
*shrug*
Yes you are right. And...? Ya'lls' got fireball, lightning bolt, heightened sudden bolt, etc... at that level. Martials have...their weapon. You've got options, they don't. They get to be better at hitting than you, with your essentially automatic damage. Sorry, not sorry.
Do the same comparison at level 6 though. There's certain ranges where the numbers get significantly off.I do think a bonus to hit for attack spells would be helpful, especially for round to round cantrips which are the caster equivalent of swinging a blade.
Right now at the highest level it's not as terrible as is it appear.
Caster attack roll by 20:
20+7(state apex item)+8 Legendary= +35 attack roll
Every master proficiency class:
20+7 stat+6+3 item=+36
Fighter +38 (as above +2)
Then add in other bonuses like status, circumstance, and the like. Casters have more ways to lower AC and saves than martials. I think it balances out, but at the same time cantrip item bonuses are more fun.
Not sure why they would have to make it perfect all the way up when they built this game to play to lvl 20.
6th level right before expert casting:
6+4 stat+2 trained=+12 to hit
Martials:
6+4 expert+4 stat+1 item=+15 to hit
Right now for my lvl 10 druid is +19 to hit
Lvl 7 barbarian with a +1 striking weapon at lvl 10:
10+4 expert +5 stat +1 item=+20 to hit
It doesn't scale perfectly at all levels, but mostly it stays roughly close.
Flanking comes up the most. It's not easy for a caster to flank unless they can cast invis.
It's easier to track one number than it is to track two and generally speaking AC and Saves scale at similar rates, in that respect it makes sense to track them together.
The problem is more that spells that target saves tend to have Failure effects while spells that target AC don't, so an AC targeting spell might work half the time against a certain foe while a save targeting counterpart does something almost all the time and the attack-based spells are rarely commensurately more powerful to make up for their unreliability.
IMO the weirder thing is staggering proficiency bumps. Having martials go up at 5 and 13 while casters go up at 7 and 15 makes those two level windows feel kinda awkward.
If we want easy or simple, 5E is that way. This game was built to be simpler, but not so simple as to nerf stuff for the sake of making it more appealing to those who cannot handle the complexity. This "too many numbers" shenanigans was something that should have been argued back in the playtest (and I imagine it was). That ship has long sailed, and Paizo has made their decision on it as a whole.
If Paizo finds it okay for Druids who take Animal Companions to have to keep track of their own AC, Saves, Skills, Attacks/To-Hit, etc. Then a Summoner should just as easily be able to do the same for an Eidolon, especially when they have to do that for whatever other creatures they have to summon, if there is a path that says "Screw the Eidolon, just give me more summons."
Did you post in the right thread? I don't know what druids or animal companions have to do with whether or not spell attack rolls are too unreliable for what their returns are.
Are you trying to argue that having separate proficiencies for spell attacks and spell saves would... somehow make druids and summoners stronger?
Oops. I wonder if the moderators can transfer posts from one thread to another...Oh well.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
It took a little while, but then the forum came up with a very elegant solution: Reducing the casting time for a spell by 1 action gives it the Flourish trait. That means you can only cast 1 such spell in a round. The other actions can be casting a 1 action RAW spell, sustaining an already cast spell, moving, raising a shield, attacking with a weapon, using a skill (like Recall Knowledge, Perception, or Stealth to hide) or using Metamagic. It's not about spamming multiple spells in a round most of the time, it's actually being able to do something with the action economy of 2e.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I advise having a look at Deadmanwalking's houserules (in the homebrew board) for well-thought modifications to the system, especially for casters and alchemists.
Thanks, man. I endeavor to make them as good as possible. :)
For the record, my House Rules for casters mostly amount to adding an item for bonuses to spell attacks and upping the damage die of most cantrips one size (not Electric Arc or Telekinetic Projectile, though), or two sizes if it's a melee cantrip.
There are a lot of other little changes to some specific Classes (a bunch to Alchemist and one to Wizard, most notably), and some general rules stuff...but the general caster changes are very small. And notably all are about upping the power level of some of the weaker caster options, not doing anything with the stronger ones. The stronger ones do fine.
Are you trying to argue that having separate proficiencies for spell attacks and spell saves would... somehow make druids and summoners stronger?
I think there technically are separate proficiencies for spell attacks/saves, but in practice they go up together. There's no precedent for it, but there's no reason something like the below can't happen:
Your proficiency rank for arcane spell attack rolls increases to legendary, and your proficiency rank for arcane spell DCs increases to master.
It's something I've been mentally playing around with, wondering if it'd help magus any or if it'd put too much of a focus on spell attack rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest gripe with spellcasters is the monster casters are unusually tough.
Like we've got a wizard at level 6 with like 19 ac. We're fighting monsters that have a base attack of +20 or slightly higher. So the wizard is getting hit like all the time.
Even me, the tank of the party, sitting at 24 ac, am getting hit like 80% of the time. With my shield raised it drops to 70%
But we fight an enemy spell caster, and they're sitting around 27 ac, with a +20 to hit, and a DC of 28. And they're alongside the brusier who has 26 ac, +23 to hit and deal 4d10+10 damage a hit. Like there is no weaknesses amonst the creatures to exploit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest gripe with spellcasters is the monster casters are unusually tough.
Like we've got a wizard at level 6 with like 19 ac. We're fighting monsters that have a base attack of +20 or slightly higher. So the wizard is getting hit like all the time.
Even me, the tank of the party, sitting at 24 ac, am getting hit like 80% of the time. With my shield raised it drops to 70%
But we fight an enemy spell caster, and they're sitting around 27 ac, with a +20 to hit, and a DC of 28. And they're alongside the brusier who has 26 ac, +23 to hit and deal 4d10+10 damage a hit. Like there is no weaknesses amonst the creatures to exploit.
Glancing at monster creation, that's level 9 moderate AC (and high spell DCs). So that's a little higher than suggested for a pure caster, but not too far out of whack. The real reason is that the enemy is 3 levels higher than you. (Also 19 AC for level 6 is really low - that's 10 Dex with level 1 mage armour.)
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest gripe with spellcasters is the monster casters are unusually tough.
Like we've got a wizard at level 6 with like 19 ac. We're fighting monsters that have a base attack of +20 or slightly higher. So the wizard is getting hit like all the time.
Even me, the tank of the party, sitting at 24 ac, am getting hit like 80% of the time. With my shield raised it drops to 70%
What the hell are you fighting?!
Because standard 'High' attack at 6th level is +17. You need a minimum of level 8 before they actually get +20 outside of Extreme (and precious few creatures have Extreme attacks). And the difference is mostly because they're higher level, not really because they're an NPC.
I mean, an 8th level Fighter has a +19 or so to hit, so that's real close.
Also AC 19 at 6th level is really low like, took Dex 10 on a no armor class and never raised it kinda low. A normal Wizard should have AC 22 or 23 at that level. More if they went Sentinel or Champion Dedication for armor.
But we fight an enemy spell caster, and they're sitting around 27 ac, with a +20 to hit, and a DC of 28. And they're alongside the brusier who has 26 ac, +23 to hit and deal 4d10+10 damage a hit. Like there is no weaknesses amonst the creatures to exploit.
I mean, all that also sounds like a level 8 creature as well, for the spellcaster, and more like a really powerful level 10 for the bruiser. And again, a lot of this difference is level rather than the PC/NPC distinction.
By level 8, a PC Wizard can easily have, with the Sentinel Archetype and a shield, an AC of 27 as well. The Wizard is gonna generally be a bit more fragile than NPC spellcasters, I'll grant you, but they have a lot of options to make up for that, and can even spend them on closing that gap if they wish. Their physical offense will still tend to lag as compared to NPCs, but even that of NPCs tends to be well below their magical offense, so that's largely a cosmetic difference in many ways.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I ask again, what options do you see for "better action economy"?
Again, this is not about being able to sling more spells per round, but about being able to do more actions per round. So the idea is not going for spell+spell but to go from spell+x to spell+x+y.
Disclaimer: The following are just ideas and examples. I do not claim they are balanced in any way or form.
A 2- or 3- action class feat for Wizard and/or Bard which lets you do a recall knowledge check for free if you cast a 2- or 3-action spell.
A 2- or 3-action class feat for Cleric and Druid which lets you raise your shield for free if you you cast a 2- or 3-action spell.
A 3-action class feat for Summoner and Druid which grants one free sustain if you cast another summon spell.
A 2- or 3-action class feat for any caster that lets you use metamagics easier at lower levels (current "mastery" versions are level 20 at least for Wizard and Cleric, did not check others).
etc.
|
|
Is this in response to quickening? Cantrips?I was replying to your long post that said:
As for the action economy, honestly, what do ya'll want?
If they make more 1 action spells, are you really going to prepare a 1 action spell when you can only cast 3-4 of each level per day? They will have to be less powerful than their 2 action counterparts.
Then 1 action cantrips. If they make 1 action cantrips, those cantrips have to be, at most, half as powerful as the 2 action ones. This is because you have to consider what a turn of casting it 3 times would look like.
They cannot make quickening spells more of a thing because then you could just spend your turn essentially casting two 2 action spells which is inevitably a solid nova.
The point is to not reduce the power of each spell, but instead to prevent multiple big spells from going off on your turn by adding the Flourish trait to any spells that receive the -1 action benefit.
And as for "making them less powerful than 2 action spells", that is already covered by the fact that RAW 3 action spells can be cast in just 2 actions instead using the same rule.
Paizo created the Flourish trait themselves, we are just using it in new ways to help casters and give them a better action economy without dramatically increasing their SPR (spells per round) or power.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading this thread (and the few dozen previous), the main problem people have with casters comes down to 2 distinct issues. Both have mechanical expressions, but both also come with a "Feels bad" aspect which varies from person to person.
1) Systemic Over-Hedging
Much of the "nerfing" that took place between editions can really be described as hedging or over-hedging.
In this context, hedging (much like in investing) is when you intentionally place limits on the possible actions of something in order to reduce the risk of unforeseen circumstances.
On paper, hedging sounds like a smart way to address some of the abuses that came about from spellcasting in both PF1 and 3.X eras. However, it needs to be done correctly in order to avoid becoming stifling.
There are a truck load of in-built limitations on what's possible with magic in PF2. Fixed durations on spells, arbitrary cast times, more limited metamagic, tightly restricted applications of feats and abilities, exclusion of higher level spells from most effects, deliberate restrictions on effects that would eek out advantage (lots of abilities which allow you to recover or reuse spells prohibit durations), on and on.
Much of these limitations existed in a fashion in PF1 as well, but it was more case-by-case and not systemic. Systemic over-hedging just makes spellcasting feel less free, less advantageous, less inventive and so, for some people, less fun.
2) Lack of Dynamism with the 3-action system
As this thread has explored, casters aren't hurting for relevant "3rd actions" but the perceived issue of the 3rd-action-problem belies the trouble with some of this hedging. In that, casters almost always spend 2 actions doing the thing they are all about.
In PF1, you had spells which could be cast as Immediate actions, swift actions, standard actions, move actions & full-round actions. Often a single caster could have spells that ran this full list, and generally had a lot of flexible options open to them. Basically, once we include the odd Free Action casting abilities, casters could use every-part of the turn-cow in a dynamic way.
In PF2 we have spells which can be Reactions, or 1, 2 or 3 actions. While functionally equivalent in many cases (especially at lower levels) it's actually a net-loss of versatility compared to PF1, simply because the turn-cow is a smaller and less flexible.
This is what gives rise to the idea of the 3rd action problem.
Because more of a casters actions are potentially reserved for actually casting, it means the sort of things that can do with their 3rd actions tend to feel less impactful than you might otherwise might like.
-----
On the more controversial side, a uniquely online reason is
3) "This is fine" / "You're having fun wrong" personalities
We all know who/what these sort of people and comments are. The ones that tell you that your feelings or experience is wrong because you aren't having fun or thinking about the game in their personal and limiting view.
Not really much to say on this other than they tend to exacerbate the effects of any "feels bad" aspects people tend to express.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3) "This is fine" / "You're having fun wrong" personalities
We all know who/what these sort of people and comments are. The ones that tell you that your feelings or experience is wrong because you aren't having fun or thinking about the game in their personal and limiting view.
Not really much to say on this other than they tend to exacerbate the effects of any "feels bad" aspects people tend to express.
Limiting view? Aren't you having limiting view when dismissing other's feelings and telling them they have limiting view?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Limiting view? Aren't you having limiting view when dismissing other's feelings and telling them they have limiting view?
No. One is attempting to bind, the other is not. The attempted binder doesn't have their freedom restricted by not being allowed to bind.
- "Hey you, shut up!"
- "No. You can't restrict my freedom of speech"
- "How dare you infringe on my freedom of speech by not doing what I told you to do with my speech!"
The whole how dare you oppress me by not letting me oppress you shtick
Edit
I should say that I mean this in a literal sense. It is a commonly seen position that the role and function of casters in PF2 has been restricted and is less expansive than in PF1. In this position, the over-hedging is a reflection of this more limited role and thus is "working as intended".
It makes an actually negative/toxic trait when people use this position to tell others that their thoughts and feelings on something are wrong, but thankfully this is much rarer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say the problem is more of the following:
1. PF1-like expectations: If you played a lot of casters in PF1, then the magic nerfing being as extreme as it is can be hard to accept.
Also the way a caster is built now differs. In PF1 weapons were an obviously bad option for a PF1 caster with the low BAB.
PF2 requires you to build a caster differently including having a weapon you can use at low levels to enhance your damage. Every ancestry feat has easy access to improved weapon choices that are obviously best for a caster, since a martial character will already have great weapon choices.
When a caster looks at weapons and shrugs them off in PF2, he is refusing to pick up his 3rd action option that allows him to improve his damage until he reaches a level where relying on a weapon is no longer worthwhile.
This isn't the common expectation for a PF1 caster, so it throws them off quite a bit a lower level.
2. Best Spells have changed: Whereas in PF1 many of the best spells are the spells currently marked as incapacitate spells. These are the encounter ender spells like mass hold spells, stun spells, dominate spells, blindness, and the like. If they landed, the encounter was over.
Those are no longer the best spells. The best spells now are those that shift AC and DCs down by applying conditions and surprisingly higher level AoE spells.
With the four save level AoE spell system and critical hits, now hitting with a high end damaging spell on a group of targets is very much like an AoE martial attack. You get to hit everyone at full casting DC. This makes AoE spells very potent as your spell DC gets higher and saving throws diverge to an even greater level as you level up.
Condition spells that lower AC and saves dramatically have a very powerful effect on the outcome of fights.
So this has made spells like Phantasmal Killer and Synesthesia very good while making spells like Paralyze and Dominate not worth taking.
3. Summons are terrible now: Summon monster to summon multiple creatures used to be a powerful way to use a spell slot. It wasn't so much the individual creatures were powerful, but you often found creatures with good special abilities and the action economy improvement was substantial summoning multiple lower level enemies.
Summoned creatures are now very weak, doing less damage than heightening a spell like flaming sphere due to the level gap in attack rolls and ability DCs as well as the inherent minion trait limitation.
This further takes away what was once a powerful option and turning it into a very weak option.
It's not balanced against other available options at the level.
Another example of different spells being better now.
4. Polymorph Spells are terrible: Polymorph spells were never the greatest combat option for casters, but they were often a great defensive option providing immunities and mobility.
Now they are a terrible option for any caster other than a wild shaping druid. They are an ok option for a wild shaping druid, not necessarily great.
Low attack rolls. Not great defenses. You don't feel at all like the real creature when you change form.
Another key spell removed from the caster arsenal as this option is not balanced against other spell options available to casters.
5. Martials vs. Casters are far more balanced: Martials and casters are way more balanced now. Casters still pull ahead at higher level like the did in PF1, but not by the same margin.
In most boss fights martials are the main source of single target damage to kill the boss. I'm finding casters make killing the boss far easier, but martials doing the actual killing.
This is hard to take for some caster players as high level casters used to obliterate everything.
6. Monsters are a lot tougher. Monsters are no longer easily defeated and killed by martials or casters. You have to put in real work to win battles at nearly every level. No more god caster having a contingency for every situation and easily overcoming every obstacle with a spell. Group coordination to defeat powerful monsters is a must and caster spells don't have a great chance of landing hard hits against boss monsters. Their best option is to debuff and let he martials do the damage. Not the most fun paradigm for casters who used to go from doing that at low level to killing the monster themselves at high level.
PF2 is very different. Players haven't found the fully optimized paths yet.
There are some definite balance issues between options which I wish were improved.
1. I think they need to hit items for casters for cantrips at least. If a caster is going to rely on his cantrips for attacks, they should at least hit a lot.
2. Summons need to be pumped up a bit. They are way too weak to be spending a high level spell slot on. 5E summons feel far more like old D&D summons with a mix of multiple useful creatures or a single powerful creature.
In PF2 using your highest level spell slot to summon feels like you chose an inferior option than launching a big AoE or condition spell. They don't hit enough or do enough damage.
The level difference is way too wide to be useful in fights where using a high level spell against a mega-boss works.
3. Polymorph combat spells are also way too weak. 5E did a way better job on polymorph letting you be the creature you turn into. You really feel like you polymorphed into a powerful monster in 5E. In PF2 you feel like you polymorphed into some watered down version of the creature you tried to change into that hits like a cream puff compared to martials. Given you can't cast much in polymorph form then you should be hitting like a martial when you do decide to spend a high level slot in polymorph battle form.
I don't think casters are in terrible shape. I think they're in good shape. But certain options aren't balanced against other options, which is disappointing for those wanting to use those options.
Now it seems condition applying spells with a damage component, AoE spells, and invisibility or blink are big go to spells now. Summons, polymorph, and incap spells are terrible uses of high level slots now.
Until people figure out how to optimize casters, these debates are going to keep coming up. I've found out how to optimize casters and am now doing damage on par or above martials in most fights. So I'm not as concerned. I avoid the low value spells and focus on high value spells now to improve combat effectiveness.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Deriven Firelion if I may add there also was a huge paradigm shift in regards to when spells and effects are supposed to happen. The PF2 design team really wanted everything to happen in actual combat or dire situation, which however mandated severe nerfs to spell duration to disable per-combat buffing or similar shenanigans. Coupled with the fact that combat tends to be rather short in PF2 (usually 4 to 5 or 3 to 6 rounds) this however further diminished the effectivity of buff spells, as every single spell will consume approx. 15% of your total actions in an average combat.
3. Polymorph combat spells are also way too weak. 5E did a way better job on polymorph letting you be the creature you turn into. You really feel like you polymorphed into a powerful monster in 5E. In PF2 you feel like you polymorphed into some watered down version of the creature you tried to change into that hits like a cream puff compared to martials. Given you can't cast much in polymorph form then you should be hitting like a martial when you do decide to spend a high level slot in polymorph battle form.
But you are hitting like a martial.
Dinosaur Form 7th (Triceratops):
20-foot reach
AC = 33
attacks of +25 (4d8+15 piercing [avg 33 damage], plus 1d6 persistent bleed on critical), +25 (4d6+15 bludgeoning [avg 31 damage])
Athletics +25
Giant Barbarian 13:
Str 20, +2 greater striking d10 weapon
+2 resilient armour
AC: expert +4, armour +7, rage -1, level +13 = 33
attacks of master +6, +5 str, +2 weapon, damage +4 weapon spec = +26 (3d10+19 [avg 35.5])
Athletics of str+5, master +6, +2 item = +26
And you didn't have to spend anything on the stat bonuses, the level 13 weapon, and Athletics item.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
4. Polymorph Spells are terrible: Polymorph spells were never the greatest combat option for casters, but they were often a great defensive option providing immunities and mobility.
Now they are a terrible option for any caster other than a wild shaping druid. They are an ok option for a wild shaping druid, not necessarily great.
Low attack rolls. Not great defenses. You don't feel at all like the real creature when you change form.
Another key spell removed from the caster arsenal as this option is not balanced against other spell options available to casters.
I agree with most of the rest (Summon spells can be okay utility, actually, but that aside), but this is incorrect for max level polymorph spells.
At 7th level, the most a non-Fighter martial could expect on attacks is +16, which is what Dinosaur Form and other 4th level Polymorph spells grant. Their damage is about 2d8+9 (plus persistent bleed on a crit)...which is often right on par with the 2d12+7 a Fighter is doing at that level. The combination of non-Fighter to-hit and Fighter damage is less than most martials get...but not a lot less. And their AC is 25, which is again on par with most non-Fighter martials of that level (Paladins and Monks aside).
So they basically become very close to martial level combatants for a single max level spell. That's a solid thing to have in your tool box for some kinds of fight, especially in terms of resource management as it can easily be your only spell in said fight.
Some specific polymorph spells have issues (the AC on Dragon Form is abysmal, for example), and below max level polymorph spells are a bad idea for combat, but max level polymorph spells are a useful tool to have in the box.
@Deriven Firelion if I may add there also was a huge paradigm shift in regards to when spells and effects are supposed to happen. The PF2 design team really wanted everything to happen in actual combat or dire situation, which however mandated severe nerfs to spell duration to disable per-combat buffing or similar shenanigans. Coupled with the fact that combat tends to be rather short in PF2 (usually 4 to 5 or 3 to 6 rounds) this however further diminished the effectivity of buff spells, as every single spell will consume approx. 15% of your total actions in an average combat.
I'm not sure what this complaint covers. You still do more with your actions than martials and it just gets more and more as you get higher level. Scrolls are cheap and easy to make for lower level buffs. Wands and staves further expand your ability to cast more spells.
I think they hit a pretty good sweet spot for spellcasting, the adventuring day, and what you can do with it.
No one has access to long-term buffs any longer.
And high level casters at least have 24 hour buffs eventually like mind blank and energy aegis. Mind Blank makes lower level invisibility extremely powerful as it counters all divinations attempting to detect you like a 9th lvl spell.
It seems like some people aren't spending the time to optimize casters in the PF2 system rather. Casters are still the top dog in PF2 as you level up. It would be better to figure out what spells are high value actions spent versus low value.
3. Polymorph combat spells are also way too weak. 5E did a way better job on polymorph letting you be the creature you turn into. You really feel like you polymorphed into a powerful monster in 5E. In PF2 you feel like you polymorphed into some watered down version of the creature you tried to change into that hits like a cream puff compared to martials. Given you can't cast much in polymorph form then you should be hitting like a martial when you do decide to spend a high level slot in polymorph battle form.But you are hitting like a martial.
Dinosaur Form 7th (Triceratops):
20-foot reach
AC = 33
attacks of +25 (4d8+15 piercing [avg 33 damage], plus 1d6 persistent bleed on critical), +25 (4d6+15 bludgeoning [avg 31 damage])
Athletics +25Giant Barbarian 13:
Str 20, +2 greater striking d10 weapon
+2 resilient armour
AC: expert +4, armour +7, rage -1, level +13 = 33
attacks of master +6, +5 str, +2 weapon, damage +4 weapon spec = +26 (3d10+19 [avg 35.5])
Athletics of str+5, master +6, +2 item = +26And you didn't have to spend anything on the stat bonuses, the level 13 weapon, and Athletics item.
It is still not a good expenditure of a 7th level slot. At 7th level you could unleash an eclipse burst that hammers an entire group in one round rather than spending your time wandering like a martial from target to target trying to hit their AC for less overall damage than your 7th level AoE Spell would do.
And try using that polymorph spell on an air elemental, see what it looks like. That powerful dinosaur will quickly look like crap as you level up a few more levels and it falls behind in attack ability. The polymorph forms do not scale well, though as you just showed there are corner cases where just as the level they can be ok. Though still an inferior option to unleashing a powerful AoE spell. And you don't have to risk getting into battle with your lower hit points.
Polymorph spells used to be for getting abilities like immunity to energy, immunity to crit, flight or mobility (air elemental still decent for that), and other defensive abilities while casting. It's not as useful for that any longer.
For a few levels here and there if you feel like it, you can mix it up a little in battle and hope you don't get torn apart. But I wouldn't spend my highest level slots on it.
4. Polymorph Spells are terrible: Polymorph spells were never the greatest combat option for casters, but they were often a great defensive option providing immunities and mobility.
Now they are a terrible option for any caster other than a wild shaping druid. They are an ok option for a wild shaping druid, not necessarily great.
Low attack rolls. Not great defenses. You don't feel at all like the real creature when you change form.
Another key spell removed from the caster arsenal as this option is not balanced against other spell options available to casters.
I agree with most of the rest (Summon spells can be okay utility, actually, but that aside), but this is incorrect for max level polymorph spells.
At 7th level, the most a non-Fighter martial could expect on attacks is +16, which is what Dinosaur Form and other 4th level Polymorph spells grant. Their damage is about 2d8+9 (plus persistent bleed on a crit)...which is often right on par with the 2d12+7 a Fighter is doing at that level. The combination of non-Fighter to-hit and Fighter damage is less than most martials get...but not a lot less. And their AC is 25, which is again on par with most non-Fighter martials of that level (Paladins and Monks aside).
So they basically become very close to martial level combatants for a single max level spell. That's a solid thing to have in your tool box for some kinds of fight, especially in terms of resource management as it can easily be your only spell in said fight.
Some specific polymorph spells have issues (the AC on Dragon Form is abysmal, for example), and below max level polymorph spells are a bad idea for combat, but max level polymorph spells are a useful tool to have in the box.
Look at what I wrote again. This isn't concerned with being able to become a pseudo-martial for a few rounds, this is their use as a powerful defensive spell in PF1.
And even with their decent martial capability for a few rounds, they have higher value attack spells they can use to do more aggregate damage if the enemy rolls a low save.
You have crap hit points. No use mixing it up in battle even with a slight temporary hit point boost.
If you played PF1, then you remember elemental form in PF1.
From Elemental Body 4:
You are also immune to bleed damage, critical hits, and sneak attacks while in elemental form and gain DR 5/—
This is why you cast Elemental Form in PF1 as a wizard. Not to attack. But to move and have great defenses. That defensive aspect of polymorph forms is gone, but the mobility is still there fortunately.
I'm not sure what this complaint covers.
It wasn't a complaint, just a matter of fact statement that in addition to what you wrote the whole meta around buffing changed too.
I'm not sure what this complaint covers.It wasn't a complaint, just a matter of fact statement that in addition to what you wrote the whole meta around buffing changed too.
Understood.
3. Polymorph combat spells are also way too weak. 5E did a way better job on polymorph letting you be the creature you turn into. You really feel like you polymorphed into a powerful monster in 5E. In PF2 you feel like you polymorphed into some watered down version of the creature you tried to change into that hits like a cream puff compared to martials. Given you can't cast much in polymorph form then you should be hitting like a martial when you do decide to spend a high level slot in polymorph battle form.But you are hitting like a martial.
Dinosaur Form 7th (Triceratops):
20-foot reach
AC = 33
attacks of +25 (4d8+15 piercing [avg 33 damage], plus 1d6 persistent bleed on critical), +25 (4d6+15 bludgeoning [avg 31 damage])
Athletics +25Giant Barbarian 13:
Str 20, +2 greater striking d10 weapon
+2 resilient armour
AC: expert +4, armour +7, rage -1, level +13 = 33
attacks of master +6, +5 str, +2 weapon, damage +4 weapon spec = +26 (3d10+19 [avg 35.5])
Athletics of str+5, master +6, +2 item = +26And you didn't have to spend anything on the stat bonuses, the level 13 weapon, and Athletics item.
It is still not a good expenditure of a 7th level slot. At 7th level you could unleash an eclipse burst that hammers an entire group in one round rather than spending your time wandering like a martial from target to target trying to hit their AC for less overall damage than your 7th level AoE Spell would do.
And try using that polymorph spell on an air elemental, see what it looks like. That powerful dinosaur will quickly look like crap as you level up a few more levels and it falls behind in attack ability. The polymorph forms do not scale well, though as you just showed there are corner cases where just as the level they can be ok. Though still an inferior option to unleashing a powerful AoE spell. And you don't have to risk getting into battle with your lower hit points.
Polymorph spells used to be for getting...
Well, yes, you give up the ability to do standard martial-tier damage in exchange for the ability to fly 80 feet without provoking reactions. If you want to be a martial that does damage on land, earth elemental does 4d10+11. If you want to be a martial that does great in the water, water elemental has 2d12+12 bludgeoning plus a 60 foot swim speed, basically letting you completely control the combat.
The power of polymorph spells is to be able to adjust to what's needed at the current moment.
(Side note: elemental form heightened 6th and 7th clearly has a damage error somewhere.)