Spellcasters and their problems ...

[Staffan Johansson]

There's another thing that makes spells with attack rolls even more of a bummer.

Attack roll spells are almost always "big damage against single target". At low levels, there's Shocking Grasp, there's Searing Light at mid-levels, and at high levels you have Polar Ray.

So, when would you want to use spells that deal a lot of damage to a single target? Against a single powerful creature, of course. If I'm fighting multiple opponents, I'd be using AOEs instead. But a single powerful opponent almost always has a very high AC, making the single-target spells even worse.

For example, take my 8th level sorcerer. I have spell attack +16. A level 8 creature with a high AC (which is basically the default) has AC 27. That's already a 50/50 shot. If I'm instead fighting a "boss" that's 10th level, that's AC 30 instead, which brings me down to 35% chance to hit. So I'd be spending my highest-level spell slot and two actions, and I have a 2-in-3 chance of not doing a damn thing. That is not my idea of fun.

If I'm instead using a spell like heightened fireball or hydraulic torrent, I am instead going against the monster's save. At 8th level, those will likely be +19/+16/+13, and I can target either Fortitude or Reflex (as a Primal caster, I don't have very many spells that target Will), so I can probably get to the +16 at least. The monster then needs a 10+ to save, which at first glance looks like it's worse than the spell attack... but the save is for half damage. So instead of having a 50% chance of hitting and a 50% chance of whiffing against an on-level foe, I have slightly less than a 50% chance of dealing full damage and 50% chance of dealing half damage. That's 50% better, and that's assuming I only manage to go for their medium save!

And if I am fighting the same "boss" as before, their saves are +22/+19/+16. +19 versus DC 26 means they need 7+ to succeed and a 17+ to crit. That's a 30% chance of full damage (from my point of view), 50% chance of half damage, and 20% chance of no damage - on average, about 55% of full damage. That's a lot better than 35%.

So on average, a spell with an attack roll needs to do about 50% more than a spell with a save to be worth using, all other things being equal (at least at 8th level). And usually, things are not equal - the save spell probably hits more targets as well.

[SuperBidi]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

How do people not understand this yet.... at-level Spells will always do more damage and have more bonus rider effects than a Weapon Strike or even a special 2 Action Activity that a Martial PC can do.

They are less accurate because they're more powerful, that's by design, how it this so hard to grasp?

Always is a strong word. So strong it’s makes your statement flat untrue.

But if we want to talk about things people seem not to get, it’s the value of a limited resource vs an unlimited.

And the fact that spells are not much of a limited resource, too.

If you properly build and equip your character, you're not supposed to spell starve.

[Unicore]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

There's another thing that makes spells with attack rolls even more of a bummer.

Attack roll spells are almost always "big damage against single target". At low levels, there's Shocking Grasp, there's Searing Light at mid-levels, and at high levels you have Polar Ray.

Polar Ray doesn't double on a crit though, and searing light only does double damage against specific enemies.

Spell attack roll spells are not good spells for high level casters, outside of specific circumstances where they are good against a specific enemy, and even then, without true strike, they would be a waste of time, even with an extra +1 to +3 bonus.

[Deriven Firelion]

Unicore wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

There's another thing that makes spells with attack rolls even more of a bummer.

Attack roll spells are almost always "big damage against single target". At low levels, there's Shocking Grasp, there's Searing Light at mid-levels, and at high levels you have Polar Ray.

Polar Ray doesn't double on a crit though, and searing light only does double damage against specific enemies.

Spell attack roll spells are not good spells for high level casters, outside of specific circumstances where they are good against a specific enemy, and even then, without true strike, they would be a waste of time, even with an extra +1 to +3 bonus.

Why doesn't polar ray double on a crit? If something isn't listed it it has an attack roll, it is assumed to double on a crit as far as I know.

[Squiggit]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Why doesn't polar ray double on a crit? If something isn't listed it it has an attack roll, it is assumed to double on a crit as far as I know.

Nope, from the rules on determining degrees of success:

CRB p.445 wrote:

If a feat, magic item, spell, or other effect does not list a critical success or critical failure, treat is as an ordinary success or failure instead.

AoN Link

[Staffan Johansson]

Squiggit wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Why doesn't polar ray double on a crit? If something isn't listed it it has an attack roll, it is assumed to double on a crit as far as I know.

Nope, from the rules on determining degrees of success:

CRB p.445 wrote:

If a feat, magic item, spell, or other effect does not list a critical success or critical failure, treat is as an ordinary success or failure instead.

AoN Link

Huh. That seems like something that should be fixed with errata.

Not the rule about crits having to be defined, but Polar Ray not having a crit effect at all.

[Unicore]

I thought so too at first, but when I looked closer at spell attack rolls, and why there weren't more of them, it started to make sense. In the move from the playtest to 2e the decision to get rid of touch AC and to move most touch spells to saves, and have everything use the casting attribute, including spell attack rolls, it seems that high level spells all went away from attack rolls, and the ceilings on them had to be reigned in.

It could be because of true strike, but I actually think it is because PCs generally start getting the evasion abilities at a certain point and so it is rare that there will be a party that doesn't have at least one character that is incredibly tough against spells that target each of the three saves. But AC is much harder capped and doesn't have any damage mitigation abilities. So when the party faces a caster that is a few levels higher than them, a caster that had 3 or 4 powerful high level spell attack roll spells would be murder on the party.

[ArchSage20]

SuperBidi wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

How do people not understand this yet.... at-level Spells will always do more damage and have more bonus rider effects than a Weapon Strike or even a special 2 Action Activity that a Martial PC can do.

They are less accurate because they're more powerful, that's by design, how it this so hard to grasp?

Always is a strong word. So strong it’s makes your statement flat untrue.

But if we want to talk about things people seem not to get, it’s the value of a limited resource vs an unlimited.

And the fact that spells are not much of a limited resource, too.

If you properly build and equip your character, you're not supposed to spell starve.

i disagree with that if it wasn't limited they would just give you infinite slots but they give you 4 and a lot of people treat more spell slots as a big deal (remember the wizard discussions) so spell casters slots being limited is a drawback

a ranger has range damage and infinite shots

casters get utility effects and a little bit more damage in exchange for getting limited to 4 slots per spell level and a lot of other drawback such as low hp lack of good armor proficiency etc...

so there is no need for casters to be further limited by having a harder time hitting because they are already paying for it elsewhere

[Deriven Firelion]

Squiggit wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Why doesn't polar ray double on a crit? If something isn't listed it it has an attack roll, it is assumed to double on a crit as far as I know.

Nope, from the rules on determining degrees of success:

CRB p.445 wrote:

If a feat, magic item, spell, or other effect does not list a critical success or critical failure, treat is as an ordinary success or failure instead.

AoN Link

PF2 has little stupid rules like this all over the place. It really needs a clean up. Why even put this in there? Why on polar ray? What exactly does polar ray do that it would need a no crit clause?

Not going to play it that way. Not worth it for one weak spell. I can't even imagine what that rule clause you listed is even for. Seems almost like a redundancy missed in editing.

[Staffan Johansson]

SuperBidi wrote:

And the fact that spells are not much of a limited resource, too.

If you properly build and equip your character, you're not supposed to spell starve.

I'm playing a sorcerer, which is the class with the most spell slots. I have three or four slots of my highest level (depending on whether this is an odd level where I just got the spell level, or if it's an even level), and four slots of my second highest. That's seven or eight slots. Using anything below the top two spell levels for direct offense doesn't seem like a good idea — now that I'm hitting 9th level, I don't think 6d6 waterballs are going to cut it in most situations. There are still some useful debuffs at lower levels (notably Fear and Slow), but the slots are too weak for direct offense.

And I don't know about you, but seven or eight slots doesn't last very long if you're casting spells every round. That's like two encounters. And that's for a sorcerer, where I have the advantages of spontaneous casting (so I don't get stuck with prepared spells that are useless in this particular scenario).

[Deadmanwalking]

You shouldn't need to cast a spell every round in every fight. Cantrips are perfectly sufficient most rounds in most easier fights (which are not and should not be uncommon).

[Deriven Firelion]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

You shouldn't need to cast a spell every round in every fight. Cantrips are perfectly sufficient most rounds in most easier fights (which are not and should not be uncommon).

What's funny about PF2 that I have found is that it is the reverse of PF1. In PF1 you would it on her you big spells to unload them on powerful creatures in the toughest fights. In PF2 it is best to use your most powerful spells on groups of lower level mobs for the most bang for the bug. Using a big powerful damage spell on a single target is a waste of a spell most of the time. Using a big AoE spell on a group of 5 or more Challenge-2 to +0 is a more efficient and effective use of the spell.

Cantrips with a few buffs or debuffs are the best way to attack end game bosses without minions.

[Deadmanwalking]

Lots of minions is not an easy fight, though. Not by the encounter guidelines, anyway. One on-level foe or, say, two minions is an easy fight. And both of those definitely happen.

I wasn't saying save spells exclusively for the boss, I was saying don't waste more than maybe one of them on a single on-level foe or another fight listed as 'Trivial' or 'Low'.

[Temperans]

That rule was being complained about way back in the super long Wizard thread. When people were talking about Polar Ray.

Its a really stupid rule, whose only purpose is to make spells (specially attack spells like Polar Ray) worse given that martial abilities are all based of using strike.

[Deriven Firelion]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Lots of minions is not an easy fight, though. Not by the encounter guidelines, anyway. One on-level foe or, say, two minions is an easy fight. And both of those definitely happen.

I wasn't saying save spells exclusively for the boss, I was saying don't waste more than maybe one of them on a single on-level foe or another fight listed as 'Trivial' or 'Low'.

I wasn't questioning anyone. I found the observation interesting. In PF1 I used to sit on powerful spells until facing a powerful foe. In PF2 I have found that unloading on Challenge -2 to +0 is a far more productive use of spell power. Which leads me to believe that many who think spells are weak are using them on fights they are least productive against by design.

I've found AOE quite productive and powerful when used against -2 to +0 fights against quite a few mobs. Vastly more damage than martials deal. My druid has obliterated encounters with spells exceeding martial damage by 200 or 300 percent on a consistent basis.

It's a different mentality for spell use from PF1. As you stated an encounter against a group of challenge -2 to +0 can be quite tough and a slot, so it's good to be able to rip through their hit points quickly.

[Deadmanwalking]

That's fair, I was just trying to clarify my own point, not necessarily disagreeing with yours (which, for the most part, I do in fact agree with).

[SuperBidi]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

And the fact that spells are not much of a limited resource, too.

If you properly build and equip your character, you're not supposed to spell starve.

I'm playing a sorcerer, which is the class with the most spell slots. I have three or four slots of my highest level (depending on whether this is an odd level where I just got the spell level, or if it's an even level), and four slots of my second highest. That's seven or eight slots. Using anything below the top two spell levels for direct offense doesn't seem like a good idea — now that I'm hitting 9th level, I don't think 6d6 waterballs are going to cut it in most situations. There are still some useful debuffs at lower levels (notably Fear and Slow), but the slots are too weak for direct offense.

And I don't know about you, but seven or eight slots doesn't last very long if you're casting spells every round. That's like two encounters. And that's for a sorcerer, where I have the advantages of spontaneous casting (so I don't get stuck with prepared spells that are useless in this particular scenario).

My main PFS character is a Sorcerer, too. So we can relate to the same experience! Do we?

So, first, if you cast spells like crazy you'll last 3 to 4 fights as fights are resolved in 2 rounds of pounding. This is extremely constant over levels (you can check it with Citricking's tool) a character deals roughly 25% of an encounter hp pool in 2 rounds. For example, 2 Magic Missiles of your highest level deal 25% of a level + 3 creature hp pool from level 1 to 20. So, you are supposed to cast 2 spells per combat on average if the damage is properly spread between you and your companions.
It means 3 to 4 fights with your Sorcerer. On these boards, people have reported that a proper adventuring day lasts 3 to 5 encounters, so you should handle most days of adventuring without extra spells.

Of course, to avoid spell starving, it's better to have a small batch of scrolls in case of, as not everything is so mathematically guaranteed.

And that relates to my Sorcerer experience. My spell list goes low during the third fight and I start using scrolls in the 4th fight. And I obviously no more cast cantrips in dangerous situations (for quite some time, actually, I think I've stopped around level 3 or 4 but I don't remember precisely).

So, are spells limited? Obviously yes, you can't cast Fireballs on the last surviving enemy. But you're not supposed to reach the end of it. That's why the game is (in my opinion) balanced by taking into account that spells are not much limited. As it's a limitation you can easily build around.

[Old_Man_Robot]

We’re trending a lot of old ground here.

Yes, great, it’s cool that there are ways to offset and modulate a spell-rationing mindset.

However doing so places a burden on a caster that’s simply not present nor expected of a martial. In PF1, not only did casters have more spells in general, the payoff was bigger. Now we have less spells with smaller payoffs.

Adding a layer of “oh but you can work around this somewhat” is cool and all, but it’s still burdening a player with effort and cost that’s not otherwise expected or rewarded.

[Staffan Johansson]

SuperBidi wrote:

My main PFS character is a Sorcerer, too. So we can relate to the same experience! Do we?

So, first, if you cast spells like crazy you'll last 3 to 4 fights as fights are resolved in 2 rounds of pounding.

2 round fights is not what I have come to expect. 4-5 rounds is more common, in my experience. Part of that might be that we are just winding down Cult of Cinders, which has a large hex-crawling element where you often have one big encounter per day instead of classic dungeoning. Another part might be that our party isn't very offense-oriented (Champion, Warpriest, Alchemist, Sorcerer).

I also take issue with 3-5 encounters per day. That has been rare, at least unless we have taken "artificial" breaks mid-adventure. That's an adventure design element though, but I feel it's one of those things that might look good as an average, but in practice it's more often either 1-2 encounters or 7-10. When I've been on the GM side in The Show Must Go On, the party has generally been doing a whole level's worth of adventuring in one or two days (which is partially their own fault).

Note that I am not saying that I feel underpowered, at least not in this regard. I was just objecting to the claim that spell rationing is not a thing. In my experience, it very much is. And of course, you rarely know at the start of the day whether this is going to be a 1-2 encounter day or a 7-10 encounter day, so you'd better conserve your strength either way.

[SuperBidi]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

However doing so places a burden on a caster that’s simply not present nor expected of a martial.

Yeah, a great burden, buying equipment. A burden that martials don't have as we all know they can ignore magic items entirely and still be competitive at level 20.

Sorry, but "It is too hard to buy a few scrolls" is a bad argument. Martials are expected to have weapons, multiple of them if you want to take special materials into account. It costs them money, organization, and all of that. Caster don't need weapons. So, this money and energy, they put it on scrolls, wands and staves.

All the casters items expand your spell list size, so I think it's kind of a given that you're supposed to expand it through items. I actually have the feeling I'm just stating the obvious.

But, for a reason I don't know, most people have absolutely no issue in buying a +1 rune, but many are complaining like crazy that you need scrolls on a caster.

You don't even need a lot of them. Just a few. And you use them only in emergency situations. It's not like if you had to crumble through scrolls.

[Old_Man_Robot]

SuperBidi wrote:

Sorry, but "It is too hard to buy a few scrolls" is a bad argument

You could at least pretend to have this conversation in good faith.

Scrolls are consumables.
Runes are not.

Spells are consumables.
Weapon attacks are not.

Until you admit these are not equivalents you aren’t engaging honestly.

[whew]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Sorry, but "It is too hard to buy a few scrolls" is a bad argument

You could at least pretend to have this conversation in good faith.

Scrolls are consumables.
Runes are not.

Spells are consumables.
Weapon attacks are not.

Until you admit these are not equivalents you aren’t engaging honestly.

Wealth grows exponentially in PF2. No matter what you spend it on, your lower-level money depreciates rapidly.

My rogue uses potency crystals and necklaces of fireballs and they are totally worth it. Using consumables can be FUN!

Some people just aren't stingy misers like you. You owe Superbidi an apology.

[The Raven Black]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Sorry, but "It is too hard to buy a few scrolls" is a bad argument

You could at least pretend to have this conversation in good faith.

Scrolls are consumables.
Runes are not.

Spells are consumables.
Weapon attacks are not.

Until you admit these are not equivalents you aren’t engaging honestly.

But then we also need to admit that Martials and Casters were not on an equal footing in PF1.

[Martialmasters]

Just home brew potency runes applying to spells. That's what I did. Hasn't broken a single thing and everyone's happy.

[Old_Man_Robot]

The Raven Black wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Sorry, but "It is too hard to buy a few scrolls" is a bad argument

You could at least pretend to have this conversation in good faith.

Scrolls are consumables.
Runes are not.

Spells are consumables.
Weapon attacks are not.

Until you admit these are not equivalents you aren’t engaging honestly.

But then we also need to admit that Martials and Casters were not on an equal footing in PF1.

Agreed. Without argument.

But this isn’t PF1 we’re talking about. Unless you are advancing the idea that casters need to “pay” for a previous imbalance, PF1 balancing issues have no impact on PF2 balancing issues.

[SuperBidi]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Scrolls are consumables.
Runes are not.

You ask me to have this conversation in good faith while you are having an unreasonable problem with consumables.

Consumables are fine. A properly equipped character has some of them. The opposite would be a problem as they are a whole branch of items. If you can't accept the fact that a properly equipped caster has scrolls to avoid having to ration spells, it's on you not on me.

I know going from rationing caster to sustainable one is a paradigm shift. You should try it. You'll see it's way less of a big deal than you think. My Sorcerer only has 2 combat scrolls of his 2 highest levels and it allows me to last on up to 6 fights (above that, everyone tend to be fine if you ask for a rest). It means I'm buying roughly one scroll per level. It's not exactly massive.

[Old_Man_Robot]

SuperBidi wrote:

I know going from rationing caster to sustainable one is a paradigm shift. You should try it. You'll see it's way less of a big deal than you think. My Sorcerer only has 2 combat scrolls of his 2 highest levels and it allows me to last on up to 6 fights (above that, everyone tend to be fine if you ask for a rest).

You’ve used the word sustainable in several threads now and each time it’s been wrong.

Consumables are a net loss to a character. It’s doesn’t matter how the wealth is used, but if one character gets to retain their wealth indefinitely, investing and investing it in permanent items, while another has to consume able lose it, that’s not sustaining. It’s the literal opposite.

I get you have a different experience than me, and you’ve pushed your “sustainable” approach before. But it’s just factually untrue. It’s not how the word works and it’s not how the system your are describing works.

I’ve played a Wizard now from 1-19th, I have a 250+ page guide on optimal use of said Wizard.

I’ve never had a session which seems to meet your touted 6 fights per session (I even joked in a previous thread about informing my GM that he had gone over his daily fight alliance!) I’ve had sessions where I’be barely had to use anything, and I’ve had sessions that have pushed my character to his limits, running away while throwing telekinetic rocks.

[SuperBidi]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Consumables are a net loss to a character.

Like all items. At level 20, most of the items you have bought/found are just a worthless bunch of junk in your backpack. Permanent items or unused consumables equally. And considering the rapid increase in wealth with level there's not much point to hoard money in PF2. Money is made to be spent.

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

I’ve never had a session which seems to meet your touted 6 fights per session

That's why I often ask what people are playing when they report issues with their caster. Being sustainable in APs is way harder than to be sustainable in PFS. Sometimes, it's even not possible (Extinction Curse has a 14 fights in a row dungeon which is just silly in my opinion).

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

I’ve had sessions that have pushed my character to his limits, running away while throwing telekinetic rocks.

And you have never thought about buying scrolls?

It's my basic reaction every time the DM speaks about a dungeon. Getting a few extra scrolls because I'll need to use them.

[Unicore]

Table variance is going to make a massive shift in what players experience as average expecations. In PFS, even 4 encounters per session are pretty rare, and casters can get one free extra scroll a scenario, so it becomes a lot easier to get used to play using consumables and seeing how much more effective that makes your caster. But there are definitely some larger dungeons in APs that can pile up 8 or more encounters onto the party in a single day, sometimes pushing 2 encounters or more on to players with no rest. No one is saying that there is only one right way to play your caster, but there are many ways to overcome the common frustrations players voice with casters, and it is possible to try out ideas that might have not sounded fun at first, if you find yourself not having fun trying to avoid using those tactics.

But with the right load out, a caster can have 4 to 8 great spells for using against boss monsters to endlessly frustrating results. By level 10 or 11, a caster could have 4 slows, 4 fear spells, and still have a whole load out of top level damage spells. People often make it seem like a caster is stuck choosing between being a damage dealer and a debuffer, but especially wizards and sorcerers really don't have to make that choice at all. A sorcerer can have magic missile as a signature spell and even then throw down fire ball and a single magic missile from the slot that feels the most appropriate when it seems like an enemy is against the ropes, or do the same with a slow spell and then a magic missile, and even in the boss monster saves, it is down an action and taking damage every round from you, giving the rest of your party a massive advantage. If it ever fails its save, you can then start throwing fear spells on to it as well and still be doing damage every round with a magic missile as well. Fear scrolls and eventually slow spells become so cheap that every wizard and most sorcerers can be casting a spell from a spell slot every turn for 8 or more encounters in a day and not have to revert to cantrips.
Most casters fall flat when they try to hyper specialize and do the same thing all the time against all enemies.

Alternatively, a caster could invest in a ranged weapon to use to fill that third action, but I think there is a mistaken perception that that is inherently a superior choice to using wealth to invest in consumables

[SuperBidi]

Sorry, I missed your message.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

2 round fights is not what I have come to expect. 4-5 rounds is more common, in my experience. Part of that might be that we are just winding down Cult of Cinders, which has a large hex-crawling element where you often have one big encounter per day instead of classic dungeoning. Another part might be that our party isn't very offense-oriented (Champion, Warpriest, Alchemist, Sorcerer).

Aouch... no real damage dealer and 3 resource dependent characters. It's clearly a tough situation.

I've played Plaguestone with a party lacking damage dealers and it's not exactly funny. We spent our time running away...

Staffan Johansson wrote:

I also take issue with 3-5 encounters per day. That has been rare, at least unless we have taken "artificial" breaks mid-adventure. That's an adventure design element though, but I feel it's one of those things that might look good as an average, but in practice it's more often either 1-2 encounters or 7-10. When I've been on the GM side in The Show Must Go On, the party has generally been doing a whole level's worth of adventuring in one or two days (which is partially their own fault).

Extinction Curse is partly an aberration. There's a dungeon with 1255 xp solely on fights. It's artificially punishing for resource constraint characters, it's not necessary at all and they're not following their own guidelines. I don't see the point at all. It's like building a dungeon with only flying enemies or swarms and look at how barbarians or rogues have no fun playing it.

Anyway, it's always possible to be sustainable, there are more sustainable builds (Spell Blender Wizard have 10-11 spells of their 2 highest levels) and it's always possible to buy lower level scrolls as prices drop very quickly. I consider sustainability to be a necessity when I build a caster. Mostly because I have no fun casting cantrips, I like to feel I'm playing a proper caster.

[Unicore]

That some cantrips have interesting and good effects even as you level up is great, but I think way too many people have bought into the idea that casters, regardless of level, will usually be casting cantrips, using only one or two spell slots an encounter, and then are railing against how poorly casters perform. By level 7, as a wizard or a sorcerer, you should have 15 spells per day from your slots. It should be relatively easy to have at least 10 of those spells be spells that you can use in any combat encounter.

I think a lot of people never get much further than low level play and might see that, even for casters, since most characters are trained with their early weapons proficiencies, that weapons are better than cantrips for the first couple of levels, and then start investing half their builds as casters into using weapons and armor, and the cost of that is spending wealth on increasing your spell reserves.

[The Raven Black]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Sorry, but "It is too hard to buy a few scrolls" is a bad argument

You could at least pretend to have this conversation in good faith.

Scrolls are consumables.
Runes are not.

Spells are consumables.
Weapon attacks are not.

Until you admit these are not equivalents you aren’t engaging honestly.

But then we also need to admit that Martials and Casters were not on an equal footing in PF1.

Agreed. Without argument.

But this isn’t PF1 we’re talking about. Unless you are advancing the idea that casters need to “pay” for a previous imbalance, PF1 balancing issues have no impact on PF2 balancing issues.

Not at all.

Just that you cannot expect Casters not losing things when compared to PF1 while Martials gain some. The gap was that huge in PF1.

And Scrolls vs Runes, as well as Spells vs weapon attacks, were just the same in PF1. So that is not really the crux of the matter.

[Squiggit]

The Raven Black wrote:

The gap was that huge in PF1.

It sort of makes me wonder if part of the frustration is that they didn't really go far enough helping close the gap on the martial side of things.

That probably sounds weird, because PF2 martials feel pretty good to play, but genuinely if you look at the chassis... there isn't a whole lot going on besides proficiencies and their one combat gimmick like Rage.

So the entire spellcasting kit a Wizard or Sorcerer or Druid or Bard gets needs to somehow be balanced basically against slightly better accuracy with a weapon and a handful of extra damage.

Maybe the story would be different if PF2 characters had more meat to them at their core.

[ArchSage20]

The Raven Black wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Sorry, but "It is too hard to buy a few scrolls" is a bad argument

You could at least pretend to have this conversation in good faith.

Scrolls are consumables.
Runes are not.

Spells are consumables.
Weapon attacks are not.

Until you admit these are not equivalents you aren’t engaging honestly.

But then we also need to admit that Martials and Casters were not on an equal footing in PF1.

Agreed. Without argument.

But this isn’t PF1 we’re talking about. Unless you are advancing the idea that casters need to “pay” for a previous imbalance, PF1 balancing issues have no impact on PF2 balancing issues.

Not at all.

Just that you cannot expect Casters not losing things when compared to PF1 while Martials gain some. The gap was that huge in PF1.

And Scrolls vs Runes, as well as Spells vs weapon attacks, were just the same in PF1. So that is not really the crux of the matter.

they already did pay a lot

bad hp

bad saves

bad proficiency

bad armor proficiency

many spells are now higher level (even cantrips like create water)

many spell were erased

many spells were moved between traditions

many spell were nerfed

many spell are now uncommon or worse rare

many spell are now rituals (and uncommon and require help)

the amount of spell slots was severely reduced compared to first edition

many spell had their range area or target availability reduced etc...

skill proficiency increases being capped means some status like intelligence got devalued

martial were buffed a lot including skills that plain and simply surpass spells (barbarian using earthquake ever 10 minutes, scare to death, rogue hiding behind air, etc...)

on top of all that casters having to rely on true strike and consumable is overkill

also if we use the consumable reasoning all of the caster utility short of level 10 can be replaced by magic items. wands etc... you are basically buying spell slots

so i think people are either overestimating what casters can do or underestimating how bad the nerf was

[Ubertron_X]

The Raven Black wrote:

And Scrolls vs Runes, as well as Spells vs weapon attacks, were just the same in PF1. So that is not really the crux of the matter.

On the contrary I think that in generall (i.e. not necessarily PF1 vs PF2 only) this is one of the most important issues on the matter, primarily based on human psychology.

SuperBidi can advocate consumables all day long, and very probably his arguments are more than valid, however the mindset of players who have played MMORPGs or computer or pen and paper RPGs for years is not changed easily. There is a reason why many players finish (especially computer) RPG's which their pockets full of consumables.

Many players simply loathe consumables and are at best willing to use those found as loot as - to put it simply - money spend on consumables can usually not be spend on permanent improvments (e.g. our group sold all but a selected few talismans found so far). Also they might not be easily available, so you might have to rely on what you did manage to think of and bring in advance, which in total means additional planning and ressource management steps.

And spells versus weapons is exactly the same level of psychological pitfall, i.e. comparing the Fighters 24/7 combat-ready chainsaw appendix (minus the Fighters HP issue, especially in PF2, but lets disregard this for the sake of skewed argument) versus a more or less limited ressource like non-cantrip spells. Generations of self-taught spell conservation versus PF2 top down casting in order to stay relevant. On the bright side attack cantrips have theoretically made casters more sustainable than ever, especially for the clean up stages of combat (once the combat is basically decided), however apart from electric arc those suffer the same accuracy issues as any 3rd action weapon attack (and later also fully fledged attack spells without additional use of True Strike).

People having expectations is always an issue, especially if you have prior experiences with other RPGs of the DnD family. That is not to say that Pf2 has no weaknesses (which system hasn't), however even small problems can easily become big ones if you mix in old knowledge and set expectations.

[Amaya/Polaris]

I'd just like to bring up staves (and to a lesser extent wands), whether they fit in as more applicable counterparts to weapon runes. I've heard staves are quite expensive, but they do offer a fair amount.

[Deriven Firelion]

Wizards ands sorcerers to a lesser extent still feel a little weak, at least at lower level. This seems to be the primary group that really feels terrible. The PF1 wizard and sorcerer players have taken a huge step down in power. It doesn't feel great.

Druids and bards are great. If you haven't figured out how to do more damage than a martial as a druid, you're just not trying. If you're not a game changing caster as a bard, you don't get PF2. Cleric has a niche as a healer or an alpha-strike channel smite guy.

Witches seem pretty decent as a buffer and debuffer similar to a bard.

Not sure on oracles.

Summoners are going to be weak if they enter the game as is.

If they could add something to the game to make wizards and sorcerers feel better, I think a lot of this complaining would die down. Sure, wizards and sorcerers eventually have some power and do some damage. But if you're not playing to high level very often, you won't see that power. Wizard focus spells have very narrow uses that often don't add to their offensive abilities.

Wizards need some cool class defining focus abilities that make wizard players feel good about playing the class. I feel absolutely great when I launch a tempest surge as a storm druid, especially so when the monster critically fails. I did 14d12 damage the other day for a nice 91 point tempest surge with 14 points of persistent electricity damage. Now that feels good.

You want to know what doesn't feel good? Casting an evocation wizard force bolt spell for 4d4+4 damage for a focus point. Or casting augment summoning for +1 to DCs on creatures that are 4 or 5 levels behind what you're fighting. Or not being in a situation where physical boost or charming words is even worthhile.

My druid unloads a tempest surge every single battle unless she is fighting an electrically immune creature.

I feel like the PF2 game designers should admit that focus spell design for the wizard is terrible and redo them with an emphasis on giving each wizard school a highly useful, offensive school ability or cantrip. Sometimes you have to admit you missed the mark on a class and fix it, especially a class as iconic as the wizard.

[Staffan Johansson]

Squiggit wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

The gap was that huge in PF1.

It sort of makes me wonder if part of the frustration is that they didn't really go far enough helping close the gap on the martial side of things.

That probably sounds weird, because PF2 martials feel pretty good to play, but genuinely if you look at the chassis... there isn't a whole lot going on besides proficiencies and their one combat gimmick like Rage.

In my experience, the fun stuff for martials is usually found in their class feats. By comparison, casters have most of their fun in their class abilities (well, spells), and for the most part class feats are a bit meh (particularly on the sorcerer, which get an extra heaping of bland because they need to be neutral enough to work with multiple bloodlines).

So grabbing an archetype on a caster is generally an attractive proposition, because you get to shore up weaknesses and/or expand into more fun things, whereas for martials you're giving up the cool stuff for different cool stuff.

[Temperans]

Staves dont give you more spells unless you are a prepared caster. Even then they only give more lower level spells unless you are a staff wizard.

And wands are effectively a worse worse Pearl of Power. But that xan potentially be used multiple times if needed, at the risk of destroying the wand.

[FowlJ]

Temperans wrote:

Staves dont give you more spells unless you are a prepared caster. Even then they only give more lower level spells unless you are a staff wizard.

And wands are effectively a worse worse Pearl of Power. But that xan potentially be used multiple times if needed, at the risk of destroying the wand.

Spontaneous casters still gain charges equal to their highest spell level when they prepare a staff, they just can't trade spell slots for extra charges.

Using spell slots to cast staff spells as if they were part of your repertoire is something they can choose to do instead of casting the spell with staff charges:

Core Rulebook pg. 592 wrote:

...For example, if Seoni can cast 3rd-level spells and prepared a staff, the staff would gain 3 charges. She could expend 1 charge and one of her 3rd-level spell slots to cast a 3rd-level spell from the staff, or 1 charge and one of her 2nd-level spell slots to cast a 2nd-level spell from the staff. She could still expend 3 charges from the staff to cast a 3rd-level spell from it without using any of her own slots, just like any other spellcaster.

[Temperans]

FowlJ wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Staves dont give you more spells unless you are a prepared caster. Even then they only give more lower level spells unless you are a staff wizard.

And wands are effectively a worse worse Pearl of Power. But that xan potentially be used multiple times if needed, at the risk of destroying the wand.

Spontaneous casters still gain charges equal to their highest spell level when they prepare a staff, they just can't trade spell slots for extra charges.

Using spell slots to cast staff spells as if they were part of your repertoire is something they can choose to do instead of casting the spell with staff charges:

Core Rulebook pg. 592 wrote:

...For example, if Seoni can cast 3rd-level spells and prepared a staff, the staff would gain 3 charges. She could expend 1 charge and one of her 3rd-level spell slots to cast a 3rd-level spell from the staff, or 1 charge and one of her 2nd-level spell slots to cast a 2nd-level spell from the staff. She could still expend 3 charges from the staff to cast a 3rd-level spell from it without using any of her own slots, just like any other spellcaster.

You get a number of charges for free.

Prepared casters can spend spells to get more charges.
Spontaneous casters can spend spells to only use one charge.

Spontaneous casters overall run at a deficit when using staffs.

[Deriven Firelion]

Temperans wrote:

FowlJ wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Staves dont give you more spells unless you are a prepared caster. Even then they only give more lower level spells unless you are a staff wizard.

And wands are effectively a worse worse Pearl of Power. But that xan potentially be used multiple times if needed, at the risk of destroying the wand.

Spontaneous casters still gain charges equal to their highest spell level when they prepare a staff, they just can't trade spell slots for extra charges.

Using spell slots to cast staff spells as if they were part of your repertoire is something they can choose to do instead of casting the spell with staff charges:

Core Rulebook pg. 592 wrote:

...For example, if Seoni can cast 3rd-level spells and prepared a staff, the staff would gain 3 charges. She could expend 1 charge and one of her 3rd-level spell slots to cast a 3rd-level spell from the staff, or 1 charge and one of her 2nd-level spell slots to cast a 2nd-level spell from the staff. She could still expend 3 charges from the staff to cast a 3rd-level spell from it without using any of her own slots, just like any other spellcaster.

You get a number of charges for free.

Prepared casters can spend spells to get more charges.
Spontaneous casters can spend spells to only use one charge.

Spontaneous casters overall run at a deficit when using staffs.

What are you talking about? Staves and wands are extra castings of a specific spell for the day. That's it. Not a deficit or anything else. It's a very simple idea.

I don't even know why people are continuing to pretend anything is going to change by complaining about casting. It's set up as it is. Learn to use it well because you can or go back to PF1 and have all the fun in the world playing uber caster gods that can wipe out adventures alone or write a few house rules to reach a point you like.

As far as the base game, doesn't appear to be changing any time soon and probably never back to PF1 levels of encounter ending power.

[Temperans]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Temperans wrote:

FowlJ wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Staves dont give you more spells unless you are a prepared caster. Even then they only give more lower level spells unless you are a staff wizard.

And wands are effectively a worse worse Pearl of Power. But that xan potentially be used multiple times if needed, at the risk of destroying the wand.

Spontaneous casters still gain charges equal to their highest spell level when they prepare a staff, they just can't trade spell slots for extra charges.

Using spell slots to cast staff spells as if they were part of your repertoire is something they can choose to do instead of casting the spell with staff charges:

Core Rulebook pg. 592 wrote:

...For example, if Seoni can cast 3rd-level spells and prepared a staff, the staff would gain 3 charges. She could expend 1 charge and one of her 3rd-level spell slots to cast a 3rd-level spell from the staff, or 1 charge and one of her 2nd-level spell slots to cast a 2nd-level spell from the staff. She could still expend 3 charges from the staff to cast a 3rd-level spell from it without using any of her own slots, just like any other spellcaster.

You get a number of charges for free.

Prepared casters can spend spells to get more charges.
Spontaneous casters can spend spells to only use one charge.

Spontaneous casters overall run at a deficit when using staffs.

What are you talking about? Staves and wands are extra castings of a specific spell for the day. That's it. Not a deficit or anything else. It's a very simple idea.

I don't even know why people are continuing to pretend anything is going to change by complaining about casting. It's set up as it is. Learn to use it well because you can or go back to PF1 and have all the fun in the world playing uber caster gods that can wipe out adventures alone or write a few house rules to reach a point you like.

As far as the base game, doesn't appear to be changing any time soon and probably never back...

I was not complaining, also what I am saying is that Spontaneous Staff casting is deficit compared to Prepared Staff casting.

Spending a spell slots to cast a staff spell gives versatility, but not extra castings.

[Staffan Johansson]

Temperans wrote:

I was not complaining, also what I am saying is that Spontaneous Staff casting is deficit compared to Prepared Staff casting.

Spending a spell slots to cast a staff spell gives versatility, but not extra castings.

Any caster who invests a staff during their daily preparations get X charges, where X is their highest-level available spell. So my sorcerer, who just hit 9th level, gets 5 staff charges in his Verdant Staff. So let's say I want to cast Shape Wood, a 2nd level spell, from the staff. There are two ways I can go about this:

1. I can spend 2 charges to cast it without expending any of my inherent resources.

2. I can spend 1 charge and a 2nd level spell slot.

If I stick to the first option, the staff basically gives me extra spells. The second option is for situations where I know I will want to use one of the staff's spells more than the staff's own charges will let me.

[Deriven Firelion]

Temperans wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Temperans wrote:

FowlJ wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Staves dont give you more spells unless you are a prepared caster. Even then they only give more lower level spells unless you are a staff wizard.

And wands are effectively a worse worse Pearl of Power. But that xan potentially be used multiple times if needed, at the risk of destroying the wand.

Spontaneous casters still gain charges equal to their highest spell level when they prepare a staff, they just can't trade spell slots for extra charges.

Using spell slots to cast staff spells as if they were part of your repertoire is something they can choose to do instead of casting the spell with staff charges:

Core Rulebook pg. 592 wrote:

...For example, if Seoni can cast 3rd-level spells and prepared a staff, the staff would gain 3 charges. She could expend 1 charge and one of her 3rd-level spell slots to cast a 3rd-level spell from the staff, or 1 charge and one of her 2nd-level spell slots to cast a 2nd-level spell from the staff. She could still expend 3 charges from the staff to cast a 3rd-level spell from it without using any of her own slots, just like any other spellcaster.

You get a number of charges for free.

Prepared casters can spend spells to get more charges.
Spontaneous casters can spend spells to only use one charge.

Spontaneous casters overall run at a deficit when using staffs.

What are you talking about? Staves and wands are extra castings of a specific spell for the day. That's it. Not a deficit or anything else. It's a very simple idea.

I don't even know why people are continuing to pretend anything is going to change by complaining about casting. It's set up as it is. Learn to use it well because you can or go back to PF1 and have all the fun in the world playing uber caster gods that can wipe out adventures alone or write a few house rules to reach a point you like.

As far as the base game, doesn't appear to be changing

...

As I read it Spontaneous Casters have an advantage of being able to spend spell slot as needed. Spontaneous seems better as a prepared caster would be unlikely to spend a spell slot to cast a staff spell unless it was a very ideal spell.

Spontaneous Caster staff use is more flexible.

[Staffan Johansson]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

As I read it Spontaneous Casters have an advantage of being able to spend spell slot as needed. Spontaneous seems better as a prepared caster would be unlikely to spend a spell slot to cast a staff spell unless it was a very ideal spell.

Spontaneous Caster staff use is more flexible.

Spontaneous casters get the advantage that a staff basically expands their spell selection. Prepared casters get the advantage that they can spend a mid- or high-level spell slot to cast multiple low-level spells from the staff which, depending on what those spells are, can be really useful. For example, for a 10th level wizard three Fear spells might be more useful throughout the day than a single 6d6 Fireball.

Both are some pretty big upsides, and what's more: they both shore up weaknesses of either casting method. Spontaneous casters gain versatility, and prepared casters gain flexibility.

There are some areas in which I think the designers of PF2 have made... well, I won't say bad choices, but let's call them choices that speak to different tastes than mine. Staffs? They're great.

[ExOichoThrow]

Its laughable that people think scrolls arent powerful. It sucks that you cant get runes to increase spell attack accuracy but consumables like scrolls especially at early levels are very affordable.

If you're too afraid if using your consumables and you're a hoarder, that's your own mindset getting in the way of using tools. It's not the games fault if you're afraid of using items because they're consumable.

[Deriven Firelion]

ExOichoThrow wrote:

Its laughable that people think scrolls arent powerful. It sucks that you cant get runes to increase spell attack accuracy but consumables like scrolls especially at early levels are very affordable.

If you're too afraid if using your consumables and you're a hoarder, that's your own mindset getting in the way of using tools. It's not the games fault if you're afraid of using items because they're consumable.

I had to get out of the hoarder mentality I had in PF1 to start take advantage of consumables. I even had to get out of the PF1 limited charges for staves and wands mentality. Wands are an extra cast a day, use them every day at least once. Same with staves. Use your scrolls at you get them.

I used to hoard that stuff in PF1 and wait for when I really need extra stuff. Now I blast it off and get some more.

[graystone]

ExOichoThrow wrote:

If you're too afraid if using your consumables and you're a hoarder, that's your own mindset getting in the way of using tools. It's not the games fault if you're afraid of using items because they're consumable.

It's the games fault if you NEED them to keep up: if it's just to get you to the starting line, it's an issue. For instance, with the summoner playtest, if I need scrolls to get my low level buffs and utility spells, I consider the class a failure from the start. I have no intention to buy/keep consumables: the "tools" should be available in non-breakable forms if they want everyone to use them.

And to be clear, it's not "afraid to use them" but not literally throwing money away that could go to buy a permanent "tool".