| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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".
1st level wands are dirt cheap too at a certain point. A level 1 wand is 60gp. two of them costs 120. That isn't even half the expected GP of a 5th level character. If having 1st level spells is important to you, you don't need to invest in direct consumables to have equipment be a potential solution.
That means that having 2 1st level spell slots is really easily accomplishable through choices a player can make. Wands are what made PF1 casters able to cast useful spells all day too. This is a very old game mechanic. But it does seem like PF2 has fallen victim of having cantrips scale just well enough to make it feel like the caster is expected to resort to cantrips rather than equipment when they run low on spell slots and that will lead to a very underperforming caster. Just the same as a melee martial that doesn't keep up a ranged weapon or consumables to be able to fly/handle water or difficult terrain and move quickly, will find themselves underperforming in many actual play situations as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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".
the tools are available in non breakable forms. You can literally buy a wand or a staff.
You're not spending the money on weapon runes presumably as a caster, so you have lots of money to throw around. Whether or not you like the design is up to you, but it's objectively very balanced.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're not spending the money on weapon runes presumably as a caster, so you have lots of money to throw around. Whether or not you like the design is up to you, but it's objectively very balanced.
Citation incredibly needed.
Consumables vs permanent items is like renting vs buying a home. One is building equity the other is gone forever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1st level wands are dirt cheap too at a certain point.
Well, that's a good point IF wand was a consumable which was the point of my post...
If having 1st level spells is important to you, you don't need to invest in direct consumables to have equipment be a potential solution.
Wands in no way get you the flexibility you get with slots: Do you buy a wand of EVERY utility you might need? Then a wand of every buff you might need? Even at dirt cheap, those add up in cash, space and action management let alone sheet management.
That means that having 2 1st level spell slots is really easily accomplishable through choices a player can make. Wands are what made PF1 casters able to cast useful spells all day too.
The game shifted WAY far from buying a single wand to be good for all your needs: a single wand had 50 charges so you didn't have to micromanage when you used your single daily use but now it's like a slot but a set slot which is infinitely less flexible.
The new wand is great if you know you want that spell once every day but I rarely want any spell just once a day, every day.
the tools are available in non breakable forms. You can literally buy a wand or a staff.
Sure, but by definition, I'm not buying consumables then and some people are saying that I'm crazy for not loading myself up to the gills with them...
You're not spending the money on weapon runes presumably as a caster, so you have lots of money to throw around. Whether or not you like the design is up to you, but it's objectively very balanced.
I've never had an issue finding things I wanted to buy that weren't consumables or a bucket of wands. Myself, I'd rather save the extra cash I have between purchases for future bigger purchases instead of literally throwing that cash away for 1 shot affects.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once again all this would be fixed if they gave sorcerers (to a lesser extent) and wizards powerful focus spells and/or cantrips. The biggest bad decision in PF2 was to give wizards and sorcerers to a lesser extent weak focus and class abilities. I have no idea why Paizo is even wasting time correcting this.
I have played nearly every caster or seen nearly every caster in place. The biggest difference between a fun caster and a lame caster is useful focus spells and cantrips. It's like a major difference.
I don't mean spell list cantrips every class gets. I mean stuff like a druid's tempest surge or a cleric's healing/harm font or a witch's hex cantrips or curse of death. The bard's composition cantrips and effects.
These are the abilities give casters the means to endure, while waiting for good opportunistic moments to unleash higher level spells.
Yet the wizard gets almost no focus spells on par with other classes. The sorcerer is a very mixed bag. Fix this issue and the wizard and sorcerer complaining will go away.
And in the future base design for casters should be to give them class cantrips unique to the class and powerful offensive abilities they can use at least once every fight.
Looking at the numbers, a druid and bard do very well in groups, very much on par with any martial in overall group and success effect. From what I can see the witch also has some great encounters when they land some of their nasty hexes like needle of vengeance or curse of death.
Wizard and sorcerer? Just terrible damage and effects. Makes me wonder how the designers could even look at those abilities and consider them an adequate use of a focus point while they're handing out inspire defense to a bard, tempest surge to a druid, or healing font to a cleric.
"Here you go Mr. Wizard, the class that relies on casting more than any other class. You get a 1 action magic missile for a focus point or some charming words. Enjoy." Evoker wizard looks over at the druid unleashing tempest surge and walks away, throws his gear in the garbage, and goes to the tavern to drink.
Sorcerer is at least a little better. Elemental bloodline can nuke a few times every encounter without spending spell slots at higher level. Some of the other bloodlines have cool and useful bloodline effects.
Damn. The wizard's focus spells are mostly not great. And no class cantrips other than their arcane cantrips. It just feels terrible as a class. I keep wanting to make a wizard, but the optimizer part of my brain keeps going, "Why would I do this to myself when so many of the other caster classes have other cool abilities on top of casting? Why inflict that misery on myself just to prove I can make a wizard useful."
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the games fault if you NEED them to keep up
Consumables vs permanent items is like renting vs buying a home. One is building equity the other is gone forever.
If the whole discussion is: I don't like the items I have to buy to properly equip my character, then I agree with Archsage, there's no point in this discussion.
Also, scrolls are not mandatory the way weapons are mandatory to martials. So you can play a no scroll Wizard, it'll be perfectly playable. Just don't complain about caster's efficiency if you don't want to play them to their maximum efficiency.
Once again all this would be fixed if they gave sorcerers (to a lesser extent) and wizards powerful focus spells and/or cantrips. The biggest bad decision in PF2 was to give wizards and sorcerers to a lesser extent weak focus and class abilities. I have no idea why Paizo is even wasting time correcting this.
I have played nearly every caster or seen nearly every caster in place. The biggest difference between a fun caster and a lame caster is useful focus spells and cantrips. It's like a major difference.
I always felt that the better focus spells of the Druid was to balance against their smaller number of spell slots.
The Druid and the Bard are very much about their focus abilities.
The wizard focus spells are mostly useless, and most wizards will go elsewhere to get a better option.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the games fault if you NEED them to keep up
I did not say this. You aren't quoting me.
Interestingly, the post you are quoting didn't itself contain a quote by me. You would have to manually type my name in there.
Consumables vs permanent items is like renting vs buying a home. One is building equity the other is gone forever.
If the whole discussion is: I don't like the items I have to buy to properly equip my character.
THIS is why I say you aren't arguing in good faith. That is demonstrably not the point I have been making and no reasonable person could be coming away with that idea. Equity, look it up. Don't use the same dictionary that you got the definition from "sustainable" though.
Just don't complain about caster's efficiency if you don't want to play them to their maximum efficiency.
Oh cool, this is why you incorrectly quoted me, then gave a wholly dishonest version of my argument. You just want me to shut up because I don't agree with you.
___________________
i would say this is the exact point where the other side starts acting disingenuous by refusing to acknowledge any issue no matter how obvious it may seem and its usually at this point that polarization begins good luck cause you are gonna need it
How right you were.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry about the miss quote, I forgot to change the name (I dislike the fact you can't multi-quote on these boards).
Oh cool, this is why you incorrectly quoted me, then gave a wholly dishonest version of my argument. You just want me to shut up because I don't agree with you.
You have an issue with consumables. You feel you are losing money by buying consumables. That's on you. I'm sorry, but you try to bring rational arguments to justify your feeling.
A Wizard with scrolls is better from level 1 to 20 than a Wizard without scrolls, because the few gold coins you'll save from not buying scrolls won't switch the power balance between a scrolled Wizard and a non scrolled one.You just have to choose a % of your wealth that you spend on scrolls. Like 20%. And your wealth will be 80% of what you would get without scrolls from level 1 to 20. But your power level will be higher than what this 20% of wealth will ever give you.
It's as simple as that. The rest is just a feeling you have to handle.
Anyway, you are trying to white room theory what I personally experienced. You are stronger with a bunch of scrolls than without. You should try it. It will enlighten you.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh sweet irony!
You have an issue with consumables. You feel you are losing money by buying consumables. That's on you. I'm sorry, but you try to bring rational arguments to justify your feeling.
It's called math.
I get that the MO here is to reduce all arguments to a equivalent state of sentiment, where one opinion is just as good as another. But in reality you are just, and ironically, making an emotive appeal to try to counter plain, boring, math.
Permanent items are equity investments which can be sold to release said equity and allow characters to retain a greater share of their wealth for end-game items. This is not true of consumables. This is a straight a priori argument.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have an issue with consumables. You feel you are losing money by buying consumables. That's on you. I'm sorry, but you try to bring rational arguments to justify your feeling.It's called math.
Maths are a tool. If you don't have the proper mathematical model, you don't prove anything. And in that case, your mathematical model is way too simple.
When I first started to play like that in Starfinder, I was having the same fears than you. Buying my first batch of Spell Gems was hard and I was hesitating every time I was using one. At the end of my Mystic carreer, I was spending 50% of my wealth in Spell Gems as it was clearly the strongest items I could buy. You should try to spend 20% of your wealth in scrolls on your casters and you'll quickly understand what I'm speaking about. When it comes to subtle strategical changes, experience is better than trying to theorycraft it.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once again all this would be fixed if they gave sorcerers (to a lesser extent) and wizards powerful focus spells and/or cantrips. The biggest bad decision in PF2 was to give wizards and sorcerers to a lesser extent weak focus and class abilities. I have no idea why Paizo is even wasting time correcting this.
I have played nearly every caster or seen nearly every caster in place. The biggest difference between a fun caster and a lame caster is useful focus spells and cantrips. It's like a major difference.
I always felt that the better focus spells of the Druid was to balance against their smaller number of spell slots.
The Druid and the Bard are very much about their focus abilities.
The wizard focus spells are mostly useless, and most wizards will go elsewhere to get a better option.
Maybe that was what they were thinking, but in play focus abilities are superior to spell slots for daily durability. It is in essence a free cast every single battle with rare exception, sometimes multiple time every battle with extra focus recovery. It's no cost power. For something like Inspire Heroics or Tempest Surge that is a potent ability every single fight with very rare exception. Whereas a wizard casting even a 6th spell spell requires he have the right one at the right time.
1 extra slot should have been balanced according to lower hit points, armor, weaker saves, and feats. As it is right now the druid in my experience is vastly outperforming the wizard. Main reason is they have great blast spells and that focus is great once a battle. And wild shape is even great once a battle. I've learned I was wrong about battle forms. They are surprisingly good. Not full martial good, but definitely get some nice hits when dealing with creatures immune to magic or highly resistant.
Just the other day I turned into an huge earth elemental and pounded through a wall of force. It would have taken a wizard a 7th level spell slot to do that, but my druid did it with one focus point.
It is not my experience that extra spell slots outperform focus abilities in terms of casting endurance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff about focus spells (cut for length)
While I don't agree with your overall assessment of the classes, I do pretty strongly agree that this is the biggest problem with these classes. Like, wizard focus spells are unimpressive me enough that I don't think I'll ever play anything but Universalist (I have no idea if HotA is good or not, but it's at least fun to yeet a greatsword). And the disparity between sorcerer focus spells is really odd. Like you have some strong, frequently usable ones like Elemental Toss and Angelic Halo, while you also have ones like Diabolic Edict which I've seen my sorcerer player use all of twice over 27 sessions (although the single point of physical resistance from Embrace the Pit has saved him more times than you would think).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuff about focus spells (cut for length)While I don't agree with your overall assessment of the classes, I do pretty strongly agree that this is the biggest problem with these classes. Like, wizard focus spells are unimpressive me enough that I don't think I'll ever play anything but Universalist (I have no idea if HotA is good or not, but it's at least fun to yeet a greatsword). And the disparity between sorcerer focus spells is really odd. Like you have some strong, frequently usable ones like Elemental Toss and Angelic Halo, while you also have ones like Diabolic Edict which I've seen my sorcerer player use all of twice over 27 sessions (although the single point of physical resistance from Embrace the Pit has saved him more times than you would think).
It's such an easy fix too. Design better focus spells that feel impactful for the wizard and all sorcerer bloodlines.
From what I'm seeing most people don't play to very high level. When you don't play to very high level, you really don't get to see the power of magic. You get maybe a little taste here and there, but you don't get to really see magic shine.
Good focus spells or class cantrips really make up for a lot of weaknesses at those low levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
I don't disagree that many of the focus spells (especially Wizard) feel lackluster. However, part of the Wizard/Sorcerer's strength is their ability to cast more frequently than other casters. Sorcerers get 4 slots while most classes get 3. Wizards depending on their school get 4 slots plus non-generalists get another free spell slot on top of that. For Sorcerers and Wizards, that's two more spells of their highest and second highest spell level compared to other casters. That's potent on its own. School specialist wizards get another spell from drain arcane bond, and spell blender wizards get even MORE high level spells!
My guess is that the devs were cautious about making the focus spells for sorcerers/wizards too strong because of how many spell slots they get. It seems like they undershot the mark though
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Consumables have always existed in this kind of game. You can play without them, but you will lose out on something.
Like when your group has a row of bad rolls and you don't have/want to use the healing potions that would help you survive. A dead character has a poor return of investment for their permanent items.
Of course, it wouldn't be good to need a constant stream of consumables for basic efficacy; but reserving a certain amount of your wealth to supplement your constant abilities, expecially when the adventuring day is unusually long or, as I said, in case of dire need, is something that is expected.
You say that it's like paying a rent. Maybe it's true, but you can't buy a new house whenever you are going on vacation. You can choose to refuse renting anything, but at that point you can't complain that you never go on a holiday.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thats the problem.
A martial can buy a house (a sword) and then rent on the side (consumables).
But casters? No they mostly just get consumables. You might spend some money on a Staff, but even that only has a few uses per day.
Casters are in my opinion in a better situation regarding equipment than martials. They don't need any piece of equipment to be playable. And scrolls are more interesting to buy than a +1 tax to just remain effective.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Items in PF2 are not really like buying homes in the real world though. All items have a certain range of levels where their value to your character is maximized and then it quickly depreciates in value.
It is more like deciding whether to buy a car or take public transportation when you are a world traveler.
As Graystone rightly points out, wands are limited in giving you access to one specific spell every day, and thus getting a wand of water breathing is probably a big waste of time time unless your campaign in incredibly water centric. That is where scrolls are a much, much better option than anything else for many casters, especially spontaneous casters who really don't want to take up any more space on their character sheet than they have to, to be prepared to handle a random underwater encounter.
A +1 long sword is a pretty expensive weapon that a character will outgrow eventually. For most martials, who make attacks with it almost every single round of combat during the levels that is a useful item, but for a caster, it might be a better to buy 8 scrolls, because you might be better off casting fear 8 times than trying to set yourself up to attack with a long sword 8 times in the same amount of time.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
But then casters should have the option to buy an item that makes their existing spells better. Just like a martial has the option to buy consumables and still be useful.
Like staves and wands and rings of wizardry? OR consumables that can be activated for one action and debuff an enemy
Items that allow you to cover things without using spell slots let you focus your spell slots into your more powerful and less situational options that you can burn through in encounters without worrying about not having your back up options to help you if the day goes longer than you expect.
Spell slot spells are already tweaked to a level higher than weapon attacks.
Clearly the developers looked closely at PF1 and decided that the extent to which casters could hyper specialize onto making certain spells incredibly powerful was something that they wanted to avoid in PF2 at all costs. I enjoyed playing a fey sorcerer with a DC 20 sleep spell at level 1, but it was a totally broken character build. In PF2, spells are much more of singular cohesive units that impact the game the way the GM can expect them to by reading the spell description, with relatively minor, and heavily controlled exceptions. Being a more powerful caster in PF2 is having more spells at higher levels, and then choosing the right spells for the situation. Helping players learn that will help them have fun with their characters.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But then casters should have the option to buy an item that makes their existing spells better. Just like a martial has the option to buy consumables and still be useful.
I don't see the current situation of martials as enjoyable. Actually, I'm more in the side of removing all the magic weapons and armors.
First, magic weapons are more maths fixers than anything sexy. I don't feel thrilled when I get a +1 rune at level 2, I feel that it's normal and expected.Second, it generates lots of issues when, inside a party, some characters have better weapons than other. Like when the Barbarian gets the first Potency Rune, the Ranger, who may not even have his Doubling Ring, just feels bad for no other reason than his fighting style.
Right now, casters don't need any item to operate properly. I think it's fine. Scrolls is in my opinion the item category that gives you the most efficiency, but they are far from incredible. A scrolled caster will get something like 20% more efficiency than a non-scrolled caster, so it's not like if you can't play a caster without scrolls. Magic item choice should be a choice, not a necessity. Otherwise, it's not a choice at all.
Players want their characters to feel powerful, or useful, or badass, etc. Standing in place and casting electric arc every round, because this is the first encounter of the day and you don't want to waste your limited spells on mooks, doesn't feel powerful or useful or badass, it feels lame.
That's what I point out in most of the threads about casters. Playing a rationing caster is weak and boring. In my opinion, casting a cantrip past level 6 is the proof you need to rethink your build/equipment on a caster. You should never have to do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players want their characters to feel powerful, or useful, or badass, etc. Standing in place and casting electric arc every round, because this is the first encounter of the day and you don't want to waste your limited spells on mooks, doesn't feel powerful or useful or badass, it feels lame.That's what I point out in most of the threads about casters. Playing a rationing caster is weak and boring. In my opinion, casting a cantrip past level 6 is the proof you need to rethink your build/equipment on a caster. You should never have to do that.
Using cantrips during the inital rounds of combat should not be the norm but I can't see why you should not use them later on. Considering most combats will be approx. 4 rounds I'd figure that round 1 and 2 are the initial clash, then the combat is basically decided and rounds 3 and 4 are the clean-up phase. So as long as you can throw 2 "real" spells per combat you should usually be fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using cantrips during the inital rounds of combat should not be the norm but I can't see why you should not use them later on. Considering most combats will be approx. 4 rounds I'd figure that round 1 and 2 are the initial clash, then the combat is basically decided and rounds 3 and 4 are the clean-up phase. So as long as you can throw 2 "real" spells per combat you should usually be fine.
Yes, I agree (I was a little bit on the hyperbole). You should cast cantrip either to finish the last enemies or because you lack a better spell to cast (sometimes, casting a cantrip is the best thing you can do). But it should not be a common first round action.
And honestly, I don't even bother casting cantrips at the end of fights. In general, I delay and let the martials finish the job. At that stage, I prefer to cover unexpected situations than to cast a half useless spell (cantrips deal 30% of a martial's round, so I don't see the point in using them unless I'm bored).| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If "real spell is highest 2 level spells" I can see that you probably don't want to use more than 2 in an average combat. But by level 7 or higher, it is not hard to cast spells from spell slots 15 or more times per day, especially for wizards and sorcerers. That is easily enough to be casting a spell slot spell every round of 4 encounters, and with any items given to extra spells at all (wands, staves, scrolls, etc), it should be enough for 5 or even 6 without dipping into a cantrip, unless you have a cantrip that is exactly the right spell for the situation and you want to be using it instead of a spell slot spell. That would include using electric arc instead of fear against multiple lower level foes.
If you are not regularly casting all of your spell slot spells, then you are seriously leaving a large part of your power budget on the table. I may be in the minority, but I would rather not see wizards or sorcerers get more 2 action powerful attack focus cantrips. I'd rather see them get one action focus spells that supplement, rather than replace the idea that they cast a spell from a spell slot every round of combat.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
A +1 long sword is a pretty expensive weapon that a character will outgrow eventually. For most martials, who make attacks with it almost every single round of combat during the levels that is a useful item, but for a caster, it might be a better to buy 8 scrolls, because you might be better off casting fear 8 times than trying to set yourself up to attack with a long sword 8 times in the same amount of time.
Wait, when do you ever outgrow the investment of a +1 long sword? Yes, the +1 itself is only useful during a certain range of levels, but IIRC, when you upgrade it to a +2, you only have to pay the difference between the two costs.
I.e., 100% of its cost goes into being useful. And when the +1 is obsolete, 100% of its cost remains useful by being subsumed into the cost of the not-obsolete +2. Ditto when it's +3. Not one single gp that went into it disappears the way it would for a consumable, not even at level 20.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A +1 long sword is a pretty expensive weapon that a character will outgrow eventually. For most martials, who make attacks with it almost every single round of combat during the levels that is a useful item, but for a caster, it might be a better to buy 8 scrolls, because you might be better off casting fear 8 times than trying to set yourself up to attack with a long sword 8 times in the same amount of time.Wait, when do you ever outgrow the investment of a +1 long sword? Yes, the +1 itself is only useful during a certain range of levels, but IIRC, when you upgrade it to a +2, you only have to pay the difference between the two costs.
I.e., 100% of its cost goes into being useful. And when the +1 is obsolete, 100% of its cost remains useful by being subsumed into the cost of the not-obsolete +2. Ditto when it's +3. Not one single gp that went into it disappears the way it would for a consumable, not even at level 20.
The question then becomes how many consumables could you buy with the additional money it cost to upgrade and how much of an impact would these have on your game.
Consumable or not, the real topic is how do I spend my gold to have the maximum effect on my game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There seems to be a general view that scrolls and staves should be used as a way to conserve spell slots, but I see it a bit differently. I like having a good amount of scrolls and staves so that I'm less afraid to use all my spell slots, since I have the knowledge that I'll always have a backup. So you don't end up burning through scrolls that frequently.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you don't end up burning through scrolls that frequently.
The reality is, that if you stock a couple scrolls for enhanced spellcasting longevity and keep a measured pace with using your spellcasting resources (spell slots), most days you're not going to end up using them.
All of the primary spellcasters (core rulebook) have some sort of mechanic for spellcasting longevity -
Clerics have by far the most spells considering their free heals/harms.
Druids have proper spells as Focus Spells.
Wizards just straight up have the most general use spell slots.
Bards have God-tier cantrips meaning they end up with plenty of spells to cover dangerous encounters.
Sorcerers, ironically, have the biggest crunch imo on absolute spell resources but gained the greatest flexibility in using their spells.
You can burn out your resources too quickly if you're not careful, but with few exceptions most classes have more than enough to cover a typical day - and scrolls and consumables are massively useful for covering the gaps where you're stretched.
I can understand not liking consumables, but if you choose not to use them it needs to be acknowledged that you are handicapping yourself. Its not a flaw in the design of the game.
stuff about focus spells (cut for length)While I don't agree with your overall assessment of the classes, I do pretty strongly agree that this is the biggest problem with these classes. Like, wizard focus spells are unimpressive me enough that I don't think I'll ever play anything but Universalist (I have no idea if HotA is good or not, but it's at least fun to yeet a greatsword). And the disparity between sorcerer focus spells is really odd. Like you have some strong, frequently usable ones like Elemental Toss and Angelic Halo, while you also have ones like Diabolic Edict which I've seen my sorcerer player use all of twice over 27 sessions (although the single point of physical resistance from Embrace the Pit has saved him more times than you would think).
At least with the sorcerer blood lines you have more options. Generally I can find at least one focus spell in a bloodline that I like.
I'm not really on board with the overall assessment of casters as weak. But yes a few better focus options would be very nice.
Summoning is useful but its too weak as a main tactic.
In particular I would like to see an Augment Summoning spell that was worth using. Why am I going to spend a focus point on a small buff limited to a creature that is so weak and disposable anyway? There are better options when when consodering action cost as well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In particular I would like to see an Augment Summoning spell that was worth using. Why am I going to spend a focus point on a small buff limited to a creature that is so weak and disposable anyway? There are better options when when consodering action cost as well.
I think it (Augment Summoning) desperately needs to be a Free Action or Reaction. It feels like it was written by someone who didn't consider it couldn't be used the same turn you summon something.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it (Augment Summoning) desperately needs to be a Free Action or Reaction. It feels like it was written by someone who didn't consider it couldn't be used the same turn you summon something.
In particular I would like to see an Augment Summoning spell that was worth using. Why am I going to spend a focus point on a small buff limited to a creature that is so weak and disposable anyway? There are better options when when consodering action cost as well.
Yes that a part of it. Because sustaining your summon plus another action means you can't cast another spell on your second turn.
It needs to get a whole lot stronger. Summoned creatures are far behind the players in level. Obviously they can't catch that all gap, but they need to be a bit closer. The effect needs to scale with level for +2 and +3 bonuses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they were overly conservative with summoning spells. It's tough because you really do not be in a situation where it effectively becomes Summon Fighter.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand not liking consumables, but if you choose not to use them it needs to be acknowledged that you are handicapping yourself. Its not a flaw in the design of the game.
It is a flaw if a lot of people don't like the dynamic. Its one way to do balance its not a fun mechanic for all and criticizing or blaming people for finding forced consumables unfun particularly when some classes are more forced to rely on them then others is a form of gaslighting.
I mean they could have easily also made the choice to make weapon runes consumables and that would likely turn a lot of people off using them.
It is well known that many gamers don't like using consumables or hoard them, as pointed out earlier in this thread many people that play computer games end up with bags of hoarded consumables.
It is a flaw in design if the game puts a greater burden on some for consumable reliance when its well known a lot of players don't enjoy it. Telling them they have to change is a really unhelpful attitude at best, its the same as 'you are playing this game wrong, you need to do the thing that goes against your instincts to play this game properly or else you are bad.'
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A +1 long sword is a pretty expensive weapon that a character will outgrow eventually. For most martials, who make attacks with it almost every single round of combat during the levels that is a useful item, but for a caster, it might be a better to buy 8 scrolls, because you might be better off casting fear 8 times than trying to set yourself up to attack with a long sword 8 times in the same amount of time.Wait, when do you ever outgrow the investment of a +1 long sword? Yes, the +1 itself is only useful during a certain range of levels, but IIRC, when you upgrade it to a +2, you only have to pay the difference between the two costs.
I.e., 100% of its cost goes into being useful. And when the +1 is obsolete, 100% of its cost remains useful by being subsumed into the cost of the not-obsolete +2. Ditto when it's +3. Not one single gp that went into it disappears the way it would for a consumable, not even at level 20.
The question then becomes how many consumables could you buy with the additional money it cost to upgrade and how much of an impact would these have on your game.
Consumable or not, the real topic is how do I spend my gold to have the maximum effect on my game.
The point I'm making is that every gp that goes into a +1 long sword starts out useful (because the +1 isn't obsolete yet) and remains useful (because it's been folded into something else that isn't obsolete). So if I'm spending only some gold on a +2 rune and I'm making up the difference with a pre-existing +1 rune, the money I saved due to the pre-existing +1 rune is going towards another non-consumable, so that it too can contribute now and forevermore.
I.e., I consider my gold to have its maximum effect when every single piece of it is working for me at every level. Which isn't to say I think consumables don't have a place in games of this genre; I just think they're better off in games that DON'T have wealth-by-level guidelines.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the only thing that still leaves me a bit irritated regarding casters in PF2 is the fact that I feel the sorcerer was really left in a rough place. If nothing else, I would have preferred the sorcerer at least have been the undisputed master of spell slots. It shouldn't be tied with anyone in that arena, especially considering it was designed to do that and not have anything else going for it as a consequence. Spontaneous casting, imo, is not nearly as strong as the devs believe and free auto-heightening plus a maximum of 5 slots or something would have kept the class actually relevant in regards to the Druid or Bard.
Of course there's a lot of general issues (divine sorcerers vs clerics, occult sorcerers vs bards, etc.) that also bring them down but at least let them cast more than anyone else (on paper, it currently appears that they do but they're actually tied in a few cases if you factor everything in, specialist wizards and so on). It's all they can do, why not let them do it?
Some items that boosted spell attack rolls, though, or a metamagic feat that functioned like true strike with a per day limit usage and an extra action cost or something would be cool for everyone. At least then the other two spell lists could approximate it.
How to save the wizard or alchemist, I'm really not sure. All other casters are gold, with the bard arguably having been too much.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they were overly conservative with summoning spells. It's tough because you really do not be in a situation where it effectively becomes Summon Fighter.
Its never going to be perfect, but it needs to be closer. Nerfing something into uselessness, is still bad for the game. I want a variety of options, so I can play mechanically different and interesting characters. I just can't switch off that efficiency side of my brain and enjoy really weak characters beyond one session.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some items that boosted spell attack rolls...
The thing is that due to how Paizo set up their proficiency progression items that provide spell attack bonusses would probably end up OP very late game.
Of all martials only the Fighter goes legendary and that is his schtick, so nobody minds that he is always +2 to-hit over every other martial.
However all casters apart from the Warpriest go legendary eventually, which means that if you gave casters the same +1 to +3 accuracy items that martials use, casters would have the same spell attack numbers as the Fighter, i.e. the would end up hitting AC +2 better than the rest of the martials.
So basically casters are screwed for 18 levels because they all go legendary but martials don't.
I'd rather liked Paizo having made the Wizard the equivalent to the Fighter, i.e. only the Wizard gets legendary spellcasting, which would not only have empowered the Wizard but enabled accuracy items for all casters (yes this probably would create repercussions with spell DC and counteracting, i.e. any such change is not as easy as it sounds)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But then casters should have the option to buy an item that makes their existing spells better. Just like a martial has the option to buy consumables and still be useful.I don't see the current situation of martials as enjoyable. Actually, I'm more in the side of removing all the magic weapons and armors.
First, magic weapons are more maths fixers than anything sexy. I don't feel thrilled when I get a +1 rune at level 2, I feel that it's normal and expected.
Second, it generates lots of issues when, inside a party, some characters have better weapons than other. Like when the Barbarian gets the first Potency Rune, the Ranger, who may not even have his Doubling Ring, just feels bad for no other reason than his fighting style.Right now, casters don't need any item to operate properly. I think it's fine. Scrolls is in my opinion the item category that gives you the most efficiency, but they are far from incredible. A scrolled caster will get something like 20% more efficiency than a non-scrolled caster, so it's not like if you can't play a caster without scrolls. Magic item choice should be a choice, not a necessity. Otherwise, it's not a choice at all.
d
automatic bonus progression? its what i use, the issue is i HAVE to drop more spell scrolls to balance things out, because i cannot just give more money.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I don't disagree that many of the focus spells (especially Wizard) feel lackluster. However, part of the Wizard/Sorcerer's strength is their ability to cast more frequently than other casters. Sorcerers get 4 slots while most classes get 3. Wizards depending on their school get 4 slots plus non-generalists get another free spell slot on top of that. For Sorcerers and Wizards, that's two more spells of their highest and second highest spell level compared to other casters. That's potent on its own. School specialist wizards get another spell from drain arcane bond, and spell blender wizards get even MORE high level spells!
My guess is that the devs were cautious about making the focus spells for sorcerers/wizards too strong because of how many spell slots they get. It seems like they undershot the mark though
This advantage is a high level advantage. Low level spells don't hit very hard and AOE requires the ability to attack multiple targets to shine. There are an insufficient number of single target hammer spells to make the spell slots feel worthwhile.
My druid rarely runs out of spell slots even with 1 less due to her focus spells and using a weapon. Her rounds might be something like unleash a chain lightning and fire a bow round 1, use tempest surge on a target and fire her bow, transform into a dragon and melee, then unleash a breath weapon and melee. She used 1 6th level spell slot, two focus spells which can get back with Primal Focus, do a little ranged damage, and then melee down targets flanking with martials as needed. The aggregate damage usually adds up to the most in the group in many fights. She has expended exactly one spell slot to do all of that with everything else coming from easily recovered resources. I can do this for a nearly unlimited amount of time per day with the only modification being dropping down to a 5th level fireball or cone of cold versus a chain lightning.
The wizard and sorcerer cannot do this. So they are blowing off all these spells every round just to keep up with the martials. And doing this while having fewer hit points, worse armor and weapon options, and worse focus options.
People are very enamored of those extra spell slots for wizards and sorcerers. If you look at tempest surge it's like an extra max level sudden bolt every fight with riders. Wild Shape is an extra high level combat form spell every fight. It's like I'm getting a high quality single target blast spell and battle form spell of the highest level every fight.
For a bard their Inspire Courage is like a lvl 3 60 foot emanation heroism with damage every fight with a possible boost to lvl 6 or 9 for a round or two. And their defensive cantrip is matched by what? A lvl 8 cleric spell divine aura?
When you're the wizard or sorcerer and your main class bonus is I get to cast more spells, but those spells are often locked in and not as situationally diverse as a composition cantrip or druid focus spells, then so what if you have them. They aren't as useful as the focus spells other classes have.
I tried a wizard and sorcerer. They weren't completely useless. I would be lying if I said that. But they also aren't as powerful as the bard and druid, nor as fun to build. With a bard and druid you look forward to their feats and class abilities. With a wizard especially I'm always looking for something else to take from archetypes and other classes. I have to say the druid is perhaps the most fun and diverse class I've played in PF2. The druid does things I haven't seen a martial or any other class do in terms of ripping encounters apart from a sheer diversity of abilities. This is while also acting as the main healer in the group with occasional heal spell and medicine.
Whereas with the wizard or sorcerer, I found myself primarily casting cantrips mixed with an occasional spell. As a sorcerer I tried my focus spells like drain life and the damage was underwhelming compared to a druid's tempest surge. I have no real buffing spells or abilities on par with a bard. The wizard and sorcerer experience was very underwhelming as an overall package.
Now I can see the experience becoming better as you advance in level and can cast higher level spells, but it would be for the same reason every caster class using the arcane and primal list feels that way. Not for any unique capability of the class. Casting one more spell with a Drain Bond is pretty meaningless if the druid is just smashing things with her focus spells or the bard buffing is superior to what you can cast.
The main argument I hear time and time again is versatility. It seems to me if the versatility isn't consistently meaningful, then it isn't worth the cost. A bard's buffing may not be versatile, but it is always useful enhancing every combat encounter in a meaningful way. A druid's tempest surge is only useless when a creature is immune to electricity or those times when a creature is immune to magic which makes extra spell slots useless as well. Wild Shape and/or an animal companion is almost always useful in a meaningful way as well.
I believe I would have felt a lot better being able to ration my slots for hard battles while having a highly useful focus spell or class option for easier battles that felt as substantial as other focus spells. Spell slots are only as good as the spells you can fill them with. Right now extra spells don't hit as hard or do as much as many of the better focus and class abilities out there. Extra slots don't feel as powerful and fun because of this.