| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a question for those who have played the 2e rules long enough to have gotten to higher levels. Higher levels means anything 7th and beyond to me, just for reference.
We're playing and all the characters are currently midway through 3rd level. What we seem to have noticed is that the spells in this edition seem to be a bit nerfed as compared to other editions of D&D style games. The Saving Throws seem to be easier to succeed against and the effects are more constrained.
I get that this might be due to Paizo dealing with the Linear Fighters vs Quadratic Spellcasters issue. How does this play out at higher levels? We've only gotten to 3rd so we're still in the low level play at this point. Has spellcasting power been curtailed at higher levels as well?
Note, I'm not indicating whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just wanting to know how much of a thing it is. In some games scaling down the power of magic is a good thing. In others, not so much. I'm more interested in what is happening as the characters progress rather than debating whether it's "good" or not... whatever "good" means in this instance.
Spell-casters get rolling on 7th level, after that they pretty much rule. They still need their buddies to succeed though, teamwork makes the dream work.
|
If taken against PF1 levels of power, then pound for pound, level for level, casters will never compare.
They do start to "come on" to various degrees between 7th and 9th, depending on the class, and do get better and better as they level.
But I wouldn't hope to compare them to PF1, the games just aren't the same mathwise to support a caster like that.
That's good stuff to know. I certainly understand the math involved is different.
Here's why I'm asking. In certain games, especially ones that adhere thematically to a lot of fantasy literature, there is a certain feel a player and GM look for in spellcasters. They start weak and struggle for much of the beginning of the story to master their talents in magic. Then, slowly, they start to gain mastery. At the end of the story they command reality bending power. They might be balanced in terms of story importance with the non-spellcasters but they aren't balanced in terms of fictional power. There's a reason the BBEG is often a high power Wizard or whatnot. They are more dangerous and powerful, pound for pound, than those who don't have magical talent. This makes magic something to be reckoned with and feared.
Does Pathfinder 2e have that kind of progression or are high level spellcasters no more powerful than their mundane counterparts?
Once again, not complaining either way. It's just important to know what the system does and does not do well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's good stuff to know. I certainly understand the math involved is different.
Here's why I'm asking. In certain games, especially ones that adhere thematically to a lot of fantasy literature, there is a certain feel a player and GM look for in spellcasters. They start weak and struggle for much of the beginning of the story to master their talents in magic. Then, slowly, they start to gain mastery. At the end of the story they command reality bending power. They might be balanced in terms of story importance with the non-spellcasters but they aren't balanced in terms of fictional power. There's a reason the BBEG is often a high power Wizard or whatnot. They are more dangerous and powerful, pound for pound, than those who don't have magical talent. This makes magic something to be reckoned with and feared.
Does Pathfinder 2e have that kind of progression or are high level spellcasters no more powerful than their mundane counterparts?
Once again, not complaining either way. It's just important to know what the system does and does not do well.
The Trick here is that the answer is yes, but...
Yes, high level casters are amazingly powerful people on the planet of Golarion, BUT high level martial characters are also capable of superhuman legendary feats of prowess that can even surpass what a spell can do in very specific circumstances. This means that casters become more versatile at higher levels, as they can do completely different reality bending things than any single martial character can from day to day, but the martial character will still have an area or two where they continue to shine as brightly as a caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the goals of PF2 as I understand it was to allow BBEGs to be martials too.
I don't think you'll find that casters are overwhelmingly more powerful at higher levels, but they still offer more plot flexibility because they can make custom rituals and things that a martial BBEG probably wouldn't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is a lot less feast or famine, striving to create a more consistent play experience. This is pretty pronounced in casters. For example, they have stronger cantrips to fall back on when out of slots and have a renewable focus spell. You don't need nearly the same level of system mastery to play well. Spells still have an effect on a successful save. And immunities and resistances on monsters have been reigned in significantly.
But with all those improvements, the "power ceiling" has indeed been lowered. Spell casters can't just hit an "I win" button as often. Though there is still the occasional encounter where a wall spell or Dispel Magic can end it. Often these are hazards, which are otherwise extremely dangerous this edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for all the information, guys. You've been very helpful. Just so everyone knows, I'm enjoying PF2 quite a lot.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective (level 11 cleric in Age of Ashes) it's definitely not the insane power high of PF1, but I'm absolutely feeling effective.
A lot has been written about how on paper the proficiencies of casters lag behind, but I'm finding that in practice it doesn't actually work out so bad, because you're able to switch to attacking different defenses much better. For example, we were going to a location where we'd been warned there would be giants, so I grabbed some more Reflex oriented spells and didn't count on much from my Fortitude spells. And dropping a Blade Barrier in such a way that medium creatures could still navigate around it while mobility for large creatures was really hampered, I still had that "caster changes the battlefield" feel.
And sometimes you get lucky and the BBEG just critfails a save against your spell (happens just a smidgen more than 1/20 times actually) and then he's really hosed because he's maybe Sickened 2 and Slowed 1 while he's sickened and he also takes a decent chunk of damage. And his chums around him also got slammed. And a BBEG caster with Slowed 1 is suddenly much much more awkward because casting a 2-action spell will stop him from doing anything else that round, like getting out of a flank pileup.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I never really felt spellcaster were underpowered even at low levels. In the level 1-4 range you get magic weapon, fear, enlarge, blur, heal, bless, bane and much more. I feel all these spells are quite good.
The combination of focus spells + scaling cantrips make their early game feel much better IMO. Of course PF1 had good low level spells but since cantrips were terrible and there were no focus spells I actually like low 2e casters the best.
Now compared to 5e they win for 2 reasons, concentration is horrible in 5e and legendary resistance was bad too.
Also being able to combine demoralize or battle medicine+spells feels great too.
I am not saying they are more powerful in 2e but they feel good to me and never felt bad about my contribution.
I will say one thing 5e wins for spell preparation though, it just feels so good being able to heighten every spell. PF2 with 5e casting would be super fun even if a little overpowered.
I also want to say spellcaster do require teamwork to be effective. Having everyone delay so you can cast fear adds quite good damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martial characters are pretty much THE damage dealers. Damage dealing magic casters will lag behind until at least 14th level and not even then in most cases. The exception is long range damage (since PF2 seems to hate archery in terms of damage) and non-damage (e.g. Buff/debuff etc). I tend to like this in many ways since it is not as cut and dried to take a spell-caster over a martial 99% of the time (which was PF1)
I think it is less that casters rock range damage and more that they rock AoE damage (which happens to usually be ranged.) People undervalue being able to sweep the weaker enemies off the board, especially when they are creating flanking for a powerful boss and you hurt he boss in the effort as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Martial characters are pretty much THE damage dealers. Damage dealing magic casters will lag behind until at least 14th level and not even then in most cases. The exception is long range damage (since PF2 seems to hate archery in terms of damage) and non-damage (e.g. Buff/debuff etc). I tend to like this in many ways since it is not as cut and dried to take a spell-caster over a martial 99% of the time (which was PF1)
Damage dealing casters can quite happily deal solid damage compared to other ranged options, especially when you take AoE into consideration. And HP scales so much in PF2e that you should almost always take AoE into consideration.
I had a sorcerer do over 200 damage with a level 5 lightning bolt last session (level 10, level 4 slot, one crit fail, 5 targets). This let the party mop up 4 of the targets that round with the help of some alchemist splash damage (again, 14 damage to each target isn't something to scoff at even if the rogue and barbarian took some of the splash too). Otherwise one foe would have gone down based on the damage rolls and they would have had another 1-2 rounds of combat depending on luck and given the caster boss a lot more to work with. The rogue and barbarian are the strongest damage dealers and sit around 50-65 damage on a crit including deadly trait weapons and elemental damage runes, in the mid twenties for a non crit.
This isn't an isolated experience either.
Casters do fine damage wise outside of white room experiences, they aren't single target kings but do well as ranged combatants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Against appropriate level enemies, casters become more powerful at higher level. Not as much as PF1, but enough they make a huge difference.
As far as single target damage goes, martials rule that game. You'll pretty rarely outdamage or effect a Challenge +1 or +2 creature compared to a martial.
Multitarget damage and effects is where casters are king at higher level. You won't end fights in the same way as PF1 where you land some save or die spell on someone, but you can shift the math so heavily in the party's favor that it's an easy win.
As far as the visual in the game, casters powers are visually far more powerful than martials. A caster has the power in PF2 to level small cities and destroy a village with a single spell.
You're way more on par with martials for being able to take out equal level enemies, but you still have the massive utility superiority casters have always had.
It is realy intresting that even at the present day we can find traces of the old school systems' progression. Even in a system like Pathfinder 2e, which one of its goals is to make all classes balanced and more or less equal, we find remenants (unintented or not) of the spellcasters low power at low levels and higher power at high levels. Another example are Martials, with their higher power at low levels, but their power progression (compared to spellcasters) at higher levels is a bit slower.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Equal no, balanced yes, I'd say. Everything being too equal and samey is what turned people off 4E. But lack of balance is what made people unhappy in PF1.
I do think casters still have a bit more propensity to be the BBEG because any serious villain organization needs logistics and communication stuff that you'll need a caster for. It's something you could have a lieutenant do though, or perhaps use a powerful item, rituals, or bound outsiders. It's definitely easier for the BBEG to be a plausible non-caster now.
I agree with the Captain that area damage in particular is what casters rock at. And you see this even more in PFS, where encounters have to be able to be scaled to parties of 6 players, which is usually done by adding more monsters, not beefing up a single monster. But this just makes fireballs all the more fun :)
One oddity in 2e is that encounter design at low levels inherently disfavors casters in an unintentional manner by its very nature, in a way that's likely unintended but also more or less unavoidable.
While at mid to high levels encounters are typically built with creatures from four levels below the party (-4) to four levels above (+4), at level one the potential range of creature foes at low levels is much less - at level one, you are limited to -2 foes on (creature -1?) on the low end.
This means a lot of low level encounters tend to feature higher level opposition, and the power if casters is a lot more clear against lower level foes.
It takes a decent amount of play experience in the system to understand how to most effectively play a caster into higher level opposition, and to start really appreciating how crippling something like "Slowed 1 for one round" on a successful save is toward a level +3 or +4 boss.
Spellcasters are definitely less powerful than in previous editions, but they still end up carrying parties once they find their rythym - and I've found that for "2nd campaign" players, they can find that well before 5th or even 7th level. My Cleric was pretty dominant via spellcasting at 3rd level.
There are still extremely effective spell options available as first and second level spells, but its more work than it used to be to really shine and casters never really get to the point of dominating the whole game any more.
Martials can be OK with multiple target damage if they want to be. Swipe and Impaling Finisher are good value.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see that extreme range in enemy levels in practice. Anything below L-2 feels like a waste of time even for a mook unless you use something contrived like giving them lots of auto-hitting magic missiles. And level+3 monsters are really rough and should IMO be reserved for well-signaled boss fights, not thrown in as random in between fights. Level+4 is ridiculous.
Really, most fights are in the -1 to +2 range, and if the particular monster you want to use is just outside that range, a quick Elite or Weak template can help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are still extremely effective spell options available as first and second level spells, but its more work than it used to be to really shine and casters never really get to the point of dominating the whole game any more.
That's in my opinion the reason people have a lot of issues with low level casters. There are extremely few good options for level 1 spells and if you try to use various spells you will end up with a low efficiency. It's even reinforced for prepared casters as most players tend to prepare different spells at least for their higher level spells when at level 1 the best spell lists are in general composed of the same spell or same 2 spells prepared ad nauseam.
Also, it's not fun at all to use always the same spell, that's not the reason why you play a caster.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
unless you use something contrived like giving them lots of auto-hitting magic missiles.
*takes notes*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are great. Thanks for the responses. You've given me lots of good information and I feel better prepared to run things now.
I feel mostly low level damage spells are bad and there are quite a few super situational spells. I could be wrong but I feel this is mostly true for both PF1/5e too.
Overall I feel I had quite a bit of good options to choose from at level 1, here is a quick list as my primal character...
Heal, Charm, Fear, Goblin Pox, Gust of Wind, Hydraulic Push, Magic Fang, Noxious Vapors, Shocking Grasp, Shockwave, Spider Sting, Summon X are all decent spells to play with at level 1 and hopefully they keep adding new ones.
Burning hands was "ok" in 5e at level 1 I guess when there were lots of enemies. PF1 unless player super min maxed damage spells were very bad early on.
PF2 just have the weird thing where damage spells 2d6 x level while cantrips scale (1d6 or 1d4 x level) + spellcasting modifiers. So cantrips outscale damage spells at level 1 and at spell level 2+ they start pulling ahead.
This does give me a random though, with how spells scale in PF2 why didn't they just give players fireball/lightning bolt at level 1 at 2d6? Video games do this for the most part and everyone loves those lol. I feel it would have made casters much more fun early on. Would a level 1 2d6 fireball really be too strong? or at level 3 a 4d6 fireball?
It really takes until level 5 (15ish sessions) to actually play a nuking caster imo. I do understand that they for the most part took PF1 spells and ported them to PF2 spell levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This does give me a random though, with how spells scale in PF2 why didn't they just give players fireball/lightning bolt at level 1 at 2d6? Video games do this for the most part and everyone loves those lol. I feel it would have made casters much more fun early on. Would a level 1 2d6 fireball really be too strong? or at level 3 a 4d6 fireball?
Tradition, probably, is the primary reason. Fireball and Lightning Bolt are and have always been iconic 3rd level spells, with Burning Hands and Shocking Grasp being rhe 1st level nukes.
Beyond that though, there's more to spell progression than just damage numbers - higher level spells inherently add more ability to affect changes in The World, going from close and limited areas with first level spells (burning hands, color spray) to bigger areas at range (fireball, hypnotic pattern) to truly epic at high levels (Meteor Swarm as compared to fireball).
Remember that not every interaction is intended to necessarily be scaled to the party. A seventh level party still deals with 1st level bakers and bartenders, meaning a 1st level charm spell still has a place in the world. Meteor Swarm is more than just a number of dice in damage - its the narrative power for a Wizard to lay waste to an entire company of soldiers or a village.
A 1st level spell shouldn't necessarily have the narrative potency of a Fireball.
You could have a 1st level AOE spell that deals 2d6 in a 10ft radius. A 5ft radius might be more balanced but I’m not sure. The problem is that Electric Arc is almost always better because it’s only a cantrip, the same average damage, and two targets within 30ft of each other. You are only going to usually get two targets anyway with a 5ft radius anyway.
For a mini lightning bolt, just have a 30ft line that deals 2d8 damage. A pure damage version of Grim Tendrils
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's good stuff to know. I certainly understand the math involved is different.
Here's why I'm asking. In certain games, especially ones that adhere thematically to a lot of fantasy literature, there is a certain feel a player and GM look for in spellcasters. They start weak and struggle for much of the beginning of the story to master their talents in magic. Then, slowly, they start to gain mastery. At the end of the story they command reality bending power. They might be balanced in terms of story importance with the non-spellcasters but they aren't balanced in terms of fictional power. There's a reason the BBEG is often a high power Wizard or whatnot. They are more dangerous and powerful, pound for pound, than those who don't have magical talent. This makes magic something to be reckoned with and feared.
Does Pathfinder 2e have that kind of progression or are high level spellcasters no more powerful than their mundane counterparts?
Once again, not complaining either way. It's just important to know what the system does and does not do well.
All of the bold is true, but in terms of effectiveness in game play casters are, on average, less effective than martials. At least until you debuff the boss' saves and get a critical failure on the spell save.
Caster still have things like Wish, so they have reality bending power.
It's just that reality has become a lot most resistance to bending in many cases.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Linking to a recent thread on the subreddit that was very much about this topic:
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m just glad it’s balanced well enough that to this day high level Uber wizards seem to be a day of the past. At least enough that no one is making a fuss about linear fighter/quadratic wizards anymore.
There have been many threads that argue Paizo have instead over corrected, to the detriment of casters in general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Coming from PF1, it will feel like martials got less effective, because you'll get less attacks and only have about a 55-65% chance to hit with your first attack, while your 2nd or further attacks are even worse. It made me feel so terrible I gave up on PF2.
But caster were nerfed even harder comparing to PF1.
I think maybe if things were adjusted such that the average monster you fought was 2 levels lower than the party it would get a feel close to PF1. That would put boss monsters on level with the party, which would work for me in terms of how that feels.
But APs and scenarios aren't written that way. And PF2 is probably the most balanced d20 system written....it's just also terrible from my perspective coming from PF1.
I think it's probably more fun for players who have limited or no D&D/PF1 experience, but especially minimal PF1 experience. Honestly I think experience and ideas based upon PF1 will hurt more than it helps.
|
There are still extremely effective spell options available as first and second level spells, but its more work than it used to be to really shine and casters never really get to the point of dominating the whole game any more.That's in my opinion the reason people have a lot of issues with low level casters. There are extremely few good options for level 1 spells and if you try to use various spells you will end up with a low efficiency. It's even reinforced for prepared casters as most players tend to prepare different spells at least for their higher level spells when at level 1 the best spell lists are in general composed of the same spell or same 2 spells prepared ad nauseam.
Also, it's not fun at all to use always the same spell, that's not the reason why you play a caster.
This last point feels strange to me. Why would I not want to use a given spell if it is the most efficient way to help the party win ?
I feel Martials are far more restricted then, as they usually use a single weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are still extremely effective spell options available as first and second level spells, but its more work than it used to be to really shine and casters never really get to the point of dominating the whole game any more.That's in my opinion the reason people have a lot of issues with low level casters. There are extremely few good options for level 1 spells and if you try to use various spells you will end up with a low efficiency. It's even reinforced for prepared casters as most players tend to prepare different spells at least for their higher level spells when at level 1 the best spell lists are in general composed of the same spell or same 2 spells prepared ad nauseam.
Also, it's not fun at all to use always the same spell, that's not the reason why you play a caster.This last point feels strange to me. Why would I not want to use a given spell if it is the most efficient way to help the party win ?
I feel Martials are far more restricted then, as they usually use a single weapon.
Because people play casters to have a variety of choices at their disposal. One spell always being the best isn't that.
I don't know that I agree with the premise that low level spells are lacking. But accepting the premise, I do get the problem.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a power issue, but gameplay wise they really missed the boat with casters. Nearly every spell is 2 actions. That means spellcaster gameplay is very sterile and inflexible. "Ok I cast fireball and uh, I guess I try and recall knowledge?"
Martials, on the other hand, get a huge variety of things they can do: athletics actions, feats that open up new attacks and attack/move combinations, reactions, synergy with other melee, defensive options, etc. They can mix and match to adapt to the situation.
What would have been so much better is if spells took 1 action, but then through class abilities and feats they would modify the spells to give additional range, increase damage, increase save DC's, affect additional targets, etc. You could add multiple metamagic actions to any spell.
Paizo managed to tailor martials to the 3-action economy but casters are still stuck in the previous edition when it comes to gameplay.
Try a Sorceror with a good one action bloodline power and Demoralise or Bon Mot.
Weapon attacks are not great for a caster. But a one action bow shot compares OK with a martial taking a second shot a MAP penalty of 5, especially at low levels. If it was much better than that it would be too strong.
There are options if you hunt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing you'll find amusing is the most diverse "wizard" is a druid. You can make a druid and be a far better blaster and battle wizard than a wizard could dream of being.
The wizard class itself is kind of meh. Focus spells and class abilities aren't too great. If you want to cast more spells that aren't necessarily as good as druid focus spells, then you do have that going for you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really have that much trouble with the 2-action spells. I mean, I'd like a few more 1-action spells, but it's not crushingly awful.
Typical 1-action options my L11 cleric has at his disposal:
- True Strike
- Weapon Surge
- Demoralize, with Master intimidate, a greater demon mask, and Terrified Retreat. Crits are starting to happen more frequently now. Also I'm multiclassed into Rogue and have Dread Striker so I'll typically use Demoralize to make someone Frightened 1/2 and flat-footed.
- Recall Knowledge
- Move to a better position (40ft speed and Mobility)
- Reach metamagic
- Battle Prayer to do some Good damage to a fiend to trigger its weakness
- Shoot with my longbow
I have enough choices that it's usually more a matter of determining which one is the very best than which one to do at all.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters also inherently have more choice built into them. Yes, casting a spell is almost always two actions. But the specific spells you cast are different and the choice tends to shift things a lot more than a martial choosing between a strike and a trip.
I'm pretty sure casters got the action economy that they did for the same reasons they can't heighten every spell at will: power and decision paralysis. Even high system mastery players can feel unsure just choosing a spell to cast each turn at high levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know a lot of people wanted to see spells take up 1 action and have the flourish trait, but I think the system works much better with spells NOT having the flourish trait and for there to be spells with a range of action costs. I even think it makes a lot of sense for the base line offensive spell to take 2 actions, because I'd much rather spells from spell slots generally be balanced around costing 2 action, but being more powerful than a single martial action, than have them balanced around being 1 action and less powerful because then casters would need lots, lots more spells per day to make any kind of significant contribution and caster turns would take forever.
SO in other words, I agree strongly with Captain Morgan about how spell casting in PF2 is well balanced for every level of play in terms of giving you a wide range of options, but not forcing you into having to consider all of them, all of the time.
|
I am not at all opposed to more 1 action spells, but I agree with Unicore, damage per action is a balanced thing currently.
Solid 1 action spells:
Guidance, Shield, Jump, True Strike
I really like Jump.
As for reactions, I acknowledge TRB's point about reactions. There are a few like Shield and Recognize Spell. But for this character, I went with Glimpse of Redemption. Remember that dedications are ideal for grabbing 1 or 2 cool things other classes have. Other classes also have some neat 1 action focus spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I believe casters only need two things to be mighty fine. Better 1st and 2nd level spells, and changing that super clunky 7-15-19 proficiency scaling to 5-13-19. Unfortunately I believe the second ship has sailed and we'll always have to live with casters being worse at certain levels, but I hope Secrets of Magic takes care of the first, at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also casters have some of the greatest problem solving abilities in the game.
Need to carry several 10'x10' fragile statues over rough terrain with no wagons? Shrink item is your friend.
Need to patch a dam or reinforce a city for siege? Walls of stone are permanent.
Need to listen in on an important meeting inn another part of the castle? Clairaudience does the trick.
Want to leave some traps for enemies you know are following? Glyph of warding.
Theses are just a few examples and none of them are to far out of the box. Entire plots and be circumvented with intelligent spell use. Really no other "class" ability can do this as well.
Wile other non caster classes can do out of the box problem solving magic makes things happen for those who are not committed to just hulk smashing their way through life.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it very telling that here on the forum people are mostly very negative about casters, but when you play PFS2, most parties at level 5+ are composed about 2/3rds out of spellcasters and they're having a good time.
Part of that may be that PFS2 tends to scale up for 5+ players by adding more enemies, which makes area spells very satisfying.
I also think that's part of why caster proficiencies scale up at level 7 instead of 5; at level 5 is when you start to get the "nice" spells like Fireball.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it very telling that here on the forum people are mostly very negative about casters, but when you play PFS2, most parties at level 5+ are composed about 2/3rds out of spellcasters and they're having a good time.
I mean... citation needed, right?
You don't have that data. I don't have that data. All you are doing is relating the experiences you have, which will never be a plurality. So when you try to dismiss other peoples experiences with a suggestion of "most parties", you're basically just trying to leverage your own bias.
That's the only "telling" thing you'll find here.
You can talk about your own experiences, you can make arguments based on the math of the game and how that leads to statically likely situations - be they for or against your own experiences - but you can't talk about other peoples experiences like that. You just can't back it up.
I find it very telling that here on the forum people are mostly very negative about casters, but when you play PFS2, most parties at level 5+ are composed about 2/3rds out of spellcasters and they're having a good time.
Part of that may be that PFS2 tends to scale up for 5+ players by adding more enemies, which makes area spells very satisfying.
I also think that's part of why caster proficiencies scale up at level 7 instead of 5; at level 5 is when you start to get the "nice" spells like Fireball.
I have the level and class of most of the characters in my homegroup (we have an internet tool for that) and there are 34 level 5+ characters with exactly 17 casters (I count Alchemist as a caster). This number is actually very stable across all levels. So, I agree with old man robot on that, your experience isn't necessarily everyone's on that.