| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
In this regard, many people might play a class regardless of mechanical efficiency simply because they like the idea.
Honestly, the amount of players that play casters vs non-casters isn't very helpful on its own.
Maybe if you looked at the number of characters played of a specific class, and to what level you could make some stronger interpretations about specific classes. But I would caution against making strong statements based solely on the number of players that play a caster character.
Not to mention bards, which while casters can focus primarily on their Focus spells and could even choose to use a sword or bow and rarely casts spell. Or cast spells that affect the party.
The issue of caster capabilities is more of an issue when the magic is against an enemy, rather than used on your own party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, my highest level character in PFS is a Wizard, and I think Wizard is implemented atrociously in PF2. I just like Wizard as an idea and accept the rest of the party will have to carry my character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something I have noticed about higher level monsters in PF2 though is that a lot of them are very difficult to beat with just bashing as quickly as possible. Especially when you are facing a solo creature that is a level or two ahead of the party, they very often have an ability that is capable of keeping one or more PCs form participating very effectively in a combat and have resistances/immunities that can be pretty devastating if the party doesn't figure them out.
As a result, the ability to dispel magic effectively is incredibly important in PF2 and that pretty much requires a full caster, as anyone else is going to fall behind in proficiency enough that it is very difficult to get a success, which means you are pretty much limited to only being able to counter lower level effects.
And while the ability to do so has been somewhat limited in PF2, divination, and the ability to learn about your enemies before you get into encounters with them is incredibly vital. There are a lot of good martial builds for being able to do this and good GMs will let you do research/gather information with skills ahead of time as well, but there are a bunch of good mid to high level spells for information gathering that don't require every class but the investigator and the rogue from spending most of their skill boosts, feats and even some class feats to be any good at it.
I didn't have a similar PF2 experience, Unicore, with your specific example of dispel.
I agree that dispelling something from a higher level caster is nearly impossible if you aren't a full progression spell caster, I just didn't encounter a lot of scenarios where I was fighting something where I needed dispel magic and the monster was higher level, and someone even had dispel available as a spell known/prepared.
I admit I have a small sample size, and I understand the math behind what you're saying...I guess I'm just saying I didn't see the situation arise where it mattered.
But to a larger point, whenever the party is fighting something higher level than them they really have to work together and debuff through any means possible (intimidate, trip, flat-footed, feint, bon mot, and all kinds of magic) to make it possible to defeat them without taking a beating along the way. If you fail to work as a team to debuff higher lvel monsters you're gonna have a bad time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't have a similar PF2 experience, Unicore, with your specific example of dispel.
I agree that dispelling something from a higher level caster is nearly impossible if you aren't a full progression spell caster, I just didn't encounter a lot of scenarios where I was fighting something where I needed dispel magic and the monster was higher level, and someone even had dispel available as a spell known/prepared.
I admit I have a small sample size, and I understand the math behind what you're saying...I guess I'm just saying I didn't see the situation arise where it mattered.
But to a larger point, whenever the party is fighting something higher level than them they really have to work together and debuff through any means possible (intimidate, trip, flat-footed, feint, bon mot, and all kinds of magic) to make it possible to defeat them without taking a beating along the way. If you fail to work as a team to debuff higher lvel monsters you're gonna have a bad time.
The wizard in our party thought that having a staff of abjuration meant that he didn't need to bother memorizing dispel magic, but I was skeptical so I decided that my cleric would pretty much dedicate themselves to having at least 1 (sometimes 2) top level dispel magic ready to go at all times. It basically becomes the only thing my cleric can do, but once you reach mid levels, you tend to encounter a lot of magical traps and monsters with spell casting abilities. A well placed high level dispel magic is often a full scale encounter winner against magical traps and hazards.
I am certain that a counterspelling wizard would be a very powerful build for any of the existing PF2 APs and that will especially be true by the Strength of Thousands AP. It is just that counterspelling doesn't look very appealing at level 1 and thus it becomes hard to imagine how effective a strong Abjurer with a serious counterspell game can be.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, my highest level character in PFS is a Wizard, and I think Wizard is implemented atrociously in PF2. I just like Wizard as an idea and accept the rest of the party will have to carry my character.
My highest level character in PFS is a Wizard, and I think Wizard is implemented just fine in PF2. I like Wizard as an idea and have traded off carrying the party with the others I play with (i.e. an equally contributing member).
Champion[sorceress] 8
Fighter[wizard] 8
Sorceress 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Age of Ashes I've seen a fair lot of encounters where they paired a complex magical hazard with monsters. The hazard on its own would usually be lower level than the PCs so you could shut it down even on a failed counteract check if you used a top-shelf Dispel Magic.
While it costs a precious slot, being able to so quickly take a complication out of the fight is worth it to me.
In Age of Ashes I've seen a fair lot of encounters where they paired a complex magical hazard with monsters. The hazard on its own would usually be lower level than the PCs so you could shut it down even on a failed counteract check if you used a top-shelf Dispel Magic.
While it costs a precious slot, being able to so quickly take a complication out of the fight is worth it to me.
Yeah, Wizards are so powerful, being the only class with access to Dispel Magic...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Wizards are so powerful, being the only class with access to Dispel Magic...In Age of Ashes I've seen a fair lot of encounters where they paired a complex magical hazard with monsters. The hazard on its own would usually be lower level than the PCs so you could shut it down even on a failed counteract check if you used a top-shelf Dispel Magic.
While it costs a precious slot, being able to so quickly take a complication out of the fight is worth it to me.
Ascalaphus didn't talk about Wizards. Also, the discussion is about spellcasters.
Ascalaphus didn't talk about Wizards. Also, the discussion is about spellcasters.
Well, as a prepared caster without full proficiency progression (Warpriest) I can assure you that my attempts at counteracting are not especially successful, even if I actually happen to have the correct spell in the correct spell slot.
In general I think that the currect system heavily favours spontaneous casters, that can simply repeat / spam crucial spells like Dispel Magic or Slow and take full advantage of the 4 levels of effect, e.g. successful save effects.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ascalaphus didn't talk about Wizards. Also, the discussion is about spellcasters.Well, as a prepared caster without full proficiency progression (Warpriest) I can assure you that my attempts at counteracting are not especially successful, even if I actually happen to have the correct spell in the correct spell slot.
In general I think that the currect system heavily favours spontaneous casters, that can simply repeat / spam crucial spells like Dispel Magic or Slow and take full advantage of the 4 levels of effect, e.g. successful save effects.
Well it definitely favors bards, healbots, and support builds. On the other hand, playing an offensive sorcerer (focusing on evocation) often feels like I'm fighting against the game system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well it definitely favors bards, healbots, and support builds. On the other hand, playing an offensive sorcerer (focusing on evocation) often feels like I'm fighting against the game system.
I am curious why you say that. In theory if you just have fireball as a signature spell you should be pretty much good to go.
There is one strange problem I am realizing with Spontaneous casters though with incapacitation and damaging spells.
If you want to use an incapacitation spell you pretty much only want it in the top slot, so every time you get a new spell you basically have to get rid of your old incapacitation spell and learn a new one which by RAW is kind of hard. There really is no point casting a incapacitation spell at any slot except highest and very rarely second highest slot is ok too.
This basically goes for damaging spells too. There is much of a point in having a non signature level 3 fireball learned when you have 5th level spells.
Even with this issue though I feel spontaneous casters really are super cool and interesting with great flexibility. Honestly just having Fear/Fireball/Dispel Magic as signature spells and would be good for almost every fight!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well it definitely favors bards, healbots, and support builds. On the other hand, playing an offensive sorcerer (focusing on evocation) often feels like I'm fighting against the game system.I am curious why you say that. In theory if you just have fireball as a signature spell you should be pretty much good to go.
There is one strange problem I am realizing with Spontaneous casters though with incapacitation and damaging spells.
If you want to use an incapacitation spell you pretty much only want it in the top slot, so every time you get a new spell you basically have to get rid of your old incapacitation spell and learn a new one which by RAW is kind of hard. There really is no point casting a incapacitation spell at any slot except highest and very rarely second highest slot is ok too.
This basically goes for damaging spells too. There is much of a point in having a non signature level 3 fireball learned when you have 5th level spells.
Even with this issue though I feel spontaneous casters really are super cool and interesting with great flexibility. Honestly just having Fear/Fireball/Dispel Magic as signature spells and would be good for almost every fight!
I run tables with a sorcerer and I find that the damage side of hitting with a spell one or two level lowers is not that big of a waste. The sorcerer in our party is often able to drop a tenacious but nearly dead foe with a single level 1, 1 action magic missile after firing off a fireball out of a third level slot, for example.
Incapacitation is a horse of a different color. Having an incapacitation spell in a signature slot is actually not that useless of a feature with a spell like charm, for example, because there is no benefit from wasting a higher level slot than necessary against a lower level target like a town drunk. But only having it at lower levels makes it next to useless. Dispel magic, and the counteract spells are in a similar boat.
Overall, it just feels like it makes spontaneous casters and prepared casters play really differently rather than being a universally better feature one way or another.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, it just feels like it makes spontaneous casters and prepared casters play really differently rather than being a universally better feature one way or another.
This very much.
Clerics definitely do better with stuff like Remove Disease which often you don't need at all, but when you need it it's nice to use a top slot and be almost guaranteed it'll work. That's painful for limited spells known spontaneous casters like an angelic sorcerer, but not a problem for a cleric who can say "I'll fix it tomorrow". Makes the cleric very good for stuff like deep jungle adventures where you have to be very self-reliant.
On the other hand, a sorcerer with a decent selection of different damaging signature spells is much better at flexing to attack whatever monster we're dealing with today and what it's weak/resistant to. If you really need five fireballs in a row and no lightning bolts, a sorcerer can do that better than a druid.
I've seen people take Dispel Magic as a level 2 signature spell just to save a higher level spell slot, even though they never intend to ever cast it at anything below top level. The signature class feature can be used in different ways like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen people take Dispel Magic as a level 2 signature spell just to save a higher level spell slot, even though they never intend to ever cast it at anything below top level. The signature class feature can be used in different ways like that.
Dispel magic in particular is one of the best signature spells in the game, as long as you have the ability to identify magical spells and effects by level. You get to be a surgeon and use exactly the right level spell slot for the job instead of wasting your higher level spells dispelling a level 2 invisibility effect, for example.
As a prepared caster, I always feel bad that I basically have to keep it slotted in a top slot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well it definitely favors bards, healbots, and support builds. On the other hand, playing an offensive sorcerer (focusing on evocation) often feels like I'm fighting against the game system.
I play a blaster Angelic Sorcerer and I don't have this feeling at all. I periodically reach high damage making martial players stop for a second realizing how casters can be deadly (I play PFS, so I play with lots of different players).
If you want to use an incapacitation spell you pretty much only want it in the top slot
No, you need it in the top or the next to top slot.
Top slot is when you fight few enemies (2-3 enemies).Next to top is when you fight many enemies (4+). Also, you can use the next to top spell with your allies in the area as they will benefit from the Incapacitation bonus.
I've used both versions of Calm Emotions and I really like to have the choice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a big fan of Divine Wrath. It does okayish damage which can trigger weaknesses (so many fiends in AoA..), it has a decent chance to inflict Sickened, and it really wrecks enemies on a critical fail. Meanwhile, it's an AoE that's almost entirely safe to drop point blank on the party.
And when leaning on the aligned damage triggering Weakness and aiming for Sickened, it still works fine as a level 4 spell when cast at level 11, thanks to spell DCs scaling with character level now.
I play a blaster Angelic Sorcerer and I don't have this feeling at all. I periodically reach high damage making martial players stop for a second realizing how casters can be deadly (I play PFS, so I play with lots of different players).
I play a 5th level Draconic Bloodline sorcerer in PFS - currently, my favorite strategy for a boss fight is either a heightened Shocking grasp via Reach spell or Lightning Bolt, depending on whether I feel I should rely on spell attack roll or their saving throw. Dragon Claws plus +1 Striking Handwraps of Mighty Blows favorite way to deal with minions. I've played plenty of sorcerers from 3.0 on up, and this is by far the most fun I've had.
I was playing a primal sorcerer in AoA (until his untimely death at the hands of a Vrock, you know which one). I never felt weak. TBQH, his most effective and go to spell on his list? Gust of Wind, which I selected for RP reasons (air elemental bloodine) but it turned into a great level 1 spell. Even if the target saves, they still can't advance, which is really important for a cloth spellcaster.
I play a 5th level Draconic Bloodline sorcerer in PFS - currently, my favorite strategy for a boss fight is either a heightened Shocking grasp via Reach spell or Lightning Bolt, depending on whether I feel I should rely on spell attack roll or their saving throw. Dragon Claws plus +1 Striking Handwraps of Mighty Blows favorite way to deal with minions. I've played plenty of sorcerers from 3.0 on up, and this is by far the most fun I've had.
Just wanted to add that I love Sorcerers too. I have played casters in 5e/PF1 and PF2 I also find it the most enjoyable. I do have to admit PF2 is my favorite system so that adds to a lot of the enjoyment. I just love the archetype/ancestry feats.
I basically don't even use the Dragon claws but am very excited for level 6 dragon breath. My character uses Trip+Demoralize (horsechopper) to help my allies and heals them up with Lay on Hands :)
I have had a lot of fun moments with crit fail fears. I also like to use Acid Arrow + True Strike for some nice early persistent damage. Still only level 4.
I guess I can't really put my finger on it but I admit casters might technically be more powerful in PF1 / D&D 5e but I just find all characters more fun in PF2. Maybe it is just because every turn I feel like I have so many options. Also I guess I never really see this accuracy problem everyone is talking about. I am normally quite happy for a boss monster to only roll a success and when they roll a failure/crit failure I am just extra happy. For attack spells I just use true strike.
PF1/5e you can easily just destroy a monster with one spell as long as the monster isn't immune or doesn't have legendary resistance. I guess I just never found that as the most fun aspect. That reminds me that I played through FFT advanced like every character I had disabled enemies for 3+ rounds and that wasn't fun at all.
Honestly my biggest issue in PFS whenever I want to make a new character I almost always want to be some form of Charisma caster. I tried a Witch for a little bit. Even though Martials seem to bee really fun in PF2 it is REALLY hard for me not to make a caster.
I definitely want to make a "pure" blaster caster. It is hard for me not to make another sorcerer. Druid/Witch also has quite a bit of potential too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was playing a primal sorcerer in AoA (until his untimely death at the hands of a Vrock, you know which one).
I'm currently GMing AOA. In that Vrock encounter, the party wizard lured it to an ambush site with Ghost Sound, then cast Grease and Web in the next 2 rounds, which it crit-failed for both. The wizard totally Buster Keaton-ed the Vrock. I wish I could have pulled up some slide-whistle sound effects or something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly my biggest issue in PFS whenever I want to make a new character I almost always want to be some form of Charisma caster.
What I really like about a charisma-based class is maxing out Intimidate and having that as an option for your first action. Last PFS game I played in, I crit-succeeded to demoralize a Winter Wolf, which then led to its crit-failing the saving throw on my fireball...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In that Vrock encounter, the party wizard lured it to an ambush site with Ghost Sound, then cast Grease and Web in the next 2 rounds, which it crit-failed for both.
What is this crit failing saves that you keep taking about? In my currenct campaign (will finish AoA 2 tomorrow, level 8) our Wizard and my Warpriest are already happy if enemies do not crit succeed their saves (and using roll20 our GM makes all his saves in the open). Don't get me wrong, crit fails do happen, especially while AoE blasting mooks, however I have yet to see any sufficiently dangerous (i.e. usually at least same level) opponent succumb to a single unlucky save early in the fight.
And it is not that especially our Wizard isn't trying, using spells like Fear, Slow or Phantasmal Killer fairly regularily. However in between levels 5 and 8 I seem to remember him "landing" (successful save result at the maximum) both Slow and Phantasmal Killer approximately two times each.
Note that this is of course entirely anecdotal and that largely playing a support caster my Warpriest is still having a blast in between all Heroism, Bless, Protection and Heal, however I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for our Wizard. Also note that I do not claim that we are doing everything according to white room theory so for example target selection and/or our debuffing game may be weak, nonetheless it surely sucks if as an offensive caster you can't land your own spell attacks due to bad accuracy and also can't seem to land and decisive save spells due to the combination of level difference and/or (mostly) above average save results.
Personally, I was bored with my primal sorc by level 4 and so thoroughly tired of it by 8 I dropped the character. I was finding that anything short of a level +3 boss could be taken care of by the party fighter with some basic buffs and healing or a top slot AoE so I dropped everything with an attack roll or the incap tag and evaluated enemy-affecting spells based solely on the "Success" effect.
Anecdotally, in 8 levels I could probably count the number of failures and crit failures of same or higher level enemies on one hand. It's a real shame that bon mot wasn't in the CRB.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, it's true that they have issues with spell attacks ( those which require a spell attack roll ), because of their bonus progression ( this is sensible against high level enemies ).
lvl 1-2 = 0 ( equal to any non fighter combatant )lvl 3-4 = -1 ( -1 ,because of potency rune. I know it's a lvl 2 item but i think its better starting using it by lvl 3 for a comparison )
lvl 5-6 = -3 ( -1 potency rune, -2 Expert weapon proficiency )
lvl 7-10 = -1 ( -1 potency rune )
lvl 11-12 = -2 ( -2 potency rune )
lvl 13-14 = -4 ( -2 potency rune, -2 Master weapon proficiency )
lvl 15-16 = -2 ( -2 Potency rune )
lvl 17-18 = -3 ( -3 Potency rune )
lvl 19-20 = -1 ( -3 potency rune + 2 Legendary spellcaster )
Summary
0 = 2 levels
-1 = 8 levels
-2 = 4 levels
-3 = 4 levels
-4 = 2 levels
This is interesting. Let's extend this analysis to saving throws. There are two ways non-casters interface with enemy saving throws: confronting them with their class DC, and by using mostly skills against the monster's save DCs.
Class DCs for non-casters go up either at 9/17 or at 11/19, to Master. So compared to that, spells that force a saving throw are:
Level 1-6: equal
Level 7-8: +2 spell save DC
Level 9-10: varies
Level 11-14: equal
Level 15-16: +2 spell save DC
Level 17-18: varies
Level 19: +2 spell save DC
Altogether, not much of a difference, although casters have an easier time choosing which save to target. Looking in the GMG monster creation rules, and assuming that choosing the save allows you to make the difference between targeting a High and Moderate, or Moderate and Low save, that's typically a +3 difference in favor of spellcasters.
Also of course, spells with saves tend to have four degrees of success, so you get some effect even on a Success on the save. When looking at Spell Attacks, it's more like three degrees (Failure to hit is just as bad as Critical Failure).
Okay, but let's now compare this to using non-caster abilities (including skill feats open to everyone) that use a skill against a save DC. We'll use table 4-16 from the GMG as a baseline for when a certain amount of skill bonus can be had from items. This brings us to:
Level 2: expert in a skill
Level 3: +1 item
Level 7: master in skills
Level 9: +2 items
Level 15: legendary skills
Level 17: +3 items
Level 1: equal
Level 2: -2 due to Expert
Level 3: -3 due to Expert and +1 item
Level 7: -3 due to Expert casting vs Master skill and +1 item
Level 9: -4 due to +2 item
Level 15: -4 due to Master casting vs. Legendary skill and +2 item
Level 17: -5 due to +3 item
Level 19: -3 due to Legendary casting
Okay, so skills do better than saving throw spells, but to really be at the forefront of that you're buying items as soon as you can (not cheap) and you're stuck targeting specific saves (reducing the advantage by about 3) so it's not that far apart.
Also, skills tend to have worse grades of success: on a failure you get nothing and on a crit you may get something bad. It's rare that critical success saving against a spell has extra harmful effect on a caster.
---
Putting that all together: spell attack spells really are behind all the other attacks and DCs. Compared to weapon attacks however, we should also compare damage. Base damage... is probably a bit lower than melee weapons, but not really lower than ranged weapons. Damage type is more flexible. You can more often profit from a weakness or avoid a resistance just by using a different cantrip.
Spell attacks also benefit from to-hit bonuses, which spell saves don't - but weapon attacks also benefit from these bonuses so that doesn't change it much, AC is built with that in mind.
Another line of arguing is that casters attack 4 surfaces (AC, Fort/Ref/Will) while most martial ones attack only 1 or 2 (depending on skill feats/maneuvers) and that that's worth the difference. It's very hard to mathematically validate that because it really depends on the actual monsters you encounter in the campaign.
Overall though, I am left with the impression that spell attacks are behind the other things by just about the item bonuses. If they could get like a "blasting rod" to give an item bonus to hit (but not to spell saves) that might pull things more to the same level.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, these are very "best case scenario" analysis here.
You forgot to include DC boosting items, and the fact higher proficiencies also tend to improve the success results on saving throws.
Furthermore, this "target the lowest save" thing - I've yet to see anyone go "oh, I'll use spell X instead of Y 'cause they have lower Z save". Most I've seen is "I guess I'll go with cantrip since it's a waste to use spell Y due to their high save".
And finally, to comparison to normal attacks and skill use - SPELLS ARE A LIMITED RESOURCE. We're not talking using Cantrips here. We're talking using limited resource. Trying to cast it only to have same or lower chance to actually land an effect compared to unlimited use weapons and skills feels SUPER BAD. (also, most of these skills and attacks are 1 action, whereas you are investing your limited daily resources and 2-3 actions to have lower success chances).
And this is doubly true for Wizards, whose entire class revolves around these daily resources. No wonder Bards and Druids are considered great classes, since for them these resources are just a portion of their power.
My only problem with accuracy considerations based on class progression alone is that this often does not reflect actual play situations, especially ease of application of buffs and debuffs and how those affect the underlying math.
For example, debuffs like frightened affect AC as well as saves and simply help everyone. However things like the flat-footed condition imposed by flanking may more readily be capitalized on by martials but seldomly by a caster using Acid Splash or Ray of Frost or Divine Lance from afar.
As such caster accuracy in play is often even lower than analysed by @HumbleGamer.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, these are very "best case scenario" analysis here.
You forgot to include DC boosting items, and the fact higher proficiencies also tend to improve the success results on saving throws.
Monsters generally don't have these result-boosting abilities, those are almost entirely PC class abilities. And I did include DC boosting items - there just aren't any for spells, only for skills.
Furthermore, this "target the lowest save" thing - I've yet to see anyone go "oh, I'll use spell X instead of Y 'cause they have lower Z save". Most I've seen is "I guess I'll go with cantrip since it's a waste to use spell Y due to their high save".
Then maybe you should start doing that - it helps a lot when you're playing a caster.
Like when we got intel that the place we were going to was lousy with giants - well I'm going to prepare fewer Fortitude based spells and more Reflex based spells. And you know what? It worked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And finally, to comparison to normal attacks and skill use - SPELLS ARE A LIMITED RESOURCE.
For me, that's the crux of the problem. Spells are limited resources, but a very variable one as it depends on the adventure, your GM, the party, the character build and its equipment. As such, one player will never feel they are limited, another one will struggle with this limitation. Of course, the expectations of both players can't be close.
From the underlying maths, you need to be able to cast a lot to have a proper efficiency. So if spells are really limited to you you'll feel that casters are weak.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly lots of people have strongly held beliefs about this issue and nobody is willing to let their own position go. But there really aren't sides to this debate, and in the end, no one is going to be proven right or wrong. The game exists one way. GMs, together with their tables can change their game. The developers may (very unlikely) issue large changes to this edition, or they may take calls for change into consideration at some point far off in the future. Individual players can really only make changes to their own character's play style or change their characters.
It is definitely possible for players to have a lot of fun playing casters generally in PF2. I've seen it. I've done it. Even with wizards. There are a plethora of people on these message boards eager to help new players figure out how to have fun playing casters in this system because for those of us who enjoy casting in this system, casters have dynamic and interesting choices to make that do not overpower the system itself.
If you have questions about how to enjoy playing X character more effectively, or more satisfyingly within the context of your vision for the character, I highly recommend starting a thread in the advice thread about the specific character you are trying to make.
If you are a GM and magic is not doing what you want it to do in the world, these message boards are full of discussions about why magic works the way it does now on Golarion and ways you can change it to fit your specific vision for the game world. Most of the discussions are burried somewhere here in the general threads, while most of people's home rule fixes are in the houserules and homebrewing sections. PF2 is incredibly modular, and while the pieces all fit together very snuggly, and changing one does change all the rest, it is resistant to completely falling apart if you make small changes to the system, especially if those changes result in the equivalent range of a +/- 1 at any level. If you do make changes. Play them out. See how they make everyone at the table feel about the game, and report back what you find. If it works amazingly and makes everyone happy at your table, maybe other folks will want to try it that way too. If you discover that it has unintended effects on the game that end up feeling lime more trouble than they are worth, let people know that too. We've seen a fair bit of this from folks deriding the way incapacitation works, then trying different ways to remove it, only to report back in play that those changes didn't do what they hoped.
But seriously, if you feel like you have an idea that is just better than how the game already works, take the next step and develop it out. Rebuild some classes, rebuild some spells. Post your rebuilds to the homebrew section and be prepared for people to give just as honest feedback as you have felt is necessary to the system as designed. Maybe it holds up and a lot of folks adopt it for their own tables, maybe it doesn't. Just remember that a lot of people put a lot of time into developing and playtesting and providing feedback on the system that we got, so it is unlikely that many of the more obvious ideas didn't come into consideration, get evaluated and then get rejected for a reason. It may not be a satisfactory reason to your table, but that doesn't make that reason universally bad or indicated a massive failure on the part of the developers that they made the choice that you didn't like (probably because survey data led them to it).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably because survey data led them to it
It's this part right here that bugs me. For mostly everything in the game, this is true, but I think it falls apart a bit in this case. They openly recognized that feedback said spells were weak/unsatifying in the Playtest, and Eric Mona even said they were "going to be beefed up" in the final release. Yet, between the introduction of Incapacitation (which I think is a necessary evil, but that's besides the point here), the reversal of PT 1.6 damage buffs and even further reduction of spellcaster success rates as Exocist's post shows, all I see are nerfs, except for cantrips and a couple of focus spells. I really don't get it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is a weird discussion. The white room math doesn't quite seem to line up with my experience at the tables I've run, but I'll offer a caveat: my dice as a GM are cold. Especially on clutch spells, haha.
I've had, between four campaigns (the shortest of which has only been two levels so far), two bards, three clerics, one witch, one sorcerer, (an alchemist), and (several multiclasses). The bards are insanely happy all the time. They have weird spells, powerful abilities, and constantly are taking charge of dangerous combat with oddball spells. Two of the clerics have been really happy (one is level 14 currently), while the third realized he hated playing a healer and wanted to be a bit more protagonist. The witch is unhappy and will probably change soon--the occult list is cool but he's played in both games alongside bards and feels dramatically gimped from there. The sorcerer had a great time with the arcane list, even though that was Plaguestone and never went higher than third level.
Frankly, any game without a fighter has happy casters. The stack up really well against rangers and rogues and monks and champions and all that so far in our games. It's just the fighter that's so much more effective than any other class that's making casters (or rogues and rangers and champions and monks and so on) feel like they aren't contributing well.
I guess I don't have much to add to this thread. I have three tables with multiple happy casters each. The only current player unhappy as a caster just has a class/character that isn't working for them, and has other casters they play or have played and loved them both. It just always makes me wonder what I'm doing right (or wrong) that allows my players to have fun with what are apparently shatteringly painful, endlessly nerfed hollow cores of classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing I recommend to GMs of casters who might be feeling a little frustrated, make sure you are giving your players opportunities to experience encounters where the tactics and environment change from fight to fight and give casters to really show off the utility of their spells. Throw in some fights where the enemies start more than 100ft away and the party has a little time to coordinate their tactics.
If you had a party that all wanted to be up close melee characters, and most of the fighting was going to be on boats firing at each other with seige weapons and fighting from hundreds of feet away from each other, your players would all feel like their characters are totally useless as well. Show then that versatility is useful and the players will value it. Have every fight start within 30ft of the party and you are basically telling your casters that they never need prepare any offensive spell but electric arc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, any game without a fighter has happy casters. The stack up really well against rangers and rogues and monks and champions and all that so far in our games. It's just the fighter that's so much more effective than any other class that's making casters (or rogues and rangers and champions and monks and so on) feel like they aren't contributing well.
I did want to say I do feel the game is completely different when our player switched from a Ranger to a Fighter. Fighter's hit chance / crit rates make everyone feel indirectly worse imo.
Of course if someone compared classes damage in combat Fighter might not always be on top but it sure does feel that way when I see one in PFS and our campaign.
It might just be because they are so easy to build though, you can pretty much take any feats since +2 attack and attack of opportunity are amazing.
I pretty much have just played casters in PFS and overall have felt most classes felt good. When a Fighter joins things just feel so different.
|
Frankly, any game without a fighter has happy casters. The stack up really well against rangers and rogues and monks and champions and all that so far in our games. It's just the fighter that's so much more effective than any other class that's making casters (or rogues and rangers and champions and monks and so on) feel like they aren't contributing well.I did want to say I do feel the game is completely different when our player switched from a Ranger to a Fighter. Fighter's hit chance / crit rates make everyone feel indirectly worse imo.
Of course if someone compared classes damage in combat Fighter might not always be on top but it sure does feel that way when I see one in PFS and our campaign.
It might just be because they are so easy to build though, you can pretty much take any feats since +2 attack and attack of opportunity are amazing.
I pretty much have just played casters in PFS and overall have felt most classes felt good. When a Fighter joins things just feel so different.
I know this is OT for a Spellcaster Progression Thread, but if I were to nerf fighters I'd take away the Heavy Armor Proficiency. If Medium Armor is good enough for Rangers, Barbarian, Ruffian Rogues, Warpriest Clerics and Alchemists then it's good enough for fighters.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, the Paizo folks had a golden opportunity to remake the magic system in 2E, but unfortunately didn't take it. They could have made a clean break from all the D&D/Vancian baggage and based the entire magic system on focus points. Instead, they just ported over the old mess, throwing in focus points & spells as a secondary or tertiary resource to keep characters going until the next rest. Definitely a wasted opportunity there.
In my opinion, one of the following should have been implemented:
-Spells should be recoverable like focus points, OR
-Spell attack and save DCs should be enhanced by item bonuses, giving them an increased chance of success to compensate for being a limited resource.
Furthermore, casters should probably have been put on the same proficiency rank schedule as martials.(expert at 5, master at 13) Heck, even splitting the difference by keeping expert at 7, but advancing master to 13 would be better than what we have now.
Feels bad when your party casters are afraid to use spells in combat, because they don't want to run out for the day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wish they hadn't nerfed the number of spellslots per level simultaneously with the power of most spells being reduced.
Last edition a Sorcerer (eventually) got 6 slots per spell level, and then extra for high CHA. This edition they just get 4 per spell level.
It just feels extra bad when your spells have no/limited impact because they're more balanced in this edition, but you get very few of that level per day because casters had too many OP spells per day in 1st ed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The number of spell slots per day was the largest source of decision for characters in PF1, and standardizing things like duration and damage to static values tied to the spell itself and the level it was memorized/cast at was another very deliberate choice towards making spell casting have less statistical tracking that changed every level and had to be monitored by the player and the GM.
I, for one, value these choice and the addition of auto-heightening cantrips and rechargeable focus powers, makes it very rare for a caster to feel like they have nothing magical to do in an encounter, even in their 4th or 5 encounter of the day.
There have actually been many threads that have looked closely at the "feels bad" aspect of casters choosing not to cast spells from spell slots to conserve power, and it turns out that casters have really easy access (especially as they level up) to ensuring that, at the most spell slot focused class level, like wizards, sorcerers and clerics if we count the heal spell, most casters can throw down 3 or 4 spell slots an encounter for multiple encounters a day. Like even at level 5, when it may feel like you only have 9 or 12 spell slots, if you are investing your wealth in casting resources instead of those weapons that martials require upgrading constantly, you could have 7 level 1 wands, with relative ease of wealth investment, and that is without buying any scrolls, which are often the much better investment.
It is much, much better for casters that the base accuracy of their spells is not dependent upon items for accuracy. I can appreciate feeling like the overall accuracy feels low to some players, but learning how to use the system to your advantage and bend the numbers in your favor is very possible and a big source of fun for many players. I recommend giving it a try because developing strong team tactics can really bring a group of players together and make the experience about more than "I win." Which is how even mid to high level casters in PF1 really played.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spells are indeed a limited resource. For the whole party. When we are in a bad shape, with little spells left, and no end of the module to be seen, it is time to retreat and come back well rested and better prepared.
This happens in my Age of Ashes game, and it doesn't make sense from a story perspective as well as interrupting gameplay.
...It is much, much better for casters that the base accuracy of their spells is not dependent upon items for accuracy. I can appreciate feeling like the overall accuracy feels low to some players, but learning how to use the system to your advantage and bend the numbers in your favor is very possible and a big source of fun for many players. I recommend giving it a try because developing strong team tactics can really bring a group of players together and make the experience about more than "I win." Which is how even mid to high level casters in PF1 really played.
In that case, why not remove accuracy-boosting items for martials as well? Then they too could enjoy the "fun" of low accuracy and really develop those strong team tactics.
Anyhow, 2E casters aren't comparable to 1E casters even if the former had item bonus to spell attack rolls. Accuracy issues are separate from 1E's "I win" spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...It is much, much better for casters that the base accuracy of their spells is not dependent upon items for accuracy. I can appreciate feeling like the overall accuracy feels low to some players, but learning how to use the system to your advantage and bend the numbers in your favor is very possible and a big source of fun for many players. I recommend giving it a try because developing strong team tactics can really bring a group of players together and make the experience about more than "I win." Which is how even mid to high level casters in PF1 really played.In that case, why not remove accuracy-boosting items for martials as well? Then they too could enjoy the "fun" of low accuracy and really develop those strong team tactics.
Anyhow, 2E casters aren't comparable to 1E casters even if the former had item bonus to spell attack rolls. Accuracy issues are separate from 1E's "I win" spells.
The essentiality of weapon runes is a mixed bag that I probably could have lived without, but with things like doubling runes, at least it is relatively easy to have them apply to many different kinds of weapons. And outside of the Fighter, martials do need to develop their tactics and strategies as well, or else they end up feeling like they are spinning their wheels without going anywhere.
As far as wealth distribution, I think that casters having more flexibility with their items is actually a pretty big mechanical balancing factor between casters and martials. Martials can spend their wealth on consumables and fun utility items, but it comes at the risk of falling behind on the thing they will do the most of. Caster don't have that concern so they can either focus on having access to more spells, or a weapon to work as a perfectly functional 3rd action attack, or just getting really to pick through the more underutilized items in the book. They don't have to focus on getting access to more spells. But they can, and if they do that, they can get a massive quantity of extra spells to improve their sustainability.
Casting spells from spell slots is a pretty easy way to do something effective in most encounters, even if they are from your lower level slots. With smart targeting, that can even include damage, even though it will most typically focus on buffing, debuffing and battlefield control.
I wonder how much of the spells-per-day design came from market research. I think a lot of tables see way less combat than designers sometimes expect. I know 5e's expected combats per day is generally derided as way too high.
Frankly, how much combat in a given day to expect or prepare is one of the weirder gaps in PF2's GM advice. Personally, more than three combat situations in one in-game day to me says they are fighting for their very lives and things are dire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The number of spell slots per day was the largest source of decision for characters in PF1, and standardizing things like duration and damage to static values tied to the spell itself and the level it was memorized/cast at was another very deliberate choice towards making spell casting have less statistical tracking that changed every level and had to be monitored by the player and the GM.
Playing a Cleric I can not in good conscience agree to the statement that you have to do less tracking when it comes to spells and levels. While many spells have indeed benefitted from the new DC and hightening rules, especially offensive ones that have a fixed effect like Fear or Command, the amount of defensive and utility spells that suffer under the new counteracting rules in combination with reduced slots and spells with the incapacitation trait is plain staggering. So yes, at character level 11 I can use the same DC on a level 3 or level 6 Fireball (with the later just dealing double damage), however considering that most challenges in PF2 are level dependent - especially in AP's - at that level I will likely be hard pressed to make a level 2 Remove Fear work. In order to streamline my daily preparations I literaly made an Excel spreadsheet showing which spells highten to where and when while crossreferencing those spells with spells that call for counteract checks and/or have the incap traits. And still my Cleric is less prepared for the unexpected than he ever was in PF1, where you always had a couple of useful low level utility spells ready. So yes, spells that use DC got a lot better and require less bookkeeping while spells that use(d) "caster level checks" simply got shafted.