|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
When discussing caster accuracy on the PF2e discord server, a point was made that casters had it worse in the playtest. We cross-referenced a few random monsters from the playtest and their release counterparts, and it seemed this... didn't hold up. In fact, it seemed accuracy was actually worse in release than it was in the playtest.
So I decided to do some investigating of my own.
I typed in playtest monster stats (just HP, AC, TAC, Fort, Ref, Will, getting to attack bonus and save DC) in my spreadsheet that has the release monster stats. Then, in the "Comparisons" sheet, I pared down both sets of monsters to the ones that had the same name in playtest and release, and the same level (as some monsters had levels changed) giving a total of 175 monsters.
Then I built up accuracy for playtest characters and release characters (playtest accuracy was a little harder because for martials it was all over the place, but I used the proficiency of a ranger for this purpose - expert at 3, master at 13) and compared the fail rates on spells, and the hit rates on weapon attacks and spell attacks.
The results were.... surprising. It seems martial accuracy got a signifcant buff from the playtest... but caster accuracy actually got worse (slightly on all 3 saves, but significantly on spell attacks which, while they got to use their main stat, also lost an item bonus to spell attacks and targetting TAC).
Reading this table: In this case, "Better" means better for the player (i.e. higher hit chance/higher chance of enemy failing) and "Worse" means worse for the player (i.e. lower hit chance/lower chance of enemy failing).
I haven't gone much more in depth yet, but if anyone wants to clone my spreadsheet to use the data feel free to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds about right :)
|
As a man who loves a good spreadsheet, this is a damn good spreadsheet. Lots of interesting data points to go over, so thank you greatly for that!
From your data though, it doesn't look like it is just the playtest where casters are behind, it looks like a general system trend (I'm nicknaming this The Great Overcorrection).
Increased failure rates for casters has long been known to anyone who has played enough, as its just now the statically more likely outcome in many cases, but it's good to have some raw numbers handily compiled to go over.
Now, obviously, Paizo were aware of this, and so that is why the current 4 stages of success model is in place, with many spells doing things on failure. That said, from my own play experience, I have a feeling that this model isn't being used to the players real benefit in many cases...
Time for some further research!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From both player and DM experience, most spells have weak effect on failed Saving Throw / successful hit, and the effect on successful Saving Throws (outside damage spells) isn't worth the breath used to say it. Not to mention that spells targeting AC usually have NO effect on failed hit.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seems that the design team puts too much value in the "effect on a miss" - I can see these on the alchemist as well
All the classes that have "effect on miss" have worse accuracy in general - in my opinion by too much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From both player and DM experience, most spells have weak effect on failed Saving Throw / successful hit, and the effect on successful Saving Throws (outside damage spells) isn't worth the breath used to say it. Not to mention that spells targeting AC usually have NO effect on failed hit.
I completely disagree with this though. There are a lot of spells that are good on a successful saving throws on bosses...
Even basic fear gives +10% damage to all allies and -10% damage for the enemy. If you have someone with an effect like Remorseless Lash it is even better.
Slow is another great spell that a caster would be happy to slow a boss every round.
Synesthesia is another spell a caster is perfectly happy to have the enemy succeed.
I think most agree attack spells feel the worse compared to most other spells. The only thing going for them is how easy flat footed is and true strike is super powerful.
Truthfully though if someone feels a "successful save" as being useless for a spell than I would imagine they probably won't be happy playing a caster in PF2. Since against bosses that is pretty much all I expect to do, against lots of mobs though casters are of course great though no matter what.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slow and Synesthesia are indeed good, but those are far and few between.
On the other hand, I disagree with Fear. Statistically you may be correct, but statistics only work if you can make large enough number of tries.
And here's the thing: it will maybe affect 3-5 rolls per casting. If you all focus, maybe that'll be like 7 rolls. And by "affect" here I mean be included in calculations. The chance it will actually change the roll? Almost negligible. It usually has 5% chance to affect PCs rolls and 10% chance to affect NPC/monster rolls (5/10 because usually PCs can't crit on more than 20 anyway, and NPC/monsters can).
The chance that -1 on something actually changes things comes into play almost never.
Intimidate kinda has the same issue, except it has significantly lower costs: 1 action and no other resources whatsoever.
It's just another feel-bad spell.
Thing is that its always: Fear, Slow, Synesthesia getting called out as having good results.
So it looks more like a handful of spells, all of them debuffs, are fine: But everything else is struggling. And it makes sense, because all three of those effects are incredibly powerful even if its a single turn.
I could 100% wrong but I think that is how spells are supposed to be balanced. I think spells that have really strong failure effects are supposed to have worse success effect.
Just for example command vs fear
Frightened 2 is great but command imo is even better.
This of course means any spell with a "bad" success is going to be quite bad on high level bosses. Synthesia is obviously an outlier since I think it might just be too powerful in general.
Slow and Synesthesia are indeed good, but those are far and few between.
On the other hand, I disagree with Fear. Statistically you may be correct, but statistics only work if you can make large enough number of tries.
It's just another feel-bad spell.
I actually have a player who also always felt +X/-X never was "impactful". Even if they really did completely change the outcome of battles. I have no idea how to help players feel "more impactful".
So I do agree perception varies from person to person. When I play I think very statistically about the game, so my perception is quite a bit different. I know it is a game so obviously players shouldn't have to look at math to feel their character is impactful.
I also admit compared to PF1/5e (except against legendary resistance) spells and attacks feel less impactful. I mean my Arcanist in PF1 can caster Dazing Fireball to deal 10d6 or more damage while disabling all the monster for 3 rounds. The monsters only seem to have like a 5-20% chance to succeed too.
PF1 is pretty much the same for martials though ever since like level 10 the Fighter/War Priest has had like a 95% chance to hit on the first swing.
Most the things I love about PF2 have nothing to do about hit chances and in general they feel much much lower in PF2 which I am not 100% happy with. I do enjoy that combats are somewhat exciting because players aren't so much better than monsters though like in other games.
I just have no idea how monsters in other games are supposed to be challenging in other games when players can completely disable multiple monsters with one spell at greater than 50% fail chance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Spells can alter the battle by too much... A good placed slow, with a little bad luck, and the enemy boss is completely screwed... So its a tricky thing, the casters in my group have never felt weak, but I would still increase the chance of success by 5-10% on average.
Its so weird, that the casters increase their mastery in levels 7 and 15, and martials in 5 and 13... Makes the casters feel horrible in those "in between levels"
I completely disagree though on the hyperbolic statement that the casters are "bad" or "nonviable" - Or that spell attacks are not usable
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Spells can alter the battle by too much... A good placed slow, with a little bad luck, and the enemy boss is completely screwed... So its a tricky thing, the casters in my group have never felt weak, but I would still increase the chance of success by 5-10% on average.
Its so weird, that the casters increase their mastery in levels 7 and 15, and martials in 5 and 13... Makes the casters feel horrible in those "in between levels"
I completely disagree though on the hyperbolic statement that the casters are "bad" or "nonviable" - Or that spell attacks are not usable
Yes these levels are super odd. I remember playing my bard casting telekinetic projectile and realizing the Ranger's 3rd attack was either the same or a bit higher at level 5-6... didn't feel great. At least I knew at level 7 it would be closer.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think players undervalue effects on a success, it makes casters who use saving throws way less swingier than martials and makes their AOE's and debuffs pretty much always effective. I've had instances where I succeeded a saving throw (as GM), only to realize that the miss effect (often frightened 1 instead of frightened 2) was all they really needed for the party to effectively follow up.
Accuracy isn't the single determinant of effectiveness, buffing the accuracy of saving throws would probably make casters too powerful, as they're already very strong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I agree, maybe the avenue to improving is other than accuracy - But is hard to convince players that "They are being effective" by missing... while the fighter is on Crit City 2000
Its a tricky thing, the druid seems fine though for me, with the same accuracy as the wizard, it looks so much stronger
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I really wish Paizo haven't done is making critical failure effects on spells so powerful. With the way they're currently set up (an instant out-of-battle 9 out of 10 times), they can't really buff caster accuracy without risking some 20-ish percent chance of instagibbing a creature. Which is sad, because the accuracy we have feels way too low, especially if you fight something like a Dragon or a lot of Fiends that don't even have bad saves. It also means caster creatures, with their DCs that are higher than player full casters (for some reason), can crit players with low saves to oblivion very easily.
One thing I can't understand is that Paizo explicitly said spells for players were going to be "beefed up" from the Playtest, and other than a little duration increase or two, all that I see are nerfs. Lower damage, Incap was added, monster saves were buffed, etc.
Being realistic though, the math isn't going to change - I don't see a patch/errata where they say "Yeah, Wizards now master at 5, +1-3 spells or saves"
At most we can expect better feats and focus spells - But that is it. That's why I always think these threads don't go anywhere
But then again, if new feats and Spells improve the class too much, they become mandatory
I don't know if any paizonian is going to read this, but I think the best errata/patch ever was the "Feat to Feature" of the alchemist powerful alchemy
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That’s all true.
I feel like it’s dirty secret that nothing actually has to be bad, it’s all a matter of choice on some level.
Whether they knew it or not, at some point a choice was made to make Wizards not-great. Every new release or errata that continues this is also the result of a choice. They could make a blog post tomorrow with an “emergency errata” which fundamentally changes everything about the Wizard, which would be them making a different choice.
Making an archetype which amounts to a strictly better version of the base class is on the cards for Paizo. Far as I can tell, unchained classes were received pretty well. Doing a "Casters Unchained" would probably be more controversial just, well, because. But if they do it right, then all they are really doing is making the game better for everyone.
|
|
One thing I really wish Paizo haven't done is making critical failure effects on spells so powerful. With the way they're currently set up (an instant out-of-battle 9 out of 10 times), they can't really buff caster accuracy without risking some 20-ish percent chance of instagibbing a creature. Which is sad, because the accuracy we have feels way too low, especially if you fight something like a Dragon or a lot of Fiends that don't even have bad saves. It also means caster creatures, with their DCs that are higher than player full casters (for some reason), can crit players with low saves to oblivion very easily.
One thing I can't understand is that Paizo explicitly said spells for players were going to be "beefed up" from the Playtest, and other than a little duration increase or two, all that I see are nerfs. Lower damage, Incap was added, monster saves were buffed, etc.
Cantrips generally got an across the board buff, which I think would outpace the accuracy nerf (though I haven’t checked if the HP buffs even that out), but slotted spells and focus spells were generally left the same or nerfed.
|
Yes these levels are super odd. I remember playing my bard casting telekinetic projectile and realizing the Ranger's 3rd attack was either the same or a bit higher at level 5-6... didn't feel great. At least I knew at level 7 it would be closer.Yeah, Spells can alter the battle by too much... A good placed slow, with a little bad luck, and the enemy boss is completely screwed... So its a tricky thing, the casters in my group have never felt weak, but I would still increase the chance of success by 5-10% on average.
Its so weird, that the casters increase their mastery in levels 7 and 15, and martials in 5 and 13... Makes the casters feel horrible in those "in between levels"
I completely disagree though on the hyperbolic statement that the casters are "bad" or "nonviable" - Or that spell attacks are not usable
I will need to check, but do Casters get Saves upgrade before Martials do ?
It is much less flashy than an upgrade on your attacks, but it is critical in letting you fight longer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will need to check, but do Casters get Saves upgrade before Martials do ?
It is much less flashy than an upgrade on your attacks, but it is critical in letting you fight longer.
Nah. Other than Bard and Oracle, casters have pretty bad saves. Especially the 6 HP cloth casters. Not even close to martials in that regard.
|
|
Nah. Other than Bard and Oracle, casters have pretty bad saves. Especially the 6 HP cloth casters. Not even close to martials in that regard.I will need to check, but do Casters get Saves upgrade before Martials do ?
It is much less flashy than an upgrade on your attacks, but it is critical in letting you fight longer.
I get that, but when do the saves get better for a given Class ?
Going down less has value.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get that, but when do the saves get better for a given Class ?
Going down less has value.
Oh. When I say "bad saves", I mean "bad save progression". Sorcerer, Wizard and Witch for example start with E/T/T, get a second expert at 5, a third at 9, and only get Master Will at 17. Even the martials with the worst saves get Master at 9 or 11 and another Master later on.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its so weird, that the casters increase their mastery in levels 7 and 15, and martials in 5 and 13... Makes the casters feel horrible in those "in between levels"
It's mostly because of armor runes. Paizo wants monsters to be as close as possible to PCs in terms of numbers and as such they gave monster the same numbers than PCs. Which means that every time PCs get an armor rune the monsters get the corresponding bonus to AC/saves. And because save runes happen 3 levels later than AC runes there's this shift between proficiencies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's hardly just runes. I checked the NPC stats, and all of the spellcaster have 1 or 2 higher DC than is possible for equivalent level PC.
This means Paizo clearly sees DCs are too weak at every level. They just don't bother fixing it for PCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's hardly just runes. I checked the NPC stats, and all of the spellcaster have 1 or 2 higher DC than is possible for equivalent level PC.
This means Paizo clearly sees DCs are too weak at every level. They just don't bother fixing it for PCs.
Runes are added to AC and Saves, not to spellcasting abilities.
As to why are monster spellcasters built very differently from PC spellcasters, I honestly have no idea. There are a lot of differences between a PC and a monster, both good and bad for the monster.
Good:
- Higher stats (especially for spell attack rolls).
- Full spell list at the beginning of combat (it has always been a big issue for balance).
Bad:
- Thematic spell list, with a lot of suboptimal spells and spells that don't fit well together.
- No spell related feats: Most of the monster abilities are competing for action with spells. Martial monsters on the other hand often have excellent martial abilities on top of their high martial stats.
So, are spellcaster monsters that strong? I hardly can tell as I haven't fought enough of them to say. I've never felt the PF1 feeling of "OMG, a level 5 Wizard, but we are only level 3!!!!". So, even if I can't say at first glance they don't seem overtly overpowered.
Runes are added to AC and Saves, not to spellcasting abilities.
I know. My point is that even runeless abilities are affected.
As to why are monster spellcasters built very differently from PC spellcasters
Not monsters. NPC spellcasters from Gamemastery Guide.
And it's quite clear: it's a lazy/insufficient fix for spells being weak.
|
It's hardly just runes. I checked the NPC stats, and all of the spellcaster have 1 or 2 higher DC than is possible for equivalent level PC.
This means Paizo clearly sees DCs are too weak at every level. They just don't bother fixing it for PCs.
They're also not shy about giving NPC casters a bonus to spell attack rolls that PCs never get. As if NPCs all have magic items that give an item bonus to attack rolls
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Runes are added to AC and Saves, not to spellcasting abilities.I know. My point is that even runeless abilities are affected.
As to why are monster spellcasters built very differently from PC spellcastersNot monsters. NPC spellcasters from Gamemastery Guide.
And it's quite clear: it's a lazy/insufficient fix for spells being weak.
I've looked at all the casters from the Gamemastery Guide's NPCs and the only one I could see myself playing over a PC caster is the demonologist. Most of the other casters have spell lists crippled by thematic but useless spells (Yes, Gentle Repose!) or have the same stats than any PC caster.
The Demonologist is the only one to have a proper spell list for combat and higher DCs and attack rolls.So, my conclusion is: If you build a thematic NPC spellcaster then it's fine. If you build a PC built spellcaster then you should put lower DCs (closer to PC DCs).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NPC spell casters rarely have spell selection that lets them handle many different kinds of situations or be tactical with target strong vs weak saves. PLUS PCs get saving throw improving abilities that NPCs/monsters generally don't, which can practically act as a +10 to PCs saving throws at times.
PF2 casters, and particularly the wizard, are very tactical classes. As in, the tactics that you bring to the table play a much larger role in determining effectiveness. NPC casters don't really get to make a lot of those choices related to the adventure they appear in. They just kinda pop into existence, having lived most of their lives not fighting against a wide range of different monsters with different powers. They have fairly ordinary jobs to do, even when those jobs include killing undead, or being a bounty hunter for renegade wizards.
Individual Casters as villains can be quite powerful, but dispel magic and counterspelling work pretty well against spells that are 1 level higher than you can cast. This actually makes a PC caster a much more powerful counter to the powerful enemy wizard than a lot of parties realize. But again, it all boils down to how prepared you are to face it.
As a GM I have caught my party off guard with a level +3 solo monster caster and it can get pretty ugly.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Spell attack roll spells got potency runes I feel like that’d help a lot but I haven’t really seen any issues with DC spells myself. Casters generally feel good during encounters in my experience outside the attack roll spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters in my home games all are quite disappointed.
In PFS games people know better what to expect so they don't get disappointed so much... But they also aren't really expecting much either.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters in my home games all are quite disappointed.
In PFS games people know better what to expect so they don't get disappointed so much... But they also aren't really expecting much either.
What exactly is the expectation from your home groups?
I pretty much introduce new players with some vets to the game these days, and anyone that hasn't played "god-wizard" editions hasn't even mentioned magic feeling "weak".
Are they vets or are there any vets "poisoning the waterhole" so to speak in describing days of old where Wizard/Druid reigned as kings of the game past level 5?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... I was about to ask the same. New players all feel magic is amazing and "broken" (And dont get me wrong, I agree magic was over-corrected, but then again, I am a veteran, and a caster player)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While there are vets being disappointed, it's definitively not the case. The biggest issues are the newbies who keep trying to do cool stuff and get told they can't. Or enemies keep saving / they keep missing / even when they hit they do equal or less damage than martials with their normal non-resource-usage attacks.
They figured out their best move is casting Electric Arc all the time...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While there are vets being disappointed, it's definitively not the case. The biggest issues are the newbies who keep trying to do cool stuff and get told they can't. Or enemies keep saving / they keep missing / even when they hit they do equal or less damage than martials with their normal non-resource-usage attacks.
They figured out their best move is casting Electric Arc all the time...
I admit I have had some new players make some big assumption but this has to be the worse one I have ever heard. Cantrips are just nothing compared to real spells.
You say that they do equal or less damage than a martial but even a basic spell like Fire Ray I would say does more damage than a martial attack. Now if they are comparing 2x martial melee attacks to a ranged spell I guess they could be correct.
I do have to say one thing, sometimes damage is all some players see. There are lots of other effects that are just as good from casters/martials.
I am curious how those players aren't happy with a spell like fireball that does 2d6 X level + level (dangerous sorcery). It kind of puts most martials to shame in combats with lots of people. Admittingly some adventures don't have a lot of these.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone wants to blast Fireball. And we only just got to Fireball level.
We had a Shadow Sorcerer that couldn't do anything.
Our Tempest Oracle does quite a bit of damage, but that's because she's lucky, and her most consistent spell is sadly Eletric Arc. Some other spells have potential but:
1) It's hard to commit using them since they cost precious slots
2) Against bosses they often do very little for something that costs resources
3) They keep running up strict restrictions for something that barely does damage (Chill Touch for example)
Honestly, I don't think they'd be impressed at all with 6d6 damage on level 5 for a top-slot-using spell. Sure, it does more than martial (although not that much more) but unlike martial, it uses a precious slot and you need a perfect situation to really get it going.
Not everyone wants to blast Fireball. And we only just got to Fireball level.
We had a Shadow Sorcerer that couldn't do anything.
Our Tempest Oracle does quite a bit of damage, but that's because she's lucky, and her most consistent spell is sadly Eletric Arc. Some other spells have potential but:
1) It's hard to commit using them since they cost precious slots
2) Against bosses they often do very little for something that costs resources
3) They keep running up strict restrictions for something that barely does damage (Chill Touch for example)Honestly, I don't think they'd be impressed at all with 6d6 damage on level 5 for a top-slot-using spell. Sure, it does more than martial (although not that much more) but unlike martial, it uses a precious slot and you need a perfect situation to really get it going.
Oh, it looks like you characters actually aren't even blasting casters and level 1 and level 2 spells are on the weaker side for damage. I know sudden bolt + shocking grasp (reach spell) are quite good though. Primal and Arcane start stronger in this department comparatively.
It does kind of sound like they just hate spell slots though. IMO the easiest solution is just let players rest or have less battles in a day. I also am not a huge fan of spell slots in general since players can just spam rest if they want to nullify it.
5e we had 3 casters that would just spam all their spells, then we would be like "oh I guess we should make a hut and rest".
I have to ask what do you think would make them happy? How much damage would be enough? Do they want to just kill everything with 1 spell?
I really can't think of any way these players will be happy in PF2, PF2 tries to be balanced and I admit some players don't really like that. I would just suggest that PF2 tries to have everyone to contribute in combat. It isn't fun for a fighter if everything just dies from nukes first round. Also maybe have them try some non damaging spells.
A martial at base level with the most damaging weapon does 1d12+4 (10.5 avg) from level 1-3 and 2d12+4 (17.5 avg) from levels 4+. A fireball does 6d6 (21 avg) to every monster. I am very surprised someone would be unhappy with that.
I know Martials damage is 100x more variable but just wanted to give an example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While there are vets being disappointed, it's definitively not the case. The biggest issues are the newbies who keep trying to do cool stuff and get told they can't. Or enemies keep saving / they keep missing / even when they hit they do equal or less damage than martials with their normal non-resource-usage attacks.
I can definitely attest to this. I've got a lot of complaints about spellcasters being weak, even from people who never played any d20 systems before. It's not just a "veterans want spellcasting to be OP again" thing. Granted, being new players, they were playing lower levels, in which casters are at their worse. But I believe if a class needs 5-7 levels to start being fun or good, that's a problem on its own. And even after that the success rates are... not great.
One of the biggest issues that casters at levels 1 and 2 have right now is that even when spells like produce flame and acid splash seem like they would be the right spells to cast, because of weaknesses, they often are not as likely to contribute very much to the encounter because of the miss chance on them. For newer players the idea that electric arc is just going to be the best thing you can do in 90% of encounters is not going to feel very intuitive and it really shouldn't be the case. Spell attack roll spells lead to a lot of frustration for players. Once they learn about true strike, that stops being so true for the big hitter spell slot spells, but it is almost always true with cantrips which is where many players are learning the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I admit I have played 5e and PF1 quite a bit but I dont really feel casters are any worse at the start compared to those games. So I guess I have no idea what it is like being as a completely new players.
Depending on the caster and character I would even say PF2 casters are actually more fun.
Bard / Cleric / Druid (Storm/Animal) / Oracle / Sorcerer (100% bloodline dependent) / Witch are all super fun at the beginning.
There is one thing for certain in PF2 and a character who knows what their doing they have a lot more fun options and feel more impactful.
If I was a new player and just picked burning hand, ice shards... well yes I would feel pretty weak. Yes some cantrips definitely are just too weak. I do feel new players are drawn to these spells.
There could be a spell that says "completely shuts down a creature" than another one that says "deal 1d4 damage per level" and the new player will pick the 1d4 damage...
If you know the system though taking spells like fear / magic weapon / heal / shocking grasp (it actually does good damage) / true strike / command etc... you will feel very powerful from levels 1-4.
Then you get to mix class abilites like Witch hexes, Druid focus spells, cleric domain spells etc and have more fun.
Like I said if new players just pick damaging spells at level 1 I see why they might feel weak. Damage spells scale good... just are really bad at level 1 for the most part.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my current game, the wizard has been the boss fight MVP, dropping both with a well timed reach shocking grasp critical hit.
two sessions later, he completely eliminated the difficulty of storming an enemy ship by casting waterwalk on the party, thus letting them walk over to it instead of trying to make stealth checks with a row boat.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is accurate to say that spellcasting in 2e is not new player friendly. Playing a very effective spellcaster pretty much requires knowledge of the system to a level that very few new players have the ability to achieve.
That said, I'm 90% fine with this. I am not okay with it in the sense that it can turn off new players to the game. It does however mean that I am essentially rewarded for thoughtfully and strategically playing my character. That is something I like. I like being rewarded for my creativity.
Thing is...you can't have your cake and eat it too.
But I believe if a class needs 5-7 levels to start being fun or good, that's a problem on its own.
There is a reason that 4th edition D&D is the black sheep of the tabletop community. it is because they wanted every class and their options to be completely balanced. As such, they were all essentially the same. That was an option for 2e, but Paizo wisely decided against it.
Not all classes can be 100% equal. Not all options can be 100% equal. That is, unless you want 4e revamped.
Do you want a dynamic system (=cake) or a 100% balanced system (=eating)?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, a low level caster in PF2 is way more powerful and sustainable a character than in PF1 or many older versions of the game. Electric arc is a very good attack at levels 1 through 4. Your martial allies are not going to be sitting around thinking that you have nothing to contribute when you run out of spell slot spells. You do damage, even on a successful save and you have pretty much all skills ways to contribute to encounters in and out of combat that a martial has.
Good GMs make gathering information about your situation important and useful. Most casters are required to be trained in at least one major knowledge skill and often give you a hefty stat boost as well.
The only aspect of the game that is complicated for new players about casters is spell selection and most new players are capable of figuring that out with experience. I've seen it happen 4 times already. Age of Ashes is not a very forgiving AP if you run it too tightly and lots of folks have trouble with. One of the big reasons is that it favors throwing some higher level stuff at you pretty early, has some locations where GMs have to really walk a tight rope not to murder their parties. Getting TPK'd and then coming into the game as a higher level caster is difficult though. It is bad for new players to come into a higher level game as a caster though, because the complexity has already compounded and it can be punishing to try to respec within the context of the rules. It takes time to pour over the spell lists, but also to test out spells in actual combats and often times there is one or two spells that would absolutely destroy an encounter, but 10x as many that won't be that useful.
I cannot over stress enough how much responsibility the GM has to make sure that their players are getting enough information about what might be coming next to prepare themselves effectively. If they are struggling to figure it out on their own, don't hesitate to add some first and second level scrolls to the mix to help them see that there might be spell casting strategies that they haven't thought of yet. That is how one of the parties I run figured out that gust of wind is a monster spell to use against fliers, for example.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I believe if a class needs 5-7 levels to start being fun or good, that's a problem on its own.There is a reason that 4th edition D&D is the black sheep of the tabletop community. it is because they wanted every class and their options to be completely balanced. As such, they were all essentially the same. That was an option for 2e, but Paizo wisely decided against it.
Not all classes can be 100% equal. Not all options can be 100% equal. That is, unless you want 4e revamped.
Do you want a dynamic system (=cake) or a 100% balanced system (=eating)?
There's more that separates casters for martial than the issues dmerceless mentioned, though. Even if casters had more spells at low levels, they wouldn't be 100% equal as a barbarian or rogue.
Basically, no two classes would be 100% the same even if Paizo did a better job of balancing options.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a reason that 4th edition D&D is the black sheep of the tabletop community. it is because they wanted every class and their options to be completely balanced.
That does absolutely nothing to address dmerceless' concern though.
It's just a weak copout, using 4e as some weird bogeyman to, I dunno, try to scare people into not wanting a better balanced game or something, which is ridiculous... It's not even really an accurate scapegoat either because 4e's balance is much worse than PF2's.
...But even ignoring that entirely, only half of "fun or good" even has anything to do with balance in the first place.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is accurate to say that spellcasting in 2e is not new player friendly. Playing a very effective spellcaster pretty much requires knowledge of the system to a level that very few new players have the ability to achieve.
That said, I'm 90% fine with this. I am not okay with it in the sense that it can turn off new players to the game. It does however mean that I am essentially rewarded for thoughtfully and strategically playing my character. That is something I like. I like being rewarded for my creativity.
Thing is...you can't have your cake and eat it too.
But I believe if a class needs 5-7 levels to start being fun or good, that's a problem on its own.There is a reason that 4th edition D&D is the black sheep of the tabletop community. it is because they wanted every class and their options to be completely balanced. As such, they were all essentially the same. That was an option for 2e, but Paizo wisely decided against it.
Not all classes can be 100% equal. Not all options can be 100% equal. That is, unless you want 4e revamped.
Do you want a dynamic system (=cake) or a 100% balanced system (=eating)?
Well, using D&D 4e as a comparison of how bad things can get if you try to make the game too balanced isn't the most compelling argument to me, because I love D&D 4e. But for the sake of the discussion, let's start from the premise that "becoming like 4e" is a bad thing:
I still don't see how wanting a subset of classes to be more readily playable and fun from the start is related to this at all. The first 5 levels are what 99% of people will play when they start out, and I'd argue that makes them the most important phase of the game. Saying "casters will be good when you get 5 levels and a bunch of system mastery" to a new player isn't particularly different from being told a hypothetical show about pirates starts getting good after episode 200.
I don't want the game to be 100% balanced. In fact, I believe PF2 pushes balance too hard in places even 4e didn't (like never letting you be numerically good on things outside of your class). However, if having the cake is being rewarded for extreme system mastery and eating it is putting the game in a state where it's easier for everyone to have fun from the start, I'd gladly take the second option. I spend hours on forums studying the game and theorycrafting because I enjoy the process, not because I want to be strongly rewarded for it or be better than other players.
I have never played 4e but at a base level actually letting EVERY character having super interesting choices is great and so is having each class feel great from level 1. It is strange because I hear such conflicting views about 4e, some people say EVERY class feels the same while others say EVERY class feels completely different.
I personally feel like 5e characters feel so similar to me, there is just martials that attack like 90% of the time and casters that just cast a spell every round. A few classes get some okay bonus actions in between.
I feel like I am repeating myself but if someone knows what they are doing casters feel great from levels 1-4 too. Even better than PF1/5e.
5e in my experience circumvents this by just leveling up characters from 1-5 super quick but 2e GMs can freely do this too. Personally if I run a PF2 homebrew with experienced players I will level them to 3 quickly like in 5e.
Really though how do you fix this problem? When you get a group of new players that seemingly pick stuff at random. Also with how casters scale they just gain so much more than martials as they level in most systems or even video games.
For example a Sorcerer who picks...
Electric Arc
Magic Fang (with a monk)
Fear
Heal
Will feel great IMO from level 1. Casters just have so much variability IMO it is crazy, in a good way.
One note is casters biggest problem at low levels is just how little fights they can do before going to cantrip spam especially the classes with bad early focus spells. So early levels having less fights per day helps this.
PF2 has so many spells and they are really not organized great for new players. I mean just looking at a quick look there are 60 level 1 spells/cantrips for a player to choose at creation.
They range from great almost all the time (fear) to super situational (jump). So yes I wouldnt be surprised if someone felt casters were weak at low levels.
Heck I even looked up quite a bit into PF2 when I first started and chose burning hands at level 1.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is accurate to say that spellcasting in 2e is not new player friendly. Playing a very effective spellcaster pretty much requires knowledge of the system to a level that very few new players have the ability to achieve.
I don't think it's accurate.
The most important thing when building a caster is the same as any other character: get a high key stat. 18 ideally, 16 if you must. But the character generation process guides you there pretty clearly.
Apart from that, maybe you picked up a spell that doesn't work so well? Prepare a new spell in the morning, or switch it out of your repertoire at level up.
Second edition is very very liberal with changing build decisions through retraining. You don't have to know things right from the start. You don't have to run your build past a committee of optimizers. If something doesn't work as you expected, or you discover there's something else you would have wanted to take - you can just change that.
The system is intended for you to learn, not to be born with the knowledge.