| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's so constraining to go from Phenomenal GM Power to Itty-Bitty Player Space.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To say nothing of how 1E detect magic could detect through WALLS.Depending on how thick they were. Lead is a useful building material in Pathfinder.
I laughed at the idea of the evil lich responsibly putting his necromantic nuclear reactor in a lead shell
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about the action economy is that it was sold as "you have so much flexibility." But the only ones that got "flexibility" was martials. So it ends up under delivering on one of its key promises. Then they made it worse by forcing metamagic and shield to use an action. So your "3 actions" became "2", and then a caster can never use a shield if they ever want to cast a spell and use a metamagic, after all 90% of spells cost 2 or 3 actions. Use Quickened spell you might say, well nope that is just 1/day and only at level 10 or higher.
Also swift/immediate action is literally just staggered reaction. A reaction is always 1 per turn. While you can do a swift and an immediate action the same turn, in exchange of having no swift action next turn.
This is exactly why I and others will point out that your perspective comes from someone who does not play the game. I've had plenty of groups with casters and am currently playing as a playtest Magus in an AoE game. While there are certainly people who Stride and Cast a Spell as a turn, I don't see that nearly as often as more intricate turns with Demoralize, Recall Knowledge, Bon Mots, even my very special Strength Witch who Evil Eyes and wades into battle with Trips and Readied actions. Or my sorcerer who spent his turns Jumping around the battlefield, Anointing Allies, and firing off some Lay On Hands through his Blessed One dedication. My own magus is probably the least exciting, and I still have a wealth of options with just the Archer dedication and a plethora of skills at my disposal. Rare is the turn where I get to turn into a turret as the best choice for the situation.
Also, swift actions are more analogous to free action than they are reactions, but hey, if you're angry at reactions... you would be the first I've seen to lodge that complaint.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly not seeing a problem.
The problem is that casters are still in 1E in terms of action economy. Martials have more ways, via class feats, that intetact with the 3-action system than caster do. I'm saying it'd be nice if variable-action spells, such as Magic Missile or Heal, were more common or even standard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about the action economy is that it was sold as "you have so much flexibility.”
When you go back and read Jason’s blog post about the action economy from the time of the playtest you find that it was actually sold as “simpler” and “less confusing for new players to learn.”
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about the action economy is that it was sold as "you have so much flexibility.”When you go back and read Jason’s blog post about the action economy from the time of the playtest you find that it was actually sold as “simpler” and “less confusing for new players to learn.”
I think what people primarily object to is that they don’t always feel like the spells they are casting are equal in value to 2 martial attacks.
Too often this is coming from comparing a round where the martial connects with at least two successful hits, and the caster is experiencing a spell that their target saved against. But that doesn’t make the feeling any less valid for the player.
The fact that spell selection, in the moment of the encounter and the character design or at least daily preparation, is the largest variable in how effective a spell will be is a lot different than it was in PF1. Some anger was going to be inevitable as it is much more difficult to build a character around exploiting a particular spell, instead of having to select spells based on the encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about the action economy is that it was sold as "you have so much flexibility.”When you go back and read Jason’s blog post about the action economy from the time of the playtest you find that it was actually sold as “simpler” and “less confusing for new players to learn.”I think what people primarily object to is that they don’t always feel like the spells they are casting are equal in value to 2 martial attacks.
Too often this is coming from comparing a round where the martial connects with at least two successful hits, and the caster is experiencing a spell that their target saved against. But that doesn’t make the feeling any less valid for the player.
The fact that spell selection, in the moment of the encounter and the character design or at least daily preparation, is the largest variable in how effective a spell will be is a lot different than it was in PF1. Some anger was going to be inevitable as it is much more difficult to build a character around exploiting a particular spell, instead of having to select spells based on the encounter.
Unicore and I agree on something caster related!!! (*Slowly slinks back away from the caster debate*)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what people primarily object to is that they don’t always feel like the spells they are casting are equal in value to 2 martial attacks.
Dunno but playing the party Cleric and not concerned about damage at all it still felt brutally restrictive and boring once the 'you get 3-actions per turn routine' quickly degenerated into just one or two character actions per turn (once you started casting and using metamagics or sustaining a spell), especially if you consider that most martials actually have action enhancers and usually do more like 4 actions per turn.
Don't get me wrong, restoring 4d10+32 hit points at range 60 using Heal and Reach Spell (and Healing Hands) is both nice and effective however your turn is just not very fun or dynamic when funneling all your actions into just one when in comparison your Barbarian friend is zooming all over the place while whacking enemies using Sudden Charge and still doing additional stuff like using Demoralize.
So this is not always about one spell <> 2 attacks but alot about one spell <> 2 actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what people primarily object to is that they don’t always feel like the spells they are casting are equal in value to 2 martial attacks.Dunno but playing the party Cleric and not concerned about damage at all it still felt brutally restrictive and boring once the 'you get 3-actions per turn routine' quickly degenerated into just one or two character actions per turn (once you started casting and using metamagics or sustaining a spell), especially if you consider that most martials actually have action enhancers and usually do more like 4 actions per turn.
Don't get me wrong, restoring 4d10+32 hit points at range 60 using Heal and Reach Spell (and Healing Hands) is both nice and effective however your turn is just not very dynamic when funneling all your actions into just one when in comparison your Barbarian friend is zooming all over the place while whacking enemies using Sudden Charge and still doing additional stuff like using Demoralize.
A cleric always could chose to move and then cast the heal spell 2 times instead, they just get much better economy out of casting the 2 action heal spell, or very rarely the 3 action heal spell. Compare that to a martial with battle medicine who gets no ranged option for using their skill feat, much less a ranged option that is incredibly more efficient, using 2 actions instead of one.
It is like complaining that sudden charge or power attack only gives a martial 2 actions a turn instead of 3, when they are combining 2 actions for a more valuable end result than spending those actions separately.
Which of course some players do complain about, because most martial 2 action activities are only situationally more valuable than what you get out of taking those actions separately. Sudden charge to move 5ft, or to circle around the enemy and end up back where you started will feel like a total waste of action economy. Just like power attacking an Ooze that you were probably going to hit 2 or 3 times anyway.
2 action spells are all designed to situationally be better than anything you can accomplish with 2 single actions, some doing a better job of making that situation easier to find yourself in as a caster than others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong, restoring 4d10+32 hit points at range 60 using Heal and Reach Spell (and Healing Hands) is both nice and effective however your turn is just not very fun or dynamic when funneling all your actions into just one when in comparison your Barbarian friend is zooming all over the place while whacking enemies using Sudden Charge and still doing additional stuff like using Demoralize.
A spell that could heal up 72 hit points doesn't feel "fun" because the Barbarian can combine a single strike with two stride actions?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A cleric always could chose to move and then cast the heal spell 2 times instead, they just get much better economy out of casting the 2 action heal spell, or very rarely the 3 action heal spell. Compare that to a martial with battle medicine who gets no ranged option for using their skill feat, much less a ranged option that is incredibly more efficient, using 2 actions instead of one.
It is like complaining that sudden charge or power attack only gives a martial 2 actions a turn instead of 3, when they are combining 2 actions for a more valuable end result than spending those actions separately.
Which of course some players do complain about, because most martial 2 action activities are only situationally more valuable than what you get out of taking those actions separately. Sudden charge to move 5ft, or to circle around the enemy and end up back where you started will feel like a total waste of action economy. Just like power attacking an Ooze that you were probably going to hit 2 or 3...
Well the thing is, while a Cleric could theoretically spam Heal/Harm up to 3 times in a single turn, and it is also easy to come up with clever examples of skills or spells not working in any given situation it is a entire different matter to see those working or not working in actual play. But this is not the point here.
Action enhancers (usually martial feats / features) and action deprivers (usually spells and metamagic) are a thing though and this does not at all take into accout or judge their effectivity.
In a combat of 4 rounds of full spellcasting my Cleric is usually doing 8 'character actions' out of 12 nominal actions while for example of Ranger may be doing up to 16 to 20 'character actions' (the later including his animal companion). Again note that is not at all challenging the efficiency or effect of said actions but the effect of the apparent action disparity on a psychological basis.
As such I can really understand why some players dislike the new action economy, especially when playing casters, especially while being low level, i.e. lacking potent spells that do often not feel like spending 2 actions to gain a greater effect, and as such I do not complain about power level but that caster gameplay can feel extremely static just because you are doing less actions even if those may be of higher value.
Cleric
1st: Cast Calm emotions, move near Ranger
2nd: Sustain Calm emotions, cast Bless
3rd: Sustain Calm emotions, cast Heal on Barbarian
4th: Cast any attack cantrip to help mopping up and maybe move into range while doing so or sustain Calm emotions
8 actions total
Ranger
1st: Hunt Prey, Hunted Shot (2x), move to cover
2nd: Hide, Hunted Shot (2x), Command (2x)
3rd: Hunt Prey, Hide, Hunted Shot (2x)
4th: Hide, Hunted Shot (2x), Command (2x)
18 actions total
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong, restoring 4d10+32 hit points at range 60 using Heal and Reach Spell (and Healing Hands) is both nice and effective however your turn is just not very fun or dynamic when funneling all your actions into just one when in comparison your Barbarian friend is zooming all over the place while whacking enemies using Sudden Charge and still doing additional stuff like using Demoralize.A spell that could heal up 72 hit points doesn't feel "fun" because the Barbarian can combine a single strike with two stride actions?
I would expect it doesn't feel fun because healing maintains the status quo. The barbarian gets to attack and help win the fight.
Sure, the healing was necessary so that the martials could keep fighting and the party win, but the cleric had to sacrifice their turn to heal instead of doing something presumably more interesting.
Doing the practical, boring thing so that the party succeeds is not always what the player would find fun in the moment. I find this true of all spellcasters. At a certain point, the desire for collective success isn't sufficient to create a feeling of enjoyment.
Some people really enjoy the support playstyle. Others see cleric and think they're gonna rain holy fire down and smite heretics. /shrug
Don't worry, I am playing support clerics since AD&D, and keeping your homies alive and going *IS* winning the battle. ;)
Again note that is not at all challenging the efficiency or effect of said actions but the effect of the apparent action disparity on a psychological basis.
Okay, let's discuss the psychological basis of spamming a quickened cast spell and a full action spell that fells the monster before the Barbarian can act. Was that "fun?"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again note that is not at all challenging the efficiency or effect of said actions but the effect of the apparent action disparity on a psychological basis.Okay, let's discuss the psychological basis of spamming a quickened cast spell and a full action spell that fells the monster before the Barbarian can act. Was that "fun?"
If only the Flourish trait wasn't a thing...
P.S.: Just to be clear, I am not looking for or at power, I want dynamics.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's weird how we tell martials to adjust from the PF1 mindset and never spellcasters. It's not as if they don't get to play with all of the other goodies at the table, they just happen to have the most two action abilites out of everyone.
Yes, we're likely to see more interplay with the 3-action system and spellcasting. But that doesn't stop spellcasting from being an engaging role for many people right now. Hell, I have a player that won't touch a fighter again after she spent "every turn attacking or moving up to attack." Turns out that a fey summoning bard was more her deal (which ends up being a pretty fun way to play with the action economy).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear, I am not looking for or at power, I want dynamics.
You brought up the psychological factor of table fun with the idea that the current action economy inhibits caster fun because Martials. appear to do more. The power of those actions was immaterial to your argument, as you yourself said.
The old action economy could inhibit martial fun because casters actually could do more at times.
My question is: why is caster fun being sapped by appearance somehow more egregious than martial fun being sapped by reality?
I've seen PF1 threads right here where the oft repeated answer to the complaint of the sheer power of casters overwhelming the table fun was: "But look at the raw output of your damage. You might just be rolling to hit, but you aren't actually less effective."
Why is the shoe being on the other foot SO intolerable?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again note that is not at all challenging the efficiency or effect of said actions but the effect of the apparent action disparity on a psychological basis.Okay, let's discuss the psychological basis of spamming a quickened cast spell and a full action spell that fells the monster before the Barbarian can act. Was that "fun?"If only the Flourish trait wasn't a thing...
P.S.: Just to be clear, I am not looking for or at power, I want dynamics.
It is my hope that the Magus class in particular will have more options to give a Martial more effect feats, and perhaps some action interactions for spellcasting. A lot of people questioned why the magus was a class rather than an archetype, and for me that is the answer: the ability to straddle the martial/caster line in terms of what kind of feats and abilities they get offered.
The playtest didn’t quite stick the landing for me on that front, but I have hopes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A cleric always could chose to move and then cast the heal spell 2 times instead, they just get much better economy out of casting the 2 action heal spell, or very rarely the 3 action heal spell. Compare that to a martial with battle medicine who gets no ranged option for using their skill feat, much less a ranged option that is incredibly more efficient, using 2 actions instead of one.
It is like complaining that sudden charge or power attack only gives a martial 2 actions a turn instead of 3, when they are combining 2 actions for a more valuable end result than spending those actions separately.
Which of course some players do complain about, because most martial 2 action activities are only situationally more valuable than what you get out of taking those actions separately. Sudden charge to move 5ft, or to circle around the enemy and end up back where you started will feel like a total waste of action economy. Just like power attacking an Ooze that you were probably going to hit 2 or 3...
Well the thing is, while a Cleric could theoretically spam Heal/Harm up to 3 times in a single turn, and it is also easy to come up with clever examples of skills or spells not working in any given situation it is a entire different matter to see those working or not working in actual play. But this is not the point here.
Action enhancers (usually martial feats / features) and action deprivers (usually spells and metamagic) are a thing though and this does not at all take into accout or judge their effectivity.
In a combat of 4 rounds of full spellcasting my Cleric is usually doing 8 'character actions' out of 12 nominal actions while for example of Ranger may be doing up to 16 to 20 'character actions' (the later including his animal companion). Again note that is not at all challenging the efficiency or effect of said actions but the effect of the apparent action disparity on a psychological basis.
As such I can really understand why some players dislike the new action...
My cleric has had a lot of fun having a couple of harm spells memorized in a couple of top level -1 or 2 slots to use as "finishers" or to punish an enemy that rushes into the character's face.
The only reason Heal is feeling "unfun" is because the two action version is so effective of an an action economy booster in comparison to other healing options. I don't think there are a whole lot of players wishing 2 action heal were less effective and action efficient.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about the action economy is that it was sold as "you have so much flexibility." But the only ones that got "flexibility" was martials. So it ends up under delivering on one of its key promises. Then they made it worse by forcing metamagic and shield to use an action. So your "3 actions" became "2", and then a caster can never use a shield if they ever want to cast a spell and use a metamagic, after all 90% of spells cost 2 or 3 actions. Use Quickened spell you might say, well nope that is just 1/day and only at level 10 or higher.
Also swift/immediate action is literally just staggered reaction. A reaction is always 1 per turn. While you can do a swift and an immediate action the same turn, in exchange of having no swift action next turn.
The action system is way better and much more narratively compelling. There is zero argument against it. Sorry, don't see the issue at all. 3 action system way, way, way (1000 ways) better than the old system.
There is nothing stopping a wizard from using a weapon in PF2. Or any class for that matter. Not sure why you think there is. I use a weapon on all my casters now, so I have that 3rd action option. It is very eas in PF2 and I believe intended for all classes to be able to build up a weapon to use as your 3rd action. To not do it is a waste. You should try to develop as many 3rd action options as possible. Lots of way to build a character with the 3 action system in mind. The 3 action system expands build options across the board for all characters.
"Expands build options" seems...inaccurate, on the caster side. They did seem to lose some action economy, being unable to do three things a turn most of the time — Standard, Move, Swift/Immediate(?) maps loosely to 2A Spell, 1A Whatev, Reaction, but reactions likely aren't as common to get access to or trigger for a caster.
To be clear, I think PF2's action system is generally a vast improvement in usability and flexibility, and that's a common opinion. But it's also common to note that spellcaster action economy (and thus gameplay) feels held back compared to that of martials — and "they just have the most 2A abilities" undersells their primary gameplay feature being the use of a huge bevy of spells that are almost all 2A or 3A. There isn't much to be done at this point (other than wacky homebrew stuff like making cantrips 1A Flourish spells) because it's core system design we're talking about, but more variable-action or 1A spells would be cool, is all. More action economy enhancers (that don't break the game) would also be quite nice.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Expands build options" seems...inaccurate, on the caster side. They did seem to lose some action economy, being unable to do three things a turn most of the time — Standard, Move, Swift/Immediate(?) maps loosely to 2A Spell, 1A Whatev, Reaction, but reactions likely aren't as common to get access to or trigger for a caster.
To be clear, I think PF2's action system is generally a vast improvement in usability and flexibility, and that's a common opinion. But it's also common to note that spellcaster action economy (and thus gameplay) feels held back compared to that of martials — and "they just have the most 2A abilities" undersells their primary gameplay feature being the use of a huge bevy of spells that are almost all 2A or 3A. There isn't much to be done at this point (other than wacky homebrew stuff like making cantrips 1A Flourish spells) because it's core system design we're talking about, but more variable-action or 1A spells would be cool, is all. More action economy enhancers (that don't break the game) would also be quite nice.
Not really. A caster was extremely limited before to a move action and a spell cast with maybe at higher level using quickened or an immediate action like feather fall. This was hardly great until later later level, so let's stop pretending we had all these caster options prior to Quick Spell becoming viable.
Now casters can build for using a weapon and be effective. It's this group of PF1 players wanting a return to the god wizard that are narrowly viewing the options as casting only. Casters don't need to cast only any longer.
A sorcerer for example, can shield, Intimidate, and strike with a weapon all in the same round. So it's very easy now to build an armored caster who can engage in effective melee damage, especially at lower level. I've done this with my caster. That is more build variation than build a caster to cast and wait until you can Quicken Spells at higher level.
A caster can now use Recall Knowledge to determine a creature weakness and follow up with a spell in the same round versus PF1 where recall knowledge took the round's action.
You can build to intimidate or Bon Mot followed by a spell cast making it land more easily.
You have far more build variation and narrative driven action economy than PF1 by a good deal. It's not even a close discussion for casters and martials.
This idea that there are a lot of Immediate Action, Swift Action, or what not spells is not true. There were a handful of them that came in later books and Quicken, which came online much later. There were part of the over-powered godmode wizard builds that PF2 made sure to get rid of it. I'm absolutely fine with that change as Quicken builds with feats like Spell Perfection were vastly overpowered and should be gone.
When I say build variation, I mean building a wizard that can fight with a weapon is far more possible in PF2 than PF1. Or an intimidate build. Or a diplomacy build. Or Recalling knowledge in the same round you can cast. I mean blending different abilities with casting to make different types.
I don't mean for people who want to make God-mode Quicken Spell builds like they did in PF1. Which martials don't do either. This idea that martials benefit more from the 3 action build is not true. Casters benefit from it as well and have massive build variation due to the 3 action system. More than martials.
Most martials use their 3 action builds to swing because some of them are stuck in PF1 thinking where a martial builds up their weapon and physical stats as high as possible, then swings over and over again even if it isn't effective because they can't wrap their heads around building up other stats to use them for improved combat effectiveness. My monk buddy is still stuck just swinging away hoping for natural 20s to hit creatures without putting any thought into his overall martial class build.
Caster players often get to vary how they act more often than martials by using skills, casting, and weapons in tandem for more overall bang for the buck. It's why my experience is caster builds become more variable as they level versus martial builds who love to roll to hit even if it isn't the most effective way to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DF is selling it exactly right. If you want to engage with your spellcaster in more ways than "Stride + Cast A Spell" the tools are there for you to do so. You can continue playing a caster as though it were PF1 just with less of the tools that led to the previous disparity.
If I had a player who made a fighter with a greatsword and Power Attack who only moved in and hit, I would show them other options they have in combat to better engage with their three actions. Similarly, if that same player instead played a sorcerer who moved and shot Electric Arcs every round, I would introduce the same.
On that same note, as a GM, I'm in a unique position to design or run encounters that encourage a diversity of action usage. Even if it's making the cleric Seek out invisible foes, the wizard to discover the golem's vulnerability, or the bard to Hide from the roving dark ones beneath Absalom, the GM allows the tools that the system gives to shine.
EDIT: As much as I also want to see 1-action and variable action spells, it's a tightrope to walk design-wise, I feel. Already look at the threads where people feel like a 1-action or 2-action magic missile isn't worth the trouble, while the 3-action heal gets a similar side eye.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do GMs never have enemies hide? The stealth rules of PF 2 are excellent and being hidden at the end of your turn is a great way to challenge your opposition. If you hide from cover you have a very good chance of succeeding. My wizard in PFS just fell off a cliff because the enemy pushed them over the edge and both their hands were full of scrolls. If I had thought about the fact I was 120 ft up a cliff and only 10ft from the edge, I might have thought to keep a hand free and would have been able to grab and edge on a success instead of a crit success. There are so many elements of the game that can make encounters more interesting and dynamic if you use them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do GMs never have enemies hide? The stealth rules of PF 2 are excellent and being hidden at the end of your turn is a great way to challenge your opposition. If you hide from cover you have a very good chance of succeeding. My wizard in PFS just fell off a cliff because the enemy pushed them over the edge and both their hands were full of scrolls. If I had thought about the fact I was 120 ft up a cliff and only 10ft from the edge, I might have thought to keep a hand free and would have been able to grab and edge on a success instead of a crit success. There are so many elements of the game that can make encounters more interesting and dynamic if you use them.
I actually love having small creatures run under beds or other cover before Taking Cover and Hiding. I like giving my players a few options like Dropping Prone to instantly make the target detected or an Athletics check to flip the cover over. Of course, I also like having another creature hidden down there with a Readied action...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A caster can now use Recall Knowledge to determine a creature weakness and follow up with a spell in the same round versus PF1 where recall knowledge took the round's action.Did it? Huh. I've been running it was a free action this whole time. Ah well; you live and learn.
It is no action in PF1. So that was easier in PF1. You were running it fine.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now casters can build for using a weapon and be effective. It's this group of PF1 players wanting a return to the god wizard that are narrowly viewing the options as casting only. Casters don't need to cast only any longer.
A sorcerer for example, can shield, Intimidate, and strike with a weapon all in the same round. So it's very easy now to build an armored caster who can engage in effective melee damage, especially at lower level. I've done this with my caster. That is more build variation than build a caster to cast and wait until you can Quicken Spells at higher level.
A caster can now use Recall Knowledge to determine a creature weakness and follow up with a spell in the same round versus PF1 where recall knowledge took the round's action.
You can build to intimidate or Bon Mot followed by a spell cast making it land more easily.
Yes, but a martial character can also do these things just as well as a caster in addition to having more ways of interacting with the 3-action economy than casters do.
With that in mind, I think more variable-action spells would be a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but a martial character can also do these things just as well as a caster in addition to having more ways of interacting with the 3-action economy than casters do.
With that in mind, I think more variable-action spells would be a good thing.
Yeah, martial characters get those feats, features, and powers to choose from that spellcasters don't in this edition. Not to mention that historically, martials love to grab up as many Intelligence and Charisma skills for their Demoralize or Recall Knowledge actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly not seeing a problem.The problem is that casters are still in 1E in terms of action economy. Martials have more ways, via class feats, that intetact with the 3-action system than caster do. I'm saying it'd be nice if variable-action spells, such as Magic Missile or Heal, were more common or even standard.
I'd like to see more variable action spells but I disagree with the basic assertion of your post too. One PF2 action is a lot more inherently flexible than just a move action was in PF1. Most spellcasters I saw in play in PF1 would cast a single spell and simply end their turn there. We have a druid who's a maneuver specialist and a sorcerer who uses a longbow. Stuff like that literally just doesn't exist in PF1.
Again, not to say that PF2 spellcasters don't have a lot of things they could improve on. In particular I think they struggle a lot right now in establishing their own identity and I think some of that stagnancy people are talking about comes from the fact that there aren't a lot of lynchpins you can really pivot a build around or use to define your character, which makes casters feel both nebulous and limited at the same time (with a few exceptions like Wildshape druids).
It [dietect magic] didn't give you all that within 3 rounds. It allowed you the opportunity to make the individual Knowledge and or Spellcrafting checks for each and every spell, spell effect or magic item in the area. There was still the chance of failing that roll and learning nothing.PF1 detect magic gives you the locations and strengths of all the magical auras in the cone on the third round, without needing to roll anything. You can roll spellcraft to identify spells and/or knowledge (arcana) the individual spell where applicable and schools of magic respectively, but you get a lot of info without rolling a thing.
This complaint is actually objectively wrong, since magic has been buffed at earlier stages. Not only bigger dice on base level of spells, but also the existence of Cantrips, that let's them cast without resource expenditure.The existance of Cantrips is not a point of difference between the editions. Attack Cantrip are certainly more effective, though.
A caster can now use Recall Knowledge to determine a creature weakness and follow up with a spell in the same round versus PF1 where recall knowledge took the round's action.Did it? Huh. I've been running it was a free action this whole time. Ah well; you live and learn.IIRC it is not an action at all, but free action is close enough.
_
glass.
I definitely expressed myself wrong, I was going for "existence of Cantrips as they are in this edition, specially offensive ones". In PF1e most cantrips were beyond useless, in this edition, it's worth to extend your repertoire to grab extra.
They nerfed some of the utility ones, that's true, but I remember that the "Detect Magic" spam was something that came up during the playtest period. So the nerfed/changed version we have right now is probably a result from that. I do wish it was better from the get go, even if it didn't scale at all (one good scaling could be changing from a radius to a cone at higher levels)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One PF2 action is a lot more inherently flexible than just a move action was in PF1.
No discussion here.
Most spellcasters I saw in play in PF1 would cast a single spell and simply end their turn there.
I assume you mean this in regards to attacks and manoeuveres and active actions, because my clerics could usually do a lot more passive actions in one round other than cast a spell and ending my turn. Like move or step, cast a spell, have my shield raised for AC, concentrate on an existing spell, make a knowledge check and conduct an AoO all in the same round (thats 6 actions and 1 reaction in PF2 equivalents). Granted a lot of these passive actions have been 'nerfed' on a global scale for martials and casters alike when they have been turned into active actions in PF2, so even martials can probably do less in a given round than they could before. However in my experience martials more often than not did the step and full attack or move and attack routine and simply ended their turn there. Please note that much of this is based on experiences comparing CRB mostly, so no swift and intermediate actions for PF1 and no archtypes or new mechanics apart CRB for PF2 (our group mainly plays vanilla).
We have a druid who's a maneuver specialist and a sorcerer who uses a longbow. Stuff like that literally just doesn't exist in PF1.
You have never seen a low level Elf Wizard using a bow to conserve spells because BAB difference was still manageable? Agreed however that you would never see a high level Elf Wizard still using a bow.
Again, not to say that PF2 spellcasters don't have a lot of things they could improve on. In particular I think they struggle a lot right now in establishing their own identity and I think some of that stagnancy people are talking about comes from the fact that there aren't a lot of lynchpins you can really pivot a build around or use to define your character, which makes casters feel both nebulous and limited at the same time (with a few exceptions like Wildshape druids).
Note that my post about why I can understand players that are not at odds with the 3-action system while playing casters was not based on role, identity or builds, but simply on the gameplay dynamics, i.e. how dynamic does combat feel, how dynamic does your character feel in combat, on the board? And yes, you can build your character more or less dynamic in PF2, however this might not be what beginners with less system mastey experience when they start playing a (pure) caster.
For example, more often than not the quickness of my Cleric's turns surprised our group and GM, because I would often finish my turns in just one character action and without requiring a single roll.
GM: Ubertron_X it is your turn.
Me: Using Reach Spell metamagic I cast Heroism on our Barbarian who is 20ft away.
GM: ...
Other players: ...
Other players: Who's turn is it?
GM: Ubertron_X, are you finished, you only did one thing?
Me: Yes, of course. I used a metamagic feat for one action and cast a spell for two.
GM: Ok then, Mr. Barbarian please continue...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I rate that as a perk of being a caster, rather than a flaw: I like being able to choose powers that just work without having to roll (except maybe damage). In PF2, PF1, and various D&D versions, I make casters who never have to roll to hit.
Apologies if I may have not been clear on the issue but the addendum to my statement was not about having to roll or not to roll but about processing any rolls that your actions may bring with them. If you test a skill like Hide or Intimidation you have to do a skill check, if you attack an enemy either melee, ranged or spell you have to do a to-hit roll, perhaps followed by a damage roll, if you cast an offensive spell one or many enemies usually has/have to make a save in addition to your damage roll. All of this adds to the total 'screen time' that your turn requires. Or not, if there is no roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic, casting a single fireball is a massive way to boost your "screen time" as each enemy has to make a save. It really seems like the aspect of being a caster that you are not loving @Ubertron_X is being a support caster in particular.
Support casting has always been pretty "behind the scene" rather than in front of it. Unless the gripe is primarily that you cant buff before the battle as easily anymore, so choosing to be a buff caster is more tactically engaged now, with you having to make choices about prioritizing certain kinds of buff spells over others? To me this makes combats more dynamic and less of a slog of casters casting half their spells before combat and then sitting in the corner shooting a crossbow, trying not to burn of the rest of their spells so that they can cast a bunch of buffs next combat and get 2 encounters in a day instead of just one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic, casting a single fireball is a massive way to boost your "screen time" as each enemy has to make a save. It really seems like the aspect of being a caster that you are not loving @Ubertron_X is being a support caster in particular.
Support casting has always been pretty "behind the scene" rather than in front of it. Unless the gripe is primarily that you cant buff before the battle as easily anymore, so choosing to be a buff caster is more tactically engaged now, with you having to make choices about prioritizing certain kinds of buff spells over others? To me this makes combats more dynamic and less of a slog of casters casting half their spells before combat and then sitting in the corner shooting a crossbow, trying not to burn of the rest of their spells so that they can cast a bunch of buffs next combat and get 2 encounters in a day instead of just one.
Again, this is not about me. I knew what I was doing and there is a reason why I keep doing it for a couple of decades now, just because I am one of the few guys who likes to work behind the scene.
Nonetheless I still noticed that (at least at low level and without access to large area good damage AoE) there is a significant discrepancy in the dynamics, the apparent fun and the turn length in between our casters (Wizard and me) and our martials and this is why I can at least understand that a PF2 pure caster might not be for everyone, especially low level, and my posts are me just trying to explain my impressions and observations to the best of my ability.
For example and at first glance there is not much difference in our Wizard casting a single-target spell, getting resisted and casting Shield to - say - our Fighter striding up to the same enemy, missing his attack and raising his shield. However for some reason the former often feels much more terrible. Perhaps its the spending of a finite ressource, perhaps it is the one action less, perhaps its both, the thing is that for some players all of this might easily add up to create the perception of 'unfun' casters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That IS a bit weird. At least the wizard probably did damage or had some effect while the fighter pretty much just repositioned.
Feelings are feelings, but that seems very curious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That IS a bit weird. At least the wizard probably did damage or had some effect while the fighter pretty much just repositioned.
Feelings are feelings, but that seems very curious.
Well, I can't look into other players minds, however I still think that much of it can be attributed to a certain mindset, especially when changing over from PF1. In PF1 with its high chances of success you usually cast for effect, not for failure effect (because there usually is none, and you will even expect AoE to succeed, at least more often than not). However in PF2 with its changed math and four levels of success the designers correctly realized that they can not just copy this routine, especially considering the high action cost involved in casting, which is why we have failure effects on most spells now. Still for some people, like, perhaps the caster players in Kasoh's group (which post revived this thread), getting the 'consolidation price' simply does not seem cut it.
And I would be lying if I claimed to be free of such emotions entirely, especially if the GM does make his save on a critical and proper spell via a high roll. Thats why I said that psychology is a huge factor here right in one of my very first posts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd probably just quit then. If getting the default effect feels like a failure, then playing this game seems like a straight shot to a depressive episode.
I mean that quite literally in my case, though I assume most people don't have to deal with that. Even without that though, it seems like time could be better spent on something actually fun.
PF1 detect magic gives you the locations and strengths of all the magical auras in the cone on the third round, without needing to roll anything. You can roll spellcraft to identify spells and/or knowledge (arcana) the individual spell where applicable and schools of magic respectively, but you get a lot of info without rolling a thing.
Thanks for the correction, but I was replying to a statement that said:
it would detect the number, power, and schools of magic within 3 rounds.
I replied by saying that PF1 detect magic didn't give you all of those listed items within 3 rounds. Which is accurate because you have to make rolls to uncover the school of magic for each spell, effect or item in your emanation.
I'd probably just quit then. If getting the default effect feels like a failure, then playing this game seems like a straight shot to a depressive episode.
I mean that quite literally in my case, though I assume most people don't have to deal with that. Even without that though, it seems like time could be better spent on something actually fun.
Missed the edit window, but I wanted to make it clear that I wasn't suggesting YOU should quit, only that I would for mental health reasons. As the saying goes, you do you; this is how I would almost have to respond.
My language was loose enough that perhaps I could argue that Detect Magic being capable of giving you the information still qualifies my description as accurate, but technically correct is still the best kind of correct and you are thus right.
On the day the original comments were made you responded by saying that in your experience the players that were interested in using Detect Magic rarely failed the required checks. So while you could, now, make the argument that I misconstrued what you meant and was being pedantic - originally you accepted my premise and replied as such.
Thats why I said that psychology is a huge factor here right in one of my very first posts.
My question still remains. Why does the psychology of what appears to be fun matter in the case of the PF2 Caster, but not the PF1 Martial?
|
|
Yeah, martial characters get those feats, features, and powers to choose from that spellcasters don't in this edition. Not to mention that historically, martials love to grab up as many Intelligence and Charisma skills for their Demoralize or Recall Knowledge actions.Yes, but a martial character can also do these things just as well as a caster in addition to having more ways of interacting with the 3-action economy than casters do.
With that in mind, I think more variable-action spells would be a good thing.
I know it wasn't your intention, but your examples do actually prove my point that casters have way fewer and worse options during combat than martials do. Focus points run out very quickly, the feat you mentioned requires you being adjacent to an ally, and familiars are both... not great and also very accessible to non-casters.
And yes, martials are less MAD than casters in 2E, and INT-based classes especially can't afford to boost the CHA necessary for Demoralize. Also, INT doesn't help as much with knowledge as it did in 1E.
Demoralize and Recall Knowledge have their place but they are no substitute for variable action spells, which there should be more of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assume you mean this in regards to attacks and manoeuveres and active actions
No I mean in general. Cast spell end turn doing literally nothing else was a really common routine in PF1 across a huge number of games. Maybe the occasional knowledge check.
You have never seen a low level Elf Wizard using a bow to conserve spells because BAB difference was still manageable?
In the same round he cast Electric Arc or Fireball? No, never.
Perhaps its the spending of a finite ressource
I think this does contribute a lot to the bad feelings too, though. PF2 tried really hard to accuracy gate everything in this game, but losing a strike feels a lot less terrible than losing a third or a quarter of your top level spell slots.
Not really what you said exactly but personally I think the way Paizo handled accuracy in PF2 is one of the worst aspects of the game. Accuracy is both tight and graded, which leads to players failing a lot, especially at things they aren't specialized at.
My question still remains. Why does the psychology of what appears to be fun matter in the case of the PF2 Caster, but not the PF1 Martial?
Didn't it? Complaining about martial design was one of the most common issues in PF1.