I don't think my spellcasters have had that issue, and I've burned actions to Tumble Through and the like to try and threaten them. And I wouldn't say my players are especially good at positioning by any means.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this talk about caster single target damage vs martial damage is missing a huge point. Casters can do way more then just throwing damage spells. Magic users have access to so many tools besides just damage. Even if we are just discussing damage, casters have a monopoly on AOE damage. Outside of damage, casters have cool combat tricks like shaping the terrain, debugging/buffing enemies, summoning allies, transforming allies. Basically abilities that can change the rules of engagement for an encounter. Out of combat, casters have access to utility magic to aid them in exploration and social encounters.
If casters could output the same single target damage as martials while still having access to al of their other tools, then they would be way too strong. I get for some, you are coming from Pathfinder where casters were crazy strong. I’m coming from 5e where casters were nerfed but honestly still outpace martials by mid to high levels without DM intervention. Pathfinder 2E is much better at balancing martials and casters.
That's one of big points thats are being avoid in this topic. The casters is way more than a magic hulk. The casters are one of the mostly versatile chars in a party.
An arcane caster can stop time, make prismatic sphere/wall to protect itself or an ally, can separate foes strategic send one of them to a maze, can shape shift to a creature that gives some advantage over an encounter, can desapear, can fly, can make a Magnificent Mansion as safe heaven to entire party rest and prepare themself even in mid of a dungeon an so on...
Direct compare a caster with a combatant in power only just an unfair comparison that ignores all the versatility that a caster have.
The only comparisons still valid IMO is caster vs caster, combatant vs combatant. Ex.:
IMO the Arcane Sorcerer is more strong, interesting, fun and versatile than a Wizard, because it has spontaneous cast, more spell slots and more interesting feats and focus magics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is why I said no ally nearby. Of course having an ally nearby/on the way changes things.
So if players make poor tactical decisions and get punished in game for that... That's the system being bad?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think my spellcasters have had that issue, and I've burned actions to Tumble Through and the like to try and threaten them. And I wouldn't say my players are especially good at positioning by any means.
Fun anecdote here: My one sorcerer was/is quite a talent at positioning. At one point he was trapped in difficult terrain, but safe behind his allies. After having a successful Tumble Through to get to him, he took a hit to the chin, but the opponent was left in the same difficult terrain as him. On his turn he jumped away, dropped a lay on hands (gotta love that champ dedication), and blasted a fleeing foe with a one action magic missle. The smug look he shot me was priceless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any case I'm excited for secrets of magic for all the new caster toys. As much saber rattling as I do about caster balance, it's mostly for the sake of my players. Once the book drops I can finally step off the mole hill bc the magic book is definitely the place where the designers will display their more final view of magic balance (be it through variant systems that buff magic or accuracy boosting items or none of the above). At that point it'll be what it'll be. Regardless, there's going to be a lot of fun stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters suck because the Vancian system is awful, I am still stunned and amazed that the majority of players voted to keep that system.PF1e must have had really sucky casters, seeing they used Vancian casting.
Especially the PF1e wizard. That was as Vancian casting as you could get. That class must have really really really sucked.
Spells were overpowered in ways the made vancian system work in 3/0/3.5.pF1. for prepared casters.
"control" spells as just one example in PF1 often covered multiple situations in and out of combat.
As long as a wizard in PF1 memorized a core of certain spells you were covered.
Just look through the PF2 spells and compare them to the PF1 spells. spells are nerfed both horizontally and vertically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strange picking Ray of Frost when Telekinetic Projectile is more or less what he described.
Also strange how you picked:
* Fireball, an AoE spell that was made strong because that is what is expected.and
* Grease, which is in fact NOT A TRIP. Not to mention that its usually not used to prevent things from getting closer, but to allow the party to whack at them.
Also strange how you are stating it as if all casters get those spells.
Let's see.
Telekinetic Projectile: 10d8+7 at level 20 (52 average), 0 investment.
+3 major striking flaming frost shock greatsword: 4d12+3d6+13 (average 49.5)Are you really certain that's the comparison you want to make?
Telekinetic projectile - 2 actions does 78 at 0 differential (average of 52 on a successful hit)
Flaming Greatsword = 2 actions does 129 at 0/-5 differential (average of 49.5 on a successful hit).
Thus martial does 65% more damage with the same 2 actions.
EDIT NOTE: same to hit even though in-game it would be more likely for the martial to hit so disparity is even greater
Yes, that is the comparison I want to make
Did you compared the attack to a fighter or to a master prof martial? Also, don't forget that you should compare it to ranged attack, not melee.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright then. Major striking flaming frost shock composite shortbow: 7d6+8 (average 32.5), 2(7d6+8)+3d10 on a crit (average 81.5). Same as previously stated for TKP (52 avg, 104 avg on crit). Cyouni compared it to a master prof martial as the flat bonus was +13 (6 weapon spec + 7 Str), although I'm not sure what Garulo's numbers are.
So, the average at-level enemy at level 20, since that seems to be our benchmark, has roughly 46 AC, and a master-prof martial will have +36 to-hit (20+7+6+3), and a legendary-prof caster will have +35 (20+7+8). The martial hits on 10-19 and crits on 20; the caster hits on 11-19 and crits on 20. We'll assume the martial has nothing to improve the MAP on their second attack, even though they probably would, mostly because we're not assuming the caster has anything else either -- I'd consider a martial with full feats a better comparison vs a caster burning their high-level slots.
The caster deals (0.45)(52)+(0.05)(104) = 28.6 on average. The martial deals (0.5+0.25)(32.5)+(0.05+0.05)(81.5) = 32.525. Seems like the martial wins out by somewhere between a d4 and a d6 of average damage.
Edit: Ran these numbers through a spreadsheet to get a range of results against varying ACs (rather, varying numbers needed on the d20 to hit/crit). The difference is higher against lower ACs, and lower against higher ACs, but caster doesn't outpace martial at any (reasonable) ACs other than AC 52 in particular (16+ for the fighter to hit, 17+ for the caster to hit). I don't think there are any published enemies with that AC (not on AoN, at least), but judging by what exists it seems reasonable for level 24 enemies in practice (based on published enemies), and level 23-25 in theory (based on published guidelines).
Just to be clear, everyone knows that weapons are designed to out pace cantrips as pure, single target damage options, right? No one is arguing that a raw basic cantrip casting is supposed to be better than any martial going all in on investing in a ranged weapon. A +2 major striking weapon with 3 property runes is a full time investment. A 19th level item with extra features is nobodies back up weapon. It is more than 20% of a martial characters wealth investment.
A cantrip is maybe 1/5th of a casters most basic features. It is the back up weapons of back up weapons at level 20. And it is really a step or two up from most martial back up ranged options, especially when you pair it with a staff of divination and can tag on a true strike with almost no significant character resources.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again a direct comparison of a full equipped combatant against a caster using only cantrips...
Why in the world do you think that a lvl 20 caster will simply try to cast only cantrips againt strong foes?
Why do you think that's this caster will not try to Implode or use a True Strike and Disintegrate or instant kill the target?
With the money wasted by a full equiped archers with runes of everything a caster probably will have a large set of scrolls and wands ready to overwhelming anyone who face it.
Is just like the Indiana Jones dueling a swordsman front-to-front.
Since the issue (spell attack roll accuracy) comes up all the time it would be great to hear from the development team whether they perceive this to currently be an issue or not. Maybe that's already happened somewhere recently and I've missed it? However, I suppose the inclusion/exclusion of spell accuracy runes in SoM would communicate that as well.I doubt we're going to hear anything directly about this because there's really no winning scenario for talking about it. Either the team says there is something that could be done about spell accuracy and they get yelled at for not having fixed it already, or for the system being flawed, or whatever, or they say everything's fine and get yelled at for not having fixed it already, or the system being flawed, or whatever.
They already get 'yelled at' about it because they don't say anything. It's probably the most common complaint/discussion/argument to show up on these forums and elsewhere on the web. Every side thinks they're correct because they have no insight into the designers current perception of the system. I think it would be nice to know what their intent is and if they're happy with where things are. At this point some people are going to 'yell' if SoM drops without the spell attack accuracy runes they've assumed will be in there. They don't owe anyone an explanation and I doubt they will say anything but if they're avoiding confrontation because it's going to make someone unhappy that's really not the way to go in life or in business.
I agree in essence with what you said:
I am, more generally, of the opinion that martials and casters fulfill different roles in combat and shouldn't be directly compared, matching some sentiments voiced earlier in the thread.
But I still disagree with this:
The comparison is unfair in both directions, although it's admittedly probably more unfair to the caster.
I quoted the caster will use their spells unlike their cantrips because at end game it has a lot of spell slots, wands and consumable to just attack with cantrips only so this certanly is a bad comparison against combatants.
I end game fight an experienced caster probably will use their spells and abilities in completly different ways than only do direct attacks, probably they will take the distance to avoid mostly counter attack, will probably disappear and or fly if possible, use illusions like Project Image to distract the enemies and maybe buff/protect allies. They have versatility to use the correct attack types against enemies weakness and avoid their saves and resistances (many high-lvl creatures has too many resistances including physical damage).
So just say that the spell casters is "probably more unfair to the caster" is unfair. They have a different gameplay style and strategies to be so directly compared to any combatant.