| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more I play and the more characters I build, the more I realize how different character optimization is between martials and casters.
For the most part character optimization for martial characters is done in character creation. You can do insane things when you start building a martial character, as there are lots of synergies between the different feats and class features you will get as you level up. Choice of weapon or weapons also directly affects how you will use the feats and abilities you have so this step is incredibly rich.
Casters instead have most of its optimization process happening mid play. Managing your different limited resources, turn management for buffs and debuffs, more strict positioning due to emanatins and line or cone AoE ,0 pre-casting, etc. Some martials have to deal with some of these things too, but always to a much lesser degree and most of the time they don't even have to as they can rely on other things.
I'm not saying that one of the other are better, that martials are boring or easy to play or that caster creation is lame. Martials still need to take lots of meaningful decisions mid play and buiilding a caster needs lots of time and thought put into it if you want to squeeze the most out of them. I just want to verbalize my thoughts on this because I find it very interesting.
Of course this is just my opinion, feel free to disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. Casters have to jump through a few more hoops than martials. I suppose that's the price to pay for bending reality. Nothing is plug n play in 2e bc of it's action system but I would say that in comparison martials feel a bit like this compared to casters. Casters have more knobs that need to be turned in battle if they want their spells to hit hard. I think they have to try a bit too hard to optimize the uses of their limited resource, but I'll concede it's only an opinion. Plenty of people think magic is working as intended and is as accurate as it needs to be
| 8 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.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes its a factor but there are alternative non Vancian classes.
Casters suck, because they have watered down the spells, and spell DCs too much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes its a factor but there are alternative non Vancian classes.
Casters suck, because they have watered down the spells, and spell DCs too much.
this is true the spells feel very MMO'ish to me, but i understand why they did it, and I don't have a problem with it. it works just fine with a Sorc because you are generally specializing in one facet so it works out ok. Clerics are fine because of healing font.
those vancian classes though are just terrible, because they are too many situations where I can't do anything, or I am forced to memorize the same spell, which defeats the purpose of me playing a wizard in the first place.
I absolutely think if I as a wizard could cast the spells that I needed when I needed it, the class would be 100% better, regardless of the overall nerf to spells.
Casters suck because the Vancian system is awful, I am still stunned and amazed that the majority of players voted to keep that system.
Things don't go away because people complain about them or point out obvious flaws. They only get replaced when people unite behind an alternative.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't intend this to become a post about how much casters suck.
Casters suck because the Vancian system is awful, I am still stunned and amazed that the majority of players voted to keep that system.
Spontaneous casters exist too, and I think they are everything but weak, especially Bard and Sorcerer.
Never tried a vancian caster in this system and probably never will, they are not my cup of tea. Are they really that weak? The Wizard in our group is doing pretty well.
Casters suck, because they have watered down the spells, and spell DCs too much.
Have to disagree on this. Single target blasting sucks, but casting in general is okay as it is. DC had to be easier in 1st ED because most non reflex targeting spells did nothing on successful saves (casting in 1st ED was also insanely game breaking). People has to stop perceiving a successful save on the enemy part as a failure on the caster.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't intend this to become a post about how much casters suck.
That was unreasonable and unreachable expectations
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't intend this to become a post about how much casters suck.
Casters suck because the Vancian system is awful, I am still stunned and amazed that the majority of players voted to keep that system.Spontaneous casters exist too, and I think they are everything but weak, especially Bard and Sorcerer.
Never tried a vancian caster in this system and probably never will, they are not my cup of tea. Are they really that weak? The Wizard in our group is doing pretty well.
Casters suck, because they have watered down the spells, and spell DCs too much.Have to disagree on this. Single target blasting sucks, but casting in general is okay as it is. DC had to be easier in 1st ED because most non reflex targeting spells did nothing on successful saves (casting in 1st ED was also insanely game breaking). People has to stop perceiving a successful save on the enemy part as a failure on the caster.
I think it is perfectly fair to say that the expected power level of casters is passionately debated on these message boards. Personally, I don't even think casters are that bad at single target blasting. It just takes more a little more nuance than people might be seeing at first glance.
Magic missile, with 120ft range, force damage and no attack roll or save is a very effective ranged attack, nearly on par with what non-focused martial can hope to accomplish at range.
True strike makes spells like shocking grasp, acid arrow, and polar ray (errata'd to do double damage on a crit) quite powerful.
Spectral hand is a very powerful spell for letting you use the nastier damage and debuff spells that require touch, like vampiric touch, goblin pox, and even shocking grasp with true strike, or especially devastating are those who can combine spectral hand with the harm spell.
Casters are very capable of nova levels of single target blasting, it is just a little more swingy than martial single target damage, and hard to keep up for many rounds, without really being savvy with your scrolls and staves.
I very much agree that the tactics of casters and martials are different in PF2, and both involve a fair bit of tactical shifts that are different than other fantasy RPGs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That was unreasonable and unreachable expectations
Now in retrospective I realize I should have seen it coming.
I think it is perfectly fair to say that the expected power level of casters is passionately debated on these message boards. Personally, I don't even think casters are that bad at single target blasting. It just takes more a little more nuance than people might be seeing at first glance.
Magic missile, with 120ft range, force damage and no attack roll or save is a very effective ranged attack, nearly on par with what non-focused martial can hope to accomplish at range.
True strike makes spells like shocking grasp, acid arrow, and polar ray (errata'd to do double damage on a crit) quite powerful.
Spectral hand is a very powerful spell for letting you use the nastier damage and debuff spells that require touch, like vampiric touch, goblin pox, and even shocking grasp with true strike, or especially devastating are those who can combine spectral hand with the harm spell.
Casters are very capable of nova levels of single target blasting, it is just a little more swingy than martial single target damage, and hard to keep up for...
The problem I see with single target blasting (Outside of Harm spam with dangerous sorcery when going nova, that's absurd) is that most of the time it requieres too much resources to work compared with the payoff. Luckily it is just a minor part of a caster's kit and will get better if Paizo ever releases items that improve spell attack rolls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic missile, with 120ft range, force damage and no attack roll or save is a very effective ranged attack, nearly on par with what non-focused martial can hope to accomplish at range.
Yes but for that price you are limited to a few times per day.
Plus you have to accept being a soft and squishy target.| 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.
I hold out hope that secrets of magic will give us an entirely new optional system to plug and play casters in that will make things much more enjoyable, though realistically I don't expect much.
Specially since they are sticking with the 4 spell system for the new classes knowing it's unpopular just because there's nothing that's more popular.Would be nice if they had some extra personnel to test new systems and such on the side to spit ball wild new ideas with the community.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doing almost as much damage as a not that focused ranged martial a few times per day isn't some great feat we've all not noticed, it's terrible.
Limited resources are meant to produce better effects, not worse.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doing almost as much damage as a not that focused ranged martial a few times per day isn't some great feat we've all not noticed, it's terrible.
Limited resources are meant to produce better effects, not worse.
Right. Imagine if the martial character was able to, only 3 or 4 times per day, throw a dagger at an enemy within 30'. It does 1d4 + Str mod damage, and on a critical hit, a specific minor debuff (like -10 move, or no reaction) for 1 round.
In exchange for this impressive ability, he doesn't have any armor proficiency, can only use a few specific Simple Weapons, only has 1d6 hit points/level, and can't ever get any magic items to help with that "thrown dagger" attack or damage rolls (It's an innate ability, not a weapon, so it slowly increases on it's own and can be used a few more times per day at higher levels).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, limited per day powers being stronger sounds reasonable, but then it always has the risk of being exploited by the 5MWD syndrome, meaning the limited power using player doing their very best to hoard the daily spotlight time unless the GM makes the majority of scenarios run on a tight timer...
| 4 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.
Vancian IMO is not the problem, but is a complex system that requires more strategy and know how from players.
Depending what is your class and magic tradition most badly Vancian aspects can be neutralized. For many support casters that use occult and divine traditions if you focus in buff, protect and heal the party members, you can easily calc how many of each magic you need to prepare that day.
The main problem for Vancian is for Arcane casters like Wizard. Because many spells of arcane tradition is offensive and/or situational. So usually the most players if they don't know what they will face that day, will prefer to prepare the most all-round spells they have, even repeating spells to avoid prepare a most situational spell like darkvision and become with one unused or more spell slots if any situation that needs thats spells occoure.
This could be compensated if the Wizard feats or spells slot that compensate this disadvantage over expontaneous casters.
The other prepared casters like Druid and Cleric has very good feats that helps to compensate and their magic is more supportive helping the player to choose what prepare for that day with minimal risks to prepare a situational magic that you can never use that day. And these classes also has access to all common magics of their tradition without need to learn each of then like the wizard.
My hope is that SoM helps to compensate the Wizard in some way.
Casters suck, because they have watered down the spells, and spell DCs too much.
But this was needed and was compensated by cantrips!
Almost all D20 systems after PF1/3.5 nerfed the casters. The casters in almost all D&D 3.5 based games is waaay more stronger, versatile and dangerous than most combatants. So almost all systems that came before including D&D 5e and PF2 watered down the spells and implement some free versatile alternative like the cantrips.
And I disagree with your affirmation that they watered down spell DCs. Let's compare:
A LvL 20 caster in PF1 casting a magic has DC = 10 + magic level + ability score.
So a a lvl 20 wizard with 20 int casting a lvl 9 magic has DC = 10 + 9 + 5 = 24
If this magic has area effect with reflex saving agains an opponent with high reflex saving like a rogue, it has Reflex = 12 + Dex.
So a LvL 20 rogue with 20 dex has Reflex = 12 + 5 = +17, considering Improved Evasion, if the reflex save roll 7 or more it will take no damage, if fail will take half. So the percent chance of this high save char to resist is 70% and even if it's fail the rest will be half.
Now let's see in PF2.
A Caster DC is 10 + LvL + ability score + proficiency.
So considering that a lvl 20 caster is legendary, a caster with 20 in the cast atribute will has DC = 10 + 20 + 5 + 8 = 43!
Against a rogue with Improved Evasion, 20 dex and legendary in Reflex that will have Refl = 20 + 5 + 8 = +33!
See that the bonus of both chars is equal when they have same ability score and proficiency? This way to pass in reflex save the rogue has to roll 10 or more in D20 roll, so it has 55% to take no damage, is 15% less than PF2/3.5 and still has chance to take the full damage if it roll 1 (5%) in a dice!
This comparison is agains a very proficient char resisting against their most stronger save. But in most of cases that casters probably will try to use the magic that is strong agains the weak point of the most enemies. So probably they will try a fort resisted magic against a rogue than a reflex.
So this affirmation that DC is low is a mistake, even more if well planed the caster can tatically choose the best magic against each kind of enemy increasing a lot their effect.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think on the original post that yeah casters are more in the moment choices.
ON what this thread has devolved into, every caster I've dm'ed for or played with has felt like a valuable member of the team and in often times has been whats changed the tide. And when I play casters I feel great.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doing almost as much damage as a not that focused ranged martial a few times per day isn't some great feat we've all not noticed, it's terrible.
Limited resources are meant to produce better effects, not worse.
Right. Imagine if the martial character was able to, only 3 or 4 times per day, throw a dagger at an enemy within 30'. It does 1d4 + Str mod damage, and on a critical hit, a specific minor debuff (like -10 move, or no reaction) for 1 round.
In exchange for this impressive ability, he doesn't have any armor proficiency, can only use a few specific Simple Weapons, only has 1d6 hit points/level, and can't ever get any magic items to help with that "thrown dagger" attack or damage rolls (It's an innate ability, not a weapon, so it slowly increases on it's own and can be used a few more times per day at higher levels).
Yes, your point is right, but it has weakness: if the limited resources are more powerful than unlimited resources, when the first are used they may overshine the later and make it usless in comparrison because it will have more impact. Think of the typical combat in d20 systems, which limits the number of times you can do things and when (Actions/Turns/Rounds). Because of the number of times limit, you want to have the greatest impact by using the smallest amount of "time" (actions/turns/rounds). Limited but powerful options have greater power in comparison to the unlimited but cost the same "time" because otherwise they will be equal in power. That makes the limited but powerful better in combat because it takes less "time" unless it is really limited (and then appears the player's prepective problem: why this attack had more impact than several of my attacks?).
Furthermore, there is an additional problem. If the limited but powerful option can be used very few times, the player will have less chances influencing the story and less fun. However, if the player powerfull ability can be used handful of times, the other players will have less influence over the story.
There are two types of balance in games: game balance and fun balance. They are connected to each other and can't be seperated.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doing almost as much damage as a not that focused ranged martial a few times per day isn't some great feat we've all not noticed, it's terrible.
Limited resources are meant to produce better effects, not worse.
Right. Imagine if the martial character was able to, only 3 or 4 times per day, throw a dagger at an enemy within 30'. It does 1d4 + Str mod damage, and on a critical hit, a specific minor debuff (like -10 move, or no reaction) for 1 round.
In exchange for this impressive ability, he doesn't have any armor proficiency, can only use a few specific Simple Weapons, only has 1d6 hit points/level, and can't ever get any magic items to help with that "thrown dagger" attack or damage rolls (It's an innate ability, not a weapon, so it slowly increases on it's own and can be used a few more times per day at higher levels).
If that martial character could do that an... unlimited times a day from 120 feet and it leveled up along with them with zero gold investment, I'd say it'd be pretty good. But I mean, that's obviously OP.
Let's try and make some limited abilities for this hypothetical class, though. What about a spell that doesn't require an attack roll and could deal 6d6 damage to all enemies in a 20 foot burst? Obviously we'd put that on a short range... something like 500 feet. Our hypothetical character should only be able to use that 3 or 4 times a day, more with the right "martial focus" (wink, wink). There's probably some design space for creating ways to enhance this attack. But hey, what do I know. Sounds like a dumb power. It'd be insane if I got that without feat investment.
But it isn't all damage. This hypothetical martial is squishy! You said it yourself. We don't want anyone getting close. What if we had a way to Trip people from range! No feats, no, no... And not one target, but a whole bunch of them. And limited by day? Sure, but who cares when it's one of our weaker powers.
Samurai, we get it, you hate 2e and casters. Play the game you do like. It doesn't make any sense why you work yourself into every conversation to point out to people that you don't play the game.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guess I'll have to choose another spell. Casters really are lacking, I suppose.
(Also, Fireball was made strong because of player expectations in D&D5e, it falls under baseline math in PF2e.)
EDIT: Also Telekinetic Projectile is still... a cantrip. It's not at all limited in use. It compares favorably to a bow. Samurai is just making up points.
If you want more examples of spells being wonderful, I suppose we could do that? But at least I'm citing actual examples and not making up points like "a limited-use spell that deals 1d4 damage and gives -10 Speed on a crit" when you're making a point about limited use abilities - carefully ignoring the fact that that spell is a cantrip.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The world's most pigeonholed blaster-caster ever stills has access to their tradition's entire spell list through scrolls and wands, and is only limited to the boundaries of their imagination in how they can use them to impact the field, not counting all the out-of-combat utility they present, even if some will just fixate on rolling however many d6 instead; so it isn't fair to tag them as a sickly archer that gets gassed after a few big shots, because on a fundamental level they're applying this limitation themselves.
The problem with the blasting paradigm is that it feels terrible for the Caster to hold back their daily "Flaming Phoenix Arrow of Doom" the entire dungeon just to have it be resisted by the Big Bad (because statistically, it will, that's how Bosses work), but the other members of the party also aren't interested in fending off threats all day while Mr. Phoenix Arrow sits back throwing rocks just to gets his chance to shoot the big one at the dragon when (and if) the time comes, and possibly miss. So you eventually move back to the current situation where effects don't simply shut down an encounter on a success (which as a GM is greatly appreciated) but aren't completely nullified on a regular save either, as that's what frustrates many about spell-attacks at the moment (No potency runes and completely wasted on a miss) because let's be honest humans hate risks, specially if the payoff isn't inordinate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I think is interesting about this thread is that the OP is trying to point out how caster optimization is not gone from PF2, it is changed and it is different than martial character optimization.
I agree, but I would also argue that martials benefit a lot from tactical optimization in the moment, at a very close level to casters in PF2, as a lot of the feats and abilities they get are only the most optimal actions to take in specific kinds of encounters. So while I agree that the nature of spell lists can make those tactical choices in combat even more crucial, I think tactical awareness is still more a PF2 virtue as a whole.
Magic Missile is powerful because it automatically hits at a very far range. Its ability to completely ignore cover is a fairly high level feat for most martial characters to match and ends up costing them 2 actions to pull off. And that isn't your heavy hitter move, it is your exploit the distance of a long range encounter or deal damage to a very hard to hit enemy. True strike on a top level acid arrow or a maxed level shocking grasp is more like the powerful single target blasting options.
At higher levels, a true strike polar ray matched up with status or circumstance bonuses to attack rolls is going to be a better single target option against a powerful enemy like a Marilith demon than targeting its saving throws, especially since attack rolls don't have to worry about the PF2 equivalent of spell resistance. The errata to polar ray makes it brutal single target spell.
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?
| 2 people 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?
And to support, before someone will mention spellcasters' spell attack, in level 20 legenderay caster spell attack bonus is equal to master martial bonus minus one (although you can still mention the actions)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I think is interesting about this thread is that the OP is trying to point out how caster optimization is not gone from PF2, it is changed and it is different than martial character optimization.
I agree, but I would also argue that martials benefit a lot from tactical optimization in the moment, at a very close level to casters in PF2, as a lot of the feats and abilities they get are only the most optimal actions to take in specific kinds of encounters. So while I agree that the nature of spell lists can make those tactical choices in combat even more crucial, I think tactical awareness is still more a PF2 virtue as a whole.
Magic Missile is powerful because it automatically hits at a very far range. Its ability to completely ignore cover is a fairly high level feat for most martial characters to match and ends up costing them 2 actions to pull off. And that isn't your heavy hitter move, it is your exploit the distance of a long range encounter or deal damage to a very hard to hit enemy. True strike on a top level acid arrow or a maxed level shocking grasp is more like the powerful single target blasting options.
At higher levels, a true strike polar ray matched up with status or circumstance bonuses to attack rolls is going to be a better single target option against a powerful enemy like a Marilith demon than targeting its saving throws, especially since attack rolls don't have to worry about the PF2 equivalent of spell resistance. The errata to polar ray makes it brutal single target spell.
I really really despise true strike bc I view it as a mandatory tax to make a subset of spells hit reliably. Spending twice the amount of resources to make your blast work doesn't make blasts good, it just means blasts are gimped at a baseline balance standpoint. Better for true strike to just not exist and give casters a lesser amount of accuracy increase from runes so at least it'll be free and always on
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And to support, before someone will mention spellcasters' spell attack, in level 20 legenderay caster spell attack bonus is equal to master martial bonus minus one (although you can still mention the actions)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?
Not to mention cantrips are two actions to the weapon's one. Or that true strike is a 3rd action. Or that haste helps the martial's action economy more than a caster's in regards to getting in to hit. But the numbers have been run on this a thousand times. Cantrips are so far below the damage curve as to be an absolute last resort, or when victory is obvious and doesn't require more resources.
The other problem is all those AoE blasts are only good for mopping up mooks. I don't know anyone who gets excited seeing groups of trash mobs get AoE'd down MMO style. Similarly, most debuffs work the same way, only really shining against weak or on level foes. Please let me know if any of you have ever fought a group of on level or lower enemies that have felt threatening in anything less than a tpk level encounter.
Don't get me wrong, casters are still great vs solo bosses with buffs and anything that inflicts slow or fear (or maze if you get high enough). But people (in general) prefer having their actions have a direct effect and dropping the same 1 round debuffs every round or being a vending machine of buffs isn't exactly glamorous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if casters could also hurt singular targets well enough compared to martials in addition to cleaning up loads of mooks in a fell swoop, what's the justification for said martials' paycheck in party? (and don't even mention out of combat capabilities)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a wizard is casting telekinetic projectile as their 1st turn spell in an encounter against a solo target at the point we are comparing Cantrips to greater striking runes, things have gone very wrong.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the numbers have been run on this a thousand times. Cantrips are so far below the damage curve as to be an absolute last resort, or when victory is obvious and doesn't require more resources.
Seems more like cantrips are perfectly in line with ranged attacks except bows. Maybe even a little better if we only count simple ranged weapons.
I know everyone sees bows as the standard all range attacks should hit, but at some point it needs to be acknowledged that if they are the only class of ranged weapon that can actually hit those damage numbers at ranges over 20 feet (outside of heavy alchemist or ranger feat investment), perhaps they aren't what the designers intended as the benchmark. I'll concede that they arguably should have been, and even more probably should be now, but I really think they were designed as the ceiling of what ranged martials can do, not the floor.
I do get that when you line up what a cantrip caster can do versus what a bow ranged martial attacker (even before feats) or basically any martial melee striker, it is a very disappointing comparison, but you might be getting mad at a fish for not being a bird.
Edit: if nothing else, I don't think its simply a coincidence that the majority of ranged attacks, including cantrips and thrown weapons, are 2 actions per attack roll at base, with various feats and runes improving on that action economy.
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a wizard is casting telekinetic projectile as their 1st turn spell in an encounter against a solo target at the point we are comparing Cantrips to greater striking runes, things have gone very wrong.
Maybe it's just because of 5e, but I'm not sure why anybody is having trouble accepting that damage cantrips not named electric arc just shouldn't be used unless combat is basically over.
For single target anything vs a boss I'm more partial to dual wielding manifold missile wands and letting them deal their persistent damage while healing, debuffing or buffing.
Going back to the original topic of optimization, rather than mid play, I think caster optimization is wholly dependent on the GM and campaign type. If your GM never uses bosses and prefers groups, then you are free to use the whole suite of options before you with the expectation that you may get to see something flashy and not be down your best tools in the face of a giant threat. Similarly if you're going into a campaign or AP with an obvious theme, you can craft a spell suite that will do well there. If, however, neither of these are the case, you're locked into the safest most universally applicable tools that will function even against some APL+4 giga threat. Meaning no incap (can't waste space with your big slots), no attack based spells (can't hit anything) and nothing with 0 effect on a successful save (because they will) .
| 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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other problem is all those AoE blasts are only good for mopping up mooks. I don't know anyone who gets excited seeing groups of trash mobs get AoE'd down MMO style. Similarly, most debuffs work the same way, only really shining against weak or on level foes. Please let me know if any of you have ever fought a group of on level or lower enemies that have felt threatening in anything less than a tpk level encounter.
Four enemies of the same level as you is an Extreme encounter.
Six enemies of one level lower is an Extreme encounter.Eight enemies of two levels lower is an Extreme encounter.
Eight enemies of three levels lower is a Severe encounter.
Are you telling me that you've never fought anything like this? Because I certainly have, and I've thrown worse at my players - they ended up messing up tactically and taking on nine enemies of two levels lower plus the equal-leveled boss, and only really survived because the enemies came in waves. By the end, two were wounded 1, one was wounded 2, and the last had a third of his health left, with both casters out of spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other problem is all those AoE blasts are only good for mopping up mooks. I don't know anyone who gets excited seeing groups of trash mobs get AoE'd down MMO style. Similarly, most debuffs work the same way, only really shining against weak or on level foes. Please let me know if any of you have ever fought a group of on level or lower enemies that have felt threatening in anything less than a tpk level encounter.Four enemies of the same level as you is an Extreme encounter.
Six enemies of one level lower is an Extreme encounter.
Eight enemies of two levels lower is an Extreme encounter.
Eight enemies of three levels lower is a Severe encounter.Are you telling me that you've never fought anything like this? Because I certainly have, and I've thrown worse at my players - they ended up messing up tactically and taking on nine enemies of two levels lower plus the equal-leveled boss, and only really survived because the enemies came in waves. By the end, two were wounded 1, one was wounded 2, and the last had a third of his health left, with both casters out of spells.
The worst I had was 8x apl-1 enemies in 2 waves of 4 the second of which combined with the first after a couple rounds. And that was a narrow loss taking the fight with no strategy aside from 10 minute buffs having been applied and not starting with all our spell slots. So, yes I have, and no it wouldn't have been a big deal had we started with all our slots or had a severe number of enemies. Were the aoe spells great in this encounter? Yes they were. Could the encounter have been handled better? Honestly, level 4 invis on the fighter and letting them solo for a minute would have been a better use of a spell slot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, people should remember that spells are balanced around them being used against the party as well. I don't really think many parties want to potentially face spells that are any more powerful than they already are. The efficacy of spells against enemies that are one or more levels lower than you is already really, really high.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, people should remember that spells are balanced around them being used against the party as well. I don't really think many parties want to potentially face spells that are any more powerful than they already are. The efficacy of spells against enemies that are one or more levels lower than you is already really, really high.
This is already the case with incap spells and effects. If the gm gives them heightened to an enemy boss they should make short work of a party.
|
|
Guess I'll have to choose another spell. Casters really are lacking, I suppose.
(Also, Fireball was made strong because of player expectations in D&D5e, it falls under baseline math in PF2e.)
EDIT: Also Telekinetic Projectile is still... a cantrip. It's not at all limited in use. It compares favorably to a bow. Samurai is just making up points.
If you want more examples of spells being wonderful, I suppose we could do that? But at least I'm citing actual examples and not making up points like "a limited-use spell that deals 1d4 damage and gives -10 Speed on a crit" when you're making a point about limited use abilities - carefully ignoring the fact that that spell is a cantrip.
I didn't try to use actual spells because then replies would be "yeah, but Ray of Frost goes 120' and is only a cantrip", thus making it harder to compare to a martial's thrown weapon. However, here are some better example Level 1 spells since you asked for them: Chilling Spray and Pummeling Rubble"yeah, but they both affect a 15' cone!", you say.
I think the closest example is: Snowball "Ok, but it does 2d4 instead of 1d4+Str" (which is usually worse, if you have a +3 or +4 stat mod) But it's a 30' range spell attack, which is what I was thinking of, and the adder is a -5' speed (-10' on a crit) for 1 round, and it's a first level spell, not a cantrip, so limited resource.There, now you have some real examples of first level spells to compare to the hypothetical martial's "thrown dagger" attack...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I lied to make my point make more sense," is a hell of a stance, but you do you.
It's clear that you don't value speed reduction or multiple targets, but that doesn't mean that spells that do that aren't powerful and effective. If your bizarre hypothetical level 1 martial could throw a striking dagger from 30 ft that reduced an opponents speed by 5 on just a hit (and for some reason that dagger is also brutal), yeah, I'd say that should be limited. Heck, throwing out waves of striking daggers in a cone should probably be limited.
Very strong "but a -1 doesn't do anything, why should I Demoralize" energy in not valuing the individual strengths of spells.
I play a by-the-book GM and casters are often enough within very close range without being torn to shreds. In your games, when has that happened?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean.... if you are playing at level 1 or level 2... yeah, your spellcasters can get knocked unconscious by an unlucky crit if they don't have anyone standing in the way of them and the baddies but as far as actually dying without having the ability to react in some way or have someone else intervene... I don't think so, what you're proposing as reality is pure fiction.
It would take nothing less than two back-to-back 1-action attacks that BOTH critically hit (unless they're like... on fire or something) to actually kill them dead, and even then it still won't matter most of the time given that Hero Points can be used to just NOPE the death anyhow. Opponents will generally never stop actively defending themselves in order to attack an unconscious foe either, that is unless that is their stated and explicit goal or purpose such as the creature being an assassin of some sort sent specifically to kill spellcaster dude.
Going from 100% - 0% in the span of a single turn is almost literally impossible except for the nastiest of higher-level effects, even things like being turned to stone that are mid-level challenges aren't instantaneous.
If anything the way dying works in PF2 is a HUGE buff to how things worked in the first edition whereby if your spellcaster DID get hit, especially if they get crit, they're in jeopardy of just instantly being dead because they have a significantly smaller pool of HP comparative to the Tanks in 1e than the current PF2 difference of HP between characters. A Wizard that takes a big old bonk to the dome in PF1 and has 8-13 Con can easily be in danger from something as simple as one mean die result, something that's not normally possible in PF2.
Maybe Temperans just runs their games differently?
The right way to GM for a party with any given composition is the way that everyone there, including the GM has fun. It sounds like a lot of players are struggling to negotiate that with their GMs. That is unfortunate. It is also resolvable, if you want to. I don’t want to use any of Samurai’s rules, but if they like them, and their party like them, then they aren’t bad house rules.
I also know that I GM 3 tables and have 6 casters, and the only player I have had completely drop their character was the alchemist, who quit the character because they felt too OP as a MC Oracle that was setting everyone on fire in every encounter.