| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combining a couple other suggestions, one thing might be a stance that gives “Failure: you deal half damage” on spell attack rolls. Possibly limited to non-cantrip spells, but hopefully not.
Might make the Magus Striking Spell stuff quite a bit more tolerable if you could more reliably whack someone, even at reduced damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combining a couple other suggestions, one thing might be a stance that gives “Failure: you deal half damage” on spell attack rolls.
Sounds like a possible feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combining a couple other suggestions, one thing might be a stance that gives “Failure: you deal half damage” on spell attack rolls. Possibly limited to non-cantrip spells, but hopefully not.
Might make the Magus Striking Spell stuff quite a bit more tolerable if you could more reliably whack someone, even at reduced damage.
Eldritch Duelist Stance?
True Strike is a first-level spell. What else are you going to do with that first-level spell slot?... with true strike your odds of landing the hit or crit can be 75% or better, even against level +2 or 3 monsters. ...If a spell requires the expenditure of a second spell to be a viable strategy then that spell by itself was not balanced to be an affective use of limited resources. And as a player wasting two slots to have one competitive slot (again, of a limited resource) feels mega bad imho. I just consider true strike a poor consolidation to try to pacify undertuned spell attacks. It's the one spell in the game that raises my blood pressure on sight unless it's...
I get where you're coming from, but I'd rather have my less effective spell tiers open for utility spells. I'd want any true strikes to come from a staff so I'd potentially have 9 charges of them at endgame and they wouldn't affect my actual slots. That's just my build preference though. I find true strike a lot more palatable when it doesn't touch my slots.
Combining a couple other suggestions, one thing might be a stance that gives “Failure: you deal half damage” on spell attack rolls.Sounds like a possible feat.
Exactly what I was thinking. I’d prefer a stance instead of a meta magic feat because of the action cost, but if metamagc I’d like it to work with cantrips too.
Casters become very powerful at high level in ways martials really can't touch. If you never play the game beyond lvl 10 or so, you'll never really see it. But once you hit 11th lvl plus, casters keep on getting better while martials keep on swinging their weapons hoping for item upgrades.
I was really feeling weak as a wizard for a long time up to lvl 5 and I still think the wizard is perhaps the weakest of the caster classes. But druids and bards are really powerful in a high lvl party. Accuracy becomes a moot point. It becomes more a matter of how do you use your tools in various situations.
I don't consider accuracy much of an issue at later levels. You should look at using a weapon versus a cantrip or spell. A caster should have one weapon they can use effectively by that time with wither base proficiencies or ancestry feats. You'll be about 2 accuracy behind the martials if you build up at least one physical stat, likely dexterity and one weapon. You'll be able to use a saving throw cantrip or spell and a weapon attack almost every round which balances out nicely in overall capability.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters become very powerful at high level in ways martials really can't touch. If you never play the game beyond lvl 10 or so, you'll never really see it. But once you hit 11th lvl plus, casters keep on getting better while martials keep on swinging their weapons hoping for item upgrades.
I was really feeling weak as a wizard for a long time up to lvl 5 and I still think the wizard is perhaps the weakest of the caster classes. But druids and bards are really powerful in a high lvl party. Accuracy becomes a moot point. It becomes more a matter of how do you use your tools in various situations.
I don't consider accuracy much of an issue at later levels. You should look at using a weapon versus a cantrip or spell. A caster should have one weapon they can use effectively by that time with wither base proficiencies or ancestry feats. You'll be about 2 accuracy behind the martials if you build up at least one physical stat, likely dexterity and one weapon. You'll be able to use a saving throw cantrip or spell and a weapon attack almost every round which balances out nicely in overall capability.
But if martials are working as intended lvls 1-20 and casters are working as intended lvls 10-20, then the balance of the game needs to be readdressed. I couldn't tell my wizard player at the table during Age of Ashes "trust me, it'll get better in six months". That's kinda awful for a player to hear at lvl 1.
I couldn't tell my wizard player at the table during Age of Ashes "trust me, it'll get better in six months". That's kinda awful for a player to hear at lvl 1.
It really is. In 1dt Edition, I would often play martials exclusively at low levels and casters exclusively at higher levels. If a low level martial survived to higher levels, it became common practice to kill them off or retire them so that I could roll a caster.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are better at level 1 in PF2 than they were in PF1 or in most versions of D&D that I have ever played. Wizards are more durable and more prepared to contribute to a long adventuring day now as well. They are every bit as accurate as any martial short of a fighter at level 1 as well. The goal posts of criticism for spell casters in PF2 move so fast it is hard to keep track.
Item bonuses to accuracy kick in at higher levels. Are casters suffering from effectiveness at higher levels? No, because their spells get out of control.
Oh that is nice your level 15 martial can jump so high, my caster can move to another plane of existence.
...But Legendary doesn’t kick in until level 19!
Oh, you mean the first odd level since level 1 where they are not guaranteed to get a new level of spells that do radically powerful more things with no feat investment what so ever?
Low level casters get stuck in can’t rip routines fairly often, but at least most of them have focus spells worth casting, and maybe we’ll get more of those too in secrets of magic, but for now, getting something worth spending your focus point on every encounter is something worth doing pretty early in your casters career.
Spell selection can be a little intimidating and it can take time to find spells you enjoy casting and feel worth the limited resource that they are a the lowest of levels. But with wealth investment and a minor amount of GM support, that problem goes away pretty quickly too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not going to lie the moment I heard blasting wasn’t a thing in 2E I just kind of wrote off casters as something I’d be interested in doing. I typically don’t enjoy playing utility casters but it’s probably because I’ve been ruined by WoW and other video games where, for instance, Frost Mage, Fire Mage and Demonology Warlock are just another way of dealing damage along side the Warrior and the Rogue.
I also think thematic casters are really cool, but it was a bummer to learn that wanting to be a “fire mage” even accepting many things are resistant to fire damage just isn’t really a character you can play per se compared to a martial damage dealer. I love Kael’thas and Jaina, and I love other MMOs like FFXIV with Black Mage and Summoner but they do DPS just as well as anyone else (balance being what it is nothing is ever perfect). So I guess I lament that DPS mages aren’t on the same playing field as say my current character (Greataxe Fighter).
The character you want to play is an Elemental Sorcerer with Dangerous Sorcery. There are a few other options for building into damage as a caster but the Sorcerer is the most consistent.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not going to lie the moment I heard blasting wasn’t a thing in 2E I just kind of wrote off casters as something I’d be interested in doing. I typically don’t enjoy playing utility casters but it’s probably because I’ve been ruined by WoW and other video games where, for instance, Frost Mage, Fire Mage and Demonology Warlock are just another way of dealing damage along side the Warrior and the Rogue.
I also think thematic casters are really cool, but it was a bummer to learn that wanting to be a “fire mage” even accepting many things are resistant to fire damage just isn’t really a character you can play per se compared to a martial damage dealer. I love Kael’thas and Jaina, and I love other MMOs like FFXIV with Black Mage and Summoner but they do DPS just as well as anyone else (balance being what it is nothing is ever perfect). So I guess I lament that DPS mages aren’t on the same playing field as say my current character (Greataxe Fighter).
Whoever told you this has 0 idea what they're talking about.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whoever told you this has 0 idea what they're talking about.Not going to lie the moment I heard blasting wasn’t a thing in 2E I just kind of wrote off casters as something I’d be interested in doing. I typically don’t enjoy playing utility casters but it’s probably because I’ve been ruined by WoW and other video games where, for instance, Frost Mage, Fire Mage and Demonology Warlock are just another way of dealing damage along side the Warrior and the Rogue.
I also think thematic casters are really cool, but it was a bummer to learn that wanting to be a “fire mage” even accepting many things are resistant to fire damage just isn’t really a character you can play per se compared to a martial damage dealer. I love Kael’thas and Jaina, and I love other MMOs like FFXIV with Black Mage and Summoner but they do DPS just as well as anyone else (balance being what it is nothing is ever perfect). So I guess I lament that DPS mages aren’t on the same playing field as say my current character (Greataxe Fighter).
Quite right. Whoever said "blasting isn't a thing in 2E" was probably just sore about not being able to one-shot mega bosses like in 1E anymore.
In truth, blasting in 2E is great for clearing the board of numerous weaker enemies and obstacles while also taking huge chunks of hit points off their bosses.
I've played games that didn't have blasters, and I gotta say, getting through a line of weaker enemies to get to the boss with just martials is a real slog. All the while, the boss is taking full advantage of our delays and activating their most powerful 3-action attacks and other abilities to our detriment. By the time we can kill enough of the minions to get to the boss, we're often half dead already, making a hard fight even harder. What's more, though the minions aren't much of a threat in their own right, the -2 AC from flanking they can grant their boss can more than double the odds the the boss gets a one hit KO with a crit.
I would not want a party without some blasting anymore than I'd want a party without some healing.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How's this for an interesting spin on making wizards (and by collateral, alchemists, investigators and witches) a bit better?
* Introduce substantially more good Intelligence-based skill feats. We've already had a whole lot of strong Charisma-based skill feats (Bon Mot, a lot of feinting stuff, and intimidate based feats that start utilitarian (Intimidating Glare) but get quite spectacular (Terrifying Retreat, Scare to Death). But Intelligence-based skill feats are rather stuck in doing downtime stuff. Add some nice encounter-time skill feats for Intelligence, not just on Arcana, but on all the Intelligence-based skills.
* Add a new thesis option, "scholarship": you pick one (or maybe even two?) Intelligence-based skills and those auto-upgrade similar to Additional Lore. This lets the wizard lean more into the "I'm really educated" niche but doesn't make them a generic competitor for the rogue/investigator.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if martials are working as intended lvls 1-20 and casters are working as intended lvls 10-20, then the balance of the game needs to be readdressed. I couldn't tell my wizard player at the table during Age of Ashes "trust me, it'll get better in six months". That's kinda awful for a player to hear at lvl 1.Casters become very powerful at high level in ways martials really can't touch. If you never play the game beyond lvl 10 or so, you'll never really see it. But once you hit 11th lvl plus, casters keep on getting better while martials keep on swinging their weapons hoping for item upgrades.
I was really feeling weak as a wizard for a long time up to lvl 5 and I still think the wizard is perhaps the weakest of the caster classes. But druids and bards are really powerful in a high lvl party. Accuracy becomes a moot point. It becomes more a matter of how do you use your tools in various situations.
I don't consider accuracy much of an issue at later levels. You should look at using a weapon versus a cantrip or spell. A caster should have one weapon they can use effectively by that time with wither base proficiencies or ancestry feats. You'll be about 2 accuracy behind the martials if you build up at least one physical stat, likely dexterity and one weapon. You'll be able to use a saving throw cantrip or spell and a weapon attack almost every round which balances out nicely in overall capability.
Both are working fine 1 to 20. Martials shine a little more 1 to 10 and then casters shine more 11 to 20. The gulf isn't nearly as bad as PF1.
This is more of a wizard issue than a caster issue. Arcane list isn't as interesting and spell versatility isn't as useful as many seem to think it is. Spell versatility with the ability to heal is far more useful than some situationally useful utility spells. The most versatile spell lists in PF2 are the Primal and Occult list. By this I mean effective versatility, not just the ability to occasionally pull out a situationally useful spell someone with a skill can easily do as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How's this for an interesting spin on making wizards (and by collateral, alchemists, investigators and witches) a bit better?
* Introduce substantially more good Intelligence-based skill feats. We've already had a whole lot of strong Charisma-based skill feats (Bon Mot, a lot of feinting stuff, and intimidate based feats that start utilitarian (Intimidating Glare) but get quite spectacular (Terrifying Retreat, Scare to Death). But Intelligence-based skill feats are rather stuck in doing downtime stuff. Add some nice encounter-time skill feats for Intelligence, not just on Arcana, but on all the Intelligence-based skills.
* Add a new thesis option, "scholarship": you pick one (or maybe even two?) Intelligence-based skills and those auto-upgrade similar to Additional Lore. This lets the wizard lean more into the "I'm really educated" niche but doesn't make them a generic competitor for the rogue/investigator.
I think more benefits for having a good intelligence if it's not your class ability is always a good idea!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not going to lie the moment I heard blasting wasn’t a thing in 2E I just kind of wrote off casters as something I’d be interested in doing. I typically don’t enjoy playing utility casters but it’s probably because I’ve been ruined by WoW and other video games where, for instance, Frost Mage, Fire Mage and Demonology Warlock are just another way of dealing damage along side the Warrior and the Rogue.
I also think thematic casters are really cool, but it was a bummer to learn that wanting to be a “fire mage” even accepting many things are resistant to fire damage just isn’t really a character you can play per se compared to a martial damage dealer. I love Kael’thas and Jaina, and I love other MMOs like FFXIV with Black Mage and Summoner but they do DPS just as well as anyone else (balance being what it is nothing is ever perfect). So I guess I lament that DPS mages aren’t on the same playing field as say my current character (Greataxe Fighter).
You won't be able to blast like WoW since they have unlimited heavy blasting. But you've never been able to blast like WoW in D&D or PF.
That being said blasting is an amazing option. I've even seen it do absolutely nutty damage against bosses. It's way better than martials at clearing equal to lower level groups of creatures. It often annihilates them fast. With the double damage critical failure rules, you can really dish a ton of damage blasting.
I did just realize it's probably about that time I can stop posting on caster balance. Secrets of Magic has probably gone to the printers so all further soapboxing is kinda pointless
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do find it interesting how certain ideas like “PF2 has no blasting” get out into the universe and then get held onto so vehemently by people who care enough about the game to show up on dedicated message boards. Like, I would agree that PF2 as a whole doesn’t represent MMO character roles and classes very faithfully, but see that as a huge positive. Real time video games have a whole lot of unnecessary and overly complicated mechanics running behind the scenes to allow for the way they handle encounters outside of a turn based system, and with the support of powerful computers, and not people, trying to keep them in mind.
In the long run, the challenge with a book like secrets of magic is that consistent underlying criticism of casters in PF2, that holds some weight (and some overly reductionist logic), is that casting in PF2 is more complex than martial combat, as martial fighting can sort of be essentialized down to “how much damage can you pack into a strike action” while there is no comparable “strike” action for casting. (Sure some martials get feats and items that stretch one strike action in many different ways, but those characters still have a definable strike action that players can quickly identify and rank). Each and every spell is like a combination of feats and items combined together and thus having feats and items that interact with just “spells” have to be incredibly more narrow in focus. Spells in PF2 are not a modular system compared to other parts of the game. They don’t have nearly the unification of parts necessary to make simple magic items that modify them without having to look at the whole breadth of spells. Maybe we see items that interact with spells more limited by the level of spell, (like a wand that gives an increase to the DCs of level 1 spells) but that only adds complexity to caster classes that isn’t really necessary or valuable to the problem that players are really having: casting requires a lot of player knowledge and Supportive GMing to help players make informed choices with limited resources.
Secrets of magic could take a GMG approach though and just propose alternate casting systems that change the focal point away from casters needing to learn the nuances of the spell list.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How's this for an interesting spin on making wizards (and by collateral, alchemists, investigators and witches) a bit better?
* Introduce substantially more good Intelligence-based skill feats. We've already had a whole lot of strong Charisma-based skill feats (Bon Mot, a lot of feinting stuff, and intimidate based feats that start utilitarian (Intimidating Glare) but get quite spectacular (Terrifying Retreat, Scare to Death). But Intelligence-based skill feats are rather stuck in doing downtime stuff. Add some nice encounter-time skill feats for Intelligence, not just on Arcana, but on all the Intelligence-based skills.
* Add a new thesis option, "scholarship": you pick one (or maybe even two?) Intelligence-based skills and those auto-upgrade similar to Additional Lore. This lets the wizard lean more into the "I'm really educated" niche but doesn't make them a generic competitor for the rogue/investigator.
My preferred methods of making INT-based PCs better at skills is whenever a PC's INT modifier increases past +4, award them skill increases instead of more Trained skills.
While skill points in 1E were a nuisance to keep track of, I like that you could spend them to maximize a number of skills of your choice. But in 2E high INT provides only basic training in skills you haven't taken, which is not valuable at high level. Hence my house rule.
|
|
Int seems ok in my opinion.
Comparing a lvl 1 wizard with a lvl 1 any other spellcaster, the int based one is going to start with 8 skills ( out of 16 ) out of 16, while any other non int based is going to start with 4/5 + int.
so it's a huge amount of extra skills ( I am not even considering martial classes here, since they will be needing STR, DEX, CONST, WIS and eventually char, for intimidate checks ).
We currently have 4 skills out of 16 which are int based ( Arcana, Crafting, Occultism and Society ) + all lore skills.
Knowing that not all characters would take anything from being trained in any skill, the wizard might probably be at ease with its skills without any need to invest into ancestry feats or skill feats ( provided 12 int to get the "skill training" feat ).
But if they really want, they can invest into some skill and ancestry feats.
In addition, several dedications and archetypes give extra skills, and also by lvl 10, 17 and 20 an int spellcaster will get extra additional skills.
About the fact that int based skills might not be too interesting, I think I can partially agree.
Int is meant for academic stuff, and it has a huge role when it comes to recall knowledge check ( and it's mandatory for crafting magical stuff ), but that's it. And if your group is not to make a good use of recall knowledge, as well as academic stuff, you'll probably find yourself changing your skills progression for other feats.
Anyway, what I wanted to point out was that being able to be training in different skills by simply increasing your main stat is wonderful and unfortunately, as far as I happened to see, underrated.
I think INT is weaker than WIS or CHA for the following reasons. Religion and Nature (WIS-based) can be used to Recall Knowledge on more types of creatures than Arcana or Occultism can. And CHA-based skills are useful both in and out of combat, whereas INT-based skills can struggle in either.
INT’s only advantage is extra Trained skills, but that has diminishing returns, both as your PC increases level and as you reach skills that aren’t important for your PC. Trained proficiency cease being adequate for on-level checks past a certain point, but at L10 and L20 INT-based PCs become Trained in skills that they hadn’t needed up until that point. Also, any PC build who is short on trained skills can get them easily through ancestry feats, multiclass archetypes, or Untrained Improvisation.WIS is better than INT in all respects. It’s governs Will Saves and Perception checks (bonuses to either are less common than means of getting Trained skills), and Nature and Religion are more useful than Arcana or Occultism at Recall Knowledge. It’s a glaring flaw in the game’s balance.
Unfortunately I’m like “heh heh lizard wizard” and then of course like Lizardfolk take a penalty to intelligence and im looking at Winter Witch or Wizard in general etc lol.
People constantly forgetting about the Voluntary Flaw rule.
Unfortunately I’m like “heh heh lizard wizard” and then of course like Lizardfolk take a penalty to intelligence and im looking at Winter Witch or Wizard in general etc lol.People constantly forgetting about the Voluntary Flaw rule.
Many GMs see that as an optional rule and do not allow it out of hand.
Actually it's Society + Arcana + Lores + Occultism vs Nature + Religion.I think INT is weaker than WIS or CHA for the following reasons. Religion and Nature (WIS-based) can be used to Recall Knowledge on more types of creatures than Arcana or Occultism can. And CHA-based skills are useful both in and out of combat, whereas INT-based skills can struggle in either.
You forgot Craft. Medicine can also be considered a Wisdom-based one, since it can be used to Recall Knowledge for things like cause of death or other medical investigations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many GMs see that as an optional rule and do not allow it out of hand.Unfortunately I’m like “heh heh lizard wizard” and then of course like Lizardfolk take a penalty to intelligence and im looking at Winter Witch or Wizard in general etc lol.People constantly forgetting about the Voluntary Flaw rule.
if so, intentionally or not, that's a house rule and is therefore outside the scope of this discussion.
|
|
I think INT is weaker than WIS or CHA for the following reasons. Religion and Nature (WIS-based) can be used to Recall Knowledge on more types of creatures than Arcana or Occultism can. And CHA-based skills are useful both in and out of combat, whereas INT-based skills can struggle in either.
Actually it's Society + Arcana + Lores + Occultism vs Nature + Religion.
Apart from that, you could also consider 1 lore "undead" and 1 lore "fiend" which auto lvl and the wizard is set.
Had to clip because the website was eating text, sorry.
That's a good point about using Additional Lore, but the WIS-based skills still cover more useful unique creature types (Animal, Fey, Fiend, Monitor, Plant/Fungus, Undead) than the INT-based skills do (Aberration, Construct, Dragon, Humanoid), YMMV. Taking Additional Lore for all of them carrries high opportunity costs.
As for INT-based characters being "not combatants" or "probably out of troubles most of the times" is just not true IME. All PCs need AC, HP, and saving throws which require some combination of STR/DEX, CON, and WIS. Since caster proficiencies are lower than martial's, and wizard/witch are lower still, they need make up the difference by boosting those Ability Scores. While some casters don't need STR, IME CHA is usually better than INT because CHA has better skill and skill feat support.
You may call it min/maxing, but the fact is it's simple to get the skills you want without much INT. OTOH the means of increasing HP, AC, or saves are fewer and more limited in power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the Goblin Flame Oracle is just really good. Flame Oracles have the most consistent source of persistent fire damage in the game, arguably even better than bomber Alchemists, so Burn It is an amazing feat for them. Flame Oracle is one of the best mysteries in general, since it's benefits are really strong and the drawbacks are more build restriction than an actual detriment in play. Thanks to Divine Access and the wide variety of gods with the fire and sun domains the divine spell list's limitations are basically a non-issue.
If you want to see caster vs. martial balance at high level, stat up a bunch of pure martials and a bunch of pure casters, then have them do battle against each other. High level casters unloading AoE nuke spells while flying and invisible is not fun for martials. It was when that started occurring and my martial players started crying about TPKs I decided to use caster enemies sparingly at the higher levels. When every 2 action spell is basically hitting everyone, it's not real fun unless everyone is Dex-based saves specialist.
If you want to see caster vs. martial balance at high level, stat up a bunch of pure martials and a bunch of pure casters, then have them do battle against each other. High level casters unloading AoE nuke spells while flying and invisible is not fun for martials. It was when that started occurring and my martial players started crying about TPKs I decided to use caster enemies sparingly at the higher levels. When every 2 action spell is basically hitting everyone, it's not real fun unless everyone is Dex-based saves specialist.
Bear in mind casters (and well, everyone) are not generally supposed to be pre-buffed.
Bear in mind casters (and well, everyone) are not generally supposed to be pre-buffed.
While I generally agree, divination spells make precasting possible even with the short duration most buffs have and they are commonly used by many people.
But like it or not true strike exists
Reminder that martials can also cast True Strike (Ancestry feats or caster dedication) and it has never broke anything.
In regards to the blasting thing, area blasting is so good in this edition that it would be insane to recommend someone to ignore those spells. AoE damage spells are used when going against multiple enemies, normally weaker or same level as you. Due to 2E math, they will fail or critically fail fairly often resulting in absurd amounts of damage. I have dealt in the past almost 200 damage in a single turn at level 6 with a 3rd level Fireball.
Single target blasting is other thing completely though. I can perfectly see why so many people think it is severely lacking.
If i'd complain about casters being weaker than in other versions it would be utility actually. Buffs work great, Healing is in a really good spot (A full healer archetype being playable and good while at the same time not being a necessity is a f*&@ing amazing achievement imo) but utility spells all have a really low duration or much smaller effect.
So wanted to touch specifically on this point. Are you positing that 5e casters have better utility than PF2 casters? With the concentration system of 5e buffing as a concept was nerfed into the ground, as was a large number of debuffs.
Obviously compared to 3.x/PF1 any caster is going to fail in terms of sheer utility, but I think PF2 casters are still extremely useful across the board, and in fact buffing/debuffing is where they shine the most.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I do think that at least a spell attack boost item would be really good for casters who do like the attack spells, True Strike is not the fix for attack spells it should be a bonus.
However the main point of this is to boost up that AOE blasting is super strong in 2E. I'm playing a fighter currently, and the sorcerer in my party is the main damage dealer even though I do try to keep up.
In our recent big arc ending fight, we were fighting a huge group (20ish) of frost giants and with one 7th level Chain Lightning she dealt over 1,000 damage with a large number of them crit failing their save.
She has also been making my character look like a wimp for the past few arc, carrying us through several fights.
Also, just a little funny anecdote about how powerful Magic Missile really is. We just had a a test with an ancient super-strong monk who was built as a level 20 character, while we were only level 14. Out goal was to just take him down to half HP, but with the sorcerer getting out of range with lots of climbing and flight (goblin climbing shenanigans) and just the absolute spamming of 3-action magic missiles we were able to bring him down to about 20 hp. Granted we did get two free turns of the enemy not reacting, but I still found it impressive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to see caster vs. martial balance at high level, stat up a bunch of pure martials and a bunch of pure casters, then have them do battle against each other. High level casters unloading AoE nuke spells while flying and invisible is not fun for martials. It was when that started occurring and my martial players started crying about TPKs I decided to use caster enemies sparingly at the higher levels. When every 2 action spell is basically hitting everyone, it's not real fun unless everyone is Dex-based saves specialist.Bear in mind casters (and well, everyone) are not generally supposed to be pre-buffed.
Sort of depends on the set up. If they both know they're coming after each other, then the casters can prepare for that. All casters are ranged and don't have to waste time closing the distance before they act. And if you include a divine caster or two, they can erase damage or bring someone back to life.
Martials are very good at doing single target damage with some effects here or there. If that is the criteria for martial vs. caster balance, then I guess you're basically asking casters to be able to do everything like PF1. Casters can do a lot more stuff martials can't limited only by the spell lists that are soon to increase with more books.
Right now, if we had damage meters, the druid would be pushing the top of the meter in almost every fight that wasn't a single target Level+1 or +2 monster. In fights with lots of creatures, the druid usually levels the enemy far quicker than the martials.
I do understand where this feeling comes from. Most people play in that 1 to 10 range. If all you ever do is play lvl 1 to 10, you'll think casters are ok but a little weak. Lvl 11 seems to be that cut off. Once casters get past lvl 11, the game gets almost boring because casters make everything so easy whether it's the cleric erasing damage or the druid nuking Lvl-1 or 2 minions into the ground quickly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So wanted to touch specifically on this point. Are you positing that 5e casters have better utility than PF2 casters? With the concentration system of 5e buffing as a concept was nerfed into the ground, as was a large number of debuffs.
Obviously compared to 3.x/PF1 any caster is going to fail in terms of sheer utility, but I think PF2 casters are still extremely useful across the board, and in fact buffing/debuffing is where they shine the most.
5e has longer spell durations, neo vancian preparation and free heightening based on casting. Couple this with spells like fly or invis coming online earlier and often having greater impact.
Yeah I would say 5e casters have more utility beyond the very early levels. This is not a bad thing for PF2e though, casting is in a good place baseline. 5e while not PF1e bad when it comes to martial caster discrepancies is pretty damn bad mid to late levels.
On that note, people keep saying level 10 is high levels, as opposed to being mid levels.
Single target blasting mainly suffers from a lack of pure single target spells without riders imo, while I certainly agree spellcasters could do with more class feats (metamagic specifically) to enhance blasting on a raw damage level they handle themselves well if you look at spells like sudden bolt or other pure damage single target casts.
As for flanking and spell attacks not getting it. Only during the low levels really, there are so many ways to obtain flatfooted in this game. It is why I feel gang up is a bit of a trap feat for many parties, it looks amazing on the face of it but in reality is only helping in extreme niche scenarios and there are better uses for the slot.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do understand where this feeling comes from. Most people play in that 1 to 10 range. If all you ever do is play lvl 1 to 10, you'll think casters are ok but a little weak. Lvl 11 seems to be that cut off. Once casters get past lvl 11, the game gets almost boring because casters make everything so easy whether it's the cleric erasing damage or the druid nuking Lvl-1 or 2 minions into the ground quickly.
Giving the topic a lot of thought I think much of the perceived problems with casters are somewhat home-made by Paizo in a best-intentions-gone-wrong kind of way. But let me share some of my considerations.
Traditionally casters are weakest at low level, mainly due to scare ressources (spell slots) and possibly also due to lack of potent spells. Thus Paizo introduced unlimited attack cantrips to help casters overcome some of their deficits. These cantrips are in a way comparable to martial weapon attacks and mostly use attack rolls, which works perfectly well during levels 1 to 4, i.e. a big help during the exact time casters are usually deemed weakest.
Then we move to level 5 (and perhaps also at level 11 as Deriven has indicated) and *BÄM* big meta shift for casters.
Ever more and even higher spell slots become available => no more need to use cantrips or even lesser spells
Ever more potent spells become available => no more need to use single target spells as a means of attacking your foes
Martial proficiency outclasses caster proficiency => single target attack spells become a liability without enhancement (e.g. Hero Points or True Strike or Buffs/Debuffs)
And this is where the problems start as most players new to the system will neither easily realize that there has been a meta shift nor have they been prepared for a meta shift by the game itself (and martials do not seem to have to copy with meta shifts of this magnitude). Instead casters had 4 full levels to learn to use attack spells as their bread and butter solution, may easily also have picked up some additional attack spells (mainly because good low level AOE spells are hard to find) and are now wondering why they are beginning to fail using their limited ressources at an increased rate.
All in all this could be an example where due to actual game experience a purposeful and well meant design decision leads to the perception of weakness.
Note that this does not explain how higher level non-cantrip attack spells are somehow still left in the dust, however the above may be part of an explaination why despite many beneficial changes caster play experience might still be misleading during early and mid levels.
I do understand where this feeling comes from. Most people play in that 1 to 10 range. If all you ever do is play lvl 1 to 10, you'll think casters are ok but a little weak. Lvl 11 seems to be that cut off. Once casters get past lvl 11, the game gets almost boring because casters make everything so easy whether it's the cleric erasing damage or the druid nuking Lvl-1 or 2 minions into the ground quickly.Giving the topic a lot of thought I think much of the perceived problems with casters are somewhat home-made by Paizo in a best-intentions-gone-wrong kind of way. But let me share some of my considerations.
Traditionally casters are weakest at low level, mainly due to scare ressources (spell slots) and possibly also due to lack of potent spells. Thus Paizo introduced unlimited attack cantrips to help casters overcome some of their deficits. These cantrips are in a way comparable to martial weapon attacks and mostly use attack rolls, which works perfectly well during levels 1 to 4, i.e. a big help during the exact time casters are usually deemed weakest.
Then we move to level 5 (and perhaps also at level 11 as Deriven has indicated) and *BÄM* big meta shift for casters.
Ever more and even higher spell slots become available => no more need to use cantrips or even lesser spells
Ever more potent spells become available => no more need to use single target spells as a means of attacking your foes
Martial proficiency outclasses caster proficiency => single target attack spells become a liability without enhancement (e.g. Hero Points or True Strike or Buffs/Debuffs)And this is where the problems start as most players new to the system will neither easily realize that there has been a meta shift nor have they been prepared for a meta shift by the game itself (and martials do not seem to have to copy with meta shifts of this magnitude). Instead casters had 4 full levels to learn to use attack spells as their bread and butter solution, may easily also have picked up...
I don't think all casters are this way. It's mainly wizards and sorcerers depending on the bloodline.
Bard: I had little trouble shifting. Composition cantrips are immensely useful from lvl 1 to 20.
Druid: I did not have thee same trouble shifting. Storm druid spell Tempest Surge is pretty awesome and I get to use it one or more times a battle. I get an animal companion. I get shapechange if I want it.
Witch: Witch has a constant supply of hexes every battle that do something useful if you pick the right patrons.
Sorcerer: Some of their focus spells are very good, some suck. Using a good focus spell 1 to 3 times a combat is very nice.
Cleric: Healing is always useful. You can usually build for some combat utility and get some nice buff spells or save dead.
Wizard: Awful class abilities and focus spells mostly. Situationally useful at best. They feel terrible. You're always relying on your spells and don't really have much to look forward to. The wizard class just doesn't feel good IMO even up to lvl 10 or so. It doesn't have much interesting going for it.
Another way the importance and utility of casters is massively undervalued in PF2, is how effective the counter spell/anti-magic game can be. The fact that counteracting works effectively against level+1 effects is subtle, but incredibly powerful in the PF2 casting framework. Facing higher level casters as enemies is a scary prospect in PF2, but with a well informed wizard, you can really shut them down. Having lots of spell slots and a prepared spell list can make a big difference there.