heheh, I'll send a PM to keep track of you.Oooh! Oooh! /raises hand
You know, there's a person on enworld in a similar boat I've offered to run for, they're hesitant about online play, but I wouldn't mind running a newbie one shot I have set up for like, you and them and whoever else. I have one ready to go on foundry already.
I did say dedicate into the primal or divine spell list. Which can be done in a variety of ways. You get access to staff of healing upgrades pretty analogous to additional spell slots of the same lvl conveniently.
But still the amount of 4th lvl heals or higher you'd be able to cast would still be quite limited unless you give up your most potent spell slots.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need thousands of hours of experience to know that there are some things casters just suck at in PF2.
What's less apparent to people in this thread is that those gaps are cornerstones of Pathfinder 2's design philosophy. There are serious gaps in what spellcasters can do and those gaps tend to conveniently align with what martials are good at.
This is how PF2 addresses martial-caster disparity: by making martials indispensable even though they still kind of suck.
Notice that PF2 doesn't have 6-th level casters anymore despite how popular they were in PF1 (weaker than full casters, but more likely to encroach on martial design space). Notice the things that PF2 casters are the most obviously worse at compared to PF1: Layering defenses, dealing with bosses, summoning meatshields of their own, etc. None of this is on accident.
PF2 creates a synergy where spellcasters are good at manipulating battlefield conditions, AoE damage and providing lateral solutions to problems.
Martials meanwhile are good at hitting things with sticks.
That's the balance. That's why blasting bosses or building pseudo-martials out of warpriests or wizards with weapon dedications or even mutagen alchemists feels bad. Because you aren't supposed to do that.
I don't even think that's actually true, casters do well at single target damage, especially when we consider certain spells and tactics-- Magic Missile, True Strike, Sudden Bolt, Flaming Sphere, Force Bolt (this one is focus) to name a few off the wizard list I'm using in Emry's (my Wizard/Investigator)build. Pretty much any basic save damage spell is liable to be decent in that context due to the success effects still resulting in chip damage (and reducing the number of times the rest of the party has to get lucky)even spell attack rolls have their place in the right tactical situation.
I think Martials specialize in single target damage better, especially melee martials, but casters aren't actually bad at it. Like being in a fight and casting damage spells on single targets isn't actually a terrible decision by any means.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need thousands of hours of experience to know that there are some things casters just suck at in PF2.
What's less apparent to people in this thread is that those gaps are cornerstones of Pathfinder 2's design philosophy. There are serious gaps in what spellcasters can do and those gaps tend to conveniently align with what martials are good at.
This is how PF2 addresses martial-caster disparity: by making martials indispensable even though they still kind of suck.
Notice that PF2 doesn't have 6-th level casters anymore despite how popular they were in PF1 (weaker than full casters, but more likely to encroach on martial design space). Notice the things that PF2 casters are the most obviously worse at compared to PF1: Layering defenses, dealing with bosses, summoning meatshields of their own, etc. None of this is on accident.
PF2 creates a synergy where spellcasters are good at manipulating battlefield conditions, AoE damage and providing lateral solutions to problems.
Martials meanwhile are good at hitting things with sticks.
That's the balance. That's why blasting bosses or building pseudo-martials out of warpriests or wizards with weapon dedications or even mutagen alchemists feels bad. Because you aren't supposed to do that.
I don't even think that's actually true, casters do well at single target damage, especially when we consider certain spells and tactics-- Magic Missile, True Strike, Sudden Bolt, Flaming Sphere, Force Bolt (this one is focus) to name a few off the wizard list I'm using in Emry's (my Wizard/Investigator)build. Pretty much any basic save damage spell is liable to be decent in that context due to the success effects still resulting in chip damage (and reducing the number of times the rest of the party has to get lucky)even spell attack rolls have their place in the right tactical situation.
I think Martials specialize in single target damage better, especially melee martials, but casters aren't actually bad at it. Like being...
Tempest Surge is definitely also a great example of it. Solid ST damage, persistent, good element - it's a very good example of what you'd want to see in a damage-based focus spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about the "wizards suck" argument I feel isn't compelling is that in PF1 (core) rogues, fighters, monks, all were very weak but that didn't stop people from playing those classes because they liked the themes even before the things Paizo printed to fix those classes!
So the problem with the wizard is more "there's not enough fun wizard stuff" not "other classes are better."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This just hasn't been my experience at all, like there's all this hand wringing about designers falibility, and "I got mine mentalities" but the class seems fairly powerful from what I've seen as a GM and now played as a player. The extra slots don't seem worse at all, and my focus spell seems fine too (force bolt, in my case.) I haven't even gotten to use my spell blending yet and I already feel like I can go harder than the other members of my party.How are you going harder than your party? I don't even know what that means.
You want to track damage for a while telling us your party composition and let us know how that goes? That's what I did to measure empirically the effect of the wizard versus the effect of other classes on the game.
It's not real hard to do. You use an excel sheet. Track the damage done. Have a little notes column when the bard song or a strong debuff like Synesthesia had an effect. Log the damage for different focus spells like Tempest Surge or Wild Shape. You'll see how it goes.
For example, wild shape is like having a max level shapechange spell slot every battle. If wild shape proves useful in 3 battles, then the druid has the equivalent of three max level polymorph spells per day usable once or more per combat.
So the druid goes from 3 lvl 8 slots to 3 lvl 8 slots and 3 maximum lvl dragon form or 8th lvl sudden bolt equivalent spells.
That is how I go about measuring focus capabilities. What they are able to do versus a max level spell slot of a comparable spell and if they actually proved useful during a particular combat.
That strikes me as having a lot of room for error and tactical variance-- what if the Bard is just a better player, or gets better rolls than you?
Is the druid's wildshape actually 'useful' or is it just enabling their melee playstyle, how do you even compare something like that to what you do given that you aren't...
Druid wildshape is actually useful. I've used it for the following:
1. Turned into an earth elemental and pounded through a wall of force.2. Dragon shape allows you to to turn into various types of dragons which can do different types of damage where an energy attack with the bite, a breath weapon, or straight martial damage.
3. I've flown party members around on the dragon to circumvent distances.
4. I've switched to melee damage when spells don't work well like against a golem that isn't affected by a particular energy type.
There isn't room for tactical error. The bard sings and the entire party gets better. When he uses Inspire Heroics a few times a battle, they get even better. It's never a negative.
When he does something even better like hit a monster with true target and synesthesia, people are loving him.
This preserves spells letting the bard and druid hang on to them for other uses. At higher level you just don't fight enough in a day to run out of spells. Druid and bard have impactful versatility that allows them to extend their spell slots to high value situations, while using focus spells and standard cantrips for every encounter providing a substantial bonus.
The guy saying tempest surge isn't great is not what I've seen at all. If the wizard had access to a single target spell that did 1d12 per level damage with level persistent damage and a Clumsy 2 rider, they would be using it quite a lot.
What I have seen though is the following:
1. Wizard casting summon dragon against a dragon and doing no damage. Didn't hit once. Had to spend one of the dragons 2 actions to fly every round and take one attack.
2. Wizard stuck casting cantrips every round if we have more than 3 fights per day because at lower level he exhausts all his highest level spell slots quickly and has no worthwhile focus or innate abilities to maintain his fighting ability.
3. Wizard having a series of lucky saving throws by the enemy leading to slots used for minimal effect and not being able to regain them like you can focus abilities.
All this while doing the same thing as other classes with some occasional destructive spells with critical failures or the like the way any caster can do except divine. Casting is casting. The caster has more spell slots. But at the end of the day who cares if focus points are like high level spell slots that recharge.
Like I said, my group went from making a wizard for nearly every AP or adventure to actively avoiding the wizard class due to how poorly it has performed compared to other classes.
SoS is the new SoS. AoE incapacitation spells like Calm Emotions, Sleep (4), Paralyze (7) and so on do far more to reduce the threat of mooks than AoE damage.
It depends on how the encounter is designed. Those spells are nice, especially calm emotions.
But an 8th level chain lightning on a group of Level-2 mooks sends them to the sleep of the dead. My druid is the most fearsome character I've played yet. When she unleashes direct damage spells and then transforms into a dragon to unleash a breath weapon as a follow-up while moving across the battlefield with reach at 100 foot fly speed, let's just say things shift in the party's favor quite quickly.
Druids are impressive in this game. You do not want a high level druid angry at cities. It's not a good time.
You don't need thousands of hours of experience to know that there are some things casters just suck at in PF2.
What's less apparent to people in this thread is that those gaps are cornerstones of Pathfinder 2's design philosophy. There are serious gaps in what spellcasters can do and those gaps tend to conveniently align with what martials are good at.
This is how PF2 addresses martial-caster disparity: by making martials indispensable even though they still kind of suck.
Notice that PF2 doesn't have 6-th level casters anymore despite how popular they were in PF1 (weaker than full casters, but more likely to encroach on martial design space). Notice the things that PF2 casters are the most obviously worse at compared to PF1: Layering defenses, dealing with bosses, summoning meatshields of their own, etc. None of this is on accident.
PF2 creates a synergy where spellcasters are good at manipulating battlefield conditions, AoE damage and providing lateral solutions to problems.
Martials meanwhile are good at hitting things with sticks.
That's the balance. That's why blasting bosses or building pseudo-martials out of warpriests or wizards with weapon dedications or even mutagen alchemists feels bad. Because you aren't supposed to do that.
Yep. True.
Druid and bard are powerful, but martials barring a super lucky failed save are much better at single target damage and boss killing. I've occasionally had a great failed save roll against a boss, but it's pretty rare. Against lvl+2 monster it's much better to help in other ways like flanking or taking lucky tempest surge strikes.
If you want to be a war priest, better to make a fighter with cleric dedication.
You don't need thousands of hours of experience to know that there are some things casters just suck at in PF2.
What's less apparent to people in this thread is that those gaps are cornerstones of Pathfinder 2's design philosophy. There are serious gaps in what spellcasters can do and those gaps tend to conveniently align with what martials are good at.
This is how PF2 addresses martial-caster disparity: by making martials indispensable even though they still kind of suck.
Notice that PF2 doesn't have 6-th level casters anymore despite how popular they were in PF1 (weaker than full casters, but more likely to encroach on martial design space). Notice the things that PF2 casters are the most obviously worse at compared to PF1: Layering defenses, dealing with bosses, summoning meatshields of their own, etc. None of this is on accident.
PF2 creates a synergy where spellcasters are good at manipulating battlefield conditions, AoE damage and providing lateral solutions to problems.
Martials meanwhile are good at hitting things with sticks.
That's the balance. That's why blasting bosses or building pseudo-martials out of warpriests or wizards with weapon dedications or even mutagen alchemists feels bad. Because you aren't supposed to do that.
I don't even think that's actually true, casters do well at single target damage, especially when we consider certain spells and tactics-- Magic Missile, True Strike, Sudden Bolt, Flaming Sphere, Force Bolt (this one is focus) to name a few off the wizard list I'm using in Emry's (my Wizard/Investigator)build. Pretty much any basic save damage spell is liable to be decent in that context due to the success effects still resulting in chip damage (and reducing the number of times the rest of the party has to get lucky)even spell attack rolls have their place in the right tactical situation.
I think Martials specialize in single target damage better, especially melee martials, but casters aren't actually bad at it. Like being...
Those aren't bad, especially with a lucky crit fail.
But it's often times better to haste the group, cast inspire heroics, let the martials go to town. If it is the last battle for the day and you have the slots or focus points, you can go to town and do some ok damage.
I've had a 126 tempest surge. That was a nice big hit. I built up a magic bow on my druid. I've also had some nice produce flame hits where you do double damage, then light the enemy on fire. I built a bow and can do nicely in battle with electric arc and a bow shot. It's not barbarian, fighter, or rogue damage, but it's add up. Dragon form does a surprisingly good amount of damage for martial hits with reach and super mobility. Druids get an innate +2 status bonus if you build them to hit, so that can be nice.
Druids get an innate +2 status bonus if you build them to hit
Only very ocassionally. Most of the time, no, they don't get it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if that's your list of experiences I sort of see the problem-- they're either exceptionally unlucky rolls or exceptionally poor tactical decisions (such as using summon dragon against a higher level solo boss and expecting it to do more than soak a little damage or get a lucky shot.)
If the bard was making similar decisions, you'd see an equally poor showing. Their focus magic is doubtlessly useful, but they're running out of slots way faster than the wizard is if they're actually casting. I will point out the Wizard does, unlike every other classes perks, give the player control of what they use it all on, so if you aren't selecting spells with a good plan, the game isn't going out of the way to force them into your hands the way other classes do, but it's much more versatile.
For instance, using the extra slots on Magic Missile makes my extra slots more useful than some other first level spell- I can use it to bypass chance and reduce the number of hits the party has to get, more times than the bard can. Flaming Sphere lets me spend two of my slots, and rack up damage across the fight so I don't run out of gas. There are quality buff and debuff spells as you discussed, as well.
The trick is, the Wizard decides what to do with their extra resources, so they have the power to choose well or badly. So far my outlook seems pretty bright, and I've seen spellcasting at all tiers of play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But regarding what I was calling ad hominem. The original poster of the "some people don't play" said "some" without mentioning who was who which yeah was bad. But, noticed I didn't say anything about being an attack then. However, Cyouni specifically called out 3 people and told people to question us. One of which who has played the game, even if its not vanilla.So it went from "hmm, maybe some people are not understanding something" to "go ask these three people to validate themselves". Ignoring the fact that the same arguments have been given by GMs and Players with vastly more game experience.
So the entire implication went from "lets talk about the argument" to "see what these people say doesn't matter".
You might notice that was specifically in response to "you can't say that people are only armchair theorising (and haven't played the game) with any certainty".
To which I gave specific examples, and invited the other poster to confirm them.If I caused offense, then I apologize.
As well, only playing your massively modified homebrew means you have absolutely 0 experience with the actual game. If I say "I played PF1, but only with Spheres of Power" then you are completely justified in saying I can't tell you what the problems are with how casting interacts with the system, because I have 0 experience with that.
Furthermore, not playing the game has a direct effect on how useful your feedback is. You've made comments like "Then people say its a prepared caster thing, but no. Druids, Witches, and Clerics all work fine WITH their focus spells," but you have literally 0 context for that. You have no experience with wizards, druids, witches, or clerics.
In the same way that you can't trust a person who's never been in a fight to tell you what happens in one, you can't say that you know how the game plays. You can theorize and figure out how you think it might work, but it's no substitute for actual experience. That is not an insult - I wouldn't trust anyone who think they know how a game plays without actually playing it, because I have seen those pitfalls many times over.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the same way that you can't trust a person who's never been in a fight to tell you what happens in one, you can't say that you know how the game plays. You can theorize and figure out how you think it might work, but it's no substitute for actual experience. That is not an insult - I wouldn't trust anyone who think they know how a game plays without actually playing it, because I have seen those pitfalls many times over.
An evergreen sentiment that gave me a much better understanding of how people interact with online discussions: Why Wasn't I Consulted?
Everyone who posts mostly does so because they believe that in this space they have a valid, valuable opinion. That's the implicit promise most people internalize.
When you threaten that, no matter how reasonable you are about why their opinion actually isn't equally valuable, people get defensive, and we all go down a weird rabbit hole of hurt feelings and outrage.
So anyway, I agree with Cyouni, with the caveat that you probably shouldn't make ironclad expressions about something as often fluid as Pf2e balance in general, but certainly not if you've never ever actually interacted with the reality of a situation.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I have little experience in fistfights, but I know attacking a half-dozen opponents at once is a bad idea. So if I were tell that to someone, and they responded with "Shut up, you're not an experienced brawler, so that isn't true!", then they would be making a logical fallacy and serious mistake.
Getting back on topic, my unfavorable opinion of wizards is informed by both reading the book (poor focus spells, bad proficiencies) and actual play (it's difficult to have just the right spell prepared, Bond Conservation/cascade casting is too difficult to set up).
It's important to actually engage with the arguments of people who disagree with you, instead of looking for reasons to ignore. But you can't do that when you respond by saying their lack of actual play experience makes their arguments invalid.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the same way that you can't trust a person who's never been in a fight to tell you what happens in one, you can't say that you know how the game plays. You can theorize and figure out how you think it might work, but it's no substitute for actual experience. That is not an insult - I wouldn't trust anyone who think they know how a game plays without actually playing it, because I have seen those pitfalls many times over.An evergreen sentiment that gave me a much better understanding of how people interact with online discussions: Why Wasn't I Consulted?
Everyone who posts mostly does so because they believe that in this space they have a valid, valuable opinion. That's the implicit promise most people internalize.
When you threaten that, no matter how reasonable you are about why their opinion actually isn't equally valuable, people get defensive, and we all go down a weird rabbit hole of hurt feelings and outrage.
So anyway, I agree with Cyouni, with the caveat that you probably shouldn't make ironclad expressions about something as often fluid as Pf2e balance in general, but certainly not if you've never ever actually interacted with the reality of a situation.
That article is so on point for some discussion of Pathfinder 2e it hurts
Like, I'm not even thinking of this discussion when I say that, but there's a particular subset of discussions across a few places that basically insist PF2e is some kind of unmitigated disaster and autopsy it according to the speakers biases.
The most relevant being one about how balance is game ruining and disrupts a desirable natural order of casters on top and martials on the bottom. Another particularly prolific poster arguing that PF2e's 'failures' can be attributed to it not 'seeing the writing on the wall' represented by 5e's popularity and being his private 5e based fantasy heartbreaker instead. Another post insists its time for a pf2e 'essentials' and again glosses over any reasonable assessment of the product's performance to set the narrative.
I've seen people insist it should have been some rules lite OSR game, should have been rules add on for 5e, etc. It's not just expression of opinion either, it's moral outrage that Paizo would do otherwise, and the poster insisting that the universe must be punishing paizo for its transgressions against what they see as the right direction.
WWIC is such a perfect summary of it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@The-Magic-Sword
I don't mind joining a campaign if you want me to join.****************************
But regarding what I was calling ad hominem. The original poster of the "some people don't play" said "some" without mentioning who was who which yeah was bad. But, noticed I didn't say anything about being an attack then. However, Cyouni specifically called out 3 people and told people to question us. One of which who has played the game, even if its not vanilla.
So it went from "hmm, maybe some people are not understanding something" to "go ask these three people to validate themselves". Ignoring the fact that the same arguments have been given by GMs and Players with vastly more game experience.
So the entire implication went from "lets talk about the argument" to "see what these people say doesn't matter".
It's an offer to play a little in a low level one shot if you want it! Not a demand or anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think there is some "why wasn't I consulted" going on in the general community.
I also think it's a lot less prevalent in this particular discussion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole “Why wasn’t I consulted” thing seems perversely self-indulgent in regard to this thread.
It’s feels like a standard appeal-to-authority but with some extra back slapping thrown in.
Can we just not?
What can we do here? We can discuss what we do and don’t like about classes and how they are balanced, we can try to understand what design decisions were made and why, and we can homebrew/mod the system for our tables. Anything beyond that really feels like it is just it is going to result in a fight that nobody wins.
Has there been any large scale rebalancing of classes, especially between martials and casters? Not really. There has been very minor rebalancing steps taking through errata for the alchemist. There are very few “new” things for any specific classes in the APG or other new material that is just flatly better than already exists to change the balance. Avoiding power bloat seems like a very intentional decision
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is playtest, I Do Not See It ~w~
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would wait until the final Magus/Summoner until people start making judgements. I'm playing the playtest Magus (started at 2nd level, now 7th level) with free archetype (witch), and I think the class isn't weak. It can feel a bit clunky and I think Slide synthesis is the only good melee option. But I'm assuming Paizo will make non-slide synthesis more competent in the final version and hopefully make Striking Spell less clunky. However, my character is regarded as one of the main "DPSers" of the party as Striking Spell can pack a punch. So I wouldn't say the class is weak by any means, it just needs some adjustments that I expect to see in the final version.
I can't speak on the Summoner as I haven't seen it played. The Inventor and Gunslinger got played a in a small 4 session campaign, and both seemed cool and not weaker than any other class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
After the Investigator it should be obvious to anyone that the playtest version of a class does not count. Paizo ain't Blizzard, they're fully willing to make the drastic changes necessary to fix a bad idea.
I would wait until the final Magus/Summoner until people start making judgements. I'm playing the playtest Magus (started at 2nd level, now 7th level) with free archetype (witch), and I think the class isn't weak. It can feel a bit clunky and I think Slide synthesis is the only good melee option. But I'm assuming Paizo will make non-slide synthesis more competent in the final version and hopefully make Striking Spell less clunky. However, my character is regarded as one of the main "DPSers" of the party as Striking Spell can pack a punch. So I wouldn't say the class is weak by any means, it just needs some adjustments that I expect to see in the final version.
I can't speak on the Summoner as I haven't seen it played. The Inventor and Gunslinger got played a in a small 4 session campaign, and both seemed cool and not weaker than any other class.
I read the inventor class and I gotta say I LOVE it!!
Of course there's still tweaks and fixed that I hope go through, overload seems too frequent, I'd love if there was a mechanic to handle overload in combat, maybe a crafting check feat or whatnot ?
Aside from that so many builds are open! I want to make a megaton hammer striker so bad !
Druids get an innate +2 status bonus if you build them to hitOnly very ocassionally. Most of the time, no, they don't get it.
Depends on how you build. They usually don't get it at the exact level they get a new form level. A lvl or 2 after, they can get it. They have to build for it like using handwraps and building up their unarmed strike attack bonus and strength.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if that's your list of experiences I sort of see the problem-- they're either exceptionally unlucky rolls or exceptionally poor tactical decisions (such as using summon dragon against a higher level solo boss and expecting it to do more than soak a little damage or get a lucky shot.)
If the bard was making similar decisions, you'd see an equally poor showing. Their focus magic is doubtlessly useful, but they're running out of slots way faster than the wizard is if they're actually casting. I will point out the Wizard does, unlike every other classes perks, give the player control of what they use it all on, so if you aren't selecting spells with a good plan, the game isn't going out of the way to force them into your hands the way other classes do, but it's much more versatile.
For instance, using the extra slots on Magic Missile makes my extra slots more useful than some other first level spell- I can use it to bypass chance and reduce the number of hits the party has to get, more times than the bard can. Flaming Sphere lets me spend two of my slots, and rack up damage across the fight so I don't run out of gas. There are quality buff and debuff spells as you discussed, as well.
The trick is, the Wizard decides what to do with their extra resources, so they have the power to choose well or badly. So far my outlook seems pretty bright, and I've seen spellcasting at all tiers of play.
Not true at all. The bard flat out has better abilities than the wizard while also being able to cast interesting spells. Same with the druid.
If the enemy survives long enough for your flaming sphere to do good damage, you have incredibly poorly built martials. I don't play in groups like that. The martials will eat a group of monsters before a flaming sphere can do much. That's why no one in our group slots the flaming sphere spell. We tried it a few times, but it didn't do much. Even a regular save reduces the damage to zero. One sustain action for an average of 10 points on a failed save and 0 points on a regular save is not what we consider a high value spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would wait until the final Magus/Summoner until people start making judgements. I'm playing the playtest Magus (started at 2nd level, now 7th level) with free archetype (witch), and I think the class isn't weak. It can feel a bit clunky and I think Slide synthesis is the only good melee option. But I'm assuming Paizo will make non-slide synthesis more competent in the final version and hopefully make Striking Spell less clunky. However, my character is regarded as one of the main "DPSers" of the party as Striking Spell can pack a punch. So I wouldn't say the class is weak by any means, it just needs some adjustments that I expect to see in the final version.
I can't speak on the Summoner as I haven't seen it played. The Inventor and Gunslinger got played a in a small 4 session campaign, and both seemed cool and not weaker than any other class.
We'll see if they fix some of the issues with the Summoner like the disadvantage on AoE or multi-target saves. The shared hit point pool encouraging cruel DMs to target the summoner over his summoned creature due to the weaker defenses. The lack of spell flexibility. The weakness of summoned creatures in comparison to what you fight. The lack of action flexibility, which was a major reason people played a summoner in the original game. The extremely weak damage compared to the classes it would compete against for a role in a group.
I didn't play with the Magus enough to get a feel for its mechanics. Main problem I saw initially was the double rolls needed to hit and crit with a spell. Two chances to fail is never a good thing for a martial class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if that's your list of experiences I sort of see the problem-- they're either exceptionally unlucky rolls or exceptionally poor tactical decisions (such as using summon dragon against a higher level solo boss and expecting it to do more than soak a little damage or get a lucky shot.)
If the bard was making similar decisions, you'd see an equally poor showing. Their focus magic is doubtlessly useful, but they're running out of slots way faster than the wizard is if they're actually casting. I will point out the Wizard does, unlike every other classes perks, give the player control of what they use it all on, so if you aren't selecting spells with a good plan, the game isn't going out of the way to force them into your hands the way other classes do, but it's much more versatile.
For instance, using the extra slots on Magic Missile makes my extra slots more useful than some other first level spell- I can use it to bypass chance and reduce the number of hits the party has to get, more times than the bard can. Flaming Sphere lets me spend two of my slots, and rack up damage across the fight so I don't run out of gas. There are quality buff and debuff spells as you discussed, as well.
The trick is, the Wizard decides what to do with their extra resources, so they have the power to choose well or badly. So far my outlook seems pretty bright, and I've seen spellcasting at all tiers of play.
Not true at all. The bard flat out has better abilities than the wizard while also being able to cast interesting spells. Same with the druid.
If the enemy survives long enough for your flaming sphere to do good damage, you have incredibly poorly built martials. I don't play in groups like that. The martials will eat a group of monsters before a flaming sphere can do much. That's why no one in our group slots the flaming sphere spell. We tried it a few times, but it didn't do much. Even a regular save reduces the damage to zero. One sustain action...
You must not be fighting many severe or above encounters then, even for my super optimized party, the monsters shouldn't be getting eaten *that* fast, my encounters tend to last 4-5 rounds, though some of that has to do with the PCs and Monsters having to cross significant distances on some maps. Flaming Sphere isn't bad against bosses, but I like to use it to cheaply clean up encounters while the others focus on larger targets.
I would wait until the final Magus/Summoner until people start making judgements. I'm playing the playtest Magus (started at 2nd level, now 7th level) with free archetype (witch), and I think the class isn't weak. It can feel a bit clunky and I think Slide synthesis is the only good melee option. But I'm assuming Paizo will make non-slide synthesis more competent in the final version and hopefully make Striking Spell less clunky. However, my character is regarded as one of the main "DPSers" of the party as Striking Spell can pack a punch. So I wouldn't say the class is weak by any means, it just needs some adjustments that I expect to see in the final version.
I can't speak on the Summoner as I haven't seen it played. The Inventor and Gunslinger got played a in a small 4 session campaign, and both seemed cool and not weaker than any other class.
I read the inventor class and I gotta say I LOVE it!!
Of course there's still tweaks and fixed that I hope go through, overload seems too frequent, I'd love if there was a mechanic to handle overload in combat, maybe a crafting check feat or whatnot ?
Aside from that so many builds are open! I want to make a megaton hammer striker so bad !
Overload will be completely different in GG. Mark was musing that it might wind up that you do the action, try the check, and then if you fail the check (notably, after the action is already performed), you get some kind of consequence like your invention blowing up in your face.
But even that was not final. We can only guess at this point what that mechanic will look like.
With the alchemist originally, but the addition of the magus, the summoner, and the inventor, I’d like to believe that PF2 might be heading to a system past casters vs martials as the two main character silos. I do like that casting is something that feels very different than settling into a martial attack routine, but I’d love to see more non-casting support roles open up through skills and gadgets so that conversations like these become less and less contentious or central to the game design.
It is a fine line to walk to make sure that doing things with spells is different than doing them with weapons, or skills or items, but so far PF2 has done a pretty great job off keeping these tools mechanically and narratively different, but without having the one obvious best way to handle any specific aspect of play.
In PF1, good high level martials were still the best at single target damage dealing, but were so bad at everything else, and casters had so many ways around needing to do single target damage to win, that casting was just always the more essential party roll. Skills in comparison, where a laughable “also ran” for problem solving and most item based approaches to problem solving were just “give limited use spell options to non casters, for a short time.” PF2 is far more exciting in its approach.
With the alchemist originally, but the addition of the magus, the summoner, and the inventor, I’d like to believe that PF2 might be heading to a system past casters vs martials as the two main character silos. I do like that casting is something that feels very different than settling into a martial attack routine, but I’d love to see more non-casting support roles open up through skills and gadgets so that conversations like these become less and less contentious or central to the game design.
It is a fine line to walk to make sure that doing things with spells is different than doing them with weapons, or skills or items, but so far PF2 has done a pretty great job off keeping these tools mechanically and narratively different, but without having the one obvious best way to handle any specific aspect of play.
In PF1, good high level martials were still the best at single target damage dealing, but were so bad at everything else, and casters had so many ways around needing to do single target damage to win, that casting was just always the more essential party roll. Skills in comparison, where a laughable “also ran” for problem solving and most item based approaches to problem solving were just “give limited use spell options to non casters, for a short time.” PF2 is far more exciting in its approach.
I would love, love if Paizo took a try at making a Warlord class. I have my own homebrew but it would be cool to see what Paizo does with the concept. I know there's the marshall, but the fantasy of a battle commander non-magically supporting their allies has enough design space to support a full class IMO. It would be provide another non-magical support class.
I would love, love if Paizo took a try at making a Warlord class. I have my own homebrew but it would be cool to see what Paizo does with the concept. I know there's the marshall, but the fantasy of a battle commander non-magically supporting their allies has enough design space to support a full class IMO. It would be provide another non-magical support class.With the alchemist originally, but the addition of the magus, the summoner, and the inventor, I’d like to believe that PF2 might be heading to a system past casters vs martials as the two main character silos. I do like that casting is something that feels very different than settling into a martial attack routine, but I’d love to see more non-casting support roles open up through skills and gadgets so that conversations like these become less and less contentious or central to the game design.
It is a fine line to walk to make sure that doing things with spells is different than doing them with weapons, or skills or items, but so far PF2 has done a pretty great job off keeping these tools mechanically and narratively different, but without having the one obvious best way to handle any specific aspect of play.
In PF1, good high level martials were still the best at single target damage dealing, but were so bad at everything else, and casters had so many ways around needing to do single target damage to win, that casting was just always the more essential party roll. Skills in comparison, where a laughable “also ran” for problem solving and most item based approaches to problem solving were just “give limited use spell options to non casters, for a short time.” PF2 is far more exciting in its approach.
They could always use the Marshall as the starting point and fluff it up a bit. We get archetypes based on classes, why not the reverse after all?
I could see a warlord having different avenues, everything from the Stoic leader barking orders to their subordinates to the grim Terrible leader who strikes fear in their foes with his very presence. Marshall already does this, and I see room for a full class to expand on that, and make it available a bit earlier.
I would love, love if Paizo took a try at making a Warlord class. I have my own homebrew but it would be cool to see what Paizo does with the concept. I know there's the marshall, but the fantasy of a battle commander non-magically supporting their allies has enough design space to support a full class IMO. It would be provide another non-magical support class.With the alchemist originally, but the addition of the magus, the summoner, and the inventor, I’d like to believe that PF2 might be heading to a system past casters vs martials as the two main character silos. I do like that casting is something that feels very different than settling into a martial attack routine, but I’d love to see more non-casting support roles open up through skills and gadgets so that conversations like these become less and less contentious or central to the game design.
It is a fine line to walk to make sure that doing things with spells is different than doing them with weapons, or skills or items, but so far PF2 has done a pretty great job off keeping these tools mechanically and narratively different, but without having the one obvious best way to handle any specific aspect of play.
In PF1, good high level martials were still the best at single target damage dealing, but were so bad at everything else, and casters had so many ways around needing to do single target damage to win, that casting was just always the more essential party roll. Skills in comparison, where a laughable “also ran” for problem solving and most item based approaches to problem solving were just “give limited use spell options to non casters, for a short time.” PF2 is far more exciting in its approach.
They could always use the Marshall as the starting point and fluff it up a bit. We get archetypes based on classes, why not the reverse after all?
I could see a warlord having different avenues, everything from the Stoic leader barking orders to their subordinates to the grim Terrible...
Exactly. I think there is a lot of design space to cover. You can having crafty tactical Warlords that use Intelligence, classic leaders relying on Diplomacy/Charisma, terrifying commanders with Intimidation/Charisma, and even a cunning commando type Warlord relying on Wisdom. The 4E Warlord relied on different ability scores depending on their leadership style, which I think could be really interesting as no class currently in 2E can pick between three different ability scores.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a great debater, but one thing that might be worth thinking about is how classes that rely more on things like spells or alchemy are going to get stronger over time. All classes will get feat support and magic items, but expanding spell selection will make magic users have more tools and more bombs/poisons/mutagens/etc will make alchemists stronger too. Coupling that with all the forum discussion (and my trust in paizo to listen to its fanbase, which they do time and time again, even if they rarely respond on forums) and I believe whatever gap there is between martials and casters/alchemists will get smaller.
If casters are fine at late levels I'm not sure how you patch the early ones without overturning the former. granted I've never seen late lvl casters so all I have firsthand experience with are ones lvls 1-10
In PF1, good high level martials were still the best at single target damage dealing, but were so bad at everything else, and casters had so many ways around needing to do single target damage to win
To some extent the first part of this is still true. Skills are much stronger relatively in PF2 and casters can't negate martials with SoS or powerful summons, but it's not like the Fighter's kit gives you much of anything beyond single target damage either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If casters are fine at late levels I'm not sure how you patch the early ones without overturning the former. granted I've never seen late lvl casters so all I have firsthand experience with are ones lvls 1-10
I'm in the same boat, my group rarely gets above level 10 (heck, we rarely get above level 8), so talk of things like, "you may suck at first, but your caster will get Legendary Casting at level 19" ends up sounding like "you may have financial problems now, but they'll all be gone once you win the lottery."
...I mean, if that's your list of experiences I sort of see the problem-- they're either exceptionally unlucky rolls or exceptionally poor tactical decisions (such as using summon dragon against a higher level solo boss and expecting it to do more than soak a little damage or get a lucky shot.)
If the bard was making similar decisions, you'd see an equally poor showing. Their focus magic is doubtlessly useful, but they're running out of slots way faster than the wizard is if they're actually casting. I will point out the Wizard does, unlike every other classes perks, give the player control of what they use it all on, so if you aren't selecting spells with a good plan, the game isn't going out of the way to force them into your hands the way other classes do, but it's much more versatile.
For instance, using the extra slots on Magic Missile makes my extra slots more useful than some other first level spell- I can use it to bypass chance and reduce the number of hits the party has to get, more times than the bard can. Flaming Sphere lets me spend two of my slots, and rack up damage across the fight so I don't run out of gas. There are quality buff and debuff spells as you discussed, as well.
The trick is, the Wizard decides what to do with their extra resources, so they have the power to choose well or badly. So far my outlook seems pretty bright, and I've seen spellcasting at all tiers of play.
Not true at all. The bard flat out has better abilities than the wizard while also being able to cast interesting spells. Same with the druid.
If the enemy survives long enough for your flaming sphere to do good damage, you have incredibly poorly built martials. I don't play in groups like that. The martials will eat a group of monsters before a flaming sphere can do much. That's why no one in our group slots the flaming sphere spell. We tried it a few times, but it didn't do much. Even a regular save reduces the
No. I have well built martials that hit harder than flaming sphere. Not sure what other classes you're running with. But barbarians, rogues, fighters, and rangers crush creatures much faster than flaming sphere. It's much easier to buff them up or relax and use cantrips like electric arc which generally does more damage than flaming sphere on multi-target encounters and buffing the martials kills bosses faster with quality built martials.
It's very strange to me to hear of a party where flaming sphere is more effective than an electric arc which hits 2 targets for the same saving throw with half-damage on a save and the same range.
electric arc does 2d4+4 to two targets. Even on a save that is an average 9 damage or 4.5 to two targets versus an average of 0 damage for a save against flaming sphere. A missed save for electric arc hitting two targets is 18 damage or 9 points to two targets versus 10 to one target with flaming sphere.
My druid generally uses electric arc in easy battles with a bow. You fire the bow for 1d8 damage for 1 action combined with an electric arc, which usually does a much better job on the battlefield than a flaming sphere. I supposed you could flaming sphere and electric arc together for good effect. But is it worth the spell slot? I don't think so myself. I like to save it.
Then toss in a focus point Tempest Surge with a bow strike to set up the martials, I'm quite effective without expending any spell slots doing as much or more damage than a wizard using flaming sphere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If casters are fine at late levels I'm not sure how you patch the early ones without overturning the former. granted I've never seen late lvl casters so all I have firsthand experience with are ones lvls 1-10
one option would be to just give them more low level slots. They aren't worth that much anymore in the lategame so shouldn'tbreak anything
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have another player trying an alchemist. He was one of the players that used to love wizards. He's given up on the wizard at this point until Paizo adds something to make them more interesting. It's not even just the wizard power level, which at higher levels still allows them to enjoy the occasional high powered AoE or the landing some really useful spells. They aren't fun to build either. Not much to them. Feats aren't that interested. Some of the weakest focus spells that work in ways the wizard would not even play in like the evocation wizard doing damage to people in melee range. They made some very odd choices with the wizard that don't fit how you play a wizard or make them very interesting to build. It's kind of a double whammy.
I don't even think the wizard needs more power. It just needs more interesting ways to build it and some kind of innate ability fitting its school abilities that it can use over and over like other classes have that are cool and highly effective.
I have another player trying an alchemist. He was one of the players that used to love wizards. He's given up on the wizard at this point until Paizo adds something to make them more interesting. It's not even just the wizard power level, which at higher levels still allows them to enjoy the occasional high powered AoE or the landing some really useful spells. They aren't fun to build either. Not much to them. Feats aren't that interested. Some of the weakest focus spells that work in ways the wizard would not even play in like the evocation wizard doing damage to people in melee range. They made some very odd choices with the wizard that don't fit how you play a wizard or make them very interesting to build. It's kind of a double whammy.
I don't even think the wizard needs more power. It just needs more interesting ways to build it and some kind of innate ability fitting its school abilities that it can use over and over like other classes have that are cool and highly effective.
Yeah, I know I'm setting up a reverse kingmaker game (other adventurers freed the stolen lands from the stag lord, the evil party has to steal the stolen lands from them and then start their urgathoa worshipping undead kingdom ) and one of the players wants to play a tiefling necromancer and I'm gonna have to design focus spells for the necromancer to give him that "minion master" feel.
Cause right now it's just not cutting it...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As somebody who prefers to play casters over martials, I feel like 90% of casters' problems could be solved through the action economy.
When the game first came out there was a lot of favorable discussion about spells that had different variants for different numbers of actions. But it became apparent right away that only a tiny fraction of spells have this feature (magic missile, heal, and harm are the only ones I'm aware of).
For Acid Arrow, instead of giving casters +1/+2/etc magical implements (which I personally think *would* make casters overpowered) why not instead have a 3 action version that grants a nominal amount of splash damage on a miss. That could be an interesting alternative to always having to cast true strike before a ranged touch spell.
For Burning Hands (and other cone attack spells), why not have a 3 action version that allows you to exclude an ally from the area of effect. There is always one person who manages to get in the way and this would solve that.
Of course, doing all of these would kind of mess up the value of metamagic feats, so...
Why not have a 3 action version of Haste that also allows you to use the extra action for a meta magic feat.
Maybe some of the underwhelming capabilities of casters will get fixed/improved in Secrets of Magic. Time will tell.