|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
So first off, I’m not trying to troll the boards. You may think I am, I realize this is a hotly debated topic, but I’ve seen a lot of back and forth with it, discussed this a lot with my RL friends (all of whom are experienced pathfinder 1e, 2e, and Starfinder players) and we all agree that they need some form of help. Now, I am not saying what this help IS or should be, just that they need help. As it stands casters seem pretty darn sub-optimal and I think something should be thrown their way. Now I’m going to break my argument up into three sections, so please read all the sections before you jump down my throat.
Section 1) The stigma of the caster
We are all aware, since the days of even Second Edition DND, that Endgame casters where where it was at. While a fighter could have his +5 full plate and +5 shield and his +5 vorpal sword that goes snicker-snack, a wizard could just wish them out of existence from a content away. While a monk might be able to punch a fire elemental for six attacks in a round, a cleric could just banish the thing with a single spell. They could even outshine martial fighters with enough buff spells (“Clericzilla” was a thing if you don’t believe me).
Listen, I’ve been on both sides of the coin at high level play. Both as a fighter who could do nothing behind a prismatic wall while the evil mage and the party’s witch did all the cool stuff, AND as the wizard doing all the cool things. I get it, it is no fun when the high level wizard is having all the fun and everyone else is sitting on their hands. That’s why I think there is an instinctive reaction to reign casters in. And I get it, I just think that they may have overbalanced in the other direction.
Section 2) The crunch
Enough about esoteric things like ‘remembering casters as being too powerful,’ let’s focus on the here and now. Let’s look at the raw numbers of what they can do.
So, looking at the witch, Sorcerer, and Wizard, they get the least amount of hit points of any of the classes, they also do’t start with any armor proficiencies, meaning they can’t max out their AC at first level like every other class can (their max, IF they put in 16 dex, is AC 15. This is against AC 17 of, say, a rogue with 18 dex and leather, or a ranger with 12 dex and chainmail). They also never get more than expert in any armor proficiencies even if they pick up armor proficiency from somewhere. These two things combine to be a problem because crits happen at AC +10, so they get crit the easiest in the game AND don’t have the HP to survive it. And that can be a real problem against archers, being ambushed, or against enemy casters that are calculated differently.
Additionally, while it is true that all casters eventually get to legendary in spell casting (except warpriest, which never get above expert in ANYTHING!!!) that doesn’t happen until level 19, so you only get 1, maybe 2 levels of play with legendary casting. But on the other end, they get expert spellcasting late vs. martials. That is to say fighters get expert in weapons off the bat, other maritals gets expert weapons at 5, and casters at 7. This, combined with the fact that there are no items to help caster to-hits puts them constantly behind the curve. Even at level 19 they are 1 behind to hits for a fully geared martial (or three behind a fighter). Then, let’s add to this the fact that a missed spell expends a daily resource (1/3) whereas a miss from a martial just wastes an action.
This “lack of accuracy” can even be carried over into spell DCs. With minor spoilers, in one AP there is a boss that is party level+3, and has a further +3 to save against all magic. This puts some of his effective saves EQUAL TO the max DC of any spellcaster. And while a martial can keep swinging all day, 3/round for that nat 20 to do something, the spellcaster is going to run out of spells long before that, most of them doing nothing if the monster rolls a 10 or above. Or a 13 or above even without the +3 to saves. Point is, they are screwed against higher-level bosses.
Even in basic action economy they loose out. A standard spell is two actions, where as a strike is a single action. So your martial has three opportunities to hit someone (granted, with diminishing probabilities, true, but there is always a chance that the final hit is a nat 20.). Meanwhile most spellcasters have a single shot a round AND it costs a daily resource. And many spells require concentration, further restricting their action economy.
Section 3) Addressing counter-arguments
Now, I’ve heard plenty of counter-arguments against making casters more powerful, some have merit, some don’t. I’ll try to go through a few of them
A)Spells are so versatile, they justify the lower numbers:
-This is probably the best argument, and it still has some holes in it. For one, most classes can get by on their own, so you don’t need a caster to throw in a ‘clutch’ spell at the right time. Unlike 1e where a firey weapon spell could make the difference in a troll fight, in 2e most of the utility stuff is nice, but not nessissary. Maybe an enlarge spell will let a fighter kill a bad guy faster because of the +2 to damage, but it isn’t going to make or break the fight.
B) You need spells for healing/debuff removal!
-This is another common argument, that spells like restoration, dispel magic, and heal remove some of the nasty debuffs in the game. But really, if that is all your caster is doing, then they are gonna be a sour puss pretty fast. If you are there solely to remove bad stuff the monsters can do, then why not just remove that ability from monsters and let you get back to the cool stuff? In other words, why give monsters the drain ability and force a person to play a sub-par class to get rid of it? The players getting drained don’t find it fun, forcing someone to play a sub-par class isn’t fun, just remove the drain ability from the game.
C) You can do AoE with spells
-This is certainly true, but only with some traditions and generally it is only effective against swarms of low-level enemies. Otherwise your damage generally won’t be worth it AND they will probably save.
D) You can just target the lowest save!
-This one holds the least water. First off, not every spellcaster will have a good spell to go against every save. Divine casters have few to none reflex saves, and so on. And even if you did: you often run into this problem: quick, you see a big, burley half-orc in breastplate. Which save do you target? Fort seems unlikely. Will? No, what if he is a champion or inventor. Reflex? What if he is a brute rogue? Now I know NPC calculations are different, but my point still stands, you can’ t always tell from a glance which save to target. Even if you make your knowledge check.
E) You can can vary your attacks
-So the argument is you can pull out a positive energy spell on undead, and a fire spell on a troll, and a cold spell on a fire elemental, and that’s all true. However, the opposite is also true-There are often spells that just don’t work on enemies. Divine Lance doesn’t work against TN mercenaries, chill touch doesn’t work against constructs, most magic doesn’t work against golems. For each good thing that comes out of magic versatility, there’s an equal downside.
So what am I saying here? Am I saying that spellcasters are worthless? No, of course not. I’m just saying that they need a bit of a bump. I don’t want them overpowered, just strong enough that they can stand on their own. I want them to be a viable class option, not ‘always take them,” not “never take them,” but somewhere in-between.
| 30 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
First off, this should be in General not Rules, and I have flagged it to be moved.
Second, I agree casters should get some form of Item bonus to their caster stat, but it's harder to balance than the Item Bonus to attacks with a single weapon. I'm betting there will be something in Secrets of Magic that will help though, so maybe we should hold off until then to complain casters are underpowered?
Third: Most spells have some sort of effect when the enemy succeeds on their save, which already is infinitely better than just doing nothing. You also have the option of targeting the enemy's AC, or making them make a Fort/Ref/Will save, and if you know which is the lowest you can make quick work of enemies. It's always good to have spells that target all the options so you aren't completely up a creek without a paddle. Meanwhile martials can only hit AC, and if that's too high they're kinda screwed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Point is, they are screwed against higher-level bosses.
Isn't everybody?
Point is, they are screwed against higher-level bosses.Isn't everybody?
They are often doubly so though: you have a higher defense, which everyone deals with, but they also have Incapacitate to deal with. It can be better to to buff your party than directly affect boss types.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are often doubly so though: you have a higher defense, which everyone deals with, but they also have Incapacitate to deal with. It can be better to to buff your party than directly affect boss types.Point is, they are screwed against higher-level bosses.Isn't everybody?
Double seems a bit much when it's about 32 spells across the four traditions and 10 spell levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, my biggest issue with casters is none of these, except maybe that wizards and sorcerers feel lackluster compared to other casters that get more proficiencies and free feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Double seems a bit much when it's about 32 spells across the four traditions and 10 spell levels.
Doubly clearly wasn't referring to number of Incapacitate spells but that you have to deal with both higher defenses and lower results with those kind of spells.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Point is, they are screwed against higher-level bosses.Isn't everybody?
For the most part. I can see why it might be especially frustrating for someone who feels like they can't land a hit when they're also running on really limited ammo, though. That was basically the big problem a lot of people had with the playtest magus where without certain assumptions you'd average out only a little better than one successful spell per day. That's also why spells with saves are generally much higher value than spells with attack rolls, because that effect on a failure massively boosts the probability stuff actually happens.
They are often doubly so though: you have a higher defense, which everyone deals with, but they also have Incapacitate to deal with. It can be better to to buff your party than directly affect boss types.Point is, they are screwed against higher-level bosses.Isn't everybody?
On the other hand, casters have a lot of options that are not relying on the boss defenses: Healing, buffing, some auto hit spells like Magic Missile. And on top of that, the 4 degrees of success allow them to circumvent the high defenses by targeting the success condition on a save with spells like Hideous Laughter or Synesthesia.
In my opinion, martials are way more screwed if they face a high level monster with a bit of extra defense in their field, like the "I only hit you on a nat 20" Salamander (28 AC, and you can fight it at level 4...).
|
I would pay actual money to not have this thread again.
With any luck, we won't see so many post-Secrets of Magic. I doubt they will be totally gone, as the issues are very deeply ingrained in the system at this point.
That said, Paizo totally have the ability to fix them, and thus end these threads.
So lets see it Paizo!
#MakeJuneComeFasterYouCowards
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would pay actual money to not have this thread again.
Then why are you in this thread at all? You don't have to be here at all.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is the actual issue casters face in this edition? In both the home games I play in, both of which feature a lot higher than party level monsters, casters play a pivotal role in combat.
Like, I will say that it's a little annoying that will save spells feel the strangest because of how many skill abilities (Bon Mot especially) to nerf will saves, but not fort or ref.
Is it a PFS thing, where bosses are just gratuitously op or something?
|
|
Even the historical reference of this premise is flawed.
High-level AD&D 2nd edition had the same "if the save is failed, this happens" effects as D&D 3rd did, but your target was either a) a lower-level threat you didn't need to use a big spell on in the first place, or b) a high-enough level threat that it was looking at something along the lines of rolling a 6 or better being a successful saving throw.
And the casters had to spend like an hour and a half just to prepare a single 6th-level spell, so they weren't tossing big bad spells at every turn because just like "let's spend 8 hours in the dungeon, just camping out" doesn't make sense, neither does "and then let's spend the whole day camping out in the dungeon, protecting the casters, while they re-prepare all the spells they just chewed through yesterday"
TL;DR: Counterpoint; No they don't.
Well, if you had read my post instead of just skimming it you would have seen I was talking about higher level spells. Things like wish, which, in 2nd Ed DND, didn’t allow a save. Let’s talk about some other higher level spells from 3.0/3.5/pathfinder that didn’t allow saves that would just eff you up: power word kill (below 100 hp currently? Dead no save CAN’T COME BACK without true rez), prismatic wall (plenty of options to eff you up there), mage’s disjunction (yes, it allows a will save but it is a will save for each magic item you carry, you are going to fail some of those, especially if your cloak of resistance is the first to go), Time Stop (oh, let me buff/rebuff for a few rounds of set up a bunch of if/then limited wishes), miracle,
The list goes on. Seriously, go to ANY build about how to make a wizard in pathfinder 1e and it will talk about how you become unto a god at higher levels rivaled only by other wizards.
And that rule about taking an hour per spell was quickly eratta’d /house ruled to an hour at the start of each day. So much so that even Baldur’s gate 1&2 adopted it. Seriously, everyone used that rule.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would pay actual money to not have this thread again.
I mean it has been a week since the last post in that thread. So it's obviously time for a new lamentation on the demise of the GOD CasterTM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, casters have a lot of options that are not relying on the boss defenses: Healing, buffing, some auto hit spells like Magic Missile.
Yes, I'd noted that not directly affecting the boss was viable: it's just not a very satisfying result for someone that's looking to be a blasty wizard.
And on top of that, the 4 degrees of success allow them to circumvent the high defenses by targeting the success condition on a save with spells like Hideous Laughter or Synesthesia.
Much like the above, it can feel unsatisfying to shot for the target to succeed, especially when using your higher level slots: that and we're going for a limited range of spells, affects and traits here. Hideous Laughter isn't so great if you have it and the boss doesn't have a reaction. Synesthesia can be nice but it's 1 round for a 5th level debuff. And both are mental, non primal/divine spells.
In my opinion, martials are way more screwed if they face a high level monster with a bit of extra defense in their field, like the "I only hit you on a nat 20" Salamander (28 AC, and you can fight it at level 4...).
Martials have options out of the box, like flanking, that just plain work [or aren't limited]. That and range with starting a bit away from one makes it easier to work with a creature like a Salamander with no ranged attack and slow speed: if you're going to only hit on a 20, you can spend actions staying at range. Also note, your caster might be in the same boat vs that AC.
Is it a PFS thing, where bosses are just gratuitously op or something?
I can't comment on PFS, but otherwise, they are pretty "gratuitously op".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I'd noted that not directly affecting the boss was iable: it's just not a very satisfying result for someone that's looking to be a blasty wizard.
I'm not sure it's a satisfying result for someone that's looking to be a Barbarian to attack once per round, hit only on an 18 and then run away from the monster.
And if you want to use flanking then you no more runs away, but you still only hit on a 16 on your first attack. I hardly see how that can be satisfying for any martial.And the difference with the Wizard is that it's optimal play when in the case of the Wizard you voluntarily decide not to use some of your abilities.
As a side note, I think someone who's looking for a one trick poney shouldn't play a caster. Casters are versatile and it's one of their main asset. In my opinion it's a core assumption of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing casters do that is so essential in PF2 is allow the whole party to exploit the massive weaknesses some powerful creatures have, that martials are almost never prepared to do on their own.
So many monsters have huge resistances to physical damage or incredibly high ACs or the ability to conceal or hide themselves, or otherwise mitigate traditional martial damage that parties without casters are almost certain to get overwhelmed by something within a few levels if encounters.
The problem is, that figuring out those weaknesses and being prepared to do so is only something casters like wizards, sorcerers and witches can be good at, not that they just necessarily are built well for it. Especially if the player gives up on class feats at level 2 because they don’t like the early choices and then start missing out in ones that start giving them more spells, spell flexibility and ways to make their spells go further.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... it sounds like maybe "blasty mage" should be on the list of character concepts that doesn't translate well to PF2? The thing that I'm picking up here is that in order to be effective as a witch/wizard/sorc you have to be really leveraging the flexibility aspects, tracking the defenses, acing the lore checks and leaning into the debuffs, and that playing "nuke mage" in general is pretty much a lose plan. Similarly, I've read elsewhere that lower-level spell slots (ie, anything not from your top two available levels) are pretty much wasted on damage spells.
So, maybe it's not that casters are weak overall, but that PF2 is a bit weird in what "optimal play" looks like. It's a bit weird for martials, too, in that whole "you need to find useful things to do that aren't just swinging at the enemy" way. At the same time, "mighty sorcerer who annihilates the foe with mystical power" is a reasonable thing to want to be, and it's one that apparently isn't supported all that well currently. So... what would it take to get there from here? Not just "What buffs would you want to add?", but "what would you give back?" If you want your to-hits and spell DCs to improve significantly, are you willing to give up your degree of defense-targeting flexibility to get it? If you want your damaging spells to do more damage, are you willing to give up your debuffs to get that? What does the spellcaster *you* want look like, if it's not the data-driven flexibility caster that is currently available?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make the wizard more interesting with better feats and focus spells. And give the witch some more interesting feats and build options. Casters as improved as they need to be.
Sorry, let the martials have their single target damage fun. I don't want to return to the days of why even bother to play a martial. Casters already get incredibly vicious against just about anything that isn't a Level +1 or +2 challenge as they level.
Low level druids and bards are absolutely fine. Boosting them would make them god-tier.
Clerics are fine because heal font has a niche.
Low level wizards are pretty terrible, but mostly because of boring and useless school focus spells.
I think hex cantrips if the right ones are pretty decent for a witch. Their feats are super boring and not great. Familiars are more of a role-play creature, but pretty useless overall and die way too easy.
Oracle I'm still not sure about. I'm playing one right now and flame seems ok. Not great, but not low level wizard bad.
Low level sorcerer can be decent because you can build them in so many different ways. They have a lot more good focus spell options.
And I should be mostly done. We'll see if anyone comes up with some interesting argument we haven't heard a hundred times before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... it sounds like maybe "blasty mage" should be on the list of character concepts that doesn't translate well to PF2?
Part of the games internal assumptions about casters and alchemists is that they arenbalanced around using all of their tools, so specialists feel weak since they lose the versatility but dont really get anything back for opting to specialize.
Imo, this is a great place to start when is comes to making class archetypes, like a bomber who gets standard martial weapon progression, but cant quick alchemy anything thats not a bomb, or an evoker who gets their staff's item bonus to their spell attack and DCs for evocation magic, but can only prep one non evocation per spell level or something
*note, this is just off the cuff spitballing, not any level of homebrew I sat down and mathed out
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My player who's by far the biggest powergamer in our group (besides possibly myself) has had absolutely no issue with being a low level caster.
He's also been constantly effective, and has also carried us through multiple fights - including one where Hideous Laughter sealed off a higher-level fighter with AoO.
He's also a blaster wizard, and constantly throws out things like enervation and fireball. And he also sealed off a boss with Resilient Sphere.
His main complaint is that wizards no longer have enough spells to utility through 6-7 extra scenarios, now only being limited to 2-3.
Casters are fine, especially since this is the class that gets complained about the most.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the contrary, the blasty caster is a very powerful build in PF2, but it is not powerful in the "overcome any enemy in the exact same way every encounter, just by overspecializing in one specific kind of spell." Which was a very effective build in PF1/3.x.
There are foes that even with casters casting haste and inspire courage on their martial allies, their allies are limited to doing physical damage against a creature with a resistance 10 or more to physical damage and will thus be chipping away 4 or 5 points of damage a round at creatures with 100+ HP, but who have a weakness against a specific element type that might be as high as 10 or 15 points of extra damage, or just take some obscene extra 5d10 damage from getting hit with. Even if they can't target that weakness, if they hit such a creature with even a first level magic missile, they are probably doing more damage than the most focused martial character, and they might have magic missile prepared in a 3rd or 5th level slot instead.
It won't happen in every encounter, and because of that, a lot of parties write off the need to be flexible and respond to different situations in encounters, but a whole lot of PF2 bestiary creatures are capable of completely flipping the standard encounter expectations on the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nuke makes work just fine in 2E. You just need to layer the effects, come at the enemy from different rules angles, not just on your turn with your actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think we need a caster checkup quite this often, but I'm always down for throwing in a comment. Here's the point that I consider most relevant.
Casters were likely designed with room to grow. Casters get more updates than martials because their spell lists get updated in addition to class features. If another spell with the strength of Synesthesia or early game Magic Weapon were released, then casters that get access to it could suddenly be as strong or stronger than the classes they are being compared unfavorably against now. I think this added design space makes a lot of sense early in the edition's life(2 years in). Hopefully they take that design space and run with it. I'll be surprised if we see casters behind by 5 years into the edition.
I have one more argument. Bards, starting at level 9 when they get Synesthesia, might be the most powerful class in the game. Any across the board caster buff should probably take that into account.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is going to do nothing but - these threads really need to hit pause until secrets of magic comes out. All these points have been made, the book is done so any posts aren't going to change any of the contents, and who knows what the book is going to solve.
I keep thinking about spell schools as archetypes. An abjurer archetype, an evoker, a conjurer, an illusionist, ect. That way spells are balanced across the board but there's also an opportunity cost if you wanna specialize on certain types of casting. Fingers crossed for secrets of magic
Nuke makes work just fine in 2E. You just need to layer the effects, come at the enemy from different rules angles, not just on your turn with your actions.
*Nuke mages
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it difficult to build characters around most caster classes aside from druids and bards. They have many obstacles to creativity and customization.
1. Casters have almost no class features, which should be what sets them apart from other spellcasting classes. Wizard's arcane thesis is pretty great, but the schools and sorcerer bloodlines do almost nothing beyond just give you a focus spell. I'd like to see more class features that change up how the character is played versus other spellcasters.
2. Most focus spells are boring and do not synergize or enable any playstyle. There are some exceptions, like the shadow bloodline's that lets you hide in a shadow you created or the flames oracle incendiary aura. But I feel this should be the norm.
3. Casters usually don't start with a class feat, and their selection of class feats are boring, leading most players to multiclass.
4. Vancian casting doesn't lend well to building character concepts because it tends to encourage you to diversify your spell selection rather than pick spells around a theme or build.
I agree mostly with what Cyrad is talking about. The problems casters have are not based on the math working (the math is fine for everybody- "boss" monsters pose a threat to everybody, even with the action economy disadvantage; this is working as intended). The problem casters have (particularly the wizard) is that they're a bit dull.
But we do have to adjust for how a significant portion of a character's utility budget has been moved from class features to skills and skill feats. The era of "Clerics get 2 skills/level" is long past. Your wizard can no longer do *everything* with magic, they have to get some things done with their considerable education.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your wizard can no longer do *everything* with magic, they have to get some things done with their considerable education.
Be nice if Wizards were in some way a knowledge or education class. They have the lowest number of base trained skills of any class for some reason, even accounting for other int based classes. They also have zero class features to help them with anything knowledgey.
Maaaybe Wizards might benefit from a 1st level new feature that works like Bardic Lore added in, except it's a class feature not a class feat.
Plus give them one free skill boost for any one "recall knowledge" non-Lore skill they know (intended for Arcana, but can be applied for any other).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
4. Vancian casting doesn't lend well to building character concepts because it tends to encourage you to diversify your spell selection rather than pick spells around a theme or build.
I do think that the biggest and most difficult change to casting for some players to adapt to is that there isn’t a way to just super charge a single spell or spell type to overcome every situation and if you get too caught up in the idea of trying you get smashed against encounters where it doesn’t work.
The issue is that a lot of spells are too good, at a base, of doing the thing they are supposed to do, to be boosted in any significant way and not just be completely broken. You see this a lot when players encounter higher level casters or higher level player casters meet lots of lower level enemies. Failure and crit failure effects of medium to high level spells are encounter wrecking. Against the right defense, with the right set up or against the right weakness the right spell is a wrecking ball.
Many suggestions for boosting casters revolve around lifting the accuracy floor of spells and the problem there is you can’t raise the floor in a 4 tiers of success system and not raise the ceiling of the best options by the same amount.
More focus spells will be cool, but wizards won’t ever get tempest surge or elemental toss at level 1. The point of a school specialization is that you eventually have 9 more spells of that school to cast in a day plus a cantrip. We need more cantrips. Some schools are brutally behind in that regard. But we also keep getting new spells almost monthly. The number of awesome spell combinations is growing all the time.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think that the biggest and most difficult change to casting for some players to adapt to is that there isn’t a way to just supercharge a single spell or spell type to overcome every situation and if you get too caught up in the idea of trying you get smashed against encounters where it doesn’t work.
It shouldn't be something players need to adapt to. Themed casters are a deeply prevalent and important archetype across fiction, including D&D/Pathfinder. That PF2 doesn't support them very well so far just means that it's something they can work on adding tools for in future supplements (like the upcoming magic book).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been bible thumping school archetypes for casters ever since secrets of magic got announced. An archetype for each school that cuts you off from the rest, which includes powerful feats that gives your spellcaster better and stronger ways to cast spells of a specific school. Wizards should also have a feat to gain access to it early but it has to correspond to his or hers chosen school.
Apart from that i give my spellcaster PCs +!,+2,+3 spell attack and DC invested item and it fixed all the major complaints.
I wouldn't want very powerful school archetype feats at the expense of other spell schools ....... Just feats for slight nudges or unique mechanics at the expense of feat space for multiclasses or other archetypes. An evoker archetype would have a dangerous sorcery equivalent feat, a late level feat for excluding allies from aoes, and the maybe feats for adding small amounts of persistent damage. Stuff like that. "Want to be a better blaster? Go for it, but it'll cost you feat space"
It also helps casters double up the same way martials can, like a fighter taking mauler or the dual weapon archetype. Just really hone in on the kind of caster you want to be
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It shouldn't be something players need to adapt to. Themed casters are a deeply prevalent and important archetype across fiction, including D&D/Pathfinder. That PF2 doesn't support them very well so far just means that it's something they can work on adding tools for in future supplements (like the upcoming magic book).
I do think that the biggest and most difficult change to casting for some players to adapt to is that there isn’t a way to just supercharge a single spell or spell type to overcome every situation and if you get too caught up in the idea of trying you get smashed against encounters where it doesn’t work.
What thematic caster is not a playable character in PF2 right now?
Elemental sorcerers? That is present.
School specialist wizards? You only get 4 spells per level a day at most. If you want to specialize in a school, the vast majority of schools have enough spells at each level to build a competent and fun character around.
Yes, more fun and interesting feats will be a welcome addition to the game, and I hope we see some of those in Secrets of magic too, but the idea of a specialist wizard is totally doable in PF2. It is not difficult to have wizards that play and feel very different from one another, by level 3 or 4. Maybe 1st level wizards are a little same-y, but that would probably best be solved by getting more functional electric arc level cantrips of different schools in the game.
What thematic casters cannot do is specialize in their gimmick to the point they can rely on the same thing to win every encounter. But martials can't really do that either. They may think they can, but it hurts the party when you have even 1 or 2, much less 3 or 4 characters who are going to try to do the exact same thing in every combat encounter they come across. We see that come up in thread after thread on these boards. "The system is too hard! My Giant Barbarian keeps dying immediately after sudden charging away from the party into every encounter!" or "My totally optimized party has this really awesome combat routine that keeps failing to win every encounter! Why?"
Pathfinder has never really done a good job at enabling "I'm a fire mage, fire is what I do, things that aren't fire are not what I do." Like sure you can be a sorcerer that only picks fire spells, but you can pick spells that aren't fire spells just as easily and have a better time dealing with antagonists who are somewhat fireproof.
The extent in which you could specialize previously is that you could pick one spell and get really good at landing it, but obviously that's not going to fly with how the math works now (likewise a martial can't really stack "I am really good at tripping, I can trip anything" by stacking number bonuses.)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What thematic caster is not a playable character in PF2 right now?
Elemental sorcerers? That is present.
School specialist wizards? You only get 4 spells per level a day at most. If you want to specialize in a school, the vast majority of schools have enough spells at each level to build a competent and fun character around.
Sure you say that but when I ask what you do vs a boss, I get told 'just use Hideous Laughter or Synesthesia!!!
What thematic casters cannot do is specialize in their gimmick to the point they can rely on the same thing to win every encounter.
I think you have it backwards: instead you have to focus in some specific spells that are non-incapacitation and has good effects when they succeed in their save. Your specialty is relegated to targeting mooks or your party. I can understand that you can't put all your eggs in one basket, but your schtick shouldn't stop working JUST because it's a boss and not because of a particular immunity or resistance. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What thematic casters cannot do is specialize in their gimmick to the point they can rely on the same thing to win every encounter.I think you have it backwards: instead you have to focus in some specific spells that are non-incapacitation and has good effects when they succeed in their save. Your specialty is relegated to targeting mooks or your party. I can understand that you can't put all your eggs in one basket, but your schtick shouldn't stop working JUST because it's a boss and not because of a particular immunity or resistance. :P
My Swashbuckler is primarily based around Dual Finisher, Twin Parry, and reducing their to-hit vs him for more ripostes.
This is obviously not very effective vs a boss.
That's why he has multiple schticks.
The only reason themed casters "worked" in PF1 was because you could get DC's for a specific spell so ludicrously high that they worked even against creatures that had no business failing that save. I'd rather not go back to the days of Fireball killing dex-based bosses. If you want proper themed casters the Vancian system is just not going to do that in a way that's balanced, maybe there'll be a good words of power system in SoM, otherwise you'd be best off pressuring DDS into PF2 Spheres of Power.