| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hearing echoes of earlier conversations here - specifically about alchemists. After all, if you're willing (and able) to leverage every part of the alchemist, you can wind up with a pretty solid character there too. On the other hand, just like the alchemists who want to have "I just throw bombs" be the thing they do with their day, or the alchemists who want "I mutate into a murderbeast and smash things" be the thing they do with their day, there are peopel who want to play wizards, but don't want to have to scrape through every part of that spellbook in order to gather together enough oomph for a viable/competitive character.
That's... fair, I think. I sympathize. I mean, *I* certainly wouldn't want to have to scrape through every part of a wizard's spellbook in order to gather together enough oomph for a viable/competitive character. I also wouldn't particularly want to put on that pointy hat in the first place, but I don't feel like a desire to do the latter should mean that you're required to do the former.
I think that "class archetypes" and "hybrid classes" are pretty much going to be the PF2 response to that sort of desire, though. The part of me that hopes to play a giggling goblin grenadier some day certainly hopes that they are.
...and now I'm imagining a sorceror/kineticist hybrid. Hmmm....
| 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. :PMy 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.
This really is the heart of why I don't understand why these conversations keep focusing on casters.
Encounters against higher level creatures are challenging and parties get overwhelmed by them.
If your caster focus is on an entire school of magic, you are going to have a range of spells to rely on, even in boss fights.
Enchantment as a school includes some very powerful incapacitation, but it also includes utilitarian buffs and debuffs that are useful in boss fights too. Illusion includes illusory creature, invisibility, mirror image, blur.
There is a problem every party faces when stumbling into a fight against a powerful creature unprepared, but it wrecks champions, barbarians, monks, fighters, rogues and rangers too when their weapons can't hit, or barely do damage, or cause a monster to split into two monsters too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps class archetypes or feats that allow casters to apply bonuses to one subset of spells at the expense of a penalty to another subset would help, without being overly restrictive. Something like, say...
Specialist Mage [all caster class traits], Feat 1
Your training was focused on a specific subset of magic, at the expense of another. Choose two Elemental or School traits, then designate one as your preferred trait and the other as your neglected trait; both traits must be chosen from the same list. You gain a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls and DCs when casting spells with your preferred trait, and take a -1 penalty to spell attack rolls and DCs when casting spells with your neglected trait.
Special You can select this feat multiple times, but must select different traits each time.
School of Hard Knock Spells ◆ [all caster class traits][Concentrate][Metamagic], Feat 6
Prerequisites Specialist Mage
Frequency A number of times equal to your spellcasting ability modifierYou have learned enough from your experience and failures to temporarily overcome your training's shortcomings with brute magical force, though it's still too stressful to rely on. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell with your neglected trait, do not apply your neglected penalty to that spell.
Overwhelming Spell ◆ [all caster class traits][Concentrate][Metamagic], Feat 10
Prerequisites Specialist MageThrough your ongoing studies, you have learned to further improve upon your specialty. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell with your preferred trait, treat that spell's attack roll as one step higher or the target's saving throw as one step lower (if the spell both has an attack roll and forces targets to roll a saving throw, choose one of those rolls to apply this benefit to).
Overload Spell ◆ [all caster class traits][Concentrate][Metamagic], Feat 12???
Prerequisites Specialist Mage
Frequency Once per dayYour passion for your specialty burns strong within you, but leaves you at risk of burning out entirely. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell with your preferred trait, choose one:
• It deals an additional 4 damage if you have expert proficiency in its tradition. This damage increases to 6 if you’re a master, and 8 if you’re legendary.
• The spell attack roll is treated as a critical success, and that spell gains the Fortune trait.
• The target's saving throw result is treated as a critical fail, and that spell gains the Misfortune trait.The strain this puts on your mental facilities leaves you in a stupor for the rest of the day. You are Stupefied 2 until your next daily preparations, and this condition cannot be removed until you get a full night's rest.
Just a very quick thought for a very rough baseline that could be expanded on. I doubt it's actually balanced properly, I'm not yet experienced enough with the system to set the levels and numbers properly. Basic idea is a light take on preferred & opposition schools, but expanded into a more general "themed specialist" system. The one I'm most concerned with is the last one in particular; it's basically a "supernova" ability that lets you make one big boom, before fading to a dull glow for the rest of the day. Enough to feel awesome, but hyper-limited so it doesn't infringe on martial territory.
| 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. :PMy 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.
This really is the heart of why I don't understand why these conversations keep focusing on casters.
Encounters against higher level creatures are challenging and parties get overwhelmed by them.
If your caster focus is on an entire school of magic, you are going to have a range of spells to rely on, even in boss fights.
Enchantment as a school includes some very powerful incapacitation, but it also includes utilitarian buffs and debuffs that are useful in boss fights too. Illusion includes illusory creature, invisibility, mirror image, blur.There is a problem every party faces when stumbling into a fight against a powerful creature unprepared, but it wrecks champions, barbarians, monks, fighters, rogues and rangers too when their weapons can't hit, or barely do damage, or cause a monster to split into two monsters too.
Some schools are definitely better off than others - like the two you named. Most of the other schools are not in that position.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be incredibly leery of any feat with a direct numerical bonus.
Imagine if fighters got a level 1 feat that said "Pick two weapon groups. Get a +1 bonus to hit with one and a -1 penalty to hit with another".
Bets on how many people would regard that as a required feat.
Overwhelming Spell has a different problem in that it's so overwhelmingly powerful that it's almost required. It's known as "+10 DC to any spell you specialize in for one action".
I'd much rather see things like Convincing Illusion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are much more likely to see damage boosts or tricks like convincing illusion or second chance spell, than flat out accuracy math boosters. Some of them, like form retention, are a bit head scratcher in trying to figure out how to make interesting use out of, but the percentage of good to bad with wizards in the APG is excellent overall.
I think the things players will really get excited about are:
If we can just keep getting interesting new feats that integrate more skills into spell casting.
If we can get more cantrips, especially saving throw ones, and not just exist in a world where every caster from every tradition is just trying to figure out how to get electric arc to get them through the first 4 levels of play.
Spell casting archetypes like the eldritch researcher that give focus spells and skill boosting feats and activities that are interesting and thematic.
I am very excited to see what secrets of magic have to offer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This really is the heart of why I don't understand why these conversations keep focusing on casters.
Maybe because I don't hear the exact very narrow way to play martials vs bosses: there isn't a handful of useful attacks like the handful of useful spells. An elemental sorcerer's first thought shouldn't be 'what mental spell should I take for bosses' instead of 'what if they are resistant/immune to my favorite element'.
Or another way to put it is that for martials, there is a reason other than they are a boss where they have to switch things up. If you're a 2 handed barbarian and have a ranged target that's understandable. If your bow ranger meets a piercing resistant foe, they might have to switch things up. Or a rogue and someone immune to precision. For casters though, it's not that but 'it's a boss': martials generally have the same things to do vs a boss that they have vs lesser beings, they just have a harder time at it, where casters have wide swathes where that means tossing away a limited resource.
Encounters against higher level creatures are challenging and parties get overwhelmed by them.
Sure, but that shouldn't mean 'take only these few offensive spells for bosses' and all these other ones are useless.
Enchantment as a school includes some very powerful incapacitation, but it also includes utilitarian buffs and debuffs that are useful in boss fights too. Illusion includes illusory creature, invisibility, mirror image, blur.
Sure, there are plenty of buffs around... That's not a big help in, 'what spell do I attack the boss with' for someone that took the caster to attack. 'Just cast buffs' is a good reason for some people to just not play casters or not play that type of caster: for instance, they might play a bard if they plan to buff and wizard if they plan offense while they might not want to mix and match to play both the exact same way.
There is a problem every party faces when stumbling into a fight against a powerful creature unprepared, but it wrecks champions, barbarians, monks, fighters, rogues and rangers too when their weapons can't hit, or barely do damage, or cause a monster to split into two monsters too.
Not in the same way. Champions, barbarians, monks, fighters, rogues and rangers don't get told 'don't attack, just sit around and Aid someone else that actually attacks...' or 'you can only use Power Attack or Hunter's Aim if you want to affect them'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how to play an offensive caster vs a boss:
1) Pick a spell with a good effect on save success.
2) Determine most likely weak save, or least likely strong save.
3) Prep a wide variety of similar spells.
4) Profit.
Just off the top of my head, Enervation for Fort, Resilient Sphere for Reflex, and Hideous Laughter/Phantasmal Killer/Fear for Will are all spells I've seen used to great effect by casters recently for that exact purpose.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Use your schtick in new and exciting ways" is more of how specialists work in PF2 than "stack math until you win".
The Staff Acrobat archetype is a good model for how this works. The archetype gives you:
- Pole Vault to jump better
- Use your stick as a lever to trip/shove bigger things than you could otherwise
- A 2-action attack that debuffs
- An AC stance
- A 2 action attack that combines a strike (with bonus damage) and a trip/shove without MAP
It's worth noting that you never get "you are better at swinging a stick to hit people" it's just "you can do more things that are useful when armed with a stick".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some schools are definitely better off than others - like the two you named. Most of the other schools are not in that position.
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. :PMy 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.
This really is the heart of why I don't understand why these conversations keep focusing on casters.
Encounters against higher level creatures are challenging and parties get overwhelmed by them.
If your caster focus is on an entire school of magic, you are going to have a range of spells to rely on, even in boss fights.
Enchantment as a school includes some very powerful incapacitation, but it also includes utilitarian buffs and debuffs that are useful in boss fights too. Illusion includes illusory creature, invisibility, mirror image, blur.There is a problem every party faces when stumbling into a fight against a powerful creature unprepared, but it wrecks champions, barbarians, monks, fighters, rogues and rangers too when their weapons can't hit, or barely do damage, or cause a monster to split into two monsters too.
I think there is one school that has really been hurt by the splitting of 4 traditions, which is arcane necromancy. Divination didn't take a hit, but it just got made to look less exciting by the occult list.
All the rest of the schools have really good, and diverse spells in them on the arcane list, with just a couple of head scratchers that will hopefully get filled in.
Transmutation spells are amazing, you just don't get polymorph spells until a much higher level than in the past, making them one of the strangest schools because you transition into and away from different kind of spells over the course of your career: Magic weapon is amazing until it is useless. Certain battle forms are the same way. But you do have some steady as a rock spells all the way through.
Evocation is absolutely stacked with fun spells for blasting. If you really want to talk about boss fights, Magic missile is the closest thing the game has to, "this spell in a decent slot will always be reliably useful" and if you had 4 people casting it every round for 2 or 3 rounds, there are few enemies that will still be alive. But you also get a bunch of great AoE spells and an almost unfairly high amount of utility spells now sitting in the evocation school as well.
People massively sleep on conjuration in PF2. It is still the best battlefield controller school in the game.
Divination, like abjuration, was always the school you specialized in with no intention of only trying to take divination spells. I think it offers the best utilitarian focus power of all the schools and it can be used usefully almost all day long. The abjurer is a very good counter magic character in PF2. Something that gets written off far too much. I have a sneaking suspicion that an abjurer would do very very well in the Strength of Thousands AP.
It really is only necromancy that is left asking, "but what do I do?" but that is mostly because it can just be done so, so, so much better by clerics, oracles, sorcerers and witches now. Arcane is just incredibly not the necromancy spell tradition now, at least not in its classically envisioned form of lich who controls the undead. It actually does alright as a nasty debuff school that is fairly hardy and resistant.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
This really is the heart of why I don't understand why these conversations keep focusing on casters.
Because when I want to play an archer fighter, I can pick up a bow, take feats to improve my capabilities with that bow, and generally use my bow in a significant majority of encounters without issue.
There has never been a single moment where I've had to tell the sword and board giant barbarian in a campaign I'm running that he is, in fact, playing his character wrong and needs to switch to a greataxe for a fight even though the greataxe doesn't fit his character concept at all.
Meanwhile pretty much every thread about casters (and alchemists) usually has a section where someone goes "oh well stop playing [character concept you want to play] and instead play [generalist build]" ... sometimes accompanied by the first person getting mocked for having a specific character concept in their head because I guess that's a sin.
If anything martials largely have the opposite problem: between the cost of weapon runes, attribute management, and action economy it's kind of unrewarding to try to be a weapon generalist (we had a switch-hitter ranger who eventually just became a dedicated archer because he found it generally unrewarding to spend time in combat to pull out their melee weapons, in another game a player wanted to adapt their 5e kensei monk but found monastic archer too frustrating to work around).
I would be incredibly leery of any feat with a direct numerical bonus.
Imagine if fighters got a level 1 feat that said "Pick two weapon groups. Get a +1 bonus to hit with one and a -1 penalty to hit with another".
Bets on how many people would regard that as a required feat.
Overwhelming Spell has a different problem in that it's so overwhelmingly powerful that it's almost required. It's known as "+10 DC to any spell you specialize in for one action".
I'd much rather see things like Convincing Illusion.
Hmm, fair criticism. The numerical bonus was intended to be a bit of a counterpart to enhancement runes, on the grounds that mages tend to depend on versatility, and have more trouble relying on one of their "weapon groups" than most martials. Figured that with how difficult PF2's balancing makes it for mages to specialise (case in point, the "How should my X specialist mage deal with bosses?" "Use Synesthesia." comment earlier in the thread), the penalty would be guaranteed to be enough of a hindrance to compensate. Guess that might not be the case... hmm...
And Overwhelming Spell... that's a good point, honestly, I thought it would be less--oh, right, didn't add a frequency, my bad. Would it need to be redone altogether, out of curiosity, or would limiting to something like 1-3 uses a day be enough for it?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This really is the heart of why I don't understand why these conversations keep focusing on casters.Because when I want to play an archer fighter, I can pick up a bow, take feats to improve my capabilities with that bow, and generally use my bow in a significant majority of encounters without issue.
There has never been a single moment where I've had to tell the sword and board giant barbarian in a campaign I'm running that he is, in fact, playing his character wrong and needs to switch to a greataxe for a fight even though the greataxe doesn't fit his character concept at all.
Meanwhile pretty much every thread about casters (and alchemists) usually has a section where someone goes "oh well stop playing [character concept you want to play] and instead play [generalist build]" ... sometimes accompanied by the first person getting mocked for having a specific character concept in their head because I guess that's a sin.
If anything martials largely have the opposite problem: between the cost of weapon runes, attribute management, and action economy it's kind of unrewarding to try to be a weapon generalist (we had a switch-hitter ranger who eventually just became a dedicated archer because he found it generally unrewarding to spend time in combat to pull out their melee weapons, in another game a player wanted to adapt their 5e kensei monk but found monastic archer too frustrating to work around).
I think the Kineticist will be a very popular class when it makes its way back into PF2.
Hmm, fair criticism. The numerical bonus was intended to be a bit of a counterpart to enhancement runes, on the grounds that mages tend to depend on versatility, and have more trouble relying on one of their "weapon groups" than most martials. Figured that with how difficult PF2's balancing makes it for mages to specialise (case in point, the "How should my X specialist mage deal with bosses?" "Use Synesthesia." comment earlier in the thread), the penalty would be guaranteed to be enough of a hindrance to compensate. Guess that might not be the case... hmm...And Overwhelming Spell... that's a good point, honestly, I thought it would be less--oh, right, didn't add a frequency, my bad. Would it need to be redone altogether, out of curiosity, or would limiting to something like 1-3 uses a day be enough for it?
I suspect there's just too many crippling spells that don't have Incapacitation that would devastate encounters, even if it were 1/day. For example, easily making Chain Lightning the most dangerous spell against groups. Or AoE Slow. Or Weird/Phantasmal Killer. Those are just some of the easiest examples that come to mind that would be incredibly unbalancing to mess with the math on.
I think the Kineticist will be a very popular class when it makes its way back into PF2.This really is the heart of why I don't understand why these conversations keep focusing on casters.Because when I want to play an archer fighter, I can pick up a bow, take feats to improve my capabilities with that bow, and generally use my bow in a significant majority of encounters without issue.
There has never been a single moment where I've had to tell the sword and board giant barbarian in a campaign I'm running that he is, in fact, playing his character wrong and needs to switch to a greataxe for a fight even though the greataxe doesn't fit his character concept at all.
Meanwhile pretty much every thread about casters (and alchemists) usually has a section where someone goes "oh well stop playing [character concept you want to play] and instead play [generalist build]" ... sometimes accompanied by the first person getting mocked for having a specific character concept in their head because I guess that's a sin.
If anything martials largely have the opposite problem: between the cost of weapon runes, attribute management, and action economy it's kind of unrewarding to try to be a weapon generalist (we had a switch-hitter ranger who eventually just became a dedicated archer because he found it generally unrewarding to spend time in combat to pull out their melee weapons, in another game a player wanted to adapt their 5e kensei monk but found monastic archer too frustrating to work around).
I agree. I also think there's a middle ground between the two paradigms provided the opportunity cost is high enough. Not just blasters though. Any kind of caster trope. Currently you can't lean into a trope in the way a martial can.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how to play an offensive caster vs a boss:
1) Pick a spell with a good effect on save success.
2) Determine most likely weak save, or least likely strong save.
3) Prep a wide variety of similar spells.
4) Profit.Just off the top of my head, Enervation for Fort, Resilient Sphere for Reflex, and Hideous Laughter/Phantasmal Killer/Fear for Will are all spells I've seen used to great effect by casters recently for that exact purpose.
I already completely understand the idea: it's just a LOT of themes get stopped at #1. For instance, none really scream Evocationist/Elementalist. I'll give props for at least suggesting a spell that deals damage.
I think the Kineticist will be a very popular class when it makes its way back into PF2.
Well, we'll see if it's still a class where you have to punch yourself in the face to power up. After what happened to the oracles curse, I shudder to imaging what horrifying thing burn could turn into... :P
This really is the heart of why I don't understand why these conversations keep focusing on casters.Because when I want to play an archer fighter, I can pick up a bow, take feats to improve my capabilities with that bow, and generally use my bow in a significant majority of encounters without issue.
There has never been a single moment where I've had to tell the sword and board giant barbarian in a campaign I'm running that he is, in fact, playing his character wrong and needs to switch to a greataxe for a fight even though the greataxe doesn't fit his character concept at all.
Meanwhile pretty much every thread about casters (and alchemists) usually has a section where someone goes "oh well stop playing [character concept you want to play] and instead play [generalist build]" ... sometimes accompanied by the first person getting mocked for having a specific character concept in their head because I guess that's a sin.
If anything martials largely have the opposite problem: between the cost of weapon runes, attribute management, and action economy it's kind of unrewarding to try to be a weapon generalist (we had a switch-hitter ranger who eventually just became a dedicated archer because he found it generally unrewarding to spend time in combat to pull out their melee weapons, in another game a player wanted to adapt their 5e kensei monk but found monastic archer too frustrating to work around).
Honestly, I suspect spell lists are wide enough for arcane casters that I can make a spell list for any school that uses no more than one slotted off-school spell of each level and still be quite competent. (Abjuration/Divination might be rough on attack spells.) Occult/Divine/Primal might be harder, if only because those lists are horrible for certain schools.
I'm willing to take up this challenge if anyone wants to pick a school and level to test with.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
heavy crossbow, 2 true strikes, magic weapon.
1st round: magic weapon, move into cover or recall knowledge (using your focus power).
2nd round: truestrike, fire, reload.
3rd round: reload, true strkie, fire.
4th round, probably clean up with cantrips.
Congrats! You've now done a brutal amount of damage as a 1st level diviner wizard.
I suspect there's just too many crippling spells that don't have Incapacitation that would devastate encounters, even if it were 1/day. For example, easily making Chain Lightning the most dangerous spell against groups. Or AoE Slow. Or Weird/Phantasmal Killer. Those are just some of the easiest examples that come to mind that would be incredibly unbalancing to mess with the math on.
Hmm, fair criticism. The numerical bonus was intended to be a bit of a counterpart to enhancement runes, on the grounds that mages tend to depend on versatility, and have more trouble relying on one of their "weapon groups" than most martials. Figured that with how difficult PF2's balancing makes it for mages to specialise (case in point, the "How should my X specialist mage deal with bosses?" "Use Synesthesia." comment earlier in the thread), the penalty would be guaranteed to be enough of a hindrance to compensate. Guess that might not be the case... hmm...And Overwhelming Spell... that's a good point, honestly, I thought it would be less--oh, right, didn't add a frequency, my bad. Would it need to be redone altogether, out of curiosity, or would limiting to something like 1-3 uses a day be enough for it?
Hmm... there goes that potential implementation idea, then. I still think a specialist mage (class?) archetype or feat chain would be a fun addition, but I'm not sure how it should be implemented. "You're better at one type of spell but worse at another" would provide some interesting interactions with the current "martials have the option of switching to a different weapon for every enemy; mages are basically required to do so" setup, and a "your next spell is stupidly overpowered, but it cripples your casting for the rest of the day" option feels like it would be a fun tactical option (although extremely difficult to design in a way that prevents it from being saved for the last slot of the day), but something that makes your less reliable spells more usable is liable to make the more reliable spells overpowered (and especially if said more reliable spells are part of whatever school/element/etc. you specialise in). Hard to figure out what would work but not kill the balance entirely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
heavy crossbow, 2 true strikes, magic weapon.
1st round: magic weapon, move into cover or recall knowledge (using your focus power).
2nd round: truestrike, fire, reload.
3rd round: reload, true strkie, fire.
4th round, probably clean up with cantrips.
Congrats! You've now done a brutal amount of damage as a 1st level diviner wizard.
Unless you're using the Automatic Bonus Progression or your players have a s%~+load of gold, or they spend money exclusively on weapons and never buy other items, swapping weapons is in general not worth it unless your current weapon is actively detrimental or broken. Martials, in my experience, basically don't have the option to use just whatever weapon in most games, they all largely end up locked in whatever they decide to use unless they spend downtime swapping runes around.
Honestly, depends. Personally, I've gotten immense value out of Shifting, and having a few lower-rune special material weapons is super useful to target resistances/weaknesses.
Speaking of which, I should probably take my own advice and do that on my current character...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would pay actual money to not have this thread again.
IMHO, until this problem is actually addressed and fixed (and it's definitely a real problem), you will continue to see thread after thread about this same topic. That's the cost of not fixing it during the playtesting (either because not enough playtesters mentioned the issue, or maybe too many of the loudest responses were "Kneecap the spellcasters even harder!")
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!!!
Use two conditionally useful spells that often tend to fizzle uncontrollably compared to something that does reliable damage. Who the hell is giving you such atrocious advice? Also, an elementalist is not an evocation specialist like you seem to be waffling about on later in the thread. The best elemental spells in the game don't do damage and are control spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the way to build like "a fire mage" archetype isn't to take inspiration from the Flames Oracle, specifically the "Flaming Fusilade" spell which cuts the action cost of "produce flame" in half for 1 minute.
Having the ability to supercharge a specific elemental cantrip for a short period of time is going to make you prefer that cantrip generally. This would also probably help make people use things other than electric arc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the way to build like "a fire mage" archetype isn't to take inspiration from the Flames Oracle, specifically the "Flaming Fusilade" spell which cuts the action cost of "produce flame" in half for 1 minute.
Having the ability to supercharge a specific elemental cantrip for a short period of time is going to make you prefer that cantrip generally. This would also probably help make people use things other than electric arc.
Yea magic archetypes in general would be very welcome. The two I can think of right now are blessed one and magic warrior, but they seem more about focus powers than augmenting casting. If SoM can deliver more archetypes for casters we'll be in a better place. They don't need to be about more damage or math fixers either (I wouldn't complain), but just about tailoring your magic.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, until this problem is actually addressed and fixed (and it's definitely a real problem), you will continue to see thread after thread about this same topic. That's the cost of not fixing it during the playtesting (either because not enough playtesters mentioned the issue, or maybe too many of the loudest responses were "Kneecap the spellcasters even harder!")I would pay actual money to not have this thread again.
"Am I out of touch? No, it's all of the playtesters that are wrong."
Especially with the tons of playtest threads devoted to casters, the update that literally increased the damage dice of every damaging spell, the fact that one playtest adventure was practically guaranteed to have multiple casters (I think my group literally brought 4 clerics to it - Calistria, Gorum, Erastil, Nethys), or the fact that they had 5 different adventures worth of playtest characters, plus the resonance test, plus the PFS scenarios.
Or maybe people were done with the era of "casters win games, everyone else need not apply".
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe people were done with the era of "casters win games, everyone else need not apply".
...which leads to the "Thank goodness the casters were kneecapped so hard, that's a feature of 2e, not a problem" vibe that is so prevalent on these forums.
It's not a matter of "casters win games" that we all want, it's "casters actually matter for more than buffing and healing the martials."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe people were done with the era of "casters win games, everyone else need not apply"....which leads to the "Thank goodness the casters were kneecapped so hard, that's a feature of 2e, not a problem" vibe that is so prevalent on these forums.
It's not a matter of "casters win games" that we all want, it's "casters actually matter for more than buffing and healing the martials."
But they do matter. I had wizards do boatloads of damage and turning encounters around and witches crippling enemy bosses to a point an extremely dangerous enemy becomes a walk in a park. And those are supposed to be the weaker casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe people were done with the era of "casters win games, everyone else need not apply"....which leads to the "Thank goodness the casters were kneecapped so hard, that's a feature of 2e, not a problem" vibe that is so prevalent on these forums.
It's not a matter of "casters win games" that we all want, it's "casters actually matter for more than buffing and healing the martials."
My player's wizard has literally never thrown down a buff or heal.
He's been more useful than the druid that has prepped all utility buffs (and a single slow, I think).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have 3 out of 6 players in my campaign playing full casters (bard, druid, oracle). From level 0 to level 5 so far and not once have they felt overshadowed by the martial characters. In fact, the druid is frequently stealing the show with creative uses of pest form.
Casters *can* feel a little weak against boss enemies, but then so does the frontliner who has to move-attack-move or get pulped, and can't use any of their fancy two-action feats.
I already completely understand the idea: it's just a LOT of themes get stopped at #1. For instance, none really scream Evocationist/Elementalist. I'll give props for at least suggesting a spell that deals damage.Here's how to play an offensive caster vs a boss:
1) Pick a spell with a good effect on save success.
2) Determine most likely weak save, or least likely strong save.
3) Prep a wide variety of similar spells.
4) Profit.Just off the top of my head, Enervation for Fort, Resilient Sphere for Reflex, and Hideous Laughter/Phantasmal Killer/Fear for Will are all spells I've seen used to great effect by casters recently for that exact purpose.
I decided to slap together a generalist level 8 evocation wizard. Assuming they picked up Linked Focus and Elemental Tempest.
Spells:
4th: Fireball, Fire Shield, Wall of Fire, Enervation
3rd: Lightning Bolt, Levitate, Wall of Wind, Slow
2nd: Glitterdust, Telekinetic Maneuver x2, Hideous Laughter
1st: Gust of Wind, Magic Missile, Shockwave, Fear
I'm not particularly enthused about some of the picks - especially because my self-imposed limitation prevents me from using lower level spells for versatility (Shockwave and the second Telekinetic Maneuver weren't great for that). That said, I think this list provides a decent smattering of utility and varying save targets, but also is very visibly an elementalist wizard.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I decided to slap together a generalist level 8 evocation wizard. Assuming they picked up Linked Focus and Elemental Tempest.
Spells:
4th: Fireball, Fire Shield, Wall of Fire, Enervation
3rd: Lightning Bolt, Levitate, Wall of Wind, Slow
2nd: Glitterdust, Telekinetic Maneuver x2, Hideous Laughter
1st: Gust of Wind, Magic Missile, Shockwave, FearI'm not particularly enthused about some of the picks - especially because my self-imposed limitation prevents me from using lower level spells for versatility (Shockwave and the second Telekinetic Maneuver weren't great for that). That said, I think this list provides a decent smattering of utility and varying save targets, but also is very visibly an elementalist wizard.
Enervation, Levitate, Slow, Glitterdust, Telekinetic Maneuver, Hideous Laughter, Magic Missile, and Fear all have nothing to do with the fantasy of being an Elementalist. This list looks like you just jammed generic good stuff into slots and then added a few token elemental spells to justify the exercise. This breaks down even further if you wanted to play an Avatar style elemental bender who exclusively focuses on a single element and thus needs their element to do a bit of everything with each having strengths and weaknesses to keep them from feeling samey.
You could do this, at least for fire and air, with just PF1 core but can't even attempt it in PF2.
Have you looked at the elemental sorcerer? This is there essential Schtick.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you looked at the elemental sorcerer? This is there essential Schtick.
Yeah, I looked...
"Bloodline Skills Intimidation, Nature
Granted Spells cantrip: produce flame*, 1st: burning hands*, 2nd: resist energy, 3rd: fireball*, 4th: freedom of movement, 5th: elemental form, 6th: repulsion, 7th: energy aegis, 8th: prismatic wall, 9th: storm of vengeance
Bloodline Spells initial: elemental toss*, advanced: elemental motion, greater: elemental blast*
Blood Magic Elemental energy surrounds you or a target. Either you gain a +1 status bonus to Intimidation checks for 1 round, or a target takes 1 damage per spell level."
So, I'm looking and looking and I don't see "Enervation, Levitate, Slow, Glitterdust, Telekinetic Maneuver, Hideous Laughter, Magic Missile, and Fear" in their schtick. At best, you MIGHT stretch the Intimidation into Fear but that a big stretch. Out of 16 spells less than 1/2, 7, are elemental so... an elementalists schtick is to make sure most of their spells are unrelated to their theme?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I decided to slap together a generalist level 8 evocation wizard. Assuming they picked up Linked Focus and Elemental Tempest.
Spells:
4th: Fireball, Fire Shield, Wall of Fire, Enervation
3rd: Lightning Bolt, Levitate, Wall of Wind, Slow
2nd: Glitterdust, Telekinetic Maneuver x2, Hideous Laughter
1st: Gust of Wind, Magic Missile, Shockwave, FearI'm not particularly enthused about some of the picks - especially because my self-imposed limitation prevents me from using lower level spells for versatility (Shockwave and the second Telekinetic Maneuver weren't great for that). That said, I think this list provides a decent smattering of utility and varying save targets, but also is very visibly an elementalist wizard.
Enervation, Levitate, Slow, Glitterdust, Telekinetic Maneuver, Hideous Laughter, Magic Missile, and Fear all have nothing to do with the fantasy of being an Elementalist. This list looks like you just jammed generic good stuff into slots and then added a few token elemental spells to justify the exercise. This breaks down even further if you wanted to play an Avatar style elemental bender who exclusively focuses on a single element and thus needs their element to do a bit of everything with each having strengths and weaknesses to keep them from feeling samey.
You could do this, at least for fire and air, with just PF1 core but can't even attempt it in PF2.
Read the first line: "I decided to slap together a generalist level 8 evocation wizard." It's an wizard that's forced into taking 3/4 evocation spells each level. That severely limits the actual elemental spells you can take, funnily enough (which I mainly slotted in top level slots to take advantage of Elemental Tempest). Grease, Resist Energy, Aqueous Orb, Pyrotechnics, Solid Fog, Stoneskin, and Shape Stone are all great elementalist spells that aren't on evocation, and therefore unselectable based on that restriction.
You want a full elementalist, play an Elemental Sorcerer or wait for Kineticist. Elemental Sorcerer comes with great elemental-based focus spells, good blood magic, and has Primal list for spells like Hydraulic Torrent and Earthbind.
Who says a fire elementalist has to use only evocation spells?
Not even Kineticist was pure evocation.
As I said: "Honestly, I suspect spell lists are wide enough for arcane casters that I can make a spell list for any school that uses no more than one slotted off-school spell of each level and still be quite competent."
Who says a fire elementalist has to use only evocation spells?
Not even Kineticist was pure evocation.
Yeah, a fire specialist should have a fiery nature to all their spells (smoke, heat, mirage effects as appropriate) not "literally all I do is burn things."
It's just that the kineticist did the work of making the elemental utility already feel appropriate to the element (e.g. you're not just flying, you're shooting jet flames out of your hands a la Iron Man) and we don't have anything like this currently.
I feel like necromancy got hit the hardest. Maybe add a thesis that allows you to learn spells of the necromancy school from all four spellcasting traditions would fix it?
I don't think that would work out well. Wizards with such easy access to healing spells would come quite close to invalidating other classes' primary schtick. Even if that wasn't the case, such a broad ability would soon get WAY too powerful as new books released ever more necromancy spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that would work out well. Wizards with such easy access to healing spells would come quite close to invalidating other classes' primary schtick. Even if that wasn't the case, such a broad ability would soon get WAY too powerful as new books released ever more necromancy spells.
I'm unclear on this. How does "I am capable of spending my spell slots on healing." invalidate things like "I get castings of heal wounds completely free, on top of whatever else I'm doing."? Worse yet, that's just out of the box. The cleric also gets all of the juicy feats that boost healing spells. A wizard who chooses to burn most/all of their spell slots on healing is at best still just a weaker, worse cleric. If you wanted to do that with your day you'd be better off just going cleric in the first place.
...or maybe I'm not understanding something in what you're saying?