Casters need some help-and here’s why


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 312 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The "Wizards are not good at healing" thing is because of the metaphysical underpinnings of the setting. Specifically, to heal someone you need access to vital or spiritual essence. Spiritual essence is antipodal to material essence and vital essence is antipodal to mental essence. Arcane magic is based on mental and material essence so it is the worst at healing. Divine magic is based on vital and Ssiritual essence so it is the best at healing. Primal has vital and material, while Occult has mental and spiritual so they do okay.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The "Wizards are not good at healing" thing is because of the metaphysical underpinnings of the setting. Specifically, to heal someone you need access to vital or spiritual essence. Spiritual essence is antipodal to material essence and vital essence is antipodal to mental essence. Arcane magic is based on mental and material essence so it is the worst at healing. Divine magic is based on vital and Ssiritual essence so it is the best at healing. Primal has vital and material, while Occult has mental and spiritual so they do okay.

I don't think that's the reason Wizards don't get healing as it would be trivial to make a "healing" spell that was setting compliant. I'm pretty sure it is a design choice that is intended to balance the Arcane spell list compared to others, so it is very valid to question whether it is necessary/balanced currently.

Spells that give temporary hit points are already on the Arcane list, they just don't mechanically fill the role of keeping a party member alive in combat as they are either high duration or damage + self buff. There could easily be a false healing spell that gave 1d6+6 temporary hit points per spell level that last 3-4 rounds, or whatever stats you would need it to have to be a balanced mid-combat temp hp granting spell.

Setting wise, the description of False Life (which is Arcane/Occult) is this: "You create a reservoir of vitality from necromantic energy, gaining a number of temporary Hit Points equal to 6 plus your spellcasting ability modifier." It isn't very useful/efficient for use in combat as it has low output and a very high duration (8 hours) and you can't target others with it. There is no fluff reason that an arcane caster couldn't put a necromantic reservoir of life on an ally as a form of pseudo-healing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

to be honest i was more concerned about spells like bind soul and possession, and its disappointing the only spell that can create permanent undead (ghoulish cravings)is not on the arcane list

all 3 are in the occult list and the bard can eventually learn from all lists so i guess the ideal necromancer is a bard now? better learn to sing


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The "Wizards are not good at healing" thing is because of the metaphysical underpinnings of the setting. Specifically, to heal someone you need access to vital or spiritual essence. Spiritual essence is antipodal to material essence and vital essence is antipodal to mental essence. Arcane magic is based on mental and material essence so it is the worst at healing. Divine magic is based on vital and Ssiritual essence so it is the best at healing. Primal has vital and material, while Occult has mental and spiritual so they do okay.

How many necromancy spells really fit under the metaphysical tags of mental and material? That is the bind the necromancer really falls into, the new system of essences makes entire schools of magic feel like they belong in one tradition and not others. I don’t have a problem with that, but it does problematize having school based wizards.


Unicore wrote:
How many necromancy spells really fit under the metaphysical tags of mental and material? That is the bind the necromancer really falls into, the new system of essences makes entire schools of magic feel like they belong in one tradition and not others. I don’t have a problem with that, but it does problematize having school based wizards.

i would say the lore implications are more worrisome, like why are so many liches wizards when they cant lock souls in gems much less their own phylacteries? maybe giving the necromancer thesis a different list like occult or divine like witch instead of the arcane? like a witch but with no patron, i will take a look at the homebrew forum


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Its not even a problem of essense but that the spell lists are trying to be super generic. But still want to be super specific. Trying to have their cake and eat it too.

The wizard spell list used to be the most generic list with the most spells. This is what allowed a wizard to fit almost any mage role. The arcane spell list however is one of the smallest and lacks many of the signature spells from the wizard spell list.

It really does not help that some of the schools were gutted. The arcane list and by extension the wizard was the one most hurt by losing all those spells. Not to mention the spells that changed schools.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
The arcane spell list however is one of the smallest and lacks many of the signature spells from the wizard spell list.

Could you clarify? On a quick check, the arcane list is the largest by a decent margin...


Temperans wrote:
The wizard spell list used to be the most generic list with the most spells. This is what allowed a wizard to fit almost any mage role. The arcane spell list however is one of the smallest and lacks many of the signature spells from the wizard spell list.

Without looking, name 5 signature spells from the wizard spell list that are no longer on the arcane spell list.


Arcane 242 spells

Occult 216 spells

Primal 172 spells

Divine 149 spells

for those who want to statistics on spell lists here is a link and another one but they may be outdated so take it with a gain of salt


Unicore wrote:
How many necromancy spells really fit under the metaphysical tags of mental and material? That is the bind the necromancer really falls into, the new system of essences makes entire schools of magic feel like they belong in one tradition and not others. I don’t have a problem with that, but it does problematize having school based wizards.

Arcane necromancy is about "infuse stuff (like a dead body) with other stuff (like negative energy) and possibly add a mind". It's arcane for the same reason that "making constructs" are arcane. Arcane magic can make more or less anything stand up and dance a jig, but it can't actually fix what's wrong with you.

It's the difference between "fixing a broken bone by knitting the bone back together" and "putting enough energy in there so you don't care that the bone is broken... for a while."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Unicore wrote:
How many necromancy spells really fit under the metaphysical tags of mental and material? That is the bind the necromancer really falls into, the new system of essences makes entire schools of magic feel like they belong in one tradition and not others. I don’t have a problem with that, but it does problematize having school based wizards.

Arcane necromancy is about "infuse stuff (like a dead body) with other stuff (like negative energy) and possibly add a mind". It's arcane for the same reason that "making constructs" are arcane. Arcane magic can make more or less anything stand up and dance a jig, but it can't actually fix what's wrong with you.

It's the difference between "fixing a broken bone by knitting the bone back together" and "putting enough energy in there so you don't care that the bone is broken... for a while."

This makes sense in theory, but then why would animate dead be on the occult arcane and divine lists? What essence is it tapping into that primal just isn't allowed?

How is admonishing ray on the Arcane and Divine lists, when those don't share any essences?

What is a spectral hand?

Overall, I think that the 4 essences of magic were a really cool concept, but it was a really difficult one to fit over a system that had iconic ideas about what specific casters could cast, that don't fit really well together, and so we end up with a very loose concept of the 4 essences that really won't make that much sense when you explain it to a new player because a lot of things just needed to be on x list for the sake of game continuity.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Unicore makes a good point about primal necromancers. That feels pretty on point for the tradition that masters life and the physical world. Primal needs more cool necromancy spells.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
The "Wizards are not good at healing" thing is because of the metaphysical underpinnings of the setting. Specifically, to heal someone you need access to vital or spiritual essence. Spiritual essence is antipodal to material essence and vital essence is antipodal to mental essence. Arcane magic is based on mental and material essence so it is the worst at healing. Divine magic is based on vital and Ssiritual essence so it is the best at healing. Primal has vital and material, while Occult has mental and spiritual so they do okay.

I could see a wizard learning some 'material only' healing spell thematically. Less traditional magical healing and more like the organic version of mending.

As an aside, it feels kind of weird mending is on all four spell lists. Magically fixing a broken watch or dented shield seems completely the domain of the material. I'm not sure how you make that make sense as a mental/spiritual or vital/spiritual spell.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sporkedup wrote:
Temperans wrote:
The arcane spell list however is one of the smallest and lacks many of the signature spells from the wizard spell list.
Could you clarify? On a quick check, the arcane list is the largest by a decent margin...

He’s wrong. The arcane list is the biggest.

What is the smallest is the number of unique arcane spells, spells that no other traditions can access. But that’s a very different statement.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
Temperans wrote:
The arcane spell list however is one of the smallest and lacks many of the signature spells from the wizard spell list.
Could you clarify? On a quick check, the arcane list is the largest by a decent margin...

He’s wrong. The arcane list is the biggest.

What is the smallest is the number of unique arcane spells, spells that no other traditions can access. But that’s a very different statement.

maybe he accidentally switched arcane and divine? since we were talking about necromancy he could also have been talking about spells of that school?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes I was talking about uniqueness but I messed up and forgot to add that part. It was really late at night and I simply forgot. Sorry about that.

Wizard spell list originally had lots of uniqueness and became less so as more niche casters were added. Arcane list started out not being very unique as it shares most of its spells with others.

Curse my sleep deprived mind for not being clear.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The big problem with the arcane list is that the existence of specialist wizards make the arcane list greedy in a way that the other lists are not.

It's not a big deal if the primal list lacks enchantment or divination spells, or if the occult list lacks transmutation and evocation, but the arcane list is the list that needs a significant amount of everything.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Specialist wizards were probably a mistake, tbh. They seem to come with a lot of expectations from players that don't really translate into gameplay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Plus5 wrote:
all 3 are in the occult list and the bard can eventually learn from all lists so i guess the ideal necromancer is a bard now? better learn to sing

You need to have a beat going in order to trick the zombies into thinking they still have a heart, and that their orders are coming from the thing that's beating.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Specialist wizards were probably a mistake, tbh. They seem to come with a lot of expectations from players that don't really translate into gameplay.

As seen here it seems like a fair few people want to play a version of the PF1/3.x specialist wizard who can deeply specialize in that single school and feel rewarded for doing so. When making a new edition of a game you need to keep in mind that it should support as much of what the old system did as possible.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Verdyn wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Specialist wizards were probably a mistake, tbh. They seem to come with a lot of expectations from players that don't really translate into gameplay.
As seen here it seems like a fair few people want to play a version of the PF1/3.x specialist wizard who can deeply specialize in that single school and feel rewarded for doing so. When making a new edition of a game you need to keep in mind that it should support as much of what the old system did as possible.

I totally disagree. I think that a new edition should certainly be similar, but I think it's a huge stretch to say that it should support as much as what the old system did as possible.

There's an insane amount of content for pathfinder 1e and that style of game. It certainly sucks if there's a missing aspect of 1e that you liked, but I think they would have been pigeon holed and not been able to make the kind of game they want. I love that they were willing to shake things up and take risks for 2e.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Caralene wrote:
There's an insane amount of content for pathfinder 1e and that style of game.

Well, to be fair we talking about something that was in the CORE book so we're talking about something that was there for the full run of PF1. They where, of course, never going to be able to get everything translated over but it's harder to justify not doing so for Core things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caralene wrote:

I totally disagree. I think that a new edition should certainly be similar, but I think it's a huge stretch to say that it should support as much as what the old system did as possible.

There's an insane amount of content for pathfinder 1e and that style of game. It certainly sucks if there's a missing aspect of 1e that you liked, but I think they would have been pigeon holed and not been able to make the kind of game they want. I love that they were willing to shake things up and take risks for 2e.

I feel like the tight math is really going to make expanding the game a challenge unless they're open to some level of power creep. New monsters and APs are far easier but characters are stuffed into some pretty tight boxes due to the math and how broad a 2e character is already supposed to be. This is even worse for casters who are already starved for interesting class feats and features.

Dark Archive

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Tight Math only really becomes overly constricting in Rules Lite systems.

When you want to develop something new, most RPG’s can either go Tall or Wide on a concept.

Tall: A character option where the character can hyper specialise. Leveraging a sizeable numerical and mechanical advantage to say “this is my thing!”. Tight Math systems generally struggle with these type of designs.

Wide: Expanding the array of things possible within the game and opening that up as new character options. Rules Lite systems struggle with these type of designs, not having enough mechanical room to actually allow “new” things.

As long as PF2 isn’t afraid of going suitably Wide, they shouldn’t run into problems.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think that specialist casting really will be best served by archetypes. It can expand what spells are available and give casters those lower level feat options that will really help them feel like they are headed down a more unique path, without requiring very much change within the system itself.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Someone said this in another thread, but one thing PF2 seems to be really hesitant about doing is letting characters just seriously pivot on a fundamental level with their internal options

The PF2 warpriest gives you armor and better fort saves, but it doesn't really make you significantly better at combat (except from levels 7-10) or add any particular new combat-focused abilities.

PF2 specialized schools give you a focus spell and dictate how you prepare your last spell slot each day, but that's really it.

Contrast with like, 5e's martial cleric domains or school specializations (despite me generally not liking 5e as a system) and you see instead some really focused abilities that let the cleric deal more damage and make more attacks or makes the wizard better at animating undead or reshape blasts.

PF2 gives you a lot more feats than 5e does, but you just can't really go all in around pivoting around a concept like that.

To some extent, given PF2's fundamental design, we might never... depending of course on how PF2's design philosophies shift and change as the system matures, of course.

Granted that's not really a caster-specific issue and martial are in the same boat, but still it seems to be what a lot of people are looking for when they talk about things they can't find or pull off in PF2.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The Eldritch Researcher archetype is a really good example of what a mystic archetype can do to make a character feel far more specialized in their field. It has some very powerful feat options to make a focused abjurer or diviner. Giving a domain spell as a unique focus spell for example is really cool. resistances to specific monster types, it is very thematic and full of mechanics that match narrative.

Maybe we can get some elemental caster archetypes, a necromantic one, a more specifically shape shifter one, etc.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My problem with wizards and to a lesser degree some of the other casters is that for the first 3rd of the game you can feel super subpar. While a wizards being weak and slowly growing strong is a great fantasy trope its a terrible first experience to the game.

Low level magic doesn't feel magical. Feeling outclassed or less useful than the other players for what for some will be the first 20 or more sessions is a not great for getting people in the door. To be fair alchemists can feel similar but they have rife of additional problems.

Arcane is the most flexible spell list, it may lack unique spells but I am not too worried about that. What I worry more about is because of tight game design a lot of spells are super niche and will almost never be worth preparing. Others are almost must haves enervation, fear and others that keep getting raised in this list to say things are fine. Which means spells selection is somewhat an illusion which is what a lot of people are unhappy with. I am not saying that wizards can't function, I am saying that right now they are not fun for many people who used to love wizards or don't fulfil a lot of wizard fantasies. This is fine for people who like playing wizards in the narrow band they are relegated to or still have a game still that allows a ton of divination before entering a dungeon but that is not a lot of people who used to love wizards.

Part of the issue is wizards aren't any more powerful than other casters but still have the worst baseline defences and weapon proficiencies with not reason other than tradition. PF2e has broken a lot of other traditional tropes so not sure why is kept this one. Wizards having slightly more baseline survivability would have helped there is no reason for them to be worse anymore.

Regarding the arcane and no healing spells I don't think it would invalidate any other caster concept if they could. They have no feat support for it like clerics and lack the flexibility of spontaneous casters that can keep a heal in reserve. Wizards not healing frees them from the burden of the expectation of healing.

If wizards are going to be less powerful at lower levels then they should be more survivable and maybe be able to use all simple weapons. Keeping those traditions when so many others have been changed or updated seems silly.

What I would like to see if more feat support for low level wizards, more feats that allow them to do magical tricks that isn't casting spells necessarily but that would add depth to low level game play. I would also like to see a feat for specialists be able to pick a spell of each level they can cast that they can swap a prepared spell out on the fly to cast.

I would like more meta magic feats especially at lower levels. I would like to see one that allows the wizard to aim spell attack and get a +2 bonus to hit. I personally hate True Strike as the fix to wizard accuracy, it works but it is a crappy solution. I would prefer True Strike just ignored cover/concealment and maybe defences modifiers granted by magic and wizards have a non-spell slot dependent fix for spell attack rolls.

Feat design I like are things like Forcible Energy https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1841 just sucks its at such a high level (I assume so it can't be gotten by multiclassing). I like Spell shroud (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1828 ) too and think it would have made a great low level defensive meta magic feat for both wizards/witches and sorcerers but sadly it is again only available to sorcerers at 12+. A conjuration metamagic feat where you can blink 10ft as part of casting a spell or a abjuration metamagic feat where you get the benefit of the shield cantrip when you cast a spell would get a long way.

Wizard focus spells are just plain terrible for the most part (there are a few exceptions). I would much rather have seen focus spells that enhanced a spell they just cast as a free action/reaction. Augment summoning would have been a lot better if it was a free action.

But even say necromancy (Call of the Grave) rather than ray spell could have been a reaction that when a creature is hit by a spell attack or fails a save against one of your spells you could spend your reaction to inflict the sickened condition on them.

I feel that between a lot of the more interesting metamagic feats being 12+ to stop MC access, poor defences, poor feat choices and generally being subpar for a 3rd of the game are bigger issues than the lack of unique arcane spells.

No one wants the god wizard to come back but no one wants to feel out classed for a 3rd of the game either. Its a terrible starting experience.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is interesting that it seems like all the caster threads alternate between "casters are weak and need some help" and "casters are too powerful and wrecking my game." It seems clear to me that it isn't the rules that is the problem, but how we as GM/players use them. YMMV


13 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
It is interesting that it seems like all the caster threads alternate between "casters are weak and need some help" and "casters are too powerful and wrecking my game."

You might have missed that it's "PC casters are weak" and "monster casters are too powerful". You seem to be conflating the two here and there is a WIDE gulf between the two.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

From that perspective the threads kind of complement each other. You see people here talking about casters being efficient at dealing with groups of lower-level enemies and people in that thread talking about boss (i.e. higher level) casters being especially dangerous to the party (i.e. a group of lower-level enemies).

You see people here talking about casters being inaccurate and unreliable... and people there talking about NPC casters who get fighter-level accuracy.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

But really it seems to be “casters are too weak against higher level solo bosses,” and “higher level solo monsters that can cast are too powerful. Which pretty much is saying the same thing, except players never get to be the higher level solo monster, because they are part of a team.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Which pretty much is saying the same thing, except players never get to be the higher level solo monster, because they are part of a team.

And they can't use as many slots in that single fight as the monster.

Grand Lodge

I just don't agree with the notion, but if that is the going consensus, that's fine. I chalk it up to a too-rigid application of the adventure writer's narrative, but YMMV.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
I just don't agree with the notion

What notion? That PC casters and monster caster are fundamentally different? I don't see how that's even questionable: It's pretty easily quantifiable.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The notion that enemy casters are OP and PC casters are UP. Of course they are different because the rules for PC casters are more defined and "creature" casters are largely able to be whatever the author envisions. Different does not mean better/worse.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the thing is that when A is casting spells that harm B then A having more levels than B is a huge advantage. This is also true of "hit them with a stick" but you can do more debilitating things with magic than you can with sticks that do HP damage.

PCs are never going to have more levels than "boss monsters" but boss monsters generally have several levels on PCs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
The notion that enemy casters are OP and PC casters are UP. Of course they are different because the rules for PC casters are more defined and "creature" casters are largely able to be whatever the author envisions. Different does not mean better/worse.

but the point is that in most cases the math for PC casters is slightly underpowered. That isn't the case if you fight an APL+1 caster as they're literally scaled better mathematically and when spells are successful they're debilitating.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
Different does not mean better/worse.

Different in this case DOES mean better as they have better DC's and spell attacks compared to a PC of their level before you factor in the higher level. You also factor in that they have no reason to conserve slots and there again, they are better.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, we can play word games if we want, but all I am saying is that I disagree with the notion that changes need to be made because the equation is out of balance, because I do not find it to be a problem. YMMV


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A solo caster never gets help from their allies, debuffing the enemy either. They also don’t have a dedicated player learning how to play them over the course of 20 levels.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
Okay, we can play word games if we want, but all I am saying is that I disagree with the notion that changes need to be made because the equation is out of balance, because I do not find it to be a problem. YMMV

I don't think it's a significant issue but I think it's a bit disingenuous to say it's word games. We were pretty clear and specific about what we were saying.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
A solo caster never gets help from their allies, debuffing the enemy either.

I didn't know we were talking about solo enemies.

Unicore wrote:
They also don’t have a dedicated player learning how to play them over the course of 20 levels.

They are run by a DM that knows every move it can do, has the area already known and can have plans made with it's flunkies. So I don't see a disadvantage.

TwilightKnight wrote:
Okay, we can play word games if we want, but all I am saying is that I disagree with the notion that changes need to be made because the equation is out of balance, because I do not find it to be a problem. YMMV

I wasn't playing word games. I was talking about them being different: full stop. I see the issue people are having with PC casters the flip side of monster casters. IMO, that is a DIFFERENT debate from 'do I feel that issue is a problem to me or you'. I wasn't making a judgment in those posts of 'it's a problem' or 'it's not a problem' but 'PC and monster casters are different'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
A solo caster never gets help from their allies, debuffing the enemy either. They also don’t have a dedicated player learning how to play them over the course of 20 levels.

So you'd never run a CR+2 caster with some lower-level minions around as a big encounter? That seems a bit boring.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Verdyn wrote:
Unicore wrote:
A solo caster never gets help from their allies, debuffing the enemy either. They also don’t have a dedicated player learning how to play them over the course of 20 levels.
So you'd never run a CR+2 caster with some lower-level minions around as a big encounter? That seems a bit boring.

The point is that the PC caster is in a party of 4 equal level characters. Putting 4 level +2 monsters against a party is certainly a death sentence.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
A solo caster never gets help from their allies, debuffing the enemy either. They also don’t have a dedicated player learning how to play them over the course of 20 levels.

That's not entirely true. Lots of encounters have enemies that are capable of debuffing, even if its not explicitly through spells.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, it feels like one of the overarching problems here is that some people aren't as concerned about whether casters are or aren't balanced properly now, as much as they're concerned that casters were hideously overpowered before. This is an entirely different system, it shouldn't punish classes in PF2 for how they were designed in PF1.

The nitty-gritty of the matter is that PF2's casters are extremely relative-level-dependent: Anything lower-level than them implodes into a black hole when the caster sneezes, and anything higher-level is BOFURI's Maple to the caster's "aggressive mosquito". (Note: Exaggeration.) Martials have a similar issue, but to a significantly lesser extent (regardless of the math, the fact that martials usually have infinite tries with their best options and mages don't makes every martial failure much less punishing than a mage failure). Mages also tend to have more potent success effects than martials out of the box, though martials can get some fun shutdown options if they shop around a bit with their build. Mage play is typically more stressful than martial play, both due to being heavily dependent on knowing exactly when to conserve your slots and when to use them, and due to being significantly more swingy and knowledge-check-based (targeting the wrong defense weakens martial damage but still lets them contribute, but can easily shut a mage down entirely). When a mage is swinging high, they're significantly stronger than a martial. (Take out an entire swarm of underleveled enemies in one turn? Sure!) When the mage is swinging low, they can maybe weaken one enemy a bit for just a single turn, if the game is nice enough to take pity on them. Martials... usually don't seem to have this problem, they're usually much more consistent.

Overall, I'd say that mages need a slight boost, but one that needs to be administered very carefully. They're in a place where they have trouble keeping up overall, but also have the option to be absurdly strong in short bursts or perfect conditions; their long-term performance is under the bar, while their short-term peak performance is very much above it. Too much of a boost will just make them quadratic again, but not enough of a boost could easily leave them unsatisfying for a lot of players.

----

This also isn't mentioning the specialist issue, since the game really doesn't support true specialisation in its current state. That's another thing that should be improved on, but care would need to be taken since each improvement will have widespread effects that could shift the balance too far, and just leave martials feeling unfun in comparison instead.


surprisingly this wizard thread seem to be reaching a consensus, but its a happy surprise


Caralene wrote:
TwilightKnight wrote:
The notion that enemy casters are OP and PC casters are UP. Of course they are different because the rules for PC casters are more defined and "creature" casters are largely able to be whatever the author envisions. Different does not mean better/worse.
but the point is that in most cases the math for PC casters is slightly underpowered. That isn't the case if you fight an APL+1 caster as they're literally scaled better mathematically and when spells are successful they're debilitating.

And enemies don't have the ability to turn successes into critical successes on their saves. What's your point?

You'll notice that enemy DCs get another ramp up at level 15, coincidentally the level that PC martials usually get a second good save that they can turn successes to crits on, or around where they upgrade their first save to legendary. (Wizard and sorcerer cry in a corner, but that's why they have an extra slot of each level, some of which should be spent on defensive spells.)

That said, enemy DCs generally match up with player ones.
High DCs: 17-18-20-21-22-24-25-26-28-29-30-32-33-34-36
Play DCs: 17-18-19-20-21-22-25-26-27-29-30-31-32-33-35

While player DCs are at most 1 lower than enemies, players also have a lot more tools that they can use to turn the tide in their favour. Whether that's better build coordination (Bon Mot/frightened before a spell is cast is easy enough to plan around), more class feats, or more effective allies, players aren't really that far behind. An enemy won't usually be able to fire off a wand of manifold missiles, for example, or take advantage of other magic items they may have.

The other thing is that as I noted, it's really a lot easier to target saves on enemies as opposed to players. My GM threw an near-level druid at our party today, and he was prepped with a lot of Ref blast spells. This was basically completely ineffective against our rogue/swashbuckler combo, and the druid was eviscerated in short order. Players can also have other abilities that upgrade saves in similar ways (Forlorn elf giving +1 and evasion vs emotion effects, for instance), which can make it a lot harder for enemies to land effects.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait a minute, why would an NPC not have a change to use their items or coordinate with their allies? Also your very example of a rogue/swashbuckler ruining the life of a caster proves that casters is 100% dependent on who it is they are facing. Which most players will not have access to for 1 reason or another.

Not to mention that NPC casters are at most 2 points above a player (assuming the player has perfect stats). A player that wants a more flavorful build and so got a slightly lower casting stat? Ha that is the same as being useless.

The idea that "oh enemies don't get upgrade on a save" is meaningless because caster enemies have better saves, better ac, better hp, etc.

Everything combines to make Player casters feel worse. Specially when 70%-80% of players will never reach high level.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
(Wizard and sorcerer cry in a corner, but that's why they have an extra slot of each level, some of which should be spent on defensive spells.)

Poor witch.

101 to 150 of 312 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Casters need some help-and here’s why All Messageboards