| 4 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.
The fact you seem to completely miss is that NPCs, by nature, trade a significant amount of versatility for increased numbers. They don't have the versatility, or options, or can consistently rely on ally combinations to make things work. A level 7 wizard will have DC 25, whatever is provided by his thesis, a focus spell from his school, three class feats, four skill feats, two ancestry feats, and two general feats. A level 7 cult leader NPC has DC 26, and an ability to gather converts. A level 7 dark naga has DC 26, fangs, innate mind reading, and poison. A level 7 lillend azata has DC 26, a longsword, an expression aura, and some constant spells.
NPCs don't have nearly the tactical breadth PCs do. That's why they need the bigger numbers, or they fall severely behind. Have a NPC with the numbers of a player, but without the special abilities/gear go up against a player, and they'll be eviscerated.
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.
Oh, really, let's see.
High DCs: 17-18-20-21-22-24-25-26-28-29-30-32-33-34-36
Play DCs: 16-17-18-19-21-22-25-26-27-28-29-30-31-32-35
Will it impact you? Yes. Are you nearly as useless as some people like to think? Not in the slightest. You're still never below 2 of an enemy until Extreme DCs come into play.
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.
Yes, enemies have higher base stats, but they also don't have the ability to severely reduce the power of a saved effect. They don't have access to the amount of conditions or buffs players can throw out.
In addition to the fact that encounters are by default design player-slanted (it's hard to run into an encounter with a 50/50 chance to win), enemies will rarely have varied enough spell lists to actually be able to change up tactics in response to anything a player throws out.
Take the dark naga, for example. In its top two spell levels, it has blink, wall of fire, dispel magic, haste, and lightning bolt. If it encounters people that are good against that, it can't pull out a scroll, or swap in spells from a staff, or heighten a signature spell, or use a focus spell. It's stuck with what it has. (It also doesn't have offensive cantrips, by the by, which is why it has fangs.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It seems to me that the balance was designed as if the classes were operating as singular characters. What I mean by that is a battle priest wasn't given combat ability like a warrior because they have spells to buff their ability. heroism can give up to a +3 to hit, which almost makes a combat priest hit as well as a fighter without buffs.
If they gave the warpriest equivalent fighting ability to a priest along with 10 levels of casting, that would be a super powerful option by PF2 standards.
I've already specced a fighter-cleric able to self cast lvl 6 heroism multiple times per day and it is quite nasty in battle, but that's pretty much your entire schtick. But a caster with that ability would make martials obsolete, especially with an ability like channel smite.
A combat-oriented war priest is much better emulated with a fighter taking a cleric multiclass.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still can't bring myself to play a wizard. I keep trying to talk myself into it. I know they would be fine at higher level meaning playable and the higher level spells by design would be good. But damn, their feats and innate class abilities are so boring. The Paizo changed the once high level ability the had going for them, which was more 10th level spells than anyone else.
Wizard has a low value stat like intelligence as their main stat. Wisdom or Charisma have much more going for them. Their focus spells are mostly bad. None of them excite me. Arcane spell list isn't particularly attractive. Wizard doesn't have any reason to play them.
I like making sorcerers. I have two right now. I could use more feats Sorcerer's have so many good feats. They have so much variation. Then Charisma is a great stat now with intimidation and diplomacy.
I even have more witch concepts I would give a try. I think you can build a real interesting witch healer or primal blaster. Feats aren't great, but you can pick up a multiclass with the witch easily. You get a free familiar, so you can at least get an extra focus point and spell slot through your familiar. Or a ritual partner for a 2 person ritual like create undead.
Wizard is the one caster class where I'll think about playing one, build out a concept, and give up on it before it starts because other classes are so much more appealing. At this point I want to see the wizard with some appealing feats and build options, so I could build one and feel like it would be fun to play.
Illusionist Wizard has a nice niche.
The advanced school spell is just invisibility, but that's a great spell to have nearly at-will access to.
Conceal into Silent Metamagic, and Convincing Illusion to try and cover when a foe does succeed.
The Illusion school has tools for a lot of different situations, and 4th level invisibility is just a bonkers buff spell.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, really, let's see.
High DCs: 17-18-20-21-22-24-25-26-28-29-30-32-33-34-36
Play DCs: 16-17-18-19-21-22-25-26-27-28-29-30-31-32-35Will it impact you? Yes. Are you nearly as useless as some people like to think? Not in the slightest. You're still never below 2 of an enemy until Extreme DCs come into play.
The difference apparently being in between enemies that can cast and caster enemies. And I may be wrong but by experience the later type seems to feature extreme DCs most often, at least every priest or wizard type we ever fought in our current AP had an advantage greater than just 1 point before taking into account levels.
A not-so-random example I picked on AoN would be the Lich, perhaps one of the most iconic caster enemies, having DC36 versus the DC31 a level 12 player can muster (but that does seem very extreme indeed, so perhaps I just managed to pick the worst possible example).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just checking caster NPCs from Gamemaster Guide shows that almost all of them are have DCs 2 points higher than equal level PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What thematic caster is not a playable character in PF2 right now
There's lots of thematic concepts that aren't playable.
I have a couple of characters from stories I wrote that can transform creatures to buff or hinder them. Despite this being a common trope in fantasy, there's almost no options for transforming or altering other creatures aside from bestial curse and baleful polymorph, both of which are too high level to build a character concept around. Most polymorph spells only affect the caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What thematic caster is not a playable character in PF2 right nowThere's lots of thematic concepts that aren't playable.
I have a couple of characters from stories I wrote that can transform creatures to buff or hinder them. Despite this being a common trope in fantasy, there's almost no options for transforming or altering other creatures aside from bestial curse and baleful polymorph, both of which are too high level to build a character concept around. Most polymorph spells only affect the caster.
Transmuter concepts in general don't work well. There is extremely limited damage or battlefield control options in Transmutation school. Many spells have been nerfed into oblivion (see Animate Rope).
Polymorph spells kinda work at level (kinda), but are weak, limited in application, and you can't really specialise in polymorphing into a specific form as it will quickly fall useless as you level up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What thematic caster is not a playable character in PF2 right nowThere's lots of thematic concepts that aren't playable.
I have a couple of characters from stories I wrote that can transform creatures to buff or hinder them. Despite this being a common trope in fantasy, there's almost no options for transforming or altering other creatures aside from bestial curse and baleful polymorph, both of which are too high level to build a character concept around. Most polymorph spells only affect the caster.
Transmuter concepts in general don't work well. There is extremely limited damage or battlefield control options in Transmutation school. Many spells have been nerfed into oblivion (see Animate Rope).
Polymorph spells kinda work at level (kinda), but are weak, limited in application, and you can't really specialise in polymorphing into a specific form as it will quickly fall useless as you level up.
Yeah, this has been one of my big disappointments in 2nd Edition and has been something I've brought up since the playtest.
I had hoped we get better support for these concepts than we did in 1st Edition. It always bothered me that you can turn a dragon into a chicken permanently and brainwash it into thinking it's always been a chicken. But you couldn't turn a man into an elf for more than a few minutes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine how frustrating it would be if, by level 7 a full half of enemies had an ability that functionally gives them a +10 to at least one of their saves.
That is exactly the situation that NPC casters find themselves in, meaning that it becomes very difficult for NPC casters to threaten the entire party at once with one spell, something that becomes exceedingly true the higher the level. Thus, even when they are 2 levels ahead and thus might have a +4 to their attack over the party in that instance, that will probably only mean that their one big moment in the game might significantly threaten 2 players, if it is an AoE spell, which would tactically be the spell that every PC would want to be able to cast against 4 level -2 enemies that they have to face by themselves as well.
NPC casters face something that PC casters almost never do, a full party of challenging opponents built to supplement and protect each other. As a GM, if you have players that don't do that at all, then yes you need to be careful about how your party encounters monsters that play well against the party's strengths, and casters often have the most flexible options for doing so, but you also have to metagame how well they know what those strengths are, and so you are already GM-fiat-ing the situation when you decide not to have the caster cast its max level sudden bolt at the rogue in the first round of combat, because you know the rogue is very likely to save, AND be able to spend a hero point if she doesn't, against a powerful single target effect, and then the rest of the party will mob your caster so hard that they are going to be on the back foot for the rest of combat.
Think about this though, everyone always talks about how a character has to be good fighting against a more powerful level enemy or else their class is a waste of time, but most enemy NPC casters are killed by a group of equal or lower level enemies who just manage to exploit the action economy advantage that they have after catching the caster alone in their study or in the middle of casting a ritual.
PF1 might have supported the fantasy of envisioning your wizard as this great solo threat to the entire world, or at least your enemies in it, but that is not the reality of a character who is part of a party. The easiest way to replicate that fantasy is to just shift the dynamics of the game, and lift the level of the player. It will "fix" all the problems that the people who complain the loudest about caster are experiencing in play, and if you are the GM, and you just do this from the beginning of your campaign (say "we are implementing the level 3 starting house rule,") then the whole game will have a consistent feel.
Polymorph abilities are very difficult to work well into a game that is as mechanically driven as PF2. Turning 1 enemy into essentially a useless creature is powerful, but it is powerful against 1 enemy and it is generally expected that players are capable of defeating one enemy fairly regularly, especially lower level enemies, which is where spells like Baleful polymorph shine.
Radically re-writing the rules of the game for your own character is even more powerful, but the power balance of doing so is at least self-contained, you are spending class feats and features getting better at it.
Having spells that can apply to other people, utilize their own incredible strengths and just completely remove their weaknesses or give additional massive bonuses to them is what breaks a game. PF2 is very structured in what kind of bonuses one character can give to another. That is not to say that there is not some room for play in what future spells can do, but the bonuses are going to be maxed out around a +1 for early levels, +2 for mid levels, and +3 at the highest levels, AND not usually stack with much more than a +1 or +2 bonus to damage as well.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
surprisingly this wizard thread seem to be reaching a consensus, but it's a happy surprise
It's been happening more often recently.
After 2 years we're finally getting to the state where we admitting there is a problem.
In another 2 years we might agree on a solution.
We'll hopefully get it in print in just under another 2 years.
Then we'll all get to enjoy it for a few weeks until the play test for 3e hits, and the cycle starts again.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Patiently twiddling my thumbs until paizocon to see if we get caster archetypes. Seems like a no brainer but the exclusion of them being outright confirmed in the book description of SoM makes me somewhat doubtful
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, really, let's see.
High DCs: 17-18-20-21-22-24-25-26-28-29-30-32-33-34-36
Play DCs: 16-17-18-19-21-22-25-26-27-28-29-30-31-32-35Will it impact you? Yes. Are you nearly as useless as some people like to think? Not in the slightest. You're still never below 2 of an enemy until Extreme DCs come into play.
The difference apparently being in between enemies that can cast and caster enemies. And I may be wrong but by experience the later type seems to feature extreme DCs most often, at least every priest or wizard type we ever fought in our current AP had an advantage greater than just 1 point before taking into account levels.
A not-so-random example I picked on AoN would be the Lich, perhaps one of the most iconic caster enemies, having DC36 versus the DC31 a level 12 player can muster (but that does seem very extreme indeed, so perhaps I just managed to pick the worst possible example).
A lich is probably the only creature in the game that runs on extreme caster DCs before level 15, yeah. It's also got the equivalent of Arcane Bond, and a level 2/6 wizard feat. As noted in the monster building:
Use the high numbers for primary casters, and moderate for creatures that have some supplemental spells but are focused more on combat. At 15th level and higher, the extreme numbers become standard for spellcasters. A few might hit extreme at lower levels, but they tend to be highly specialized, with very weak defenses and attacks.
In return, it's running on incredibly mediocre stats elsewhere. Its Fort DC is even almost classified at Terrible, and its AC between Low and Terrible.
If you take a look at the divine warden of Brigh, the rancorous priesthood, the spirit naga, the intellect devourer, or the girtablilu seer, that's running on more standard caster numbers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After 2 years we're finally getting to the state where we admitting there is a problem.
In another 2 years we might agree on a solution.
We'll hopefully get it in print in just under another 2 years.Then we'll all get to enjoy it for a few weeks until the play test for 3e hits, and the cycle starts again.
Sounds about right.
Oh, really, let's see.
High DCs: 17-18-20-21-22-24-25-26-28-29-30-32-33-34-36
Play DCs: 16-17-18-19-21-22-25-26-27-28-29-30-31-32-35Will it impact you? Yes. Are you nearly as useless as some people like to think? Not in the slightest. You're still never below 2 of an enemy until Extreme DCs come into play.
The difference apparently being in between enemies that can cast and caster enemies. And I may be wrong but by experience the later type seems to feature extreme DCs most often, at least every priest or wizard type we ever fought in our current AP had an advantage greater than just 1 point before taking into account levels.
A not-so-random example I picked on AoN would be the Lich, perhaps one of the most iconic caster enemies, having DC36 versus the DC31 a level 12 player can muster (but that does seem very extreme indeed, so perhaps I just managed to pick the worst possible example).
A lich is probably the only creature in the game that runs on extreme caster DCs before level 15, yeah. It's also got the equivalent of Arcane Bond, and a level 2/6 wizard feat. As noted in the monster building:
Use the high numbers for primary casters, and moderate for creatures that have some supplemental spells but are focused more on combat. At 15th level and higher, the extreme numbers become standard for spellcasters. A few might hit extreme at lower levels, but they tend to be highly specialized, with very weak defenses and attacks.In return, it's running on incredibly mediocre stats elsewhere. Its Fort DC is even almost classified at Terrible, and its AC between Low and Terrible.
If you take a look at the divine warden of Brigh, the rancorous priesthood, the spirit naga, the intellect devourer, or the girtablilu seer, that's running on more standard caster numbers.
People really underestimate how glaring a weakness it is for undead to have a weak fort save. The heal spell is an absolute destroyer of the undead and it is one of the most commonly encountered spells in the game. Its not even one that really requires a knowledge check. Is my opponent undead (something that usually comes across pretty quickly in just the description of them)? 3 action heals are probably going to wreck this encounter for them. Sure there are exceptions, but not for the Lich.
Looking at monster stat blocks from a player's perspective is generally a bad idea, especially if you are thinking that it is supposed to represent what you can do. Monsters don't exist to do what players do in world mechanically. Players really don't need to be able to become lich's in play. Very few adventures will let that work out well/ fit with the rest of the party. Protecting a phylactry is NPC/dungeon stuff. It is a solo computer game, or maybe a PvP competitive dungeon building game, not a collaborative heroes game. That is not saying it is wrong fun to want to engage that fantasy, but presenting it as player facing options creates expectations that will lead to problems for a lot of GMs. Homebrew it if your table really feels it is necessary. PF2 is the easiest system I have encountered for GMs modifying flavor and even creating new material. It is rarely balanced on a level that will be fun for everyone, but you don't need a mechanic to be fun for everyone when you homebrew it for your own table, just the people you are playing with. Chances are, if they are wanting to be as powerful as a Lich, their interest in balance is pretty minimal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Patiently twiddling my thumbs until paizocon to see if we get caster archetypes. Seems like a no brainer but the exclusion of them being outright confirmed in the book description of SoM makes me somewhat doubtfulI have noticed that the blurb for secrets of magic is decidedly sparse on info in comparison to the APG & G&G ones. Archetypes have been confirmed and no doubt someone will ask the question at Paizocon and we will find out then. I still hold out hope for school archetypes.
Me too. School wizards having access to the feats (outside the dedication) would be a double whammy and kill 2 birds with one stone
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until that time I'm afraid sweeping the issue under the rug won't make it go away.
Sincerely yours,
Zapp
You know, you might get more people to agree with you in these kind of discussions if you stopped implying that the that things you don't like are actually endemic problems that those of us of opposing opinions are conspiring to hide.
This isn't governmental malfeasance, there isn't a "rug" under which this is being swept. This is a difference of opinions about a hobby game.
We can throttle back on the invective.
surprisingly this wizard thread seem to be reaching a consensus, but its a happy surprise
Is it though? As a frequent visitor of all the wizard threads, this looks less like consensus and more like all of the regular "fix the caster" posters all in the same thread with less of the "the caster is fine" actually engaging.
Aside from the few of us chiming in with "here we go again" references, it's like we're tiring of the ceaseless debate.
Until that time I'm afraid sweeping the issue under the rug won't make it go away.
Sincerely yours,
ZappYou know, you might get more people to agree with you in these kind of discussions if you stopped implying that the that things you don't like are actually endemic problems that those of us of opposing opinions are conspiring to hide.
This isn't governmental malfeasance, there isn't a "rug" under which this is being swept. This is a difference of opinions about a hobby game.
We can throttle back on the invective.
surprisingly this wizard thread seem to be reaching a consensus, but its a happy surpriseIs it though? As a frequent visitor of all the wizard threads, this looks less like consensus and more like all of the regular "fix the caster" posters all in the same thread with less of the "the caster is fine" actually engaging.
Aside from the few of us chiming in with "here we go again" references, it's like we're tiring of the ceaseless debate.
There will be whining and complaining until casters exist who have unlimited attacks exactly as good as a martial, plus extra damaging effects, plus a toolbox of other effects. Because it's 'thematic'.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until that time I'm afraid sweeping the issue under the rug won't make it go away.
Sincerely yours,
ZappYou know, you might get more people to agree with you in these kind of discussions if you stopped implying that the that things you don't like are actually endemic problems that those of us of opposing opinions are conspiring to hide.
This isn't governmental malfeasance, there isn't a "rug" under which this is being swept. This is a difference of opinions about a hobby game.
We can throttle back on the invective.
surprisingly this wizard thread seem to be reaching a consensus, but its a happy surpriseIs it though? As a frequent visitor of all the wizard threads, this looks less like consensus and more like all of the regular "fix the caster" posters all in the same thread with less of the "the caster is fine" actually engaging.
Aside from the few of us chiming in with "here we go again" references, it's like we're tiring of the ceaseless debate.
There will be whining and complaining until casters exist who have unlimited attacks exactly as good as a martial, plus extra damaging effects, plus a toolbox of other effects. Because it's 'thematic'.
No there won't, and quit trying to strawman this discussion into a full-blown argument.
Casters need a slight, slight bump in my experience. I didn't think so for the longest time, but eventually I stopped being hard-headed and actually listened to what my players were saying.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from the few of us chiming in with "here we go again" references, it's like we're tiring of the ceaseless debate.
There will be whining and complaining until casters exist who have unlimited attacks exactly as good as a martial, plus extra damaging effects, plus a toolbox of other effects. Because it's 'thematic'.
I remember seeing a lot of comments like this back on the PF1 forums when people would talk about martial problems too.
Good to see that some things never change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you think the current issues with the Wizard are even remotely comparable to the issues with the Rogue and Monk in PF1 then you're out of your mind.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And just like that, the well has been poisoned.
What made you think this thread was somehow in a more pure state than the other several hundred iterations of it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought that things like the Book of 9 Swords in 3.5 went a long way towards making martial classes feel better, but a lot of people didn't like the flavor, thought it was overpowered (lol), or didn't actually want to play anything more complicated than their current sword swinger. As long as people want to play martial classes without having to deal with the complexity of dealing with multiple unique effects that are expended upon use we're stuck capping the power of casters lower than some would like or making casters too good again.
For anyone who's been complaining about caster DCs on enemies, have you actually ever played with their DCs reduced to player levels? No other changes, just that, especially at level 7+.
Similarly, have you ever boosted all player caster DCs by 2 and seen the results? Especially true if your players actually work together and use conditions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What made you think this thread was somehow in a more pure state than the other several hundred iterations of it?There was less bickering over martial vs caster.
That would seem to indicate a belief that this can only be a free and fair conversation about the current state of casters so long as everyone in the thread is in agreement on the current state of casters.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Polymorph abilities are very difficult to work well into a game that is as mechanically driven as PF2. Turning 1 enemy into essentially a useless creature is powerful, but it is powerful against 1 enemy and it is generally expected that players are capable of defeating one enemy fairly regularly, especially lower level enemies, which is where spells like Baleful polymorph shine.
Radically re-writing the rules of the game for your own character is even more powerful, but the power balance of doing so is at least self-contained, you are spending class feats and features getting better at it.
Having spells that can apply to other people, utilize their own incredible strengths and just completely remove their weaknesses or give additional massive bonuses to them is what breaks a game. PF2 is very structured in what kind of bonuses one character can give to another. That is not to say that there is not some room for play in what future spells can do, but the bonuses are going to be maxed out around a +1 for early levels, +2 for mid levels, and +3 at the highest levels, AND not usually stack with much more than a +1 or +2 bonus to damage as well.
I feel the perspective in this argument is too narrow. Transformation-themed spells need not be incapacitates or buffs that break the math of the game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's to derail? We're on the same track this thread is always on.
The slightest push back was immediately mentioned as having "poisoned the thread." Not bickering, barely a critique and the tremors begin. It always starts like this one is now, rather tame - but it never ends that way.
Those in these threads who advocate for a revision to the casters get into this echo chamber mentality of repeating over and over WHY casters are broken and the same exact methodologies for fixing them. Conversation that brings disagreement is often immediately dismissed, if not minimized as being petty martials not caring. Condescension leads to those claiming casters are fine to dig in their heels and get equally as dismissive and condescending. Any such argument to leave well enough alone is met with absolutist statements that casters are objectively not good - because of course opinions are only valid if they are expressed as facts.
The thread devolves, it gets worse and worse until it gets pruned by mods. It then gets even more contentious because the only people who stick around are the ones who don't mind getting the slop on them in a fight. The thread gets locked, and a week later a new one takes its place.
Why do we need to continue this cycle that has been unbroken since the playtest (not the secrets of magic playtest, the PF2e core playtest)? It's all been said already.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For anyone who's been complaining about caster DCs on enemies, have you actually ever played with their DCs reduced to player levels? No other changes, just that, especially at level 7+.
Similarly, have you ever boosted all player caster DCs by 2 and seen the results? Especially true if your players actually work together and use conditions.
Yes, I have (nerfed spellcasting enemy DCs, in this case), actually. It made for much more fun encounters where PCs weren't wrecked so hard and the party's casters didn't have their mouths watering when looking at NPCs being able to hit their spells much more consistently.
Also, people talk about versatility, but if I was doing a purely mechanical choice, I would very easily trade all this supposed versatility given by feats and items for a +2 to hit/DC and better defenses. I think this aspect is very overblown, especially since caster NPCs have other kinds of versatility PCs could never have (backup strikes as powerful as a martial and many unique abilities).
i would be very interested in listening and discussing your reasons why casters are great but if possible i wish we could stop the escalation here
I don't have to think casters are great to think they aren't broken.
I don't have to think they're 100% solidly built to be tired of this ongoing circular argument.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
But now, the argument is about whether or not there's even a potency disparity to fix in the first place. So the arguments come down to things like "it's fine, and here's the math that shows it's fine" vs. "math being right doesn't make playing it feel good to play, so we need a fix... to the math, not to our feelings."
Which naturally has lead to one side becoming more exhausted by the debate than the other, especially given that those of us on the "math checks out, it's balanced" side of the argument don't have anything to gain by convincing the other side except the same benefit that can be gained by just not clicking a thread that is titled some variation of a suggestion to buff casters.
This is how I see every thread of this. "Yes, all of the math works, but we don't like how it feels." And then there are people, like myself, who do, but say: "Hey, you're right, we should get some thematic options, expanded feats, and archetypes. Good news, this is Paizo so... those are coming and have come in various forms."
But that's never really it, right? Suddenly, it's maybe better if we had feats or items to buff DCs or spell schools that give you bonuses for hyperspecialization. "I can't build a specialist." You can, but will it be "optimal"? Casters don't interact with the 3 action economy. They do, but "we don't want to do it that way." Higher level bosses are tough for casters. Just like they're tough for... everyone else.
It's the neverending laundry list of grievances with the system and not actual casting. SoM will give us alternate casting rules, but I sincerely doubt they'll be delivering a product that breaks a lot of their design choices up until now. Even when we do get it, I look forward to the same posters explaining how it doesn't fit what they want and how they would have done it if only their forum posts were listened to as opposed to the designers or even the other forum-goers. So yeah, I would pay actual money not to have this thread again.
Ding dong the God Wizard's dead
Sing it High
Sing it Low
The wicked old God Wizard's dead
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it sounds pretty normal to me that customers who are unsatisfied with the state of a product will be more vocal about it than those who aren't? If someone really likes the idea of a caster and just isn't having fun with them in the current state, they'll bring that to the spotlight, and if multiple people have this same issue it will be brought back until something is done about it, they get tired and go play something else, or Paizo just says "shut up we're not changing this" and they... probably go play something else. The last one sounds very unlikely for obvious reasons.
I don't see why try to silence or downplay people's unsatisfaction with something just because you don't have the same issue they do.