| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a basic reason:
If Paizo is going to base what they dedicate their work effort to on what appear to be problems according to the forum, they will have a different view if they see "This is a problem." without also seeing "No it isn't." than if they see both of those statements together.
And since their work efforts are limited because there are only so many people and only so many hours those people can be expected to work, that creates a situation of those that "don't have the same issue" being at risk of the non-issue getting attention... resulting in changes or new elements that the people with the issue like/will use, but no one else will. When, theoretically at least, the work effort could instead result in new elements that everyone will use.
I mean, absolutely, you have all the right to make counterpoints. I am myself pretty torn on this issue, actually (I think casters are pretty underpowered early and early-mid game but still OP monsters at high levels). What I don't think is very productive is just saying "oh this thread again" and complaining about other people's dissatisfaction every time the issue does come up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't even have to look far for the previous threads.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42ny5?Did-wizards-get-nerfed#1
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42oxf?Math-stacked-against-spellcasters#1
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#1
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs4333a&page=1?Are-Casters-Behind-the-Curve- Now
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs436xe?Why-arent-there-magic-items-to-boost-spe ll#2
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43cqk?What-Is-the-2E-Wizards-Job
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't even have to look far for the previous threads.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42ny5?Did-wizards-get-nerfed#1
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42oxf?Math-stacked-against-spellcasters#1
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ao?Spellcasters-and-their-problems#1
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs4333a&page=1?Are-Casters-Behind-the-Curve- Now
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs436xe?Why-arent-there-magic-items-to-boost-spe ll#2
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43cqk?What-Is-the-2E-Wizards-Job
Bonus playtest ones too:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42fu9?Spellcasters-Underwhelming
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs428n9?Arcane-Spellcasters-in-PF2E-quo-vadis
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just like the threads bc it's another thread to speculate SoM stuff in. Probably not the best place though
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I return to threads like this because they are often started by a new player who might honestly be struggling to figure out how casting in PF2 is designed and how to have fun playing a caster, or by a GM that might be confused why their casters are thrashing PCs but the PCs are struggling to pick useful spells. I try very earnestly to help people figure out how to have the most fun they can playing the game and possibly see the existing system in a new light. I have seen a number of players come around after discussing options and trying new things.
Some still have some gripes, but they are usually much more specific, measured, and able to work around them or make much smaller changes to get their desired results than they realized. I do this because I have a lot of fun with this system, as a player and a GM and I want to help others have fun too. It feels rewarding, and when it doesn’t I stop posting for a while.
| 7 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.I think I would characterize it more like this:
Back then, everyone was sure that without system mastery disparity caster was better than martial, and the arguments came down to things like "martial should be brought up to balance because it'd make for a more enjoyable game experience" vs. "magic should be inherently better than non-magic because it's magic."
Or to say that differently, everyone agreed martials were less potent, and the arguing was about whether that was a problem or not.
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.
Honestly, the thing I dislike about looking at the math as the ultimate deciding factor is that martials and mages, like it or not, operate under different paradigms.
• The martial usually isn't as flashy, but also usually doesn't rely on consumable, non-renewable resources for their effects. A martial usually has the option of retrying a failed action until it succeeds, if they want to. It is entirely valid for a monk to walk up and try to punch you in the face a million times, his hands won't fall off or stop working after he throws a few especially strong blows; PF2 has a shocking lack of Arm-Fall-Off Boy. [I would have questions about the rest of the party and the NPCs if a monk actually did walk up to someone and get to stay there long enough to make a million Strikes, but there's no rule that says they can't! ;3]
• The mage relies on a consumable resource for most of their effects, which may or may not be renewable (depending on whether it's slots or focus pool). This imposes a strict limit on the number of times they can use their best abilities, after which point their performance will typically plummet to a level below the martial's. They do have fallback options available, which have their own balance issues (namely, if it's not Electric Arc, it's bad in comparison, which... is honestly a big issue, IMO, just not the type of issue that this thread is about), which tends to be weaker than martials' infinitely-usable options. Mages also operate on a "one fail state, three success states" system rather than the normal "two fail/success states" system, which makes them feel weaker than they actually are (on account of their "weak success" effect being labled as a "fail" effect).
The biggest balancing wonk here is that the mage's strongest effects are significantly stronger than the martial's strongest effects, but still roughly as likely to fail and significantly more limited in use count. With slot limits, a mage will typically only get to bring their big gun(s) out once or twice an encounter before falling back to weak effects (or possibly even cantrips), while a martial can usually pull their gimmick(s) off as often as they need to. The math works out, yes, but the martial can overcome it through sheer tenacity (even a 5% success rate can be overcome by trying long enough), while the mage cannot.
Now, this does make sense in the long run (most players in most TTRPGs don't actually like adventuring days to be long enough for the martial's infinite retries to let them keep up with the mage's 10-or-so novas), but it has a tendency to shoehorn mages into support builds if they want to be guaranteed to be effective (limited slots means they don't have the "sheer tenacity" fallback for their strong spells, so it's best to use those strong spells to just make your team better). As such, I would personally like to see mages get a very small tweak, ideally accompanied by martials getting some shiny new limited-use nova options of their own.
The problem with buffing mages, alas, is that the high end of their scale is already significantly above the high end of the martial scale. If the mage lands their big gun once... well, a single Howitzer shot leaves a bigger crater than infinite bullets for your handgun, right? A big tweak would break things wide open, even if it's only once a day, and that's something nobody relevant to this discussion wants. Perhaps an option that allows you to weaken a spell's effects to make it easier to land would help? Maybe as a focus spell or a wand or a once-a-day metamagic, so it can't just be spammed.
---
tl;dr: The math says that martials and mages are both about as likely to succeed against a boss, yes. Mages have to contend with a limited number of tries, though, while most martials can just try and try again as often as they want, which makes mage failure more punishing than martial failure. Problem is that this is very hard to address, since mage effects tend to be bigger than martial effects; a flat increase will just push mages above martials altogether, when the solution we want is to make both enjoyable and make both feel like they're contributing, without one of them overshadowing the other.
---
Not going to look at blasters or specialists right here and now, since their issues are harder to propose solutions to and/or liable to be addressed in the near future. Just looking at why going solely by the math falters for mages, IMO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
• The martial usually isn't as flashy, but also usually doesn't rely on consumable, non-renewable resources for their effects. A martial usually has the option of retrying a failed action until it succeeds, if they want to. It is entirely valid for a monk to walk up and try to punch you in the face a million times, his hands won't fall off or stop working after he throws a few especially strong blows; PF2 has a shocking lack of Arm-Fall-Off Boy. [I would have questions about the rest of the party and the NPCs if a monk actually did walk up to someone and get to stay there long enough to make a million Strikes, but there's no rule that says they can't! ;3]
This is kind of true but also not. Yes, you can retry a failed action until it succeeds, but that's also contingent on enemies sitting around and letting you do whatever you want.
• The mage relies on a consumable resource for most of their effects, which may or may not be renewable (depending on whether it's slots or focus pool). This imposes a strict limit on the number of times they can use their best abilities, after which point their performance will typically plummet to a level below the martial's. They do have fallback options available, which have their own balance issues (namely, if it's not Electric Arc, it's bad in comparison, which... is honestly a big issue, IMO, just not the type of issue that this thread is about), which tends to be weaker than martials' infinitely-usable options. Mages also operate on a "one fail state, three success states" system rather than the normal "two fail/success states" system, which makes them feel weaker than they actually are (on account of their "weak success" effect being labled as a "fail" effect).
Electric Arc is ridiculously overtuned from everything I've seen of it. If it's hitting two things, it's actually got the potential to be better than one-hand martial characters - the rapier fighter with 16 Str in my party is doing 2d6+6 (avg 13) at level 9, while a two-target electric arc is 5d4+4 (avg 16.5) to two targets, at range.
I'm also really not sure how "mages get a benefit even if their target succeeds" is a detriment. My swashbuckler has to gain panache for that bonus (which he's failed on multiple times due to low-mediocre dice), then can only target one person, and does 4d6 (avg 14) on a failure due to a level 6 feat invested.A competent mage gets good use out of their spells even if the target succeeds on their save. The casters in my groups really love tossing Slow at opponent mages, and once that sticks to their bad Fort the opponent has a horrible time. The standouts to me have been a caster two levels higher, who basically wasted a turn + her flight spell on a success (since she was hovering over a pit for safety) before failing on the second one, and the final boss of my campaign, who crit failed and went down like a chump after that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has. Deriven is quite eloquent on that subject.
We really are not exaggerating about the same group of people making the same points. I myself have to catch myself from doing that at times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I agree with DF insofar as wizards getting more feats and the potential to interact more with their arcane thesis and school focus would be more of an interesting to draw for many. I say this as someone who is a huge wizard fan. I, currently, love the wizard, but I see that it isn't for everyone and is a bit dry.
I don't think that DF is asking for Paizo to come out swinging with "the wizard chassis is bad, we've completely retooled it," but I could be mistaken. The wizard works and works well, it just doesn't exactly pop off the page screaming, "look at all this cool stuff I can do!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also the fact that many caster archetypes are possible, accuracy boosting is already a thing most casters can do, and the ability to take an archetype opens up every class to having about 100 different feat options at level 2, but some players haven’t found the combination they like yet or are wanting it to work out in a way that the developers are very clearly not interested in supporting or at least haven’t prioritized supporting. That leaves some players particularly bitter because they might currently feel excluded and uncertain whether it is an intentional exclusion or a not yet exclusion.
Like players who’s vision turns red at the first mention of true strike when discussing wizard accuracy with spell attack rolls. Some people really want a flat basic math that breaks in the wizards favor with a spell attack roll, with out factoring in easy accuracy boosting and enemy debuffing options or what effect the true strike spell has when it compounds with these options, leaving wizards with fairly effective and powerful nova options that the can probably only use about once or twice a day. These players really hate what true strike does to the game, but all of their suggestions to “fix the math” of blaster casting are dependent on paizo retconning that spell out of existence first which is a rather drastic action that would take massive amounts of work to do, for an end result of really powerful spell attack roll spells being harder to land in exchange often for being able to hit with a ray of frost or produce flame about 5% more often.
To those players and GMs, making a custom unique or rare item to boost the attack rolls of cantrips by one is a perfectly fine work around that may eventually get support in some published material, but at rare or uncommon rarity anyway, it is essentially just going to be about as common as a house ruled item anyway, and one that will probably fire up PF2 detractors giving them fodder for shouting , “see! The whole system of casting is broken! Because +1 item bonuses are necessary to make casters who just want to blast cantrips all the time and not just be stuck with electric arc viable”, will be read way out of context, when just adding some more different cantrips will probably accomplish the same effect. They have been hesitant to saturate the game with new cantrips, likely due to how much more spotlight time they get than spell slot spells, but we’ll see what happens with secrets of magic.
I feel like “wizard feats” is kinda in the same boat right now. A lot of people will be made happy with only a few more options within th wizard class and a couple of more good casting archetype options, which we have been seeing the structural framework for in the recent AP releases. Completely reinventing the wizard base chassis would be a ton of highly visible retinkering that will suggest “we did this massively wrong” when decent archetype options patch over the vast majority of players pet peeves about a class without drawing nearly as much criticism or attention.
I recommend learning how to ask for material that will fix your major issue with a specific class without stomping your feet and screaming “Piazo just got this one wrong folks! They need to do some massive errata and material re-write or I will forever be a haunting ghost on their message boards!” That approach to change Does not engender the most productive conversations or changes and this is a game that you really can just make the big changes to with your table if you want to. The alchemist ran into obvious and sincere trouble in the form of actually not working the way it was intended with changes from the play test to the core rule book. I think some folks have been holding out hope that there was something similar in some choices made with the wizard but that just does not seem to bear out with such things as “wizard weapon proficiencies” especially with starting weapon and armor proficiency being a relatively mailable thing in system.