| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I am gathering from these discussions is that many of the (perceived or real) problems that players may encounter in regards to casters are not always of mechanical but often also of psychological nature and may not easily be solved without breaking the mechanical part of the game.
For example, lets take a look at a "why can't we have shiny things too" scenario considering the interaction of DC and the four levels of success. Regarding spells that target the opposition you usually have four possible distinct outcomes: critical success = no effect, success = minor effect (which may or may not be still good), failure = major effect, critical failure = severe effect.
So what may easily happen now is that due to level and DC differences player casters may see enemy NPC casters having a high chance for their spells to be yielding a major and more than a token chance for the severe effect when used on the party while when used used by the caster themselves the same spells mostly seem to yield the minor effect only and perhaps occasionally a major effect when used versus appropriate opposition.
The physological issue here is that players do always consider themselves as appropriate opposition, even if they shoudn't be considered that in game terms. So a player would likely consider himself as an appropriate enemy when dealing with a level+2 NPC caster (who probably has a +4 DC advantage) but would themselves not consider a bunch of Level-2 or -4 enemies as appropriate opposition to the potentially devastating effects of their own spells. To worsen things appropriate opposition is often considered as player level and up (equals) and this is exactly where one can easily come up with the impression that they have just been handed the short end of the stick (of course this is not considering increasing your accuracy things like targeting the correct saves or increasing your chances of landing spells by debuffing).
And even if your rational you knows how the game is working and why it is working this way (e.g. having NPC casters provide a suitable challenge) your emotional you may still end up feeling bad about certain elements of the game, e.g. having to be content with the "consolidation price" success effects of your spells more often than not, especially when dealing with higher level enemies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I am gathering from these discussions is that many of the (perceived or real) problems that players may encounter in regards to casters are not always of mechanical but often also of psychological nature and may not easily be solved without breaking the mechanical part of the game.
This. As I said earlier in the thread, I find it harder to build satisfying character concepts around spellcasting classes. Most of them are little more than a spell list, a lame focus spell, and a boring pool of feats. This can be fixed without a power boost.
The bard and the druid are exceptions. The druid's orders give focus spells and a starting feat that enable different playstyles. The bard's muses all play differently and the focus spells they share can be reflavored depending on your performance type. Both classes have a pretty fun and interesting selection of feats.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to chime in my actual opinion on the subject: I do not think casters, as a whole group, are underpowered, but having been frustrated with some things myself as a Sorcerer, I think there are two main issues.
1 - Low level spells, for the most part, are too weak. The floor is too low. Blasting spells are generally worse than cantrips, and debuffing is okayish, but rarely feels worth a spell slot when you have 2-6 of them. Fear I is actually a much better spell as a pseudo-cantrip later than at level 1, and most of the 2nd level ones share a similar fate. This leaves unfallible spells that you can squeeze a lot of value of (Magic Weapon, Summons) or just have a ton of power (Heal) as the clear winners at low levels. The "meta" is so obvious that even my casual friends who probably think optimization is a flavor of pizza started taking these same spells on every caster. Which kind of also leads to...
2 - Casters are too pigeonholed into a role. Varying degrees of "general support-y person", to be more precise. At low levels, Magic Weapon, Heal and aforementioned spells are so above the cut that being a buffy/healer-y dude is clearly the best option. Later on, offensive supporting, a.k.a debuffing and control, become so powerful I'd even say they're kind of overpowered, between Synesthesia, Wall of Stone, Slow and similar stuff. But if you wanna be someone who points at things and they burst in flames, you're not in for nearly such a treat. Low level blasts are terrible, that's not anything new. Later, you get stuff like Fireball and Chain Lightning, sure, but enemy HP grows a lot, and AoE Incapacitation does the job of getting rid of a bunch of mooks much better than blasting from as low as level 3 with Calm Emotions. And... well, it turns out a whole lotta people have the image of someone throwing geometric shapes of multicolored energy at people and watching them die when they think of a Mage.
After getting over low level griavances and that weird-ass proficiency gap at level 5 and 6 where everything succeeds against your spells, I had a lot of fun on my Occult Sorcerer. I love control and support casters and actually like that you can play one to its fullest now without instantly ending encounters. But I don't think my preferred playstyle should be the only one.
And... well, it turns out a whole lotta people have the image of someone throwing geometric shapes of multicolored energy at people and watching them die when they think of a Mage.
I think coming up with a dedicated caster to this concept will alleviate a lot of pressure and I don't really think the wizard is the one who needs to do it any more than they already do. Magic Missile, Acid arrow, enervation, lightning bolt, even hydraulic push can wreck enemies in the lower half of the game spells (playing from level 1 to level 10). Some require set up to be maximally effective, but when you only have 1 or two spells like that a day, it doesn't make sense to not set them up for the best chance of success. It is the idea that the low level wizard/sorcerer is only going to be floating 1 or 2 of those mega blasts a day effectively that I think really kills the fantasy of the blaster caster, which is why I think an eventual Kineticist class could go a long way to making that fantasy more viable.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I am gathering from these discussions is that many of the (perceived or real) problems that players may encounter in regards to casters are not always of mechanical but often also of psychological nature and may not easily be solved without breaking the mechanical part of the game.
For example, lets take a look at a "why can't we have shiny things too" scenario considering the interaction of DC and the four levels of success. Regarding spells that target the opposition you usually have four possible distinct outcomes: critical success = no effect, success = minor effect (which may or may not be still good), failure = major effect, critical failure = severe effect.
So what may easily happen now is that due to level and DC differences player casters may see enemy NPC casters having a high chance for their spells to be yielding a major and more than a token chance for the severe effect when used on the party while when used used by the caster themselves the same spells mostly seem to yield the minor effect only and perhaps occasionally a major effect when used versus appropriate opposition.
The physological issue here is that players do always consider themselves as appropriate opposition, even if they shoudn't be considered that in game terms. So a player would likely consider himself as an appropriate enemy when dealing with a level+2 NPC caster (who probably has a +4 DC advantage) but would themselves not consider a bunch of Level-2 or -4 enemies as appropriate opposition to the potentially devastating effects of their own spells. To worsen things appropriate opposition is often considered as player level and up (equals) and this is exactly where one can easily come up with the impression that they have just been handed the short end of the stick (of course this is not considering increasing your accuracy things like targeting the correct saves or increasing your chances of landing spells by debuffing).
And even if your rational you knows how the game is working and why it is working...
The way I look at it is the narrative feel of my spell (the save effect) being the the target loses and action, or has a -1 debuff for a round doesn't feel good. It feels gamey and not flavourful. Even if I pick my spells based on the 'save' effect the effect is boring and gameified. I play a wizard for things that feel like magic, not something that feels as impactful (or worse) than a fighter succeeding at using knockdown. There is also little in the way of narrative follow on for spells. So knockdown has feats that allow a fight to immediately capitalise or build on it (combo effect sweet). A fighter can use 1 move to set up a enemy and the next action to capitalise on it.
There is very little narrative like that for spell casters. Half the effects or debuffs are expired/removed before the caster can utilise them on their next spell.
The truestike/spell attack combo would be better if Truestrike didn't feel so mandatory, also if a lot of the better spell attacks didn't also grant a save and if you didn't crit well you are generally not better off than if you had just used a save spell rather then a spell attack spell. Even the tradeoffs for a lot of metamagic doesn't feel all that impactful. Don't get me wrong its kind of setting the right start but it would feel a lot better if wizards had more way of gaining the benefit of their own set up spells.
Not saying there aren't some nice metamagic feats forcible energy is a good concept but comes online way too late with 5 extra damage on the next spell you cast using the same energy type feeling a bit lacklustre by the time you get access to it, compare with dangerous sorcery that works on every spell you cast from level 1 without the burden of having 2 casts and can be combo'd with other metamagic feats. Low level wizard feats stink, they are boring and do little to make a wizard feel like a master of magic. Some are downright useless (eschew materials) or traps.
I would love to see more wizard feats that 'battered down enemy defences' (on a save) so the next spell would be less likely to be saved against. Right now many conditions expire before the wizard can take advantage of them. Something that allows a caster to ramp up chances of success on a given target over a number of rounds so at least I can plan and build up and say be round 3 I have a much more certain chance the boss will fail their save if I cast a spell with this metamagic feat in round 1, this one in round 2 so on round 3 I have a much better chance with my big game nuke/game changer.
I don't think it constructive to come in here and whinge about 'this thread again' or deride people who are unsatisfied with the wizard. The math may check out (especially at higher levels) but that doesn't mean narratively or even gameplay (even while maintaining the same relative level of power) isn't off. Discussing new feats/combos options that can make a wizard feel gameplay more interesting is a lot better than coming in here with 'oh these people are whinging again, they just want wizards to be overpowered, they fine because I enjoy playing them this particular way.' That is along the lines of victim blaming and gaslighting. Its very similar to the way people talk about gender inequality. Its unhelpful, it derails the thread and doesn't try to propose constructive ideas that might be leveraged.
| 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!"
For me personally, it's the feats and focus options. I've gone over how common the situations are where I would use the wizard focus options and there are very few I can think where I feel like I just gotta spend a focus point on those school focus spells. I compare similar abilities with other classes to what you get as a wizard and the wizard focus spells pale in comparison.
If you play an evoker wizard, you don't want to wish you were an elemental sorcerer.
If you play an enchanter, you don't want to wish you were a nymph sorcerer with a charisma focus and Bon Mot or Intimidate.
When you play a transmutation specialist, you don't want to wish you were a wild order druid.
When you play an Abjuration specialist, you don't want see the bard eating your lunch at protecting people.
When so many classes feel much better than you at what you're supposed to be good at with a school specialization, that just doesn't seem good to me. It makes me look elsewhere to accomplish what a wizard used to be at least somewhat good at.
An elemental sorcerer has a blast that does up to 18d6 damage that you can shape into a line, burst, or cone as desired. Whereas an evocation wizard has elemental tempest that requires the wizard to be in melee range and maxes at 10d6 damage. It's one action that must be used the same time you cast another spell and thus can't be used with overwhelming energy to reduce resistances.
If you're a wizard in a PF2 game, would you use a move action to move into melee to set up Elemental Tempest? and then drop an AoE spell nearly on top of your location just so it overlaps with the elemental tempest?
Seems super risky for a possible good payoff, but not guaranteed.
And that's wizard focus spells in a nutshell. Situationally useful, often hard to set up, and don't provide as good a bonus as another class's abilities for the use of the same focus point resource.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play a wizard for things that feel like magic, not something that feels as impactful (or worse) than a fighter succeeding at using knockdown. There is also little in the way of narrative follow on for spells. So knockdown has feats that allow a fight to immediately capitalise or build on it (combo effect sweet). A fighter can use 1 move to set up a enemy and the next action to capitalise on it.
The effects on a save are only really relevant as the primary effect to concern yourself with against higher level opposition though. It is not an every spell cast situation. In that regard, wizards get to do a lot of stuff that feels incredibly magical and powerful, they just don't do it with certainty in combat against powerful enemies.
This situation was actually very common in PF1 outside of casters who were good at optimizing for the 1 or 2 spells they were going to cast most often. DCs in PF1 became either laughably bad or impossible to save against with almost no middle ground. Playing a generalist caster in PF1 was an absolutely terrible build. Even worse if you wanted to multiclass and be able to do something other than just cast your one or specialized obliteration spells, general buffs or summons. The amount of different kind of caster builds that is possible in PF2 is already more varied and viable than anywhere near this point in the life cycle of PF1.
I really strongly recommend that players that feel like a specific kind of caster is not as good as it should be keep discussing what that would look like in PF2 and pushing to see it happen. There are some good homebrew suggestions for different kinds of specialization feats, and even if you don't like them, they might help guide you to an idea you like better.
| 1 person 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.
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...
Coming late to the party and just leaving my 2 cents, but this post by Omega Metroid should be the consensus.
I, for one, do not have any interest in seeing the introduction of quadratic Wizards, Witches and co in this edition. I've migrated from 5e and that is a game riddled with those issues to the point that any dedicated forum has weekly threads on how martials are suboptimal, but I digress.
Any numerical adjustment needs to be made with the utmost care not to fall into the LFQW. I think no one wants God-Casters.
With that out of the way, IMHO, casters need more options, not more power. New Feats, Class Archetypes, different spells, and especially cantrips could go a long way solving most problems pointed in this and the other similarly inclined threads.
I wouldn't be opposed to an item bonus adjustment, but then again I don't think it needs to go up to a +3 like the potency ones.
Any encounter over level+1 is going to be tough, equally so on the martial side. However, my experience has been that casters have an easier time in diversifying their approaches to such situations. In my games, I've seen spells like Prismatic Wall, Slow, Fear, Hideous Laughter and Uncontrollable Dance play pivotal roles during encounters in which Barbarians, Rangers and Monks just couldn't hit consistently. Often, these spells put a stop to the BBEGs for the party to regroup or change strategy. Likewise, I can't count the times my player's Cleric was the reason there wasn't a TPK.
That is to say that I don't think casters are useless, far from it. I feel they have much more going for them than some Alchemists (I tend to think Alchemists have more numerical issues than casters - e.g. mutagenists providing item bonuses as opposed to status, bombers capping at expert and not master - I know these are controversial, so I will not dwell on them).
But then again, who am I to judge others' experiences?
Anyway, I think casters will get a lot out of Secrets of Magic. Maybe that solves the concerns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2 - Casters are too pigeonholed into a role.
I don't know why people think that. I play a blaster Sorcerer, and I blast stuff by throwing geometric things at them (Fireball is a ball!).
My damage is very high, as long as I don't meet a solo boss (I don't have Magic Missile). I've only played my Sorcerer as a support character at low levels before I got my good stuff, which happened before level 5 actually.AoE spells are excellent, and you are outdamaging martials by using them. And they can also exploit weaknesses, making them stellar if you ever fight somethings with a Weakness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With that out of the way, IMHO, casters need more options, not more power. New Feats, Class Archetypes, different spells, and especially cantrips could go a long way solving most problems pointed in this and the other similarly inclined threads.
So you’re saying that you believe that the issues with casters that most people can agree on could by solved by the creation of a - let’s call it a supplement - that introduces new archetypes, feats, spells and items that is entirely focused on magic.
Something to help casters discover the secret to empowering themselves with more options?
I am not 100% sure I think that the PF1/3.x model of having the wizard who can focus purely on one emement casting should be capable of doing so as well as an elemental sorcerer.
PF2 has leaned into the wizard as the academic. Academics are a little bit boring and pedantic (says one who knows many, academics, not wizards). Harry Potter is not a Pathfinder wizard. No one is born for wizardry, they study it and it does what the magic is expected to do. Spells are tuned up to a pretty high level. Yes there are some metamagical ways to make spells behave differently, but supercharging the spell itself feels like something that should be tied to bloodlines and oracle mysteries, or possibly a class designed around giving you all day blasting with a much narrower scope of utility abilities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not 100% sure I think that the PF1/3.x model of having the wizard who can focus purely on one emement casting should be capable of doing so as well as an elemental sorcerer.
PF2 has leaned into the wizard as the academic. Academics are a little bit boring and pedantic (says one who knows many, academics, not wizards). Harry Potter is not a Pathfinder wizard. No one is born for wizardry, they study it and it does what the magic is expected to do. Spells are tuned up to a pretty high level. Yes there are some metamagical ways to make spells behave differently, but supercharging the spell itself feels like something that should be tied to bloodlines and oracle mysteries, or possibly a class designed around giving you all day blasting with a much narrower scope of utility abilities.
Hard disagree. Those options are not appropriate for every school, but an evoker or necromancer should have the ability to supercharge their school spells with relative ease. If they didn't want to lean into such basic, classic tropes associated with those schools, the entire concept of school should have been dropped and the thesis doubled down on instead. Would have avoided quite a lot of the problems that plague both the arcane spell list and wizard class.
Edit: I'll go farther; if an elemental sorcerer is capable of supercharged evocations, but an evoker wizard cannot, it strains credulity that it has not occurred to generations of wizards to study elemental sorcerers and what they're doing in an effort to duplicate that ability.
Like, why do evoker wizards not have something like Energy Fusion? I don't mean on the game side of things; why in-setting wouldn't evokers who have noticed what sorcerers are doing (or are themselves MC sorcerers) have tried to duplicate that effect?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With that out of the way, IMHO, casters need more options, not more power. New Feats, Class Archetypes, different spells, and especially cantrips could go a long way solving most problems pointed in this and the other similarly inclined threads.So you’re saying that you believe that the issues with casters that most people can agree on could by solved by the creation of a - let’s call it a supplement - that introduces new archetypes, feats, spells and items that is entirely focused on magic.
Something to help casters discover the secret to empowering themselves with more options?
Yep, we might be surprised in, say, two months!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And what's the point of complaining about any of that when there's a new book that will have a number of new feats/options specifically for magic on the horizon? I doubt at this point they're going to stop anything to go "Oh, they made the 1111th post on casters. I guess we should add more". They're going to wait until they see what the reaction is to the new book and options, then maybe revisit the conversation.
So you’re saying that you believe that the issues with casters that most people can agree on could by solved by the creation of a - let’s call it a supplement - that introduces new archetypes, feats, spells and items that is entirely focused on magic.
Something to help casters discover the secret to empowering themselves with more options?
Because we've been told to shut up and wait for Lost Omens: World Guide, which will provide interesting Archetypes and new feat options for classes. It brought a lot, but very little for Wizards.
Then it was clear why - there was Gods and Magic coming. There Wizards will get what they need, after all, it has "Magic" in the name. Wizards got essentially 0 from that book.
Then it was Advanced Players Guide. I mean, they promised all classes will get upgrades!
Wizards got one nice but limited Thesis and one feat worth mentioning (for Illusionists, which were already the best). 0 new Focus spells. Transmuters literally still didn't get a cantrip worth mentioning. They did get a feat though, one which is a) literally unusuable for 3 levels and b) in effect nerfs what you are doing instead of making it better.
And they got a grand total of 0 archetypes that lean into Wizardy things or interact well with Wizardy.
And those are just the highlights. Whenever people bring up their problems, it's always something next coming that fill fix the Wizard, shut up, you're just a power hungry munchkin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2 - Casters are too pigeonholed into a role.I don't know why people think that. I play a blaster Sorcerer, and I blast stuff by throwing geometric things at them (Fireball is a ball!).
My damage is very high, as long as I don't meet a solo boss (I don't have Magic Missile). I've only played my Sorcerer as a support character at low levels before I got my good stuff, which happened before level 5 actually.
AoE spells are excellent, and you are outdamaging martials by using them. And they can also exploit weaknesses, making them stellar if you ever fight somethings with a Weakness.
Well, here are a couple reasons I personally think this thought (blasting is bad, support is good) is echoed around so much, including by myself.
1 - It's just a natural ocurrance in any TTRPG with progression that people will play more at the lowest levels. Unless you explicitly start at a higher level, every adventure that is short or ends early for external reasons will have the lower levels played and miss the higher ones. PFS is mostly played at lower levels. And even you yourself said how blasting isn't that great before level 5, so I don't think I need to convince you of that. 2021 Magic Weapon Meta, lol. There's like, one good blasting spell that you can get before level 5 in the entire game, Sudden Bolt, and it's both Uncommon and from an AP. That's a problem.
2 - Adding to point 1, if low level casters are unsatisfying to play, a lot of people will just drop the characters before they actually become good. Has happened so many times in games I've been in that I should make a "we're X days without a caster dropout" sign and put it on our Discord. That adds even more to the number of people that never got to play a non-support caster after the point they improve.
3 - This is a feeling I don't personally have, but I think it's worth mentioning. Blasters are at their best when fighting hordes of minions. Lots of people don't think of punching below their weight class as very fun or important to the party.
4 - I don't think blasting, as it is, is the best solution a caster has to any single problem in this game. Single target damage? Even the burst damage isn't all that high, and the sustained damage is pretty bad due to limited resources. This is the Fighterman's job. Dispatching crowds? This should be a blaster's time to shine. And it is... for about three levels. 1-4 has bad blasting. 5 and 6, when fighting level -3 and -4 enemies, is your sweet spot, nothing to complain about. But when you go a bit higher, 8, 9, 10, even mooks with a huge level difference have a truckload of hit points. They barely die to a crit fail on a spell, let alone a normal one. No more one shotting mooks with Fireball. The higher you go, the harsher this issue becomes, because linear HP scaling makes so a level 20 enemy barely has more health than a level 16 enemy. But you know what always one shots them? AoE Incapacitation spells. Calm Emotions, Sleep 4th, Paralyze 7th, Unfathomable Song. Heck, even heightened Color Spray if you're feeling daring today; pick your poison. Sure, the enemies might not die to these spells, but they're not participating on the fight on any capacity before it's basically over. For a single save. No matter their HP.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a good portion of what is making people unsatisfied by casters is that in PF1 eventually they had a whole toolbox full of "I win" buttons, while PF2 assiduously avoids devolving into rocket tag. So some part of people is disappointed by going from "I can just win the fight when I choose to" to "I, too, will harry the more powerful boss monster."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really worry that so many people have put all their hopes and dreams into the black box that is Secrets of Magic that there's no way they're all going to come away feeling happy.
Devoting enough space for an archetype per school would be a minimum of 8-16 pages, but people want more feats, more focus spells, more theses, items that buff spell attack/saves, etc. That's all about the wizard while there are currently 5 other magic using classes if we count cleric and the book is only 256 pages. Additionally, we already know it includes 2 new classes, hundreds (I've heard 200-400 depending on how it's counted) of new spells, magic items specifically stated to be for ANY character, lore, and a whole section of the book devoted to new methods of spellcasting. There's no way the fixes everyone wants are in this book, but I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think casters (being dependent on spells) stand to grow in power based on the addition of new spells, metamagic, and spell list tweaks more than non-casters will tend to based only on new feats. Secrets of Magic may reveal what kind of trajectory we can expect for casters going forward.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a good portion of what is making people unsatisfied by casters is that in PF1 eventually they had a whole toolbox full of "I win" buttons, while PF2 assiduously avoids devolving into rocket tag. So some part of people is disappointed by going from "I can just win the fight when I choose to" to "I, too, will harry the more powerful boss monster."
I know this is a really popular motif for this discussion, and it probably holds more true here than elsewhere.
That said, I'm pretty tired of reading that one.
By and large, up until very recently, I've been very solidly in the camp of "casters work great and are ingeniously balanced." However I've been having players quit casters to play martials... And been incredibly happy about how much better the game feels. Last year this time I had two tables, 6 casters out of 10 characters. And this spring? 4 casters out of 15. Players switching mid-campaign. So I started to listen to them instead of assuming that I, with my greater Pathfinder knowledge, just knew better than them.
Anyways, all that to say... Not one of us, myself included, has ever touched first edition. And those that came from 5e, I don't know that anyone has ever played above maybe 7th level? So there isn't some mystical "I used to be so much more" floating around their brains.
So while there certainly might be people reminiscing about when magic totally ruled the roost and the petty brutes just got to mop up some scrubs... I think people are really eager to discount the experiences of folks who haven't walked in with that predetermined point of view but still end up with the same perspective?
I dunno. I don't have much to add, really. I get that there are a couple dozen highly active posters here and everyone knows everyone else's opinions real strong by now. I hope we all can give each other some grace, even if we're getting tired of one opinion or the other being frequently talked to death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 - It's just a natural ocurrance in any TTRPG with progression that people will play more at the lowest levels. Unless you explicitly start at a higher level, every adventure that is short or ends early for external reasons will have the lower levels played and miss the higher ones. PFS is mostly played at lower levels. And even you yourself said how blasting isn't that great before level 5, so I don't think I need to convince you of that. 2021 Magic Weapon Meta, lol. There's like, one good blasting spell that you can get before level 5 in the entire game, Sudden Bolt, and it's both Uncommon and from an AP. That's a problem.
If there was something better than blasting at low level, I'd agree with you. But, for example, the 3 best level 1 spells are Magic Weapon/Fang, Heal (and a bit Soothe which is very valid) and Magic Missile (there's also Illusory Object but it's highly GM dependent). My Wizard is having just Magic Missile in his spell list at level 1 as being a nightmare against bosses is certainly the strongest thing you can pull out at level 1. He sometimes takes a Magic Weapon if I play with a 2-hander, but I'm mostly casting truckloads of Magic Missiles. So, I disagree with point 1, all casters are bad at level 1 and blasters are as bad as other casters.
Point 2 is a consequence of point 1 and I disagree with point 1.
3 - This is a feeling I don't personally have, but I think it's worth mentioning. Blasters are at their best when fighting hordes of minions. Lots of people don't think of punching below their weight class as very fun or important to the party.
Well, feelings are important. But it doesn't mean that blaster are weaker, just that they are less enjoyable.
4 - I don't think blasting, as it is, is the best solution a caster has to any single problem in this game. Single target damage? Even the burst damage isn't all that high, and the sustained damage is pretty bad due to limited resources. This is the Fighterman's job. Dispatching crowds? This should be a blaster's time to shine. And it is... for about three levels. 1-4 has bad blasting. 5 and 6, when fighting level -3 and -4 enemies, is your sweet spot, nothing to complain about. But when you go a bit higher, 8, 9, 10, even mooks with a huge level difference have a truckload of hit points. They barely die to a crit fail on a spell, let alone a normal one. No more one shotting mooks with Fireball. The higher you go, the harsher this issue becomes, because linear HP scaling makes so a level 20 enemy barely has more health than a level 16 enemy. But you know what always one shots them? AoE Incapacitation spells. Calm Emotions, Sleep 4th, Paralyze 7th, Unfathomable Song. Heck, even heightened Color Spray if you're feeling daring today; pick your poison. Sure, the enemies might not die to these spells, but they're not participating on the fight on any capacity before it's basically over. For a single save. No matter their HP.
Magic Missile + Dangerous Sorcery (if you play a blaster, it's a must) at your highest level does the same amount of damage than a Barbarian 3 attacks against a level + 3 enemy (you can check on Citricking's tool). On these boards, there was a contest about killing a Purple Worm the fastest you can, and my Wizard full of Magic Missiles was killing it faster than anyone else.
Also, blast spells damage increases faster than enemy hps. It's true that if you blast enemies of a lower level, there will be a spot at level 5-6 where the difference is huge because there's a huge difference between a level 5 enemy and a level 2 one. But I don't find that "killing everything with one spell" should be an expected outcome. It trivializes the encounter and your allies are just there to watch.At higher level, even if you don't one shot the encounter, scoring hundreds of damage in a single round is always a very satisfying moment.
So, from your answer, it looks like you're speaking more of a feeling than an actual weakness of blasting. As I said earlier, feelings are important, we are there to have fun. But there's a difference between saying that blasters are weak and saying they are not enjoyable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Sharing experiences...)
So while there certainly might be people reminiscing about when magic totally ruled the roost and the petty brutes just got to mop up some scrubs... I think people are really eager to discount the experiences of folks who haven't walked in with that predetermined point of view but still end up with the same perspective?
Yeah, I've had players that started playing RPGs in 2e, or even ran away from other games because casters were too OP there, disappointed that their casters didn't feel good to play here. Just because you don't like strawberries doesn't mean you automatically love apples or something.
Also, blast spells damage increases faster than enemy hps. It's true that if you blast enemies of a lower level, there will be a spot at level 5-6 where the difference is huge because there's a huge difference between a level 5 enemy and a level 2 one. But I don't find that "killing everything with one spell" should be an expected outcome. It trivializes the encounter and your allies are just there to watch.
At higher level, even if you don't one shot the encounter, scoring hundreds of damage in a single round is always a very satisfying moment.
So, from your answer, it looks like you're speaking more of a feeling than an actual weakness of blasting. As I said earlier, feelings are important, we are there to have fun. But there's a difference between saying that blasters are weak and saying they are not enjoyable.
I think you're missing the main point of #4. I'm not saying casters should one shot encounters that are mook hordes. I'm saying they already do that, at every level up to 20, with AoE Incapacitation spells. It's not a theoretical what if scenario, my Occult Sorceress has been doing that for the past 8 levels or so, and only gets better at it the higher level we go. I've actually stopped using these spells on purpose unless we were getting pushed hard, so the other players didn't end up doing cleanup job. The point here is that the thing AoE Blasting does the best (horde clearing) is done better by a completely different class of spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Coming from 5e is a...
Totally valid point. Surprisingly, though, no one with 5e experience at my tables have struggled with or complained about the spell slots. It's been entirely about constantly wasting spells with minimal impact and the low effects when they do succeed.
Some of that comes from the gameplay and my habits as a GM. I'm working on those. But some of it definitely is stemming from how the system functions. And that's ignoring the fact that the players I have who do like their casters no longer ever pick any incapacitation spells, any with a spell attack roll, or anything designed at all for conventional or elemental damage. Just worries me a bit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really strongly recommend that players that feel like a specific kind of caster is not as good as it should be keep discussing what that would look like in PF2 and pushing to see it happen. There are some good homebrew suggestions for different kinds of specialization feats, and even if you don't like them, they might help guide you to an idea you like better.
Doesn't it reflect poorly on Paizo that people have to look to homebrew just to play archetypes that were viable out of the box in PF1? Shouldn't Paizo have done their best to ensure that blaster casters, specialist wizards, and bomber alchemists felt good to play from day one rather than forcing people to wait years for a book that *might* help them?
I am not 100% sure I think that the PF1/3.x model of having the wizard who can focus purely on one emement casting should be capable of doing so as well as an elemental sorcerer.
PF2 has leaned into the wizard as the academic. Academics are a little bit boring and pedantic (says one who knows many, academics, not wizards). Harry Potter is not a Pathfinder wizard. No one is born for wizardry, they study it and it does what the magic is expected to do. Spells are tuned up to a pretty high level. Yes there are some metamagical ways to make spells behave differently, but supercharging the spell itself feels like something that should be tied to bloodlines and oracle mysteries, or possibly a class designed around giving you all day blasting with a much narrower scope of utility abilities.
What about Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden? He's a capital W wizard and he isn't boring in the slightest. Why can't I play as him without home rules and supplements?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 has leaned into the wizard as the academic.No it hasn't. It's done the precise opposite of that.
The Wizard has nothing in its kit, bar Int as a key stat, which makes it academic. It has no mechanics which reward or even utilize knowledge. It has no particular use for Lore or the big 5 identification skills. Sure Clever Counterspell at 12th NEEDS it, but there is nothing in the kit to support it.
There is lip service paid to an academic approach to the Wizard, but it's just not reflected in the class at all. Hell, it even has the least starting skills of any class!
It's been several threads since the topic has swung around again, but Wizards don't really execute on their own class concept.
Are you just ignoring Arcane Thesis because it executes on it in a way you dislike?
It is completely absurd to argue that the class feature that lets you specify what you studied and get better at it (staff usage, metamagic, familiars, spell flexibility, spell power) has no relation to being the academic of mages.
Yeah, I've had players that started playing RPGs in 2e, or even ran away from other games because casters were too OP there, disappointed that their casters didn't feel good to play here. Just because you don't like strawberries doesn't mean you automatically love apples or something.(Sharing experiences...)
So while there certainly might be people reminiscing about when magic totally ruled the roost and the petty brutes just got to mop up some scrubs... I think people are really eager to discount the experiences of folks who haven't walked in with that predetermined point of view but still end up with the same perspective?
Meanwhile, my group has played a ton of casters, from high level (Cleric, Druid) and low level (Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Bard, Oracle) and had no complaints (about spells at least). The oracle, specifically, had come over from 5e, and the bard had never played a TTRPG before, and picked a martial bard.
What am I doing differently that I'm not getting the caster complaints?
PF2 has leaned into the wizard as the academic.No it hasn't. It's done the precise opposite of that.
The Wizard has nothing in its kit, bar Int as a key stat, which makes it academic. It has no mechanics which reward or even utilize knowledge. It has no particular use for Lore or the big 5 identification skills. Sure Clever Counterspell at 12th NEEDS it, but there is nothing in the kit to support it.
There is lip service paid to an academic approach to the Wizard, but it's just not reflected in the class at all. Hell, it even has the least starting skills of any class!
It's been several threads since the topic has swung around again, but Wizards don't really execute on their own class concept.
Elements of the wizard that relate to them being an academic:
Having a spell book that they have to study every day to memorize spellsHaving a thesis about magic that expands the way they use their multiple spells.
You gain an additional spell per level in the school you study.
Your class skill is the skill that will let you excel at identifying magic eventually having a feat that lets you use it for all things magical (I actually do have a little bit of gripe with what really separates occultism from arcana as a skill and don't think the game is better for having both of them, but it is not enough of an issue to break the game).
Most skills in PF2 do not translate well to having picked them up through education, so having lots more trained skills would rarely result in more studious looking wizards. Lore skills are under utilized yet in the game, but the newer Archetypes from Abomination vaults give an incredible template for how that could be used going forward and I am hopeful we see more of that. They are probably best done through archetypes though.
Wizards have to dedicate a lot of the study time to learning and memorizing spells as a result they have the most spells to cast per day and get feats to make that number even bigger.
If anything is really not that academic in their build, it is the bonded item class feature, which ends up eating into a lot of the power budget for the generalist caster. Honestly, I don't especially love the bonded item feature as a mandatory feature because it doesn't have that academic flavor to it, but I think it became a defining aesthetic of the PF1 wizard so there was no desire to lose it and the benefit it gives wizards is a pretty heft mechanical edge as far as flexibility with their spells per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really worry that so many people have put all their hopes and dreams into the black box that is Secrets of Magic that there's no way they're all going to come away feeling happy.
I feel like if the book about magic does not include fun and interesting things for magic characters, something truly weird has happened.
That's not to say that it will be a huge upgrade to existing classes, but it will allow you do some things you cannot currently do, and many of those things are likely fun or interesting.
There's a different between subjectively "I don't have fun playing my wizard" and "mathematically the wizard is behind other classes." We probably won't fundamentally reconsider the mathematical basis of the system, but we will give people some more fun tools. Consider how hard it used to be to build like "an archer paladin" or "a heavily armored barbarian" before the APG gave us combat style archetypes and how many more things are possible now.