In your opinion, what is the most optimal arcane caster since the Wizard can be lackluster. Druid and Bard both seem really strong, and Cleric similarly if you need a healer, but the arcane casters seem a bit more meh in comparison.IMO it's a toss between wizard who can get spell penetration vs sorcerer who can get crossblooded -> synesthesia. If there's already another caster covering synesthesia or charisma, I'd lean towards wizard.
Despite what people say all the casters can do quite well. All 4 spell lists are effective and have good options from mid level on.
In decending order in terms of features and feats I'd rank them Bards, Druids, Sorcerers, Clerics, Wizards, Witches, then Oracle, lastly Alchemist which is not really a caster at all. I'd be OK to play any but the last two which I'd really need to think about builds more first.
But optimal builds will probably cherry pick from a few places.
Thanks for all the insight all! I’ve been eying making an evocation spell blender wizard or illusionist wizard.
In regards to summons, I really like the recent 5e summoning spells that give you a template creature. Conjure woodland creatures and the older spells that let you summon multiple creatures can go die I may fire. That spell slowes down combat so much.
Templates might work better in PF2 as well given what they want to do. Not as fun, but would fit the balance paradigm while allowing summons to be made more effective.
In your opinion, what is the most optimal arcane caster since the Wizard can be lackluster. Druid and Bard both seem really strong, and Cleric similarly if you need a healer, but the arcane casters seem a bit more meh in comparison.IMO it's a toss between wizard who can get spell penetration vs sorcerer who can get crossblooded -> synesthesia. If there's already another caster covering synesthesia or charisma, I'd lean towards wizard.Despite what people say all the casters can do quite well. All 4 spell lists are effective and have good options from mid level on.
In decending order in terms of features and feats I'd rank them Bards, Druids, Sorcerers, Clerics, Wizards, Witches, then Oracle, lastly Alchemist which is not really a caster at all. I'd be OK to play any but the last two which I'd really need to think about builds more first.
But optimal builds will probably cherry pick from a few places.
One of the reasons I rate wizards so low is not just power, but they are painfully terrible at low level even more than the witch and oracle. I can see them doing better at later levels.
As far as oracles go, the Flame Oracle is interesting. The ancestor oracle with a monk MC appears to be interesting. The witch is a good option when you just don't like playing cleric healers.
Wizards have a very limited role and build option. You can't build them to heal. They are never going to be great buffers. They are pretty much damage and utility casters.
Oracles can be blasters or healers or built do martial damage.
Witches can be debuffers or healers or blasters.
Alchemist is its own thing. The only build I've seen is the bomber and they did ok. The expansion of bomb damage types helped them immensely.
Just be prepared if you make a wizard to suck compared to other optimized classes for quite a while with no real upside over what many other casters can do even as you get higher level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons I rate wizards so low is not just power, but they are painfully terrible at low level even more than the witch and oracle. I can see them doing better at later levels.
Wizards have a very limited role and build option. You can't build them to heal. They are never going to be great buffers. They are pretty much damage and utility casters.
Yeah see this is were we disagree: invisibility, enlarge, haste, fly is buffing. Just because little of it is +X to hit doesn't mean its not buffing. Wizards can do this well.
Yes they lack the cantrip spamming buffing options from first level. They do start a bit weaker. But that is not terrible as simple ranged weapon attacks are Ok at very low level. I'd take an Elf Wizard (Rogue from ancestry) with a bow from level 1 or a Sprite on a Corgi and be very very happy with my options......
|
Summoning in 5E was much, much better. Gotta give credit where it's due for 5E keeping summoning relevantSummoning is certainly stronger and more relevant in 5e but I'm not certain it is better. Conjure Animals did more damage than entire classes and having someone roll 16 d20s for all their wolves (or velociraptors) and damage on top of that (at higher levels this turned into 32 d20s and then 16 saves for the enemy) which made it so disruptive I had to ban summoning at my table.Summoning is still quite good in PF2 if you know what summons to look for. It’s a decent control option, with some toolboxing available as well. The average case summon is pretty bad though, monsters that just do damage with or without minor effects on top do not hit often enough or do enough damage at level-4 to justify a top slot.
I do wish summoning was templated. One shouldn’t have to dig through 3 bestaries, 18 AP volumes, 3 modules and however many PFS scenarios to make their spell good (or read a 200 page guide to make the spell good). Summoning should be more accessible than that, and even with all the limitations they’ve put on summoning its still prone to breaking (I’ve found at least 3 so far - Bone Croupier, Empress Bore Worm and a new monster from FotRP that has 7 level 6 harms for an 8th slot). Choosing abilities from the bestiary is just a bad idea.
Templated would be nice, for sure. I don't think it should be quite as extreme as going through all that content - it's only common creatures that can be summoned, and most creatures in the APs, Adventures, and PFS scenarios should be at least Uncommon. Looking through AoN, it looks like most of them are - though a fair few seem to have snuck in by virtue of Common being the default rarity, as some of those creatures (like your Bone Croupier) definitely shouldn't be common.
One of the reasons I rate wizards so low is not just power, but they are painfully terrible at low level even more than the witch and oracle. I can see them doing better at later levels.
Wizards have a very limited role and build option. You can't build them to heal. They are never going to be great buffers. They are pretty much damage and utility casters.
Yeah see this is were we disagree: invisibility, enlarge, haste, fly is buffing. Just because little of it is +X to hit doesn't mean its not buffing. Wizards can do this well.
Yes they lack the cantrip spamming buffing options from first level. They do start a bit weaker. But that is not terrible as simple ranged weapon attacks are Ok at very low level. I'd take an Elf Wizard (Rogue from ancestry) with a bow from level 1 or a Sprite on a Corgi and be very very happy with my options......
That is utility casting.
Primal, Occult, and Arcane all have haste and fly. Primal has enlarge and the occult has invis. And you can build classes with Occult and Primal in a more interesting way with more innately powerful abilities.
For example, I gave my druid crafting. I can craft low level scrolls for additional castings of lower level utility spells like haste cheaply and easily. I do this with a 12 intelligence. I do this while being able to cast Tempest Surge or turn into a dragon once every 10 minutes. And I can heal when needed.
The main thing to look forward to as a wizard is mega-disintegrate if you get to that level.
My group has found the wizard lacking. We all know it will eventually get to cast damage spells with critical fails and feel that power. But it has boring build options that aren't very optimal and even worse, not very interesting.
Even the Oracle curse is fun as a GM to roleplay. You can come up with something for the Oracle curse to make it at least feel cool for the player.
But man, the wizard in PF2 feels bad. I've never seen the wizard in such a state where other players feel bad for the wizard player and are sometimes giving pep talks because the last three monsters saved easily against their best spells. Spells is all they got and when they don't work, it feels awful for the supposed Master of the Arcane.
When I was playing the evocation wizard before I quit at lvl 5, other players in my group genuinely felt bad for me. They would being sayings stuff like, "I'm sure your spells will get better" or "They just got lucky on their saves" or "Terrible damage role, what can you do." Frustrating to say the least.
One of the reasons I rate wizards so low is not just power, but they are painfully terrible at low level even more than the witch and oracle. I can see them doing better at later levels.
...
But man, the wizard in PF2 feels bad. I've never seen the wizard in such a state where other players feel bad for the wizard player and are sometimes giving pep talks because the last three monsters saved easily against their best spells. Spells is all they got and when they don't work, it feels awful for the supposed Master of the Arcane.
When I was playing the evocation wizard before I quit at lvl 5, other players in my group genuinely felt bad for me.
I don't fully disagree. Wizard is harsh at low levels.
Fully half of the Arcane Thesis options (Spell Blending and Staff Nexus) do almost nothing at level 1. Improved Familiar Attunement just makes you feel like a Witch with worse focus spells. Most metamagic is kinda weak in general, so a Thesis that gives you metamagic doesn't look good at any level. That leaves Spell Substitution as the only good Thesis for low level play. Spell Blending and Staff Nexus can become really good at higher levels though.
As for School, Evocation school is one of the weaker ones in my opinion. Force Bolt doesn't scale well. Cantrips can outpace its damage fairly quickly. So once you are finally out of the terrible low character levels, now your focus spell is nearly useless. For a battle mage, I would look closer at Abjuration (protection for you and your allies), Transmutation (buffs), and Illusion (crowd control).
But man, the wizard in PF2 feels bad. I've never seen the wizard in such a state...
It could be better.
Maybe what we need is a couple of good effective builds for each class/archetype and compare what that can do at a few level points
But man, the wizard in PF2 feels bad. I've never seen the wizard in such a state...It could be better.
Maybe what we need is a couple of good effective builds for each class/archetype and compare what that can do at a few level points
That would be interesting. If people could agree on what are the optimal builds.
|
That would be interesting. If people could agree on what are the optimal builds.
But man, the wizard in PF2 feels bad. I've never seen the wizard in such a state...It could be better.
Maybe what we need is a couple of good effective builds for each class/archetype and compare what that can do at a few level points
I started a document on what I believe to be the best build for every class, trying to use only common options.
I was looking over all the wizard school starting focus spells. I bet I could turn them all into school cantrips and it would not imbalance anything. I think I'm going to do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for School, Evocation school is one of the weaker ones in my opinion. Force Bolt doesn't scale well. Cantrips can outpace its damage fairly quickly. So once you are finally out of the terrible low character levels, now your focus spell is nearly useless. For a battle mage, I would look closer at Abjuration (protection for you and your allies), Transmutation (buffs), and Illusion (crowd control).
Force Bolt doesn't compete with cantrips though, it's a one action ability that you use to supplement your damage.
It's not really what a blaster needs because their biggest problem (especially at low levels) is longevity, but as far as what it is it works well enough and scales about as well as you'd expect for an offensive spell that can't miss.
It does sort of point to the overarching problem with Wizard focus spells, in that most of them don't really help with where the caster needs help. Contrast with tempest surge, which basically adds an extra round of blasting every combat or wild shape which can define your entire character build.
I started a document on what I believe to be the best build for every class, trying to use only common options.That would be interesting. If people could agree on what are the optimal builds.
But man, the wizard in PF2 feels bad. I've never seen the wizard in such a state...It could be better.
Maybe what we need is a couple of good effective builds for each class/archetype and compare what that can do at a few level points
I read it. Really illuminating. Waiting for more feat choice explanations, and hoping to see some discussion on the picks by more people.
Contrast with tempest surge, which basically adds an extra round of blasting every combat
I tend to disagree. To take this example specifically, the Wizard has 2 highest level spells and 1 next to highest level spell per day over the Druid. Which means 3 fights where he can cast a spell equivalent to Tempest Surge from his spell slots instead of his Focus Points. But it goes further than that: The Druid can cast Tempest Surge only once per combat when the Wizard can allocate these three spells the way he wants. The Wizard will prepare more spells and have more choice where the Druid has to use Tempest Surge over and over again. And the Wizard has a Focus Spell, as bad as it is, on top of that.
So, the Druid is not competing with the Wizard when it comes to blasting. The strength of the Druid blaster over the Wizard blaster is survivability, not efficiency.|
|
I read it. Really illuminating. Waiting for more feat choice explanations, and hoping to see some discussion on the picks by more people.I started a document on what I believe to be the best build for every class, trying to use only common options.That would be interesting. If people could agree on what are the optimal builds.
But man, the wizard in PF2 feels bad. I've never seen the wizard in such a state...It could be better.
Maybe what we need is a couple of good effective builds for each class/archetype and compare what that can do at a few level points
I’m a little busy right now to finish it, which explanations were you looking for?
The basics
Alchemist: Bomber is obviously speccing into bombs, Tox takes some bomb feats because things most commonly immune to poisons are undead (weak to positive, sticky ghost charge is good), elementals (weak to elemental damage, sticky elemental bombs are good) and constructs (alchs aren’t debuffed by them unlike everyone else so they’re technically ahead already)
Barbarian: Focus on getting the most MAPless strikes
Bard: Many ways to build one. All are probably going to be optimal. I like swashbuckler to give a consistent +3/4 to an attack roll at high levels.
Champion: 2nd and 4th feats suck. Glutton’s jaw opens your hand slot for grappling, tripping and items. Also the THP is quite good for soaking damage. Going Paladin to get the most MAPless attacks though Liberator and Redeemer are probably fine as well. Redeemer is definitely the weakest at 14+ though, having the worse exalt and divine reflexes doesn’t help them as much.
Cleric: Highly deity dependent, I’m not too sure on optimal cleric because I don’t play or build them. The best deity will have a good weapon, good spells, a G alignment and good domains.
Druid: Really basic wild druid. Start Storm/Leaf to get 2 focus points. Scales gives +2 AC in battleform (Warning: On the chopping block for errata) and has an access condition so technically common. With uncommon allowed Sixth Pillar is better.
Fighter: Most MAPless attacks.
Investigator: Cleric MC gives the best focus spells for Eldritch Archer (better than a top slot from wizard MC). Rest of the feats are to more consistently be in combat against the target of your lead, so you can free action devise (which allows you to use eldritch shot off devise).
Monk: Ok I can understand why people think this is a troll build - snares. Snares are extremely good though - when you can deploy them for one action. They deal a metric ton of damage for 1 action, and whirling throw lets you chuck people into snares. Large+ creatures can be chucked into multiple snares at the same time. The tarrasque? Throw it into 16 instant evisceration snares - average damage is 1700 or so (before saves) (obviously whiteroom but it does show the power of snares). Bo staff and clinging shadows lets you grapple and trip at reach, which means you can force opponents to basically not do anything.
Oracle: Swashbuckler still good. Bard lets you leverage your focus points into good focus powers. Rest of the feats are just to give you good stuff to do with your spell slots that isn’t Heal.
Ranger: Ranger sucks at damage compared to optimised other martials. So i go with something unique to the ranger - support. Precision bow is competitive damage 1-10, and from there you pivot into buffing your team with the monster hunter line, inspiring martial and shared prey. You still do decent damage with just hunted shot, but you aren’t winning any DPR awards. You should consider retraining to flurry once you get shared prey if it helps your team more, or even outwit for the Scare to Death boost.
Rogue: Build entirely centered around making the most out of Prep+Backstab for the most MAPless attacks. 18 and 20 feats are honestly free.
Sorc: Not much to do here. I pick Dragon because Dragon’s Breath is decent and if I was going occult I’d just play a bard instead. Primal and Divine are worse than Arcane IMO. Swashbuckler is good still. Get Heal to patch your list’s weakness.
Swashbuckler: Wit because one for all giving Panache is how you get Panache against bosses. Always go Human for the +4 aid. Riposte feats for more MAPless attacks, buckler dance for more consistent ripostes. Dual Finisher is better than bleeding with Flying Blade, but both are fine.
Witch: Onto the bad end of optimisation - INT casters really don’t have much to optimise, it’s mostly spell selection and play. Rogue to fill your reaction and mobility is handy. Leverage your good focus powers, it’s basically all you have.
Wizard: Mobility can be subbed for nimble dodge. Clever counterspell is a good reaction. Evocation, Conjuration and Enchantment have decent focus powers (Evo 1st, Conj and Enchantment 8ths). Blending for the most top slots.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like limiting myself to only common options. I've paid for a whole ruleset. I'd like to use it all.
But I'll contribute some builds... May take some time.
I also don't see only one best build for each class though.
|
|
I don't like limiting myself to only common options. I've paid for a whole ruleset. I'd like to use it all.
But I'll contribute some builds... May take some time.
I also don't see only one best build for each class though.
I do it just because it's something that can be taken to any table
If you want edit access just PM me
Maybe what we need is a couple of good effective builds for each class/archetype and compare what that can do at a few level points
So, I made a thread specifically for this.
Here it is:
Community Optimized Build Compendium
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Contrast with tempest surge, which basically adds an extra round of blasting every combatI tend to disagree. To take this example specifically, the Wizard has 2 highest level spells and 1 next to highest level spell per day over the Druid. Which means 3 fights where he can cast a spell equivalent to Tempest Surge from his spell slots instead of his Focus Points. But it goes further than that: The Druid can cast Tempest Surge only once per combat when the Wizard can allocate these three spells the way he wants. The Wizard will prepare more spells and have more choice where the Druid has to use Tempest Surge over and over again. And the Wizard has a Focus Spell, as bad as it is, on top of that.
So, the Druid is not competing with the Wizard when it comes to blasting. The strength of the Druid blaster over the Wizard blaster is survivability, not efficiency.
Not how it worked in practice.
In my experience, tempest surge is a superior single target spell to nearly anything the wizard can cast. Tempest Surge is that good. It is a single target spell that does up to 10d12 damage applying clumsy 2 and up to 10 persistent electricity damage. It is castable up to 3 times per combat if you have 3 focus points and if you buy the focus point refocus abilities even one time, you can cast it 2 times a battle and up to 3 per battle.
My particular druid as an example, could cast Tempest Surge 2 times a battle and get both of those Tempest Surges back in 10 minutes. Or 1 time a battle and turn into a dragon 1 time a battle with a breath weapon and have both back in 10 minutes.
This is on top my 3 slots per day and cantrips for those battles where you don't need a lot.
Then add in staves, wands, scrolls, sustainable spells that last a whole battle, and that extra spell slot isn't looking too attractive.
That's why in these discussion I'm always wondering what experience the person making the argument has in play. Even as a 3 slot casting druid, I have never run out of spells, ever in adventuring day.
I have tons of extra casting power in focus spells, consumables, sustainable spells, and I get to use better weapons than the wizard.
Weak focus spells is a big deal. Casting can be expanded with consumables, staves, wands, and the like. Focus spells are not a few extra spells at higher level, they are automatically heightened to max level spells that can be used often multiple times per 10 minute period.
Let's say you have 3 fights that you can rest afterwards for 10 minutes and bought the feat that allows you to refocus for 2 points per rest period, you get 6 additional max level focus spells.
That is why the quality of your focus spells is so important.
And Tempest Surge is one of the highest quality focus spells in the game. It does amazing damage, has a highly useful rider, and has a little additional damage form persistent. Wild Shape is also a highly valuable focus spell combined with dragon form that allows you to pick multiple types of energy to blast with while doing melee damage that is effective.
That is why the druid turned out to be on par with the bard and the best damage dealing caster because of the quality of their focus abilities and how they combined with their feats. It made for an amazing build that felt more like a powerful damage dealing wizard than a wizard.
I started a document on what I believe to be the best build for every class, trying to use only common options.That would be interesting. If people could agree on what are the optimal builds.
But man, the wizard in PF2 feels bad. I've never seen the wizard in such a state...It could be better.
Maybe what we need is a couple of good effective builds for each class/archetype and compare what that can do at a few level points
Fair enough on using common options to reach as many people and tables as possible. I think it's worth having other builds that use non-common options as an alternative. More choices are awesome. :)