| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Master in spellcasting is equivalent to Expert in martial attacks. Note that all of the real casters are Legendary, only the pseudo-martials like the Summoner and Magus are Master.I mean, I "get it", but its really not.
Because it does nothing to address to the problem on a functional level. No matter how to slice it, a martial who takes a casting archetype will be more accurate/successful at casting by 20 than a caster who takes a martial archetype will be at swinging a sword.
I agree but I'm not really seeing the major problem here. The caster is still a better caster at level 20 than the martial. Neither are obsolete. The caster having an occasional weapon attack at level 20 is still relevant. Yes the martial gains a lot with a bit of magic on the side. But they could always do similar with a few items.
That +2 matters, and its a design asymmetry which is a mistake in my option.
There is a lot of this in the game. It seems deliberate so I'm not going to call it a mistake.
For example weapon ranged damage is less than weapon melee damage. Done deliberately to counteract the action efficiency of ranged and to encourage melee.
Every Martial gets a different damage or defence boost. Fighters get +2 to hit. Barbarians get extra damage, Monk gets an extra action....
Caster have more options and can more easily target more defenses including no defences. So they have lower proficiency than martials.
The balance isn't perfect. Which is good or the game would be boring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the thing though: The fantasy of the glass cannon blaster caster is only viable in MMORPGS because they are balanced by the tank. The damage sponge, the aggro attractor. The brick(wall) that stands between the monsters and the blasters.
This is most emphatically not the fantasy martial players want in a TTRPG. They want something like Conan. Maybe Merlin. Hercules possibly. Or even Archilles. Someone who is awesome in their own right, heroes to whom snivelling, cowardly wizards are but sidekicks, who occasionally help out with a magic trick, but otherwise better hide behind the broad shoulders of the Alpha Male Hero.
See the problem? These can't coexist in the same game. People who come to a TTRPG with a MMPRPG mindset must be disappointed, because their role can not exist in a game that caters to the martial hero.
Are you already played D&D 3.5/PF1 with a caster? MMORPG aren't they only place we have "glass cannon" concept. This concept is earlier from videogames. IMO these games that imported the overpowered casters from previous TRPG versions.
Things like Whirlwind Strike, Impossible Volley and Avalanche Strike can spawn martial AoE damage too. Specially the giant barbarians could be very devastating with Whirlwind.Don't you still get it? That is the one thing that martials are allowed to be good at. The. One. Thing! To be allowed to be good single target damage dealers.
Fighters are good at that. And guess what? They pay a price for it. The price is: Not being able to cast spells. So the Fighter is selfish because he has the audacity to be the gold standard for martials? Just because he isn't good at anything else? Really?
Considering the levels of the feats shown here
A caster but being good at single target until level 14 with the aid of true strike seems rather fine
|
Master in spellcasting is equivalent to Expert in martial attacks. Note that all of the real casters are Legendary, only the pseudo-martials like the Summoner and Magus are Master.I mean, I "get it", but its really not.
Because it does nothing to address to the problem on a functional level. No matter how to slice it, a martial who takes a casting archetype will be more accurate/successful at casting by 20 than a caster who takes a martial archetype will be at swinging a sword.
That +2 matters, and its a design asymmetry which is a mistake in my option.
If we're talking about the modifier to-hit for a spell attack roll on a martial with a caster archetype in comparison to a caster with a martial archetype, the caster ends up more accurate - the proficiency difference is +2 in favour of the martial, but the caster has a +3 item bonus to hit from their weapon, and so is +1 ahead. If we're talking relative differences in accuracy with spells/weapons in comparison to the expert, both are -2 behind. The martial has the advantage in being able to take spells that don't rely on saves, but in terms of offensive capabilities I don't think a martial is necessarily better at casting than a caster is at swinging a sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You probably will use an entire top lvl spellslots in a single encounter.This I see claimed a lot in the forum but have not seen much in play.
How long is your average combat?Most that I've seen are 3-4 rounds. A few go overboard, 5-9 rounds, but that usually means we made mistakes and are in a fighting retreat / kiting something. For a 3-4 round fight I normally use one each of my top two slots mixed in with a cantrip or an evergreen 1st level. Usually combat is over by then. Other actions taking up space in the 3-4 rounds are recall knowledge, bon mot, demoralize, and movement. I've never had a reason to blow all of the top level slots. Frankly a lot of the time I get away with a top-level scroll and 1-2 slotted spells.
For the very long fights I usually go to the lower-slot spells since the game at that point is regular damage against a weakness while trying to stay one step ahead of the mess... which means everyone is moving every round and the martials are usually double-moving to open/close doors or kite (step, attack, step or stride). Regular cantrip damage, or low-level delay and shaping spells (kinetic ram, grease, illusory object, command) do the trick.
In brief: haven't seen a fight yet that needed 5 top-level slotted spells, and that includes L+3 bosses. Wizards seem to be good for 3-4 solid combats daily, 4-5 if you carry a few scrolls.
A pure blaster would probably *like* more of course (who doesn't like more top slots) if dps is the only goal, but haven't felt the pinch personally.
Exactly you don't see a pure blaster in practice because the players already knows that's inviable.
But curiously one of my players done this. During an encounter versus a Greater Barghest his lvl 5 druid used all it's spellslots with fireball and lightnings (he also used a Tempest Surge) then he stay without top level spells for next encounters. As the most party members had fully recovered after the encounter and due they didn't know what can came for them inside the cave they didn't stopped to sleep and he had to continue only using EA. In the end he gave up druid after that.
The point that I defend that fully dmg focused blaster caster is inviable come from his complains. I argued to him that as caster he had the versatility to no only do damage but also to do many other things but his response was "but I don't want this. It isn't fun for me to play as a toolboxer nor be a debuffer. I just want to throw as many dmg spells as I like as I done in 3.5/PF1 and just sometimes may help someone with some other spell like heal but more because I have such spells avaliable than this would be party of my build".
And in general I agree with him and the most complains about casters in PF2 are basically the same, someone wants to blast at will with a caster but this is not possible in this game. But if you want to do a dedicated debuffer you can because even a lvl 1 fear can be used as the same efficiency until level 20, or to be a dedicated healer you can take a cleric with 4 or more top level heals + 2/3 top spellslots and outside of an encounter it can use it's lower spells to heal too or an utility caster that basically don't worry about it's spellslot levels too much (the ultility spells rarely need to be heightened).
Once again I have hope that this blaster role will be provided by Kineticist but until now make a fully focused blaster using a caster in general (yet the psychic can do some work here) is unsustainable.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caster have more options and can more easily target more defenses including no defences. So they have lower proficiency than martials.
The only defence that martials have trouble targeting more often than casters is Will. Trip, Disarm, Grapple, etc all target either reflex or Con, don't use limited resources, and, if you are a strength based melee martial, are done using primary stats and are repeatable without cost. Factor in weapons with the associated traits can not only allow you to ignore hand restrictions, but allow you add runes to the rolls, you can target these defences more often than any caster can, you are better at it than a caster using a spell to target the same save.
The above is true at potentially literally every level after +1 runes become available.
Yes these effects are of course less powerful than spells, for their resource cost, that's more than fair. They are however still incredibly potent. A Fighter who goes in on being a tripper will be a beast of a battlefield controller.
If the martial feel like stacking Charisma, they open up demoralise and bon mot and can start utilising those if they feel like it.
The versatility of targeting different saves is open to everyone.
The difference is that casters are restricted from being able to build into targeting AC, whereas no such restriction exists for martials being able to build into targeting any save they wish. Martials can potentially equal or better casters at these saves as well.
Its the versatility in the outcome of targeting these saves that is the differentiator.
But given that casters pay for this versatility with every other part of their chassis, being able to get master proficiency at 18th with weapons at the cost of your class feats is not an unreasonable request.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder why people havn't mentioned the most obvious difference with PF2 that hurts the blaster.
Hit Points were increased.
Weapons got extra dice. Spells?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The design asymmetry really should not have been a thing in the first place as it effectively pigeon holed casters into having to be legendary to even keep up. The symmetry breaks down even more when considering that martials are pretty much forced to get +3 potency runes which means that a Master martial actually has a +1 on a Legendary caster. While the legendary in martial is +3 above the caster.
The fact that buff spells which is the spells a magical martial would like the most don't interact with the proficiency system makes it worse. Reason being that they can get all the supposed reasons why casters are forced to have the weakest HP and offense without paying any of the actual cost.
If you think two actions is no cost I'm not sure what to say
I've been playing a two hand fighter with battle medicine and just that is a punishing action cost.
Plus more often than not you do not get opportunity to pre buff in pf2e barring certain adventure paths or on off scenarios.
|
|
If we're talking about the modifier to-hit for a spell attack roll on a martial with a caster archetype in comparison to a caster with a martial archetype, the caster ends up more accurate - the proficiency difference is +2 in favour of the martial, but the caster has a +3 item bonus to hit from their weapon, and so is +1 ahead. If we're talking relative differences in accuracy with spells/weapons in comparison to the expert, both are -2 behind. The martial has the advantage in being able to take spells that don't rely on saves, but in terms of offensive capabilities I don't think a martial is necessarily better at casting than a caster is at swinging a sword.
Spell attack rolls are uniquely bad underclass of spell all round, and should be considered in that context.
Bounded casters are in the exact same position as martials with caster archetypes in regards to spell attack rolls as well.
Either Shadow Signet, True Strike, or bust. Same as any caster.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember a comment from a dev that if you removed true strike
You could give casters potency runes to spells
Considering my personal feelings on the consequences of that spell existing and how people have warped their character concepts just for it
I'd be for this change
Got a list of 0 action spells you can share?
If you think two actions is no cost I'm not sure what to say
Not following
He made it sound like a fighter self buffing completely invalidated a casters existence or niche
I disagree, 2 actions is a heavy cost for a fighter
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember a comment from a dev that if you removed true strike
You could give casters potency runes to spells
Considering my personal feelings on the consequences of that spell existing and how people have warped their character concepts just for it
I'd be for this change
I'm aware of Marks comments. He's flat wrong. Both can exist in the system and would be fine.
How do I know? Because martial attack runes exist and getting a ton of true strikes a day is already possible and kinda easy for martials. More than most caster would prepare/cast, since they need their spell slots for everything else.
So if that doesn't break the game, neither will spell attack runes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got a list of 0 action spells you can share?
If you think two actions is no cost I'm not sure what to say
Not following
He made it sound like a fighter self buffing completely invalidated a casters existence or niche
I disagree, 2 actions is a heavy cost for a fighter
Because that action cost is equal per spell casting. If 2 actions hurts the fighter, it hurts the caster just as much when casting the same buff.
The difference is that is there is no quickened condition for spell actions (well, maybe 1/day). Meaning that the opportunity cost for casting that buff can be partially lessened for a martial in a way that it generally can't be for a caster.
I remember a comment from a dev that if you removed true strike
You could give casters potency runes to spells
Considering my personal feelings on the consequences of that spell existing and how people have warped their character concepts just for it
I'd be for this change
I'm aware of Marks comments. He's flat wrong. Both can exist in the system and would be fine.
How do I know? Because martial attack runes exist and getting a ton of true strikes a day is already possible and kinda easy for martials. More than most caster would prepare/cast, since they need their spell slots for everything else.
So if that doesn't break the game, neither will spell attack runes.
You just touched on why I hate the spell, thank you
I disagree with your take, very very much
Got a list of 0 action spells you can share?
If you think two actions is no cost I'm not sure what to say
Not following
He made it sound like a fighter self buffing completely invalidated a casters existence or niche
I disagree, 2 actions is a heavy cost for a fighter
Because that action cost is equal per spell casting. If 2 actions hurts the fighter, it hurts the caster just as much when casting the same buff.
The difference is that is there is no quickened condition for spell actions (well, maybe 1/day). Meaning that the opportunity cost for casting that buff can be partially lessened for a martial in a way that it generally can't be for a caster.
If it was an archer I'd agree, but not for a melee specialist.
Why?
I disagree with your take, very very much
You think it doesn't break the game
I do
It objectively warps the game currently
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why?
I disagree with your take, very very much
You think it doesn't break the game
I do
It objectively warps the game currently
But if its already doing that in your opinion... then spell attack runes are fine surely? If, worst possible consequence is already happening, in your eyes.
But if its already doing that in your opinion... then spell attack runes are fine surely? If, worst possible consequence is already happening, in your eyes.Why?
I disagree with your take, very very much
You think it doesn't break the game
I do
It objectively warps the game currently
Remove true strike
Give spell potency runes
I'll probably suggest this to my table as well
The martial players are newer to pf2e at don't have the system mastery yet to hone in on boring, Ridgid, one dimensional true strike builds
And casters could benefit while letting me remove true strike entirely
It's a fantastic idea and I'm writing it down for later
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remove true strike
Give spell potency runes
I'll probably suggest this to my table as well
The martial players are newer to pf2e at don't have the system mastery yet to hone in on boring, Ridgid, one dimensional true strike builds
And casters could benefit while letting me remove true strike entirely
It's a fantastic idea and I'm writing it down for later
Sure! Its your table, play the way that makes it best for your table.
What I was driving at though is that the true strike vs spell attack runes thing is a false dichotomy.
The game already is in a state where true strike can be used potentially dozens of times a day in conjunction with attack rolls modified by fundamental runes.
Remove true strike
Give spell potency runes
I'll probably suggest this to my table as well
The martial players are newer to pf2e at don't have the system mastery yet to hone in on boring, Ridgid, one dimensional true strike builds
And casters could benefit while letting me remove true strike entirely
It's a fantastic idea and I'm writing it down for later
Sure! Its your table, play the way that makes it best for your table.
What I was driving at though is that the true strike vs spell attack runes thing is a false dichotomy.
The game already is in a state where true strike can be used potentially dozens of times a day in conjunction with attack rolls modified by fundamental runes.
And it's a mess, I agree
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
True strike is a phenomenal spell that does something interest and unique for people who like having a bag of tricks to land especially powerful moves, martial or caster. It is so much a better use of design space than spell attack runes, especially because your highest level spell slots are such a limited resource. The best case scenario for spell attack runes is that you would primarily be using them to land cantrips and still probably only use one to land a spell slot spell attack roll 2 or 3 times a day. I am not going to call it a trap option, but it is definitely not some desperately needed fix for the game’s balance. It can appear to be an issue at very low level, because you are using cantrips a lot, but by level 5 that starts shifting, so the life span of those runes being a great boost to caster power and not encouragement to make bad choices with spell selection (like only memorizing heightened shocking grasp) is rather small.
True strike goes much, much farther in cutting out the risk of wasting limited resources than runes ever will, and is thus better for the occasional spell attack roll than it is for martial attacks. It is not a terrible trap option for martials to try to pick up, but it is an action and resource drain for them to use all that often. It is good to offer everyone an option for being careful with resources and situations where you really, really don’t want to miss. It is good that option is limited in quantity and not just a way to get flat bonuses to attack all the time.
@Yuri, a level 5 caster going up against a level 7 creature is specifically the worst math break in game.it is only worse to be a level 4 party because then even the martials are feeling it and the odds of a TPK are even higher. The fact that the party felt it needed to push on after one of the hardest fight paradigms in the game suggests a mistake in the adventure design.
Fireball is a terrible spell against a barghest to boot. Resist 10 fire is making that top level slot into worse than a cantrip. It is definitely a case of an unprepared caster walking into bad situation and probably being forced to power through it rather than then regrouping and coming back prepared. Even just switching out fireball for lightning bolt would have made a massive difference in that fight, still letting the Druid be a blaster. It is an unfortunately common situation that players and parties put themselves in, but any game that let’s players steamroll over bad tactical choices and the most difficult encounters is not offering any kind of challenge.
Where I disagree unicore, is that it does interesting things or is good for the game.
@Yuri, a level 5 caster going up against a level 7 creature is specifically the worst math break in game.it is only worse to be a level 4 party because then even the martials are feeling it and the odds of a TPK are even higher. The fact that the party felt it needed to push on after one of the hardest fight paradigms in the game suggests a mistake in the adventure design.
Fireball is a terrible spell against a barghest to boot. Resist 10 fire is making that top level slot into worse than a cantrip. It is definitely a case of an unprepared caster walking into bad situation and probably being forced to power through it rather than then regrouping and coming back prepared. Even just switching out fireball for lightning bolt would have made a massive difference in that fight, still letting the Druid be a blaster. It is an unfortunately common situation that players and parties put themselves in, but any game that let’s players steamroll over bad tactical choices and the most difficult encounters is not offering any kind of challenge.
I know he discovered that firewall is less effective in the bad way (no one tried to RK). But due it's already prepared a fireball and 2 lightning that isn't change too much.
Also that's encounter wasn't that hard due paladin reaction being very effective to protect and take the attention and the cave size isn't that large what doesn't helped the Greater Barghest movement. So the martials had constantly flanking it (they started to trigger the AoO of Barghest with fighter on purpose to allow the casters to move to safer positions) and the Barghest had it invisibility cast canceled by an AoO critical from the fighter. So wasn't the most difficult encounter that they had.
About adventure design, was AoA you know... :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember a comment from a dev that if you removed true strike
You could give casters potency runes to spells
Considering my personal feelings on the consequences of that spell existing and how people have warped their character concepts just for it
I'd be for this change
I'm aware of Marks comments. He's flat wrong. Both can exist in the system and would be fine.
How do I know? Because martial attack runes exist and getting a ton of true strikes a day is already possible and kinda easy for martials. More than most caster would prepare/cast, since they need their spell slots for everything else.
So if that doesn't break the game, neither will spell attack runes.
Martials get negligeable damage increase from True Strike (roughly 10% extra damage). Casters get a strong damage increase (40% roughly). So it doesn't break the game because it's mostly useless on martials.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martials get negligible damage increase from True Strike (roughly 10% extra damage). Casters get a strong damage increase (40% roughly). So it doesn't break the game because it's mostly useless on martials.
Right now, True Strike impacts the damage output of martials to a lesser degree because they are already more likely to hit more often. This is in part thanks to rune support.
True Strikes impact on spell attack damage output would also decrease if they had access to rune support because they would also become more likely to hit already.
It would close the delta between these two points.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martials get negligible damage increase from True Strike (roughly 10% extra damage). Casters get a strong damage increase (40% roughly). So it doesn't break the game because it's mostly useless on martials.
Right now, True Strike impacts the damage output of martials to a lesser degree because they are already more likely to hit more often. This is in part thanks to rune support.
True Strikes impact on spell attack damage output would also decrease if they had access to rune support because they would also become more likely to hit already.
It would close the delta between these two points.
Absolutely not.
True Strike doesn't help martials because their attacks cost one action and are balanced around this cost. A single attack is, comparatively, a smaller % of their damage output.True Strike helps casters because their attacks cost 2 actions and because they can add a heavy resource expenditure to the True Striked ones to get even more oomph. Also, they have harder time using their 3rd action.
I've added graphs to my previous answer to show how True Strike is mostly useless on a martial.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely not.
True Strike doesn't help martials because their attacks cost one action and are balanced around this cost. A single attack is, comparatively, a smaller % of their damage output.
True Strike helps casters because their attacks cost 2 actions and because they can add a heavy resource expenditure to the True Striked ones to get even more oomph. Also, they have harder time using their 3rd action.I've added graphs to my previous answer to show how True Strike is mostly useless on a martial.
Does it show that? I've never used this tool before, but I can't see where to make it run a true strike.
I would be keen to see the comparison between 1st strike (No Map), Cast True Strike, 2nd strike (-5 map), as that would compare a similar action expenditure.
Does it show that? I've never used this tool before, but I can't see where to make it run a true strike.
I would be keen to see the comparison between 1st strike (No Map), Cast True Strike, 2nd strike (-5 map), as that would compare a similar action expenditure.
You can give advantage on the attack roll.
And both routines cost 3 actions, hence the comparison.But I can add your graph (in green).
It's 3% damage gain over 3 Strikes (which is a silly routine anyway as third attacks are bad).
When you put it like this it almost sounds like Fighters were designed with a way too narrow scope to really be healthy for the game.
Fighters are good at that. And guess what? They pay a price for it. The price is: Not being able to cast spells. So the Fighter is selfish because he has the audacity to be the gold standard for martials? Just because he isn't good at anything else?
Depends on what kind of scope you are talking about. If the 'Fighter', the iconic martial fighting class, is the etalon against which all other martial classes are compared, then it serves a valuable purpose.
If that lofty position justifies all the restrictions that come with it is another question, but so far I have not seen anybody accuse the Fighter class of being under-powered.
Just soo much legendary envy...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I played around with your tool and got it to render me this:
The 6 instances here are:
1) Two strikes with a d12 sword, without True Strike with Runes
2) Two strikes with a d12 sword, the second having True Strike, with Runes
3) Telekinetic Projectile, with True Strike, without Runes
4) Telekinetic Projectile, with True Strike, with Runes
5) Telekinetic Projectile, without True Strike, without Runes
6) Telekinetic Projectile, without True Strike, with Runes
As predicted, the variance between the 4 rune applied strikes is much closer than to any of them without runes. The variance between base TKP with True Strike is less than the variance between the other castings.
With Telekinetic Projectile, with True Strike, with Runes being closet to a fighter's Two strikes with a d12 sword, without True Strike with Runes, but is still comfortably below.
Interestingly, this tool states that there is zero difference between Telekinetic Projectile, without True Strike, with Runes & Telekinetic Projectile, with True Strike, without Runes at 19th. Which I guess is what you would expect.
(As an aside: I'm not sold on how this is calculating "advantage". From eye balling the numbers it doesn't look to be scaling crit potential as I would if I were to napkin-math it, but I'll leave that for now)
So I played around with your tool and got it to render me this:
The 6 instances here are:
1) Two strikes with a d12 sword, without True Strike with Runes
2) Two strikes with a d12 sword, the second having True Strike, with Runes
3) Telekinetic Projectile, with True Strike, without Runes
4) Telekinetic Projectile, with True Strike, with Runes
5) Telekinetic Projectile, without True Strike, without Runes
6) Telekinetic Projectile, without True Strike, with RunesAs predicted, the variance between the 4 rune applied strikes is much closer than to any of them without runes. The variance between base TKP with True Strike is less than the variance between the other castings.
With Telekinetic Projectile, with True Strike, with Runes being closet to a fighter's Two strikes with a d12 sword, without True Strike with Runes, but is still comfortably below.
Interestingly, this tool states that there is zero difference between Telekinetic Projectile, without True Strike, with Runes & Telekinetic Projectile, with True Strike, without Runes at 19th. Which I guess is what you would expect.
(As an aside: I'm not sold on how this is calculating "advantage". From eye balling the numbers it doesn't look to be scaling crit potential as I would if I were to napkin-math it, but I'll leave that for now)
...but you're not paying any attention to that third action. Like, that's a part of the reason why true strike isn't as useful for fighters - because they have better things to do with that last action than the caster does.
You're also talking about throwing true strike on a cantrip. Why would you do that? The whole point of true strike - the reason why it's potent in the hands of a caster - is that you can toss that thing on high-slot spells, or at least on focus spells, and get a lot more bang for the buck. That's the *big* reason why it's more useful to a caster than a martial - because by design, the martial doesn't have that sort of burst power, and therefore doesn't benefit from it nearly as much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mean the same fighter who can get 8th level spells and 3 each of up to 6th level? The same fighter that single handedly warps the the entire game around himself because "they are only allowed to be the best"?
Yeah ignore all the AoE abilities that Fighter can do at will. Ignore all the AoE abilities that martials can do at will, once every 4 turn, or once every hour. Ah but a caster doing single target damage 4 times a day is too much!
You mean the 8th level spells that everybody can get? Those 8th level spells? That are, by the way, always behind in DC and spell to-hit, to the tune of -4 at lv. 20. Seeing how much gnashing of teeth and grousing there is from actual casters because they can't hit Jack or 'always have their spells resisted'...
No, caster dedications are not stealing the real casters' thunder. Dedications aim at getting some utility spells and self buffs. So the real casters don't have to sacrifice their own slots for that. You are welcome.
But yes, sure, compare the damage a Fighter can do with Impossible Volley at 18th level. Composite Longbow 4d8+3(2) Str. +3d6 runes +6(8) Greater Wpn. Sepc. for 37 (38) av. damage in a 10' burst (16 squares). At a -2 to to-hit no less.
9th level Fireball? 18d6, avg. 63 in a 20' burst. 44 squares. Not. Even. Close.
And the fact that the Fighter can do it without expanding spell slots matters only if the adventuring day isn't over after the casters are out of top-level slots anyway.
So yeah, the martials are not going to eat the caster's AoE sandwich any time soon. Nor should they.
Yes, one martial class has to be the 'best' martial class. That burden falls upon the shoulders of the Fighter. So the poor sucker gets all the hate, all the legendary envy. It's lonely on the top. Just ask Pun Pun...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Master in spellcasting is equivalent to Expert in martial attacks. Note that all of the real casters are Legendary, only the pseudo-martials like the Summoner and Magus are Master.I mean, I "get it", but its really not.
Because it does nothing to address to the problem on a functional level. No matter how to slice it, a martial who takes a casting archetype will be more accurate/successful at casting by 20 than a caster who takes a martial archetype will be at swinging a sword.
That +2 matters, and its a design asymmetry which is a mistake in my option.
Wrong.
Martials get Mastery at weapons. They top out at +36 to hit, Apex Item and everything. Someone who starts with a 16 stat, gets no Apex Item and only Expert gets to +32.
Casters get Legendary at spells. They top out at +35 spell attack and DC, Apex Item included. There are no bonus items for spell attacks. Someone who starts with a 16 stat, gets no Apex Item and only Master gets to... +31.
You were saying? That's right, martials are just as bad at casting as casters are at swinging weapons. Fancy that. And if anything, a Fighter's spell to-hit being a full 6 points behind their weapon to-hit makes it even less desirable to dabble in spells.
But yeah, sure, keep saying that casters are worse off with weapons then martials are at casting spells...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You were saying? That's right, martials are just as bad at casting as casters are at swinging weapons. Fancy that. And if anything, a Fighter's spell to-hit being a full 6 points behind their weapon to-hit makes it even less desirable to dabble in spells.
But yeah, sure, keep saying that casters are worse off with weapons then martials are at casting spells...
I think the point being made here isn't to compare martial ability to cast offensive spell to caster ability to use weapons. It's to compare martial ability to cast spell at all, compared with caster ability to use weapon at all.
The way I see it, this is an answer to the argument "caster have a lot more utility/versatility throught their spell, so to be balanced their offensive power need to be nerfed". The counterargument is that a martial that take a casting archetype will be able to use the "toolbox" aspect of spells almost as well as a caster can (for utility and buff spells often don't use the spell DC and don't require heightenning), without sacrificing it's offensive ability. A caster on the other hand, can never borrow the offensive ability of a martial.
It's a complex issue because offensive spells (especially at higher level) can often do more things at once than a martial can achieve within a single turn, but their low success rate coupled with their limited nature do make them feel rather underpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, this is an answer to the argument "caster have a lot more utility/versatility throught their spell, so to be balanced their offensive power need to be nerfed". The counterargument is that a martial that take a casting archetype will be able to use the "toolbox" aspect of spells almost as well as a caster can (for utility and buff spells often don't use the spell DC and don't require heightenning), without sacrificing it's offensive ability. A caster on the other hand, can never borrow the offensive ability of a martial.
That's simply not true, though.
Like, "get your wizard a bow" is one of those basic low-level life hacks for a reason, you know? Every class out there gets up to expert proficiency in *something*, and the same dedication feat that lets the fighter start accessing spells can get you Archer, and extend that to all bows. How does this not count as being able to "borrow the offensive ability of a martial"?
Sure, you'll never be as good at it as a martial is... but it's not like archetype casting is going to make you anything like as good as a base-class caster, either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let’s pretend for a moment that spell attack runes and true strike were exactly the same in their effect on attack math (they most definitely are not). Runes get really really expensive. Spell attack rolls make up maybe 20% of spells a caster might frequently cast. It is a huge waste of resources to make casters got that route rather than giving them a first level spell they can use to land those spells when they want to cast them.
Casting cantrips in clutch fights against a powerful single target is a bad idea unless you are targeting a serious weakness or have nothing else to do. In fact, if you are a caster, and it is a fight that feels like a boss fight and you have nothing to do, there is a good chance the whole party is in a bad spot and could use a tactical retreat to reprepare not just spells, but consumables and other tricks to make the fight easier. The difference between a TPK and a blow out easy encounter is very often who wastes the most actions in the first round basically doing nothing and who has better luck.
Wanting casters to get anywhere near martials damage out put at higher levels just casting cantrips is bad game balance.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let’s pretend for a moment that spell attack runes and true strike were exactly the same in their effect on attack math (they most definitely are not). Runes get really really expensive. Spell attack rolls make up maybe 20% of spells a caster might frequently cast. It is a huge waste of resources to make casters got that route rather than giving them a first level spell they can use to land those spells when they want to cast them.
Casting cantrips in clutch fights against a powerful single target is a bad idea unless you are targeting a serious weakness or have nothing else to do. In fact, if you are a caster, and it is a fight that feels like a boss fight and you have nothing to do, there is a good chance the whole party is in a bad spot and could use a tactical retreat to reprepare not just spells, but consumables and other tricks to make the fight easier. The difference between a TPK and a blow out easy encounter is very often who wastes the most actions in the first round basically doing nothing and who has better luck.
Wanting casters to get anywhere near martials damage out put at higher levels just casting cantrips is bad game balance.
I would never ask for Cantrips to hit harder, personally. I would just hope at some point in my lifetime, in this particular game, I can get a character that feels like a World of Warcraft Mage (any spec), or Warlock (any spec, but DoTs are dumb so maybe not affliction), or like certain builds in ESO involving the Mage's Guild on a Sorcerer, or like a Black Mage in Final Fantasy (any, pick 1, idk Lulu from FFX), or like a Necromancer or Elementalist from Guild Wars 2....I can keep going with examples.
What do these characters do? They attack from ranged, with spell-like effects that do single target, and sometimes multi-target, damage. They will often have 1 or 2 utility spells like "Feather Fall" or "Conjure Food" or "Warlock Gate" for teleporting the party short distances, or Healthstones, Elementalist can use Water element to heal, a little, and I think Earth to buff defense, but 9 out of 10 times you are hitting a button on your keyboard it is for the purposes of doing damage with what such a game would call a "spell".
That's all I want. I don't need to be the best character in PF2E. I don't need to break the math. I just want to accurately hit my target with Cone of Cold/Lightning Bolt/Fireball/Scorching Ray/Distentigrate and I'd like to use my spell slots to do it, or whatever the Kineticist is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trixleby, have you tried it with a sorcerer yet? Unless you are playing with a hostile party and GM, Zappy zap caster works. Electric arc is very good for the first 5 levels of play. Level 5 and 6 are hard for casters. Lightning bolt and slow are very good options for you. Mostly you blast lightning. It hurts. Sometimes that isn’t going to feel useful. Use slow then as your back up option. Or if slow just feels wrong, put magic missile in the the level 3 slot as well as level 1. Spam it in hard fights, even as 1 action after casting lightning bolt. Buy scrolls with spells you want to cast often at the highest level you can. At level 2 you can probably afford a scroll of sudden bolt, that you can’t even memorize, but you can cast in a boss fight and lay down hurt. This is not a game about what you could do in 100 different encounters or in 3 levels. It is about the next encounter, and maybe the one or two after that. If you are constantly being denied the option to re-equip and reprepare and buy new stuff with the loot you find, it is time to talk to the GM about the expectations of the campaign.
|
|
I don't know if it makes much difference, but I only play in pathfinder 2 society. I don't know any personal friends who want to play or learn PF2E. All of my TTRPG groups are 5e only and have no interest in learning or experimenting with other games. I've largely dropped out of those groups to just play pick up games on Saturday at a FLGS.
However no, I have not tried a Sorcerer yet, because I am afraid it will be a negative or disappointing experience. It feels like every time I've tried to play a caster, except in 4e, it has been disappointing. I tried Druid and Sorcerer a few times in 5e and didn't care for it much. Maybe I just dont like TTRPG spell casters, only video game casters. OTOH I have like 7 Rangers in TTRPG and I have played at least 4 of them in real campaigns for ongoing weeks.
Casters are great in PFS. It will be a long time before anyone can out damage you with electric arc and focus spell or one action magic missile. You won’t get sudden bolt, but you make plenty of money for buying scrolls. You will like it
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like every time I've tried to play a caster, except in 4e, it has been disappointing.
This right here.
Pointing to this is my response.
For clarity, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with your preference. It is just that, your preference. However, the issue is that your preference doesn't line up with how the game currently works (or possibly even could work).
I just want to throw as many dmg spells as I like as I done in 3.5/PF1
Here it is again.
These are issues of expectations, not issues of game balance. What they did with 2e is a double edged sword, and this is the other edge to a balanced game. It is not what people are used to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd personally suggest not putting your hand in the blender again just yet. Wait for Kineticist. I'll be out in... a few months. Twitch. We can make it that long. Twitch. I hear tell that patience is a virtue!
Twitch.
Then see what people are saying about that, and how well it does at feeding the "blaster" fantasy. Maybe it will give you exactly what you need. Maybe it won't. If it doesn't... might be time to try the Psychic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters should think about top-level slotted spells the same way a Magus thinks about Spellstrike and a Swashbuckler thinks about his Finishers... it's something that needs to be set up. That means Recall Knowledge, Demoralize, Bon Mot, or a True Strike... anything to lay the groundwork and make success more likely. Use cantrips until then. It will feel a bit like a Rogue trying to set up sneak-attack...if he can't get flat-footed he'll do "normal" (cantrip) damage instead of really high "backstab" (slotted spell) damage.
Totally agree. My Caster (bard) character is setup for both damage and support. High level occult spells have some nice area damage stuff (spirit song, phantasmal calamity). And with a shadow signet, staff of divination (true strike) and biting words (linguist character, lots of languages) she has a good chance to do a lot of damage on bosses even. Some characters in the group have good recall knowledge options. The advantage of Biting words is that you get three attacks for one spells slot, each can be used with true strike and follow up attacks are one action only.