| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lycar, my dude, if you are going to make no effort to understand the actual things people are saying, could you at least not be so antagonistic while doing so?
You will forgive me for getting angry at having the same, old tired arguments rolled out again and again for 'casters deserving Master weapon proficiency', without any willingness to concede some spellcasting power in return.
The fantasy of the glass cannon blaster caster can only exist with the martials being mere meat-shields, protecting the caster while they do 'all the real work'. This also implies that said meat-shields are capable of tanking without any caster support, as supporting the meat shields is not blasting foes. This is not this game.
Instead, the martials are very competent at dealing damage, but can not in return withstand the counter attacks of most monsters without some sort of support, simply because monsters have bigger numbers. The casters are the ones enabling the martials to succeed, but not by trivialising encounters, but by 'levelling the playing field', so to speak.
PF2 is designed so that martial and caster classes need to support each other to succeed, because of the lessons learned from D&D 3.x /PF1.
Casters do emphatically not need better spell to-hits or more damage. They do plenty of damage. But what they do need is maybe about a 2 point or so increase in spell DCs. Because what really makes a caster feel powerful is seeing the Crit Fail effects of their spells more often.
And I'm not talking about double damage from blasting spells, I'm talking about debilitating debuffs actually debilitating on-level foes on more often then 5% of the time. Bosses are still protected by the Incapacitation trait (which serves just as much to protect PCs from lower-level monsters with debilitating abilities for that matter), but on-level and lesser foes should be taken out by de-buff spells more often.
Yes, this still doesn't do anything for the blaster archetype, but it would go a long way for caster players to actually feel like a true master of the arcane (or primal, or divine, or occult) arts, bringing their foes low before them. All that whining about not being good enough at weapon strikes or not doing enough single-target damage is just distracting from that issue, and it is not doing casters any favours.
| 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.
That +2 matters, and its a design asymmetry which is a mistake in my option.
Not true.
Master casting save at level 20 if the martial decides to max a casting stat which is unlikely would be 20+6+5 for a DC of 41 and a attack bonus of +31.
A caster who goes melee doing the same thing as a martial with maxing a combat stat would be 20+4 (expert) +5 combat stat +3 item for a +32 attack roll. Better than the martial at casting.
It's also far easier to trick out a nice weapon with energy runes than for a martial to rely on trying to carry a staff or wand while wielding a weapon.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like your player is just new to PF2 casters and still learning the tactics...
While it is certainly possible that they are lacking in tactics understanding, that isn't the point of the sentiment. The sentiment is that they want 2e casters to feel like 3.5/5e/etc.. casters (or even MMO casters).
I think the response should be, simply, that is not how it will be. The system has been balanced (not perfectly, but pretty close). As a result, casters will not feel the same. How you handle it from here is up to you and your table.
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.
Who uses spell attack rolls at high level? What spell attack roll spell are you wanting to use?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
I added spell potency runes to the game via wands and staves. I made wands and staves of certain levels add item bonuses to attack rolls.
You want to know what it did? Same as the shadow signet ring...absolutely nothing.
Why? Spell attack roll spells aren't very good. Not even sure what spell attack roll spells you want to use other than cantrips on occasion. They are mostly terrible other than maybe a searing light against undead or fiends or a spell blending mega-disintegrate if you choose that path using your level 10 slot.
Spell attack roll spells are not something many people use at high level because they aren't good spells.
I'm not sure why you worry about this. I added the potency runes hoping to encourage the use of spell attack roll spells, but they are too terrible for most casters to bother with them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF2 I pick up a weapon as a caster, usually a bow. I pick up an Ancestry or an archetype like Archer. I build up Dex which is good to build up anyway for a caster.
I use electric arc and a bow for the early levels. Keeps me at a good damage level single target, excels at multitarget, and gives me motivation to pick up a magic weapon.
At higher level use the bow less and less, though I still have it as an option. I still keep up with the damage of martials or exceed it most of the time.
Every edition of D&D is figuring how to do the job well. In PF2 if you want to do the job well, pick up a weapon as a caster. Do a little Gandalf with a Bow action. Most players will enjoy having a nice third action bow option that is actually decent and using their cantrips along side it.
You look like a cool archer guy who can cast magic. Gandalf with a bow. Not sure why people hate this so much.
I remember having a crossbow or spear in PF1 and older versions of D&D with my wizard at lower level because cantrips were utterly terrible and you had no spell slots. You were way, way worse with a weapon as a low level caster in previous editions than you are not.
You get a ton of ability skill ups. Dex and Con are great to build up as a caster. Bow is a solid weapon you can build up into a nice magic weapon.
Pretty easy to match martial damage by accepting the way the new game is built and building an optimal character using available options.
|
|
DC : 18
Spell attk: 8
Phys attk: 8
At level 5 a full caster focusing on martialing will look like:
DC : 21
Spell attk: 11
Phys attk: 12
At level 7 a full caster focusing on martialing will look like:
DC : 25
Spell attk: 15
Phys attk: 14
At level 10 a full caster focusing on martialing will look like:
DC : 29
Spell attk: 19
Phys attk: 18
At level 13 a full caster focusing on martialing will look like:
DC : 32
Spell attk: 22
Phys attk: 23
At level 16 a full caster focusing on martialing will look like:
DC : 37
Spell attk: 27
Phys attk: 28
At level 20 a full caster focusing on martialing will look like (no apex):
DC : 44
Spell attk: 34
Phys attk: 32
DC : 17
Spell attk: 7
Phys attk: 9
At level 5 a martial focusing on casting will look like:
DC : 21
Spell attk: 11
Phys attk: 14
At level 7 a martial focusing on casting will look like:
DC : 23
Spell attk: 13
Phys attk: 16
At level 10 a martial focusing on casting will look like:
DC : 26
Spell attk: 16
Phys attk: 21
At level 13 a martial focusing on casting will look like:
DC : 31
Spell attk: 21
Phys attk: 26
At level 16 a martial focusing on casting will look like:
DC : 35
Spell attk: 25
Phys attk: 30
At level 20 a martial focusing on casting will look like (no apex):
DC : 41
Spell attk: 31
Phys attk: 35
Let me know if I mathed wrong.
Who uses spell attack rolls at high level? What spell attack roll spell are you wanting to use?
True Strike Disintegrate is pretty good.
But that's pretty much the only one.
Polar Ray
| 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.
That +2 matters, and its a design asymmetry which is a mistake in my option.
Not true.
Master casting save at level 20 if the martial decides to max a casting stat which is unlikely would be 20+6+5 for a DC of 41 and a attack bonus of +31.
A caster who goes melee doing the same thing as a martial with maxing a combat stat would be 20+4 (expert) +5 combat stat +3 item for a +32 attack roll. Better than the martial at casting.
It's also far easier to trick out a nice weapon with energy runes than for a martial to rely on trying to carry a staff or wand while wielding a weapon.
Item bonuses to attack rolls only exist when we're upset that casters don't have them
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Polar Ray
You're going to use a 10d8 polar ray with the possibility of drained or some other level 8 spell? I never saw polar ray as an attractive spell.
I'd rather use an 8 slot on a 8d12 chain lightning or an eclipse burst or something else.
|
|
CASTER
DC : 18
Spell attk: 8
Phys attk: 8
MARTIAL
DC : 17
Spell attk: 7
Phys attk: 9
CASTER
DC : 21
Spell attk: 11
Phys attk: 12
MARTIAL
DC : 21
Spell attk: 11
Phys attk: 14
CASTER
DC : 25
Spell attk: 15
Phys attk: 14
MARTIAL
DC : 23
Spell attk: 13
Phys attk: 16
CASTER
DC : 29
Spell attk: 19
Phys attk: 18
MARTIAL
DC : 26
Spell attk: 16
Phys attk: 21
CASTER
DC : 32
Spell attk: 22
Phys attk: 23
MARTIAL
DC : 31
Spell attk: 21
Phys attk: 26
CASTER
DC : 37
Spell attk: 27
Phys attk: 28
MARTIAL
DC : 35
Spell attk: 25
Phys attk: 30
CASTER
DC : 44
Spell attk: 34
Phys attk: 32
MARTIAL
DC : 41
Spell attk: 31
Phys attk: 35
Polar RayYou're going to use a 10d8 polar ray with the possibility of drained or some other level 8 spell? I never saw polar ray as an attractive spell.
I'd rather use an 8 slot on a 8d12 chain lightning or an eclipse burst or something else.
Possible drain? It happens on a success which means whatever level the creature, it now has twice its level in HP loss that cannot be healed with a -2 to all fortitude checks. That is on top of 10d8. It also now makes Disintegrate more likely to be successful as well as the multitude of other Fortitude save spells.
There are not many ways to apply the drained condition compared to others. A 10d12 Chain Lightning is also very appealing, but against a boss fight it is more likely to do half damage or none at all. I also prefer to put the roll in my hands than my opponent as there are more ways to control or influence the outcome with the former.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Polar RayYou're going to use a 10d8 polar ray with the possibility of drained or some other level 8 spell? I never saw polar ray as an attractive spell.
I'd rather use an 8 slot on a 8d12 chain lightning or an eclipse burst or something else.
Possible drain? It happens on a success which means whatever level the creature, it now has twice its level in HP loss that cannot be healed with a -2 to all fortitude checks. That is on top of 10d8. It also now makes Disintegrate more likely to be successful as well as the multitude of other Fortitude save spells.
There are not many ways to apply the drained condition compared to others. A 10d12 Chain Lightning is also very appealing, but against a boss fight it is more likely to do half damage or none at all. I also prefer to put the roll in my hands than my opponent as there are more ways to control or influence the outcome with the former.
If it is a boss, you'll have other more effective spells. If you miss, you just wasted an 8th level slot. You'd be better off using a phantasmal killer that at least applies frightened one even on a success which also reduces AC, all saves, and attack roles.
Drained condition is ok, but not the best in a boss fight.
Polar RayYou're going to use a 10d8 polar ray with the possibility of drained or some other level 8 spell? I never saw polar ray as an attractive spell.
I'd rather use an 8 slot on a 8d12 chain lightning or an eclipse burst or something else.
Possible drain? It happens on a success which means whatever level the creature, it now has twice its level in HP loss that cannot be healed with a -2 to all fortitude checks. That is on top of 10d8. It also now makes Disintegrate more likely to be successful as well as the multitude of other Fortitude save spells.
There are not many ways to apply the drained condition compared to others. A 10d12 Chain Lightning is also very appealing, but against a boss fight it is more likely to do half damage or none at all. I also prefer to put the roll in my hands than my opponent as there are more ways to control or influence the outcome with the former.If it is a boss, you'll have other more effective spells. If you miss, you just wasted an 8th level slot. You'd be better off using a phantasmal killer that at least applies frightened one even on a success which also reduces AC, all saves, and attack roles.
Drained condition is ok, but not the best in a boss fight.
You are not realistically looking at the numbers. It is fairly reliable ~75% with True Strike. You also aren't considering what the rest of the party may be doing. This is primarily about damage. There is probably already another effect on the boss. Yes we can look holistically at buffs and debuffs, but this is about damage. At this level drained 2 is 30+ damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. Polar ray is a good boss killer. Spell attack roll spells are good for boss fights, it is unintuitive, but true strike and hero points go a long way to making those spells land where saving throws might be succeeded upon. You don’t even have to have a truestrike ready, although you should if you’re preparing polar ray, because you can hero point it if you miss. At drained 2 even a boss enemy should start thinking about running away. That next disintegrate spell is suddenly very dangerous.
I really like how spells can have such niche situations where they can really shine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Worth noting that primal casters don't have true strike.
Polar RayYou're going to use a 10d8 polar ray with the possibility of drained or some other level 8 spell? I never saw polar ray as an attractive spell.
I'd rather use an 8 slot on a 8d12 chain lightning or an eclipse burst or something else.
Possible drain? It happens on a success which means whatever level the creature, it now has twice its level in HP loss that cannot be healed with a -2 to all fortitude checks. That is on top of 10d8. It also now makes Disintegrate more likely to be successful as well as the multitude of other Fortitude save spells.
There are not many ways to apply the drained condition compared to others. A 10d12 Chain Lightning is also very appealing, but against a boss fight it is more likely to do half damage or none at all. I also prefer to put the roll in my hands than my opponent as there are more ways to control or influence the outcome with the former.If it is a boss, you'll have other more effective spells. If you miss, you just wasted an 8th level slot. You'd be better off using a phantasmal killer that at least applies frightened one even on a success which also reduces AC, all saves, and attack roles.
Drained condition is ok, but not the best in a boss fight.
You are not realistically looking at the numbers. It is fairly reliable ~75% with True Strike. You also aren't considering what the rest of the party may be doing. This is primarily about damage. There is probably already another effect on the boss. Yes we can look holistically at buffs and debuffs, but this is about damage. At this level drained 2 is 30+ damage.
I have played multiple 15 plus casters. Never took polar ray.
Drained is not a good rider. Clumsy or frightened are good riders. I can use a 4th or 6th level slot for phantasmal killer with an effect and damage even on a successful save by the enemy. If they fail, they are frightened 2 which is going to lead to more damage than the hit point loss from drain. A 6th level slot does 12d6 damage on a failure or 18d6 and frightened 4 with a chance of death.
Polar ray is not a versatile enough spell and doesn't do enough to take with an 8th level slot whether you're a wizard with limited prepared slots or a repertoire caster with limited spells known.
I don't see the value of polar ray even for damage dealing myself. I don't like limited use spells that don't do great damage. I guess if I was fighting something with cold weakness and I had polar ray in my book with time to prepare, I may take it. Otherwise, I'd slot a more versatile spell.
Worth noting that primal casters don't have true strike.
There are ways....
Worth noting that primal casters don't have true strike.There are ways....
I often use Multitalented to pick up sorcerer with an ancestry feat as a human, then grab dangerous sorcery and basic spellcasting. Boom. true strike if I need it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's easier to just grab Adapted Cantrip and Adapted Adept if you're human. That's the direction I've followed with my Divine Sorcerer and my Searing Lights are all True Striked.
Spell attack roll spells can be pretty potent, but they are not baseline potent. True Strike puts them at the level of save based spells. It's also important to realize that they benefit from bonuses to attack, so in some parties with lots of bonuses to attack (Inspire Heroics, One For All) they will outdamage save based spells (especially once you add True Strike). They also target AC, which is a very interesting defense to target, against Fiends for example. Last but not least, they are excellent at benefiting from Synesthesia and the Clumsy Condition in general, as Reflex-based spells are in general AoE spells and are not really a good fit for single target combats.
Now, clearly, you need to "make them work", unlike most save-based spells which are working on their own quite fine. They are often dismissed because they are complicated to use and rather niche, but in proper hands, they are a nasty tool. My Searing Lights have trivialized a few fights and they are definitely an important tool in my Sorcerer's belt.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm always baffled with this (and similar) argument. So, that's the only true way to play casters, then? And therefore anyone else who doesn't do this and can't take True Strike (and plays as a dwarf!! Without Adopted Ancestry (Human)! An outrage!) just plays wrong and must not be taken into account? 'No True Strikers' just don't exist. Problem solved.
Yeah, and also anyone who didn't take Electric Arc, of course.
Which other mandatory tactics did I forget? (All of them naturally must be taken by all characters at the same time.)
I don't think True Strike is anywhere close to mandatory.
Electric Arc is, unfortunately. That's a big mistake on cantrips, most of them are incredibly bad and Electric Arc is actually the only one with an ok level of power (not good, just ok, it should be the baseline of offensive cantrips power level).| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thread literally just went through a discussion of how true strike is required to make spell attack work. To the point people are told to actively dip just to get access to it. How is that not mandatory?
What Yellowpete said.
Spell Attack Roll spells are a minority. You don't need them for a spellcaster to work.And there are other ways to reroll a check, Hero Points are available to everyone. So you can even support the rare situations you'll use a Spell Attack Roll spell with a Hero Point.
The equivalent of saying advanced weapons aren't mostly useless for their cost, you can just ignore they exist.It's not mandatory because using attack roll spells isn't. You could forget about their existence entirely and do just as well, in my estimation.
The thread literally just went through a discussion of how true strike is required to make spell attack work. To the point people are told to actively dip just to get access to it. How is that not mandatory?
You can use Hero Points or other ways of rerolling the check for the rare situations you'll use a Spell Attack Roll spell. But if you want Spell Attack Rolls spells to be an important part of your character, then you should definitely consider grabbing True Strike. It works as intended in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I often use Multitalented to pick up sorcerer with an ancestry feat as a human, then grab dangerous sorcery and basic spellcasting. Boom. true strike if I need it.Worth noting that primal casters don't have true strike.There are ways....I'm always baffled with this (and similar) argument. So, that's the only true way to play casters, then? And therefore anyone else who doesn't do this and can't take True Strike (and plays as a dwarf!! Without Adopted Ancestry (Human)! An outrage!) just plays wrong and must not be taken into account? 'No True Strikers' just don't exist. Problem solved.
Yeah, and also anyone who didn't take Electric Arc, of course.
Which other mandatory tactics did I forget? (All of them naturally must be taken by all characters at the same time.)
Has it ever been any different in past versions of D&D or PF1? Not that I can recall. You picked a certain race with high value stats to start, built those stats as high as possible, then took the high value spells in your slots, and played the way every powerful wizard played. Always been that way.
If you want to have fun and play a dwarf wizard, no better game for it than PF2 as the difference between optimal and suboptimal isn't nearly as wide as PF1 or earlier versions of D&D.
Just the fact you could take adopted ancestry if you felt like it makes a more adaptable character. For years in PF1 and D&D you were better off playing an elf or human so you could start with a 20 intelligence and the elf bonus to bust through spell resistance was a great add including all the other perks of being an elf.
So when I hear someone talking about how bad they got it in this edition, I can't help but think how little they must have played past editions that were even more focused and limited for optimization.
In this edition, the dwarf will end with the same intelligence as the elf or the human or the halfling.
You don't need multitalented to get Sorcerer Archetype. Just exchange one of your class feats. Then take a better dwarf feat.
So no, you are pretty far from trapped in PF2. You want to play a dwarf, you'll be just fine unlike PF1/3E where you played an intelligence bonus race or not at all. Don't even bother playing a dwarf sorcerer in PF1 or older versions of D&D because the minus on Charisma was too tough.
So don't try to play the "I have to play this way" card when it was way, way worse in past editions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The equivalent of saying advanced weapons aren't mostly useless for their cost, you can just ignore they exist.It's not mandatory because using attack roll spells isn't. You could forget about their existence entirely and do just as well, in my estimation.
The thread literally just went through a discussion of how true strike is required to make spell attack work. To the point people are told to actively dip just to get access to it. How is that not mandatory?
There are multiple ways to play the game. You can't do everything in the one character. Spell attack rolls are just one way to play a caster, and probably not even the best.
Occullt and Arcane casters always have True Strike on their list. Divine casters can pick it up from a dozen different deities. Sorcerer have ways of choosing spells from any list. It is really only some primal casters who might be tempted to pick it up via an ancestry feat like this. But there are other perfectly good spells they could get this way like Befuddle or Magic Missile. True Strike is a key to just one tactic.
Here are some others
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a bit bad for the "elemental focussed" druids who are stuck not having true strike unless they dabble into multiclass shenanigans. From what I've seen, most single target elemental spell require spell attack, and people playing these kind of druid want to play them as blaster focus, but can't really unless they jump throught a large amount of hoops (that may not be that flavorfull for their character) in order to make those attack work. All for a rather underwhelming end build because blaster caster aren't really supported in this edition.
Likewise for sorcerers of the elemental bloodline, from what I've seen it's one taken by people who want to play a blaster, but they need true strike to make a lot of their spell fonctional.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if we say that didn't solve in some points or create new one in others is a fact that PF2 diminish the martial-caster imbalance A LOT. There's somethings to point? Yes there is and always will we are debating what these points are and what solutions could made a keeping some sugestions to other players and even to Paizo in future books. But it is undeniable that the balance as a whole has improved a lot in PF2.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be entirely fair, PF1 wasn't narrow for caster because caster would still work perfectly fine if they decided to forego 90% of their available spells and cast the same flavorfull bunch again and again. They'd be less than optimal to be sure, but less than optimal was still really good compared to martial, once they were past level 5 or so.
I think it's what made that edition feel so great to play for so many people despite the glaring caster/martial unbalance, most people just weren't playing optimal caster, but flavorfull ones, unknowingly taking sort of "self nerfs" that actually made caster seems balanced compared to martial, because optimal caster were just so far above all.
PF2 have fixed the level of optimal casters, but it seems to have done so at the cost of those flavorfull ones. I think most people who play caster actually want to play a specialized caster, not one that can cast every spells under the sun, which is why this debate come up again and again, as new player picking an enchanter wizard want to cast enchantment spells 90% of the time, which just don't work in PF2. An enchanter wizard here is just 10% more focussed on enchantment than in other school, and must diversify to be as effective as a martial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be entirely fair, PF1 wasn't narrow for caster because caster would still work perfectly fine if they decided to forego 90% of their available spells and cast the same flavorfull bunch again and again. They'd be less than optimal to be sure, but less than optimal was still really good compared to martial, once they were past level 5 or so.
I think it's what made that edition feel so great to play for so many people despite the glaring caster/martial unbalance, most people just weren't playing optimal caster, but flavorfull ones, unknowingly taking sort of "self nerfs" that actually made caster seems balanced compared to martial, because optimal caster were just so far above all.
PF2 have fixed the level of optimal casters, but it seems to have done so at the cost of those flavorfull ones. I think most people who play caster actually want to play a specialized caster, not one that can cast every spells under the sun, which is why this debate come up again and again, as new player picking an enchanter wizard want to cast enchantment spells 90% of the time, which just don't work in PF2. An enchanter wizard here is just 10% more focussed on enchantment than in other school, and must diversify to be as effective as a martial.
Yeah, I feel that way too. Paizo was so hellbent on making the "Batman Wizard/God Wizard" not absurdly OP anymore (which is a noble goal) that they balanced the entire mechanic of spellcasting around them, not giving nearly as much care to the experience of people who don't want to do that. Which, outside optimization boards, is very likely the majority.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sentiment is that they want 2e casters to feel like 3.5/5e/etc.. casters (or even MMO casters).
That is not how it will be. The system has been balanced (not perfectly, but pretty close). As a result, casters will not feel the same. How you handle it from here is up to you and your table.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1 good spell selection on a caster completely trivialized entire campaigns. The ceiling was so absurdly high on casters that it was actually very complicated as a GM to run any published material or write your own encounters that were a challenge without creating rocket tag “she who casts first, wins” situations.
Blasting was never the way to do that and was pretty bad, complicated to do, and not really possible at all at low levels. Ironically, all the kinds of “solutions” that PF1 had to allow characters to blast a little bit better were generally much better when used on spells that didn’t just blast. This is why you find so many of arguing that anyone thinking about hacking the spell casting of PF2 look at the ceiling of what their changes can do, not the floor. It honestly is out of a desire to help GMs understand the consequences of changes on keeping a system that is easy to run and yet still friendly to open character design.
Change your encounters to be friendlier to the specific spell casting your players want to do is much, much, much easier than trying to change the system and try to keep it balanced. Both can be done, and there is nothing wrong morally with either option, but GMs should be learning how to adjust encounters in PF2 because that is a recommended part of being a GM (it makes your campaign fun and unique to your party), whereas house ruling and home brewing rules is a more complicated task.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enchantment feels like a weird example to point to when it was probably the single most immunity ridden school of magic in PF1. I think building a specialized caster in PF1 wasn't any less of an optimization game. To use the enchanter example, to make it work effectively you needed to hunt down things like bloodline abilities which let you use enchantments on things like plants or constructs. Otherwise you'd be crushing encounters with humanoids and twiddling your thumbs everywhere else.
You could build a specialized evoker in PF1 that just deleted things from the battlefield and could solo most APs. In fact, the optimal way to do so was to spend all your feats perfecting one spell, which meant the rest of your spells known could be towards doing literally anything else.
These were flavorful choices, but they were just as game breaking as playing the control god wizard.
The equivalent of saying advanced weapons aren't mostly useless for their cost, you can just ignore they exist.It's not mandatory because using attack roll spells isn't. You could forget about their existence entirely and do just as well, in my estimation.
The thread literally just went through a discussion of how true strike is required to make spell attack work. To the point people are told to actively dip just to get access to it. How is that not mandatory?There are multiple ways to play the game. You can't do everything in the one character. Spell attack rolls are just one way to play a caster, and probably not even the best.
Occullt and Arcane casters always have True Strike on their list. Divine casters can pick it up from a dozen different deities. Sorcerer have ways of choosing spells from any list. It is really only some primal casters who might be tempted to pick it up via an ancestry feat like this. But there are other perfectly good spells they could get this way like Befuddle or Magic Missile. True Strike is a key to just one tactic.
Here are some others...
If I want to play a caster who wants to do any kind of blasting. I am forced to use true strike regardless of how I want my character to play. That is the definition of mandatory.The fact I can play debuffer/utility mage and do blasting does not make me a blaster.
Specially not when all the debuff/utlity spells just work, and I have to bend over backwards just to not lose one of the 4 top level spells.
And no, being forced to play spell blending or whatever is not a fixed. That is a stop gap bandaid solution to a problem that should never have existed in the first place.
Blasting is mostly save spells. You're conflating them with spell attacks. And you can do it successfully with any arcane or primal full caster class. Heck, even clerics and oracles can do it with the right gods.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Blasting" is synonymous with "DPS" for caster. When people say that they want to play a blaster caster, what they're really saying is that they want a damage oriented caster, as opposed to a support oriented one.
In that regard, spell attack are a necessary tool of blaster caster, because they are the spells that most often focus on dealing single target damage, while "save" spells are either for AOE damage, or for single target debuff/incapacitation (or AOE debuff/incapacitation for higher level spells).
"Blasting" is synonymous with "DPS" for caster. When people say that they want to play a blaster caster, what they're really saying is that they want a damage oriented caster, as opposed to a support oriented one.
In that regard, spell attack are a necessary tool of blaster caster, because they are the spells that most often focus on dealing single target damage, while "save" spells are either for AOE damage, or for single target debuff/incapacitation (or AOE debuff/incapacitation for higher level spells).
So... you're essentially asserting the position that there simply aren't enough good single-target damage-primary vs-save spells out there to build a blaster around. Do you have anything to back that up?
I mean, I personally don't know. I'm not tracking the spell lists anything like that closely. It just seems like we're dropping into a place of people contradicting one another with bald assertions (you say that vs-AC is necessary for a caster to do the blasting thing, they say it is not) and that means that if we're going to get any real value out of this discussion, we're going to have to start seeing some actual arguments backing those things up. Like, if you can demonstrate that, say, there are no single target primarily direct damage spells that are vs saves for spell levels 4, 7, and 8 (or whatever) then that would be a pretty potent argument to make to back up your position. If you can say "here are the most damaging single-target spells of these four levels, they're all vs AC, and they're this much more damaging than the next runners-up" then that would be reasonably solid too. If all you have to speak from is personal feelings of frustration, though, and you can't crystallize it into an argument that we can see and consider... well, feelsbad does matter, and I'm not about to act like ti doesn't, but that's a data point we pretty much already have right now. That feelsbad is why we're having this discussion in the first place.
Even past that, though... even if it were true... I feel like Shadow Signet is a thing, and basically serves the same purpose - provides another way to bump up the accuracy of your vs-AC spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are "going off on a tangent". The main problem for Blasters isn't a lack of spells neither if it's an attack or a save, it's the limited resources to use them.
OK specially for spell attacks theres the difference of they don't have the half-damage failure effect but the fact that most casters end legendary means that if you don't use anything you basically is a -1 when compared to a master martial with +3 item bonus. This can also be very well compensated with Shadow Signet or True Strike as already was presented. Yet psychologically many casters have a great afraid of failure using a spell attack due the chance of loose their spell slot in a failure. That's the main reason of many of them run away from use of spell slot spell attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
If I want to play a caster who wants to do any kind of blasting. I am forced to use true strike regardless of how I want my character to play. That is the definition of mandatory.The fact I can play debuffer/utility mage and do blasting does not make me a blaster.
Specially not when all the debuff/utlity spells just work, and I have to bend over backwards just to not lose one of the 4 top level spells.
And no, being forced to play spell blending or whatever is not a fixed. That is a stop gap bandaid solution to a problem that should never have existed in the first place.
Please come back to me when you've played a blaster caster from 1-14.
I've literally seen it played in front of me and it's been absolutely fine.
Oh, and it was on staff nexus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are "going off on a tangent". The main problem for Blasters isn't a lack of spells neither if it's an attack or a save, it's the limited resources to use them.
OK specially for spell attacks theres the difference of they don't have the half-damage failure effect but the fact that most casters end legendary means that if you don't use anything you basically is a -1 when compared to a master martial with +3 item bonus. This can also be very well compensated with Shadow Signet or True Strike as already was presented. Yet psychologically many casters have a great afraid of failure using a spell attack due the chance of loose their spell slot in a failure. That's the main reason of many of them run away from use of spell slot spell attacks.
"how big are my biggest booms", "how often can I throw my biggest booms" and "what's left once my biggest booms are exhausted" are three different tweakable knobs that can dial the power of a class (or build) up or down.
Having any one of them in a particular position isn't "the main problem". Actually, "the main problem" seems to be "This one particular playstyle is not well-supported, especially for people who are new to the game." That's the sort of thing that would totally not be a problem at all except for the little issue that it's a very popular archetype out in the rest of the world, and it's the sort of thing that a lot of new players are going to want to come in and play as their first PF2 PC. This is a meaningful problem, and worth trying to fix, but it's niche. Trying to fix it by just giving casters more spell slots is only going to break balance worse in other places.
So... what kind of fixes can we put in? Well, for one, Shadow Signet is a thing. That's pretty clearly meant as a smallish fix to direct damage for high-level blaster casters. They can adjust spells i various ways to make them more appealing as well. These *are* the kinds of changes that they can make without giving major buffs to the kind of casters who are doing quite well for themselves.
Unfortunately, those aren't great for the newbies who walk in the door knowing only that they want to make the enemy fall over by throwing fire and frost at them. The real question, I think, is what we can do for those people.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You see that's a self fulfilling prophecy.
Spell strikes are bad therefor people don't use them.
Because people don't use them devs make more save based blasting.
Because there are more saved based blasting people use less spell strikes.Heck Shadow Signet is effectively trying to avoid the issue, while not really doing anything to actually solve it.
I'm perplexed as to what you see as the problem here. If we wind up in a situation where mages basically never use attacks versus AC, but are still dealing decent damage... isn't that a win? Isn't that what we want?
As for Shadow Signet - it's giving tools to allow you (with a bit of thought) to make certain kinds of attack spells significantly more likely to hit. How is that not doing anything to solve the problem at hand?