Oh yeah, that discussion. Well, unlike before, we now have another example:
Your spell becomes volatile and explosive. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that deals damage to a single target and the spell successfully damages that target, the spell explodes, dealing splash damage equal to the level of the spell cast to adjacent creatures. Unlike normally, this splash damage doesn't apply to the target. The splash damage dealt is of the same type the spell deals.
So it does really seem Splash is meant to inherently damage adjacent creatures. (and to the primary target although this calls that out as an exception.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it will be nice when they fix the wording for acid splash as well. I definitely have GMs read it as only doing damage to the target and others that read the splash trait and think it should do splash damage even on a miss like a bomb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After thinking about it for a while, i think the best solution for casters as a whole would be to drop the mid save of most enemies to be on par with a standard low save, that way the existing math of the game is not broken, the numbers are all within the existing bounds, and enemies still keep their brick wall high saves that force casters to pack a plan B, it would just allow much more freedom in spell usage and targeting, allowing a preferred spell to be viable against 2/3 of enemies instead of 1/3 also allows for thematic casters to have a lot less feel-bad situations
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Acid Splash gets to about the right damage already given persistent. The issue is that it requires using a 9th level slot when it shouldn't.Seems to me scaling the damage is just what heightening does for damage cantrips. How would you scale say acid splash differently to what RAW says?I wouldn't scale cantrips by spell level as that has the exact issue you are showing. Cantrips somehow being higher level and still the worse.
Instead, keeping them the same level and just scaling the damage based on your character level.
It doesn't require any slots. It's a cantrip.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do listen to the feedback here, and I am sure the developers do too. We got an item that is specifically about spell attack roll spells. I am guessing that item was in response to people's complaints about them. They did not release item bonuses though. Why? Are developers just terrible people who don't care about anyone's feelings? No, of course not. They are looking at their game from a big picture perspective, not a "I built a character I am not having fun playing" perspective. It is good to know when players build characters that they do not have fun playing. Sometimes that will lead to minor tweaks to a class, or new items or spells or what have you.
I hope all the blaster folks are happy with the Kineticist. I am fairly confident I will like the post-playtest version less than I liked the playtest version and that I will probably never play one. I had the same experience with the Magus and have never been able to convince myself that will be a fun character to play after having a blast with the magus in the playtest because they over streamlined spell strike and now combining it with saving throw spells (the most common spells in the game) is flat and useless. But overall, people seem to like magi focused exclusively as single target strikers and getting to combine 2 attack rolls into one certainly accomplished that. So maybe there is a trick up the developer's sleeves for making kineticists do the single target damage that blaster players want without making a "I can do everything you can do better" class.
But it is also important to remember that people are playing wizards and druids and even witches as primarily blasty casters and being successful at having fun and being a part of a team that accomplishes its goals with those characters. Options to increase the power of one thing at the "expense" of giving up something that you do not use at all anyway is not game balance. It might feel like it will let you build the character you want to, but if it lets other people build characters that overspecialize into cheese builds that are bad for the game, the developers are not going to retroactively go back and change everything else about the game to make the new thing you want to do work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its a P&P game. There is no secret backend code. We have all the math they do because they publish all the material that the game "runs" on by necessity.
If people keep arriving at the same issues with the numbers, and saying "hey there is a problem here", then that is what there is. All the math happens at the table level, and if it doesn't work there, it doesn't matter what paizo intended it to work like.
What math have you provided? I haven't seen it. You are the same person making the same nebulous arguments over and over again in these threads. I've read the threads and been in them as you said, you haven't provided any but the standard information.
1. Casters feels bad. No explanation of what casters feel bad. Just an idea that it feels bad, all of them, no matter how good they are.
2. Attack rolls used as an example of an imbalance when not many attack rolls spells are very good. The days of enervate and disintegrate in PF1 are gone, by design.
Same argument over and over again that I've seen with my own data over multiple games is flat out wrong.
Come on man. This comes off pretty condescending.
There should not be "just bad options" and you should not dismiss peoples problems with them as "cherry picking". The game as a scaling issue for casters in general, the cases where the scaling issue are most apparent are not cherry picking, they are the examples of the issue at hand.
People have been consistently clear about these issues since the edition launched. Go back and read the threads, you are in 90% of them. Just because you disagree personally, and just because people don't present their arguments in whatever game-dev speak you personally find most appealing means precisely zero to the conversation.
Take yourself out of it.
People have, in various forms, for years now, been saying some version of "This doesn't feel good."
The why of it is clearly up for discussion, but, if after years of consistent feedback on player experience, your take on it "everyone is doing it wrong", then that is a failure on Paizo's part to design the game in a transparent enough way as to let players understand the intended flow of the game....
Feelings do not trump data. The data indicates casters, especially at higher level do as much damage as martials and often more when they choose to do damage. Not every fight, but martials don't do well every fight.
These threads falsely make it seem like martials just waltz on in alone, destroy everything with their weapons, waltz on out, no problem.
ACs on boss monsters aren't high for everyone.
Bosses don't do tons of damage.
No auras, gazes, poisons, grab attacks, knockdowns, AoE melee attacks, breath weapons, none of that exists in the martial versus caster disparity threads. It's all just "casters are weak, all of them without exception" and "Martials are just great without exception."
Sorry, that isn't true, not at all. It's a completely and utterly falsehood. Paizo cannot action threads like this because the math indicates otherwise.
Lots of casters are very good. There are more than a few martials that are bad.
When does this ever get acknowledged in these threads? When?
Why make a thread that says, "Martial versus Caster Balance" when not every martial is good and not every caster is bad? Why do that? It's not true, not remotely true.
Actionable complaints should be backed up by data, sorted by which casters are bad and need work, and a far more focused thread.
...The mere fact that since the launch of PF2 we've had recurring threads about spellcasters seem weak, especially when compared to martial ones, is self-contradictory to that.You are the one focused on blasting. I doubt you could prove with real data that a caster could not sustain a lot of damage blasting over an adventuring day at high level. Would they always be the best at damage? Nope, But neither would the martials. I've literally played multiple blasting casters and had plenty of fights where they were the top damage dealer. I find blasting enjoyable in PF2 and have built blasters. They aren't as good as PF1, but then nothing is.
The same people keep making the same threads and commenting on them and likely favoriting each other's posts. I've had this debate with the same people in multiple threads. The math has proven them wrong again and again and again, yet the same threads with the same debates get made. I had the same feeling when I first played PF2 moving from PF1. I was wrong and have seen the numbers myself over the course of play.
Spellcasters are not weak. They are in fact very strong. They are in fact stronger at low level than they were in past editions, but this is forgotten because most people focus on what they could do after 5th level or so.
The wizard is weak. When saying casters, I see primarily players of PF1 wizards and arcane casters accustomed to be the top dog complaining.
They don't really use math or come out and say it directly, but they want to be the top dog again. And it's not going to happen in a game balanced like PF2.I have explained how to compete with martials or exceed their damage using spell slots across an adventuring day. I have tracked the damage. I know casters can and often do equal the damage of martials if not exceed them when given AoE opportunities.
Not sure what else I can do when the arguments for casters being weaker than martials is nebulous, not mathematically backed up, and
So for Paizo to make a game that feels fun they should boost up casters in power far beyond martials so people who had fun being God Wizard or Super Blaster in PF1 can have fun in PF2? They should do twice as much or more of the the damage of martials? And be higher than martial damage every fight without fail?
Talking about AOE, one thing I don't see mentionned much but which people should keep in mind is the fact that in this game, AOE damage is inherently less valuable than single target one. Dealing 20 damage to one target is better than dealing 5 damage to four foes at once, even if the total amount of damage dealt is the same. This as to do with the action economy : ten foes at half life still have 30 actions. five at full life and five death have 15. even eight at full life and two death makes for a easier fight, because you cut their actions by 20%.
AOE damage also need a certain situation to be good (for there to be many foes) and decrease in efficiency the less for they are, while single target damage is always reliable, as long as there are foes, there will be targets. In a fight against ten foes at once, AOE is ten time as effective as it is in a fight against only one, but in both case, single target damage stay consistent. The only moment single target damage lose it's power is when you're dealing with numerous foes whose life are bellow the damage you deal per hit (making the excendent damage "wasted"). A situation that may arrise on some occasion, but far from a typical fight in PF2.
Not to say that AOE damage is worthless, or that it need a tremendous buff, but it is less effective in 90% of the situation you'll encounter, and far more unreliable. IMO, a "blaster" that rely only on AOE can't be balanced, even if it lost access to every buff, debuff and utility spells, for a simple reason : either the AOE is good when fighting against multiple foes, mediocre otherwise (in which case the AOE blaster will spend most of the time being mediocre), or it's great when fighting against multiple foes, but still decent otherwise (in which case you are just a single target DPR that have the added bonus of being able to deal with crowd easily, and thus are overpowered).
Because of this, casters need strong single target option at every level if a blaster caster option is to work. Saying that caster...
Once again, can you prove casters are not good at single target damage? Can you prove it? Can you take the spell lists of every single caster, focus spells, and what they do, and clearly show that they are worse at Single target damage fight after fight if they focus on it?
There are single target spells. There are single target focus spells. There are ways to build up single target damage.
It is ok to say that because a caster does AOE damage, he should be weaker at something else because the martial cannot do AoE damage. He doesn't have the option. Should you suddenly make "spell lists" for martials so they can adjust their abilities to do everything a caster can do? So every class has exactly the same capabilities?
PF2 is selling very well. People are playing casters and having fun. Some might be hitting points of frustration, but it doesn’t seem anywhere close to a majority. Yes some arguments keep popping up here, but it is 90% the same people saying the same thing with maybe 1 new voice every couple of months compared to all the new players playing it and having fun. The scope of this”problem” seems rather small.No, sorry, but no. Don't try to make a "Silent Majority" style argument when you have zero data to back that up. Also you can't dismiss the problem just because this forum has a small userbase.
These threads come up on here by new users, like this very thread, it comes up on Reddit, on discord, etc. On literally every place I've seen where people gather to discuss the game, some variant of this conversation comes up. And it has been coming up consistently since the beginning.
I'm not trying to say its the majority of players, but I'm also not making a case that it needs to be a majority issue before its looked at.
Something in the player experience for casters is consistently feeling wrong to new people approaching the game, and the game itself seems to consistently fail to help them understand why they feel that way.
That, in and of itself, is a problem that Paizo should address.
I'm not even touching on the "why" and how to fix it right now. I'm just saying that there is evidently a problem, and trying to minimise it is a bad idea for the long term health of the game.
Game has been out nearly three years with books still being produced. You think Paizo is somehow doing this by taking huge losses for three years?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something in the player experience for casters is consistently feeling wrong to new people approaching the game, and the game itself seems to consistently fail to help them understand why they feel that way.I'm not saying you're wrong (actually, I think you are right to some extent). But it's also important to dissociate new players with a lack of D&D-like experience and veterans from D&D and PF1. Due to the massive reduction of caster power in PF2, those coming from older versions of D&D should obviously complain if they keep the same expectations for caster power.That is something to be aware of, but we were all in that state at some point.
I'm talking about discussions where players are talking about the games internal structures and experience. While there is going to be a decent amount of edition discussion generally, its the ones that are looking at the game as it stands on its own mostly.
So if 80 or 90 people are happy with caster abilities in PF2, then we should listen to the 10 or 20 that will never be happy?
I read thread after thread of martials complaining in PF1 that casters were vastly, vastly overpowered. For years I read these threads. All of us playing casters knew it was absolutely true that casters were vastly overpowered and problematic in PF1.
Thread after thread after thread on PF1 forums and all around about how imbalanced and overpowered casters were. It was easily proven with the math and the ridiculously powerful combinations listed on web sites for how to build casters.
They were even worse in 3E when someone released the Archmage mini-class.
Then they reduced it some and PF1 reduced it some, but still casters were way out of control.
Those threads were ubiquitous, mathematically easy to prove, and absolutely true.
Caster versus Martial disparity threads in PF2 are far less common as evidenced by this single thread popping up again with the same people posting the same complaints lacking mathematical or data driven proof that all casters are somehow not as good as martials.
When counter proof is given showing the math is balanced or close to it, caster damage is quite potent, and most casters are doing fine if not topping the PF2 power scale, it falls back to "feels bad."
In PF1 caster vs. martial disparity it wasn't based on "Feels bad." It was based on clear, provable math that casters far exceeded martials in power. Clear actionable evidence with data and math showing how extremely bad it was.
Words like Quadratic were used for casters. God Tier classes for casters. Casting combination after casting combination letting you do absolutely sick and imbalanced effects against the game world or even opposing martial players.
You have that data for Paizo to action in this "Caster vs. Martial Balance" in PF2? I'd love to see it if you do.
|
2) All classes with a given proficiency should be balanced the same. So given how they made all full casters legendary, they should all have the same chance as a fighter has to hit. But I think what you are really asking is how easy it is to land abilities, to that I would say 50/50 vs on level sounds about right.4) Yes, thats the nature of designing a game, a lot of it is based on how it feels even if it looks mathematically sound. Most players don't understand statistics in the first place, and they shouldn't be expected to know that "over all if you roll 1000 times the one time you hit a good AoE the damage scale will balance out". Making it so a game feels good moment to moment is more important than some arbitrary balance point that could reasonably be changed given the effort.
5/8) I was saying that cantrips are literally the weakest form of spells. 1st level spells should be stronger than the weakest spells of your level.
9) If they spent 3 action casting 3 different spells not balanced as "attacks" that means they are rapidly burning through their spell slots. So what do you see as the issue?
2) Okay 50/50, is this for all of an enemy's saves or a particular one?
4) I completely disagree. While the chosen balance point is arbitrary, building the entire system upon that choice makes the interactions of the system with itself significantly less arbitrary. The real arbitrary aspect is the feelings. This is embodied in the fact that, in the same situation, you experience 'feelsbad' and I do not. As the 'feelsbad' is not unanimously felt, it diminishes it as an overly relevant data point.
5/8) Okay, so it seems that your main issue is not necessarily that cantrips are too strong, it is that lower level spells (like level 1 spells at level 16) are too weak? If so, how would you scale the lower level spells?
9) I see a breach of damage per action, as each spell would be balanced based on being the 1st action of the turn.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely disagree. While the chosen balance point is arbitrary, building the entire system upon that choice makes the interactions of the system with itself significantly less arbitrary. The real arbitrary aspect is the feelings. This is embodied in the fact that, in the same situation, you experience 'feelsbad' and I do not. As the 'feelsbad' is not unanimously felt, it diminishes it as an overly relevant data point.
my man, this is a game that people play to have fun, if it feels bad, that is the most important thing, arguably the only thing that matters. You are correct that what feels bad will vary between person to person, but acting like, not having fun is somehow a non issue is like... you know what games are for right?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, in all the pages that this has been talked about (in this thread or its many predecessors) I don't think anyone has ever actually justified the idea that casters are under powered in blasting or otherwise. Every time it's been tried, it eventually had to defer itself entirely to a discussion of feel to stay in the ring, because feel can simply be self-referential. Every time that's happened, we ended up gradually taking the feel argument and transitioning it back into an assertion of reality, until it was disproven again and had to return to feel lest it simply become an untruth.
Sometimes valuing the fun of one person can drag down the fun of everyone else. I assure you that the summoner I had the displeasure of playing with in one PFS scenario who solo'd every encounter by dropping the enemies in a pit and having his eidolon peck at them was having a lot of fun.
So far I've played with two druids and a wizard as far as casters go, mostly low level introductory stuff. The druids felt very strong blasting away with their focus spell and sudden bolt and the wizard had a particular Feels Good moment in one beginner box fight where everyone was struggling with bad rolls and the wizard was doing damage with electric arc anyways (she ended up doing the most damage out of anyone despite never seeing a failed save in that encounter).
I completely disagree. While the chosen balance point is arbitrary, building the entire system upon that choice makes the interactions of the system with itself significantly less arbitrary. The real arbitrary aspect is the feelings. This is embodied in the fact that, in the same situation, you experience 'feelsbad' and I do not. As the 'feelsbad' is not unanimously felt, it diminishes it as an overly relevant data point.my man, this is a game that people play to have fun, if it feels bad, that is the most important thing, arguably the only thing that matters. You are correct that what feels bad will vary between person to person, but acting like, not having fun is somehow a non issue is like... you know what games are for right?
A handful of people feeling bad cannot be helped. There cannot be an expectation that every person will be pleased by every game and every game decision.
That is why the designers rely on math and data. This shows them where a class stands in relation to other classes in measurable factors. Then you can incorporate less tangible ideas of "fun" which is why they playtest as well. How a character works is important as is how the numbers play out.
I still think these threads would be far more helpful if they focused on more specific information.
For me, improving the wizard should be a priority for Paizo. Improving the druid or the bard would make already great classes way too good.
The idea that casters overall are not balanced against martials is a clear red flag that the people complaining aren't playing all casters to determine which casters are set up well and which casters could use some work.
I would say a few of the martial classes could use some tweaking as well.
This is definitely not a "Caster vs. Martial Imbalance." It's far more of a some casters are pretty bad, most notably the Intel based classes like the witch and wizard. You could even toss in the Investigator for a martial that needs some work. Intelligence-based skills could even add some good options that work like Charisma-based skills which can help casters.
I know a Charisma caster being able to set up a spell with Demoralize or Bon Mot is the type of little boost that helps make a Charisma caster more effective whereas Recall Knowledge may provide some tangible idea of a weakness to exploit (if it exists) but it is nowhere near as reliable as Bon Mot or a Demoralize at improving success chances.
I think a focus on specific areas that need some work would give Paizo designers actionable information to make changes. PF2 has its issues, but a general "Caster vs. Martial Imbalance" is not one of them. It's more a class specific issues situations with certain classes that are very good including some casters and some that have real clunky or unattractive mechanics making them work too hard to be effective.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something in the player experience for casters is consistently feeling wrong to new people approaching the game, and the game itself seems to consistently fail to help them understand why they feel that way.I'm not saying you're wrong (actually, I think you are right to some extent). But it's also important to dissociate new players with a lack of D&D-like experience and veterans from D&D and PF1. Due to the massive reduction of caster power in PF2, those coming from older versions of D&D should obviously complain if they keep the same expectations for caster power.
You know it's funny. I was a huge fan of D&D 4e because it brought low the god-like casters. One of the biggest appeals to me about PF2E was the fact casters finally got brought in line, so both the Fighter and the Wizard feel equal along the way from 1 to 20. I do a little, you do a little. Not this whole "Fighter Carries my worthless ass to 5, then I start one shotting every encounter with my god-like powers and he just carries my treasure like a pack mule." dynamic that PF1E and D&D 3.5 had.
So I came here expecting "Finally! I can play a blaster caster and not be brokenly OP and not outshine anyone" only to find oops, they just nerfed Caster damage on top of encounter ending spells. In my mind, things like the Incap trait, and nerfing stuff that ends encounters guaranteed, and even buffing monster saves were the answer. I was not expecting also accuracy and damage nerfs too.
I have now found the courage to try my 1st Caster and last night I killed 1 enemy who was tripped by a martial with my produce flame spell and it felt great. I didn't get to test Burning Hands yet. I am very excited to play my "Black Mage" and I think I've planned a good set of skills that are very thematic and true to the heart of Black Mage but will be able to put out some damage.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, improving the wizard should be a priority for Paizo. Improving the druid or the bard would make already great classes way too good.
I find it jarring, almost paradoxical, that you think spellcasting in PF2 is in a perfectly fine place, but also think Wizard is a bad class. The Wizard is literally the casteriest of casters: you get more slots than everyone else (4/level for specialist + 1 of any level with Drain), more ways of changing how those slots work (up to 6 top level and 5 top level - 1 with Blending, for example), and that's your whole class. If you think this is weak, doesn't that mean slotted spellcasting by itself is not that strong and it needs strong supplemental features like Divine Font or Compositions to really be worth it? Unlike, for example, a Fighter, where adding more martial to your martial made for a top tier class?
I don't even agree the Wizard is a weak caster, by the way. I'm just adding two and two.
Something in the player experience for casters is consistently feeling wrong to new people approaching the game, and the game itself seems to consistently fail to help them understand why they feel that way.I'm not saying you're wrong (actually, I think you are right to some extent). But it's also important to dissociate new players with a lack of D&D-like experience and veterans from D&D and PF1. Due to the massive reduction of caster power in PF2, those coming from older versions of D&D should obviously complain if they keep the same expectations for caster power.You know it's funny. I was a huge fan of D&D 4e because it brought low the god-like casters. One of the biggest appeals to me about PF2E was the fact casters finally got brought in line, so both the Fighter and the Wizard feel equal along the way from 1 to 20. I do a little, you do a little. Not this whole "Fighter Carries my worthless ass to 5, then I start one shotting every encounter with my god-like powers and he just carries my treasure like a pack mule." dynamic that PF1E and D&D 3.5 had.
So I came here expecting "Finally! I can play a blaster caster and not be brokenly OP and not outshine anyone" only to find oops, they just nerfed Caster damage on top of encounter ending spells. In my mind, things like the Incap trait, and nerfing stuff that ends encounters guaranteed, and even buffing monster saves were the answer. I was not expecting also accuracy and damage nerfs too.
I have now found the courage to try my 1st Caster and last night I killed 1 enemy who was tripped by a martial with my produce flame spell and it felt great. I didn't get to test Burning Hands yet. I am very excited to play my "Black Mage" and I think I've planned a good set of skills that are very thematic and true to the heart of Black Mage but will be able to put out some damage.
Glad to hear that Trixleby. Caster really do well in PFS. Anytime you can attack a flat footed target that does not have cover, there is a good chance you are targeting the lowest defense the creature has. That doesn't mean you will always hit, but if you have a hero point, you are in very good shape to take your shot and you are probably in the 10+% chance of getting a critical hit, which usually have some cool riders with spells.
Burning Hands is a difficult spell to use well in PF2. 15 ft cones generally are 1 to 2 targets maybe, and the swingy-ness of the 2d6 vs 1d4+4 (x2) for electric arc in those situations often ends up a wash in what I see happen. Except if you run into swarms. Then a decent AoE spell can really come in clutch.
For me, improving the wizard should be a priority for Paizo. Improving the druid or the bard would make already great classes way too good.
I find it jarring, almost paradoxical, that you think spellcasting in PF2 is in a perfectly fine place, but also think Wizard is a bad class. The Wizard is literally the casteriest of casters: you get more slots than everyone else (4/level for specialist + 1 of any level with Drain), more ways of changing how those slots work (up to 6 top level and 5 top level - 1 with Blending, for example), and that's your whole class. If you think this is weak, doesn't that mean slotted spellcasting by itself is not that strong and it needs strong supplemental features like Divine Font or Compositions to really be worth it? Unlike, for example, a Fighter, where adding more martial to your martial made for a top tier class?
I don't even agree the Wizard is a weak caster, by the way. I'm just adding two and two.
Fighters have an exceptionally strong chassis, with good saves, heavy armor, AOO... legendary in attack rolls is just the Fighter's special damage bonus, and as good as it is the Fighter would not be particularly impressive if you left it with only the accuracy. Focus spells are a pretty fundamental part of how casters work and the wizard being stuck with a lot of bad ones is a huge deal.
On the other hand Wizards have a lot of legacy weaknesses in their chassis that don't really make sense in balance with the other casters. Arbitrarily low AC with no armor and no way to mitigate that, bad saves (why are wizards not legendary in will exactly?), not even simple weapon proficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I should add: I saw a lot of mentions of Sudden Bolt in this thread, regarding proof that casters can do good single target damage.
Sudden Bolt is an outlier. It's a Uncommon spell that's not allowed in PFS and considered by many to be "broken AP content". The amount of damage Sudden Bolt does above the average 2d6/level AoE of its level is ridiculous. Like, 90-ish percent more. Most other single target spells only gain a small amount of damage compared to standard progression.
If we had a Sudden Bolt equivalent for every spell level, at Common rarity, I'm sure 90% of the complaints about caster damage would evaporate. Sadly, I don't see Paizo doing that, as much as I think it's a perfectly fine spell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters have an exceptionally strong chassis, with good saves, heavy armor, AOO... legendary in attack rolls is just the Fighter's special damage bonus, and as good as it is the Fighter would not be particularly impressive if you left it with only the accuracy. Focus spells are a pretty fundamental part of how casters work and the wizard being stuck with a lot of bad ones is a huge deal.
On the other hand Wizards have a lot of legacy weaknesses in their chassis that don't really make sense in balance with the other casters. Arbitrarily low AC with no armor and no way to mitigate that, bad saves (why are wizards not legendary in will exactly?), not even simple weapon proficiency.
Those are fair points, but all but the last one also apply to Sorcerers, which Deriven seems to consider a good class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I don't really see what deriven sees in the sorcerer. I also don't think the wizard as terrible as deriven does though. IMO there's a clear gap between Druid/Bard/Psychic and the rest of the full casters but the weaker ones aren't unusable in totality, they just have some weird defensive issues and some subclasses that are flagrant trap options in an edition that tried really hard to remove those. Like the Fervor Witch is genuinely a good class but when it's sitting next to some of the other patrons it looks like that happened largely by accident.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I should add: I saw a lot of mentions of Sudden Bolt in this thread, regarding proof that casters can do good single target damage.
Sudden Bolt is an outlier. It's a Uncommon spell that's not allowed in PFS and considered by many to be "broken AP content". The amount of damage Sudden Bolt does above the average 2d6/level AoE of its level is ridiculous. Like, 90-ish percent more. Most other single target spells only gain a small amount of damage compared to standard progression.
If we had a Sudden Bolt equivalent for every spell level, at Common rarity, I'm sure 90% of the complaints about caster damage would evaporate. Sadly, I don't see Paizo doing that, as much as I think it's a perfectly fine spell.
Notably, rarity is not a balancing mechanic, Sudden Bolt is not uncommon because it outpaces other options, its uncommon because all AP content is uncommon. Sudden Bolt does more damage because Sudden Bolt is single target, but its the same actual damage as Lightning Bolt which is an AOE a level above it, and with a much longer range.
I do wish we had more single target basic save damage spells though, maybe Rage of Elements could provide them-- Magic Missile could use more competition in the single target space.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Notably, rarity is not a balancing mechanic, Sudden Bolt is not uncommon because it outpaces other options, its uncommon because all AP content is uncommon. Sudden Bolt does more damage because Sudden Bolt is single target, but its the same actual damage as Lightning Bolt which is an AOE a level above it, and with a much longer range.
I do wish we had more single target basic save damage spells though, maybe Rage of Elements could provide them-- Magic Missile could use more competition in the single target space.
Oh, the two things weren't meant to be necessarily related. There's many reasons things can be Uncommon, including just being AP content in general. AP content also happens to be often less balanced, and there's people who think Sudden Bolt isn't a balanced spell, hence the "broken AP content" comment. Not that I agree. Like I said, I'd love to see 20 new Sudden Bolts with different damage types, spell levels and targeted saves.
Yeah, Paizo confirmed they don't get AP content as hard, which is why you get things like the exquisite sword cane and heaven seeker. Sudden Bolt isn't that powerful but it it IS really good and a GM approving it does make a difference.
That said, I still think blasting is pretty fine without Sudden Bolt. You can do ranger martial damage with minimal resource expenditure and melee martial damage with maximum expenditure.
For me, improving the wizard should be a priority for Paizo. Improving the druid or the bard would make already great classes way too good.
I find it jarring, almost paradoxical, that you think spellcasting in PF2 is in a perfectly fine place, but also think Wizard is a bad class. The Wizard is literally the casteriest of casters: you get more slots than everyone else (4/level for specialist + 1 of any level with Drain), more ways of changing how those slots work (up to 6 top level and 5 top level - 1 with Blending, for example), and that's your whole class. If you think this is weak, doesn't that mean slotted spellcasting by itself is not that strong and it needs strong supplemental features like Divine Font or Compositions to really be worth it? Unlike, for example, a Fighter, where adding more martial to your martial made for a top tier class?
I don't even agree the Wizard is a weak caster, by the way. I'm just adding two and two.
The wizard casting is fine because casting is fine.
It isn't the casteriest of casters. The wizard chassis is boring. The feats aren't great.
Let's take a look at the so called casteriest of casters:
1. If you take the Arcane Thesis that let's you change out spells, then you can at least be the best utility caster. Beyond that you kind of aren't that great. If you don't take that thesis, then your stuck with whatever you picked for spells for the day stuck in single slots and need a day to change spells.
2. Let's look at some of the other classes:
Bard: Bard has a Muse known as the Polymath. This Polymath Muse can obtain a spellbook allowing it to change a single spell per day or add another signature spell. So it has the capacity to slightly change it's spell list given some prep time.
It has access to the Occult list which has the best debuff spell in the game in Synesthesia
Occult has access to healing, illusions, charms, and heroism and all the core quality spells like haste, slow, and the like. It's blasting isn't quite as good, but it does have some decent blasting spells in magic missile and phantasmal calamity as well as Phantasmal killer and weird.
At 18th level a Bard Polymath can start adding spells from any tradition to his spellbook and start changing out spells so he can have a spell from any list any given day.
This is on top of the abilities every bard gets like Inspire Courage and access to his great bard feats.
Sorcerer: Sorcerer has more spell slots. They can know up to 37 spells since their repertoire is equal to their spell slots. They can cast these spontaneously and they get one signature spell per level allowing them to heighten at will at least one spell per level.
Arcane Sorcerer also gets a spell book with Arcane Evolution. This allows them to change out an arcane spell every day or expand a single signature spell.
This is on top of access to better focus spells than the wizard and cross-blooded evolution which allows them to pick up to three spells off any list allowing Arcane Sorcerer to access healing and the best debuff spell synesthesia while being an arcane caster with at least a single changeable spell slot today.
Then toss in a low cost damage booster feat in Dangerous Sorcery.
Druid: If you want to play a blaster, the storm druid gets a great focus spell for doing so on top of the Primal list which it can change spell daily. The primal list has almost every major energy blasting spell, healing, condition removal, and lots of shapechanging.
Then you can also dip into another order so your storm druid can dip to get Wild Shape which allows your blaster druid to now be a somewhat effective melee combatant with forms that get as a powerful as dragon and elemental form and monstrosity multiple times per day. So you can change out breath weapons, mobility, and other unique abilities multiple times per day on top of a great blasting focus spell given you a narrow specialized caster damage build that is very effective.
Where does that leave the wizard?
1. No simple weapon proficiency to grab a weapon with an ancestral feat.
2. Only one Wizard thesis allowing quick spell changing to focus on utility casting.
3. No feats to access other spell lists.
4. Focus spells that do weaker damage or are less effective than other classes with with focus spells. The only class that maxes at two focus points and can only get them back at level 14. Though this doesn't matter too much as the wizard focus spells aren't that good.
5. About the best thing wizards have going is being a Unversalist and building off Arcane Bond. The Arcane Schools don't provide much worth taking leaving the wizard with a single worthwhile build: Universalist with Arcane Bond.
6. Low value main statistic that doesn't improve saving throws, doesn't boost initiative, and doesn't allow the use of skills like Intimidate or Diplomacy that can put downward pressure on saves with one action.
7. Arcane list is not the best spell list as far as powerful applicable spells. Almost every spell list has the basics of fly, haste, and slow. Every other spell list has some healing, some blasting, and other utility spells like illusions. Arcane is probably the most limited spell list as far as roles go, though I guess you do get what I call "Cool Guy utility" that allows you to do little things like make magic mailboxes, but they aren't particularly helpful if your fellow group member is laying dying on the ground and needs a heal or which the the Occult and Primal list can do while also having the fly, haste, blasting, and with Occult the illusions and such.
8. You have to take feats to get incredibly weak spontaneous casting worse than other classes have allowing them to access your best ability to change out spells on their spell list.
The wizard needs something more to make them worth doing over some of the other classes with far better feat and build options.
Also, I should add: I saw a lot of mentions of Sudden Bolt in this thread, regarding proof that casters can do good single target damage.
Sudden Bolt is an outlier. It's a Uncommon spell that's not allowed in PFS and considered by many to be "broken AP content". The amount of damage Sudden Bolt does above the average 2d6/level AoE of its level is ridiculous. Like, 90-ish percent more. Most other single target spells only gain a small amount of damage compared to standard progression.
If we had a Sudden Bolt equivalent for every spell level, at Common rarity, I'm sure 90% of the complaints about caster damage would evaporate. Sadly, I don't see Paizo doing that, as much as I think it's a perfectly fine spell.
This is somewhat true. Not just because the damage, but also it's easy to use on a single target where AoE spells that do good damage are not. I feel like casters could use a line of single target spells, but another part of me knows that would make them too strong in single target damage maybe while also doing all the other stuff.
I barely like playing martials as it is as higher level. Martials lose their luster around level 10. Martials start off great out of the gate, but kind of do the same thing waiting for their next magic weapon upgrade across 20 levels. Even their feats are often do more of the same thing.
The monk gets a few little flexibility in attacks and the rogue at least gets a lot of skills. But the fighter does this very narrowband thing super well, but he does that from 1st to 20. Bores me to tears.
Those are fair points, but all but the last one also apply to Sorcerers, which Deriven seems to consider a good class.Fighters have an exceptionally strong chassis, with good saves, heavy armor, AOO... legendary in attack rolls is just the Fighter's special damage bonus, and as good as it is the Fighter would not be particularly impressive if you left it with only the accuracy. Focus spells are a pretty fundamental part of how casters work and the wizard being stuck with a lot of bad ones is a huge deal.
On the other hand Wizards have a lot of legacy weaknesses in their chassis that don't really make sense in balance with the other casters. Arbitrarily low AC with no armor and no way to mitigate that, bad saves (why are wizards not legendary in will exactly?), not even simple weapon proficiency.
Sorcerer build options are pretty amazing and more importantly fun.
Flexible spell lists. Flexible bloodlines. Cross-blooded. Dangerous sorcerery for an easy damage boost. 37 spells for free mostly. Ability to gain 3 focus spells and get them all back. Simple weapon proficiency making it easy to grab a weapon ancestry feat. Spontaneous casting with signature spells.
You can build a sorcerer blaster, arcane utility caster, healer, illusion guy, and just about any role with a sorcerer.
Paizo keeps adding cool bloodlines and that's the limit on the sorcerer options.
I like building sorcerers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think at this point people should just accept that Deriven doesn't like the wizard class, feels like we keep circling around that... but in the end it's okay to not like a class. I don't really like Bards, myself.
I think at this point people should just accept that Deriven doesn't like the wizard class, feels like we keep circling around that... but in the end it's okay to not like a class. I don't really like Bards, myself.
I love the wizard class. I played a ton of them in PF1 and every edition of D&D prior. What they did to the PF2 wizard is a shame. It's exceedingly disappointing that you can build a better version of a "wizard" in terms of what you want a wizard to do by using other classes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things I love about the wizard!
DISCLAIMER: I fully acknowledge that some things here, some people will make RAI arguments against. That's nice. But these interact as they are presented are RAW.
1) They have mostly bad class feats!
I know that this is an odd thing to lead with but it relates to later ones. I appreciate the bad class feats because it makes me feel fine about using said class feats on dedications. Wizard class stuffs have interesting interactions with spellcasting dedications.
2) Arcane schools. A fun flavorful choice that has little bearing except giving you an extra spell slot of each level which you must use to prepare a spell of the chosen school.
3) Arcane Thesis. The thesis are the most interesting aspects of the wizard because none of them, except metamagic, only interact with your wizard spells.
Spell Blending can allow you to get more slots of a spellcasting dedication. Or, you can just use dedication slots to fuel more wizard slots.
Spell substitution requires the slots to be prepared and in your spellbook. Spellbooks are not limited to just Arcane spells. Do you have a divine or primal dedication with prepared slots? Did someone in your crew just contract something? Did you write that spell into your spellbook? Reprepare. Those other classes would have to wait until tomorrow, but not you.
Staff Nexus is kinda like spell blending except the other direction ish. Want to build a melee wizard that 2 hands a stave? Plop true strike on that puppy and turn it into whatever other stave you want. Or, prepare as many spell attack spells you want. You can have a true strike for each of them. Another fun option yet again involves spellcasting dedications again. Did you pick up the divine or primal list? Rock a staff of healing. At level 8+ sack a couple higher level slots and have some solid healing ability.
4) Drain Bonded Item. Guess what doesn't just interact with your wizard spells!? D..B..I!! Do you have prepared spellcasting dedication slots? Did you cast one of them? Do you want to cast it again? Go ahead! Also, as if that wasn't cool enough, are you a universalist? YUUP! DBI once per spell level.
I'd say that wizards really are the castiest caster.
3) Arcane Thesis. The thesis are the most interesting aspects of the wizard because none of them, except metamagic, only interact with your wizard spells.Spell Blending can allow you to get more slots of a spellcasting dedication. Or, you can just use dedication slots to fuel more wizard slots.
Spell Blending does not do this. It allows you to use lower level slots to get higher level slots, not more slots. You in fact have fewer slots for lower level spells like mirror image or true strike.
Spell substitution requires the slots to be prepared and in your spellbook. Spellbooks are not limited to just Arcane spells. Do you have a divine or primal dedication with prepared slots? Did someone in your crew just contract something? Did you write that spell into your spellbook? Reprepare. Those other classes would have to wait until tomorrow, but not you.
You can't cast anything but Arcane Spells, so it doesn't matter if spells not on the Arcane list are in spellbooks. You still can't cast them. Not sure why you think you can. There is no ruling I've seen that allows this.
Staff Nexus is kinda like spell blending except the other direction ish. Want to build a melee wizard that 2 hands a stave? Plop true strike on that puppy and turn it into whatever other stave you want. Or, prepare as many spell attack spells you want. You can have a true strike for each of them. Another fun option yet again involves spellcasting dedications again. Did you pick up the divine or primal list? Rock a staff of healing. At level 8+ sack a couple higher level slots and have some solid healing ability.
You cannot use spells not on your spell list. Still not sure why you think you can.
So what Leo is saying is the wizard can do stuff they can't normally do if you have a really friendly DM that doesn't bother to follow the rules for the wizard. And for him that's what makes them fun, but if he had to follow the rules for wizards and couldn't do any of the above stuff, I guess he would got to a class that can.
C'mon Leo. At least use the rules for wizards to make the wizard sound good, not using some kind of house ruling you or your DM allow that isn't remotely a common ruling.
Can't you prove the wizard is worthwhile without adding rules in?
Nothing I listed is not exactly how each class's feats work. Usable in every game that follows even the base rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't you prove the wizard is worthwhile without adding rules in?
Well, as dissatisfied as I might be with the current state of casters, Spell Blending Wizard getting 6 (5+Bond) top level slots is certainly worth something. That's 50% more than Sorcerers and double what other casters get. PF2 has a lot of spell types that only work well while in a max level slot, and in my experience that by itself already gives Wizards some interesting niches.
If anything, I think the Wizard's biggest sin is not being weak, but being boring. Their focus spells suck, school specialists aren't specialists at all, and Intelligence has a lot less interesting uses than other stats, so "I have a ton of my strongest slots" really is everything they have going for them. Good potential power, but not very inspired IMO.
I'll break down the wizard to make it sound at least a little better.
What does the wizard do well enough?
1. Arcane Thesis: You only get one.
Spell Substitution: This allows you to change out spells within 10 minutes or so throughout the day to make your slots more flexible. This makes you an excellent utility caster to solve problems throughout an adventuring day. Not necessarily in combat, but out of combat it can be nice to be able to grab a needed spell.
Downside is it is very expensive to stack your spellbook unless the DM is fairly generous with handing out spellbooks full of spells for you to copy. It can take a lot of gold to acquire spells and write them in your book, though some feats reduce this cost and make it easier as long as you have sufficient downtime.
Spell Blending: Blend lower slots to gain more higher level slots. Some people like more higher level slots, but it's fairly costly in lower level slots which do have some uses as you get higher level.
Metamagical Experimentation: This feat is only as valuable as the metamagic feats available to you. I imagine it will become more valuable as more metamagic feats come out, but I do like this Thesis myself. Not quite as much as Substitution, but probably my second favorite.
Staff Nexus and Familiar I don't bother much with. Just not very good in my experience.
2. Intelligence based skills and skill feats: Magical Shorthand is helpful in building your spellbook.
You can make a good Crafter focusing on intelligence. Crafting is not great, but can be nice for producing consumables of lower level spells. Making lower level scrolls can be a cheap way to expand your daily casting and you can do it very efficiently with crafting as long as the DM provides you sufficient downtime.
Recall Knowledge can be helpful. You eventually get Unified Theory where you can make all Recall Knowledge checks using Intel-based Arcana. This not bad when nearly every major casting skill running through Arcana makes you one of the best for making checks against creatures and generally helpful checks during adventures.
3. Feats unique to the wizard:
Scroll Savant: Easy, cheap way to pick up additional spell slots per day.
Bond Conservation: Not sure if this is supposed to run like this, but the way it is written and I've seen it explained a Universalist Wizard using Bond Conservation as they get higher level can use Bond Conservation on multiple uses of Arcane Bond for lower and lower level spells which helps conserve slots when buffing or can allow you to chain certain spells across rounds.
It takes some careful tracking of Arcane Bond use, but gives you good bang for the buck using Arcane Bond as a Unversalist who gets up to 9 uses of Arcane Bond per day, one use per spell level.
Superior Bond:. Another use of Arcane Bond which can be used in conjunction with Bond Conservation.
Reprepare Spell: Another ability to keep casting a 4th or level spell with no duration every 10 minutes.
Level 20 feats:
Spell Combination: This is what allows mega-disintegrate which is truly a nasty spell combination. Spell combination does lead to some nasty spell combos.
Spell Mastery: 4 extra spells of different levels per day up to 9th level you can change once a week.
It's a tough road to get to level 20 for the ultimate mega-disintegrate, but if you think you'll make it to 20 and want to use mega-disintegrate you might feel it was worth it.
The wizard isn't lacking completely, but it's definitely not a top tier caster class that can fill a limited number of roles in a party. It's strongest role is utility casting which it does better than nearly any other class if you take the Spell Substitution Thesis.
And it's level 20 feats have a few that are really good choices.
You are missing silent spell. Which is really good in PF2 and wizard only.
Some casters and some martials feel worse.
You can't group by caster and martial in PF2. It doesn't work well.
I don't know why people are hanging on to this designation when it doesn't work for PF2.
Some PF2 casters are well designed, powerful, and highly capable.
I think the summoner, wizard, witch, swashbuckler, and investigator play terrible. I'm giving the summoner a chance until I play it out to 20 before I decide how I feel exactly about it.
Swashbuckler I'm absolutely sure Panache generation is the big problem with the class. Class feels great with Panache, feels terrible without it. There are more than a few fights where panache generation is rough.
Wizard and witch don't have great build options and intelligence needs some high value skill feats.
Investigators main combat ability is too limited and doesn't stack up well with Sneak Attack when it competes in the same role as the rogue.
Summoner is in a very weird place with potential. It does have interesting action economy. The shared hit point pool makes healing easier, but at the same time makes attacking and saves for AoE effects painful, more than they should be. Getting knocked unconscious is pretty terrible and takes forever to get back into combat. Feels like a feat tax to somewhat mitigate this. Damage feels way too low for the eidolon. Shared attack roll hurts badly for using any cantrip other than a save one like electric arc. Upside is the Summoner is flexible and you can probably build it into a healer or some other role. Summoner feels close to right in PF2, but a little off and could use some tweaking.
Some casters feel amazing. Buffing up the bard or druid would just make them the best classes in the game bar none. I wouldn't give the bard or druid any buff ups at all. Sorcerer is mostly fine. Not much to do with them either. Cleric could use some more interesting feats.
I'd focus all my adjustments on Witch and Wizard. Mostly with the feats and maybe give the Wizard simple weapon proficiencies so they can Gandalf it up a little.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Wizard is good because they can spend 2 feats to cast covertly? When they were the go to class for using metamagic such as dazing. Which Druids and Bards just need 1 feat to hide everything by simply doing what they already wanted to do. The wizard's version is in fact worse because it wants them to use Stealth as opposed to Nature (Druid) or Performance (Bard).
While technically correct, that's missing a few major problems. Druid requires natural terrain (which can easily be an issue) and Bards require already conducting a Performance, an attention-grabbing act by default.
The summoner feels like the disadvantage of being in melee combat at the same time as trying to play a caster. Even with the higher hit point pool it doesn't seem to matter because you're right there in melee combat getting smacked with the martials and the monsters hit real hard and easy. If someone decides to attack the summoner as well as their eidolon getting attacked, you end up in a world of pain with weak caster defenses on your summoner and not much protecting your eidolon either. So you end up going down faster with no real means to escape. That's how it feels sometimes as a summoner.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
I suppose I didn't explain well enough.
When you make your daily preparations, you can trade two spell slots of the same level for a bonus spell slot of up to 2 levels higher than the traded spell slots. You can exchange as many spell slots as you have available. Bonus spell slots must be of a level you can normally cast, and each bonus spell slot must be of a different spell level. You can also trade any spell slot for two additional cantrips, though you cannot trade more than one spell slot at a time for additional cantrips in this way.
Note how it only references spell slots. Dedication spellcasting slots are slots as well. As such they can be affected by spell blending. For example, an 8th level wizard with cleric dedication and basic cleric spellcasting could sacrifice 2 1st level spell slots from wizard to gain an additional 3rd level cleric spell slot.
You can spend 10 minutes to empty one of your prepared spell slots and prepare a different spell from your spellbook in its place. If you are interrupted during such a swap, the original spell remains prepared and can still be cast. You can try again to swap out the spell later, but you must start the process over again.
Again, this doesn't specify that it only applies to wizard spells. The requirement is that it is a prepared slot. A cleric dedication spell slot is a prepared slot. Similarly, an 8th level wizard with cleric dedication and basic cleric spellcasting with Restoration in its spellbook, could spend 10 minutes to reprepare an initially prepared level 2 Heal into a level 2 Restoration.
You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level. Casting a Spell from a staff requires holding the staff (typically in one hand) and Activating the staff by Casting the Spell, which takes the spell’s normal number of actions.
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can,
Similarly, an 8th level wizard with cleric dedication and basic cleric spellcasting can have crafted their staff into a greater staff of healing. They can sacrifice a second and third level wizard slots to the stave and be able to cast 4 3rd level Heal spells between the stave and their dedication slot. (5 with DBI)
Small sidenote to Leo's praise for the multiclassed Wizard, if you don't like multiclassing you can get the same effect with Cathartic Mage and just have more Wizard per Wizard. Cathartic doesn't require charisma if you're already a caster.
......I suppose I didn't explain well enough.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
I see. That is better.
Pretty sure the Thesis doesn't work that way for Spell Substitution, but you are technically correct that it does not explicitly state only wizard spells. Not sure what PFS does, but I would not allow that kind of strange reading at my table. So this would not work at my table unless Paizo explicitly states it is allowed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see. That is better.Pretty sure the Thesis doesn't work that way for Spell Substitution, but you are technically correct that it does not explicitly state only wizard spells. Not sure what PFS does, but I would not allow that kind of strange reading at my table. So this would not work at my table unless Paizo explicitly states it is allowed.
Thank you.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
'Strange reading'? Do you mean, how it is written? Goodness forbid the wizard, the toted 'castiest caster', 'supposed to be the greatest spellcaster' be able to do interesting things with spells of any tradition. It's not like that wouldn't have a cost. You have to have a spell in your spellbook in order to substitute it in.