Pathfinder Martial vs Caster Balance - is this right?

[Captain Morgan]

Longer fights are also where duration spells start to pay big dividends. Sustained spells, buffs like Haste, persistent damage... All better across long fights. If you're trying to use an instantaneous spell from your top slot every round, you'll run out. But what you really should be doing is casting a sustained or DoT spell on the first round and then adding the other spells on top.

[Deriven Firelion]

I've found as a caster, using a weapon along with spells allows you to keep up in damage pretty well.

You often end up getting one weapon attack with a magical weapon, then a save cantrip or spell for additional damage. This is especially good if you have a good focus spell you can use a few times or more a combat as you get higher level.

There are also a lot of decent sustain spells for that third action option to use with a cantrip as well.

I believe this was taken into account when balancing casters. It would be pretty imbalanced if the caster could unleash a fireball then do a 1 action cantrip that does almost as much damage as the martial's weapon attack.

[Ed Reppert]

Why is damage the measure of balance?

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

It isn't the only metric.

[pauljathome]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Why is damage the measure of balance?

While it most certainly is not THE measure of balance in the vast majority of campaigns it is A measure of balance.

Or, somewhat more accurately, combat effectiveness is A measure of balance. In many (most?) cases that is damage but nobody is suggesting that the bard or Champion (to take 2 glaringly obvious examples) aren't contributing because the personal damage they inflict isn't all that great.

And IF you're significantly not competitive in terms of damage then you really should be bringing SOMETHING else to the table in combat to compensate.

And, as always, amounts matter. If you're doing 5% less damage than another character that is no huge deal and the fact that you're wonderful at shmoozing out of combat almost certainly more than compensates for that. But if you're doing only 20% of the damage then, in most campaigns, your shmoozing skills will NOT compensate

[breithauptclan]

pauljathome wrote:

Or, somewhat more accurately, combat effectiveness is A measure of balance. In many (most?) cases that is damage but nobody is suggesting that the bard or Champion (to take 2 glaringly obvious examples) aren't contributing because the personal damage they inflict isn't all that great.

I'm not so sure that I would go so far as to say that nobody argues that. That very thing is something I hear a lot when discussing classes like Witch, Alchemist, and Swashbuckler.

[Squiggit]

I mostly hear "only damage matters" brought up as a straw man to diminish someone criticizing an aspect of the system.

Like someone will list 10 things they don't like about a class or 8 reasons something isn't balanced well and one of them will be damage and the reply will be "DPR isn't the only thing that matters why is that all you talk about"

[Gortle]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Why is damage the measure of balance?

Because it is possible to put a number on it and compare it.

Yes you have to make some assumptions, but you can even pout a value on effects like inspire courage,

[Deriven Firelion]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Why is damage the measure of balance?

First, it depends on your role.

At the same time if the goal is to build a damage caster, then you want the damage caster to be equal to the martials at dealing damage.

That's the discussion in this thread: martials do more damage when building for that role. It's pretty clear casters can handle the healing, buffing, and the like.

The biggest complaint is when trying to build a damage caster they don't measure up to martials.

That's why I'm making it clear that I have built plenty of damage casters that measure up to martials, but if you're just relying on a cantrip a round of course you're not going to measure up because you can spike damage with spells. That's damage casting by design.

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, damage is an important metric because frequently you can only advance once the party has dealt a sufficient amount of damage in a given encounter.

It's not the only thing that matters, it's just one of those "somebody needs to be good enough at this" things.

[breithauptclan]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, damage is an important metric because frequently you can only advance once the party has dealt a sufficient amount of damage in a given encounter.

It's not the only thing that matters, it's just one of those "somebody needs to be good enough at this" things.

What I find interesting is that I have seen more campaign plots get derailed by the one skilled party member unexpectedly failing an important skill check than by the party taking an extra round or two to kill something.

And as a result, I see a lot of recommendations of just handwaving away out of combat skill checks, providing copious amounts of alternate paths forward, or liberal use of fail-forward. And while all of those are very good things to do, it does also give the impression that out of combat utility is not nearly as important as combat power. Building for combat is essential, but failing to build for out of combat power - well, the GM will just let the plot progress anyway.

[Temperans]

The game is built around damage and mitigating damage. I have no idea why people see that 60-80% of the game is built around that and then go "you should stop complaining that you aren't allowed to participate".

Also, yeah damage is 1 of like 20 complaints that gets thrown around, accuracy being a bigger issue than raw damage.

[breithauptclan]

Temperans wrote:

The game is built around damage and mitigating damage.

Really? And here I thought the game was built around role-playing and story telling.

And I don't see any classes in print that aren't able to participate in the dealing and mitigating damage part of the game.

[Arachnofiend]

breithauptclan wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

Or, somewhat more accurately, combat effectiveness is A measure of balance. In many (most?) cases that is damage but nobody is suggesting that the bard or Champion (to take 2 glaringly obvious examples) aren't contributing because the personal damage they inflict isn't all that great.

I'm not so sure that I would go so far as to say that nobody argues that. That very thing is something I hear a lot when discussing classes like Witch, Alchemist, and Swashbuckler.

Swashbuckler is a good example actually, because Swashbuckler does gonzo damage when its thing actually happens. Swashbuckler's problem is unreliability, needing to succeed twice to hit once is going to be hard no matter how big the reward is for it. Swashbuckler's problems are likely a big part of why the Thaumaturge still gets personal antithesis on a failure.

[Temperans]

breithauptclan wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, damage is an important metric because frequently you can only advance once the party has dealt a sufficient amount of damage in a given encounter.

It's not the only thing that matters, it's just one of those "somebody needs to be good enough at this" things.

What I find interesting is that I have seen more campaign plots get derailed by the one skilled party member unexpectedly failing an important skill check than by the party taking an extra round or two to kill something.

And as a result, I see a lot of recommendations of just handwaving away out of combat skill checks, providing copious amounts of alternate paths forward, or liberal use of fail-forward. And while all of those are very good things to do, it does also give the impression that out of combat utility is not nearly as important as combat power. Building for combat is essential, but failing to build for out of combat power - well, the GM will just let the plot progress anyway.

This has a lot to do with how few skill increases games give, limiting how wide a player can go. How difficult the game is balanced around; high difficulty means more chances of catastrophic failure. Players having the expectation that they should always advance the plot forward because "no, but" and "yes, but" style of play.

The first two sets up how likely a skill is to fail or someone even having the skill in the first place. Meanwhile, the last one is purely players being taught that failure is bad and any GM that doesn't accommodate is bad.

The last reason is why so many people hate the bad critical role fans and players that think similarly. Where the GM not going along with whatever dumb idea they have is immediately called out as being a bad GM.

[Temperans]

breithauptclan wrote:

Temperans wrote:

The game is built around damage and mitigating damage.

Really? And here I thought the game was built around role-playing and story telling.

And I don't see any classes in print that aren't able to participate in the dealing and mitigating damage part of the game.

RPGs by definition are built around story telling. What sets different systems apart is what they focus on in the mechanics.

Fate is a pure storytelling game spending its time solely on how to tell a story.
Call of Cthulhu is mostly a storytelling game spending most of its time of how to tell a story.
5e is a mixed story/combat game because it spends about equal times working on both combat and how to tell a story.
PF2 is somewhat storytelling war game because it spends more time on combat than storytelling.
Warhammer is a wargame that focuses on combat, but you can tell stories with.
**************************

Also, the complaints have been that some classes are better than at using the game systems. That includes some classes being straight up worse at damage dealing/mitigation.

[Vodalian]

Someone wise on these forums once said this (I don't remember who it was): No campaigns (except maybe the very worst ones) have ended due to the player's missing an out-of-combat ability. No AP will include a legendary skill check that none of the group's members has to progress the story, the GM will always find an alternative path for the players to take.

In contrast: lack of combat ability will ALWAYS pose an existential threat to the party and failing at it will lead to death not occasionally, but most times. Thus in-combat abilities in traditional DnD type TTRPGS will always carry infinitely more weight than out-of-combat abilities.

TLDR: When damage and hp are insufficient: the adventurers' journeys immediately end. When Out-of-combat abilities are insufficient: a reasonable GM will find a way to progress the story anyway.

[Squiggit]

breithauptclan wrote:

And as a result, I see a lot of recommendations of just handwaving away out of combat skill checks, providing copious amounts of alternate paths forward, or liberal use of fail-forward. And while all of those are very good things to do, it does also give the impression that out of combat utility is not nearly as important as combat power. Building for combat is essential, but failing to build for out of combat power - well, the GM will just let the plot progress anyway.

It's sort of a tricky needle to thread because you want out of combat stuff to be relevant, but at the same time there's a lot more variance in out of combat capabilities.

Combat is such a core feature of PF2 that everyone is expected to be able to do it. The worst combination of classes you can think of can still be expected to have some capability to solve problems through violence.

But Pathfinder doesn't seem to value parity nearly as much out of combat. It's easy to create a team that can't handle a certain type of challenge. It's not considered a balance problem for certain classes to have massively better skill options than others, or spells and feats and features designed to solve problems while another might be mostly combat focused. It's not even particularly strange for a player to maybe not have the ability to participate in a scene because they lack relevant skills.

So I feel like we're in this weird spot where these factors are important gameplay considerations, but Pathfinder also almost demands we handwave and play around it because running these scenarios with the same rigor we put into running combat would make the game absolutely miserable.

Paizo started a good idea with free Lore skills and standardizing skill increases to help normalize out of combat experiences, but then it seems like they kind of gave up without following through all the way and we get rogues and a very small skill pool and the steep scaling of the proficiency system all undermining those advances.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Here is my take:

1. Damage in important becasue well... it's all about reducing enemy to 0 HP and preventing PCs to be reduced to 0 HP. Sure, you can "win" encounter by sneaking by etc. but when it is combat (and most encounters are) then it's damage vs damage. But I look at it as party damage. If you have one beefy fighter upfront then every buff thrown at him: Heroism, True Target, Aid, Inspire X etc. and every debuff thrown at enemy: Slow, Freightened, Prone etc. is a damage multipler, suddenly making that Fighter to crit like mofo on 10+ and reducing enemy to atoms in 2 turns. So damage is imporant but not direct damage from every class, however everything in the end in combat is aimed to reduce enemy damage (Slow effectively reduced their offense for example) and increase your party damage (accuracy is mathematically increase in damage etc.). So I won't judge Bard on how much damage HE does but how much more damage THANKS TO HIM party does. And that's why support style/classes are awesome in PF2e! That bard is doing same work as party Fighter, just in different way, but in the end: it results in reducing enemy to 0 HP faster and more efficient.

2. People who complain about X class not doing damage, by for example playing above mentioned Bard, are just not team-players. They want to be the One that deals damage, they dont want to rely on someone else etc. They always have that "Superhero" image of their character in head and can't cope with fact that some classes are made to contribute in different ways, which is still huge but not shown with "big number above enemy head" if you catch my drift. I don't think those people will ever be pleased.

3. To follow up on 1 and 2: party effective damage is important as in 9/10 cases where players TPK or lose characters: it's in combat encounters. Not in some off combat skill checks. So obviously yes, damage matters but the brilliance of PF2e (for me) is that it's meassured by combined arms party effort, not bunch of individuals trying to hog "combat monster" spotlight. And I really really love it.

[Temperans]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Here is my take:

1. Damage in important becasue well... it's all about reducing enemy to 0 HP and preventing PCs to be reduced to 0 HP. Sure, you can "win" encounter by sneaking by etc. but when it is combat (and most encounters are) then it's damage vs damage. But I look at it as party damage. If you have one beefy fighter upfront then every buff thrown at him: Heroism, True Target, Aid, Inspire X etc. and every debuff thrown at enemy: Slow, Freightened, Prone etc. is a damage multipler, suddenly making that Fighter to crit like mofo on 10+ and reducing enemy to atoms in 2 turns. So damage is imporant but not direct damage from every class, however everything in the end in combat is aimed to reduce enemy damage (Slow effectively reduced their offense for example) and increase your party damage (accuracy is mathematically increase in damage etc.). So I won't judge Bard on how much damage HE does but how much more damage THANKS TO HIM party does. And that's why support style/classes are awesome in PF2e! That bard is doing same work as party Fighter, just in different way, but in the end: it results in reducing enemy to 0 HP faster and more efficient.

2. People who complain about X class not doing damage, by for example playing above mentioned Bard, are just not team-players. They want to be the One that deals damage, they dont want to rely on someone else etc. They always have that "Superhero" image of their character in head and can't cope with fact that some classes are made to contribute in different ways, which is still huge but not shown with "big number above enemy head" if you catch my drift. I don't think those people will ever be pleased.

3. To follow up on 1 and 2: party effective damage is important as in 9/10 cases where players TPK or lose characters: it's in combat encounters. Not in some off combat skill checks. So obviously yes, damage matters but the brilliance of PF2e (for me) is that it's meassured by combined arms party effort, not bunch of individuals trying to hog "combat monster"...

This is literally the meme of you had us in the first half.

Starting on point two your whole thing is literal nonsense. Just because someone wants to play a damage caster does not mean that they are selfish. Just like someone wanting to play a utility character doesn't mean they don't want to be the main character.

This doesn't even have to do with superhero but straight up just how the stories of great wizards are. No one everyone wants to play the guy who is just following around big guy to make sure he gets where he needs to be. Some people want to play the person who uses a rocket launcher and flamethrower to solve problems (blaster casters).

Finally, damage has always been measured in total party effort. The idea that it wasn't is insane. What PF2 did was make it so the numbers range with a +/-2 instead of +/-10 making things a lot less swingy. The reason why casters aren't allowed to deal damage has nothing to do with "hogging combat monster", its entirely because people like you incorrectly assume that a caster dealing good damage 3-5 times a day somehow is "being a damage hog". All while ignoring that people in other editions complain about support casters invalidating combat, not damage casters.

[Squiggit]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

People who complain about X class not doing damage, by for example playing above mentioned Bard, are just not team-players. They want to be the One that deals damage, they dont want to rely on someone else etc. They always have that "Superhero" image of their character in head and can't cope with fact that some classes are made to contribute in different ways, which is still huge but not shown with "big number above enemy head" if you catch my drift. I don't think those people will ever be pleased.

That is a really negative character assessment just because someone wants to play a damage dealer. Seems a bit much.

Is this how you'd describe the fighter's player in your scenario too? Are they selfish, unable to be pleased, and have a complex because they chose to be the party's main damage dealer?

[Trixleby]

Sometimes people come from other games and therefore have inspired ideas about what they'd like to play in the form of a caster, like the ArchMage from WC3 with summon water elemental, and blizzard, or the blood mage with his fire explosion, and phoenix.

Or maybe we play a Destruction Warlock, or a Demonology Warlock or a Fire/Frost Mage in Warcraft. Or a Black Mage in FFXIV.

[YuriP]

Exactly. Many people come with the image of glass cannon caster that's is stronger than mostly other classes in damage output but weaker defensively but this isn't happen in PF2 due design choices. This make blasters casters build frustrating.

Our hope this can change a bit after the Kineticist release.

[Sanityfaerie]

YuriP wrote:

Exactly. Many people come with the image of glass cannon caster that's is stronger than mostly other classes in damage output but weaker defensively but this isn't happen in PF2 due design choices. This make blasters casters build frustrating.

Our hope this can change a bit after the Kineticist release.

...and once we get there, that we can find helpful ways to route those people to the kineticist who will make them happy, rather than the wizard who will make them sad.

[Lucerious]

YuriP wrote:

Exactly. Many people come with the image of glass cannon caster that's is stronger than mostly other classes in damage output but weaker defensively but this isn't happen in PF2 due design choices. This make blasters casters build frustrating.

The casters are still glass just no cannons.

[YuriP]

Lucerious wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Exactly. Many people come with the image of glass cannon caster that's is stronger than mostly other classes in damage output but weaker defensively but this isn't happen in PF2 due design choices. This make blasters casters build frustrating.

The casters are still glass just no cannons.

Depends. This is a bit workaroundable. Every char can use shields also Shield Block is a General Feat while Champion archetype can give a caster proficiency to heavy armors and we have items like Drakeheart Mutagen. So still possible and relative easily to make high AC casters (yet they can't be master in defensive proficiency these options improves the defensive situation a lot).

[arcady]

I don't know... re-designing your system to cater to people you're trying to lure away from WoW / FFXIV was the design theory behind D&D 4E...

Not sure that's the best road to go down again.

Being a wide spectrum utility is more of the historical roots for casters in D&D based games. Yeah your AD&D 1E Wizard had fireball, but they also had a whole host of other things back in the days with none of the classes even had skills. Some of those things were combat related and some were not.

Magical characters have always been a grab bag of tricks.

I'm still standing where I was a week ago in this thread. I don't see casters as weaker, just higher 'player skill floor' for 'most' of them. And this is a good thing because it lets players of different levels of 'mental investment' remain engaged.

[Deriven Firelion]

Lucerious wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Exactly. Many people come with the image of glass cannon caster that's is stronger than mostly other classes in damage output but weaker defensively but this isn't happen in PF2 due design choices. This make blasters casters build frustrating.

The casters are still glass just no cannons.

How are they not cannons when you have 300 plus damage rounds or higher as you level up?

We let the psychic kill a CR 9 swarm alone because he had a much easier time than the martials when he was level 8.

Let's be specific here because casters are cannons.

People here want a caster that does high single target damage against a boss level mob on a consistent basis. That's what they want.

Because casters already do the following:

1. Way more damage against multiple creatures, especially at higher level. You often multiple creatures at higher level for hundreds of points of damage spread across them.

2. Occasionally you smash a single target boss mob if you get a lucky critical fail and/or use multiple sources of damage.

People on here want a single target damage caster that acts as a martial with spells. I don't think they'll get it myself unless it does damage like an archer, but martial archer damage is how any ranged damage caster should be balanced.

Not like a single target martial doing damage in melee range.

There are no stronger than "glass" cannons in PF2. Even a fighter or barbarian in melee range of a boss mob is a "glass" cannon because they will be hit and critical hit easily by boss level monsters. There is no escaping damage in PF2 save not to be in range to take it.

[Lucerious]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Lucerious wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Exactly. Many people come with the image of glass cannon caster that's is stronger than mostly other classes in damage output but weaker defensively but this isn't happen in PF2 due design choices. This make blasters casters build frustrating.

The casters are still glass just no cannons.

How are they not cannons when you have 300 plus damage rounds or higher as you level up?

We let the psychic kill a CR 9 swarm alone because he had a much easier time than the martials when he was level 8.

Let's be specific here because casters are cannons.

People here want a caster that does high single target damage against a boss level mob on a consistent basis. That's what they want.

Because casters already do the following:

1. Way more damage against multiple creatures, especially at higher level. You often multiple creatures at higher level for hundreds of points of damage spread across them.

2. Occasionally you smash a single target boss mob if you get a lucky critical fail and/or use multiple sources of damage.

People on here want a single target damage caster that acts as a martial with spells. I don't think they'll get it myself unless it does damage like an archer, but martial archer damage is how any ranged damage caster should be balanced.

Not like a single target martial doing damage in melee range.

There are no stronger than "glass" cannons in PF2. Even a fighter or barbarian in melee range of a boss mob is a "glass" cannon because they will be hit and critical hit easily by boss level monsters. There is no escaping damage in PF2 save not to be in range to take it.

Our experiences are different so I will just say that aside from NPCs I have run, I only play blaster casters and have played 4 so far in PF2. Each one has been lackluster except for specific moments (usually resulting in lucky rolls), but I play them because that’s what I like regardless. I believe AoE numbers to be misleading as total damage is different than target damage. I can hit 10 enemies with a fireball doing 20 damage to each for a whopping 200 damage. However, each one has 120hp and I didn’t end the fight any sooner.

Experiences will vary.

[Deriven Firelion]

Lucerious wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Lucerious wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Exactly. Many people come with the image of glass cannon caster that's is stronger than mostly other classes in damage output but weaker defensively but this isn't happen in PF2 due design choices. This make blasters casters build frustrating.

The casters are still glass just no cannons.

How are they not cannons when you have 300 plus damage rounds or higher as you level up?

We let the psychic kill a CR 9 swarm alone because he had a much easier time than the martials when he was level 8.

Let's be specific here because casters are cannons.

People here want a caster that does high single target damage against a boss level mob on a consistent basis. That's what they want.

Because casters already do the following:

1. Way more damage against multiple creatures, especially at higher level. You often multiple creatures at higher level for hundreds of points of damage spread across them.

2. Occasionally you smash a single target boss mob if you get a lucky critical fail and/or use multiple sources of damage.

People on here want a single target damage caster that acts as a martial with spells. I don't think they'll get it myself unless it does damage like an archer, but martial archer damage is how any ranged damage caster should be balanced.

Not like a single target martial doing damage in melee range.

There are no stronger than "glass" cannons in PF2. Even a fighter or barbarian in melee range of a boss mob is a "glass" cannon because they will be hit and critical hit easily by boss level monsters. There is no escaping damage in PF2 save not to be in range to take it.

Our experiences are different so I will just say that aside from NPCs I have run, I only play blaster casters and have played 4 so far in PF2. Each one has been lackluster except for specific moments (usually resulting in lucky rolls), but I play them because that’s what I like regardless. I believe AoE numbers to be...

If you're only using fireball, you haven't played a caster to very high level. But even fireball can be effective. Myself and another level 9 caster the other day destroyed an entire group of skeletal giant zombies with fireballs without the martials needing to touch them. Just a few fireballs burnt their hit points down. CR 7 giant zombies all done, eight of them by fireball bombardment.

AOE is not misleading. It does immense damage over a lot of mobs. I have had plenty of characters that hit a group of targets for hundreds of damage and it was effective, especially when there are additional effects for spells like phantasmal calamity or sunburst.

The designers can only use standard numbers and damage from available spells to rate blaster casters damage compared to martials. Since I have tracked numbers across multiple campaigns and characters, I can say that numerically AoE damage and spells do much more damage than martials in AoE.

The place where martials shine is single target damage.

There is no variation. There is only how someone feels versus how numbers in the game work. Numbers in the game clearly show casters are cannons that do nutty levels of damage as they level up, especially so to groups of creatures that would tear martials up in combat.

You feel like you didn't do much. But what you are capable of far exceeds what martials are capable of as you gain more levels and power whether it is damage or overall effect.

It would be completely imbalanced to give casters higher single target damage when they can also cast AoE slow, phantasmal killer, eclipse burst, and a variety of other absolutely brutal spell effects that far exceed martial capability.

Martials defenses are not good enough for them to stand in battle without caster backing a great deal of the time. They get ripped apart fairly quickly, so the defensive argument also isn't a strong one.

This also isn't variable in experience. It's all right there in the numbers.

[Unicore]

wizard has never really been a top tier single target blaster in D&D or in Pathfinder. There just isn't room for it on a class that can completely change its spells memorized from day to day. We will see how blasty they have made the kineticist. I will be shocked if it is far enough to satisfy the "we need a blaster caster!" crowd, but it'd be great if it did. I just think the number of people that don't seem satisfied with short bow martial ranged damage makes me think that we won't get close to pleasing everyone.

Definitely anyone that is trying to look at the nova potential of casters for damage though should be looking at a spell+a highest level magic missile and not just a single spell per round. The key to damage casting in PF2 is burning through high level spell slots and that requires gold investment on spells cast per day. You can't compare casters with no items for increase number of highest level spell slots and martials using magical weapons to make your comparisons.

Even using Lighting bolt as a single target spell, a 5th level wizard can drop a 4d14 reflex save spell and a 2d4+2 automatically hitting magic missile at 120ft. Against a level +3 enemy, how many ranged martials are going to get close to that damage output at level 5?

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

I think it is not addressed directly.

This is an issue of expectations, not objective metrics. It is about 'feels'. Which is, at the end of the day, not really worthy of extensive conversation. It is true that a person 'feels'. It is true that not everyone 'feels' the same. So where to go with conversation from there?

[dmerceless]

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

I think it is not addressed directly.

This is an issue of expectations, not objective metrics. It is about 'feels'. Which is, at the end of the day, not really worthy of extensive conversation. It is true that a person 'feels'. It is true that not everyone 'feels' the same. So where to go with conversation from there?

This is a game, not a law class. A game is about having fun, and feels can be just as important, if not more, than whatever "objective" metrics. Yes, going in circles saying "I like this", "I don't like this" is not very productive, but if a considerable number of people are not being able to have fun with characters whose fantasy they enjoy, it's important to discuss what the hell can be done about it. Is it making a caster class that can dedicate themselves more to one specific mechanic? Some Class Archetypes? Just printing better blasting spells for all levels?

Saying "this is not a problem for me so it's not a problem at all" is even less productive than any circular discussions.

[Unicore]

The thing is though, the largest factor on the effectiveness of casters in combat encounters in PF2 is encounter design and execution.

All the damaging spells in the game got boosted significantly during the play test. They did that instead of adjusting accuracy, largely because accuracy can be situationally modified through tactics enough as is to make the effective damage (and debuffing ability) of spells to have very high nova potentials.

What makes or breaks players experience playing casters is whether the spells they want to cast are effective spells in the encounters they are facing. This is why so much of the advice feed back comes across as “pick better spells.” Because that is one way that casters can be very very effective in PF2. But it does come across as condescending to players that don’t want to play casters as finding the right spell for the right situation. But the only way “my strength can over power any enemy, even one built to be good against my strength and higher level than me,” is for “level” and “character strength” to not really be equal between players and monsters. This is how PF1 and 5e breakdown so badly.

So the way that style of play becomes viable is by the GM customizing encounters to allow the players that want to blast with a couple of different energy types to be very effective in those combats. Just like bringing a cleric to a zombie horde adventure is going to feel gonzo powerful, bring a fire sorcerer to a wooden golem adventure is going to feel the same way.

Tool box casters shine in published material because Paizo tends to build encounters in PF2 adventures and modules that feature lots of different creatures that have different strengths and weaknesses. This is not a breakdown of the core math, it was the design principle behind it. GMs have ultimate power in deciding what styles of play will be effective in their campaigns because the math is predictable and easily adjustable.

[dmerceless]

Unicore wrote:

All the damaging spells in the game got boosted significantly during the play test. They did that instead of adjusting accuracy, largely because accuracy can be situationally modified through tactics enough as is to make the effective damage (and debuffing ability) of spells to have very high nova potentials.

You know they literally reversed that change, right? 1.6 Burning Hands did 3d6 damage, Fireball did 8d6, etc. Then they were brought back to the initial version on release for... whatever reason. Only cantrips and focus spells got actually improved, damage-wise, and probably because their damage in the Playtest was pitiful (Fire Ray was 1d6/level, lol).

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Temperans wrote:

This is literally the meme of you had us in the first half.

Starting on point two your whole thing is literal nonsense. Just because someone wants to play a damage caster does not mean that they are selfish. Just like someone wanting to play a utility character doesn't mean they don't want to be the main character.

This doesn't even have to do with superhero but straight up just how the stories of great wizards are. No one everyone wants to play the guy who is just following around big guy to make sure he gets where he needs to be. Some people want to play the person who uses a rocket launcher and flamethrower to solve problems (blaster casters).

Finally, damage has always been measured in total party effort. The idea that it wasn't is insane. What PF2 did was make it so the numbers range with a +/-2 instead of +/-10 making things a lot less swingy. The reason why casters aren't allowed to deal damage has nothing to do with "hogging combat monster", its entirely because people like you incorrectly assume that a caster dealing good damage 3-5 times a day somehow is "being a damage hog". All while ignoring that people in other editions complain about support casters invalidating combat, not damage casters.

Everyone are free to have their own opinion. As someone who came from 5e where everyone is one-man-army and teamwork is non-existential (as well as playing support/healer is non-existencial) - my group really like the fact that support is so strong in this game. It is more fun for us. We like to play MMOs/Co-Op video games where one of us is tank, one is DPS, one is support/healer etc. and we like that. So I wrote from our own point of view (that's why I wrote "my take") where we like that casters are no top damage dealers and their damage is ok, but not awesome and instead you have to look at other ways to contribute which is supporting. They can still do great damage on low level enemies thanks to AOE so I don't think it's really problem. But they are not "I can do everything best" full casters like in 5e.

Believe or not, but all depends on individual experienec. We had so far way more fun with casting buffs and debuffs so martials can destroy crippled enemies than we had in 5e where everyone was just doing his own damage to kill enemy without any feeling of "we did this becasue we combo with each other for great outcome".

So I won't disagree with you, but we really like that casters really have to think if going for damage is worth over doing some support stuff in combat which can lend better result for team. Makes you feel like professional adventure coordinated team, not bunch of individuals running together. Each to his own.

[Unicore]

dmerceless wrote:

Unicore wrote:

All the damaging spells in the game got boosted significantly during the play test. They did that instead of adjusting accuracy, largely because accuracy can be situationally modified through tactics enough as is to make the effective damage (and debuffing ability) of spells to have very high nova potentials.

You know they literally reversed that change, right? 1.6 Burning Hands did 3d6 damage, Fireball did 8d6, etc. Then they were brought back to the initial version on release for... whatever reason. Only cantrips and focus spells got actually improved, damage-wise, and probably because their damage in the Playtest was pitiful (Fire Ray was 1d6/level, lol).

Yea they dialed some back after the initial boost, largely because they had very good mathematicians looking at the numbers and recognizing when damage spikes were trivializing encounters that a single spell or attack should not be able to trivialize as easily as was happening with those numbers. Almost all of those spells are still ahead of where they were to start with in the playtest.

The issue of caster balance still rests much more on encounter design than core game structure.

[SuperBidi]

Vodalian wrote:

Someone wise on these forums once said this (I don't remember who it was): No campaigns (except maybe the very worst ones) have ended due to the player's missing an out-of-combat ability. No AP will include a legendary skill check that none of the group's members has to progress the story, the GM will always find an alternative path for the players to take.

In contrast: lack of combat ability will ALWAYS pose an existential threat to the party and failing at it will lead to death not occasionally, but most times. Thus in-combat abilities in traditional DnD type TTRPGS will always carry infinitely more weight than out-of-combat abilities.

TLDR: When damage and hp are insufficient: the adventurers' journeys immediately end. When Out-of-combat abilities are insufficient: a reasonable GM will find a way to progress the story anyway.

This is a simplified vision of the game. Binary, actually, because there's only failure to the sword of the enemy or success... well, success at what?

I've played some games where the party was efficient in combat but absolutely inefficient out of combat (or so combat focused that they were completely dismissing out of combat). The GM had to route us all the way long, we were having no information about what's going on and I ended up with a bitter taste in mouth. Did we won? I'm not even sure I can answer this question. We surely ended the adventure but I'm not sure it can be called a victory, especially not at entertaining me.

Also, out of combat gives information that can be used in combat. If you know the enemy, you can prepare yourself. If you avoid a combat, you save up on resources.

And I have also seen a few adventures where one fight was designed to be deadly as the PCs were not supposed to do it as long as they were succeeding honorably at the out of combat game.

So, even if I fully agree that combat abilities are important, considering that out of combat abilities are not important is misleading. Victory is not binary. There are many types of victories and "not being dead" is not really a victory actually.

[BloodandDust]

dmerceless wrote:

Saying "this is not a problem for me so it's not a problem at all" is even less productive than any circular discussions.

That knife cuts both ways. Saying "This is a problem for me so it's a problem for all" is equally unproductive.

Asking to re-work game balance, which was carefully developed and play-tested over a lengthy period, for a handful of 'feels' complaints? That would be never ending - this is too large an audience for everyone to get their own custom system. If you need changes, just house-rule and carry on.

[Sanityfaerie]

BloodandDust wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

Saying "this is not a problem for me so it's not a problem at all" is even less productive than any circular discussions.

That knife cuts both ways. Saying "This is a problem for me so it's a problem for all" is equally unproductive.

Asking to re-work game balance, which was carefully developed and play-tested over a lengthy period, for a handful of 'feels' complaints? That would be never ending - this is too large an audience for everyone to get their own custom system. If you need changes, just house-rule and carry on.

Paizo cares about play experience. They do. They've made that quite clear.

Sometimes, things don't become obvious until notably after the "lengthy period" of playtest. That's just how it is. At some point, Paizo has to cut short the process of refining and just publish, because that's what puts food on the table.

So... identifying and asserting ongoing problems isn't exactly a hostile act, you know? I'm sure that if Paizo could wave a magic wand and fix this problem without generating new ones, they would. Why wouldn't they? Well, the thing about that magic wand is that it's just a bunch of steps, each of which requires effort by somebody. "Identify that there is a problem" is the first such step. "clarify what, exactly, the problem is, and establish its actual scope" is the second. The third is a long, involved process of coming up with potential solutions, shooting down the ones that either won't work or would do too much collateral damage, refining the ones that aren't hopelessly bad in an attempt to make them better, comparing, and so forth. This process is aided significantly by having a bunch of work put in up-front on tasks 1 and 2. Any attempt to estimate the required effort level of doing task 3 right is also going to be aided by this thing.

So, basically, we're here, banging away at tasks 1 and 2, with occasional forays into the early part of 3. That's free labor, offered to Paizo as a gift, because we love the game. With that, they can understand the problem, they can better estimate whether or not it's worth the effort to fix, and if they do decide to fix it, they may be able to come up with better solutions, faster, based on the work we've done.

I'm not sure what you're complaining about here. I mean... this is a single message board thread, on a message board entirely owned by Paizo. It's not like we have any ability to make them do anything they don't want to do as it is. Heck - the people here can't even make plausible boycott threats, because this has literally been an issue from day 1 of PF2, and we're clearly invested enough that we're here anyway. All we can really do is suggest that fixing this in some way might be a worthwhile strategy for attracting and retaining new players, and, again, this is not a hostile act.

[Trixleby]

Well it hasn't deterred me from playing PF2E, it's just made me not want to play spellcasters because they don't fit what I like about spell casters.

[breithauptclan]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

So, basically, we're here, banging away at tasks 1 and 2, with occasional forays into the early part of 3. That's free labor, offered to Paizo as a gift, because we love the game.

Yup. That's why I come here. To help support the game that I like playing.

I would also note that counterarguing should also not be considered to be innately hostile either.

[Lycar]

Temperans wrote:

This is literally the meme of you had us in the first half.

Starting on point two your whole thing is literal nonsense. Just because someone wants to play a damage caster does not mean that they are selfish. Just like someone wanting to play a utility character doesn't mean they don't want to be the main character.

This doesn't even have to do with superhero but straight up just how the stories of great wizards are. No one everyone wants to play the guy who is just following around big guy to make sure he gets where he needs to be. Some people want to play the person who uses a rocket launcher and flamethrower to solve problems (blaster casters).

Finally, damage has always been measured in total party effort. The idea that it wasn't is insane. What PF2 did was make it so the numbers range with a +/-2 instead of +/-10 making things a lot less swingy. The reason why casters aren't allowed to deal damage has nothing to do with "hogging combat monster", its entirely because people like you incorrectly assume that a caster dealing good damage 3-5 times a day somehow is "being a damage hog". All while ignoring that people in other editions complain about support casters invalidating combat, not damage casters.

People who want to play damage casters must make up their mind:

A) Be a Martial in all but name and do martial damage in a blasty way... But give up on being a caster and getting to bend reality. A Magus goes a lot that way.

B) Accept that they do not get to upstage martials at their own, damn, thing, so do not get to eclipse martial single target damage.

Unfortunately, the number of people who are so entitled that they demand to get their damage cake and eat it too is too. Damn. High. These people absolutely are being selfish! They want to be the Angle Summoner with everybody else being BMX Bandits. Well, PF2 is not the game for them, and they do not get to demand it being changed to bow to their whims.

The insult to the injury is that casters actually are potentially very good at inflicting damage, just by virtue of having AoE spells alone. If the GM never throws hordes at them to incinerate with Fireball, that is a GM problem, not a PF2 problem.

But for some people, it is never enough, is it? Some people just can't stand other people getting nice things, unless they can have them too, no matter how many nice things they already have, can they? PF2 is designed to tell them 'No!', and that is what makes it different to 3.x and PF1. If you want OP casters, these are the games for you. PF2 is not.

And no, it is simply not true that massive damage casters were not a problem in PF1, just look up builds like 'Cindy' or 'The Mailman'. It was just that compared to the ludicrous number of ways casters had to break the game otherwise, over-damage casters paled as a problem in comparison. Just because people didn't complain about them as loudly doesn't mean they don't exist. So your claim is somewhat disengenious.

[breithauptclan]

Tone can be hostile though. Which is something that we should watch out for.

[Sanityfaerie]

Lycar wrote:

But for some people, it is never enough, is it? Some people just can't stand other people getting nice things, unless they can have them too, no matter how many nice things they already have, can they? PF2 is designed to tell them 'No!', and that is what makes it different to 3.x and PF1. If you want OP casters, these are the games for you. PF2 is not.

So... there's a few different things going on here.

People who came here from PF1 and 3.x are a thing, sure. Those that came in from being casters get a bit of a gut-punch and maybe don't like that. Sure. That's not most of what's going on here, though. Like, the final ruleset for PF2 was published in August of 2019. It's been almost 4 years. Most of the people who played PF1 have transferred over already. For those coming in from 5e... well, 5e isn't as well-balanced as PF2, but it's still not nearly as caster-centric as 3.x and derivatives. That's not the thing you're seeing here.

Attaching to that, it's worth noting that this is a particular problem for new players. It's for people walking in the door. Again, 3.x whiplash may be a bit of a concern, but it's not our primary concern. Not anymore.

...but TTRPGs aren't the only things playing with those tropes. You get them a lot in videogames, too... and in a lot of those videogames, the mage is the classic glass cannon. They're fragile. Against tougher foes, they need a fighter to hide behind and a healer to keep that fighter alive. They have a limited tank - they cast and cast and then they run out and then they're kind of useless until they can find a way to recharge... and they get the payment back from those things in AWESOME ARCANE POWER (ie, damage). They get lots and lots of damage as long as the mana lasts. Those classes, in the games they're coming from? They're generally pretty balanced. They're no more or less likely to be OP than any of the other classes.

...and PF2 simply does not have that to offer. The wizard and the Sorceror look like the thing they want, but they're not - they're finicky high-skill debuff/control characters. They can dish out a bunch of damage from time to time when they set everything up right, but it doesn't just happen, and if you try to play them as a standard blaster-caster you're going to wind up ineffective and frustrated and sad. It is not unreasonable for people to want to not be ineffective and frustrated and sad.

So here we have an actual, reasonable need. New players (and some old players) want to be able to play out that specific (entirely reasonable) fantasy, and PF2 simply doesn't have it on offer, and we're trying to figure out how to make it happen in a way that won't break everything else.

...and that "break everything else" thing is real, because the current mid/high-complexity "do everything some" caster works just fine. If we just give casters an across-the-board buff to damage spells or something, then we might bring blasters up to appropriate levels of viable, but we're also making the standard casters notably OP, and we kind of don't want to do that.

[Deriven Firelion]

Paizo put so many options for casters to pick up a weapon to add to their damage, that it should be obvious that the current version of PF encourages and provides multiple options for casters to use a weapon as a 3rd action option to combine with their casting damage at low level.

So many people from PF1 are so used to casters being total garbage with weapons they don't bother to pick up a weapon. In PF2 casters start off exactly the same with a weapon as a martial for those early levels. There are multiple ancestry, general feats, and archetype options for a caster to use a weapon as a third action option that is very, very viable at low level that not using one is negatively impacting your personal damage because of some outdated thinking that says, "I'm a caster. I don't want to use a weapon." Even though so many classical casters used weapons whether Gandalf or Elric.

For those early levels you should be getting some weapon as a third action option and casting your cantrip. Then when you get higher level and you can get sustain spells and more damaging focus options, then you can use your weapon less.

This very much seems to be done by design. Low level casters in PF2 can use weapons nearly as well as martials. Higher level casters cannot, but they get more casting power, damaging focus spell options, and the like to replace the weapon attack should they want to drop that option.

Paizo lays these options out there in the open. They have literally made it so obvious that low level casters can use weapons as well as martials until about level 5 that I'm not sure what else they can do other than James Jacobs or Buhlman straight up saying, "We made weapons more accessible to low level casters to help their damage until they get higher level and can do more damage with spells. We also provided many ways to raise a combat stat like Str or Dex so you can use a weapon early on. And we made it easy for everyone to obtain some kind of magic weapon and use it whether a caster or a martial so you can always have fun having a magic weapon if you want to. You still have the option to not use a weapon, but we have very clearly made weapon use by low level casters easy to make up for the slower power curve of casters because they become very powerful at higher level. But we can't force you to do this, but the option is there. Thus we can't boost low level caster damage because there will be players who do that increased damage and still take a weapon that we clearly designed them to be able to use well at lower level to add to their damage."

[Cellion]

One thing I've observed in 2e that may be contributing is that caster resources are very different for damage focused spellcasters vs control or support focused ones. As you gain levels, controllers generally get stronger spells, but many of their earlier spells remain just as good. An 11th level caster has a dozen powerful control spells per day, because Fear3 is just as good as when they first got it when compared to the foes they now face, and you get slow6 and chain lightning on top of that. Dedicated blasting spellcasters can only rely on their two highest spell levels. Everything below that starts gradually having less and less of an effect in relation to enemy hp pools. This leads blasting focused casters to diversify by necessity, to use their lower level slots for non-blasting, which on one hand is a great result for adding variety to the game round-to-round, but significantly dilutes the character concept. It's a system that seems to strongly favor control and support over damage dealing.

From my own experience, casters seem quite good at the table once you get past a certain level. But I won't deny that they feel very pigeonholed into a particular broad multi-purpose role that doesn't always match my imagination for a character.

I don't want to be a martial that throws magic equivalent to arrows. There should be enough gameplay and design space to make a spellcaster that plays qualitatively differently from a martial while having a strong damage contribution across a long adventuring day. Right now, good focus spell selection (to pick up aoe focus spells), picking up dangerous sorcery, and smart debuffing gets you pretty close to this. But it definitely feels like you're always underutilizing the kit you have available to you, and it feels like it lacks the character building and tactical richness available to many other character concepts in P2E.

[Kekkres]

Cellion wrote:

One thing I've observed in 2e that may be contributing is that caster resources are very different for damage focused spellcasters vs control or support focused ones. As you gain levels, controllers generally get stronger spells, but many of their earlier spells remain just as good. An 11th level caster has a dozen powerful control spells per day, because Fear3 is just as good as when they first got it when compared to the foes they now face, and you get slow6 and chain lightning on top of that. Dedicated blasting spellcasters can only rely on their two highest spell levels. Everything below that starts gradually having less and less of an effect in relation to enemy hp pools. This leads blasting focused casters to diversify by necessity, to use their lower level slots for non-blasting, which on one hand is a great result for adding variety to the game round-to-round, but significantly dilutes the character concept. It's a system that seems to strongly favor control and support over damage dealing.

From my own experience, casters seem quite good at the table once you get past a certain level. But I won't deny that they feel very pigeonholed into a particular broad multi-purpose role that doesn't always match my imagination for a character.

I don't want to be a martial that throws magic equivalent to arrows. There should be enough gameplay and design space to make a spellcaster that plays qualitatively differently from a martial while having a strong damage contribution across a long adventuring day. Right now, good focus spell selection (to pick up aoe focus spells), picking up dangerous sorcery, and smart debuffing gets you pretty close to this. But it definitely feels like you're always underutilizing the kit you have available to you, and it feels like it lacks the character-building and tactical richness available to many other character concepts in P2E.

This exactly low-level buffs remain good as you progress, low-level debuffs remain good, same for utility spells, or area control. damage however demands your highest spells, a level 13 bard who is specialized in buffing debuffing has 20 spell slots he can use to achieve his goal, a druid focused on blasting has... 6, the only other spells that demand to be only used in your highest slots, are summons and incapacitation spells both of which also have a reputation for being quite feels-bad. at level twenty, using your level one slot to cast fear is perfectly reasonable, using your level one slot to cast burning hands is basically throwing actions away.

[Temperans]

Who wants a blaster caster to use a weapon? The entire fantasy is about spending limited ability for high burst.

Martial fails to cater because they are martial not casters.

Wizards/Sorcerer fail because they are too frail with no compensation.

Druid is able to do somthing only because its the 1 caster to get good offensive focus spells.

Bards are the definition and king of support, and are noted for literally breaking all the conventions of what casters can do.

Clerics/Oracles are literally saddled with the worst spell list, and the "warpriest" isn't even good at war or being martial to compensate for being worse at spells.

Yeah they said they helped low level, but that "help" is straight up worse than what they previously had. Higher level you can get more damaging options? Better compared to the basic cantrip but still straight up worse than a martial. Higher level you need weapons less? Meanwhile you have people in the forums saying that a caster should be spending their 3rd action on weapons always. Tell me how is that a fun "blaster"?

[breithauptclan]

Kekkres wrote:

This exactly low-level buffs remain good as you progress, low-level debuffs remain good, same for utility spells, or area control. damage however demands your highest spells, a level 13 bard who is specialized in buffing debuffing has 20 spell slots he can use to achieve his goal, a druid focused on blasting has... 6, the only other spells that demand to be only used in your highest slots, are summons and incapacitation spells both of which also have a reputation for being quite feels-bad. at level twenty, using your level one slot to cast fear is perfectly reasonable, using your level one slot to cast burning hands is basically throwing actions away.

And that argument leads me to suggest things like Spell Blending Wizard or augmenting your high level spell slots with items like a staff. Or maybe using a bounded caster like Magus, but a hybrid martial is probably not what you are looking for.

While it is a valid desire for a character to be able to blast magic around all day, as long as the spellcasting classes have those low level utility spell slots, those have to be accounted for in the class's power budget. Our current full casters don't do that.

Which is why I am hoping that Kineticist will better fill that character type.

Like Sanityfaerie already said, simply buffing the current spellcaster's damage or spell slot counts and leaving their utility alone will cause them to be too powerful.