|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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...
From my understand, the reason in PF1E and 5E that casters are so OP is not because of their damage, it's because their save or suck spells reshape reality so hard it trivializes encounters by simply...wishing they did not exist at all, or something to that effect.
Nobody is asking for OP damage. At most we are asking to be allowed to be good single target blasters...and that's IT. I'm not taking Haste to cast on the Fighter at level 3, I'm not taking Air Walk or Fly, or Wall spells. I'm taking Lightning Bolt, Cone of Cold, Fireball and that's it all day every day and I'm chucking them at the boss. Maybe that is selfish, but why isn't the Fighter who doesn't even have skills selfish because all he does is swing a sword?
I feel like spell damage is fine if you apply a modicum of system mastery. Spell attack rolls are in an awkward place, but success damage on saves is significant. You still need to play the "what save should I target" game but a sustained spell like Flaming Sphere and a damaging focus spell go a long way for sustainability.
Flaming Sphere: 3d6 -- 10.5 average damage
3rd level electric arc: 3d4+4 -- 11.5 damage
Dragons breath: 5d6 -- 17.5 damage
Lightning Bolt 4d12 -- 26 damage
5th or 6th level precision Ranger with short bow
First hit: 2d6+1+1d8 -- 12.5 damage
Second/third hits: 8 damage
The ranger needs to actually land two hits just to almost catch up the caster using just Flaming Sphere and a cantrip, and the cantrips still deals half damage on a successful save. You need to land 3 hits to pull ahead of the caster, which almost never happens. And even then, flaming sphere plus lightning bolt eclipses it if you can afford to nova. You can also get crit spikes, but the caster can probably target multiple enemies more reliably than the ranger can crit.
Now, if you're looking at a raging dragon barbarian, the damage numbers have more trouble keeping up. 2d12+8 is 21 damage a hit. But that's melee vs ranged for you, not martials vs caster.
The damage is *definitely* there when you leverage focus spells and top level slots. My favorite example of nova-ing as a blaster is the elemental sorc using sudden bolt + their elemental toss focus spell. Even accounting for their poor hit rate, the expected damage is more than twice any ranged martial (at least up to level 10-ish). You're just out of juice very quickly.
Flaming sphere has been very underwhelming for me. The lack of damage on a successful save means it mostly just sucks up actions without much effect. The math on it is also pretty unfavorable (you need at least three rounds of sustaining before it breaks even with other blasts). Would much rather throw out bon mot or demoralize or 1-action spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... kineticist is going to be a thing, and that, hopefully will help.
Well, it'll help *some*.
I mean, it's great for me, personally. I love the kineticist. It looks like it's going to be exactly the thing I'd always hoped for in so many ways. Those people who just want to be able to throw around blasty elemental damage all day and not suck? If all goes well, they're going to be fine too.
...but the kineticist is going to have con as a primary stat, and at least one build who can do a reasonable rendition of "party tank". They're not going to be fragile. Further, their entire schtick is that they can keep throwing around those few powers they have all day long forever. They're not going to have limited juice. They're not going to have the power that you get for paying those prices, either. Personally, I think this is great, but it's not the blaster-caster that a lot of these people want.
So... how do we get there from here? We want a relatively fragile caster, bound to spell slots, with significantly reduced flexibility/utility/etc and boosted direct damage.
Honestly, to me this sounds like a class archetype. Specifically, it sounds something like "Elementalist, but actually worth playing" as a class archetype. They get a custom spell list that doesn't increase. It's got no heals at all, and precious little of buffs, debuffs, or utility. The selection of damage spells is... decent. You probably can't ever target fortitude or will. Make it available to... wizards, arcane sorcerers, and arcane witches? Something like that. Then slap your damage and accuracy boosts on *that* thing. Call it "warmage" or something, and make it a bit feat-hungry. At the same time (and this is key) it should actually give the "throw spells for direct damage" power that it's advertising. If someone wants to go all-in on "blast the enemy with arcane power", then we should let them.
Of course, even if we had all that, we'd still need to find a way to actually let the poor newbies know where to find the thing they want, and for PFS, they'd have to buy the book that contained it. It wouldn't solve everything. Still, something like that seems like it might get us most of the way, yes?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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"?
Why exactly do you believe them to do be too frail? This isn't PF1. AC and saving throw spreads are not too wide.
I've been playing multiple editions of D&D for decades. Casters were far weaker and more frail at low level in earlier versions of D&D and PF1 than they are in PF2.
Why do you have an expectation to be otherwise in PF2? Why do you expect be some king blaster at level 1 to 5?
If you're going to be Mr. Blaster Caster, then you should have to wait until you're much higher level since your blasts do more than what a martial can do.
That fantasy is well fulfilled in PF2. I literally have the numerical proof this is the case. I have tracked blasting and it is especially powerful as you level up against highly dangerous enemies, enemies more dangerous than Mr. Single Big Boss Man. You can do that damage while well protected from extreme ranges if you so choose.
What do you expect to do? Blast for as much damage as martials at level 1 and then do it far better at level 15?
Where is your numbers arguments?
You keep asking for this thing that casters can already do. Then you ask for it at level 1 or lower level.
Do you want to be a martial that casts and maintain their capabilities across all levels? Is that the goal? Reskin a caster, make them into a caster that does single target damage like a martial, but loses everything else to do it?
Then ask for that, not some nebulous idea of martial versus caster imbalance that doesn't exist.
I know for a fact...a fact...as in I can numerically prove it that the only martial that you can argue is superior to casters in most game situation is the fighter due to increased accuracy and the other little perks like Bravery, decent armor proficiency, and the like.
But I can also prove the druid is a top tier damage dealer from early up to level 20 and will in fact outperform many martial classes in damage dealing over that time. I can tell you why which his once again good focus spells, good weapon proficiencies, primal spell list has good damage spells, and decent all around abilities.
Bard the same for support and all around abilities.
Some sorcerer builds are very good at blasting.
So ask for a very specific thing rather than post an entire thread that is completely false about martials and casters. Rogues are no that tough. They get destroyed in melee combat by boss level mobs. Barbarians can be beastly, but they have weakness as well and don't keep up with some casters. Rangers definitely do not keep up.
So what people want on a real basic level is a caster that does damage at range similar to a martial and they are willing to give up all their powerful casting abilities at higher level to have this. If that's what they want, then ask for that. That a design space they can probably do.
But don't pretend martials are somehow better than casters as a whole because it is not true. A complete falsehood that any playtesting of a caster from 1st to 20 will prove false.
The fighter is arguably the best class in the game at the moment. Who is second is open to a lot of discussion and the druid and bard are pretty heavily in that discussion. They are both casters and if I were doing a ranking list, I'd probably put the druid 2nd and the bard 3rd in terms of overall power with the druid as the 2nd best damage dealer followed by maybe a primal elemental sorcerer if you're willing to use a weapon to supplement your damage as a third action at early levels or take an animal companion. The barbarian or rogue might be in that discussion too, but the druid or primal sorcerer may outpace them as the levels rise and they start attacking weak saves or weaknesses more easily.
The psychic also has some interesting damage options as well now.
If this thread was why can't I be as good as a fighter, then I might understand it more. The fighter is definitely a power class in PF2 with a lot of flexible build options that can be nasty.
As far as melee damage dealer, Magus does that nasty melee magic damage. The Magus Starlit Span archer is absolutely the most brutal ranged martial in the game.
So this thread should be a lot more focused for Paizo to be able to action the request because casters are certainly not weak in PF2. Rather the fighter is particularly strong. If you want a damage caster as strong as the fighter, you're going to have to give up some of the normal caster flexibility and non-single target power.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The damage formula aren't the problem IMO. The problem is the merge of many different design choices that's limited the usage of a caster as a blaster.
Again my hopes is that Kineticist will address most of these things as a pseudo-casters blaster. If not we will stay looped in these topics about newcommers complaining that their blasters build looks weak.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't take lot of incapacitation spells. They are terrible in this edition even with an effect on a success. That rule doesn't seem well thought out to me. Most lower level creatures won't be affected by the incap trait. Most higher level creatures will succeed getting a critical success, so you're kind of bypassing the success benefit in most incap spells. It makes using them against boss level enemies risky and pointless.
I don't use many attack spells either because ACs are set so high that a maxed out attack stat with a magic weapon seems to the standard to hit with even a 50% success rate. Since they do not give casters an item bonus to spell attack rolls, it's not worth the risk without a true strike spell and even then often not worth the risk.
I feel really bad for the alchemist at times who only gets to Expert in bombs and misses boss level monsters so often it reaches a point of frustration.
Some of these kinks can be worked out by making Alchemist master in bomb use and adding item bonuses for casters to hit, though it seems the shadow signet was supposed to make attack spells as bad as they are more usable.
The damage is *definitely* there when you leverage focus spells and top level slots. My favorite example of nova-ing as a blaster is the elemental sorc using sudden bolt + their elemental toss focus spell. Even accounting for their poor hit rate, the expected damage is more than twice any ranged martial. You're just out of juice very quickly.
Flaming sphere has been very underwhelming for me. The lack of damage on a successful save means it mostly just sucks up actions without much effect. The math on it is also pretty unfavorable (you need at least three rounds of sustaining before it breaks even with other blasts). Would much rather throw out bon mot or demoralize or 1-action spells.
Well, flaming sphere in that example is a second level slot, and you competitive damage with it combined with a cantrip when looking at a ranged martial, who can of course miss just like flaming sphere.
Flaming Sphere will take several rounds to catch up on damage, but it isn't like you can Demoralize or Bon Mot the same enemy multiple times, so it is a solid use of your actions in a big solo boss. (Something like Flaming Sphere + Demoralize the first round, the sustain and cast on subsequent rounds.)
If you have a lot of targets to Demoralize, you probably can use AoE damage. Which will indeed be better than Flaming Sphere in that scenario, but I don't think anyone seriously argues casters are behind martials for AoE damage on mobs. They argue AoE damage doesn't matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A meta magic that lets you deal half damage on an attack spell that misses
So we agree that alchemist should be master at bombs, and that spell attacks could use item bonus to hit. So what is the issue there?
"Looks around"
?
I think there may be room for a very restrictive class archetype to get better accuracy and DC for spells.
But you have nearly zero access to utility or support spells
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we agree that alchemist should be master at bombs, and that spell attacks could use item bonus to hit. So what is the issue there?"Looks around"
?
I think there may be room for a very restrictive class archetype to get better accuracy and DC for spells.
But you have nearly zero access to utility or support spells
A pure single target blaster with minimal range and just focused on blasting may be fun for some. The Psychic seems to have be an attempt at some movement into that design space with short-term nova capabilities with a high cost and far fewer spell slots.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is the fact that you only have so many spells and that choosing to prep a single target spell means not using that slot for utility not enough?
Take a character with 5 level 5 spells. They prep 4 single target spells. Tell me what 5th level utility spell do they have?
It is not enough
So is the fact that you only have so many spells and that choosing to prep a single target spell means not using that slot for utility not enough?
Take a character with 5 level 5 spells. They prep 4 single target spells. Tell me what 5th level utility spell do they have?
You can already do this with spells like sudden bolt, disintegrate, searing light against undead or fiends, hydraulic push and variety of other single target spells.
If you can already do this and some folks are still not happy, then...?
I understand the sentiment. It was my starting point before I figured out how PF2 works and played to higher level. Now that I know how this game works, I don't see any martial-caster disparity. If anything, casters are more powerful by a good measure than martials at higher level, at least some casters are. Some casters kind of suck.
Blasting at high level is more fun in this edition than past editions. Critical fails do insanely brutal damage to powerful groups of creatures that would normally take a while to beat and eat up resources healing and debuffing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to know what people are doing such that creatures of level-2 are "more a distraction than a real threat" while creatures of equal level are so threatening that you can never get them to fail saves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A pure single target blaster with minimal range and just focused on blasting may be fun for some. The Psychic seems to have be an attempt at some movement into that design space with short-term nova capabilities with a high cost and far fewer spell slots.So we agree that alchemist should be master at bombs, and that spell attacks could use item bonus to hit. So what is the issue there?"Looks around"
?
I think there may be room for a very restrictive class archetype to get better accuracy and DC for spells.
But you have nearly zero access to utility or support spells
I like the Psychic has a blaster. During 3 rounds it's pretty strong and effective. But it's also remembers me how the Paizo designers made the things in a strange way for casters.
The Psychic is like a caster barbarian. The Unleash works adding damage like Rage, many good and interesting feats have Psyche trait like many barbarian feats have the Rage trait. But different from Rage you usually cannot use Unleash in your first turn and it ends after 2 rounds and after this you not only is unable to Unleash again you now have -1 in all your mental stats and have to flat check DC 6 to cast. So you are temporary locked in a state that in practice you cannot use spellslots (the risk of failure is to high to use anything better than a cantrip) and is forced to seek for some secondary option to do something useful in this post-state (strike with a bow and try to use a save cantrip like EA (both usually requires some extra feats) or try to Demoralize).
It looks like the designers was saying "here, take a blaster caster! But have 6HP and be unarmored isn't enought for us so as compensation we put some more restriction and punishment because you want to use a caster to blast".
Oh god why they wasn't make the Unleash time to 1 minute instead of 2 rounds once it no more allows to cast focus spells freely.
Playing an exceptional caster in 2e has a steeper learning curve. This does not mean they are imbalanced. This does not mean that blaster casters cannot exist.
Yes but for reasons I pointed before be a caster blaster is an ungrateful build. You not only have to deal with a way more complex class but also you have limited resources to manage and usually is defensively weaker than mostly martials.
I think the more likely culprit for the view on this thread is not many people are seeing casters to very high level. If you're playing levels 1 to 6 mostly, you're going to constantly feel weak as a casters. Casters truly do require higher level play to start to see their power level.
You don't get expert casting until level 7. No master until level 13. No 20 stat until level 10. If you're not hitting level 10 and above often, you're not seeing caster power very well.
Low level casters feel pretty weak overall unless you are willing to use a weapon. You start to shine a great deal more as you pick up those higher level spells, fill those lower level slots with spells like 4th level invis or mirror image and start shifting saves in your favor.
But if you're playing level 1 to 6 or so, you are almost required to pick up a weapon proficiency to keep up decent damage even as a caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What game has a more powerful level 1 blaster caster than PF2?
Is 4e/5e’s warlock the only d20 based class system that people are holding up as an example?
I am not super familiar with the 5e version. The 4e version was balanced on spells and strikes functionally only being different from each other with the window dressing. Ranged combat also didn’t get nearly the boost it gets in PF2 innately with the three action economy.
“I can stand still and do my thing at ranges that eventually reach 120 to 500 ft away from the enemy, often without really worrying about intruding cover” is a massive feature of blaster casters that encounter design and GM choices often deny.
Electric arc alone is such a good cantrip right out of the gate that waves of players insisted it was broken and you have tons of martial characters bending over backwards to add it.
If you look at spells like imaginary weapon and psychic produce flame. It is pretty clear that ranged combat as a whole is limited in its damage output compared to melee damage, but casters get access to spells and feats that allow them to do melee damage at range. They just take set up
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pf2e isn't new anymore. An APG2 with class archetypes would be very welcome at this point.
Look at the threads that are currently up. Weapon proficiency and scaling issues. Lack of feats for certain classes. Power vs complexity issues (swashbuckler). A lack of blaster casters.
I fully believe an APG2 would help the system more than another 2 niche classes at this point.
I agree but it's unlikely. Paizo designers already said (in some interviews/posts) that they don't planing an APG2, in PF2 they will focus in thematic books. So I don't except an APG2 or a new Pathfinder Unchained so early.
I think the more likely culprit for the view on this thread is not many people are seeing casters to very high level. If you're playing levels 1 to 6 mostly, you're going to constantly feel weak as a casters. Casters truly do require higher level play to start to see their power level.
You don't get expert casting until level 7. No master until level 13. No 20 stat until level 10. If you're not hitting level 10 and above often, you're not seeing caster power very well.
Low level casters feel pretty weak overall unless you are willing to use a weapon. You start to shine a great deal more as you pick up those higher level spells, fill those lower level slots with spells like 4th level invis or mirror image and start shifting saves in your favor.
But if you're playing level 1 to 6 or so, you are almost required to pick up a weapon proficiency to keep up decent damage even as a caster.
This entire concept is wrong IMO. The martial and wavecasters don't pass through this. They begin good and ends even better.
This made some sense in 3.5/PF1 where the martials begins strong but ends "weaker" while casters begins weaker and ends as demigods. Yet is also a terrible balance IMO.
Imagine a Elemental Sorcerer blaster. In the 1º level you only have 3 spellslots and a focus spell to use Elemental Toss. So you want to do a good DPR you are forced to carry a weapon and invest feats and money (runes) in it. Also the damage spells requires your top level spellslots to keep the efficiency so you are unable to cast more than 3-4 before falls to cantrips again so if you use your spellslots they probably will not endure for more than 2 encounters during basically the first half of the game having to play as a strange "hibrid" char with a weapon or be reduced to play as support/debuffer/healer during this half of the game.
Now you still playing for many levels with this char and now reach lvl 12 and take Greater Bloodline + Bloodline Focus and is able to use 2 Elemental Blasts + Spellslot. Now you have a strong blast focus spell with 2 focus points and probably only need to use just one spellslot to attack in avg (I'm considering that most encounters endures 3-4 rounds). Now you can be a way more efficient blaster yet you still have a high risky to waste all your top level spellslot before the end of the day.
And in the end, when you reached the level 18. You now can recover 3 focus points. So you blast gameplay is at in your maximum. Yet you still have to hope that you will face too many encounters or that the encounter don't endures too much to not stay out of resources again.
Now let's see a random fighter. Since the 1º level it have a good damage, no resource cost to keep this damage, if you face a stronger opponent you probably keep hitting and even crit it frequently keeping you dmg very well.
Now jump to level 12. You now have Brutal Finish or Certain Strike so even if you fail you still do some damage like a save dmg spell. Starting from lvl 14 you also gain access to Whirlwind Strike allowing you to do AoE attacks and when reach lvl 18 you can take Savage Critical that ensures that even if your opponent AC is high enough you will keep you critical rate at double as normal.
Do you understand the difference? If you want to do martial DD it will be good for entire game but if you want to do a caster DD it won't. That's why I have so high hope in Kineticist because it's probably the first option that will allows an efficient blaster that don't need to have high level or need to use strong workarounds to keep dmg high and competitive to martials.
Pf2e isn't new anymore. An APG2 with class archetypes would be very welcome at this point.
Look at the threads that are currently up. Weapon proficiency and scaling issues. Lack of feats for certain classes. Power vs complexity issues (swashbuckler). A lack of blaster casters.
I fully believe an APG2 would help the system more than another 2 niche classes at this point.
I agree but it's unlikely. Paizo designers already said (in some interviews/posts) that they don't planing an APG2, in PF2 they will focus in thematic books. So I don't except an APG2 or a new Pathfinder Unchained so early.
I think the more likely culprit for the view on this thread is not many people are seeing casters to very high level. If you're playing levels 1 to 6 mostly, you're going to constantly feel weak as a casters. Casters truly do require higher level play to start to see their power level.
You don't get expert casting until level 7. No master until level 13. No 20 stat until level 10. If you're not hitting level 10 and above often, you're not seeing caster power very well.
Low level casters feel pretty weak overall unless you are willing to use a weapon. You start to shine a great deal more as you pick up those higher level spells, fill those lower level slots with spells like 4th level invis or mirror image and start shifting saves in your favor.
But if you're playing level 1 to 6 or so, you are almost required to pick up a weapon proficiency to keep up decent damage even as a caster.
This entire concept is wrong IMO. The martial and wavecasters don't pass through this. They begin good and ends even better.
This made some sense in 3.5/PF1 where the martials begins strong but ends "weaker" while casters begins weaker and ends as demigods. Yet is also a terrible balance IMO.
Imagine a Elemental Sorcerer blaster. In the 1º level you only have 3 spellslots and a focus spell to use Elemental Toss. So you want to do a good DPR you are...
This is not how I found it works at higher level. I'll break it down when I get to work how damage casters work at higher level in my experience. Or what I do to maintain the hammer as a caster. It doesn't take all my high level slots.
A martial at high level is using a 3dice weapon for a single attack with maybe 1 to 3 d6 on top of the base with specialization and damage stat.
So they are hitting for something like 3d12+11 as a fighter with maybe a few other modifiers if they worked something else in. They are operating at melee range which requires action to close into battle. And move actions are often required to move into attack range for melee martials.
So this idea of focusing on the spell slots and not the other aspects of playing a caster that start helping at higher level to do damage isn't particularly accurate. I'll go into that a bit later as I have to get ready for work.
A single damage attack by a martial at high level is pretty far behind what a caster can do with even a lower level spell slot. So you don't need only max level spells to keep up or feel effective, not at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A fighter isn't limited to melee (we have bows), you are ignoring the legendary proficiency and potency rune benefits to hit and crit and the property runes additional damage and the benefit of make 2 Strikes (or 1 power strike + strike) per round does to DPR.
A fighter isn't limited to melee (we have bows), you are ignoring the legendary proficiency and potency rune benefits to hit and crit and the property runes additional damage and the benefit of make 2 Strikes (or 1 power strike + strike) per round does to DPR.
No. I am not. I have played all these classes first hand. I know how they work very well. Attack roll spells are weak. I rarely if ever use them. Not sure why I would.
Yes. A fighter will have Legendary proficiency, so be more like 3d12+13 + 2d6 energy damage up to level 17 or so. So average damage on a hit of about 41 damage. If they crit 82 or so depending on what additional modifiers they might have.
Bows do less damage, but can do some nasty crits. If an Eldritch Archer can be quite nasty when critting.
Casters can do that kind of damage across multiple targets. I've found for a lot of creatures Reflex saves are lower than AC, so you can land some heavy damage.
Casters are more about multiple sources of damage going at once on a creature for damage.
My shadow sorcerer as an example when he shifts to damage on a single target like a boss he'll do the following:
1. Use his wand of manifold missiles to open.
2. Activate sanguine mists or use a steal shadow sustaining with effortless concentration.
3. Then work in a blast spell or cantrip.
5th level wand of manifold missiles is launching 3 missiles a round for 3d4+3.
Then maybe a blast spell or something.
So you have multiple sources of damage hammering the enemies or enemy.
3d4+3 plus 6d6 negative then a cantrip or blast spell. You're doing quite a bit of damage depending on save rolls across multiple targets if need be.
Now single target I don't get to spend much of my time doing damage, but not because I can't. The reason I often can't do single target damage is because the martials are getting destroyed by a boss level mob. They are getting absolutely ripped apart. S
That's why the idea of a glass cannon is a strange one in PF2. Everyone is a glass cannon in PF2 including the martials. Most boss monsters have a good chance to crit with their opening attack and are going to miss only on some super low roll like a one. They almost all have viciously damage attacks with riders like poison or some kind of drain or knockdown. Even if they are attacking while prone, they have very little chance of missing.
Toss on auras, gaze attacks, and sometimes strange reactions and it's not real amusing to be a martial swinging at some boss mob with a high AC who they rarely critical hit while they are getting critical hit once or more a round doing immense damage to them.
So as a high level caster I spend the majority of my time keeping martials on their feet and making the enemy hittable. Otherwise the martials are likely to die, then I have to spend my time and slots playing invisible man or flying guy who has to do damage while spending flying actions to keep out of melee range as I hammer the monster down from range. If they have an ability to see through invis or attack from range, then I'm not going to last long either.
This weird idea that martials have some kind of easier life isn't my experience at all. I don't think the numbers bear it out either. It's tough to be a martial in PF2 where AC is a box checked to reach a certain AC so you'll get critical hit less. Martials take massive punishment in this game system and have to piecemeal weak monsters that can still shave a lot of hit points off them before death if the casters don't help them.
I wouldn't call it imbalanced when I spend my time as a high level caster helping them stay alive. I could let the martials die and do things the caster way, but I doubt I'd be playing in too many groups for too long.
I think we miss the point here.
I also don't agree that the martials are in general better than casters nor that casters are useless but that the currently concept of fullblaster caster is currently unsustainable, they still can do a good amount of damage but this requires your best daily usage resource (like the wand of manifold missiles) and this isn't sustainable in DG with dozen of encounters (
That's why I keep saying that blaster casters are frustrating specially for new players. They not only need to dominate the caster mechanics to be effective (like having side weapons, effective wands or scrolls, balance the usage between focus spells and spellslots) but the way how the casters resources are limited makes this concept very frustrating.
OK, 2-6 times a day a lvl 17/18 caster can [i]Implode[/b] many opponents causing 75 damage or half depending from fortitude save that is a good ammount of damage. This is more than a martial can usually do even fully equipped with runes but once your top spellslots is wasted your firepower drops and you are forced to use different tactics that you don't wanted that your char do like the use lower level spellslots to debuff with non-incapacitant spells to keep some efficiency.
That's why I always putting my hopes in Kineticist. I don't expect it's able to do more damage at once than a caster but it will probably be an sustainable blaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can agree that the single target blaster caster who can stand in melee or close to melee combat doesn't exist. And some people want to play that role.
I hope the Kineticist fills that sort of 5E warlock role in PF2. That's one class that is missing in PF2. 5E warlock let you be a blaster caster that operated a lot like a ranged martial. I think that would be a good addition to the game people would like.
I also think it's a real fine line they have to walk. You don't want to give some full caster like a wizard or druid full casting ability and blasting ability on par with single target martial damage from a low to no resource cost.
The Psychic seems to be the first attempt at this type of archetype in PF2. It's ok if a little flat. Hopefully the kineticist doesn't even bother with the spells and just makes a full blaster caster that operates like a ranged martial with energy blasts people want.
If they make that class, it will have to be built like a martial chassis with a spell blasting weapon-like ability that does around bow damage with maybe a melee option that can do 2-handed weapon damage.
I guess we'll see what they do with the kineticist.
I agree for new players trying to build a blaster, especially if coming from 5E where you had the warlock option it can be frustrating. Casters are definitely a slow build class that needs to reach around level 10 for their power to really start to shine. I don't know how many people get to level 10 plus even though it was much easier and better balanced to play past level 10 now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may be controversial, but I think that the answer to that "price of versatility" problem in PF2 should have been sorcerer, and that paizo really missed the mark by giving them as many spells as the wizard. As far as I'm aware, they were a class created in 3e for a purely mechanical purpose (and the flavor came latter) : offer an alternative to vancian with less versatility but with more spell slot and the ability to "pick on the fly". The core idea behind the class was this sacrifice of versatility for immediate power, and since PF2 have finally balanced prepared spellcaster by making them actually pay for their versatility, I think paizo should have gone all the way and further restrict sorcerer abilities, but in exchange offer them greater offensive power.
Giving them actually more spell slot (instead of exactly the same number as the wizard), would have gone a long way, as I think that the very limited number of "tries" is what really kill the blaster caster archetype, rather than the low chance of success. Your spell crit failing against the boss and doing nothing would feel less bad if you weren't giving up a fourth of a very limited ressource you are never getting back this day.
As is, I feel like sorcerers are just worse version of any of the "main class" of a tradition, only here to give a (weaker) alternative to people who dislike vancian casting. They at least have a bit of a niche with druids and cleric because they get one more spell cast per level, but druids and cleric also have more benefits to the side. Giving them one or even two more casting per day, at the cost of one less spell in their repertoire per level would have given them more of a niche (and would have made bloodline more important outside of choosing which tradition you want, because then the bloodline spell would be literally a third of every spell you know at each spell levels).
Other than that, I think some way to give caster +1 or even +2 to spell attack (and maybe spell DC), even at a cost, would be necessary if we want blaster caster to exist here. It surprise me that the runelord archetype don't offer a feat that give +1 in the spell attack/DC of your school at the cost of a -1 in every other. It surprise me even more that nothing of the sort is available to the elementalist archetype, who end up being an archetype one take only if they want to restrict themselves for thematic purpose and no mecanical benefit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blaster caster exists perfectly fine. Like, I absolutely do not understand anyone who seems to think that -40 HP to 6 enemies is somehow useless. If an enemy has, say, 120 HP, and the fighter does 40 HP/attack, then that means 1 less attack required per enemy. That absolutely speeds up the combat.
...the currently concept of fullblaster caster is currently unsustainable, they still can do a good amount of damage but this requires your best daily usage resources (like the wand of manifold missiles or top level spellslots) and this isn't sustainable in DG with dozen of encounters. This simply don't happen to martials once they basically can completely recover between encounters if have some minutes to heal or with debuff casters that can easily use low-level spellslots to debuff too.
...
I have incremented my old response a bit to try to be more clear.
Psychic is currently the best option as blaster currently IMO (but it's competes with Elemental Sorcerer + Dangerous Sorcery.
Unleash add a good amount of damage and can used with any spell, also use it with magic missiles is a great idea but you need to finish everything (or at last do the great part of damage) before the 3 round ends or you will stay 2 rounds almost useless to use non-cantrip spells (and even cantrips can easily fail).
I also like other spell combinations with Psy Burts, specially AMPs, this make a good amount of damage too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blaster caster exists perfectly fine. Like, I absolutely do not understand anyone who seems to think that -40 HP to 6 enemies is somehow useless. If an enemy has, say, 120 HP, and the fighter does 40 HP/attack, then that means 1 less attack required per enemy. That absolutely speeds up the combat.Well, to start with that is an extreme best case situation. Like I think I have literally never done 1/3 of the health off of 6 enemies with one blast.
Second, while it speeds up combat, it doesn't make it that much less deadly. Since the enemies are still attacking at full efficiency until one dies.
Compared to control spells, with INSTANTLY reduce the threat level of the enemy.
Control spells can be amazing, but they can also be just ok. Slow 1 for one round on a higher level enemy already in combat can just mean one less attack at -10 or -8, which isn't nothing, but it isn't a show stopper. Slow on a prone enemy that provokes attacks of opportunity or casts spells can be amazing, but that is situational as well. Movement control can equally be amazing or barely noticeable.
And a lot of good higher level blasting is doing damage, and debuffing at the same time, or tagging on a riding condition that might change the enemy's behavior.
What there are not a lot of are spells that just do as much damage as possible to a single target and nothing else. It is almost like the developers intentionally decided that just blasting for damage was not really something they wanted tied to spells and they at least wanted casting to be a tactical game of matching strengths to weaknesses and not just repeat the same thing every round. So much so that they made it nearly impossible to do that with just spells.
We will see what the Kineticist ends up at, but I would be shocked if they are really good at doing the same single target damage thing over and over again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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....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.
That's the thing though: The fantasy of the glass cannon blaster caster is only viable in MMORPGS because they are balanced by the tank. The damage sponge, the aggro attractor. The brick(wall) that stands between the monsters and the blasters.
This is most emphatically not the fantasy martial players want in a TTRPG. They want something like Conan. Maybe Merlin. Hercules possibly. Or even Archilles. Someone who is awesome in their own right, heroes to whom snivelling, cowardly wizards are but sidekicks, who occasionally help out with a magic trick, but otherwise better hide behind the broad shoulders of the Alpha Male Hero.
See the problem? These can't coexist in the same game. People who come to a TTRPG with a MMPRPG mindset must be disappointed, because their role can not exist in a game that caters to the martial hero.
At the same time, however, the martial heroes can not be allowed to be so powerful that they can overcome all challenges on their own, without help from anyone else. That too will disappoint many people who harbour power fantasies of self-sufficience.
No, PF2 is a cooperative game, where a whole is more then the sum of its parts, a puzzle game if you will, where players combine the abilities of their PCs to overcome the challenges put in front of them.
And while you can use an 'american screwdriver' to hammer in a screw in a pinch, however messily, hammering in a nail with a screwdriver is a lot less effective.
But you can balance this by making screwdrivers free and hammers limited. You want to save your hammer for when you need it. Don't waste it on screws if you have unlimited screwdriver.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my understand, the reason in PF1E and 5E that casters are so OP is not because of their damage, it's because their save or suck spells reshape reality so hard it trivializes encounters by simply...wishing they did not exist at all, or something to that effect.
Nobody is asking for OP damage. At most we are asking to be allowed to be good single target blasters...and that's IT. I'm not taking Haste to cast on the Fighter at level 3, I'm not taking Air Walk or Fly, or Wall spells. I'm taking Lightning Bolt, Cone of Cold, Fireball and that's it all day every day and I'm chucking them at the boss. Maybe that is selfish, but why isn't the Fighter who doesn't even have skills selfish because all he does is swing a sword?
Don't you still get it? That is the one thing that martials are allowed to be good at. The. One. Thing! To be allowed to be good single target damage dealers.
Fighters are good at that. And guess what? They pay a price for it. The price is: Not being able to cast spells. So the Fighter is selfish because he has the audacity to be the gold standard for martials? Just because he isn't good at anything else? Really?
So you don't care about Haste and Fly and all that? You just want to mix it up with damage spells? Well... Try a Magus then. They do get pretty good single target damage, and they use damage spells to get it. Of course they do not get many spell slots. They mostly use their cantrips actually. Oh and they are classified as martials, but eh. You said you don't care about that, so, congratulations I guess, got your wish.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the thing though: The fantasy of the glass cannon blaster caster is only viable in MMORPGS because they are balanced by the tank. The damage sponge, the aggro attractor. The brick(wall) that stands between the monsters and the blasters.
This is most emphatically not the fantasy martial players want in a TTRPG. They want something like Conan. Maybe Merlin. Hercules possibly. Or even Archilles. Someone who is awesome in their own right, heroes to whom snivelling, cowardly wizards are but sidekicks, who occasionally help out with a magic trick, but otherwise better hide behind the broad shoulders of the Alpha Male Hero.
See the problem? These can't coexist in the same game. People who come to a TTRPG with a MMPRPG mindset must be disappointed, because their role can not exist in a game that caters to the martial hero.
Are you already played D&D 3.5/PF1 with a caster? MMORPG aren't they only place we have "glass cannon" concept. This concept is earlier from videogames. IMO these games that imported the overpowered casters from previous TRPG versions.
Don't you still get it? That is the one thing that martials are allowed to be good at. The. One. Thing! To be allowed to be good single target damage dealers.
Fighters are good at that. And guess what? They pay a price for it. The price is: Not being able to cast spells. So the Fighter is selfish because he has the audacity to be the gold standard for martials? Just because he isn't good at anything else? Really?
Things like Whirlwind Strike, Impossible Volley and Avalanche Strike can spawn martial AoE damage too. Specially the giant barbarians could be very devastating with Whirlwind.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are good at that. And guess what? They pay a price for it. The price is: Not being able to cast spells. So the Fighter is selfish because he has the audacity to be the gold standard for martials? Just because he isn't good at anything else?
When you put it like this it almost sounds like Fighters were designed with a way too narrow scope to really be healthy for the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, fighters are actually really good at battlefield control if they are willing to lose just a little bit of their damage potential. It is pretty easy in PF2 to be too focused on maximizing damage. One-shotting enemies is next to impossible, especially higher level solo monsters (the primary target of single target damage builds) so the creature is probably surviving for a round to 3 regardless of overall damage output.
Being capable of overkilling the enemy on round 2 or 3 doesn't really help if the fighter is unconscious after round 1. This is a big part of why I think the developers avoided making a whole lot of spells that are just about doing as much single target damage as possible, and instead are about doing damage and something else. Even for martials this is usually a more useful strategy than just focusing on doing as much damage as possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things like Whirlwind Strike, Impossible Volley and Avalanche Strike can spawn martial AoE damage too. Specially the giant barbarians could be very devastating with Whirlwind.
Fireball cast from a 6th level slot will do more damage on average than the Barbarian's 15th level whirlwind strike... and that's at a level where the Wizard has 8th level spells. Not even accounting for the fact that Fireball is way easier to place than a 3-action activity that requires you to be at the center of it. Sure seems like martials have lower AOE damage to preserve the caster's niche in that field.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main advantage of martials AoE is that's spamable. With some pontual exceptions like Elemental Blast focus spells even being stronger these AoE spells from spellslots are limited to only few times per day. If you focus exclusively in using they. You probably will use an entire top lvl spellslots in a single encounter.
|
|
Things like Whirlwind Strike, Impossible Volley and Avalanche Strike can spawn martial AoE damage too. Specially the giant barbarians could be very devastating with Whirlwind.Fireball cast from a 6th level slot will do more damage on average than the Barbarian's 15th level whirlwind strike... and that's at a level where the Wizard has 8th level spells. Not even accounting for the fact that Fireball is way easier to place than a 3-action activity that requires you to be at the center of it. Sure seems like martials have lower AOE damage to preserve the caster's niche in that field.
Well. As far as I’m aware, and granted it takes til I think level 18, but a Fighter with a spellcaster dedication can eventually get Master Proficiency on his spell DC’s and spell attack rolls. Granted his stat won’t be maxed out in his chosen spellcasting ability, but to the best of my knowledge that never goes the other way around - letting already casters get master proficiency using weapons with archetypes like Mauler, Archer, Dual-Weapon Warrior and so on. So martials can get master proficiency in casting and only a little less spell slots… but, say, a Summoner will never get master in weapons to fight with his Eidolon, nor can you have a scimitar wielding Sorcerer mixing it up in melee to any great effect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main advantage of martials AoE is that's spamable. With some pontual exceptions like Elemental Blast focus spells even being stronger these AoE spells from spellslots are limited to only few times per day. If you focus exclusively in using they. You probably will use an entire top lvl spellslots in a single encounter.
And the general weakness of martial AoE is that you're generally close to danger and they cost three actions so you can't reposition before or after doing it without haste.
Meanwhile Fireball is 2 actions and has a range of 500 feet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Master in spellcasting is equivalent to Expert in martial attacks. Note that all of the real casters are Legendary, only the pseudo-martials like the Summoner and Magus are Master.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well. As far as I’m aware, and granted it takes til I think level 18, but a Fighter with a spellcaster dedication can eventually get Master Proficiency on his spell DC’s and spell attack rolls. Granted his stat won’t be maxed out in his chosen spellcasting ability, but to the best of my knowledge that never goes the other way around - letting already casters get master proficiency using weapons with archetypes like Mauler, Archer, Dual-Weapon Warrior and so on. So martials can get master proficiency in casting and only a little less spell slots… but, say, a Summoner will never get master in weapons to fight with his Eidolon, nor can you have a scimitar wielding Sorcerer mixing it up in melee to any great effect.Things like Whirlwind Strike, Impossible Volley and Avalanche Strike can spawn martial AoE damage too. Specially the giant barbarians could be very devastating with Whirlwind.Fireball cast from a 6th level slot will do more damage on average than the Barbarian's 15th level whirlwind strike... and that's at a level where the Wizard has 8th level spells. Not even accounting for the fact that Fireball is way easier to place than a 3-action activity that requires you to be at the center of it. Sure seems like martials have lower AOE damage to preserve the caster's niche in that field.
If we're having this thread discussion about casters that eventually get Legendary casting, then you can imagine how worthless Master casting maximum is. You think Legendary casters have trouble sticking spells, master casters from archetype you might as well not even bother with save spells. If I make a caster archetype martial, I focus on all buffing or stuff that works without an attack or save.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Master in spellcasting is equivalent to Expert in martial attacks. Note that all of the real casters are Legendary, only the pseudo-martials like the Summoner and Magus are Master.
I mean, I "get it", but its really not.
Because it does nothing to address to the problem on a functional level. No matter how to slice it, a martial who takes a casting archetype will be more accurate/successful at casting by 20 than a caster who takes a martial archetype will be at swinging a sword.
That +2 matters, and its a design asymmetry which is a mistake in my option.