| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In pathfinder 2e, the total number of spell slot is far more limited than in pathfinder 1e. This is in part mitigated by the creation of focus spells, which can be cast at least once by encounter, and the fact that cantrip are automatically heightenned (and thus are kinda usefull during the whole campaign), but it still mean that spellcaster have a much more limited ammount of "daily ressource" to play with.
Given how overpowered casters were in PF1 (and 3.5, and 3.0, and 5e, and...), a nerf was certainly warranted, but this was far from the only one spellcasters received in PF2. Spell utility is now far more constrained to avoid making them simply overshadowing skill check, damaging spells now lag behind martial in accuracy (and their damage, while respectable, are never enought to turn the tide of a level appropriate encounter alone), and incapaciting spells flat out don't work against any creature of a higher level than the party.
So knowing all that, I'd like to know what people think about the amount of spell slot available in PF2. I feel like there's too little of them, and that it further exacerbate the general "feel bad" problem that low level spellcaster have, but I haven't played on this system for that long, so I'd like to know what more experienced people think.
As I've never played one myself, I especially would like to hear what people think about the summonner only having 4 of them at most, and the magus only having 6. Do these class still feel "right" to play? are those slot strictly reserved to "infallible" spells like buff spells or utility spells that require no save nor attack rolls?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Number of Spell slots is perfectly fine. And that's even ignoring the fact that you can nearly double them via Archetypes, if you feel the need. But frankl, that's more spells than you can reasonably cast in a single day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Number of Spell slots is perfectly fine. And that's even ignoring the fact that you can nearly double them via Archetypes, if you feel the need. But frankl, that's more spells than you can reasonably cast in a single day.
At level 10+, sure, but at low level it seems really limiting, and archetype spellcasting ability don't help then. It only start to get above 10 slot at level 5, and that's if you play a 4 slot caster.
Seing how our witch is struggling with no slot left after only a handfull of encounter every day (level 6 so far), I really wonder how summonner and magus make due when they never go above 6 slot.
At low levels it comes down to looking for things to do. Just like martials want a good third action (preferably more than one to choose from), casters need to think about what to do when spell slots run out. I honestly think cantrips and focus spells are a good answer, but between skill actions and potential abilities provided by your ancestry, you should never lack something to do.
I'm playing a 3rd cloistered cleric in AV right now and have yet to run into serious troubles managing my spell slots - even ignoring my font slots, which I mostly reserve for absolute emergencies or for some out of combat area heal to speed things along.
I also played multiple other caster classes in the past, including wizard, sorcerer, bard and witch. And sure, more spell slots would always be nice to have but I never felt like I wasn't contributing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think rather than adjusting spell slots per day, I'd rather see spells with durations adjusted.
Buffs, while looking feeble due to small numbers, are actually quite effective with the system's overall math. What stinks is that most buffs will only last for the individual combat.
I agree that casters needed a nerf from PF1, but I am open to the idea that they need a little help in PF2. I think tweaking some spell durations could help, without overshadowing anyone else or their niche.
This would also mean that casters would have more spell slots available for other things.
I think ultimately when it comes to balancing spell casters in PF2 better, the most nuanced solution without having crazy outsized impacts is to adjust spells or introduce new spells.
As a GM, it's much easier to tell a player "Hey, I tweaked that spell and it's not having (or having too much) of the impact I thought it would. I'm going to make some additional adjustments" then it is to say "Hey, those extra spell slots are too much, I'm gonna have to take those back".
You can get a lot of mileage out of cantrips, especially at early levels where your slots are at their lowest count. I haven't seen a problem with the number of slots at any level of play.
I have been thinking it would be really cool to be able to beef up your cantrips when necessary to give them more oomph. Sort of a half-step between slots and cantrips for higher levels when cantrips start to feel a bit anemic. Perhaps it could be a spell you need to cast with a higher level slot, or a new type of staff, that increases the power of your cantrips or lets you cast them with fewer actions for X rounds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate it... because of heightening...
While it doesn't apply to cantrips and focus spells, it's pretty taxing to use a higher spell solt to heighten a spell now.
I wish there was a way to spend 1 action / 1 heightened level instead, with Concentration checks to avoid losing your casting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no Concentration in PF2.
|
I have been thinking it would be really cool to be able to beef up your cantrips when necessary to give them more oomph. Sort of a half-step between slots and cantrips for higher levels when cantrips start to feel a bit anemic. Perhaps it could be a spell you need to cast with a higher level slot, or a new type of staff, that increases the power of your cantrips or lets you cast them with fewer actions for X rounds.
It would be nice to have more feats like the goblin's burn it.
OP, the witch has power level issues on its own. Other casters are fine. Of the casters I've played:
Witch: weak
Sorcerer: excellent
Bard: very powerful, but I hardly use my spell slots.
Magus: strong, but the only spell I ever prepare is shocking grasp. I use cantrips to cover the other elements. It would be nice to have some variety.
Summoner: bizarre. I thought it was a little weak, but it could be a skill issue. As with the bard, I barely used my slots.
speaking of sorcerers, how are arcane sorcerers compared to wizards (I haven't played nor have seen played either in PF2 so far)?
From what I've experienced in PF1, sorcerer are a bit weaker than wizard (but still excellent because PF1 caster), as spontaneous casting tend to be weaker than prepared one with experienced player, but the fact that they get more spell per day is one of the thing that give them a bit of an edge over wizard, as they're more effective during long days. How do they compare now that they have the exact same amount of slots?
|
Well they have spell of each level they can heightened automatically and they don't have problem of "oh no I didn't prep that one spell I know" or "oh no if only I had one more fireball" so that evens out number of slots pretty far.
Wizards even in 1e had the thing with "potentially more powerful if they prepped the right spells" but its always kinda hard to know in advance what to prep, so usually you prep the "safe" options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you feel about the number of spell slot?
The number of spell slots is fine. At all levels.
I use my cantrips and focus spells. I also manage my resources and do not burn through all of my spell slots in the first combat unless I am quite certain that there will not be any further battles that day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At level 1, and low levels generally, PF2 casters have way more functional spells they can cast in a day than PF1 casters. Focus spells and cantrips that punch over their weight at low levels are way more useful than 1 additional spell per day.
By level 3 or 4, items come into play. Scrolls are much better in PF2 than PF1. You can actually use them to cast offensively in combat. Items are an expected part of character power development in PF2. Getting more spell slots is the way casters participate in the wealth equals power game. In PF1, you had to be very knowledgeable about the system to get useful scrolls and wands. In PF2, the only trip up is that wands lose steam as damage options and eventually need to be replaced…but the wealth system makes it pretty easy and expected to keep upgrading you equipment anyway. I like scrolls more than wands in PF2, because of how quickly you level and how much more valuable it is to get more higher level slots as quickly as possible, but wands are a fine way to start boosting spells per day by level 4+.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
*shrugs* As sorcerer you can easily have 2 safe options and one unsafe option. Especially since you can swap spells out at level ups.
Not only that, but staves, wands, and scrolls are all very viable options even for offensive spells, because they use your spell attack and DC values instead of some pre-crafted (crappy) value.
In PF1 those items mostly sucked for offensive use because the values never scaled. In PF2 these items are good because they do, and allow a sorcerer to pick up spells they wouldn't frequently use but want to have access to and still have them be effective.
Honestly, the versatility of wizards in PF1 is what made them good. They could potentially have any spell for any situation, that's why people loved them (even if in reality this rarely actually worked that way). Sorcerers were derided for their limited number of spells known. But in PF2, items and consumables can make up for that, without a decrease in potency. Now the tables have flipped, and I find little reason to play a wizard over a sorcerer.
Edit: And to expand on that, I see little value in prepared spell casting over spontaneous, thanks to how the above magic items work. At least in a comparison of spell casting only. Class features of any given class could shift the preference in different directions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Claxon. When gauging 2 casters, I consider that a Prepared caster has one less spell slot per level than a Spontaneous one, to make up for the lack of flexibility and the few spell slots that you never manage to use (or that you waste on the wrong situation).
But unlike Old Man Robot, I'd give an extra spell slot to most prepared casters instead of removing one to the Sorcerer.
Overall, the number of spell slots is fine if you don't go into 6+ fights adventuring days regularly. But obviously, if your GM loves very big dungeon with no rest, casters will suffer. So it's really hard to speak in absolute.
As for the Summoner (and Magus, but I don't play one), they are not supposed to use their slotted spells in a regular basis. They can operate at peak efficiency even when they have no slot left, so it's just icing on the cake.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree Superbidi, that prepared casters either need an extra spell slot of some really good class features to measure up to spontaneous casters in this edition.
I don't feel the wizard class has those at this time, but as more books are written they might get class feats to make up for it.
I haven't looked critically at comparing cleric to oracle, but I think the Oracle wins out. Being less tied to a deity and anathema, having spontaneous spell casting, and having some interesting class features (which the cleric really lacks). I think the mystery and curse give much more flexibility to the character, while choosing a deity for a cleric really locks you in to specific things.
And please. Let's not get into the comparison between Occult Witch and Bard again.
I hate it... because of heightening...
While it doesn't apply to cantrips and focus spells, it's pretty taxing to use a higher spell solt to heighten a spell now.
I wish there was a way to spend 1 action / 1 heightened level instead, with Concentration checks to avoid losing your casting.
I agree with this, between cantrips and focus spells the total number of spells in general stops being a problem by level 5, you have more than enough room to never want for more options, with the important exception of spells that demand heightening, such as damage spells, summons, and incapacitation spells all of which have a hard per-day limit of between 3 and 8, that other kinds of spells just don't need to deal with.
And please. Let's not get into the comparison between Occult Witch and Bard again.
Are occult witch considered especially bad? our witch is an occult one (fate patron). So far, her player feel quite a bit useless.
The wizard does get 1 more spell per day than a sorcerer already, with object bond. The Spell substitution thesis and the spell blending thesis both go a very long way in making wizards that are able to do things with their spell slot spells that make other casters envious. I don't really think they need one extra spell slot per level as default.
I have played a cleric from 1 to 13, and I am just starting an Oracle who just hit level 2. The oracle pretty much casts 1 spell (heal) and any additional spells that I think I want to cast end up being one less essential heal spell in combat...but the rest of the party is melee martials (fighter, rogue and swashbuckler), so party composition is a factor. My cleric had a ranged rogue, a wizard and a melee champion, and I have never had to memorize heal spells in my spell slots and still be able to do all the in combat magic healing necessary. I know at higher levels I will start getting more flexibility with the oracle, but the oracle is 100 % about focus spell casting and cantrips at level 1 and 2, with heal as the only spell slot spell I ever get to cast in a day. I imagine that isn't going to change until 5th level, when 3rd level spells come on line.
I think most parties assume that if you are going to the divine spell list, you character is the in combat healer as their primary party role and it takes something like a healing font to have anywhere near enough spells to cover the expectations of the party for in combat healing. Of course you don't have to cast heal spells, but it is such a runaway powerful of a spell, even when heightened (something rarely true with spells), that it is just what parties tend to expect. Having it in a signature slot is an incredibly powerful option at higher levels though so I don't often agree when people say that the divine list is underpowered. Limited, yes, but probably the most powerful list, except for cantrips, where it really hurts, (Dancing lights for the cosmos Oracle?!? Why divinities why?! It is the most useless cantrip in the game, sustained!! on a light spell with no combat applications...grumble, grumble).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And please. Let's not get into the comparison between Occult Witch and Bard again.Are occult witch considered especially bad? our witch is an occult one (fate patron). So far, her player feel quite a bit useless.
Witch in general is considered quite a bit on the weaker side as far as mechanics go. The comparison between Occult tradition Witch and Bard, and between Arcane tradition Witch and Wizard are both especially harsh and makes the weaknesses of Witch glaringly obvious.
The existence of several trap option feats like Wortwitch and Eldritch Nails just makes it even worse.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree Superbidi, that prepared casters either need an extra spell slot of some really good class features to measure up to spontaneous casters in this edition.
I don't feel the wizard class has those at this time, but as more books are written they might get class feats to make up for it.
If not for the Witch, I feel like the "Worst Class" label would probably be on the Wizard if I'm honest. Its a rather dull class mechanically, with some unique penalties/restrictions, for no real niche or payoff. Many of the original justifications for the Wizard design have been errataed away (extra 10th level spells, etc), so I am very much in favour of additional class support.
At this point though, unless we get another Secrets of Magic style book, I doubt there will be something that fixes them properly. Even if we do it that eventually, it will be years off at this point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the witch was a really hard pill to swallow for fans of the class from PF1. It was the first caster that basically had all day usefulness in PF1, and was just all around better than the wizard, even able to get access to a bunch of spells wizards couldn't cast.
With everyone getting access to focus spells and useful cantrips, the unique design space of the PF1 witch was always going to be difficult to replicate because it's mechanical niche was pretty much gone. And then the way they super charged the bard with everything good about what the PF1 witch could do, but didn't give that back really to the PF2 witch...that is why it is such a hard pill to swallow.
The bard struggles with number of spell slots and action economy issues though if you were wanting to play an occult caster and not just a party support character though. Occult sorcerers are probably the best "occult caster" although their focus spells are not much better than those available to the witch.
I haven't looked critically at comparing cleric to oracle, but I think the Oracle wins out. Being less tied to a deity and anathema, having spontaneous spell casting, and having some interesting class features (which the cleric really lacks). I think the mystery and curse give much more flexibility to the character, while choosing a deity for a cleric really locks you in to specific things.
It's a bit complex. The Cleric definitely has more spells with the Font. And thanks to the Psychic Dedication they can easily find what to do with their Focus Points.
So, I think the classes are equivalent. I've still rated the Cleric higher than the Oracle as the Oracle class is very dependent on the curse, and some are rather bad, but also because the Cleric is really the king of spellcasters before level 5, as healing at these levels is supremely important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If not for the Witch, I feel like the "Worst Class" label would probably be on the Wizard if I'm honest. Its a rather dull class mechanically, with some unique penalties/restrictions, for no real niche or payoff. Many of the original justifications for the Wizard design have been errataed away (extra 10th level spells, etc), so I am very much in favour of additional class support.
At this point though, unless we get another Secrets of Magic style book, I doubt there will be something that fixes them properly. Even if we do it that eventually, it will be years off at this point.
I don't rate the Wizard really high, but considering it the worst class is a bit too extreme. Investigator, Witch, Alchemist (in long adventuring days) and Swashbuckler all have their issues, too. And the Wizard is still easily playable if built soundly. Not the best class out there, but a playable one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard does get 1 more spell per day than a sorcerer already, with object bond.
While 1 a day is not nothing, its not much of an advantage. Especially when taken against the Sorcerers much better options for focus spells and focus point usage.
As an aside, I think the Wizard is the only class with focus spells not to get their own Focused Item in the Treasure Vault, whereas the Sorcerers got 2.
The Spell substitution thesis and the spell blending thesis both go a very long way in making wizards that are able to do things with their spell slot spells that make other casters envious. I don't really think they need one extra spell slot per level as default
I'll admit that both of these are great options, its said that they are either or. I know a common suggestion is often to make Spell substitution a core part of the Wizard and not a thesis option in and of itself, but I'm not a fan personally.
Overall Wizard Thesis' are largely just "here you go" and hardly get interacted with by feats, which always felt odd to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, because of the way PF2 is, generally speaking, the best way I can describe it is that the Witch isn't BAD, it's just the worst.
Yeah, that's pretty fair.
Not unplayably bad. But does have some obvious problems and ends up being weaker than other spellcasters.
|
|
I don't rate the Wizard really high, but considering it the worst class is a bit too extreme. Investigator, Witch, Alchemist (in long adventuring days) and Swashbuckler all have their issues, too. And the Wizard is still easily playable if built soundly. Not the best class out there, but a playable one.If not for the Witch, I feel like the "Worst Class" label would probably be on the Wizard if I'm honest. Its a rather dull class mechanically, with some unique penalties/restrictions, for no real niche or payoff. Many of the original justifications for the Wizard design have been errataed away (extra 10th level spells, etc), so I am very much in favour of additional class support.
At this point though, unless we get another Secrets of Magic style book, I doubt there will be something that fixes them properly. Even if we do it that eventually, it will be years off at this point.
Apart from very early days Alchemist, PF2 has no classes at all that aren't potentially playable and rewarding. The floor and ceiling in this edition are thankfully never that far apart!
The Wizard just has several weird disadvantages built into it which aren't ever really justified anywhere, and it just costs the class overall. Lack of simple weapon prof adds a unique feat tax, they (and the Magus for some reason) have 1 less trained skill at start, they never get above 2 focus points and their focus spells are largely "meh". This is on top of things like their class feats being generally best described as "functional but dull".
The Wizard just doesn't really have a well defined niche in this edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the witch was a really hard pill to swallow for fans of the class from PF1. It was the first caster that basically had all day usefulness in PF1, and was just all around better than the wizard, even able to get access to a bunch of spells wizards couldn't cast.
With everyone getting access to focus spells and useful cantrips, the unique design space of the PF1 witch was always going to be difficult to replicate because it's mechanical niche was pretty much gone. And then the way they super charged the bard with everything good about what the PF1 witch could do, but didn't give that back really to the PF2 witch...that is why it is such a hard pill to swallow.
The bard struggles with number of spell slots and action economy issues though if you were wanting to play an occult caster and not just a party support character though. Occult sorcerers are probably the best "occult caster" although their focus spells are not much better than those available to the witch.
The witch player hadn't played any witch in pathfinder 1e so far (we run two session, one in 1e, the other in 2e), so she had no expectation about how a witch should be. Most of her problem come from the low amount of slot, the fact that her spells don't feel that impactfull when they do land, and a rather disheartening string of bad luck, which make her feel a bit useless so far.
Her struggles (and another talk about low spell slot in another thread) was what inspired this thread, because it's really noticeable that her motivation just tank the moment her second (and last) highest level spell of the day fail like the first one and then disapear. I feel like letting her have more "tries" (spell slot) would go a long way making the class feel better to play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the reason the witch is like that is not a mystery, it wasn't some intentional decision to make the witch what it is currently, the person in charge of writing the class left midway through its development, and the rest of the team working on the book had to cobble a functional class together from leftover notes, ideas, and half-finished work, all while keeping up with their own parts of the book. That's why the class is so all over the place with no real mechanical identity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to imagine what the witch could have been if the cantrips or focus spells could be amped up similar to how the Psychic does.
Save rates are rough. I dislike enemies failing their saves so infrequently, even with partial effects.
Main issue is being a good spellcaster involves a lot of system mastery and using a rather small subset of good spells well. Want to be a themed caster? Have fun but it just isn't very good.
You're not wrong in this regard, that if you don't carefully choose spells that have good effects on a successful save you can end up very disappointed. Of course, that leads to only a handful of spells being useful for combat and makes a themed caster practically impossible because there aren't enough spells with the kind of effects you need to make it worthwhile.
This was also a bit of a problem in PF1, it's just that we had a ton of spells, and more ways to poach spells that weren't on your spell list so you could make something work.
In PF2, I would discourage people from trying to focus too hard on a theme even though that would be disappointing to a lot of people.
At least when we get kineticist I think that can serve as a stand-in for elemental blaster focused casters that will be decent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the witch was a really hard pill to swallow for fans of the class from PF1. It was the first caster that basically had all day usefulness in PF1, and was just all around better than the wizard, even able to get access to a bunch of spells wizards couldn't cast.
With everyone getting access to focus spells and useful cantrips, the unique design space of the PF1 witch was always going to be difficult to replicate because it's mechanical niche was pretty much gone. And then the way they super charged the bard with everything good about what the PF1 witch could do, but didn't give that back really to the PF2 witch...that is why it is such a hard pill to swallow.
The bard struggles with number of spell slots and action economy issues though if you were wanting to play an occult caster and not just a party support character though. Occult sorcerers are probably the best "occult caster" although their focus spells are not much better than those available to the witch.
The witch player hadn't played any witch in pathfinder 1e so far (we run two session, one in 1e, the other in 2e), so she had no expectation about how a witch should be. Most of her problem come from the low amount of slot, the fact that her spells don't feel that impactfull when they do land, and a rather disheartening string of bad luck, which make her feel a bit useless so far.
Her struggles (and another talk about low spell slot in another thread) was what inspired this thread, because it's really noticeable that her motivation just tank the moment her second (and last) highest level spell of the day fail like the first one and then disapear. I feel like letting her have more "tries" (spell slot) would go a long way making the class feel better to play.
Having a third spell do nothing because of unlucky rolls isn't gonna make her feel better, really. What is she preparing in her slots? One of the very real balance issues with PF2 is that there's a massive glut of spells that are just bad because they don't properly interact with the four degrees of success.
The witch player hadn't played any witch in pathfinder 1e so far (we run two session, one in 1e, the other in 2e), so she had no expectation about how a witch should be. Most of her problem come from the low amount of slot, the fact that her spells don't feel that impactfull when they do land, and a rather disheartening string of bad luck, which make her feel a bit useless so far.
Her struggles (and another talk about low spell slot in another thread) was what inspired this thread, because it's really noticeable that her motivation just tank the moment her second (and last) highest level spell of the day fail like the first one and then disapear. I feel like letting her have more "tries" (spell slot) would go a long way making the class feel better to play.
Spell choice makes a lot of difference. Using spell attack roll spells like Snowball and Scorching Ray is higher risk than saving throw spells like Phantom Pain or Sound Burst. Also consider sustained damage spells like Flaming Sphere or Spiritual Weapon because even if you miss with them the first time, you don't have to spend another spell slot to try again.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is all the good mechanical elements of the witch got given to most casters in PF2 as just default things that the classes have. Maybe not some of the narrative specific elements of the lessons and such, but between domain focus spells (for pick and choose your focus spell) and cantrips universally getting boosted. It is rare for the witch cantrips or focus spells to feel unique and interesting and not just be something offered to a different caster. Both the Oracle and the Psychic could easily have fallen into the same trap, but they have very large mechanical additions that allow them to do something uniquely different than just cast focus spells or cantrips.
The bard was also already tuned up over what any new class was ever going to get from unique class cantrips so the witch was already fighting an uphill battle and just was never going to feel mechanically like a unique and interesting class. This isn't to say that you can't have a witch that is unique or interesting, and narratively, they exist in a very different space than other casters, but they really are the closest thing we have seen to a "hybrid" class that is just a mash up of other classes, without getting any of the really stellar options from those classes.
Wizards are very interesting in play if you know where to look for what makes them interesting, and otherwise just a pile of spell slots that you will either love or hate depending on how your GM sets up campaigns to let spell slots shine. Few of the wizard's cool tricks make them more powerful in combat though, so kind of ironically, the best wizard is still the wizard looking to control the narrative of the whole campaign, rather than the narrative of any encounter or combat round. There is no one else in the game secretly casting illusions that can be nearly impossible to detect. Whether that is totally amazing or a waste of time is campaign and GM dependent. Wizards are also really good at casting rituals because they have good reason to be keeping Arcana very high, stacked with item bonuses to skills and skill feats in it. Other classes mostly have to stretch to get there. Are rituals worth while? Not from any kind of mechanically evaluative metric. Narratively though, that is where a lot of the "wizard in a tower" fantasy is going to be accomplished.
The thing they don't do well is the "wizard's duel" fantasy, except potentially by completely shutting down other casters. Even being a level or two behind the main threat, I have seen wizards absolutely dominate the counter spell game of encounters vs a powerful spell caster, because you can hero point counter act checks and you only need a spell that is one level below the spell to be effective. Sorcerers can be pretty good at this, but wizards that research the threat and know it is coming can pretty easily shut down enemy casting. I am seeing this a lot in Fists of the Ruby Phoenix. Watching other teams fight is like wizard Disneyland.
At low levels, cantrips will just straight up one shot a lot of the enemies you face. They have really good minimum damage for ranged attacks.
Having a third spell do nothing because of unlucky rolls isn't gonna make her feel better, really. What is she preparing in her slots? One of the very real balance issues with PF2 is that there's a massive glut of spells that are just bad because they don't properly interact with the four degrees of success.
Statistically speaking, failing a coin toss two or three times in a row isn't uncommon. Failing 4 or 5 on the other hand is rather unlikely, and I think that *some* success would make her feel way less bad, even if most are failure.
As for spells, so far her "top end" offensive spells are impending doom, vampiric touch and chilling darkness (because shadow lesson, altho this one she haven't really used).
What focus spells is she using? What's her hex cantrip? These mechanics are supposed to go a long way toward improving longevity, but YMMV on how much they actually help given the wide discrepancy of balance between them.
Agree that you want to focus on spells you can sustain or spells with non-incapacitation saves if you want to be more successful.
Though I think your player also has to accept that with the way the class is designed, especially at lower-mid levels, you're going to spend more than a few rounds just casting cantrips. Electric arc if you have it, probably.
It looks like the Witch could use having a 30 foot range damage spell with a saving throw.
Vampiric Touch could work if combined with Reach Spell.
From the Occult list, Phantom Pain is quite good. Lower damage die size, but it does full damage if the enemy succeeds at the save. And it adds persistent damage and sickened if they fail the save.
Animated Assault also looks quite nice. A small area that can be placed anywhere within 120 feet. It can also be sustained if the enemies decide to just stay there and take damage. Or they can spend some of their actions moving instead of attacking.
And both of those spells can be prepared into higher level spell slots to increase the amount of damage that they do. Do be aware that the Animated Assault only increases for every two levels higher, so a 3rd level spell slot won't do additional damage, but a 4th level slot will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
About Spellslots I wished that Paizo had made some some sort of official Spell Point variant rule or class archetype in GMG or SoM like D&D 5e have in it's DMG (the only thing in DMG that worth beyond items). This probably would address mostly caster complains in PF2. This probably would be the most famous variant competing with Free Archetypes.
I haven't looked critically at comparing cleric to oracle, but I think the Oracle wins out. Being less tied to a deity and anathema, having spontaneous spell casting, and having some interesting class features (which the cleric really lacks). I think the mystery and curse give much more flexibility to the character, while choosing a deity for a cleric really locks you in to specific things.It's a bit complex. The Cleric definitely has more spells with the Font. And thanks to the Psychic Dedication they can easily find what to do with their Focus Points.
So, I think the classes are equivalent. I've still rated the Cleric higher than the Oracle as the Oracle class is very dependent on the curse, and some are rather bad, but also because the Cleric is really the king of spellcasters before level 5, as healing at these levels is supremely important.
IMO both are good and will depend from how do you want to play.
In general Clerics have better feat options while Oracles have a better chassis.
wizard are clearly meant to have the worst focus spell pool and the most versatile metamagic feat pool
there are multiple reason this design doesn't work and wizard often need to take archetype for focus spell
Metamagic is another problem of wizard. They usually costs an extra action but with exception of Reach Spell and sometimes Silent Spell they don't worth. Forcible Energy metamagic feat could be useful if all party members have same property damage runes and you can use it to cast a damage spell of same energy type, it's a good spell for teamwork but depends from you allies weapon builds also can't work with Metamagical Experimentation what's makes this thesis the worst IMO.
I'm starting to imagine what the witch could have been if the cantrips or focus spells could be amped up similar to how the Psychic does.
IMO the thing I usually miss in witch's cantrips is a good heightened effect. Mostly don't progress or don't progress well.