I am pretty sure that oozes are immune to spell damage from critical failure. Those might not have the attack trait but nobody can say that chain lightning is not an "attack".
Also, chain lightning is a 6th level spells. 11th level is not "early level", not to mention that "a set of 20 spells is good" is bad when you have 1,000+ spells.
I am pretty sure "attack" means involving an attack roll. Especially given that it's immune to critical HITS, not critical FAILURES.
And yes it's high level. Burning hands isn't and works the same way
Yeah, this is correct. It does mean that cantrips with spell attack rolls are not as great against oozes as you want them be, but getting the slowed speed from ray of frost is awesome, as can be setting an ooze on fire with produce flame. But Hydraulic Push still does it's full extra damage for a crit because it is set up like a save.
Oozes are immune to the doubling of damage from crits, but not other effects from Crits. Oozes are the "situation" that make Hydraulic Push an exceptional situational blasting spell (well that and when you also really need to move a target with a really high Fort save and terrible AC, which is also Oozes).
Hydraulic Push is a first level spell that is pretty good at first level, but suffers because most first level casters have multiple AC targeting cantrips and few save targeting ones, so if you choose to have it memorized or be one of your spontaneous spells for the day, you can lose out on having spells that target other defenses.
I don't think this is true anymore.
When a creature immune to critical hits is critically hit by a Strike or other attack that deals damage, it takes normal damage instead of double damage. This does not make it immune to any other critical success effects of other actions that have the attack trait (such as Grapple and Shove).
My current reading is that other critical success effects of an attack that deals damage is still removed, as opposed to non-damaging actions like Grapple where it applies.
We had a big debate last weekend around how a fatal flaming weapon criting on an ooze works, and that was our conclusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't disagree with many of your conclusions, but you bring up your hard data very frequently, and a sample of 1 really just isn't a good basis on which to make conclusions. All of your data is dependent on your GMing style, your players' playing style, the sorts of stories you enjoy telling, and many other factors. All the data is appropriate for conclusions about your games! But it's not the basis on which to make balancing decisions for the whole game on its own. Hard data could be provided that shows Investigators are really strong in-combat because the GM always gives them a lead before the fight and has based their campaign around custom enemies that are weak to precision damage. One could provide data showing that casters are incredibly OP with their damage if most fights are against large hordes of weak enemies. And none of that is even talking about house rules, players making mistakes, misinterpretations of rules, what one chooses to measure and place value upon, etc. Presenting your data isn't an issue, but acting like your data is inherently correct because you tracked it carefully is ignoring the multitude of factors that all play into the outcomes we're discussing.No hard data.
I have hard data that there is no caster vs. martial disparity.
I have hard data the wizard and witch feats are terrible comparatively in what they provide. You can show their lack of bang for the buck compared to other class feats.
No one claiming this Caster vs. Martial disparity has made a compelling case backed up by data. It's not actionable. There is zero consensus that this Caster vs. Martial disparity exists.
It keeps coming up from a group of people that don't want to focus the discussion with data showing the Caster vs. Martial disparity exists. They cannot prove it exists. Their arguments are far too broad.
They use Caster vs. Martial disparity on these forums as though everyone just knows what they're talking about even though they've been told by multiple experienced posters that they don't know what they're talking about because they do not experience this in game.
So continuing to claim something you can't prove exists is creating something designers can't action. Not sure why they keep it up.
My current reading is that other critical success effects of an attack that deals damage is still removed, as opposed to non-damaging actions like Grapple where it applies.If you mean things like fatal, then definitely not. The only thing that doesn't work is doubling normal damage. Absolutely everything else which appears on crit still works. Additional damage from fatal and deadly, increasing dice value, persistent damage, debuffs - everything. We even had one of the devs to say so somewhere if I remember correctly.
Basically: do everything that's written and don't do anything else. That's very frequently helpful with the rules.
Huh. Do you remember which Dev? I'd like to track it down. It is pretty important for the gunslingers at our table.
It is not heavily customized. Why do you people think this?
I changed one major thing turning everyone into sorcerers basically, spontaneous casters.
I did not change the spells, the spell DCs, the four levels of success and failure, or anything else.
I did not change the stats. I did not change the focus spells.
I tested all this stuff prior to making any changes. I played the normal way for a year or more from release. Even then I figured out casters didn't have a problem....
Yes your game is heavily modified and I already named some changes that you have mentioned in recent threads about this topic, which is definitely more than one. People think you made big changes because you did.
Making every caster spontaneous is a huge buff alone. That is not something that affects only the witch and wizard, but also applies to other classes like druid and cleric.
In turn making every spell a signature spell is a huge buff as well.
And the fact that out of combat challenges get handwaved by clever ideas from the players is completely game changing. You literally said a Wizard could invent a matching spell if it was a good idea to solve a roadblock and that travels are no-issues, it's always assumed the group just makes it and the how is just ignored. It's no wonder you see no benefit in the utility of for example the wizard, because every caster has it and actually doesn't need spending resources for it.
I don't know why you bring up all these other things that you haven't changes as nobody claimed you did and those 3 changes above alone are a huge shift in power.
Coming back to low level casters. They most likely won't have the necessary spells with them to utilize to bring forth those white room results. They will spend about a third of their spells out of combat and with multiple combats per day, that leaves a caster about 1 spell per encounter. (or less) About 40% of those spells which will fail.
I don't even know why we are talking about chain...
Show me some proof that there is a Caster vs. Martial disparity.
First, define all casters. What do you mean by a caster?
Second, show classes like the druid and bard have problems. I played a druid to 15 and a bard to 17 before I made any changes. They were fine from level 1 to where I stopped playing them. No issues.
If you are going to claim something like a Caster vs. Martial disparity exists, the onus on is on you to prove it using all available means.
Not things like, "I don't want to use a weapon because.."
Prove there is a caster versus martial disparity.
Describe in play how each caster class is having problems at low level.
I'm not seeing it. I keep reading the claims with no play example for every caster.
When I describe the problems with the wizard, I use actual examples of play and the problems associated. Same with the witch.
You are trying to prove all low level casters have problems regardless of the quality of their builds or focus spells.
How do you expect designers to listen to that when they can prove you wrong by showing how most of the available caster classes do not exhibit this disparity at low levels or high levels.
A druid can easily take an AC at level 1 then combine that with a weapon attack or a cantrip while their AC is doing physical attacks. How do you call that a disparity?
Does a druid count as a caster?
You want to dismiss what I have to say, but I know the classes well enough to discuss each one. If you can't debate me with how a class plays and what they can do, then how do you expect to convince designers there is a problem?
Provide clear play examples showing each caster has a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coming back to low level casters. They most likely won't have the necessary spells with them to utilize to bring forth those white room results. They will spend about a third of their spells out of combat and with multiple combats per day, that leaves a caster about 1 spell per encounter. (or less) About 40% of those spells which will fail.
Not all casters are like this. Once again who are you talking about?
My druid generally has an AC at early level or a tempest surge which is often used one time a combat. On top of cantrips and usually takes a weapon, usually a bow. So I'm layering in damage from multiple sources.
My clerics do something similar getting a weapon and using cantrips, thought the divine list cantrip damage is terrible. So I mostly stick with weapons.
Bard is buffing the entire group taking 1 point of damage off every hit as his own. Then using a cantrip or a weapon.
This is all base level material without any modifications I made. Why do you ignore all of this?
I don't even know why we are talking about chain lightning for low level casters to begin with. With combats taking an average of 3 to 4 rounds that leaves casters relying on cantrips for 9 - 12 rounds per day.
No, it doesn't.
Casters rely on:
1. focus Spells
2. Spell slots.
3. Cantrips
4. Weapons.
Why are you ignoring these other options? Casters have a lot of other options you completely ignore in these discussions to what? Make the designers forget these other options?
It makes you look like you don't even know the game.
Most casters don't want to be near the enemy, so I don't know where you would factor weapons in, but that would mean you don't get to move at all... Positioning is a very important part of the game. Not only would that mean many spells would not be able to properly target enemies in the first place, most of the time they would also have lesser cover from allies, reducing the bad hit chances even further.
Bows, crossbows, reach weapons?
I haven't had any problem using weapons or positioning to use them. Not sure why you are having problems.
The martials in my groups use trip and such. It works for casters too.
Lesser cover isn't much of an impediment when you use a save spell or focus spell and are working in free attacks at maximum attack bonus with a save cantrip or an AC.
Martials start getting their first runes by level 2 and have an easy access to flanking bonus. Their hit chance will be 15% better already at that point in time and their crit chance is usually better too. Even assuming one attack per turn only, the martials easily outclass the casters over the day. I don't know what to tell you, it's not even close. First level spells don't do much more damage than normal weapon attacks to begin with and are so swingy that the chance is somewhat high that you might deal less. Every martial attack deals more damage than a cantrip, for one action only instead of two. (and soon that difference will only grow)
Get your own rune for your weapon. Learn to work as a team like the martials have to do to benefit from flanking and such.
Some casters like the druid with 8 hit points, an AC to start, and a very focused stat array with a shield and shield block if needed have no trouble entering combat.
Bard's doing fine too.
If what you mean by caster is the wizard, then yeah, wizard's have some problems keeping up. Witch I've seen rely heavily on their hex cantrip at low level. Sorc with a good focus spell does fine too, sorc with a bad focus spell usually relies on cantrips and a weapon.
Unless you're ignoring all your options to improve your damage, then casters aren't nearly as bad even at low level as you're painting it.
The wizard is probably the worst low level caster:
1. Prepared spells
2. Bad focus spells
3. Big one is lack of even simple weapon proficiency to upgrade from ancestry feats. Fortunately, they are fixing this in the remaster.
The other caster classes have ways to compete and do compete. Are they all going to match a martial? Nope. Do they have options? Sure.
You could even cast magic weapon on your own weapon instead of the martials since that is one of the best first level spells in the game. Then take your own swings as I do with cleric a lot of the time. A cleric of gorum casting Magic Weapon on his own greatsword is pretty brutal. They can even do this while two action healing themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When people talk about a so-called martial caster divide it typically feels like they are more so upset that they aren't inhabiting the role of a martial but using magic instead. Specifically they want to do the same damage and they want to do it all day. Now that the kineticist exists, they have an option for this
It also seems strange that people are trying to say this is a low level issue, but isn't the issue moreso between levels 9 and 13 or so? It's that the area casters feel most behind mathematically?
Do I infer correctly from some of what's been said here that the average adventuring day includes four (or is it five) combats?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do I infer correctly from some of what's been said here that the average adventuring day includes four (or is it five) combats?
I don't really think there is such thing as average adventuring day in PF2.
Maybe I should have said "encounters" rather than "combats". Or maybe it makes no difference.
Do I infer correctly from some of what's been said here that the average adventuring day includes four (or is it five) combats?I don't really think there is such thing as average adventuring day in PF2.
Not as a codified system, but we could presume that there is an average number of combats between groups. Averages aren't always helpful though
How closely do GMsˇtrack time of day, then? I mean, if you're ignoring the passage of time during Exploration mode, then time in Exploration mode might be considered the same as "real" time, and an adventuring day would be a bit less than three three hour sessions. Is that how it works in most campaigns?
With Foundry, it is pretty easy to track the passage of in game time down to the minute, and it rarely lines up with real time. It can take 10 seconds to describe a two week hike but an hour to complete an 18 second combat.
But the reason there isn't an average adventuring day isn't due to how time is tracked. It is because different adventures pack in different amounts of encounters. Hexploration based games tend to give you only one encounter a day most of the time. A mega dungeon crawl might let the party set their own pace and rest whenever the caster is out of slots. A game where you're fending off an attack on a city will likely force you to fight multiple encounters back to back, and you'll be lucky to get a 10 minute treat wounds break. And still others might give you a ticking clock where you can tell how much time you have and make informed decisions about how to spend it.
I've seen all of these and more represented in PF2 APs. I've even seen multiple styles within the same AP. There's no consistent baseline, and picking an average number is a terrible representation of varying extremes.
"With Foundry"
Yeah. And without Foundry? :-)
I guess it's because I come from a system where there are specific "time ticks" depending on where you are and what you're doing. The most common time tick in this system is the four hour watch, but if you're in a safe environ with nothing much going on, it's one day, and if you're in a town walking around, or underground, it's one minute. And we tracked 'em. Or the GM did, anyway. :-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When people talk about a so-called martial caster divide it typically feels like they are more so upset that they aren't inhabiting the role of a martial but using magic instead. Specifically they want to do the same damage and they want to do it all day. Now that the kineticist exists, they have an option for this
It also seems strange that people are trying to say this is a low level issue, but isn't the issue moreso between levels 9 and 13 or so? It's that the area casters feel most behind mathematically?
Yes which is a whole seperate issue, just incapacitation + saves being based off spell level rather than character level is a big pain to casters but this is for low levels so I've tried to limit myself to that.
Speaking personally if I play a caster, I want to PLAY a caster. If you tell me "No just pick up a weapon and act like a sub-par martial till 9+ when most campaigns are coming to an end" then I'll be wondering if I really want to play the game and I have enough knowledge to avoid most trap options. New players don't and they are going to be trying casters at a level when they don't have a lot of options and most of the advice is "play a martial" or "spend your money on consumables" or "pick these options only" which is going to drive them away especially if they misjudge the number of encounters or have the enemy save/dodge their attakcs. Especially since the odds of a dice roll succeeding by just that amount is very rare the martial will either miss or hit by enough your buff didn't help.
Oh and as for electric arc its not 2d4 + ability mod (till the remaster when the mod goes away) its D4 + ability mod unless you heighten it. Heighten it and its not per day its 2d4 (in circumstances) + ability if you use one of your 1st level slots which makes it limited per day.
As for magic weapon its fine but its part of the whole feeling that casters only exist to mop up or cheer on the martials not contribute by themselves to a fight.
Do I infer correctly from some of what's been said here that the average adventuring day includes four (or is it five) combats?
There really is no average from what I've seen. It all depends on the design of the adventure and the experience level of the party. If you're in a sandbox, you may have one or two encounters a day. If you're in a dungeon crawl, you can have as many encounters as there are rooms.
My group can regularly clear large dungeons with minimal rest. You kill the easy encounters with minimal resources spent and use your caster resources as needed.
If a caster wants to keep casting, they'll burn their resources very fast and will find progress through adventures much slower.
The wizard is most likely to have this occur because they are most reliant on spell slots with few quality focus spells or feats to supplement other forms of contributing.
Players like Unicore supplement their slots with consumables to extend the adventuring day. I've found classes with quality feats and focus spells can accomplish the same end.
I don't believe in a Caster vs. Martial disparity. But there is definitely a Wizard vs. Everyone Else disparity. Some folks have groups that play up to the wizard's strengths or at least allow them to thrive. But my experience is they experience the greatest drop off in power from lack of spell slots.
Even a sorcerer with good focus spells can sustain damage for a long time during even extended adventuring days. They have simple weapon proficiency which allows them to upgrade weapon choices with ancestry feats. They have a matrix of spells with up to 4 slots rather than having to prepare their slots in advance.
When people talk about a so-called martial caster divide it typically feels like they are more so upset that they aren't inhabiting the role of a martial but using magic instead. Specifically they want to do the same damage and they want to do it all day. Now that the kineticist exists, they have an option for this
It also seems strange that people are trying to say this is a low level issue, but isn't the issue moreso between levels 9 and 13 or so? It's that the area casters feel most behind mathematically?
Yes which is a whole seperate issue, just incapacitation + saves being based off spell level rather than character level is a big pain to casters but this is for low levels so I've tried to limit myself to that.
Speaking personally if I play a caster, I want to PLAY a caster. If you tell me "No just pick up a weapon and act like a sub-par martial till 9+ when most campaigns are coming to an end" then I'll be wondering if I really want to play the game and I have enough knowledge to avoid most trap options. New players don't and they are going to be trying casters at a level when they don't have a lot of options and most of the advice is "play a martial" or "spend your money on consumables" or "pick these options only" which is going to drive them away especially if they misjudge the number of encounters or have the enemy save/dodge their attakcs. Especially since the odds of a dice roll succeeding by just that amount is very rare the martial will either miss or hit by enough your buff didn't help.
Oh and as for electric arc its not 2d4 + ability mod (till the remaster when the mod goes away) its D4 + ability mod unless you heighten it. Heighten it and its not per day its 2d4 (in circumstances) + ability if you use one of your 1st level slots which makes it limited per day.
As for magic weapon its fine but its part of the whole feeling that casters only exist to mop up or cheer on the martials not contribute by themselves to a fight.
That's the way they built the game for casters to keep up.
Casters are highly varied, even more varied than martials in my opinion. I can see not wanting to use a weapon as a wizard or sorcerer or even a witch, but if you're a cleric or druid or bard, using a weapon should not be a problem.
You do all consider bards, clerics, and druids casters in these discussions? They go up to level 9 and get a level 10 spell.
It seems in these discussions people are lumping all casters into a single group when what they mean is wizards, sorcerers, and witches. The 6 hit point casters who mainly rely on casting.
I can't imagine the folks making these assertions have played a cleric, druid, or bard and went, "Gee, I feel so terrible. I really need more power."
That's why archetypes exist. You can get a better caster front/mid-liner with them. Feats to increase HP, use armor and weapons, etc.
If you want to focus on casting, well that is what you have, maybe some subpar with your cantrips, but when you cast a Horrid Wilting dealing 10d10 to every target at 500'...well, how many rounds need the martial to that.
If the adventure ends at level 9-10, well create your character accordy. But even in that case you can focus on pure cast, with a Sorcerer adding twice the spell level to damage (by feat and bloodline), and many options.
The target should not be compare each character at the specific situation, is not possible to balance all that. Get each character and value if appropriated generally, each one should be good on something.
|
|
...When people talk about a so-called martial caster divide it typically feels like they are more so upset that they aren't inhabiting the role of a martial but using magic instead. Specifically they want to do the same damage and they want to do it all day. Now that the kineticist exists, they have an option for this
It also seems strange that people are trying to say this is a low level issue, but isn't the issue moreso between levels 9 and 13 or so? It's that the area casters feel most behind mathematically?
Yes which is a whole seperate issue, just incapacitation + saves being based off spell level rather than character level is a big pain to casters but this is for low levels so I've tried to limit myself to that.
Speaking personally if I play a caster, I want to PLAY a caster. If you tell me "No just pick up a weapon and act like a sub-par martial till 9+ when most campaigns are coming to an end" then I'll be wondering if I really want to play the game and I have enough knowledge to avoid most trap options. New players don't and they are going to be trying casters at a level when they don't have a lot of options and most of the advice is "play a martial" or "spend your money on consumables" or "pick these options only" which is going to drive them away especially if they misjudge the number of encounters or have the enemy save/dodge their attakcs. Especially since the odds of a dice roll succeeding by just that amount is very rare the martial will either miss or hit by enough your buff didn't help.
Oh and as for electric arc its not 2d4 + ability mod (till the remaster when the mod goes away) its D4 + ability mod unless you heighten it. Heighten it and its not per day its 2d4 (in circumstances) + ability if you use one of your 1st level slots which makes it limited per day.
As for magic weapon its fine but its part of the whole feeling that casters only exist to mop up or cheer on the martials not contribute by themselves to a
I haven't, I have a dislike of relying on outside sources for power clerics, druids, warlocks. Its just a personal quirk for reasons relating to real life experiences. So I try not to speak for them as I don't know how they play. Though I have seen posts about someone who tried to play a cleric as a straight caster and was begging other players not to take options that would make them even less able to contribute. But for all my posts take them as from the perspective of someone who plays wizards and arcanists, occasionally sorcerers but not often as I really like versatility in spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't, I have a dislike of relying on outside sources for power clerics, druids, warlocks. Its just a personal quirk for reasons relating to real life experiences. So I try not to speak for them as I don't know how they play. Though I have seen posts about someone who tried to play a cleric as a straight caster and was begging other players not to take options that would make them even less able to contribute. But for all my posts take them as from the perspective of someone who plays wizards and arcanists, occasionally sorcerers but not often as I really like versatility in spells.
between this and your reply to me, I'm wondering if you have actually played this game. There is no warlock in all of pf, fullcaster cleric always works and is the way they have to be played more or less, there is no arcanist in 2e, you don't know how cantrips work...??? Also
saves being based off spell level rather than character level is a big pain to casters but this is for low levels so I've tried to limit myself to that.
this is not true in pathfinder second edition at all
Are you in the wrong edition's forum?
|
|
I haven't, I have a dislike of relying on outside sources for power clerics, druids, warlocks. Its just a personal quirk for reasons relating to real life experiences. So I try not to speak for them as I don't know how they play. Though I have seen posts about someone who tried to play a cleric as a straight caster and was begging other players not to take options that would make them even less able to contribute. But for all my posts take them as from the perspective of someone who plays wizards and arcanists, occasionally sorcerers but not often as I really like versatility in spells.between this and your reply to me, I'm wondering if you have actually played this game. There is no warlock in all of pf, fullcaster cleric always works and is the way they have to be played more or less, there is no arcanist in 2e, you don't know how cantrips work...??? Also
saves being based off spell level rather than character level is a big pain to casters but this is for low levels so I've tried to limit myself to that.this is not true in pathfinder second edition at all
Are you in the wrong edition's forum?
No right forum just don't get to play much and I was put off 2nd edition at the start due to a number of factors. Only came back to it at all as several podcasts I follow switched to it at which point I started looking at the threads in the 2nd edition reddit. It seems I have been badly misinformed from those. I will bow out here and have another look through the players book maybe try a solo play of something again. Who know's maybe I'll get further than the first few chapters of strength of thousands this time.
I will add the classes I listed in my last post still stand as that was just expressing my personal preferences and giving examples of where they lie as people will recognize them.
The Wizard gets extra skills and languages with the Int, and are masters of Knowledge. Not sure if you use much in your games but knowledge is power, nothing better than knowing what you face.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard ... and are masters of Knowledge.
No, that's just not true.
Wizard's are just an Int based class. They have no abilities which make them "knowledge" based. When compared to actual knowledge classes, like the Investigator, Rogue, Bard, or Thaumaturge, you'll see that Wizard's don't actually have anything which requires or directly rewards knowledge.
It's advantageous for Wizards to make recall knowledge checks, but this is true for every spellcaster. Wizards get no support or help when it comes to using RK, and gain no special benefits from doing so.
Also, for what's its worth, Wizards will have less trained skills than any other class (bar magus) which has the same amount of Intelligence as it. They also don't get any bonus skills or languages as part of their kit.
They just have Int as a key stat. Its not anywhere near the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that most of the complains with damage spells come from having a limited resource that is expected to fail and be the same or weaker than an unlimited resource that is expected to succeed and reliably crit succeed.
The overall complain is about failure chance and expectation. Where you are expected to fail and expected to like the fact because "failure still gives you something". But most people absolutely hate to constantly fail even if you get something out of it.
It's really just a naming issue. If they named "Critical Success" just "Success" and named "Success" as "Partial Success" when rolling a Saving Throw, expectations would be more in line with what happens.
And this works on both sides of the save. When I cast and the enemy rolls a Success, my expectations are that my spell is wasted even when it's not. When my enemy casts and I roll a Success, my expectations are that I avoided the effect when actually, the bad stuff hit me, just not the full impact.
The Wizard ... and are masters of Knowledge.No, that's just not true.
Wizard's are just an Int based class. They have no abilities which make them "knowledge" based. When compared to actual knowledge classes, like the Investigator, Rogue, Bard, or Thaumaturge, you'll see that Wizard's don't actually have anything which requires or directly rewards knowledge.
It's advantageous for Wizards to make recall knowledge checks, but this is true for every spellcaster. Wizards get no support or help when it comes to using RK, and gain no special benefits from doing so.
Also, for what's its worth, Wizards will have less trained skills than any other class (bar magus) which has the same amount of Intelligence as it. They also don't get any bonus skills or languages as part of their kit.
They just have Int as a key stat. Its not anywhere near the same.
But it is. Seems that people only expect the things to be hardwritten in a paragraph to be something or even exists. Using Int is precisely what it makes it. Compare with the Sorcerer, more bonus to lore skills which could be compared to charisma skills, but Int grants more skills and more languages that Charisma not. If Bard want that, needs MAD (Multi Attribute) because uses Charisma, and has less spells slots, so Wizard is more caster.
What matters is in practice, and the Wizard gets those advantages just because the way is designed the whole, that is the coincidence of using Int, the same ability stat that grants the others. There is no need to have something written with the title “Knowledge advantage” or something like that.
On only combat focused games could be a minor thing, but having so many languages can make a great difference in other type of games, and the same for having more skills.
So Wizard and the Witch (Int casters) gets many more skills and languages than other casters integrated in the class just by association with no need of specific text. That is an advantage that should not be ignored.
|
Coming back to low level casters. They most likely won't have the necessary spells with them to utilize to bring forth those white room results. They will spend about a third of their spells out of combat and with multiple combats per day, that leaves a caster about 1 spell per encounter. (or less) About 40% of those spells which will fail.
We should discuss this - because despite people being down on them, low-level casters do have a few tricks.
First of all, low-level is probably levels under 5 or so? So they don't actually have accuracy issues compared to martials, because martial proficiency tick is at level 5. They shoot just as well. Maybe they're a point lower once martials hit level 2 or 3 and get a weapon potency rune, but that's pretty minor and they can target saving throws too.
Most casters don't want to be near the enemy, so I don't know where you would factor weapons in, but that would mean you don't get to move at all... Positioning is a very important part of the game. Not only would that mean many spells would not be able to properly target enemies in the first place, most of the time they would also have lesser cover from allies, reducing the bad hit chances even further.
Before level 4 or 5 (when striking runes come online) low-level casters have one of the most powerful buffs in the game: magic weapon . As I say, I've seen war priests butcher entire encounters with that thing and a greataxe at level 2, it literally doubles your damage. It's probably what you should be casting, either on yourself (if you have a solid weapon) or the party martial (if you don't). Your to-hit chances are exactly as good as the non-fighter party martial - you're all trained. It doubles your damage.
Likewise, caster damage can be quite solid - as noted, you have the same to-hit chance as any martial. As an example, take acid arrow . It deals 3d8 (13.5) plus 1d6 persistent acid (7 points for 2 ticks) for a total of...
Shillelagh is even better than Magic Weapon at low levels. You won't believe the number of opponents you meet who are not from the Universe plane.
And Martials cannot ask you to cast the spell on their weapon.
|
|
Not as a codified system, but we could presume that there is an average number of combats between groups. Averages aren't always helpful thoughDo I infer correctly from some of what's been said here that the average adventuring day includes four (or is it five) combats?I don't really think there is such thing as average adventuring day in PF2.
It may be referring to the fact that PFS scenarios usually have 3 combat encounters and will often (but not always) take place within a single day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've done everything I can to make wizards better barring a complete rewrite of the class and focus spells. My players hate their boring feats and class abilities.
They basically took an ability a wizard could do as part of the class in PF1 and turned it into a thesis with Spell Substitution. All wizards in PF1 could do Spell Substitution as needed. They turned that into a Spell Thesis and made you have to take it as your only thesis? That's kind of a kick in the teeth if you ask me.
Then they take focus spells like Augment Summoning and make it an action and a focus point combined with an already 3 action cast summon spell so you can't even bring it online until round 2.
I don't know what they were thinking with the wizard class design. That was the first class I tried in PF2 and what an awful experience that class is. Nothing I've done including spontaneous casting, heightening, and the like has made my players want to play one long term whereas this was one of the most played classes in every edition of D&D and PF1 up to PF2.
It's one of those classes you read and there is not much to look forward to as you level. A bare bones classes with boring feats. It doesn't help they really stripped the Arcane list of a lot of its power spells.
Most wizard players can tolerate weakness at low level for the power at higher level. That's been the paradigm for decades. But there is no payoff like that now for being a wizard. Now it's start off sucking at low level, then just become kind of ok but lacking as you get the higher levels with maybe mega-disintegrate to look forward to at level 20. I don't know know if mega-disintegrate is enough to play a wizard to 20.
I haven't, I have a dislike of relying on outside sources for power clerics, druids, warlocks. Its just a personal quirk for reasons relating to real life experiences. So I try not to speak for them as I don't know how they play. Though I have seen posts about someone who tried to play a cleric as a straight caster and was begging other players not to take options that would make them even less able to contribute. But for all my posts take them as from the perspective of someone who plays wizards and arcanists, occasionally sorcerers but not often as I really like versatility in spells.Oh man I know what you feel like not sure if its for the same reason as you but I also avoid classes where you have a "boss" that can fire you at any moment but I'm somewhat fine with the summoner or the animist where the relationship is more equal.
I'm curious to know if you also consider the Barbarian a class with a "boss" who can fire you.
They basically took an ability a wizard could do as part of the class in PF1 and turned it into a thesis with Spell Substitution. All wizards in PF1 could do Spell Substitution as needed. They turned that into a Spell Thesis and made you have to take it as your only thesis? That's kind of a kick in the teeth if you ask me.
To be honest, no, the wizard couldn't do that; the arcanist could (if they took that ability).
What every prepared caster could do was leaving blank slots to memorize stuff later, but that's a bit different compared to changing an already memorized slot with another.
The Wizard ... and are masters of Knowledge.No, that's just not true.
Wizard's are just an Int based class. They have no abilities which make them "knowledge" based. When compared to actual knowledge classes, like the Investigator, Rogue, Bard, or Thaumaturge, you'll see that Wizard's don't actually have anything which requires or directly rewards knowledge.
It's advantageous for Wizards to make recall knowledge checks, but this is true for every spellcaster. Wizards get no support or help when it comes to using RK, and gain no special benefits from doing so.
Also, for what's its worth, Wizards will have less trained skills than any other class (bar magus) which has the same amount of Intelligence as it. They also don't get any bonus skills or languages as part of their kit.
They just have Int as a key stat. Its not anywhere near the same.
But it is. Seems that people only expect the things to be hardwritten in a paragraph to be something or even exists. Using Int is precisely what it makes it. Compare with the Sorcerer, more bonus to lore skills which could be compared to charisma skills, but Int grants more skills and more languages that Charisma not. If Bard want that, needs MAD (Multi Attribute) because uses Charisma, and has less spells slots, so Wizard is more caster.
What matters is in practice, and the Wizard gets those advantages just because the way is designed the whole, that is the coincidence of using Int, the same ability stat that grants the others. There is no need to have something written with the title “Knowledge advantage” or something like that.
On only combat focused games could be a minor thing, but having so many languages can make a great difference in other type of games, and the same for having more skills.
So Wizard and the Witch (Int casters) gets many more skills and languages than other casters integrated in the class just by association with no need of specific text. That...
A Fighter that maxes intelligence gets the same number of skills as a wizard, Fighters also get a class feat that triggers off recall knowledge. It is just as advantageous for any glass to make recall knowledge checks as a wizard and many like the fighter get something for doing so. Wizards get exact zero support for it.
Wizards get no feat support. Wizards get exactly +1 int over any other class, nothing in the rules say their int needs to be maxed, its not built in that wizards start with 18 intelligence so no its not. Forcing them to be the recall knowledge class with no support for it is awful design, the only int skill wizards gain advantage from is arcane which is only for learning spells but again they don't get free advances other than trained.
Any class can invest in intelligence and be as good or bettwr than wizards at recall knowledge and languages and many get class feat support. If wizards got a ton of class feats or features for it maybe there would be some truth to that but they don't. The only things they get for free is +1int and arcana. They have no class feature of feat support that many other classes get. Ypu argument is just your interpretation but there is no rule that supports it.
Aldo recall knowlwdge is not really a fun or exciting ability and can be replaced by guessing or just system knowledge.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard ... and are masters of Knowledge.No, that's just not true.
Wizard's are just an Int based class. They have no abilities which make them "knowledge" based. When compared to actual knowledge classes, like the Investigator, Rogue, Bard, or Thaumaturge, you'll see that Wizard's don't actually have anything which requires or directly rewards knowledge.
It's advantageous for Wizards to make recall knowledge checks, but this is true for every spellcaster. Wizards get no support or help when it comes to using RK, and gain no special benefits from doing so.
Also, for what's its worth, Wizards will have less trained skills than any other class (bar magus) which has the same amount of Intelligence as it. They also don't get any bonus skills or languages as part of their kit.
They just have Int as a key stat. Its not anywhere near the same.
But it is. Seems that people only expect the things to be hardwritten in a paragraph to be something or even exists. Using Int is precisely what it makes it. Compare with the Sorcerer, more bonus to lore skills which could be compared to charisma skills, but Int grants more skills and more languages that Charisma not. If Bard want that, needs MAD (Multi Attribute) because uses Charisma, and has less spells slots, so Wizard is more caster.
What matters is in practice, and the Wizard gets those advantages just because the way is designed the whole, that is the coincidence of using Int, the same ability stat that grants the others. There is no need to have something written with the title “Knowledge advantage” or something like that.
On only combat focused games could be a minor thing, but having so many languages can make a great difference in other type of games, and the same for having more skills.
So Wizard and the Witch (Int casters) gets many more skills and languages than other casters integrated in the class just by association with no need of specific text. That...
A Fighter that maxes intelligence gets the same number of skills as a wizard, Fighters also get a class feat that triggers off recall knowledge. It is just as advantageous for any glass to make recall knowledge checks as a wizard and many like the fighter get something for doing so. Wizards get exact zero support for it.
Wizards get no feat support. Wizards get exactly +1 int over any other class, nothing in the rules say their int needs to be maxed, its not built in that wizards start with 18 intelligence so no its not. Forcing them to be the recall knowledge class with no support for it is awful design, the only int skill wizards gain advantage from is arcane which is only for learning spells but again they don't get free advances other than trained.
Any class can invest in intelligence and be as good or bettwr than wizards at recall knowledge and languages and many get class feat support. If wizards got a ton of class feats or features for it maybe there would be some truth to that but they don't. The only things they get for free is +1int and arcana. They have no class feature of feat support that many other classes get. Ypu argument is just your interpretation but there is no rule that supports it.
Aldo recall knowlwdge is not really a fun or exciting ability and can be replaced by guessing or just system knowledge.
Hm. I gotta wonder: if wizards suck so bad, how do Hellknight Signifers exist? Are none of them wizards?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They basically took an ability a wizard could do as part of the class in PF1 and turned it into a thesis with Spell Substitution. All wizards in PF1 could do Spell Substitution as needed. They turned that into a Spell Thesis and made you have to take it as your only thesis? That's kind of a kick in the teeth if you ask me.To be honest, no, the wizard couldn't do that; the arcanist could (if they took that ability).
What every prepared caster could do was leaving blank slots to memorize stuff later, but that's a bit different compared to changing an already memorized slot with another.
That was a spell substitution equivalent. Leaving slots open until you needed them. Now you have to spend a thesis to do something similar? It's not cool at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm. I gotta wonder: if wizards suck so bad, how do Hellknight Signifers exist? Are none of them wizards?
Some people like the wizard as it is.
I know as a player that played a lot of wizards in D&D and PF1 for decades, the PF2 wizard is the worst one I've ever played for overall play experience other than maybe 4E. It is the class that feels the worst going from PF1 to PF2 in terms of building the class and overall capability.
It's so weirdly built when the wizard was a very smoothly built class in previous editions of the game. A lot of their stuff worked together very well in previous editions.
You build the class now and it feels like "Why am I taking this? What does this do that is worthwhile? Where are the bang for the buck abilities? Even crafting is no good? What? I used to be the best crafter in the game, but now crafting isn't very good so who cares. Metamagic sucks now? Hmm. What happened to heroism on the Arcane list? Summons are weak? And I can't summon fiends or celestials now? I used to be able to summon so many more creatures."
It's like the wizard should be going to a therapist wondering why they were struck down so hard.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
One sort of fascinating thing about the discussion is that it seems to really come down to how much work not only the player is willing to put in, but also the rest of the table.
Like we hear people talk about how everything is fine as is, but also followed by:
-having a specific item loadout and character build (don't be thematic!)
-having a GM who's very generous with information sharing
-Houserule a better recall knowledge system
-Have a party and GM who are both willing to rest (short and long term) around your schedule.
-Sometimes just not play the game because you need to ration your resources.
-Maybe homebrew an entirely new spellcasting system to cover for the problems with the existing one.
It's definitely an interesting way to defend the status quo.