| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wealth by level is for starting new characters at that level and is a number for GMs to use as a bottom baseline for checking to see if the player’s are dividing loot up fairly. If any PC is at less than 30gp at the start of level 2, the GM has given out too little treasure/treasure that is not valuable enough for the characters.
But the GM should have given out 175 gp of treasure, not 60 gp, which is what giving each player 15 more gold would have done. If you read the treasure by level section, the rules are explicit about all of this.
The issue here is that players don’t really get to control this and can only really look at the wealth by level chart and ask if they have as least that much by level 2. But if they are just at 30 gp after having played through all of level 1, and they haven’t used any consumables, then either some party members are way over budget, or the GM is not giving out nearly enough treasure.
Adding in house rules items will complicate that sure. How much additional value do add to a wand that gives out item bonuses? Wands are already way out of the price range for characters at the start of level 2, so one would greatly shift the wealth of the character given such wand, without significantly helping that character if they are really struggling with running out of resources as a caster. After all, going through 4 to 6 encounters per day means getting to use the wand maybe 3 times? Meanwhile, 4 useful scrolls as loot will do a lot more for the caster character in making them feel like they have resources to contribute to a challenging encounter, even if it comes late in the day. As a GM, not giving the party consumable resources that are useful to caster, while just handing out things like weapon potency runes or a suit of plate armor, is making the game harder for casters, much the same way as only giving a character who recalls knowledge information that they already know or is not actionable.
Maybe the remastered rules will be more clear, since it is clear that even...
It isn't much of a difference. Not sure why you choose to exaggerate the difference. It isn't high and wasting money on consumables is a bad idea if you want to buy permanent useful magic items when they become available.
I generally want players to use consumables any have enough money to buy the useful permanent stuff they want when there's an opportunity, but not "more permanent useful stuff than if they didn't use the consumables".
I think that's what you're aiming for as the GM. Like if players start hoarding the consumables they find for reselling, there's going to be less of that stuff to find.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group doesn't waste time on consumables. They aren't necessary. They aren't that interesting.
I don't find early casters other than wizards have a hard time.
I feel like if I were in a game with a player using a consumable, they would be doing it just to do something on their turn rather than assessing if the consumable is necessary or had an effect on achieving victory.
I've seen this impulse by most players of these types of games where they want to feel useful or do something on their turn to be active, while what they do is not necessary to achieve the successful end goal.
Most of the time you're fine letting martials get the kill and casting a cantrip for a bit of damage. If you want to play optimally, save the coin for something more useful than a throwaway consumable that has very little impact on the outcome of a given encounter even with someone providing anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
My group used consumables early on, but found they are mostly a waste of actions or coin for an all too minor effect that has no real effect on combat victory. Scrolls fall into the same category.
About the only useful consumable to a low level party are healing potions until you can pick up the bookkeeping feats to make healing up time efficient.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
25 to 50 percent of your character wealth is a lot of your power budget. Writing off consumables because (mostly, for casters) they don't add number bonuses to your character has a big effect on how powerful your character will feel.
If you write off the wizard because they are too focused on spell slot spell casting, and don't do much beyond cast spell slot spells, but then you complain that they have nothing to do when they run out of spell slots and you aren't using your money to help give yourself more spells to cast every day, you creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of disappointment in the class.
EDIT: As far as consumables being interesting or not, the question with scrolls is "are spell slots interesting or not?" and if the answer is no, then you are just not going to enjoy playing a wizard in particular, since that is literally the class' whole focus.
|
My group doesn't waste time on consumables. They aren't necessary. They aren't that interesting.
I don't find early casters other than wizards have a hard time.
I feel like if I were in a game with a player using a consumable, they would be doing it just to do something on their turn rather than assessing if the consumable is necessary or had an effect on achieving victory.
I've seen this impulse by most players of these types of games where they want to feel useful or do something on their turn to be active, while what they do is not necessary to achieve the successful end goal.
Most of the time you're fine letting martials get the kill and casting a cantrip for a bit of damage. If you want to play optimally, save the coin for something more useful than a throwaway consumable that has very little impact on the outcome of a given encounter even with someone providing anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
My group used consumables early on, but found they are mostly a waste of actions or coin for an all too minor effect that has no real effect on combat victory. Scrolls fall into the same category.
About the only useful consumable to a low level party are healing potions until you can pick up the bookkeeping feats to make healing up time efficient.
My True Striked scroll of Searing Light targeting a Pharaoh Mummy with cover begs to differ.
And yes, I start all my combats with this scroll in hand except when I know it will not be useful.
And Cat's eye elixir when you face concealed or hidden enemies makes the combat that much shorter.
Using the appropriate consumable can be the optimal action in combat. But you have to buy them first to even think about it.
If all you have are permanent items, of course your optimal tactics will rely only on those. But they might not be the most optimal tactics you could have used.
Having more possibilities at your disposal is the key to more successful tactics.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group doesn't waste time on consumables. They aren't necessary. They aren't that interesting.
I don't find early casters other than wizards have a hard time.
I feel like if I were in a game with a player using a consumable, they would be doing it just to do something on their turn rather than assessing if the consumable is necessary or had an effect on achieving victory.
I've seen this impulse by most players of these types of games where they want to feel useful or do something on their turn to be active, while what they do is not necessary to achieve the successful end goal.
Most of the time you're fine letting martials get the kill and casting a cantrip for a bit of damage. If you want to play optimally, save the coin for something more useful than a throwaway consumable that has very little impact on the outcome of a given encounter even with someone providing anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
My group used consumables early on, but found they are mostly a waste of actions or coin for an all too minor effect that has no real effect on combat victory. Scrolls fall into the same category.
About the only useful consumable to a low level party are healing potions until you can pick up the bookkeeping feats to make healing up time efficient.
That's an excuse, not actual strategy. There's nothing inherently wrong with consumables. Like most items in PF2, they are low value. But some are strong and better than permanent items (unless you have infinite money, but that never happen). If you use Wands but not Scrolls, I can tell you it's because of a personal bia not because it's optimized. There's few higher value items for casters than Scrolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I take a MC caster feat at level2, I am very likely to buy some scrolls from the other class’ list so I have extra versatility, but that is level 2 and not focusing on being the best wizard I can be. Buying some different scrolls of spells I don’t have is nice because I can lead the spell and still cast from it. Some spells I like to get early on a wizard and will use my scroll quickly:
Magic Missile, shocking grasp, color spray, illusory disguise, illusory object, grim tendrils, mage armor, jump, fear, hydraulic push (this spell is an ooze murderer so it is good to get early), fleet step, goblin pox, grease, magic weapon, longstrider, ray of enfeeblement.
These are all spells I will eventually get on almost every wizard, but if I am blast focusing and wanting to have spell slot spells in abundance, my first 5 scrolls probably go: fear, magic missile, shocking grasp, hydraulic push, goblin pox. I am probably not level 1 any more by the time I’ve bought these scrolls, learned them, and cast them. (True strike is annoying as a scroll, as can reaction spells, I tend to try to get bad scroll spells first in my book and then add scroll spells).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me it is double dipping. I buy scrolls of the spells I want to learn, and have at least one scroll of first. Eventually they get cheap enough I’ll have several of each I find myself using in a given campaign, but I try to switch h it up first
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group doesn't waste time on consumables. They aren't necessary. They aren't that interesting.
I don't find early casters other than wizards have a hard time.
I feel like if I were in a game with a player using a consumable, they would be doing it just to do something on their turn rather than assessing if the consumable is necessary or had an effect on achieving victory.
I've seen this impulse by most players of these types of games where they want to feel useful or do something on their turn to be active, while what they do is not necessary to achieve the successful end goal.
Most of the time you're fine letting martials get the kill and casting a cantrip for a bit of damage. If you want to play optimally, save the coin for something more useful than a throwaway consumable that has very little impact on the outcome of a given encounter even with someone providing anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
My group used consumables early on, but found they are mostly a waste of actions or coin for an all too minor effect that has no real effect on combat victory. Scrolls fall into the same category.
About the only useful consumable to a low level party are healing potions until you can pick up the bookkeeping feats to make healing up time efficient.
My True Striked scroll of Searing Light targeting a Pharaoh Mummy with cover begs to differ.
And yes, I start all my combats with this scroll in hand except when I know it will not be useful.
And Cat's eye elixir when you face concealed or hidden enemies makes the combat that much shorter.
Using the appropriate consumable can be the optimal action in combat. But you have to buy them first to even think about it.
If all you have are permanent items, of course your optimal tactics will rely only on those. But they might not be the most optimal tactics you could have used.
Having more possibilities at your disposal is the key to more successful tactics.
Thanks for your anecdotal evidence.
I'm absolutely fine letting Mr. Martial without the True Strike scroll crush the opponent while I sit back and save my coin, spell slots, and actions.
I find a faerie fire works fine for concealed enemies.
I have not found a consumable does more than waste actions that aren't necessary. Sit back and let the martials handle the job. Save your coin for better stuff.
|
|
Thanks...My group doesn't waste time on consumables. They aren't necessary. They aren't that interesting.
I don't find early casters other than wizards have a hard time.
I feel like if I were in a game with a player using a consumable, they would be doing it just to do something on their turn rather than assessing if the consumable is necessary or had an effect on achieving victory.
I've seen this impulse by most players of these types of games where they want to feel useful or do something on their turn to be active, while what they do is not necessary to achieve the successful end goal.
Most of the time you're fine letting martials get the kill and casting a cantrip for a bit of damage. If you want to play optimally, save the coin for something more useful than a throwaway consumable that has very little impact on the outcome of a given encounter even with someone providing anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
My group used consumables early on, but found they are mostly a waste of actions or coin for an all too minor effect that has no real effect on combat victory. Scrolls fall into the same category.
About the only useful consumable to a low level party are healing potions until you can pick up the bookkeeping feats to make healing up time efficient.
My True Striked scroll of Searing Light targeting a Pharaoh Mummy with cover begs to differ.
And yes, I start all my combats with this scroll in hand except when I know it will not be useful.
And Cat's eye elixir when you face concealed or hidden enemies makes the combat that much shorter.
Using the appropriate consumable can be the optimal action in combat. But you have to buy them first to even think about it.
If all you have are permanent items, of course your optimal tactics will rely only on those. But they might not be the most optimal tactics you could have used.
Having more possibilities at your disposal is the key to more successful tactics.
TBH this feels like the way I am playing my casters is BADWRONGFUN just because I use consumables...
|
|
The same arguments could be made for consumables and martials though. "Do you like hitting stuff. Well then bring potency crystals!" Yet nobody expects them to use consumables of any kind to stay relevant. Every time martials feel outclassed by casters, instead of nerfing the latter the former could easily mitgate that problem by buying and burning through consumables of different kinds. Why is nobody telling them to do that? Because it would be a bad game design, but that same logic works the other way around as well.
Scrolls and Spell Slots have some pretty big differences, because for one you decide the spell when you buy it and for the other when you prepare it.
One is available every day and the other has to be replaced somehow.I'm not saying don't use consumables at all, in fact I like them (even though they are way too expansive). I've also given them to players in the past (but all of them and not just the casters)
But why are they an argument on whether or not casters feel too weak at early levels? As I have written before, my main problem as a wizard is not a lack of resources or that cantrips are/will be too weak. It is the fact that there is a fairly high chance my limited resources won't work. Even with perfect preparation.
That effect gets doubled on an even more limited resource and the feeling of failure quadrupled.That effect could be negated if we were mostly fighting enemies that are weaker than the party. But if that was all we were ever fighting, what is the point in all the planning ahead? This also directly contradicts the description of the wizard that says: "You save your most powerful magic to incapacitate threatening foes and use your cantrips when only weaker foes remain". And right now that's not working out at all.
I have seen similar problems with other casters, but the difference is that their class gives them at least something else they can rely on, while wizards get nothing. And one or 2 additional scrolls isn't gonna fix that. (They are very nice for...
Potency crystal can only be used once per combat. It does not in the least compare to having an additional spell slot.
Better to have Magic Weapon cast on your weapon.
BTW, playing PFS, my martials always provide their own scroll of Magic Weapon for a caster to use on their weapon if possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of this really touches on early levels (1-2 especially) other than picking up a actual weapon and hitting things
Potency crystal can only be used once per combat. It does not in the least compare to having an additional spell slot.Its been contrasted against a scroll, not a permanent spell slot.
Also, you can use as many potency crystals as you have affixed to weapons.
Raven black was comparing a potency crystal to a scroll of magic weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am saying its bad game design that casters are expected to play supports while martials have the freedom to play anything they want.
There are expectations built on martials, too. Mostly taking blows instead of casters. Martials are not free to do anything they want.
Also, in terms of freedom, I think casters have much more choice than martials. First, they can cover more roles (healers, buffers, controllers, damage dealers) than martials (which are mostly tanks/damage dealers and sometimes controllers). But for a caster to be able to cover a role they just need to know/prepare a spell when a martial needs feats and specific investment to just perform an action with in general half the outcome of a spell.
In terms of freedom, casters have the upper hand. And by a significant amount.
Now, not at low level, where only a few roles are available (mostly healer).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of this really touches on early levels (1-2 especially) other than picking up a actual weapon and hitting things
Scrolls really can kick in at level 1 if you want them to. Super bidi mentioned starting with 2, I often start with one. By the end of level one, you should have enough gold to buy 4+ more of them. If you are a two spell caster, 1 scroll a day is a 50% boost for you. If you are a specialist wizard it may only be a 20% boost but 5 spells a day means that you should still be able to cast a spell slot spell every encounter you face that day. And this is only using one. If you haven’t earned enough gold to buy more scrolls by the start of the second day, something is strange about your campaign and hopefully your GM has talked to the party about it.
they are very much force to play in "X way" or else they are said to be playing wrong, playing badly, etc.
Sorry, but that's a player issue, not a character one.
Also, you can be criticized even when playing a martial. Thing is: martials are in general easier to play fine. And as a matter of fact, those criticizing the caster may be the ones not knowing how to properly play a caster (like the "god wizard" story).| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are expectations built on martials, too. Mostly taking blows instead of casters. Martials are not free to do anything they want.
The issue is that the strengths and expectations of martial classes are almost always well accounted for in APs. It would be unthinkable for Paizo to create an adventure where most encounters are against flying foes or foes immune to precision damage but it isn't out of line for those same designers to put the party into an AP where enemies have resistance or even immunity to a damage type. There needs to be more care taken to ensure that the same care that is taken to ensure martial classes feel good is taken with Wizards, Witches, themed Sorcerers, etc.
Also, in terms of freedom, I think casters have much more choice than martials. First, they can cover more roles (healers, buffers, controllers, damage dealers) than martials (which are mostly tanks/damage dealers and sometimes controllers). But for a caster to be able to cover a role they just need to know/prepare a spell when a martial needs feats and specific investment to just perform an action with in general half the outcome of a spell.
How often is a character really going to fluidly move between all four of those roles? Especially when one of the caster classes that struggles the most can't heal at all with their list.
I'd also say that martials are also rarely challenged to ever have to change up their routine. They nearly always get to use their hammer on a bunch of nails. I would like to see more encounters with flying enemies with strong ranged attacks to force martials to at least switch hit once in a while. I would also like to see APs designed with more long-ranged encounters so casters get to use that 500 ft. range on their spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be unthinkable for Paizo to create an adventure where most encounters are against flying foes or foes immune to precision damage
The Slithering disproves. It is well known that Rogues, Swashbucklers and Investigators feel extremely lonely at least during the first third of the adventure (which also happens to be the toughest one).
I could also bring Plaguestone that I find really hard on melee martials as many enemies have reduced movement and crazy melee capabilities.
They nearly always get to use their hammer on a bunch of nails.
But that's all they can do. I remember this fight against a dragon where the Fighter of the party was just sitting idle as they didn't even have a ranged weapon.
I've experienced a lot of situations where martials were rather pointless. Flying enemies, but also the poor Rogue unable to Flank without taking crazy risks or facing enemies with resistances to Precision. And very often the player reaction was either to demand their playstyle (asking for Fly to be cast for example) or act stupidly because they were expecting to be able to use their hammer. The round-1-charging Barbarian is for example a common experience.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
APs do switch up enemy types often. Many APs feature incorporeal enemies fairly early on, and Abomination Vaults is famous for having enemies immune to precision damage. If a campaign is going to feature a whole lot of enemies immune to one specific damage type, the GM should be aware of it and talk to a player that wants to play a fire kineticist in Hell's Rebels, for example. But the thing about casters is immunity to one damage type usually comes with a weakness to another, and casters are very good at getting around stubborn defenses while having the tool set to exploit very weak ones.
Martials choosing to treat every encounter like a nail leads to TPKs more than any other mechanic of the game I have seen. Sudden charging across the battlefield, the fighter lands and impressive crit that takes away half the the big bosses HP...then the boss takes the fighter out with one round of counter attacking while the rest of the party has to move so far they can't even really do anything to help. Or the ranger brazenly slashes the black pudding with a short sword...cutting it in two...halves that how have 2x as many actions. Not wanting to repeat the mistake, the ranger uses his spiked gauntlet for the second attack...splitting it again.
Melee combat is very dangerous for any one foe that can get surrounded and have a bunch of actions thrown at making their life miserable...but this bounces back on PCs too, it is just that players are a little too hyper fixated on the fights against solo creatures. Even so, I have seen solo creatures with excellent mobility powers and control absolutely destroy parties and kill melee characters, even if the rest of the party survives/escapes.
So another thing to really stress for low level casters is that your party needs to be capable of learning about what challenges lie ahead, and what tactics are going to be good or bad in them. These roles can sometimes be covered by martials, but often in ways that get that martial killed quickly, and sometimes the whole party when the everyone charges in to save the rogue that got themselves into a world of trouble trying to find out what is around the next door. Caster can be in a good position to cover various kinds of recon for their party if it is needed, and should be decent at recalling at least one kind of knowledge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
APs do switch up enemy types often. Many APs feature incorporeal enemies fairly early on, and Abomination Vaults is famous for having enemies immune to precision damage. If a campaign is going to feature a whole lot of enemies immune to one specific damage type, the GM should be aware of it and talk to a player that wants to play a fire kineticist in Hell's Rebels, for example. But the thing about casters is immunity to one damage type usually comes with a weakness to another, and casters are very good at getting around stubborn defenses while having the tool set to exploit very weak ones.
Martials choosing to treat every encounter like a nail leads to TPKs more than any other mechanic of the game I have seen. Sudden charging across the battlefield, the fighter lands and impressive crit that takes away half the the big bosses HP...then the boss takes the fighter out with one round of counter attacking while the rest of the party has to move so far they can't even really do anything to help. Or the ranger brazenly slashes the black pudding with a short sword...cutting it in two...halves that how have 2x as many actions. Not wanting to repeat the mistake, the ranger uses his spiked gauntlet for the second attack...splitting it again.
Melee combat is very dangerous for any one foe that can get surrounded and have a bunch of actions thrown at making their life miserable...but this bounces back on PCs too, it is just that players are a little too hyper fixated on the fights against solo creatures. Even so, I have seen solo creatures with excellent mobility powers and control absolutely destroy parties and kill melee characters, even if the rest of the party survives/escapes.
So another thing to really stress for low level casters is that your party needs to be capable of learning about what challenges lie ahead, and what tactics are going to be good or bad in them. These roles can sometimes be covered by martials, but often in ways that get that martial killed quickly, and sometimes the whole party when...
I'm not sure what the point is here. You seem to be equating martial players playing badly and casters who would like more ability to pick around a theme without feeling like they're hurting the party by doing so.
Casters are already balanced around failing and still having an impact and just because of the psychology related to this method of balancing could use some help feeling impactful. A fight where the Fighter hits 6 of 8 swings and the Wizard only gets a failure on one of 4 spells might end up with them having had the same impact but the fighter succeeded 75% of the time while the Wizard only succeeded 25% of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters having spells that have an effect on a successful save does not mean that casters are balanced around failing. Casters who assume that a spell having an effect on a successful save means that it is the best spell to cast even when enemies have much weaker defenses and weaknesses is casters playing badly. Every player can and should be trying to pick their actions that have the best overall chance of having the largest impact possible on the encounter. What that is changes from encounter to encounter. Your fighter vs wizard impact comment is confusing and doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like your question is "why can't I play a caster that just does the same thing all the time?"
That is a question that is pretty off topic and also not as true for martial characters as you are trying to make it out to be, but having that conversation here would be rude to the original post, so if you want to talk about it, there are other threads for it.
This is a thread where someone was asking about low level caster play, not thematic builds, so that part of the conversation has no bearing here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Slithering disproves. It is well known that Rogues, Swashbucklers and Investigators feel extremely lonely at least during the first third of the adventure (which also happens to be the toughest one).
As much as I would genuinely like to see more encounters that cater to the longer-range things casters can do this is just bad design. I actually think that immunity in general is probably just bad design for what PF2 wants to be. An enemy that is immune to most of what a Rogue or a single element caster/Kineticist can do isn't tactically interesting so much as it is frustrating.
I could also bring Plaguestone that I find really hard on melee martials as many enemies have reduced movement and crazy melee capabilities.
My understanding is that Plaguestone is considered poorly designed and tuned on the overly difficult side.
My experience with GMing it is partially to blame for me being so harsh on PF2. We got 5 sessions in, the party cleared everything around the town without too much trouble, and then nearly wiped to the plants and then the wolf cave that came after it. Seeing that the encounters only got worse from there was enough for me to stop wanting to run it.
But that's all they can do. I remember this fight against a dragon where the Fighter of the party was just sitting idle as they didn't even have a ranged weapon.
Why aren't martial characters expected to have at least two damage types, a bow, and some weapons of different special materials the same way a caster is expected to target different saves while also packing buffs, debuffs, and battlefield control?
I've experienced a lot of situations where martials were rather pointless. Flying enemies, but also the poor Rogue unable to Flank without taking crazy risks or facing enemies with resistances to Precision. And very often the player reaction was either to demand their playstyle (asking for Fly to be cast for example) or act stupidly because they were expecting to be able to use their hammer. The round-1-charging Barbarian is for example a common experience.
This sounds like an issue with how those encounters were played and with players not even bothering to pack a backup weapon. Casters wanting more balance between spells and more support for themed spell lists isn't the same as playing poorly and refusing to make the best of the spells you did take.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters having spells that have an effect on a successful save does not mean that casters are balanced around failing. Casters who assume that a spell having an effect on a successful save means that it is the best spell to cast even when enemies have much weaker defenses and weaknesses is casters playing badly.
You still have around a 50/50 shot of them passing their saving throw even if you do that and you can't always be sure that the spell that targets their weakest save will be in your top 2 spell ranks. It's better to design your spells known and prepared around having spells that always provide a good level of expected value than hoping that narrower spells with a higher ceiling end up being whats needed on any given adventuring day.
Your fighter vs wizard impact comment is confusing and doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like your question is "why can't I play a caster that just does the same thing all the time?"
How was that implied at all? I was strictly comparing success rates and outputs. The fighter will succeed more often being told by the GM that his attacks hit while a caster, even when playing smartly, only gets one attempt at impacting the encounter each round while also having lower odds of success. Even if the math says those two characters are having the same impact it feels better to hit 60% of the time than it does to coinflip once per turn even if you still get something on a bad flip.
As for the topic, I think that's pretty well run its course. As usual some people think the early game experience is fine because casters are better with weapons now or can burn WBL on scrolls while other people are frustrated because they want their casters to feel like their spells aren't having an impact and don't like their caster having to rely on mundane weapons or consumables to have that impact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What game system are you looking at where a level 1 spell caster can rely on nothing but their own spells all day and be a better contributor than a PF2 spell caster is to the party?
PF2 casters at level 1 are some of the most competitive spell casters I have seen in any system except maybe 4e D&D. I guess maybe in theory a game like mutants and masterminds might have more parallels between casting characters and other heroes but that is largely because the fact that their powers are magical is almost irrelevant to their mechanical build.
It sounds like you had a bad time running a short module that is known for being challenging, and for being developed early in the games development phase. Maybe try something newer? Maybe consider using any number of variant rules that might help your players realize their characters if you want them to feel more powerful? Maybe add one more player to the mix? or start everyone at level 2?
There are tons of ways casters contribute meaningfully to their parties starting right from level 1 in this game. If you are upset about the general tuning of particular adventures, that is incredibly easy to adjust as a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters having spells that have an effect on a successful save does not mean that casters are balanced around failing. Casters who assume that a spell having an effect on a successful save means that it is the best spell to cast even when enemies have much weaker defenses and weaknesses is casters playing badly.You still have around a 50/50 shot of them passing their saving throw even if you do that and you can't always be sure that the spell that targets their weakest save will be in your top 2 spell ranks. It's better to design your spells known and prepared around having spells that always provide a good level of expected value than hoping that narrower spells with a higher ceiling end up being whats needed on any given adventuring day.
Your fighter vs wizard impact comment is confusing and doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like your question is "why can't I play a caster that just does the same thing all the time?"How was that implied at all? I was strictly comparing success rates and outputs. The fighter will succeed more often being told by the GM that his attacks hit while a caster, even when playing smartly, only gets one attempt at impacting the encounter each round while also having lower odds of success. Even if the math says those two characters are having the same impact it feels better to hit 60% of the time than it does to coinflip once per turn even if you still get something on a bad flip.
As for the topic, I think that's pretty well run its course. As usual some people think the early game experience is fine because casters are better with weapons now or can burn WBL on scrolls while other people are frustrated because they want their casters to feel like their spells aren't having an impact and don't like their caster having to rely on mundane weapons or consumables to have that impact.
Martials are expected to carry multiple weapons of different damage types and materials. That's why resistance is a thing in the system as well as vulnerability. It's why the art of the martial characters always has them decked out in multiple items and items in the books.
You complain that martials aren't expected to carry back up weapons or different ways to overcome enemy resistance or weakness. So how can you complain that and then start disparaging the martials for not having back up weapons that you just said they don't need. Which is it? Because it can't be both at the same time. Either martials also need to do prepping like casters do or they don't need to do any prepping. You can't hold both positions at once.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martials are expected to carry multiple weapons of different damage types and materials. That's why resistance is a thing in the system as well as vulnerability. It's why the art of the martial characters always has them decked out in multiple items and items in the books.
You complain that martials aren't expected to carry back up weapons or different ways to overcome enemy resistance or weakness. So how can you complain that and then start disparaging the martials for not having back up weapons that you just said they don't need. Which is it? Because it can't be both at the same time. Either martials also need to do prepping like casters do or they don't need to do any prepping. You can't hold both positions at once.
The design of PF2 encounters punishes this less than it punishes mages for loading their spell slots with the wrong silver bullets and this thread alone has quotes of people saying that they see martial players failing to be even minimally prepared to do something as basic as ranged combat and instead calling for a caster to cast fly for them. It feels like martial players get coddled by encounter design such that they don't even consider a back-up weapon a necessary investment.
None of this really touches on early levels (1-2 especially) other than picking up a actual weapon and hitting things
Level 1 and 2 go by so fast and are so swingy for nearly every class that I'm not sur why we're having this long a discussion on it.
I had a miserable time as a barbarian at level 1 and 2 due to the decreased armor class and getting knocked out. It was feast or famine. Either I smacked something and took it down or I got taken down.
Rangers and monks have a decent experience at level 1 and 2, but fall off dramatically at the more important higher levels. That feels more miserable than slow build at level 1 and 2.
A lot of classes feel bad at level 1 and 2 to me and a lot of players I've seen because you don't hit that often and you can get taken out pretty easily.
The best answer to the low level experience is get to level 5 as fast as you can.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What game system are you looking at where a level 1 spell caster can rely on nothing but their own spells all day and be a better contributor than a PF2 spell caster is to the party?
RIFTS gives their PPE-using classes an hourly rate of PPE recovery and many of those classes also have other ways to recover the energy needed to cast their spells. The Leyline Walker starts with 3 spells at each level from 1 to 4 and an average of 130 PPE to cast them with. That's roughly 16 casts of their highest level of damage-dealing spell.
I know RIFTS is famously unbalanced, but you're the one who asked.
Shadowrun uses drain as its limiting factor where you take stun damage for pushing to hard with any given spell. So you can cast weaker stuff all day with little risk but can only bust out a few large effects without risking passing out from the strain.
Games, even d20 games with Vancian casting, don't have to limit casters at low levels nearly as much as they do.
PF2 casters at level 1 are some of the most competitive spell casters I have seen in any system except maybe 4e D&D. I guess maybe in theory a game like mutants and masterminds might have more parallels between casting characters and other heroes but that is largely because the fact that their powers are magical is almost irrelevant to their mechanical build.
Do you only play D20 and rules-light games? There's a lot of scope for magic systems that are nothing like Vancian magic. Some function like skill checks, others are slotless systems with an energy pool, and yet other systems allow spells to recharge on a die roll so you might get to cast them again in the same combat.
It sounds like you had a bad time running a short module that is known for being challenging, and for being developed early in the games development phase. Maybe try something newer? Maybe consider using any number of variant rules that might help your players realize their characters if you want them to feel more powerful? Maybe add one more player to the mix? or start everyone at level 2?
I don't GM for randos so it'll be up to which friends are down to give PF2 another shot. I also don't feel like I should have to modify the base game to make it fun for my players. If the game can't work decently out of the box I'm not inclined to do the designers any favors when I have so much choice in what I run.
There are tons of ways casters contribute meaningfully to their parties starting right from level 1 in this game. If you are upset about the general tuning of particular adventures, that is incredibly easy to adjust as a GM.
That really shouldn't be required. I expect Paizo to develop modules that are fun for everybody as a baseline and that can be tweaked to add challenge if things are proving too easy. Players feel better when the GM tells them they made things tougher because the party was making every fight look easy, they don't like it when they know the GM is pulling punches and turning on easy mode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of this really touches on early levels (1-2 especially) other than picking up a actual weapon and hitting thingsLevel 1 and 2 go by so fast and are so swingy for nearly every class that I'm not sur why we're having this long a discussion on it.
I had a miserable time as a barbarian at level 1 and 2 due to the decreased armor class and getting knocked out. It was feast or famine. Either I smacked something and took it down or I got taken down.
Rangers and monks have a decent experience at level 1 and 2, but fall off dramatically at the more important higher levels. That feels more miserable than slow build at level 1 and 2.
A lot of classes feel bad at level 1 and 2 to me and a lot of players I've seen because you don't hit that often and you can get taken out pretty easily.
The best answer to the low level experience is get to level 5 as fast as you can.
That's a complete failure of the system, isn't it? If a quarter of the game's levels - and the most commonly played levels at that - aren't fun that speaks of a system that has failed from the outset.
That's a complete failure of the system, isn't it? If a fifth of the game's levels - and the most commonly played levels at that - aren't fun that speaks of a system that has failed from the outset.None of this really touches on early levels (1-2 especially) other than picking up a actual weapon and hitting thingsLevel 1 and 2 go by so fast and are so swingy for nearly every class that I'm not sur why we're having this long a discussion on it.
I had a miserable time as a barbarian at level 1 and 2 due to the decreased armor class and getting knocked out. It was feast or famine. Either I smacked something and took it down or I got taken down.
Rangers and monks have a decent experience at level 1 and 2, but fall off dramatically at the more important higher levels. That feels more miserable than slow build at level 1 and 2.
A lot of classes feel bad at level 1 and 2 to me and a lot of players I've seen because you don't hit that often and you can get taken out pretty easily.
The best answer to the low level experience is get to level 5 as fast as you can.
|
|
...Martials are expected to carry multiple weapons of different damage types and materials.Casters having spells that have an effect on a successful save does not mean that casters are balanced around failing. Casters who assume that a spell having an effect on a successful save means that it is the best spell to cast even when enemies have much weaker defenses and weaknesses is casters playing badly.You still have around a 50/50 shot of them passing their saving throw even if you do that and you can't always be sure that the spell that targets their weakest save will be in your top 2 spell ranks. It's better to design your spells known and prepared around having spells that always provide a good level of expected value than hoping that narrower spells with a higher ceiling end up being whats needed on any given adventuring day.
Your fighter vs wizard impact comment is confusing and doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like your question is "why can't I play a caster that just does the same thing all the time?"How was that implied at all? I was strictly comparing success rates and outputs. The fighter will succeed more often being told by the GM that his attacks hit while a caster, even when playing smartly, only gets one attempt at impacting the encounter each round while also having lower odds of success. Even if the math says those two characters are having the same impact it feels better to hit 60% of the time than it does to coinflip once per turn even if you still get something on a bad flip.
As for the topic, I think that's pretty well run its course. As usual some people think the early game experience is fine because casters are better with weapons now or can burn WBL on scrolls while other people are frustrated because they want their casters to feel like their spells aren't having an impact and don't like their caster having to rely on mundane weapons or consumables to have that impact.
I thought we were talking low level.
My low level martials carry weapons that can inflict all physical damage types in both ranged and melee combat. PF1 taught me that.
|
|
Potency crystal can only be used once per combat. It does not in the least compare to having an additional spell slot.Its been contrasted against a scroll, not a permanent spell slot.
Also, you can use as many potency crystals as you have affixed to weapons.
Good point about the many weapons with Potency crystal. I had not though about that. I will still have to deal with the additional Bulk of the other weapons (much higher than that of scrolls). And it will take my third action which is often used in melee combat (raise shield, Stride, Battle Medicine). Not to mention a scroll of Magic Weapon being far better for the same price.
IME playing casters in PFS, a scroll is the equivalent of having another slot for the encounter. Sometimes several if I have the action to draw another scroll.
|
|
TBH this feels like the way I am playing my casters is BADWRONGFUN just because I use consumables...And it feels like the way some of us like to play casters is BADWRONGFUN just because we don't want to use consumable, be supporters, or as Deriven put it "sit bad and do nothing while the martials deal with it".
Potency crystal can only be used once per combat. It does not in the least compare to having an additional spell slot.
Better to have Magic Weapon cast on your weapon.
BTW, playing PFS, my martials always provide their own scroll of Magic Weapon for a caster to use on their weapon if possible.
Yes talismans are consumables, just like scrolls. They both cost the same amount of gold.
Also, so you carry a scroll just to hand it to another player and have it cast it on you. So are casters just there for casting spells on you? Why not just hire a hireling to follow you around if that is what casters are supposed to do? Yes the caster didn't waste their gold, but you as a martial are not expected to do anything to make sure the casters land their spells.
* P.S. I am not saying its BADWRONGFUN to have a support caster buff you. I am saying its bad game design that casters are expected to play supports while martials have the freedom to play anything they want.
TBT many casters I play with in PFS at low levels tend to prepare Magic Weapon so that they can use it from the start on a martial who can then start killing opponents right away. Because it's a cooperative game where teamwork is more efficient than each PC acting in a vacuum.
I tell them beforehands about my scroll and they can use it if they want instead of preparing it with their slots. Or use it in place of the one they bought for this express purpose (also a common occurrence).
And if no one will cast it on my martial, my PC will still wade into the fray. It's just that the fight will last longer and be more dangerous for every PC involved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a complete failure of the system, isn't it? If a quarter of the game's levels - and the most commonly played levels at that - aren't fun that speaks of a system that has failed from the outset.
It's more complicated than that.
The system is made for beginners to discover it. So they limit the number of options at low level. If you go for a basic build, like Greatsword Fighter, it's available right off the bat, it works, there's not much to do. Of course, you'll swing a sword from level 1 to 20, adding feats and such but mostly icing on the cake.Or... you play a more complicated build/class. And for that, you need a few levels to take options or to see your ability growing. I personally consider that playing the 4 first levels once you have enough system mastery to consider a Greatsword Fighter boring is a chore. But that's because I'm experienced, because there's nothing that suits me at level 1 as I know everything you can do at that level. So I aim higher and have to just go through the first levels waiting for my character to grow.
It's not a failure of the system. It's part of a system where you make choices along the way and not all at first level. If you want all your choices to be made by level 3, play D&D5. It works, but it's boring quite quickly as it's a strong limitation on character building.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a complete failure of the system, isn't it? If a quarter of the game's levels - and the most commonly played levels at that - aren't fun that speaks of a system that has failed from the outset.It's more complicated than that.
The system is made for beginners to discover it. So they limit the number of options at low level. If you go for a basic build, like Greatsword Fighter, it's available right off the bat, it works, there's not much to do. Of course, you'll swing a sword from level 1 to 20, adding feats and such but mostly icing on the cake.
Or... you play a more complicated build/class. And for that, you need a few levels to take options or to see your ability growing. I personally consider that playing the 4 first levels once you have enough system mastery to consider a Greatsword Fighter boring is a chore. But that's because I'm experienced, because there's nothing that suits me at level 1 as I know everything you can do at that level. So I aim higher and have to just go through the first levels waiting for my character to grow.It's not a failure of the system. It's part of a system where you make choices along the way and not all at first level. If you want all your choices to be made by level 3, play D&D5. It works, but it's boring quite quickly as it's a strong limitation on character building.
There are plenty of accessible games outside of the d20 sphere that don't have a terrible low-level experience. Anything FATE/FUDGE related plays well at any level of character ability and is less complicated than PF2, classless systems often offer various point levels to start at and are generally good about offering pre-generated characters, there are also the rules light indy games like PbtA based games, Lancer, HWI that all start out interesting from the word go.
I feel like the d20 level 1 to 20 design system is showing its age these days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What game system are you looking at where a level 1 spell caster can rely on nothing but their own spells all day and be a better contributor than a PF2 spell caster is to the party?RIFTS gives their PPE-using classes an hourly rate of PPE recovery and many of those classes also have other ways to recover the energy needed to cast their spells. The Leyline Walker starts with 3 spells at each level from 1 to 4 and an average of 130 PPE to cast them with. That's roughly 16 casts of their highest level of damage-dealing spell.
I know RIFTS is famously unbalanced, but you're the one who asked.
Shadowrun uses drain as its limiting factor where you take stun damage for pushing to hard with any given spell. So you can cast weaker stuff all day with little risk but can only bust out a few large effects without risking passing out from the strain.
Games, even d20 games with Vancian casting, don't have to limit casters at low levels nearly as much as they do.
PF2 casters at level 1 are some of the most competitive spell casters I have seen in any system except maybe 4e D&D. I guess maybe in theory a game like mutants and masterminds might have more parallels between casting characters and other heroes but that is largely because the fact that their powers are magical is almost irrelevant to their mechanical build.Do you only play D20 and rules-light games? There's a lot of scope for magic systems that are nothing like Vancian magic. Some function like skill checks, others are slotless systems with an energy pool, and yet other systems allow spells to recharge on a die roll so you might get to cast them again in the same combat.
It sounds like you had a bad time running a short module that is known for being challenging, and for being developed early in the games development phase. Maybe try something newer? Maybe consider using any number of variant rules that might help your players realize their characters if you want them to feel more...
SO RPGs where "wizard" is standing next to dragon or a character with a laser gun, or otherwise wildly advanced technology compared to a fantasy RPG. I am glad that you feel like there are systems that better offer the fantasy that you are looking to play than a game where level advancement is significant to character growth.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a complete failure of the system, isn't it? If a quarter of the game's levels - and the most commonly played levels at that - aren't fun that speaks of a system that has failed from the outset.None of this really touches on early levels (1-2 especially) other than picking up a actual weapon and hitting thingsLevel 1 and 2 go by so fast and are so swingy for nearly every class that I'm not sur why we're having this long a discussion on it.
I had a miserable time as a barbarian at level 1 and 2 due to the decreased armor class and getting knocked out. It was feast or famine. Either I smacked something and took it down or I got taken down.
Rangers and monks have a decent experience at level 1 and 2, but fall off dramatically at the more important higher levels. That feels more miserable than slow build at level 1 and 2.
A lot of classes feel bad at level 1 and 2 to me and a lot of players I've seen because you don't hit that often and you can get taken out pretty easily.
The best answer to the low level experience is get to level 5 as fast as you can.
No. Every game system I've ever played the early levels sucked.
The conceit of RPGs is you start off as green. Relatively newbie. Then after playing a long time you become a tough grizzled veteran.
It's been this way for 40 plus years across editions, hell, across RPG games.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
they are very much force to play in "X way" or else they are said to be playing wrong, playing badly, etc.Sorry, but that's a player issue, not a character one.
Also, you can be criticized even when playing a martial. Thing is: martials are in general easier to play fine. And as a matter of fact, those criticizing the caster may be the ones not knowing how to properly play a caster (like the "god wizard" story).
This post is just you saying playing as anything other than support and using consumables is BADWRONGFUN or at least that is how it comes across as well as being super patronising to those that don't see wizards as just consumable using support casters.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a complete failure of the system, isn't it? If a quarter of the game's levels - and the most commonly played levels at that - aren't fun that speaks of a system that has failed from the outset.It's more complicated than that.
The system is made for beginners to discover it. So they limit the number of options at low level. If you go for a basic build, like Greatsword Fighter, it's available right off the bat, it works, there's not much to do. Of course, you'll swing a sword from level 1 to 20, adding feats and such but mostly icing on the cake.
Or... you play a more complicated build/class. And for that, you need a few levels to take options or to see your ability growing. I personally consider that playing the 4 first levels once you have enough system mastery to consider a Greatsword Fighter boring is a chore. But that's because I'm experienced, because there's nothing that suits me at level 1 as I know everything you can do at that level. So I aim higher and have to just go through the first levels waiting for my character to grow.It's not a failure of the system. It's part of a system where you make choices along the way and not all at first level. If you want all your choices to be made by level 3, play D&D5. It works, but it's boring quite quickly as it's a strong limitation on character building.
But this isn't good game design. This core class in the core rulebook works right off the bat, this other iconic fantasy class isn't great but about 25% of the way through playing a max length campaign it will start to feel ok and the other class will start to feel boring. That isn't good game design.
Or once you are experienced in the game this class is boring. That is more a matter of taste - some people enjoy playing warrior types, clearly you don't.
Some people enjoy playing toolbox casters that are mostly showhorned into support and consumables, some people don't.
Some people want to play a wizard that isn't a toolbox support reliant on consumables but the game doesn't cater for that and keep getting told by yourself, Unicore and The Raven Black this is the wrong way to play casters (BADWRONGFUN). That you must play casters as toolbox consumable using support or you are playing them wrong. Doesn't matter how many time you rephrase it the meaning is the same.
The other key points are 'low levels are bad so rush to level 5' which is not great game design. Its ignoring the issue. I don't mind feeling weak at low levels so long as everyone feels weak but as stated above Fighter's monks rangers (most martials other than those universally agreed to have issues) don't feel that bad.
So if I don't want to play a mostly support caster reliant on consumables and I don't want to play the what enemies will I face today and what weak saves might they have guessing game what are my options?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a complete failure of the system, isn't it? If a quarter of the game's levels - and the most commonly played levels at that - aren't fun that speaks of a system that has failed from the outset.None of this really touches on early levels (1-2 especially) other than picking up a actual weapon and hitting thingsLevel 1 and 2 go by so fast and are so swingy for nearly every class that I'm not sur why we're having this long a discussion on it.
I had a miserable time as a barbarian at level 1 and 2 due to the decreased armor class and getting knocked out. It was feast or famine. Either I smacked something and took it down or I got taken down.
Rangers and monks have a decent experience at level 1 and 2, but fall off dramatically at the more important higher levels. That feels more miserable than slow build at level 1 and 2.
A lot of classes feel bad at level 1 and 2 to me and a lot of players I've seen because you don't hit that often and you can get taken out pretty easily.
The best answer to the low level experience is get to level 5 as fast as you can.
No. Every game system I've ever played the early levels sucked.
The conceit of RPGs is you start off as green. Relatively newbie. Then after playing a long time you become a tough grizzled veteran.
It's been this way for 40 plus years across editions, hell, across RPG games.
This reminds me the D&D 3.0/3.5 idea where during first half of the game martials are dominant and casters are more supportive to in the second half this position inverts. But in practice the players noticed that great CoDzilla could do both from the beginning to the very end.
In PF2 Paizo fixed this. No more heavy armored clerics dominating the game, martials progression and effectiveness are relevant from the beginning to the end and no more strongly depends from being buffed by casters (casters helps their lives but is no more necessary).
But the same wasn't made to casters. The cantrips (now also a bit nerfed) helps just a little and works in a strange way (EA dominates due being 2 targets + save + no MAP when used with a weapon but attack cantrips are just meh or in best cases situational) the number of spells is considerable low in first 4 levels (specially in 1st and 2nd), scrolls are pretty expensive specially if you have to buy Adventure Gear, tools for skills, weapon(s), ammo and necessary supplies to adventuring in the wild.
For many reasons the gameplay experience of most non-martial casters like warpriests and druids is way more difficult and frustrating than the martials in earlier levels like happens in 3.5/PF1. It's like the designers was focused in fix the later game experience of martial classes but forget that the initial experience of casters was bad too specially for those have 6 hit points per level and no armor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t know who keeps saying that casters like wizards have to play support roles. It is not the people arguing that casters are playable, even from level 1. Superbidi and Derivin both tend to play blaster casters. I tend to mix it up. My favorite wizard was definitely the illusionist I brought into outlaws of Alkenstar. I actually tended to blow all of my spell slots for the day narratively, and still ended up stealing the spotlight in combat because that AP turned out to have a lot of creatures with an easily exploitable energy weakness. Cantrips 150% pull their own weight at low levels and the question is definitely what are you doing with your third action, because you can use that to reall knowledge or make another attach with a weapon, or to debuff with a skill action, or moving around, or raising a shield. One focus spell and cantrips alone is enough to pull your weight through combat at level 1 and 2. But your character is not just limited to cantrips and focus spells!
At 4 spells per day at level 1, your wizard has probably a spell slot an encounter if you want to cast them there. Having different spells to cast is why you chose to play a wizard instead of a sorcerer after all. There are a handful of spells that are niche and don’t broadcast how niche they are, ( like burning hands is really only good for triggering weaknesses at level 1, it is otherwise far less useful than electric arc for multi-target reflex save damage, but for swarms it is still very good), but most of the classic spells are still good: magic missile is automatic damage, great for all the hard to hurt targets players complain about fighting. Fear is a great debuffing spell. Shocking grasp is a lot of damage, but requires you to get close or use reach spell, use true strike, be ready to burn hero points, or be willing to watch your spell fizzle occasionally, especially if you are not participating in the collective debuffing of your enemy that successful parties learn to do. It sound like there are going to be even more good blaster spells coming early levels in the remaster too.
I think the primary problem many newer players have playing casters is tied to how difficult the GM makes learning about the enemy. Casters absolutely struggle to land offensive spells when they are targeting strong defenses and missing the opportunity to trigger weaknesses with good damage types. But not beating your head against a high defense, and having access to nearly all the damage types is the great strength of the wizard. This isn’t playing a support role tool box wizard, this playing an aggressive damage dealing wizard.
Should you (and all your allies) still spend some early actions learning what you are up against and debuffing your enemy? Yes, but every party member should be contributing to that.
“Use more scrolls” is only the response to the specific complaint that casters spell slots will run out over the course of a day. Scrolls are an incredibly cheap way of bypassing that problem and they work better at it than any permanent magic items. But they are not required to be an effective wizard. They are good to use for the wizard, and they really, really, really help the psychic, but they are not required. If the whole party is working together and helping figure out what will best defeat an enemy and make it easier for everyone to be accurate, a wizard will easily contribute as much as any other character will.