| 1 person 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...
I like casters because I can do a lot of different things that I can't do as a martial.
Some people like to swing a weapon and do a few other things. That's fun for them. I like to do lots of different things and casters can still do lots of different things.
For offensive casters, I like the druid best.
For a jack of all trades caster, I prefer sorcerers with the occult or primal list.
Bards are a really good class, but I don't love their playstyle.
Wizards are a class that doesn't feel great. Their build options are so boring in PF2. They have very limited roles with no healing or buffing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will admit it's better than 2nd edition D&D. My first character there was a wizard. ONE spell and couldn't figure out which end of a dagger was the stabby bit. He ... was not long for the world he was in.
|
| 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.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...
I do not know for the others, but I am definitely not saying it is BADWRONGFUN.
Just that you cannot expect getting optimal results if you refuse to use a big part of the possibilities you have.
But that can be perfectly OK thanks to PF2 having hugely reduced the gap between non-optimized and optimized builds.
I often play non-optimized PCs that fit the concept I was going for rather than bland optimized builds.
But then I do not expect my PCs to be the overall best.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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).
You made me realize my answer can be taken as the exact opposite of what I was saying. The player causing issue is the one saying someone's playing "wrong" or "badly".
I put wrong and badly inside quotes because there's absolutely no way to prove someone is playing badly in PF2. It's no online video games with a bunch of stats someone can use to back up their claim. So in the end it's someone's words against someone else's.
I personally don't consider casters to be support character. I never buff with mines (I consider buff to be a waste of spell slots before high levels) and very rarely debuff. I mostly blast (and sometimes heal, especially at low level). And I've posted in Unicore's discussion about good experiences with caster so everyone can see I have a lot of fun doing it (at least, it's a measure of "efficiency", efficiency at delighting me).
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.
I've never said anything like that (and it's not what I think).
I've just stated I was using scrolls and when some posters started to pile on consumables I've defended them. I've never implied that anyone has to play like me, in general I'm trying to "open" the possibilities by striking metas, I'm rarely defending any such claim.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone has fun using consumables, have at it.
I was stating my view and that they aren't necessary to achieve victory. If it allows you to do things that make your character more fun, go for it.
I like to save my coin for higher level permanent items.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with the blaster caster or wizard is that even your core blaster spells like burning hands, or magic missile generally do about as much or less damage than a martial just hitting with a sword attack - doesn't matter if you are using scrolls the damage is low.
Casters have generally lower saves and native defences, their survivability is generally given by the same very limit resource they have for blasting or support of debuffing. I don't think other than tradition there is a good balance reason for this, after all you can range with a non caster and generally get better saves.
At low levels blaster casters are very frustrating to play. Assuming 4 encounters a day you get 1 spell per encounter and low level spells are terrible for damage. Cantrips helped smooth it but with the loss of key attribute to damage this is no longer the case. Wait for the full remaster is cold comfort for those of us who waited for APG and SoM with the same assurances only to get more of the same poor low level experiences.
No one wants PF1 casters, but if you spend your limited resources stacking blaster spells and you still deal with the low defences and if wizard less skills as well is generally not fun.
Casters I see at my tables end up end up quitting and rerolling or taking the same couple of buff/debuff spells as blowing your burning hands for 4 damage on the dice then having the enemies save reducing it to 2 for one of your big 3 or 4 spells is awful.
It gets slightly better at 5 with lightning bolt or fireball (etc) for AoE but it seems for the first couple of levels enemies are much more likely to save. It is also harder to pull off unless you are ambushing enemies before they get amongst the party as casters generally have low initiative making the problem worse. Not sure why casters need lower initiative and perception in PF2e.
So you wait till level 7 to finally catch up in proficiency, a full 3rd or more of the way through a campaign where if you plan hard, wait for just the right moments of the GM is kind and tailored encounters for you to shine you get a feel good moment when enemies fail a save.
Its not good design. You could increase all blaster spell damage dice by 1 or 2 fir single target spells and it would hardly make a difference in the numbers game. Metamagic or focus spells to improve chances of big moment spells or make it easy to exclude friendly targets from aoes would help.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
but if you spend your limited resources
I really think the issue comes from the precise definition of the word "limited" and the expectations one build from it.
I personally don't really consider that casters use "limited" resources. I replenish them every morning and I make sure to have enough of them to last as much as I want/need through the use of consumables (very much required in my opinion in a game like Starfinder where you have half the spell slots you have in PF2, but it is sometimes required in PF2, too, especially at low level).
So, dealing martial damage with my "limited" resources don't feel bad to me because I don't consider them more limited than a Strike.
And I really think the core of our disagreements comes from this difference in expectations: You consider spell slots to be "special" because they are "limited", I make sure I have enough spell slots to last the whole day, so they are neither "limited" nor "special" to me.
You can answer that martials don't have to buy consumables to last all day, I will answer you that I don't need a fully runed weapon to have basic efficiency. When you analyze the system and shake it a bit, you realize there's enough room for an "unlimited" caster, at least a caster who doesn't have to use "1 spell per encounter" but can use "enough spells per encounter", enough being the number that makes you happy about your contribution.
I'm happy about my caster's contribution and I often face remarks that I'm not restraining myself enough when playing my casters. I don't really do restrain, I take risks and in my case it pays.
I like the analogy with Formula 1 when it comes to casters. Winning a race is like playing a caster properly: If you go too fast you crash, if you go too slow you lose. And scrolls are like tires: Sure, you can buy only cheap ones to save up for your next engine, but is it the best choice? Maybe you'd have more success with good tires as they are as essential as a good engine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Low level single target blaster spells are usually as follows:
Level 1:
Hydraulic Push
Magic Missile for auto hit, mostly worth it as a 3 action cast.
Summon spells are not horrible for damage at level 1.
Level 2:
Sudden Bolt
Acid Arrow
Scorching Ray
You have a bunch of AoE options for multiple mooks which does more damage than martials against multiple targets.
If you want to do as much damage as a martial, then load up on single target spells because no way a caster should do equal single target damage on top of doing everything else. That's PF1 all over again and I'm not interested in that.
All I'm interested in is if a caster decides to focus on single target blasting because they want to do single target damage, then have the spells available. In no way do I at all support casters doing equal single target damage easily while doing everything else they can do. That would be extremely imbalanced and bad for the game.
I've found that if I focus on making a blaster, I can match or exceed martial damage. But I spend my actions and my spell slots blasting to do it, which leaves you not able to do much else.
But you won't be top damage dealer every fight any more than a single martial character will be as they have bad fights where they miss and some other martial takes top slot. So you'll switch with another damage focused PC depending on saves and changing combat conditions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a strong suspicion someone was going to say “blasting is terrible in PF2” and then bring up burning hands as their one spell that they had trouble using effectively.
I did try to address it earlier as a spell whose niche is too niche, since there are cantrips that can be taken together to cover multi-attack, area of effect and fire damage. Yeah it does all three, and it has a bigger area of effect than a cantrip, but it needs to pretty much hit 3 or more enemies to be worth even considering casting instead of electric arc, and if the fire or area of effect aren’t triggering a weakness, the damage is pretty anemic. It is still useful as swarm control, a very dangerous enemy for low level parties, and martials especially, but it is the kind of spell that requires such specific maneuvering, and dangerously so, that getting the payoff for using it is just much more difficult than using electric arc.
I don’t really think it is deceiving anyone though. I don’t know how you read the description and not see that it not the spell your character is going to be spamming in most combats. I am guessing we are talking now about a sorcerer who got it as their free 1st level spell? There are much better first level blasting spells for leaning on to do damage.
Magic missile is a wonderful spell for blasting but again only in 2 situations, one of which too many players have created a self-fulfilling meta-analysis against. Magic missile is great at dealing consistent force damage against very difficult to hit targets/targets with resistances that the martials are struggling to overcome; and it is great as a third action, especially after casting a spell attack roll spell like shocking grasp. Finishing off a reeling foe can totally be worth a second spell slot spell in the same round. This is what super bidi is talking about when they suggest doing what you have to do not to feel like your spell slots are preciously limited resources.
But instead, magic missile is always being measured as a spell being cast against fairly typical targets with no strong resistances or exceptional defenses as a 3 action activity, where there are many spells that can do significantly more damage, and leave you with an extra action. In that regard, some spells are similar to martial feats that players get the wrong idea about, like newer fighter players taking power attack instead of exacting strike when their vision is just to spend as many actions as possible making attacks to do damage with a strong mauler-type character.
Learning how to navigate your spell list, and what you can optimally do with a spell, vs what common consequences of casting it tend to be takes time and a willingness to cast a lot of different spells and see what sticks. I can see how some players get discourage after a couple of tries and end up settling for spells that they feel are more reliable, but I will still strongly argue that the real issue here is that those players are not being helped by their GMs to learn how to better assess enemies for weak defenses and weaknesses. More often than not, it is GMs making the game caster antagonistic rather than “player failure,” or “system failure.” While this could be the result of lack of clarity on the rules. It is often also players and GMs bringing over assumptions from other games about how “effective casting” is supposed to work.
If players are not being made aware that the beauty of PF2’s encounter system is that difficult encounters are not overcome by meeting an enemy at their strength, but at their weakness, then the flow of information from GM to player is being disrupted, or not established well in the first place. Trial and error can also work to learn this lesson, but only if parties are ready to run away when the plan fails and haven’t over committed to engaging the enemy. As a GM you need to either help your players see their way out, help them be comfortable with occasional player death, or play less sever encounters at your players as they are learning this stuff (or run a combo of some/all of these). I personally prefer to keep encounters dangerous, occasionally kill a character when the situation calls for it, but also have powerful enemies be willing to play the hungry predator or sadistic bully, rather than efficient murder machine out to kill everyone, when I can logically get away with it. I spend a fair bit of time explaining this style of play in my session 0 when playing with new players. I lighten up when the party expresses reservations about experiencing character death, or when GMing younger players, but I still will work to keep the illusion of danger up with foes by broadcasting their intentions with their actions and mid encounter banter. I love it when fights stop for a round or two while the enemy tries to to heavy hand negotiate a deal for something, all the whole continuing to try to move into better fighting position or make a more powerful show of strength to give the PCs a difficult choice.
As players and GMs, RPGs are games of making choices and seeing how those choices unfold. Everyone gets frustrated when there seems to be no choices really worth making. If everyone is getting frustrated by feeling like all choices are equally bad, then the overall tone of the game is probably dialed up to “too serious” and “overly tense.” If it is just one player, then there are miscommunications occurring between players and the GM. If it is consistently different players of the same kinds of classes, then there probably is some issue between table expectations (of everone) and the way the game is being run. That can be fixed by modifying the actual game mechanics/homebrewing rules changes or items, etc, or it can be addressed by the GM looking again at how they are choosing to implement the rules they are already running. None of this is intended to say one person is to blame and they are the singular problem, but rather to highlight that everyone at the table can take some ownership of improving communication at the table and making sure frustrations and expectations are being voiced and listened to. This is when I tend to see everyone having the most fun.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it's me who isn't using the terminology right, but...
If I play a wizard taking nothing but fire blasts and I have a great time, enjoying the experience even when I run into enemies that are resistant or immune, and my group loves Phlogiston Burnsides the Patient, it's badwrongfun for someone to come along and tell me I shouldn't play that way. They are saying my fun is bad and wrong.
If I play a wizard with a spread of energy type blasts, but I'm disappointed that I still don't feel as effective as I want, it's not badwrongfun for people to tell me I should be getting consumables or using a different playstyle. It might still be something I disagree with, but badwrongfun is specifically about telling people who don't have a problem that they should have a problem.
For all anyone knows we will end up with a general rule saying something like:
We really just don't know what to expect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic missile is a wonderful spell for blasting but again only in 2 situations, one of which too many players have created a self-fulfilling meta-analysis against. Magic missile is great at dealing consistent force damage against very difficult to hit targets/targets with resistances that the martials are struggling to overcome; and it is great as a third action, especially after casting a spell attack roll spell like shocking grasp. Finishing off a reeling foe can totally be worth a second spell slot spell in the same round. This is what super bidi is talking about when they suggest doing what you have to do not to feel like your spell slots are preciously limited resources.
You fight enemies like this all the damn time, and typically in the most important fights of the session. Saw a reddit post yesterday that claimed evaluating single target damage against same-level enemies paints an inaccurate picture because you only see same-level enemies when you're fighting a group that can be AOE'd. Calculating against same-level enemies undervalues stuff like magic missile's perfect accuracy or the damage-on-a-miss from save spells because the Fighter is going to miss and do nothing more often in actual single target encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do want to keep most of my analysis to very low level stuff here, since the OP was asking about early level caster experience and the remastery, and how to make sure that early level caster experience stays fun and viable through the changes we have seen.
The OP was particularly concerned by the loss of attribute damage to cantrips and like Raving Dork, I think it is too early to know how all of that will play out yet, because there have to be way more spells than we have seen, and it is still up in the air about whether most tables will treat the new spell list as the end all be all of spells, or if it will just be "Now you have even more spells to choose from!" My guess is it will be a hodge podge of both for many groups.
If some new items or feats come out boosting the damage of spells though, it could be very difficult to use both old versions of spells and new versions in the same game. Probably not exceedingly so, and maybe just enough of a boost to casting to really satisfy some tables, but it will complicate the decision about whether to use spells from secrets of magic or Dark Archive right away.
|
|
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.The funny thing is, martials have less problems with range if prepared at all. As you know, most spells has range 30. 120+ are rare things, and not always prepared or known.
Ray of Frost is a Cantrip I always take whenever I can for my casters (even my Bard) precisely because of its range. Dealing a damage type that the many fire creatures in the game do not like is just added bonus.
Not that my attack is full bonus even at 120ft, as opposed to those of martials.
Also the Reach spell feat is a thing for the 30ft range spells.
It's particularly good with Electric Arc BTW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reach is great for the more powerful touch cantrips and spells as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP was particularly concerned by the loss of attribute damage to cantrips and like Raving Dork, I think it is too early to know how all of that will play out yet, because there have to be way more spells than we have seen, and it is still up in the air about whether most tables will treat the new spell list as the end all be all of spells, or if it will just be "Now you have even more spells to choose from!" My guess is it will be a hodge podge of both for many groups.Another interesting question is what will the PFS do?
True, that is a good question. However, from my experience, casters tend to do very well already in PFS as really long adventure days are already a rarity there. I am skeptical one or two less points of damage on electric arc would be that unbalancing, if electric arc does port over to a 2d4 cantrip.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen PFS parties with 3+ casters out of 5 or 6 players and it feels like 3 electric arcs in the first round tends to absolutely wreck encounters, while martials have moved forward and raised a shield. At level 1, I have even seen parties where 6 players all had electric arc and unleashed it to devastating effect. I have never been one to demand it “gets nerfed!” And I would love to see it pick up an interesting crit fail effect, but I do not personally share your concern that OGL electric arc needs to hold firm as the absolute balance point of caster’s blasting power. I do hope we get more interesting and useable cantrips all around. I think getting too worried about the exact math at this point is just inviting unnecessary frustration into our lives.
I strongly suspect that more permanent casting items could be in the remastery mix, since “what do I spend my wealth on?” As a caster seems to be such a hot button issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.The funny thing is, martials have less problems with range if prepared at all. As you know, most spells has range 30. 120+ are rare things, and not always prepared or known.
Why do you say martials? It's so easy to prove this wrong.
Fighters don't switch to range easily.
Barbarians don't go range easy.
Rogues don't.
The main class that switches to range easy are rangers. They are decent switch hitters.
Fighters and barbs focus on strength and often have a lower dex stat and can at best use ranged throwing weapons well, which are action intensive and short range.
Rogue loses sneak attack at range most of the time. They also lose Dex to damage if a thief.
A Starlit Span magus does range well, but that's their thing. They can switch to melee easily to be a switch hitter since Spellstrike still works in melee and finesse weapons are easy to get.
Swashbuckler can do short range if a flying blade.
Investigator can do range, but even that isn't great.
So if a martial switches to range, they lose a ton of damage and will be far less effective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably because martials can enter melee from hundreds of feet across the map without much of a problem. Early game it almost never comes up, midgame you have fly/air walk from a caster and flight items, and late game you have permanent flight one way or another.
That and most GMs don't usually run wide range combats on the plains or through sprawling city streets or underground caverns. A fighter striding and sudden charging 150ft with a reach weapon is overkill for most tables and most scenarios in general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably because martials can enter melee from hundreds of feet across the map without much of a problem. Early game it almost never comes up, midgame you have fly/air walk from a caster and flight items, and late game you have permanent flight one way or another.
That and most GMs don't usually run wide range combats on the plains or through sprawling city streets or underground caverns. A fighter striding and sudden charging 150ft with a reach weapon is overkill for most tables and most scenarios in general.
No. It isn't necessary most fights.
Sudden Charge does make it easy to close fairly long distances.
That isn't ranged combat. That's regular melee combat with feats setup for closing range.
Probably because martials can enter melee from hundreds of feet across the map without much of a problem. Early game it almost never comes up, midgame you have fly/air walk from a caster and flight items, and late game you have permanent flight one way or another.
That and most GMs don't usually run wide range combats on the plains or through sprawling city streets or underground caverns. A fighter striding and sudden charging 150ft with a reach weapon is overkill for most tables and most scenarios in general.
No. It isn't necessary most fights.
Sudden Charge does make it easy to close fairly long distances.
That isn't ranged combat. That's regular melee combat with feats setup for closing range.
I'm reading his comment on range as just range, not range as in ranged combat. Though yes, without ABP keeping a ranged weapon prepped is difficult unless the caster is doing it on their dime.
Probably because martials can enter melee from hundreds of feet across the map without much of a problem. Early game it almost never comes up, midgame you have fly/air walk from a caster and flight items, and late game you have permanent flight one way or another.
That and most GMs don't usually run wide range combats on the plains or through sprawling city streets or underground caverns. A fighter striding and sudden charging 150ft with a reach weapon is overkill for most tables and most scenarios in general.
No. It isn't necessary most fights.
Sudden Charge does make it easy to close fairly long distances.
That isn't ranged combat. That's regular melee combat with feats setup for closing range.
If melee martials can solve ranged combat by closing the distance, even to flying foes once the mid-levels are reached, doesn't that just support the idea that the game goes out of its way to ensure they can always do their thing and are never left twiddling their thumbs the ways casters are?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If melee martials can solve ranged combat by closing the distance, even to flying foes once the mid-levels are reached, doesn't that just support the idea that the game goes out of its way to ensure they can always do their thing and are never left twiddling their thumbs the ways casters are?Probably because martials can enter melee from hundreds of feet across the map without much of a problem. Early game it almost never comes up, midgame you have fly/air walk from a caster and flight items, and late game you have permanent flight one way or another.
That and most GMs don't usually run wide range combats on the plains or through sprawling city streets or underground caverns. A fighter striding and sudden charging 150ft with a reach weapon is overkill for most tables and most scenarios in general.
No. It isn't necessary most fights.
Sudden Charge does make it easy to close fairly long distances.
That isn't ranged combat. That's regular melee combat with feats setup for closing range.
Why is the caster twiddling their thumbs?
I'm not following the line of reasoning. I play a lot of casters and I'm rarely twiddling my thumbs unless I feel like twiddling my thumbs.
Is this because you refuse to use an ancestry feat to pick up a weapon or use a cantrip?
Martials do eventually get to close range. But this is usually higher level and with magic items or feats for flying. They don't just to get memorize fly like a caster or have long range spells easily used.
So if we're talking 1st or 2nd level, a martial will be having trouble at that level as well.
If we're talking about higher level, casters aren't twiddling their thumbs either.
Where does this line of reasoning come from? All those complaining want to provide some examples of casters twiddling their thumbs doing nothing ? It's not my experience playing a caster.
The only bad caster experience I've had in PF2 is playing a wizard.
Bards are always doing something. So are druids and clerics. I can usually build a sorcerer with a good focus option and a weapon as well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If melee martials can solve ranged combat by closing the distance, even to flying foes once the mid-levels are reached, doesn't that just support the idea that the game goes out of its way to ensure they can always do their thing and are never left twiddling their thumbs the ways casters are?Probably because martials can enter melee from hundreds of feet across the map without much of a problem. Early game it almost never comes up, midgame you have fly/air walk from a caster and flight items, and late game you have permanent flight one way or another.
That and most GMs don't usually run wide range combats on the plains or through sprawling city streets or underground caverns. A fighter striding and sudden charging 150ft with a reach weapon is overkill for most tables and most scenarios in general.
No. It isn't necessary most fights.
Sudden Charge does make it easy to close fairly long distances.
That isn't ranged combat. That's regular melee combat with feats setup for closing range.
Do you understand that moving costs actions in this game
Do you understand that moving costs actions in this game
The game does too and gives martial characters action compression to help them get into melee. Can casters, more specifically Wizards, get action compression to help them not feel like a 2-action per turn class in a 3-action per turn system?
-----
Generally, when I say caster I mean Wizard and Witch with a side of arcane tradition Sorcerer. Clerics and Druids have never felt like pure casters to me because going back to the days of 3.x and CoDzilla they were never solely reliant on their spells to be effective. Bards weren't even full casters until recently and still have a ton of unique to them actions to take alongside full spellcasting. Psychic used to be its own thing that didn't use magic, so while it might provide the gameplay I want better than Wizard does it feels wrong to think of it as using magic. My idea of the caster is the guy who does spells and nothing else and that's what the Wizard is supposed to be.
I should probably just say the class name but to my mind the iconic spell caster is the Wizard.
-----
So if we're talking 1st or 2nd level, a martial will be having trouble at that level as well.
In a fight against flying foes at level 1 or 2 the optimal thing for a Wizard to do is to cast magic weapon on a martial character's bow and then sit back with cantrips that do less damage than what a switch-hitting fighter is now doing with their buffed weapon. The casters that get things like 8 HP/level and armor or default to being good with weapons feel good because they can do spells plus something else.
Being the iconic "I cast spells and solve problems with spells from spell slots" archetype simply doesn't feel nearly as good as being a bard that just gets to be Wizard+. Then there's the Druid that gets a full magical tradition to itself with tons of damage-dealing spells shifted into it and shapeshifting on top of it. Or the Cleric that can fulfill its class fantasy all day long via focus spells and also gets access to the same number of spells as everybody else.
It all just leaves the classic idea of a spell caster that is built to maximize the advantage of its spell slots to the exclusion of all else in the dust.
Well there are a few things to unpack here. The first is that "action compression" is sort of...nebulous as a term. Are we talking about giving wizards the ability to cast more spells per turn? Or move and then cast a spell? Or what?
Martial characters, melee martial characters in particular, get a lot of built-in efficient enablers to get them into the action and keep them there. They don't have to cast a spell first or only use weaker attacks (read focus spells) to enjoy these enablers and these enablers can be enhanced with spells like haste or long strider.
I want the same easy and automatic ways for casters to move and cast a spell or combine casting a spell with a skill check.
Quickened spell metamagic straight-up allows multiple spells per turn
An archetype-specific feat that is only usable once per day with lower level spells.
-1 action focus spells (examples: elemental toss, force bolt, elemental tempest)
Generally weaker than a martial character's basic attack.
-Summoned monsters that can cast spells let you cast a spell with your 2 actions, and then sustain the spell and command the monster to cast a spell. Bingo, two spells per turn.
An attack at -5 compared to a martial character with the dubious utility that a monster might waste an attack on it.
-Some spells let you compress casting actions. For instance, fiery body lets you cast 1-action produce flame. Likewise, ferrous form from rage of elements lets you cast 1-action needle darts.
Specific and narrow compared to how easily enabled martial characters are and how much that enabling helps their core gameplay loop to feel satisfying.
-Reaction spells are great. Things like breath of life or the focus spell retributive pain (pain domain) or a lot of the Rage of Elements spells like interposing earth let you do things off-turn.
Reactions in general feel good for most classes to the point where martial characters often look for ways to poach them from Champions or Fighters.
If we're talking about "cast a spell and also do something else" might I recommend haste ?
Spend two actions to maybe make up two actions later. That doesn't compare that well to Sudden Charge which lets a martial character start off the fight more strongly. It can also be cast on non-casters and can be poached by martial characters via archetyping while a martial character's strengths cannot be similarly poached by a Wizard.
The game straight up needs more variable action spells and more ways to enable casters to feel like they aren't stuck in the 1e paradigm of moving and casting a spell while martial classes always get to make choices with how they spend their actions.
TLDR; The game goes out of its way to ensure that martial characters are able to easily get into striking range and do their thing. This is everywhere from action compressing feats to the dungeon design found in APs. It does far less to ensure that a Wizard feels able to prepare the right spells for the next adventuring day and even less to ensure that he gets to enjoy the full breadth and depth of the 3-action system.
1. Quickened casting is not archetype-specific. If you look at it, it's actually a core rulebook feat for wizards. And it really does not need to be usable with high level spells. Even PF 1e didn't allow that. A meteor swarm and a 7th level chain lightning is gracious plenty.
I misread the AoN entry where it looked to be part of the Time Mage archetype. I will concede that it doesn't take anything special to access.
2. Regarding summons. You kinda ignored my point. Which is that many summons can cast spells. Which straight-up gives you bonus spells when you sustain. Sure, some might have low save DCs. Others don't. Most deal half damage even a successful save. And spells like heal or heroism don't depend on save DC at all.
It's still a backloaded form of extra actions though. You spend three actions and then an action every turn to get lesser actions than you can normally take. If you count the extra action taken to control a summon each round it takes a 6 round combat before you break even on action economy. Many fights won't last long enough to pay you back the actions a summon takes to cast
3. Reposted from above: Time jump from Secrets of Magic gives you two move actions for the price of one action to cast. Frigid flurry (also from Secrets of Magic) not only blasts enemies, it also moves you 120 feet as part of the casting. Mercurial stride from rage of elements lets you move up to twice your speed while also poisoning someone whose space you move through.
So yeah, you get your movement and get your spell damage off. No problem.
Time Jump costs a limited resource and comes online at level 5 where using it would cost a top-level spell slot. It also came out
Frigid Flurry is pretty cool, it also comes online even later.
Rage of Elements isn't on AoN yet so I can't check that yet.
It's also worth noting that every one of these spells comes from a non-core source and comes online later than Sudden Charge which is core and comes online at level 1.
4. Regarding focus spells. Elemental toss deals 10d8+10 = 55 damage at 20th level. That's a ton of damage (consider that a 20th level fighter with a longsword is hitting for 4d8 (base) + 3d6 (runes) + 7 (str) + 8 (weapon specialization) = 43, and unlike martial attacks it comes with no multiple attack penalty. This matters.
That's only available by picking a specific Sorcerer bloodline and doesn't appear to be poachable by the Wizard. Most focus spells are not nearly this good.
Equivalently, force bolt is <snip>
Specific to a single kind of Wizard. Not equivalent to getting action compression from a single low-level feat.
Also, the fighter probably knocked that bad guy prone already and the rogue is finishing them off while your Wizard is still waiting for a turn.
5. Re: reaction spells. I wish you the very best of luck poaching reaction spells (not abilities, SPELLS) on fighters and company. That's a LOT of archetype feats to get access to breath of life or similar spells. Either that or you're pumping the living daylights out of Trick Magic Item and your lore skills (and Int/Wis) and burning through wands/scrolls like a madman, and those things aren't free to draw, they aren't free to hold in your off-hand, and they sure as heck aren't free to purchase. Also your save DC is garbage either way.
The point is that martial characters get their own rather powerful reactions and can poach things like Haste and Fly by archetyping. Casters don't get to poach similar utility from archetyping into a martial class.
6. Re: fiery body and your spell choices being "specific". Um. You're a caster. "Specific spells" are like 50% of your class features. Maybe more. That's about as valid of a critique as saying "yeah and a lot of martial builds are weapon-dependent". Like. Yes. Of course they are. "Weapons" are part of who you are. Just like "spell selection" is part of who the wizard is.
Martial character action compression: Take a feat at (one such feat is open to you at level one), it always works and costs no resources, front loads your action economy.
Caster action compression: Mostly comes at higher levels or via specific subclasses, generally costs resources, and often costs actions now to get back actions later.
Do you see where there's a slight issue?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reach spell is a fantastic 1 action action compression feat. With it I can “move” 30 ft two times for one action, to put me in a good position to land a spell and then get back again. The level 1 jump spell lets me jump better than I could with 4 actions and is one action. It might not be a spell I memorize often at low levels but eventually I can have several and then later even have some 3rd level versions.
Getting into cantrips, Shield gives my caster a general feat and a good shield for using it once an encounter that I can use over and over again all day. I never need to buy or repair it. Giving a first level caster a reaction at first level is an action economy booster. Detect magic is giving you access to a special kind of search action that starting martials can’t even do, and non-spell ways of replicating it don’t auto heighten. Guidance ( not for wizards) is an auto-success aid action 1x per character per hour.
Lighting a torch in an emergency ? Sorry martials they’re a whole round at least. Casters can make light much faster and with out having to juggle equipment. Prestidigitation, produce flame, mage hand, message…all give casters ways of accomplishing different tasks much quicker that a martial character. And prepared casters get to choose their load out for best utility every day, and wizards can possibly sub out those spells with 10 minutes.
Moving back to spell slots and 1st and second level spells could go on for pages. “But casters don’t have all the options in actual play!!!” The thing about consumables like scrolls is not that they take an extra action to draw, it is that they give you a spell you don’t have for just one action. There is almost no better action economy compressor imaginable, because even for a wizard that is a minimum of 10 minutes to a full extra day of time just compressed into 1 action.
Imagine how ridiculously OP it would be for there to be a feat where you could spend 1 action and suddenly recall any spell that you needed and you could use it over and over again, all day. Even if it was limited to first level spells forever, that would be an incredible feat that many players would list as must take. Even if at first level it is (arguably) only useable 1 X per adventuring day, but by level 3 it has nearly become unlimited for first level spells and you can even really afford to grab one extra second level spell per day… that would be an amazingly powerful feat. With the way wealth works in PF2, and how the game expects all players to use consumables and still keep up with necessary permanent items, this really is what using scrolls adds to casters. No feat is mandatory but you can’t get mad at players for realizing how much more fun they personally have when they choose options that are just better than anything else a character has access to. Scrolls really are “that item” for casters, especially at low level. Trying to save up for big permanent items that you won’t be getting for 4 to 5 levels is just butting heads with the way the games economy works. If you are sitting on tons of gold, the GM is supposed to look at your sheet and say, you’re at or above the wealth you are supposed to have right now. Check. If you have spent your wealth, or given it away, or had an expensive item destroyed, your GM is antagonistically playing against your character if they don’t help you get back up to the base line before the next level. Those are the intended rules of the game. You are throwing money away in PF2 not using consumables when you get them if your GM is playing by the rules. If the GM is just handing out the treasure recorded in the AP without paying attention to how it is divided up and being used, only then do these scenarios about “saving up for big ticket items” have any logic to them at all, but it is logic that runs against the intention of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine how ridiculously OP it would be for there to be a feat where you could spend 1 action and suddenly recall any spell that you needed and you could use it over and over again, all day. Even if it was limited to first level spells forever, that would be an incredible feat that many players would list as must take. Even if at first level it is (arguably) only useable 1 X per adventuring day, but by level 3 it has nearly become unlimited for first level spells and you can even really afford to grab one extra second level spell per day… that would be an amazingly powerful feat. With the way wealth works in PF2, and how the game expects all players to use consumables and still keep up with necessary permanent items, this really is what using scrolls adds to casters. No feat is mandatory but you can’t get mad at players for realizing how much more fun they personally have when they choose options that are just better than anything else a character has access to. Scrolls really are “that item” for casters, especially at low level. Trying to save up for big permanent items that you won’t be getting for 4 to 5 levels is just butting heads with the way the games economy works. If you are sitting on tons of gold, the GM is supposed to look at your sheet and say, you’re at or above the wealth you are supposed to have right now. Check. If you have spent your wealth, or given it away, or had an expensive item destroyed, your GM is antagonistically playing against your character if they don’t help you get back up to the base line before the next level. Those are the intended rules of the game. You are throwing money away in PF2 not using consumables when you get them if your GM is playing by the rules. If the GM is just handing out the treasure recorded in the AP without paying attention to how it is divided up and being used, only then do these scenarios about “saving up for big ticket items” have any logic to them at all, but it is logic that runs against the intention of the game.
In practice, this isn't how most GM's play things. There's also the fact that many campaign types don't allow for the GM to keep dumping in scrolls as that would break verisimilitude. So yeah, if you twist your game world to suit casters and constantly keep pouring extra gold on them so they keep up it can work.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When people complain about generic problems about casters, defenders always use very specific arguments to counter those problems. Not as examples where the solution can be used in dozens of different ways, but with certain spells, items and playstyles, which also oftentimes have to be combined to work.
1) If a very small selection of spells like Electric Arc, True Strike and Magic Weapon are the reason that casters can't be buffed, then those spells need to either be removed, be reworked to be less of an abusable problem or applied to the whole caster system as a general buff. The same thing applies to Shadow Signet, which hasn't come up here this often, because we are talking about low levels, but is brought up in discussions very often.
2) If buying and using consumables for certain classes was a requirement and not for others, then there's something wrong with the system, because they weaken the long term power level of said classes, especially in such a tight system like PF2e. They should be additional options not requirements and their benefits should have the same impact on all classes. Characters who spend all their early gold only on consumables will feel this at later levels, character who spend only a little bit of their gold on consumables won't have a drastically different game experience, but instead a very situational benefit once or twice.
3) Consumables don't even remove the problem of early level casters. The complaint is not that they have limited resources (and yes they are limited). The complaints are that the experience using those resources often feels too weak vs. non expendable resource actions from other classes (those silver bullets are simply not as powerful as they are intended) and that once they are gone, the remaining alternatives now get debuffed. 1 or 2 extra spells during the level (not per day) isn't going to change that at all and people who claim it does, use combinations of point 1) to counterargue. If limited resource are too weak, having slightly more of said...
Show the math. These generic arguments have all been disproven over and over and over again with actual math.
Show the math of casters being weak and needing buffs.
Show it for all casters. Or just stop.
You are not proving anything with a long post like this with no mathematical proof and these arguments do not apply to all casters.
You're just making complaints easily dismissed because you have no data proving your arguments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Show casters twiddling their thumbs. Prove it. Tell us how you play.
I've played multiple sorcerers and druids, two bards, a psychic, two magus, a cleric, and a three wizards, and two summoners.
Only class that was disappointing was the wizard. I've explained why multiple times with specific reasons why they have problems and are disappointing in play.
The only class I've heard complaints about from a witch loving player was how terrible the witch was. I've given the reasons for that as well with specific examples, not just some generic Casters vs. Martials, problems.
Other than that, casters are doing very well.
I can even list the instances they dominated, how they play, and all types of casters crushing things.
This idea martials are tearing everything is just rubbish. I see martials getting dropped all the time. They miss their attacks. They switch who is the top damage dealer as well. They don't do anywhere near as much damage as casters in AoE situations. You get two casters in a group launching AoE, it is devastating. They can't handle near as many problems a casters can with spells.
These generic arguments that can't be backed up with math and real examples are not actionable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably because martials can enter melee from hundreds of feet across the map without much of a problem. Early game it almost never comes up, midgame you have fly/air walk from a caster and flight items, and late game you have permanent flight one way or another.
That and most GMs don't usually run wide range combats on the plains or through sprawling city streets or underground caverns. A fighter striding and sudden charging 150ft with a reach weapon is overkill for most tables and most scenarios in general.
Sudden Charging 150ft. doesn't exist. When you get to such levels you know that it's suicidal. Sudden Charging 50ft. to your death, on the other hand, is a rather common beginner move.
Having to waste so many actions to position yourself extremely far away from any support is a strategy one should use only in the most extreme circumstances, it can't be considered a basic strategy.
While martials can play however they like, take whatever they like, use consumables or chose to ignore them, don't have to plan ahead, aren't depending on GMs interpretation of rules that are relevant for them and always can try again next turn if they fail at anything.
That's preposterous. Martials are extremely constrained in terms of equipment and failure to meet the requirements lead to completely subpar contribution when casters have much more freedom (even if there's obviously optimized ways of equipping them). They are also super dependent on the GM to not screw them completely (something as simple as putting many swarms/oozes against the party will make your Rogue cry, putting a lot of ranged combat with no way to close in will make most Barbarians/Fighters cry or just not giving enough runes to the party will screw all martials). And obviously, they can't always try again next turn because there's a limited number of turns they can try before hitting the dirt or the rest of the party ending the fight.
A lot of the spells are apparently useless, because every time they get brought up, defenders will quickly point out they should have picked options X and Y instead. One should wonder why those spells exist in the first place if it is not intended for players to pick them up.
A point I agree with. In my opinion, it's because it's cheap content, like magic items. There are tons of magic items noone will ever use, still they are in the books.
Magic Items and spells should be reviewed completely, in my opinion. It's unnecessary complexity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm finding it ridiculous how much people are complaining about the wizard as if it gets nothing when if you look at the feats it becomes extremely apparently they get the most slotted spells in the game from their features. Between things like bond conservation, creating two scrolls everyday, getting to turn a slot into a double slot and so on. The wizard's niche is spellslot manipulation and getting to cast the most spells in a day. Which is way better than getting better focus spells. I really hope all the complaining doesn't make us lose these features in favor of focus spells because no one bothered to think about just how many spells a day a wizard gets
Probably because martials can enter melee from hundreds of feet across the map without much of a problem. Early game it almost never comes up, midgame you have fly/air walk from a caster and flight items, and late game you have permanent flight one way or another.
That and most GMs don't usually run wide range combats on the plains or through sprawling city streets or underground caverns. A fighter striding and sudden charging 150ft with a reach weapon is overkill for most tables and most scenarios in general.
Sudden Charging 150ft. doesn't exist. When you get to such levels you know that it's suicidal. Sudden Charging 50ft. to your death, on the other hand, is a rather common beginner move.
Having to waste so many actions to position yourself extremely far away from any support is a strategy one should use only in the most extreme circumstances, it can't be considered a basic strategy.
Basic, no, but if your GM likes to use long distances, casters investing in shifting spider collars for turn 1 drakeheart final surge 100ft into a typical 2 action spell or a 3rd stride into a single action skill ability or focus spell or whatever is perfectly fine and you're hardly far from support.
Now, if only one player is built for it and tries it, let them reap their reward for being wildly out of position, but that's a different story.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While yeah, damage is low in early levels, along with slots
spells do damage and usually apply a condition as well, which martial don't usually get until higher levels. And we can get our damage/conditions to land more consistently because the enemy has to crit succeed to avoid all of it, where as the martials regular failing an attack roll deals no damage. Even our cantrips can plink damage more regularly.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm finding it ridiculous how much people are complaining about the wizard as if it gets nothing when if you look at the feats it becomes extremely apparently they get the most slotted spells in the game from their features. Between things like bond conservation, creating two scrolls everyday, getting to turn a slot into a double slot and so on. The wizard's niche is spellslot manipulation and getting to cast the most spells in a day. Which is way better than getting better focus spells. I really hope all the complaining doesn't make us lose these features in favor of focus spells because no one bothered to think about just how many spells a day a wizard gets
A Specialist Wizard has the same number of spell slots as a Sorcerer.
The Wizard gets their Bonded Item feature to grant an effective extra spell slot (N+1).
A Universalist Wizard gets the same as a Sorcerer (N).
The Sorcerers choice of Evolution feat can grant them an extra Spell Slot (N+1)
Both Echoing Spell and Bloodline conduit are the equivalents to Bond conversation and Reprepare spell.
Wizards can eek out additional higher level slots at the cost of their lower level, paying 2 for 1.
Sorcerers have 3 native focus spells (of various qualities) vs the Wizard's native 2 (mostly poor quality).
The ability to squeak out a marginal advantage in a white room isn't exactly thrilling character design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine how ridiculously OP it would be for there to be a feat where you could spend 1 action and suddenly recall any spell that you needed and you could use it over and over again, all day...In practice, this isn't how most GM's play things. There's also the fact that many campaign types don't allow for the GM to keep dumping in scrolls as that would break verisimilitude. So yeah, if you twist your game world to suit casters and constantly keep pouring extra gold on them so they keep up it can work.
It is not twisting the game world to play by the rules of the game spelled out in the core rulebook. I find it bad form to try to speak for most GMs and tables since I can only speak to the tables I’ve played with. I have yet to ever play with a GM that didn’t think it was cool to see players actually use consumables. I think this perception that the game must not work the way it is laid out to work in the rules is 90% a player psychology issue and not a GM one. It just feels weird to some players to role play in a game world where the economy just works so differently from a real world one. I get that, but I also can’t get stabbed by a knife every day and just sleep it off.
Well, let's see... My metamagic, silent spell, counterspell illusionist doesn't have even one such ability until level 20 probably. 'Just don't hold it this way'?
This habit of measuring every caster by the best subclass is irritating. Like, for example there're 3 other elemental druids apart from Storm. And they are so much worse...
I kinda get the sentiment, but it's not like we care about outwit ranger, eldritch trickster rogue, superstitious barbarian, or whatever other bad class options either.
Not to say I think universalist or bond conservation or split slot are particularly good either compared to a blender specialist with 6 top level slots and an archetype.
Point is, classes are judged by their good options. There's nobody to blame but yourself (and the devs I guess) if you make bad build choices, either for flavor or out of ignorance.
I also find the idea that you need consumables, particularly early on, laughable. Just don't cast spells in every inconsequential fight with chaff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not arguing that any caster needs to use scrolls. I am arguing that if you feel like the limited number of spell slots is preventing you from casting spells you want to cast, then scrolls is a good solution to that problem. People then respond that it is unrealistic to expect to have a scrolls on hand with different spells for different situtations, and it is necessary to point out that the rules very much enable casters to use scrolls liberally if they want to.
Some casters get more out of keeping a weapon runed up, and attacking every round. Great! That is another fine way to play, but it does eat into your ability to focus on casting spells. That is a trade off.