Pathfinder had a stamina system. I thought that they were going to make that standard for all classes, clearly that was not the case.Personally, I think it would be interesting to explore a stamina pool or focus point system (which I think GURPS uses) that both martials and casters use. Martials being able to go "all day" irritates me. Fighting a life or death battle every 10 minutes shouldn't be something they can do indefinitely either.
I also think the concept of hit points could use another look, as I find their narrative implementation inconsistent unless you treat every mid level character like Dante from Devil May Cry, able to take being run through with swords multiple times to zero impairment.
But... These changes aren't something I can expect from PF2. They are probably too far removed for PF3, considering Starfinder is becoming PF2 compatible.
I see the PF2 stamina just like the opposite, no matter the name. It is not how much effort you can achieve, but an extra "HP bar" handled different.
What Captain Morgan is describing is the Rolemaster system, with real stamina producing exhaustion and wounds both things adding negative modifiers until restored.
If you think about what spending a spell slot does, its not really "forgetting" the spell. The spell is still there in your book and you still know what it does. What the spell slot does is preset how much energy you will spend and on what; The spell gets cast and you don't have that energy anymore.
Mana systems don't have those preset and so most people just spend every point into the biggest spell. Which is similar to Spell Blending Wizard.
Fatigue systems are like mana systems, but a chance to fail early (or later depending on set up).
***************
Also the issue with low level spell slots is that you have 3 types of spells: A) No scaling required, B) DC scaling required, and C) Stat scaling required.
PF2 only auto scales DC great for type B (debuffs) but is horrible for type C (damage). Specially when HP scales with level and there is no way to scale low level spell slots. This makes it so yeah you can use debuffs, but now you can't use attack spells. Its also why focus spell attacks and cantrips are seen as necessary, both of those auto scale unlike spell slots.
You are just confirming this
Maybe not totally related, but one thing I’d fix is about spells non-cantrips upscales only based on spell slot level. That makes that at some point even the free cantrip is better than the spell, which should not be. Something free shouldn’t be better than anything using resources.
I.e. Chilling Darkness 5d6 single target, at level 9 Daze can be considered better, with 4d6 + stat. Then what is the meaning of using a 3rd level spell slot? At the end it happens like in D&D 5E, you have to change all your lower spells to utility ones, something easy for a Wizard, not for a Sorcerer (more if it is a Bloodline spell).
I miss in all these modern version the back of using the level for spell effects, even the typical +1 per level of the caster. So at the 9th level of the example, a +9 makes difference to want to use a 3rd level spell slot instead the cantrip.
Then adjust the damage die and fixed modifiers based on caster level so the spells to be worth always compared to cantrips.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assumably people want this in a 3rd edition which probably won't exist for many years to come. I hate magic point systems, the strain system I linked is better thematically, but still can have a fair number of issues. The biggest problem with magic point based systems, or something like the kineticist, it can lead to mmo-style rotations. Something to be avoided at all costs. I will say I might be in the minority who likes vancian magic as I've heard complaints about it for over a decade now myself! I will never understand this personally, I think it's coolI don't want power points or fatigue or anything that complicates the system myself. That I would not love.
They already have the framework in place for easily shifting to all spontaneous casting using the Vancian level system. That is the simplest way to do it.
Coming up with some new power point or fatigue or other type of system would require too much reworking of all the subsystems built off rank or level.
Whereas moving to spontaneous requires pulling a couple of levers. All 5E casting is is spontaneous casting with heightening. That's the only major change.
Easy to understand for old and new players. Easy to implement in any game that used Vancian magic. Already works within the game parameters and balance. Anything else would require an immense amount of reworking.
I don't like locked in spell slots.
Levels, lots of different spells from Vancian I don't mind.
To me Vancian magic is based on memorize once per day, use it, and it's gone. This wasn't so bad when I had 10 slots per spell level like a wizard with a 36 intelligence. It's not fun when I maxed out at 3 or 4 slots a level. So I'd rather have the Vancian/Spontaneous blend they used in 5E or the sorcerer uses.
With so few spell slots and saves in the 50/50 range, it's more fun to be able to use an impact spell when I need or want to use it.
In PF1 they had Vancian magic built in a way that was very usable:
1. Tons of spell slots based on casting stat.
2. Could leave slots open to fill as needed.
3. Lots of disposable magic items for low level utility spells that were easy to craft with tons of charges.
This paradigm supported Vancian casting leaving your spell slots for high value spells, while utility spells were often relegated to easy to create cheap items.
Now in PF2 things are very locked in with a 50/50 failure change and other balancers like the incap trait. So you want to have that spell you need when you need it and more than once if required.
Rather than say I want Vancian casting gone, I'll restate it as I want the Vancian/spontaneous casting blend to be the standard now. It's more intuitive, better for story, and doesn't feel artificially limited or leave spell slots sitting there doing nothing because you locked in a useless spell in a slot.
To me the best would be a mix of caster level to make always worth using a spell slot and heighten for going beyond and allowing to use higher slots for other spells.
i.e. for saying something quick, fireball 5d6 + caster level, heightened (+1) extra 1d6.
As we get new slot level each 2 levels, that is like 1d6 + 2, which is potentially some less than 2d6 but more reliable for the fixed damage, and makes it much worth to cast at its base level, using higher slots for others like teleports and etc, but with that tactical option to go beyond if convenient and cast it with extra dice.
|
Any changes to the actual system by which magic works would require an edition change and a ground-up rebuild of everything which touches the magic system at all.
Because this would be an edition change, any and all assumptions we currently have about the early level experience would be largely invalid. It would be a whole new game, and everything would be on the table.
So its hard to say. It would certinaly have always been beyond the scope of the remaster project!
That all said, I like the vanican system overall. I feel like there are a number of pain points which can be addressed within the current edition to make this better.
|
Any changes to the actual system by which magic works would require an edition change and a ground-up rebuild of everything which touches the magic system at all.
Because this would be an edition change, any and all assumptions we currently have about the early level experience would be largely invalid. It would be a whole new game, and everything would be on the table.
So its hard to say. It would certinaly have always been beyond the scope of the remaster project!
That all said, I like the vanican system overall. I feel like there are a number of pain points which can be addressed within the current edition to make this better.
So give martials a similar per day mechanic for their best attacks then that way everyone's on the same page deciding whether to use them or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
About removing vancian casting, I'm open to it; but so far I have yet to see a replacement that achieves the same goals (a limited number of powerful abilities and a higher, but still limited, amount of utility) while also being more intuitive and/or narratively sound, and not being a bookkeeping nightmare.Well, I know of two systems that meet your criteria, with the probable exception of "not being a bookkeeping nightmare", which is rather subjective. I suspect for most it goes something like this: "Martials can swing their damn swords or fire off their arrows all day long, casters should be able to do the same thing with their spells." Not sure I agree with that, but also not sure I can provide a competent argument against it.
...
EVERY Power Points and Mana systems that I've ever seen are janky, exploitable, half-broken right from the start and also just as much of a headache (if not moreso) than Spell Slots so, while I'm not a diehard of the kind of thing that is going on now with Spell Slots, when it comes to PP/Mana you can call me a hater.Hm. What's in a name? I mentioned two systems (without naming them) upthread. One uses "fatigue points" (casting a spell makes the caster a little bit more tired, how much depending on the strength ("level") of the spell. The other uses mana points (sorry). A common feature of both systems is this: you want a spell that does X? Invent one (using rules provided by the system) essentially during downtime. I like this, but I doubt it's of much interest to most players of D&D or Pathfinder, where downtime is the least important/interesting part of the system.
Fatigue/mana points systems do fail to meet one of the criteria because, as others have explained, they encourage the caster to just go nova with their most powerful abilities and ignore the lower tier ones. You could introduce mechanics that discourage that kind of approach, like an increased cost each time you cast a high-level spell; but they would fall into the bookkeeping problem I mentioned.
Or the caster could find a lower-level spell they find effective, like Slow, and spam it endlessly - far more times than you could by just filling your higher-rank slots with that in vancian. That could be a problem, too.Not to mention that some people like the planning ahead aspect of vancian casting, and such a system would shut it off completely.
I have looked for alternatives to vancian, but as I said before, I found none that were straight upgrades. Saying "Just remove vancian lol!" is naive.
If you think about what spending a spell slot does, its not really "forgetting" the spell. The spell is still there in your book and you still know what it does. What the spell slot does is preset how much energy you will spend and on what; The spell gets cast and you don't have that energy anymore.
Mana systems don't have those preset and so most people just spend every point into the biggest spell. Which is similar to Spell Blending Wizard.
Fatigue systems are like mana systems, but a chance to fail early (or later depending on set up).
***************
Also the issue with low level spell slots is that you have 3 types of spells: A) No scaling required, B) DC scaling required, and C) Stat scaling required.
PF2 only auto scales DC great for type B (debuffs) but is horrible for type C (damage). Specially when HP scales with level and there is no way to scale low level spell slots. This makes it so yeah you can use debuffs, but now you can't use attack spells. Its also why focus spell attacks and cantrips are seen as necessary, both of those auto scale unlike spell slots.
Just a note that even PF1e didn't fully scale damage up to caster level.
My lvl 16 Witch does often still prepare a 1st level Burning Hands, but that's for the possible utility value rather than its pitiful 5d4 damage.|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So give martials a similar per day mechanic for their best attacks then that way everyone's on the same page deciding whether to use them or not.Any changes to the actual system by which magic works would require an edition change and a ground-up rebuild of everything which touches the magic system at all.
Because this would be an edition change, any and all assumptions we currently have about the early level experience would be largely invalid. It would be a whole new game, and everything would be on the table.
So its hard to say. It would certinaly have always been beyond the scope of the remaster project!
That all said, I like the vanican system overall. I feel like there are a number of pain points which can be addressed within the current edition to make this better.
Reinventing D&D 4e isn't the answer to any of the problems.
I get it, limited resources aren't everyones consideration of a fun mechanic, but that isn't the issue with casters in PF2. The problem is an intersectional one, which can be approached from several angels.
Coming down hard on changing the entire magic system doesn't actually progress the conversation around casters at low-levels, it puts up a barrier. We can't ripout and change the magic system without making a whole new edition, and that means we are playing a different game. If we are playing a different game, we aren't talking about issues with PF2 anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair if the goal is to get away from DnD the Spell Slot system should also be slaughtered at some point or the other because to be honest its one of the most DnD Things there is.
Its a huge deal fair but from what i read the Remaster shapes up to be a bigger shake up then expected anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair if the goal is to get away from DnD the Spell Slot system should also be slaughtered at some point or the other because to be honest its one of the most DnD Things there is.
Doesn't matter. Copyright and Trademark don't apply to game mechanics, but they might apply to names. So the slot system is never going to be a problem. But finally got the rename to spell rank.
To be fair if the goal is to get away from DnD the Spell Slot system should also be slaughtered at some point or the other because to be honest its one of the most DnD Things there is.Doesn't matter. Copyright and Trademark don't apply to game mechanics, but they might apply to names. So the slot system is never going to be a problem. But finally got the rename to spell rank.
The Idea of Dark Elven isnt protected either not even very similar ones to DnD considering the Warhammer Dark Elven. Paizo choose to remove them because they are iconic to DnD.
The Fate (stay night) Franchise also utilizes the alignment System one to one and they never operated as tabletop game but as huge franchise. But instead of name changes it gets removed because its very much iconic to DnD.
Its clear they deliberatly want to move away from the DnD Roots with PF2 before and even more now with the Remaster. So its not unreasonable to think that at somepoint they move away from this System aswell. I dont say it will be the Remastered because thats a huge fundamental change but i think its quite possible it happens for a PF3.
|
Honestly I just want a caster that just uses focus spells and cantrips. No spell slots at all, I think I'd that was made with vanilla enough flavor and decent focus spells, with the ability through dedications to pick up others and have their class features interact with them. Bonus points if the options allow you to narrow your focus.
After seeing Kineticist I want more casters like this. Without creating new classes it would be cool if they made class archetypes for the current casters that state "character loses all spell slot progression and gains 3 focus points. After each encounter the character regains 3 focus point.".
The real question is... what could the character gain for these losses. Maybe martial proficiencies? or maybe letting players pick up spells 2 or 3 levels lowers than them as "focus spells" but wouldn't heighten.
Of course, just having new classes based around this concept would be much better.
On a more positive note. With the spellcasting proficiency changes and focus point changes players can kind of build their own focus casters with a martial class that gets automatic spellcasting DC like a monk/champion. I guess this is also under the assumption Monk/Champion count for the universal proficiency. They are worded a bit differently currently. Of course, your accuracy would be at -2/-3 less as a full caster.
On top of which the enemy defences are also balanced on the much easier to raise martial attack and martial skill attack making spells even more likely to fail to have an appreciable effect which when success of failure means you can do that ability less for an entire day will result in either casters not using their spells because they expected more encounters that didn't happen or burning everything on the first encounter then wanting to rest or checking out if they don't get to do so.
One of the things that the current design of spellcasting in PF2E implies is that spellcasters must learn to use their spells wisely. IMO a player who "checks out" when he doesn't get eight hours of rest after every encounter is (a) doing it wrong and (b) not someone I would welcome at my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo choose to remove them (Dark Elves - ER) because they are iconic to DnD.
You mean all that lore about elves staying on (or in) Golarion after Earthfall and retreating to the Darklands and becoming purple skinned and mostly antagonistic to surface dwellers never happened? That's quite a retcon!
To be fair if the goal is to get away from DnD the Spell Slot system should also be slaughtered at some point or the other because to be honest its one of the most DnD Things there is.
Its a huge deal fair but from what i read the Remaster shapes up to be a bigger shake up then expected anyway.
If Hasbro sued over Vancian magic, whoever owns the rights to Jack Vance's books would get to sue Hasbro in return. Hasbro/WotC don't want to open that can of worms. However like I said, I like that this is unique. These are really the only to games doing vancian magic rn. In the edition change if vancian magic was removed for most casters, I would not care, but I do think the wizard class specifically should keep it. I rather pain points with the system be addressed and it gets updated rather than have it removed entirely. Biggest reason is the same for other people I've seen in this thread. Something really cool would need to replace it because frankly a mana system, and at will abilities like the kineticist are boring
|
I find it funny that people would bring up "but what about all these high level spells" in a thread about low level casters. But then claim its moving the goal post when someone says "those are high level, they are uncommon or just flavor, and martials don't need them in the first place cause the GM will just given them a way anyways".
Specially when any martial can just grab a scroll or wand of glitterdust or see invisibility. That is if they didn't grab blind-fight and make the need for See Invisible obsolete for 80% of its uses. The last 20% is just speeding up search.
Blind-fight is level 8. Not really low level martial. For the 4 martial classes that get it as a class feat, that is. For others it's level 16 through multiclass.
Scroll or wand of a rank 2 spell is lower level. But it costs money that you might not have left after buying your obligatory Runes. A problem low-level casters do not have BTW.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If spell dc and proficiencies can be 2 or more levels behind runes can definitely wait a level. Your outrage is the height of double standards amd reinforces the martials are main characters (the heroes) mentality prevelent on these forums and in these discussions.
Also spells cost money to buy and time to learn, martials can spend time and consumables to do the same.
Knowing I need Glitterdust or see invis at levels 3 to 8 (when blindfight comes online) having it prepared 'just in case' with no guarantee of it being good just in case for 6 game days in a row when that very limited resource could be better speng on anything else is mot great.
People also justify wizard flexibility on the idea they will know what encounters they will face that day in advance which is at most tables unlikely, that thw wizard will have the perfect spell and that spell will work 100% of the time whem in reality is a 40 to 60% chance at best.
Game needs to be designed around realistic assumptions not white room perfect conditions.
Early level caster play espwcially wizards has lost me more players than anything else in this system.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's sort of strange how people keep trying to drag this thread into "caster vs martial" or "high level caster" experiences when the core issue is low level caster play, which is irrespective of both.
I doubt many casters would choose to let their save dcs lag in exchange for see invisibility.
Casters don't get to choose. That's the fun part, they just get delayed progression for free as a bonus, in case they were having too much fun.
There's a reason I mentioned striking runes and not potency. Potency is analogous to lagging save DC. Striking is doubling your damage. And a basic striking rune costs almost exactly the same as a wand of see invisibility.
So yeah.
See invisibility is a rank 2 spell. A wand of see invisibility is a 5th level item that would cost 160 GP. A striking rune is a 4th level item that would cost 65 GP. So your math is a bit off. Interestingly, a +1 armor potency rune is a 5th level item that would cost 160 GP. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People claiming martials act like they're the main characters, people saying it's unfair martials can do their thing all day without resources, and pretending like trick magic item is a valuable use of their skill feats when you have casters in the party really just make me laugh. I mean, c'mon. Spellcasters are also at-will at level one with a couple big daily abilities and a fairly strong once per encounter ability. By the time you're not using cantrips and using mostly slotted spells, you have more than you could use in a day, more scrolls than a library plus staves and wands, and even stuff like the necklace of fireballs. The casters are okay
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People claiming martials act like they're the main characters, people saying it's unfair martials can do their thing all day without resources, and pretending like trick magic item is a valuable use of their skill feats when you have casters in the party really just make me laugh. I mean, c'mon. Spellcasters are also at-will at level one with a couple big daily abilities and a fairly strong once per encounter ability. By the time you're not using cantrips and using mostly slotted spells, you have more than you could use in a day, more scrolls than a library plus staves and wands, and even stuff like the necklace of fireballs. The casters are okay
Martials vs. Casters as a whole doesn't exist. I get tired of hearing since it is pure horse puckey.
My druid had a 700 point round the other day against a bunch of mooks the martials had to slowly carve their way through. She wrecked them again.
The bard cast wall of force to separate multiple oozes that were wrecking the martials. Boosted up the martial attacks. Kept them healed up.
The druid transformed into an earth elemental and pounded the oozes to mush with bludgeoning damage because the oozes were immune to slashing and piercing damage.
Casting is fine. Low level casters are fine if the aren't of the "I don't pick up a a weapon for any reason" mindset.
Certain classes need some fine tuning. A few of those classes are martials. A few of those classes are casters.
There is no caster vs. martial disparity. It doesn't exist. If anything casters are stronger at higher level than martials.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deriven, you already use homebrew to adjust your casters up. You can't claim no isdue when you aren't playing raw.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not play worth very many house rules other than avoiding secret checks because my players hate them. Everything else we do might be GM rulings and readings of ambiguous rules, but my players love casters. My Fists of the Ruby Phoenix campaign is a wizard, Druid, caster archetypes scoundrel rogue and giant Barbarian. Sure the Barbarian is a monstrous wrecking ball, but the wizard is the clear and undisputed leader of the team and is the architect of victory. Before we started this high level campaign, we had a campaign go from 1 to 13 with a cleric, monk, dragon sorcerer and champion. The cleric and sorcerer were absolutely vital in early level play. It is not hard as a GM to just be kind with information and descriptions of creatures and up coming adventures and the casters are doing great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I simultaneously respect and disrespect Deriven's house rules. In that, I think he overstates issues with prepared casting, but I also don't think everyone being spontaneous is that big of a buff. In some ways I think it's a nerf, but I don't want to debate that. The quality of what casters can do is still demonstrated by his examples. Spellcasters do get great spells and spells that change combats. Wall of Force is a premier spell, Fear is a premier spell, slow, maze and so on. Frankly wall of force is so much better than force cage because of the lack of a save that I am wondering if force cage could become a no save spell again but keep the HP and that be enough of a nerf to the spell to be reasonable
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not play worth very many house rules other than avoiding secret checks because my players hate them. Everything else we do might be GM rulings and readings of ambiguous rules, but my players love casters. My Fists of the Ruby Phoenix campaign is a wizard, Druid, caster archetypes scoundrel rogue and giant Barbarian. Sure the Barbarian is a monstrous wrecking ball, but the wizard is the clear and undisputed leader of the team and is the architect of victory. Before we started this high level campaign, we had a campaign go from 1 to 13 with a cleric, monk, dragon sorcerer and champion. The cleric and sorcerer were absolutely vital in early level play. It is not hard as a GM to just be kind with information and descriptions of creatures and up coming adventures and the casters are doing great.
Giving out extra information about the story is already not RAW though.
You experience is different and not directly supported by the rules. RAW doesn't say 'hey if you have a wizard give them this additional information in advance.'
I can say while it may be anecdotal low level caster play has lost me more players even when I am generous with information it takes the wonder and fun out of choosing spells when there are many that I say 'don't take any of these spells as they won't be useful in this game, never take burning hands as it is never going to be as good as magic missile.' Or 'It gets better sometime after level 7 I promise, just play the next 20 to 25 games until you reach that level where it feels like you can contribute as much.' Or slow is a great spell once you hit level 5, it will probably only rob a significant enemy of 1 action but you might get lucky and have it be more effective than the monk flanking and tripping the boss that he can do every turn.'
Over all low level play for casters is horrible. Casters having weaker saves shouldn't be a thing now that spell slots are much much more limited and number of spells prepared is much lower to make sure you have defensive spells for things as well as utility as well as support as well as spells for each type of save and maybe something for specific resistances/weaknesses at a level worth using. Its not a realistic expectation to make up for all the shortcomings built into the chassis, especially with how much casting archetypes give and how readily available consumables are.
None of the suggestions and comments in this thread how addressed how to make low level play for casters better for someone who can't control the table they are at. Basically the solution so far is 'generous GM' which is an admission that low level caster play needs help to be ok.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deriven, you already use homebrew to adjust your casters up. You can't claim no isdue when you aren't playing raw.
What are you talking about?
I didn't change any DCs or the spells or anything. Casters were fine before I made the change which is why I contend only wizards and witches need help.
Casting is fine. It has immense power. So stop relying on this "you changed the rules." I changed one thing moving everyone to spontaneous because wizards and witches were sucking the other way.
If you all focused on wizards and witches, then I'd be here with you.
But you keep saying "Caster vs. Martial." That's just not true.
I didn't have a 700 point round because of my rule change. It was a 700 point round because I hit with a single chain lightning with a couple of crit fails. Then later rounds added more damage by turning into a dragon using my focus point, then proceeded to bash mooks with my tail with reach while flying over them flanking for the rogue from above.
You can do this without everyone a spontaneous caster.
I contend again: there is no caster vs. martial disparity.
There is only a 6 hit point prepared caster versus other casters disparity. Some people don't even want to admit this.
This disparity exists even after I made wizards and witches spontaneous casters. I literally turned them into spontaneous casters capable of changing spells out and blasting them off as needed and still no one wants to touch the wizard and witch because their feats suck.
But some people on this board still love the wizard and maybe some like the witch still. I say their underpowered comparatively, not fun to build, and generally lacking.
But this in no way applies to all casters. Just as all martials are not great. The investigator and swashbuckler feel terrible comparatively. The monk and ranger need work.
I state this stuff and why and I'm blown off even when the people arguing against me literally cannot provide good reasons why with comparative abilities. It's all white room math, anecdotal evidence, and GM allowances making some seem better than it is.
No hard data.
I have hard data that there is no caster vs. martial disparity.
I have hard data the wizard and witch feats are terrible comparatively in what they provide. You can show their lack of bang for the buck compared to other class feats.
Bring the hard data into the discussions you've made an effort to do good damage as a caster low level or not such picking up a weapon and using it. Not going, "I shouldn't have to use a weapon to do equal damage when it is clear the game has set it up so I can use a weapon to supplement my damage as a caster."
Fact is if they make casters do the same damage absent a weapon, then they'll imbalance the game because those of us that do the strong base casting damage will also pick up a weapon just to do even more damage.
Given I've seen the data, I think Paizo should absolutely ignore the idea of a Caster vs. Martial disparity. It doesn't exist.
I'd only like to see a better built wizard and witch as they have fallen behind. Not necessarily due to casting, but a very boring and clunky chassis on each.
People claiming martials act like they're the main characters, people saying it's unfair martials can do their thing all day without resources, and pretending like trick magic item is a valuable use of their skill feats when you have casters in the party really just make me laugh. I mean, c'mon. Spellcasters are also at-will at level one with a couple big daily abilities and a fairly strong once per encounter ability. By the time you're not using cantrips and using mostly slotted spells, you have more than you could use in a day, more scrolls than a library plus staves and wands, and even stuff like the necklace of fireballs. The casters are okayMartials vs. Casters as a whole doesn't exist. I get tired of hearing since it is pure horse puckey.
My druid had a 700 point round the other day against a bunch of mooks the martials had to slowly carve their way through. She wrecked them again.
The bard cast wall of force to separate multiple oozes that were wrecking the martials. Boosted up the martial attacks. Kept them healed up.
The druid transformed into an earth elemental and pounded the oozes to mush with bludgeoning damage because the oozes were immune to slashing and piercing damage.
Casting is fine. Low level casters are fine if the aren't of the "I don't pick up a a weapon for any reason" mindset.
Certain classes need some fine tuning. A few of those classes are martials. A few of those classes are casters.
There is no caster vs. martial disparity. It doesn't exist. If anything casters are stronger at higher level than martials.
You are playing a heavily customized game though, where all casters are spontaneous, every spell is a signature spell and out of combat barriers are handwaved by good ideas. That is a tremendous buff that is way better than the already existing archetype for free without even having any of it's drawbacks.
Give every martial a transforming weapon that can change to any...
It is not heavily customized. Why do you people think this?
I changed one major thing turning everyone into sorcerers basically, spontaneous casters.
I did not change the spells, the spell DCs, the four levels of success and failure, or anything else.
I did not change the stats. I did not change the focus spells.
I tested all this stuff prior to making any changes. I played the normal way for a year or more from release. Even then I figured out casters didn't have a problem.
Low level casters should pick up a weapon. A bunch of you refuse to pick up a weapon and use it along with your cantrips. A cantrip with a weapon attack in a round keeps up your damage with martials at low level with the occasional use of a spell slot.
You can see this in play. You can record the damage and see it.
It was far worse as a low level caster in every edition of D&D prior to PF2. I played them all.
Cantrips that do real damage was a big boost to casters in PF2. Add in a weapon that you will only be a little behind on in PF2 and you do fine. It was far worse being Mr. Garbage Stats and +0 BAB in PF1 and prior editions.
Now you start off a bunch of stat boosts and access to some kind of 1 action weapon that you should be able to build to do decent damage along with your cantrips. Do that until you get higher level.
I did this and damage was fine. You don't have enough slots at that level for my rule change to have any real effect.
For my storm druid my cantrips, nice focus spell, and weapon were far more important than my spell slots at the level.
So focus more on the classes that really need it because it isn't all casters. It's a complete falsehood to claim it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not play worth very many house rules other than avoiding secret checks because my players hate them. Everything else we do might be GM rulings and readings of ambiguous rules, but my players love casters. My Fists of the Ruby Phoenix campaign is a wizard, Druid, caster archetypes scoundrel rogue and giant Barbarian. Sure the Barbarian is a monstrous wrecking ball, but the wizard is the clear and undisputed leader of the team and is the architect of victory. Before we started this high level campaign, we had a campaign go from 1 to 13 with a cleric, monk, dragon sorcerer and champion. The cleric and sorcerer were absolutely vital in early level play. It is not hard as a GM to just be kind with information and descriptions of creatures and up coming adventures and the casters are doing great.Giving out extra information about the story is already not RAW though.
You experience is different and not directly supported by the rules. RAW doesn't say 'hey if you have a wizard give them this additional information in advance.'
I can say while it may be anecdotal low level caster play has lost me more players even when I am generous with information it takes the wonder and fun out of choosing spells when there are many that I say 'don't take any of these spells as they won't be useful in this game, never take burning hands as it is never going to be as good as magic missile.' Or 'It gets better sometime after level 7 I promise, just play the next 20 to 25 games until you reach that level where it feels like you can contribute as much.' Or slow is a great spell once you hit level 5, it will probably only rob a significant enemy of 1 action but you might get lucky and have it be more effective than the monk flanking and tripping the boss that he can do every turn.'
Over all low level play for casters is horrible. Casters having weaker saves shouldn't be a thing now that spell slots are much much more limited and number of spells prepared is much lower to make sure you have...
What do you consider a caster?
My druid felt fine at low level.
Cleric feels fine.
Sorc with a weapon felt fine.
Wizard feels terrible at low level. Even lack of simple weapon proficiency limited their ability to take ancestry feats to boost their damage.
Witch seemed ok due to the hex cantrip.
Bard feels fine.
So what constitutes a caster? And how are you proving it feels terrible for casters at low level? How do you prove that? Casters have different abilities in each class. How do you prove they all feel bad at low level?
I'm a bard. I boost the entire party for one action. Then I use a telekinetic projectile to hit something while boosting myself or a weapon that also boosts myself.
Am I caster or something else? How is this getting categorized?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No hard data.
I have hard data that there is no caster vs. martial disparity.
I have hard data the wizard and witch feats are terrible comparatively in what they provide. You can show their lack of bang for the buck compared to other class feats.
I don't disagree with many of your conclusions, but you bring up your hard data very frequently, and a sample of 1 really just isn't a good basis on which to make conclusions. All of your data is dependent on your GMing style, your players' playing style, the sorts of stories you enjoy telling, and many other factors. All the data is appropriate for conclusions about your games! But it's not the basis on which to make balancing decisions for the whole game on its own. Hard data could be provided that shows Investigators are really strong in-combat because the GM always gives them a lead before the fight and has based their campaign around custom enemies that are weak to precision damage. One could provide data showing that casters are incredibly OP with their damage if most fights are against large hordes of weak enemies. And none of that is even talking about house rules, players making mistakes, misinterpretations of rules, what one chooses to measure and place value upon, etc. Presenting your data isn't an issue, but acting like your data is inherently correct because you tracked it carefully is ignoring the multitude of factors that all play into the outcomes we're discussing.
I'm sorry. Did you just say DELAY YOUR WEAPON?Absolutely positively NOT. Those numbers bonuses are mandatory. Especially basic striking. It usually almost doubles your damage.
The Devastating attack from ABP should be standardized, the same than Cantrips and Focus spells do scaling automatically with level. Continue if want having striking runes, but only for anticipating if found earlier what the character will have naturally at the corresponding level.
This also relaxes very much the (crazy) loot and magical item system (with tons and tons of magical items), as other things like bonuses or special features are less mandatory.If it were me, already remove the "runes" systems, as now the mandatory one is not required, moving to a item capabilities, that are the same but non-transferable, making each item unique, instead a bunch of capabilities that I can move to any other even choosing which ones.
That is the system I currently use as homebrew for PF2.
And, as mentioned in another post, the lack of bonus from item could be balanced adding a new action, like "Focused spell attack", using 1 action (so not allowing True Strike at the same time) and if your next action is cast a spell then add the corresponding ABP bonus to your spell attack roll (in the original post I put +2 but think this is better).
|
|
It's sort of strange how people keep trying to drag this thread into "caster vs martial" or "high level caster" experiences when the core issue is low level caster play, which is irrespective of both.
I doubt many casters would choose to let their save dcs lag in exchange for see invisibility.Casters don't get to choose. That's the fun part, they just get delayed progression for free as a bonus, in case they were having too much fun.
Martials without Striking Runes is the equivalent of casters not using the heightened version (more damage) of their cantrips or focus spells.
I have never seen any caster do this.
And it's something casters get for free, without having to pay for any Magical Striking Rune ...
I am pretty sure that oozes are immune to spell damage from critical failure. Those might not have the attack trait but nobody can say that chain lightning is not an "attack".
Also, chain lightning is a 6th level spells. 11th level is not "early level", not to mention that "a set of 20 spells is good" is bad when you have 1,000+ spells.
Ooze trait gives immunity to precision damage, critically failing a save on a spell is not precision damage
Oozes are creatures with simple anatomies. They tend to have low mental ability scores and immunity to mental effects and precision damage.
Oozes are immune to the doubling of damage from crits, but not other effects from Crits. Oozes are the "situation" that make Hydraulic Push an exceptional situational blasting spell (well that and when you also really need to move a target with a really high Fort save and terrible AC, which is also Oozes).
Hydraulic Push is a first level spell that is pretty good at first level, but suffers because most first level casters have multiple AC targeting cantrips and few save targeting ones, so if you choose to have it memorized or be one of your spontaneous spells for the day, you can lose out on having spells that target other defenses.
I am pretty sure that oozes are immune to spell damage from critical failure. Those might not have the attack trait but nobody can say that chain lightning is not an "attack".
Also, chain lightning is a 6th level spells. 11th level is not "early level", not to mention that "a set of 20 spells is good" is bad when you have 1,000+ spells.
I am pretty sure "attack" means involving an attack roll. Especially given that it's immune to critical HITS, not critical FAILURES.
And yes it's high level. Burning hands isn't and works the same way
easy example is electric arc. Just sitting right there being an at will basic reflex save spell