| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be up front. I enjoy casters in pf2e. I think they are powerful, versatile, and a lot of fun.
But early levels are rough. Especially levels 1-2.
My hope was the early level caster experience would either largely stay the same. Or get buffed.
2 spells isn't much, 3 if your a wizard or sorcerer.
Cantrips are not just supplemental options but your bread and butter until you find that moment in the fight try use a slot.
They cost 2 actions, often have less reach than a short bow. But you at least got your ability mod to damage.
Me rolling a 1 meant I did 5 damage.
Now rolling 1s mean 2-3 damage
I could understand it if you could spend one action to do 1d4 and 2 to do 2d4. It would give casters more early game flexibility and let them interact with the action economy more meaningfully.
But as it stands right now? Until/unless something is shown that we are not aware of in the sneak peak conversion pdf. You just made casters early level experience even worse.
I'm not so concerned with spell changes, looks like even more versatility Wich I favor.
But we need to discuss how your going to make early level caster play better.
It doesn't have to be ability mod to damage. But it needs something imo.
I don't know if level 1 spells need to become at will abilities that never run out or actually use slots
Ability mod to damage
More dice
All starting with 2 focus spells and making focus spells good across the board
Or something else.
As it stands right now, every single caster before this remaster,I invested in a weapon, because it's 1 action Wich pairs insanely well with casters 2 action routine. And expert isn't too bad to hit with when you have item bonus to hit and no map penalties.
But after remaster? I'm definitely prioritizing ranged weapons over fun little spell items.
A staff? Maybe when I'm really high level, and probably just for ooc utility.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it a bit too early? I hardly think Paizo nerfed cantrips accross the board. So I expect other things to balance the changes.
Also, minimal damage is a rather useless metric, especially when you roll multiple dice. For example, if you compare 3d4 to 1d4+5, you have 31.25% chance to roll 6 or less vs 25% chance to roll 6. So even if you can roll lower, the actual distribution of results is rather close. In game, the change will be negligible.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it a bit too early? I hardly think Paizo nerfed cantrips accross the board. So I expect other things to balance the changes.
Also, minimal damage is a rather useless metric, especially when you roll multiple dice. For example, if you compare 3d4 to 1d4+5, you have 31.25% chance to roll 6 or less vs 25% chance to roll 6. So even if you can roll lower, the actual distribution of results is rather close. In game, the change will be negligible.
Percentages are useless in actual play
Nobody cares that 25 percent of the time you roll a 6
They care when their minimum went from 5 to 2 and they died because something is next to them and it has a couple hit points left that wouldn't of been there pre remaster
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They care when their minimum went from 5 to 2 and they died because something is next to them and it has a couple hit points left that wouldn't of been there pre remaster
They also care when their maximum goes from 8 to 12 and they saved the day because they rolled high.
Average is the only meaningful stat.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They care when their minimum went from 5 to 2 and they died because something is next to them and it has a couple hit points left that wouldn't of been there pre remasterThey also care when their maximum goes from 8 to 12 and they saved the day because they rolled high.
Average is the only meaningful stat.
It's useful white room
But I don't want to be rolling a 1-30 die
It's very much not as useful in actual play, I've seen that proven repeatedly over 20 years now
10 rolls of a single die should do the very same trick.
10d1?
I like those odds
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
10 rolls of a single die should do the very same trick.10d1?
I like those odds
Yup. Works quite nicely.
The best answer is get past level 1 and 2 and up to level 5 as fast as you can.
Pick up a weapon as a caster and build up a combat stat.
Have a good focus spell.
The best answer is get past level 1 and 2 and up to level 5 as fast as you can.
Pick up a weapon as a caster and build up a combat stat.
Have a good focus spell.
You describe what I already do
I actually use a weapon at level 1 more often than a cantrip, because I can move, strike, and do something else I've built for depending on the character
I really like kineticist in that aspect. Appreciate one action blasts
The best answer is get past level 1 and 2 and up to level 5 as fast as you can.
Pick up a weapon as a caster and build up a combat stat.
Have a good focus spell.
You describe what I already do
I actually use a weapon at level 1 more often than a cantrip, because I can move, strike, and do something else I've built for depending on the character
I really like kineticist in that aspect. Appreciate one action blasts
I read that. I'm glad you're one of the others that see this is intended and optimal. No way the designers start everyone at trained in combat except the fighter, then provide so many options for a caster to pick up a weapon for it not to be the intended build path for early levels.
They knew casters at low level did not have enough slots to sustain casting damage. So giving them a weapon option equivalent to martials is working as intended. Players should take advantage of it like we do.
The best answer is get past level 1 and 2 and up to level 5 as fast as you can.
Pick up a weapon as a caster and build up a combat stat.
Have a good focus spell.
You describe what I already do
I actually use a weapon at level 1 more often than a cantrip, because I can move, strike, and do something else I've built for depending on the character
I really like kineticist in that aspect. Appreciate one action blasts
I read that. I'm glad you're one of the others that see this is intended and optimal. No way the designers start everyone at trained in combat except the fighter, then provide so many options for a caster to pick up a weapon for it not to be the intended build path for early levels.
They knew casters at low level did not have enough slots to sustain casting damage. So giving them a weapon option equivalent to martials is working as intended. Players should take advantage of it like we do.
Maybe we don't often agree, but in this aspect, bang on
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I much prefer scrolls to carrying a weapon at low levels and use most of the money for weapon runes on scrolls. Scrolls typically take the one extra action to draw, but scrolls of fear, grease, goblin pox, ray of enfeeblement for level 1, and then web, mirror image, obscuring mist, flaming sphere, blur for level 2 are all great ways to have atleast one spell slot spell worth casting in any encounter, even in longer adventuring days. I will typically start with at least 1 scroll at level 1, then usually I can get 3 more by level 2, and by level 5, I will probably have 10+ level 1 scrolls. Then you stop buying them because you stop really needing to use them more than once a dungeon and by the time you run out, you can pretty easily be doing the same with level 2 scrolls.
I think APB and not enough encouragement for GMs to understand the roll of scrolls for casters can both play havoc on players who end up trying to save up all of their money to buy weapon and armor runes, especially low spell total casters like psychics, bards and druids. Bards end up doing so much with cantrips that casting a spell slot even once an encounter can be difficult to line up action economy-wise, and both the psychic and the druid are going to be focus spell casting early on, so you can definitely get away with not picking up the scrolls with those classes too, but definitely for wizards, scrolls are must buy items for levels 2 to 4. I also usually wait on looking for a staff until levels 9 or 10 usually, although that is also because it can be a struggle to find the right one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly from me playing, you don't get enough money very quickly if you follow wealth tables to get many scrolls
And I'd rather spend an action to strike, than spend an action to draw a scroll
Though I've done, shortbow on a cleric and started with a scroll, cast the scroll then strike or move or whatever.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best answer is get past level 1 and 2 and up to level 5 as fast as you can.
Pick up a weapon as a caster and build up a combat stat.
Have a good focus spell.
I want to cast spells, not use a weapon. If I wanted to make basic strikes I can lobotomize myself and play a maul fighter.
Also, and I know you know this, not everybody gets a good focus spell because Paizo's ability to balance spells against each other has been as bad as anything in PF1 leaving a lot of unusable spells taking up space on class chassis and the spell list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I much prefer scrolls to carrying a weapon at low levels and use most of the money for weapon runes on scrolls. Scrolls typically take the one extra action to draw, but scrolls of fear, grease, goblin pox, ray of enfeeblement for level 1, and then web, mirror image, obscuring mist, flaming sphere, blur for level 2 are all great ways to have atleast one spell slot spell worth casting in any encounter, even in longer adventuring days. I will typically start with at least 1 scroll at level 1, then usually I can get 3 more by level 2, and by level 5, I will probably have 10+ level 1 scrolls. Then you stop buying them because you stop really needing to use them more than once a dungeon and by the time you run out, you can pretty easily be doing the same with level 2 scrolls.
I think APB and not enough encouragement for GMs to understand the roll of scrolls for casters can both play havoc on players who end up trying to save up all of their money to buy weapon and armor runes, especially low spell total casters like psychics, bards and druids. Bards end up doing so much with cantrips that casting a spell slot even once an encounter can be difficult to line up action economy-wise, and both the psychic and the druid are going to be focus spell casting early on, so you can definitely get away with not picking up the scrolls with those classes too, but definitely for wizards, scrolls are must buy items for levels 2 to 4. I also usually wait on looking for a staff until levels 9 or 10 usually, although that is also because it can be a struggle to find the right one.
How does this work in a low-downtime dungeon crawl or in a hex crawl where even basic supplies are limited?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best answer is get past level 1 and 2 and up to level 5 as fast as you can.
Pick up a weapon as a caster and build up a combat stat.
Have a good focus spell.
I want to cast spells, not use a weapon. If I wanted to make basic strikes I can lobotomize myself and play a maul fighter.
Also, and I know you know this, not everybody gets a good focus spell because Paizo's ability to balance spells against each other has been as bad as anything in PF1 leaving a lot of unusable spells taking up space on class chassis and the spell list.
It's up to the player. If they want to focus on a casting and not use a weapon, they can take that path and wait until higher level and more slots.
I find that the weapon shot gives me more option than cast and shield every round.
I do tend to get Reach Spell early as well as I like to operate from greater ranges as needed. I'd rather spend my action on Reach than a move.
It's up to the player. If they want to focus on a casting and not use a weapon, they can take that path and wait until higher level and more slots.
If the party doesn't TPK because the caster doesn't have enough spells at those levels and cantrips are getting nerfed.
The best answer is get past level 1 and 2 and up to level 5 as fast as you can.
Pick up a weapon as a caster and build up a combat stat.
Have a good focus spell.
I want to cast spells, not use a weapon. If I wanted to make basic strikes I can lobotomize myself and play a maul fighter.
Also, and I know you know this, not everybody gets a good focus spell because Paizo's ability to balance spells against each other has been as bad as anything in PF1 leaving a lot of unusable spells taking up space on class chassis and the spell list.
So, because I use a weapon, is because I don't think spell slots and cantrips are good enough for me to not use a weapon
So I'm for them getting something more.
Hence this post
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Wizards who own crossbows" is not an unprecedented thing to have in this sort of game. So I'm not sure why we're suddenly allergic to it.
Like does no one remember what the PF1 Wizard was like at 1st level? Your cantrips did like 1 damage and you had 2 spells. Spellcasters were weaker at low levels in every way compared to their PF2 equivalents.
It's up to the player. If they want to focus on a casting and not use a weapon, they can take that path and wait until higher level and more slots.If the party doesn't TPK because the caster doesn't have enough spells at those levels and cantrips are getting nerfed.
Up your dpr
Electric arc into weapon strike
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Wizards who own crossbows" is not an unprecedented thing to have in this sort of game. So I'm not sure why we're suddenly allergic to it.
Like does no one remember what the PF1 Wizard was like at 1st level? Your cantrips did like 1 damage and you had 2 spells. Spellcasters were weaker at low levels in every way compared to their PF2 equivalents.
Your spells actually did something though. When you did unleash Sleep it could end an encounter on its own.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your spells actually did something though. When you did unleash Sleep it could end an encounter on its own."Wizards who own crossbows" is not an unprecedented thing to have in this sort of game. So I'm not sure why we're suddenly allergic to it.
Like does no one remember what the PF1 Wizard was like at 1st level? Your cantrips did like 1 damage and you had 2 spells. Spellcasters were weaker at low levels in every way compared to their PF2 equivalents.
That was bad design imo
Middle ground needed though I can agree
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That was bad design imo
Middle ground needed though I can agree
I disagree. When you only get a few spells per day and otherwise pay for it with everything else you do being a non-factor your spells deserve to pull off some flashy effects. They shouldn't ever be as reliable as they could get in 3.x and PF2 but there needs to be room for a spell to do something cool outside of the boss rolling a 1 for their save.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weapons would be nice if you had more free hands. You can get a wand or a scroll rather early, and sometimes having a shield also helps a lot. So such juggling is not always useful.
Message from michael sayre, for remastered ruleTwitter got completely broken and doesn't open without account, so the last parts of the message can't be found.
for those that can't access twitter:
1/4 One of the tricks to playing a slot-based spellcaster in #Pathfinder2e is that you can treat each of your spells like silver bullets. You can create the circumstances to deploy them in, or you can just pull the trigger when the circumstances naturally occur.
2/4 There's not really such a thing as a one-trick pony in PF2. *Every* class has the ability to buff, debuff, and coordinate to some degree. If a wizard has a spell in the chamber for each of the potential circumstances that might arise, all they have to do is be ready to pull.
3/4 When the enemy is frightened and off-guard, pull the trigger on a high-damage attack roll spell! When they're coming in strong, use a save-based spell to have an impact even if they succeed their save. When magic is the wrong tool, buff the fighter or change the terrain!
4/4 PF2 wizards can have an answer for anything, and when they do, there's no better ally to have whether in combat or exploration.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Responding to Michael's view of why casters are ok:
1) Casters don't determine encounters and with divination nerfed are less likely than ever to have tools to determine what silver bullets (that have lower success chances than ever) will be good. Also lower chance that they actually have those silver bullets in their spellbooks.
2) Every class has these abilities and can prepare... so why does the wizard get less damage, survivability and not get item bonus to spell success like non magic classes?
3) After a certain level when you can have enough spells prepared to have at least 1 buff, 1 terrain altering, 1 spell targeting each save, 1 spell that might target a common weakness this is true for the first encounter and becomes significantly less true each encounter afterwards. Striking, athletics checks, flanking do not have these drawbacks. Striking when the enemy is frightened and off guard is just as good for martials... maybe better.
4) With consumables and consumable crafting all classes are just as capable of being this 'no better ally.'
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weapons would be nice if you had more free hands. You can get a wand or a scroll rather early, and sometimes having a shield also helps a lot. So such juggling is not always useful.
Message from michael sayre, for remastered ruleTwitter got completely broken and doesn't open without account, so the last parts of the message can't be found.
for those that can't access twitter:
1/4 One of the tricks to playing a slot-based spellcaster in #Pathfinder2e is that you can treat each of your spells like silver bullets. You can create the circumstances to deploy them in, or you can just pull the trigger when the circumstances naturally occur.
2/4 There's not really such a thing as a one-trick pony in PF2. *Every* class has the ability to buff, debuff, and coordinate to some degree. If a wizard has a spell in the chamber for each of the potential circumstances that might arise, all they have to do is be ready to pull.
3/4 When the enemy is frightened and off-guard, pull the trigger on a high-damage attack roll spell! When they're coming in strong, use a save-based spell to have an impact even if they succeed their save. When magic is the wrong tool, buff the fighter or change the terrain!
4/4 PF2 wizards can have an answer for anything, and when they do, there's no better ally to have whether in combat or exploration.
This is the type of response from a designer that doesn't know how their game is being played. It shows an out of touch response I do not like to hear.
Parties do not play this way unless they know each other very well. PF2 monsters don't require "silver bullets" to kill. So when the wizard goes, "Hey guys, can you give time to memorize the silver bullet spells, then I can do better." The Fighter and nearly every other class goes, "I have a silver bullet right here and it takes no time to memorize or change out or cost me coin building up a spellbook."
The fighter with support from a healer and minimal casting crushes the fight.
So no, PF2 wizards don't have an answer for everything because the answer is the same for killing monsters and every martial has it better casters and its damage.
You don't need perfect spells in PF2 when you have plenty of skill based solutions as well.
A wizard should pack as much punch as anyone else, not this theoretical rubbish idea the entire party decides to wait 8 hours to complete something until the wizard can show up with the right spells. Is a party expected to do that between rooms? What if we're surprised? Wizard goes, "Wait guys. Tell the ambushers to give me 8 hours or 10 minutes if I limit myself one thesis to memorize my silver bullet spells."
That is an absolutely terrible way to think about class design.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I just look at my casters differently, but I'm not playing any of them (except Magus) based on how much damage I can get out of cantrips. Don't get me wrong, I like electric arc but I'm not playing Druid or Wizard for it. When I look at when full casters do their best work in the tables I'm involved in, its when they bring down a severe encounter to something more manageable.
A fighter can't lock increasingly large giants in grease for the rest of their lives. A Rogue can't do much about invisible enemies. Champions aren't going to heal off a crit mid-fight to keep someone from death spiraling. Sure, its a TTRPG and not a PVP MMORPG so classes don't need to be 100% balanced, but they do need to do different things. A cantrip isn't a replacement for a weapon attack. It's a minor spell in a completely different design space than "Bastard Sword" or "Arquebus."
Casters are high ceiling, low floor classes. It's going to have bad encounters and more bad builds. It also turn fights from 'we are going to die' to 'that was rough.' Yes, that's less than 1E's casters turning fights into '1 slot/encounter easy mode' that you could get to. But everyone spent 20 years complaining about how bad that was.
Guess you can't make everyone happy.
Maybe I just look at my casters differently, but I'm not playing any of them (except Magus) based on how much damage I can get out of cantrips. Don't get me wrong, I like electric arc but I'm not playing Druid or Wizard for it. When I look at when full casters do their best work in the tables I'm involved in, its when they bring down a severe encounter to something more manageable.
A fighter can't lock increasingly large giants in grease for the rest of their lives. A Rogue can't do much about invisible enemies. Champions aren't going to heal off a crit mid-fight to keep someone from death spiraling. Sure, its a TTRPG and not a PVP MMORPG so classes don't need to be 100% balanced, but they do need to do different things. A cantrip isn't a replacement for a weapon attack. It's a minor spell in a completely different design space than "Bastard Sword" or "Arquebus."
Casters are high ceiling, low floor classes. It's going to have bad encounters and more bad builds. It also turn fights from 'we are going to die' to 'that was rough.' Yes, that's less than 1E's casters turning fights into '1 slot/encounter easy mode' that you could get to. But everyone spent 20 years complaining about how bad that was.
Guess you can't make everyone happy.
Cantrips greatly help a caster feel good at lower levels when they can do very little of what they might eventually accomplish. Making those pre-level 7 levels worse, even just slightly, also hurts the levels most people end up playing at. As well as PF2 handles it, most groups still won't play as much at higher levels as they do at lower ones.
I think I'm seeing this, running my first wizard since 1994. She's running into the spell slot issue, and I'm now wondering if Mage Armour is really such a good idea at her point in time. (As well as whether her next general feat will be Shield Block or Light Armour proficiency ... )
This reminds me: is the wizard weapon proficiency thing being addressed in Remastered? Remember, they typically like having a free hand for those pesky material components. Which makes crossbows even more unappealing unless reloading lets you regrip in both hands. (Hand crossbows are another thing, and sadly one that wizards don't learn about currently.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm seeing this, running my first wizard since 1994. She's running into the spell slot issue, and I'm now wondering if Mage Armour is really such a good idea at her point in time. (As well as whether her next general feat will be Shield Block or Light Armour proficiency ... )
This reminds me: is the wizard weapon proficiency thing being addressed in Remastered? Remember, they typically like having a free hand for those pesky material components. Which makes crossbows even more unappealing unless reloading lets you regrip in both hands. (Hand crossbows are another thing, and sadly one that wizards don't learn about currently.)
Wizard's getting full simple while bard and rogue are getting full martial
I think I'm seeing this, running my first wizard since 1994. She's running into the spell slot issue, and I'm now wondering if Mage Armour is really such a good idea at her point in time. (As well as whether her next general feat will be Shield Block or Light Armour proficiency ... )
Take Sentinel dedication, as that gets you a scaling proficiency in light/med armor and gives you options depending on your dex: if you're running a high dex [+5], you'll eventually want to drop back to unarmored.
This reminds me: is the wizard weapon proficiency thing being addressed in Remastered? Remember, they typically like having a free hand for those pesky material components. Which makes crossbows even more unappealing unless reloading lets you regrip in both hands. (Hand crossbows are another thing, and sadly one that wizards don't learn about currently.)
Wizards are getting simple weapons. Also, reloading allows regripping of the weapon assuming the hand was gripping it before the reload.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Putting everything else aside, I can at least say that the early level caster experience in pf2e is easily some of the most boring gaming I've done in the last 20 or so years.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I just look at my casters differently, but I'm not playing any of them (except Magus) based on how much damage I can get out of cantrips. Don't get me wrong, I like electric arc but I'm not playing Druid or Wizard for it. When I look at when full casters do their best work in the tables I'm involved in, its when they bring down a severe encounter to something more manageable.
A fighter can't lock increasingly large giants in grease for the rest of their lives. A Rogue can't do much about invisible enemies. Champions aren't going to heal off a crit mid-fight to keep someone from death spiraling. Sure, its a TTRPG and not a PVP MMORPG so classes don't need to be 100% balanced, but they do need to do different things. A cantrip isn't a replacement for a weapon attack. It's a minor spell in a completely different design space than "Bastard Sword" or "Arquebus."
Casters are high ceiling, low floor classes. It's going to have bad encounters and more bad builds. It also turn fights from 'we are going to die' to 'that was rough.' Yes, that's less than 1E's casters turning fights into '1 slot/encounter easy mode' that you could get to. But everyone spent 20 years complaining about how bad that was.
Guess you can't make everyone happy.
You're looking at a suboptimal way to play a martial.
My particular fighter as an example doesn't need many feats. So I take casting archetypes to buff myself with things like see invisibility and heroism. I don't need casters much for fixing a lot of things. Sure, it makes it easier, but it isn't needed.
Caster players should be having fun bringing the hammer like every other class because utility casting is easy to obtain and often unnecessary.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel sorry for all the caster PCs whose GM forbids buying scrolls to supplement the few slots they have.
Casters can use scrolls, right ? Or is it only a martial thing ?
It's not as great as you think it is in early levels
Unless your DM ignores wealth tables
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel sorry for all the caster PCs whose GM forbids buying scrolls to supplement the few slots they have.
Casters can use scrolls, right ? Or is it only a martial thing ?
It's not as great as you think it is in early levels
Unless your DM ignores wealth tables
I play PFS, so lot of early levels. It is extremely useful. Cantrip deck of Electric Arc counts too.
Also martials using scrolls is even worse for wealth, but they kept being mentioned ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel sorry for all the caster PCs whose GM forbids buying scrolls to supplement the few slots they have.
Casters can use scrolls, right ? Or is it only a martial thing ?
It's not as great as you think it is in early levels
Unless your DM ignores wealth tables
Hard disagree, my low level casters use a ton of scrolls. More than my high level casters actually as with bigger spell lists I rarely need supplemental casting. Also I have less free hands at high level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm playing an oracle in Crown of the Kobold King, I keep spending my money on scrolls, they are very useful