| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that the 15 minute work day is a myth really. If most players are expending their resources on 5 encounters that last 5 rounds, it is better to talk about a 25 round work day. A 25 round work day split into 1 or 2 big encounters will favor casters by a massive margin. A 25 round work day split into 7 or 8 encounters 10+ minutes apart will make *spell-slot focused* casters terrible. A party with casters, who knows this, will have a much easier time figuring out how to reduce the number of total encounters into “scarier numbers” ( more severe+) encounters where the party controls the preparation time) and will have an easier time than the party that fights one encounter, than the next, giving the enemy time to prepare between.
All of these dials are variable and can be tuned by players or GMs or adventure writers. Please don’t demand changes to the game that are very easy to dial in at the table.
Oh, man, now I'm concerned that MM forgot that we've interacted at least a few times here before.
Don't worry, Ruzza. I consider you a regular to these forums like Unicore, Temperans, and SuperBidi. And most of the other names I think I have seen once or twice before. But Teridax is new to me.
My point is that the 15 minute work day is a myth really. If most players are expending their resources on 5 encounters that last 5 rounds, it is better to talk about a 25 round work day. A 25 round work day split into 1 or 2 big encounters will favor casters by a massive margin. A 25 round work day split into 7 or 8 encounters 10+ minutes apart will make *spell-slot focused* casters terrible. A party with casters, who knows this, will have a much easier time figuring out how to reduce the number of total encounters into “scarier numbers” ( more severe+) encounters where the party controls the preparation time) and will have an easier time than the party that fights one encounter, than the next, giving the enemy time to prepare between.
I asked one of my players, who has been playing since Dungeons & Dragons 3.0. He said that the 15-minute workday was especially common among low-level wizards, because casting a spell at turn would quickly use up their few spell slots in a few rounds of combat. The cantrips were not practical, so wizards would carry a back-up ranged weapon, typically sling or crossbow, to prevent becoming useless when the party continued on. I myself once played an elf cleric in a 3.0 campaign, because elves were proficient in longbow, so he had a good weapon. I also remember our party running from room to room without searching for treasure so that we could start two or three more battles before our 10-minute buffs wore off.
Well, in those cases the party did not quit after 8 rounds of combat. Instead, they let the wizard tag along close to useless with only cantrips and a back-up weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard is supposed to be the "unthemed themed caster" that is why they had the schools that set up what type of spells you got extra and gave you extra abilities for that theme.
I would just say this hasn't been true since Wizard was *the* magic user in 1st and 2nd edition ad&d. Wizards have been generalists since 3e forward and now into PF2e it's very clear wizards are always generalists with a little extra on top
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard is supposed to be the "unthemed themed caster" that is why they had the schools that set up what type of spells you got extra and gave you extra abilities for that theme.I would just say this hasn't been true since Wizard was *the* magic user in 1st and 2nd edition ad&d. Wizards have been generalists since 3e forward and now into PF2e it's very clear wizards are always generalists with a little extra on top
I cant sign that.
In my experience and from what i read Themed Wizards are very common and popular especialy with Sin Magic that encourages this. All the Wizards i encountered were Themed they also often didnt just use Wizard as desriptor they said "My Character is a Conjurer,Evocator,Necromancer etc"It maybe hasnt been the most effective method but that doesnt mean a lot played it. :O
Also i might want to add that Magic Schools (the Academies and Faculties) in Golarion are Themed aswell.
I would really like to see wizard class feats that reward living up to the "predictive caster" paradigm that the class is built around.
Maybe you could get some extra spell slots that you can only use when you correctly predict an event that is not guaranteed to happen. Like say you prepare a Fireball "if a swarm attacks us in the sewer", or you prepare a Fly "if the harpies we are planning to fight today try to fly away".
If the events happen, you've got just the thing! If not, you still have all your regular spell slots.
What's with the influx of new posters with a chip on their shoulders about casters? I understand we have this same conversation once a week, but a lot of new faces with no prior history this time around.
I would simply assume the recent reveal of 2 Completely New™ classes attracted a few new posters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey im one of the new people here but its just coindicence that new classes got reveiled in my case. I just was hesitant to look deeper into PF2 because it was so far removed from there original roots but after the OGL Situation and the position of Pathfinder in it and the founding of ORC i drop that hesitation. I first looked at reddit and then later here in the Forums.
Now i post a lil bit try to not be to disruptive and stay polite and friendly if i can. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[C]haining low difficulty fights is a very bad idea as it will drain casters without giving any form of challenge.
Casters use spells. It's what their meant to do.
Doesn't this strike you as needlessly bad design when it comes to caster endurance? Why should casters, and only casters, suffer from getting weaker as the day runs on?
In an official AP the GM may have less creative latitude without going 'off script,' but now you are arguing that the designers of the AP who are also the designers of the classes built the APs for non-attritive magic. Which does not make sense.
Where exactly did I say this? I've said the opposite: 2e's attritive magic means it is important for casters to manage their resources over the course of the day so that they don't find themselves running too low. It wouldn't matter how many encounters an AP threw at the party in a day if there were no attrition, something that could only be realistically be implemented in a hypothetical new edition, rather than 2e.
In any event, trying to bring this back around to the OP: non-attritive magic systems do not 'fix' the issue people are complaining about and that Sayre was addressing. I.e. the complainants saying the 'perfectly prepared' wizard doen't exist in real games so therefore the class should not be designed as if that's the norm, and Sayer replying that nobody needs to be that to play the wizard effectively. Because even in a non-attritive magic system, no one character will access the entire breadth of what magic offers. Worse, in the non-attritive systems that I know about, the 'cast all day' system is counterbalanced by giving it much *less* breadth than the hundreds of spells accessible to attritive spellcasters. Just look at the Kineticist as an example of what that looks like. They will get on the order of 11-15 impulses through 20 levels. The wizard starts with 17 spells known - more than the Kineticist will ever get impulses! - can prepare 8, and ends at lvl 20 with something like 30-40...
I fully agree with this. There is a clearly-established sliding scale in 2e where on one end, you have versatility and reliability, and on the other you have availability and raw power. The Wizard as currently implemented only gets to have the dozens of tools essential to their identity as the game's ur-caster because they can only use each of those tools a limited number of times a day, and can only use a few of those tools in a manner that would rival the power of a Fighter's Strike a handful of times a day as well. A game without attrition is a game where your most versatile caster would still only have a fraction of the current Wizard's versatility, which is not a tradeoff every player wants to make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a broad generalization of the guidelines that are already in the rulebook.
Generally that means that your party should be loaded with enough "ammunition" to successfully tackle 3 Moderate encounters. Low and Trivial encounters don't really require any resource expenditure.Moderate-threat encounters are a serious challenge to the characters, though unlikely to overpower them completely. Characters usually need to use sound tactics and manage their resources wisely to come out of a moderate-threat encounter ready to continue on and face a harder challenge without resting.
[...]
With all due respect, I don't think it says anything of the sort. It says "Characters usually need to use sound tactics and manage their resources wisely to come out of a moderate-threat encounter ready to continue on and face a harder challenge without resting." That tells me that characters are supposed to be able to face multiple moderate encounters per day, but it says nothing about how many of them. Is it 4 like in 3e/PF1? Is it 6-9 like in 5e? It might be obvious to you who designed the game, but it's certainly not obvious to the reader (nor to the writers of your first few APs – even as late as Fists of the Ruby Phoenix you have PCs being expected to face a whole level's worth of encounters in a single day, and keep that pace up for four consecutive days).
I don't know to what degree the GM Core is set in stone, but these types of insights would be a great help. For a great example of how to actually guide a GM rather than just providing procedures, see 13th Age with all its sidebars from its two designers, explaining choices they made and how they recommend using the rules.
This could preferably extend to other aspects of the game as well, like "Why are hazard DCs so high", "Why are non-Rogue PCs not expected to be widely competent at skills", "What's wrong with giving flight and other mobility options at low level?", and "How do I design an encounter that's interesting and not just mathematically challenging?"
While I agree with you in the specific case of adventure day length being unclear from that text, two broader points:
1. GM Core is being released at the same time as Player Core 1, so it is off to the printers. And an entire sidebar is not a realistic expectation for errata.
2. Paizo does generally answer the sorts of questions you pose where they become relevant. Ex: high hazard DCs are explained in the hazard creation rules. The dangers of flying PCs are explained with Stryx. The balance concerns of modern day firearms are outlined in Guns and Gears. I think that's the best approach they can take, rather than trying to include every possible explanation in one place.
The only thing I think you won't see is "why aren't PCs assumed to be broadly competent," probably because I am not sure what you mean but don't entirely think that is true. Paizo wanted proficiency to advance even in untrained skills in the playtest but people hated it. But you can get that back with the untrained improvisation feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't this strike you as needlessly bad design when it comes to caster endurance? Why should casters, and only casters, suffer from getting weaker as the day runs on?
...because that's what having most of your power in daily slots *means*. That's a thing that people want, so it's a thing that they get. It's the downside that they accept to pay for various other upsides (like the ability to seriously go nova if they want to).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's like asking why ranged characters, and only ranged characters, need to deal with cover. Cover is part of what makes ranged combat different from melee combat.
If you ever played tag as a kid you'd know that cover should play a huge part in melee combat as well. That it doesn't and that battles are designed around melee taking place in discrete 5x5 squares is a massive system failing.
also, there are a lot of 1/day abilities like battle medicine, so its not even completely unique to casters.
That's hard the same degree of issue and you know it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's like asking why ranged characters, and only ranged characters, need to deal with cover. Cover is part of what makes ranged combat different from melee combat.If you ever played tag as a kid you'd know that cover should play a huge part in melee combat as well. That it doesn't and that battles are designed around melee taking place in discrete 5x5 squares is a massive system failing.
You've got a pretty low bar for "massive system failing".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...because that's what having most of your power in daily slots *means*. That's a thing that people want, so it's a thing that they get. It's the downside that they accept to pay for various other upsides (like the ability to seriously go nova if they want to).
Except that said nova is more like a candle these days with so much power-bounded to ensure that even the biggest nova can't push much beyond what a reasonably well-supported Fighter can do with a pair of hits each round. Casters can make a larger difference versus hordes but being the game's garbage man isn't good class design.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who says casters have to blow spell slots every encounter, no matter how trivial?
No one. The issue is when you say that casters have to only rely on cantrips and focus spells for some type of encounters.
Also, as a side note, if you consider the 2 top level slots (which are in general considered the high efficiency slots), you have 6 to 8 of them so you can cast at least one per fight and last long enough to handle a Severe encounter asking for a couple of spells. Now, when we speak of 11-encounter adventuring days, no one can last that long. And ordering encounters is no solution, the solution is to cut on useless low difficulty fights no one cares about. 11 low difficulty encounter in a row is just a chore, or a strawman in the current situation as that can't be considered a situation you are normally supposed to handle.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that said nova is more like a candle these days with so much power-bounded to ensure that even the biggest nova can't push much beyond what a reasonably well-supported Fighter can do with a pair of hits each round. Casters can make a larger difference versus hordes but being the game's garbage man isn't good class design.
There's a discussion about caster's 'feel good moments', and you can see how many times I've saved the day with mine. Much more often than my martials who mostly save the day through luck (which I find highly frustrating personally, but to each their own).
While i do enjoy them Spell Slot they feel very arachic...and non sensical really. Especialy knowing there original source thanks to this Forum.
Im not surprised that even Franchises that tried that originaly were strongly inspired by DnD got rid of them.
But even more removing them would distance them a lot from DnD as i wrote before Spell Slots are a strongly associated with DnD as mechanic. Removing it seems natural if one wants to get away from that. But even if it would be desired it would be something for a new Edition entirely.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah while I would prefer some sort of short rest spell points and they'd make more sense...
So... like Focus Points?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah while I would prefer some sort of short rest spell points and they'd make more sense...So... like Focus Points?
To clarify on my own comment.
It feels to me like what people who want to play spell point casters want is more options like Psychic, Storm Druid, and Elemental Sorcerer who get direct damage focus spells.
Because then they can turn the tide of a combat every combat all day with their magic. They may only have two or three focus points, but you only need to be using high power spells while the combat hangs in the balance. Once the party is in the mop-up stage, switching to cantrips is probably fine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah while I would prefer some sort of short rest spell points and they'd make more sense...So... like Focus Points?
If every spell would be a Focus Spell and there would only be focus points instead of Spell Slots, then yes :)
If every spell would be a Focus Spell and there would only be focus points instead of Spell Slots, then yes :)Yeah while I would prefer some sort of short rest spell points and they'd make more sense...So... like Focus Points?
That would only happen if you still have to pick your spells with feats to get each one individually.
You aren't likely to be able to cast the entire selection of spells of a tradition using focus points. Just like any Fighter could take Knockdown and use it all day, but it means taking up a feat slot to get it.
We were talking about a Astral/Mana/Sorcery/Magic Point system that replaces Spell Slots entirely :)
There is a Fan System based on PF1 who did that already btw so its not that abstract as you think. They even worked with the normal spell level system....even so i think a complete cut might be more elegant.
But that would be for the Pathfinder 3E designer to decide not me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard is supposed to be the "unthemed themed caster" that is why they had the schools that set up what type of spells you got extra and gave you extra abilities for that theme.I would just say this hasn't been true since Wizard was *the* magic user in 1st and 2nd edition ad&d. Wizards have been generalists since 3e forward and now into PF2e it's very clear wizards are always generalists with a little extra on topI cant sign that.
In my experience and from what i read Themed Wizards are very common and popular especialy with Sin Magic that encourages this. All the Wizards i encountered were Themed they also often didnt just use Wizard as desriptor they said "My Character is a Conjurer,Evocator,Necromancer etc"It maybe hasnt been the most effective method but that doesnt mean a lot played it. :O
Also i might want to add that Magic Schools (the Academies and Faculties) in Golarion are Themed aswell.
My experience has always been that the thassolian specialists were not popular and regarded as not good. In first edition they were pretty bad, the trade off was not worth it, but even then you're just recreating why I said 1e and 2e ad&d were kind of what Temperans said. Which is total loss of specific schools. I still wouldn't ever in a million years pick up thassolian specialist. Or in this game the rare class archetype "Rune Lord" which should rarely if ever be available to players
Doesn't this strike you as needlessly bad design when it comes to caster endurance? Why should casters, and only casters, suffer from getting weaker as the day runs on?...because that's what having most of your power in daily slots *means*. That's a thing that people want, so it's a thing that they get. It's the downside that they accept to pay for various other upsides (like the ability to seriously go nova if they want to).
I'm firmly in the make the sacred cows into burgers already camp. I'm here for killing slotted spells as they currently exist, for making core aspects of combat for both martial and caster classes skill-based, ditching ability scores, ditching AC, changing saves to defenses, killing the grid and going to measured movement wargame style, and more.
PF2 would be a better game if it wasn't so desperate to be D&D still.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You've got a pretty low bar for "massive system failing".
I have a pretty high bar for what counts as satisfactory. PF2 claims to be many things that it doesn't deliver on and that causes me to grade it more harshly than D&D 5e which makes no pretense of trying to solve anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't this strike you as needlessly bad design when it comes to caster endurance? Why should casters, and only casters, suffer from getting weaker as the day runs on?It strikes me as variety. Having a system with both "big whammy & big adaptability, sometimes" characters and "regular whammy, regular adaptability all the time" characters provides variety. A system where every class is the latter does not cater to as wide a variety of player preferences. For sure, we can argue about how big the whammy needs to be before the 'sometimes' tradeoff is worth it, but in terms of broader system design, why not have both?
You don't need slots and an entirely different method for caster and martial endurance to do this. Skill-based casting and a fatigue system that impacts both types of character do this just as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. Having different classes/archetypes where some are good at 'one big foe' and others are good at 'lots of little foes' is just fine...as long as the game is one in which both expertises are useful and come into play regularly. As long as APs and GMs create opportunities for both to shine. If your play preference is to always take a class that specializes in bosskilling, you be you. But the inclusion of classes that specialize in other things isn't "bad design", because not every player wants to focus on bosskiller.
But since players will also want to play their favorite class/archetype IN their favorite role - for all combinations of class and role - maybe one way designers can build classes in the future is around these requirements. It's a bit meta, but they could start with wizard and make subclasses where one is designed to be a bosskiller, one is mobkiller, one is utility/debuffer, one is noncombat. Or something like that. That way the community can have its wizard bosskilling cake and eat its uberadaptable wizard too. (Then the complaints will shift to: but what if I want to be an uberadaptable bosskiller...)
I want to be a boss-killing caster. Show me the PF2 class that accomplishes this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this wishlisting about how casting can be improved. Seems to me like paizo is actively making classes for those who want to be more sustainable over long adventuring days. Psychic with its powerful cantrips/focus spells, kineticist with its at will impulses, and now animist with encounter long focus spells. Maybe they don't match the flavour and mechanics blend that some want but you can never please everyone. Personally it seems to me like we're getting more and more of a balance between martial, full casters (depending almost entirely on spell slots), and everything in between.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to be a boss-killing caster. Show me the PF2 class that accomplishes this.I disagree. Having different classes/archetypes where some are good at 'one big foe' and others are good at 'lots of little foes' is just fine...as long as the game is one in which both expertises are useful and come into play regularly. As long as APs and GMs create opportunities for both to shine. If your play preference is to always take a class that specializes in bosskilling, you be you. But the inclusion of classes that specialize in other things isn't "bad design", because not every player wants to focus on bosskiller.
But since players will also want to play their favorite class/archetype IN their favorite role - for all combinations of class and role - maybe one way designers can build classes in the future is around these requirements. It's a bit meta, but they could start with wizard and make subclasses where one is designed to be a bosskiller, one is mobkiller, one is utility/debuffer, one is noncombat. Or something like that. That way the community can have its wizard bosskilling cake and eat its uberadaptable wizard too. (Then the complaints will shift to: but what if I want to be an uberadaptable bosskiller...)
There's a pretty funny Fervor Witch build that spams magic missile. Level+3 enemies are, as always, the best use case for that spell and thus focusing hard on it will make you extremely good at dealing with them.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to be a boss-killing caster. Show me the PF2 class that accomplishes this.I disagree. Having different classes/archetypes where some are good at 'one big foe' and others are good at 'lots of little foes' is just fine...as long as the game is one in which both expertises are useful and come into play regularly. As long as APs and GMs create opportunities for both to shine. If your play preference is to always take a class that specializes in bosskilling, you be you. But the inclusion of classes that specialize in other things isn't "bad design", because not every player wants to focus on bosskiller.
But since players will also want to play their favorite class/archetype IN their favorite role - for all combinations of class and role - maybe one way designers can build classes in the future is around these requirements. It's a bit meta, but they could start with wizard and make subclasses where one is designed to be a bosskiller, one is mobkiller, one is utility/debuffer, one is noncombat. Or something like that. That way the community can have its wizard bosskilling cake and eat its uberadaptable wizard too. (Then the complaints will shift to: but what if I want to be an uberadaptable bosskiller...)
If you want to solo a boss then PF2 is not a system that will work for that. Not for any class. PF2 is a team game. But if you want to be part of killing a boss, then any caster will work. My Reign of Winter's party witch killed a boss with a Hideous Laughter because the boss didn't realize he didn't have reactions and jumped out a window expecting to feather fall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If every spell would be a Focus Spell and there would only be focus points instead of Spell Slots, then yes :)Yeah while I would prefer some sort of short rest spell points and they'd make more sense...So... like Focus Points?That would only happen if you still have to pick your spells with feats to get each one individually.
You aren't likely to be able to cast the entire selection of spells of a tradition using focus points. Just like any Fighter could take Knockdown and use it all day, but it means taking up a feat slot to get it.
I think you could make spell-casting feats that are designed around giving you a selection of spells and some focus points to cast them with.
If, as a rough example:
Level 1 Spellcaster Feat - Basic Pyromancy
Add an additional pair of focus points to the focus pool of your choice.
You may cast spells of any rank you may currently cast using that focus pool:
Burning Hands
Scorching Blast
Ash Cloud
Cauterize Wounds
Continual Flames
Fire Proof
Flaming Sphere
Heat Metal
Ignite Fireworks
Fireball
Firework Blast
Then higher-level versions of these feats would grant 4-6th rank spells, and 7-9th rank spells, with each specialization having a unique 10th level capstone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to solo a boss then PF2 is not a system that will work for that. Not for any class. PF2 is a team game. But if you want to be part of killing a boss, then any caster will work. My Reign of Winter's party witch killed a boss with a Hideous Laughter because the boss didn't realize he didn't have reactions and jumped out a window expecting to feather fall.
So casters need GM fiat to work. Noted.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players need GM fiat to play
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a pretty funny Fervor Witch build that spams magic missile. Level+3 enemies are, as always, the best use case for that spell and thus focusing hard on it will make you extremely good at dealing with them.
Yeah, spamming a single spell across all your slots is really excellent caster design. Perhaps we should focus on ensuring that there are a few spells at each level that are as good in that niche as magic missiles are instead of recreating the 5e Warlock but worse.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to solo a boss then PF2 is not a system that will work for that. Not for any class. PF2 is a team game. But if you want to be part of killing a boss, then any caster will work. My Reign of Winter's party witch killed a boss with a Hideous Laughter because the boss didn't realize he didn't have reactions and jumped out a window expecting to feather fall.So casters need GM fiat to work. Noted.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation there. I assume escaping a losing fight with feather fall is how it's ran in the AP. The alternative to the boss splatting like that would be the boss just... not being able to escape and being cornered by the party due to the on-successful-save effect of Hideous Laughter. That's a powerful solution to the problem no matter which way the GM decides to run the enemy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a pretty high bar for what counts as satisfactory.
Okay. Have you ever found a TTRPG that you considered to be entirely satisfactory?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players need GM fiat to play
True but not all classes need it to be effective. Making it so enemies don't know the effects of spells cast on them and causing them to eliminate themselves like complete idiots is also not something anybody should count on a GM doing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get the feeling that people are overly obsessed with "pure" damage at times. There is always going to be a spell for each level that does it best, or at least one for a particular save or damage type. But there are also a lot of spells which deal damage plus riders. I just don't have a huge amount of sympathy for someone being so opposed to debuffing that a solid single target damage being paired with frightened 2 on a failure ruins the spell for them.