|
SuperBidi reponded to the first two for the rest:
* High Int is practically useless.More skills and languages is not useless.Classes start with enough trained skills that getting more usually does not matter. High int also does not increase your number of master or legendary skills which are the ones that really matter.
More languages is just flavor and in 90% off cases will not help. Of that last 10% a good chunk can be dealt with charades without knowing the same language.
* Water Breathing is hyper situational.But life saving. Notice that for all these situational the more important is to have in your list, so can use scrolls when required.The ability to use scrolls was default for everyone, but even now all you need is trick magic item.
* Charm is incapacitstion, aka only really works on mooks.And setting NPC friendly, which can be pretty handy.something you can do with skill checks.
We are talking about Pathfinder. There are non magical ways for martials to trigger weaknesses via alchemical items. There are magic runes for every elemental damage. The only thing magic has on martial is the range and easier access to AoE.* Different damage types is a thing, but many people like thei mono element casters. Also prepared cannot adjust spells on the fly to target weaknesses. Another thing, martials have plenty of ways to trigger weaknesses even without magic.That is more about character creation (making mono element is a choice). For martials depends much about your magical item system, but with magic is easier usually.
Do you count Magus as a martial or as a caster ?
SuperBidi reponded to the first two for the rest
Removing options for magic users then is what you have. I don't remove any, just let the players look for life.
And invisibility adds that if you fail your Stealth they cannot see you at distance, depending distance they could only hear, if close enough, leaving to only that, they hear something, cannot suppose anything.Classes start with enough trained skills that getting more usually does not matter. High int also does not increase your number of master or legendary skills which are the ones that really matter.
More is always better. Having more trained allows to upgrade them saving 1 skill point to reach the same proficiency on each. So matters.
The ability to use scrolls was default for everyone, but even now all you need is trick magic item.
And the Lore skill associated to the tradition. And having low trained and low Int, good luck with your try.
something you can do with skill checks.
Which can complement, Charm does not change the DC unless you are hostile to the target, the skill could be more dependent about the NPC current status (could be angry or not receptive). And you can combine both, Charm to change to friendly, then socials with easier DC.
We are talking about Pathfinder. There are non magical ways for martials to trigger weaknesses via alchemical items. There are magic runes for every elemental damage. The only thing magic has on martial is the range and easier access to AoE.
Sure, I talk about PF too, so depending how is your magical items system matters. Take a look at GMG as not having a "magical shop center" with everything are most the options beyond the base one on CRB.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SuperBidi reponded to the first two for the restRemoving options for magic users then is what you have. I don't remove any, just let the players look for life.
No, it's the other way around. Uncommon is banned by default and allowed on a per option basis. You can't use Uncommon options unless your GM allows you and you should expect a lot of GMs to not do so.
And invisibility adds that if you fail your Stealth they cannot see you at distance, depending distance they could only hear, if close enough, leaving to only that, they hear something, cannot suppose anything.
If you fail your Stealth check you are detected (you may remain Hidden, but you are nonetheless detected). I can see some edge cases where you are far away from the enemies that the GM handwaves the Stealth check thanks to Invisibility but in my opinion it's an edge case. In most cases, you are rather close to the creatures you try to sneak from.
SuperBidi reponded to the first two for the restRemoving options for magic users then is what you have. I don't remove any, just let the players look for life.No, it's the other way around. Uncommon is banned by default and allowed on a per option basis. You can't use Uncommon options unless your GM allows you and you should expect a lot of GMs to not do so.
And invisibility adds that if you fail your Stealth they cannot see you at distance, depending distance they could only hear, if close enough, leaving to only that, they hear something, cannot suppose anything.If you fail your Stealth check you are detected (you may remain Hidden, but you are nonetheless detected). I can see some edge cases where you are far away from the enemies that the GM handwaves the Stealth check thanks to Invisibility but in my opinion it's an edge case. In most cases, you are rather close to the creatures you try to sneak from.
Uncommon items are available only to those who have special training, grew up in a certain culture, or come from a particular part of the world. Rare items are almost impossible to find and are usually given out only by the GM
For uncommon then we can assume that having the Lore academic (or another way to find it if available) is someone with special training for it.
InvisibilityCreatures can Seek to attempt to detect you; if a creature succeeds at its Perception check against your Stealth DC, you become hidden to that creature until you Sneak to become undetected again
This means that with "passive" Perception they even not notice you, changing (assuming, as is not written) this with a critical failure, because you made too much noise or moved something unwittingly.
So you could apply as want, but by rules can only detect you if using Seek actively. Could apply the Seek for guards, but the distance then matters a lot. Or when peek around a corner, unless very close to hear you breathing they cannot see you which makes a difference.Surprised that suggested that invisibility matters nothing for stealth. So hobbits used the One Ring for nothing, if only was related with their skill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SuperBidi reponded to the first two for the rest:Classes start with enough trained skills that getting more usually does not matter. High int also does not increase your number of master or legendary skills which are the ones that really matter.* High Int is practically useless.More skills and languages is not useless.
*Laughs*
I might have agreed if I hadn't watched a 10th-level party get absolutely trashed by a steep ramp (only 1 member was Trained in Athletics).
More languages is just flavor and in 90% off cases will not help. Of that last 10% a good chunk can be dealt with charades without knowing the same language.
You and I play VERY different games it would seem. In my experience, communication is paramount any time the party does not wish to offend or fight.
The ability to use scrolls was default for everyone, but even now all you need is trick magic item.* Water Breathing is hyper situational.But life saving. Notice that for all these situational the more important is to have in your list, so can use scrolls when required.
In this particular case you are correct, but any sort of in-combat utility is stymied by the action costs of Trick Magic Item. Most scrolls take two rounds to use with that feat.
something you can do with skill checks.* Charm is incapacitstion, aka only really works on mooks.And setting NPC friendly, which can be pretty handy.
Unless you followed your earlier advice and didn't raise Intelligence enough to fit it into your skill budget.
We are talking about Pathfinder. There are non magical ways for martials to trigger weaknesses via alchemical items. There are magic runes for every elemental damage. The only thing magic has on martial is the range and easier access to AoE.* Different damage types is a thing, but many people like thei mono element casters. Also prepared cannot adjust spells on the fly to target weaknesses. Another thing, martials have plenty of ways to trigger weaknesses even without magic.That is more about character creation (making mono element is a choice). For martials depends much about your magical item system, but with magic is easier usually.
And the utility, versatility, and narrative control; as aptly demonstrated by Dark_Schneider and x x 806, despite your "corrections."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For uncommon then we can assume that having the Lore academic (or another way to find it if available) is someone with special training for it.
No. Special training means feats and other class abilities not inventions of your own.
"Uncommon
Source Core Rulebook pg. 637 4.0
Something of uncommon rarity requires special training or comes from a particular culture or part of the world. Some character choices give access to uncommon options, and the GM can choose to allow access for anyone."
This means that with "passive" Perception they even not notice you
Invisibility is wrongly written. It clashes with the senses rules. Here's what Imprecise Senses states:
"Imprecise Senses
Source Core Rulebook pg. 464 4.0
Hearing is an imprecise sense—it cannot detect the full range of detail that a precise sense can. You can usually sense a creature automatically with an imprecise sense, but it has the hidden condition instead of the observed condition. It might be undetected by you if it’s using Stealth or is in an environment that distorts the sense, such as a noisy room in the case of hearing. In those cases, you have to use the Seek basic action to detect the creature. At best, an imprecise sense can be used to make an undetected creature (or one you didn’t even know was there) merely hidden—it can’t make the creature observed."
So they automatically detect you if you don't use Stealth.
Anyway, I don't want to enter a rule debate about all these points. It was more to point out that you are making some assumptions in your reasoning that are not necessarily true.
|
|
Uncommon is supposed to be something you can access with some reasonable effort (unless the GM bans it of course).
Rare is supposed to be for things that require lots of efforts to get, if the GM allows it at all.
Common is those things you get without asking the GM (unless the thing is specifically banned).
For uncommon then we can assume that having the Lore academic (or another way to find it if available) is someone with special training for it.No. Special training means feats and other class abilities not inventions of your own.
"Uncommon
Source Core Rulebook pg. 637 4.0
Something of uncommon rarity requires special training or comes from a particular culture or part of the world. Some character choices give access to uncommon options, and the GM can choose to allow access for anyone."This means that with "passive" Perception they even not notice youInvisibility is wrongly written. It clashes with the senses rules. Here's what Imprecise Senses states:
"Imprecise Senses
Source Core Rulebook pg. 464 4.0
Hearing is an imprecise sense—it cannot detect the full range of detail that a precise sense can. You can usually sense a creature automatically with an imprecise sense, but it has the hidden condition instead of the observed condition. It might be undetected by you if it’s using Stealth or is in an environment that distorts the sense, such as a noisy room in the case of hearing. In those cases, you have to use the Seek basic action to detect the creature. At best, an imprecise sense can be used to make an undetected creature (or one you didn’t even know was there) merely hidden—it can’t make the creature observed."So they automatically detect you if you don't use Stealth.
Anyway, I don't want to enter a rule debate about all these points. It was more to point out that you are making some assumptions in your reasoning that are not necessarily true.
Does not change anything, and nowhere says “feats”. Training is training, that are things you learn to do. And in the case of spells, there is no feat unlocking them, so GM have to deal about what could be that training.
That’s why I put Invisibility + Stealth. In fact was going to reference the senses. For imprecise you have that “if using Stealth OR is in an environment…”. With inivisibility you nullify their precise sense, so with the imprecise is much more situational. You make noise when moving, so can stay still, watch from your sight but out of their hearing distance, make use of the a patrol own noise, etc. I’d suggest using the DC difficulty modifications.
So you can get situational bonuses, are hidden if discovered, and can to try to hide again to be undetected.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone is playing on Foundry, my experience GMing as a new GM is that I love the module 'Modifiers Matter'. It shows me on my end (though I think there's options to show it on the players ends, depending on how many numbers you want to show the players) how debuffs/buffs affect a target's AC/saves and shows you when those things end up causing or negating a hit or a crit. I always try to tell players when those things matter and I think it's helped my players (and myself) value those +/-1 a bit more because it's definitely hard to value those coming into the system new when it's such a small number, particularly when the source of that small number is a successful save against a Fear spell as opposed to a failed save.
Gnoll mage, thank you for sharing your experience. I have not played with proficiency without level, but it certainly changes up some of the math.
Starting at level 5 is a tough break for learning a caster for sure, under any circumstances. By level 5, a caster would normally have had a fair bit of time to learn their spells and which ones are accomplishing what you want to do.
In a PWL game, multiple enemies are significantly more dangerous than in a normal PF2 game. As a caster, your spell slots are going to incredibly valuable to the whole party by focusing on AoE damage. Trying to do that damage with cantrips will be difficult, and ancient dust is a difficult one to get good value unless your enemies have terrible fort saves. Blur is another spell that is a tough one to use effectively against multiple enemies as it only provides concealment to one ally. I noticed that you cast 1 second level spell and one cantrip after an ally had already dropped unconscious. Were you out of 3rd level spells? Especially at level 5, it is your 3rd level spells that give you the leg up to catch up with your martials. Using single target defensive buff spell than a cantrip in a fight going south against multiple enemies sounds like an experience that could quickly result in frustration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This still feels like a psychology type of problem. You are comparing times when your spells were saved against vs when your martial ally crit their attack roll.
Yes, level 5 is a tough level for spellcasters. Martial classes just got their boost to Master proficiency with their weapons. They have a +2 perk over your spellcasting attack/DC. Fighter and Gunslinger have a +4 in comparison. And that isn't counting runes or other sources of adding bonuses to Strike accuracy that aren't available to spell attack rolls and definitely aren't available to spell DC.
Also, it seems like you are trying to build a spellcaster to do damage. The best actual spellcasters to do that with are ones that use focus spells. Such as some Druid Orders, Elemental Sorcerer, or Psychic. Trying to be a blaster caster using spell slot spells does feel very limiting because of how few relevant rank (highest two ranks) spell slots you have.
Alternatively, check out Kineticist. The entire point of that class is to give you that feel of being a damage slinging spellcaster that never runs out of magic. In tradeoff for that, they lose out on a lot of the utility spellcasting like Shadow Spy. But if you are constantly comparing yourself to the martials based on how much you contributed to killing an enemy or protected an ally, Kineticist is the way to go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well blur and shadow spy aren’t damage spells, so I don’t think Gnoll mage is interested in damage specifically, just doing cool stuff. I don’t know how a wizard gets shadow spy spell though since it is occult and primal.
GMing is difficult and I don’t know the circumstances underwing you cast shadow spy, or what you told it to do, or how long to be out before returning, but it not coming back then should have been a bit of warning. At the same time, pirates shooting down a bird effectively over the open see is pretty suspect too, if that is what happened. If it is, it was a hostile GM move, consciously or not.
Fireball though is a spell with 500ft and would be incredibly effective against pirates on a boat, as one example of a 3rd level spell that could have completely changed the direction of the fight before it even began. Calm emotions could have been very effective too if the pirates had low will saves, highly likely. There are a ton of other options that could have been great, depending on the situation but there are too many unknowns/things I can’t figure out about your situation to go into too many specifics. At the point you are comparing accuracy numbers of 15ft cantrips and probably melee martials against pirates on the open sea, there is a lot of advantages to your caster being lost before this battle began.
The issue is really trying to compare numbers without looking at the situation. How is the pirate’s ship moving? How big is it? Were they trying to fire on you from range? (Wall of wind could have been lights out) How did your wizard get shadow spy? How did this combat become a melee? The fact a wizard is not tearing up pirates in close quarters as effectively as a fighter is unsurprising, but why let the fight happen that way?
This still feels like a psychology type of problem. You are comparing times when your spells were saved against vs when your martial ally crit their attack roll.
Yes, level 5 is a tough level for spellcasters. Martial classes just got their boost to Master proficiency with their weapons. They have a +2 perk over your spellcasting attack/DC. Fighter and Gunslinger have a +4 in comparison. And that isn't counting runes or other sources of adding bonuses to Strike accuracy that aren't available to spell attack rolls and definitely aren't available to spell DC.
Also, it seems like you are trying to build a spellcaster to do damage. The best actual spellcasters to do that with are ones that use focus spells. Such as some Druid Orders, Elemental Sorcerer, or Psychic. Trying to be a blaster caster using spell slot spells does feel very limiting because of how few relevant rank (highest two ranks) spell slots you have.
Alternatively, check out Kineticist. The entire point of that class is to give you that feel of being a damage slinging spellcaster that never runs out of magic. In tradeoff for that, they lose out on a lot of the utility spellcasting like Shadow Spy. But if you are constantly comparing yourself to the martials based on how much you contributed to killing an enemy or protected an ally, Kineticist is the way to go.
I've considered the Kineticist, briefly. Tbh, I'm not necessarily trying to build a solely damage caster.
In fact, this time around I actually took quite a few spells that weren't direct damage and were more of a supporting-role type- even spells that I would not normally consider- Shadow Spy being one of the main examples, for instance.
I actually chose a lot of my spells to try and cover a variety of bases; whether that's different save-types, or against AC (Ignition, for example), buffs for friends, and debuffs too. I did this in an effort to get myself out of the 'damage only' mindset and get myself to start rethinking PF2E so that I...
How sad that your experience with the game is so bad.
Interestingly for me, the feeling I'm getting is that you have a mix of bad dice rolls and excessive expectations.
Well about the experience with the spellcasters. The first point that I think I can pay more attention to is that in general spellcasters in D20 systems are ironically quite weak with magic at the beginning of the game, since always. In fact, I'm only starting to see spellcasters being more relevant from D&D 5e and PF2 (I'm going to ignore D&D 4e here because its spellcasters are a separate case due to spellcaster and martial mechanics being basically the same) when Magic tricks have become an alternative to fighting with weapons in these levels where you have very little slot and versatility with magic.
In practice, spellcasters really start to shine in the game from level 9-11 (depending on your class and strategies) because that's when you already have a wide variety of spells, lots of slots, probably 3 focus points and some spells and some very useful focus options. Until then, there are players (myself included) who even prefer to use weapons with spellcasters to complete the action economy while trying to use the spells as wisely and efficiently as possible considering that I need the slots to last until the end of the day.
So my first tip, as strange as it may be, is during the first 10 levels consider having and keeping a weapon, even if you can put a spellheart on it even better.
My second tip is don't bet all your chips on your spells, even your strongest, highest level spells, as they can all fail, even consider spells whose failure effect is also interesting, such as Fear and Goblin Pox, or even the super efficient Synesthesia.
My third tip is, be careful with buffs and debuffs. Their share economy is not always viable. Spending an action to protect a single ally, or to give -1/-2 to an opponent who is not or cannot be focused by your allies is frustrating, even the initiative order needs to be considered, for example applying Fear to an enemy who will act right after you, which means that your allies will not be able to benefit from the debuff enough, the ideal is to always apply it to an opponent who has already played before you or if you are at the top of the initiative, who will play last, but you need Consider whether it is viable for your allies to debuff or whether they will focus on another target and perhaps it is better for you to think of another strategy. The ideal (and the terror of some GMs who don't like this) is that you talk to your allies in search of the ideal strategy for everyone at the moment.
My fourth tip, in the absence of a good idea of what to use, use a cantrip, especially the Electric Arc! Let's face it, even if the EA's targets resist it, the combined damage of 2 targets will probably be competitive with that of many of your allies, you may not kill your targets immediately, but it will help your allies to kill them more quickly.
My fifth tip, which is kind of already included in the others, be tactical and play with your allies. Spellcasters shine here, you have a toolbox that can help your allies in different ways, but you almost always need to consider which is the right tool, for the right problem at the right time.
My sixth tip, are you still finding your debuffs ineffective? Its low damage? Do your buffs spend too many actions? So try to heal! Absolutely NO player will complain about another healer in the party and healing in PF2 is a stupidly powerful spell! There's no way you won't feel useful when saving an ally from death, and the more effective you are at healing, the safer and bolder your allies tend to become, and the more grateful they will be for your help.
---
About Kineticist
As said by the cat (breithauptclan), if you are feeling very frustrated with the caster he is an excellent way out. And don't worry, being a blaster is just one of several options you can do with a kineticist. In fact, the class is highly versatile depending on which elements you focus on:
There are many more things and mainly combinations that can be made with the kineticist, I just explained some of the main ones. Give it a read, the class is really fantastic.
If the problem is with accuracy kineticist doesn't really help, they have the same as casters except getting an item bonus to blasts and also they have a harder time hitting different saving throws
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the problem is with accuracy kineticist doesn't really help, they have the same as casters except getting an item bonus to blasts and also they have a harder time hitting different saving throws
The kineticist does at least get to be more repeatable than a caster when it fails. So those bad dice rolls might feel slightly less bad since you don't lose a spell slot in the process.
That said unironically think maybe the OP should get new dice because they seem to have extraordinarily bad luck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear about my earlier post, Gnoll mage, I wasn’t trying to suggest it was your fault, but if the GM is having the ships close quickly to yours without letting your wizard take actions at range, until the boats are side by side and in melee, they are taking away a lot of what would make a wizard shine on the open seas. Tall king to your GM about encounter settings and when you can use your spells might also help a fair bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to do damage in PF2 as a caster, then you can do the following:
1. Pick a class with a good damage focus spells. Focus spells last longer than slots for doing damage. You can get a damage focus spell back every 10 minute rest, then use it usually once a combat or two depending on how often your DM lets you rest 10 minutes.
2. Use a weapon. Get Archer archetype or some kind or ranged weapon. Built up a weapon and a combat stat like dex. A ranged or reach weapon is a 1 action damage ability. It's easy to get a weapon with an archetype or an ancestry feat.
3. Put damage spells in your spell slots and use them opportunistically in combination with the other two above.
4. Primal and arcane casters generally do the most damage. Druids and primal sorcs have some good damage focus spells. Arcane isn't terrible either.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that you should be able to do good damage with just spells, but that isn't how Paizo set things up casters. Casters that don't want to use weapons and a good focus spell for doing damage will be at a disadvantage when it comes to bringing the pain.
Some want to tell you focus spells aren't as good as spell slots. That's just false. In PF2 having a good focus spell usable every 10 minutes that does something useful like damage that automatically heightens is every bit as valuable as a spell slot. You can build up focus spells and the ability to get them back with feats meaning you can use it 2 or 3 times a 10 minute rest at higher level.
If you want to slam your head into a wall trying to make a low level wizard feel good against other classes like martials, then go ahead I guess. I've tried low level wizards multiple times and they are the worst low level caster in the game. They get moderately better as you get more spell slots, but their sustain is nowhere near that of a druid or sorcerer for doing damage due to quality focus spells both classes can access.
People will tell you tales of the time their wizard did some great thing. That's fine. Wizards can do some good stuff, they just can't sustain damage as often as a combination of spells, focus spells, and a weapon.
If you want to be relatively weak dealing damage and be Mr. Utility Arcane caster deriving pleasure from something other than killing your enemies, I guess keep playing the wizard until it works out for you.
I've seen all these classes in operation including multiple wizards. Wizards are equal casters to everyone else with worse feat and focus spell choices. They don't get much better until you get way more slots, load up on consumables or casting archetypes to sustain casting. That won't be until higher level and you'll have to tough it out until you start to see the value of the wizard comparatively.
Personally, I'd switch to a druid or sorcerer or bard and start enjoying your powerful feats, focus spells, and better weapon choices you can improve with ancestry feats.
Maybe the new Remaster Wizard will be better. It's out next month I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will chime in on the "get a weapon" suggestion with a "yes, and"
There are a number of spells that are quite strong from numbers perspective, that enhance strikes. That's the main reason that the "get a weapon" suggestion is pretty reliable, as you can select the damage buffs that do not scale off the weapon's Strike if you want to keep it Simple.
If you are fine from a psychology standpoint of buffing someone else's damage, there's no more reliable way to turn spells into damage than enchanting a Martial's weapon.
In that case, you can consider Reach Spell, as a lot of those cast and forget buffs are balanced by being Touch.
------
Honestly, it is still a little disappointing that so few games, pf2e included, never seem to want to balance buffs VS debuffs. Free +++ VS --- only on fail.
---------
Only in the most blatant of cases does Paizo even throw the issue a bone, such as Bless VS Bane. Bane allows the trade of actions to force repeated saves, a rare privilege most are not offered.
As such, buffs are better than debuffs in the great majority of circumstances.
They might not be super flashy most of the time, but if you can keep their effect in mind, you can confidently know just how big a help they are.
--------
Another specialist niche that can be rewarding to have tapped are some of the reaction spells.
Our party's Sorcerer had Feather Fall, which is a reaction spell, and might have saved a PCs life w/ it after they got yanked 80ft up by a Roper. Even if it's a rare thing that doesn't happen often, knowing that you have the contingency fully solved for the whole party can feel pretty good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will chime in on the "get a weapon" suggestion
and this is where you lose a lot of players, 2 of my group just refuse to do this on roleplaying grounds.
For sure it can make thematic sense for some casters, but not all.
I will chime in on the "get a weapon" suggestionand this is where you lose a lot of players, 2 of my group just refuse to do this on roleplaying grounds.
For sure it can make thematic sense for some casters, but not all.
Yeah. And sometimes it is for the character, not the player.
I have an Oracle that doesn't carry any weapons.
And a Witch that has martial weapon proficiency, three weapons, and an assortment of bombs.
I'm telling the OP how Paizo set things up to do good damage as a caster in PF2. Not what some want to do, but it is how you do good damage as caster.
The best caster damage is a combination of spells, focus spells, and a weapon. This is the main way to be a damage dealing caster in PF2. Otherwise, you accept that sometimes your damage will be good with spells if the enemy critically fails or against AoE.
If you want to do single target damage as a caster or more damage, then weapon, focus spells, and spells will increase your numbers and often give you parity.
I imagine it to be this way because the Paizo designers built spells a certain way, understood any caster could choose to use weapons being only one proficiency level behind most martials reaching Expert proficiency in weapon, so built the balance point with weapon use in mind for casters because there are always going to be players who don't care about theme and care only about performance. Any caster that wants to perform as a damage dealer as a caster will pick up a weapon and use it since it takes almost nothing from the caster to use a weapon.
So the balance point for casters to do equivalent damage consistently to a martial involves the caster using a weapon, one they build up like a martial. I believe it is by design.
Whether Paizo changes that at some point by creating a 1 action weapon-like cantrip for those that don't want to use weapons I cannot say. I only know that the current PF2 game supports and encourages casters to have a built up weapon as a damage option and those that choose not to do so will perform at a lower level than casters that do all other things being equal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be happy if they made weapons like zapping wands or staves that used one action attacks designed like weapons. If casters can use weapons anyway, might as well make weapons casters would think of as appropriate like fire blasting wands or force blasting staves and add in a category of magic items a caster can trick out as their caster appropriate weapon.
Casters aren't the super weak martials they were in PF1 with +10 BAB needing touch AC to have a chance to hit. They are only roughly 2 points behind a martial in proficiency and can use weapons effectively.
I'm telling the OP how Paizo set things up to do good damage as a caster in PF2. Not what some want to do, but it is how you do good damage as caster.
The best caster damage is a combination of spells, focus spells, and a weapon. This is the main way to be a damage dealing caster in PF2. Otherwise, you accept that sometimes your damage will be good with spells if the enemy critically fails or against AoE.
If you want to do single target damage as a caster or more damage, then weapon, focus spells, and spells will increase your numbers and often give you parity.
I imagine it to be this way because the Paizo designers built spells a certain way, understood any caster could choose to use weapons being only one proficiency level behind most martials reaching Expert proficiency in weapon, so built the balance point with weapon use in mind for casters because there are always going to be players who don't care about theme and care only about performance. Any caster that wants to perform as a damage dealer as a caster will pick up a weapon and use it since it takes almost nothing from the caster to use a weapon.
So the balance point for casters to do equivalent damage consistently to a martial involves the caster using a weapon, one they build up like a martial. I believe it is by design.
Whether Paizo changes that at some point by creating a 1 action weapon-like cantrip for those that don't want to use weapons I cannot say. I only know that the current PF2 game supports and encourages casters to have a built up weapon as a damage option and those that choose not to do so will perform at a lower level than casters that do all other things being equal.
Using a weapon theme is actually what i enjoy doing. I love things like bespell weapon.
|
|
I will chime in on the "get a weapon" suggestionand this is where you lose a lot of players, 2 of my group just refuse to do this on roleplaying grounds.
For sure it can make thematic sense for some casters, but not all.
I did build a weaponless, armorless, shieldless caster as an experiment in the pure magic-user style.
It's fun but it's a choice and not the most optimal one. Expecting optimal results with a non-optimal build is unrealistic.
Thankfully non-optimal is OK in PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best caster damage is a combination of spells, focus spells, and a weapon.
I disagree.
Weapon impact on your overall damage is extremely low on a caster. You won't have an action left every round (far from it), and even when you get one you'll in general resort to a bow shot which will deal really low damage (half of Electric Arc on average). Also, weapons are extremely costly in terms of character options: You need feats, sometimes even class feats, attribute values (if you want to be at least efficient) and hands (that can't hold anything else). And of course you need to rune the weapon properly, which is an extreme cost. There are many other means to get a similar damage increase without having to resort to a weapon (1-action focus spells being one).Similarly, you don't really need Focus Spells to shine. Your spell slots, especially on a Sorcerer or Wizard, are far enough to deal tons of damage. They are your main source of damage anyway. Proper use of them is what gets you at the top of the damage chart.
There are many ways to build a damage oriented caster. Even if weapons will obviously get you a damage increase, they are not the sole way of doing it and they are nowhere close to mandatory. We build our casters very differently and both manage to deal a lot of damage with them, which is the proof that there's no One True Way of dealing damage with a caster.
The best caster damage is a combination of spells, focus spells, and a weapon.I disagree.
Weapon impact on your overall damage is extremely low on a caster. You won't have an action left every round (far from it), and even when you get one you'll in general resort to a bow shot which will deal really low damage (half of Electric Arc on average). Also, weapons are extremely costly in terms of character options: You need feats, sometimes even class feats, attribute values (if you want to be at least efficient) and hands (that can't hold anything else). And of course you need to rune the weapon properly, which is an extreme cost. There are many other means to get a similar damage increase without having to resort to a weapon (1-action focus spells being one).Similarly, you don't really need Focus Spells to shine. Your spell slots, especially on a Sorcerer or Wizard, are far enough to deal tons of damage. They are your main source of damage anyway. Proper use of them is what gets you at the top of the damage chart.
There are many ways to build a damage oriented caster. Even if weapons will obviously get you a damage increase, they are not the sole way of doing it and they are nowhere close to mandatory. We build our casters very differently and both manage to deal a lot of damage with them, which is the proof that there's no One True Way of dealing damage with a caster.
You are not disagreeing with anything as it has been presented.
Half the idea of a caster picking Martial weapons via that L3 General Feat or however, **is that they can use their magic to improve their Strikes.**
"and even when you get one you'll in general resort to a bow shot which will deal really low damage (half of Electric Arc on average)."
I really don't understand how or why you automatically assume the best case scenario for Electric Arc, and the worst case for the bow.
EA needs 2 targets close enough, failed saves, and even in that case, the TWO ACTION CAST means that it's at best, 1d4 Scaling + modifier.
.
Just the issue of the bow being 1 Action d6 already leaves a whole lot of instances where that option becomes a great, if not better, choice.
.
.
However, the whole point that you are responding to is that a weapon is an indisputably important piece of a caster's damage dealing toolkit, and there's plenty of spells (and Feats like Bespell Weapon!) that reinforce this rather non-offensive reality.
The more a caster, like the OP, cares about being able to do ~"real damage" or whatever, the more this reality comes into focus.
The entire (general) rule of spells being 2-Action activities by itself (not to mention MAP) should be enough for a reasonable caster to think there to be merit in transferring those fundamental Runes instead of selling them.
You really, really seem to dislike the idea of casters using weapons, and I've got no idea why it bothers you that *yes*, many times it is a better idea to
True Strike --> Bespell up --> thwip an arrow
than it would be to toss a middling damage spell w/ a 50% fail chance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Sorry, but I have hard time answering with a neutral tone.
So, I'll give you this incredible tool: https://bahalbach.github.io/PF2Calculator/
It should allow you to realize how wrong you are.
Weapons on casters are just a third action, competing with Demoralize and other excellent third actions. I can see some builds using weapons (mostly Strength-based ones) but for most casters it's not really useful. It's not bad per se but calling it "indisputably important" is a severe misconception.
Also, bolding your text doesn't make you look cool.
I find very interesting the fact it's the first time I see someone using PWL.
For this mode I'd recommend to use the Stamina rules, maybe giving extra resolve points (just doubling, adding a number like 2, or adding Con modifier) and making the Steel Your Resolve just a standard action instead a feat.
Why? The reason is that Stamina would be translated into how much someone endures according to its experience and proficiency. It shows how you parry, avoid direct strikes, cover your vital spots and etc. while you get exhausted doing it. Using Steel Your Resolve just shows how you are more skilled and can endure longer avoiding fatal injuries.
Then manage your resolve points with the skill and taking a breath (remember that Steel Your Resolve only restores half stamina) and if run out of resolve points is time to rest as you are at your limit.
About the @GnollMage experience, rolls are decisive in any game. In the case of spells there is also a thread about accuracy.
As mentioned, the 5th level is very bad for casters, as the game is balanced for martials accuracy and they get expert, the caster have to wait until level 7.
At that level probably if want to attack a good spell could be Scorching Ray as 3-actions (range 60') to have multiple chances against multiple foes with a decent total damage. Another good for 3rd level is Lightning Bolt, as opposite to Fireball is usually easy to move your base and align multiple foes not hitting your allies, so much easier to use in close combat with a good damage, and with half damage on save so you are always contributing instead wasting your rounds.
At level 7th this changes a lot, you get expert on spells, Chromatic Ray spell that combined with True Strike can deal individual damages of 30-50 without critical and the insane of 60-100 on criticals to single targets.
...Sorry, but I have hard time answering with a neutral tone.
So, I'll give you this incredible tool: https://bahalbach.github.io/PF2Calculator/
It should allow you to realize how wrong you are.
Weapons on casters are just a third action, competing with Demoralize and other excellent third actions. I can see some builds using weapons (mostly Strength-based ones) but for most casters it's not really useful. It's not bad per se but calling it "indisputably important" is a severe misconception.
Also, bolding your text doesn't make you look cool.
I'm not sure how a math tool is supposed to be a persuasive substitute for an argument.
For fun, I attempted to see how the white room comparison of my example shook out, but honestly trying to just add a truly flat 1d6 for the bespell weapon to the rune-scaling bow was an exercise in frustration (can't stand tools that lack readme/help links, as well as those w/ minimalist to the point of incomplete UIs) , let alone factoring in the True Strike.
.
.
Distraction aside.
To completely disregard weapons as a tool for casters is just irrational. They are an option that every Wiz/whatever **already has,** and to deny their use is as arbitrary as never learning a subset of spells because *those ones* are ___.
Even the "new hotness" of Needle Darts is written specifically to nudge shove casters into holding a bloody weapon for goodness sake.
.
Demoralize et al still target specific saves, and do no damage. By the same way in which such an option may be more appealing in one circumstance, so too will a weapon Strike be more appealing in another.
Especially considering the opportunity cost with limited spell slots, one cast to buff a weapon followed by some Strikes can pull ahead pretty often, even it's the Wiz making them.
Other considerations, like Haste, Prone, ect, make such hard dismissal of Strikes come across as just bizarre, IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not irrational at all. That's being hyperbolic.
Casters in my games don't use their weapons and if they have them, they're literally just for visuals or its a cool staff they carry around just because.
They contribute just as meaningful as any of our martials in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters in my games don't use their weapons and if they have them, they're literally just for visuals or its a cool staff they carry around just because.
That's also hyperbolic. Or anecdotal rather than a hard and fast rule or even a general trend.
The Witch character I mentioned previously has:
* used a longbow to help shoot down a Jungle Drake that was in the process of carrying away one of our party members at a remarkably fast rate through the difficult terrain.
* uses a whip regularly to trip enemies.
* used holy water bombs when fighting a Vrock.
* walked up and punched a skeleton because the bow I was holding wouldn't overcome the damage resistance, the bomb I had available would have done fire splash damage to the dying ally adjacent to the skeleton, and I didn't have any damage cantrips prepared.
Weapons and Strike is a tool in the toolbox for spellcasters to use. Some choose not to use them. But they are certainly available and viable, and will add to a round's damage if used.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how a math tool is supposed to be a persuasive substitute for an argument.
To make you realize how some of your beliefs are just plain wrong. And yes, the tool takes a bit of time to handle, but once you get it it's just wonderful.
To completely disregard weapons as a tool for casters is just irrational.
I don't "completely disregard weapons". I just put them at their right place: As a third action alongside 1-action focus spells, Demoralize, Animal Companions and such. If you decide to build your caster with weapons, it's fine, I don't say it's bad. But considering that you have to build a caster with weapons to maximize your efficiency is flat out wrong. Weapons have a high cost, lots of casters have better things to do with their hands, actions, money or feats.
|
|
I'm not sure how a math tool is supposed to be a persuasive substitute for an argument.To make you realize how some of your beliefs are just plain wrong. And yes, the tool takes a bit of time to handle, but once you get it it's just wonderful.
To completely disregard weapons as a tool for casters is just irrational.I don't "completely disregard weapons". I just put them at their right place: As a third action alongside 1-action focus spells, Demoralize, Animal Companions and such. If you decide to build your caster with weapons, it's fine, I don't say it's bad. But considering that you have to build a caster with weapons to maximize your efficiency is flat out wrong. Weapons have a high cost, lots of casters have better things to do with their hands, actions, money or feats.
Which is likely a feature and not a bug.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is likely a feature and not a bug.
Yes. It is a tool in the box. Not something that should be ignored. But also not a must-pick that is required.
Disengaging completely from weapons would be a reality if it would exists a metamagic for empower spell, so you could probably be more interested even in empower a cantrip than striking with a weapon.
I miss that a metamagic to use your 3rd action usually. Widen spell sometimes makes the job, specially with cones, but as you usually have to move to aim non-burst spells, then you lose the option to use a metamagic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't read the entire thread, but the OP not valuing removing an action from an enemy is fundamentally misunderstanding the combat system in this game. Winning the action economy is one of the best ways to swing fights in your favor. As a GM, one of the most debilitating things for me in a fight is for one of the creatures I am running to be unable to use its cool three-action ability because it was hit with slow. This is doubly true when the creature is a solo boss, where it is already behind in the action economy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I agree with the claim that many of the frustrations new players have with casters in PF2 is from mismatched expectations for the combat system of PF2 combined with GMs making casting more difficult than it is intended to be by being guarded with giving out information to players, or making the acquiring of useful, actionable information too costly and unreliable.
At the same time, I think the OP wouldn't have been better served using the slow spell in the combat he was describing.
There are a number of confusing unknowns that feel like hostile play towards casters being described in the encounter scenario:
Scouting bird presumed shot down over the open sea.
Enemy vessels closing quickly on the PCs without any way for the party to take advantage of long range abilities, skills, or other way to tip the balance of the encounter.
Multiple lower level enemies in a proficiency without level campaign naturally making encounters more difficult than with the normal game math.
As a result, I think many players of casters would end up frustrated with "pirates on the open seas" becoming intense melee combat from the start of the encounter.
Blur is a difficult spell to use effectively. It feels like it was probably a thematic choice for a spooky caster, and imagined to be a more powerful defensive debuff than it really is, especially against lots of enemies who are going to be trying to make multiple attacks a round. In a fight like this, you really need spells that debuff many enemies, seriously control the battle field and limit the number of attackers making attacks, or contributing AoE damage in a fashion that quickly equalizes the numbers.
That was the only spell slot spell cast in the encounter.
Playing a level 5 wizard and only casting one spell slot spell in a very difficult encounter means there are a number of issues with spell selection and player information that are not lining up well.
For example: fighting pirates on the open seas sounds like a 1 or 2 encounter a day situation. Why is the player trying so hard to conserve spell slots?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best caster damage is a combination of spells, focus spells, and a weapon.I disagree.
Weapon impact on your overall damage is extremely low on a caster. You won't have an action left every round (far from it), and even when you get one you'll in general resort to a bow shot which will deal really low damage (half of Electric Arc on average). Also, weapons are extremely costly in terms of character options: You need feats, sometimes even class feats, attribute values (if you want to be at least efficient) and hands (that can't hold anything else). And of course you need to rune the weapon properly, which is an extreme cost. There are many other means to get a similar damage increase without having to resort to a weapon (1-action focus spells being one).Similarly, you don't really need Focus Spells to shine. Your spell slots, especially on a Sorcerer or Wizard, are far enough to deal tons of damage. They are your main source of damage anyway. Proper use of them is what gets you at the top of the damage chart.
There are many ways to build a damage oriented caster. Even if weapons will obviously get you a damage increase, they are not the sole way of doing it and they are nowhere close to mandatory. We build our casters very differently and both manage to deal a lot of damage with them, which is the proof that there's no One True Way of dealing damage with a caster.
You are flat out wrong. Not even sure why you made this unprovable disagreement. I would utterly destroy your damage over an adventuring day with a caster using a weapon and the width of that difference would rise as we gained more levels.
It's very easy to see why. I'm not sure why you chose to make this claim when I've seen in play how much of an advantage a 1 action weapon option is to caster damage.
Your white room situation is ridiculous.
The way this game is played is multiple round combats over the course of an adventuring day with ups and downs due to crits and other combat variables.
A bow or another weapon adds 1 action damage option that has no penalty you can use with a save spell. This adds into a mix of other available options like a focus spell or your normal spell slots. You can pick from this matrix of damage options over the course of a day. The more options you have to do damage, the more damage you will do.
Like I said, there are people like Superbidi making ludicrous claims that aren't true because they are not thinking out how all this stuff works together. I'm telling the OP with absolute certainty backed up by multiple campaigns and collected data that the best way to do damage as a caster is spell slots, focus spells, and a weapon.
If you do this building up your weapon and a combat stat, you will find that the best way to do damage in PF2 as a caster is add as many damage options as possible to your character that can combine in a round.
At low level that will be:
1. Damage from spell slots.
2. Damage from focus spells which improves daily sustainability to do damage so you don't have to slow down a party of martials that don't rely on spell slots while maintaining damage parity.
3. A built out weapon, preferably a bow. Which will start at 1d8 as a one action option with no MAP penalty working up to 4d8 plus 3d6 as a one action option for additional damage with no resource cost other than ammunition.
4. As you level you will combine all these sources of damage to maintain parity with martials eventually adding in sustain spells with Effortless Concentration.
This will make you a damage dealing machine in PF2. You will mix the options as needed according to the difficulty of your opponent to maximize your damage output.
That's how PF2 damage casters work if you want to maintain parity with martials throughout an adventuring day across your levels.