| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That also seems like hyperbole and anecdote.
Animal Companion seems like it would contribute as much to damage as a weapon would.
And there are other ways to contribute to a combat than just damage personally dealt.
| 1 person 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 will take my collected data from multiple campaigns over your math tool every single day of the week and more. This is why your attempts at white room math leave me cold in these discussions.
When I go into real play, you find that the weapon outperforms your white room math.
Why? Because your white room math doesn't account for party composition. Who is doing the Demoralize? Might not even be you. A condition may already be applied that doesn't require you to apply one. This is often the case.
For example, in my current party the fighter is the Demoralize specialist. They have built up their Intimidation very high with Intimidating Prowess. They have taken Champion Dedication with Aura of Despair. They very much handle the fear part applying that condition.
There is no circumstance over the course of an adventuring day other than luck where you will do more damage than a caster using a weapon as an additional option in their arsenal.
The bow even allows them to take better advantage of tripped, grappled, or debuffed opponents to do damage. Having a weapon a caster is an all around boost to their damage dealing capabilities.
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.That also seems like hyperbole and anecdote.
Animal Companion seems like it would contribute as much to damage as a weapon would.
And there are other ways to contribute to a combat than just damage personally dealt.
This is not a discussion of what a caster brings to the table. If that were the discussion, then we would have something to talk about.
My view is based on collected data over multiple campaigns. It did not start off this way, but I evolved my opinion after collecting data and analyzing how Paizo built the game. Once you do that, it's very easy to see why casters using a weapon is a built in feature, not a mistake.
An animal companion is part of your toolbox if you want to have one. They start off fairly well and then fall off at later levels. And you can combine an animal companion with a weapon. A Mature Animal companion can do a strike as an independent action.
As a druid having used an animal companion, your opening round might look like this:
1. Cantrip or spell for damage.
2. Send in pet which positions and strikes.
Round 2:
1. Cantrip or spell damage maybe focus spell
2. Animal companion already in position for independent strike.
3. Weapon attack.
You have three sources of damage occurring in the same round on the target.
The data showed that casters have the means to do damage from multiple sources including a weapon. This maximum caster damage is achieved by focusing on having as many sources of damage available to you that are sustainable throughout an adventuring day.
This isn't discussion of caster burst damage blowing off some high level slots or an ideal AoE situation.
I'm advising the OP how to build a sustainable caster who can do damage with martials on all day basis combining all available options they have .
Doesn't it ever make any of you wonder at the fact that a caster gets up to Expert Weapon proficiency? One rank lower than every martial but the fighter? And that there are multiple low level starting ancestry feats that allow you to improve your weapon choices? And multiple combat archetypes allowing casters to obtain a better weapon early on?
Does this not all scream "Hey all, we designed casters to use weapons in PF2 and given you all the tools to have a nice weapon fully built up as a way to do some damage and have some fun. This game isn't like PF1 with casters with half the BAB of martials or middle BAB like clerics. All you casters are just a couple of points behind martials for your weapon attacks. And guess what, we even gave you the lesser version of weapon specialization. So have fun building up a weapon."
It all seems so obvious when you look at the class chassis, ancestry feats, and combat archetypes.
So I'm pointing out the obvious PF2 design choice for PF2 casters so the OP at least has a chance to see how the PF2 designers built the game for casters to do damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP was never trying to make a damage dealer. They were just disappointed with damage of a niche, AP specific cantrip that does attribute +1d6 damage targeting fort at rank 3.
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.
Yeah, that's why I said 'in my games' - the point is to show that most discussions here are based on our experiences and aren't indicative of anything beyond that, really.
The only people who could even know that sort of thing for any kind of certainty are Paizo - and even then, not really. It's not like video games that can attach metrics to games.
A caster in my games would largely never do any of those things; those in yours would. That's all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't it ever make any of you wonder at the fact that a caster gets up to Expert Weapon proficiency? One rank lower than every martial but the fighter? And that there are multiple low level starting ancestry feats that allow you to improve your weapon choices? And multiple combat archetypes allowing casters to obtain a better weapon early on?
Does this not all scream "Hey all, we designed casters to use weapons in PF2 and given you all the tools to have a nice weapon fully built up as a way to do some damage and have some fun. This game isn't like PF1 with casters with half the BAB of martials or middle BAB like clerics. All you casters are just a couple of points behind martials for your weapon attacks. And guess what, we even gave you the lesser version of weapon specialization. So have fun building up a weapon."
No really, no - not in anything beyond just talking about off-hand. The people who play casters in my group don't think about weapons, that's not why they play casters. Some of them even just straight up don't put a weapon on their sheet - that's how little it matters to them.
And they are just as impactful in play as anyone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic missile is available to arcane and occult casters. It is not all day but its damage addition is useful. Any wizard wanting to do that every encounter though should pick up force bolt. Otherwise it is much more of a special occasion thing
Doesn't it ever make any of you wonder at the fact that a caster gets up to Expert Weapon proficiency? One rank lower than every martial but the fighter? And that there are multiple low level starting ancestry feats that allow you to improve your weapon choices? And multiple combat archetypes allowing casters to obtain a better weapon early on?
Does this not all scream "Hey all, we designed casters to use weapons in PF2 and given you all the tools to have a nice weapon fully built up as a way to do some damage and have some fun. This game isn't like PF1 with casters with half the BAB of martials or middle BAB like clerics. All you casters are just a couple of points behind martials for your weapon attacks. And guess what, we even gave you the lesser version of weapon specialization. So have fun building up a weapon."
No really, no - not in anything beyond just talking about off-hand. The people who play casters in my group don't think about weapons, that's not why they play casters. Some of them even just straight up don't put a weapon on their sheet - that's how little it matters to them.
And they are just as impactful in play as anyone else.
Why are you even hopping in with this?
This is specifically a discussion on how to maximize caster damage. I don't care if your players feel fine not using a weapon and doing less damage.
This is purely a discussion on game mechanics and how Paizo built PF2. Your personal preference has nothing to do with it.
If your players voluntarily want to avoid options for thematic reasons, then have at it. Play like you want. PF2 is not a hard game, so you can still impact the game with other spells or options.
This is purely a discussion of how to do damage as a caster because there are constant threads complaining that a caster can't do damage like a martial. But they can and I'm explaining how by using all available options rather than casters expecting to blow off some spell slots and compete with martials who rely on their strikes for their sustained damage throughout a day.
If Paizo ever adjusts the damage of casters up further, then casters will become vastly overpowered if they leave the weapon option in which any player can add in that feels like doing more damage. It's why I went from joining in the damage complaint discussions to focusing on the wizard.
Casters can match martial damage over the course of adventuring days by adding in a weapon and using sustainable options. They aren't strike focused like a martial. Casters are combination damage dealers relying on a combination of limited resources like spell slots that can ramp damage high with more sustainable resources like focus spells and weapon damage.
Thus Paizo has zero reason to alter the damage dealing capacity of casters as they are already on par with martials when using all available options on a constant basis throughout an adventuring day.
The exceptions to the weapon caster for one action offensive abilities would be elemental sorcerers and evocation wizards with their one action focus spells. Those fill that niche without needing a weapon. Anyone else benefits fairly. Although, bows do limit your ability to hold scrolls, wands, and staves. If going with the archer archetype, grabbing the repeating hand crossbow may be a good route to diversify your caster gear and weapons.
Bows do not limit scroll use, but do limit staff and wand use unless you're doing something odd like holding two scrolls or something or hanging on to a scroll for a long time. If you want to draw it and use it, then you're good to go.
Evocation wizard or elemental sorc focus spells are decent for replacing the 1 action weapon option or supplementing it.
The OP was never trying to make a damage dealer. They were just disappointed with damage of a niche, AP specific cantrip that does attribute +1d6 damage targeting fort at rank 3.
Where did you get from that with the thread title and the entirety of the OP's post?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coming back to this thread after a couple weeks' worth of sessions in a new campaign that one of my friends has begun DMing, starting at level 5
It didn't exactly go well and drives home my frustration, sadly ;-;
I cast Blur on a friend!
.... The enemies succeeded every single flat check and incapacitated them anyway.Then the enemy pirates proceeded to save against pretty much everything I cast, even if I targeted their weaker saves, due to terrible dice results.
Did I do damage? Certainly, of course.
...The damage was incredibly pathetic (Woo! Ancient Dust did a whopping 3 damage to the enemy that did save, 6 damage and a mere 2 persistent damage against the one singular enemy that failed their save in the entire fight). But I /did/ do damage. Which I'm marginally grateful for.And before that Blur, I was faced with the sobering paltry damage I did, and the fighter in our group critting /twice/ and doing within the range of 30-45 damage with each.
We're running PWL.
So I have a whopping DC of 16, and SA roll of +6, versus my friend's attack bonus with their rune'd halberd or whatever, at +11.Hurray...
I think some people participating in this current conversation missed this post by the OP resurrecting the thread.
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.
Yeah, that's why I said 'in my games' - the point is to show that most discussions here are based on our experiences and aren't indicative of anything beyond that, really.
The only people who could even know that sort of thing for any kind of certainty are Paizo - and even then, not really. It's not like video games that can attach metrics to games.
A caster in my games would largely never do any of those things; those in yours would. That's all.
No. Some of us rely on data. Not white room math. Not anecdote or feelings or a subjective interpretation of experience. Some of us collect and analyze the data.
In my actual games, I don't even care about doing damage. Casters are fine. As you stated, my casters are impactful doing something like casting one slow spell and shooting off cantrips.
Fact is early in my uptake of PF2, I collected damage data. I wanted to know why the complaints about caster damage on the forums were occurring with such regularity and if the complaints were true.
So I started collecting data of casters in fights. Low level wizard was the absolute worst damage dealer in the game. Bard was ok with a weapon. Druid was a high performer due to quality focus spells, easy to obtain Animal companion, and good weapon choices combined with spell slots.
So I started to notice that casters that had a good damage focus spell, picked up a weapon, and combined this with their spell slots were very competitive even with top level martials like 2H barbarians and fighters and often exceeded weaker damage martials like bow users or swashbucklers.
I spent time taking a higher level view of why. I'm coming from PF1. Casters suck at martial combat, especially wizards, sorcs, and the like. Clerics and druids had spells to boost them which took a while to get going, but could turn them into combat monsters. So I wasn't much accustomed to using weapons on casters.
It became apparent when I took off my PF1 glasses and went, "Hmm. So casters get Expert in weapons and most dedicated martials get Master. You also get four ability boosts per five levels, which makes it very easy to boost up a combat stat like Dex and a main caster stat. And every ancestry provides access to better weapons as long as you start with simple weapons."
I started accept that PF2 had constructed casters to be able to use a weapon, especially at low levels where everyone is trained. And this seems to be a built in part of the game intended to allow casters to deal damage on par with martials and smooth over the low level caster experience.
What people want to do for style reasons is up to them. I think the OP may have more run while he's learning the game adding in a weapon option and doing damage that adds to what he does with his spells. Might make his experience with the game more enjoyable and the design is there to make this a very productive and easy to obtain option.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
DL IIRC all your data comes from games with very specific builds, a very specific style of play and now very specific houserules. I believe your adventuring day is far from typical of the game's premises (ie, you do definitely more than 3 encounters a day IIRC).
So the conclusions you draw from your data cannot be applied universally. And the White room calculations, provided they use appropriate hypotheses, are likely more widely applicable. So there is absolutely zero need to belittle them or mock the posters who use them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said, there are people like Superbidi making ludicrous claims
Seriously Deriven... So many conversations where I proved you there were other ways to look at things and you still call my claims "ludicrous". I mean, you have all the right in the world to disagree but you could at least give me the benefit of the doubt.
I will take my collected data from multiple campaigns over your math tool every single day of the week and more. This is why your attempts at white room math leave me cold in these discussions.
When I go into real play, you find that the weapon outperforms your white room math.
Your data is anecdotal. It's your party and your way to play. Have you played every builds and every ways? Certainly not and as such you have missed a lot of things. Also, it only gives you partial information.
I personally play scrolled casters. The strength of casters are their ability to up their game when s**t hits the fan. I'm used to save the day by literally dealing 70+% of the party damage during tough fights. It's rare, I only saved the party from one TPK and one character death like that, but I consider that my thing, what I really bring to the table.
So, sure, if you use your way of "counting damage", considering trivial encounters as important as extreme ones, your weapon caster is far better than my scroll caster. But when the GM makes a mistake and adds 8 AC to the boss (true story) and you are in charge of dealing with it single handedly because no one else can damage it consistently, what do you do with your "ridiculous" bow? I personally cast half a dozen top level spells in a row (I have even cast 10 of them in a row once) topping absolutely every damage chart and saving the day.
So my scrolls take my hands (I won't waste 2 actions drawing them when the situation is dire) and my money (for example my Witch with its extremely limited number of spell slots has 3 scrolls of every spell level). I can't get a weapon. And I make this choice because it's better in terms of damage according to my way of looking at things. I'm hyper competitive, when everyone is whining because the boss is untouchable I smile because I finally have a fight up to my level. I know you're competitive, too, so I won't insult you by stating you can't understand my point of view. To me, weapons on the hands of casters are weak. I have "white room theory" and experience to back up my claim.
So, am I still ludicrous or do I just have different goals when I build my casters?
None own data can usually be applied universally.
For casters that want there is an interesting synergy:
- Enchant weapon for extra d6.
- Forcible energy for weaken 5.
- Weapon without reload.
- Haste for striking.
So haste yourself, which is the best use as your martials will only accumulate more MAP, then the round would be like:
forcible energy + energy spell (enchant weapon), strike.
The enchant weapon ensures your weapon will have the appropriate damage type for the weakness, so after the 1st round you make the weakness damage both with your spell and with your strike. It also synergies well if the other party members can deal that type of damage to apply the weakness.
The cheapest way to have bow proficiency seems to be using 2 general feats for Adopted Ancestry and elven weapons feats, leaving your archetype free for your real choice.
Leaving the optimizing aside, it doesn't hurt to just use one weapon for free, no spending any feat, anyone can use a crossbow. In this case forget the previous, just haste yourself to make the extra strike (reloading with your normal 3rd action), and if you don't have Haste then just strike every 2 rounds, it's free.
The question is what about if you prefer to hold your staff in your hand because as a full caster it expands your flexibility allowing to cast any of its spells on demand. What interesting action do we have? Because if you are going to be the RK guy, then better get the feat that makes it a free action.
|
|
The question is what about if you prefer to hold your staff in your hand because as a full caster it expands your flexibility allowing to cast any of its spells on demand. What interesting action do we have? Because if you are going to be the RK guy, then better get the feat that makes it a free action.
Which feat ? Many of my PCs' builds would benefit from this.
If requires multiple lores, probably better for a character with an unified one like Bard or Loremaster archetype.Which feat ? Many of my PCs' builds would benefit from this.
The question is what about if you prefer to hold your staff in your hand because as a full caster it expands your flexibility allowing to cast any of its spells on demand. What interesting action do we have? Because if you are going to be the RK guy, then better get the feat that makes it a free action.
|
|
If requires multiple lores, probably better for a character with an unified one like Bard or Loremaster archetype.Which feat ? Many of my PCs' builds would benefit from this.
The question is what about if you prefer to hold your staff in your hand because as a full caster it expands your flexibility allowing to cast any of its spells on demand. What interesting action do we have? Because if you are going to be the RK guy, then better get the feat that makes it a free action.
Thank you.
Assurance indeed kills it for my know-it-all builds that rely on Lores.
Coming back to this thread after a couple weeks' worth of sessions in a new campaign that one of my friends has begun DMing, starting at level 5
It didn't exactly go well and drives home my frustration, sadly ;-;
I cast Blur on a friend!
.... The enemies succeeded every single flat check and incapacitated them anyway.Then the enemy pirates proceeded to save against pretty much everything I cast, even if I targeted their weaker saves, due to terrible dice results.
Did I do damage? Certainly, of course.
...The damage was incredibly pathetic (Woo! Ancient Dust did a whopping 3 damage to the enemy that did save, 6 damage and a mere 2 persistent damage against the one singular enemy that failed their save in the entire fight). But I /did/ do damage. Which I'm marginally grateful for.And before that Blur, I was faced with the sobering paltry damage I did, and the fighter in our group critting /twice/ and doing within the range of 30-45 damage with each.
We're running PWL.
So I have a whopping DC of 16, and SA roll of +6, versus my friend's attack bonus with their rune'd halberd or whatever, at +11.Hurray...
If things are constantly working against you, it's because your GM is cheating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If requires multiple lores, probably better for a character with an unified one like Bard or Loremaster archetype.Which feat ? Many of my PCs' builds would benefit from this.
The question is what about if you prefer to hold your staff in your hand because as a full caster it expands your flexibility allowing to cast any of its spells on demand. What interesting action do we have? Because if you are going to be the RK guy, then better get the feat that makes it a free action.Thank you.
Assurance indeed kills it for my know-it-all builds that rely on Lores.
You can, in fact a nice combo for a lore character is
LoremasterThen get assurance and Automatic Knowledge for Loremaster Lore.
Next Orthographic Mastery and next Quick Study. Then just improve another single lore skill with decipher writing to get expert on Loremaster lore.
Well the bonus is a bit lower as is trained and maxed to expert, but you can use for anything, and with Quick Study you get the option the get trained in any specific lore skill daily, and remember that these skills grants more precise info. I.e. you know are going to face a dragon, then Quick Study for Dragon Lore that day.
If you got Arcana as skill to improve, you can get then Unified Theory so you have legendary proficiency concerning any magical tradition check.
Looking more in depth the PWL, I see it more and more interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think that adopting a pretty intense variant rule like Proficiency without Level and starting at level 5 is something that is going to create challenges for players, especially because general strategies about the game get pretty up-ended. I mean, even just looking at casters, your summon spells just leapt forward in power and utility.
A Rank 3 summmon animal spell, for example, could summon a Boar who could spend 2 actions to boartusk charge and have a +10 to their attack roll. That is one less than the fighter mentioned in this example fight.
The meta-analysis of the game changes so hard towards bonuses and penalties to attack being mega boosts, especially with lots of minions on the board that it almost a different game, especially for casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think that adopting a pretty intense variant rule like Proficiency without Level and starting at level 5 is something that is going to create challenges for players, especially because general strategies about the game get pretty up-ended. I mean, even just looking at casters, your summon spells just leapt forward in power and utility.
A Rank 3 summmon animal spell, for example, could summon a Boar who could spend 2 actions to boartusk charge and have a +10 to their attack roll. That is one less than the fighter mentioned in this example fight.
The meta-analysis of the game changes so hard towards bonuses and penalties to attack being mega boosts, especially with lots of minions on the board that it almost a different game, especially for casters.
Yes but at the same time the game is not so tight to level, being based on training allows (good) things like increases a lot the wide of encounter level, long-term characters (can use the same for multiple adventures), you cannot make a picnic in the battlefield against goblins just because they are not able to touch you, in general is closer to a realistic style, which is the game style I like more.
With this and some others like using skill points and stamina, a much stingier magical item loot and shopping and some touchs here and there, I think the game can be molded nicely.
I wasn’t dismissing proficiency without level! I also find it lnteresting (although I am not sure there is enough meat to gaining levels any more for class balance to feel right across the board. Some odd level ups are going to feel very flat, especially for martials, like level 3 for many classes…but this is a digression).
The point was that the game is going to play very different, so starting at level 5 is an extra challenge because, for example, “what are good spell for PWL” isn’t something players have a lot of support with. Asking for specific help with more fun play as a caster with a pretty radically different variant rule is probably worth its own separate thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unicore, thank you very much. I have never really looked at Proficiency without level and summoning spells before. Normally I play standard so I have very little experience with it. And summoning spells are off the charts amazing when playing PWL.
The sheer versatility of a conjuror wizard is staggering. The thing that holds back summoning spells in regular games is that you summon things that are woefully under-leveled vs. the things you’re fighting. But in PWL, a level one wolf or hunting spider is nearly equal to something 4 levels above it, especially when you use augment summons.
There are so many creatures that are simply broken in the hands of a PC if the GM allows unlimited access to monsters. For example the level -1 ether sprite, which has a one action at will confusion ability, so a summoner can use one of his actions to confuse two enemies. If he has access to the summon fey spell natively, he can do this at level 1.
It is hard to grasp how strong summoning seems under PWL. Maybe I am missing something. I hope so.
Unicore, thank you very much. I have never really looked at Proficiency without level and summoning spells before. Normally I play standard so I have very little experience with it. And summoning spells are off the charts amazing when playing PWL.
The sheer versatility of a conjuror wizard is staggering. The thing that holds back summoning spells in regular games is that you summon things that are woefully under-leveled vs. the things you’re fighting. But in PWL, a level one wolf or hunting spider is nearly equal to something 4 levels above it, especially when you use augment summons.
There are so many creatures that are simply broken in the hands of a PC if the GM allows unlimited access to monsters. For example the level -1 ether sprite, which has a one action at will confusion ability, so a summoner can use one of his actions to confuse two enemies. If he has access to the summon fey spell natively, he can do this at level 1.
It is hard to grasp how strong summoning seems under PWL. Maybe I am missing something. I hope so.
Well AC14, HP8, ability range 30'. You know can be useful at short term but seems that creature will not stand much time in though encounters.
But yes PWL is nice as relaxes very much all those discussion related to proficiency and accuracy, as now facing APL +3 or +4 creatures is not a serial of miss, miss, miss, miss, miss...for those with some lesser proficiency. Not being so attached to tight maths is good IMO.