Prepared casting and spontaneous casting are different. Having a preference for one or the other is fine, and there is even an archetype for people who want to have more of a hybrid experience.
I am very thankful there are still some prepared caster classes in PF2. I have had a lot of fun with a druid, a cleric and many wizards. I have never played a main class witch, only a spirit barbarian with a witch archetype. Almost all of the casting I did there was from scrolls and focus spells.
My druid ended at level 17, my cleric a 15 and I have played every level of wizard, levels 1-13 with multiple characters. Each and every one of these characters feels very different from each other.
I don't really know how a caster ends up with 3/4 top slot spells that they can't use in an entire day. If that is an experience you have often, and the character is a wizard, I would strongly recommend talking to your GM about your experience, and then consider doing something like retraining your thesis into spell substitution, or even a different class or making a new character if you are finding the experience that frustrating. As a GM, I find players build characters that don't live up to the game play fantasy the players have for them fairly frequently. Providing a lot of down time for retraining is a good way to let players experiment, although it is not uncommon for players to just decide to retire a character and try something else. I try my best to allow for this as much as it can fit in the story.
See I have had my fair share of epic fights high above the ground where catfall is kinda meh. Not bad, but also it won't save you from splattering like feather fall will.
I used to be all in on everyone pumping acrobatics. Then I realized how many adventures wind up being "if you can't make the arcana check in the research subsystem you literally can't advance and you lose".
After that I started diversifying skills.
Are you playing something besides APs? I haven't run into a roadblock like this myself.
Paizo always seems to provide several options for resolution and someone in the party usually has one. We do have one player who really likes rogues and skills. So they spend a lot of their resources on skills and being the guy that can figure things out. Generally, everyone has one of the caster skills or something applicable.
We almost always have a rogue in the group with rare exception. This guy will take a level 2 feat like Acrobat Dedication to get Legendary acrobatics then focus his other skill ups on a mix of Stealth, Thievery, and a research skill or two while building up intel and wisdom some.
Then we like how Religion is more valuable as a skill now for dealing with haunts and certain other hazards as well as Rk for outsiders with some interesting skill feats. They seem to done a bit more with additional books to build up religion into an interesting skill.
And any wizard player I've seen played always builds up Arcane. Unified Theory is an awesome skill feat. Makes life easier in a lot of ways though I hear some run it as only applying to magic, whereas my reading is anything that the Arcane skill can be used for including monster identification applies to that skill. How do you run that skill feat? Only for abilities like Spell Recognition or Magical shorthand or do you allow it for RK for monsters as well?
Re flight: I do both. There are some modules with ridiculous heights. Home campaigns you can have airships or fights in the clouds.
giantslayer:
The final module is a cloud castle.
Published modules have an emphasis on lots of skills. For instance
extinction curse:
You literally can't get through to the final dungeon unless you have master proficiency in both arcana and crafting ON THE SAME PC.
I should have added “per rest”. And for heightened spells the repertoire is not so flexible with only 1 signature of each level.
Per rest, ok. But... It's exactly heightened spells that are the strength of spontaneous casters (on-level spells, too, though): with each new spell rank you have more and more choice for all of your highest spell slots. At 5th rank you have 8 spells to choose from. It's really a lot. Yes, not all spells heighten equally, but... we knew this when we chose our signatures, right?
The strength and the weakness, I’d say. The single signature of each level is nice, but cannot change (until level up or retraining) and for higher if you already used the signature one for that level you have to repeat spell in your repertoire. I.e. would you get Invisibility or Fly as signature? Hard choice sometimes. Signature works really well for blasting (i.e. Fireball or Magic Missile) but many utility spells only heighten 1 or 2 times.
And having a numerous repertoire is something good, those characters have the right to enjoy. Come from D&D 5E and the lack of Sorcerer known spells is annoying, cannot understand why to limit so much.
All this is very situational. Another example, would you get Knock for your repertoire? This moves to that I think prepared ones are really more associated and get more advantage from items, like scrolls or staves. I mean, using the Knock example, if you don’t get for your repertoire, you have to spend always the money of the scrolls, if you are prepared, and know entering in a location with doors, can prepare 2 Knock and wear some Knock scrolls, if required, but the first 2 uses are for free. And also the items can do the work of addition if required, i.e. you prepare 2 Fireballs, and wear a scroll with it. The Spontaneous directly could cast 3-4 Fireballs from the repertoire using 3rd level slots, the prepared could use the 2 prepared, and if required could use the scroll, wand or staff as replacement. For this addition wands and staves are obviously better as have daily uses.
Well not for staves as is like adding spells to your repertoire so it is equally useful. But in the case of scrolls and wands I think is better complement for prepared casters.
I don't really know how a caster ends up with 3/4 top slot spells that they can't use in an entire day. If that is an experience you have often, and the character is a wizard, I would strongly recommend talking to your GM about your experience, and then consider doing something like retraining your thesis into spell substitution, or even a different class or making a new character if you are finding the experience that frustrating.
Well, no retraining to such extent in PFS.
And how to end up like this - rather easily: Wall of Stone, Dispel Magic, Shadow Siphon and Stagnate Time. If you take Dispel and Siphon as a prepared, you need them as highest or at least highest-1 slot. Why those? Well, I thought that while fighting hordes of undead at 10th level there should be spellcasters, probably a lot and some of them bosses. Or at least some area damage magical effects would definitely appear. Not one caster, and no area magical damage effects at all. A lot of non-magical area damage though.
Then Stagnate Time - well, it was a failed experiment. It's not really a great spell, as you need to start your turn there, just entering area won't work, and so enemies can just run through. And anything happens only on fail, no effect at success at all. So you need several relatively stuck enemies. No such luck - and then the usual problem how to not hamper your melee allies. The result was no chance to cast it usefully.
And Wall of Stone of course works. So 1 in 4 useful highest slots.
I don't really know how a caster ends up with 3/4 top slot spells that they can't use in an entire day. If that is an experience you have often, and the character is a wizard, I would strongly recommend talking to your GM about your experience, and then consider doing something like retraining your thesis into spell substitution, or even a different class or making a new character if you are finding the experience that frustrating.
Well, no retraining to such extent in PFS.
And how to end up like this - rather easily: Wall of Stone, Dispel Magic, Shadow Siphon and Stagnate Time. If you take Dispel and Siphon as a prepared, you need them as highest or at least highest-1 slot. Why those? Well, I thought that while fighting hordes of undead at 10th level there should be spellcasters, probably a lot and some of them bosses. Or at least some area damage magical effects would definitely appear. Not one caster, and no area magical damage effects at all. A lot of non-magical area damage though.
Then Stagnate Time - well, it was a failed experiment. It's not really a great spell, as you need to start your turn there, just entering area won't work, and so enemies can just run through. And anything happens only on fail, no effect at success at all. So you need several relatively stuck enemies. No such luck - and then the usual problem how to not hamper your melee allies. The result was no chance to cast it usefully.
And Wall of Stone of course works. So 1 in 4 useful highest slots.
I mean. Stagnate time reminds me of the pattern line of spells. You want a martial there. Or your fellow caster should drop a confusion.
Our party had a lot of luck with scintillating pattern or vibrant pattern combined with stinking cloud. The monsters would flail away at one another incompetently with miss chances while being slowed. Meanwhile the party just focus-fired the ones who weren't confused.
The strength and the weakness, I’d say. The single signature of each level is nice, but cannot change (until level up or retraining) and for higher if you already used the signature one for that level you have to repeat spell in your repertoire. I.e. would you get Invisibility or Fly as signature? Hard choice sometimes. Signature works really well for blasting (i.e. Fireball or Magic Missile) but many utility spells only heighten 1 or 2 times.
And having a numerous repertoire is something good, those characters have the right to enjoy. Come from D&D 5E and the lack of Sorcerer known spells is annoying, cannot understand why to limit so much.
Yes, the game of switching known spontaneous spells is a bit irritating, but doable. Also remember you can 'lessen' signatures. Could be helpful sometimes.
Yes, dnd5 Sorcerer is detestable, I hated what they did to it and it's actually one of the reasons to play pf2 for me.
Also having utility spells as scroll is very good for spontaneous casters. And a lot of them are low-rank, and so cost very cheap later in a campaign. Concerning wands vs scrolls, people here cleverly observed that wands cost more then 10 times more than scrolls. So if you use the spell very rarely and would use it less than 10 times before it becomes absolete, you are better with scrolls. Also when you need several casts at once wands don't help.
The most utility for wands I can think is for a spell often used specially for prepared casters. It allows to save a prepared slot for that spell and prepare another instead, then cast it from the wand as replacement for that extra use. This doesn’t mean not preparing, as usually could need to use more than once, but can be more conservative and go shorter for that spell that the wand can fill.
Cat Fall is a great skill feat that makes Acrobatics a high value skill.
Absolutely, it was never in question. I almost always take it myself. And I did underestimate damage reduction a bit. But I also was too careful with height examples as 'bottomless chasms' (not really bottomless) and 'flying transports' really do exist in adventures. And that's thousands of feet, not hundreds.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
And any wizard player I've seen played always builds up Arcane. Unified Theory is an awesome skill feat. Makes life easier in a lot of ways though I hear some run it as only applying to magic, whereas my reading is anything that the Arcane skill can be used for including monster identification applies to that skill. How do you run that skill feat? Only for abilities like Spell Recognition or Magical shorthand or do you allow it for RK for monsters as well?
People have a good reason for that, the feat reads: "Whenever you use a skill action or a skill feat that requires a Nature, Occultism, or Religion check, depending on the magic tradition" Why wouldn't you do what it suggests and not upgrade it to just have all magical skills being replaced with legendary Arcana? You can, of course. And maybe it would be actually good to make it stronger (as Arcana doesn't really have anything else). Not to this degree probably though.
Dark_Schneider wrote:
Prepared usually cannot use all their slots, so it is mostly like if they have less, but in the other hand the top on tuning as you can spend a single spell slot instead a spell (of a repertoire or collection). You could have literally as many different spells as spell slots number.
Not arguing the first part, dead slots for prepared casters very much exist. I myself yesterday couldn't use 3 out of 4 top level slots on my wizard in fights at all. Not funny in the least. Or very funny remembering all the people here which persuade that prepared casters and wizards in particular are fine, excellent and...
It's not nearly as good if it applies only to magic.
See I have had my fair share of epic fights high above the ground where catfall is kinda meh. Not bad, but also it won't save you from splattering like feather fall will.
I used to be all in on everyone pumping acrobatics. Then I realized how many adventures wind up being "if you can't make the arcana check in the research subsystem you literally can't advance and you lose".
After that I started diversifying skills.
Are you playing something besides APs? I haven't run into a roadblock like this myself.
Paizo always seems to provide several options for resolution and someone in the party usually has one. We do have one player who really likes rogues and skills. So they spend a lot of their resources on skills and being the guy that can figure things out. Generally, everyone has one of the caster skills or something applicable.
We almost always have a rogue in the group with rare exception. This guy will take a level 2 feat like Acrobat Dedication to get Legendary acrobatics then focus his other skill ups on a mix of Stealth, Thievery, and a research skill or two while building up intel and wisdom some.
Then we like how Religion is more valuable as a skill now for dealing with haunts and certain other hazards as well as Rk for outsiders with some interesting skill feats. They seem to done a bit more with additional books to build up religion into an interesting skill.
And any wizard player I've seen played always builds up Arcane. Unified Theory is an awesome skill feat. Makes life easier in a lot of ways though I hear some run it as only applying to magic, whereas my reading is anything that the Arcane skill can be used for including monster identification applies to that skill. How do you run that skill feat? Only for abilities like Spell Recognition or Magical shorthand or do you allow it for RK for monsters as well?
Re flight: I do both. There are some modules with ridiculous heights. Home campaigns you can have...
I don't worry about falling. I played giantslayer in PF1 and by the level you get to the cloud castle, flight is very easy to come by. Feather fall was unimportant. We crushed that module's end encounter. I'm sure much tougher in PF2 designed using PF2 monsters.
I see. So Crafting and Arcane are one of the options. There are a lot more options for doing the job. Paizo rarely puts that narrow a path forward.
I don't worry about falling. I played giantslayer in PF1 and by the level you get to the cloud castle, flight is very easy to come by. Feather fall was unimportant. We crushed that module's end encounter. I'm sure much tougher in PF2 designed using PF2 monsters.
I see. So Crafting and Arcane are one of the options. There are a lot more options for doing the job. Paizo rarely puts that narrow a path forward.
Giantslayer:
Unfortunately, getting knocked prone while airborne means that flight doesn't do you a whole lot of good in the "don't get splattered" department.
As for the other thing...no, actually. There is one way forward:
Extinction Curse:
Here's the module text, from "The Apocalypse Prophet". I guess Religion is an option too, but you still need to have master proficiency in a PAIR of skills:
"A hero can identify the carving as an inactive portal
with a successful DC 30 check to Identify Magic. On
a critical success, or with a successful DC 35 Crafting
check once the portal has been identified, a hero
realizes the portal is broken and must be repaired
before it can be used. Actually restoring the portal’s
function requires a hero with master proficiency
in both Crafting and either Arcana or Religion
to Repair the portal sufficiently to restore 200 Hit
Points to it.
Once repaired, the portal activates whenever
a creature bearing the titles from at least four
trials approaches the archway, the space within the
arch flickering and shimmering into a veil of light. The
portal remains open for 1 minute, during which any
creature can pass through to be transported instantly
to a spot in front of the main gates of the Verdant
Beacon at area N1. As this teleportation effect was
created by Aroden himself, it is not subject to the
general complications that other teleportation effects
are subject to in the Kortos Mounts."
There's no way forward without having those proficiencies. Your GM would have to make something up for you to get to the Verdant Beacon without doing this.
For the last, the heroes are not stuck : "Should the heroes prove unable to [do the rolls mentioned], they can continue along the narrow path..." (page 45, text near the knee/boot of the statue)
For me it's not close that spontaneous casters are better than prepared casters. Spontaneous casters never waste spell slots and in pf2e slots are much more precious than in pf1e
For the last, the heroes are not stuck : "Should the heroes prove unable to [do the rolls mentioned], they can continue along the narrow path..." (page 45, text near the knee/boot of the statue)
Oh really? Thanks! Our group totally missed that (we got all 12 titles anyway so it didn't matter, but we were horrified at the artisan's trial)
For the last, the heroes are not stuck : "Should the heroes prove unable to [do the rolls mentioned], they can continue along the narrow path..." (page 45, text near the knee/boot of the statue)
I've been playing Paizo APs so long, I would be surprised if they didn't provide some alternate means while also providing a means to allow characters with certain skills or abilities a chance to shine.
It's why they're so good at adventure design. They know to cover a lot of bases with solutions.
It's one of the reasons I focus on combat balance. I know Paizo will provide a lot of ways to do something out of combat and encourage the creativity of the players in RP or exploration/downtime as it is called now. Most DMs and adventure designers do things this way as well as experienced DMs and players.
For the last, the heroes are not stuck : "Should the heroes prove unable to [do the rolls mentioned], they can continue along the narrow path..." (page 45, text near the knee/boot of the statue)
I've been playing Paizo APs so long, I would be surprised if they didn't provide some alternate means while also providing a means to allow characters with certain skills or abilities a chance to shine.
It's why they're so good at adventure design. They know to cover a lot of bases with solutions.
It's one of the reasons I focus on combat balance. I know Paizo will provide a lot of ways to do something out of combat and encourage the creativity of the players in RP or exploration/downtime as it is called now. Most DMs and adventure designers do things this way as well as experienced DMs and players.
Yeah I have come across situations like the above one (in playing an AP... not because I misread the module...) enough that I do sometimes question out of combat balancing. But I don't disagree that it's generally okay. It certainly EXISTS. Which is more than many publishers can claim, to Paizo's credit.
Granted I haven't played a great many tabletop systems, but I think 2E's prepared casting is the worst magic system I've ever played
Some magic systems that are significantly worse:
The Riddle of Steel - An RPG with an incredibly detailed combat dueling system that has a magic chapter at that end that's basically completely unrelated to anything else in the book. It's also unwieldly and not fun.
Iron Heroes. - So unusable in the revised printing the magic section is literally copy/pasted from a different RPG.
Revised Iron Heroes wrote:
The layout of this chapter now takes a sudden departure from what
has been previously presented. Because the magic system originally
included with Iron Heroes was not very well implimented, it has been
replaced with Green Ronin's True Sorcery system.
D&D 3.0. Casting is supremely dominant over all other options. As an example Haste provides you with an extra standard action every round, including the round you cast it. Most NPC stat blocks that have access to haste have, cast haste and then do their normal thing as their round 1 routine.
Obviously there's a damning with faint praise argument but wanted some examples of truly bad systems and 1 bit of the past that PF2 is definitely an improvement over.
Granted I haven't played a great many tabletop systems, but I think 2E's prepared casting is the worst magic system I've ever played
Some magic systems that are significantly worse:
The Riddle of Steel - An RPG with an incredibly detailed combat dueling system that has a magic chapter at that end that's basically completely unrelated to anything else in the book. It's also unwieldly and not fun.
Iron Heroes. - So unusable in the revised printing the magic section is literally copy/pasted from a different RPG.
Revised Iron Heroes wrote:
The layout of this chapter now takes a sudden departure from what
has been previously presented. Because the magic system originally
included with Iron Heroes was not very well implimented, it has been
replaced with Green Ronin's True Sorcery system.
D&D 3.0. Casting is supremely dominant over all other options. As an example Haste provides you with an extra standard action every round, including the round you cast it. Most NPC stat blocks that have access to haste have, cast haste and then do their normal thing as their round 1 routine.
Obviously there's a damning with faint praise argument but wanted some examples of truly bad systems and 1 bit of the past that PF2 is definitely an improvement over.
Seens to me like the issue always comes in making combat "realistic" and then not thinking about how magic should be you know... MAGICAL.
3.0 yeah I have no idea what they were thinking. Also I think the best one has been from Paizo in PF1, yeah you have some spells that are a too good (food riddance), but the biggest complain from martials was just lack of out of combat things (fixed by just making skills better and reducing feat taxes).
To me the transition from 1e to 2e made prepared casting less fun and spontaneous casting more fun.
In 1e prepared casters had enough slots to get a good selection of spells and then decide which ones should have multiple casts. In 2e since total spell slots have been halved, you have to choose between having a wide selection and having multiple casts. So that's 1 more way you can choose "wrong" in a spellcasting style that requires you to predict your day in advance.
By contrast spontaneous casters gained signature spells, which effectively doubles their selection of high rank spells. Sure the prepared caster can prepare the exact perfect spell if they plan right, but with twice as many spells to choose from the spontaneous caster doesn't need the perfect spell, they'll have something that works.
3.0 yeah I have no idea what they were thinking. Also I think the best one has been from Paizo in PF1, yeah you have some spells that are a too good (food riddance), but the biggest complain from martials was just lack of out of combat things (fixed by just making skills better and reducing feat taxes).
That was certainly A complaint from martials. But hardly the only one.
Others include:
1. Martials having to chew through hundreds of hp while the caster only had to deal with 1 (saving throw vs save or suck).
2. A buffed caster being a lot stronger than a non-buffed martial in all the things that martials did in combat (CoDzilla). Also greater invisibility, flight, mirror image, and stoneskin making the caster impossible to hurt while the juicy martial is just there in the paper-thin defense of full plate.
3. See #1, but what do you mean you get saves? (Wall spells, solid fog, etc)
4. Similar to #2, the caster having a better fighter than the fighter because they can summon something stronger than the fighter. While still being able to do their caster thing.
5. Caster damage ignoring AC because it targeted touch AC
6. Casters possessing all the hard counters to a lot of monster abilities. For instance protection from energy being one of the few ways to comprehensively negate dragon breath weapons (no, scrolls aren't a good way to do it, they don't have nearly as high a caster level), dispel magic negating a whole range of spells (no, scrolls again don't help, it scales on CL), dismissal instantly defeating entire categories of enemies, etc.
So it wasn't an issue of one or two spells being too good. I can think of 30 off the top of my head:
Technically that's 38 (if you count each summon monster spell separately), but who's counting? And there are dozens more spells that aren't exactly broken but are still save or sucks, for instance: confusion, flesh to stone, black tentacles, holy word (with any CL boosters whatsoever) and so on.
Really, I could go on all day. Spellcasting in PF 1E is NOT where anyone should be looking for balance.
Granted I haven't played a great many tabletop systems, but I think 2E's prepared casting is the worst magic system I've ever played
Do you think you could give us the reasons that make you feel so ?
I play a Witch in PFS and I have not felt it was that awful.
It's mostly the fact that spells no longer scale with caster level, so if you want a given spell to be effective, you have prepare it in a higher level slot. Turns the whole thing into a bookkeeping nightmare. It's like they took 5e casting and added all the worst aspects of PF1 casting to make something exponentially worse than both.
Flexible spellcasting makes it better, but it's borderline insulting (hyperbole, yes) that I have to spend a feat AND sacrifice spells-per-day in order fix a bad spell preparation system. Flexible spellcasting should just be an option by default.
Not to mention that magic in general is less impactful than PF1
Granted I haven't played a great many tabletop systems, but I think 2E's prepared casting is the worst magic system I've ever played
Do you think you could give us the reasons that make you feel so ?
I play a Witch in PFS and I have not felt it was that awful.
It's mostly the fact that spells no longer scale with caster level, so if you want a given spell to be effective, you have prepare it in a higher level slot. Turns the whole thing into a bookkeeping nightmare. It's like they took 5e casting and added all the worst aspects of PF1 casting to make something exponentially worse than both.
Flexible spellcasting makes it better, but it's borderline insulting (hyperbole, yes) that I have to spend a feat AND sacrifice spells-per-day in order fix a bad spell preparation system. Flexible spellcasting should just be an option by default.
Not to mention that magic in general is less impactful than PF1
These are all fair, yep.
Though it's worth noting that spells do scale with caster level in PF 2E, just not in the same way as PF 1E. In PF 1E, damage and duration scaled with CL. In PF 2E, it's DC.
You can cast a 2nd level hideous laughter at level 20 without the only effect being that the monster keels over laughing...at your hilariously low save DC. Which is what would happen in PF 1E. Because DC was calculated using spell level and not character level.
To me the transition from 1e to 2e made prepared casting less fun and spontaneous casting more fun.
In 1e prepared casters had enough slots to get a good selection of spells and then decide which ones should have multiple casts. In 2e since total spell slots have been halved, you have to choose between having a wide selection and having multiple casts. So that's 1 more way you can choose "wrong" in a spellcasting style that requires you to predict your day in advance.
By contrast spontaneous casters gained signature spells, which effectively doubles their selection of high rank spells. Sure the prepared caster can prepare the exact perfect spell if they plan right, but with twice as many spells to choose from the spontaneous caster doesn't need the perfect spell, they'll have something that works.
That makes me think indeed that maybe prepared should have some more slots as compensation. Maybe only one, being a 5-slot (compared to the 4-slots Sorcerer that is the spontaneous pure spellcaster), but could be enough.
Clerics can have many with the extra 1 + Cha but are only Heal/Harm.
3.0 yeah I have no idea what they were thinking. Also I think the best one has been from Paizo in PF1, yeah you have some spells that are a too good (food riddance), but the biggest complain from martials was just lack of out of combat things (fixed by just making skills better and reducing feat taxes).
That was certainly A complaint from martials. But hardly the only one.
Others include:
1. Martials having to chew through hundreds of hp while the caster only had to deal with 1 (saving throw vs save or suck).
2. A buffed caster being a lot stronger than a non-buffed martial in all the things that martials did in combat (CoDzilla). Also greater invisibility, flight, mirror image, and stoneskin making the caster impossible to hurt while the juicy martial is just there in the paper-thin defense of full plate.
3. See #1, but what do you mean you get saves? (Wall spells, solid fog, etc)
4. Similar to #2, the caster having a better fighter than the fighter because they can summon something stronger than the fighter. While still being able to do their caster thing.
5. Caster damage ignoring AC because it targeted touch AC
6. Casters possessing all the hard counters to a lot of monster abilities. For instance protection from energy being one of the few ways to comprehensively negate dragon breath weapons (no, scrolls aren't a good way to do it, they don't have nearly as high a caster level), dispel magic negating a whole range of spells (no, scrolls again don't help, it scales on CL), dismissal instantly defeating entire categories of enemies, etc.
So it wasn't an issue of one or two spells being too good. I can think of 30 off the top of my head:
Let it be known that I did not start this, nor that I advocated for bringing back broken stuff (I said good riddance to it in the very post he is quoting).
That out of the way.
1. Martials hardly complained about enemies having too much HP, the biggest complain on that was that enemies had too little.
2. Why the heck are you comparing a fully buffed caster to an unbuffed martial? That is like complaining that someone is using a greatsword while the other is just using their fists. Also all the spells you mentioned are ended with a simple antimagic field (which are extremely cheap scrolls for what they do).
3. Why are you talking about walls (affects everyone) and fogs (easy to counter, Goz masks anyone?)?
4. Casters were never better martials then the martials. Clerics got close in defense because armor, but otherwise lacked any of the support. Druid could get close to the flurry monk, but again lacked any of the support. Also note how both of these are still in PF2. Also no summons were not better than martials, their benefit is that they were effectively free attacks.
5. I have never seen anyone complain about Touch AC outside of complaints that Firearms should not hit touch AC. Which you magnificently and conveniently forgot all martials had easy access to firearms.
6. Now I know you are mistaking things. Minimum protection for Protection from Energy is 60 damage, max is 120. Yeah its nice but also just get a potion of it or resist energy.
That system had 3,491 spells and yet the 38 you though of that were "too good" were just okay. If "just okay" is broken to you I don't know what to tell you.
Finally, there is a very big difference between "hey look at these interesting effects you made 5-15 years ago use them as inspiration" and "copy broken mechanics word for word". I don't think anyone would complain if feats based on the various class archetypes came back. Like you know Chronomancer, Sword Binder, Mongrel Mage, Wildblooded, Arrowsong Minstrel, Archeologist, Channeler of the Unknown, Herald Caller, etc.
Granted I haven't played a great many tabletop systems, but I think 2E's prepared casting is the worst magic system I've ever played
Do you think you could give us the reasons that make you feel so ?
I play a Witch in PFS and I have not felt it was that awful.
It's mostly the fact that spells no longer scale with caster level, so if you want a given spell to be effective, you have prepare it in a higher level slot. Turns the whole thing into a bookkeeping nightmare. It's like they took 5e casting and added all the worst aspects of PF1 casting to make something exponentially worse than both.
Flexible spellcasting makes it better, but it's borderline insulting (hyperbole, yes) that I have to spend a feat AND sacrifice spells-per-day in order fix a bad spell preparation system. Flexible spellcasting should just be an option by default.
Not to mention that magic in general is less impactful than PF1
These are all fair, yep.
Though it's worth noting that spells do scale with caster level in PF 2E, just not in the same way as PF 1E. In PF 1E, damage and duration scaled with CL. In PF 2E, it's DC.
You can cast a 2nd level hideous laughter at level 20 without the only effect being that the monster keels over laughing...at your hilariously low save DC. Which is what would happen in PF 1E. Because DC was calculated using spell level and not character level.
Before low level debuffs had little effect while damage and buffs were usable. Now buffs are the only ones useable, because debuffs are expected to fail.
Granted I haven't played a great many tabletop systems, but I think 2E's prepared casting is the worst magic system I've ever played
Do you think you could give us the reasons that make you feel so ?
I play a Witch in PFS and I have not felt it was that awful.
It's mostly the fact that spells no longer scale with caster level, so if you want a given spell to be effective, you have prepare it in a higher level slot. Turns the whole thing into a bookkeeping nightmare. It's like they took 5e casting and added all the worst aspects of PF1 casting to make something exponentially worse than both.
Flexible spellcasting makes it better, but it's borderline insulting (hyperbole, yes) that I have to spend a feat AND sacrifice spells-per-day in order fix a bad spell preparation system. Flexible spellcasting should just be an option by default.
Not to mention that magic in general is less impactful than PF1
These are all fair, yep.
Though it's worth noting that spells do scale with caster level in PF 2E, just not in the same way as PF 1E. In PF 1E, damage and duration scaled with CL. In PF 2E, it's DC.
You can cast a 2nd level hideous laughter at level 20 without the only effect being that the monster keels over laughing...at your hilariously low save DC. Which is what would happen in PF 1E. Because DC was calculated using spell level and not character level.
Before low level debuffs had little effect while damage and buffs were usable. Now buffs are the only ones useable, because debuffs are expected to fail.
Let it be known that I did not start this, nor that I advocated for bringing back broken stuff (I said good riddance to it in the very post he is quoting).
That out of the way.
1. Martials hardly complained about enemies having too much HP, the biggest complain on that was that enemies had too little.
2. Why the heck are you comparing a fully buffed caster to an unbuffed martial? That is like complaining that someone is using a greatsword while the other is just using their fists. Also all the spells you mentioned are ended with a simple antimagic field (which are extremely cheap scrolls for what they do).
3. Why are you talking about walls (affects everyone) and fogs (easy to counter, Goz masks anyone?)?
4. Casters were never better martials then the martials. Clerics got close in defense because armor, but otherwise lacked any of the support. Druid could get close to the flurry monk, but again lacked any of the support. Also note how both of these are still in PF2. Also no summons were not better than martials, their benefit is that they were effectively free attacks.
5. I have never seen anyone complain about Touch AC outside of complaints that Firearms should not hit touch AC. Which you magnificently and conveniently forgot all martials had easy access to firearms.
6. Now I know you are mistaking things. Minimum protection for Protection from Energy is 60 damage, max is 120. Yeah its nice but also just get a potion of it or resist energy.
That system had 3,491 spells and yet the 38 you though of that were "too good" were just okay. If "just okay" is broken to you I don't know what to tell you.
Finally, there is a very big difference between "hey look at these interesting effects you made 5-15 years ago use them as inspiration" and "copy broken mechanics word for word". I don't think anyone would complain if feats based on the various class archetypes came back. Like you know Chronomancer, Sword Binder, Mongrel Mage, Wildblooded, Arrowsong Minstrel, Archeologist, Channeler of the Unknown, Herald Caller, etc.
You use the PF1 Flurry Monk as a standard of powerful martial ?
The one that was using the ability nicknamed "Flurry of Misses" ?
There are enough different kinds of casters that it isn't like anyone who dislikes one type of casting is somehow locked out of playing a fun and dynamic character in PF2. Maybe some people feel like it is a burden that only prepared casters get to have WIS as a Key stat, and those classes are so limited in number of spell slots that flexible casting is extra painful...but that all feels very intentional to me in a way that makes the game feel more balanced.
PF1 style damage increasing with character level would be way over the top powerful because of +/- 10 crits. In PF1, spells eventually just did half damage most of the time, but would never cross over into completely useless because getting critical success on a save was difficult. In PF2, spells 2 to even 4 ranks below top slots at the highest levels can still be useful damage spells for targeting weaknesses, because of how much weaknesses scale with level.
I very much like that my wizard can always heighten any spell they can cast if they want to. With spell substitution, I usually will keep 1 dispel magic in a top slot or top rank -1 slot because it is such a useful spell, but I can just swap a new one back in later in the day if I burn it, so I don't really ever have to do more than dedicate one slot to it. I agree that dispel magic is probably the best signature spell in PF2 for spontaneous casters. It is useful against martial characters using magical items as well as spell casters buffing themselves. The biggest complication for using it against martial characters is that GMs are not given easy tools for separating what damage belongs to the weapon or what bonuses apply to armor, but you can really mess a NPC up by dispelling magic on their resilient armor, especially if the level of the armor falls into a gap where it is more than a rank behind the spell being cast.
I think the biggest problem with high level prepared casters is just that it takes a lot of work to pick spells everyday and the player themselves has to really know their spell list and what spells will be good in each situation. The thing is, I like playing that mini-game, and am glad that there are some classes that get to play it. I would have had to spend more downtime than we had in my Age of Ashes campaign for my cleric to be able to dominate the undead when we needed to, be the ultimate wilderness guide that was able to help the party move through the jungle more than 2x as fast as normal, and utilize that to really mess with enemies trying to reinforce positions on the map, be great at gathering information and scouting towns when we were in cities, and then being ready to fight the different factions that you tend to run into many of the same creatures while fighting. It was a great play experience.
Let it be known that I did not start this, nor that I advocated for bringing back broken stuff (I said good riddance to it in the very post he is quoting).
She, actually. But yes, I don't want to misrepresent you, you totally said that! (nor do I want this to turn into a fight, it's an academic discussion at this point).
Quote:
1. Martials hardly complained about enemies having too much HP, the biggest complain on that was that enemies had too little.
2. Why the heck are you comparing a fully buffed caster to an unbuffed martial? That is like complaining that someone is using a greatsword while the other is just using their fists. Also all the spells you mentioned are ended with a simple antimagic field (which are extremely cheap scrolls for what they do).
3. Why are you talking about walls (affects everyone) and fogs (easy to counter, Goz masks anyone?)?
4. Casters were never better martials then the martials. Clerics got close in defense because armor, but otherwise lacked any of the support. Druid could get close to the flurry monk, but again lacked any of the support. Also note how both of these are still in PF2. Also no summons were not better than martials, their benefit is that they were effectively free attacks.
5. I have never seen anyone complain about Touch AC outside of complaints that Firearms should not hit touch AC. Which you magnificently and conveniently forgot all martials had easy access to firearms.
6. Now I know you are mistaking things. Minimum protection for Protection from Energy is 60 damage, max is 120. Yeah its nice but also just get a potion of it or resist energy.
1. Martials did deal a lot of damage, but they still had to deal with enemies having an HP bar. Casters didn't, once you dominated the boss, game over. It would be the equivalent of martials inflicting stunned on a hit with no saving throw.
2. You might or might not be familiar with CoDzilla (cleric or druid zilla), I don't want to condescend or talk over your head by assuming either way. Yes, the martial is unbuffed. Because things like wild shape or Righteous Might have a target of (self), and therefore the buff stacking is vastly more effective on the caster than on the martial. Also because the martial cannot natively access those buffs, so it's sort of ridiculous to compare a buffed martial to the caster DOING the buffing and saying "oh yeah martials are totally fine, they...need a caster to be as effective as a caster". That's just a poor comparison.
3. ...what? Gas masks do not protect you from solid fog. It isn't inhaled, it just massively murders your move speed when you try to go through it. And the reason you create a wall of force is to cut encounters into more manageable chunks so that you can concentrate ALL of your PCs against only a portion of the enemy (military historians and strategists call this "defeat in detail") or to lock enemies into incendiary clouds or things like that. That's how battlefield control works.
4. That depends on the summon. And on the martial, for that matter.
5. I do not think "this random exotic weapon that many campaigns will ban because they're not medieval" is something I overlooked, really. Especially when there's not a lot of native support for non-gunslinger classes using them. They're niche as heck.
6. Fair, though double protection is solid. And this doesn't address the issue of all the other things I brought up: dispel magic, dismissal, banishment, etc.
Quote:
Before low level debuffs had little effect while damage and buffs were usable. Now buffs are the only ones useable, because debuffs are expected to fail.
Damage was not usable at anything approaching competency. The opposition was extremely likely to save against it and almost all damaging spells had caps (10d6 for fireball at CL 10, for instance). Damage STOPPED SCALING. Also, almost all the monsters had laundry lists of resistances that essentially negated the damage of low level spells (for instance, a planetar that succeeded against a 3rd level fireball would take 35/2 - 10 = 7 damage. Woooo).
And PF 2E buffs aren't expecting the enemy always saves. They have an effect on success. They also have very decent effects on failure. If you're always fighting up-level bosses, yes, they're expected to fail. The same is true in PF 1E, you try to land a 3rd level stinking cloud against a level 16 boss like a planetar while at, say, level 13. Your DC is what? 10 + 3 (spell level) + 2 (spell focus and greater spell focus) + 10 (having 30 Int, which is by no means guaranteed) = 25? So the darn thing saves on a 6? Plus you have to overcome SR 27? It's theoretically a thing you can do, but so is landing a debuff in the same circumstances in PF 2E.
That system had 3,491 spells and yet the 38 you though of that were "too good" were just okay. If "just okay" is broken to you I don't know what to tell you.
Those 38 were all in core (except excellent enclosure). I pulled 38 off the top of my head. If I wanted to I could come up with quite a few more...
Planar binding (lesser, normal, greater variations), planar ally (lesser, normal, greater), magic jar, create demiplane (setting planar traits is horrifying both in and out of combat), trap the soul, time stop (combined with delayed blast fireball or pretty much any battlefield control), blasphemy, prismatic wall, prismatic sphere, do I need to go on? Those are still mostly core...
Also. Mage's disjunction and gate are "just okay"? That's an opinion that I must admit I do not and probably will never share. "Implode your magic items" and "rip all your buffs off with no CL check" always seemed somewhat more than "just okay" to me, as did "you summoned HOW many solars?"
As did "no save, the monster is locked in a corner until I say otherwise" (wall of force) or "oh, the boss failed a Will save. They are now my pet for 15 days, renewable as necessary with more castings, which I can command them to willingly fail the save on" (dominate person/monster).
I'm happy to go into detail about why I put those spells on the list like I did, but this isn't the time or place for it. As we've both said - PF 1E spellcasting...had issues. Was it fun? Absolutely! But it did have issues.
This is why I mentioned the Good Riddance part, which you acknolwedged. Glad that your issue is not with the just okay spells but the actual issue spells. In that point we agree.
Martials had ways of permalocking enemies. From Monk's Stunning Fist to the high level Stunning Critical (which even if you passed were still staggered). But I get your pointsome save or suck were bad, better illustration of it is Chains of Light which is gross (glad its gone).
Yes I know of CoDzilla, which is why it erks me that its Wizards who get nerfed by the way spell casting was made while those monstrocities are allowed to run wild and Bard gets buffed. Those three is why I believe people don't see the issue with the way spellcasting was designed in PF2 as their class features let's them ignore all the issues.
Goz masks prevents the vision penalty (sad that it was nerfed), the mobility issue is solved with a ring of freedom of movement. Wall are useful yes I agree, never denied it: But walls also don't do much in the first place.
You cannot go putting the best version of something against the worst, that is not a useful comparison. That comparison is only useful if the best of something is equivalent to the worst of something else: Like how prepared casters in PF2 are at best equal to the worst spontaneous character (a bit of exaggeration but you get the point).
As for firearms, Golarion was never a medieval setting so I don't understand why people still think that it is. As for native support all you need was proficiency in it really, maybe a few levels in Gunslinger. Still miffed that the made support for them worse in PF2 but a las.
Dispel is something anyone can do, specially back then. As for banishment could you believe that they actually both nerfed and buffed it? Less chances of it working and if done vs a mook they have to wait a week.
For the damage vs save thing. Half of 10d6 (avg 35) is 17.5 compared to half of 5d6 (avg) which is 8.75. Resistance 10 blocks most but not all of the first, it outright eliminates the second.
By the same comparison. Losing 1 action when the enemy passes is a better effect than losing 0 actions. Which is why PF1 Slow was not used, but PF2 Slow is nearly univerally used.
The choice of damage, duration, area, and DC scaling might seem insignificant. But its the difference between what is "you can use any spell level", "you can only use the top 2 spell levels", and "this is useless".
Granted I haven't played a great many tabletop systems, but I think 2E's prepared casting is the worst magic system I've ever played
Do you think you could give us the reasons that make you feel so ?
I play a Witch in PFS and I have not felt it was that awful.
It's mostly the fact that spells no longer scale with caster level, so if you want a given spell to be effective, you have prepare it in a higher level slot. Turns the whole thing into a bookkeeping nightmare. It's like they took 5e casting and added all the worst aspects of PF1 casting to make something exponentially worse than both.
Flexible spellcasting makes it better, but it's borderline insulting (hyperbole, yes) that I have to spend a feat AND sacrifice spells-per-day in order fix a bad spell preparation system. Flexible spellcasting should just be an option by default.
Not to mention that magic in general is less impactful than PF1
Yep. I'm kind of surprised too given the number of sharp design minds at Paizo. It's pretty easy to see Spontaneous is better in PF2 with heightening and spell scaling working as it does.
Goz masks prevents the vision penalty (sad that it was nerfed), the mobility issue is solved with a ring of freedom of movement. Wall are useful yes I agree, never denied it: But walls also don't do much in the first place.
Walls were still pretty scary, though. "Lock the monsters behind a virtually indestructible barricade while you murder their buddies" was exceptionally effective, and it had no save.
Rings of freedom of movement were both mandatory and expensive, so it definitely depends on level of play. I agree at high level it was manageable. More to the point, though, the MONSTERS didn't have them, and since PvP isn't something I saw a lot of (or monsters casting solid fog, really)...it was sort of OP when you as a PC cast it. But yeah solid fog was far from the worst spell in the game (especially after it was justifiably nerfed in the transition from 3.5 -> PF 1E)
Quote:
Martials had ways of permalocking enemies. From Monk's Stunning Fist to the high level Stunning Critical (which even if you passed were still staggered). But I get your pointsome save or suck were bad, better illustration of it is Chains of Light which is gross (glad its gone).
Chains of light...they still got to use their full Dex bonus on the resaves, actually:
It was rude, but not much more so than hold monster. Which was, admittedly, still pretty rude.
Quote:
As for firearms, Golarion was never a medieval setting so I don't understand why people still think that it is. As for native support all you need was proficiency in it really, maybe a few levels in Gunslinger. Still miffed that the made support for them worse in PF2 but a las.
Firearms...it's true, but there's a reason Gunslinger and Inventor are Uncommon in PF 2E. It's sort of a crapshoot if you get them allowed. Sometimes, but not always.
Quote:
Yes I know of CoDzilla, which is why it erks me that its Wizards who get nerfed by the way spell casting was made while those monstrocities are allowed to run wild and Bard gets buffed. Those three is why I believe people don't see the issue with the way spellcasting was designed in PF2 as their class features let's them ignore all the issues.
I wouldn't necessarily say that CoDzilla still exists, actually. I agree that bard and cleric are more powerful than wizard, but with the demise of buff stacking (along the lines of Righteous Might + Divine Power + Magic Vestment + Heroism + Shield of Faith) clerics can't stomp all over martials like they used to. Likewise, flame strike got hit over the head with a huge nerfbat, preventing cleric blasting from ever approaching wizard/sorcerer/druid/psychic blasting. Ditto druids - they don't get Wild Shape by default, and they don't get huge ability score increases like they used to from Wild Shape.
So while I agree that wizard isn't as strong as some of the old classes, they ALL got a major decrease in power that makes them vastly less problematic.
For the damage vs save thing. Half of 10d6 (avg 35) is 17.5 compared to half of 5d6 (avg) which is 8.75. Resistance 10 blocks most but not all of the first, it outright eliminates the second.
By the same comparison. Losing 1 action when the enemy passes is a better effect than losing 0 actions. Which is why PF1 Slow was not used, but PF2 Slow is nearly univerally used.
The choice of damage, duration, area, and DC scaling might seem insignificant. But its the difference between what is "you can use any spell level", "you can only use the top 2 spell levels", and "this is useless".
In the first case you're also going up against SR, don't forget that. Adds anywhere from a 20% to a 70% failure chance (a planetar has SR 27 and you're level 13, so with spell penetration, an orange ioun stone, and greater spell penetration you're looking at what, +18 to your caster level check? 40% fail chance). And really. If you're dealing 8 points of damage with a standard action in PF 1E at level 13...you've already lost. But anyway, I'd argue it's mostly just a different paradigm.
For instance, in PF 1E, I would stock my low-level slots with utility and buff spells. I had to rely on high level slots to do relevant offense.
Now, I can stock them with utility, buffs, AND debuffs like slow, confusion, and the like. It's much nicer. And I now have cantrips, so I don't care about stocking up on damaging spells in low-level slots (except scorching ray or magic missile, which I can cast with a single action).
Granted I haven't played a great many tabletop systems, but I think 2E's prepared casting is the worst magic system I've ever played
Do you think you could give us the reasons that make you feel so ?
I play a Witch in PFS and I have not felt it was that awful.
It's mostly the fact that spells no longer scale with caster level, so if you want a given spell to be effective, you have prepare it in a higher level slot. Turns the whole thing into a bookkeeping nightmare. It's like they took 5e casting and added all the worst aspects of PF1 casting to make something exponentially worse than both.
Flexible spellcasting makes it better, but it's borderline insulting (hyperbole, yes) that I have to spend a feat AND sacrifice spells-per-day in order fix a bad spell preparation system. Flexible spellcasting should just be an option by default.
Not to mention that magic in general is less impactful than PF1
Yep. I'm kind of surprised too given the number of sharp design minds at Paizo. It's pretty easy to see Spontaneous is better in PF2 with heightening and spell scaling working as it does.
Would it be better if we did not have a few excellent spells that Spontaneous casters can just know to cast again and again ?
I feel that Prepared would be better if they could actually profit from having access to a far wider array of spells to fill their slots.
It's like the number of spells in the Arcane list. It's not because there are more that people will not always choose the same few.
I agree that dispel magic is probably the best signature spell in PF2 for spontaneous casters. It is useful against martial characters using magical items as well as spell casters buffing themselves. The biggest complication for using it against martial characters is that GMs are not given easy tools for separating what damage belongs to the weapon or what bonuses apply to armor, but you can really mess a NPC up by dispelling magic on their resilient armor, especially if the level of the armor falls into a gap where it is more than a rank behind the spell being cast.
Ehm. Dispel doesn't work like that. It works against spells, very tentatively against other 'active' discrete magic effects (though I suspect a lot of GMs wouldn't allow that) and some effects which specifically include Dispel as a countermeasure (plot ones, magical traps). It definitely doesn't work against worn/held - attended magic items directly: 'Targets 1 spell effect or unattended magic item'.
What you describe absolutely can be done: Disjunction. 9th rank. Uncommon.
Ah, you are right. I had GM do this to us as a party and it was brutal. I think I even remember now someone trying to bring up the unattended thing and the GM deciding that meant actively held. I retract its usefulness against martial opponents unless they are getting magical buffs.
Ah, you are right. I had GM do this to us as a party and it was brutal. I think I even remember now someone trying to bring up the unattended thing and the GM deciding that meant actively held. I retract its usefulness against martial opponents unless they are getting magical buffs.
Ouch Ouch Ouch...
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Dispel Magic is ok as a sig spell. I usually choose invis as a 2nd level sig spell. 4th level invis is amazing.
But yes, Dispel is still very useful. And is worth having to at least feel like a real 'professional' spellcaster: they should make spells and unmake them too.
Ah, you are right. I had GM do this to us as a party and it was brutal. I think I even remember now someone trying to bring up the unattended thing and the GM deciding that meant actively held. I retract its usefulness against martial opponents unless they are getting magical buffs.
Ouch Ouch Ouch...
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Dispel Magic is ok as a sig spell. I usually choose invis as a 2nd level sig spell. 4th level invis is amazing.
But yes, Dispel is still very useful. And is worth having to at least feel like a real 'professional' spellcaster: they should make spells and unmake them too.
I loved dispel magic in PF1. I used it a lot. Stripping someone of their buffs while hitting them with a powerful spell is a great tactic.
Not something I bother with in PF2 with the high counteract checks for major caster enemies and there aren't too many buffs I'd bother to strip to hit someone with a spell.
Even in my system where we use 5E casting, I tried using dispel magic to strip a dominate off a PC. The counteract checks failing is not real fun.
Not saying dispel magic is entirely useless, but it's a lot harder to use effectively in this edition against opponents or situations you need it the most. Opponent caster DCs are real high in the fights where the brutal spells are hitting your party.
Be a lot cooler if dispel was innately one action and you could do it with just the resource expenditure and the counteract check, which makes it hard enough.
If you were not 3+ points behind enemy casters Dispel would be much better. (2 from NPC casters using boosted numbers, and 1+ from level).
I maintain it depends on the enemy caster. For instance, let's look at some statblocks I randomly pulled off AoN and their save dcs compared to that of a full caster. Plus the value for a "high" save DC from the monster creator:
Acolyte of Nethys: DC 17, level 1 creature. A level 1 PC has DC 17. High DC for a level 1 monster is 17.
Mage for hire: DC 20, level 3 creature. A level 3 PC has DC 19. High DC for a level 3 monster is 20.
Demonologist: DC 26, level 7 creature. A level 7 PC has DC 25. High DC for a level 7 monster is 25.
Tempest sun mage: DC 30, level 11 creature. A level 11 PC has DC 30. High DC for a level 11 monster is 30.
Ice devil: DC 33, level 13 creature. A level 13 PC has DC 32. High DC for a level 13 monster is 33.
Cornugon: DC 36, level 16 creature. A level 16 PC has DC 37. High DC for a level 16 monster is 37.
Pit fiend: DC 45, level 20 creature. A level 20 PC has DC 45. High DC for a level 20 monster is 42.
So yeah I don't buy the "all monsters have higher save DC than wizards" argument. They're pretty even, actually, both in terms of some real creatures and the monster guidelines. Sure higher level monsters have higher numbers, but only by around +1 or so per level like you said.
If you were not 3+ points behind enemy casters Dispel would be much better. (2 from NPC casters using boosted numbers, and 1+ from level).
I maintain it depends on the enemy caster. For instance, let's look at some statblocks I randomly pulled off AoN and their save dcs compared to that of a full caster. Plus the value for a "high" save DC from the monster creator:
Acolyte of Nethys: DC 17, level 1 creature. A level 1 PC has DC 17. High DC for a level 1 monster is 17.
Mage for hire: DC 20, level 3 creature. A level 3 PC has DC 19. High DC for a level 3 monster is 20.
Demonologist: DC 26, level 7 creature. A level 7 PC has DC 25. High DC for a level 7 monster is 25.
Tempest sun mage: DC 30, level 11 creature. A level 11 PC has DC 30. High DC for a level 11 monster is 30.
Ice devil: DC 33, level 13 creature. A level 13 PC has DC 32. High DC for a level 13 monster is 33.
Cornugon: DC 36, level 16 creature. A level 16 PC has DC 37. High DC for a level 16 monster is 37.
Pit fiend: DC 45, level 20 creature. A level 20 PC has DC 45. High DC for a level 20 monster is 42.
So yeah I don't buy the "all monsters have higher save DC than wizards" argument. They're pretty even, actually. Sure higher level monsters have higher numbers, but only by around +1 or so per level like you said.
It does depend on the monster a lot, liches have a 36 spell dc, so equal to the baseline of a level 16 monster, while only being level 12. Astral devas also have 36 and are level 14.
If you were not 3+ points behind enemy casters Dispel would be much better. (2 from NPC casters using boosted numbers, and 1+ from level).
I maintain it depends on the enemy caster. For instance, let's look at some statblocks I randomly pulled off AoN and their save dcs compared to that of a full caster. Plus the value for a "high" save DC from the monster creator:
Acolyte of Nethys: DC 17, level 1 creature. A level 1 PC has DC 17. High DC for a level 1 monster is 17.
Mage for hire: DC 20, level 3 creature. A level 3 PC has DC 19. High DC for a level 3 monster is 20.
Demonologist: DC 26, level 7 creature. A level 7 PC has DC 25. High DC for a level 7 monster is 25.
Tempest sun mage: DC 30, level 11 creature. A level 11 PC has DC 30. High DC for a level 11 monster is 30.
Ice devil: DC 33, level 13 creature. A level 13 PC has DC 32. High DC for a level 13 monster is 33.
Cornugon: DC 36, level 16 creature. A level 16 PC has DC 37. High DC for a level 16 monster is 37.
Pit fiend: DC 45, level 20 creature. A level 20 PC has DC 45. High DC for a level 20 monster is 42.
So yeah I don't buy the "all monsters have higher save DC than wizards" argument. They're pretty even, actually. Sure higher level monsters have higher numbers, but only by around +1 or so per level like you said.
It does depend on the monster a lot, liches have a 36 spell dc, so equal to the baseline of a level 16 monster, while only being level 12.
I was tempted to put lich in the lineup. Simply to head off that criticism.
Yes, they do. They're also completely absurd and are not representative of monster save DCs at all.
It's like saying "all monsters have 99 opportunity attacks and you need to take that into account when building your PC" because hekatoncheires titans do.
And hey, the tarrasque has 3 opportunity attacks. Xotanis have 3 as well, and so does Kothogaz. But that doesn't mean they aren't outliers.
All that matters is the boss monster CR+2 or 3 is going to have a higher DC than the PC wizard.
If you're fighting a pit fiend at level 20, that's an even encounter. I think that is moderate.
So the boss is going to be the Pit Fiend's boss, probably CR+2 to 4 devil. Their DC will be really high and hard to counter.
What the actual heck is this fixation with level
+2-4 boss fights, people?
A level 20 wizard armed with stoneskin can still make your martials scream bloody murder with a heightened stoneskin. Resist 15-20 to all their damage will make them CRY. That plus heightened invisibility, fly, and energy aegis (maybe blink too) and your martials will be begging you for a dispel.
That's not a level +2 fight but it still could be lethal.
Besides. Even against a level + 2 boss, you have a...45 percent chance to dispel (roll 12+)? That's totally fine.
