| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ive read a lot of threads talking about how underwhelmed people feel when playing casters in 2e.
The main argument given back is that casters are different in 2e from before. It does look to me to be more than just that. Not only are casters different but monsters are different, spells are different, and action economy is different.
Here is what I mean.
Offensive spells are still there, you can burning hands, fireball, cone of cold and chain lightning and they still roll a lot of dice.
And I absolutely love that lightning lets you roll a bunch of d12s.
The problem is that the idea of the offensive caster now is a game of find the weakness and use the right spell against it and only that game. It means that there are right spells and wrong spells. There is no class with features that allow you to use one kind of spell effectively at the expense of versatility.
I cannot as a lightning bolt loving caster choose to fill my slots or spell repertoire with lightning spells and be effective in any situation but the ones the game has predesigned for these spells to find their use. This is the fundamental problem in my mind. For me the only reason i ever want to be a caster is to cast lightning spells. Also I don't think the answer is to be a kineticist because that loses the flavor of being a spell caster, kineticist feels more last airbender like to me. Nothing wrong with it, its just not the same concept as a wizard focused on an element they enjoy or a sorcerer tuning into an element in their blood (especially with draconic, elemental, or genie bloodlines) more parens coming (I'm using elements to pitch the concept but this can also apply to a caster that really just wants their illusions to rock or their charms to enchant past the defenses of tough opponents) why? Because a character concept focused on a single flavor of magic is fun for me, and from the sound it, a lot of other people as well. So having a way to make a spell caster fun (and effective at a thing) through some class feature choices or feats won’t ruin the gaming world.
Monsters. Looking at monster saves and attributes its clear that very few monsters have multiple low save contributing stats and sometimes bonuses to everything. This tends to make saves for lets say level 1 monsters look like this +9 +7 +5. Level 1 spell DCs are at best 17. So a typical same level monster can save on a roll of 8 when you used the wrong offensive spell, or 12 when you used the right one. (I guess I'm casting fear, my lighting will have to wait) As you level these chances actually get better for the monster not the player (good luck beating those fort saves.) This is not taking into account resistances and immunities which is another layer to the right spell wrong spell game. I actually like the fact that these elements are there to make spell casting interesting and fun for the versatile spell caster using their knowledge to find weaknesses and plan ahead. But if all you want to do is throw lightning at stuff all day its not so great if there are no feats or class features to overcome the right spell wrong spell game. Sometimes you want to play a caster that wholly believes fire is the solution to everything (probably a goblin), let them through dedication to making fire work have feature choices or feats that let fire work at least most of the time. Now i should include spell attack here because that is a fourth option when all the saves are high on a monster but typically AC is a casters worst chance of success against a monster. Essentially some casters don't want to play the knowledge based right spell wrong spell game and that should be ok, there is a way to balance the game to allow for more folks ideas of what a spell caster can be to exist, be effective, and be fun.
Spells. Looking at spells there is a general trend of moving the dramatic effects to a critical fail, a moderate effect on a fail, and at least some thing happening on a success. Leaving a critical success for the usual no effect. This is a positive change to magic, but perhaps the failing here is that there is no way to specialize in getting that critical outcome in a certain kind of spell you want to be good at.
An aside for Wizards. Wizards in my mind should be the fighters of spellcasting. They should have a way of getting that critical effect to happen more often for the kind of magic they are focused on. If dedications into wizard gave a limited version of this, other spell casters would have good reason to dedicate into wizard.
Spells, Actions, and Precious Spell Slots. Spells are usually a two action or more thing leaving less room to do other things in combat (probably need to move as well to position or get away from danger cant do both cause usually cant get into position spell then get away) like skill based actions. Given that most of the spells prepared or in your repertoire are not for the fight at hand, unless you knew it was coming a day in advance and prepared for it as a prepared caster, a caster might only have 1 or 2 spells effective in the fight or none at all (hard fights require your highest spell slots to be effective anyway so the limitation probably holds for low to mid level characters since you have a limited supply of highest level spells). After that a caster might be most effective buffing or changing terrain conditions which is fun for someone who wants to do that, and not fun for someone who sees every problem as a nail and wants to cast lighting spells all day as their hammer.
One idea i think would be fun is to add a to most spells a minor residual effect for one action the next turn. Put this effect on the spell and not make it part of any class. It should be a spell casting thing rather than a class thing. A turn following a spell slot being used would then allow casters to do a lot of interesting things with their action economy. It also makes failing on a spell feel less bad since your next turn can provide some redemption allowing the use of the spell slot to give you something even though it wasn't ideal.
Class feats can work with this residual magic allowing some additional benefit that makes sense for that kind of spell caster to occur. Putting these benefits behind a feat wall will give caster classes more cool feats, as it seems they are lacking in that department. Either way residual magic turns have the potential to feel more dynamic give spell slots more stretch and bring more fun to playing a caster. And that additional stretch comes without increasing the power of the two action or more spell itself because it spreads that power over new turns for additional actions in that new turn.
An example could be the gust of wind spell. The residual effect could be use an action on the following turn drawing on the residual power of wind left in you to lift you into the air moving you in the direct of your choosing up to your movement. Buffeting winds prevent reactions from triggering from this movement. (This specific example didn't seem op to me but if it is the idea is still there, remember the assumption is spells are not effective enough as is with the current chance to save against them and you only have a few of them to throw out per day till your slinging cantrips)
These residual spell effects should be appropriate for the level of the spell. For higher level spells the effect should still be something minor still taking only one action to do. Maybe residuals are only on rank(spell level) 2 spells and higher. The amount of turns the action is available for use can be longer for higher level spells while keeping the affect appropriate for 1 action. If appropriate for the spell rank and kind of spell the residual action could be mote than 1 option.
Aside about magic items. Why cant casters have very specific benefits from magic gear that equates to potency runes, or even some kind of caster specific property runes?
Like a wand or staff with lightning spells being upgraded with a potency rune?
Let the +1 only go to spells with a specific tag for dc and spell attacks.
The thing is the right spell wrong spell game will get easier with modest pluses
bit it wont go away because of they are allowed. Just look for the gaps in power scaling at each character level where a plus 1 will help the caster succeed at spell doing and make their kind of potency rune a loot drop on the table or purchasable at that level. Let a caster amplify thier casting through a cool magic want or staff or whatever. Spells have been tempered so its ok in 2e to have these bonuses for casters.
The reason it seems players feel the need to pick buff spells as casters is because they work 100% of the time, never wasting the 2 actions you used to do it. Spells that are consequential even when the enemy saves even if it only lasts 1 round also make the cut, but this really means players feel bad when trying to make a caster that does not - those things. Giving players tools to do what they like to do with magic in more situations than just the narrow places they are currently designed to work opens up more character concepts and that increases fun for more people. I think the ideas above can work even if the way i posed them needs improvement to keep balance.
Thanks for hearing me out. I would love to hear any thoughts, even critical ones are welcome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please, please... no more threads. Stop with the threads. This is your first post here on a topic that has been done to death. Please. Just... don't.
Thanks for responding at least. You are right i am very late to posting anything. This is my first post here. I’ve read a lot of what others have had to say first at least. For some reason today i felt like saying my thoughts. I hope thats not such a bad thing.
|
Please, please... no more threads. Stop with the threads. This is your first post here on a topic that has been done to death. Please. Just... don't.Thanks for responding at least. You are right i am very late to posting anything. This is my first post here. I’ve read a lot of what others have had to say first at least. For some reason today i felt like saying my thoughts. I hope thats not such a bad thing.
Your post would have a far better chance of not being just ignored if you posted it on one of the many active threads that already deal with the very same topic.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello Bluemagetim! Welcome to PF2 message boards! I am glad to see that you are excited about this game and looking to talk about some of the design elements of the game with your fellow players!
Some conversations about casters in PF2 have gotten pretty heated, so much so that threads have been locked and hundreds of total posts have been erased due to moderation, so it is perfectly understandable for a newer poster to these boards not to realize the depth of frustrating conversations that some more experienced posters have had. There is no worries, and you haven't done it all wrong.
At the same time, there is a tendency on this message board for people to make posts to the "general discussion" thread, just because it is at the top, and will get the most eyes on the post, but also, posts made to general discussion get treated as topics that are about the larger state of the game.
If, for example, you have been playing for a little while and have some house rules that have been a lot of fun at your table and address issues that you see people talking about in general discussion threads, it is probably a better idea to create a thread in the homebrew thread explaining those rules and how you use them, and then possibly linking to that thread in one specific general thread you see where people are talking about a topic directly related to something your homebrew rules address, than it is trying to make your initial post in the general discussion thread where people will read it like you are saying "the rules as a whole must change to my house rules!" which can be a very frustrating position to see happen over and over again, especially for people who are having fun with the rules as they are, or have different house rules that are not compatible with yours, but making the game work just fine at those player's tables.
In the end, developers may look at your rules changes or they may not, and even if they do look at them, there is a very strong possibility that a similar rule has been tested in house or considered, and that there are reasons the developers went a different direction. Sometimes they go to great lengths to explain things to us players, but often when they do, it is on their own time, because they have other work they need to be doing to get the game materials published on time. That means that they are gifting their time to us when they explain things, not earning their paycheck. The easiest way to make developer contribution to discussion board posts happen is to make developer input feel welcome and appreciated. Which isn't to say that players can't disagree with the developers, and I think a large number of the development team at Paizo is welcoming of feedback whether it is positive or negative about the game that exists, but when people have ideas that can accomplished through house rules, that is the game working as intended. Many developers publish content for PF2 outside of Paizo because they have ideas that will fit into the game just fine, but don't fit into the content that Paizo is currently working on publishing. It is a game designed to be modular and easy to change, so players should feel free to do so...it is just better to direct those posts to the places where the ideas will be considered for what they are and not what some other posters are interpreting as threats to take away things that they like about the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm tired of seeing this topic spammed on the forums, but yours is one I can weigh in on.
You're asking for something Pathfinder just doesn't do, period. Something pathfinder cannot do without completely throwing internal balance out the window. You're wanting to use 1 spell for every situation and wanting it to be not just an option, but the best option, every time.
This isn't how the game works. Martials do not get to do this. I for example like my swords but there are enemies who just do not take slashing or piercing damage, or who take more damage via bludgeoning, or just resist all physical damage period. My sword doesn't need to be the best weapon in every single encounter because I want to be a sword master. Because the guy who wants to be a hammer master, or a spear master, deserves opportunities to shine as well.
Lightning spells in fact have a tendency to over-preform to the determent of spellcasting in general. Electric Arc for example completely dominating cantrips to a unhealthy degree of the games life. Smaller examples include magus being way too reliant on shocking grasp, to the point they ignore any other spell for just shocking grasp. That isn't healthy game design and it shouldn't be something encouraged because it's counter-intuitive to game design, it means you shouldn't bother making any new content because the content you made is the best solution to a solved problem.
That said, by the amount of times you bring up exclusively wizard, It feels like your title, like the title of other threads, is misleading. You're beef seems to be just that the wizard isn't doing this, not that there aren't "Casters" that do this.
I love the idea of adding non-offensive effects to offensive spells to guarantee you'll get some use out of them.
That said I would really see it as an alternate casting archetype (like elementalism or wellspring magic) rather than something that would be baseline.
For an elemental blaster caster what I would try is getting a Kineticist multiclass on your caster of choice (or the reverse).
That way you get the best of both worlds - you have Elemental attacks that always work, and then when your element actually fits the encounter you can bring out the big guns and throw your spells.
TBH the thing about lightning bolts solving every situation is absolutely not specific to PF2.
I am pretty sure it has also been the case for the last 20 years with 3.0/3.5/PF1.
The issue really is that previous editions never gave a crap about debuffs unless they were like, massive debuffs. The hierarchery was like, encounter ending debuff > damage > regular debuffs. Or in another way to put it, Remove opponent from fight entirely > kill them > make them kinda bad at fighting.
PF 2e wants you to do more of the last two and doesn't want the first one to happen as much. It wants you to buff and debuff, which is why it gives you so many different consumables and spells and such to get to that goal.
The big issue is that if you make a it so that you can essentially brute force your way through any problem, then it becomes pointless to even bother writing other solutions since you have 1 damage spell that can just force success no matter what.
It's why kineiticist works, it's a self contained weirdo that can just brute force its way through things, just like how it was a self contained weirdo brute force class in PF 1e.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello Bluemagetim! Welcome to PF2 message boards! I am glad to see that you are excited about this game and looking to talk about some of the design elements of the game with your fellow players!
Some conversations about casters in PF2 have gotten pretty heated, so much so that threads have been locked and hundreds of total posts have been erased due to moderation, so it is perfectly understandable for a newer poster to these boards not to realize the depth of frustrating conversations that some more experienced posters have had. There is no worries, and you haven't done it all wrong.
At the same time, there is a tendency on this message board for people to make posts to the "general discussion" thread, just because it is at the top, and will get the most eyes on the post, but also, posts made to general discussion get treated as topics that are about the larger state of the game...
I do appreciate this reply. There are many things I did not and would not have known to consider before posting. Although I made suggestions, they are just my thoughts, I don't put them above anyone else's.
Up until now I've read through threads, had thoughts of my own and said nothing. Also it can be its own challenge to let ideas you do have to be subjected to criticism, much easier to keep them in your head.It is encouraging to receive a welcoming reply that helps to understand how my post might be received and where better to place it. Thank you.