| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello everyone,
After years of blasting with my casters, I've decided to finally finish my guide to blasting (I hope it'll push Gortle to do the same for his unfinished guides!).
I hope it will convey all the pleasure I have blasting with my casters!
Don't hesitate to tell me if you feel I have forgotten something or if you want to clarify some points.
Looks good. That's pretty much how to do it. Blast early while the enemy is set up for it. Use your best spells. Extra casting is nice with scrolls.
Simple, efficient blasting guide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Second. Under the 'Third actions' section, you have: A few of them are extremely impactful (Stitched/Spirit Familiar) but they are class dependent. Sadly, my copy of PC1 says both shed spirit and stitching strike are 2a not 1a. So those are not good examples of how a blaster can best use their third action.
If it's a familiar activity, then one caster action would result in two familiar actions, no?
I appreciated the scroll section. It really forced me to consider the cost of scrolls relative to wands and... yikes. You could buy 15 1st rank scrolls for the price of one 1st rank wand. If you go from 1-20, you might be able to get value out of it, although scrolls come with the benefit of allowing you to use several in a day without being destroyed.
The other spell rank wand to scroll cost ratios are marginally better, but still extreme.
2nd rank: 13.33x
3rd rank: 12x
4th rank: 10x ("Peak value!")
5th rank: 10x
6th rank: 10x
7th rank: 10.83x
8th rank: 11.54x
9th rank: 13.33x
So a blasting spell wand will definitely be obselete before it recoups its value, but some low-level spells you can cast every day like Sure strike or *sigh* Tailwind can be long term investments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, Sudden Bolt is amazing but it's also a PFS-limited AP-dependent spell
I add a note about it's rarity. Thunderstrike is nearly as good, especially when you Heighten it.
but some low-level spells you can cast every day like Sure strike or *sigh* Tailwind can be long term investments.
If it's a spell you can cast then taking it with a Wand only frees a spell slot. How often will you cast a spell with this spell slot? 15 times in your career? Certainly less.
No, if you can cast the spell, really, don't buy a Wand. It's only useful if you can't cast the spell.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A low level wand doesn't just free up a spell slot, it also frees up an option for your repertoire or standard prepared load out. How important that is will probably vary quite a bit. For my battle oracle, I don't love using a precious spell known for tailwind, which I know I'll never use in combat. I'd prefer Revealing Light in that spot even though it makes a great scroll candidate because I use a two handed weapon which renders drawing scrolls a big pain. On a prepared caster, though, I'd be more open to preparing tailwind and experimenting with other slots.
Anyway, good job on the guide. Can I submit Divine Immolation for "good spell" consideration? I know you don't like persistent damage, but it is really good against weakness and DI can trigger two of the most common weaknesses. It also dodges a lot of resistance and immunity, including incorporeal, which gives it pretty wonderful usability. And best of all, it is natively available to divine casters who otherwise have to poach good reflex options. I really like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, good job on the guide. Can I submit Divine Immolation for "good spell" consideration? I know you don't like persistent damage, but it is really good against weakness and DI can trigger two of the most common weaknesses. It also dodges a lot of resistance and immunity, including incorporeal, which gives it pretty wonderful usability. And best of all, it is natively available to divine casters who otherwise have to poach good reflex options. I really like it.
I prefer to avoid because there are tons of spells that can be interesting for blasting. So why Divine Immolation more than Spirit Blast? It can last forever.
Also, I partially disagree with you. It's a spell that has its use, but as an all rounder blasting spell it doesn't work well. Mostly because Persistent Damage doesn't stack so once enemies are affected you have to switch.But I fully agree it's a good spell, especially for the otherwise limited Divine Tradition.
It occurs to me that it might be worth mentioning the kineticist, if only to say why you don't consider it a successful blaster. Psychic could also warrant a little more discussion, as I think it breaks the "don't use focus spells" rule.
I prefer to avoid because there are tons of spells that can be interesting for blasting. So why Divine Immolation more than Spirit Blast? It can last forever.
I also like spirit blast, but it triggers almost no weakness and targets a pretty rough save if you aren't ghost busting.
Also, I partially disagree with you. It's a spell that has its use, but as an all rounder blasting spell it doesn't work well. Mostly because Persistent Damage doesn't stack so once enemies are affected you have to switch.
I suppose, but I haven't found that to be much of a problem in practice. By the second round the enemies have either spread out or gotten into flanks on my melee bros. At that point a fireball or DI wouldn't be good anyway, so I like switching over to Divine Wrath since it won't hurt friendlies. (Another underrated spell, IMO, but I'd accept its omission if only because you're avoiding debuffs eating into the damage budget.)
A nice guide. But I myself would also harp on the joys of blasting large numbers of enemies at once.
My PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign had a gnome storm druid Stormdancer. She was a destroyer of armies. At 2nd level, the party faced hobgoblin patrols consisting of two 1st-level Hobgoblin Soldiers and their leader a 2nd-level hobgoblin soldier in heavy armor. Stormdancer attacked with cantrips such as Electric Arc and the Tempest Surge focus spell.
As the party leveled up, and the enemy patrols grew into enemy armies, Stormdancer progressed up SuperBidi's list of good blaster spells. For verisimilitude, I build troop units that looked like squads of Hobgoblin Soldiers with weakness to area effects, so those fell to Stormdancer's maximized Fireballs and Meteor Swarms (Falling Stars). For a crowd of individual warriors, Chain Lightning was Stormdancer's favorite spell.
Superbidi said, "This is a common mistake I see a lot of players making: they start their fights with a weak spell, in general a Focus Spell or a Cantrip." Stormdancer did often start with a cantrip in order to test for resistance to an energy type. First Ray of Frost cantrip, and if it was not resisted, then Polar Ray.
On the topic of Third Actions, storm druids can fly with Stormwind Flight focus spell. Being able to rain down Fireballs from above the arrow range of an enemy army was worth taking a Fly action every turn. Blasters have range!
(I hope it'll push Gortle to do the same for his unfinished guides!.
Anything in particular that you are looking for? My guides have all have recent work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I notice no mention of Divine Wrath or the extra useability of spells that can target a melee of intertwined PCs and enemies.
I notice no mention of Divine Wrath or the extra useability of spells that can target a melee of intertwined PCs and enemies.
That's an incredible advantage, as friendly fire feels like a blaster's biggest obstacle (or one might say overeager allies).
I notice no mention of Divine Wrath or the extra useability of spells that can target a melee of intertwined PCs and enemies.
See how good clerics are now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, thank you for this guide, and thank you for all the thoughtful contributions to discussions about casters over the years. It has been very interesting watching most of the community come around on casters generally and blasting especially. It felt like there were not a lot of us pointing to scrolls as the secret to unlocking casters at first, but that is really growing as a more common strategy. I hope some time we get to play together again.
I agree pretty strongly that wands are a mistake for any spell that you are not going to cast exactly once a day, every day, or nearly.
The value of a caster having a staff is that it gets extra charges every time you level up. True strike/sure strike is the best case example of a reason to have a staff because you get one more every level and you never have to spend an action to draw another scroll. Unfortunately, sure strike is nearly useless for arcane and occult casters for spells in any game that is being restrictive about pre-remastered spell access. It is just not the spell it used to be.
Heal is another strong staff option as you can just burn through your charges topping people up or casting your highest rank. It is a common staff for me on any wizard who picks up a divine or primal casting archetype.
I think the biggest divergences from your casting philosophy and mine stem from my appreciation for targeting weak saves and enemy weaknesses. I think we are going to continue to see a stronger shift towards enemies having weaknesses in remastered content and adventures, and there are an increasing number of ways to add them to enemies. Thus I value the ability to target different saves with different damage types a lot more than you tend to with blasting, but a lot of that requires identifying those things quickly as a party. Having an Oracle in the party with glimpse of weakness makes blaster casting a lot more fun.
I notice no mention of Divine Wrath or the extra useability of spells that can target a melee of intertwined PCs and enemies.
Telekinetic Rend has been incredibly clutch for this reason. I picked it up mostly because my Infinite Eye Psychic was already overloaded with will saves and I wanted something that targeted a different defense but it's kinda just ended up being my most effective spell other than Magic Missile. Being able to hit spread targets is excellent, I much prefer it over lining up Shatter Mind's cone.
Anything in particular that you are looking for? My guides have all have recent work.
You released your general strategy/optimization guide? I thought you were keeping it for yourself?
I notice no mention of Divine Wrath or the extra useability of spells that can target a melee of intertwined PCs and enemies.
It's true that post remaster Divine Wrath is now really good, but the damage is still quite low for a blast spell and it targets Fortitude. Let me think if I want to include it or not.
Also, the list is not supposed to be encompassing every blast spell in the game. It's more of a basic blast spell list.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything in particular that you are looking for? My guides have all have recent work.You released your general strategy/optimization guide? I thought you were keeping it for yourself?
I may have said that at some point but here it is: Strategy Guide
But all my guides are linked on the last page anyhow.
So I take it back, you released it (and added a nice photo!).
Thinking more about it, and because I consider that a good guide is shared work between the author and the community, I'll add a chapter about "other good blasting spells", as in spells that are a bit more complicated than the list I've made but that are of high value nonetheless.
I'll put Divine Wrath and Divine Immolation into it and if you want to speak about your other prefered blasting spells don't hesitate.
Other blast spells I use?
5. Howling Blizzard (new one can be good)
6: Arrow Salvo, Phantasmal Calamity (excellent rider for an AOE spell on a crit fail)
7th: Sunburst (Great against undead)
9th: Wails of the Damned (Only hits enemies and drains), Phantasmagoria
Maybe a section on good sustain damage spells to use with Effortless Concentration, which is great for blasting at high level.
6th: Phantom Orchestra
I second Phantom Orchestra, it is nuts. I also really like Control Sand, but I get why you wouldn't want to include it the guide.
In regards to wands, I would make a note that while wands for blasting stuff are bad, they are still worth it for evergreen spells that are not damage oriented. Even blasters want extra utility.
I would also include Scorching Ray/Blazing Bolt. It is not that great once you get your rank 3 and 4 spells, but there are not many viable multitarget options early on and it gets the job done.
Good guide overall, short and straight to the point.
Scorching ray was a lot of fun with an eldritch trickster rogue who won initiative with stealth. The flexibility of folding a third action in on a map less attack is valuable, but cover is often a problem with it. Horizon thunder sphere is a good, flexible blast spell too.
People hate on Hydraulic Push, but it is a great ooze killer and good in a tank one slot through 6th level. Also damaging spells with the water trait used to be difficult to come by for golem killing, but that is no longer the case and golems are gone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll add Scorching Ray, this one is really basic and fits my list of basic blasts. For the others, I'll look at them tomorrow or on Tuesday. I still don't know how to speak about them, either just saying they have good value or explaining why they have good value... I don't want to lose the very direct structure of the guide.
In regards to wands, I would make a note that while wands for blasting stuff are bad, they are still worth it for evergreen spells that are not damage oriented. Even blasters want extra utility.
Whatever Wand you buy you can replace it by a few Scrolls. There's no way you'll find a Wand that will be useful even a dozen of times in your entire career. And by useful I don't mean that you will cast the spell in the Wand but that you'll cast the spell that the Wand actually gives you: the spell in your slots that replaces the spell in the Wand.
But I prefer to avoid this conversation in this discussion as it is not the subject. If you want more thorough explanation, you can send me a PM.
I'll add Scorching Ray, this one is really basic and fits my list of basic blasts. For the others, I'll look at them tomorrow or on Tuesday. I still don't know how to speak about them, either just saying they have good value or explaining why they have good value... I don't want to lose the very direct structure of the guide.
In regards to wands, I would make a note that while wands for blasting stuff are bad, they are still worth it for evergreen spells that are not damage oriented. Even blasters want extra utility.Whatever Wand you buy you can replace it by a few Scrolls. There's no way you'll find a Wand that will be useful even a dozen of times in your entire career. And by useful I don't mean that you will cast the spell in the Wand but that you'll cast the spell that the Wand actually gives you: the spell in your slots that replaces the spell in the Wand.
But I prefer to avoid this conversation in this discussion as it is not the subject. If you want more thorough explanation, you can send me a PM.
I do like wand of manifold missiles and wand of overflowing heal. The wand of manifold missiles should be something you open with against a hard target to maximize it, so you get as many rounds as possible of free force barrage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do like wand of manifold missiles and wand of overflowing heal. The wand of manifold missiles should be something you open with against a hard target to maximize it, so you get as many rounds as possible of free force barrage.
I also like Wand of Manifold Missile. The Wands that are absolutely worthless are the Wands of spells you can cast with your primary slots (as a full spellcaster, not a Magus or Summoner). If you can't cast the spell then Wands have value.
I'll add Scorching Ray, this one is really basic and fits my list of basic blasts. For the others, I'll look at them tomorrow or on Tuesday. I still don't know how to speak about them, either just saying they have good value or explaining why they have good value... I don't want to lose the very direct structure of the guide.
I'd just make a small entry for sustained spells past level 16 called Effortless Concentration or something. There aren't many worth talking about and you can just go over them in general without mentioning many specific spells.
If you mean how to tackle all situationally good spells, I'd make a second list under your generic one with very short explanations.
But I prefer to avoid this conversation in this discussion
Fair.
I was looking over sustained damage spells and Phantom Orchestra is the main one I use.
I like Arrow Salvo as a 6th level 30 foot burst AoE option. Chain lightning is great, but it can also be really bad if the first or a few targets in critically save. Whereas arrow salvo has a huge 30 foot burst and a good critical fail effect knocking the target prone. It cannot ground out with a critical save success.
Sunburst does amazing damage against undead with a huge burst. 8d10 fire base to everyone and 8d10 vitality damage to undead. An 8d10 in a 60 foot burst is fairly good. If hitting undead, a 60 foot burst for 8d10 fire and 8d10 vitality is absolutely amazing. The vitality does nothing to your living allies, so if you think they can handle an 8d10 fire burst you can drop on your location unlike say Eclipse Burst.
Howling Blizzard has a new 3 action option with a 30 foot burst that also creates difficult terrain. It can be good for opening damage and to slow the enemy down.
Phantasmal Calamity has a nice 30 foot burst and on a crit fail it stuns you. I found it nice for large groups of mooks. Really hammers them if they crit fail. I have found it works great at higher level.
Wails of the Damned is a 40 foot emanation that hits only enemies. It's damage is ok, but its drained rider is also very nice. You can drop it right on top of your party without hurting them.
Phantasmagoria you can probably drop. It's not as good as weird. It can be, but I preferred the frightened rider and possible death. The confused condition sucks now with the DC 11 chance to break on hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting treatise, and not a bad way to organise the information. As mentioned earlier, I'd advise switching 'level' to 'rank' for spell levels too though. That said, the idea of tucking a spare Fireball or other third-rank spell in my pocket for the unexpected final battle is an idea..
As mentioned earlier, I'd advise switching 'level' to 'rank' for spell levels too though.
I'll do that.
I think I'll also add a theoretical chapter at the end of the guide to explain the underlying paradigm behind it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great guide. Particularly like the points about wands and scrolls.
Only thing I might add are a couple of items. Shadow signet for attack spells and the retrieval belt (free action once per minute to retrieve an item previously stored). I've mainly used it for scrolls, but a caster could use it for a staff if they're not actively wielding it.
I've reviewed a few things: spell ranks instead of level and a second list of blast spells (imcomplete, but I'll expand it).
About items, I hesitate. Because there are really a lot of potential ones. It's true that Shadow Signet is important, I think about adding a sentence about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I added a theorycrafting part to the guide where I explain the 2 paradigms you can use to play your casters. It's quite theoretical but for me it's a really important piece of tactical knowledge about casters.
I added a theorycrafting part to the guide where I explain the 2 paradigms you can use to play your casters. It's quite theoretical but for me it's a really important piece of tactical knowledge about casters.
You really push that scarcity idea.
I don't see it that way myself. I see it more as some like to play a control caster and some want to play a blaster. If you want to play a blaster, build to blast and blast heavy and blast often. If you prefer a control caster, that requires learning as well.
I don't run one way or the other and neither does my group. We will switch up liberal use of blasting with use of control spells. It's much easier to do in PF2 given the lack of specialization in PF2.
I think the "casters are weak" crowd are mostly low level wizards, which do feel terrible compared to PF1 wizards. I know the first caster I played that made me feel weak was the low level wizard. It was a terrible experience due to bad focus spells, poor low level blasting spells, and a class that could not do much else but cast attack spells, the best being runic weapon (formerly known as magic weapon.
I learned otherwise playing a bard and a druid. The bard using phantasmal calamity showed me the power of blasting. I still remember casting that spell on a room fool of mooks around level 13 and wrecking that entire room. Fight was over before it even started from one spell and bad saves by the mooks.
Then I played a storm druid with a good single target focus spells and lots of resources for damage like an animal companion and good weapon choices and I was soundly outdamaging or at least competing with martials.
The low level wizard doesn't really have the tools to compete. They are real, real bad or at least were. I haven't tried a new wizard, but I hope they are better than they were. It was the worst experience of a new class in the PF2 game. Higher level wizards get better because casting gets better as your proficiency improves and the quality of the spells improves. 1st and 2nd level blasting spells were terrible out of the gate. And no class suffered more than the low level wizard.
As you play more casters and learn the game, you find out casters are still the strongest classes in the game. They can do insane damage with a handful of spells and their DC starts to outstrip the enemy's saves, especially the mooks.
I think most wizard players that get past those painful early levels start to see the value of wizards. I don't think many of the complainers played much other than wizards. I didn't find the druid a problem at all even in the early levels or the sorcerer or the bard or the cleric. I had zero complaints about those classes.
The one class that caused the complaints was the low level wizard because they have absolutely nothing to make up for the lack of good 1st and 2nd level blasting spells. Given they don't really stand out as a superior caster until level 20, it's a hard road up as a wizard. That class alone is responsible for the "casters are weak" opinion. I think wizard players wanted to lump all casters in with them hoping to get more support for change, but the reality is most other caster players really didn't feel the pain that low level wizards felt. I know I didn't. I felt just fine playing any other caster but the low level wizard.
I can't agree that the scarcity mentality has much to do with the view "casters are weak." I think it all has to do with wizard design choices that made them so painfully bad until you hit around 5th level and start to accumulate wealth and time to take advantage of scrolls. Scrolls are very important to wizard power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You really push that scarcity idea.
It's really from experience. I play with a lot of different players, I don't have a fixed group (well, I have one, just a very large one). And I regularly get players commenting my way to play my casters (mostly on their "excessive" use of slotted spells). Obviously, I never have any comment on my martials and I rarely see other casters being commented, so it seems to be a thing.
On the other hand, when I play with other casters, I find them overall unimpactful. At the end of the adventure I have hard time telling what slotted spells they have cast as they don't really cast slotted spell.
How many Scrolls have I seen used by other casters? I remember of a single one in 300 sessions (using a Scroll is often an event as it costs money so you don't do it lightly). How often do other casters end their adventuring day without a single spell to cast on their 2 highest rank? Not often I assume (otherwise I don't know when they cast them).
I think the "casters are weak" crowd are mostly low level wizards
There are certainly multiple factors. But I can say that, from the beginning of PF2 to now (especially after the release of the Kineticist), the number of casters crumbled around me. A lot of players consider the Kineticist a "blaster" when, outside some specific builds (mostly Pyrokineticist), Kineticist damage is significantly lower than caster damage.
So I think a lot of players have moved away from casters. Silently (or not). But I'm pretty sure if I ask about caster-martial level of power we'll see a lot of players considering martials to be ahead of casters (and nearly no one thinking that casters are ahead of martials).
Low level wizard play in PF1 was so much worse than in PF2. I have used scrolls to provide extra casting through decades of different systems, but it was worthless for offense in PF1, so you had your limited spell slots and that was it, back to firing a crossbow.
Cantrips in PF2 are powerful at low levels. Multiple schools of magic have impactful focus spells, they just don’t supersede the need to cast spells from spell slots. When casters nova out in PF2, battles are usually won.
I too play a pretty “unlimited” casting style, but I fold out of combat encounters into my “throw the sink of spells at every day of adventuring.” So I almost never end the day with spell slots left, and that is why the spell substitution wizard is so powerful and preferable to me than any other caster. Minimally, I am casting spells like alarm, summon animal, clairaudience, dream message, clairvoyance, glyph of warding, scrying ripples, proliferating eyes, pocket library, locate, etc. if I haven’t otherwise exhausted my slots casting combat spells or combinations of ventriloquism, illusory disguise, invisibility, breathe underwater, levitate, etc over the course of a day. Not to mention how gonzo stuff gets at higher levels with scary, teleport, shadow walk, etc. you don’t end up getting into combat encounters every day (and especially not lots of them every day), not having ways to leverage the power of your limited spell slots out of combat can result in an underprepared party as well. Trusting in skills alone to do everything that spells can make easier and more effective (not replace in PF2), is exactly the same as trusting martials to just handle every combat encounter without needing casters blasting, controlling or supporting.
I think it is more a matter of appeal than power why caster popularity has waned over the years. Martial's moving pieces are way more synergistic, and people tend to like that, whereas casters, regardless of blasting or controlling, are more toolbox-y. Casters are also harder to play, and I think most people prefer to keep play patterns simple.
As for power, I think at least Bard, Sorcerer and Cleric are above most martials in what they do.
Low level wizard play in PF1 was so much worse than in PF2. I have used scrolls to provide extra casting through decades of different systems, but it was worthless for offense in PF1, so you had your limited spell slots and that was it, back to firing a crossbow.
I can't agree more. For my first caster in PF2 I bought a Crossbow out of habit. It was so much of a thing in previous editions and so boring...
As for power, I think at least Bard, Sorcerer and Cleric are above most martials in what they do.
I love how you formulate it. You don't say that Bard, Sorcerer and Cleric are above most martials, you say that they are above most martials "in what they do". It's the least I can expect from any class, actually. The underlying implication that other casters are not "above most martials in what they do" clearly raises concerns.
So, are Bard, Sorcerer and Cleric above most martials? Or is your sentence correct in that most casters can't compete with most martials?
I formulated it like that because it is hard to compare casters and martials to begin with.
But in a way, yes. Those classes shine at their niche, a necessary niche to cover at that, and thus, feel like strong classes to me, whereas some other casters don't have as strong of a niche and thus feel like inferior versions of other, stronger casters due to the toolbox-y nature of spellcasting.
To better phrase it (and with this I don't try to invalidate what I've said earlier) is that if I had to make a top 5 strongest classes in the system, at least two of the three I mentioned would make the cut.
But in a way, yes. Those classes shine at their niche, a necessary niche to cover at that, and thus, feel like strong classes to me, whereas some other casters don't have as strong of a niche and thus feel like inferior versions of other, stronger casters due to the toolbox-y nature of spellcasting.
Let's say that you have a party that already covers properly caster's stuff (healing and buffing?). From 1 to 10, would you play a caster in such a party?
Let's say you have a party that already covers properly martial's stuff (damage and tanking?). From 1 to 10, would you play a martial in such a party?
Because if caster's thing is to "cover mandatory niches", that's doesn't paint them in a good light, at least to me it feels artificial.
Single target damage is also a niche that needs covering and not for that martials are less appealing.
To me it is more than casters offer the strongest versions of those niches. In the healing, buffing and debuffing and AoE damage fields, no martial comes close to what the right caster can do.
So I'll flip the question around, would you run an extra martial that adds even more single target damage to the party but with poor to mediocre healing, aoe or buffing, or a caster that covers the weak points of the party better, but that can only do competitive single target damage under certain circumstances?
I'm currently playing with a level 19 party with no casters. We have AoE, tons of healing and a good amount of debuffs (we have 2 trip bots on top of several sources of clumsy, enfeebled and frightened), and we all agree that we are having a harder time due to not having a caster.
Single target damage is also a niche that needs covering and not for that martials are less appealing.
You can't say that damage is niche, it's core to the game.
So I'll flip the question around, would you run an extra martial that adds even more single target damage to the party but with poor to mediocre healing, aoe or buffing, or a caster that covers the weak points of the party better, but that can only do competitive single target damage under certain circumstances?
You are turning the question into a non-question. In a party without casters I'd play a caster and in a party without martials I'd play a martial. But that's not my question. I can rephrase it as: In a balanced party where every need is covered, would you play a caster or a martial from an optimization point of view?
You are turning the question into a non-question. In a party without casters I'd play a caster and in a party without martials I'd play a martial. But that's not my question. I can rephrase it as: In a balanced party where every need is covered, would you play a caster or a martial from an optimization point of view?
If everyone else has their characters more or less set, and all of the basic needs of the party are covered, I'm looking at synergies and strategies.
(Well, okay. For me personally, I'm probably playing a kineticist, because is me, and even if not, I'm not playing a caster, because daily resources make me break out in hives, but that's more about personal issues than optimizing on effectiveness. The effectiveness thing to do at that point is go hunting for party op synergies - which could easily be either martial or caster.)
You can't say that damage is niche, it's core to the game.
And isn't AoE damage damage too?
You are turning the question into a non-question. In a party without casters I'd play a caster and in a party without martials I'd play a martial. But that's not my question. I can rephrase it as: In a balanced party where every need is covered, would you play a caster or a martial from an optimization point of view?
I don't consider a party without a caster an optimized party. I don't consider the buff and debuff department is well covered at all by martials and AoE and healing, while can be covered to an acceptable degree, do not reach the heights casters can reach. We'll see when Commander releases, but what I find redundant right now are buffing martials, not casters.
So under that premise, assuming that hypothetical 3 person party is formed by 1 caster and 2 martials, what I would add it would depend completely on their builds. In general though, I think it is easier to end up with a well tuned 3 martials 1 caster group than with a 2 martial and 2 casters group, but I think that has more to do with overlap between casters due to how the spellcasting system works rather than anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My party right now is 2 Kineticists, an alchemist and a wizard (my character) at 5th level. We’ve had 1 TPK-threatening encounter so far where we combined 4 encounters into one with a boss that had sneak attack and could crit on a 12 against a flat footed enemy. No one in the party fits a traditional character role, but we can already hit hard and that was before we can start dialing up the fire and fire resistance synergy. Party building is so much more fun than character building.