In 1E, the spells themselves were much better (even at low level), casters could cast more spells per day, and monster AC and save modifiers were generally lower. Add that all together and casters in 1E were far more powerful. I played alot of divine casters in 1E and really enjoyed them. I won't touch a caster in 2E tho, they're really weak at the levels I've played at.We're talking about the same low levels? In PF1 a Caster with an 18 could cast their first level spell 2 times and then they were more or less useless for the remainder of the day. Sure, some of those level 1 spells worked really well sometimes, but you often wanted to have more than 2 fights in a day. Just cantrips being useful is an incredible buff to low level casters.
Sure, Sleep and Confusion were very powerful for low level spells. And spell slots were much more plentiful. That said, attack cantrips are much, MUCH better in 2E.
|
Sure, Sleep and Confusion were very powerful for low level spells. And spell slots were much more plentiful. That said, attack cantrips are much, MUCH better in 2E.In 1E, the spells themselves were much better (even at low level), casters could cast more spells per day, and monster AC and save modifiers were generally lower. Add that all together and casters in 1E were far more powerful. I played alot of divine casters in 1E and really enjoyed them. I won't touch a caster in 2E tho, they're really weak at the levels I've played at.We're talking about the same low levels? In PF1 a Caster with an 18 could cast their first level spell 2 times and then they were more or less useless for the remainder of the day. Sure, some of those level 1 spells worked really well sometimes, but you often wanted to have more than 2 fights in a day. Just cantrips being useful is an incredible buff to low level casters.
I would not call PF1 Confusion a low-level spell. Likely because I mostly played PFS.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even at high levels, casters still have ample opportunity to suck. I've seen a Disintegrate land a critical hit and do about 3/4 the damage of my fighter landing two normal hits. I've seen Summon Dragon cast to the uproarious applause of the whole table... and go on to do a grand total of 5 damage across its entire duration before the wizard decided it would be better suited to attacking an inanimate object. I've seen Chain Lightning.. waste a spell slot because the GM (understandably, honestly) couldn't be bothered to keep track of a fight with a large number of enemies in a high-level game.
And if the solution to "magic isn't impactful" is to attack with a weapon, that doesn't do much to assuage the notion that magic isn't impactful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People say PF2 casters are worse than PF1 casters at low levels? Did they ever play a PF1 sorcerer? Are they just talking about like 2 witch builds that were playable at low levels? Goal posts move so fast in “fix caster” conversations it can be hard to keep up. I think the one complaint I can identify consistently in those conversations is “why can’t my caster super specialize in casting a handful of spells and always have those work?” And I think the answer is “because that was identified as a problem, not a feature of PF1’s casting mechanic for the developers who wanted choosing spells to be an encounter by encounter decision, not a character build restriction.In 1E, the spells themselves were much better (even at low level), casters could cast more spells per day, and monster AC and save modifiers were generally lower. Add that all together and casters in 1E were far more powerful. I played alot of divine casters in 1E and really enjoyed them. I won't touch a caster in 2E tho, they're really weak at the levels I've played at.
And the PF1 martials hit easier, did more damage, and had better magic weapons and feats. Yet apparently you feel ok playing PF2 martials.
PF2 casters magic was reduced to make a more balanced and playable game. Same as martials were reduced in power.
PF2 casters are still extremely powerful and capable of doing more damage than martials. I do it all the time. There are huge shifts as you level in terms of what martials can do and what casters can do same as in PF1. It's not as big a shift as PF1, but it's still there.
Casters have always had a slower power build than martials with a higher ceiling. That hasn't changed in PF2 save for the power gap not being as wide.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even at high levels, casters still have ample opportunity to suck. I've seen a Disintegrate land a critical hit and do about 3/4 the damage of my fighter landing two normal hits. I've seen Summon Dragon cast to the uproarious applause of the whole table... and go on to do a grand total of 5 damage across its entire duration before the wizard decided it would be better suited to attacking an inanimate object. I've seen Chain Lightning.. waste a spell slot because the GM (understandably, honestly) couldn't be bothered to keep track of a fight with a large number of enemies in a high-level game.
And if the solution to "magic isn't impactful" is to attack with a weapon, that doesn't do much to assuage the notion that magic isn't impactful.
Summon Dragon and Disintegrate are not high value spells. They are in fact bad spells and should be avoided or only used if needed. PF2 built summons to be weak combat spells with some useful utility for certain ones. Summon Dragon is not even a great utility spell though.
PF2 high value spells have changed. They are not the same as PF1. But what hasn't change is you need to use high value spells and use other spells for what they are good for, which may not be combat.
I went through the same transition trying those exact spells as summons were good in PF1. Disintegrate was decent in PF1 as well, not great, but decent at times. Even in PF1 you need a 20 to crit with a disintegrate. It was only single target and higher value AoE spells were better than disintegrate.
In PF2 disintegrate can be better as it's easier to crit, but you have to set it up. The best disintegrate use I've seen so far is mega-disintegrate which can only be done by a level 20 wizard using spell combination. If it hits, it does pretty nutty damage. If it crits, it does insane damage, basically encounter is over for whatever it hits damage.
As far as the fighter goes, we've had this discussion a thousand times. Fighter hits real well and does good single target damage. Fighter is boring as watching paint dry as you level. Fighter at high level does exactly the same thing as the fighter at level 1. Some people like that, but I find it pretty boring.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of that just furthers the notion that magic sucks.
And the PF1 martials hit easier, did more damage, and had better magic weapons and feats. Yet apparently you feel ok playing PF2 martials.
PF2 casters magic was reduced to make a more balanced and playable game. Same as martials were reduced in power.
PF2 casters are still extremely powerful and capable of doing more damage than martials. I do it all the time. There are huge shifts as you level in terms of what martials can do and what casters can do same as in PF1. It's not as big a shift as PF1, but it's still there.
Casters have always had a slower power build than martials with a higher ceiling. That hasn't changed in PF2 save for the power gap not being as wide.
Regarding 1E Martials, no argument here. Every time I played a martial in 1E my character tore every enemy in half. I was never one of those ppl who complained about martials in 1E. I never understood those complaints myself. A 2E martial is still quite good however, even if they don't hit quite as often.
Here's the thing, I don't doubt you at all when you say higher level casters are powerful. I personally have never played games that high level so I don't have that experience. Problem is, it's hard to get that experience when the people who play casters keep rage quitting cuz "casters suck".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen Bard, Oracle, Summoner, and Druid played. None were terrible. All contributed. No one complained about feeling weak regardless of level.
Casters don't suck. Some people just don't like casters in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of that just furthers the notion that magic sucks.
No, it doesn't.
It shows that PF2 magic is different and you have to learn the high value spells like you have to do every edition. Magic has a learning curve. It's not for people who want to make a character and play using the same spells they used in PF1.
Most people who play casters have never been the people wanting the straight forward character. Martials are there for those who want to hit something and do damage.
Magic users are classes for those that want to learn the best way to do something using a wide variety of tools. Each edition has been this way. In PF1 you learned the high value spells and when to use them. Same as 3.0. Same as 1st and 2nd edition D&D.
PF2 has just changed what spells are great and the way you use them. Some will take the time to learn and find out magic is still the most powerful thing in the game. Some will play a martial and hit things.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the PF1 martials hit easier, did more damage, and had better magic weapons and feats. Yet apparently you feel ok playing PF2 martials.
PF2 casters magic was reduced to make a more balanced and playable game. Same as martials were reduced in power.
PF2 casters are still extremely powerful and capable of doing more damage than martials. I do it all the time. There are huge shifts as you level in terms of what martials can do and what casters can do same as in PF1. It's not as big a shift as PF1, but it's still there.
Casters have always had a slower power build than martials with a higher ceiling. That hasn't changed in PF2 save for the power gap not being as wide.
Regarding 1E Martials, no argument here. Every time I played a martial in 1E my character tore every enemy in half. I was never one of those ppl who complained about martials in 1E. I never understood those complaints myself. A 2E martial is still quite good however, even if they don't hit quite as often.
Here's the thing, I don't doubt you at all when you say higher level casters are powerful. I personally have never played games that high level so I don't have that experience. Problem is, it's hard to get that experience when the people who play casters keep rage quitting cuz "casters suck".
Not sure why you moved to PF2, but I moved almost strictly because it is easier run.
My honest assessment is PF1 was more fun for players due to character building. PCs were far more powerful and unique in PF1. But this led to a very imbalanced game in favor of the players and a nightmare to DM.
Now PF2 is much, much easier to DM. As a person that DMs a lot, I moved to PF2 because it made running the game far more pleasurable and tolerable while still providing enough player power and customization to make interesting and fun characters. Once your players learn the PF2 system and get used to it, they adapt. I can run the game easier to keep campaigns going and reach higher level because of it.
I think PF2 has more customization and is better balanced than 5E D and D which I tried and is a better game than 4E, but 5E was also a nightmare to DM as 5E PCs are too powerful when you incorporate customization options like feats and magic items. PF2 seems to have struck the perfect balance.
Downside for players is weaker PCs and less unique customization due the strong focus on balance. Upside for the players is easier to DM so a DM is more likely to want to DM them long-term as it's easier to run out of the box as the DM doesn't have to work very hard to make the game feel challenging.
Upside to the DM is PF2 is very easy to run with balanced challenges and easy to toggle tools to increase or decrease challenges. Cool monster design making monsters feel very alive, interesting, and dangerous. Downsides for the DM...none that I can think of. This is an absolutely great edition for DMs.
That's how I see it. Not sure if you're new to PF2, but I think many of us all went through the "magic sucks" and "casters are weak" phase until we learned how to build casters and how the new paradigm works.
I can't fault you for thinking what you're thinking because I thought that way a long time ago until I played a class other than a wizard. I think the biggest difference between PF1 and PF2 is how weak the wizard feels now. The God Boss of PF1/3E for the past decade or more was the wizard, especially the high level wizard. The wizard class went through so many iterations of power ups to reduced power to what it is now in PF2 that it makes you feel incredibly deflated to play a wizard, at least that is how I felt and still feel.
I remember when 3E first game out and haste gave you an extra spell. So if you had quicken, you could cast three spells per round. That was an insane level of power. I also remember when Forgotten Realms came out and the Archmage archetype was released providing up to a +6 to the DCs of your spells. That was an insane power up. Then the nerf hammer startd falling after that because the might as well have called the game Dungeons and Dragons: God Wizards. It was pretty ridiculous.
Now I think wizards have been over-nerfed myself and need something unique like the fighter to elevate them to their previous status. I think in play they are one of the weakest caster classes and the biggest shock for any player coming from D&D or PF1 to play a wizard and be this pathetically weak caster class that barely reaches parity solely due to spellcasting proficiency scaling and spell quality. Their feats aren't great. Their class abilities aren't great. It's very sad to see the wizard who reached peak power in D&D 3rd edition and was still uber in PF1 fallen to probably the most boring and lacking caster in the game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with PF1e martials never was that they didn't function, because a well optimized martial could tore everything in its path (and I quote "a well optimized martial") but if you ever played a martial next to a caster in PF1e you literally knew martials were much worse. A caster could win combat with a single spell, martials just didn't have that luxury.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of that just furthers the notion that magic sucks.No, it doesn't.
It shows that PF2 magic is different and you have to learn the high value spells like you have to do every edition. Magic has a learning curve. It's not for people who want to make a character and play using the same spells they used in PF1.
Most people who play casters have never been the people wanting the straight forward character. Martials are there for those who want to hit something and do damage.
Magic users are classes for those that want to learn the best way to do something using a wide variety of tools. Each edition has been this way. In PF1 you learned the high value spells and when to use them. Same as 3.0. Same as 1st and 2nd edition D&D.
PF2 has just changed what spells are great and the way you use them. Some will take the time to learn and find out magic is still the most powerful thing in the game. Some will play a martial and hit things.
For what it's worth, I'm glad you can enjoy 2e in the way you do, but you're honestly making my point for me.
In 1e, I didn't have to opt for "high value spells." I could make a spellcaster and with perhaps a little bit of reskinning/flavor, stick to a handful of spells that match my character's theme/aesthetic/motif (be it fire, music, crystals, thorns, farting, yelling really loud, etc. and what-have-you) and be a contributing member of the party from an adventure's outset to its conclusion. And most importantly, I could have fun doing it.
In 2e, there are a few dozen spell that are worth casting. And if those specific spells don't mesh with the motif of the character you want to play? Well, I'd say "have fun," but...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 1e, I didn't have to opt for "high value spells." I could make a spellcaster and with perhaps a little bit of reskinning/flavor, stick to a handful of spells that match my character's theme/aesthetic/motif (be it fire, music, crystals, thorns, farting, yelling really loud, etc. and what-have-you) and be a contributing member of the party from an adventure's outset to its conclusion. And most importantly, I could have fun doing it.
In 2e, there are a few dozen spell that are worth casting. And if those specific spells don't mesh with the motif of the character you want to play? Well, I'd say "have fun," but...
No, you couldn't do this and perform at a high level in PF1. I knew all the high value spells in PF1 just as I do in PF2. If you made some crystal, fire or what not motif, you would look incredibly weak compared to my optimized PF1 character. I made encounter destroying wizards (really characters in general) that could do modules alone if I felt like it. I was clearly the most powerful caster in the group. It was using the same feats and high value spells.
I have no idea what you're talking about in PF1, but it sounds like you never much played with an optimized player because you had, you would know there were certain spells in PF1 far, far, far better than others.
PF1 high value spells
Enervate
Slow
Dominate
Charm (mass version)
Hold spells were ok against weak will saves, but might not last long
Summons were great in PF1 because you could summon armies with lots of special abilities
Haste
Feats like Dazing Spell, Quicken, Spell Perfection, Spell Specialization.
Magus heavily focused on Shocking Grasp with Intensify spell early on.
So no, you couldn't do what you claim, not sure why you are claiming it. I'm sure you could make some kind of character, but you would have to be satisfied with being heavily inferior to focus on a particular motif because any optimized caster would be wrecking the game with the high value PF1 spells.
Your complaints sound very nebulous and lacking in detail. You don't sound like you know PF1 or PF2.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
While this thread has certainly run its course, it feels like an awful rehash to turn this into a spellcasting conversation once more. It's a conversation that has been done to death. No side will sway the other at this point.
Let's all just move on or wait until Monday for the thread to get locked.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I hated the most as a GM was balancing the party between people who stumbled upon a power gamey build and those who went in for all RP choices. I cannot count the number of times I had to warn players that their choice of spell or feat was so suboptimal that they would feel noticeably worse than their party member.
I guess some people just let it ride, so the suboptimal player can suffer and learn their lesson, but that doesn't sit right with me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like there was a pretty entertaining charop game in PF1, not just to make the most powerful character you can, but just coming up with combinations of mechanics that let you pull off more than most characters can. I was genuinely amused when I figured out how to make a brawler that uses outslug style with a fauchard.
But at the same time for the health of the game, you simply can't let systems mastery either cover up for or cause problems in your game. The people who don't find the charop game fun, are going to find the game much less fun if it's there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do miss all the customization available in 1E. In 2E I feel like characters are "on rails". Like once I choose Ancestry, Background and Class, it feels like there isn't much I can really do to customize that character. Most class feats aren't very interesting or impactful (though some are), and skill feats are one of the worst things in the game in my view. I dread having to choose those.
I guess archetypes are supposed to help with that, but in practice the vast majority of archetypes are really weak and just don't offer much.
I don't really see much difference between floor and ceiling for most builds, which I guess is either a feature or bug, depending on your point of view.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do miss all the customization available in 1E. In 2E I feel like characters are "on rails". Like once I choose Ancestry, Background and Class, it feels like there isn't much I can really do to customize that character. Most class feats aren't very interesting or impactful (though some are), and skill feats are one of the worst things in the game in my view. I dread having to choose those.
I guess archetypes are supposed to help with that, but in practice the vast majority of archetypes are really weak and just don't offer much.
I don't really see much difference between floor and ceiling for most builds, which I guess is either a feature or bug, depending on your point of view.
It is most definitely a defining feature (as in extremely unlikely to change).
It is not to everyone's taste though.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought we were done with the objectively and demonstrably incorrect take that magic sucks in this game, and that we were done with this notion years ago
I'll also say, I don't see how you can get away with using whatever spells you wanted in PF1 even in adventure paths unless you had a DM who purposefully nerfed encounters around you
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay Deriven. It sounds like you like to play this game at a 9 or 10/10 in terms of optimization, bring your A-game every time. That's fine if that's what you and your table enjoys. Some of my friends and I used to do the same, until we realized we were optimizing the fun out of the game, which was especially noticeable when new players joined our group and couldn't keep up, or we wanted to make the job easy for relatively new GMs (like you said, GMing high level 1e is a nightmare... I should know, I'm going to do it in a few hours).
So now, we play down. Keep ourselves more within the 6 or 7/10 range, and everyone has a good time. And at the end of the day, that's what's most important, that's the purpose of any good game: fun.
But you'll probably want to ease up on the assertion that people can't play the game a certain way. Just kind of a weird thing to say.
I thought we were done with the objectively and demonstrably incorrect take that magic sucks in this game, and that we were done with this notion years ago
I'll also say, I don't see how you can get away with using whatever spells you wanted in PF1 even in adventure paths unless you had a DM who purposefully nerfed encounters around you
The "something sucks/no it doesn't" debates are never over. Whether the topic is magic, Alchemists, or Archetypes. If something is underperforming based on someone's expectations and/or previous experiences, they're going to say "it sucks". Meanwhile, the people whose expectations are largely being met will respond with "no it doesn't".
Bottom line, this is all personal perspective. As someone who loved Wild Shape and Alchemists in 1E, I consider the 2E versions of these things abominations and hate them. Alchemist and battle forms do have their supporters in 2E though. Now let's say someone deeply loved magic in 1E, then they might consider the 2E magic system an abomination as well.
|
|
I thought we were done with the objectively and demonstrably incorrect take that magic sucks in this game, and that we were done with this notion years ago
I'll also say, I don't see how you can get away with using whatever spells you wanted in PF1 even in adventure paths unless you had a DM who purposefully nerfed encounters around you
The "something sucks/no it doesn't" debates are never over. Whether the topic is magic, Alchemists, or Archetypes. If something is underperforming based on someone's expectations and/or previous experiences, they're going to say "it sucks". Meanwhile, the people whose expectations are largely being met will respond with "no it doesn't".
Bottom line, this is all personal perspective. As someone who loved Wild Shape and Alchemists in 1E, I consider the 2E versions of these things abominations and hate them. Alchemist and battle forms do have their supporters in 2E as well though. Now let's say someone deeply loved magic in 1E, then they might consider the 2E magic system an abomination as well.
Which is why it is interesting to know the reasons behind the perspective and debate whether it indeed cannot be done in any way in PF2 or if some possibility exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought we were done with the objectively and demonstrably incorrect take that magic sucks in this game, and that we were done with this notion years ago
I'll also say, I don't see how you can get away with using whatever spells you wanted in PF1 even in adventure paths unless you had a DM who purposefully nerfed encounters around you
The "something sucks/no it doesn't" debates are never over. Whether the topic is magic, Alchemists, or Archetypes. If something is underperforming based on someone's expectations and/or previous experiences, they're going to say "it sucks". Meanwhile, the people whose expectations are largely being met will respond with "no it doesn't".
Bottom line, this is all personal perspective. As someone who loved Wild Shape and Alchemists in 1E, I consider the 2E versions of these things abominations and hate them. Alchemist and battle forms do have their supporters in 2E though. Now let's say someone deeply loved magic in 1E, then they might consider the 2E magic system an abomination as well.
Whether you like the overpowered magic in 3.X (and 5e) or the balanced approach to magic here in 2E is not in conversation with how good or bad magic is within this system. We can leave the debate on whether magic sucks in this edition in the past as it is something that you can prove is wrong. The people making this complaint are in the past, the conversation has moved forward without them
The topic of alchemist and battle forms is different but likely you can't get rank 1-10 spells with legendary proficiency in casting while also getting to be as effective as a dedicated martial. It is likely a shifter-like class is what would allow someone to do this, which might suck for people who want to do it as a druid but is likely necessary for game balance. I will however agree I don't like where the alchemist is but I understand it is functional if you know what you're doing
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To bring the above back to the main topic of this thread's discussion, I think the question of magic feeling bad for some in 2e can be broken down a bit: if people feel magic is weak because it can't let them trivialize encounters and adventures, then that's likely not a feeling that's going to be recaptured in Pathfinder outside of 1e. If people feel magic is weak because it doesn't let them do things other can do well, like transform into a battle form that fights as well as a martial class, then that is a function of 2e's niche protection that could potentially change in the future. If that is to happen, though, I think it would be important to give martial classes equal access to strengths typically reserved to casters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't read anything, just the title, and my answer is no, definitely not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, I've never heard a single person complain that they can't "trivialize encounters" with magic in 2E. What I keep hearing, which also matches my experience playing casters, is that spells mostly miss or get saved/critically saved against by their targets.
Wanting to be successful at least half the time isn't the same thing as wanting to "trivialize encounters". That's the problem with magic in 2E in a nutshell: it very rarely works, at least against competent opponents.
That's something that needs to be addressed in any next edition, however many years in the future that is. Paizo might be losing out on alot of players based on the number of ppl I've seen give up on this game after trying to play casters and getting frustrated.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo is losing out on players based on the mechanics of their game working well (but differently from how you'd prefer), it sounds like those are players who come from other editions and have made up their mind already.
I'm also going to say that on a personal level, when people talk about the business side of the company ("Really losing customers because they aren't doing mechanics this way.") - it feels so disingenuous. Moreso when we've had years of the opposite being true. Just take ownership of your feelings and stop being upset and argumentative about something you can't change. Just say "I don't like X, but others seem to and why would I yuck their yum."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, I've never heard a single person complain that they can't "trivialize encounters" with magic in 2E. What I keep hearing, which also matches my experience playing casters, is that spells mostly miss or get saved/critically saved against by their targets.
Wanting to be successful at least half the time isn't the same thing as wanting to "trivialize encounters". That's the problem with magic in 2E in a nutshell: it very rarely works, at least against competent opponents.
That's something that needs to be addressed in any next edition, however many years in the future that is. Paizo might be losing out on alot of players based on the number of ppl I've seen give up on this game after trying to play casters and getting frustrated.
Exactly this. When I play a caster in 1e, I go out of my way to not use any spells I deem too strong in the interest of balance and preserving the DM's hairline, from the lowly Ironskin to the borderline-obscene Source Severance. I don't dislike 2e magic because it doesn't let me break the game; I don't WANT to break the game. It's my express goal to NOT break the game.
I dislike 2e magic because limited resources like spells should be either reliable or impactful, and oftentimes they're neither.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, I've never heard a single person complain that they can't "trivialize encounters" with magic in 2E. What I keep hearing, which also matches my experience playing casters, is that spells mostly miss or get saved/critically saved against by their targets.
Wanting to be successful at least half the time isn't the same thing as wanting to "trivialize encounters". That's the problem with magic in 2E in a nutshell: it very rarely works, at least against competent opponents.
That's something that needs to be addressed in any next edition, however many years in the future that is. Paizo might be losing out on alot of players based on the number of ppl I've seen give up on this game after trying to play casters and getting frustrated.
So here's the thing: magic is expressly more reliable than in previous editions, because spells in this system generally still do something on a successful save. In 1e, if a creature saved against your feeblemind, for instance, you'd just spent your turn doing nothing at all, whereas in 2e you still get to apply a significant stupefy effect for a round. The four degrees of success system was designed in large part to make casters especially reliable compared to martial classes, whose more numerous actions still generally only do something on a success. Nobody's going to admit they want to trivialize gameplay, but when the explicit message is to demand more reliability and often more raw power as well, that's the implication.
With that said, I do think that perception problem is itself something that could be addressed in a future edition: one of the aspects of the current four degrees is that they're made to be symmetrical and have an equal number of degrees of success and failure, because both players and the GM are expected to roll on various things. By contrast, in a hypothetical system where the players always rolled, and three of the four degrees were labeled some kind of success (e.g. partial/moderate/critical success, with a failure being the equivalent of a critical failure), then that perception problem could be addressed with players being told more often than not that they've succeeded. Similarly, in a game where spells weren't constrained by resources, or at least not per-day resources, when whiffing a spell would feel less bad, as you wouldn't have wasted some finite resource in the attempt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To bring the above back to the main topic of this thread's discussion, I think the question of magic feeling bad for some in 2e can be broken down a bit: if people feel magic is weak because it can't let them trivialize encounters and adventures, then that's likely not a feeling that's going to be recaptured in Pathfinder outside of 1e. If people feel magic is weak because it doesn't let them do things other can do well, like transform into a battle form that fights as well as a martial class, then that is a function of 2e's niche protection that could potentially change in the future. If that is to happen, though, I think it would be important to give martial classes equal access to strengths typically reserved to casters.
I have found magic can trivialize encounters myself, just not as easily as PF1.
When I hit something with a slow spell and they crit fail, encounter is over even if the monster isn't dead.
When I hit a group of mooks with a chain lightning with a bunch of crit fails, their hits points are wrecked even if the martials have some remaining clean up.
If I hit a boss with synesthesia, then drop true target followed by numerous critical hits and the combat is effectively over.
When I banish half the outsiders attacking with the boss, the encounter is mostly over.
When I eclipse burst a group of giants and a few end up blind, encounter is mostly over.
So magic went from PF1 where the wizard or caster used magic to win alone to PF2 magic where the caster effectively ends the encounter but actually leaves something for the martials to do like killing the pretty much neutralized monsters.
Which as a DM and even as a player is better in my opinion. Those games where the casters destroyed everything in PF1 were pretty boring and hard to DM effectively.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo is losing out on players based on the mechanics of their game working well (but differently from how you'd prefer), it sounds like those are players who come from other editions and have made up their mind already.
I'm also going to say that on a personal level, when people talk about the business side of the company ("Really losing customers because they aren't doing mechanics this way.") - it feels so disingenuous. Moreso when we've had years of the opposite being true. Just take ownership of your feelings and stop being upset and argumentative about something you can't change. Just say "I don't like X, but others seem to and why would I yuck their yum."
Yeah, I don't really think the amount of players hypothetically being 'lost' because of spellcasting in 2E is really anything meaningful - it's likely they were never going to convert anyway, and so there wasn't anything to lose.
And we know PF2E's is Paizo's most successful product to date - so obviously they are doing something right.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, I've never heard a single person complain that they can't "trivialize encounters" with magic in 2E. What I keep hearing, which also matches my experience playing casters, is that spells mostly miss or get saved/critically saved against by their targets.
Wanting to be successful at least half the time isn't the same thing as wanting to "trivialize encounters". That's the problem with magic in 2E in a nutshell: it very rarely works, at least against competent opponents.
That's something that needs to be addressed in any next edition, however many years in the future that is. Paizo might be losing out on alot of players based on the number of ppl I've seen give up on this game after trying to play casters and getting frustrated.
Exactly this. When I play a caster in 1e, I go out of my way to not use any spells I deem too strong in the interest of balance and preserving the DM's hairline, from the lowly Ironskin to the borderline-obscene Source Severance. I don't dislike 2e magic because it doesn't let me break the game; I don't WANT to break the game. It's my express goal to NOT break the game.
I dislike 2e magic because limited resources like spells should be either reliable or impactful, and oftentimes they're neither.
If you play more and learn the system, you will find that spells are very reliable and very powerful. It's a different system and the four saving throw tiers for spells has greatly changed how to value spells.
It took time for me to learn as well. I did not love PF2 magic out of the box and it seemed very weak, but I kept playing and reading spells more closely learning how the four levels of saves in spells worked. It changes how you value spells once you understand that four tier system.
You also want to understand the value of consumables which Superbidi can explain better than I can. Consumables like scrolls are very powerful at boosting casting since you have zero drop off in performance using a casting magic item like a scroll, wand, or staff.
It's a different paradigm that takes time to learn, but once you learn it magic is still very much the strongest thing in PF2 with a whole lot of variety to it.
As someone who has moved over to mostly martials in PF2, I changed because of non-encounter stuff.
Unseen Servant no longer lets you wave a hand and have something happen effortlessly throughout the day. It's an "effortful" concentration spell capped at ten minutes. When I can turn into a dragon, it isn't long enough to hold a conversation and convince someone I am a dragon. I can only prestidigitate two people's food at a time. If a peasant is bothering me, magically compelling them to go do something else lasts for a minute instead of all afternoon. Making up a curse is now making a whole custom spell, not just showing that it's more chill than the default Bestow Curse options.
Overall, it's harder to feel magical in daily life.
(That said, shout-out for my illusionists getting to feel like proper tricksters in PF2, turning large objects invisible all day, creating speaking illusions at much lower levels, and casting making illusory stuff that doesn't require concentration. You can make an illusory dragon long enough for a conversation.)
It's also easier to pick up a little bit of magic on a character. If I'm playing a mid-level game, it's two archetype feats to let any character turn an object invisible all day or toss out a nasty non-fatal curse as a threat. Don't need to lock myself into playing a caster to get the fun tricks that do exist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The battle forms need some work in PF2 or they need a shapechange spell for infiltration. By the rules, you can't even talk in dragon form or any battle form which is just egregiously bad design, especially for druids who can stay in form long enough to convince something they are a dragon or elemental or what not.
I believe they have a ritual for a persistent servant that doesn't require sustain. But rituals are a pain to use for casters requiring groups to execute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The battle forms need some work in PF2 or they need a shapechange spell for infiltration. By the rules, you can't even talk in dragon form or any battle form which is just egregiously bad design, especially for druids who can stay in form long enough to convince something they are a dragon or elemental or what not.
I believe they have a ritual for a persistent servant that doesn't require sustain. But rituals are a pain to use for casters requiring groups to execute.
For me, the constant growing in size is the biggest issue with battle forms. Large size isn't hard to accommodate, but there are alot of places where Huge size is impossible. Form Control is a very poor solution. Personally, I feel like Large should be the biggest size for alot of battle forms, Huge can be a real pain.
In 1E, the difference in stats between a Large and Huge size form wasn't very big, so I never felt like I NEEDED to be Huge, it was there if I wanted it. In 2E, the Stat differences are significant and I feel like being as big as you can be is the only way to keep up. I was hoping they would address battle forms in the Remaster but they never did.
The battle forms need some work in PF2 or they need a shapechange spell for infiltration. By the rules, you can't even talk in dragon form or any battle form which is just egregiously bad design, especially for druids who can stay in form long enough to convince something they are a dragon or elemental or what not.
I believe they have a ritual for a persistent servant that doesn't require sustain. But rituals are a pain to use for casters requiring groups to execute.
Yeah - you can have invisible servants in your home, and there's a long duration spell version to carry out a particular task in a limited area. Both are balanced substitutes, but it means you're not having an umbrella carry itself over you as you go out or having doors open themselves for you. I'm glad to have the options, since "mage with a fancy home" is an important fantasy too, but the shift is another little thing that means I play more Kineticists and Thaumaturges than Wizards and Bards.
Agreed on the battle form thing. Even if the spells themselves don't get changed, I hope we at least get a class that can do more skill/social stuff with shapeshifting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The battle forms need some work in PF2 or they need a shapechange spell for infiltration. By the rules, you can't even talk in dragon form or any battle form which is just egregiously bad design, especially for druids who can stay in form long enough to convince something they are a dragon or elemental or what not.
I believe they have a ritual for a persistent servant that doesn't require sustain. But rituals are a pain to use for casters requiring groups to execute.
For me, the constant growing in size is the biggest issue with battle forms. Large size isn't hard to accommodate, but there are alot of places where Huge size is impossible. Form Control is a very poor solution. Personally, I feel like Large should be the biggest size for alot of battle forms, Huge can be a real pain.
In 1E, the difference in stats between a Large and Huge size form wasn't very big, so I never felt like I NEEDED to be Huge, it was there if I wanted it. In 2E, the Stat differences are significant and I feel like being as big as you can be is the only way to keep up. I was hoping they would address battle forms in the Remaster but they never did.
Yep. The battle forms could use some work to make them more playable and sensible. The stats aren't as bad as I initially thought, but the size and talking issues are a pain. Why would a dragon or a righteous might cleric not be able to talk in a battle form? That is just ridiculous.
But at least they are usable all the way to 20 unlike summons, which are unusable combat for most levels.
Just thought I'd throw in a bit of anecdotal experience.
I just ran a PFS scenario in which the bard missed every single attack with her phase bolt spell. If it hadn't been for courageous anthem and guidance allowing the rest of the players to land a few hits, she would have felt completely useless.
I play a witch in PFS, who also uses phase bolt in combat. I figured if the enemy has a shield or cover, I effectively get a +2 to hit over other cantrips. Sweet, right? Even with max Intelligence, however, I miss 4 out of 5 attacks to no effect. It can be frustrating to say the least.
I have also played higher level games (as high as 18th-level) and can confirm too that higher level spells become increasingly reliable, as they often have worthwhile effects even on a poor result. Having tons more options among the party for buffing allies and debuffing enemies also goes a long way towards making even those lower level spells extremely worthwhile.
Overall, I think that magic system in PF2e works entirely as intended, and is quite fun if you think through what you're doing. It's a bit rougher at lower levels, but I think that's to be expected, and it's nothing like the low levels of PF1e; things are SO much better in PF2e, even for low level casters. That said, I am sad to see the Remaster do away with ability attributes to cantrip damage; that certainly didn't help the game feel any better for low level casters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed on the battle form thing. Even if the spells themselves don't get changed, I hope we at least get a class that can do more skill/social stuff with shapeshifting.
I have been *extremely* disappointed with what my Beastkin Psychic can do while shapechanged. Especially since Awakened Animals will now be able to do the exact same things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The battle forms need some work in PF2 or they need a shapechange spell for infiltration. By the rules, you can't even talk in dragon form or any battle form which is just egregiously bad design, especially for druids who can stay in form long enough to convince something they are a dragon or elemental or what not.
I believe they have a ritual for a persistent servant that doesn't require sustain. But rituals are a pain to use for casters requiring groups to execute.
For me, the constant growing in size is the biggest issue with battle forms. Large size isn't hard to accommodate, but there are alot of places where Huge size is impossible. Form Control is a very poor solution. Personally, I feel like Large should be the biggest size for alot of battle forms, Huge can be a real pain.
In 1E, the difference in stats between a Large and Huge size form wasn't very big, so I never felt like I NEEDED to be Huge, it was there if I wanted it. In 2E, the Stat differences are significant and I feel like being as big as you can be is the only way to keep up. I was hoping they would address battle forms in the Remaster but they never did.
Yep. The battle forms could use some work to make them more playable and sensible. The stats aren't as bad as I initially thought, but the size and talking issues are a pain. Why would a dragon or a righteous might cleric not be able to talk in a battle form? That is just ridiculous.
But at least they are usable all the way to 20 unlike summons, which are unusable combat for most levels.
Another issue I have with Untamed Form specifically is this business with using your own unarmed attack modifier and getting +2 to hit, but apparently only if your unarmed attack modifier is already higher than the battle form's. Ummm...What?? If someone wants to play a Strength Druid and really lean hard into battle forms, I don't see why they shouldn't have that option. After all, they're likely giving up some Wisdom and some spell attack power to maximize their battle forms. Why isn't that allowed? And if the devs don't want Strength Druids, why mention it at all? Currently I think that unarmed modifier rule only applies in like 3 or 4 levels during a Druid's career.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Outside of combat, illusory disguise at rank 3 can make you look like any creature of the same size. So that is a pretty decent “pretend to be something you are not” option that can last a whole hour.
Form control and perfect form control also seem perfectly suitable for non-combat purposes, which you can start doing for small animals by level 5.
I actually do think there is room for a shifter class based on feats that has no spells and isn’t based on battle forms at all. I think that could still happen for PF2 and be better than the PF1 version.
Battle form spells, like all spells in PF2, work really, really well…in specific circumstances based upon the enemy you are facing. Matching creature weaknesses or limits to the strengths of your form can be devastating. Trying to just start every combat shifting into the same form without matching up your best creature option up to the enemy will lead to a lot of frustration, which is the same thing that happens with all spells.
The big paradigm shift with PF2, that spills over everything , not just casting, is that you can’t beat a strong enemy by just trying to play to your party’s strengths. You have to find and exploit their weaknesses. PF1 never required that, and made trying to have the versatility to do so massively weaken your character instead of strength them.
Outside of combat, illusory disguise at rank 3 can make you look like any creature of the same size. So that is a pretty decent “pretend to be something you are not” option that can last a whole hour.
Form control and perfect form control also seem perfectly suitable for non-combat purposes, which you can start doing for small animals by level 5.
I actually do think there is room for a shifter class based on feats that has no spells and isn’t based on battle forms at all. I think that could still happen for PF2 and be better than the PF1 version.
Battle form spells, like all spells in PF2, work really, really well…in specific circumstances based upon the enemy you are facing. Matching creature weaknesses or limits to the strengths of your form can be devastating. Trying to just start every combat shifting into the same form without matching up your best creature option up to the enemy will lead to a lot of frustration, which is the same thing that happens with all spells.
The big paradigm shift with PF2, that spills over everything , not just casting, is that you can’t beat a strong enemy by just trying to play to your party’s strengths. You have to find and exploit their weaknesses. PF1 never required that, and made trying to have the versatility to do so massively weaken your character instead of strength them.
You don't have to, but it can help. Most the time you can pound down an enemy without even knowing what they are.