Pathfinder 2E Martials > Casters

[CapnZapp]

This discussion revolves around low levels, maybe up to level 5-7 or so.

The message from my play experience is loud n clear: PF2 is definitely a throwback to the time before 5th Edition - martials are significantly stronger than casters at low levels.

This goes both for player characters and monsters/NPCs.

Some level 2 monsters with claws and spears and teeth and spikes are more like level 3 when it comes to their contribution to overall encounter difficulty. Some level 2 monsters with spells are more like level 1.

(Obviously a BBEG monster three levels above the heroes can do scary stuff with magic. Is that my point? No)

As the GM, casting a spell is almost always a step down compared to making a physical attack. Monsters have excellent attack bonuses and impressive damage. Their spells... are just as feeble as when cast by heroes. (I still have my spellcasting monsters cast their spells, of course. This isn't me complaining about weak monsters. PF2 is not a game where I complain about weak monsters )

I'm aware some people like it that way. And I'm sure you can argue the tables turn at higher level. None of that's relevant. There's no need for excuses or justifications - I'm not attacking or complaining.

At this point I just want to throw it out there. It simply is. But it's worth making known to the wider audience. So let's discuss.

 

[TwoSix]

That's good to hear. I'm a caster player myself, and I've long advocated that martial classes should be the most valuable contributers in combat situations, with spells used for specific problem solving. Casters can take over and shine in non-combat situations. D&D-type games work better with some use of spotlight balance, and it's not like any class has no chance to contribute (there's no "hacker problem").

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I would be happier if everything was balanced at all levels. I have not played PF2 yet, so I don't know if this always happens or if it's campaign-dependent.

I played 3e with a DM who is not any good with casters. Also Pathfinder.

 

[CapnZapp]

That's good to hear. I'm a caster player myself, and I've long advocated that martial classes should be the most valuable contributers in combat situations, with spells used for specific problem solving.

I would be happier if everything was balanced at all levels.

This.

I have not played PF2 yet, so I don't know if this always happens or if it's campaign-dependent.

Believe me, it's the system, not the campaign. It's not something that "happens" depending on the GMs or the players actions or decisions. It just is. I'm certainly not downgrading magic, or even attempting to.

You don't get many spell (slots). They might deal more damage than a single attack, both seldom deal more damage than two successful hits (or one crit).

A big part of this is how PF2 also returns the melee/ranged balance to pre-5E levels. Melee is king; ranged is decidedly a back-up option.

Except for casters, whose cantrips are ranged. (Not that low-level casters would like to enter melee)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Could people with PF2e experience break down why spellcasters are so weak at low levels?

 

[dave2008]

A big part of this is how PF2 also returns the melee/ranged balance to pre-5E levels. Melee is king; ranged is decidedly a back-up option.

OK few quick questions:

1. How does PF2e make melee king? It has now been several months since a perused the books and without a chance to play I'm not familiar. (perhaps clarified with answers to questions below)
2. Does this apply just to ranged spells or generally to ranged combat?
3. Is the relatively weaker casters because they don't have comparable melee spells or that it unwise for them to be in melee (or both)?
4. Are ranged options worse for magic than weapons?
5. Are ranged attacks generally worse, therefor, since magic is mostly ranged, magic is less effective?
6. Is this just for damage spells or really the same regardless of spell type?

 

[Campbell]

When the circumstances favor them melee builds do higher single target damage than ranged builds. This is largely due to melee strikes getting to add Strength modifier to damage while ranged builds get to add 1/2 Strength modifier at best. Melee also has an edge on damage dice (longbow is d8 while greatsword is d12).

Often circumstances do not favor melee types.

• Movement is often a damage loss and many monsters have abilities that knock you around or allow them to zip around the battlefield.
• Being in melee is often dangerous. Monsters hit pretty hard and many have auras and effects from hitting them or explode when you kill them.

The big advantage of ranged builds is they can deliver damage exactly where it is needed and often can still do the same amount of damage even when they have to move.

 

[dave2008]

When the circumstances favor them melee builds do higher single target damage than ranged builds. This is largely due to melee strikes getting to add Strength modifier to damage while ranged builds get to add 1/2 Strength modifier at best. Melee also has an edge on damage dice (longbow is d8 while greatsword is d12).

Often circumstances do not favor melee types.

• Movement is often a damage loss and many monsters have abilities that knock you around or allow them to zip around the battlefield.
• Being in melee is often dangerous. Monsters hit pretty hard and many have auras and effects from hitting them or explode when you kill them.

The big advantage of ranged builds is they can deliver damage exactly where it is needed and often can still do the same amount of damage even when they have to move.

Is there any disadvantage to firing into a group? Could you hit allies or do allies provide cover to your targets?

 

[Campbell]

Is there any disadvantage to firing into a group? Could you hit allies or do allies provide cover to your targets?

Any creature (ally, bystander or enemy) in between you and the target will provide lesser cover (+1 to target's AC. Cannot be used to hide). There is no chance you will hit anyone other than the target.

 

[CapnZapp]

The thing that makes the issue a really big one is this:

Difficulty.

(I obviously understand you can make things much harder or easier yourself as the GM; but now I'm discussing running an official AP as written)

When combats are nice and easy, you can appreciate luxury.

One such luxury is "I'm not letting my hot bod anywhere near the claws of the monster". Wizards and Archers are especially fond of this line of thinking.

But when combats get more and more difficult, one resource gets more and more important. You as a target. Spreading out damage over every hero.

That is, in really difficult fights, "ranged" is a luxury you can't afford, since every hero needs to offer up their warm flesh for monsters to hit. If they don't, the frontliners will get overwhelmed. Even if only some hits are redirected towards other targets, that makes a huge difference to the staying power of your frontliners.

This means that yes, we can discuss how ranged fire don't get all the eleven* bonuses 5E offers over 3E to ranged hero archetypes.

But in the end, it doesn't really matter. You're better off creating a hero that wants to be in the thick of it, because that's where you'll end up eventually anyway.

What I am saying is: having a wizard or archer means having to fight monsters with 2 fewer warm bodies to soak hits. When things are nice and easy, this is fine, and their contributions are appreciated. When things get hairy, however, the fact that they likely won't volunteer to help distribute monster attacks away from the frontliners become a real challenge.

It's still possible to play PF2 that way, don't get me wrong. And I'm definitely not saying "don't bother with ranged attacks" since having a weak ranged game is a serious handicap in any fight where the monsters don't want to close to melee.

All I'm saying is that is this is the factor that I feel ultimately cements my initial claim: martials > casters, even after taking things like the lack of bonuses to ranged fire and the way PF2 monsters can't easily be outmaneuvered like in 5E into account.

*) Once several years ago I wrote up a list of things 5E changed to make ranged fire better (vs 3E). I still can't find that list... I wish I would, since IIRC I could find no less than eleven such things!