Pathfinder 2E Martials > Casters

[CapnZapp]

Wizards and sorcerers getting into melee is straight up suicide. They will be trailing the martial character by 3 points of AC, which means a 15% better chance to get hit, and a 15% better chance yo be critted. Since monsters can attack 3 times, the odds are against you.

I did the calculation for my first level wizard, he had something like a 40% chance of dying if he started the round next to a 1st level enemy.

Well, if you're saying first level fighters are fine while first level wizards are completely hosed, that's an exaggeration, I think. The simple truth is that the difference between classes is never as small as at first level, so if there's one level where it doesn't matter much which class you are, first level would be it.

This does not mean I am disputing any of your findings. Of course, being a fighter still helps.

But if your post was meant as a reply to me saying...

That said, at really low levels the difference between an armored fighter and a frail wizard isn't really that noteworthy. I'd say it is unwise for every 1st level character to be in melee

...I stand by what I said.

Cheers

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem is that Pathfinder 2 seems to be supporting a high-risk, low-reward playstyle for wizards: few levelled spells, Vancian casting, spells which have been nerfed in comparison to 5e and Pathfinder, and cantrips that do less damage than if I had maxed Dex instead of Int and used a bow.

Well, at low levels I believe this is indisputable.

On the other hand, that's no news to anyone playing 3rd Edition or AD&D so it's not necessarily a dealbreaker. It's just enough for this thread to exist

Hopefully the reward comes later. After all, while spells that affect allies and enemies have been severely reined in, you can still use spells to deal damage. Not to mention utility spells that remain just as useful as ever.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Well, at low levels I believe this is indisputable.

On the other hand, that's no news to anyone playing 3rd Edition or AD&D so it's not necessarily a dealbreaker. It's just enough for this thread to exist

Yeah, except “you will suck at low levels but dominate at high levels” wasn’t really a draw for me when I was a teen playing 2nd ed., and is even less of a draw for me as an adult who has plenty of other demands on my time.

Hopefully the reward comes later. After all, while spells that affect allies and enemies have been severely reined in, you can still use spells to deal damage. Not to mention utility spells that remain just as useful as ever.

Not quite “just as useful as ever” since they nerfed “Unseen Servant” into the ground. Clearly, “Unseen Servant” was far too popular with powergamers to let stand.

Actually, most utility spells have been nerfed. Some have gone up a level, others have had their duration reduced, or have seen other nerfs.

As written, you cannot use Summon Animal to do anything except fight. Featherfall can save you but not anyone else in your party.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, except “you will suck at low levels but dominate at high levels” wasn’t really a draw for me when I was a teen playing 2nd ed., and is even less of a draw for me as an adult who has plenty of other demands on my time.

Okay

I'm merely making an observation here. I'm only speaking about low levels. I haven't played at high levels.

Not quite “just as useful as ever” since they nerfed “Unseen Servant” into the ground. Clearly, “Unseen Servant” was far too popular with powergamers to let stand.

Actually, most utility spells have been nerfed. Some have gone up a level, others have had their duration reduced, or have seen other nerfs.

As written, you cannot use Summon Animal to do anything except fight. Featherfall can save you but not anyone else in your party.

Sure. Still, utility spells actually do stuff. They don't just deal damage or give or take 1 point.

Featherfall actually saves you, it doesn't merely give you a +1 bonus on Grab an Edge, to take an example.

PS. And it saves one person, which doesn't necessarily need to be you. DS

 

[FrogReaver]

@CapnZapp

How many spells can you cast on a turn in pathfinder 2?

 

[CapnZapp]

@CapnZapp

How many spells can you cast on a turn in pathfinder 2?

The basic answer is 1.

Creatures have three actions each round. One action is enough for a move or a swing of a sword. Nearly all spells cost two actions to cast.

There are exceptions, but, like nearly everything else in Pathfinder 2, they are more reined in than someone coming from 3E or 5E would expect. For example, in those games you would think "yeah, sure, but as soon as I get my hands on quickened casting, I can forget about that restriction". Pathfinder 2 is a game designed by people I clearly think were sick and tired of all the myriad ways to shirk restrictions in Pathfinder 1, so while most of the things you could do in 3E or 5E are still present, they are invariably locked down, given additional restrictions, brought up to higher levels, and so on... to create a game where your actions defines you, not your build. Which is a nice way of saying "you can't meaningfully gain or lose power by making character build choices". There are no obvious power-ups, like how Quickened Casting was a given - and massive - upgrade in both 3E and 5E, though obviously implemented in quite different ways.

Thus Quickened Casting reduces the casting time of a spell to one action (which is as great as you'd think) but the spell must be two levels lower than your maximum spell level and you can only do it once a day. Effectively, the ability to "quickened" is retained (so that people can't complain it isn't there) while still not meaningfully upgrading the caster.

(You do gain additional "game-breaking" abilities at the very top levels, like a level 10 spell at level 19 and a capstone feat at level 20)

 

[FrozenNorth]

Pathfinder 2 is a game designed by people I clearly think were sick and tired of all the myriad ways to shirk restrictions in Pathfinder 1, so while most of the things you could do in 3E or 5E are still present, they are invariably locked down, given additional restrictions, brought up to higher levels, and so on... to create a game where your actions defines you, not your build.

I think this is a very good way of putting it. It was created in such a way to make powergaming difficult.

Unfortunately, this has the side effect that if you weren’t a powergamer, restrictions can seem excessive, complicated or immersion-breaking.

Unseen Servant is a good example of this. If you were thinking “why nerf Unseen Servant”? It is a good spell for making your wizard seem like a wizard when his unseen servant prepares the camp” then you weren’t thinking of all the ways Unseen Servant could be abused in a Dungeon context.

So you end up with powergamers unhappy because it is tough to powergame, and narrativists unhappy because you have to live with a bunch of restrictions that aren’t necessary if you don’t powergame.

 

[CapnZapp]

You can ask my players. They can report it is close to impossible to powergame (get ahead of the curve). They have really tried

It bears repeating how spells, and specifically utility spells, is the one big outlet.

Nearly everything else that isn't damage gives you +1 or gives the monster -1. But utility magic still allows you to do things otherwise impossible. To me, that grades as way more than a +1. It is my hope these things will explain why you bothered bringing along a spellcaster!

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

It also really helps (and mind you the Paizo forum thread on the same subject keeps going round and round on these same points) that the spellcasters have the option to use AOE spells, combined with failure effects, have super high chances of not only having an effect- but actually outpacing the DPR of most Martials (sans a really convenient Whirlwind strike at high levels.)

I believe we calculated something like an 85% chance to do some amount of damage on a standard at level monster (of which 2 is a standard encounter, and 3-4 should be severe if I'm not mistaken) using the monster creation rules and encounter guidelines.

Something like a fireball very very quickly matches and outpaces the average damage of a Martial across multiple targets, and because you're hitting multiple targets with a single spell, your chance that some amount of the target will either fail or critically fail, potentially doubling your output, is high enough to represent a serious contender for a player who enjoys high damage play styles.

Meanwhile, Spell Attacks have, it was determined, fallen behind, having only around 50% chance to hit an at level target (really, its the same hit chance as a Weapon strike without it's +'s, though all casters eventually get legendary) and generally no failure effects, although this varies. True Strike patches this straight up to somewhere in excess of a 75% hit chance (specifically in excess because I dunno how to factor critical success into that number.) The general sentiment however is that true strike shouldn't be required.

I'm of the opinion that some classes should maybe get a spammable metamagic effect that costs an action that grants the effects of true strike. Retaining the action tax, but not the slot tax, and being less dependent on the Arcane and Occult lists, then again, list unique solutions to this problem could generate a higher level of diversity- but then again, some people would probably prefer spell potency as a solution.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hi @The-Magic-Sword I hope you didn't forget about the very first sentence of the thread:

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

(That Wizards can "outpace the DPR" of a warrior in the round they cast Fireball is not under debate)

PS. Regarding spell attacks, yeah, my two caster players quickly abandoned all these cantrips, since Electric Arc is so clearly superior from a pure statistical perspective. (Not only does it do something on a "miss", it does it to two monsters)