Pathfinder 2E Martials > Casters

[CapnZapp]

I wouldn't say it's necessarily suboptimal Kaodi. A Cleric is never gonna deal significant damage. Playing a healbot is a much more effective use of the class (it's all about that +8 per spell level). And as you say, getting off an attack regardless of distance without MAP is not the worst usage of your third action.

(Our Cleric have chosen to pick up a shield, and thus spends her third action on raising the shield. Normally I'd say it's a better strategy to help soak the incoming damage - distributing it over more heroes - but with this Cleric's abysmal AC, I'm not so sure)

 

[teitan]

This.

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)

mid it returning it or extrapolating from 3.x? Returning implies the game shares continuity to 5e.

 

[CapnZapp]

mid it returning it or extrapolating from 3.x? Returning implies the game shares continuity to 5e.

Sorry, didn't quite catch your question?

 

[teitan]

Sorry, didn't quite catch your question?

yeah sorry about that, typing on the phone produced weird languages... almost demonic. how is it returning to pre3e levels because we are talking about a different game here At this point with only where the only commonality was a DNA in 3e? Even the math philosophy is different with 5e being built on bounded accuracy and P2 being linear mathematics. genuine interest.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ah. When I meant "pre 5e levels" i didn't literally mean a return to exactly 3e.

Just that the feeling of "weak casters, strong martials" is not exactly new to anyone who created a old school Wizard with 1d4 hit points, or a Cleric who doesn't even get spells until second level

More between the lines, I'm of course questioning the wisdom of Paizo ignoring 5e sensibilities even where they don't work against Paizo's goals, since that edition has been a huge success, not unlikely precisely because its great strides towards caster-martial equality at all levels (even though the effort certainly isn't perfect, balancing up spells and casters does remain - in my view - one of 5e's greatest achievements)

 

[Celtavian]

I think bards and clerics are very good and useful casters easily on par with martials as far as usefulness goes. They have game changing abilities.

Now offensive focused wizards and sorcerers I'm not sure of. Then I thought about PF2 and the types of things that they design team was trying to get rid of. I was thinking that the PF2 team does not want the generalist caster good at nearly everything any more able to choose optimal spells for each level. Instead PF2 will allow you to do something if you specialize in it. And casters can specialize in more ways of doing something than martials.

So now I am seeing if I can build a caster that equal a martials damage by focusing on nothing but damage. Very few utility spells or slots used for anything but damage. You just use all your slots and cantrips and focus spells to bring the hammer. If I can do that, then I will prove what I think to be true that even casters who want to do well need to be specialized like a martial. An archer shoots a bow. A sword and board guy wields a sword and board usually having good AC. A two-hander deals damage.

And this applies to casters. If you want to be a good healer, focus on healing. You want to be a good summoner, focus heavily on summoning using your highest level spell slots to cast summons and focus on enhancing them. If you want a damage caster, focus on damaging spells. I think if you do that, you can compete with martials in damage.

 

[CapnZapp]

When I try to discuss this over at Paizo forums some very loud posters vehemently defend the design decisions of PF2.

But to me at least it all boils down to "so what if the Wizard can't outshine the others in the party more than during three rounds or so, you never have more than three really challenging fights in a day in any official adventure anyway".

Meaning they're okay with the notion that unless the Wizard expends his absolute biggest guns, he should feel content by the martials outperforming him - doing what they can do every round, all day long.

It certainly is a perspective.

(The cleric is fine, since in-combat healing wasn't deliberately nerfed like in 5E. That two-action Heal alone easily justifies bringing along a Cleric in the party, never mind all the other stuff a full divine caster can do)

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think the design space in which true balance between martials and casters would exist is too narrow to land in without building both off the same building blocks (which is a thing that makes some people very grumpy the instant they see it).

Which is why PF2 has ended up with a tightly balanced game that favors martial characters in general but can lean the other way and favor casters in specific circumstances. Because of basic ideas like "options that cost resources have to be better than options that don't or it isn't worth using them" and "at-will options of classes that also get resource-based options can't be as good as other at-will options because that'd be unbalanced" and "even if it costs a resource, it can't be so much better than non-resource options from similar level of characters that people feel their character isn't contributing enough in comparison" all applying to the same design element (spells) you get the current PF2 dynamic:

At-will spells < at-will martial options < non-resource limited options (that flourish tag) < resource costing limited options used in the right circumstances.

I haven't gotten into the higher level range with the game yet either, but I do think it looks like it fits the "start out weaker, end up stronger" idea of yesteryear D&D - just not to as extreme of degree, since the baseline competency has been raised and the top end "if I cast the right spell an entire encounter is over" has been significantly trimmed down.

 

[Celtavian]

When I try to discuss this over at Paizo forums some very loud posters vehemently defend the design decisions of PF2.

But to me at least it all boils down to "so what if the Wizard can't outshine the others in the party more than during three rounds or so, you never have more than three really challenging fights in a day in any official adventure anyway".

Meaning they're okay with the notion that unless the Wizard expends his absolute biggest guns, he should feel content by the martials outperforming him - doing what they can do every round, all day long.

It certainly is a perspective.

(The cleric is fine, since in-combat healing wasn't deliberately nerfed like in 5E. That two-action Heal alone easily justifies bringing along a Cleric in the party, never mind all the other stuff a full divine caster can do)

I am trying to find ways to make offensive casters interesting. I am finding it difficult. Some people are satisfied with using action reducing abilities like slow, which are effective. I don't find that fun. I quit my wizard when my rounds usually consisted of doing inferior cantrip damage with a shield spell. I started playing a bard and felt very useful again. The key seems to be having a 1 action ability that does something useful. Even a cleric can heal someone with one action and still cast an attack or buff spell. Wizards don't have a lot of cool one-action options.

Now I'm seeing if specializing in a particular type of magic will make you powerful. I know in PF1 casters were generalists who took optimal spells of varying kinds at each level. Maybe in PF2 if you want to be that guy who turns people into things and controls actions, you need to focus on those abilities by filling your highest level slots with incapacitation spells and your lower level slots with action reducing spells. Whereas if you want to be a damage dealer, you need to fill all your slots with damage spells so even a 1st lvl spell is able to do some damage and use those spells freely. We'll see if it works. You can certainly build a lot of different caster concepts in PF2. I'm getting the feeling we just haven't figured out how to make those concepts shine because some of us are still stuck in PF1 thinking that we don't have specialize. I feel if you wanted to build a polymorph specialist. Then you no longer to get memorize polymorph spells along with general direct damage or utility. You would have to focus on polymorph spells in your highest level slots and then buff spells like like haste or true strike in your lower level slots to make it easier to hit. Even as a caster you have to specialize heavily. There are not spells that win the game any more, rather you have magical traditions you have to heavily focus on enhancing.

I am also hoping that new magic books will provide options that allow for better specializations of types of magic like making a shapechange specialist. Or an enchantment specialist. If they do that, then I'd be ok with it. I don't mind being highly specialized as a caster as long as I'm effective.

 

[Bravesteel25]

The key seems to be having a 1 action ability that does something useful. Even a cleric can heal someone with one action and still cast an attack or buff spell. Wizards don't have a lot of cool one-action options.

I think this is key. I haven't played my level 1 "master necromancer" with my group since before the pandemic, but I remember becoming acutely aware after just a few sessions how I felt like I was missing the presence of some 1-action spells. Hopefully some magic books will shed some light in this regard. I also think that your theory on specialization is probably correct.