Pathfinder 2E Martials > Casters

[FrozenNorth]

I am trying to find ways to make offensive casters interesting. I am finding it difficult. 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.

I’m skeptical. I’m playing an illusionist in a large group, so pretty much every battle ends up with enemies benefitting from the “Incap” keyword even when I prepare my highest level spells.

 

[Celtavian]

I’m skeptical. I’m playing an illusionist in a large group, so pretty much every battle ends up with enemies benefitting from the “Incap” keyword even when I prepare my highest level spells.

You may be right. Designers may have decided not to let the wizard or caster incapacitate BBEGs unless they get incredibly unlucky. I understand it. I've had casters in PF1 end the main BBEG encounter quite a few times, which left everyone else bored.

I'm going to try to use my incapacitate spells on lower level tough minions or to secure a lower level creature in the case of charm or dominate. See how that works.

 

[Xenonnonex]

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.

I said this. People thought I was dissing the game.

 

[CapnZapp]

Incapacitation needs a fix. Simple as that.

Being asked to focus on mooks only is simply not acceptable.

It all bopils down to what D&D needed to have done a looong time ago - detail partial results of failed saves.

Trapped in a Forcecage? As a PC or regular monster, you're out. As a BBEG, you are inconvenienced (perhaps one leg is stuck inside the cage) - you become flatfooted and immobilized.

You get the picture. If every "save or suck" spell had detailed a "half-way state" reserved for when the story demands it, you would need two failed saves against the same spell (or at least a second failed save against a spell giving the same condition).

Paizo could even make up a generic half-way state for incapacitation.

Anything's better than what we have now, since no rational player bothers with those spells at all.

 

[CapnZapp]

I hope Paizo very soon issues official magic items with plus bonuses to spell attacks (as opposed to spells triggering saves).

Ranged attacks are weak as is, and caster attack bonuses lag those of martials.

Spells with saves often deal half damage on a successful save, as opposed to zero damage on a miss. Yet, spell attacks aren't significantly easier than getting a monster to miss a save.

The simple result is: players simply avoid spell attack spells.

A system with the equivalents of potency and striking runes for spells with attacks (so you could gain +3 to attack and three extra damage dice) would help immensely.

There's far more interesting magic items for martials than casters as it is. Every little thing a caster might want would help.

 

[Porridge]

I hope Paizo very soon issues official magic items with plus bonuses to spell attacks (as opposed to spells triggering saves).

Ranged attacks are weak as is, and caster attack bonuses lag those of martials.

Spells with saves often deal half damage on a successful save, as opposed to zero damage on a miss. Yet, spell attacks aren't significantly easier than getting a monster to miss a save.

The simple result is: players simply avoid spell attack spells.

A system with the equivalents of potency and striking runes for spells with attacks (so you could gain +3 to attack and three extra damage dice) would help immensely.

There's far more interesting magic items for martials than casters as it is. Every little thing a caster might want would help.

I think the strongest case for adding a bonus to spell attacks is the fact that the rules for constructing NPC spellcasters in the Gamemastery Guide assign them a spell attack bonus 8 lower than their spell DCs (Table 2-11), not 10 lower, as for PCs. (And these rules fit the the stats given to spellcasters in the bestiaries and published modules.)

This suggests that the balance between attack and save spells were made assuming that PC spell attack bonuses would be 2 points higher than they actually are.

 

[Puggins]

I hope Paizo very soon issues official magic items with plus bonuses to spell attacks (as opposed to spells triggering saves).

Ranged attacks are weak as is, and caster attack bonuses lag those of martials.

Spells with saves often deal half damage on a successful save, as opposed to zero damage on a miss. Yet, spell attacks aren't significantly easier than getting a monster to miss a save.

The simple result is: players simply avoid spell attack spells.

There is an exception that is more of an exploit- the mere presence of True Strike means most most high level spells are going to hit a lot more often than martial attacks for casters with True Strike in their spell list (which, given how many ways you can add 1st level spells to your spell list, is probably everybody).

Aside from that, attack spells with saves are a complete disaster in terms of design, and yeah, with maybe one or two exceptions caster magic items are so, so much less fun than martial magic items. Another fail. I do like the design of staves, but some potency runes would be awfully nice.

 

[Celtavian]

I hope Paizo very soon issues official magic items with plus bonuses to spell attacks (as opposed to spells triggering saves).

Ranged attacks are weak as is, and caster attack bonuses lag those of martials.

Spells with saves often deal half damage on a successful save, as opposed to zero damage on a miss. Yet, spell attacks aren't significantly easier than getting a monster to miss a save.

The simple result is: players simply avoid spell attack spells.

A system with the equivalents of potency and striking runes for spells with attacks (so you could gain +3 to attack and three extra damage dice) would help immensely.

There's far more interesting magic items for martials than casters as it is. Every little thing a caster might want would help.

This needs to happen. Spells don't have the advantage of attacking Touch AC any longer. Even with Legendary proficiency, a +3 item takes master proficiency in weapons and adds +3 to hit on top of all the other ways to reduce AC like flanking. At least a +1 item bonus to hit item would balance out for most. And even a +3 item would be ok since most spells and cantrips require 2 actions instead of 1 and do less damage.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the strongest case for adding a bonus to spell attacks is the fact that the rules for constructing NPC spellcasters in the Gamemastery Guide assign them a spell attack bonus 8 lower than their spell DCs (Table 2-11), not 10 lower, as for PCs. (And these rules fit the the stats given to spellcasters in the bestiaries and published modules.)

This suggests that the balance between attack and save spells were made assuming that PC spell attack bonuses would be 2 points higher than they actually are.

While I agree about the low spell attacks of PCs, I would not compare it to NPCs and monsters who are governed by entirely different and incompatible rules.

Instead I would compare it to the alternative, that is casting spells that force saves. If targeting a neither-weak-nor-strong save gets you a better chance at success than making a spell attack, and even if the monster does save, nets you "half damage", that's an argument something's wonky.

 

[CapnZapp]

This needs to happen.

Since I'm not ready to add completely homebrewn items to my PF2 EC campaign just yet*, I would dearly like to find items such as this in an official book.

Maybe I'll be more open to doing things myself in a second campaign, but I need high-level experience before that.

*) I mean, adding a strange seldom-used story item like a more interesting Grail of Twisted Desires is one thing. Adding an item that introduces a whole new bonus category has a much larger potential impact, and I want Paizo to give the green light first.