Pathfinder 2E Martials > Casters

[AaronOfBarbaria]

For future reference: you can edit your own posts.

I don't know any details, but I believe the Clay Golem is a PF2 monster with some sort of playability issue. It seems things went fine for your party, though.

It's a relatively minor issue if the GM isn't looking for the most punishing reading possible as the one to go with.

The basics: the wounds it inflicts are cursed so that if you fail the save against the curse you cannot be healed except by magic and healing spells have to contest with the counteract rules but as-written the golem's counteract level is untouchable except by significantly higher-level healers (it's a level 10 monster with a 10 counteract level so characters have to be able to cast 7th-level healing spells to possibly counteract that) - but use of healing potions and other magical healing that doesn't involve spell casting works, and the curse ends when the character is restored to maximum HP.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's a relatively minor issue if the GM isn't looking for the most punishing reading possible as the one to go with.

The basics: the wounds it inflicts are cursed so that if you fail the save against the curse you cannot be healed except by magic and healing spells have to contest with the counteract rules but as-written the golem's counteract level is untouchable except by significantly higher-level healers (it's a level 10 monster with a 10 counteract level so characters have to be able to cast 7th-level healing spells to possibly counteract that) - but use of healing potions and other magical healing that doesn't involve spell casting works, and the curse ends when the character is restored to maximum HP.

Thank you.

Okay, so the controversy arises when someone inevitably points out that healing potions are magical (and thus doesn't work)

 

[Kaodi]

I know I can edit my posts. But since four hours had passed I thought I should perhaps just post again lest anyone miss that I had corrected it.

Anyway - here is the ability: Cursed Wound (divine, curse, necromancy) A creature hit by the clay golem’s fist must succeed at a DC 29 Fortitude save or be cursed until healed to its maximum HP. The cursed creature can’t regain HP except via magic, and anyone casting a spell to heal the creature must succeed at a DC 29 counteract check or the healing has no effect. The golem’s counteract level is equal to its creature level.

I think that technically means healing from magical potions and items would work as long as there is no spellcasting involved. But yeah, having to use ultra specific magic items or your character is basically dead is "save or die" they tried to take out of this edition.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Thank you.

Okay, so the controversy arises when someone inevitably points out that healing potions are magical (and thus doesn't work)

You got it backwards. The controversy is when a GM tries to say potions don't work and are then upset at the designers "because there's no way to actually get rid of this curse it must be a typo or something"

 

[GrahamWills]

A Cleric is never gonna deal significant damage

So, I'm playing a warpriest cleric and have from level 1 upward. Our other main damage dealer is a damage-optimized barbarian. There's no doubt that he does the most damage, but the cleric is definitely "dealing significant damage". And this is a cleric with maxed out charisma (for the heals!), so not an optimal combat warpriest.

Here are some of the ways that cleric remain a significant source of pure hit damage:

• At low levels, before Striking runes are available, the cleric casts magic weapon. The barbarian is then doing d12 + 8 on attacks, while the cleric is doing 2d12 + 3. Their to-hits are pretty similar as neither has expert weapon attacks yet
• True strike is fantastic. As a cleric I can even get it as a focus spell, so it renews for most encounters. Combining with the above (buff weapon before going in, then move to attack + true strike) is very strong, especially against level+2 opposition as iterative attacks are less useful. Against weaker foes I'll often keep the true strike until the second round, when engaged, so I can attack and make a true strike second attack with great to-hit chances)
• Obviously, against groups, any burst attacks are going to be significant sources of damage. I've found sound burst actually to be the best (maybe its the number of fire-resistant creatures we've been going up against ...) but you have a wide variety of options.
• Once everyone has striking runes, fighters also have expert weapon training and so are going to be +3 better on attack. Against single targets, they re generally much better -- enough so that I usual drop back into support role. However there are plenty of situations where the cleric is significantly better:
  • Flying creatures: Obviously, if you have to use ranged attacks, the melee fighter is pretty much hosed. Even the cantrips are pretty useful in this situation
  • Starting 300+' away. Closing that sort of distance is a real pain. Casters can get to attack range much more easily (500' fireball range is awesome!). Since my cleric is heavy-plate dog slow, I've been using summoned creatures with dim door to get attacks.
  • Fighting undead and fiends gives a lot of strong cleric spell options.
  • Maybe surprisingly, I've got a lot of use from Detect Invisible. Being able to see your enemy helps a lot
• One strong mitigator is heroism -- especially the +2 boost from the heightened version. All attacks and saves at that bonus brings you very close to the fighter's attack.
• Enlarge is also fun. Huge + 15' reach is great fun! Plus the bonus damage of course.

In terms of absolute total damage potential against a single target, I have yet to see a better single round attack than heightened searing light after true strike. Against an undead, at level 11 (my current level) it does 22d6 of damage, or 44d6 on a critical. And it's 120' range so you can cast it while the fighter spent his turn just moving. I cast it last fight for 92 points of damage, which I think is the most we have seen for a single attack. I didn't get the critical successes, which is a shame.

So, the statement "a Cleric is never gonna deal significant damage" is not true in my experience. If you build a cleric to do damage, they definitely can. And if the situation is not just a stand-up fight in a small room, you have a ton more versatility. The pure melee builds definitely do the most damage, but clerics (and druids) in my experience get pretty close, and situationally do better.

 

[GrahamWills]

One interesting observation we had recently is that our alchemist, who generally does pretty poorly in damage output, does very well when hasted against a group of high-AC enemies. Throw four attacks against a group of three; assume they all miss. So you use do 4 sets of 3 sets of 8 points of splash damage -- that's 96 points of damage. From missing.

Even unhasted, 72 points is pretty nice. That's happened a few times in combat now and is surprisingly useful.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm afraid all I see is the argument "a buffed character does better than an unbuffed one".

The interesting comparison would instead be; what if you brought along a second barbarian instead of the alchemist? Or, what if you buffed the group's fighter instead of yourself?

 

[MichaelSomething]

I can’t get into game balance. I have a fixation that magic should be dangerous and very feared by players and the world. With an omg that man delves into magic. And the system should be complex and take considerable time for a player to learn because it is so esoteric and complex. Not insulting anyone who doesn’t like that style of play. But that’s what turns me on with magic in an rpg.

You sound like a person who would enjoy the Dungeon Crawl Classic RPG system

 

[GrahamWills]

The interesting comparison would instead be; what if you brought along a second barbarian instead of the alchemist? Or, what if you buffed the group's fighter instead of yourself?

Party dynamics are hard to work out; trying to work out "who does the most damage" is then pretty tricky. If the fighter does 90 points fo damage on the critical, do you credit them with 45 points, and split the rest between the bard and the cleric who buffed them? I probably could do that sort of analysis, but it should be pretty clear that the people doing the buffing are going to get a lot from this. The alchemist will too, giving CA pretty regularly. So I've stuck with the simpler analysis, which clearly favors the barbarian, so as not to inflate the "pro-cleric" numbers.

Barbarians are great for single melee opponents; having two would be overkill. Swapping a cleric out would be terrible, as we need the in-combat healing and the barbarian needs at least 2x as much as anyone else. Alchemist is probably the weakest class in the game, so swapping anything out for it would make a "more efficient party". But a wizard would be better than another barbarian. We've had most difficulty with opponents at range or teleporting at will, or flying, so no real reason for a second "solo guy in a small room" specialist.

I've just multiclassed champion with my cleric, which adds some nice damage mitigation and melee reacts. Probably a full champion would be the best current addition to our group.

My cleric also can summon choir angels, which is another excellent source of damage for parties without a bard. One action a round to have the angel increase party damage by 10% (and also have a small chance of doing minor damage) is pretty nice.

One of the reasons I like the balance in PF2 is because it really does feel that most classes pull their weight and are needed regularly. Alchemist, in my experience, though, might be the exception. It only really shines for groups of high-AC characters.

 

[Celtavian]

The barbarian really takes a beating in PF2. His AC is not great. Hopefully this becomes better as the barbarian gets higher level. The barbarian deals a lot of damage, but he takes a lot of hits too with medium armor, dex-dependent, and -1 AC when raging.