Pathfinder 2E Martials > Casters

[GrahamWills]

I don't know - you tell me

We don't actually have an arcane caster in the group, but we do have a cleric and druid, now at level 12. So I have some experience:

• With three actions, you can make an attack roll at full bonus and cast a non-attack spell (e.g. fireball!) at full save DC. So especially for the cleric, it's well worth while swinging an axe or firing a ranged weapon. If they're not doing that, they're leaving damage on the table
• True strike is extremely powerful. Combine it with any attack spell for a full round action that will almost certainly hit and has a high critical chance.
• If you have a round or two set-up time, you can combine status spells nicely. With plenty of space, I like air walk and enlarge, so I can walk 15' over the top of a non-flying enemy and have them unable to touch me as I whack em.
• Against solos, slow is surprisingly good. Even on a success, it takes away an action from their next round. Which is nice if they planned to walk up and do a two-action blender-of-death melee attack, but even nicer when it prevents that 3 action summons going off.
• For the cleric, searing light is an absolute must if there's any chance of fiends or undead around. At level 5 it does 10d6 damage (22d6 at level 11) and with true strike there's a pretty good chance of a critical.
• As I mentioned previously, look at summons for creatures that do not attack, but buff the party or debuff enemies.

I used to use fireball a fair amount (fire cleric), but it started feeling underpowered compared to other options. And then my cleric converted to Desna, so I lost access to fire spells. But even so, the generic zap spells don't feel that exciting -- I'd look away from them and into other options. Plus, a lot more fun!

(EDIT)
Here's my cleric's current load out. Not claiming it's the best, but I'm definitely having fun with it! With the recent switch to Desna worship, my melee attack has tanked (only +20) until I hit next level and get expertise in my great axe (so it'll be +23, +25 with heroism for key fights) . Desna's belief that I'd like to jump into combat wielding a starknife is not actually something I embrace.

Divine Cleric Spells DC 30, attack +20;

• 6th heroism, searing light (2)
• 5th command, dispel magic, summon celestial
• 4th air walk, enlarge, fireball
• 3rd comprehend language, heroism, neutralize poison
• 2nd restoration, see invisibility, sound burst
• 1st true strike (3)
• Cantrips (6th) detect magic, guidance, read aura, shield, sigil

Occult Bard Spells DC 30, attack +20

• 4th (1 slots) dimension door
• 3rd (1 slots) haste
• 2nd (1 slots) illusory creature, mirror image
• 1st (1 slots) alarm, true strike
• Cantrips (6th) ghost sound, join pasts, telekinetic projectile

 

[CapnZapp]

Guess the overall advice I'm getting is: if you're a wizard, retrain as a druid

Point #1 is n/a for a wizard. True strike is not bad, except it relies on spells with attacks, which are (another way to phrase it is "why throw bad money after good"). Paizo seems to have forgotten that spell attacks deal 0% on a miss, not 50% like spells with saves. Re: #3, sorry, but figuring out a way to whack without getting whacked back isn't really valuable if all you're accomplishing is forcing the enemy to focus fire. #4 Thanks! #5 I'm sure, but AC is all about humanoids and demons so far. #6 Thanks!

 

[Celtavian]

Guess the overall advice I'm getting is: if you're a wizard, retrain as a druid

Point #1 is n/a for a wizard. True strike is not bad, except it relies on spells with attacks, which are (another way to phrase it is "why throw bad money after good"). Paizo seems to have forgotten that spell attacks deal 0% on a miss, not 50% like spells with saves. Re: #3, sorry, but figuring out a way to whack without getting whacked back isn't really valuable if all you're accomplishing is forcing the enemy to focus fire. #4 Thanks! #5 I'm sure, but AC is all about humanoids and demons so far. #6 Thanks!

So far the druid seems much better. I have too many things to do with my actions as a druid whereas as a wizard I usually had one thing to do. As a druid I can do the following after casting a cantrip:
1. Command my animal.
2. Fire my bow.
3. Raise a shield.

Two offensive and one defensive option. The bow you can get the wizard with the right feats. I know wizard as bowman doesn't seem very wizardly., but it can be effective. Given how much damage the martials in my group do at level 12, I'm still not sure why cantrips weren't one action. They should give the wizard and sorcerer cantrip mastery or something to make cantrips work like weapons for them. The only thing I can imagine is at higher level they do have some hard hitting spells, but the big bad evil guy is likely to make his save and maybe critically make it on a good roll. Maybe they just expect casters not to be able to do much against BBEGs similar to 5E. 5E wizard is the suck for damage in 5E too.

 

[GrahamWills]

True strike is not bad, except it relies on spells with attacks, which are (another way to phrase it is "why throw bad money after good"). Paizo seems to have forgotten that spell attacks deal 0% on a miss, not 50% like spells with saves.

I think they have the math right. I'm +20 to attack, so +22 with either heroism or CA, which is pretty much always the case. I'll assume just one of them is active. A Lich, our most recent level 12 foe, has a 31 AC, which is pretty normal. So I miss on a 1-8, hit on 9-18, and critical on 19-20.

Doing 22d6 damage (average 77) , that averages as 53 damage without true strike. With true strike, the miss chance is (8/20) = 0.16, and critical about 1/10 of the time, so that makes an average of 92 points of damage.

True strike makes a HUGE difference. Really. Try it if you are worried about lack of damage output.

 

[Kaodi]

Honestly I wish I had access to true strike. It is a lvl 1 spell that scales perfectly because you can keep using it on better and better spells without a change in cost.

 

[Celtavian]

Honestly I wish I had access to true strike. It is a lvl 1 spell that scales perfectly because you can keep using it on better and better spells without a change in cost.

True strike is one of the best 1st level spells if not the best.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think they have the math right. I'm +20 to attack, so +22 with either heroism or CA, which is pretty much always the case. I'll assume just one of them is active. A Lich, our most recent level 12 foe, has a 31 AC, which is pretty normal. So I miss on a 1-8, hit on 9-18, and critical on 19-20.

Doing 22d6 damage (average 77) , that averages as 53 damage without true strike. With true strike, the miss chance is (8/20) = 0.16, and critical about 1/10 of the time, so that makes an average of 92 points of damage.

True strike makes a HUGE difference. Really. Try it if you are worried about lack of damage output.

Finding a marquee case proves nothing.

As far as I can see (I'm the GM, not the Wizard player), spell attacks trails spell DCs by a couple of points, so already there you're better off casting a spell with a save.

Add to that what I was referring to, namely how spells with attacks doesn't generally do significantly more damage than spells with saves, despite dealing 50 percentage units less on a miss.

I'm sure there are individual spells that break that mold. However, the idea (discussed to death over at Paizo forums) that spells-with-attacks are deliberately underpowered in order to regain balance with True Strike doesn't fly in my book.

 

[CapnZapp]

I know wizard as bowman doesn't seem very wizardly, but it can be effective.

I don't know about that. Very little about ranged weapons appear effective to me. (Better than nothing, yes, absolutely. Effective compared to melee weapons, not so much.)

5E wizard is the suck for damage in 5E too.

That comparison is hardly fair.

Spells in 5E feel much more satisfying, so there's nothing wrong with the 5E Wizard. Yes, Wizards can't nova like Sorcerers, and maybe pays too high of a price for its fabled "flexibility", but "not being as overpowered" is a very different criticism than "below average" as seems to be the case here.

 

[Campbell]

I do not know very much about Extinction Curse. Are there monsters with frontal cone AOE or nasty auras at all? There is a significant amount of that in PFS.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't know about that. Very little about ranged weapons appear effective to me. (Better than nothing, yes, absolutely. Effective compared to melee weapons, not so much.)


That comparison is hardly fair.

Spells in 5E feel much more satisfying, so there's nothing wrong with the 5E Wizard. Yes, Wizards can't nova like Sorcerers, and maybe pays too high of a price for its fabled "flexibility", but "not being as overpowered" is a very different criticism than "below average" as seems to be the case here.

I found the 5E wizard to be subpar with feats, magic items, and multiclassing. It was probably adequate without feats and multiclassing. Though it did have some nice utility spells. Just not much of a great damage dealer. I only played a wizard to 16th level. At least 5E had magic items to improve spell attack rolls. Pretty lame that PF2 did not include them considering they no longer allow targeting of touch of flat-footed AC absent dex.

Concentration made life pretty terrible for casters in 5E. Might not be as bad as incapacitation, but it's close.