Pathfinder 2E Potions, Medicine, Special Materials & more...

[Puggins]

I can only give you my experience as an example. I would recommend the following for low level casters:
1. Use an ancestry feat to get a weapon. Go a little Gandalf or some other weapon and use it to boost your damage at low level. Every ancestry has weapons as an option so a caster can add some variety to his actions. A weapon attack with a save spell can be quite a nice little damage boost. This should help you get through low level as your slots are low.

2. If you find consumable scrolls with decent spells, blow them off after you add them to your book.

I think these qualify as "out of the box" thinking, but they're definitely legitimate points- spellcasters maybe shouldn't expect to be able to rely on spells constantly throughout an adventure. This thinking was pretty much baked into the rules before 3rd edition.

3. The worm seems to turn around 5th level when you get fireball. Don't use your fireball on single target fights. Blow it off on AoE fights against rooms.

I DEFINITELY disagree here. The turning point is at 7th, when they get expert spell casting and 4th level spells all at once. At 5th and 6th they are so woefully behind martial user in attack bonus and equivalent DC and still predominantly saddled with reflex-oriented spells (which is the strongest save for most low level monsters) that even equivalent level enemies are really difficult to hit.

Reference:
6th level fighter using +1 sword, 19 str -> 6 (level) + 6 (proficiency) + 4 (Str) + 1 (weapon) = +17
6th level paladin using + 1 sword, 19 str -> 6 (level) + 4 (proficiency) + 4 (str) + 1 (weapon) = +15
6th level wizard, 19int -> 6 (level) +2 (proficiency) + 4 (Int) = +12

In terms of effectiveness, paladins have (roughly) the equivalent of advantage from 5e in hitting any given monster compared to the wizard. The fighter has substantially more than that.

4. Try to get a useful focus spell or ability.

5. Remember how things work. Sickened is good because it takes an action to attempt a save to get rid of it. Frightened can be applied multiple ways. Summons creatures can flank and attack. This is adds a little damage while also boosting martial damage. Sickness and frightened lower saves and ACs improving your chance to hit and affect a target. You want to find ways to add a little damage, while shifting ACs and modifiers with spell slots. Those are the spells and abilities you should seek.

The only casters I find wanting at low level are wizards and sorcerers. If I were to build one now, I would build them differently than I did when I first started. I would get a weapon. I would not devalue abilities that applied sickened and frightened. I would cast more often when good opportunities presented themselves. I would better understand how affects synergize like haste with casters. Haste allows a caster to move, cast a 2 action spell, and make a 1 action weapon attack, which in aggregate can add up.

Let's be honest, though- most of the others aren't relying on attack spells to contribute. Don't know if the Oracle or Witch makes this list now either.

 

[CapnZapp]

I can only give you my experience as an example. I would recommend the following for low level casters:
1. Use an ancestry feat to get a weapon. Go a little Gandalf or some other weapon and use it to boost your damage at low level. Every ancestry has weapons as an option so a caster can add some variety to his actions. A weapon attack with a save spell can be quite a nice little damage boost. This should help you get through low level as your slots are low.

2. If you find consumable scrolls with decent spells, blow them off after you add them to your book.

3. The worm seems to turn around 5th level when you get fireball. Don't use your fireball on single target fights. Blow it off on AoE fights against rooms.

4. Try to get a useful focus spell or ability.

5. Remember how things work. Sickened is good because it takes an action to attempt a save to get rid of it. Frightened can be applied multiple ways. Summons creatures can flank and attack. This is adds a little damage while also boosting martial damage. Sickness and frightened lower saves and ACs improving your chance to hit and affect a target. You want to find ways to add a little damage, while shifting ACs and modifiers with spell slots. Those are the spells and abilities you should seek.

The only casters I find wanting at low level are wizards and sorcerers. If I were to build one now, I would build them differently than I did when I first started. I would get a weapon. I would not devalue abilities that applied sickened and frightened. I would cast more often when good opportunities presented themselves. I would better understand how affects synergize like haste with casters. Haste allows a caster to move, cast a 2 action spell, and make a 1 action weapon attack, which in aggregate can add up.

I think PF2 casters should be more open to playing a more Gandalf or warrior-wizard type of way than in PF1. They should be looking to add as many action options as possible through feats that give weapons, quality focus choices, or adding options like animal companions or multiclassing, and should look to pick up wands or staffs that expand their daily casting at the earliest possible opportunities. Casters should have a more active and engaged style of play than hanging back and waiting for that perfect time to cast.

I made those changes to my style of play at low level, the biggest one being adding a weapon option. I can usually hit with one attack a round quite often. That one weapon attack adds to my damage. I suggest a bow, but a reach halberd or spear can be nice too. I think a wizard should pick either strength or dexterity to focus on depending on if they want to melee or shoot a bow. The weapon damage is super-helpful for those first 5 levels or so.

For example, my druid uses tempest surge and a bow shot to hit harder for each battle with a spell mixed in for the first 5 levels. She also had an animal companion. This seems to help her keep up with the martials other than a good martial round of crits unless she got crits of course.

That's my advice at this point. Hope it helps some.

Thank you.

However, most of your advice are entry-level advice. Hopefully you don't believe my wizard player's issues stem from wasting Fireballs on single targets, for instance.

Furthermore, I don't see them as major game-changers, I'm afraid. After all, the low-level Wizard's problem is that the spells simply doesn't do enough, and that's even when used effectively.

1. You can't shoot with a bow effectively unless you stick to spells without a material component. (Releasing the bow to get a hand loose for casting is free. Changing your grip back to wield a two-handed weapon with two hands requires the Interact action. Do note I'm discussing material components. Somatic components is fine, since they don't require a free hand, only an "unbound" hand)

Your advice is sound if you add "Wizards need to take the otherwise-maligned Eschew Materials feat", though.

Not sure if there are any decent ranged one-handed weapons alternatives (that remain open to Wizards). Feel free to suggest one though.

2. Yes, keeping things for later just doesn't work well in PF2. Use it while it's fresh or you'll quickly find your stuff has gone obsolete.

3. Doh!

4. Any specific advice?

5. Doh!

Sorry if this comes off as flippant, but so far my conclusion on how to play a fun powerful Wizard can be boiled down to advice #6:

6. Play something else for the first ten levels, then retire that character and start playing a Wizard around level ~10
(Celtavian isn't the only one saying the situation picks up once you get to the high levels)

Your group will thank you... In our experience, a second Fighter (say) would be much more helpful for the group at level 1, 5 or 9 than a Wizard. At least if you're playing an official Adventure Path, where the - by far - most challenging activity is winning combats (without having to rest for ages after each fight).

It doesn't help that the adventures at this level never (or at least almost never) relies on magic to get you through. By that I mean that high-level 2E or 3E adventures could come to a screeching halt if the party didn't have the right spell (often related to transportation: teleport, etherealness, passwall... but sometimes divination: speak with dead, scrying... etc).

The understandable desire to move away from the LFQW situation of PF1 made Paizo go too far in the other direction, I'm afraid. In PF2 Wizards simply don't offer anything other classes can't do just as well, or better. When a game offers "play one because you want to" as the only reason to pick a certain class, I'm afraid that is a design failure.

 

[Philip Benz]

Aw, such wizard hate.

Our campaign, that has just reached 4th level, has one character playing a wizard. The player is really enjoying it, and making great use of both cantrips and a few key low-level spells, like illusory disguise and invisibility. OK, sure, it may be a "niche" sort of campaign, since it's mostly city adventures with a lot of roleplaying, intrigue, investigation and infiltration. But even when it comes down to combat, the wizard seems to hold her own, and contribute meaningfully with spells like magic missile, acid arrow and sphere of fire, or simple cantrips when it seems like a few points of damage will be enough, or when she runs out of heavy hitters.

One thing that really helps a wizard is when the DM supports the class through loot drops and downtime availability. Finding the odd spellbook, scroll or wand is a great help for a low-level wizard, and really helps boost the spells-per-day economy.

If anyone's interested, I posted and after-action report of our game this past Wednesday here.

Also, my players really enjoy using healing potions, the medicine skill and the occasional healing spell (when our druid is able to join us). Many adversaries pack a healing potion or two in their inventory, so that helps too, if they get killed before they can chug em down.

 

[Celtavian]

Thank you.

However, most of your advice are entry-level advice. Hopefully you don't believe my wizard player's issues stem from wasting Fireballs on single targets, for instance.

Furthermore, I don't see them as major game-changers, I'm afraid. After all, the low-level Wizard's problem is that the spells simply doesn't do enough, and that's even when used effectively.

1. You can't shoot with a bow effectively unless you stick to spells without a material component. (Releasing the bow to get a hand loose for casting is free. Changing your grip back to wield a two-handed weapon with two hands requires the Interact action. Do note I'm discussing material components. Somatic components is fine, since they don't require a free hand, only an "unbound" hand)

Your advice is sound if you add "Wizards need to take the otherwise-maligned Eschew Materials feat", though.

Not sure if there are any decent ranged one-handed weapons alternatives (that remain open to Wizards). Feel free to suggest one though.

2. Yes, keeping things for later just doesn't work well in PF2. Use it while it's fresh or you'll quickly find your stuff has gone obsolete.

3. Doh!

4. Any specific advice?

5. Doh!

Sorry if this comes off as flippant, but so far my conclusion on how to play a fun powerful Wizard can be boiled down to advice #6:

6. Play something else for the first ten levels, then retire that character and start playing a Wizard around level ~10
(Celtavian isn't the only one saying the situation picks up once you get to the high levels)

Your group will thank you... In our experience, a second Fighter (say) would be much more helpful for the group at level 1, 5 or 9 than a Wizard. At least if you're playing an official Adventure Path, where the - by far - most challenging activity is winning combats (without having to rest for ages after each fight).

It doesn't help that the adventures at this level never (or at least almost never) relies on magic to get you through. By that I mean that high-level 2E or 3E adventures could come to a screeching halt if the party didn't have the right spell (often related to transportation: teleport, etherealness, passwall... but sometimes divination: speak with dead, scrying... etc).

The understandable desire to move away from the LFQW situation of PF1 made Paizo go too far in the other direction, I'm afraid. In PF2 Wizards simply don't offer anything other classes can't do just as well, or better. When a game offers "play one because you want to" as the only reason to pick a certain class, I'm afraid that is a design failure.

1. Yes. You can shoot a bow fine. A bow is 1+ hands, not two hands. It is a subtle difference in the hands listing making the bow an ideal weapon for a caster. Now a crossbow is 2 hands and I don't recommend it.

4. Depends on what you want to add. You could take something like Blessed One to add a heal option. Beastmaster for an animal companion weapon for that extra action. MC into sorcerer and take some bloodline magic since these are better than wizard focus spells. I like undead bloodline or elemental.

No. Pure wizard doesn't. I've come to the conclusion the wizard, fighter, and cleric are best when multiclassed. They have a lot of dead level feats and a very simple chassis. Clerics heal best. Wizards can cast a lot of spells. Fighters hit things well. Other than those very simple abilities, they don't do anything else very well.

My buddy is playing a fighter. He does good damage. But he pretty much does the same thing over and over again. He chose Power Attack and swings a second time. Round after round after round. The cleric only shines when he heals with an occasional spell here and there. The wizard casts more and varied spells than other classes more times per day.

My fighter buddy MCed into Hell Knight. My cleric buddy MCed into sorcerer. My wizard buddy MCed into Dragon Disciple mostly for fun.

I have a wizard/sorcerer MC with one of the weapon types for my next wizard attempt. I do not believe by spellcasting alone you will feel very worthwhile consistently as a wizard at low level. Here and there with a nice group of failed saves, your AoE will feel great. But single target you better add in a weapon attack to keep up.

Right now my druid at lvl 8 is keeping up quite handily with the martials. But part of her damage is her animal companion and her bow shot. If she were relying on spells alone like the wizard often does, she would fall behind. I really think the wizard needs to focus on a weapon as well as his spells to fully take advantage of his action opportunities. It's not like 1E where he has half the chance to hit of a martial. His first hit has a good chance of hitting in this edition. A good weapon with a cantrip might have been calculated into why cantrips and spells are set up as they are.

 

[Puggins]

6. Play something else for the first ten levels, then retire that character and start playing a Wizard around level ~10

Hold on- just like Celt’s talk about 5th being the turning point, this is also an exaggeration. 7th level is clearly the point at which combat casters come into their own. At that point a 4th fireball or lightning bolt can certainly do many rounds’ worth of martial damage, and a third level version is also really potent. Not only do casters get 2 really powerful slots, they also get that critical +3 boost to their attack that martials got at 5th, which makes spells actually, you know do something other than fizzle or miss wide.

I think the existence of Sudden Bolt more or less proves that Paizo saw the same issue that the community did- here a spell that’s SO head-and-shoulders better than anything in existence before it that it has to be taken as a corrective course by the design team. At least that’s what it looks like to me.

I haven’t been through the low kevels with Sudden bolt available, but something tells me that 3rd and 4th are probably much better levels for casters now. I’d argue that maybe expert spell casting should be moved down to 5th in order to solve the 5/6 hole, but that might be too good.

Anyway, this is getting away from Capn’s original post, which is definitely worth a good amount of discussion. I just need to find a bit of time to compare the numbers to existing and previous edition healing items.

 

[Celtavian]

Also Zapp, if you're writing house rules, shift your casters to 5E casting as far as preparing spell lists and heightening. It's more fun and it really does allow for having the right spell at the right time you hear so many players claim to be required for a wizard. It provides casters with flexibility and allows them to use their spells as needed rather than a slot a high level dispel magic they may never use to counteract some powerful magical effect or use the occasion incap spell in a high level slot if an opportunity presents itself. I switched over to 5E style preparation and heightening and find it makes casters far more fun to play than PF2 old school vancian casting. 5E was smart to make casting flexible. It's a a far more fun way to play a caster.

 

[CapnZapp]

At that point a 4th fireball or lightning bolt can certainly do many rounds’ worth of martial damage, and a third level version is also really potent.

I would argue that the average fireball damage (not total) is actually less than a solid hit by a martial (maybe not for a ranger, definitely for a barbarian). at least for my optimized martials. But let's say equal to, for the sake of argument.

So if the fireball hits three people (which can actually mean more people such as when it does full damage on two, half damage on two) that's roughly equivalent to a single round of martial damage, assumes the party's martials scoring three hits among them, not "many rounds".

But, and this is where I believe Paizo's balancing math has gone wrong, this will (by definition) be spread out over many monsters and it will be (essentially) random.

The key to winning fights in such an aggressively difficult combat environment as Pathfinder 2 and its official adventure paths is shaving rounds off combat, making combats end sooner. The way you do that is by reducing the number of incoming attacks next round.

Damage spread out is far less valuable (point for point) than damage concentrated on a single foe.

Every other edition of D&D has made it so that when a spellcaster finally gets a solid hit with her fireball (catches many foes inside the area, sees many foes fail their save), that's a significant fight ender. Reducing LFQW is a noble goal, and reducing the number of slots available to accomplish this is a good balancing factor.

But Pathfinder 2 takes it too far by also (for the first time) balancing the spell damage as equally important than focused damage. Dealing 75 points of damage in total to (essentially) random targets just isn't three times as valuable as dealing 25 points of damage to the one target you need to go down.

Since hit point totals have inflated in Pathfinder 2, spell damage should have been increased as well. For instance a 5th Edition Fireball deals 8d6 damage, not 6d6 damage. That is for a good reason, and I submit the Pathfinder 2 designers overlooked that reason in their zealous drive to eliminate the PF1 caster supremacy!

 

[CapnZapp]

Also Zapp, if you're writing house rules, shift your casters to 5E casting as far as preparing spell lists and heightening. It's more fun and it really does allow for having the right spell at the right time you hear so many players claim to be required for a wizard. It provides casters with flexibility and allows them to use their spells as needed rather than a slot a high level dispel magic they may never use to counteract some powerful magical effect or use the occasion incap spell in a high level slot if an opportunity presents itself. I switched over to 5E style preparation and heightening and find it makes casters far more fun to play than PF2 old school vancian casting. 5E was smart to make casting flexible. It's a a far more fun way to play a caster.

While I thank you for the suggestion, it's such a drastic change.

It makes me think you've moved on from "is the Wizard fatally underpowered?" to "how to make the Wizard playable?"

 

[Celtavian]

While I thank you for the suggestion, it's such a drastic change.

It makes me think you've moved on from "is the Wizard fatally underpowered?" to "how to make the Wizard playable?"

I did it for all the caster classes, though the wizard might benefit more than others. I find 5E heightening and casting more like fantasy genre casting. It is one of the 5E game mechanics that I think is clearly better than PF or any edition of D&D in the past. Vancian casting may have been cool and innovative back in the day when Gary Gygax decided to use it, but I've never much enjoyed it over the years. I think the move to spontaneous heightening and a spell list to draw from combined with ritual magic was a mechanical improvement that was a long-time coming. I don't feel like going back to the limited casting of Vancian magic or PF1 and previous editions of D&D.

I think your casting players would have more fun with a fluid, active casting system that let's them use their full spell list in their available slots as needed rather than slotting them in advance and hoping a situation comes up where they can use it. Vancian casting created so many dead slots that even with a larger number of spells as in PF1 and previous editions of D&D, that you still felt like you had more slots in 5E because you could use them in such a flexible manner.

I've been running it this way for the past few levels. I'm not seeing any mechanical issues or overshadowing of other players. It's just making the casters better able to utilize their spells effectively in more situations. That is more fun for all.

 

[Celtavian]

I would argue that the average fireball damage (not total) is actually less than a solid hit by a martial (maybe not for a ranger, definitely for a barbarian). at least for my optimized martials. But let's say equal to, for the sake of argument.

So if the fireball hits three people (which can actually mean more people such as when it does full damage on two, half damage on two) that's roughly equivalent to a single round of martial damage, assumes the party's martials scoring three hits among them, not "many rounds".

But, and this is where I believe Paizo's balancing math has gone wrong, this will (by definition) be spread out over many monsters and it will be (essentially) random.

The key to winning fights in such an aggressively difficult combat environment as Pathfinder 2 and its official adventure paths is shaving rounds off combat, making combats end sooner. The way you do that is by reducing the number of incoming attacks next round.

Damage spread out is far less valuable (point for point) than damage concentrated on a single foe.

Every other edition of D&D has made it so that when a spellcaster finally gets a solid hit with her fireball (catches many foes inside the area, sees many foes fail their save), that's a significant fight ender. Reducing LFQW is a noble goal, and reducing the number of slots available to accomplish this is a good balancing factor.

But Pathfinder 2 takes it too far by also (for the first time) balancing the spell damage as equally important than focused damage. Dealing 75 points of damage in total to (essentially) random targets just isn't three times as valuable as dealing 25 points of damage to the one target you need to go down.

Since hit point totals have inflated in Pathfinder 2, spell damage should have been increased as well. For instance a 5th Edition Fireball deals 8d6 damage, not 6d6 damage. That is for a good reason, and I submit the Pathfinder 2 designers overlooked that reason in their zealous drive to eliminate the PF1 caster supremacy!

How do you figure this?

As a real game example, my 3rd level fireball hit 4 targets at lvl 7. One succeeded, one failed, and two critically failed. I rolled 22 damage. That was 11, 22, 44, and 44 damage. 121 damage from one fireball in one round at lvl 7. How is a lvl 7 martial matching that damage? How is that not a substantial hit on a group of creatures?

Do your players never get critical fails on Spell saving throws leading to double damage from the spell? The critical fail on a saving throw is what changed my mind substantially on AOE damage. When I watched multiple critical fails happen based on random dice rolls and the subsequent damage occur, my mind changed quickly. When the lich in one of the APs wrecked the party with AoE spells and the insane damage from AOE I was shocked. Then when I started using AoE more and seeing those critical fail double damage spells hit, my mind changed on spell saves.

You can hit creatures for substantial damage setting them up for quick death and having your aggregate damage easily equal or exceed martial damage with multiple missed saves or critical fails.

Where this is not as good is against single target big monsters. Using damage spells against single big target BBEGs shows a real weakness, which is where having other options like a weapon to supplement damage came in. But AOE spells against groups of targets can and has been pretty amazing damage. Damage concentrated on a single foe is not more valuable as fails and critical fails add up. You do huge damage martials cannot touch changing the battlefield substantially. Often martials striking a target already softened by AOE damage means their damage is less valuable as their big hits are mostly wasted as the target is already taken into near death range.

When my druid dropped that big fireball, she then sent her animal companion to attack for 14 more points of damage for a 135 point round. A wizard could also fire a bow or take a sword swing if he so chose. Or launch a single action magic missile, though that seems like a waste of a spell to me.

You are ally underestimating AOE spells. I hope you get to see some of these critical fail AoE spells soon. Double damage on a multi-dice spells against multiple targets adds up quick.