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

[Puggins]

No, d

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.

No, let's do the math.

7th level Sorcerer with 19cha, dangerous sorcery.

DC: 10 + 7 (level) + 4 (proficiency) + 4 (charisma) = 25

Damage:

4th level Lightning Bolt: 5d12 + 4 to every opponent: 36.5 on a failed save, 18.25 on a save
3rd level Lightning Bolt: 4d12 + 3 to every opponent: 29 on a failed save, 14.5 on a save
4th level Sudden Bolt: 6d12 + 4 to one opponent: 43 on a failed save, 21.5 on a save
4th level fireball: 8d6 + 4 to every opponent: 32 on a failed save, 16 on a save
3rd level fireball 6d6 + 3 to every opponent: 24 on a failed save, 12 on a save

7th fighter with Greatsword of Striking + 1. At this point power attack is a bit of a trap against all but the truly strong foes, so we're just doing the good fighter strikes, like lunging strike or exacting strike. If you're thinking of something different, please let me know.

Bonus: +7 (level) + 6 (proficiency) + 4 (Strength) + 1 (item) = +18

Damage: 1d12 + 1d12 (striking) + 4 (strength) + 3 (weapon expertise) = 2d12 + 7 ( + 1d12 for power attack): 20 (26.5) on a hit

This is about as optimized as they come- the fighter will have the highest attack of any character and they'll be using one of the most damaging weapons possible. We can go ahead and add power attack to this, but at that point the fighter will be either attacking once after moving or twice if they can stand still. we can go over either option. My experience is that fighters generally have to move around a bit, so full rounds of attack are sorta rare. There's also the possibility of dual-handed assault with a dwarven great-axe, but that takes time to set up and I'd rather keep it somewhat vanilla, since we're not trying to do neato things with the sorcerer.

Typical 7th level monster has AC25, reflex +15. Some have lower values, some have high- they hover around here.

Fighter first attack:
without PA: 65% chance to hit (8+), 15% chance to crit (18+): 0.65 x 20 + 0.15 x 20 = 16 damage average output
with PA: same odds, 0.65 x 26.5 + 0.15 x 26.5 = 21.2 damage average output

Fighter second attack:
without PA: 40% chance to hit, 5% chance to crit: 20 X 0.4 + 20 x .05 = 9 damage average output
with PA: same odds, 0.4 x 20 + 0.05 x 20 = 9 average output

Fighter third attack:
without PA: 15% chance to hit, 5% chance to crit: 20 x 0.15 + 20 x 0.05 = 4
with PA: 0

Without PA: 16 + 9 + 4 = 29 average
WIth PA: 21.2 + 9 = 30.2 average

This is with the fighter being able to stand still and attack all three times. Again, I find this a bit rare, but hey, let's use it. If he has to move and attack then no-PA is the clear winner at 25 damage. A single strike is 16.

Sorcerer:
4th level Lightning Bolt: 55% chance to make save, 5% chance to critically succeed: 0.45 x 36.5 + 0.5 x 18.25 = 16.4 + 9.1 = 25.5 per creature
3rd level Lightning Bolt: same odds, 0.45 x 29 + 14.5 x 0.5 = 20.3 per creature
(I'm just going to print out the results for the others)
4th level sudden bolt: 30.1 average damage
4th level fireball: 22.4 average damage
3rd level fireball: 16.8 average damage

Your analysis was based on the fact that a solid hit by a fighter would do the equivalent of a fireball or lightning bolt on a monster- that's clearly not the case. You almost get there with a third level fireball, but that's not even the sorcerer's highest slot level, and the fighter's output plunges after that. So,

If a fighter unloads on one opponent, they will do 31.2 damage.

if a sorcerer hits three opponents with a 4th level fireball, they will do 67.2 damage, over two rounds of a fighter using every action to attack.
if they hit 4 opponents, like in your example, they will do 89.2 damage, almost exactly three rounds worth of fighter full attacks.

And this is assuming the fighter gets to use every attack, which they often won't. Meanwhile, the sorcerer still has an extra action to move around, use one of their few one-action spells, shoot an arrow for poor (but non-zero!) damage. If the fighter uses two actions per turn to attack then they can't touch sorcerer multi-opponent damage, and sorcerer single-opponent damage will also outpace them somewhat, but for only three round in the day.

If you can line opponents up nicely for lightning bolts it gets even better, but I don't find that a good faith argument- I'd say two opponents is very achievable, three is uncommon.

I do agree with you- concentrating damage is the way to go, but sorcerers can do that just fine- a 4th level lightning bolt might as well be the equivalent of a fighter doing a full attack on every one of its targets. I'll also point out that there are a lot more level 7 creatures that have higher than 25ac than opponents that have better than +15 reflex, and there are PLENTY of creatures whose reflex save hovers around +12 or so, which makes the sorcerer damage go through the roof (29.6 per opponent with a fireball, 33.8 with a lightning bolt).

All of this is to say that I agree with you that low level combat caster have real issues, especially at 1-2 and 5-6, but 7 is a huge, huge turn, where they definitely start pulling their weight in a big way. They don't suddenly start making martials look silly, but they do start feeling pretty powerful. By the time they get to 10th they'll have been doing really well for several levels.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Oh, I don't disagree. (In fact, I played a 3E Sorcerer specifically because I didn't have to muck about with slot memorization)

I'm just saying that just like in 5E, moving the Wizard over to spontaneous casting is a huge change, since it basically steals the whole raison d'etre of the Sorcerer.

And since PF2 doesn't give its Sorcerer anything that comes near to the power upgrade that is 5E-style metamagics, I fear that class would basically be relegated to become a "variant wizard".

---

Now, I'm not planning on switching over the PF2 Wizard to spontaneous casting, but if I were, I would probably lean on my experiences so far, which tell me "the Wizard is woefully underpowered" and go in another direction, that takes its cue from 3E.

Give the Wizard a bonus level as a caster, just like the 3E Wizard was one level ahead of the 3E Sorcerer. (As I said, I played a 3E Sorcerer. As I recall, that kind of sucked, but not nearly as bad as having to memorize my spells, and having the wrong spell for the job. And as you might expect for a game of d20, once I reached 6th level, I easily contributed my fair share and justified my place in the group)

Having the Wizard gain access to Fireball at level 4 and Wish at level 18 just might be what the doctor ordered. Counting as one level higher would help with Incapacitation as well, since now the level 6 Wizard would be able to affect level 8 monsters normally (counting as level 7 means access to level four spell slots, and 4x2=8).

You would not gain a bonus level for any other purposes than general spells and spell slots. You don't get hit points, feats, saves, skill increases and other class abilities. (Hope this was obvious)

If you dislike Vancian as much as I do, you would still have a reason to play a Sorcerer (or Bard). And Clerics/Druids seem to do okay for other reasons.

 

[CapnZapp]

No, let's do the math.

If you want to do the math, please do it for a Wizard and for Fireball, since that's what I've been talking about, and not some other class and spell. (I realize you chose Sorcerer because your argument kind of makes or breaks on the +6 to +12 damage for three opponents succeeding or failing their saves)

And I must unfortunately say I'm not impressed with a Fighter wasting his third action on attacking. If you feel confident about the game's rules, you would include various bonuses that mimic the use of flanking, guidance and/or intimidation, plus the little thing called "attack of opportunity".

Thank you for not blindly using Power Attack.

And conceding that Lightning Bolt is kind of a trap spell. (In my rough estimate, Fireball needs the 8d6 5E gave it just as much if not more in PF2; while Lightning Bolt, having a much worse area, could easily have gone with 12d6 precisely for the reason you mention - if you can only reliably get 66% to 50% of Fireball's targets, you need 150% or 200% of the damage. And 12d6 is 150% of 8d6 and 200% of 6d6.)

---

I maintain my view that Pathfinder 2 is alone - and wrong - about it's balancing target here, that "making damage roughly equivalent to three successful attacks is about right for a highest-level slot".

It basically enshrines that casters suck at damage, even area damage. In my view (and the view of every D&D game except PF2 and, I guess, 4E), a Wizard that expends a highest-level slot should stand a chance at either taking out a boss monster or several mooks. But even dealing 90 total damage at level 7 does not accomplish this except in corner cases. Even L-4 mooks (i.e. level 3 monsters) have 45 hit points, and so won't die even on a failed save (=meaning you have not reached the real goal of actually preventing any incoming attacks).

Sure, catch a dozen such mooks in a fireball, and you've justified the spell slot, but that happens exceptionally rarely. Much less often that you'd think if you've been playing other D&D games. In official PF2 APs "almost never" is an accurate assessment.

And since Incapacitation short-circuits the other path to greatness (single-target save or suck spells, that you invariably will want to use against exactly the monsters Incapacitation protects) you're left with precious little. You can still juggle +1's and -1's. I half-jokingly suggested the Wizard should be renamed the Accountant for a reason...

Cheers

PS. I do not want a return to d20 LFQW. I am not a Pathfinder 1 hold out.

I am, however, a fan of 5E's solution. It allows martials to shine without sucking the joy out of the magic system. At least during single-digit levels mediocre spell damage and Incapacitation makes PF2 less fun than 5E. The third main reason PF2 is less fun than 5E is its 4E-style magic items.

 

[Puggins]

If you want to do the math, please do it for a Wizard and for Fireball, since that's what I've been talking about, and not some other class and spell. (I realize you chose Sorcerer because your argument kind of makes or breaks on the +6 to +12 damage for three opponents succeeding or failing their saves)

I was using the sorcerer because I was comparing them to the apex martial class that was forgoing any semblance of defense in order to maximize damage, which I thought was already sort of going above and beyond- of the three martials in the group I'm playing with (2 fighters, 1 paladin) two use shields with long swords and one uses a great sword (and rushes in and takes a lot of dirt naps, which definitely drives his damage down). The usual number of attacks they got off at 7th level was probably around 1.5 a round, maybe a bit more- there were many rounds that involved them stepping or moving, raising a shield and hitting once (this got better at 8th level for the shield fighter), a substantially better option for survival than not bothering with defense and attacking twice.

We can certainly include flanking/intimidation, but that drops the number of attacks per round- the wizard doesn't have to worry about that. And then we should be forced to account for some factors on the wizard side, like being able to follow up a fireball with a force bolt once per combat (twice once a day). I'd sort of prefer to avoid the complication, but we can do some basic computations there.

7th level fighter with sword + shield, attacking twice and raising shield: 20.0 damage average
7th level Dragon Barbarian with Greatsword, Raging, moving once and attacking twice: 21.25 damage average
7th level wizard throwing 4th level fireball and moving once: 19.6 damage per opponent

7th level fighter with sword + shield moving into flank and attacking twice: 24.8
7th level barbarian with greatsword, raging, moving into flank and attacking twice: 26.25

7th level wizard shooting a 4th level fireball at three opponents, following up with force bolt on one: 26.6 to one, 19.6 to two.
7th level wizard shooting a lightning bolt at two opponents and following up with a force bolt: 22.8 to one, 29.8 to one
7th level wizard using 4th level sudden bolt + force bolt on one opponent: 34.3
7th level wizards using 3rd level lightning bolt on two creatures: 18.2 on both

Seriously, really not trying to skew the numbers here- 7th level is a big turning point and even the wizard (which, I agree, is at the bottom of the totem pole early on) becomes a perfectly viable damage dealer at that point, easily keeping pace with martials that have some concern for their well being.

I do have one observation- lightning bolt is not a trap. Like you said (quite rightly!) previously, concentrating damage on fewer opponents is a better option. That 7th level wizard using a 3rd level lightning bolt is still very nearly replicating a good martial's two attacks on an unflanked opponent, and they're doing it to two opponents. An evoker can do that six times a day at 7th, a universalist can do it seven times a day, if they really want to.

I do want to emphasize that I agree with your premise before 7th level- it's pretty difficult getting through those levels, it looks like. But 7th is the turning point, not 10th. Make a wizard at 7th level and you definitely won't feel like a fifth wheel.

 

[CapnZapp]

At level 10, I'm afraid the Wizard is still noticeably behind the other four characters.

When the players realized Greater Striking isn't appreciably more expensive than +2 (despite being two whole levels higher) they rushed to purchase that for their weapons.

The Giant Instinct Barbarian is especially happy, now doing something like 3d12+2d6+17 damage on a hit (don't hold me to the exact numbers), or ~42 damage on an average hit, and already over 100 damage on a decent crit. His defense is naturally weaker, but that's the Cleric's problem, not his.

(Only half-kidding. In a game with such potent combat healing, offense really becomes your best defense. My players' natural inclination is to maximize offense in every D&D game, but with monsters as lethal as in PF2, the path where you double up on defenses and endurance really doesn't cut it. The monster WILL eat you, it's just a matter of time - you can't really "tank" the attacks of a BBEG. The only real defense is to kill the monster before it kills you. Having a dedicated combat Cleric really enables groups to go all-in on offense)

This is an example why martials are way more awesome than casters in PF2 - you get to choose what to be good at. No, you can't customize enough within a single class, but you CAN choose which martial class you want to be (Barbarian and Champion probably being the two polar opposites).

Had there been ways for a Wizard to significantly focus your build on offense (sacrificing defense) or vice versa, that would have gone along way of mitigating the issues. But there isn't. Apart from that Dangerous Sorcery feat, there really isn't a way to make sacrifices elsewhere to make your biggest spells hit harder. Specifically, there isn't a rune that adds +1 to your DC, or a rune that adds +1d6 to every target in an area spell. My discussions with Celtavian have resulted in me realizing that stuff like that might be overdoing it for certain classes and/or at high level. But at this point I'm fairly convinced the single-digit Wizard needs it.

It also explains my experimentation with ideas like allowing wands made out of special materials so spellcasters too gain access to monster weaknesses ("I cast my spell against the Bugul Noz using my Cold Iron Wand, so I get to do an extra 18 damage if I hit"), if I'm allowed to steer back to the topic of this thread...!

 

[Puggins]

Hmm, okay, now I'm seeing the reason for the drastically improved healing options- Oh, my word, that barbarian is going to need them. they are at an overall -5 or so behind the fighter with a shield, and -7 behind the paladin. The overall damage taken by someone behind by 5 AC is dumbfounding- we're talking around 80% more damage. Behind a paladin you're getting to about 120% more damage. At that point, you'd hope that the barbarian would deal substantially more damage, because they're due for some dirt naps.

Barbarian, 10 (level) + 4 (proficiency) + 5 (strength) + 1 (attack) = +20

At this point, this attack bonus is... not great. The average AC of a level 10 monster is definitely north of 30- I'll say 31, though it might be a bit higher. The average reflex is somewhere around a +18.

Wizard, 10 (level) + 4 (proficiency) + 5 (intelligence) + 10 = DC29

The results are going to be a bit underwhelming for the barb:

Barbarian, two attacks: 0.5 * 43.5 + 0.05 * 43.5 + 0.25 * 43.5 + 0.05 * 43.5 = 37.0 average damage per round against level 10 mob
Barbarian, flanking, two attacks: 0.6 + 43.5 + 0.15 * 43.5 + 0.35 * 43.5 + 0.05 * 43.5 = 50.0 average damage per round against level 10 mob

Wizard, 5th level Cone of cold vs average mob: (12d6) = 0.5 * 42 + 0.5 * 21.0 + 0.05 * 42 = 33.6 average damage per mob
Wizard, 5th level Sudden Bolt vs average mob: (7d12) = 0.5 * 45.5 + 0.5 * 22.25 + 0.05 * 45.5 = 36.0

I'd probably stick with the cone of cold myself. The wizard at this point is hitting multiple targets for almost the same as a standard barbarian round. They don't compare to a flanking barbarian, though we're not using any tricks by the wizard, either. If you add force bolt you get to flanking damage, and the wizard can now do that multiple times a combat. I just don't see this as a huge disparity given the serious problems with the damage taken here- I'm not certain even a cleric would be able to keep up with this during a hard combat, but I've been wrong before.

I should add that you're using a really weird combination here, Capn- you're comparing a bog standard wizard to a barbarian that's optimized to deal damage, not win fights. This is close to being the most damage that can be done by a martial in the game, and it's coming at a drastic cost in terms of survivability. We're running the Age of Ashes adventure path and we've had to deal with a few level+4 encounters, surviving all of them with no casualties so far- has this group done roughly the same? The numbers look like they're dramatically different, but plug in a sword+shield fighter and you'll get drastically improved survivability with a modest drop in damage- I think that's a better comparison, honestly. I'd venture to say that (possibly) part of the inadequacy of the wizard in your campaign might be coming from the meta?

Edited to correct some very wrong numbers.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, we have five players and three martials, so it's not that the Barbarian has to fight all the critters by herself. The Fighter and Ranger aren't afraid to enter melee, I mean - they're both geared for melee (obviously, since ranged deals clearly less damage, and unless everybody stays at range, creating a ranged martial is actually a weakness for the group, since by avoiding melee all you do is help monsters to focus their damage, which in PF2 is lethal)

The Fighter uses a Halberd. He's happy how the reach helps him get his attack of opportunity (and how it eases flanking). The ranger does best when ranged is required (and loses the fewest actions when you can't reach your foe). But he too prefers melee, where he deals more damage.

Since the Ranger players his character as more cautious (to tank a significant foe), it seems too early to attribute the fact the Fighter and Barbarian takes the brunt of the incoming damage (and the Barbarian obviously taking more) solely on AC differences. I suspect the Ranger would have done just as well as the Barbarian had he shared her confidence.

Since we have five players the issues with having one of them be a Wizard are obviously lessened compared to a default group of four. I shudder at the thought of running Extinction Curse with only two martials, the Cleric and then the Wizard. It would likely have become painfully obvious the group would have been better off with a third martial instead, even somebody as absurd as a Giant Instinct Barbarian.

---

What I'm trying to get at is the fundamental fact that any fantasy ruleset must justify the inclusion of any squishy character.

The whole reason you bring along
...a cleric despite dealing weak damage is because of her awesome healing powers
...a rogue despite being too squishy to be a frontliner is because of her awesome DPS (and somewhat for her utility)
...a wizard despite being too squishy at all is because of her awesome area spells, boss take-downs, and overall sheer utility

Playing one of these characters just because it's fun is okay in a friendly home game, but not when the difficulty is racking up.

After all, while a Giant Instinct Barbarian has poor defenses, she still does far better than a puny Wizard! The fact the Wizard is starting to keep up damage-wise (when expending his best slots) doesn't mean the overall package is better, since the defense is still so poor. You say you'd choose Cone of Cold, but you don't think of who's going to take the Barbarian's place, and I'm pretty sure you're not volunteering the front lines for your Wizard!

In my opinion, 5E forgot that its feats add a lot of power to fighters - they forgot to add a similar power-up feat to rogues. The result is that 5E rogues feel like a weak link (in games with feats). (It's first when they get access to reliable Haste and thus can do two easy sneak attacks every round they gain the damage they need to compete)

And in PF2, Paizo clearly forgot the fundamental fact for its Wizards. Just creating a Wizard class for wizard fans isn't enough. Such a squishy class needs to be given the tools to do stuff the other characters can't do, in order to explain why wizards adventure. When a group facing a difficult adventure is better off replacing the wizard with nearly any other class, something is really broken.

That this might change at some level isn't the point. Whether the change comes already at level 7 or maybe at level 14 isn't the point. It should come no later than level 5, just like in every other edition of the game.

Even if I accept your numbers as is, @Puggins the fact remains. Why would any group include a character that needs protection and can't survive on his own only because he kind of can deal three (or even four) times the attack damage in a round. After all, he can only do that three rounds a day (or something like that).

Every other edition of D&D (again maybe not 4E) answers the question "why bring a wizard" with a much more compelling answer.

Including 5th edition. (That d20 does it isn't exactly a good thing, since casters are so overpowered there). But 5th Edition does it despite it too fixing LFQW.

This gets to what's bugging me so greatly - how Paizo utterly failed to learn from the explosive success of 5E despite having years to study that game and what made it great.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hmm, okay, now I'm seeing the reason for the drastically improved healing options

Missed this on my first reading...

No, my redone potions are not because the Cleric can't keep up.

The Cleric does fine, and is much appreciated.

My reasons for redoing healing potions are clearly stated in the OP, and can be summarized:

PF2 weirdly leaves a lot of design space unused. For instance, healing potions are so feeble, and take so long to use, they go essentially unused.

Boosting healing potions is a way to see warriors swig potions throughout combat again. Reintroduce healing potion usage to the game, basically.

It should also make the scenario where no player wants to play the dedicated healbot MUCH more viable.

 

[Celtavian]

Oh, I don't disagree. (In fact, I played a 3E Sorcerer specifically because I didn't have to muck about with slot memorization)

I'm just saying that just like in 5E, moving the Wizard over to spontaneous casting is a huge change, since it basically steals the whole raison d'etre of the Sorcerer.

And since PF2 doesn't give its Sorcerer anything that comes near to the power upgrade that is 5E-style metamagics, I fear that class would basically be relegated to become a "variant wizard".

---

Now, I'm not planning on switching over the PF2 Wizard to spontaneous casting, but if I were, I would probably lean on my experiences so far, which tell me "the Wizard is woefully underpowered" and go in another direction, that takes its cue from 3E.

Give the Wizard a bonus level as a caster, just like the 3E Wizard was one level ahead of the 3E Sorcerer. (As I said, I played a 3E Sorcerer. As I recall, that kind of sucked, but not nearly as bad as having to memorize my spells, and having the wrong spell for the job. And as you might expect for a game of d20, once I reached 6th level, I easily contributed my fair share and justified my place in the group)

Having the Wizard gain access to Fireball at level 4 and Wish at level 18 just might be what the doctor ordered. Counting as one level higher would help with Incapacitation as well, since now the level 6 Wizard would be able to affect level 8 monsters normally (counting as level 7 means access to level four spell slots, and 4x2=8).

You would not gain a bonus level for any other purposes than general spells and spell slots. You don't get hit points, feats, saves, skill increases and other class abilities. (Hope this was obvious)

If you dislike Vancian as much as I do, you would still have a reason to play a Sorcerer (or Bard). And Clerics/Druids seem to do okay for other reasons.

Sorcerer has some pretty good focus spells, feats, and chassis. It's different enough from the wizard they seem ok. I gave them their bloodline spells for free for a total of 36 spells versus the wizard's interchangeable 27. You could figure out a good way to do it.

If you have another way to make the wizard more fun for your players, give it a shot. My players are greatly enjoying 5E casting. Let's them use their spells in more interesting and useful ways.

 

[CapnZapp]

Anyway... Getting back to discussing my proposed "plugs" to the "holes" in design space

Lemme just grab some coffee