Pathfinder 2E ideas for caster runes (homebrew)

[Staffan]

Just to be clear, the notion that spellcasters are "woefully underpowered during the first third of levels" in PF2 is not universally shared.

If your only yardstick is DPR, sure. But damage output per round isn't the be-all and the end-all of the FRPG experience. And even there, low-level spellcasters aren't horribly outclassed, since they can do lots of things with their unlimited cantrips.

This question is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Cap'n is far from the only one who is frustrated with the extent to which casters were nerfed in PF2, sure. There are plenty of people on the forums and on discord who complain about the lack of spellslots and what they see as the crummy math around spells, both targetted and save spells. But there are also plenty of people who understand why those things are the way they are, and enjoy it anyway.

Low-level wizards are fine, and a lot of fun to play. But you have to adapt your expectations.

It depends a bit on what you're putting them through. The issues faced by casters change a bit at the low levels.

At the lowest levels, the caster's problem is endurance. A 1st/2nd-level sorcerer will only have 3-4 proper spells per day, and at 3rd/4th that changes to 3-4 2nd-level spells and 4 1st-level spells. Other casters have even fewer spells, and if they're prepared casters they often face a situation where the particular prepared spell they do have left doesn't do any good. Some classes/subclasses also have useful focus spells, but that's nowhere near universal. That's pretty meager, particularly considering the gauntlets low-level parties face in early adventure paths – this definitely colors the perception of low-level casters. In The Show Must Go On, this is really noticeable, because the adventure pushes you to deal with no less than nine combat encounters in a single night at 1st level. At higher levels this becomes less of a problem because while you still only have 7-8 top-level spells for sorcerers (5-6 for others), you have more depth to use for utility spells and buffs/debuffs that don't scale with level.

At the lower mid levels, about 5+, the main problem you start feeling is that your spells start fizzling because your spell attack, and to some degree your spell save DC, is behind where it needs to be. This is felt most strongly at level 5-6 when martial characters are three points ahead of you on attack rolls, and you're still low enough level that attack roll-based cantrips are a significant part of your arsenal

 

[Staffan]

I am set to start a PF2 campaign soon (when our current 4e wraps up), and I'd prefer if their first impression was great, because there's many thing in PF2 that speaks to me.

If you're making your own adventures instead of relying on pre-made, I think these two points make for a more enjoyable experience for everyone, but particularly for casters:

1. Be very careful about using higher-level enemies. Low-level characters don't really have the tool boxes to handle these, and it sucks when you use one of your 2-4 spells and there's no effect because of a critical save.
2. Use smaller adventure areas. In adventure paths, I often see parts of an adventure that have 10-15 encounters in a dungeon or the equivalent. This is not to be emulated. Try to keep things to four encounters or less per adventuring day.

 

[BigZebra]

If you're making your own adventures instead of relying on pre-made, I think these two points make for a more enjoyable experience for everyone, but particularly for casters:

1. Be very careful about using higher-level enemies. Low-level characters don't really have the tool boxes to handle these, and it sucks when you use one of your 2-4 spells and there's no effect because of a critical save.
2. Use smaller adventure areas. In adventure paths, I often see parts of an adventure that have 10-15 encounters in a dungeon or the equivalent. This is not to be emulated. Try to keep things to four encounters or less per adventuring day.

Thanks for the reply, but I am solely using their APs. I plan on running the new Quest for the Frozen Flame. I hope they got the balance right now . But I am well aware of Paizo's tendency to tune the enccounters.

 

[Philip Benz]

I've heard good things about QftFF. Since it appears to be strongly focused on martial classes, there will probably be less drop-off in efficiency from long adventuring days - assuming they go all-out with the Medicine skill, to get non-magical healing as often as possible.

I've also heard that it's very skimpy in the loot-drop department. That jibes with the sort of "economy of scarcity" that I think this adventure has going. I'm really interested in hearing how this works for you (without any strong spoilers, please) because I have insisted for a long time that you can play the game without necessarily having all of the "expected" magic items and runes.

 

[MaskedGuy]

Warning: I have discovered my love of creating dice result charts, please correct me if I did my math bad. WALL OF TEXT INCOMING. (edit note: already noticed I forgot to clarify nat 1 and crit failure possibilities and how this compares to other dcs/rolls npcs can do versus pcs. Also do note: high, moderate and low bonuses are most common ones, extreme ones are rarely used due to how imbalanced there are, so I'm mostly arguing on principle here.

I will also add that while I think extreme saves should be able to fail at level 22 and 23, adding +3 to dcs might make crit fails too common for regular bonuses, so maybe there should be alternate solution to level 22 and 23 extreme saves like them just being lower than they currently are?)

Definitely agree that there should be caster bonus to spell attack rolls because spell attacks are rarely that much more powerful than single strikes(the ones that are also have save), but not sure about DC. Like dc increase would help make casters more useful vs boss enemies, but it would make them comparatively much more dangerous vs bosses that aren't already ridiculous.(and with those bosses they can focus on buffs and area control spells)

Well to find out, I decided to compare to maxed out caster vs trivial, low, moderate, severe and extreme solo enemies (so level 20 wizard vs level 20-24 enemies), this is how math works out:

Fails on roll vs DC 45	Extreme	High	Moderate	Low	Terrible
20	5	8	11	14	17
21	3	6	9	12	16
22	1 (can only crit fail, no regular failure)	5	8	11	14
23	only 1 (can't crit fail)	4	7	10	13
24	only 1 (can't crit fail)	2	6	8	12

My main observation besides obvious "casters hate their lives vs boss enemies if they are dc focused" is that save growth chart behaves like NPC have profiency level above legendary. But yeah, if caster had +3 rune to DCs, suddenly even level 20 enemy with high dc fails on 11 on dice. That isn't however bad thing necessarily. There is also another benefit, since Class DCs/spell DCs seem to be only PC ability that can only be succeed with level 22-23 extreme bonuses. (level 24 extreme bonuses in general require nat 1 on their roll versus pc. Extreme strike of 46 vs max heavy ac of 47, extreme skill of 48 versus max save dc of 48. Like yeah, level 23 extreme skill +46 has same effect of succeeding on roll of 2, but at least crit fail chance exists.) So if +3 item bonuses to exist, 23 extreme would fail on 3 and 24 on nat 1(so also crit failing) which "feels" more in line with everything else to me.

I think difficult thing here is that I think its partly intentional math wise that targeting boss creatures with Spell DCs is supposed to be hard and that majority of casters have no reason to start with 14 in key stat, so all of them are likely to have either +5, +6 or +7 in casting stat depending how experimental they want to be. So its kinda design choice of "do you want to base DCs around stat of +5 or +6 and give extra boost to +7, or do you want to base them around maximum possible due to how powerful spells are?". I personally honestly like idea that chances should be based around +6 at max since giving apex item to -1 or +0 stat to boost it to+4 should be a valid option as well.

Besides that, I can also understand desire for "I maximized this stat, so I want to do good in it even versus powerful foes" especially when you compare difference between PC saves vs enemy DCs. Like basically PC saves work decently versus their own level npcs regardless of proficiency(they range at level 20 from expert tolegendary) as long stat itself is good. So with resistance runes minimum possible expert profiency save is +26(-1 in stat) and maximum possible legendary save is +38(+7 in stat)

so to compare difference between PC saves/DCs to NPC saves/DCs, level 20 extreme/high/mod dc are 47, 42 and 39. So max save character succeeds on those on 9, 4, and nat 1. For extreme level 24 DCs(52, 48, 45), they succeed on 14, 10 and 7.

So basically pc investing on their optimizing their save is eventually rewarded so that even versus final boss they have decent chance to succeed (compared to lower level extreme foes) while casters are rewarded only when facing equal or lower level foes.

...Okay I wasn't planning to touch on spell attack rolls(I thought caster legendary +35 spell attack vs master martial +36 and legendary martial +38 was pretty self evident especially due to how late casters gain legendary proficiency), but I figured out I might as well check if math favors spell attacks to saves at level 20. My own theory is that math favors spells that don't require saves or attacks for high level bosses, but let's see.

+35 vs AC hits on result of	Extreme	High	Moderate	Low
20	13	10	9	7
21	14	11	10	8
22	16	13	12	10
23	17	14	13	11
24	19	16	15	13

Hmm I think its fair to say that casters are really harmed by level 22-24 npcs having sort of "legendary+ proficiency" jump. Like with bosses you are supposed to rely on debuffs and flanking for flat footed. Like thing to remember about boss ac is that it should always incentive PCs to flank if boss isn't immune to flat footed, but ranged characters trade easy flat footed for distance. Still though, extreme final boss with high in stat succeeds on DC on 3 and caster hits them on 16 on spell attack roll, so weirdly enough, they do have better chance of doing something to them on spell attack roll than save. Still though I think none of this makes lack of +3 item bonus to attack rolls fairer.

 

[dave2008]

If your only yardstick is DPR, sure. But damage output per round isn't the be-all and the end-all of the FRPG experience.

Yes, I have always hated when that is the only way a class is judged.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just to be clear, the notion that spellcasters are "woefully underpowered during the first third of levels" in PF2 is not universally shared.

If your only yardstick is DPR, sure.

My only yardstick is not DPR.

Casters are shut out of too much of the action economy. There's very few items useful to (low level) casters - even items specifically aimed at casters are for the most part vendor trash. They are simply less capable overall.

The spells themselves are actually one of PF2's good things. It one of the biggest differences from 4E which the game otherwise shares too many similarities with. Unlike most other aspects of the game, spells are not horribly tied down.

(That does not mean individual spells are exempt from criticism, though I decline to go into details here)

Please don't construct straw men here. I would say PF2 casters only get enough compensation for their shortcomings around 9th level or so (but i said level 7 above as a reasonable lower bound).

Going back on topic, bonuses don't work since the fundamental assumption is that bonuses get larger at higher levels.

In this case, however, it is the low level wizard that need help. High level wizards definitely do not.

The game just is not set up to provide a convenient delivery mechanism for this.

My conclusion is that by far the simplest solution is to play a martial at low levels.

 

[Philip Benz]

Sorry, Cap'n, I didn't intend to build up any straw men there. For a lot of folks on Discord, DPR is the only meaningful yardstick.

I can see where you might be frustrated with low-level spellcasters' action economy. Once you cast a spell, you only have one action left, and if you're doing anything more than one action, then you're not casting any spells (with a few notable exceptions with focus spells). If you're using metamagic like Reach Spell, that's all 3 actions for the turn, so a spellcaster has to be patient - all while the martials are running here and there, doing their combat stuff.

For items, I think that depends entirely on the DM or the published adventure (if they're using one, and if they're avoiding adding anything). I suspect our theshold on declaring magic items "vendor trash" is markedly different. The one time I played a 1st & 2nd-level wizard, I know I was thrilled when we found some scrolls, and even more when we captured a spellbook. I agree that a lot of low-level items in PF2, whether for spellcasters or martials, are, how shall I say it "underwhelming". So I guess "vendor trash" isn't so off the mark there.

I have noticed that almost all items (aside perhaps from runes) seem to me to have inflated item levels and inflated costs. There are ways a DM can overcome that, if he wants, but folks running APs and other published adventures "as is" will be stuck handing out whatever talsimans and other underwhelming items the adventure provides.

 

[CapnZapp]

A good DM can overcome every really poor rules. But that is a given and we cannot have a meaningful discussion about the quality of a ruleset if "but I made it work well" is considered a meaningful objection.

I maintain that low-level casters work poorly in PF2 for multiple reasons. Whether you (or I) can make it work anyway is beside the point.

The game deserves criticism on this point - when you're looking to play a caster at low levels PF2 just isn't an attractive choice of ruleset. We all know the common wisdom is that the old school "truth" is that "it should suck to play a low level caster". PF2 fails at fixing this.

Notably, the main competitor, 5E, does not fail at this crucial task.

Why does PF2 fail? It is a mixture of many independent bad design decisions, but it chiefly boils down to the way PF2 starts out tilting the balance toward Team Monster and only slowly tilts it back in the heroes' favor. But high level heroes does not need that favor - and especially not high level casters. On the other hand low level heroes do - and especially, desperately so, low level casters. The entire game is just on the wrong trajectory, and the inadequate playtesting failed to persuade Paizo to do anything about it when there was still time.

Another important factor is how apparently someone at Paizo genuinely believes it is okay to publish a game that expects low-level Wizard players to be content playing Accountants. That is my derisive term for a class that should not try to win fights by himself, but instead be content with spending his precious few spell slots on giving monsters -1 debuffs and otherwise spend two actions doing what martials need only one to do.

Important Note: since the Heal spell is just about the only spell that does not suck for a low-level caster, healbot Clerics are not included in my criticism. In fact, the healbot Cleric is easily the best choice for any would-be low-level hero.

---

Anyway, I have analyzed several attempts at solving the issue discussed in this thread and have come up short. When it comes to solutions that are simple to implement and really solves the issue without overloading an already insanely cluttered game with more complexity, I have found very few suggestions that come close. Paizo have created a game that is actively hostile to any user-initiated houseruling. There are just so very many connected parts it is ten times as difficult to tweak one thing without inadvertently deteriorate a dozen other things.

On the other hand "just don't play a Wizard at first" is maximally simple while completely fixing the issue. Yes of course it feels unsatisfactory, but it is by far the most practical suggestion. So that must be my recommendation.

 

[Philip Benz]

We obviously have different thresholds for what constitutes "failure". Here's just one example.

A 1st-level evocation wizard has the focus spell Force Bolt, a sort of 1-action magic missile that he can cast once, but then can recharge in 10 minutes, while his teammates are getting their wounds healed.
He'll also have 2 1st-level spells that he can use to buff his pals (Magic Weapon is a great buff until the martial actually have +1 striking weapons) or even blast his foes (a 3-action Magic Missile will do 3d4+3 damage, automatically hitting) and there are of course many other spells. And if the 2 spells per day seems frustrating, you can spend some of your 15 starting gold on a couple 1st-level scrolls, at 4gp a pop. A wizard doesn't actually need much gear, after all.
I love unlimited cantrips, and not only for blasting. Electric Arc is the most popular damaging cantrip (1d4+4 damage to two adversaries, possibly doubled or halved, depending on their save), but you can do a lot of fun stuff with spells like mage hand and ghost sound and other cool cantrips.
This, in addition to various actions he can take with his skills, beyond spellcasting as such.
Of course you already know all this, Cap'n.

I just don't see 1st-level spellcasters in PF2 as being boring or even underwhelming. Now, I've never played DD5, and am not really very interested in comparing game systems, but I really can't share blanket assertions like "when you're looking to play a caster at low levels PF2 just isn't an attractive choice of ruleset".