Pathfinder 2E Is it fun to play a caster in PF2?

[Scribe]

I try to not be super-critical to people about this, but I really think a lot of things have to do with expectations set by PF1e, and D&D3e and 5e. I will sometimes cynically suggest that, yeah, when you're used to the overbaked character of D&D spellcasting aren't always going to be happy with a game that has pushed spellcasters and martials closer together, too, but that's being uncharitable.

Which is interesting to me, as one of the common complaints of those systems is 'casters are way above the curve'.

I'm far more into that collaborative, supporting system where each member of the party is contributing to make the 'party' a greater than the sum of its parts thing. I love the synergy being required by the system, and not some lone wolf super power walking around not needing the rest of the party to get things done.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think you have two different takes from casters are no fun crowd. Those that don't understand the system, and thus are falling back on preconceptions. Then, you have those who do understand the new system, but still dont like it. How I take criticism depends on how they present it.

Well, like I said, there's also two groups in the latter. Some just have certain kinds of expectations its not going to serve. The others are used to casters, particularly arcanists, being the solution to every problem, and the martials are just around to buy them time to do it. My tolerance for the latter is, shall we say, limited.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which is interesting to me, as one of the common complaints of those systems is 'casters are way above the curve'.

I think at least with PF1e and D&D3e, that was absolutely true (I'm not competent enough with 5e to judge). That's the point; if people are used to that, PF2e casters can feel weak. In particular, if you're used to firing off takeout spells at dangerous opponents until they fail and it handles the problem, PF2e is not going to make you happy, but its hard for me have much sympathy.

I'm far more into that collaborative, supporting system where each member of the party is contributing to make the 'party' a greater than the sum of its parts thing. I love the synergy being required by the system, and not some lone wolf super power walking around not needing the rest of the party to get things done.

Well, that can be another thing you'll sometimes see where people just don't want to be arsed to pay attention to others and react accordingly, but its a separate thing (mostly) from objecting to how casters work.

 

[mellored]

I'll just point out that, even with all the balance changes, casters are still weaker at low levels and more powerful at high ones.

The difference isn't nearly as overwhelming. But you can still dump all your low level slots on stuff like invisibility and true stike, while your high level slots keep getting bigger.
Or be invisible and casting true strike + polar ray for example.

 

[dave2008]

I love the synergy being required by the system, and not some lone wolf super power walking around not needing the rest of the party to get things done.

As a designer, I love the idea of the synergy being a feature of a system. However, the issue I have with PF2 is that it seems that the synergy is a requirement. My players are just not good at tactics and synergistic combat. If the way they like to play makes them fall behind the curve of the game, they will not enjoy it. Of course, it is not like every system needs to be for every group!

 

[Scribe]

As a designer, I love the idea of the synergy being a feature of a system. However, the issue I have with PF2 is that it seems that the synergy is a requirement. My players are just not good at tactics and synergistic combat. If they way they like to play makes them fall behind the curve of the game, they will not enjoy it. Of course, it is not like every system needs to be for every group!

I'd approach it as an opportunity for them to improve.

 

[payn]

As a designer, I love the idea of the synergy being a feature of a system. However, the issue I have with PF2 is that it seems that the synergy is a requirement. My players are just not good at tactics and synergistic combat. If they way they like to play makes them fall behind the curve of the game, they will not enjoy it. Of course, it is not like every system needs to be for every group!

I think you can dial that a bit. As GM avoid severe and extreme encounters except for set piece battles. Also, you might have a little more luck with the Proficiency without level variant.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As a designer, I love the idea of the synergy being a feature of a system. However, the issue I have with PF2 is that it seems that the synergy is a requirement. My players are just not good at tactics and synergistic combat. If they way they like to play makes them fall behind the curve of the game, they will not enjoy it. Of course, it is not like every system needs to be for every group!

My own feeling is that if you actually want encounter balance, you can either mandate player cooperation or you can not; its hard to see how its going to be significant without impacting that. Its not like you can't lowball encounter setups for PF2e if people are not good at cooperation and synergies, but where the balance of the system is has to be aimed somewhere.

 

[dave2008]

I'd approach it as an opportunity for them to improve.

Well, we've been playing the same way for about 30 years, so change is unlikely!

I also think it is more important to have fun than "play better." To be clear, I don't think you are telling us to not have fun.

 

[dave2008]

I think you can dial that a bit. As GM avoid severe and extreme encounters except for set piece battles. Also, you might have a little more luck with the Proficiency without level variant.

Yes, if I give PF2 another try I would use the PwoL variant.