there's a huge difference between wanting to do your own thing and being told to be a buff bot.. Next time try replying to what was said.So... casters are flexible and can do things better than martials like AoE, buffing, debuffing, and battlefield control, but if they can't beat martials at martial's specialty - single target damage - then they aren't interesting?
That doesn't sound like a system problem, just that you have a firm feel what what you want your character to do and casters aren't the best fit for realizing that.
Considering that one of my regular players, who played PF 1e before 5e, who loves playing casters regularly comments on how 5e has gimped casters and magic, I'm more interested in knowing if caster PCs are fun for the GM. ;-)
Actually, I'm surprised at the comments in this thread so far. I've never played PF, but my assumption was that magic in PF was even more gonzo than 5e. Did PF 2e scale back caster power or am I harboring a misconception of PF 1e and D&D 3/3.5?
I've played a primal sorcerer up through level 11. I feel nothing like a "buff bot". I feel I have a fairly good selection of both damage (waterball, hydraulic torrent, cone of cold, chain lightning), debuffs (fear at levels 1 and 3, faerie fire, earthbind, slow at levels 3 and 6, just got synesthesia via feat shenanigans but haven't had the chance to use it yet), utility (heal, dispel magic, speak with animals, endure elements, wall of stone, repulsion), self-buffs (longstrider, elemental form, dragon form), and buffs for others (fly, freedom of movement).there's a huge difference between wanting to do your own thing and being told to be a buff bot.. Next time try replying to what was said.
I am, I read that "pull off amazing battlefield control tricks" (@Teemu ) and "Casters are good at AOE damage and both buffing and debuffing enemies." (@Staffan ). Seems there's a lot more there than being a buff bot. If you are going to try to correct someone, especially in so rude a tone, please make sure that what you are saying is factually correct.there's a huge difference between wanting to do your own thing and being told to be a buff bot.. Next time try replying to what was said.
It's true that for relatively optimal play (which the encounter guidelines assume), casters should be doing stuff to support martials. If they don't, encounters are going to be tougher.What the subject says. A lot of what I'm reading points to all casters being support which in turn points to all casters being there just to help the martials get crits.
My Savage Pathfinder game runs itself with minimal prep. So I've been doing some close reading of Pathfinder 2e, and lo and behold, behind the massive page count and scary technical language there is a game that may be both playable, fun, and pretty easy to GM. I'm actually thinking about doing a test run of Abomination Vaults gasp.I think what a lot of people really get hung up on is the fact that PF2's encounter guidelines assume that parties will be using teamwork, when a lot of people are used to games that don't assume this. But this doesn't have much to do with whether your a martial or a caster. On an effective team, martials will often be doing just as much to support other players as casters are (providing flanking, knocking enemies prone, using third actions to Demoralize or Bon Mot (to help casters land those Will-save spells), using class abilities/feats to inflict various debuffs, etc).
Exactly! As a primal caster, buffing is generally not my thing (except self-buffing via animal form-type spells). But I have a fair selection of both AOE damage and debuffs, and the trick is knowing when to use what. Blasting is for large numbers of individually weak foes, and slow, fear, or synesthesia is for single strong opponents.Anyways, one of the things that make Pf2e attractive to me is what Porridge points out, that teamwork seem to be both expected and necessary in combat. Maybe I'm biased by having players that actually enjoy teamwork and find fun beyond personally shuffling out the highest amount of damage per round. But I see it as a great feature that playing a supporting caster isn't a suboptimal choice.
Blasting is for large numbers of individually weak foes, and slow, fear, or synesthesia is for single strong opponents.
And that's why I have them.Underrated: all three of those spells don't have the Incapacitation tag and have utterly vicious effects.