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

[Staffan]

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'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).

No, my single-target damage is not as good as a giant-totem barbarian or a two-handed fighter would deal (though we don't have one of those in our group – we have a champion who's amazing at defense, a bomber alchemist who deals respectable damage once they get some persistent damage effects going, and a cleric who is frickin' amazing at healing and can do the occasional blasting too), but my AOE is fantastic.

 

[Blue]

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.

 

[Porridge]

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.

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.

But it's also true that for relatively optimal play, martials should be doing stuff to support martials. If they don't - if they all play as individual players without teamwork - encounters are going to be tougher.

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 you're 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).

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

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).

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.

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.

 

[Staffan]

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.

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.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Blasting is for large numbers of individually weak foes, and slow, fear, or synesthesia is for single strong opponents.

Underrated: all three of those spells don't have the Incapacitation tag and have utterly vicious effects.

 

[Staffan]

Underrated: all three of those spells don't have the Incapacitation tag and have utterly vicious effects.

And that's why I have them.

I get why Incapacitation exists. But for me, the effect is to turn me off of single-target incapacitation effects (unless it's a rider on something else, like the monk's Stunning Fist), because if I'm facing creatures my level or lower there are probably more than one of them, and in that case I'd rather deal damage to them with waterball, cone of cold, or chain lightning.

I think that's where some of the dissonance comes from. Many people who play casters love being the MVP – I mean, who doesn't? And what's more MVPish than taking out the strongest enemy with a single spell, turning the fight from tough to easy in one fell blow? And PF2 doesn't let you do that, at least not against worthy opponents.

I do think 13th Age has a better solution to that problem, with neutralizing spells generally being limited by hit points. That means that once you have roughed up that strong enemy, they might be in hold range. The Escalation Die, making PCs more likely to succeed later in the fight, also helps, because it rewards keeping your strongest attacks back a bit. Edit: This depends on a certain player-friendliness recommended by 13th Age as well, where the GM is supposed to let you know if a target is low enough to affect.

 

[SteveC]

Having listened to the MNMaxed podcast play of Extinction Curse to high levels, I'd say spell casters are fine. I'd honestly listen to some of the later parts of that to see what they can do. I don't think any of the players seem to complain about it very much.

I have not played at those levels, but from my Pathfinder Society play (to level 4) I'd say it takes a while for the casters to hit their stride.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As others have said, if you don't go in doing two things (1. Expecting them to be PF1e or D&D3e casters, 2. Expect them to be single target takeout artists) they're fine. They can clean up the masses like crazy, and still have more versatility than any individual martial.

 

[BigZebra]

I had a player playing a Warpriest Cleric and he found it to be very very boring and not fun at all. Casters being nurfed is definitely one of the most common PF2 complaints. Personally I find that casters do not tap in the whole 3-action system very creatively. And then there's the whole Vancian casting thing. I was kind of baffled that someone would design an RPG in 2019 and default to Vancian casting (they later introduced stuff like wave casting etc.).

Anyway, after playing through Quest for the Frozen Flame we went back to 5e, but that is not to say we didn't find anything good about PF2 - we sure did. But casters wasn't one of them.
Obviously I am just one opinion of many, and there are players who enjoy casters in PF2. Just try it out.