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

Not sure about PF2e but 4e was fairly explicit with this (could have done even better) with its Tiers of play, Epic destinies for all, etc.
pf2e is pretty clear that it's designed for high-level PCs to be of "world-shattering strength" (and conversely that playing with proficiency-without-level calls that assumption into question).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thomas Shey

Legend
Yeah, I still question quite how much that will help given other features (hit points, damage, and so on) but there's no question that PF2e is not trying to fish in the pool of compressed heroes. I can't find any reason to fault that since the D&D-sphere never seems a good place to do that, anyway.
 

Kichwas

Half-breed, still living despite WotC racism
Or is this another case of the internet being, well, itself?

PF2E "suffers" from being well balanced and also "suffers" from being too easy to keep viable to play all the way up the level ladder. It also "suffers" by letting any character of any class be able to fun and engaging and lastly it "suffers" from it being somewhat difficult to make a too weak or too powerful character for all but the most extremely savvy players. As in... you probably have to be really hyper aware of the game and all it's angles to make a bad character (unless you go for Investigator).

As a result of this... OK sure... Casters can be 'unfun' if what you're seeking is to be the person who by 5th level is single handedly doing 50% of the group's entire damage, while also being unkillable, AND having all the out of combat explorable and social options.

If your idea of "fun" is to be the locked in by design main character - then casters suck.

Because unfortunately, the game gives everyone room to shine, but even more unfortunately, the game shines best when everyone works together and tried hard to NOT hog the spotlight.

It's a very bad game in this way - letting everyone have fun is just... why... why would you do that?

:)

Personally I'm weird. I absolutely love that anyone at the table has about equal opportunity to shine and be an amazing team player. I love that no one dominates.

I've been away from gaming for almost 20 years, and the last time I played I was playing the "powerful class". It was from some random d20 book and was an archer that basically had unlimited fireballs that looked like a rain of arrows. I think whoever wrote that book went on to design the World of Warcraft Marksmanship Hunter because it was basically that. In D&D back in the day (and I hear still today but cannot verify) - that result is usually the Wizard about 2 levels higher than we were. The idea of balance there was that for the first few levels the Wizard was super weak, but by mid-levels they were so powerful DMs couldn't find anything in the book that could present a challenge...

I love that in PF2E - my Witch or Druid or Wizard will never be that. At low levels I am not too weak, and high levels I am not too strong. Somebody who worked on writing this game read up on Goldilocks... We all get to be 'just right'.

And it's still fun as heck. The Casters all have so much variety to them that even two Witches or Two Wizards could be played on the same party and feel like completely different classes. The same goes for two back to back Fighters or back to back Rangers or... well... anything except an Investigator. The game has one fail... and that's it. The Investigator. A weird gimmick that means you will be either S-tier or F-tier depending on whether or not your GM's idea of a 'detective / police drama' is 'Hercule Poirot' or 'COPs'. And if it's neither, you won't even make it to F-tier... But for a game with that many choices to only have one miss is pretty amazing.
 


SteveC

Doing the best imitation of myself
My take on it is, for all the quadratic wizard linear fighter stuff that has been going on since the start of the hobby, there is a sizable number of players who just like it that way. I haven't played PF2 at high levels, but watching the podcasts that are at those levels tells me that wizards are still very powerful and still have the utility.
What's tougher is fighting monsters higher level than you are. You have to really work to land those spells against "bosses." And adventures, as well as a lot of GMs, put a disproportionate number of fights like that in the game, with the goal of making it more "exciting." I've read about games where the GM cuts medium and lower powered fights specifically because they aren't as interesting.
With something like that, spellcasters need to adapt.
I certainly get how if you're used to just owning the battlefield without any help from anyone else, that would make the game less fun for you. Yet this is what's baked into the Pathfinder 2 cake: you do better with teamwork.
I posted a link earlier to discussions of all the spells in the game, and there are still many of them that you can use in a campaign where you're fighting over-leveled opponents. You can also work as part of a team to get those saves or defenses down. I think that's what's going to make a caster fun to play, that along with all the things that casters can still do that no one else can
 


Staffan

Legend
I'm going to have to unsubscribe from this thread. Some of the posters here are really making me want to run Pathfinder 2e. I've already invested so much money and time into 5e, why would you do this to me⸮
season 4 crowd GIF
 

Green Onceler

Explorer
As a result of this... OK sure... Casters can be 'unfun' if what you're seeking is to be the person who by 5th level is single handedly doing 50% of the group's entire damage, while also being unkillable, AND having all the out of combat explorable and social options.

That was not my concern with the PF2 witch at all. Also, that has not been my experience in any system ever at any level - let alone 5th. My issue with the witch I played was it felt nothing like a witch. It felt like an archer who was a bad shot. The support options I enjoyed with the PF1 witch were gone. A PF1 witch was never about damage. It was about curses and ill luck. That had been replaced in PF2 by 1d8 damage as the character's default action. And, it was not fun.
 


FallenRX

Adventurer
My take on it is, for all the quadratic wizard linear fighter stuff that has been going on since the start of the hobby, there is a sizable number of players who just like it that way. I haven't played PF2 at high levels, but watching the podcasts that are at those levels tells me that wizards are still very powerful and still have the utility.
What's tougher is fighting monsters higher level than you are. You have to really work to land those spells against "bosses." And adventures, as well as a lot of GMs, put a disproportionate number of fights like that in the game, with the goal of making it more "exciting." I've read about games where the GM cuts medium and lower powered fights specifically because they aren't as interesting.
With something like that, spellcasters need to adapt.
I certainly get how if you're used to just owning the battlefield without any help from anyone else, that would make the game less fun for you. Yet this is what's baked into the Pathfinder 2 cake: you do better with teamwork.
I posted a link earlier to discussions of all the spells in the game, and there are still many of them that you can use in a campaign where you're fighting over-leveled opponents. You can also work as part of a team to get those saves or defenses down. I think that's what's going to make a caster fun to play, that along with all the things that casters can still do that no one else can
Honestly i feel like this caster problem really started in 3e specifically.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top