log in or register to remove this ad

 

PF2E Martials > Casters

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
Since I'm not ready to add completely homebrewn items to my PF2 EC campaign just yet*, I would dearly like to find items such as this in an official book.

Maybe I'll be more open to doing things myself in a second campaign, but I need high-level experience before that.

*) I mean, adding a strange seldom-used story item like a more interesting Grail of Twisted Desires is one thing. Adding an item that introduces a whole new bonus category has a much larger potential impact, and I want Paizo to give the green light first.
I"m thinking of letting casters add weapon specialization damage to cantrips. I don't see a problem with it right now. I think part of the reason they didn't is because casters can do insane damage at higher levels with bursty spells versus martial better round to round damage. But I don't know. it seems cool to let casters use weapon specialization with cantrips.

I did wreck a party with a lich unloading AoE spells on them. I should have known a critical fail on an 8d12 spell would do nasty damage, but it didn't register until my player critically failed and took 110 points of damage when a critical fail doubled the spell base damage. That is super nasty at higher level.

I was reading that cataclysm level 10 spell which does like 21d10 damage. If you critically failed that spell save, ouch. You could wreck a large enemy group.

Maybe I won't let them use weapon specialization. I'll see after they hit lvl 20 in age of ashes and how I feel.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
I do not really think there is a general caster problem. I do think there is somewhat of an arcane caster problem. Basically the Druid and Bard ganged up on the Wizard and took all his stuff. When a Bard is just as good at control spells as a Wizard and Druids match them at blasting it just does not feel good.
 

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer
But is that a "doesn't feel good" because wizard no longer has something unique that it is better at, or a "doesn't feel good" because any reduction of potency feels like losing even if it is completely fair and justified?
 


Celtavian

Dragon Lord
But is that a "doesn't feel good" because wizard no longer has something unique that it is better at, or a "doesn't feel good" because any reduction of potency feels like losing even if it is completely fair and justified?
I think it is the wizard losing his unique niche and being built poorly compared to other classes. Interesting 1 action options within the new paradigm should be a design rule for PF2.
 

Hoffmand

Explorer
I can’t get into game balance. I have a fixation that magic should be dangerous and very feared by players and the world. With an omg that man delves into magic. And the system should be complex and take considerable time for a player to learn because it is so esoteric and complex. Not insulting anyone who doesn’t like that style of play. But that’s what turns me on with magic in an rpg.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Legend
Why take away their toys. Why.
Unless I am mistaken, he/she was talking about giving them new toys and then reconsidering that choice. No toys were taken from my understanding.

"I"m thinking of letting casters add weapon specialization damage to cantrips..."
"...Maybe I won't let them use weapon specialization."
 


CapnZapp

Legend
But is that a "doesn't feel good" because wizard no longer has something unique that it is better at, or a "doesn't feel good" because any reduction of potency feels like losing even if it is completely fair and justified?
You're conflating things.

If you want to make the argument "Wizards and casters in general should be nerfed compared to d20" feel free, go ahead. (You'll be smashing in open doors, since nobody here is the hardcore PF1 grognard I'm assuming you're attempting to troll; you know, the one insisting there was no caster-martial balance problem in 3E/PF1 that needed solving)

But if you're trying to make the argument "Wizards should suffer more than other casters" you really need to improve your arguments.
 

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer
...I'm not conflating anything, I was asking a question.

Information gathering, not argument - so stop trying to put words in my mouth, if you please.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
Mostly Wizards and other arcane casters no longer have a unique niche.

Druids and other Primal casters get access to spells like Burning Hands, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Cone of Cold, Chain Lightning, and Cataclysm.

Bards on the other hand now gets access to the powerful control effects, personal scale bluffs and debuffs that use to set wizards apart.

I think Wizards still have a definite place, but they have lost a lot of their unique niche.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
On the other hand, the undeveloped niche that should be limited to wizards are the role of archmage. That is, if subsequent books start giving things to Wizards no other caster class can do, there just might be hope yet. It's if Paizo doesn't believe the situation to be problematic enough to remedy we are having a problem.
 

Hoffmand

Explorer
Unless I am mistaken, he/she was talking about giving them new toys and then reconsidering that choice. No toys were taken from my understanding.

"I"m thinking of letting casters add weapon specialization damage to cantrips..."
"...Maybe I won't let them use weapon specialization."
I find damage cantrips and most damage spells a joke. Especially how they pr
On the other hand, the undeveloped niche that should be limited to wizards are the role of archmage. That is, if subsequent books start giving things to Wizards no other caster class can do, there just might be hope yet. It's if Paizo doesn't believe the situation to be problematic enough to remedy we are having a problem.
I was very disappointed that meta magic was taken from the wizard and given to the sorcerer. Made no sense to me. I really wanted the sorcerer to focus more on bloodline abilities. PF 1.0 really understood the sorcerer conceptually
 

Porridge

Explorer
I was very disappointed that meta magic was taken from the wizard and given to the sorcerer. Made no sense to me. I really wanted the sorcerer to focus more on bloodline abilities. PF 1.0 really understood the sorcerer conceptually
That's interesting. I've had the opposite impression; Wizards seem better positioned with respect to metamagic in PF2 than PF1.

In PF1, both Sorcerers and Wizards can get pretty much any metamagic feat. The Wizard gets some bonus feats which can be used on metamagic feats. The Sorcerer gets bonus bloodline feats, which generally included at least a couple metamagic feats, and starts with a free metamagic feat (Eschew Materials).

But there the parity ends. For the Sorcerer can spontaneously choose whether to use a higher level spell slot for metamagic, while Wizards have to memorize higher level spell slot with metamagic ahead of time if they want to use it. In practice, this had the result in my games that Sorcerers used metamagic a lot, while Wizards rarely used metamagic. (For example, Wizards never used the Silent metamagic feat, because it's too situational to prepare ahead of time. But Sorcerers would often take it.)

In PF2, both Wizards and Sorcerers can use class feats to pick up metamagic. But unlike PF1, Wizards get access to some nice metamagic feats that aren't available to Sorcerers (like Conceal Spell, Silent Spell, Clever Counterspell). And unlike PF1, both Wizards and Sorcerers can apply metamagic on the fly, making them much more valuable to Wizards than they were in PF1.

So while in Sorcerers seemed to be the better metamagic spellcasters in PF1, Wizards seem to be the better metamagic spellcasters in PF2.
 

Hoffmand

Explorer
That's interesting. I've had the opposite impression; Wizards seem better positioned with respect to metamagic in PF2 than PF1.

In PF1, both Sorcerers and Wizards can get pretty much any metamagic feat. The Wizard gets some bonus feats which can be used on metamagic feats. The Sorcerer gets bonus bloodline feats, which generally included at least a couple metamagic feats, and starts with a free metamagic feat (Eschew Materials).

But there the parity ends. For the Sorcerer can spontaneously choose whether to use a higher level spell slot for metamagic, while Wizards have to memorize higher level spell slot with metamagic ahead of time if they want to use it. In practice, this had the result in my games that Sorcerers used metamagic a lot, while Wizards rarely used metamagic. (For example, Wizards never used the Silent metamagic feat, because it's too situational to prepare ahead of time. But Sorcerers would often take it.)

In PF2, both Wizards and Sorcerers can use class feats to pick up metamagic. But unlike PF1, Wizards get access to some nice metamagic feats that aren't available to Sorcerers (like Conceal Spell, Silent Spell, Clever Counterspell). And unlike PF1, both Wizards and Sorcerers can apply metamagic on the fly, making them much more valuable to Wizards than they were in PF1.

So while in Sorcerers seemed to be the better metamagic spellcasters in PF1, Wizards seem to be the better metamagic spellcasters in PF2.
Haven’t played pf2. Can’t comment on that
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Metamagic is a higher-levelled option that might change things yes. I hope the changing nature of higher-levelled play will too (more instances where a spell really is gamechanging). I am confident that my current wizard-playing player can find them all. (Remember that I clearly state in my OP that my discussion is limited to low-level play.) That does not rectify that so far, the damage output of casters has been painfully eclipsed by the martials.
 


Kaodi

Adventurer
So the day we fought a flesh golem turned out to be a good day to have replaced a bunch of utility spells with lower level heals, heh. Not because I used them during the flesh golem fight, but I did use some of them in the fights before and after.
 


CapnZapp

Legend
Sorry, forgot to come back and correct myself: It was a clay golem.
For future reference: you can edit your own posts.

I don't know any details, but I believe the Clay Golem is a PF2 monster with some sort of playability issue. It seems things went fine for your party, though.
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top