Pathfinder 2E Martials > Casters

[CapnZapp]

I do not know very much about Extinction Curse. Are there monsters with frontal cone AOE or nasty auras at all? There is a significant amount of that in PFS.

Let's first remember I'm only discussing low level. I started this thread at maybe level 5 and they're level 8 now.

By that I only mean to ask: are your monsters higher or lower level than that?

(I don't know which features you're referring to)

If your answer is "at all levels" then yes that's a difference, since I can't remember any monster with either of those. (Xulgath mages have Fireball prepared but that doesn't seem to fall into either of your categories)

If your answer isn't, maybe those features are inherently tied to higher levelled foes?

 

[CapnZapp]

I found the 5E wizard to be subpar with feats, magic items, and multiclassing. It was probably adequate without feats and multiclassing. Though it did have some nice utility spells. Just not much of a great damage dealer. I only played a wizard to 16th level. At least 5E had magic items to improve spell attack rolls. Pretty lame that PF2 did not include them considering they no longer allow targeting of touch of flat-footed AC absent dex.

Concentration made life pretty terrible for casters in 5E. Might not be as bad as incapacitation, but it's close.

We found spells and spellcasting to be very good in 5E, and we enabled every option there is. Forcecage in particular comes to mind. Damage spells were seldom brokenly good, but they were decidedly more potent than the anemic options available to low level wizards in PF2.

Concentration isn't a problem you can't minmax your way out of. It feels much more fair than Incapacitation as limitations go, since you can mitigate the issue (by staying out of the monsters' targeting sights).

A bigger concern is legendary saves. It's just not worth your while to cast save or suck spells against legendary foes. Just deal damage, since even half damage contributes far more to the martials' effort than "no effect" (In many cases the BBEG won't even use a legendary save on "mere" damage spells)

Still, you'll face far fewer legendary monsters in 5E than Incapacitation-resistant monsters in PF2, so lots of spells are still very useful.

What's stupidly good in 5E, however, is the lack of restrictions on ranged fire. (That, and summons)

 

[FrozenNorth]

I found the 5E wizard to be subpar with feats, magic items, and multiclassing. It was probably adequate without feats and multiclassing. Though it did have some nice utility spells. Just not much of a great damage dealer. I only played a wizard to 16th level. At least 5E had magic items to improve spell attack rolls. Pretty lame that PF2 did not include them considering they no longer allow targeting of touch of flat-footed AC absent dex.

Concentration made life pretty terrible for casters in 5E. Might not be as bad as incapacitation, but it's close.

In my experience the PF2 wizard is considerably weaker than the 5e wizard. So if you found the 5e wizard weak...

 

[Celtavian]

We found spells and spellcasting to be very good in 5E, and we enabled every option there is. Forcecage in particular comes to mind. Damage spells were seldom brokenly good, but they were decidedly more potent than the anemic options available to low level wizards in PF2.

Concentration isn't a problem you can't minmax your way out of. It feels much more fair than Incapacitation as limitations go, since you can mitigate the issue (by staying out of the monsters' targeting sights).

A bigger concern is legendary saves. It's just not worth your while to cast save or suck spells against legendary foes. Just deal damage, since even half damage contributes far more to the martials' effort than "no effect" (In many cases the BBEG won't even use a legendary save on "mere" damage spells)

Still, you'll face far fewer legendary monsters in 5E than Incapacitation-resistant monsters in PF2, so lots of spells are still very useful.

What's stupidly good in 5E, however, is the lack of restrictions on ranged fire. (That, and summons)

Legendary saves and concentration made life very hard for casters in 5E. Not sure how you min-max out of concentration.

Forcecage was one of the few spells that was very nice in 5E, thought not always applicable and certainly didn't kill anything. Shapechanging in 5E was much better than PF2.

Wizard cantrips about the same. Damaging spells were better at low level? Maybe because creatures were weaker. The damage was the same.

Were summons that good in 5E? I don't recall them being great. Did they add some?

And yes, ranged fire with Sharpshooter and bless was the best combo in the game besides maybe sorlock and smites. Most of the casters in our groups ended up as multiclass casters with paladin using lots of spell slots to smite with as that was a better use of spell slots than casting spells.

Some of the higher end damage spells in PF2 seem good. Phantasmal calamity, Vampiric Exsangination, and Chain Lightning. I don't recall damage spells in the 5E wizard being great. I remember feeling exactly the same as I do in 5E as I do in PF2 as far as dealing damage goes compared to martials, like shooting with a beebee gun. Maybe there have been changes since the game released as I haven't played 5E in 2 or 3 years now.

 

[Celtavian]

In my experience the PF2 wizard is considerably weaker than the 5e wizard. So if you found the 5e wizard weak...

I found them both weak for different reasons. Though 5E did have some better elements than PF2 like shapechanging at high level.

 

[Campbell]

Individual summoned creatures are not that impressive. The ability to summon lots of weak little annoying things with special abilities can be effective because of bounded accuracy. The Druid in the 5e game I am a player in does this a lot.

 

[Celtavian]

5E vs. PF2 comparison:

Cantrips at max level: 5E damage: 4d8 PF2 damage: 10d4+5. Mixed ranges between 30 feet and 120 feet.

Fireball: 5E: 3rd level 8d6. 1d6 Heightening. PF2: 3rd level: 6d6. 2d6 Heightening.

Shapechange: 5E: So much better than PF2 that I won't even bother listing it. PF2 Shapechange sucks compared to 5E.

I see. They improved on Summon spells from release. 1 hour summons that look much better than PF2.

Hmm. Seems they made some improvements on 5E. I think I might steal some of these from 5E. We'll see if additional books make arcane casters better as time goes on. My experience with the 5E wizard is strictly from the 5E Core Rulebook upon release. It was an underwhelming experience much like the PF2 wizard is an underwhelming experience.

 

[Celtavian]

Individual summoned creatures are not that impressive. The ability to summon lots of weak little annoying things with special abilities can be effective because of bounded accuracy. The Druid in the 5e game I am a player in does this a lot.

What spell lets you summon lots of little things?

 

[Campbell]

What spell lets you summon lots of little things?

Conjure Woodland Beings, Conjure Animals, and Conjure Minor Elementals all bring maximum annoyance. When our Druid gets all summon happy it can honestly be a little annoying. Low level fey in particular tend to have annoying spells. Sometimes our Druid has used this tactic to apply pressure for creatures to use their Legendary Resistance.

 

[Celtavian]

Conjure Woodland Beings, Conjure Animals, and Conjure Minor Elementals all bring maximum annoyance. When our Druid gets all summon happy it can honestly be a little annoying. Low level fey in particular tend to have annoying spells. Sometimes our Druid has used this tactic to apply pressure for creatures to use their Legendary Resistance.

I remember those. Never seemed to do much in our games. Things died too fast to the archer and smiting martials. Those spells were definitely more effective than than PF2 summons, which are pretty terrible in battles, especially so against BBEGs. PF2 did a terrible job balancing the effectiveness of summons and shapechanging as options for arcane casters.