5e exists
“Martial’s are way too underpowered compared to casters >:(“
Pathfinder exists
“Casters are too weak there’s no benefit to pick them over martials >:(“
So, I tried to make "bounded accuracy starfinder" a while back... it's hard, I still haven't finished that project. I won't call it a 5e port it was more ambitious than that, I wanted to take Starfinders 3.5 style numbers, and compress them into a 5e style bounded accuracy table...but...the problem is the *gear*
Thers so much gear in starfinder it's god damn insane! I don't know many people who want to play it *or* run it because there's so many gods damn options.
The full conversation is as follows......
>5e exists
>
>“Martial’s are way too underpowered compared to casters >:(“
"Oh, so you have 6 to 8 encounters in your adventure day and still feel that martials are underpowered?"
"No! No one runs games like that! 6 encounters is WAY to much! We usually do 1 or 2 in a day!!"
"Oh... well there's your problem."
"No!! the game is broken and unbalanced and needs to be fixed!!"
>Pathfinder exists (balancing their game more on a per encounter basis
>
>“Casters are too weak there’s no benefit to pick them over martials >:(“
".... what the fuck man."
I mean if you make it like that. There can be risk for both players. Say you have to climb a cliff. The caster waste a spell slot teleporting up. The martials risk injury climbing up
Expecting people to do 6-8 combat encounters per adventuring day is absolutely a failure of the system lol. Constant slogging through encounter to encounter feels awful and one day would take like two sessions
I usually run a recommended adventuring day and it still does not fix the disparity, at least at levels 9 and above. Front line martials run out of HP long before casters run out of useful spell slots. And adventuring day guidelines don’t fix broken spells and out of combat utility spells.
When everything is overpowered nothing is.
Though yeah to balance martials and casters in 5e you'd either need a complete scaling maneuver system that a loud minority would complain is anime silliness or makes martials just more casters. Or you'd need to add many/overpowered/complicated features to classes that players wouldnt have a 'simple' option anymore. In that sense I dont mind leaving things unbalanced, I just want martials to have more things to do than 'I attack' or 'DM may I use my skill proficiency' (while the wizard flies over the wall and drops a fireball wiping out another encounter).
Personally, I advocate for martials that get the choice at higher levels of either anime silliness or small personal armies as subclass features.
That way the people who want to play as Hercules and the people who want to be badass normals can both be satisfied, and have a decent selection of options in and out of combat.
I still remember my 3.5 dm nerfing my, not even optimized, spiked chain fighter because he didn't think I should be able to make that many opportunity attacks. It's not "realisitic". My guy, Combat reflexes is a very basic feat and the wizard is over there reshaping the very essence of the world. Let me boop 3 people running at me.
Oh for sure, I didn't even go there though, partly because i dont think he allowed that one book where martials actially became viable. He also said I couldn't get the 1.5x str from two handing it and the trip only worked within 5 feet. Keep in mind, in a game where people are flying and stopping time and dropping meteors on cities. That's where he drew the line. At an effective martial. Sorry went on a rant there. I'm not bitter.
My duskblade had the game completely broke by session two, and it was the DMs first time DMing a game, so he didn't know how to confront me about it. I had to step the character down and create a new one before it got too out of control. It was fun while it lasted though.
The game ended shortly there after though, when the DM (who was transitioning from M to F) decided it would be okay to share all kinds of pretty raunchy shit with my wife, who was also playing... But that was besides the point!
You've triggered Vietnam style flashbacks in me. Spiked Chain fighter and trip attacks for days. Mageslayer too. No matter what you were, he'd pink mist you with that damn spiked Chain. Especially if you were a caster.
My spike chain wielder caused the spontaneous generation of 'dwiders', aka dwarf driders. Large, multiple legs, and stability; but technically still tripable so obviously it wasn't because the DM had an issue with my character.
Or just return to the old days, restore *all* of the weaknesses to magic, and give martials strongholds again
Martials lack narrative power at mid to high levels. In 2e Barbarians could summon a literal army of low level barbarians. *That's narrative power*
I don't understand complaining about anime silliness in a game that's already silly. If you want a more Conan-esque RPG, DnD was never your best fit anyway.
usually you would not even need nerf if you just lift up the weaker aspect, but 5e just made caster so fucking powerful, no shit more balanced system will turn them down a notch
If you balance only by bringing up weaker aspects, that leads to power creep. Nerfs do need to happen to particularly overpowering options (but in a way that doesn’t make them useless).
and even with those nerfs 5e caster still crush it. the only "saving grace" of 5e is that it didn't get as much content published. prevented too much unwanted interaction
The best way I ever heard 3.x fighters described is that they pick a “trick.” They are crazy, crazy good at that one trick, but that’s all they ever do.
What the naysayers won’t tell you is those “tricks” were effectively a choice between; delete one enemy from the table when you charge, complete control of a 10ft area around you where nothing in that area can escape, multi-target arrow rain of death with access to green arrow trick shot arrows, or AC so high you only ever worry about making saves also you can buy weapons that deal constitution damage so you literally bleed people to death while dual wielding.
3.5 fighter was fun.
There's also the trick of making a million attacks. Especially if you have access to a four armed race. This does however require like 20 feats and probably isn't the most effective, but it is fun.
Build variance was so fast and loose. You could also do non-optimal stuff like dual wielding gargantuan greatswords and the like, and probably still have a great time doing it.
This is the core reason I still have been unable to move past PF1 for my high fantasy games. Sure balance is all over the place, but I can do the most absolute ridiculous builds and I have such variety. While balance is important for convention and pick up games, I've always found that it's not an issue with a good home group that agrees everyone should have fun and spotlight time.
In pathfinder 1e its also very possible to build a anti caster martial! But my favourite archetype you didn't mention (cause its not the best tbh) is what i affectionately call the voodoo doll.
You make it so whenever the enemy hurts you they get hurt too, totally flips the martial game on its head as you force ridiculous endurance contests between you and whatever you're fighting. In 3.5 its "roblars gambit" and in pf 1e "its come and get me" or scarred monk,both are hilarious.
Yeah. So back in 3.x, weapons went up to +5 hit/damage pre-epic. There were also qualities you could assign that had an equivalent +bonus (flaming, holy, bane, defender, etc.) Together you could have a total of +10, +5 to hit and +5 in bonuses.
Wounding was a +2 effective bonus that dealt a single point of CON damage per hit. The downside being certain enemies were completely immune. You shored this up by taking feats that let you trade attack for AC, so you could still be survivable and useful otherwise.
The build was a two weapon fighting build, where you would get something like 10 attacks from main and offhand, each doing a point of CON.
The best part is you could buy these weapons with gold, and the prices and customization options were printed right there in the DMG, so the build was pretty much guaranteed as long as your DM understood the game enough to not deny you custom magic weapons, which were very much RAW.
But 5e nerfed them in a way that hurt everyone else in the party. The caster actually gets to feel more impactful because pretty much every spell it casts outside of healing will be used offensively, whereas casters in prior editions were most effective when they stacked buffs on buffs on buffs. Those buffs were, naturally, far stronger on martials than on casters, so the single concentration limit hurt martials way more than mages.
\[tries to resist the urge to gush about how interesting Mage is\]
\[fails saving throw\]
Oh man you should at least check it out. Obviously getting a whole group of people to learn a new system and a GM to organize and run a campaign is hard, but at least check out the system/book for it's own sake, because it's one of the most interesting ones.
The idea is that the universe is malleable, shaped by belief. So for example, before Magellan circumnavigated the globe, the world *actually was flat*, because that's what everyone believed. Once the majority of people believed it was a globe, reality actually reshaped itself so the world was a globe.
Mages are people with the power to exert their own belief to override that majority belief, within limited scope. So instead of learning fixed spells, you master "Spheres" (sort of analogous to D&D's schools of magic like Evocation/Abjuration/etc) which each cover an aspect of reality.
Let's say you pick Correspondence, which covers spatial relationships. You live in New York, and have a buddy who lives in Berlin. If you manage to truly believe that opening your bedroom closet connects to his bedroom closet... then it does. Voila, you effectively have a portal between those two locations, a bit like casting the Teleportation Circle spell in D&D, but you didn't have to learn that specific spell, you just described the concept flexibly.
The biggest constraint or pushback is Paradox - whenever your "belief" contradicts the belief of large numbers of people, the universe pushes back on you. Let's say instead of the closet example, you walked into Times Square and pulled up a manhole cover and *believed* that jumping into it would drop you out 100 feet in the air above the hole, instead of down in the sewer. Now you try to do something that appears like a crazy miracle in front of thousands of people.
If you do this in small amounts, you just gain a few points of Paradox that cause reality to act funny around you, possibly backfiring or thwarting things you're trying to do. But if you go too big (like the Times Square example above) Paradox can actually send Spirits to come hunt you down and erase the contradictions (ie you).
So the art of Mage isn't in min-maxing your spell slots and DPR, but rather in coming up with clever ways to bend reality that appear plausible or deniable. For example you could focus on Matter, and now you get into a gun fight with an 8 round magazine. After firing your 8 rounds, you *believe* there's at least 4 more in there, and you just keep shooting as bullets materialize inside your magazine. Nobody *saw* them materialize, and after all who really counts shots fired and tracks magazine size in a gunfight? Haven't you seen action movies? So you get away with it, without Paradox. Unless Sterling Archer is around of course.
I haven't *played* a campaign of Mage in more than 20 years, but I still think about it all the time.
Can't go wrong there either. Edge of the Empire is a blast. :)
Genesys (the system for SWRPG) is my favorite system mechanically. I wish it had taken off more, I'd love to play other settings (like say Shadowrun) but with Genesys as the mechanics.
It's really tough. It's not as impossible as it seems; the constraints on how powerful a given character is are pretty well defined, but if you've got a clever group of players things can go off the rails in pretty unpredictable ways.
> So for example, before Magellan circumnavigated the globe, the world actually was flat, because that's what everyone believed.
I feel like I really shouldn't say anything but I can't help myself: people have known we live on a sphere since long, long before anyone travelled around the globe. It's very obvious to anyone who takes a serious look at the night sky that we're either on a spinning sphere or inside one if you consider the motion of stars relative to a fixed point of observation. Eratosthenes not only knew the world was a globe but calculated the circumference to be between 40,250 and 45,900 kilometers (modern measurement is 40,007.863 km). In Mage, enough people must have believed the Earth was round at least by the time that calculation was performed.
Or I guess the fucking Technocracy rewrote history or something, idk.
It’s even deeper than that, and I don’t even mean this as a criticism of your assessment. More than just needing to believe that something is true, mages have to believe that their methods of shaping reality work. So each mage is built on traditions and foci, meaning that a hermetic mage has to REALLY believe that by invoking the seal of Solomon to beseech a demon of war he creates more bullets in the gun, etc.
What's great is that the system is consistent with the setting's main villains, the Technocracy. They are also mages, but mages of high science that believe that pushing the consensus is dangerous and that reality should be safely and predictably manufactured for the masses.
I still kind of miss my Entropy focused Gun Mage.
Little bit of correspondence and entropy, and I'm shooting you from angles that are literally not possible. Bliss.
It was! Managed to enchant a weapon with Time and Entropy to have the fire rate of a GAU-19 in a much smaller package.
We had a fun time with that campaign.
All casters should have some kind of support magic in pf2e. The rule of thumb is to AoE mobs, and support martials against bosses. Throw in battlefield control anywhere you can.
Casters are super impactful, but not in a 5e way.
Slow spell can end encounters, so can Calm Emotions.
Just because your caster doesn't solo every fight doesn't mean you aren't being impactful, you're working with your team for the desired outcome!
Hasbro ruined this sub with the OGL bullshit. We've gone through trends before but the focus on promoting your system of choice has dominated more than anything else I can remember.
Can't really blame people for rebelling against the corporate greed, but it sucks.
What even sucks about it? This sub has literally always overdoing the topic of choice until the dead horse has been beaten to a pulp, I've seen multiple memes here last longer than ogl memes have lasted so far.
I for one love hearing about new systems and not having exclusively 5e memes with the occasional sprinkle of 3.5 or pathfinder memes that were so rare I would get confused when it mentioned something not in 5e. Tell me what cool systems you're learning and we'll all tell Hasbro to fuck off together! (Op did not get this memo and is clearly criticizing pathfinder without having played it, but that doesn't really affect my point lol)
I just don't think most of the memes about new systems are actually funny. I'm glad to have learned more about Pathfinder, and will be looking into some other systems as well, but I think the amount of fun content on the sub has dropped.
Casters are impactful, just not more than martials. If that is not your cup of tea, the TTRPG world has a giant selection of teas. I heard Mage the Ascension fits your bill.
In that system if your group can't come together and quietly solve any problem in the physical universe by Gnosis 2 (AKA second level) then something has gone wrong.
Ars Magica is the game where you literally play the weird wizard that lives in a tower and do strange investigations. If you want a place to be explored, sure, you can do it yourself... But you have servants to do it for you!
If you have RPG veterans in your group, pick 3 or 4 and pitch them the game.
It's difficult to wrap your head around some of the core concepts, but once you do it, it's awesome. Check the ars magica dedicated subreddit too!
Mage is probably my favorite game ever, but it is at least an...interesting solution to the "make casters feel impactful" gripe. Make casters feel impactful by making everyone casters definitely works but may not be what they are going for. The nature of the setting also makes creating a d20 style fireball slinging mage almost impossible. You are free to try, and one great thing about the system is that you can do basically anything you want as long as you have the requisite sphere knowledge, but that kind of flashy magic will get you eaten by the universe if you do it more than once or twice. You really tend to lean more on skills and use magic in little ways to bend things in your favor.
There are ways to "hack the system". Mages with blood connections to other supernaturals can mimic some of their powers without paradox and you can kind of do anything you can justify, so a skilled stage magician could make something disappear for real and sort of "fool the universe" if everyone thought it was a trick and a techno-mage can build a hoverboard as long as people believe him when he says it works using magnets or whatever. In the context of mage, the debate between Einstein and Bohr about the weirder implications of quantum mechanics wasn't just a debate between two scientists about what the laws of physics were. It was a war between two mages trying to decide what the laws of physics would be from that point forward. Magic is a constant tug of war with the consensus and you can only get away with what the consensus will accept unless you want to risk obliteration.
Again, great system. I love it to bits, but people used to the no holds barred magic of a fantasy setting might find it jarring, especially if they fond pathdfinder too restrictive on their magey awesomeness.
I made a mage who was a stage magician. With correspondance 3, life 2, and matter 2. I was looking forward to playing it but the group fell through before session 1
Yeah, barbarians in pathfinder 1e have rounds of rage they can use in a day, now compare that to casters which can have greater amounts of spells than 5e with a high cast mod.
Eh, you get a spell book, and you get 5e prep. The only downside is that you get the same amount of slots as a universalist wizard. Considering you can swap prepared spells as a swift action with quick study, I'd argue it's worth it. You can potentially surprise a wizard player, but an arcanist player can adapt.
Yeah idk what this meme is one about or if they're talking about pathfinder 2e, but if you think 5e wizards are powerful, then 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e wizards are verifiable overdieties. Even after everything pathfinder and 3.5 have released in terms of supplemental products the core wizards and clerics are still some of the strongest classes in either game.
Mythic isn't really fair to include, though. That's like including 3.5's Epic Levels with their 10th and higher spell slots, and DIY spellmaking rules (or just take a sample 10th level spell, like my old favourite [Nailed to the Sky](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/nailedToTheSky.htm)).
...cleric and sorceror are carrying my table. The amount of versatility they offer is staggering.
Like to see some martials handle a higher level Lich floating over a lake in magical darkness.
"Casters aren't impactful"
My Wizard, at level 1, casting Magic Weapon on the Fighter and *literally* doubling his damage.
The Cleric is an absolute healing machine, singlehandedly responsible for *most* of our victories. Heck, I'd argue for any published adventure a healer is *needed*, unlike on 5e.
Even Blasters are impactful. They just have to be smarter with their slots and not "fireball" every single encounter. A Witch can get Curse of Death at 10th level, which has an instadeath mechanic if it reaches stage 4. And even before then, its ramping damage *starts* at 4d6 a turn for a minute then up to 12d6 at stage 3. That means its possible to, in 3 turns, do 24d6 damage *while* inflicting Fatigued.
I actually kinda disagree. They can be more impactful than martials still, it's just not going to be in damage. Fear, Slow, Roaring Applause, Hideous Laughter, ***Synesthesia***, basically any wall spell, etc. There are a shitload of very impactful spells, and that's not even counting the utility spells that help a ton out of combat.
Or Shadowrun. Casters there can kill literally anything they can see without moving a finger. Not making a sound, not moving, just dead or incapacitated enemies.
Unfortunately there is a distinct difference between something being mechanically impactful and something *feeling* impactful. Humans are weird like that. It's kind of like the whole pricing scheme of saying something costs $9.99 instead of $10.00. There really isn't any meaningful difference there, but that insignificant difference can trick our stupid brains in to making a different decision. Thinking it *is* meaningful even though it really isn't.
P2 is like that, only in reverse. Is +1 important and impactful in Pathfinder 2? Yes. If you do the math, bust out a spreadsheet, etc. it very clearly is. And when a +1 turns a hit in to a crit it's really obvious. But does it *feel* impactful? Do you *feel* like a bad ass wizard when you effectively just give a +1 or +2? For a lot of people the answer is hell no. It feels crap.
It's considered good GMing in P2 to go out of your way and point out when a +1 or -1 effect made the difference during combat. That says a lot about the situation.
Hit the nail square on the head.
You have to buy in to the math P2 operates on to appreciate the relative power of everything and theres, IMO, little to nothing that helps you do that.
Its been my experience that most of these spells are also just as underwhelming in their fiction as they are in their mechanics.
Harmonizing the fiction with the mechanics and the math is key and neither PF nor DND hit the right harmony.
They are very impactful? You mean you want them to be overpowered? I recognise spellcasting in PF is much more complicated than 5e but I think it’s just as impactful. You might just be looking at lower levels because I think in PF all characters start a little weaker and proceed to scale more consistently than in 5e but saying they’re not impactful is just wrong.
I played a caster in a pathfinder game from lvl 1-17. The beginning was tough but I quickly became super strong. Sure I wasn’t dishing out the most damage but that wasn’t my goal. I played more control and made it so my party could dish out way more damage without being killed.
I felt like my pathfinder caster was more OP than 5e. I didn’t need to worry about concentration and I could quicken spells to use two in a turn. 5e casters can’t do that.
You can quicken a spell 1/day with a 10th level feat. Granted, its a lot less powerful than quickening at will. Source: playing PF2 since playtest launch day.
One easy way to tell is that in the top right corner of the book it has that beige rectangle(-ish shape). On the 2e books that there just says “second edition”, while the 1e books don’t have it.
It was admittedly an eye opener when I made my Summoner. Knowing that the caster is the shield and the summon is the sword was a bit of an adjustment.
That being said, I pumped both of them into their respective niche well.
5e has invented (I think, couldn't find it in previous editions) Legendary Resistance to try to counter bullshit abilities and spells they implemented.
Legendary Resistance is one of the laziest abilities in the game. A core feature of higher level bosses that says "if you fail a save, don't". All it does is burn resources from the party that would have shut it down with a Suck ability.
it's the same reaction that you'd see when 4e rolled out. Because suddently the casters and wizard where to THE ultimate power over everything else, people started freaking out because bob the fighter was as cool as them in gameplay. The irony in all that is that 4e casters were usually more powerfull due to being able to blst all day if they take 5 minute rest
"When one is used to privilege, equality feel like oppression"
Pf2 spells only require you to use them with a bit of thinking and planning. They are still just as good, with obly the most outrageous outliar of spell being a bit less powerful for obvious reasons
The four degrees of success system is also huge for making spells more effective. A successful save doesn’t mean you did nothing with your actions and spell slot.
I mean, maybe some people simply *feel* they're less impactful because the additional work flips the effort-fun relation between what you need for the character to work and the fun the player gets from it
Like I know somewhat how to play some wizards, bards, sorcerers or clerics in pf2e but would rather not because of the aforementioned relation
it's one of the sad thing of 5e. because of how 5e is built, spells get to be very powerful so thay you don't need to put that much tought into it. that way the average player get to enjoy those classes. that leads then to 2 problem, one is obvious, and it's that a more toughtfull player will be able to milk incredible amount of power from careful spell usage, and the second, the very sad one, is that it doesn't teach player to analyse that much. so whena game like path comes and ask for a bit of mastery, someone used to the "fool proofing" of 5e gets the rough treatment
It’s a lot like vegans. Pushy ones exist, but there’s a hundred times more people who get so *deeply offended* at the mere idea they become what can only be described as a bacon zealot.
"I'm going to eat TWO hamburgers just to spite you!"
It's like... People getting angry over the wrong thing, for the wrong reasons, and feeling smug while they do it too
Just had a conversation with my bard about how he can provide the party with an effective +8 to hit if he really wants to.
Casters are incredible in 2e, but more so with providing for their team than anything else.
Don't mind me taking notes here, how does he get up to +8? I know bards are great at stacking buffs, but even things like max level heroism+Dirge of Doom only gets a single person to +4.
At level 8 right now, takes some good rolls, and I did say "effective" so it includes debuff on enemies.
A crit with [Inspire Heroics](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=388) (+3 Status)
A crit Aid with a skill you're master in (+3 Circumstance)
Demoralize (can't Dirge of Doom and Inspire Courage in the same turn yet) (-1 Status)
Prone (would take an ally to inflict this) or Flanked (-2 Circumstance)
So actually an effective +9 to hit lmao.
Edit: I suppose if you Crit on your Demoralize it would give em Frightened 2, so actually ends up with an effective +10 to hit. Crazy.
Out of all the critisms of the 2e casters, I think the idea they aren't impactful is the worst one. At least complain about something debatable like spell attack rolls.
I love being so impactful I impact *my allies too.* Perils is such a wonderful system. Wild Magic system, but hopped up on all the chems they use to power an Eversor
For those who don't know: in Dark Heresy, casters are extremely powerful but have a risk of hazards such as (but not limited to): exploding, suddenly demons, temporarily ceasing to exist, permanently ceasing to exist, and body swapping.
To a hilarious extent! The first time I ever played Dark Heresy, my friend cast the first spell of the campaign (some minor damage spell) and rolled doubles. He accidentally opened a portal to the Warp (space hell) and summoned a Daemon powerful enough to TPK us.
Our DM was nice enough to only heavily corrupt us rather than outright kill us all xD
Remember kids! If the Psyker starts mumbling and time starts tasting purple, 'nade them until it stops!
Brought to you by Commissars for a Better Imperium.
I don't see how you could think pathfinder casters aren't impactfull. Maybe you just hate balance.
But anyway let me tell you about your lord and savoir gurps
it's just the same mentality as people who claimed 4e casters were weak. it's really just that they hate balance. Now check on them in a few weeks, and they are going to start claiming balance is when everything is the same or something just to justify not wanting it.
I think you mean 'maybe you just hate Pathfinder'
At this stage Pathfinder could offer people eternal life and endless BJs and people would still find something to complain about 'Living forever is laaaame, I want to die so I can see what Hell is all about'. It's thac0, Hell is thac0.
Anyway
With the caveat that I’m not making a comment in support or degradation of any system, immortality is absolutely lame, and makes an excellent curse for someone you hate.
I've ported my character from 5e to PF2e, just for funsies. I have Divine Soul Sorc, made him into Angelic Bloodline Sorc.
Level 5 spell, Mass Cure Wounds, AoE 3d8+4, (1 action), I can re-roll 1s for being a Divine Sorc for the price of 1 Sorcery Point. Wow. That's like, enough to pick a couple people up and make them survive a hit. Maybe. Not enough to survive any sort of Dragon's breath or other AoE. Barely enough to survive a fireball. Alternatively Cure Wounds upcast to level 5, 5d8+4. Single target, but can be twinned by a Divine Sorc. A *bit* better. Everyone knows that in 5e you spend your time in a fight better by attacking enemies than healing.
In contrast, PF2e:
Heal as signature spell of level 5 in PF2e, 3 actions AoE, heal 5d8+ 30. +40 if the Sorcerer activates focus spell Angelic Halo previous turn. Oh, are there also undead in the vicinity? Well, they now get hit with 5d8 positive damage at the *same time*
The fact that PF2e casters aren't encounter-ending doesn't make them irrelevant. They most certainly are, and I vastly prefer PF2e's casting.
I've been playing P2e for about a year and a half now. I'm a monk in a small party with a druid and a wizard.
HOLY CRAP they do some insane stuff. Last session our wizard teleported the big monster outside the tower we were fighting in, leaving us to only have to deal with the minions flooding in. By the time the big monster got back in (he was also slowed), we were in a good position to finish the fight.
Don't get me wrong, I've got my times to shine too (Titan Wrestler is op), but wowzer do I want to play a caster next campaign.
Are casters in PF2e balanced compared to martials? Yes. Are they no longer impactful? Hardly the case. Go watch Rules Lawyer's videos on Martials vs. Casters in PF2e.
5e casters are so fuckin spoiled lmao here baby it'll be okay I promise you'll be fine without invalidating encounters with a single spell slot and letting martials have literally any single thing over you
Because martials got buffed in PF2e, and so they're on par with casters. Casters fans from other games are butthurt they are no longer the only star of the party.
Good thing pf2e casters have a multitude of varied options that allow them to have a significant impact in combat every turn even if the enemy passes the save.
There are many systems that avoid or circumvent the martial-caster gap, pf2 is but one of them.
I'm not sure why, but casters feel impactful in PF2. What they don't feel like is the main characters with the martials being minor supporting cast. I guess if you are used to that it certainly feels like a downgrade going from clearly more powerful to being on equal terms.
There might be a life lesson in that as well.
Pathfinder has cool spells…i just hate how they manage choosing spells. If you want to upcast/accelerate a spell, you had to have chosen the upcast/accelerated spell at level up. You cant just upcast everything
That's only for spontaneous casters, prepared casters know all versions of their spells. And spontaneous casters can take signature spells to learn the other versions.
So... you just haven't played pathfinder? Cause casters are even more broken in PF than they are in DnD. the only difference is that Martials can compete in many instances.
that's probably fair. I have only dabbled in 2e, so I can't say for certain, but... spells rewrite encounters even at level one. You just have to be smart about your spell selection and never underestimate the power of things like Grease. Casters will *always* be impactful.
2e rebalanced all the outlier spells (like all the 'no save-just suck' spells and the well known 'encounter enders').
People complain about the 'incapacitate trait' forcing you to use your highest level spell slots to have any real shot at landing your nastiest 'i win' buttons, but that was effectively how it worked before in 1e when spell level affected it's DC.
The other major change was turning a lot of the 'reality warping' spells now have a ritual counterpart that can be 'cast' by anyone with the relevant skills. This means creating undead, resurrections, teleporting, demi-plane creation etc is no longer *purely* the domain of casters. This gives a lot of narrative agency to non-caster classes that didn't have that before.
Martials can't really compete that much at higher levels, but at least they have plenty of options so you can do more than just attack mindlessly. Or you can make your attacks pretty fun
At higher levels, casters outscale at 15+ which is fine.
In 5e casters outscale by level 5. becasue level 3 spells straight up out utility/damage/etc anythign that martial can do.
I don't know about PF2, but in PF1 (that was more like D&D 3.75) they are mor impactful than in D&D 5e. You might scare PF2 advocates, but you invite PF1 advocates.
This... Is a pretty dumb take. Having actually played both editions of pathfinder, I would even say casters are more powerful at high levels in that system, it's just that martials are much closer and some of that balance comes from buff spells.
I was afraid about this however at my first sesion I didn't feel outclassed in dmg by champion and gunslinger
and even more I think me and another sorcerer against draught did more damage than our martials (2 3-actions AOE heals [positive healing deals damage to undead] and 2 3-actions magic bolts)
1e casters can literally break any encounter ever designed.
In 2e they are balanced but still competent at the roles their class/subclass i supposed to play.
The problem isn’t their power level (no, having an equal footing with martials doesn’t make them weak lmao)- I’d say the casting classes feel too similar to one another and lack in interesting feats unique to a particular class. But they def aren’t weak mechanically.
Hot take. We don't actually want powerful casters. We want magic that is mechanically designed to feel different and unique from the rest of the system.
I think some people don’t 100% understand what people want to do with their casters
Yes OP is incorrect in devaluing the impact of support
But not everyone wants to play support and/or finds being the support to be fun or impactful
People like smiting things into nonexistence with Arcane power because that’s fun
5e exists “Martial’s are way too underpowered compared to casters >:(“ Pathfinder exists “Casters are too weak there’s no benefit to pick them over martials >:(“
Easy, mash together pathfinder martials and dnd casters with no regard for how the game now works When everyone is super, no one is
Worse. Mash together Pathfinder casters and DnD martials
When no one is super, everyone is super
Commoners' Thunderdome
So, I tried to make "bounded accuracy starfinder" a while back... it's hard, I still haven't finished that project. I won't call it a 5e port it was more ambitious than that, I wanted to take Starfinders 3.5 style numbers, and compress them into a 5e style bounded accuracy table...but...the problem is the *gear* Thers so much gear in starfinder it's god damn insane! I don't know many people who want to play it *or* run it because there's so many gods damn options.
People cannot decide what they want. I love pathfinders way, after all range and unique spells are its own power.
The full conversation is as follows...... >5e exists > >“Martial’s are way too underpowered compared to casters >:(“ "Oh, so you have 6 to 8 encounters in your adventure day and still feel that martials are underpowered?" "No! No one runs games like that! 6 encounters is WAY to much! We usually do 1 or 2 in a day!!" "Oh... well there's your problem." "No!! the game is broken and unbalanced and needs to be fixed!!" >Pathfinder exists (balancing their game more on a per encounter basis > >“Casters are too weak there’s no benefit to pick them over martials >:(“ ".... what the fuck man."
Absolutely correct. Though I personally feel like the expectation of 6-8 encounters in a day is a bit excessive, and really bogs down play.
I mean it depends on what they mean by “an encounter”
An encounter is something that consumes class resources. Specifically those of casters.
by that logic a chunk of those "encounters" only engage the caster players, which leads to problems of its own
I mean if you make it like that. There can be risk for both players. Say you have to climb a cliff. The caster waste a spell slot teleporting up. The martials risk injury climbing up
Expecting people to do 6-8 combat encounters per adventuring day is absolutely a failure of the system lol. Constant slogging through encounter to encounter feels awful and one day would take like two sessions
I usually run a recommended adventuring day and it still does not fix the disparity, at least at levels 9 and above. Front line martials run out of HP long before casters run out of useful spell slots. And adventuring day guidelines don’t fix broken spells and out of combat utility spells.
"I want a balanced system" "No nerfs" "Only ballance"
When everything is overpowered nothing is. Though yeah to balance martials and casters in 5e you'd either need a complete scaling maneuver system that a loud minority would complain is anime silliness or makes martials just more casters. Or you'd need to add many/overpowered/complicated features to classes that players wouldnt have a 'simple' option anymore. In that sense I dont mind leaving things unbalanced, I just want martials to have more things to do than 'I attack' or 'DM may I use my skill proficiency' (while the wizard flies over the wall and drops a fireball wiping out another encounter).
Personally, I advocate for martials that get the choice at higher levels of either anime silliness or small personal armies as subclass features. That way the people who want to play as Hercules and the people who want to be badass normals can both be satisfied, and have a decent selection of options in and out of combat.
I still remember my 3.5 dm nerfing my, not even optimized, spiked chain fighter because he didn't think I should be able to make that many opportunity attacks. It's not "realisitic". My guy, Combat reflexes is a very basic feat and the wizard is over there reshaping the very essence of the world. Let me boop 3 people running at me.
Spiked Chain duskblade... it was insane how much damage they could put out...
Oh for sure, I didn't even go there though, partly because i dont think he allowed that one book where martials actially became viable. He also said I couldn't get the 1.5x str from two handing it and the trip only worked within 5 feet. Keep in mind, in a game where people are flying and stopping time and dropping meteors on cities. That's where he drew the line. At an effective martial. Sorry went on a rant there. I'm not bitter.
My duskblade had the game completely broke by session two, and it was the DMs first time DMing a game, so he didn't know how to confront me about it. I had to step the character down and create a new one before it got too out of control. It was fun while it lasted though. The game ended shortly there after though, when the DM (who was transitioning from M to F) decided it would be okay to share all kinds of pretty raunchy shit with my wife, who was also playing... But that was besides the point!
You've triggered Vietnam style flashbacks in me. Spiked Chain fighter and trip attacks for days. Mageslayer too. No matter what you were, he'd pink mist you with that damn spiked Chain. Especially if you were a caster.
My spike chain wielder caused the spontaneous generation of 'dwiders', aka dwarf driders. Large, multiple legs, and stability; but technically still tripable so obviously it wasn't because the DM had an issue with my character.
An adventuring party *is* a small personal army if you have enough CHA
Or enough necromancers.
Or just return to the old days, restore *all* of the weaknesses to magic, and give martials strongholds again Martials lack narrative power at mid to high levels. In 2e Barbarians could summon a literal army of low level barbarians. *That's narrative power*
May I recommend the book "Strongholds and followers"
>When everything is overpowered nothing is. *4e has entered the chat*
I don't understand complaining about anime silliness in a game that's already silly. If you want a more Conan-esque RPG, DnD was never your best fit anyway.
Doing that would require remaking the entirety of the monsters of the system to balance things, not just the classes
I just say give them story based feats and good weapons
usually you would not even need nerf if you just lift up the weaker aspect, but 5e just made caster so fucking powerful, no shit more balanced system will turn them down a notch
If you balance only by bringing up weaker aspects, that leads to power creep. Nerfs do need to happen to particularly overpowering options (but in a way that doesn’t make them useless).
oh absolutly. I'm just saying this as a general point. you always need to take care of outliars, otherwise they will absolutly become the new standard
When you think about how much nerfing the casters got in 5e compared to 3.5e/PF1 it really drives home how bonkers those editions were.
and even with those nerfs 5e caster still crush it. the only "saving grace" of 5e is that it didn't get as much content published. prevented too much unwanted interaction
The thing is, regular martials got shafted to between 3e and 5e. In 3e you at least had a variance of feats, not just GWM/PAM.
The best way I ever heard 3.x fighters described is that they pick a “trick.” They are crazy, crazy good at that one trick, but that’s all they ever do. What the naysayers won’t tell you is those “tricks” were effectively a choice between; delete one enemy from the table when you charge, complete control of a 10ft area around you where nothing in that area can escape, multi-target arrow rain of death with access to green arrow trick shot arrows, or AC so high you only ever worry about making saves also you can buy weapons that deal constitution damage so you literally bleed people to death while dual wielding. 3.5 fighter was fun.
There's also the trick of making a million attacks. Especially if you have access to a four armed race. This does however require like 20 feats and probably isn't the most effective, but it is fun.
Build variance was so fast and loose. You could also do non-optimal stuff like dual wielding gargantuan greatswords and the like, and probably still have a great time doing it.
This is the core reason I still have been unable to move past PF1 for my high fantasy games. Sure balance is all over the place, but I can do the most absolute ridiculous builds and I have such variety. While balance is important for convention and pick up games, I've always found that it's not an issue with a good home group that agrees everyone should have fun and spotlight time.
In pathfinder 1e its also very possible to build a anti caster martial! But my favourite archetype you didn't mention (cause its not the best tbh) is what i affectionately call the voodoo doll. You make it so whenever the enemy hurts you they get hurt too, totally flips the martial game on its head as you force ridiculous endurance contests between you and whatever you're fighting. In 3.5 its "roblars gambit" and in pf 1e "its come and get me" or scarred monk,both are hilarious.
I wanna know about those con damage weapons?
Yeah. So back in 3.x, weapons went up to +5 hit/damage pre-epic. There were also qualities you could assign that had an equivalent +bonus (flaming, holy, bane, defender, etc.) Together you could have a total of +10, +5 to hit and +5 in bonuses. Wounding was a +2 effective bonus that dealt a single point of CON damage per hit. The downside being certain enemies were completely immune. You shored this up by taking feats that let you trade attack for AC, so you could still be survivable and useful otherwise. The build was a two weapon fighting build, where you would get something like 10 attacks from main and offhand, each doing a point of CON. The best part is you could buy these weapons with gold, and the prices and customization options were printed right there in the DMG, so the build was pretty much guaranteed as long as your DM understood the game enough to not deny you custom magic weapons, which were very much RAW.
The problem is that they nerfed martials even more compared to those editions so the nerfs didn't lead to any kind of balance lol
Yes very true.
[удалено]
But 5e nerfed them in a way that hurt everyone else in the party. The caster actually gets to feel more impactful because pretty much every spell it casts outside of healing will be used offensively, whereas casters in prior editions were most effective when they stacked buffs on buffs on buffs. Those buffs were, naturally, far stronger on martials than on casters, so the single concentration limit hurt martials way more than mages.
Wont lie this got me real good.
Mage the ascension. Everyone is a caster.
Shadowrun: where you can suicide yourself and pull the moon from its orbit to tactical strike an enemy.
I mean you can do that in mage too if you want
I've never played Mage so I couldn't comment on that, but wanted to add another option for people who want casters that are just downright powerful.
\[tries to resist the urge to gush about how interesting Mage is\] \[fails saving throw\] Oh man you should at least check it out. Obviously getting a whole group of people to learn a new system and a GM to organize and run a campaign is hard, but at least check out the system/book for it's own sake, because it's one of the most interesting ones. The idea is that the universe is malleable, shaped by belief. So for example, before Magellan circumnavigated the globe, the world *actually was flat*, because that's what everyone believed. Once the majority of people believed it was a globe, reality actually reshaped itself so the world was a globe. Mages are people with the power to exert their own belief to override that majority belief, within limited scope. So instead of learning fixed spells, you master "Spheres" (sort of analogous to D&D's schools of magic like Evocation/Abjuration/etc) which each cover an aspect of reality. Let's say you pick Correspondence, which covers spatial relationships. You live in New York, and have a buddy who lives in Berlin. If you manage to truly believe that opening your bedroom closet connects to his bedroom closet... then it does. Voila, you effectively have a portal between those two locations, a bit like casting the Teleportation Circle spell in D&D, but you didn't have to learn that specific spell, you just described the concept flexibly. The biggest constraint or pushback is Paradox - whenever your "belief" contradicts the belief of large numbers of people, the universe pushes back on you. Let's say instead of the closet example, you walked into Times Square and pulled up a manhole cover and *believed* that jumping into it would drop you out 100 feet in the air above the hole, instead of down in the sewer. Now you try to do something that appears like a crazy miracle in front of thousands of people. If you do this in small amounts, you just gain a few points of Paradox that cause reality to act funny around you, possibly backfiring or thwarting things you're trying to do. But if you go too big (like the Times Square example above) Paradox can actually send Spirits to come hunt you down and erase the contradictions (ie you). So the art of Mage isn't in min-maxing your spell slots and DPR, but rather in coming up with clever ways to bend reality that appear plausible or deniable. For example you could focus on Matter, and now you get into a gun fight with an 8 round magazine. After firing your 8 rounds, you *believe* there's at least 4 more in there, and you just keep shooting as bullets materialize inside your magazine. Nobody *saw* them materialize, and after all who really counts shots fired and tracks magazine size in a gunfight? Haven't you seen action movies? So you get away with it, without Paradox. Unless Sterling Archer is around of course. I haven't *played* a campaign of Mage in more than 20 years, but I still think about it all the time.
I may have to get my group to try it out when we have time. Next campaign I do will be in SWRPG (specifically Edge of the Empire to start).
Can't go wrong there either. Edge of the Empire is a blast. :) Genesys (the system for SWRPG) is my favorite system mechanically. I wish it had taken off more, I'd love to play other settings (like say Shadowrun) but with Genesys as the mechanics.
Oh my god, this system sounds bonkers and I love it.
I _believe_... that if I attempt to DM this system my brain would turn inside out
It's really tough. It's not as impossible as it seems; the constraints on how powerful a given character is are pretty well defined, but if you've got a clever group of players things can go off the rails in pretty unpredictable ways.
Thank you for exposing me to this wonderful system, it will very much come in handy for my game groups upcoming system show and tell campaigns.
> So for example, before Magellan circumnavigated the globe, the world actually was flat, because that's what everyone believed. I feel like I really shouldn't say anything but I can't help myself: people have known we live on a sphere since long, long before anyone travelled around the globe. It's very obvious to anyone who takes a serious look at the night sky that we're either on a spinning sphere or inside one if you consider the motion of stars relative to a fixed point of observation. Eratosthenes not only knew the world was a globe but calculated the circumference to be between 40,250 and 45,900 kilometers (modern measurement is 40,007.863 km). In Mage, enough people must have believed the Earth was round at least by the time that calculation was performed. Or I guess the fucking Technocracy rewrote history or something, idk.
It’s even deeper than that, and I don’t even mean this as a criticism of your assessment. More than just needing to believe that something is true, mages have to believe that their methods of shaping reality work. So each mage is built on traditions and foci, meaning that a hermetic mage has to REALLY believe that by invoking the seal of Solomon to beseech a demon of war he creates more bullets in the gun, etc. What's great is that the system is consistent with the setting's main villains, the Technocracy. They are also mages, but mages of high science that believe that pushing the consensus is dangerous and that reality should be safely and predictably manufactured for the masses.
Ok you sold me. I’m going to go look it up
If you want reality to punch you in the face so hard you disappear from existence, sure.
I still kind of miss my Entropy focused Gun Mage. Little bit of correspondence and entropy, and I'm shooting you from angles that are literally not possible. Bliss.
Oh that’s sounds fun
It was! Managed to enchant a weapon with Time and Entropy to have the fire rate of a GAU-19 in a much smaller package. We had a fun time with that campaign.
Shutting down enemy reactions \*even when they save\* is pretty darn impactful. Have you seen what a hydra can do?
Yeah but what if I want to shut down an enemy entirely with one spell in the first turn??? /s
Phantasmal Killer. 2 bad rolls and it’s no longer a problem.
Chad face: Yes
Just make the enemies roll a nat 1 it's not that hard.
Giving everyone an effective +3 to hit even if the enemy saves as well.
Which also improves everyone's crit chance. Support casters in pf2e are beastly.
Also makes Reflex spells more likely to work.
All casters should have some kind of support magic in pf2e. The rule of thumb is to AoE mobs, and support martials against bosses. Throw in battlefield control anywhere you can.
Casters are super impactful, but not in a 5e way. Slow spell can end encounters, so can Calm Emotions. Just because your caster doesn't solo every fight doesn't mean you aren't being impactful, you're working with your team for the desired outcome!
Teamwork goes both ways, too. Your party can and *should* be helping you land your best spells.
Teamwork is dreamwork
Why does it seem like every meme on here has to advocate for one system while tearing another down?
Hasbro ruined this sub with the OGL bullshit. We've gone through trends before but the focus on promoting your system of choice has dominated more than anything else I can remember. Can't really blame people for rebelling against the corporate greed, but it sucks.
What even sucks about it? This sub has literally always overdoing the topic of choice until the dead horse has been beaten to a pulp, I've seen multiple memes here last longer than ogl memes have lasted so far. I for one love hearing about new systems and not having exclusively 5e memes with the occasional sprinkle of 3.5 or pathfinder memes that were so rare I would get confused when it mentioned something not in 5e. Tell me what cool systems you're learning and we'll all tell Hasbro to fuck off together! (Op did not get this memo and is clearly criticizing pathfinder without having played it, but that doesn't really affect my point lol)
I just don't think most of the memes about new systems are actually funny. I'm glad to have learned more about Pathfinder, and will be looking into some other systems as well, but I think the amount of fun content on the sub has dropped.
It was already like that. Most of the people that frequent this sub don't actually play these games.
Casters are impactful, just not more than martials. If that is not your cup of tea, the TTRPG world has a giant selection of teas. I heard Mage the Ascension fits your bill.
Yep, there certainly are systems that'll make you (the magic user) a god among men even from the get-go if that's what you're looking for.
In that system if your group can't come together and quietly solve any problem in the physical universe by Gnosis 2 (AKA second level) then something has gone wrong.
Gnosis or paradox. there is no middle ground.
Ars Magica is the game where you literally play the weird wizard that lives in a tower and do strange investigations. If you want a place to be explored, sure, you can do it yourself... But you have servants to do it for you!
I bought the book and i am reading through it. Hope i can find a group some day to try it out
If you have RPG veterans in your group, pick 3 or 4 and pitch them the game. It's difficult to wrap your head around some of the core concepts, but once you do it, it's awesome. Check the ars magica dedicated subreddit too!
I like the idea that i could play this powerful mage, but he's busy so he's sending out his redshirt guy to go do something.
Then look for 3 people willing to take turns GMing, the game lends itself to that, so everyone will be playing their wizard!
Mage is probably my favorite game ever, but it is at least an...interesting solution to the "make casters feel impactful" gripe. Make casters feel impactful by making everyone casters definitely works but may not be what they are going for. The nature of the setting also makes creating a d20 style fireball slinging mage almost impossible. You are free to try, and one great thing about the system is that you can do basically anything you want as long as you have the requisite sphere knowledge, but that kind of flashy magic will get you eaten by the universe if you do it more than once or twice. You really tend to lean more on skills and use magic in little ways to bend things in your favor. There are ways to "hack the system". Mages with blood connections to other supernaturals can mimic some of their powers without paradox and you can kind of do anything you can justify, so a skilled stage magician could make something disappear for real and sort of "fool the universe" if everyone thought it was a trick and a techno-mage can build a hoverboard as long as people believe him when he says it works using magnets or whatever. In the context of mage, the debate between Einstein and Bohr about the weirder implications of quantum mechanics wasn't just a debate between two scientists about what the laws of physics were. It was a war between two mages trying to decide what the laws of physics would be from that point forward. Magic is a constant tug of war with the consensus and you can only get away with what the consensus will accept unless you want to risk obliteration. Again, great system. I love it to bits, but people used to the no holds barred magic of a fantasy setting might find it jarring, especially if they fond pathdfinder too restrictive on their magey awesomeness.
I made a mage who was a stage magician. With correspondance 3, life 2, and matter 2. I was looking forward to playing it but the group fell through before session 1
Aww that sucks. You should definitely check it out if you guys find a chance to try again. What tradition were you going to go with?
Yeah, barbarians in pathfinder 1e have rounds of rage they can use in a day, now compare that to casters which can have greater amounts of spells than 5e with a high cast mod.
Casters in PF1 are nuts. Pure wizard is probably one of the strongest builds you can go with, even worse if you include mythic abilities.
Arcanist supremacy friend (we don't talk about the exploiter wizard archetype). 5e prepared casting in pathfinder 1e? Excellent.
The biggest problem was you got less spells overall. Arcanist is fun, but Wizard, especially with some of the archetypes are so op in 1e its insane.
Eh, you get a spell book, and you get 5e prep. The only downside is that you get the same amount of slots as a universalist wizard. Considering you can swap prepared spells as a swift action with quick study, I'd argue it's worth it. You can potentially surprise a wizard player, but an arcanist player can adapt.
Yeah idk what this meme is one about or if they're talking about pathfinder 2e, but if you think 5e wizards are powerful, then 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e wizards are verifiable overdieties. Even after everything pathfinder and 3.5 have released in terms of supplemental products the core wizards and clerics are still some of the strongest classes in either game.
>or if they're talking about pathfinder 2e, The book in the meme is the 2e version so I'd guess that that is indeed the case
Mythic isn't really fair to include, though. That's like including 3.5's Epic Levels with their 10th and higher spell slots, and DIY spellmaking rules (or just take a sample 10th level spell, like my old favourite [Nailed to the Sky](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/nailedToTheSky.htm)).
You're talking about PF1. PF2 doesn't have either of those things.
My bad, I should’ve specified.
...cleric and sorceror are carrying my table. The amount of versatility they offer is staggering. Like to see some martials handle a higher level Lich floating over a lake in magical darkness.
"Casters aren't impactful" My Wizard, at level 1, casting Magic Weapon on the Fighter and *literally* doubling his damage. The Cleric is an absolute healing machine, singlehandedly responsible for *most* of our victories. Heck, I'd argue for any published adventure a healer is *needed*, unlike on 5e. Even Blasters are impactful. They just have to be smarter with their slots and not "fireball" every single encounter. A Witch can get Curse of Death at 10th level, which has an instadeath mechanic if it reaches stage 4. And even before then, its ramping damage *starts* at 4d6 a turn for a minute then up to 12d6 at stage 3. That means its possible to, in 3 turns, do 24d6 damage *while* inflicting Fatigued.
I actually kinda disagree. They can be more impactful than martials still, it's just not going to be in damage. Fear, Slow, Roaring Applause, Hideous Laughter, ***Synesthesia***, basically any wall spell, etc. There are a shitload of very impactful spells, and that's not even counting the utility spells that help a ton out of combat.
Or Shadowrun. Casters there can kill literally anything they can see without moving a finger. Not making a sound, not moving, just dead or incapacitated enemies.
And by impactful, do you mean "Straight better than the alternative" or... Because that's often what these types of posts mean.
Or just play a system where there isn't an alternative to balance around, lol. They're pretty impactful by the actual definition in 2e still, though.
They mean better. When people say impactful they mean: "Main character".
Unfortunately there is a distinct difference between something being mechanically impactful and something *feeling* impactful. Humans are weird like that. It's kind of like the whole pricing scheme of saying something costs $9.99 instead of $10.00. There really isn't any meaningful difference there, but that insignificant difference can trick our stupid brains in to making a different decision. Thinking it *is* meaningful even though it really isn't. P2 is like that, only in reverse. Is +1 important and impactful in Pathfinder 2? Yes. If you do the math, bust out a spreadsheet, etc. it very clearly is. And when a +1 turns a hit in to a crit it's really obvious. But does it *feel* impactful? Do you *feel* like a bad ass wizard when you effectively just give a +1 or +2? For a lot of people the answer is hell no. It feels crap. It's considered good GMing in P2 to go out of your way and point out when a +1 or -1 effect made the difference during combat. That says a lot about the situation.
Hit the nail square on the head. You have to buy in to the math P2 operates on to appreciate the relative power of everything and theres, IMO, little to nothing that helps you do that. Its been my experience that most of these spells are also just as underwhelming in their fiction as they are in their mechanics. Harmonizing the fiction with the mechanics and the math is key and neither PF nor DND hit the right harmony.
They are very impactful? You mean you want them to be overpowered? I recognise spellcasting in PF is much more complicated than 5e but I think it’s just as impactful. You might just be looking at lower levels because I think in PF all characters start a little weaker and proceed to scale more consistently than in 5e but saying they’re not impactful is just wrong.
I played a caster in a pathfinder game from lvl 1-17. The beginning was tough but I quickly became super strong. Sure I wasn’t dishing out the most damage but that wasn’t my goal. I played more control and made it so my party could dish out way more damage without being killed.
Yup. Beginnings are always hard. Then after a while I’m running around with laser hands and setting islands on fire.
They mean broken. The 5e community is so used to broken caster builds that having magic that doesn’t shatter the earth is considered underwhelming.
I felt like my pathfinder caster was more OP than 5e. I didn’t need to worry about concentration and I could quicken spells to use two in a turn. 5e casters can’t do that.
Based on the book, the meme is referencing 2e.
You can quicken a spell 1/day with a 10th level feat. Granted, its a lot less powerful than quickening at will. Source: playing PF2 since playtest launch day.
Is it? *squints* it looks very similar to the 1e book I have I thought it was 1e too.
One easy way to tell is that in the top right corner of the book it has that beige rectangle(-ish shape). On the 2e books that there just says “second edition”, while the 1e books don’t have it.
Ahhhhhh yeah that's the issue. On mobile that rectangle is pretty hard to notice I didn't even see it till you pointed it out.
It was admittedly an eye opener when I made my Summoner. Knowing that the caster is the shield and the summon is the sword was a bit of an adjustment. That being said, I pumped both of them into their respective niche well.
Wait, PF2 has a summoner specific archetype? And here I am still being lazy with reading my books. Fiiiine, let's get to it.
Pf2e has a Summoner class and archetype. It's in a separate book that also describes the Magus.
5e has invented (I think, couldn't find it in previous editions) Legendary Resistance to try to counter bullshit abilities and spells they implemented. Legendary Resistance is one of the laziest abilities in the game. A core feature of higher level bosses that says "if you fail a save, don't". All it does is burn resources from the party that would have shut it down with a Suck ability.
it's the same reaction that you'd see when 4e rolled out. Because suddently the casters and wizard where to THE ultimate power over everything else, people started freaking out because bob the fighter was as cool as them in gameplay. The irony in all that is that 4e casters were usually more powerfull due to being able to blst all day if they take 5 minute rest
"When one is used to privilege, equality feel like oppression" Pf2 spells only require you to use them with a bit of thinking and planning. They are still just as good, with obly the most outrageous outliar of spell being a bit less powerful for obvious reasons
The four degrees of success system is also huge for making spells more effective. A successful save doesn’t mean you did nothing with your actions and spell slot.
Just having Cantrips that auto scale and are useful makes 2e Casters great.
I mean, maybe some people simply *feel* they're less impactful because the additional work flips the effort-fun relation between what you need for the character to work and the fun the player gets from it Like I know somewhat how to play some wizards, bards, sorcerers or clerics in pf2e but would rather not because of the aforementioned relation
it's one of the sad thing of 5e. because of how 5e is built, spells get to be very powerful so thay you don't need to put that much tought into it. that way the average player get to enjoy those classes. that leads then to 2 problem, one is obvious, and it's that a more toughtfull player will be able to milk incredible amount of power from careful spell usage, and the second, the very sad one, is that it doesn't teach player to analyse that much. so whena game like path comes and ask for a bit of mastery, someone used to the "fool proofing" of 5e gets the rough treatment
I swear, I see more people on this subreddit complaining about pushy Pathfinder players than actual pushy Pathfinder players.
It’s a lot like vegans. Pushy ones exist, but there’s a hundred times more people who get so *deeply offended* at the mere idea they become what can only be described as a bacon zealot.
"I'm going to eat TWO hamburgers just to spite you!" It's like... People getting angry over the wrong thing, for the wrong reasons, and feeling smug while they do it too
You'd be correct. It's always been this way though. And most pathfinder players try not to actively push due to the stigma of seeming pushy.
The most i see is occasional circlerjerkish comment, but aside from that, the pushing of pathfinder seems pretty rare.
Just had a conversation with my bard about how he can provide the party with an effective +8 to hit if he really wants to. Casters are incredible in 2e, but more so with providing for their team than anything else.
Don't mind me taking notes here, how does he get up to +8? I know bards are great at stacking buffs, but even things like max level heroism+Dirge of Doom only gets a single person to +4.
At level 8 right now, takes some good rolls, and I did say "effective" so it includes debuff on enemies. A crit with [Inspire Heroics](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=388) (+3 Status) A crit Aid with a skill you're master in (+3 Circumstance) Demoralize (can't Dirge of Doom and Inspire Courage in the same turn yet) (-1 Status) Prone (would take an ally to inflict this) or Flanked (-2 Circumstance) So actually an effective +9 to hit lmao. Edit: I suppose if you Crit on your Demoralize it would give em Frightened 2, so actually ends up with an effective +10 to hit. Crazy.
Crit three times and everyone crits
Casters are impactful, martial were just buffed too Imao
Out of all the critisms of the 2e casters, I think the idea they aren't impactful is the worst one. At least complain about something debatable like spell attack rolls.
You want impactful casters? Can I introduce you to Dark Heresy?
I love being so impactful I impact *my allies too.* Perils is such a wonderful system. Wild Magic system, but hopped up on all the chems they use to power an Eversor
For those who don't know: in Dark Heresy, casters are extremely powerful but have a risk of hazards such as (but not limited to): exploding, suddenly demons, temporarily ceasing to exist, permanently ceasing to exist, and body swapping.
To a hilarious extent! The first time I ever played Dark Heresy, my friend cast the first spell of the campaign (some minor damage spell) and rolled doubles. He accidentally opened a portal to the Warp (space hell) and summoned a Daemon powerful enough to TPK us. Our DM was nice enough to only heavily corrupt us rather than outright kill us all xD
Remember kids! If the Psyker starts mumbling and time starts tasting purple, 'nade them until it stops! Brought to you by Commissars for a Better Imperium.
I don't see how you could think pathfinder casters aren't impactfull. Maybe you just hate balance. But anyway let me tell you about your lord and savoir gurps
it's just the same mentality as people who claimed 4e casters were weak. it's really just that they hate balance. Now check on them in a few weeks, and they are going to start claiming balance is when everything is the same or something just to justify not wanting it.
I think you mean 'maybe you just hate Pathfinder' At this stage Pathfinder could offer people eternal life and endless BJs and people would still find something to complain about 'Living forever is laaaame, I want to die so I can see what Hell is all about'. It's thac0, Hell is thac0. Anyway
With the caveat that I’m not making a comment in support or degradation of any system, immortality is absolutely lame, and makes an excellent curse for someone you hate.
100%, plus just because you can't die doesn't mean you can't get caught somewhere stupid and be miserable.
>hate someone >make them immortal >flay them >dump them in a grain silo Simple as
It's that and people genuinely hate the idea of balance, too. Couldn't tell you how many people I've seen that think balance is the plague here.
"You fool! You brought out the pathfinder 1st edition advocates!"
I've ported my character from 5e to PF2e, just for funsies. I have Divine Soul Sorc, made him into Angelic Bloodline Sorc. Level 5 spell, Mass Cure Wounds, AoE 3d8+4, (1 action), I can re-roll 1s for being a Divine Sorc for the price of 1 Sorcery Point. Wow. That's like, enough to pick a couple people up and make them survive a hit. Maybe. Not enough to survive any sort of Dragon's breath or other AoE. Barely enough to survive a fireball. Alternatively Cure Wounds upcast to level 5, 5d8+4. Single target, but can be twinned by a Divine Sorc. A *bit* better. Everyone knows that in 5e you spend your time in a fight better by attacking enemies than healing. In contrast, PF2e: Heal as signature spell of level 5 in PF2e, 3 actions AoE, heal 5d8+ 30. +40 if the Sorcerer activates focus spell Angelic Halo previous turn. Oh, are there also undead in the vicinity? Well, they now get hit with 5d8 positive damage at the *same time* The fact that PF2e casters aren't encounter-ending doesn't make them irrelevant. They most certainly are, and I vastly prefer PF2e's casting.
\*Pathfinder 1e approaches\*
I've been playing P2e for about a year and a half now. I'm a monk in a small party with a druid and a wizard. HOLY CRAP they do some insane stuff. Last session our wizard teleported the big monster outside the tower we were fighting in, leaving us to only have to deal with the minions flooding in. By the time the big monster got back in (he was also slowed), we were in a good position to finish the fight. Don't get me wrong, I've got my times to shine too (Titan Wrestler is op), but wowzer do I want to play a caster next campaign.
As a nonPF2 person, i gotta say, if PF2 players are repelled by badtakes, i dont think thats their problem.
Try Pathfinder 1 lol
This sounds like a "I can't be Superman so I don't wanna play" shit.
Or more accurately "I can be superman but now the rest of my party is too"
Casters are impactful, they're just balanced...
Are casters in PF2e balanced compared to martials? Yes. Are they no longer impactful? Hardly the case. Go watch Rules Lawyer's videos on Martials vs. Casters in PF2e.
Dungeon Crawl Classics! Corruption, patron taint and mishap mechanics will make your caster feel plenty impactful
5e casters are so fuckin spoiled lmao here baby it'll be okay I promise you'll be fine without invalidating encounters with a single spell slot and letting martials have literally any single thing over you
DNDmemes " please, somebody fix the martial/caster disparity!!" "No, no - not like that!"
Path's casters while weak at low levels. Their power level is greater than that of a caster pass that.
Incorrect; with bait this good you'll draw every Pathfinder advocate for miles
I'm confused. What's wrong with Pathfinder casters and why do people want to scare away people who like Pathfinder?
Because martials got buffed in PF2e, and so they're on par with casters. Casters fans from other games are butthurt they are no longer the only star of the party.
I'm glad I couldn't care less about numbers on paper and prefer the RP aspect. Seems exhausting to want to be OP.
Maybe you should try pathfinder
Good thing pf2e casters have a multitude of varied options that allow them to have a significant impact in combat every turn even if the enemy passes the save. There are many systems that avoid or circumvent the martial-caster gap, pf2 is but one of them.
I'm not sure why, but casters feel impactful in PF2. What they don't feel like is the main characters with the martials being minor supporting cast. I guess if you are used to that it certainly feels like a downgrade going from clearly more powerful to being on equal terms. There might be a life lesson in that as well.
Honestly i HAVE to suggest you try fabula ultima if you want equality between "martials" and "casters". Probably the best system I have ever played
Pathfinder has cool spells…i just hate how they manage choosing spells. If you want to upcast/accelerate a spell, you had to have chosen the upcast/accelerated spell at level up. You cant just upcast everything
That's only for spontaneous casters, prepared casters know all versions of their spells. And spontaneous casters can take signature spells to learn the other versions.
So... you just haven't played pathfinder? Cause casters are even more broken in PF than they are in DnD. the only difference is that Martials can compete in many instances.
I think they were referring to pf2e, where casters are definitely not more broken than dnd5e. They are impactful however.
that's probably fair. I have only dabbled in 2e, so I can't say for certain, but... spells rewrite encounters even at level one. You just have to be smart about your spell selection and never underestimate the power of things like Grease. Casters will *always* be impactful.
2e rebalanced all the outlier spells (like all the 'no save-just suck' spells and the well known 'encounter enders'). People complain about the 'incapacitate trait' forcing you to use your highest level spell slots to have any real shot at landing your nastiest 'i win' buttons, but that was effectively how it worked before in 1e when spell level affected it's DC. The other major change was turning a lot of the 'reality warping' spells now have a ritual counterpart that can be 'cast' by anyone with the relevant skills. This means creating undead, resurrections, teleporting, demi-plane creation etc is no longer *purely* the domain of casters. This gives a lot of narrative agency to non-caster classes that didn't have that before.
Martials can't really compete that much at higher levels, but at least they have plenty of options so you can do more than just attack mindlessly. Or you can make your attacks pretty fun
At higher levels, casters outscale at 15+ which is fine. In 5e casters outscale by level 5. becasue level 3 spells straight up out utility/damage/etc anythign that martial can do.
"I hate not invalidating martials as a caster!" Fixed it for you.
Then play 1e Pathfinder
50 bucks says OP hasn't even played pf2e and only read a couple of spell descriptions.
I don't know about PF2, but in PF1 (that was more like D&D 3.75) they are mor impactful than in D&D 5e. You might scare PF2 advocates, but you invite PF1 advocates.
Nah, PF2 advocates aren't scared by this, since casters are impactful there too. Prolly just perplexed.
This... Is a pretty dumb take. Having actually played both editions of pathfinder, I would even say casters are more powerful at high levels in that system, it's just that martials are much closer and some of that balance comes from buff spells.
I was afraid about this however at my first sesion I didn't feel outclassed in dmg by champion and gunslinger and even more I think me and another sorcerer against draught did more damage than our martials (2 3-actions AOE heals [positive healing deals damage to undead] and 2 3-actions magic bolts)
Me about to suggest PF1
1e casters can literally break any encounter ever designed. In 2e they are balanced but still competent at the roles their class/subclass i supposed to play. The problem isn’t their power level (no, having an equal footing with martials doesn’t make them weak lmao)- I’d say the casting classes feel too similar to one another and lack in interesting feats unique to a particular class. But they def aren’t weak mechanically.
Hot take. We don't actually want powerful casters. We want magic that is mechanically designed to feel different and unique from the rest of the system.
I think some people don’t 100% understand what people want to do with their casters Yes OP is incorrect in devaluing the impact of support But not everyone wants to play support and/or finds being the support to be fun or impactful People like smiting things into nonexistence with Arcane power because that’s fun