5 session impression of Pathfinder 2e (minor spoilers for Fall of Plaguestone)

[Albions_Angel]

Hi all,

Feels like ages ago now, but I posted my first impressions of Pathfinder 2e after session 1, and promised more. Lots of people had mixed feelings about things, and I am here to report on my views. There will be some minor spoiler-marked things about Plaguestone itself so be warned.

TL:DR Pathfinder 2 feels generally solid, especially for a martial, and especially for 5e players looking for more complexity, but scared by 3.P. But while some things are good in theory, at low level, some stuff should not have made it through playtest. And Fall of Plaguestone was the worst module they could have picked as the first one released.

Ok, on to the longer stuff.

We got 5 sessions into Fall of Plaguestone. I am going to deal with some spoilers first, be lets just say we made it to level 2, then all died horribly.

Spoiler: Here are my thoughts

Show

Fall of Plaguestone is notorious for being a very difficult scenario. And none of that changed in PF2. In fact, it arguably got worse. They were working on the conversion before the playtest was done, and I think it shows.

For reference, we had:

• A ranged Ranger
• A bomb alchemist
• An aberrant Sorcerer (me)
• A healbot cleric (only there for session 1)
• A "not paladin" (Champion - only there from session 2 onwards)

The very first encounter sets a nominal party of 4 level 1 PCs against 3 CR 1/2 wolves and a CR 2 wolf boss. Or something like that. The party starts ambushed and it all goes down hill. To be fair to the module, our DM played the wolves a little too brightly (they flanked someone, and the one with the 30 foot acid breath attack lined up a perfect shot), but honestly, we were dead before it started. Our party was lacking someone to stand up front and hit things, but honestly, I am not sure it would have helped. Our ranger struggled to hit the wolves with average rolls, while the wolves hit us easily. The alchemist was worried about splash damage (a common problem), the cleric was trying to conserve his spells as no one knew if this was the first encounter or only encounter of the day, and I got off one spell which rolled minimum damage, and a couple of cantrips that did nothing. I put it down to poor system mastery, but also bear in mind that this was a CR 3 encounter for a CR 1 party... as literally the module opening encounter.

From there, it got worse. Healing is so sparse if you dont have a healbot cleric - the paladin's lay on hands feature is really not a replacement, and the town explicitly says it doesnt sell magic items so scrolls, potions, and other things are out. Yet not once did we fight a level appropriate encounter.

Honestly, I feel like we could have dealt with the number of over leveled enemies if they didnt also get 3 actions. They are one time things, so have no need to try tripping, or healing, or anything else. The best and most logical thing for the DM to do is make every enemy hit as often as it can.

In the end, we died just after becoming level 2 to 3 Bloodthorn bushes (a CR 6 encounter). Looking back, a lot of the encounters seemed to assume

• In combat good healing
• Perfectly constructed characters (our Paladin at level 2 had +5 to hit, vs each of the Bloodthorns +11)
• Perfect party composition (We might have done it if we were melee Barb, ranged Rogue, BFC Wizard and healbot Cleric)
• Lots of potions and scrolls bought during character creation

The module is also chock full of errors and inconsistencies and poor grammar. Statblocks dont make sense, abilities dont read correctly, and always, always, it feels like the number of enemies is so very badly off. Other forums are full of "well they got through this fight, but then spent all their resources on this next one, and had to go back and rest, and I had to invent a reason why the boss didnt just leave in the mean time".

To properly judge PF2, I would say it needs an entry level module. And even then, I am not sure Fall of Plaguestone is viable even for experienced parties. Its not impossible, just not all that fun having to grind it out.

So what about the system itself?

Well there are certainly good and bad things. And I would like to see some serious revisions to some low level stuff.

Character creation is really nice and simple, but if you want to min/max, it becomes limiting. Everything is tied to your race, background, etc, rather than point buy or similar. So you cant min/max AND roleplay. Its one or the other. Still, great way to get people into the system.

The system is a martial's dream. The 3 action system really shines for combat focused mundane characters. Our ranger found a healthy rhythm of Turn 1 - Mark target, Double shot ability, Move. Turn 2 - Double Shot ability, duck into cover, spare action. They missed a lot, but I think that was Plaguestone, and not the system. Our paladin was similarly successful with Move/Stab/Raise Shield or Stab/Stab/Raise Shield. But... nothing about that felt very paladin like? No spells, no smite, nothing. Just lay on hands, out of combat, once every 10 minutes. I feel a fighter would have hit things more. Maybe they get better later?

Our alchemist had loads he could have done, but bomb alchemists and melee range enemies do not mix, so he spent most of his time wishing he went elixir instead, and poking things with a knife/providing flanking for the paladin.

Trips/Grabs/etc actually work a surprising amount of the time, and deny an action. Actions seem like everything. As I said in the spoiler-ed section, enemies basically only ever attack as much as they can, and often have devastating multi-action attacks. So denying them that chance really helps. We also spent a lot of time (DM included) thinking things were immune to certain forms of attack or control when they were not, so maybe that would have helped?

The feats - they are certainly varied, and geared towards a large selection of roles. But there are clear and obvious choices. Field Medicine for example is crazy good. Free in combat heal? Yes please. Intimidating Glare is also great, bypassing the need for a language. Fear is a powerful debuff. In fact, most debuffs are.

Notice I have not mentioned casters? There is a reason. As I said in the spoiler, I played an aberrant sorcerer. Aberrant sorcerers get Occult type spells. Largely damage dealing with a touch of fear, fatigue, etc thrown in.

My god. I can FEEL that spellcasters are probably awesome at high levels, but they do suck at level 1 and 2.

First up, to everyone saying "the failure rate is too high on cantrips to warrant the 2 action cost". You are wrong. The cantrips work more often than not, getting their debuffs off quite regularly. The issue isnt failing saves. The issue is doing next to no damage at all, even with level 1 spells. It quickly became apparent that my 18 Cha meant nothing, because my 14 Str did more reliable damage with a longspear (You cant really chose what to dump - hobgoblin maxed my cha and gave me a good str boost, so thats what I had). And by more reliable, I still missed more often than not. And with so few spells to play with, I was actually glad they all took 2 actions. Had they not, I would have felt far worse than a 3.5e level 1 wizard with a crossbow. I spent a lot of time trying to trip things or glaring at them, because that was more helpful than trying to get 2d4 to roll well vs a line of things that likely save for half. And often some of those things were my allies, who had lower saves than the enemy.

Not every spell caster needs to cast all the time. 3.5e did just fine with even cantrips being limited, and spellcasters falling back on plinking away. But I am getting mixed messages from PF2. Cantrips scale with level, but only at certain milestones (they dont do X+lvl damage, but often do get a damage or target boost at level 4), and they each take 2 actions (mostly). But while they often get some portion of their damage or condition off, even on a passed save, they are just useless in terms of damage output or real control. Level 1 spells are too few at low level to risk more than one per encounter. With Aberrant bloodline, you want to be near the action. But you dont get AoOs by default. But you do get reach for 1 minute once per fight. But you are unarmored and the enemy can double move and still hit you. But you get proficiency with some weapons. But you are bad with them.

You know what I should have done? Bought all the scrolls I could carry at character creation. They are so cheap, and just work.

At high level, I dont think it will be an issue, but something really feels wrong at low level with casters. Our cleric felt the same after session 1. When they did heal someone, it didnt do much.

The system is solid, but I want another crack with some differences. I think parties need to seriously consider 2 melee bruisers early on, and the playtest of the swashbuckler looks just right for that. I love the action system, and I think it works really well, but I am a little concerned that its an arms race as to who can throw out the most attack rolls, with DM creatures winning more often than not, and the party having to have 10 minute adventure days as a result. I wouldnt mind seeing some of the damage rolls on spells buffed. Maybe with a +Stat to damage? They actually get through the enemy saves a surprising amount of the time. I would say even the skeptics here should give the system a good go. Its really fun. Just DONT PLAY PLAGUESTONE.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. If they related to Plaguestone content, spoiler it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Albions_Angel

Spoiler

Show

The module is also chock full of errors and inconsistencies and poor grammar. Statblocks dont make sense, abilities dont read correctly, and always, always, it feels like the number of enemies is so very badly off.

Sounds like a bad case of "80% done and out the door." They were clearly working under multiple deadlines and slapped it together without careful editing.

Most 3.5 and Paizo products show this to some degree, but it sounds like these issues are still plaguing them (so to speak) in the new edition.

[Kurald Galain]

From there, it got worse. Healing is so sparse if you dont have a healbot cleric - the paladin's lay on hands feature is really not a replacement, and the town explicitly says it doesnt sell magic items so scrolls, potions, and other things are out. Yet not once did we fight a level appropriate encounter.

This I find interesting, because the pre-release playtest reports waxed lyrical about how you really don't need a cleric and how even a barbarian can be built as an effective healer, and so forth. I wonder if they were exaggerating, or if non-cleric healing ability got severely nerfed after the playtest. In PF1 or 4E or 5E the party really doesn't need a cleric, so that's a big step backwards.

Not every spell caster needs to cast all the time.

And why not? The assumption in every D&D'esque game in the past decade is that casters will cast every round. This is an effective strategy in PF1, 4E, 5E, and numerous computer games. So I find it troubling that your caster feels he needs to use a longspear because his spells "are just useless in terms of damage output or real control". That's another big step backwards.

As far as I can tell, the casters remain largely ineffective at higher levels, too. For instance, the P2 caster guide classifies over half of its spells as poor or useless, regardless of level.

[Albions_Angel]

This I find interesting, because the pre-release playtest reports waxed lyrical about how you really don't need a cleric and how even a barbarian can be built as an effective healer, and so forth. I wonder if they were exaggerating, or if non-cleric healing ability got severely nerfed after the playtest. In PF1 or 4E or 5E the party really doesn't need a cleric, so that's a big step backwards.

This I think was purely an issue with the module, not the system. We say that there are a number of ways to heal. The field medic feat, the low cost availability of potions and scrolls, various class abilities and feats that come on line AT OR AFTER LEVEL 2. But Plaguestone sets you off at level 1, and has you face overwhelming (literally, as in per the books description) encounter after overwhelming encounter, just to get to level 2.

And why not? The assumption in every D&D'esque game in the past decade is that casters will cast every round. This is an effective strategy in PF1, 4E, 5E, and numerous computer games. So I find it troubling that your caster feels he needs to use a longspear because his spells "are just useless in terms of damage output or real control". That's another big step backwards.

As far as I can tell, the casters remain largely ineffective at higher levels, too. For instance, the P2 caster guide classifies over half of its spells as poor or useless, regardless of level.

To be fair, the decade before that assumed that low level casters were not casting every round. 3.5e ran for what, 12 years? And cantrips were limited and spell slots were scarce at low levels. For Gishes, they remained so into mid levels. And I think that is the feel PF2 is going for. That every caster be a sword and sorcery, Elder Scrolls type mage. I might be very wrong, but a bunch of the Sorcerer Bloodline abilities give you some sort of combat boost (albeit a tiny one).

I remember us treading ground in the last thread over the viability of a lot of spells, and how you will fail more often than not, and thus they will not do half of what they are meant to. I know the maths says this is true. But the reality is that battles seem to both pass quicker, and yet last more rounds. More rounds = more rolls of the dice = more chance of succeeding. And the debuffs, though appearing minor, actually seem really good in practice. Furthermore, Hero points seem stupidly easy to come by. You start with one each session, and the DM is encouraged to give them out fairly freely. They can be used to reroll things. Now, it seems they cant, by the book, force an enemy to reroll something BUT as many spells just... work, I would rule that forcing a save to be rerolled for a spell with no attack action should be something a hero point can do. But YMMV. I also have no clue about high level stuff, but its fair to point out a good half of 3.5e spells are also ruled pretty useless or highly situational. Of course, there are thousands of them, and only a handful of PF2 spells at the moment. Witch and Oracle are coming back though, and they look like they will have more persistent and at will effects. Perhaps the vision for Wiz and Sorc are to force them to be nova blasters, and shoehorn other casters into effective BFC and debuff roles? I cant say I am happy about that, but it would mirror the character creation, which forces you to play certain things if you want peak efficiency.

I do just want to dive back into spoiler territory to highlight one particular spell that I know we went back and forth over before (I think it was you, Kurald, sorry if it wasnt).

Spoiler: The usefullness of Daze

Show

Daze is, at first glance, a stupidly awful spell. A small chance to remove 1 action from an enemy, at the cost of 2 of your own. But lets examine how, exactly, we all died in Plaguestone.

We died to Bloodthorn Bushes. Specifically, we died to their 3 action whirlwind ability that hits ALL TARGETS within 10 foot. A single attack roll is made, and it hits everyone with an AC equal to or lower than that value. With a bonus of +11. For reference, my Sorc had AC 16, the Ranger had AC 17, the Alchemist had AC 19 and the Paladin AC 20. There were 3 of these things. And the DM keep saying, and we agreed, that once they were among us, with no way for us to escape (and I tried...), why would they ever do anything else.

Now, I didnt try to use daze. I thought that as they were plants, they would be immune to, well, 90% of my mind affecting, fear causing spells. Turns out, they were not. Had I used it however, I actually stood a decent chance of them failing the save, which would have stolen just a single action from them, but prevented them from using that attack entirely. That might just have saved us.

My damaging spells on the other hand were A) also not used because I thought they wouldnt affect plants, and B) did pitiful damage. And while I had colour spray, you show me the eyes on a bush. Occult spells are a pretty dire selection.

[Blackhawk748]

To be fair, the decade before that assumed that low level casters were not casting every round. 3.5e ran for what, 12 years? And cantrips were limited and spell slots were scarce at low levels. For Gishes, they remained so into mid levels. And I think that is the feel PF2 is going for. That every caster be a sword and sorcery, Elder Scrolls type mage. I might be very wrong, but a bunch of the Sorcerer Bloodline abilities give you some sort of combat boost (albeit a tiny one).

The Wizard was really the only one who had this issue as a lvl 1 Sorcerer has 5 or 6 first level spells, and since you'll probably be doing about 3-4 encounters a day, the Sorcerer can cast at least 1 spell per combat.

Yes there's been plenty of times at low levels where I chose to not chuck Grease or Ray of Enfeeblement in an encounter because it didn't seem worth it, but it wasn't because I didn't think it wasn't gonna do anything, it was because we were fighting three Skeletons and I figured saving those for the 6 orcs or 4 Zombies later would be more useful. In short, I wasn't forced to not cast.

In this case it sounds more like they are forcing you into this playstyle and it just sounds very blech to me. If you're gonna nerf spells, there's no reason to nerf the number of slots too. Also your damage sucking just sounds dumb. It's a damaging spell, it should actually do it's job.

[Kurald Galain]

To be fair, the decade before that assumed that low level casters were not casting every round. 3.5e ran for what, 12 years? And cantrips were limited and spell slots were scarce at low levels.

Yes, and a common complaint about 3E (and 2E and 1E) is that casters run out of spells and have to use a crossbow. So that, after a decade of "casters gonna cast", P2 returns them to crossbows is clearly a big step backwards.

I actually stood a decent chance of them failing the save, which would have stolen just a single action from them, but prevented them from using that attack entirely.

They need to crit fail the save to stun them. That means you have a 95% chance that the spell does only pitiful damage, and a 5% chance that it works... and that the plant will instead attack one target twice. That's still not a good showing for the Daze cantrip.

However, I wonder if the GM overplayed this. Yes, that three-action attack is nasty, but it has only 10' range; so if the party spreads out a bit and uses ranged attacks then this shouldn't be such a hard encounter. The bushes are too dumb to use tactics, and slow enough that you should be able to just walk away from the battle...

[Albions_Angel]

It is worth noting that Battle Sorcs also suffered from low spells at low levels, and PF2 Sorcs feel a lot like battle sorcs, with their fairly decent array of weapon proficiencies. But I see your points.

I do wonder if we are expecting PF2 to be too much of a PF "update". Is it possible we are expecting high magic, but its actually a low magic setting? People do, after all, play games that dont have anywhere near as much magic as D&D does. Perhaps that is the direction the creators wanted to take it? If so, they should have been clear about that.

For some numbers, if others dont want to look it up, a level 1 Sorc gets 3 first level spell slots per day, and unlimited cantrips, and knows 3 first level spells and 5 cantrips. This is far less than 3.5e's sorc, but similar to the battle sorc. But there is no bonus from having a good casting stat.

They need to crit fail the save to stun them. That means you have a 95% chance that the spell does only pitiful damage, and a 5% chance that it works... and that the plant will instead attack one target twice. That's still not a good showing for the Daze cantrip.

However, I wonder if the GM overplayed this. Yes, that three-action attack is nasty, but it has only 10' range; so if the party spreads out a bit and uses ranged attacks then this shouldn't be such a hard encounter. The bushes are too dumb to use tactics, and slow enough that you should be able to just walk away from the battle...

Its more than a 5% chance to work though, as a crit fail is 10 less than the DC. And my DC was quite high. But I take your point.

Spoiler: More on how we died

Show

Yeah, the encounter was probably survivable if we hadnt triggered it the way we did, but I dont see us all surviving it either. Our problem is that the paladin marched into the clearing while I was trying to see if the alchemist had enough fire to burn the tree down. She triggered all 3 bushes, who moved in the surprise round and boxed us into the 10ft square entry way. Difficult terrain to either side, and on a Roll20 map, so we couldnt extend backwards and flee. I actually triple moved through the difficult terrain but it was too late at that point. The alchemist was the last one standing, and managed to slip by and run, but only had one action to do it, due to trying to save someone else. The bushes double moved... Technically I survived, as everyone else was out of hero points, so they all died, while I merely auto stabilised

The bushes, after all, move at 20, and a lot of races move at 25.

I feel a lot of my issues with spell damage can be rectified by simply adding the casting stat to damage. That way, rolling snake eyes on Grim Tentacles, and then having the enemy save for half doesnt feel so much like a waste of a 1st level spell slot. I could have done (2+4)/2=3 damage instead of (2)/2=1 damage. Sigh. Should have just taken magic missile, but it didnt fit the theme I wanted... Its annoying that once again, its just simply the best spell. I get its signature, but sigh.

[Blackhawk748]

It is worth noting that Battle Sorcs also suffered from low spells at low levels, and PF2 Sorcs feel a lot like battle sorcs, with their fairly decent array of weapon proficiencies. But I see your points.

I do wonder if we are expecting PF2 to be too much of a PF "update". Is it possible we are expecting high magic, but its actually a low magic setting? People do, after all, play games that dont have anywhere near as much magic as D&D does. Perhaps that is the direction the creators wanted to take it? If so, they should have been clear about that.

For some numbers, if others dont want to look it up, a level 1 Sorc gets 3 first level spell slots per day, and unlimited cantrips, and knows 3 first level spells and 5 cantrips. This is far less than 3.5e's sorc, but similar to the battle sorc. But there is no bonus from having a good casting stat.

The comparison falls apart once we look at the Chasis that the Battle Sorc is running off of. Battle Sorcs have 3/4s BaB and a d8 HD so they look more like Clerics. Now, the tradeoff wasn't worth it in 3.5, but that was just a general problem with the Sorcerer.

Now, you seem to have the various other bits (weapon profs, some bonuses to hit, maybe some other tactical benefits) but you also seem to be lacking durability, Armor Profs and the native To Hit.

Now, maybe they were going for a lower magic as the baseline, but that's not something DnD has ever really done well. It relies far too much on magic to patch various holes or to just straight up deal with things like Incorporeal creatures. So if that is the case, they really need a giant neon flashing light saying it

[Kurald Galain]

Is it possible we are expecting high magic, but its actually a low magic setting?

It's still Golarion. All earlier high-magic stories, modules, and comics are part of this same game world. I must say that the Runelord sounds a lot less scary in P2, though.

on a Roll20 map, so we couldnt extend backwards and flee.

You couldn't move away because your mapping software wouldn't let you? Yeah, the GM could have handled that better.

[EldritchWeaver]

This I find interesting, because the pre-release playtest reports waxed lyrical about how you really don't need a cleric and how even a barbarian can be built as an effective healer, and so forth. I wonder if they were exaggerating, or if non-cleric healing ability got severely nerfed after the playtest. In PF1 or 4E or 5E the party really doesn't need a cleric, so that's a big step backwards.

Not sure where you read that stuff but I saw only posts during playtest complaining about needing healbots and in my playtest it felt the same.

It's still Golarion. All earlier high-magic stories, modules, and comics are part of this same game world. I must say that the Runelord sounds a lot less scary in P2, though.

Basically, since PF2 nerfs so much magic it becomes basically impossible to replay the modules under the current framework, which means that the effects used are basically impossible or will be delegated to GM fiat only.

Otherwise, in regards to general note "caster gonna cast" and their inability thereof: That's why I switched to Spheres of Power. Having the option to do something every round is a godsend. I really hate having to make the decision to cast at all or do something else, because I might need spell slots/other limited resources in later fight, which might never come.

[MeimuHakurei]

Basically, since PF2 nerfs so much magic it becomes basically impossible to replay the modules under the current framework, which means that the effects used are basically impossible or will be delegated to GM fiat only.

I haven't looked into it too much, but would a Wizard at least be a legitimate challenge if outleveling the PCs? (Monster statblocks use arbitrary instead of derived stats, but spells still function as normal)

Otherwise, in regards to general note "caster gonna cast" and their inability thereof: That's why I switched to Spheres of Power. Having the option to do something every round is a godsend. I really hate having to make the decision to cast at all or do something else, because I might need spell slots/other limited resources in later fight, which might never come.

Seconded. It's incredible how many options you have even when out of spell points - particularly if you use a more sophisticated class.

[Psyren]

While I'm not a fan of P2 (at all), this sounds more like a problem with the module than with the system. A level 2 party should pretty much never be fighting a CR 6 encounter in a beginner module, that wouldn't even be on the encounter table in P1. And note that's just the raw CR from the monsters, not taking into account favorable circumstances for the enemies or unfavorable ones for the PCs, like the inability to procure any consumables mentioned upthread. With that said, assuming these encounters were truly run as intended/designed, that does represent a pretty big problem.

As for "casters should always be casting" - I'd say it's more accurate that casters should always have a power they can use. In P1, a low-level alchemist doesn't get many extracts, but that's why they also have bombs, and in a real pinch dex mutagen + crossbow makes them a decent-ish archer for an hour. In P1, OP's aberrant sorcerer would get 6-8 acid rays they can use at level 1 before ever touching their spell slots. The healbot cleric would presumably spend a decent chunk of time channeling energy, but they also get domain powers that might be usable every round. In other words, limited spell slots are expected in PF1 (and for most casters, compensated for). I'm not sure what P2 gives low-level casters but there should be something similar?

[Albions_Angel]

You are spot on, Psyren. I think the lethality was a module issue and not a system issue.

As for things spellcasters get to do:

Well my aberrant sorcerer, in addition to 3 first level spells and 3 spell slots per day, got 5 cantrips to use at will. 4 of those cantrips were a free choice from the Occult spells list. One was chosen for me by the aberrant bloodline. You only ever get 5 cantrips unless you spend feats to get more. This is true from level 1 to level 20.

The cantrips were (in bold are the ones my Sorc had, I only give action count for things that can conceivably be useful in combat):

• Daze (aberrant bloodline) - 2 actions - Force will save for half (for nothing on crit success, double on crit fail) casting mod damage, and Stunned 1 on crit fail
• Dancing lights - Non-damaging
• Detect Magic - Non Damaging
• Ghost Sounds - 2 actions - Non damaging
• Join Pasts (share knowledge with ally) - non damaging
• Know Direction - non damaging
• Light - non damaging
• Mage Hand - non damaging
• Message - non damaging
• Prestidigitation - non damaging
• Read Aura - non damaging
• Sigil - non damaging
• Chill Touch - 2 actions - Force Fort save for half (for nothing on crit success, double on crit fail) 1d4 + casting mod damage, and Stunned 1 on crit fail for living, Fort save or flat footed (enfeebled on crit fail) for dead
• Forbidding ward - 2 actions - one ally gets +1 AC and saves vs one enemy for 1 min
• Guidance - 2 actions - +1 to a single roll of any kind for ally
• Shield - 1 action (not a reaction mind you) - +1 AC vs 1 opponent and can shield block.
• Telekenetic projectile - 2 actions - Spell attack roll for 1d6+casting mod damage

Telekentic projectile is nice to fall back on if you carry around some sling bullets, but even with my spell attack bonuses, I was still missing far more often than not. Daze was constant damage. Chill touch put me too close to the enemy, even with my noodle arms. Honestly, all spells put me too close to the enemy. When most are range 30, and all creatures get 3 actions and can usually down me in one hit... But thats back to the module being too hardcore.

So there is stuff to do, but its all still 2 actions, when really you want to be using at least one to move, and potentially 2 for that. If all the spells were + casting mod to damage, that would be nice. And there is surprisingly little direct damage, or even fear affects or mind affects, in the Occult cantrips. Poking with my longspear had just as good of a chance to hit, and did more damage if it connected, with no chance to have that damage reduced. It put me next to the enemy, but so did my spells awayway. Distance isnt a factor when things can double move and still hit you at their highest BAB while you can only ever single move if you want to cast.

[Kurald Galain]

Honestly, all spells put me too close to the enemy. When most are range 30, and all creatures get 3 actions and can usually down me in one hit...

That's not the module though. That pretty much all spells put you within easy melee range of the enemy is very much a system issue.

And it's not like the other spell lists get substantially better cantrips than this. I suppose cantrips just weren't designed to be used in combat; and that is also a system issue.

[Quertus]

Link to the previous thread? Iirc, it was rife with math and analysis.

Speaking of… 4 vs 3, and you spend your turn using Daze to maybe reduce one foe from 4 attacks to 2? That's spending ¼ your party's actions to maybe make them loose 1/6 of theirs. Even with guaranteed success, it wouldn't be worth it.

[NightbringerGGZ]

Link to the previous thread? Iirc, it was rife with math and analysis.

Speaking of… 4 vs 3, and you spend your turn using Daze to maybe reduce one foe from 4 attacks to 2? That's spending ¼ your party's actions to maybe make them loose 1/6 of theirs. Even with guaranteed success, it wouldn't be worth it.

Daze does seem to be under powered, as I haven't been able to find a large number of creatures with Weakness to mental damage and quite a few are immune to it.

In general though, I've found that the cantrips work quite well as a player's "standard" actions, allowing you to focus your limited spells slots on the most effective spells. As an example, at level 1 or 2 Ray of Frost is a much better attack option than Snowball, having higher base and average damage, much longer range sharing the same crit effect and not consuming a limited resource. Instead you can use those spell slots on more effective options, such as Burning Hands or Chilling Spray if you wanted an AOE attack.

The attack spells are also all specialized. Acid Splash looks odd at first, with its reduced damage scaling and +1 splash damage not being very impressive. It was an unexpected boon when I threw a bunch of swarms at my first level players though, since they swarm creatures had significant weakness against the splash damage.

The utility cantrips aren't useless but aren't every round actions either, roughly on par with the balance level they should have and highly dependent on encounter design to rate. For instance, I just ran a very challenging encounter where a higher level monster used speed and side tunnels in a dark cave for hit & run tactics. A player moving dancing lights around was the MVP as he prevented the party from having to spread out to find the boss or fight the minions he pushed out of the tunnels.

[Kurald Galain]

In general though, I've found that the cantrips work quite well as a player's "standard" actions

We've done the math in the last thread, and it turns out that cantrips deal less than half the damage of weapon attacks, on average.

[Morty]

We've done the math in the last thread, and it turns out that cantrips deal less than half the damage of weapon attacks, on average.

Less than half might be excessive, but I don't think cantrips dealing less damage than weapon attacks is a bad thing as such.

[Blackhawk748]

Less than half might be excessive, but I don't think cantrips dealing less damage than weapon attacks is a bad thing as such.

It is if you aren't any more likely to hit with the cantrip than you are with the spear or aren't any further away.

I don't disagree that tit isn't necessarily an issue, but their rider effect is the main reason why their damage is lower and that just won't come up often enough to even it out. I'd rather plink with the crossbow

[Morty]

Yeah, if plinking away with a crossbow starts looking like a better option, I guess things went too far in this direction.

[EldritchWeaver]

Yeah, if plinking away with a crossbow starts looking like a better option, I guess things went too far in this direction.

Paizo looked at spells and nerfed every single aspect of them once. Inherent caster level scaling got replaced by static values, any scaling left requires higher spell slots and does not affect the stat block part of spells. So range and duration are fixed. Also, the loss of touch, close, medium, long scaling resulted in spells having no consistent ranges anymore. Basically the nerfs synergize to make spellcasting useless to large parts (web for example only stops enemies on crit fails now) and the handling of spells becomes as difficult as it was in AD&D.

[Morty]

I will of course defer to people with actual play experience, but I am very, very sceptical of the idea that PF2E makes spells too weak. Pathfinder magic has a long way to go before it becomes weak. And here an actual play experience seems to suggest they aren't actually weak.

[Kurald Galain]

I will of course defer to people with actual play experience, but I am very, very sceptical of the idea that PF2E makes spells too weak.

That's easy enough.

The various control spells in P2, like the aforementioned web, have an effect that (1) only works on a crit- failed saving throw, and (2) lasts only one round. Your save DC is fixed (aside from trivially maxing your casting stat) and even mooks will very rarely have more than 5% chance to crit-fail. And as noted above, most of these are short-ranged, putting you in easy melee range.

E.g. Web, a three-action spell, has "Critical Failure: The creature is immobilized until the start of its next turn".

Even without comparing this to other games or editions, strictly within the context of P2 itself, such spells are a waste of your actions, as you could deal HP damage instead. Tactical control effectively doesn't exist in P2.

[NightbringerGGZ]

Yeah, if plinking away with a crossbow starts looking like a better option, I guess things went too far in this direction.

Except that isn't really true for the spellcaster. Yes a dedicated martial build deals more damage with their attack actions than a spell caster does with their cantrips in the early levels, due to action economy. The one exception being Electric Arc, with its ability to hit two targets being roughly equivalent to two attacks at the early levels. For the spellcaster though, a crossbow will give you 1d8 damage whereas your cantrips scale off your casting modifier and usually grant you 1d4+4 damage, or 4.5 average damage against 6.5 average damage (ignoring crits and other factors).

You also should not discount the the new rules for weaknesses, resistances and immunities. Like I mentioned earlier, against a Spider Swarm (Creature 0) Acid Splash in quite effective, gaining a flat +5 to damage due to the creature's weakness. My players were quite happy their wizard had prepared the spell that day, as their weapons weren't terribly effective in that encounter. PF2e definitely assumes that GMs will be introducing factors beyond raw "number against number" into an encounter and you should be taking that into account in your analysis.

Spells in general have been reduced in power, and if you prefer high magic systems I understand why you won't like PF2e. Cantrips in particular are an exception though, and from my analysis and actual experience at the table I can tell you that they do a very good job of providing meaningful early game actions. As you level you should expect to use them less often in combat as you'll have sufficient spell slots to get you through the day and should expect to have some wands and a staff for some of your go-to spells.

But hey, if you just want large numbers I highly recommend playing a Giant Instinct Barbarian and carrying around a large sized weapon. It's a build that is very amusing to see in play.

[Morty]

That's easy enough.

The various control spells in P2, like the aforementioned web, have an effect that (1) only works on a crit- failed saving throw, and (2) lasts only one round. Your save DC is fixed (aside from trivially maxing your casting stat) and even mooks will very rarely have more than 5% chance to crit-fail. And as noted above, most of these are short-ranged, putting you in easy melee range.

E.g. Web, a three-action spell, has "Critical Failure: The creature is immobilized until the start of its next turn".

Even without comparing this to other games or editions, strictly within the context of P2 itself, such spells are a waste of your actions, as you could deal HP damage instead. Tactical control effectively doesn't exist in P2.

Having seen Web trivialize an encounter in 5E, I'm fairly open to the idea of knocking it down a peg. That said, -10 feet of movement on a failed save is indeed not spectacular. It can stop melee opponents from closing in, if placed well. But the range of 30 feet is likewise fairly short.

Except that isn't really true for the spellcaster. Yes a dedicated martial build deals more damage with their attack actions than a spell caster does with their cantrips in the early levels, due to action economy. The one exception being Electric Arc, with its ability to hit two targets being roughly equivalent to two attacks at the early levels. For the spellcaster though, a crossbow will give you 1d8 damage whereas your cantrips scale off your casting modifier and usually grant you 1d4+4 damage, or 4.5 average damage against 6.5 average damage (ignoring crits and other factors).

You also should not discount the the new rules for weaknesses, resistances and immunities. Like I mentioned earlier, against a Spider Swarm (Creature 0) Acid Splash in quite effective, gaining a flat +5 to damage due to the creature's weakness. My players were quite happy their wizard had prepared the spell that day, as their weapons weren't terribly effective in that encounter. PF2e definitely assumes that GMs will be introducing factors beyond raw "number against number" into an encounter and you should be taking that into account in your analysis.

Spells in general have been reduced in power, and if you prefer high magic systems I understand why you won't like PF2e. Cantrips in particular are an exception though, and from my analysis and actual experience at the table I can tell you that they do a very good job of providing meaningful early game actions. As you level you should expect to use them less often in combat as you'll have sufficient spell slots to get you through the day and should expect to have some wands and a staff for some of your go-to spells.

But hey, if you just want large numbers I highly recommend playing a Giant Instinct Barbarian and carrying around a large sized weapon. It's a build that is very amusing to see in play.

I am very, very far away from wanting powerful spells and high magic; most of your arguments shouldn't be directed at me. I simply acknowledge the possibility that it might have gone too far.

[Telok]

T
E.g. Web, a three-action spell, has "Critical Failure: The creature is immobilized until the start of its next turn".

I seriously hope that's supposed to be "until the start of your next turn". Otherwise it's essentially completely useless outside the edge case of monsters that have regular off-turn movement.

[Quertus]

I will of course defer to people with actual play experience, but I am very, very sceptical of the idea that PF2E makes spells too weak. Pathfinder magic has a long way to go before it becomes weak. And here an actual play experience seems to suggest they aren't actually weak.

Um… the actual play experience, plus math applied to scenarios including "this is where this spell seemed best" saying "that's mathematically still terrible"? I'm not sure how else to interpret that information (unless you contend "it's a problem with the module; if the encounters were more level appropriate, the value of the spells would increase relative to the value of other actions", but that is something that would also need math to prove)

Now, to be fair, my last complaint? It wasn't fully mathematically grounded. It's missing 2 pieces of math (one knowingly, one iffy/oops). Can anyone see what it's missing?

[Morty]

I seriously hope that's supposed to be "until the start of your next turn". Otherwise it's essentially completely useless outside the edge case of monsters that have regular off-turn movement.

It means that, if you try to move through a web on your turn and critically fail your save/check, you're stuck and your movement ends. You can attempt an escape, but I don't know how many actions it costs. So it's not useless, but it's arguable if it's strong enough for a critical fail.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes a dedicated martial build deals more damage with their attack actions than a spell caster does with their cantrips in the early levels, due to action economy ... As you level you should expect to use them less often in combat as you'll have sufficient spell slots

So what you're saying is that at low levels you shouldn't use cantrips, and as you level up you shouldn't use cantrips either. I do agree with that.

You appear to have missed that martial damage also scales; at low level the martial deals only twice the damage of a cantrip, at higher levels that goes up to four times as much (yes, charoppers have made charts). Acid Splash is decent against swarms, but only because they have both resistance to weapons and weakness to area effects. Of course, a flask of alchemist fire deals twice as much as Acid Splash...

For the spellcaster though, a crossbow will give you 1d8 damage

There's nothing stopping a spellcaster from using a regular bow. Crossbows suck for the same reason that cantrips do (i.e. requiring two actions for a single attack).

[Albions_Angel]

Wow, I left this thread with very few replies and it exploded.

I'm not really sure what more to say to a lot of the discussion. The maths is correct from the last thread, but it seems to miss... something? I dont know what though.

With crits being +/- 10 from the target DC, I was seeing a lot of them even in the brutally hard module we were playing. I do wonder, with 3 actions and so many enemies having "full action" multi attacks that are just brutal, if the intention isnt for most PF2 games to have encounters with many under leveled mooks that are dangerous in numbers, but individually weak, and then one or 2 high level enemies. Melee can focus the high level threats, trading massive, consistent damage, which leaves the swingy casters to fish for fairly easily achievable crit fails against the mooks.

If that is the case, it is not well put across, especially in plaguestone.

I would also agree that it seems a lot of things in PF2 got nerfed by one team, and simultaneously nerfed by another, leading to a compounding of nerfs. That said, maths doesnt have a handle on fun (mathematically, anything not PunPun is doing it wrong in 3.5e, yet PunPun isnt any fun for anyone). It certainly isnt everyones edition, but I had fun in it, and would want to try it again, perhaps with a homebrew campaign rather than relying on a module that may, or may not, be balanced correctly.

Perhaps it speaks volumes, but I have very little desire to try another Sorc. With so few spell slots, and no ability to hotswap, I dont think I could be an effecting blaster OR a useful batman. I thought with occult spells, I would have a good chance to be a fear sorc, but it just didnt work, and my intimidate was more reliable.

I think a Wizard might well be better. Which is a shame. They had a chance to really power up the sorc relative to the Wiz, and I think they failed.

The two character concepts I DO have, are a swashbuckler, and a witch (both in play test right now), so a caster is still in there. What can I say? When I faced level appropriate enemies, I did well at getting the crit fail effects off and felt effective. When I will get that chance, though, I dont know.