Wizard Class Preview

What I hear:

Deadmanwalking: Creature X - it mean Creature level X - it can be shortened to level

What I try to say:

Diego: Creature X - can be shortened as CR - has nothing to do with the actual number of levels of the creature as creatures don't have levels

That difference is what bug me terribly. It is like when in the rule forum people speak of "flat footed" when a creature dexterity has been denied. Most of the effects are similar, but it is not the same thing. Sooner or later you reach the a point where the two things diverge.

Except that, in PF2, according to the designers Level is the appropriate terminology.

In PF1 Level was, in fact, incorrect, with CR being correct. In PF2, CR is incorrect and Level is correct.

Because they have changed the terminology. In PF2, Level is the appropriate way to refer to what would've been called CR in PF1.

This is one of the major points I was trying to get across, here.

At this point this derail is so far away that it has no reason to stay in the Wizard class preview. I will try to refrain from adding further comments.

I'm perfectly happy to drop the tangent, I just need to be very clear here in terms of what I'm actually saying.

Monsters have levels. You might use that level to determine CR, but they are a Level x monster.

This is a good thing as before you had a weird situation where you used CR to work out CR.

Its semantics really, creaure level sounds wrong and creature challenge rating sounds better, but whatever its makes no essential difference.

Its semantics really, creaure level sounds wrong and creature challenge rating sounds better, but whatever its makes no essential difference.

Unless of course the rules reference Level. Then it is very important to note the distinction.

I also found Challenge Rating weirder than Level. I mean in PF1E you work out the CR of the encounter by performing mathematical functions on the CR of the constituent parts. So you have a formula where CR is on both sides of the =.

Its semantics really, creaure level sounds wrong and creature challenge rating sounds better, but whatever its makes no essential difference.

That's entirely depending on what you're used to. Back in the day (AD&D 1st ed), monster level was a thing distinct from HD, reflecting on what dungeon level the monster would be appropriate.

By using the previewed stat blocks.

I can do the math again...

PF1 level 9 wizard casting fireball vs ogres

Fireball does 9d6, level 3 spell slot, with save DC of 19+, ogres have 30hp and ref +0

PF2, fireball reportedly does 6d6, save DC of 24? ogres have 60 hp and ref +3 (ogres take double damage on 11 or less)

Please keep reading the above until you fully understand, because simply repeating in wrong doesn't change the basic facts we have.
~~

Let's talk MM.

Although the action economy is different, we can still make some comparisons.

At level 1 PF2 MM is arguably better as you can use essentially a full round action to do more damage, however PF2 hp inflation makes this somewhat dubious, but still on average MM at level 1 is better in PF2

At level 3 they are about the same, PF1 you spend one standard action and deal 2d4+2 and PF2 you can spend actions to do less, the same, or more, how inflation probably making this a wash.

Level 5 PF1 becomes superior and then just runs away with it. You begin doing the same or more damage for less actions, without spending higher level spell slots, in an environment that doesn't have hp inflation.

So please bring up a valid counter point instead of just repeating something that isn't true.

A valid counter point is that a 1st lvl magic missile will kill the skeleton easier. So we don't have enough different blasting spells and monsters to have a decently sized sample to make propper conclusions. If you cherry pick the example with the tough, meaty, big ball of hp the ogre is, you will get very different results that if you pick the more fragile and vulnerable to blasting skeltons. Both are cherry picking, because we don't have a clue about how representative those 2 specific monsters are for their respective levels.

Besides that, the GAME as a WHOLE seems to be reducing the "rocket tag" style of PF1. If the fireball reduces it's effectiveness from 80% of the propper CR hp, to, say, 40%, while a martial full round reduces it's effectivenes from 100% to 50%, the fireball is "weaker" than the PF1 version in raw power, but it stays balanced within it's proper context, which is PF2 average damage output. Combats WILL be longer in PF2, that's a design goal. So blast WILL do less damage, because everything will do less damage.

By using the previewed stat blocks.

I can do the math again...

PF1 level 9 wizard casting fireball vs ogres

Fireball does 9d6, level 3 spell slot, with save DC of 19+, ogres have 30hp and ref +0

PF2, fireball reportedly does 6d6, save DC of 24? ogres have 60 hp and ref +3 (ogres take double damage on 11 or less)

Please keep reading the above until you fully understand, because simply repeating in wrong doesn't change the basic facts we have.
~~

Besides that, in this particular example, a lvl 5 wizard would do 5d6 in PF1, with the ogres taking half damage roughly half the time. In PF2 he would do 6d6, with the ogres taking DOUBLE damage roughly half the time. Ogres have twice the hp, but the spell does 6d6 instead of 5d6, making it better.

At lvl 9, a wizard's best slot for blasting would be a lvl 5 cone of cold. In PF1 the cone of cold would do 9d6 (roughly the same than a fireball, a bit more because the DC is a bit higher). While a cone of cold would do 11d6, with a chance to do 22d6. This is a great example of the problem that happens with autoscaling damage in PF1, which makes higher spells irrelevant because autoscaling lower level spells are just as good, if not better (better range and AOE here, for example)

The blasting spells are not worse in PF2. They beat their equivalent in PF1 at the propper levels. What they are, certainly, worse at, is that they don't remain relevant forever because of autoscaling, to the point that they render obsolete higher level spells because the lower level spells are as good or better. A intensified fireball at lvl 4 will always be equal or better than a cone of cold at lvl 6. That's not a bug, that's a feature, and a great goal design.

Blasting spells are not bad in PF2. Just that you need to keep them up to date. If you want to blast, you will need to learn blast spells when you level up, not just rely on Fireball and metamagic for your whole career.

John John wrote:

Its semantics really, creaure level sounds wrong and creature challenge rating sounds better, but whatever its makes no essential difference.

That's entirely depending on what you're used to. Back in the day (AD&D 1st ed), monster level was a thing distinct from HD, reflecting on what dungeon level the monster would be appropriate.

Total, but unlike AD&D, level will be tied to HPs and AC.

Its semantics really, creaure level sounds wrong and creature challenge rating sounds better, but whatever its makes no essential difference.

I like it better in the other way. The challenge rating of a creature might be very different than it's propper level, for a variety of reasons. A high level "oracle style " old sphynx might be really high level (like, high caster level, high skills, high saving throws, etc, because it's "old and powerful"), but be a really low challenge, because it's not a combatant, it's more an expert. In the same way, low level kobolds might suppose a very high challenge, if they fight in adventageous position, in their lair, full of corridors small enough for them to use but not the PC, allowing them to outmaneouver and flank the group, in darkness condition, while the PC have to fight squeezed.

"Challenge rating" is something I feel more associated to the encounter itself. While Level is something I feel asociated to the monster. Not all high level challenges are high level monsters, and not all high level monsters are high level challenges, so I like the distinction.

Anyways, as you say, it's semantics, and some people will like vanilla over chocolate and viceversa.

I'd like to know more about how Reactions are assigned to different classes. I understood that the fighter learns automatically to do attacks of opportunity. The wizard on the other hand, has to learn his counter spell reaction by feat.

Does this mean the wizard has no reaction to utilize at all, if he doesn't learn a feat granting him one?
If so, why the difference? In my opinion, every class should have the possibility to do something as a reaction from the start.

What do we know about the reactions from the rogue, cleric, alchemist and paladin? Do they get a reaction option as part of their 1st level package?

Some equipment (shields) and spells (Shield cantrip) give class agnostic reactions.

"Arbitrary" monster stats are probably based around a level -> stats table depending on monster role, so they aren't just 100% handwaving. There's surely guidelines and rules to ensure your custom monster falls into the desired power level. It also probably recommends some variance, maybe +/- 25% to keep things from getting too predictable.

Going to assume the "brute" role monsters have a table that puts their Attack bonus on par with a fighter of same level, probably has more HP than the fighter (maybe more than barbarian), but has low skills, saves, AC and few abilities so it stays roughly balanced with the martials. I think this is how Ogre was built. It's probably kinda like this for other monsters being connected to other classes, perhaps with some mix and match.

By PF1 guidelines, 1 Ogre would be an "average" fight for a level 3 party, having roughly the power of 1 of the members of the party.

For the CR system to start breaking down like in PF1, you'd need the PC math to start greatly differing from the assumptions used for monster creation. This is bound to happen eventually, but we'll see... We managed to live with it in PF1 by just using higher CRs and can probably do the same here.

That Order of the Stick citation (last page) is really appropriate.

Monster have levels - No - where level is the thing that you level up increasing your experience or gaining levels, that add stuff for each level and so on.

Creature 5 mean Creature Level 5 where that is the difficulty of the challenge and the approximate abilities of the monster - Yes

We have spoken of two different thing for plenty of posts.

- * - * -

Wizards and spells.

By design the maximum level spells of a spellcaster will not be able to one shot a same level PC. That to avoid ambushes by 4 spellcasters killing 3/4 or maybe even all the party. I agree with that.

But then the problems start.
The spell launched by one of those 4 spellcaster will be enough to reliably reduce the same level target to less than 50% health or have a 50% chance of removing him from the combat for a period long enough that he killing him will not be a problem?
Yes - those 4 spellcasters will kill half of the party in an ambush
No - them go below

The spell launched by one of those 4 spellcaster will be enough to reliably reduce the same level target to less than 65% health or have a 35% chance of removing him from the combat for a period long enough that he killing him will not be a problem?
Yes - those 4 spellcasters will kill one third of the party in an ambush
No - them go below

The spell launched by one of those 4 spellcaster will be enough to reliably reduce the same level target to less than 75% health or have a 25% chance of removing him from the combat for a period long enough that he killing him will not be a problem?
Yes - those 4 spellcasters will kill one fourth of the party in an ambush
No - so those spell are pretty useless.

Now change "spellcaster" to "archer" or PF2 equivalent of "pounce barbarian" or "move and attack twice".
An archer making 4 attacks will deal more or less damage than the highest level spell of a spellcaster? Or to put it another way, 4 archers focus firing during an ambush will be able to kill 0, 1, 2,3 or 4 same level targets?
4 fighters/barbarians moving and attacking twice?

If the main spell can deal a damage equal to 30% of a same target hp, what kind of damage will deal the damaging cantrip? 25%? Even less?

If PF2 is balanced so that 4 same level spellcaster during an ambush are unable to kill more than 1 PC it mean than a specialist using all of his highest level spells will be able to kill only a single same level target. Assuming that both are PC and so probably have access to some healing, it mean that blasting will be practically useless, at the spells will be rapidly depleted, reducing the spellcaster at plinking with the cantrip.
Control spells would work better, as a 25% chance of functioning mean that probably at least one will have full effect. And lower level spells will stay relevant as the save DC increase regularly.

It seem that spells are meant to have a 50% chance of "normal" success against a same level target. Targeting the weak save will increase that, but with 3 spells and 1 specialist spell there is little space for doing that with blaster spells. There is no option to target a "weak Ac" with targeted blasting spells.

To me it seem that a control spellcaster get an huge advantage after a few levels. All his spells stay relevant against same level encounters as the DC increase, while the blaster spells will deal the original damage. The damage that was useful at level 1 will become weak at level 5 and only a nuisance at level 10.

I don't see how the PF2 paradigm will balance that.

Removed a handful of posts.

- * - * -

Wizards and spells.

By design the maximum level spells of a spellcaster will not be able to one shot a same level PC. That to avoid ambushes by 4 spellcasters killing 3/4 or maybe even all the party. I agree with that.

But then the problems start.
The spell launched by one of those 4 spellcaster will be enough to reliably reduce the same level target to less than 50% health or have a 50% chance of removing him from the combat for a period long enough that he killing him will not be a problem?
Yes - those 4 spellcasters will kill half of the party in an ambush
No - them go below

The spell launched by one of those 4 spellcaster will be enough to reliably reduce the same level target to less than 65% health or have a 35% chance of removing him from the combat for a period long enough that he killing him will not be a problem?
Yes - those 4 spellcasters will kill one third of the party in an ambush
No - them go below

The spell launched by one of those 4 spellcaster will be enough to reliably reduce the same level target to less than 75% health or have a 25% chance of removing him from the combat for a period long enough that he killing him will not be a problem?
Yes - those 4 spellcasters will kill one fourth of the party in an ambush
No - so those spell are pretty useless.

Now change "spellcaster" to "archer" or PF2 equivalent of "pounce barbarian" or "move and attack twice".
An archer making 4 attacks will deal more or less damage than the highest level spell of a spellcaster? Or to put it another way, 4 archers focus firing during an ambush will...

In PF, Control spells were like this:

It'd be pretty surprising if Wizards suddenly sucked at using buff spells in PF2 considering that was one of their best options in PF1.

If my playtest experience in the Whispering Cairn was anything to go by, we may be seeing a lot more "spend one action per round concentrating to keep that buff spell* going. ^_^

*In this case, Kyra's bless spell.

Diego Rossi wrote:

- * - * -

Wizards and spells.

By design the maximum level spells of a spellcaster will not be able to one shot a same level PC. That to avoid ambushes by 4 spellcasters killing 3/4 or maybe even all the party. I agree with that.

But then the problems start.
The spell launched by one of those 4 spellcaster will be enough to reliably reduce the same level target to less than 50% health or have a 50% chance of removing him from the combat for a period long enough that he killing him will not be a problem?
Yes - those 4 spellcasters will kill half of the party in an ambush
No - them go below

The spell launched by one of those 4 spellcaster will be enough to reliably reduce the same level target to less than 65% health or have a 35% chance of removing him from the combat for a period long enough that he killing him will not be a problem?
Yes - those 4 spellcasters will kill one third of the party in an ambush
No - them go below

The spell launched by one of those 4 spellcaster will be enough to reliably reduce the same level target to less than 75% health or have a 25% chance of removing him from the combat for a period long enough that he killing him will not be a problem?
Yes - those 4 spellcasters will kill one fourth of the party in an ambush
No - so those spell are pretty useless.

Now change "spellcaster" to "archer" or PF2 equivalent of "pounce barbarian" or "move and attack twice".
An archer making 4 attacks will deal more or less damage than the highest level spell of a spellcaster? Or to put it another way, 4 archers focus firing during an ambush will...

In PF, Control spells were like this:

Colorspray or Sleep took out a person, Colorspray maybe 3 people if close enough.

Sleep up to 4 HD. That can be 4 persons. Or none if they all save.

You are suggesting that same level control spells will have a 50% success rate?
That would mean that same level damaging spells will deal damage on the level of 50% of the hp of a same level target to stay roughly on par.

Arachnofiend wrote:

It'd be pretty surprising if Wizards suddenly sucked at using buff spells in PF2 considering that was one of their best options in PF1.

If my playtest experience in the Whispering Cairn was anything to go by, we may be seeing a lot more "spend one action per round concentrating to keep that buff spell* going. ^_^

*In this case, Kyra's bless spell.

From what I know the idea is that we will not have a plethora of small bonuses to stack up.

Give your allies a small bonus and cast a spell
or
Give your allies a small bonus and move

Either we get some one action spell/cantrip worth using or it will become very restricted. Especially if personal defense spells/cantrips or things like fly require concentration. And maybe a move action to stay in flight.

Either we get some one action spell/cantrip worth using or it will become very restricted. Especially if personal defense spells/cantrips or things like fly require concentration. And maybe a move action to stay in flight.

Ah, yes, flight, I wonder if it will still have manoeuvrability rates, and if non-hovering monsters need to spend an action to remain aloft and such.

If my playtest experience in the Whispering Cairn was anything to go by, we may be seeing a lot more "spend one action per round concentrating to keep that buff spell* going. ^_^

*In this case, Kyra's bless spell.

Some questions about buff spells...

It will be interesting to see the balance they come up with for buff spells. If bless requires concentration then that is a significant nerf from PF1.

Arachnofiend wrote:

It'd be pretty surprising if Wizards suddenly sucked at using buff spells in PF2 considering that was one of their best options in PF1.

If my playtest experience in the Whispering Cairn was anything to go by, we may be seeing a lot more "spend one action per round concentrating to keep that buff spell* going. ^_^

*In this case, Kyra's bless spell.

More nerfing, great /s

Looks great! I like the added versatility this introduces.

Kalindlara wrote:

If my playtest experience in the Whispering Cairn was anything to go by, we may be seeing a lot more "spend one action per round concentrating to keep that buff spell* going. ^_^

*In this case, Kyra's bless spell.

Some questions about buff spells...

Was Bless better than the standard +1 to hit we're accustomed to?
Are you able to cast another spell while concentrating on Bless or another buff spell?

It will be interesting to see the balance they come up with for buff spells. If bless requires concentration then that is a significant nerf from PF1.

+1 conditional bonus to hit for up to one minute (assuming concentration). I'm fairly sure you can cast other spells, though the fight ended before I got to find out.

Gorignak227 wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

If my playtest experience in the Whispering Cairn was anything to go by, we may be seeing a lot more "spend one action per round concentrating to keep that buff spell* going. ^_^

*In this case, Kyra's bless spell.

Some questions about buff spells...

Was Bless better than the standard +1 to hit we're accustomed to?
Are you able to cast another spell while concentrating on Bless or another buff spell?

It will be interesting to see the balance they come up with for buff spells. If bless requires concentration then that is a significant nerf from PF1.

+1 conditional bonus to hit for up to one minute (assuming concentration). I'm fairly sure you can cast other spells, though the fight ended before I got to find out.

This is interesting stuff. I maybe worry that spells are gonna be too weak under a regime like this, but I do think concentration is an interesting tool for spell balance and certainly makes one-off blasting more competitive.

Is bless a two action casting? I feel like a lot of spells that require concentration could maybe stand to have their initial action economy be a little cheaper.

This is interesting stuff. I maybe worry that spells are gonna be too weak under a regime like this, but I do think concentration is an interesting tool for spell balance and certainly makes one-off blasting more competitive.

I agree on both counts. Concentration is actually a pretty fun mechanic but its definitely a huge drawback to casting buff spells.

I have a hard time thinking of a buff that a melee cleric would still want to cast losing an action every round AND with a chance of losing concentration altogether. Maybe Blessing of Fervor pre-PF2 nerf? Definitely not bull strength and such.

I wouldn't assume all buff spells follow Bless's lead.

See, PF2 Bless has a problem: A +1 bonus to hit is much, much, better in PF2 than it was in PF1. It increases everyone's Crit Range by 1 as well as giving a bonus to hit. It's great. Possibly too great as an unrestricted bonus to the whole party on a 1st level spell.

Now, with most spells that give a bonus, they could just reduce that bonus to ameliorate this factor...but Bless gives only a +1. Or raise its level...but Bless is an iconic level one spell. So another solution was needed and making it a concentration spell was picked.

Given Bless's specific circumstances I wouldn't assume all buff spells have a similar restriction. Bull's Strength could instead by 3rd level, or could only provide a +1 to Str based stuff rather than a +2, or several other solutions. Heck, as a single target spell, maybe nobody thought it needed restriction at all.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

This is interesting stuff. I maybe worry that spells are gonna be too weak under a regime like this, but I do think concentration is an interesting tool for spell balance and certainly makes one-off blasting more competitive.

I agree on both counts. Concentration is actually a pretty fun mechanic but its definitely a huge drawback to casting buff spells.

I have a hard time thinking of a buff that a melee cleric would still want to cast losing an action every round AND with a chance of losing concentration altogether. Maybe Blessing of Fervor pre-PF2 nerf? Definitely not bull strength and such.

Divine Power springs immediately to mind if its anything like PF1. Even refunds your action used to concentrate more or less.

I wouldn't assume all buff spells follow Bless's lead.

See, PF2 Bless has a problem: A +1 bonus to hit is much, much, better in PF2 than it was in PF1. It increases everyone's Crit Range by 1 as well as giving a bonus to hit. It's great. Possibly too great as an unrestricted bonus to the whole party on a 1st level spell.

Now, with most spells that give a bonus, they could just reduce that bonus to ameliorate this factor...but Bless gives only a +1. Or raise its level...but Bless is an iconic level one spell. So another solution was needed and making it a concentration spell was picked.

Given Bless's specific circumstances I wouldn't assume all buff spells have a similar restriction. Bull's Strength could instead by 3rd level, or could only provide a +1 to Str based stuff rather than a +2, or several other solutions. Heck, as a single target spell, maybe nobody thought it needed restriction at all.

This is what people have to understand who aren’t familiar with games with a tight control on accuracy numbers such as D&D5 and Starfinder: anything that gives an attack bonus is worth it.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

See, PF2 Bless has a problem: A +1 bonus to hit is much, much, better in PF2 than it was in PF1. It increases everyone's Crit Range by 1 as well as giving a bonus to hit. It's great. Possibly too great as an unrestricted bonus to the whole party on a 1st level spell.

This is what people have to understand who aren’t familiar with games with a tight control on accuracy numbers such as D&D5 and Starfinder: anything that gives an attack bonus is worth it.

As far as balance goes 5th ed has bounded accuracy and Bless still gives 1d4(~2.5) to attacks AND saves.

But that is a good question what do we know about the math in PF2?
Do we still have full BAB to attacks for martials?
Is it much lower numbers than PF1? As low as 5th ed?

As far as balance goes 5th ed has bounded accuracy and Bless still gives 1d4(~2.5) to attacks AND saves.

Bonuses to hit are more important in PF2, since every point of attack bonus effectively turns one miss on a d20 into a critical hit.

But that is a good question what do we know about the math in PF2?

We know a lot actually. What are your specific questions?

Do we still have full BAB to attacks for martials?

All characters add their level to attacks. Martials often get to add some additional bonuses on top of that (Fighter has Master Proficiency in weapons and is thus a +2 on top of level by 3rd level).

Is it much lower numbers than PF1? As low as 5th ed?

It's lower than PF1 in some ways (though not nearly as much as D&D5E), but more importantly the math is much tighter. It varies quite a lot by level, but the range between Level X PCs is much smaller (the very worst 20th level character possible in a skill still has a +17 in that skill, while the best has a +35 or so).

I wouldn't assume all buff spells follow Bless's lead.

See, PF2 Bless has a problem: A +1 bonus to hit is much, much, better in PF2 than it was in PF1. It increases everyone's Crit Range by 1 as well as giving a bonus to hit. It's great. Possibly too great as an unrestricted bonus to the whole party on a 1st level spell.

Now, with most spells that give a bonus, they could just reduce that bonus to ameliorate this factor...but Bless gives only a +1. Or raise its level...but Bless is an iconic level one spell. So another solution was needed and making it a concentration spell was picked.

Given Bless's specific circumstances I wouldn't assume all buff spells have a similar restriction. Bull's Strength could instead by 3rd level, or could only provide a +1 to Str based stuff rather than a +2, or several other solutions. Heck, as a single target spell, maybe nobody thought it needed restriction at all.

Hard to judge. That +1 is extremely good if it change your chance of a critical hit, way less if it don't.

So:
- against higher level opponent that you hit with a 11+ it is a "simple" bonus to hit
- against same level opponents the to hit number of your best attack seem to hoover around 10-11, so it can be a strong critical enhancer, depending on the quality of the AC of the adversary. It can easili increase your critical hit chance by 50-100%.
- against lower level opponents that you hit with 10- it is a critical enhancer, but the effect decrease rapidly. If you hit with 6 and get a critical with 16, adding a +1 mean that your chance to get a critical has increased by 20%.

It is a peculiar curve, so it will require some test to see how it affect your damage.

Assuming Paizo has made the math in way that the 3rd attack is somewhat relevant once in a while at least (because if they didn't, nobody is going to make that 3rd attack ever), then for your first attack hitting with 11+ is pretty much guaranteed. Even if your 3rd attack only hits with 19+, that's 9+ for the first one.

Assuming Paizo has made the math in way that the 3rd attack is somewhat relevant once in a while at least (because if they didn't, nobody is going to make that 3rd attack ever), then for your first attack hitting with 11+ is pretty much guaranteed. Even if your 3rd attack only hits with 19+, that's 9+ for the first one.

Indeed. So far monster stats bear this out, at least for Fighters. The Ogre has a 16 AC. An optimized 3rd level Fighter hits that on a 6 (with his +10 bonus). The Redcap has an AC of 20. An optimized 5th level Fighter hits that on a 7 (with his +13 bonus).

A PC of 3rd level might have an AC of 20 (2 Armor + 4 Dex +3 Level +1 Expert Proficiency) requiring a 10 to hit and be a bit more evasive, while a 5th level level might have a 22 or 23 and likewise be harder to hit (2 Armor +4 Dex +5 Level +1 Expert, and maybe +1 Magic Armor), requiring a 9 or 10 to hit, but optimized PC AC seems slightly higher than monster AC at the same level.

Of course, most PCs won't have absolutely maximal AC either (which is what the above examples are, at least for Dex 18 characters in light armor...A Paladin might manage one point more and shields can increase it as well), and some monsters may have equivalent AC.

They seem likely to be the exception rather than the rule, though.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Assuming Paizo has made the math in way that the 3rd attack is somewhat relevant once in a while at least (because if they didn't, nobody is going to make that 3rd attack ever), then for your first attack hitting with 11+ is pretty much guaranteed. Even if your 3rd attack only hits with 19+, that's 9+ for the first one.

Indeed. So far monster stats bear this out, at least for Fighters. The Ogre has a 16 AC. An optimized 3rd level Fighter hits that on a 6 (with his +10 bonus). The Redcap has an AC of 20. An optimized 5th level Fighter hits that on a 7 (with his +13 bonus).

A PC of 3rd level might have an AC of 20 (2 Armor + 4 Dex +3 Level +1 Expert Proficiency) requiring a 10 to hit and be a bit more evasive, while a 5th level level might have a 22 or 23 and likewise be harder to hit (2 Armor +4 Dex +5 Level +1 Expert, and maybe +1 Magic Armor), requiring a 9 or 10 to hit, but optimized PC AC seems slightly higher than monster AC at the same level.

Of course, most PCs won't have absolutely maximal AC either (which is what the above examples are, at least for Dex 18 characters in light armor...A Paladin might manage one point more and shields can increase it as well), and some monsters may have equivalent AC.

They seem likely to be the exception rather than the rule, though.

So a 3rd level fighter will get a 20% critical chance increase against a Ogre with his first attack, a 100% increase with the second, nothing with the third. The base chance to hit will increase by 6,7% on the first hit, 10% on the second and 20% on the third.

A spellcaster? He probably will not already have a item increasing his attack, so the base level + stat, a +7 to the attack. He will hit on 9+, so the first hit will get a 50% critical chance increase and a 8.3% to hit increase, the second will not get a critical chance increase and a 14,3% to hit increase, the third (if available) a 50% hit increase.

How much that will affect damage is to long to calculate at 8.10 a.m. before work and too variable as we don't know the cantrip damage and casting time and martial weapons have extra effects on critics.

Still, bless seem a good bonus.

A spellcaster? He probably will not already have a item increasing his attack, so the base level + stat, a +7 to the attack. He will hit on 9+, so the first hit will get a 50% critical chance increase and a 8.3% to hit increase, the second will not get a critical chance increase and a 14,3% to hit increase, the third (if available) a 50% hit increase.

Most spellcaster attacks are gonna be against Touch AC, which is 14 on the Ogre and 19 on the Redcap, which make their odds better. Just for clarity.

Diego Rossi wrote:

A spellcaster? He probably will not already have a item increasing his attack, so the base level + stat, a +7 to the attack. He will hit on 9+, so the first hit will get a 50% critical chance increase and a 8.3% to hit increase, the second will not get a critical chance increase and a 14,3% to hit increase, the third (if available) a 50% hit increase.

Most spellcaster attacks are gonna be against Touch AC, which is 14 on the Ogre and 19 on the Redcap, which make their odds better. Just for clarity.

And the percentage effect of Bless lower.

And the percentage effect of Bless lower.

True! Just noting it for clarity.

Diego Rossi wrote:

A spellcaster? He probably will not already have a item increasing his attack, so the base level + stat, a +7 to the attack. He will hit on 9+, so the first hit will get a 50% critical chance increase and a 8.3% to hit increase, the second will not get a critical chance increase and a 14,3% to hit increase, the third (if available) a 50% hit increase.

Most spellcaster attacks are gonna be against Touch AC, which is 14 on the Ogre and 19 on the Redcap, which make their odds better. Just for clarity.

Will casters be able to get Expert, Master, Legendary proficiency on their spell attacks?

Will casters be able to get Expert, Master, Legendary proficiency on their spell attacks?

Yes. It was confirmed in the Cleric Blog. Though Clerics don't get them until later (12th, 16th, and 19th levels respectively). Wizards and others more invested in offensive casting might get them earlier, of course.

Mark Seifter has also stated that on attacks (as opposed to Saves) there's items to help, in order to make up for magic armor and the like.

Weather Report wrote:

Will casters be able to get Expert, Master, Legendary proficiency on their spell attacks?

Yes. It was confirmed in the Cleric Blog. Though Clerics don't get them until later (12th, 16th, and 19th levels respectively). Wizards and others more invested in offensive casting might get them earlier, of course.

Mark Seifter has also stated that on attacks (as opposed to Saves) there's items to help, in order to make up for magic armor and the like.

If they can target TAC, will they not pull ahead of weapon users?

If they can target TAC, will they not pull ahead of weapon users?

In accuracy? It's possible. But their Proficiency bonus does seem to kick in later, and almost all their spell attacks are two actions, which is a pretty big limitation.

Also bear in mind that TAC seems to usually be within a few points of AC this edition, so we'll need to look at the TAC ranges to know how big an advantage it is.

Weather Report wrote:

If they can target TAC, will they not pull ahead of weapon users?

In accuracy? It's possible. But their Proficiency bonus does seem to kick in later, and almost all their spell attacks are two actions, which is a pretty big limitation.

Also bear in mind that TAC seems to usually be within a few points of AC this edition, so we'll need to look at the TAC ranges to know how big an advantage it is.

This makes sense, but I am still leaning towards no TAC.

This makes sense, but I am still leaning towards no TAC.

Well, we know for a fact that Disintegrate targets TAC. Mark also strongly implied that some Cantrips targeted it by noting that telekinetic projectile was a 1d10 damage cantrip at 1st level because it actually targeted normal AC (implying that other, lower damage, ones targeted TAC).

Weather Report wrote:

This makes sense, but I am still leaning towards no TAC.

Well, we know for a fact that Disintegrate targets TAC. Mark also strongly implied that some Cantrips targeted it by noting that telekinetic projectile was a 1d10 damage cantrip at 1st level because it actually targeted normal AC (implying that other, lower damage, ones targeted TAC).

Yes, I like that with no BAB they have brought wizard's accuracy with spell attacks up to par, but I am hesitant about them surpassing fighters. I guess some spells that should be extra accurate (disintegrate) target TAC, but it seems they could represent that without another AC type.

I'm pretty cool with touch AC. A wizard SHOULD be more accurate, because expelling a high level spell slot just to miss completely is much more miserable than missing with an at will attack you do 3 times a round. As long as that spell doesn't outshine the martials too much I think we are good.

I'm pretty cool with touch AC. A wizard SHOULD be more accurate, because expelling a high level spell slot just to miss completely is much more miserable than missing with an at will attack you do 3 times a round. As long as that spell doesn't outshine the martials too much I think we are good.

The only attack cantrip of which I know something do 1d10 damage. Less than a weapon that get to add the strength or dexterity bonus and often will have additional effects on a critical. I doubt that will outshine martials at all, even if it target TAC.

Spells will be a limited quantity, so yes, they need to outshine an attack from a same level martial. If the spell require two actions it should outshine the average damage of 2 martial attacks.

They can outshine martials attack by range or thanks specials effects, not necessarily damage, but if a archer can fire two shots with two actions and repeat that teen or twenty (with a reserve quiver) times, a spell that can repeated four times at most should do something more.

As a GM, I personally find the counterspell mechanics to be a great option to throw at my players.

Previously, I'd need to have an NPC ready their action to counterspell. Now, I can use it as a reaction instead.

This means that any higher level boss fights I prep will probably have two player level -2 NPC wizards (or later, perhaps sorcerers), two player level -2 attack mooks, and the player level +1 boss for a total of an APL+2 encounter.

With 2 reactive counterspells per round, the NPC wizards theoretically shut down many of the party spellcaster's actions bar their highest level spells, but still contribute on their own turn as well.

I see the counterspell mechanics as being a boon to the GM, rather than the player.

With 2 reactive counterspells per round, the NPC wizards theoretically shut down many of the party spellcaster's actions bar their highest level spells, but still contribute on their own turn as well.

Due to how Counterspell works, this assumes the enemy Wizards either have perfect (or at least really good) intelligence on PC capabilities or the GM is basically cheating by making them omniscient.

Neither is precisely normal.

Or, if you're assuming they can shut PCs down without having the perfect spell prepared, then PCs can presumably acquire that capability as well, and be very useful indeed with counterspelling themselves.

With 2 reactive counterspells per round, the NPC wizards theoretically shut down many of the party spellcaster's actions bar their highest level spells, but still contribute on their own turn as well.

Or you have players with counterspells and all that happens is the casters stare at each other, and throw away spell slots, while the fighting types actually DO something...

That's kinda why I'm worried about counterspelling being good enough to use, honestly. Mechanics that revolve around ensuring nothing happens are just not very fun. The Counterspell Wizard in the 5e campaign I used to be in was so bored with his job that he switched to a Fighter.

That's kinda why I'm worried about counterspelling being good enough to use, honestly. Mechanics that revolve around ensuring nothing happens are just not very fun. The Counterspell Wizard in the 5e campaign I used to be in was so bored with his job that he switched to a Fighter.

Unless most enemies also have Counterspell, it being a Reaction mostly solves this, as you have your own action to actually do things with.