| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are not meant to be on the level of dedicated damaging martials.
Man people really don't like to read.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's one thing I mainly disagree from most people perspective that is "diversity compensate the lack of precision and firepower of the caster". Sorry but no it does't compensate.
Casters in general already suffers from many "penalties" compared to martials:
- They usually have less AC
- Less HP
- Usually are forced to invest in dex just to improve their own defenses and reflexes
- Although of being able to be legendary in the first 14 levels they proficiency is basically inferior to martials (and to martial like monsters)
- Even those casters that becomes legendary in will saves usually don't invest in wiz due MAD making then usually mediocre in all saves
- They cannot benefit from runes
- The shadow signet alternative requires that you know or use actions trying to RK (and depending from how the GM interpret what you can know from a RK) or deduct the opponent weakest saves and counts as a metamagic preventing them from use some of their abilities (specially the psychic amps)
- The other alternative that's the True Strike uses an action and is limited to the number of lvl 1 spellslots you have and even using a staff to improve the number os uses unless the caster is a high-level Staff Nexus Wizard you haven't enough uses when you are exploring a dungeon/fortress with around 10 encounters that endure around 3-4 rounds.
So no! The diversity don't compensate the PF2 spellcasters weaknesses and idiosyncrasies. The spellslots are basically a bunch of daily limit uses per day of spells that many of them only works at your highest spellslot level, the spellattacks alone are jokes and only the focus spells from some classes can save.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attack Spells aren't as far off as people make it seem, but the reality is that even I as the GM feel a bit bad for the players when they miss, especially when they don't have many spell slots.
I would totally be down for some miss-mitigation mechanics to take the edge off, like splash damage does for bombs, and certain martial feats do for melee attacks. I think the space for that is wide open, too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And here I thought we were past the Casters are so weak threads era.
Same arguments ad nauseam by entrenched camps.
I will adequately commiserate with the caster who uses only spell attacks. But I will be tempted to ask why they decided to reject all the many other possibilities open by magic to which martials just cannot compare.
And if they just want to hit and damage, why they don't play martials.
Including Magus and Eldritch Archer if they absolutely need the rush of waggling their fingers while shouting faux-latin nonsense.
And then I guess I will have to contend with those who want to do this without suffering from AoOs.
This again?
This is not a flaw in the system. But a point of balance. Casters are not meant to be on the level of dedicated damaging martials.
I'm getting pretty sick of this strawman. People that are complaining specifically about attack roll spells just want them to be on par with save spells. If save spells do less damage than martials, then logically people who want attack roll spells to do equivalent damage to save spells want them to do less damage than martials.
The fact that they're "balanced" by clunky things like True Strike and Shadow Signet is part of the problem by the way.
First it's not a straw man
Second you are ignoring
Raw recall knowledge
Average saves being better than ac
How easy it is for a party to influence AC and to hit over saves
But I forget this is a 1v1 game
There's one thing I mainly disagree from most people perspective that is "diversity compensate the lack of precision and firepower of the caster". Sorry but no it does't compensate.
Casters in general already suffers from many "penalties" compared to martials:
- They usually have less AC
- Less HP
- Usually are forced to invest in dex just to improve their own defenses and reflexes
- Although of being able to be legendary in the first 14 levels they proficiency is basically inferior to martials (and to martial like monsters)
- Even those casters that becomes legendary in will saves usually don't invest in wiz due MAD making then usually mediocre in all saves
- They cannot benefit from runes
- The shadow signet alternative requires that you know or use actions trying to RK (and depending from how the GM interpret what you can know from a RK) or deduct the opponent weakest saves and counts as a metamagic preventing them from use some of their abilities (specially the psychic amps)
- The other alternative that's the True Strike uses an action and is limited to the number of lvl 1 spellslots you have and even using a staff to improve the number os uses unless the caster is a high-level Staff Nexus Wizard you haven't enough uses when you are exploring a dungeon/fortress with around 10 encounters that endure around 3-4 rounds.So no! The diversity don't compensate the PF2 spellcasters weaknesses and idiosyncrasies. The spellslots are basically a bunch of daily limit uses per day of spells that many of them only works at your highest spellslot level, the spellattacks alone are jokes and only the focus spells from some classes can save.
It does when you start viewing this is a cooperative game instead of looking it as them vs you
Average saves being better than ac
This is easily showed in this spreadsheet in the Classes vs Monsters tab.
Basically casters have a lower hit rate than all martial except from lvl 1. And monster saves in avg always better than AC in general.
Average saves being better than acThis is easily showed in this spreadsheet in the Classes vs Monsters tab.
Basically casters have a lower hit rate than all martial except from lvl 1. And monster saves in avg always better than AC in general.
Ty for providing evidence to my point
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attack Spells aren't as far off as people make it seem
They aren't the worst in terms of total accuracy, especially earlier in the game. But it still adds up and it's part of this sort of triple whammy of non-cantrips being resource-limited, spells being action-intensive, and alternative (i.e. save granting) spells tending to have failure effects while attack-based spells usually don't. They also tend to be single target effects, which paradoxically makes them best used on powerful solo enemies despite those also being the sort of enemy that renders them the most unreliable.
It's the combination of all those factors that make them problematic and contrast with other parts of PF2's design, where stuff like save-based spells are highly reliable but limited, while other attack options tend to be somewhat less reliable (but still moreso than spell attacks) but more flexible on action and resource economy.
But supposedly this is actually Really Well Balanced And Totally Fun Guys I Swear because you can...
Pretend they don't exist and cast a different spell instead.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does when you start viewing this is a cooperative game instead of looking it as them vs you
Isn't really a question of seem a cooperative games as a competitive game. It's a question of frustration of not being useful and efficient in what you want to do.
If you are a Bard and your main strategy is basically buff and heal allies. OK you don't care too much. But when you are playing with psychic or a offensive druid and you fell weak isn't good sentiment. I have players who gave up from casters because they simply fells weak and I also have players that are happier to only support with them.
Be a cooperative game doesn't excuses the weakness and unbalances.
It does when you start viewing this is a cooperative game instead of looking it as them vs youIsn't really a question of seem a cooperative games as a competitive game. It's a question of frustration of not being useful and efficient in what you want to do.
If you are a Bard and your main strategy is basically buff and heal allies. OK you don't care too much. But when you are playing with psychic or a offensive druid and you fell weak isn't good sentiment. I have players who gave up from casters because they simply fells weak and I also have players that are happier to only support with them.
Be a cooperative game doesn't excuses the weakness and unbalances.
This has to be a perception issue. My fellow players as spell casters clean house with damage options and as a DM they are easily the highest damaging character in the party that also has a flurry ranger, ruffian rogue and a gunslinger.
They have been nothing short of invaluable from damage to support to utility and helping the martials ensure they are not smashing their face into a brick wall.
I'm just, personally, not seeing an actual issue
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But supposedly this is actually Really Well Balanced And Totally Fun Guys I Swear because you can...
Pretend they don't exist and cast a different spell instead.
Or spend an action or two figuring out how to exploit the tactical situation of the encounter (buffing and debuffing for yourself and Allie’s) or likely have something on hand that will do more damage by targeting a weakness or force a monster to have to waste actions moving or preventing a PC from stealing something they care about, or introduce a new element to the encounter that changes the goals of everyone in it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This always seems to be missed in the discussions about Spell Attack Rolls.
Just take Ranger Dedication and pick up a Hunter's Arrowhead for a +1 Item Bonus on your Spell Attack Rolls against your Hunted Prey.
It's available in PFS, and for homegames you just petition your GM.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My acid arrow example above does not require true strike to be better than fireball, it only requires flat footed to be better than fireball vs a boss monster. Any kind of status bonuses to attack shift acid arrow even further. AND hero points exist in the game pretty much for the all important nova attack vs the boss (martial or caster). They cannot effect saving throw spells.
The thing is “average” monsters don’t exist. They all have strengths and weaknesses. Casters niche is having the tools to exploit that.
But as we see over and over again on these threads, some players are just looking for the option that is almost always going to be the easiest/obvious best action to perform when nothing else is known about the situation or enemy. PF2 does a very good job of making sure that option will never come close to matching the action that exploits the situation’s strengths and weaknesses.
My answer was to the thread in general, not to your example specifically. And even in your specific example I still think it holds true, depending on my party composition and enemies. If I, for example, have someone who really likes tripping people or one-handed fighter with Snagging Strike or I'm expected to fight oozes, spell attack rolls get into the competition again. As a caster, especially the flat-footed condition isn't really in your hands.
But the choice of what spells to take is not made during that combat situation, but waaaay earlier. So unless I can be certain that I have a decent shot at actually making a spell worth the spell slot it came from, I'm not taking that spell, unless I would be extremely boned by not having that spell. That's not even looking for the "best in slot" spell, that is simply trying not to waste your most precious resources on unnecessary gambles.
At the end of the day, your spell selection is always some variant of gamble. Spell attack rolls - barring excellent party synergy - are just a bigger one for no apparent reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell attack roll spells usually only require a flat footed enemy to be the superior option to saving throw spells in the white room scenario against single targets (which is what attack roll spells are designed for). Bonuses to attack exist in abundance in PF2.
The premise that attack roll spells are worse across the board than save spells is because everyone is looking at electric arc against 2 enemies as the comparison, and the fact that the game itself self selects saving throw spells over spell attack roll spells at higher levels, largely because shocking grasp is already at the top of what single target spells can do for damage at any level (2d12 starting with a heightening of a d12 every level).
It is flatly a false premise, but spell attack roll spells are much swingier on damage and experience higher highs and more frequent lows. They are gambler spells and gambling without tactics or strategy is usually a bad idea.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or spend an action or two figuring out how to exploit the tactical situation of the encounter (buffing and debuffing for yourself and Allie’s) or likely have something on hand that will do more damage by targeting a weakness or force a monster to have to waste actions moving or preventing a PC from stealing something they care about, or introduce a new element to the encounter that changes the goals of everyone in it.
Yes, cast a different spell entirely. That's what I said.
However, if we allow spell attack rolls to match martial accuracy, you suddenly have someone that can blast as well as the martials as well as take over your mind.
You wanna know what's the most absolutely insane part here? You might wanna sit down before you read this:
But if that's not bad enough... It also gave us an item that could give any spellcaster (except the psychic lmao) an even more extreme bonus to spell attacks, sometimes upwards of +4 or 5 in certain circumstances... and it stacks with other attack buffs! What???
I guess PF2's actually been Completely Ruined since last year. Go figure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess PF2's actually been Completely Ruined since last year. Go figure.
Please mark as irony if not will have some people really believing in this! kkkkkkkk
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, people, I'm sure we can do this while being a little less confrontational and sarcastic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly dunno if y'all can. But I'll probably leave this thread as I already sense there is no compromise or understanding being sought.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because white room theorycraft can give you your to hit % and damage curves but it will never tell you how powerful, in terms of practical gameplay, is your ability to teleport, dispel magic, conjure cozy huts, summon stuff, shadow walk, create walls etc. etc.This point has been glossed over because of the confrontational presentation (that was kinda harsh), but it is incredibly important. There are a zillion arguments proving decisively that RAW spell attack rolls never match up with martial attacks or save spells.
So?
They absolutely SHOULDN'T, because spellcasters have a versatility that can not be charted in a spreadsheet. You can't easily chart how much of a difference /HAVING/ Save spells is. If the spellcaster with Produce Flame also has Electric Arc, how do we factor in potentially switching to EA? You can't without knowing what the caster decides, and that will be a function of conditions on the ground. There are too many variables in combat to be able to White Room having a bunch of options.
Someone earlier asked about how low spell attack rolls would make a newer player not want to play a full spellcaster. I would respond to that with "Why would you want to give a newer player a full spellcaster?" That is at minimum SIX different mechanics for the player to learn (four cantrips and two first level spells), ignoring anything specific to the class, at level one. That is NOT the formula for an easy time for a new player.
It also conveniently demonstrates the options differences between a spellcaster and a martial and why its a bad idea to boost spell attack rolls. Yes, it is easy to wrap your mind around hitting and less so more abstract topics like options versatility. Yes, missing always sucks. However, if we allow spell attack rolls to match martial accuracy, you suddenly have someone that can blast as well as the martials as well as take over your mind.
That's not balanced, and the imbalance is not going to show on a Google Sheet.
It hasn't been glossed over. There are several points addressing it directly.
To put a bit of a bow on it however, your arguement is basically the specialization vs generalists one. Wherein martials having a narrowing field of focus means that they get rewards and perks for that, whereas the generalists payoff is there access to utility.
This is both fine and correct as an assumption. And it is indeed present already in almost every aspect of the class design.
The standard caster chassis is weaker in virtually every way to that of the standard martial. That is part of the cost they pay. Caster resources are also limited in a way that martial resources generally are not. Casters generally also have less interaction with the action econom of the game, as most spells are two-actions and can't be easily or often spend up.
The argument being presented here is that Spell Attack Rolls are atypically bad even already accounting for all of this.
Spell Attack Rolls
- Target something which is scaled both of martial progression and on the assumption of access to runes.
- Don't have failure riders like other spells
- Don't generally outperform other damaging spells when they do hit
- Can only be done a limited number of items per day.
- Many supplimental bonuses to attack don't effect them already
They are an underclass of spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly dunno if y'all can. But I'll probably leave this thread as I already sense there is no compromise or understanding being sought.
Not really wrong, though I think there is still value in seeing each side's arguments. For example, mine and Unicore's argument is not strictly about spell attack rolls, but boils down to what level of "gambling" you are willing to accept in your spell selection. I, personally, find that interesting.
Or spend an action or two figuring out how to exploit the tactical situation of the encounter (buffing and debuffing for yourself and Allie’s) or likely have something on hand that will do more damage by targeting a weakness or force a monster to have to waste actions moving or preventing a PC from stealing something they care about, or introduce a new element to the encounter that changes the goals of everyone in it.Yes, cast a different spell entirely. That's what I said.
However, if we allow spell attack rolls to match martial accuracy, you suddenly have someone that can blast as well as the martials as well as take over your mind.You wanna know what's the most absolutely insane part here? You might wanna sit down before you read this:
** spoiler omitted **
I guess PF2's actually been Completely Ruined since last year. Go figure.
spending an action or even a whole round to set up a spell attack roll spell that has a 20% chance or more of being a critical hit against a level +2 enemy is not choosing not to cast spell attack roll spells at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing for the other side for a moment, one thing spell attack roll spells generally enjoy is greater range compared to other single-target spells. That evens out considerably at later spell levels, but still.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is flatly a false premise, but spell attack roll spells are much swingier on damage and experience higher highs and more frequent lows. They are gambler spells and gambling without tactics or strategy is usually a bad idea.
That would be all well and good if the reward was worth it.
At almost every level you are more likely to critically fail your spell attack roll than critically succeed. You don't get any do-overs on the spell, or the resources spent on it (like true strike) if it still fails.
That is also not a good way to design a "gamble" spell. If you wanted something like that, it would be a flat check with no modifers.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly dunno if y'all can. But I'll probably leave this thread as I already sense there is no compromise or understanding being sought.
Compromise is a 2 way street though. Have you compromised any or intend to? If not, why would you expect others to do so?
Ok, people, I'm sure we can do this while being a little less confrontational and sarcastic.
Snarkiness often IS the compromise from what you'd really like to say. ;)
It is flatly a false premise, but spell attack roll spells are much swingier on damage and experience higher highs and more frequent lows. They are gambler spells and gambling without tactics or strategy is usually a bad idea.That would be all well and good if the reward was worth it.
At almost every level you are more likely to critically fail your spell attack roll than critically succeed. You don't get any do-overs on the spell, or the resources spent on it (like true strike) if it still fails.
That is also not a good way to design a "gamble" spell. If you wanted something like that, it would be a flat check with no modifers.
Aren't these two statements contradictory?
"At almost every level, you are more likely to critically fail your spell attack roll than critically succeed," is only true without any tactical application of status and circumstance bonuses and penalties. (as clearly demonstrated against a level +2 enemy above) It is more true for saving throw spells than it is for spell attack rolls in actual play that you will get the worse critical effect than the best critical effect.
Thus, "if you wanted something like [gambler's spells], it would be a flat check with no modifiers," is like walking into a casino and thinking you have a better chance of winning on a roulette wheel or slot machines, than you do playing poker at a table full of other players.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't they use Shadow Signet?
You can't apply metamagic to a spell which has an amp on it. So you would need to use it either/or.
Which means if Shadow Signet is meant to be the answer to accuracy issues, one of the psychics core mechanics is working against that option.
That said, I'm not read up on the psychic enough yet to know if Mindshift spells actually help counter that.
|
|
Aren't these two statements contradictory?
"At almost every level, you are more likely to critically fail your spell attack roll than critically succeed," is only true without any tactical application of status and circumstance bonuses and penalties. (as clearly demonstrated against a level +2 enemy above) It is more true for saving throw spells than it is for spell attack rolls in actual play that you will get the worse critical effect than the best critical effect.
Thus, "if you wanted something like [gambler's spells], it would be a flat check with no modifiers," is like walking into a casino and thinking you have a better chance of winning on a roulette wheel or slot machines, than you do playing poker at a table full of other players.
I could have parsed that better!
What I was driving that was, if we really wanted spells which functioned with a gambling mechanic in mind, we shouldn't use the existing spell structure, and instead have a pure probabalistic determination. A flat check being the natural option for that.
That said, when it comes whiterooming, shouldn't we just assume people are doing what they can to maximise results that don't involve GM oversight (rare items & spells, etc)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly dunno if y'all can. But I'll probably leave this thread as I already sense there is no compromise or understanding being sought.Compromise is a 2 way street though. Have you compromised any or intend to? If not, why would you expect others to do so?
Ok, people, I'm sure we can do this while being a little less confrontational and sarcastic.Snarkiness often IS the compromise from what you'd really like to say. ;)
My compromise was not being snarky and combative and walking away from what's amounting to cherry picking your data for classes that does so much more than white board math
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of out of combat utility like teleporting and such can be outsourced to a martial with an archetype feat or a skill feat and some gold for a scroll.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To put a bit of a bow on it however, your arguement is basically the specialization vs generalists one. Wherein martials having a narrowing field of focus means that they get rewards and perks for that, whereas the generalists payoff is there access to utility.
This is both fine and correct as an assumption. And it is indeed present already in almost every aspect of the class design.
The standard caster chassis is weaker in virtually every way to that of the standard martial. That is part of the cost they pay. Caster resources are also limited in a way that martial resources generally are not. Casters generally also have less interaction with the action econom of the game, as most spells are two-actions and can't be easily or often spend up.
No, that still does not. The argument is "The numerical white board math you are citing as an inequity is balanced by a utility that you can not quantify".
As such, listing more numerical white board math does not, in fact, respond to my point, because I'm going to simply say, as a response to "but you are physically weaker"... illusions, dimensional travel, and summoning demons.
It's still balanced.
If, by your reasoning, we can't sqaure the relative value of these things, how do you arrive at the conclusion its balanced?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of out of combat utility like teleporting and such can be outsourced to a martial with an archetype feat or a skill feat and some gold for a scroll.
Not a lot. But some. It's more clunky, and much more costly. Perhaps my games merely have less income than yours on average. Archetype feat cuts into what your class can do in other ways at the cost of heavy investment and half the payout at best as an actual caster.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't these two statements contradictory?
"At almost every level, you are more likely to critically fail your spell attack roll than critically succeed," is only true without any tactical application of status and circumstance bonuses and penalties. (as clearly demonstrated against a level +2 enemy above) It is more true for saving throw spells than it is for spell attack rolls in actual play that you will get the worse critical effect than the best critical effect.
Thus, "if you wanted something like [gambler's spells], it would be a flat check with no modifiers," is like walking into a casino and thinking you have a better chance of winning on a roulette wheel or slot machines, than you do playing poker at a table full of other players.
I could have parsed that better!
What I was driving that was, if we really wanted spells which functioned with a gambling mechanic in mind, we shouldn't use the existing spell structure, and instead have a pure probabalistic determination. A flat check being the natural option for that.
That said, when it comes whiterooming, shouldn't we just assume people are doing what they can to maximise results that don't involve GM oversight (rare items & spells, etc)
In the interest of creating an environment of debate that advances conversations instead of attempting to squash opposition, I want to be sure to thank you OMR for also fostering a friendly environment where we focus on discussing ideas. Thank you Old Man Robot, and everyone else that is trying to help understand how the mechanics work, why, and why some players might find that frustrating. All of this is worthwhile, thank you.
Saving Throw spells can get better odds than spell attack roll spells when lined up against weak saves. When you can do that, it is definitely worth having some different spells that target different saves because any monster that has a low save can be exploited for sure.
But the kind of tactical buffing and debuffing that can effect spell attack roll spells can be easier to achieve (like when confronting a rare or unique enemy that might be a boss), and can swing things by a lot. You can't get circumstance bonuses or status bonuses to your Spell saving throw DCs. You can to attack rolls. Circumstance penalties to saving throws are also difficult to manage, while flat-footed is not. This can swing Spell Attacks by 4 points at low levels to 6 or even 8 points by highest levels, all without knowing what defense to target.
Part of the reason I like Wizards so much is that they get enough spells to actually be able to take advantage of all of these situations. Having one decent spell attack roll spell and true strike memorized becomes something like a 1/7th or 1/8th of your spell investment at higher levels. Often, against things like oozes and golems, a spell attack cantrip with a true strike can be more useful based on damage type than a higher level spell.
A well prepared caster should also have plenty of spells for targeting saves, giving buffs, controlling the battlefield, and doing other things that make each combat round a new tactical situation to consider.
Trying to overspecialize around any one spell as a caster is likely to lead to a lot of player frustration.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"But what about electric arc.." is the more common "what about" I hear and it reminds me of the bows situation. Players love having at least one easy option that is easy to visualize a successful and efficient path with. PF2 provides this with classes, with weapons, with skills, and with spells. Electric Arc is the short bow of spells, just like Fighter is the short bow of classes, just like athletics, medicine and intimidation are the short bows of skills. Just like truestrike is the short bow of spell attack roll fixes.
I've been saying for years they need to nerf the shortbow.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A well prepared caster should also have plenty of spells for targeting saves, giving buffs, controlling the battlefield, and doing other things that make each combat round a new tactical situation to consider.
I do think this is a bit of a weakness that all spellcasters are this involved without any buy-in.
I personally play an ancestors oracle and I thrive in overly complex turns and carefully using the correct spell to nudge the encounter in our favour but everytime I introduce people to the system and they pick casters their mind doesn't go to "what is the correct way to play this character according to the meta and research by other players" it's mostly "fireball sounds like a cool spell I want to use".
It feels a bit bad to have to say to players that they are playing the game wrong for not having a contingency for every situation when they probably didn't sign up for playing Batman but rather "magic fireball man".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real question this thread needs to answer is why is it single-handedly responsible for driving up daily post volume 300% at the same time all the other threads are also seeing big activity increases.
What dark silver is funding this Desna-turfed fight for stronger spell attack rolls?
I think spell attack rolls are ok per se. The problem is most attack roll spells are just bad spells (consider most of them are CRB spells, we've got very few attack roll spells overall).
Spells that allow you to make a spell attack roll for 1 action are really good, Scorching Ray is fantastic for its level, Horizon Thunder Sphere is decent when casted using 3 actions...
Casters are in a fine spot, and are destined to get stronger, as spells will be added at a faster rate than feats for current martials. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I'm not read up on the psychic enough yet to know if Mindshift spells actually help counter that.
There are no mindshift spells, just abilities. They do damage against either a reflex or will save, but they don't benefit from psyche damage while they are limited to being used during psyche.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell attack rolls might be worth it against a +2 enemy with just flatfooted and a net +2 to attack, but a +2 enemy also isn't a threat by itself. If there are underlings, AoE wins. If there's a second +2, AoE wins. If it's a +3 or +4 boss, you do actually need true strike to pull ahead and it's not by much, especially at +4.
Why bother with a spell that will only be marginally better in a very particular situation when you can be 95+% effective in the same scenario while also covering others that the attack spell will never be able to perform well in?
That's ignoring, of course, that martials scale faster than casters and you'll have plenty of levels where you'll be even further behind.
This has been whiteroomed to hell and back here and elsewhere. Outside of some truly brutal bonuses with shadow signet plus true strike you're not going to get the kind of mileage on attack spells that you need to justify preparing or learning them on a non-magus.
Spell attack rolls might be worth it against a +2 enemy with just flatfooted and a net +2 to attack, but a +2 enemy also isn't a threat by itself. If there are underlings, AoE wins. If there's a second +2, AoE wins. If it's a +3 or +4 boss, you do actually need true strike to pull ahead and it's not by much, especially at +4.
Why bother with a spell that will only be marginally better in a very particular situation when you can be 95+% effective in the same scenario while also covering others that the attack spell will never be able to perform well in?
That's ignoring, of course, that martials scale faster than casters and you'll have plenty of levels where you'll be even further behind.
This has been whiteroomed to hell and back here and elsewhere. Outside of some truly brutal bonuses with shadow signet plus true strike you're not going to get the kind of mileage on attack spells that you need to justify preparing or learning them on a non-magus.
I wouldn't go that far. Ray of Frost should be in every caster's repertoire because it is practically the only cantrip with greater than 30 foot range and having that tool is important. My battle oracle also sees a lot of merit to Blood Feast, though he will spam True Strike with it and once he can afford the Shadow Signet will use Vision of Weakness to fish out the best value to hit.
But yeah, generally I prefer saving throws.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real question this thread needs to answer is why is it single-handedly responsible for driving up daily post volume 300% at the same time all the other threads are also seeing big activity increases.
What dark silver is funding this Desna-turfed fight for stronger spell attack rolls?
People getting ready for GenCon and researching character options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally play an ancestors oracle and I thrive in overly complex turns and carefully using the correct spell to nudge the encounter in our favour but everytime I introduce people to the system and they pick casters their mind doesn't go to "what is the correct way to play this character according to the meta and research by other players" it's mostly "fireball sounds like a cool spell I want to use".
It feels a bit bad to have to say to players that they are playing the game wrong for not having a contingency for every situation when they probably didn't sign up for playing Batman but rather "magic fireball man".
You take one of my points there!
...
Trying to overspecialize around any one spell as a caster is likely to lead to a lot of player frustration.
Playing caster creating complex strategies is cool, interesting and helpful but isn't for everyone. Many people just want to blow their opponents away with their spells and go on.
So when a new player see the spellcaster like wizard most of them thinks "cool I can create a caster that can fireball and lightning everyone" but rapidly notice that not even in the best case he/she can do this a bunch of times and need to save their best spellslot to some more dangerous situation that they don't really know when will happen and even if will happen that day. And many times just giveup from the spellcasters.
Now after the release of the psychic these same kind of players that just want to blowup their opponents finally saw a class that could allow them to do this freely but rapidly notice that this class simply will becoming behind again because their attack don't progress well and not even can use the shadow signet (that is alone an item that requires a complex tactic) and falls in frustration again.
Michael Sayre understand and explained this whell in the firearms topic. Many if not most players don't seek the most complex or interesting weapon but it's the opposite they usually prefer the most simple and effective one. That's the why the bows are the most prefered long-range weapon because they fall perfectly in this case because for the people that just want a weapon where they can simple attack, attack and kill there's no better weapon them they.
Same happen to spellcasters. That's why I see a bunch of requests of Kineticists in "what new class do you want" topics. Because many people just want a class that can simple blowup everything effectively and now that we have some pseudo-kineticist it's frustrated these kind of players because it's already ineffective by design.
A lot of out of combat utility like teleporting and such can be outsourced to a martial with an archetype feat or a skill feat and some gold for a scroll.Not a lot. But some. It's more clunky, and much more costly. Perhaps my games merely have less income than yours on average. Archetype feat cuts into what your class can do in other ways at the cost of heavy investment and half the payout at best as an actual caster.
I think in midway from you both. Most out of combat utility is accessible without spellcaster just using gold and the right equipment and skills but it isn't cheap, that's why almost all partys want's at last 1 spellcaster.
Oh boy...
This always will happen every time that Paizo release some new book that can create a perspective for casters to be more offensive efficiently without too much complication but this perspective was frustrated by some detail in the mechanics has always.