One gap in my strategy guide is how to use persistent damage.
Are there reasonable tactics for inflicting persistent damage and hiding or running away?
I ask because I really haven't used or seen used persistent damage successfully as a player (only as a GM). Because monsters just don't really last long enough. AFAICT it is just a nice little bonus for a round or two at best. Has anyone had better success with it as a player?
Persistent ticking for two rounds will do 10 damage to a creature with a minor weakness; the energy damage runes are seen as exceptional because they add 3.5. You aren't looking to kill enemies with DOTs like an Affliction Warlock but I definitely never felt Alchemical Shot was a waste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Small amounts of persistent damage are a cute little damage buff. It may help get enemies to die one or two attacks sooner. But maybe not.
What I like persistent damage for is action wasting. If I can cast a spell like Phantom Pain or Blistering Invective and have an enemy spend a couple actions lowering the DC of the persistent damage removal - that is a huge benefit. But to do that, it usually needs to be a rather large amount of persistent damage that the enemy actually wants to avoid taking.
It's OK vs a boss with weakness to hedge against bad attack RNG extending the fight too much, but that's all I've ever really seen it used for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally speaking, if Persistent Damage is a big part of your routine, you want to hit something that hasn't been focused on by the group yet. Classic example from my experience: we were up against large twin beasties. First round my L2 Bomber hit the *second* beastie with a Lesser Acid Flask. Then he moved on to hitting the one the group was ganging up on with Round 2.
That Bomb ended up doing something like 8d6+2 before the fight ended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally value Persistent damage at the same level than normal damage when I calculate damage output. So ticking once on average, because it's what I've seen.
I don't think I'd ever base a party on persistent damage, values are not high enough for that. On top of it, you can't combine it with the same element (you can't throw a barrage of Acid Bombs before running away), so you need each and every character to have a strong Persistent damage ability that is not dealing the same type of damage (Bleed and Acid are the most common persistent damage types).
If you go in that direction, I think Poison (which is very close to Persistent damage mechanically) is a better idea. If you have a party full of piercing/slashing damage (2-weapon characters, archers) you can very quickly increase stages. Level 8+ poison do more damage than Persistent damage and it encourages all the party to use the same poison. So, unlike Persistent damage, you don't need each and every character to be focused on it, you can combine the same poison multiple times, etc... But even with Poison, I'd not focus on it but just benefit from the situation if I'm ever in such a party.
Generally speaking, if Persistent Damage is a big part of your routine, you want to hit something that hasn't been focused on by the group yet.
Numbers over efficiency. Focus fire is definitely a strategy the whole party should commit to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you focus fire multiple persistent damage types on a single boss enemy, that damage adds up quick.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like it's part of a general design trend that expects fights to take much longer than they really do. Various spells that set up situations (bless...) that get much better if fights average north of five rounds. Such fights do happen but I don't think they're the majority. Usually only if there's some terrain involved that prevents a general melee at round 1.
It's also an asymmetric thing, just like spells to specifically hamper Dying creatures or poisons with effects that last more than a minute (drained). Persistent damage on a Dying PC is scary. On an NPC, when they go down they're usually just plain done for so the persistent doesn't matter.
I feel like Paizo overvalues persistent damage in the hands of players, and undervalues it a bit in the hands of enemies (Plaguestone...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you focus fire multiple persistent damage types on a single boss enemy, that damage adds up quick.
It's actually extremely hard to do.
Let's take a simple example:- Acid Arrow for Acid damage
- Enervation for Negative damage
Acid Arrow has less than 50% chances to hit a boss, let's say 40% chance.
Enervation has roughly 80% chances to affect a boss, even if it means dealing only half damage most of the time.
Round 1: You cast Acid Arrow and Enervation on the boss.
You have 32% chance to affect it with both and 56% to affect it with one.
At the end of round 1, the boss has 30% to get rid of any persistent damage.
So after this round, the boss has 31.68% chance not to be affected by any Persistent damage, 52.64% chance to be affected by only one of them and only 15.68% chance to be affected by both of them.
Now, let's add an Alchemist and a Swashbuckler with respectively 40% and 50% chances to affect the boss.
Round 1: Acid Arrow + Enervation + Sticky Bomb + Bleeding Finisher.
You have 6.4% chance to affect it with all of them, 27.2% chance to affect it with 3 of them and 40.8% chance to affect it with 2 of them.
After this round, the boss has 1.5% chance to be affected by all 4, 11.96% chance to be affected by 3 of them and 33.68% chances to be affected by 2 of them, for a grand total of 47.14% chance to be affected by at least 2 of them.
It's... not even good. You have more than 50% chance to not even affect it with 2 Persistent damage at the end of round 1 despite having a full on Persistent damage team.
So, I disagree when you say that damage adds up quick if you focus fire with multiple persistent damage types. You need luck for Persistent damage to really matter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't double checked all the math, but it looks reasonable.
But still it is at least as good as doing things with the same rates of success that don't do persistent damage.
Swashbuckler could be using Confident Finisher instead in order to be doing some damage on a missed attack. But Bleeding Finisher seems like an on-par higher risk higher reward option.
I'm not sure what else the Alchemist would be doing.
Acid Arrow - being an attack roll spell with no effect on a miss may not be a good choice for a boss fight in the first place. Maybe use something like Phantom Pain that does full damage on a success and adds the persistent damage on a failed save. It becomes a nice additional damage perk.
And Enervation looks like a great spell in general. I'd open a fight with that regularly. Even if they succeed at the save and the first time they make their flat check, it isn't all that much worse than any other saving throw based spell. Especially on the Divine list. Enervation does 4d8 in a line and about half that on a successful save. Lightning bolt does 5d12 in a line and half that on a successful save. But Lightning bolt isn't a Divine spell and doesn't have the option of persistence.
But still it is at least as good as doing things with the same rates of success that don't do persistent damage.
Clearly. Using Persistent damage against bosses is a good strategy. The issue is that flat checks add even more randomness to Persistent damage efficiency. Using it as a party tactic will sometimes be extremely frustrating (and dangerous). But having the option on a few characters (mostly casters as it's easy for them) for fights intended to last is always nice.
You can typically expect a boss fight to last something like 5 rounds. Persistent damage on round one gets an average of close to 3 ticks of damage under those conditions, making it one of the highest DPR options you can make. True Strike + Acid Arrow with a Shadow Signet is the most reliable way to make this happen. Martials with an Acid Flask and a Hero Point are also quite capable of making this happen. This should work any time the enemy is especially durable, like a group of hellknights where a few of them heal each other.
Persistent damage should work for, on average, 2 ticks in most normal fights where you're able to fire it off round 1 on an undamaged enemy. That makes the effects pretty unimpressive, but worthwhile enough to still prepare even if the best case scenario doesn't come up.
You probably shouldn't use a persistent damage effect on an enemy that has already been damaged or after round 1 or possibly 2 since that will often net you a very ineffective 1 tick of damage.
Edit: As an example, I've used Acid Flasks to really hurt bosses with my Investigator using DAS to not waste the consumable. In other parties, my casters have used True Striked Acid Arrows to do the same. In one iteration of a party, we had a Pain Domain cleric that used Savor the Sting to absolutely house enemies with persistent damage. The use of persistent damage in my groups has contributed towards making fighting single and double enemy encounters rather pleasant rather than the slog a lot of groups say they are.
Bonus points for making the GM figure out what the heck persistent bludgeoning damage is.
Well, I know what it is mechanically.
Describing it in-game may be a bit of a challenge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically, persistent damage is a great tool in your tool box, but like all your other options, it's not going to work well in every situation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So basically, persistent damage is a great tool in your tool box, but like all your other options, it's not going to work well in every situation.
Not really. It's just damage. More complex than normal damage and far more random (which is a drawback to me) but with luck it can sometimes shine. Overall, you can ignore it entirely, your party won't miss it.
|
|
Like all damage, it can be good if you have lots of it. If you somehow get your hands on a persistent damage effect that does a really high amount of it, then that's sweet. Most of the time you'll get a balanced amount, and then it's less impressive.
I think SuperBidi's on the right track with valueing persistent damage as if it would tick once. It could tick more often, but you have to discount some of that against the possibility of the enemy dying from other hits. Also, doing damage right now is better than doing it later when the enemy's had another turn.
Because bosses tend to last longer, I'd maybe rate persistent damage used against bosses as ticking twice. And the same for wide-area effects that can do persistent against multiple mooks at once; it's more likely to get a second tick in before those mooks get focus-fired down.
---
So that's the general case for persistent damage. But there's another side to it: what if the damage is particularly suitable?
If you're fighting a weak to fire plant monster, then even 1 point of persistent fire damage is nice. With the splash-on-a-miss nature of bombs, alchemist fire is quite sweet.
Another case is regeneration. If you're fighting a troll, being able to shut off its regeneration round after round is really good. Against a troll I'd certainly want some alchemist's fire. Note that against these enemies, the "focus fire" argument fades a bit. The focused fire alone isn't good enough to keep them down, you need the right kind of fire. Persistent effects are helpful with that. And if it only ends up doing damage for two rounds due to focus fire, well that was exactly as much as you needed.
So that's another lens through which to filter persistent damage effects. Are there lots of enemies weak to it, or have their regeneration stopped by it?
Well, bleed weakness, not sure that even exists. Acid weakness, pretty rare. Cold weakness, here and there. Electrical weakness, also rare.
Fire weakness? Quite a lot of it. Good weakness? Also. But persistent good damage is rare. Persistent fire damage isn't.
---
So with those things in mind, how I'd rate some common persistent damage sources:
* Bleeding Finisher meets the criteria for just being a LOT of persistent damage, so it's good.
* Enervation can hit multiple creatures, and can also do Drained, so it's decent.
* Alchemist's Fire is good against weaknesses and common regeneration types, and has decent base damage. It's not a general plan against all creatures, but it's a very good specific plan against some creatures.
* Acid Flasks, I'm not so impressed. Low base damage with high-ish persistent but not like sky-high persistent. Might be nice as a switch-hitter opening round trick for a fighter in a boss battle maybe. While it can be used against common regeneration, so can fire, and fire comes out better.
* Acid Arrow is a spell attack, okay damage for a spell attack but amazing. The persistent damage is kinda low, and again acid persistent doesn't really do as much as fire persistent. I'd keep it around as a fallback plan maybe, maybe a scroll, but I wouldn't make it my primary thing.
Persistent damage will do an average of 1.7x damage if the target lives for 2 turns and 2.2x damage if the target lives for 3 turns.
Two turns I feel is not super unreasonable if the enemy is a bit tougher and three turns vs bosses is also pretty reasonable in my opinion.
I usually do a rule of thumb of 1x vs weak targets and 2x vs tougher targets.
Especially as you approach higher levels and HP strts to bloat a lot. A level 15 barbarian will do 25% of a level 13 enemy's hp in two strikes.
Bonus points for making the GM figure out what the heck persistent bludgeoning damage is.Well, I know what it is mechanically.
Describing it in-game may be a bit of a challenge.
Have you ever had really bad cramping?
How may rounds are end of chapter boss encounters typically taking in your games? I feel like my very straightforward boss encounters take at least 4 or 5 rounds. I more often have something like multi-stage boss encounters where a Macguffin needs to be interacted with and/or some sort of terrain needs to be negotiated, or the boss uses some sort of spell ploy to control the party before the fight heats up into all out attrition, and those encounters take more like 7 to 9 rounds. Is this atypical for severe+ boss encounters?
|
|
It might be one or two rounds longer, but yeah boss encounters do tend to take longer than other encounters and that is one of the ways persistent damage can shine.
@shroudb yeah Blistering Invective ticks some good boxes. Persistent fire damage even on a successful save, goes together well with fire being more likely to hit a weakness or regeneration.
I'm trying to understand what Spellwrack even does. Is the Arcana check an action to try? Does the persistent damage not have a flat check to end it?
It seems as if the persistent damage doesn't stop just because the spell that triggered it ran its course. I guess then it does get pretty interesting with quick follow-up spells. Even the sort of spell we normally turn up our nose from because they allow enemies actions/saves to clear the effect early. As long as it's cheap and fast.
I'm trying to understand what Spellwrack even does. Is the Arcana check an action to try? Does the persistent damage not have a flat check to end it?
How I am reading it:
On a success save against the spell, the persistent damage can end with a flat check as normal for persistent damage. The persistent damage won't last more than 1 minute.
On a failure save result the persistent damage won't have a flat check to remove - it will last for 1 minute unless the curse is removed.
But I am not certain that this is the only possible valid interpretation of the spell.
And yeah, it seems a bit harsh since it doesn't specify that it is only allied spells that trigger it. Hostile spells with a duration would also trigger. Several Witch hexes would qualify (sustained is a duration) and can be cast for 1 action. Stoke the Heart can be cast on any creature, not just allies, and doesn't allow a saving throw to prevent the effect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're leaving out a really important part of that sentence though.
It doesn't say "only way to recover" it says "only way to help the target recover"
How do you help someone recover from persistent damage? By spending actions to aid them in some way. Spellwrack specifies that the only way to do this is with an arcana check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i dont see why succesful save gives you an auto check to remove persistent.
That is not what I said.
I said that on a successful save the persistent damage could be removed by a flat check as is normal for persistent damage. No automatic check involved.
the spell specifically says that the only way to stop persistent damage is by making the arcana check (and it says so in the "success" entry). ("Only a successful Arcana check against your spell DC can help the target recover from the persistent damage; ")
That, is also not correct, but other people have already addressed that one.
What the spell specifies is that the only Assisted Recovery option is an Arcana check that beats the spellcaster's spell DC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the spell doesnt mention assisted recovery.
it uses the language of help removing the the persistent damage, which can be interpreted in a normal reading as both the assisted recovery as well as the natural recovery of the persistent damage.
that's why i conceded the point that some GMs may read that to mean as it applies only to assisted, while others might read it as it applies to all recovery checks.
Hmmm, no... "Help the target recover from the persistent damage" very clearly means Assisted Recovery.
If they were talking about the normal process of recovering from persistent damage it would be worded differently.
"The only way to recover from the persistent damage..." or something to that effect.
Helping the target recover is an active process, not an automatic one.
Some thoughts:
1) Persistent damage on Weakness is the absolute best. If you can land an Alchemist's Fire on a Troll, fantastic! I think my favourite so far was a Sticky Alignment Ampoule on a Weakness 10 Good BBEG.
2) If there's no Weakness in play, I tend to favour Acid Flask over Alchemist's Fire. If the GM fails the flat check, the Acid Flask tends to do a tad more damage than the Alchemist's Fire.
3) The only problem a Gunslinger has with Persistent Damage is that they have to create two of the same Bomb from each Batch when they do their Advanced Alchemy in the morning. (Makes it a bit harder to get variety.) Otherwise, it's pretty good, although the Action economy is a bit rough.
I do envy them their base damage though.
4) I think a lot of the fun with me is the gamble of it all. Will the GM beat the odds on the flat check, or not? I've seen more where they've been quite unlucky then ones where they only took the one round.
You're leaving out a really important part of that sentence though.
It doesn't say "only way to recover" it says "only way to help the target recover"
How do you help someone recover from persistent damage? By spending actions to aid them in some way. Spellwrack specifies that the only way to do this is with an arcana check.
I think it is talking about the assisted recovery rules. I come down on the side of this being the only way to do assisted recovery. You still get your normal DC 15 flat check.
Anyway look at the spell, it does 2d12. At level 6 Chain Lightning is doing 8d12 to its first target. So Spellwrack has to trigger 4 times before it is comparable.
Can you break it, not really. It costs actions. Guidance and Message are one action cantrips you can spam out on enemies, and there is no save. But Guidance is only once, and Message has an odd duration. For two actions Forbiding Ward and a lot of others work - that doesn't seem action efficient enough. Witches have a lot of hex options (limit one of course). Pyschic has a few Glimpse Weakness seems the best I can see one casting SpellWrack then 3 others spending 3 actions each on Glimpse Weakness.
But in the end the persistent damage doesn't stack, so it is pointless. All you get is 2d12.
But it's also more costly as you need to regularly refresh it.
Considering that Chain Lightning on a solo enemy is a bit of the worst thing you can do with a Chain Lightning, I don't find Spellwrack to be worth much mention unless you face a spellcaster who loves to self buff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said the refresh is free because it automatically refreshes from stuff you are already doing.
10d12 (65) force plus buff stripping, on a successful save, for Occult is FAR much more than decent.
I can't think of a single higher damage spell at that range.
Closest I think is 65 physical or 70 mental on a failed save. Both either delayed or with conditions as well.
I don't know of many monsters who use very short duration buffs, but I know for sure that debuffing a boss is the sure way to win. So now the boss removes all the Dirge of Doom, one round Synesthesia, etc... at the end of its round. That's tough. Have you taken into account the amount of damage lost from the lack of debuffs on the boss?
I don't find this spell incredible. I don't say it's useless, but it's extremely specific, it asks for some coordination and the result is nowhere close to exceptional. It's not a spell I'd take in my repertoire.
Depends on timing, I'm the primary debuffer for the group. So I have no issues timing stuff like Synesthesia to have its full effect (all players getting a go while the boss is debuffed).
A lot of our enemies use stuff like haste and imp. invis, stuff that naturally make the battle last longer to begin with, and going from 10 to 5 rounds for those is impactful, it means they run out before the battle ends.
And that's on top of being the highest damage dealing spell of Occult for protracted battles.
If Haste and Improved Invis end before the end of the fight, it also means that Synesthesia and Slow end before the end of the fight. Also, there are means to fight invisible enemies and in general my parties use them before 5 rounds. So I still think the "buff stripping" part of Spellwrack is not an advantage. It's at best balanced between good and bad.
Anyway, I'm happy if we have a different point of view on a spell. I think it's the strength of PF2, depending on players and parties, you'll see different strategies and none of them is "the best one out there no matter what".
For Blistering Invective, on the other hand, I find it also really strong when heightened. I never thought of using it and I'll certainly change my point of view.
The thing to remember with Blistering Invective is that it's language dependent. If there's a language barrier it's a +4 Status bonus to the save. Plus, it's Mental, so there's also a fair amount of Immunity out there. (Yeah, it's a Mental effect that deals Fire damage. Reminds me of Pressure Bombs that have the Force trait but do Bludgeoning.)
|
|
Okay now I understand spellwrack a bit better. So it's hard to take action to shake off the curse (although if you're using it on a caster, they might have that Arcana). It does okay damage. The duration-reducing is good if the enemy is doing self-buffing, bad if you're debuffing them. But all occult casters have easy ways of landing it.
It sounds like a spell I might take, but not to use every battle. In the right circumstances it's pretty nice though.