.
Also, love your name/reference.Is this addressed at me or Weather Report? I'm curious now.
Weather :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just got done running an AP where an encounter in the fifth book had an attack by 16 (CR4) enemies for an EL12 encounter. So mook swarms definitely happen, but I'd agree they're not common.•Mook swarm just does not happen.
Yes, AoE spells really shine when they can be used against hordes of enemies - but let's get real; you never face hordes of enemies. It's the same reason that good GMs never put a party up against a solitary BBEG - action economy will *wreck* the BBEG regardless of how powerful they are compared to individual party members. In the same regard, a single goblin/skeleton/orc/whatever isn't a threat to a single adventurer past a certain point, but 30 of them? If the AoE can't handle most of that, the party loses - period. (Not to mention no one, GMs included, like trying to keep track of that many HP pools.)
How did it hold up as a CR12 encounter? Was it more or less difficult than a CR 12 encounter of one creature? What about compared to an encounter of four CR 8 creatures?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Not to mention no one, GMs included, like trying to keep track of that many HP pools.)
I love my big swarm battles, but they are hell to build and run. Damage actually isn't the worst offender as far as tracking goes. No, that dubious award goes to color spray. Tracking three different durations is just nasty, but it's even worse when some of them are in different HD thresholds. That isn't restricted to heavens oracles, by the way. Such mook swarms are often legitimately in the "2 HD or less" category, thus making color spray a perfectly viable spell choice in such situations.
The options to optimize for damage in PF1 are probably too plentiful. Blasting without system mastery feels bad. Blasting with system mastery feels *too* good.
Agree so much. We got very weak blasting in the CRB, which lead to over-tuned abilities to compensate, which made it way too easy to create min-maxed monsters by combining the best options on a single character.
It would be much better to have a higher baseline of damage, and then dial back character options to increase that damage. Damage-boosting effects for the most part should have relatively small benefits and shouldn't stack. Those that do provide bigger benefits should come with string attached.
Where is magic missile scaling stated this specifically? I recall them saying you get more, but not how many more.
I can't find the source now, but I do remember how it works. The default 1st level magic missile fires 1-3 missiles depending on how many actions you cast with. If you upcast it by two slots (3rd level slot) the number of missiles doubles, raising it to 2-6 missiles. 6d4+6 damage has the same average as 6d6, so magic missile's single-target damage would be the same as fireball's on a failed save. There was some argument over how it works at 5th level; it's either 3-9 missiles or 4-12 missiles, but the phrasing of the source could be interpreted either way.
Do you really think a party of four level 11 PCs with no AoE spells loses to 32 CR 1 enemies? Without 5e-style bounded accuracy, the party probably won't even get scratched.
You might be surprised at what you can do by stacking a bunch of small bonuses.
2nd level Fighter (+2 BAB) with 17 strength (+3), weapon focus (+1), masterwork weapon (+1), outflank teamwork feat (+4 when flanking), bless spell (+1), and inspire courage (+1), and we're up to +13 to hit. You do need to be careful with optimization like this, but in this context (ensuring they actually have a non-negligible chance of hitting the PC's) it's not serious issue.
Another alternative is to equip your mooks with alchemist's fire. It's a standard alchemical item that uses touch attacks, and is an easy way to hit at characters with high touch AC as a result. Even sometihng like +5 to hit is good enough to have a shot against anyone who isn't a Monk. If your setting allows for it, making them gunslingers is also an option.
From the numbers we've been seeing in the blog I have the feeling that numbers all across the board are toned down...it doesnt just ramp up at the PF1 speeds.
As others have mentioned, right now the damage looks comparable to PF1. However, even if it isn't there's still the issue of spell slots. You still need to budget your spell slots across the adventuring day, and spellcasters have fewer spell slots in PF2. And that means the damage-per-spell expectations may actually be higher.
I am very unsure of this due to the low number of spells per level and especially how I have seen magic missile portrayed in the playtest. I see that spell being useless after about 3rd level compared to how cantrips are written up. Just because I can upcast by using a higher level slot to do more damage with a fireball does not mean the spell has not been nerfed, especially when I can use a 5th level slot from PF1 to cast a 15D6 fireball. It seems like a huge nerfHey Mark. If you are really going to make blast spells this weak and pump up martial attacks that strongly by giving out three attacks at first level you can count me out of PF2. Please, drop the 4E designers and their dislike of the iconic spells. I don't want a fire weave or fire burst spell using a higher level slot to do what fireball has always done. Get with the program and allow casters to do other things besides the save or suck/die and group utility belt. Its really starting to get old.He has basically said they're doing what you're asking for, so your tone seems pretty out of place. Maybe you need to chill a bit.
Upscaling is exactly what you're asking for here. Relative numbers of dice between editions is irrelevant without knowing the full picture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is magic missile scaling stated this specifically? I recall them saying you get more, but not how many more.I can't find the source now, but I do remember how it works. The default 1st level magic missile fires 1-3 missiles depending on how many actions you cast with. If you upcast it by two slots (3rd level slot) the number of missiles doubles, raising it to 2-6 missiles. 6d4+6 damage has the same average as 6d6, so magic missile's single-target damage would be the same as fireball's on a failed save. There was some argument over how it works at 5th level; it's either 3-9 missiles or 4-12 missiles, but the phrasing of the source could be interpreted either way....
Only doubling the number of missiles in a third level slot? Gross. To stay competitive it would need to multiply the number of missiles by spell level. So 2/4/6 in a 2nd level slot, 3/6/9 in a 3rd level slot, etc.
I mean, I love the idea of upcasting, and I am glad it's at least better than in 5E... But since 5E's was terrible that is not a high bar to clear. I'd rather PF2 upcasting was actually GOOD, not mediocre.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How did it hold up as a CR12 encounter? Was it more or less difficult than a CR 12 encounter of one creature? What about compared to an encounter of four CR 8 creatures?I just got done running an AP where an encounter in the fifth book had an attack by 16 (CR4) enemies for an EL12 encounter. So mook swarms definitely happen, but I'd agree they're not common.•Mook swarm just does not happen.
Yes, AoE spells really shine when they can be used against hordes of enemies - but let's get real; you never face hordes of enemies. It's the same reason that good GMs never put a party up against a solitary BBEG - action economy will *wreck* the BBEG regardless of how powerful they are compared to individual party members. In the same regard, a single goblin/skeleton/orc/whatever isn't a threat to a single adventurer past a certain point, but 30 of them? If the AoE can't handle most of that, the party loses - period. (Not to mention no one, GMs included, like trying to keep track of that many HP pools.)
The party was about level 14 at the time, so it was going to be pretty easy no matter what. I had them approach in a big spread out cloud (they were flying outside). They were able to slightly damage some of the less armored party members but they couldn't hurt the brawler or the hunter's animal except on a 20. A couple castings of chain lightning from the party arcane trickster triggered their morale by dropping a bunch of them and they ran.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ran a 100 person mob against my party in an AP once, and it wasn't actually too bad. It was a pretty atypical encounter though-- the party was good aligned and trying to stop a lynch mob from storming a building. Very few members of the mob were actively focused on hurting the party, and they didn't want to just spam fireballs and kill all these citizens. Calm Emotions put in a lot more work there.
I'm not saying that justifies blasting being weak, because encounters like that are very rare, an evil aligned party in that situation would have been able to toast the crowd just fine.
(Also, worth noting that fireball doing lower damage doesn't mean all blasting will be weaker. I think we saw that lightning bolt does more damage to compensate for hitting less targets. A true single target blast might be even stronger.)
|
Upscaling is exactly what you're asking for here. Relative numbers of dice between editions is irrelevant without knowing the full picture.I am very unsure of this due to the low number of spells per level and especially how I have seen magic missile portrayed in the playtest. I see that spell being useless after about 3rd level compared to how cantrips are written up. Just because I can upcast by using a higher level slot to do more damage with a fireball does not mean the spell has not been nerfed, especially when I can use a 5th level slot from PF1 to cast a 15D6 fireball. It seems like a huge nerfHey Mark. If you are really going to make blast spells this weak and pump up martial attacks that strongly by giving out three attacks at first level you can count me out of PF2. Please, drop the 4E designers and their dislike of the iconic spells. I don't want a fire weave or fire burst spell using a higher level slot to do what fireball has always done. Get with the program and allow casters to do other things besides the save or suck/die and group utility belt. Its really starting to get old.He has basically said they're doing what you're asking for, so your tone seems pretty out of place. Maybe you need to chill a bit.
How do you figure? Attacks have tripled for a first level martial character from PF1 to PF2 and there are all kinds of cool weapon bonuses to add on top of just regular damage. Hit points have maxed out compared to PF1. What makes you think that a base PF2 magic missile won't be obsolete after 5th level when I can spam a 3D10 force push at will?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ran a 100 person mob against my party in an AP once, and it wasn't actually too bad. It was a pretty atypical encounter though-- the party was good aligned and trying to stop a lynch mob from storming a building. Very few members of the mob were actively focused on hurting the party, and they didn't want to just spam fireballs and kill all these citizens. Calm Emotions put in a lot more work there.
I'm not saying that justifies blasting being weak, because encounters like that are very rare, an evil aligned party in that situation would have been able to toast the crowd just fine.
(Also, worth noting that fireball doing lower damage doesn't mean all blasting will be weaker. I think we saw that lightning bolt does more damage to compensate for hitting less targets. A true single target blast might be even stronger.)
The two blast spells they mentioned (magic missile & fireball) are incredibly weak for their level. Its a completely bad joke. Upscaling to use a 5th level slot to cast fireball equal to a 3rd level slot from PF1 is an insult. Let me put it to you in a way you might understand.
Hey there 7th level rogue. Since you took a feat called spike damage sneak attack you can now use a second action to increase your sneak attack from 2D6 to 4D6! Its a great deal courtesy of PF2! Sure you could just sneak attack for 4D6 in PF1 with a single action and no feat tax at 7th level but hey we are here to give you options!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there 7th level rogue. Since you took a feat called spike damage sneak attack you can now use a second action to increase your sneak attack from 2D6 to 4D6! Its a great deal courtesy of PF2! Sure you could just sneak attack for 4D6 in PF1 with a single action and no feat tax at 7th level but hey we are here to give you options!
Probably not the best example. There is a very popular PF1 class that does have 2d6 sneak attack at 7th level, and the feat that boosts sneak attack is only +1d6, so depending on context that could well be seen as a buff.
The thing about sneak attack is that it does not cost resources to use, and is additive to your regular attack damage. Fireball costs a limited daily resource and actions to use. This means it needs to stand on its own both in terms of DPR and resource allocation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ran a 100 person mob against my party in an AP once, and it wasn't actually too bad. It was a pretty atypical encounter though-- the party was good aligned and trying to stop a lynch mob from storming a building. Very few members of the mob were actively focused on hurting the party, and they didn't want to just spam fireballs and kill all these citizens. Calm Emotions put in a lot more work there.
I'm not saying that justifies blasting being weak, because encounters like that are very rare, an evil aligned party in that situation would have been able to toast the crowd just fine.
(Also, worth noting that fireball doing lower damage doesn't mean all blasting will be weaker. I think we saw that lightning bolt does more damage to compensate for hitting less targets. A true single target blast might be even stronger.)
The two blast spells they mentioned (magic missile & fireball) are incredibly weak for their level. Its a completely bad joke. Upscaling to use a 5th level slot to cast fireball equal to a 3rd level slot from PF1 is an insult. Let me put it to you in a way you might understand.
Hey there 7th level rogue. Since you took a feat called spike damage sneak attack you can now use a second action to increase your sneak attack from 2D6 to 4D6! Its a great deal courtesy of PF2! Sure you could just sneak attack for 4D6 in PF1 with a single action and no feat tax at 7th level but hey we are here to give you options!
Magic Missile never misses. It's never been a great spell for unloading tremendous amounts of damage, it is for when you just really need to make sure you hit. Or use force damage against a ghost or something.
Fireball can hit an entire mob at once. We have seen that fireball now does less than lightning bolt. It stands to reason that the more targets something can hit, the lower the damage will be. Fireball in the old system wasn't balanced against other blast spells, and with metamagic traits and spell specialization it usually made sense to just keep enhancing your fireball on single enemies than switch to a different blast. Signs point to that changing in PF2.
In other words, neither of those spells are the metric to compare to martial damage. What you should be comparing it to are spells like Shocking Grasp and Scorching Ray. At that point, yeah, those spells should probably to hit harder than a martial damage. They will at least have a higher chance of critting since they target touch AC.
Hey there 7th level rogue. Since you took a feat called spike damage sneak attack you can now use a second action to increase your sneak attack from 2D6 to 4D6! Its a great deal courtesy of PF2! Sure you could just sneak attack for 4D6 in PF1 with a single action and no feat tax at 7th level but hey we are here to give you options!Probably not the best example. There is a very popular PF1 class that does have 2d6 sneak attack at 7th level, and the feat that boosts sneak attack is only +1d6, so depending on context that could well be seen as a buff.
The thing about sneak attack is that it does not cost resources to use, and is additive to your regular attack damage. Fireball costs a limited daily resource and actions to use. This means it needs to stand on its own both in terms of DPR and resource allocation.
Well, the other thing about Sneak Attack is that you need to set it up and therefore can't always be pulled out when you really need it. A spell can usually be cast at whatever moment you need it most without circumstance. (Fireball actually isn't a great example of this, because friendly fire could be a concern, but I maintain Scorching Ray is a more relevant metric and we don't have damage for that yet.)
Yes, I hope they fix blasting so that players don't have to have extreme system knowledge to make an effective blaster wizard. That's one of the curiosities at the table when a new player is playing Ezren, they always ask, "Why is this guy so weak?".
I think that's why kineticists are popular, out of the box they are effective.
Hey Mark. If you are really going to make blast spells this weak and pump up martial attacks that strongly by giving out three attacks at first level you can count me out of PF2. Please, drop the 4E designers and their dislike of the iconic spells. I don't want a fire weave or fire burst spell using a higher level slot to do what fireball has always done. Get with the program and allow casters to do other things besides the save or suck/die and group utility belt. Its really starting to get old.
How do you figure? Attacks have tripled for a first level martial character from PF1 to PF2 and there are all kinds of cool weapon bonuses to add on top of just regular damage. Hit points have maxed out compared to PF1. What makes you think that a base PF2 magic missile won't be obsolete after 5th level when I can spam a 3D10 force push at will?
The important part is the bold section, since I apparently need to point it out.
Until we have a lot more info, we can't know how this all plays out. And this is a playtest. The whole point of the process is figuring out how these relative features interact and whether it needs to be adjusted.
Also, I feel you're overestimating the value of the 3 attacks.
Yeap, folks are way overestimating three attacks. Its going to be uncommon to attack 3x in a round. When it does happen, that -10 iterative will be more miss than hit. That design space is for doing neat class granted tricks (outside TWF builds). IMO
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having several core Class Feats add to blasting is a pretty reasonable hypothesis, and doesn't take a huge amount of system mastery. Taking the Class Feats to be good at the thing you want to do (ie: blasting) is pretty intuitive, really.
While this may well be the case, it's a bandaid solution that should be avoided in favor of having stuff work out the gate. We saw how this played out in PF1, where blasting is largely useless if you don't completely specialize in it by picking specific character options. There's no reason this has to be the case; pretty much every type of spell is viable without feats to bolster them. We're just conditioned to accept that blasting is the exception because it always has been, but it would be easy with the new edition to raise the baseline damage and then tone back the abilities (or better yet, make those abilities focus on interesting effects rather than obligatory damage boosts)
I also disagree that it's intuitive. It's familiar to us because that's how it worked in PF1, but it's not intuitive. It's very easy to mistake familiarity with intuitiveness, but they really are different things. To a newcomer to the system, it does not make intuitive sense that almost all magic spells are functional and useful without picking specific character options, but direct damage spells are the exception that require heavy specialization to be worthwhile. Just because we're familiar with that dynamic as long-term PF1 players doesn't make it intuitive.
Yeap, folks are way overestimating three attacks.
I'm much more interesting in how PF2's Haste spell looks in that regard. The bonus attack from Haste at your full BAB was way more significant than the third or fourth iterative attacks in PF1, and part of what made it the ubiquitous buff spell that every party wanted to have access to.
I'm much more interesting in how PF2's Haste spell looks in that regard. The bonus attack from Haste at your full BAB was way more significant than the third or fourth iterative attacks in PF1, and part of what made it the ubiquitous buff spell that every party wanted to have access to.
They're probably going to do something similar to what they recently did in Starfinder with that game's version of Haste. It increases speed and lets you take a bonus move action.
If Haste is one of the scaling spells, then I would expect "bonus attack" to come in at a higher spell tier than 3rd.
Having several core Class Feats add to blasting is a pretty reasonable hypothesis, and doesn't take a huge amount of system mastery. Taking the Class Feats to be good at the thing you want to do (ie: blasting) is pretty intuitive, really.While this may well be the case, it's a bandaid solution that should be avoided in favor of having stuff work out the gate. We saw how this played out in PF1, where blasting is largely useless if you don't completely specialize in it by picking specific character options. There's no reason this has to be the case; pretty much every type of spell is viable without feats to bolster them. We're just conditioned to accept that blasting is the exception because it always has been, but it would be easy with the new edition to raise the baseline damage and then tone back the abilities (or better yet, make those abilities focus on interesting effects rather than obligatory damage boosts)
I also disagree that it's intuitive. It's familiar to us because that's how it worked in PF1, but it's not intuitive. It's very easy to mistake familiarity with intuitiveness, but they really are different things. To a newcomer to the system, it does not make intuitive sense that almost all magic spells are functional and useful without picking specific character options, but direct damage spells are the exception that require heavy specialization to be worthwhile. Just because we're familiar with that dynamic as long-term PF1 players doesn't make it intuitive.
Yeap, folks are way overestimating three attacks.I'm much more interesting in how PF2's Haste spell looks in that regard. The bonus attack from Haste at your full BAB was way more significant than the third or fourth iterative attacks in PF1, and part of what made it the ubiquitous buff spell that every party wanted to have access to.
Where does damage need to be for blasting spell damage to be good out of the box? It seems like spell damage on a failed save (against a caster’s highest level spell slot) is gonna be roughly 1.5x the damage of a fighter’s attack. Do you suspect that this will not be sufficient even given that spells have the additional advantages of doing things like hitting multiple enemies, hitting some enemies for half damage on a save, or doing damage automatically?
Or is the issue more that you don’t think the utility of the damage can match the utility of various buffs and status effect spells?
How should spell damage be calibrated as compared to make them worthwhile?
Like: should it be calibrated as compared to a fighter’s average attack or like the expected value of enemy health at a given level?
If the blaster has only 3 spell slots of his more powerfull spell level...yes, 1.5 times a normal attack seems certainly low.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where I would generally like to see damage for blasting magic is basically:
- At-will cantrips should sit at roughly comparable to a fighter's attacks.
- Area spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere between 1.25x a fighter attack per-target for a wide area and 1.5x-1.75x a fighter attack for a narrow area, with crits going higher than that.
- Single target spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere around 2x-2.25x of a fighter attack, with crits going higher than that.
If they made magic crits 1.5x damage instead of 2x damage, then all those base damage values above could be raised by about +0.33x to +0.5x.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where I would generally like to see damage for blasting magic is basically:
- At-will cantrips should sit at roughly comparable to a fighter's attacks.
- Area spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere between 1.25x a fighter attack per-target for a wide area and 1.5x-1.75x a fighter attack for a narrow area, with crits going higher than that.
- Single target spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere around 2x-2.25x of a fighter attack, with crits going higher than that.
If they made magic crits 1.5x damage instead of 2x damage, then all those base damage values above could be raised by about +0.33x to +0.5x.
Seems reasonable, and probably not an unrealistic expectation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where I would generally like to see damage for blasting magic is basically:
- At-will cantrips should sit at roughly comparable to a fighter's attacks.
- Area spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere between 1.25x a fighter attack per-target for a wide area and 1.5x-1.75x a fighter attack for a narrow area, with crits going higher than that.
- Single target spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere around 2x-2.25x of a fighter attack, with crits going higher than that.
If they made magic crits 1.5x damage instead of 2x damage, then all those base damage values above could be raised by about +0.33x to +0.5x.
That may be about on the money, but I suspect that cantrip damage is gonna tend to be a little behind fighter/martial attacks if only so martial can remain the uncontested masters of at will damage at least until we get some kind of glass cannon at will magic class like warlock or kineticist.
That sounds generally alright with me. However, I think a lot of the balance of this stuff is going to depend on how many fighter attacks it will take to kill an enemy as well. The more health an enemy has, the more valuable status effects will be relative to damaging spells; this is true because neutralizing or curbing a foe is more useful when it looks like the enemy is going To be in the fight longer. Similarly, more monster health means longer fights and that means ongoing buffs will be more valuable.
I am beginning to think balancing games is difficult, you guys.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allow me to make one more clear distinction here!
In calibrating direct spell damage, the designers need to serve two masters:
1: The need to make the attacks spells powerful enough when compared to the attacks of martial characters in order to make blasting meaningfully viable, but without making the fighters feel worthless. This means calibrating spells against the fighter’s expected damage.
2: They need to make attack spells powerful enough to be worthwhile when compared to status effect and utility spells. This means calibrating spells to the appropriate amount of enemy health (but not doing so much damage that they end fights too fast and buffs and status effects are worthless).
Balancing blasting means choosing good damage values relative to a fighter’s damage and good health values for monsters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where I would generally like to see damage for blasting magic is basically:
- At-will cantrips should sit at roughly comparable to a fighter's attacks.
- Area spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere between 1.25x a fighter attack per-target for a wide area and 1.5x-1.75x a fighter attack for a narrow area, with crits going higher than that.
- Single target spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere around 2x-2.25x of a fighter attack, with crits going higher than that.
If they made magic crits 1.5x damage instead of 2x damage, then all those base damage values above could be raised by about +0.33x to +0.5x.
That may be about on the money, but I suspect that cantrip damage is gonna tend to be a little behind fighter/martial attacks if only so martial can remain the uncontested masters of at will damage at least until we get some kind of glass cannon at will magic class like warlock or kineticist.
I'd think Cantrip damage is also going to be balanced around taking multiple actions to cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where I would generally like to see damage for blasting magic is basically:
One thing I would note is that it's not the highest-level spell slots that are the biggest concern, it's the next 2-3 spell levels down below it. That's going to be the bread and butter that you mix in to stretch your resources throughout the day. Even in PF1 you needed to mix in spell slots from across many different spell levels to get a blaster through the adventuring day, and PF2 is going to be even tighter on slots.
I'd think Cantrip damage is also going to be balanced around taking multiple actions to cast.Where I would generally like to see damage for blasting magic is basically:
- At-will cantrips should sit at roughly comparable to a fighter's attacks.
- Area spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere between 1.25x a fighter attack per-target for a wide area and 1.5x-1.75x a fighter attack for a narrow area, with crits going higher than that.
- Single target spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere around 2x-2.25x of a fighter attack, with crits going higher than that.
If they made magic crits 1.5x damage instead of 2x damage, then all those base damage values above could be raised by about +0.33x to +0.5x.
That may be about on the money, but I suspect that cantrip damage is gonna tend to be a little behind fighter/martial attacks if only so martial can remain the uncontested masters of at will damage at least until we get some kind of glass cannon at will magic class like warlock or kineticist.
That is an excellent point and kind of obvious I now realize. Though I do now wonder if ranged attacks are gonna be de facto 1 action affair or will drawing arrows or the like be an action in and of themselves.
I'd think Cantrip damage is also going to be balanced around taking multiple actions to cast.Where I would generally like to see damage for blasting magic is basically:
- At-will cantrips should sit at roughly comparable to a fighter's attacks.
- Area spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere between 1.25x a fighter attack per-target for a wide area and 1.5x-1.75x a fighter attack for a narrow area, with crits going higher than that.
- Single target spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere around 2x-2.25x of a fighter attack, with crits going higher than that.
If they made magic crits 1.5x damage instead of 2x damage, then all those base damage values above could be raised by about +0.33x to +0.5x.
That may be about on the money, but I suspect that cantrip damage is gonna tend to be a little behind fighter/martial attacks if only so martial can remain the uncontested masters of at will damage at least until we get some kind of glass cannon at will magic class like warlock or kineticist.
Yeah, I was assuming comparable action costs. Obviously if a spell costs twice as many actions as an attack, it should do more damage / have stronger effects.
|
|
I am very unsure of this due to the low number of spells per level and especially how I have seen magic missile portrayed in the playtest. I see that spell being useless after about 3rd level compared to how cantrips are written up. Just because I can upcast by using a higher level slot to do more damage with a fireball does not mean the spell has not been nerfed, especially when I can use a 5th level slot from PF1 to cast a 15D6 fireball. It seems like a huge nerfHey Mark. If you are really going to make blast spells this weak and pump up martial attacks that strongly by giving out three attacks at first level you can count me out of PF2. Please, drop the 4E designers and their dislike of the iconic spells. I don't want a fire weave or fire burst spell using a higher level slot to do what fireball has always done. Get with the program and allow casters to do other things besides the save or suck/die and group utility belt. Its really starting to get old.He has basically said they're doing what you're asking for, so your tone seems pretty out of place. Maybe you need to chill a bit.A lot of that is going to depend on how high enemy health is and how likely and/or fight-ending 2E save-or-suck effects will be. You also should think about how your attack cantrips are going to scale and what that is going to do to your average damage-a-round in general; It is entirely possible that a 2E wizard can deal more damage in two rounds with a lvl 5 spell and a cantrip than a 1E wizard could so in a world where you are only dropping one or two nuke spells in a given fight, the wizard's damage may be increased overall.
I will also note that in 2E, spell saves scale with your class level rather than your spell level so a monster will be more likely to fail a save against the fireball you cast at level 15 to begin with (and may even crit fail).
On a related note, you are also going to need to take into...
Actually it probably won't fail a save more frequently since monsters will likely get a scaling save DC equal to their hit dice or CR. They have to if caster's DC scales on level + proficiency + ability modifier. Also it seems unreasonable that monsters are going to have less or equal hit points when PC's are receiving max hit points per level. The zombie in the playtest podcast had far more hit points than a PF1 zombie as did the skeleton. That should give an indication of where the monsters are going.
Also, I don't want to spam enhanced cantrips all day. I am not a martial, stop trying to make me into a subpar one. The damage does not stack up. If I am blast a 15D6 fireball through a 5th level enhanced slot for 15D6 in PF 1 how does that equal 10D6 for a 5th level slot plus 5D10 cantrip damage per target? That only works if the mob is very small and there would be no reason to throw a 15D6 fireball at a 3 or 4 mob group unless they are hit point shields.It just amazes me that people feel the need to lock down blaster spells and make them useless but they are OK with the concept of a 9D10 cantrip spammable at will
Also
|
|
Hey there 7th level rogue. Since you took a feat called spike damage sneak attack you can now use a second action to increase your sneak attack from 2D6 to 4D6! Its a great deal courtesy of PF2! Sure you could just sneak attack for 4D6 in PF1 with a single action and no feat tax at 7th level but hey we are here to give you options!Probably not the best example. There is a very popular PF1 class that does have 2d6 sneak attack at 7th level, and the feat that boosts sneak attack is only +1d6, so depending on context that could well be seen as a buff.
The thing about sneak attack is that it does not cost resources to use, and is additive to your regular attack damage. Fireball costs a limited daily resource and actions to use. This means it needs to stand on its own both in terms of DPR and resource allocation.
It is a valid example. I am talking about rogues in general, not a specific sub-class that gives out much better combat options to make up for the lack of continuously improving sneak attack. If all rogues had a caped sneak attack at less than 10D6 without feat bumps I am sure people would howl.
|
|
I ran a 100 person mob against my party in an AP once, and it wasn't actually too bad. It was a pretty atypical encounter though-- the party was good aligned and trying to stop a lynch mob from storming a building. Very few members of the mob were actively focused on hurting the party, and they didn't want to just spam fireballs and kill all these citizens. Calm Emotions put in a lot more work there.
I'm not saying that justifies blasting being weak, because encounters like that are very rare, an evil aligned party in that situation would have been able to toast the crowd just fine.
(Also, worth noting that fireball doing lower damage doesn't mean all blasting will be weaker. I think we saw that lightning bolt does more damage to compensate for hitting less targets. A true single target blast might be even stronger.)
The two blast spells they mentioned (magic missile & fireball) are incredibly weak for their level. Its a completely bad joke. Upscaling to use a 5th level slot to cast fireball equal to a 3rd level slot from PF1 is an insult. Let me put it to you in a way you might understand.
Hey there 7th level rogue. Since you took a feat called spike damage sneak attack you can now use a second action to increase your sneak attack from 2D6 to 4D6! Its a great deal courtesy of PF2! Sure you could just sneak attack for 4D6 in PF1 with a single action and no feat tax at 7th level but hey we are here to give you options!
Magic Missile never misses. It's never been a great spell for unloading tremendous amounts of damage, it is for when you just really need to make sure you hit. Or use force damage against a ghost or something.
Fireball can hit an entire mob at once. We have seen that fireball now does less than lightning bolt. It stands to reason that the more targets something can hit, the lower the damage will be. Fireball in the old system wasn't balanced against other blast spells, and with metamagic traits and spell...
Lightning bolt does not need a damage increase over fireball. It just needs more creative applications from the DM and players. If you play the old gold box D&D games, you will see how tactical they were for their time. Fireball was not the optimal spell every battle and you needed to cast lightning bolt often. Tight quarters, narrow fields, avoidance of friendly fire are all reasons to take lightning bolt over fireball. The only thing that lightning bolt needs is to have the two abilities removed from it since 1rst edition AD&D. To start a t a point the caster chooses just like fireball and to reflect off of a solid surface such as a wall and bounce back.
Magic missile used to do a ton of damage before it was nerfed in AD&D 2E due to complaints that it was magic machine gun. Again I point to the Gold Box Games. I could do 54 points of damage with magic missile then. A first level spell should be more potent than a cantrip. There should be a reason why Raistlin the Archmage's spells are more potent than Bob the apprentice wizard.
|
|
Hey Mark. If you are really going to make blast spells this weak and pump up martial attacks that strongly by giving out three attacks at first level you can count me out of PF2. Please, drop the 4E designers and their dislike of the iconic spells. I don't want a fire weave or fire burst spell using a higher level slot to do what fireball has always done. Get with the program and allow casters to do other things besides the save or suck/die and group utility belt. Its really starting to get old.
How do you figure? Attacks have tripled for a first level martial character from PF1 to PF2 and there are all kinds of cool weapon bonuses to add on top of just regular damage. Hit points have maxed out compared to PF1. What makes you think that a base PF2 magic missile won't be obsolete after 5th level when I can spam a 3D10 force push at will?The important part is the bold section, since I apparently need to point it out.
Until we have a lot more info, we can't know how this all plays out. And this is a playtest. The whole point of the process is figuring out how these relative features interact and whether it needs to be adjusted.
Also, I feel you're overestimating the value of the 3 attacks.
Overestimating the value of three attacks? Are you kidding? People take a feat and less AC plus a penalty to hit with weaker weapons to get two attacks in PF1. No, I am not overestimating the value of three attacks, especially when you can do 3D12+12 to 6D12+24 if you got super lucky on all crits at level 1! That is amazing. If you can do that in PF1 with just the core rule book, let me know because I am truly missing out on some optimization. Those three actions are huge if you don't use them for all attacks. In addition to attacking, you can power attack, charge and attack, gain damage reduction with a shield and that is just the tip of the iceberg at level 1! Meanwhile I can use 3 actions to cast magic missile for 3D4+3. Oh wow! I am so underwhelmed..... Lets see 3D4+3 that never misses vs range of 3D12+12 to 6D12+24 and the latter will have plenty of options to increase that damage range without sacrificing an attack but I have to up cast to a 3rd level spell to double my damage and I only get 3 spells per level. Yeah...hardly what I would call fair or balanced.
|
|
Allow me to make one more clear distinction here!
In calibrating direct spell damage, the designers need to serve two masters:
1: The need to make the attacks spells powerful enough when compared to the attacks of martial characters in order to make blasting meaningfully viable, but without making the fighters feel worthless. This means calibrating spells against the fighter’s expected damage.
2: They need to make attack spells powerful enough to be worthwhile when compared to status effect and utility spells. This means calibrating spells to the appropriate amount of enemy health (but not doing so much damage that they end fights too fast and buffs and status effects are worthless).Balancing blasting means choosing good damage values relative to a fighter’s damage and good health values for monsters.
Exactly and that is the reason that damage spells need to scale without up casting. Fighters are not static. They get a huge increase to damage with just acquiring a magic weapon. Its a 100% increase to damage per plus. Also their weapons have additional effects just by being a particular weapon with respect to normal attacks and crits. What also has to be factored in is the limited resource of a caster versus a fighter as well as the effects of caster spells of a similar level to one another.
|
|
Well, the other thing about Sneak Attack is that you need to set it up and therefore can't always be pulled out when you really need it. A spell can usually be cast at whatever moment you need it most without circumstance. (Fireball actually isn't a great example of this, because friendly fire could be a concern, but I maintain Scorching Ray is a more relevant metric and we don't have damage for that yet.)Hey there 7th level rogue. Since you took a feat called spike damage sneak attack you can now use a second action to increase your sneak attack from 2D6 to 4D6! Its a great deal courtesy of PF2! Sure you could just sneak attack for 4D6 in PF1 with a single action and no feat tax at 7th level but hey we are here to give you options!Probably not the best example. There is a very popular PF1 class that does have 2d6 sneak attack at 7th level, and the feat that boosts sneak attack is only +1d6, so depending on context that could well be seen as a buff.
The thing about sneak attack is that it does not cost resources to use, and is additive to your regular attack damage. Fireball costs a limited daily resource and actions to use. This means it needs to stand on its own both in terms of DPR and resource allocation.
You are joking right? Sneak attack is incredibly easy to set up. Being quick in initiative, flanking, bluffing, catching someone flat footed due to conditions & spells. If you want to complain about a tough condition for bonus damage try getting in a backstab with a rogue pre 3E/PF1. Sneak attack far outperforms scorching ray and similar attack spells.
|
|
Where I would generally like to see damage for blasting magic is basically:
- At-will cantrips should sit at roughly comparable to a fighter's attacks.
- Area spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere between 1.25x a fighter attack per-target for a wide area and 1.5x-1.75x a fighter attack for a narrow area, with crits going higher than that.
- Single target spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere around 2x-2.25x of a fighter attack, with crits going higher than that.
If they made magic crits 1.5x damage instead of 2x damage, then all those base damage values above could be raised by about +0.33x to +0.5x.
If at will cantrips sit at fighter level damage as you suggest than any spell above said cantrip should be better because it is a limited resource. That is why spells need to scale with level to keep up with both cantrips & fighter attacks
If at will cantrips sit at fighter level damage as you suggest than any spell above said cantrip should be better because it is a limited resource. That is why spells need to scale with level to keep up with both cantrips & fighter attacksWhere I would generally like to see damage for blasting magic is basically:
- At-will cantrips should sit at roughly comparable to a fighter's attacks.
- Area spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere between 1.25x a fighter attack per-target for a wide area and 1.5x-1.75x a fighter attack for a narrow area, with crits going higher than that.
- Single target spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere around 2x-2.25x of a fighter attack, with crits going higher than that.
If they made magic crits 1.5x damage instead of 2x damage, then all those base damage values above could be raised by about +0.33x to +0.5x.
While I didn't mention it in the above post, I have posted elsewhere that I would like to see mages get an equivalent to the Fighter's magic weapon in the form of an implement. That would add its "plus" in extra damage dice to an area spell, or twice its "plus" to a single target spell. That would allow a low level spell to still scale and do more damage as you level up, since the implement is adding not just save DC but more damage in a meaningful way, helping blasters keep up.
(Magic Missile would be classed as an area spell for this purpose, due to multiple targets and no attack roll or saving throw.)
And someone who didn't want to carry an implement and enjoy other magical benefits it might present besides its pluses, could potentially just take a feat for ABP in this matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know; Markov Chain Monte Carlo can be pretty fun, especially the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Not that this is likely exactly what Dasrak used, but it's a great way to take a random walk through a really dense feature space with a probability distribution and is thus crucial in a lot of Bayesian analysis.Monte CarloNERD!!! Use a linear congruential generator, like the rest of us, simple folks. :P
Marry me.
If at will cantrips sit at fighter level damage as you suggest than any spell above said cantrip should be better because it is a limited resource. That is why spells need to scale with level to keep up with both cantrips & fighter attacksWhere I would generally like to see damage for blasting magic is basically:
- At-will cantrips should sit at roughly comparable to a fighter's attacks.
- Area spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere between 1.25x a fighter attack per-target for a wide area and 1.5x-1.75x a fighter attack for a narrow area, with crits going higher than that.
- Single target spells that use a limited resource (spell slots) should probably sit somewhere around 2x-2.25x of a fighter attack, with crits going higher than that.
If they made magic crits 1.5x damage instead of 2x damage, then all those base damage values above could be raised by about +0.33x to +0.5x.
While I didn't mention it in the above post, I have posted elsewhere that I would like to see mages get an equivalent to the Fighter's magic weapon in the form of an implement. That would add its "plus" in extra damage dice to an area spell, or twice its "plus" to a single target spell. That would allow a low level spell to still scale and do more damage as you level up, since the implement is adding not just save DC but more damage in a meaningful way, helping blasters keep up.
(Magic Missile would be classed as an area spell for this purpose, due to multiple targets and no attack roll or saving throw.)
And someone who didn't want to carry an implement and enjoy other magical benefits it might present besides its pluses, could potentially just take a feat for ABP in this matter.
The “adding dice” portion of that strikes me as hard to write concisely and balance. You have already found one spell that it has weird results for (magic middle) and I can already think of another spell (scorching ray) which would probably need special wording. Also, wouldn't that same implement add damage dice to cantrips too? If so, you still end up in a situation where you'd never want to blast with your low level spells. There is certainly a way to balance it but I am not sure if that is the most elegant solution.
I still like my own idea of adding low level spells to buff cantrips more. **pats self on back**
On some level, I think it is good that your lower level spell slots sort of slide into obscurity later in the game and generally become vessels for various and sundry utility spells. That is probably easier to balance for between classes if cantrip (at will) damage can be the baseline and the top two or three levels of spell slots act as a limited resource for burst damage.
I totally understand why people would not like this though: if you envision your sorcerer as a font of glorious explosions, you don’t wanna ready unseen servant in your first level slots.
It just amazes me that people feel the need to lock down blaster spells and make them useless but they are OK with the concept of a 9D10 cantrip spammable at will
Also
That is certainly not my exact stance. At most, I would say that it is fine that level 1 spells fade into the far background as the game progresses and scaling cantrips sort of take their place as the disposable spell option.
|
Note that a two-action spell does not have to be twice as damaging as a single Fighter attack to measure up, since all of the spell‘s damage is delivered at full attack bonus, which is huge. It‘s what makes the Kineticist so good.
Also, a two-action spell still allows you a –5 attack whereas the Fighter gets a –10, so it‘s really more like a 2-action spell uses your first and third attack.
|
|
That said, I would prefer cantrips being single actions so they could be thrown into the mix after casting a regular spell. It would help AoE attackers will actually dropping an enemy rather than just softening them.
I wonder if casting a Fireball counts as an attack for the purpose of iterative penalties.
|
I wonder if casting a Fireball counts as an attack for the purpose of iterative penalties.
It basically doesn't matter if it's a 2 action spell without an attack roll (which seems likely), since then you can attack at no penalty and then cast it. So I'd bet it doesn't count as one.
All evidence we have is that only spells with attack rolls count as attacks for purposes of the escalating penalty.
Haven't read the whole thread, just the OP, so these points have likely been brought up already.
The first and most important issue to raise is that the raw damage output of the spell isn't what matters - it's the percentage of HP it deals to a monster of the CR you are likely to be up against. For instance, a PF1 Fireball at Level 5 deals 5d6 (avg 17.5) vs 55hp (the average HP of a CR5 enemy), which is roughly 33% of their hp. At Level 10, Fireball deals 10d6 (avg 35) vs 130hp (average hp of a CR10 enemy), which is just under 25%. Those are the numbers that PF2 Fireball should be judged against sans metamagic. If PF2 enemies have higher or lower HP than PF1 enemies on average, that would throw off all the math we've done.
The second question is how metamagic stacks up for PF2 vs PF1. Since you apply it when a spell is cast now instead of during preparation we can assume it won't raise the spell level, but if that's the case we have reason to believe they may have other limiting factors (less per day, less stacking, etc) which would further complicate the math.
The third issue is that we don't know yet what classes may receive via class feats and features that may grant bonuses to blasting. PF1 blasting is subpar without metamagic or class features, but the right Sorcerer bloodlines or an Evocation Wizard (especially Admixture subschool) greatly increases its power. Given the popularity of blasting I think it's likely that such options will be available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The second question is how metamagic stacks up for PF2 vs PF1. Since you apply it when a spell is cast now instead of during preparation we can assume it won't raise the spell level, but if that's the case we have reason to believe they may have other limiting factors (less per day, less stacking, etc) which would further complicate the math.
If I remember correctly, metamagic doesn't affect the level but it does affect the number of actions it takes to cast it. So unless designers confirm you can increase a spell's casting time over 3 actions (finishing it next round, or the round after that if it takes more than 6), that'd leave a maximum of 2 metamagic feats on a spell.
With the new action system, allowing to extend the casting time beyond your turn is trivial and there's no reason to believe it won't be possible (since full round casting time spells are a thing in first edition and you could just start casting a 10 min casting time spell mid fight if you felt like it, too), but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.I personally would like to be able to say "okay, this is going to be the mother of all fireballs, it's coming down in five rounds, come on guys cover me" and then go to the supermarket for snacks or something while your fellow players actually fight. It somehow fits with my mental image of Wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The second question is how metamagic stacks up for PF2 vs PF1. Since you apply it when a spell is cast now instead of during preparation we can assume it won't raise the spell level, but if that's the case we have reason to believe they may have other limiting factors (less per day, less stacking, etc) which would further complicate the math.If I remember correctly, metamagic doesn't affect the level but it does affect the number of actions it takes to cast it. So unless designers confirm you can increase a spell's casting time over 3 actions (finishing it next round, or the round after that if it takes more than 6), that'd leave a maximum of 2 metamagic feats on a spell.
With the new action system, allowing to extend the casting time beyond your turn is trivial and there's no reason to believe it won't be possible (since full round casting time spells are a thing in first edition and you could just start casting a 10 min casting time spell mid fight if you felt like it, too), but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.I personally would like to be able to say "okay, this is going to be the mother of all fireballs, it's coming down in five rounds, come on guys cover me" and then go to the supermarket for snacks or something while your fellow players actually fight. It somehow fits with my mental image of Wizards.
You know, I was only picturing this as a full round action, but I can really dig this too. Makes the fire ball less of a kamehameha and more of Spirit Bomb. This could make a caster attacking from ambush SUPER powerful though. Alpha strike like WOAH.
On some level, I think it is good that your lower level spell slots sort of slide into obscurity later in the game and generally become vessels for various and sundry utility spells. That is probably easier to balance for between classes if cantrip (at will) damage can be the baseline and the top two or three levels of spell slots act as a limited resource for burst damage.
I totally understand why people would not like this though: if you envision your sorcerer as a font of glorious explosions, you don’t wanna ready unseen servant in your first level slots.
I think part of it is they want to make it possible to make resource depletion more meaningful than it is in PF1. By mid to high levels in PF1, you need to throw a looooot of encounters before resource management actually becomes an issue. Making lower level spells less valuable at high levels offsets this. OTOH, I'm not sure it is great if your low level save or sucks still work pretty well but damage spells don't.
On the other other hand, maybe low level save or sucks will be have more limited impacts due to immunities and what not. Blinding a creature with color spray is less of a debuff if the creature has blindsense, but at least is meaningful if they don't have blindsight. And low level blasts might still get the job done if an encounter involves swarms, troops, or minions.