I am also worried about single target blasting in light of disintegrate. Maybe using truestrike or the like could be a factor? I am betting that truestrike is just going to make your attack hit on a failure but not a crit failure. This is me reaching for a counterpoint.
Also! I am watching the stream now and noticed that the disintegrate spell has no critical success entry for the fort save. Did your calculation take into account that even critical successes result in half damage on the save?
I am also worried about single target blasting in light of disintegrate. Maybe using truestrike or the like could be a factor? I am betting that truestrike is just going to make your attack hit on a failure but not a crit failure. This is me reaching for a counterpoint.
Also! I am watching the stream now and noticed that the disintegrate spell has no critical success entry for the fort save. Did your calculation take into account that even critical successes result in half damage on the save?
Someone (I think Mark) mentioned that you can True Strike into a Crit (explicitly using True Strike on Disintegrate at that) so I'm guessing it either adds +10 to your attack roll (at default level) or just raises your level of success by +1.
Someone (I think Mark) mentioned that you can True Strike into a Crit (explicitly using True Strike on Disintegrate at that) so I'm guessing it either adds +10 to your attack roll (at default level) or just raises your level of success by +1.I am also worried about single target blasting in light of disintegrate. Maybe using truestrike or the like could be a factor? I am betting that truestrike is just going to make your attack hit on a failure but not a crit failure. This is me reaching for a counterpoint.
Also! I am watching the stream now and noticed that the disintegrate spell has no critical success entry for the fort save. Did your calculation take into account that even critical successes result in half damage on the save?
Ha. Yeah? Well, that is pretty great.
I think it's also worth keeping in mind that a LOT of spells don't seem to age as well, not just blasting. Some just seem toned down in general.
Haste's extra attack isn't at highest attack bonus. Bless evidently requires an action to concentrate on. Discern Lies grants a +4 bonus on relevant Perception checks. Dinosaur form replaces your stats with static numbers that don't change sans heightening. We haven't seen much of our old save or suck spells, but I imagine they are gonna be reined in as the above have. Mark has said so in the past, but now we have more examples.
The only spell that seems across the board better is Heal.
I think it's also worth keeping in mind that a LOT of spells don't seem to age as well, not just blasting. Some just seem toned down in general.
Haste's extra attack isn't at highest attack bonus. Bless evidently requires an action to concentrate on. Discern Lies grants a +4 bonus on relevant Perception checks. Dinosaur form replaces your stats with static numbers that don't change sans heightening. We haven't seen much of our old save or suck spells, but I imagine they are gonna be reined in as the above have. Mark has said so in the past, but now we have more examples.
The only spell that seems across the board better is Heal.
Haste is still pretty excellent if only because it can let you do things like cast a two action spell, move, and attack all in one round and that sounds like it will be really good even at higher levels.
I think you are right that a lot of spells don’t maintain their viability well without heightening though.
|
The average damage is deceiving since it's being pulled up by the low probability chance of a crit.It absolutely is. Of course, by the averages the Empowered Fireball will rarely kill enemies, while a critical failure vs. a PF2 Cone of Cold absolutely will.
Due to the 2 point DC difference, there is a 10% chance the PF2 cone of cold will deal full damage where the PF1 empowered fireball will deal half damage due to a successful saving throw. In addition, let's generously give the PF2 spell a 20% chance to critically succeed.This is actually the real chance to critically succeed against a Redcap. Who are high Reflex Save opponents. This is, in short, not a generous chance. A generous chance would 35%, which is what you get on a low Reflex Save opponent (with the Redcap's Low Fort Save serving as evidence). Which would raise the number of 'better' results to 45% (35% of which are almost certain kills).
That means there are 30% of situations where the more favorable PF2 rules will give better results on the saving throw. However, in the other 70% of cases the two systems give the same result, and the higher base damage of the empowered fireball means it will deal more damage.On area effect spells, spiking damage high on some opponents is actually really good, since the normal average damage killing them is a long shot at best. Double damage usually will kill them, though.
20% of the Redcaps hit with Cone of Cold in PF2 just die. 35% of similar enemies with lower Reflex Saves.
So the PF2 numbers may get a rare and juicy crit, and have a slightly higher chance of success in general, but the PF2's highest baseline damage means it gets better results 70% of the time. This is particularly important if we generate damage distribution after spellcastings attacks. Some back of the napkin math indicates the PF1 Empowered Fireball is looking at a 76% chance to two-shot a Redcap, while PF2 Cone...
A redcap is a Creature 5, so a opponent on par for a level 5 spellcaster, not for a level 9.
So his chance of critical failure in a reflex save against a appropriate level opponent is 5%.The base DC of a spell seem to be 10+ caster level + appropriate stat. (someone has a link to a Dev post saying that? I can't find it)
There is a mastery level, it will vary from -2 to +3. The wizard blog say nothing about it, but we can assume a +2 in your best spell at level 5.
The maximum starting ability score seem to be 18, and you can increase it every 5 levels, but let's say it is 20 at level 5.
We get 10 +5 level +5 stat, +2 mastery = 22 Redcap save 11, minimum die roll 1 = 12. He get a critical failure only with a natural 1.
The ogre, Creature 3, with his +3 reflex save? 9/20 = 45% of the time, but it is an opponent 2 levels lower.
Both opponents will negate all damage with a natural 20. None will be able to to exceed the DC by 10, but both will be able to save with a 20, and a nat 20, if you can save with that roll, is a critical success.
The DC of a level 9 caster Cone of cold will be: 10+9 level +5 stat +2 = 26. A critical failure is 16-, so a Redcap will critically fail 25% of the time.
The ogre, Creature 3, with his +3 reflex save? 13/20 = 65% of the time, but it is an opponent 6 levels lower.
The ogre will be unable to critically save even with a nat 20, but the Redcap can do that.
But that assume that the caster is placing his mastery in damaging spells and that the stat increase is of 2 points every 5 levels, and not 1 like in Starfinder. AFAIK magic items will not be able to increase stats.
I don't see critical failures as having a large impact against same level opponents. I think we can ballpark the lowest save of a level 5 opponent at 5. That mean that it will critically fail a fireball with a roll of 7- in the worst scenario for it. And critically save with a nat 20.
With 21 point of damage as a average the fireball will be unable to single shot most of the same level targets even with a critical failure.
If they really have stat approximately on par with PCs, the minimum for a a creature level 5 is 36 (equivalent to a halfling mage without constitution bonus), but a credible range is 50+ for the low hp monsters.
|
|
We now know how Disintegrate works. As a 6th level spell, it deals 12d10 damage to one opponent, requiring both a touch attack and a Save, but having no critical success effect on a save, and a crit on thye attack reducing the Save category by one. So, let's do that math.
Still assuming a lightly armored Dex-based character, a 11th level PC will have a +17 or so Fortitude Save (11 Level + 2 Con + 3 Armor +1 Expert Save). Their AC will be around 32 (11 Level +5 Armor +5 Dex +1 Expert), while their Touch AC will be 30 (2 points lower from armor). Both those are approximations, but decent ones.
Assuming a Wizard has Expert in their spells by 11th (a reasonable guess since Clerics have it at 12th) the Wizard has a +17 attack (11 Level +5 Int +1 Expert) and crits only on a 20. They have a Save DC of 27 (+11 Level, +5 Int +1 Expert).
Our Greatsword guy still has a +3 weapon and a Str of 20, they have a +21/+16/+11 'full attack' (11 level +2 Proficiency +3 Sword +5 Str), for 4d12+5 damage (averaging 31 points). They critical only on a 20.
So let's compare DPR vs. the ligtly armored guy above. The Greatsword DPR remains 27.9 just as it is at 10th level, since AC and to-hit have gone up identically.
The Disintegrate DPR is about 19.5195.
Ouch. Yeah, that looks pretty s~#$ty and bad news for blasting in general if its representative (which we, of course, have no idea about). It is worth noting that something to increase the Wizard's attack bonus boosts that DPR quite a lot, and we have no idea whether such things exist...but such a boost on its own is probably not gonna be sufficient to save that spell's DPR.
You do have a third action to do some other damage if you want, but to be honest I'm skeptical it'll catch up with the Fighter's DPR (and indeed, if one action damage cantrips are even available).
Heightened Magic missile (level 5), 2 actions. 21 hp. I see why Mark called it a boss killer if that are the DPS of disintegrate.
In reality disintegrate is a gamble. 30% of hitting, 5% of a critical and 45% of a failed save and 5% of a critically failed save, in your example. if the sun and the moon are in the right position he deal an average of 156 hp of damage, (2.515% chance if I am correct). With a normal success 78 (16%), with a minimum result 39 (11.485%).
65% chance of doing nothing.
Assuming that enemy has 100-110 hp (it seem appropriate for a nimble opponent, about what a rogue will have at that level) he gamble a 18.5% chance of killing it or leaving it within a gretsword swing from death against a 65% chance of doing nothing.
Or he use a level sell control spell that has at least a minimum effect if the target don't critically save.
Control ascendant, blast defeated.
You do have a third action to do some other damage if you want, but to be honest I'm skeptical it'll catch up with the Fighter's DPR (and indeed, if one action damage cantrips are even available).
Even if the third action can salvage the DPR, it still raises the question of whether it's worth expending your highest-level spell slot to match the DPR of an at-will attack. By and large, the expectation is that the highest level spell slot is going to be spectacular. Disintegrate goes even further due to having both an attack roll and a save; spells that are high-risk like this tend to require even bigger payoff when they do work to be worthwhile.
Looking at this math, I'm actually somewhat concerned about touch attacks in general. Unless there's some means of raising your attack bonus substantially, casters are going to have a very hard time landing these. True strike does give some hope that there are combos to get around it, so we'll see about this one.
|
|
You do have a third action to do some other damage if you want, but to be honest I'm skeptical it'll catch up with the Fighter's DPR (and indeed, if one action damage cantrips are even available).Even if the third action can salvage the DPR, it still raises the question of whether it's worth expending your highest-level spell slot to match the DPR of an at-will attack. By and large, the expectation is that the highest level spell slot is going to be spectacular. Disintegrate goes even further due to having both an attack roll and a save; spells that are high-risk like this tend to require even bigger payoff when they do work to be worthwhile.
Looking at this math, I'm actually somewhat concerned about touch attacks in general. Unless there's some means of raising your attack bonus substantially, casters are going to have a very hard time landing these. True strike does give some hope that there are combos to get around it, so we'll see about this one.
Assuming that True strike is a cantrip and it has a 1 round casting time, that become the 4th obligatory cantrip for a blaster:
Attack cantrip, shield, detect magic, true strike.If it is a 1st level spell it become "all of the 1st level spells" after the blaster mage has some level under his belt.
"Variability in using magic". Sure.
Dinosaur form replaces your stats with static numbers that don't change sans heightening.So they went back to 3.5 polymorph? That seems... well, like a step back.
No, they didn't. 3.5 and 5e polymorph let you pick any creature and get its stat block replacing your own. This is undesirable because it means a monster or two will inevitably rise to the top, it is harder to comb through a bestiary and find an appropriate form, and it is hard to future proof the spell.
This version gives you mostly the same stats for any of the 6 or so dinosaurs you can become, with each having a couple unique abilities. It is certainly easier to run than similar spells in PF1 or any version of D&D I'm familiar with.
That said, while this seems solid for this specific spell, it seems hard to mesh with polymorph spells with a broader range of critters.
|
|
Dinosaur form replaces your stats with static numbers that don't change sans heightening.So they went back to 3.5 polymorph? That seems... well, like a step back.No, they didn't. 3.5 and 5e polymorph let you pick any creature and get its stat block replacing your own. This is undesirable because it means a monster or two will inevitably rise to the top, it is harder to comb through a bestiary and find an appropriate form, and it is hard to future proof the spell.
This version gives you mostly the same stats for any of the 6 or so dinosaurs you can become, with each having a couple unique abilities. It is certainly easier to run than similar spells in PF1 or any version of D&D I'm familiar with.
That said, while this seems solid for this specific spell, it seems hard to mesh with polymorph spells with a broader range of critters.
• One or more natural melee attacks, which are the only types of attacks you can use. You're trained with them. Your attack modifier is +14; your damage bonus is +9. These are Strength based.
Great, so the level of the spell used give you a specific attack value. Your level don't matter.
These special statistics can be adjusted only by penalties circumstance bonuses, and conditional bonuses. Your battle form prevents casting spells, speaking, or using most actions with the manipulate trait that require hands (the GM decides if there's doubt). You can dismiss the spell with a concentrate action.
Return to 1st-2nd AD&D ed.
|
|
Because it doesn't seem worth a thread on its own to me, here's some info from the earlier PF2 panel that I noticed while watching it:
-We now know what Double Slice does. It allows you to spend two actions and make one attack with each of your two weapons. These attacks are both at your full bonus. Their damage is then added together before applying Resistance or Weakness. If you make a third attack it gets the full penalty for being a third attack (usually -10). This is actually super good (since it's effectively a +5 to hit on that second attack), and it's the introductory TWF Feat.
-We now know that stat-boosting items are in the game, though they were referenced as only at high levels (they also usually do other stuff as well, like a Belt of Giant Strength giving you Rock Catching and the ability to Enlarge yourself).
By math (based on Mark's comment regarding a 17-18 point swing between people who are terrible at a skill and specialists at 20th level), and combined with items giving up to +5 to skills (basically proved by the Gauntlet), we can infer that leveling Abilities past 18 with Level Ups must only give +1 rather than +2. This caps PCs at Ability Scores of 22 without magic (and, again due to the math, almost certainly at 24 even with magic).
-References were made to a Legendary Intimidate Skill Feat that is a Save or Die effect, as you literally scare people to death (it's limited to no more than one use per target per day). This bodes well for Skill Feats being powerful.
-In related news, you can spend your General Feats on Skill Feats if you want (and one Human Ancestry Feat gives a General Feat). Generally, you can't switch Feats between categories otherwise.
-Haste grants a bonus action (for a total of 4), but specifies that this action may only be used to Stride or Strike. In related news, the -10 for your third attack also applies to any subsequent attacks (like the one you could get from Haste) rather than escalating to -15.
EDIT: Well, since someone else started a thread (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v5yb?PF2-Playtest-Panel) I guess people should probably discuss this stuff over there.
So someone with legendary intimidation can try to kill each target he met once a day. Possibly with one action. I hope success is lower that for PF1 intimidate attempts.
I am sure that if casters where to get a cantrip that do the same we will get an uproar.Putting it here as a reference.
As another point of comparison, a 9th level druid using a heightened Dinosaur Form has a touch AC of 24. A 7th level casting of that spell has a touch AC of 29, but that looks like a bigger jump than the previous heighten bump. If big bruisers have touch AC more in those ranges, how does disintegrate look?An interesting question! We'll call it Touch AC 27 and the above stats for the Disintegrate user.
That comes to 35.965. Or thereabouts.
That's certainly much better. I'm not sure it's enough better to warrant a 6th level spell slot and remain...we'll call it concerned about single-target blasting if Disintegrate is representative (which it easily might not be, it does reduce people to dust, while another spell of the same level might not do so and involve either only a Save or only an attack roll...an attack roll only version has a DPR of 39.6 vs. TAC 27 and 29.7 vs. TAC 30, for example, while one with only a Save has 49.5 vs. a +17 Save, and 39.6 vs. a Save of +20).
As those hypothetical Save/Attack roll only numbers show, even a spell that did lower dice of damage could be very nasty if there is indeed only the one defense vs. it.
Disintegrate also has other uses besides damage. For example, insta-destroying force walls and the like, which in my experience, it's used as much as to do damage.
|
|
Heightened Magic missile (level 5), 2 actions. 21 hp. I see why Mark called it a boss killer if that are the DPS of disintegrate.
In reality disintegrate is a gamble. 30% of hitting, 5% of a critical and 45% of a failed save and 5% of a critically failed save, in your example. if the sun and the moon are in the right position he deal an average of 156 hp of damage, (2.515% chance if I am correct). With a normal success 78 (16%), with a minimum result 39 (11.485%).
65% chance of doing nothing.
Assuming that enemy has 100-110 hp (it seem appropriate for a nimble opponent, about what a rogue will have at that level) he gamble a 18.5% chance of killing it or leaving it within a gretsword swing from death against a 65% chance of doing nothing.Or he use a level sell control spell that has at least a minimum effect if the target don't critically save.
Control ascendant, blast defeated.
Small correction: disintegrate do 12d10 (for some reason I sued 12d12), so the values are:
- successful save 33- failed save 66
- save critical failure 132
Essentially:
- slightly better than a hit from a greatsword: 11.485%,
- 2 and a half greatsword hits: 16%
- same level target dead: 2.515%
- nothing 65%
well yeah, if that intimidate feat was a cantrip at level one it would be problematic. As a high level use of skill that a character has to feat into, and which will probably mostly be useful on lower level threats? I don't see a problem.
Another note on the math of disintegrate’s expected damage: are we wrong to expect that spellcasters will not have any available item bonus for their spell attacks and spell saves?
I wonder if being able to attack touch rather than normal AC is enough of a bonus that they don’t need an item bonus to attack in the game’s math. However?, it would be a little odd if characters gain item bonuses to their saves while spellcasters don’t game a bonus to their DCs.
|
|
A redcap is a Creature 5, so a opponent on par for a level 5 spellcaster, not for a level 9.With area effect spells? No.
You use those when fighting large numbers of enemies...which due to how encounter design works wind up being of lower level.
The Redcap is on par with a level 5 caster. Not a good target for a area spell, but that is another argument.
As he is on par, he is a good example to see the save effects.
|
|
Another note on the math of disintegrate’s expected damage: are we wrong to expect that spellcasters will not have any available item bonus for their spell attacks and spell saves?
We currently have no evidence of such a thing.
I wonder if being able to attack touch rather than normal AC is enough of a bonus that they don’t need an item bonus to attack in the game’s math. However?, it would be a little odd if characters gain item bonuses to their saves while spellcasters don’t game a bonus to their DCs.
Actually, due to the math of the game, it sort of needs to be this way. Right now, someone with an 18 in a stat and Expert in the Save associated can have a +25 Save at 20th. A maxed out caster's Save DCs are at 40. With a +5 Item, the person above (who's actually good at that Save for their level) can Save on a 10. Otherwise they only manage saving on a 15, which hurts.
|
|
Another note on the math of disintegrate’s expected damage: are we wrong to expect that spellcasters will not have any available item bonus for their spell attacks and spell saves?
I wonder if being able to attack touch rather than normal AC is enough of a bonus that they don’t need an item bonus to attack in the game’s math. However?, it would be a little odd if characters gain item bonuses to their saves while spellcasters don’t game a bonus to their DCs.
Consideration on typical hp are done without feats or items.
Considerations on typical AC are done without feats (but with items).Considerations on typical saves are done without feats or items. (Mastery is a different beast)
Considerations on typical DC are done without feats or items.
Seem balanced. At least until we know if the feat exist and what they do.
It all depend on what "monster stat are roughly on par with same level characters" mean.
Equipped characters with common feats and stats, or naked character with 10 in all stats?
I think it mean the latter. A typical creature 10 opponent will have stats comparable to those of a geared character that has a similar role.
(Comparable don't mean equal, simply something in the same ballpark)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A redcap is a Creature 5, so a opponent on par for a level 5 spellcaster, not for a level 9.
Assuming lvl works like CR, it's an opponent on par with a lvl 5 group. I know wizards often don't feel the distinction because they solo the encounters at their initaitive moment, but that's not the same.
Also, even 1vs1, "being an opponent" is not the same than "OHKO him". The game is avoiding rocket tag, so not being able to kill equal level enemies with a single hit cast from 100 feet away is expected.
|
|
Another note on the math of disintegrate’s expected damage: are we wrong to expect that spellcasters will not have any available item bonus for their spell attacks and spell saves?We currently have no evidence of such a thing.
I wonder if being able to attack touch rather than normal AC is enough of a bonus that they don’t need an item bonus to attack in the game’s math. However?, it would be a little odd if characters gain item bonuses to their saves while spellcasters don’t game a bonus to their DCs.Actually, due to the math of the game, it sort of needs to be this way. Right now, someone with an 18 in a stat and Expert in the Save associated can have a +25 Save at 20th. A maxed out caster's Save DCs are at 40. With a +5 Item, the person above (who's actually good at that Save for their level) can Save on a 10. Otherwise they only manage saving on a 15, which hurts.
That seem the weak save for a level 20 character. And we don't know if being an expert has extra effects.
|
|
A redcap is a Creature 5, so a opponent on par for a level 5 spellcaster, not for a level 9.
Assuming lvl works like CR, it's an opponent on par with a lvl 5 group. I know wizards often don't feel the distinction because they solo the encounters at their initaitive moment, but that's not the same.
Also, even 1vs1, "being an opponent" is not the same than "OHKO him". The game is avoiding rocket tag, so not being able to kill equal level enemies with a single hit cast from 100 feet away is expected.
As an opponent a level 5 character is meant to be equivalent to a level 5 monster, so, no.
I see that we use "on par" in a very different way, but I use it as "has a roughly the same power". Not as "it is a opponent of the same challenge rating (that don't exist in PF2) as a the whole party".
I think that your dislike for wizards is affecting your way of reading what other people write.
The whole post was about the effect of critical success of failures when fighting a creature of your level, not about rocket tagging it.
Another note on the math of disintegrate’s expected damage: are we wrong to expect that spellcasters will not have any available item bonus for their spell attacks and spell saves?We currently have no evidence of such a thing.
I wonder if being able to attack touch rather than normal AC is enough of a bonus that they don’t need an item bonus to attack in the game’s math. However?, it would be a little odd if characters gain item bonuses to their saves while spellcasters don’t game a bonus to their DCs.Actually, due to the math of the game, it sort of needs to be this way. Right now, someone with an 18 in a stat and Expert in the Save associated can have a +25 Save at 20th. A maxed out caster's Save DCs are at 40. With a +5 Item, the person above (who's actually good at that Save for their level) can Save on a 10. Otherwise they only manage saving on a 15, which hurts.
That does make sense. Yeah.
Well, I will still need to see/want to see more spells before I really cry foul on single target blasting damage vs. martial DPS. Comparing apples to apples: a wizard will tend to be targeting a monster’s weakest saves and defenses while a fighter will always be targeting AC (though they may target “Reflex defense” and the like if they go for combat maneuvers) so direct comparisons against a specific monster is somewhat insufficient.
There is also the consideration that a spellcaster can do most of their tricks at range with two actions while a fight boy will tend to do their best when they are already in melee and can perform all three of their attacks (even if that mechanic is in fact at will). Also, with rerolling/luck/spell mechanics there may be a lot of support for betting all your damage on one big attack rather than over three lesser attacks (like in the true strike example above). Edit: This last point will be essentially true for fighter’s with a power attack build as well.
The current Dinosaur Form model works out pretty well from a balance and ease of use perspective, regardless of which bits are similar to whatever versions of the game. At 4th level spell slot, it looks like it will compare pretty nicely to a 7th level fighter, and it looks to scale well as you heighten it. But it looks like at a certain point the non-heightened version becomes kinda useless, because your own stats from level should be much better.
Setting aside any debate on the merits of this spell design, it is interesting in relation to the concerns about blasting spells scaling.
Is it possible that almost no spell retains combat combat viability once the level gap becomes high enough? Are our wizards going to only have 2-6 spells that REALLY tip a combat per day, and then be relying on powers and cantrips? If so, will lower level spell slots almost inevitably become filled with utility spells for high level characters? Is this what they meant when they said they were evening out what it felt like to play high level vs low level?
Alternatively, will encounter design be varied enough to make those lower level spells relevant? A DoT spell that lasts long enough may remain relevant against an enemy with weakness 25. At some point, Cone of Cold's DC gets so high the ogres always critically fail and probably die. And at level 15+, Disintegrate may find itself prepared primarily as a way to remove obstacles.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone (I think Mark) mentioned that you can True Strike into a Crit (explicitly using True Strike on Disintegrate at that) so I'm guessing it either adds +10 to your attack roll (at default level) or just raises your level of success by +1.I am also worried about single target blasting in light of disintegrate. Maybe using truestrike or the like could be a factor? I am betting that truestrike is just going to make your attack hit on a failure but not a crit failure. This is me reaching for a counterpoint.
Also! I am watching the stream now and noticed that the disintegrate spell has no critical success entry for the fort save. Did your calculation take into account that even critical successes result in half damage on the save?
It's not quite so powerful, as that. However, it's one-action, and it's incredibly useful if you want to use a big-ticket spell with an attack roll.
Actually, due to the math of the game, it sort of needs to be this way. Right now, someone with an 18 in a stat and Expert in the Save associated can have a +25 Save at 20th. A maxed out caster's Save DCs are at 40. With a +5 Item, the person above (who's actually good at that Save for their level) can Save on a 10. Otherwise they only manage saving on a 15, which hurts.
This is roughly accurate and a good reason why saves need an item bonus and not spell DC, basically a caster is maxing the casting stat and a defender can't max all save stats in the game. However, unlike saves, AC has a rules element that covers the gap for the fact that not everyone can max Dexterity: armor. Because of this, there are ways to get attack bonus on ranged touch spells to be a fair bit higher than anticipated above, depending on your priorities.
Disintegrate also has other uses besides damage. For example, insta-destroying force walls and the like, which in my experience, it's used as much as to do damage.
The reason for that is less because it's an amazing utility spell, and more because it's absolute garbage for damage. And by all appearances it's worse in PF2; lower damage, the damage doesn't increase with caster level, and touch attacks are significantly less accurate. Even if DPR is going down, that just doesn't leave it any room to shine.
Essentially:
- slightly better than a hit from a greatsword: 11.485%,
- 2 and a half greatsword hits: 16%
- same level target dead: 2.515%
- nothing 65%
So basically, crit or bust. Definitely not useful without boosting its numbers up to make crits more likely.
Another note on the math of disintegrate’s expected damage: are we wrong to expect that spellcasters will not have any available item bonus for their spell attacks and spell saves?
It would be super-annoying if we finally got rid of headbands only to have a new item take their place as a requisite "you must have this many plusses to be competent at this level" equipment tax.
While we don't know for sure one way or another yet, I sure hope this isn't the case.
At some point, Cone of Cold's DC gets so high the ogres always critically fail and probably die.
By the time that happens, I'd imagine the Ogres will only hit on a natural 20. So unless you're in a hurry, anything above a cantrip will probably be overkill anyways.
Because of this, there are ways to get attack bonus on ranged touch spells to be a fair bit higher than anticipated above, depending on your priorities.
Good to know, because touch AC is looking like a much more formidable defense in PF2 than it was in PF1.
|
|
It's not quite so powerful, as that. However, it's one-action, and it's incredibly useful if you want to use a big-ticket spell with an attack roll.
Neat. That definitely helps. Is it a Cantrip as some have suggested, or just a good investment of your 1st level spell slots?
This is roughly accurate and a good reason why saves need an item bonus and not spell DC, basically a caster is maxing the casting stat and a defender can't max all save stats in the game.
Yeah, that's what I figured. Thanks for the confirmation
However, unlike saves, AC has a rules element that covers the gap for the fact that not everyone can max Dexterity: armor. Because of this, there are ways to get attack bonus on ranged touch spells to be a fair bit higher than anticipated above, depending on your priorities.
This is excellent news, and effects Disintegrate's DPR quite a bit. I mean, the difference between the 19 DPR and nearly double that in my two examples above is a +3 to hit (and would thus apply to a TAC 30 foe if you had a +3 item). If the nearly 40 DPR is vs. a hard to hit foe and it peaks higher vs. low TAC targets, it's suddenly very good (a +20 vs. TAC 27 gives a DPR of 52.88 and almost double the Fighter). True Strike would apparently increase that even more.
Now, all those numbers are vs. a mediocre Fort Save. But on the other hand, high TAC and high Fort Saves on the same character are sort of a rare combo. And high Fort enemies are bad targets for Disintegrate anyway.
In short, this news comforts me that blasting is a viable option all on its own. Adding even more damage via a Class Feat or something would potentially make it very good indeed.
Disintegrate also has other uses besides damage. For example, insta-destroying force walls and the like, which in my experience, it's used as much as to do damage.The reason for that is less because it's an amazing utility spell, and more because it's absolute garbage for damage. And by all appearances it's worse in PF2; lower damage, the damage doesn't increase with caster level, and touch attacks are significantly less accurate. Even if DPR is going down, that just doesn't leave it any room to shine.
the reason for that is wall of force is an awesome utility spell, and disintegrate counters it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[I see that we use "on par" in a very different way, but I use it as "has a roughly the same power". Not as "it is a opponent of the same challenge rating (that don't exist in PF2) as a the whole party".
if both have roughly the same power, asking for wizards to OHKO the monster means the monster can OHKO the Wizard. That is not something the devs are looking for, fortunately
I think that your dislike for wizards is affecting your way of reading what other people write.
The whole post was about the effect of critical success of failures when fighting a creature of your level, not about rocket tagging it.
I love wizards. I dislike people who want them to overshadow the party, which is different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This conversation has me wondering whether partial casters are likely to exist in PF2. No high level slots and no CL scaling is going to limit you to utility or (relatively weak) debuffs unless you put in a bunch of class feat options (or taxes) to make up the lag.
|
|
[I see that we use "on par" in a very different way, but I use it as "has a roughly the same power". Not as "it is a opponent of the same challenge rating (that don't exist in PF2) as a the whole party".if both have roughly the same power, asking for wizards to OHKO the monster means the monster can OHKO the Wizard. That is not something the devs are looking for, fortunately
I love wizards. I dislike people who want them to overshadow the party, which is different.I think that your dislike for wizards is affecting your way of reading what other people write.
The whole post was about the effect of critical success of failures when fighting a creature of your level, not about rocket tagging it.
Then read my earlier post. You are assuming that I want to "OHKO the monster", when I don't say nothing like that.
That is an attempt at analyzing what are blasting effects against a same level creature. I don't know how you are able that to twist to "you want to OHKO the monster".
And please, this isn't the Pokemon forum, so, if possible, don't use that slang.
|
|
This conversation has me wondering whether partial casters are likely to exist in PF2. No high level slots and no CL scaling is going to limit you to utility or (relatively weak) debuffs unless you put in a bunch of class feat options (or taxes) to make up the lag.
Honestly, it seems unlikely that anything resembling PF1 partial casters will exist per se. Paladins seem more like what we'll get for 'partial' casters, with Spell Point spells only (and not necessarily a lot of them), which work as max level, or near max level, spells.
I'd expect Rangers to work like Paladins in that regard (though they might not get one free Spell like Paladins do and thus be able to be spell-less if they never invest into the Class Feats for it), while Bard will get upgraded to a full caster.
The same probably applies to most 6 and 4 level casters (though Medium and Bloodrager, if they exist this edition, may get some stranger accommodation), with 6 level ones getting upped to full caster and 4 level ones getting some Spell Point stuff.
Kineticist probably also winds up using Spell Points rather than Burn (I'd think, anyway) but nevertheless having at-will effects.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully not.
At some point, Cone of Cold's DC gets so high the ogres always critically fail and probably die.By the time that happens, I'd imagine the Ogres will only hit on a natural 20. So unless you're in a hurry, anything above a cantrip will probably be overkill anyways.
I should have added "and troop templates are still a thing." That seems to be the most elegant way to run lots of low level enemies. Really just depends on how much variety we have in encounters.
Agreed. I don't need sorcerers to act like Kintecists, or vice versa.
Now, if you mean you want Sorcerers to have a scaling elemental damage cantrip, as well as some potent utility powers, then sure. But I wouldn't want that to be the focus of the class; just some add-ons they can select based on their bloodline or the player's whim. I'd also want to be able to select transmutation powers like the ability to grow claws and extend your reach with an unarmed strike, or manipulate fate and time, or any of a dozen other bloodline powers.
For our inevitable kineticist I want a TON of powers, powers every level, with abilities that let you extend the life of your spell point pool, as well as abilities that let you use up points to make your cantrips more potent.
It's not quite so powerful, as that. However, it's one-action, and it's incredibly useful if you want to use a big-ticket spell with an attack roll.Someone (I think Mark) mentioned that you can True Strike into a Crit (explicitly using True Strike on Disintegrate at that) so I'm guessing it either adds +10 to your attack roll (at default level) or just raises your level of success by +1.I am also worried about single target blasting in light of disintegrate. Maybe using truestrike or the like could be a factor? I am betting that truestrike is just going to make your attack hit on a failure but not a crit failure. This is me reaching for a counterpoint.
Also! I am watching the stream now and noticed that the disintegrate spell has no critical success entry for the fort save. Did your calculation take into account that even critical successes result in half damage on the save?
Well now I'm just curious. I'm still guessing it's an attack bonus of some sort. We know a level 4 spell can give a +4 to a specific... whatever-Perception-is-considered-now check. I do hope this doesn't mean True Strike scaled down to a +1 at level 1.
This conversation has me wondering whether partial casters are likely to exist in PF2. No high level slots and no CL scaling is going to limit you to utility or (relatively weak) debuffs unless you put in a bunch of class feat options (or taxes) to make up the lag.Honestly, it seems unlikely that anything resembling PF1 partial casters will exist per se. Paladins seem more like what we'll get for 'partial' casters, with Spell Point spells only (and not necessarily a lot of them), which work as max level, or near max level, spells.
I'd expect Rangers to work like Paladins in that regard (though they might not get one free Spell like Paladins do and thus be able to be spell-less if they never invest into the Class Feats for it), while Bard will get upgraded to a full caster.
The same probably applies to most 6 and 4 level casters (though Medium and Bloodrager, if they exist this edition, may get some stranger accommodation), with 6 level ones getting upped to full caster and 4 level ones getting some Spell Point stuff.
Kineticist probably also winds up using Spell Points rather than Burn (I'd think, anyway) but nevertheless having at-will effects.
I have also been wondering about the possibility of a class that gets full casting progression but no spell points or other features that grant more spells . I don’t know if that is a lever that anyone wants to pull though. That might be be a path for a bard, however.
I have also been wondering about the possibility of a class that gets full casting progression but no spell points or other features that grant more spells . I don’t know if that is a lever that anyone wants to pull though. That might be be a path for a bard, however.
Hmm. I don't think I agree for the Bard. I think inspiration will be in effect a spell, possibly one with its own resource pool like channeling, or some other gimmick to make bards 1) want to do it, and 2) be really good at it. And to have a class with only spell slots but no powers, you'd want to make sure they had another way to bring the woe unto their enemies or weal to their comrades, and I think bards will need spells to pull that off.
A Magus or Inquisitor (or both!), however...
|
|
This I am cautious about, I wanted to like the Bard as a full caster in 5th Ed, but it just doesn't feel right. It also highlights no arcane half-caster, yet there are 2 divine ones in 5th Ed. Of course PF2 has a different setup, looks to only have full-slot casters (wizard, etc) and spell-point casters (paladin), so far? I think my favourite iteration of the bard is 2nd Ed AD&D.
Yeah, only full casters and Spell-Point users so far. And I'm not precisely endorsing (I had my issues with the 5E Bard as well), just predicting.
Though, really, I think my issue with 5E Bards is less that they're full casters and more that they methodically removed almost all the cool stuff about being a Bard except casting. Bardic Inspiration just isn't very impressive in 5E, for example. I would much rather they were half caster who could actually meaningfully party buff without using spells.
Hopefully, PF2 will manage the right vibe via a robust Performance system combined with a less impressive spell list, keeping their focus primarily on their Performance stuff and maybe physical combat and away from spells (which is where their focus should be, and sorta where the 5E Bard loses me).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, if you mean you want Sorcerers to have a scaling elemental damage cantrip, as well as some potent utility powers, then sure.
Sort of. I want Sorcerers to have powerful at-will powers that can be boosted and molded with spell points (instead of Burn). These would be blasty for most bloodlines, but could be scrappy for Dragon (and perhaps Earth?) Sorcerers and debuffy/controlly for Fey Sorcerers. Then add a small number of arcane spells for utility.
Sorcerers have relatively few tricks but can use them in reckless abundance. As such, they share the design space of Kineticists. I think they should be combined into a perfect class for the concept rather than trying desperately to remain distinct and accept compromises to that end. I feel like making Sorcerers a primary arcane spellcaster with at least as many spells per day as the Wizard already makes it sort of redundant with the Wizard. This sort of thing should be covered by Wizard class feats.
Now, if you mean you want Sorcerers to have a scaling elemental damage cantrip, as well as some potent utility powers, then sure.Sort of. I want Sorcerers to have powerful at-will powers that can be boosted and molded with spell points (instead of Burn). These would be blasty for most bloodlines, but could be scrappy for Dragon (and perhaps Earth?) Sorcerers and debuffy/controlly for Fey Sorcerers. Then add a small number of arcane spells for utility.
Sorcerers have relatively few tricks but can use them in reckless abundance. As such, they share the design space of Kineticists. I think they should be combined into a perfect class for the concept rather than trying desperately to remain distinct and accept compromises to that end. I feel like making Sorcerers a primary arcane spellcaster with at least as many spells per day as the Wizard already makes it sort of redundant with the Wizard. This sort of thing should be covered by Wizard class feats.
Okay, that makes more sense. You don't want to push kineticists into being spellcasters, you want Sorcerers to act more like Kineticists, leaning hard into their bloodline abilities to define their class fantasy. It wouldn't be much like the Sorcerers we've seen before, but I could live with that.
To be honest, I think they'll do a little of what you'd like anyways. Even if a sorcerer really is just a spontaneous version of the wizard, they're going to write cantrips and bloodline powers appropriate to the dozen or so bloodlines in print, with more released every time they update the class. And when they do finally get around to writing a kineticist, giving them the Sorcerer's class powers and cantrips is going to make a lot of sense (with a few of its own; I wouldn't expect OmniKinesis to appear on the sorcerer list). Same for Shifters with Druid powers. Edit: Actually, correction. Bloodragers will be the class that takes all the sorcerer's bloodline powers and runs off skipping. Hmm, separating Bloodragers and Kineticists might be interesting. I suppose if Bloodragers don't get cantrips, and instead rely on their weapon use, while the opposite is true for Kineticists, that might work. Awfully little wiggle room though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is an attempt at analyzing what are blasting effects against a same level creature. I don't know how you are able that to twist to "you want to OHKO the monster".
Yes. And because the effect of a blast effect is not "the monster died", you seem to imply that blast isn't useful. "the monster did not die in 1 hit" is a design goal, so the blast not reaching that is working as intended. Comparing blasting to PF1 blasting, when this happened, isn't useful. Should compare to PF2 martial damage. If PF2 martial damage can kill in one hit/round, and blasting doesn't, then yes, we could talk about how blasting is doing too little. As far as it's doing damage in the same ballpark (something less, if AOE, a bit more if single target, because of "fire and forget"), it's fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This conversation has me wondering whether partial casters are likely to exist in PF2. No high level slots and no CL scaling is going to limit you to utility or (relatively weak) debuffs unless you put in a bunch of class feat options (or taxes) to make up the lag.
...what if 2/3 casters still got slots for higher-level spells but not access to those spell levels? Then they could Heighten their lower-level stuff to scale properly, but the full-casters would have access to those shiny 7+ level spells...