Thoughts on Spells, Spell Lists, and Persistent Damage

[sherlock1701]

So I've got a few thoughts on how the spell list can be improved, and how spells in general could be bettered.

First, the spell list isn't well-organized. All spells and class powers are mashed together, sorted only alphabetically, with no indication of which class or magic tradition it's associated with.

My proposed resolution is:
-Separate powers from spells and either a)put powers in their class block or b) sort powers out by class and level
-Sort spells by level first, then alphabetically within level (so cantrips A-Z, 1st-level A-Z, etc.)
-MOST IMPORTANT: In the top info bar for a spell, include the magic traditions it's associated with. This would avoid the current issue (which is also my biggest issue with the spell sorting in 5e), where if you're reading through all the spells, you have to keep jumping between your class list and the spell description to see if you can use that spell.
-Overall, make it so that if I want to say, pick a second-level spell, I don't even need to look at the spell list - I should just be able to read through descriptions of second-level spells until I find the one I want, and know I qualify for it.

On to spells themselves. My biggest beef is that we've gone the way of DnD, where spell power is independent of the caster's ability to cast spells. What I mean is, there's no scaling with caster level. A 1st-level cleric and a 20th-level cleric cast Bless or disrupting Weapons exactly the same - the only difference is that one might Heighten the spell. I would contend that heightening shouldn't be necessary, that the 20th-level cleric is inherently better at magic and that all his spells ought to be commensurately more powerful.

Some things that could scale with caster level:
-Magnitude/damage
-Number of targets
-Range (why get rid of Close/Medium/Long? Those were easy values to remember and we didn't need the exact number of feet spelled out, as it were).

I realize that DCs technically scale with caster level, but that's kind of boring. I'd rather have DCs be based on the spell level (why is it just as easy to dodge a fireball as a burning hands, for example?)

Another issue is that damage is really inconsistent across spells of the same level. Historically, this has often favored arcane casters, with no really good reason for it - this seems unchanged in this edition. However, even in the same magical tradition, there are gross discrepancies. For example, at third level, Searing Light deals 4d6 damage to one target (0 on a miss) and (maybe) dispels a darkness effect. Lightning Bolt, at the same level, deals 4d12 (almost twice as much, half on a "miss"), and can hit several targets. Both of these spells are in the Primal tradition. I don't think the possibility of dispelling some darkness (in the rare even there is any on the battlefield) is worth sacrificing that much damage. I can't imagine any druid/primal sorcerer choosing Searing Light over Lightning Bolt/Fireball (or even Acid Arrow).

A lot of transmutation/conjuration spells and power seem pointless. Take the 2nd-level Artistic Flourish power, for example. You make something look like a work of art and really beautiful. However, even the most casual observer can tell that the effect is "obviously temporary", so you can't sell it for extra. Why would you cast this? You can't commit fraud wit hit, and you won't impress anyone, because they automatically notice it's a fake. Who would care about this power?
For that matter, how is an effect "obviously Temporary"? If I use Creation to make a wooden shield, it can be used like a real wooden shield for the duration - how would anyone know otherwise? Is everyone in the world a magical savant? If they just notice a magical aura, why couldn't you fool them into thinking it was a magic shield? Does it appear ephemeral? Why couldn't you lie and say it's a ghost touch shield? There are arbitrary rules here to keep players from doing cool stuff (presumably in the name of "balance", which is overrated in tabletop anyway). I'd think the consequences of committing fraud should be adequate to counterbalance the benefits of getting money with such spells/powers.

My final topic (for now) is on persistent damage. Given the buffs to health (maximized die at every level!) and nerfs to damage across the board, it's pretty clear that sticking persistent damage is the way to go to hurt someone - it's really hard to get rid of, and you can afflict them with multiple types at once (and it's not hard to do so either).

This primarily concerns me as a GM. Tactical players (which mine are) will try and stick persistent damage on many enemies in a fight, to maximize the effectiveness. This is cool from a player perspective, but now as a GM I'm tracking two, three, four, etc. persistent damages per monster - the bookkeeping gets overwhelming fast. I'd say that players either need other/better ways to deal damage than sticking acid+bleed+burn, or that persistent damage needs to be toned down just a tad. I can't blame anyone for playing that way in the current paradigm - it makes sense to set someone on fire and bleed them out, then leave them to die while focusing on the next target.

And why the heck isn't there a Coup de Grace action?!

[chibiamy]

You know, I am going to second a few things here.

Spells are difficult to look through from the browsing sense.

I'm a first level wizard, and I need to pick out my spells.
Well, which ones are Arcane?
Which ones are Divine?
Which ones are Primal?
Which ones are Occult?

Either put the type of spell as a keyword in the upper left, or use a symbol after the name of the spell denoting which list it is on. Maybe even a colored dot for the spell-casting tradition. I.E. Red = Arcane, Blue = Divine, Green = Primal, Black = Occult

I would break it out by level, and alphabetical that way, for easier searching in the full spell description section. You don't have to, that's just a personal thing for me. It makes it easier to read through the 2nd level spells and find what I want, without flipping pages and referring to the nice list you have made several pages away.

I would separate out powers from spells. Unless you can cast a power as a 1st level spell of the appropriate tradition. That seems counter to what you are going for, but I can see that as being a bonus to the versatility of the pure spell-casting classes.

Minor things, I know.

[Arrow17]

sherlock1701 wrote:

So I've got a few thoughts on how the spell list can be improved, and how spells in general could be bettered.

First, the spell list isn't well-organized. All spells and class powers are mashed together, sorted only alphabetically, with no indication of which class or magic tradition it's associated with.

My proposed resolution is:
-Separate powers from spells and either a)put powers in their class block or b) sort powers out by class and level
-Sort spells by level first, then alphabetically within level (so cantrips A-Z, 1st-level A-Z, etc.)
-MOST IMPORTANT: In the top info bar for a spell, include the magic traditions it's associated with. This would avoid the current issue (which is also my biggest issue with the spell sorting in 5e), where if you're reading through all the spells, you have to keep jumping between your class list and the spell description to see if you can use that spell.
-Overall, make it so that if I want to say, pick a second-level spell, I don't even need to look at the spell list - I should just be able to read through descriptions of second-level spells until I find the one I want, and know I qualify for it.

On to spells themselves. My biggest beef is that we've gone the way of DnD, where spell power is independent of the caster's ability to cast spells. What I mean is, there's no scaling with caster level. A 1st-level cleric and a 20th-level cleric cast Bless or disrupting Weapons exactly the same - the only difference is that one might Heighten the spell. I would contend that heightening shouldn't be necessary, that the 20th-level cleric is inherently better at magic and that all his spells ought to be commensurately more powerful.

Some things that could scale with caster level:
-Magnitude/damage
-Number of targets
-Range (why get rid of Close/Medium/Long? Those were easy values to remember and we didn't need the exact number of feet spelled out, as it were).

I realize that DCs technically scale with caster level, but that's kind of boring. I'd rather have...

I agree with your post 100%. It seems like an angry pro-martial player was put in charge of spell design and completely nerfed some spells for no apparent reason. A few examples

Mage Armor - So a PF1 spell that gave a +4 bonus to AC was so overpowered that it had to be retconned to a 6th level spell when its equivalent in medium armor is available in silver at first level?

Protection (alignment) - A downgrade of +1 to AC from +2 and loss of mental defenses and physical defenses against summoned/extra planar foes was too OP for this marginal spell?

Shield as a cantrip can't even be brought in line to a heavy shield that you could buy at 1rst level and cannot take more than one "dent" without being destroyed?

Sleep being taken out of its traditional role as a combat spell unless an enemy critically fails a save?

Complete nerfing of evocation spells when character and monster hit points are inflated compared to PF1 equivalents when these spells were stronger.

Needlesly breaking detect magic into two cantrips for detect magic and read aura when detect magic in PF1 accomplished effects of both cantrips.

Lack of ranged cleric cantrips without relying on metamagic. Only a single general purpose damage cantrip usuable against any foe.

Power Word Kill slaying a target with 55 hit points. What monster is going to have 55 hit points at that level that would require a power word? Just have a fighter stab it twice in a round and it will likely be dead if 55 hit points of damage is all thats needed to finish a foe off.

These are just a few examples off the top of my head, I can probably find more examples of unneccesary nerfs to spells if I looked through the book.

[JDLPF]

On Persistent Damage

While the initial impression is that this is powerful, I recommend closely examining the math on the totals.

Let's compare one of the bread-and-butter DoT spells, Acid Arrow.

Damage: 1d8+Mod and 1d6 persistent vs. TAC

Compare this to another 2nd level attack, Flaming Sphere.

Damage: 3d6 (double crit) vs. Reflex, concentration duration (no maximum)

Let's compare a 3rd level Wizard with 18 Int, against a Bugbear Fighter, Creature 3.

In the first scenario, Wizard tags the Bugbear with Acid Arrow. We'll assume he's invested 16 Dex, so his attack roll is +6 ranged touch vs. the Bugbear's TAC of 18 (the Bugbear uses his reaction to raise his shield). That's a 55% chance of miss, right there. Then, if he hits, he'll deal 1d8+4 damage, plus 1d6 acid at the end of the Bugbear's turn. Each round there's a 5% chance of the condition ending.

The Wizard, succeeding on his attack, lifts his robes and runs like hell, hoping the acid will finish off the Bugbear. Overall, this tactic will take 10-12 rounds to finish off the Bugbear, assuming he hits and the Bugbear never makes his save against persistent damage.

In the second scenario, Wizard casts Flaming Sphere. The Reflex DC for our Wizard's spell is 17 vs. the Bugbear's Reflex of +5, meaning the bugbear will succeed just 45% of the time, and critically fail their save 10% of the time for double damage. If the Bugbear simply fails, he takes 3d6 damage.

The Wizard then lifts his robes and runs like hell, but needs to spend one action per round concentrating on the spell. Let's hope he cast Fleet Step earlier! Overall, this tactic will take 3-4 rounds on average to finish off the Bugbear, but due to the range on Flaming Sphere, the Wizard's gonna need to make sure the Bugbear's within 30 feet each round.

As far as I can see, the above example shows that, at least for the 2nd level options, Flaming Sphere is a far more reliable option than Acid Arrow. You're not gambling your entire spell on a single roll, and it's far faster too.

[Kringress]

Yes I agree that the spell section is crappy. All the other books have a short description of the spell in the spell list area. Take the powers out of the spell descriptions and put them in the classes where they belong.

[sherlock1701]

JDLPF wrote:

On Persistent Damage

While the initial impression is that this is powerful, I recommend closely examining the math on the totals.

Let's compare one of the bread-and-butter DoT spells, Acid Arrow.

Damage: 1d8+Mod and 1d6 persistent vs. TAC

Compare this to another 2nd level attack, Flaming Sphere.

Damage: 3d6 (double crit) vs. Reflex, concentration duration (no maximum)

Let's compare a 3rd level Wizard with 18 Int, against a Bugbear Fighter, Creature 3.

In the first scenario, Wizard tags the Bugbear with Acid Arrow. We'll assume he's invested 16 Dex, so his attack roll is +6 ranged touch vs. the Bugbear's TAC of 18 (the Bugbear uses his reaction to raise his shield). That's a 55% chance of miss, right there. Then, if he hits, he'll deal 1d8+4 damage, plus 1d6 acid at the end of the Bugbear's turn. Each round there's a 5% chance of the condition ending.

The Wizard, succeeding on his attack, lifts his robes and runs like hell, hoping the acid will finish off the Bugbear. Overall, this tactic will take 10-12 rounds to finish off the Bugbear, assuming he hits and the Bugbear never makes his save against persistent damage.

In the second scenario, Wizard casts Flaming Sphere. The Reflex DC for our Wizard's spell is 17 vs. the Bugbear's Reflex of +5, meaning the bugbear will succeed just 45% of the time, and critically fail their save 10% of the time for double damage. If the Bugbear simply fails, he takes 3d6 damage.

The Wizard then lifts his robes and runs like hell, but needs to spend one action per round concentrating on the spell. Let's hope he cast Fleet Step earlier! Overall, this tactic will take 3-4 rounds on average to finish off the Bugbear, but due to the range on Flaming Sphere, the Wizard's gonna need to make sure the Bugbear's within 30 feet each round.

As far as I can see, the above example shows that, at least for the 2nd level options, Flaming Sphere is a far more reliable option than Acid Arrow. You're not gambling your entire spell on a single roll, and it's...

The issue mainly shows up in multi character fights. An alchemist can hit several people with acid bombs in a round or two, rogue hits for bleed damage, wizard tacks on some persistent fire, and now we have 3 or 4 enemies with 2 or 3 persistent effects to track.

[John Teixeira]

sherlock1701 wrote:

The issue mainly shows up in multi character fights. An alchemist can hit several people with acid bombs in a round or two, rogue hits for bleed damage, wizard tacks on some persistent fire, and now we have 3 or 4 enemies with 2 or 3 persistent effects to track.

Not to mention that concentration can be broken far easier than persistent damage can.

[JDLPF]

John Teixeira wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

The issue mainly shows up in multi character fights. An alchemist can hit several people with acid bombs in a round or two, rogue hits for bleed damage, wizard tacks on some persistent fire, and now we have 3 or 4 enemies with 2 or 3 persistent effects to track.

Not to mention that concentration can be broken far easier than persistent damage can.

Only if the enemy's using Readied Actions or access to Attack of Opportunity. Concentration breaks only if the damage is dealt as a reaction the action to maintain concentration. Even if the enemy strikes you three times on their turn, you don't lose the spell.

[John Teixeira]

JDLPF wrote:

John Teixeira wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

The issue mainly shows up in multi character fights. An alchemist can hit several people with acid bombs in a round or two, rogue hits for bleed damage, wizard tacks on some persistent fire, and now we have 3 or 4 enemies with 2 or 3 persistent effects to track.

Not to mention that concentration can be broken far easier than persistent damage can.

Only if the enemy's using Readied Actions or access to Attack of Opportunity. Concentration breaks only if the damage is dealt as a reaction the action to maintain concentration. Even if the enemy strikes you three times on their turn, you don't lose the spell.

Free actions also work for breaking concentration, but yes, I don't see how that's harder than a 5% chance after taking persistent damage to remove it, or spending actions to increase the chance to 30% but getting hit again by an ability with the same type of persistent damage nullifies that increased chance again.