The multi-attack penalty needs to interact with spells

[Knight Magenta]

The multi-attack penalty is key to why I think the 3-action economy feels cool for martials. It means that you can feel good taking marginal actions like moving or raising a shield. Yet, when you play a wizard, you can cast a 2 action spell and attack with a bow at 0 MAP, so paradoxically you feel like you have less options, and you can't use neat cantrips like shield.

I would propose to make all spells cost only one action and have the MAP apply to the save DC.

[Centuros]

What do you mean you can't use Shield? It protects you, and seems like it would be a pretty good option to not die.

Though I agree that disparity seems odd, and maybe Paizo didn't think of spellcasters also deciding to use mundane weapons when they have cantrips.

[thenobledrake]

Why is a wizard casting a 2 action spell and shooting with a bow (that they probably aren't great at) instead of casting a 2 action spell and also casting "neat cantrips like shield."?

And if you go and make casting spells only ever cost 1 action, now you've got to tone them all way down so that "i spend all my actions casting spells" doesn't mean putting "I spend all my actions attacking with a weapon" to such levels of shame that no one concerned about character effectiveness would ever consider playing a non-spell character. Because as it is right now, those 2-action spells tend to be as good or better than (depending on whether they cost a spell slot or not) using 2 actions for non-spell activities.

[Knight Magenta]

Centuros wrote:

What do you mean you can't use Shield? It protects you, and seems like it would be a pretty good option to not die.

Though I agree that disparity seems odd, and maybe Paizo didn't think of spellcasters also deciding to use mundane weapons when they have cantrips.

The wizard already needs DEX as a secondary stat since they need AC to not be a crit sponge. And since attacking with a bow uses your level to hit this wizard is likely on-par with most martial classes. More if they take Magical Striker.

Cantrips Cost 2 actions, just like the other "real" spells. I feel the attacking ones at least need to be 1-action strikes.

thenobledrake wrote:

Why is a wizard casting a 2 action spell and shooting with a bow (that they probably aren't great at) instead of casting a 2 action spell and also casting "neat cantrips like shield."?

And if you go and make casting spells only ever cost 1 action, now you've got to tone them all way down so that "i spend all my actions casting spells" doesn't mean putting "I spend all my actions attacking with a weapon" to such levels of shame that no one concerned about character effectiveness would ever consider playing a non-spell character. Because as it is right now, those 2-action spells tend to be as good or better than (depending on whether they cost a spell slot or not) using 2 actions for non-spell activities.

Casting shield is only about as strong as raising a mundane shield. An attack with an level-appropriate weapon is a stronger use of an action.

Sure you could have a caster ignore weapons, but the investment needed to use a bow effectively is so low, and the payoff is quite large that it feels bad not to? And its not like bypassing weapons lets you get that much better at spells. Once you max out spells, you still have character resources to spend.

[Centuros]

The sidebar on page 305 does say "Striking multiple times has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty applies to attacks after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the grapple use of the Athletics skill, *or attacks from spells.*"

[Mats Öhrman]

Centuros wrote:

The sidebar on page 305 does say "Striking multiple times has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty applies to attacks after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the grapple use of the Athletics skill, *or attacks from spells.*"

Some spells, like Telekinetic Projectile, has the Attack trait and is thus subject to MAP, while others, like Magic Missile, don’t have that trait and is thus not subject to MAP.

[Draco18s]

Mats Öhrman wrote:

Some spells, like Telekinetic Projectile, has the Attack trait and is thus subject to MAP, while others, like Magic Missile, don’t have that trait and is thus not subject to MAP.

Those spells that have the Attack trait are, by the way, all the ones where you make an attack roll (touch, ranged, or otherwise).

[Dreamtime2k9]

The solution is simple. The wizard cast haste on himself, can make the hasted strike attack, then cast shield.

Turn for the next minute; they can cast whatever cool 2 point spell they want(ideally without the attack trait), shoot and cast shield again.

This is obviously in a perfect world where no one will come to attack you.

[Manykittens]

Draco18s wrote:

Mats Öhrman wrote:

Some spells, like Telekinetic Projectile, has the Attack trait and is thus subject to MAP, while others, like Magic Missile, don’t have that trait and is thus not subject to MAP.

Those spells that have the Attack trait are, by the way, all the ones where you make an attack roll (touch, ranged, or otherwise).

This is not true

example: acid splash and harm do not have the attack trait but require an attack roll.
example: electric arc has the attack trait but does not require an attack roll.
I posted about this last month but no one seemed to notice.

[Draco18s]

Manykittens wrote:

This is not true

example: acid splash and harm do not have the attack trait but require an attack roll.
example: electric arc has the attack trait but does not require an attack roll.
I posted about this last month but no one seemed to notice.

If you are making an attack roll, that's an Attack, and subject to MAP.

See Mark's comments on Harm.