Cantrips underwhelming

[Mulgar]

Freagarthach wrote:

Mulgar wrote:

As for casters in general, the level difference makes Magic Missile into a godsend. On my Sorcs, I prefer to use one of their Spontaneous Heightening options on Magic Missile. Every time. Why? Because on a monster that is higher level than me, Magic Missile is going to be the best damage the party has to offer. It might well be the ONLY damage that the party has to offer. So while the Fighter is going in with his move-miss-raise combination every turn, I'm dishing 3/6/9/etc missiles.

@Mulgar - If you don't like the PF2 Magic Missile that is 20% better at PF2 level 5 than the PF1 version at level 9, and you don't enjoy spells like True Strike and Shocking Grasp that are comparatively improved from PF1, try out Summon Monster that is also comparatively improved from PF1 for duration and impact at lower levels.

Or explore other options to make work - it is a playtest, after all.

It's not that I don't like magic missile. I don't like the whole cantrips as your most cast spells thing.

I have looked at summon monster. They gave you a duration boost and a creature nerf. My summon options in the play test had a worse chance to hit than i did with my "mighty" cantrips.

The true strike and shocking grasp spell are fine, but all it does is turn me into a low ac, low hp, subpar damage dealing compare to others.

[manbearscientist]

Cantrips don't need to be particularly stronger, but the earlier parts of the campaign don't really show why. Let me give an example, a Blood Demon.

Blood Demons have AC 23, TAC 21, 143 HP. They have immunity to Acid and Weakness 7 to Cold, Cold Iron, and Good. When struck by a weapon, unarmed Strike, or even simply touched their acidic blood sprays out, potentially denting weapons or dealing acid damage to the player.

Would you rather hit the Blood Demon with a +1 Greatsword, or a Ray of Frost from 60 feet away? A 3rd level Ray of Frost only deals 1d8 + 4, while a +2 Greatsword deals 2d12 + 4. That's a difference of 17 - 8.5 = 8.5. The Ray of Frost deals almost as much damage as a solid fighter with no risk, even if it does take an extra action.

Now take a Flesh Golem. Would you rather strike it with the same Greatsword, Ray of Frost, or Produce Flame? One deals 17.5 damage, the other Slows them for 2d6 rounds, and the lattermost deals an average of 27.

This is what makes Acid Splash and Produce Flame deceptively stronger than other options. A crit from an Acid Splash against a creature with an appropriate weakness will quickly melt through their HP, as the Weakness adds to the persistent damage as well as the original attack.

I've found that picking up a spellcasting dedication really adds a lot of options to a fighter, and that is JUST the cantrips. Just being able to cast Message or Shield instead of a wasted third attack is often a big jump in efficiency. For a dedicated spellcaster, they allow you to keep up or even surpass martials if you fight things that are weak to the cantrips.

Cantrips also have one more utility: not needing a substantial investment to keep scaling. A Fighter needs two close to max level items to deal good damage both on the ground and at range (most often, vs fliers). Those with offensive cantrips have no such issue.

[Freagarthach]

Mulgar wrote:

Freagarthach wrote:

Mulgar wrote:

As for casters in general, the level difference makes Magic Missile into a godsend. On my Sorcs, I prefer to use one of their Spontaneous Heightening options on Magic Missile. Every time. Why? Because on a monster that is higher level than me, Magic Missile is going to be the best damage the party has to offer. It might well be the ONLY damage that the party has to offer. So while the Fighter is going in with his move-miss-raise combination every turn, I'm dishing 3/6/9/etc missiles.

@Mulgar - If you don't like the PF2 Magic Missile that is 20% better at PF2 level 5 than the PF1 version at level 9, and you don't enjoy spells like True Strike and Shocking Grasp that are comparatively improved from PF1, try out Summon Monster that is also comparatively improved from PF1 for duration and impact at lower levels.

Or explore other options to make work - it is a playtest, after all.

It's not that I don't like magic missile. I don't like the whole cantrips as your most cast spells thing.

I have looked at summon monster. They gave you a duration boost and a creature nerf. My summon options in the play test had a worse chance to hit than i did with my "mighty" cantrips.

First thought is, "it isn't a competition - use both (cantrips and summons after the first round casting) for synergy."

Second thought is to note that summons are not just their to hit chance. My Quasit summon was used for invisible scouting as much as it was a combat element, where it did have success with both poisoning and tripping despite a lot of miss rounds. Hell Hound gets a single action 4d6 Burning Hands as an opening attack, that can be reused every 1d4+1 rounds in addition to a solid bite attack that deals fire damage.

If you don't like cantrips, no argument with that - fair opinion. I would just note that they can easily be supplemental and synergistic with other options, whether a Strike or a concentrate or something else.

[Freagarthach]

EberronHoward wrote:

Clerics don't get damaging cantrips, but domains offer a lot of good weapons to use. And an Elf or Gnome divine caster can poach a damaging cantrip with their Ancestry feat.

But yeah, having GMed for Sombrefell Hall, an all-Divine party is going to be severely lacking in consistent damage output.

Having played Sombrefell, what I would like to see face that module is four Clerics of Sarenrae with Holy Castigation, Wizard Dedication, and Arcane School (Evocation) taking Magic Missile. Between AoE Heal, Fireball, Wall of Fire, and the unerring single target force based MM, that is a lot of magical firepower to augment swinging a Scimitar.

[Azmodael]

LuniasM wrote:

pad300 wrote:

LuniasM wrote:

I went for a d8 STR weapon because they shared similar stats - both add the user's full ability score modifier to damage, used the same base damage dice, and benefited from the class's proficiency modifier. That way, the comparison would be as close as possible. But most importantly, it turns out my calculator has no function for adding damage that applies on a crit only, which I didn't realize until I had finished running the numbers and was looking for a decent Thrown weapon to compare to (hint: Tridents have the best damage die and a 20' range). What I can tell you is that, discounting Deadly, Cantrips caught up around Level 12 and passed Longbows at Level 18 . With Deadly added, I'm not sure just yet. I will get back to that once I update my sheet.

Is this with a rune-inscribed weapon? I would not have thought that cantrips ever caught up to a level-appropriate weapon...

In the case of using a Longbow as a backup weapon for a STR-based Fighter build, counting Potency Runes, yes. This is due to two factors - Fighter's have lower Proficiency with any weapon outside their chosen weapon group, and a STR Fighter has a lower DEX score than you'd optimally have on an archer. That accounts for a -3 accuracy penalty they don't take on their primary weapon choice.

Can you give link to your spreadsheet. Those damage numbers you have going don't seem right. Are they divided by actions needed?

[Ramanujan]

Cantrips should be significantly less damaging than weapons.

However, I think most spells should have a 1 action variant, and that most cantrips should have a 1 action version. So that casters can interact in more interesting ways with the three action system.

If a weapon at level 1 is expected to deal 1d8 + modifier with one action, then the spell should potentially just deal damage equal to the modifier with one action (or just 1d6) — and remain at least a die or equivalent behind at all levels. Assuming both are targeting AC. The cantrips that target TAC could likely take two actions, and deal roughly double the damage of the one action cantrips (Yes these two action spells have a considerable advantage in hitting the target, but they also have a severe penalty in action flexibility, plus any feats that improve cantrips would apply twice to using the single action spells). These would sometimes be the same cantrips - just cast using more actions, ala magic missile.

This might sound too strong for the cantrips, but remember that the martial are likely to be investing feats in their attacks. Though the spell casters could have the same opportunity - so long as it's at the cost of improving their higher level spells (i.e. feats that improve cantrips only).

[swordchucks]

Ramanujan wrote:

Cantrips should be significantly less damaging than weapons.

I don't agree with this in a broad sense. I agree that a wizard casting cantrips shouldn't be on the same level as a fighter doing what he's designed primarily to do. However, I feel like cantrips need to be slightly stronger than they are now.

The numbers for cantrips have them pretty much on par with a magical crossbow right now. The inclusion of casting modifier for damage compares favorably with the die they are short, and use of TAC instead of AC compares favorably with the generally lower-by-level bonus you'll get from duelist items. Assuming there are no feats taken to improve the crossbow, of course.

The perception is that the cantrips are weaker due to fewer dice and the scaling just looks slow (though mathematically it tracks). This is really the bigger issue. If the wizard player feels like having to fall back on cantrips isn't fun, then it isn't good design. If you tweak cantrips so that they're not mathematically much stronger, but they feel stronger (or, at least, more interesting), then it would be a win.

The solution is probably a combination of some small mechanical buffs and some tactical bonuses. For instance, taking out the +mod and just giving cantrips the weapon die progression would make them feel more powerful than they currently do (even if it's strictly not a buff and maybe even a slight reduction). Even better, giving them that and also layering on debuffs would make them much more interesting. For instance, Ray of Frost could do 1d8 damage and give Slowed I for a turn. Persistent damage on a crit is sort of interesting, but is really just additional damage you get ~5% of the time.

I will always favor tactical, interesting choices over raw damage. If cantrips debuff or buff in addition to doing damage roughly equivalent to a crossbow, I'd be fine with that.

[WhiteMagus2000]

Maybe this changes at high levels, we've only played in the first two adventures so far. What I've seen is that cantrips hit about as frequently as the barbarian, but take two actions instead of one and do about half the damage (or less). With the barbarian frequently making a second or third attack, she is inflicting at least three times the damage as the wizard. Yes, the wizard has a few real spells, but with the current 50/50 system, they only stick about half the time.

Yes cantrips can sometimes take advantage of weakness, but many more monsters seem to have unexpected resistances that reduce incoming damage much more than boost it.

I could easily see the wizard being dropped from the group without a major problem, while the loss of the cleric or tanky martial would be devastating. Again, maybe this changes with higher levels, but wizards currently feel kind of weak and with cantrips being their default action, lackluster cantrips just showcase the issue.

[LuniasM]

Azmodael wrote:

LuniasM wrote:

pad300 wrote:

LuniasM wrote:

I went for a d8 STR weapon because they shared similar stats - both add the user's full ability score modifier to damage, used the same base damage dice, and benefited from the class's proficiency modifier. That way, the comparison would be as close as possible. But most importantly, it turns out my calculator has no function for adding damage that applies on a crit only, which I didn't realize until I had finished running the numbers and was looking for a decent Thrown weapon to compare to (hint: Tridents have the best damage die and a 20' range). What I can tell you is that, discounting Deadly, Cantrips caught up around Level 12 and passed Longbows at Level 18 . With Deadly added, I'm not sure just yet. I will get back to that once I update my sheet.

Is this with a rune-inscribed weapon? I would not have thought that cantrips ever caught up to a level-appropriate weapon...

In the case of using a Longbow as a backup weapon for a STR-based Fighter build, counting Potency Runes, yes. This is due to two factors - Fighter's have lower Proficiency with any weapon outside their chosen weapon group, and a STR Fighter has a lower DEX score than you'd optimally have on an archer. That accounts for a -3 accuracy penalty they don't take on their primary weapon choice.

Can you give link to your spreadsheet. Those damage numbers you have going don't seem right. Are they divided by actions needed?

They are not divided by actions needed.

I'm likely going to need to create a new thread for all the spreadsheets I've been making, but I have the three main ones listed below.

Off-Topic Spreadsheet Links and Descriptions:

PF2 - Creature Stats by Level - This spreadsheet has one sheet for each creature level and takes the averages (and averages minus outliers) then creates a table with said average stats to give people a rough idea of what a creature of any given level looks like stat-wise. This was the first sheet I worked on.
PF2 - Hit Rates and Damage by Class - This one includes a DPR and DPS calculator (DPR = Damage per Round, DPS = Damage per Strike) in addition to tables for Accuracy by Class, Damage by Class, and DPS by Class (using optimized stats, items, and weapon choices to show the high-end of damage) as well as sheets for DPS by Class based on how much of an attack bonus or penalty you're taking at the time. All sheets compare damage against a creature of the same level, but you can set different enemy levels (and specific stats) using the calculators.
PF2 - Spell Damage - Finally, this sheet includes tables listing (most) damage-dealing spells, what defense they target, their damage type, what multipliers they get on a crit success / success / fail / crit fail, how much damage they deal at each given character level (again, using optimized ability scores and items), and whether they deal persistent damage. I've recently included a Spell Damage Calculator on this sheet to allow for calculation of average spell damage against creatures of different levels (or with set stats) to see how much damage these spells really deal on average.

I used my Spell Damage Calculator and DPS Calculator to get the numbers I gave earlier. The Spell Damage Calculator still has a couple bugs I'm working on, but it shouldn't affect cantrip damage at all.

[manbearscientist]

WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

Maybe this changes at high levels, we've only played in the first two adventures so far. What I've seen is that cantrips hit about as frequently as the barbarian, but take two actions instead of one and do about half the damage (or less). With the barbarian frequently making a second or third attack, she is inflicting at least three times the damage as the wizard. Yes, the wizard has a few real spells, but with the current 50/50 system, they only stick about half the time.

Yes cantrips can sometimes take advantage of weakness, but many more monsters seem to have unexpected resistances that reduce incoming damage much more than boost it.

I could easily see the wizard being dropped from the group without a major problem, while the loss of the cleric or tanky martial would be devastating. Again, maybe this changes with higher levels, but wizards currently feel kind of weak and with cantrips being their default action, lackluster cantrips just showcase the issue.

There is a reason the Barbarian deals 'about twice as much damage.' Think of the following simple example: a Wizard and a Barbarian both start 30' from an enemy. Who does more DPR?

The Barbarian does do more damage when they catch up to the enemy. But it took a Stride AND a Strike to that. Possibly two Strides if they were wearing Medium Armor. While they likely outdamage the Wizard, it still takes more actions than most people account for because we treat combat as if the Barbarian starts right next to the enemy.

And then there are enemies that the Barbarian can't catch. What is a barbarian going to do a Quasit flying overhead and harassing the party? At best they'll spend two actions to Ready a Strike. The Wizard probably can't target the sonic weakness, but they can reliably hit the thing.

This holds true for other ranged options as well. Ranged is NOT supposed to hold even with melee assuming each gets the same number of attacks in. Crossbows aren't, longbows aren't, and neither are cantrips. They are supposed to even the score by being more reliable, not by matching the raw DPR of a Barbarian that gets to hit things up close.

As far as resistance vs weakness, 81 monsters in the Bestiary have a resistance. 109 have a weakness. Weaknesses become more common past level 7, and cantrips rise in usability as well. Incorporeal entities, demons, devils, undead, etc. are all more common later on.

[sherlock1701]

It's almost like ranged weapons came to dominate the battlefield for a reason :)

[Bluenose]

sherlock1701 wrote:

It's almost like ranged weapons came to dominate the battlefield for a reason :)

Firearms did so. Largely because they're less fatiguing, they don't care much whether the operator is tired and short of food, and they extend the campaigning season beyond the summer months. You either matched your rivals ability to keep an army in the field for longer, or your rival could do what they wanted once your troops had gone home. Mercenaries and paid troops beat out feudal levies for the same reason.

[Excaliburrover]

I haven't watched this in a while and i'm glad the discussion spread. Apparently Paizo do care about our opinion so we could obtain another "heal-out-of-combat" effect.

For what matter the topic, all i know is that my friend that was stucked into casting Ray of Frost all the session at lvl 1 (because you have 3-4 turns in which you can do something else) didn't have much fun. And it might seem stupid but the difference in fun and fight contribution between dealing 1d8 and dealing 1d8+2 (half your casting mod asmy suggestion) is huge. We all know how tedious it is to deal 1 damage right?

I mean,at that point it's better to be delegated to crossbow(bow if you're an elf) duty if you're a caster. And you don't feel particularly magical.

I would like to say that in the comparison of damage output, you must factor magic weapons for martials because a martial will have those as soon as he can get them.

[shroudb]

Excaliburrover wrote:

I would like to say that in the comparison of damage output, you must factor magic weapons for martials because a martial will have those as soon as he can get them.

I find that argument extremely one sided.

Magical weapons are extremely expensive.

You don't even have a +5 weapon as a guaranteed at even 20 level.

Similarly, if we're comparing martials as always having a magical weapon, we should also count Casters as having around 5-15 extra SPONTANEOUS spells known (all the spells in their staff can be cast by spontaneously converted), bonus spell slots equal to highest spell slot (so 5 free spell levels at 9 and etc), and a few really good extra spells/day from the daily uses of spell dueling equip.

All the above simultaneously are about the cost of a level appropriate weapon.

[Gaterie]

A +2 sword costs as much as a +1 wand of spell duelist. And the wand costs resonance each use because why not?

Maybe there are cantrips that don't require a wand to be able to hit level-appropriate monsters. At that point (where people are arguing if a fighter has a magic sword when the game obviously assumes so), I'm not sure I still care.

[Lightning Raven]

PhoenixSunrise wrote:

glass wrote:

WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

100% of my players misread this to mean 1/2 caster level. (Paizo staff attempts to craft clear rules. They rolled a natural 1, what happens).

I don't think they critically failed. I'd say they definitely got a few failures, but that is because Write Clear Rules tends to have a pretty high DC.

Only because Medium DC continues to scale based on your level. :D

DC's scale based on the threat/opposition level, which means that a lot of DC's people are assuming scales, don't. The table there will often be used using monsters as baseline (hence increasing each level of the party), but most tasks outside of combat will have a certain "Level" that higher level characters will manage to do easier and easier... I know that because after reading the playtest I went to recheck the rules.

Oh boy, it surely deem a lot of arguments and discussions as very stupid. Scaling DC for climbing something? Nope, the rules cover that. It doesn't get harder at all, the table just gives the GM a baseline to place the challenge in there. For example, climbing a vertical surface (with places to climb) is a Level 10 challenge, impossible for lower levels, but very easy after that.

[Excaliburrover]

shroudb wrote:

Excaliburrover wrote:

I would like to say that in the comparison of damage output, you must factor magic weapons for martials because a martial will have those as soon as he can get them.

I find that argument extremely one sided.

Magical weapons are extremely expensive.

You don't even have a +5 weapon as a guaranteed at even 20 level.

Similarly, if we're comparing martials as always having a magical weapon, we should also count Casters as having around 5-15 extra SPONTANEOUS spells known (all the spells in their staff can be cast by spontaneously converted), bonus spell slots equal to highest spell slot (so 5 free spell levels at 9 and etc), and a few really good extra spells/day from the daily uses of spell dueling equip.

All the above simultaneously are about the cost of a level appropriate weapon.

Still, when making those characters at lvl 7 and lvl 9, if you are a martial you do take that magic weapon for potentially 2d12 per swing. As a caster you take a lesser staff (a lvl 5 item while a +1 potency rune is a lvl 4 item). The staff gives you just 1-2 extra lvl 1 spell per day basically and it's not enough oomph. And if he wants to spare his spells he gets to fire a scare 1d8+4 cantrip. While the barbarian is doing 2d12+idontevenwanttocalculateit. With 2-3 attacks. "Eh, but the titan mauler in your example is endangering himself" yes and he's even having a whole lot of fun. I mean, having to wasteyour time firing a cantrip will never be "a whole lot of fun" but it could be less "i may as well check reddit on my phone while the others are having fun".

I don't think that cantrips(which never forget cost 2 actions) dealing slightly more damage, slightly sooner is a big deal into making casters overshadowing martials again.

[Greg.Everham]

Excaliburrover wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Excaliburrover wrote:

I would like to say that in the comparison of damage output, you must factor magic weapons for martials because a martial will have those as soon as he can get them.

I find that argument extremely one sided.

Magical weapons are extremely expensive.

You don't even have a +5 weapon as a guaranteed at even 20 level.

Similarly, if we're comparing martials as always having a magical weapon, we should also count Casters as having around 5-15 extra SPONTANEOUS spells known (all the spells in their staff can be cast by spontaneously converted), bonus spell slots equal to highest spell slot (so 5 free spell levels at 9 and etc), and a few really good extra spells/day from the daily uses of spell dueling equip.

All the above simultaneously are about the cost of a level appropriate weapon.

Still, when making those characters at lvl 7 and lvl 9, if you are a martial you do take that magic weapon for potentially 2d12 per swing. As a caster you take a lesser staff (a lvl 5 item while a +1 potency rune is a lvl 4 item). The staff gives you just 1-2 extra lvl 1 spell per day basically and it's not enough oomph. And if he wants to spare his spells he gets to fire a scare 1d8+4 cantrip. While the barbarian is doing 2d12+idontevenwanttocalculateit. With 2-3 attacks. "Eh, but the titan mauler in your example is endangering himself" yes and he's even having a whole lot of fun. I mean, having to wasteyour time firing a cantrip will never be "a whole lot of fun" but it could be less "i may as well check reddit on my phone while the others are having fun".

I don't think that cantrips(which never forget cost 2 actions) dealing slightly more damage, slightly sooner is a big deal into making casters overshadowing martials again.

Let's be real... no one makes a 3rd attack and succeeds in a fight that wasn't won before it even started. Even the 2nd attack in a fight that is against an equal level or higher monster is useless.

[WatersLethe]

What if you could buy cantrip wands that boost the damage of a specific cantrip and it cost the same as a similar damaging weapon, and didn't have charges?

Or what if weapon damage was character based and didn't cost money?

I feel like cantrips tracking closer to martial damage is okay as long as it 1. doesn't overshadow martials and 2. doesn't overshadow non-cantrip spells.

[shroudb]

Excaliburrover wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Excaliburrover wrote:

I would like to say that in the comparison of damage output, you must factor magic weapons for martials because a martial will have those as soon as he can get them.

I find that argument extremely one sided.

Magical weapons are extremely expensive.

You don't even have a +5 weapon as a guaranteed at even 20 level.

Similarly, if we're comparing martials as always having a magical weapon, we should also count Casters as having around 5-15 extra SPONTANEOUS spells known (all the spells in their staff can be cast by spontaneously converted), bonus spell slots equal to highest spell slot (so 5 free spell levels at 9 and etc), and a few really good extra spells/day from the daily uses of spell dueling equip.

All the above simultaneously are about the cost of a level appropriate weapon.

Still, when making those characters at lvl 7 and lvl 9, if you are a martial you do take that magic weapon for potentially 2d12 per swing. As a caster you take a lesser staff (a lvl 5 item while a +1 potency rune is a lvl 4 item). The staff gives you just 1-2 extra lvl 1 spell per day basically and it's not enough oomph. And if he wants to spare his spells he gets to fire a scare 1d8+4 cantrip. While the barbarian is doing 2d12+idontevenwanttocalculateit. With 2-3 attacks. "Eh, but the titan mauler in your example is endangering himself" yes and he's even having a whole lot of fun. I mean, having to wasteyour time firing a cantrip will never be "a whole lot of fun" but it could be less "i may as well check reddit on my phone while the others are having fun".

I don't think that cantrips(which never forget cost 2 actions) dealing slightly more damage, slightly sooner is a big deal into making casters overshadowing martials again.

At level 5 the staff doesn't give you "1-2 level 1 spells"

It either gives 3 level 1 or 2 level 1 and 1 level 2.

That's almost doubling your level 1 slots.

At 13,youre getting a 4th level from duelist, and another 7 spell level from staff. They do add up to a point where you can comfortably sling spells quite decently enough.

The barbarian is also a terrible example because he sacrifices accuracy bigger damage. His dpr is actually less than fighter.

Vs a one hander fighter:

You're comparing 2d8+4 against 1d8+4 at level 5

[GeneticDrift]

Maybe borrow from pf1 kineticists and add an action for a boost in damage.

3 actions is a big investment worthy of a boost.

[Excaliburrover]

If there would be a wand/glove/ring to boost even +1 and later on +2 damage dice to cantrips and some slighter buff to other damage spells it would be just fine.

But I feel like at lvl 1 you're just better Dazing and chaining a ranged attack. And I'd like cantrips to be a good choice at lvl 1.

[Aristophanes]

GeneticDrift wrote:

Maybe borrow from pf1 kineticists and add an action for a boost in damage.

3 actions is a big investment worthy of a boost.

Yeah, I've been playing kineticists a lot lately, and wondered how they might be handled in 2E.

This brought me to a similar idea to yours, GD.
At first level, a 1 action cantrip would do 1dx.
A 2 action cantrip would do 1dx + ability modifier, and, of course observe MAP.
A 3 action cantrip may add a conditional rider.

[Excaliburrover]

This is quite a good idea actually. The only problem is that you can't make cantrips overshadow other spells and there are Daze and Tanglefoot that just add conditions...

[Evilgm]

A 5th level character using Ray of Frost is 1d8+4, with +8 to hit vs Touch (usually a 2 point difference) for two actions.

A 5th level character using a +1 Crossbow is 2d8, with +9 to hit vs AC for one action, with an additional action to reload.

A 13th level character using Ray of Frost is 3d8+5, with +17 to hit vs Touch for two actions.

A 13th level character using a +3 Crossbow is 4d8, with +20 to hit vs AC for one action, with an additional action to reload.

Those numbers seem fine to me, and put Cantrips in the position of being the main attack option for casters who don't want to invest in better fighting options. They're going to be worse at fighting with them than a Martial character, but fortunately they're generally going to be better at healing, flying, turning invisible, mind controlling and a host of other things they can do when needed.

I would like to see some Feats to boost them just to allow that as an option for players who want to focus on them, but as it stands they're a free alternative to the Crossbow the character would likely otherwise be using.

[thorin001]

Evilgm wrote:

A 5th level character using Ray of Frost is 1d8+4, with +8 to hit vs Touch (usually a 2 point difference) for two actions.

A 5th level character using a +1 Crossbow is 2d8, with +9 to hit vs AC for one action, with an additional action to reload.

A 13th level character using Ray of Frost is 3d8+5, with +17 to hit vs Touch for two actions.

A 13th level character using a +3 Crossbow is 4d8, with +20 to hit vs AC for one action, with an additional action to reload.

Those numbers seem fine to me, and put Cantrips in the position of being the main attack option for casters who don't want to invest in better fighting options. They're going to be worse at fighting with them than a Martial character, but fortunately they're generally going to be better at healing, flying, turning invisible, mind controlling and a host of other things they can do when needed.

I would like to see some Feats to boost them just to allow that as an option for players who want to focus on them, but as it stands they're a free alternative to the Crossbow the character would likely otherwise be using.

You do realize that you are comparing the cantrip to a primary weapon. At 5th level you will only have the one +1 weapon and at 13th level you will only have one +3 weapon. It is at 9th or 10th level that you will be able to have a backup +1 weapon, and probably 16th or 17th level that you might have a backup +3 weapon.

[Greg.Everham]

thorin001 wrote:

Evilgm wrote:

A 5th level character using Ray of Frost is 1d8+4, with +8 to hit vs Touch (usually a 2 point difference) for two actions.

A 5th level character using a +1 Crossbow is 2d8, with +9 to hit vs AC for one action, with an additional action to reload.

A 13th level character using Ray of Frost is 3d8+5, with +17 to hit vs Touch for two actions.

A 13th level character using a +3 Crossbow is 4d8, with +20 to hit vs AC for one action, with an additional action to reload.

Those numbers seem fine to me, and put Cantrips in the position of being the main attack option for casters who don't want to invest in better fighting options. They're going to be worse at fighting with them than a Martial character, but fortunately they're generally going to be better at healing, flying, turning invisible, mind controlling and a host of other things they can do when needed.

I would like to see some Feats to boost them just to allow that as an option for players who want to focus on them, but as it stands they're a free alternative to the Crossbow the character would likely otherwise be using.

You do realize that you are comparing the cantrip to a primary weapon. At 5th level you will only have the one +1 weapon and at 13th level you will only have one +3 weapon. It is at 9th or 10th level that you will be able to have a backup +1 weapon, and probably 16th or 17th level that you might have a backup +3 weapon.

What Thorin said, over and over again. Cantrips are *not* comparable to primary weapons and should not be compared to the top-end damage of classes dedicated to landing hits. Your spell slots and the trickeration you can create with them ought to be compared to those primary tactics of martials. Cantrips are what you'd compare to a Fighter gearing down, using his ranged weapon despite being a high-strength melee character.

[swordchucks]

thorin001 wrote:

You do realize that you are comparing the cantrip to a primary weapon.

In this specific case, it's a wizard with a magic crossbow vs. a wizard with a cantrip. That's a fair comparison. He's not comparing a martial with a bow and all of their bow-additives to the cantrip. Crossbows are terrible (and boring, which is a separate sin). If cantrips aren't even at that level, they desperately need to be reexamined.

As it stands right now, it's worth it for any caster to find a way to not be in a situation where their only option is to toss out cantrips. Cantrips just feel bad.

[Evilgm]

thorin001 wrote:

You do realize that you are comparing the cantrip to a primary weapon. At 5th level you will only have the one +1 weapon and at 13th level you will only have one +3 weapon. It is at 9th or 10th level that you will be able to have a backup +1 weapon, and probably 16th or 17th level that you might have a backup +3 weapon.

I legitimately have no idea what you are talking about.

I said that Cantrips compare fine to Crossbows, which are the weapons that casters would be using if Cantrips didn't scale and the player didn't want to spend feats learning something better, and they have the bonus of not costing any gold to own. I've no idea what you interpreted that as, but I'm sure you interpreted it wrong.

[WhiteMagus2000]

Greg.Everham wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Evilgm wrote:

A 5th level character using Ray of Frost is 1d8+4, with +8 to hit vs Touch (usually a 2 point difference) for two actions.

A 5th level character using a +1 Crossbow is 2d8, with +9 to hit vs AC for one action, with an additional action to reload.

A 13th level character using Ray of Frost is 3d8+5, with +17 to hit vs Touch for two actions.

A 13th level character using a +3 Crossbow is 4d8, with +20 to hit vs AC for one action, with an additional action to reload.

Those numbers seem fine to me, and put Cantrips in the position of being the main attack option for casters who don't want to invest in better fighting options. They're going to be worse at fighting with them than a Martial character, but fortunately they're generally going to be better at healing, flying, turning invisible, mind controlling and a host of other things they can do when needed.

I would like to see some Feats to boost them just to allow that as an option for players who want to focus on them, but as it stands they're a free alternative to the Crossbow the character would likely otherwise be using.

You do realize that you are comparing the cantrip to a primary weapon. At 5th level you will only have the one +1 weapon and at 13th level you will only have one +3 weapon. It is at 9th or 10th level that you will be able to have a backup +1 weapon, and probably 16th or 17th level that you might have a backup +3 weapon.

What Thorin said, over and over again. Cantrips are *not* comparable to primary weapons and should not be compared to the top-end damage of classes dedicated to landing hits. Your spell slots and the trickeration you can create with them ought to be compared to those primary tactics of martials. Cantrips are what you'd compare to a Fighter gearing down, using his ranged weapon despite being a high-strength melee character.

This issue is that fighters can use there preferred melee attacks the large major of turns of combat. A wizard can only use their preferred actions (spells) the minority of turns of combat. Even when they do use one of their few spells, there's only about a 50-60% that the spell will hit or the target will fail to resist it. So a wizard uses their mediocre option most of the time and fighter's use their mediocre option only rarely.

The result in my group is that everyone agrees that the least valuable party member is the wizard. They feel they absolutely need a tanky martial, a healer, and a skill monkey, but the wizard offers low damage, unreliable battlefield control, and not a lot of utility out of combat. I imagine some of this will get better with higher levels, but it feels like wizards/sorcerers have been over nerfed.

If they A) increased their spells/day, B) Made cantrips at least as good as a shortbow, or C) increased the DC of spells so that they would do the thing that they are supposed to do most of the time, then arcane casters would feel more useful.

[shroudb]

WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

Greg.Everham wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Evilgm wrote:

A 5th level character using Ray of Frost is 1d8+4, with +8 to hit vs Touch (usually a 2 point difference) for two actions.

A 5th level character using a +1 Crossbow is 2d8, with +9 to hit vs AC for one action, with an additional action to reload.

A 13th level character using Ray of Frost is 3d8+5, with +17 to hit vs Touch for two actions.

A 13th level character using a +3 Crossbow is 4d8, with +20 to hit vs AC for one action, with an additional action to reload.

Those numbers seem fine to me, and put Cantrips in the position of being the main attack option for casters who don't want to invest in better fighting options. They're going to be worse at fighting with them than a Martial character, but fortunately they're generally going to be better at healing, flying, turning invisible, mind controlling and a host of other things they can do when needed.

I would like to see some Feats to boost them just to allow that as an option for players who want to focus on them, but as it stands they're a free alternative to the Crossbow the character would likely otherwise be using.

You do realize that you are comparing the cantrip to a primary weapon. At 5th level you will only have the one +1 weapon and at 13th level you will only have one +3 weapon. It is at 9th or 10th level that you will be able to have a backup +1 weapon, and probably 16th or 17th level that you might have a backup +3 weapon.

What Thorin said, over and over again. Cantrips are *not* comparable to primary weapons and should not be compared to the top-end damage of classes dedicated to landing hits. Your spell slots and the trickeration you can create with them ought to be compared to those primary tactics of martials. Cantrips are what you'd compare to a Fighter gearing down, using his ranged weapon despite being a high-strength melee character.

This issue is that fighters can use there preferred melee attacks the large major of turns of...

that is mostly a low level issue.

at later levels you use mostly spells, powers and staffs, rather than cantrips.

and at early levels, martials aren't terribly exciting either, i mean, there's only so much "i stride and i strike" you can do before you start getting bored.

for "resist and do nothing" there's actually quite a plethora of spells that do stuff even on a succesful save now, but i do agree that monster saving throws need a slight downward adjustment (like a lot of monster stats do)

lastly, even a shortbow, in the hands of a caster, is not that much different than a cantrip

+0/-5 for xd6 vs +2 for (x-1)d8+stat is not that far off

[Dekalinder]

Evilgm wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

You do realize that you are comparing the cantrip to a primary weapon. At 5th level you will only have the one +1 weapon and at 13th level you will only have one +3 weapon. It is at 9th or 10th level that you will be able to have a backup +1 weapon, and probably 16th or 17th level that you might have a backup +3 weapon.

I legitimately have no idea what you are talking about.

I said that Cantrips compare fine to Crossbows, which are the weapons that casters would be using if Cantrips didn't scale and the player didn't want to spend feats learning something better, and they have the bonus of not costing any gold to own. I've no idea what you interpreted that as, but I'm sure you interpreted it wrong.

Yea, cantrips compare equally with the worst existing weapon available used by the worst class at using weapons on the caveat that it hasn't invested anything on it. If that is considered to be meaningfull contribuition to the party, I don't get why people complained about the PF1 rogue.

[thorin001]

Dekalinder wrote:

Evilgm wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

You do realize that you are comparing the cantrip to a primary weapon. At 5th level you will only have the one +1 weapon and at 13th level you will only have one +3 weapon. It is at 9th or 10th level that you will be able to have a backup +1 weapon, and probably 16th or 17th level that you might have a backup +3 weapon.

I legitimately have no idea what you are talking about.

I said that Cantrips compare fine to Crossbows, which are the weapons that casters would be using if Cantrips didn't scale and the player didn't want to spend feats learning something better, and they have the bonus of not costing any gold to own. I've no idea what you interpreted that as, but I'm sure you interpreted it wrong.

Yea, cantrips compare equally with the worst existing weapon available used by the worst class at using weapons on the caveat that it hasn't invested anything on it. If that is considered to be meaningfull contribuition to the party, I don't get why people complained about the PF1 rogue.

What cantrip is worse than throwing a dagger?

[Evilgm]

Dekalinder wrote:

Yea, cantrips compare equally with the worst existing weapon available used by the worst class at using weapons on the caveat that it hasn't invested anything on it. If that is considered to be meaningfull contribuition to the party, I don't get why people complained about the PF1 rogue.

You're acting like Casters getting to do almost as much damage as a Potency Rune of their level for zero investment is bad. Sure, it's not as good as what a Martial is doing with their weapon, but it's free. And if casting Cantrips was the main way Casters contributed to their party then Cantrips not being as good as Martial Weapons might mean something, but instead it's the thing they do on a turn they don't want to spend any resources.

As I said above, I'd like to see some more Feat/Magic Item options for Casters to focus on Cantrips if that's what the player wants (which there probably will be in time), but as it stands they're a fine, if unexciting, way to contribute to a party's damage.

[Vidmaster7]

yeah I don't feel cantrips should even do half as much damage as a martial with all of his tools.

[ErichAD]

A shortbow or even a dagger ends up being a better option as it doesn't use up 2/3 of your action. You aren't stuck out in the open either before or after each cast, and you can use the weapon on turns where you don't need to move and want to cast a real spell. They compare well to a crossbow which has the same two action problem, and is also why they are considered the worst weapon by many.

Attack cantrips are just a waste. Doing the damage of a weapon one potency rune below where they would be with a weapon is just not enough to warrant that much of your turn spent.

Boosting their damage isn't a solution either. You'd only get to a point where focusing on cantrips was better than focusing on real spells. Reducing their action cost, combining cantrips with a move or concentrating on another spell, casting them around corners or starting from an ally's location, giving a missed arrow a second chance to hit, and other similar solutions would make more sense.

[swordchucks]

ErichAD wrote:

Reducing their action cost, combining cantrips with a move or concentrating on another spell, casting them around corners or starting from an ally's location, giving a missed arrow a second chance to hit, and other similar solutions would make more sense.

I like the idea (though it's admittedly a little 4e) of having cantrips do about the damage they do now but handing out minor conditions. Right now, an elven wizard with a shortbow can fairly easily do twice the damage with the bow as with cantrips. That'd be fine if the cantrip also caused sluggish or flat-footed or something similar.

I think the key is to make cantrips a tactically interesting option instead of a raw damage thing.