| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there something in the game that provides casters with bonuses to their spell attacks, in the way that weapon potency runes add to weapon attacks? I’m not seeing anything. If not, it looks like spells that require to-hit rolls just end up being less likely to land than spells that require saving throws, and I don’t see an obvious balance reason why that should be the case.
What am I missing? I’m just figuring this system out and I didn’t follow the playtest, so I’m probably just failing to account for something.
In the playtest there was something like a Dueling Wand/Rod for this.
In the playtest there was something like a Dueling Wand/Rod for this.
There doesn’t seem to be anything like that. Hmmmm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeesh. That’s not great. Unless there’s some mitigating factor that eludes me, you’re best off avoiding spells with the Attack trait in favor of spells that allow saving throws.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure, all full spellcasters become legendary with their spell attack rolls eventually after leveling up without spending any feats. So keeping up, is usually not the issue.
Fighters, as far as I know, are the only ones who become legendary in all weapons etc without any feats investment. Many of the other classes top at Master without feats investment.
Yeesh. That’s not great. Unless there’s some mitigating factor that eludes me, you’re best off avoiding spells with the Attack trait in favor of spells that allow saving throws.
I honestly don't think it's too bad. You usually don't suffer any MAP when using spell attacks while martial character deal with MAP most combat rounds.
Having lower attack bonus means spells won't crit quite as often, which overall is probably a good thing since they are (in general) pretty powerful for single attacks. A Disintegrate crit is so much more devestating than any crit with a weapon.
And as Eltacolibre said, all casters except warpriests become legendary in their spell proficiency. I think weapons get up to +3 attack and most martials onle become Master in their weapons. Legendary spell attack is +2 above all classes except fighters. So the difference isn't exactly huge.
Also: True Strike :)
The lack of item bonuses raised an eyebrow for me as well, but the previous posters raise good points. Unfortunately, they are actually playing catch up on the proficiency curve as well, getting expert and master 2 levels later than martials, until level 19 when they get legendary.
True Strike does help a lot for big spell slot strikes though. Cantrips might wind up a little less accurate... but that might be intended because they now deal pretty impressive damage compared to martial ranged weapons.
Yeah, those are good points, thanks all. I do agree it’s not actually broken, but it does seem a little unsatisfying. The math evens out at the end of the progression curve, but for most of the levels in between the to-hits of casters are going to be lagging behind a little. Again, not broken, it’s just a bit messy in terms of design.
True Strike is indeed potent. It’s a level 1 spell so it feels a pretty wasteful to use it to make a cantrip land, but I’d never want to cast a big spell attack without it. It’s nice to have those level 1 spell slots still so relevant at high levels, but it makes a spell almost a need-to-have, which is kind of strange.
Anyway, thanks for the perspective. I guess I find this state of affairs playable but a little disappointing.
Yeah, those are good points, thanks all. I do agree it’s not actually broken, but it does seem a little unsatisfying. The math evens out at the end of the progression curve, but for most of the levels in between the to-hits of casters are going to be lagging behind a little. Again, not broken, it’s just a bit messy in terms of design.
True Strike is indeed potent. It’s a level 1 spell so it feels a pretty wasteful to use it to make a cantrip land, but I’d never want to cast a big spell attack without it. It’s nice to have those level 1 spell slots still so relevant at high levels, but it makes a spell almost a need-to-have, which is kind of strange.
Anyway, thanks for the perspective. I guess I find this state of affairs playable but a little disappointing.
We will probably get some more insight into the specific math decisions either after Gen Con or during some of the seminars at the event.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So for a specific example... Tonight we pitted 3rd level characters against a bunch of 6 HP goblin warriors. The fighter had no problem one shotting them, but the rogue needed to roll max damage on his shortbow to do so, and the cleric couldn't actually one shot a goblin with her starknife barring a crit. Meanwhile the wizard was fling around 2d4+4 Rays of Frost which killed gobs on minimum damage.
I dunno how consistent that sort of trend stays, but if cantrips are hitting harder than shortbows they probably need to be less accurate. I'm not entirely fond of limited resources like spells being more likely to miss though.
Casters get significantly higher bonuses than they did in the playtest. Remember each proficiency was +1, not +2 and there was +0 from trained. Also expert proficiency didn't come until very late, 12th or13th level.
And the attack spells keyed off Dex, not the spellcasting stat, so +3 rather than +4
So casting bonuses are starting 3 points higher, and get another 2 point buff at 7th level.
So the math on spell attacks and DCs changed pretty significantly,
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So for a specific example... Tonight we pitted 3rd level characters against a bunch of 6 HP goblin warriors. The fighter had no problem one shotting them, but the rogue needed to roll max damage on his shortbow to do so, and the cleric couldn't actually one shot a goblin with her starknife barring a crit. Meanwhile the wizard was fling around 2d4+4 Rays of Frost which killed gobs on minimum damage.
I dunno how consistent that sort of trend stays, but if cantrips are hitting harder than shortbows they probably need to be less accurate. I'm not entirely fond of limited resources like spells being more likely to miss though.
So, the rogue wasn't using the cleric as a source for flanking? Why not? A Rogue should be positioning to use sneak attack in combat, and since the cleric, using a weapon that should be more awesome than it is, can't and probably shouldn't be one shotting anything, the rogue should pair up with her. Also, the shortbow, attack multiple times a round, and being at 3rd level, should have a +1 potency rune for at least one weapon by now, and so has that +1 extra to hit.
Meanwhile the spellcaster yes has cantrips that are 2d4+4 for damage, but has less hitpoints, less times to attack when using said cantrip, and since there is no longer touch AC, the ray has to hit full AC. There should be an option to boost the only chance wizards have to hit something with a spell attack.
Speaking of spellcasting cantrips, why wasn't the cleric using Chill Touch or Divine Lance? Both are cantrips with the same damage as the Ray of Frost?
Sorry if I sound like I am attcking you and your group, but I am slightly vexed by the lack of support for the spell attack roll, and the scenario you described, in my opinion, was not really supporting either viewpoint as the character options were not utilized to their full potential.