| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except one of the key reasons given for why spellcasting is good is, "2 actions for 1 vs a solo boss is a good use of actions."
And given how solo bosses by nature tend to be lv+2 or higher then they are effectively saying, "spellcasting is fine because sometimes it's a boss who will lose 1 action, meanwhile ignore it's a regular oppoenent."
If its a regular opponent, then it isn't level +2, its at most +1, and probably either -1 or 0 and you have a high chance of succeeding or critically succeeding with your spell- which is especially impactful because many such spells are multi-target.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except one of the key reasons given for why spellcasting is good is, "2 actions for 1 vs a solo boss is a good use of actions."
And given how solo bosses by nature tend to be lv+2 or higher then they are effectively saying, "spellcasting is fine because sometimes it's a boss who will lose 1 action, meanwhile ignore it's a regular oppoenent."
The point made before is that, even in the worst case against a high saves enemy with the incapacitation rule in effect, spells are still worth doing. Once enemies are your level, and their saves are not so high, your spells will be much more effective. Also in general slow and other single target debuffs do best against a single valuable target, so you'd probably use a different spell if you're fighting a bunch of weaker enemies. As a spellcaster you get many to choose from.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point made before is that, even in the worst case against a high saves enemy with the incapacitation rule in effect, spells are still worth doing. Once enemies are your level, and their saves are not so high, your spells will be much more effective. Also in general slow and other single target debuffs do best against a single valuable target, so you'd probably use a different spell if you're fighting a bunch of weaker enemies. As a spellcaster you get many to choose from.Except one of the key reasons given for why spellcasting is good is, "2 actions for 1 vs a solo boss is a good use of actions."
And given how solo bosses by nature tend to be lv+2 or higher then they are effectively saying, "spellcasting is fine because sometimes it's a boss who will lose 1 action, meanwhile ignore it's a regular oppoenent."
The Whole argument around the Slow spell has been frustrating shallow. The "its bad because 2 for 1" crowd seem to ignore several key points around both spell duration and general tactics.
Slow has a potential duration of 10 rounds, but only requires to be cast once. Spending two actions to remove potentially ten actions is a x5 Return on Investment. That's pretty damn good. At 6th level, where the spell can effect up to 10 targets, It's a potential x50 RoI.
Obviously these are potential maximum values based on an ideal scenario. But what happens when we inject some likely outcomes into the mix?
This is where trying to apply Slow as a 'one-size fits all' solution breaks down.
Understandably, the aim is not to have your enemies survive long enough to gain your best RoI. Your target selection needs to be better. You won't throw it on random mooks, but you also don't want to throw it at someone likely to save - except in the scenario where denying even 1 action is worth more.
What ends up happening is that you need to weight the options of each use, as, when applied correctly, Slow is devastating. Applied incorrectly and its 'meh'. The problem people seem to have most with the spell is judging said application. And that's kinda on them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Three books completed in Age of Ashes now with two separate parties, both of which contain a Fighter.
Someone may want to come tell my spellcasters they're supposed to feel bad or that they're underpowered, because they sure as heck arent feeling it.
The fighters are by far the best at fighting, but the Bard in one party effectively carry's and enables the party through buffs, debuffs and illusions. Bards swing math hard, and their spell list has amazing utility and decent blasts, even.
The other party has a Druid and a Sorcerer, and both find plenty to contribute to the party.
There's obvious utility of Invisibility, Clairvoyance, and tons of other spells that solve problems while completely eliminating associated risks (by not having associated saves), but it's not like offensive magic hasn't been useful either.
Theres plenty of opportunities for spells like Magic Missile (AC of level +3 enemies matters not at all), Fireball (critically failed saves happen more often with multiple targets, and are satisfying as hell) and Phantasmal Killer (damage and frightened even if they succeed are well worth the actions when you consider what it does for the rest of the party).
What hasn't happened is a spellcaster winning an entire fight because their target flubbed one roll.
Everything seems to be working pretty well from my actual experience thus far, with no significant sign of new issues developing as we go up in level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe that any one has asked for caster to end fights with one spell.
I feel like this is the iconic thing for spellcasters in PF1 though - spells were potent, reliable, and often disabled or removed a key target from an encounter in one action.
I think one of the most "different" things about PF2 is learning that against some foes (like ones at level +3), you're playing for a different Degree of Success than you're used to. Rolling a failure on your save is a win because it isnt a critical failure, and them failing to Critically Succeed against your spell is a win because you just stole one of their actions with Slow.
Against a level +3 boss, stealing 1/3 of their actions for a turn is a big deal. They cant move and use a 2 action activity, they cant use a 3 action activity at all, etc. Against a lot of things, that's a win.
In a fight that's 4v1, stealing 1/3 of the "1" sides actions is a perfectly valid use of one person's turn. It's a legit contribution. You just have to get past the fact that the target technically "won" on their save.
I do think it's a new concept though, that what save result constitutes a win varies by opposition. In play though, I think it works great.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I'm sure the mathematics and logic of it works, I will never deny that. Its the perception of it that's a problem. Its the same case with the lottery/gambling, it doesn't matter that you didn't lose money on the bet, you will feel bad that you didn't won.
The boss losing 1/3 of its action might be good, but the caster will feel bad that their spell failed. Also, I think people forget that PF1 had many "Save for half" and "Save (partial)", and there is no difference in that aspect. The real differences being how often the target succeeds, how easy it is to increase the DC, and the entire system being standardized. Effects on a critical failure are mostly new (before only attack spells had that due to spell crits).
The inability to get better DC and the innately higher saves, is what causes the problem. Let caster increase their DC by 1 or 2 points and the entire feeling will probably change. (debuffing is not the same).
If there's feats and items that increase dcs, then those would end up as autopicks for the most part, which would limit meaningful customization. I think debuffing saves is healthier tbh. It encourages teamplay.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's feats and items that increase dcs, then those would end up as autopicks for the most part, which would limit meaningful customization.
Yeah, but nobody really bats an eye at items that buff martial attacks being autopicks.
Like it or not they're part of the system math and right now the numbers on spellcasters can sometimes feel a little janky because the lack of them leaves them pretty meaningfully behind. Especially when it comes to spells with attack rolls.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's feats and items that increase dcs, then those would end up as autopicks for the most part, which would limit meaningful customization.Yeah, but nobody really bats an eye at items that buff martial attacks being autopicks.
Like it or not they're part of the system math and right now the numbers on spellcasters can sometimes feel a little janky because the lack of them leaves them pretty meaningfully behind. Especially when it comes to spells with attack rolls.
It's a really weird design choice that I'm having trouble squaring during high-level play scenarios.
A common counter point is that many spells now have effects on failures, which helps mitigate the numbers disparity.
The only thing I can hope for is that Paizo were simply squeamish about having numbers parity in the initial release as they were unsure how it would effect their attempts as balancing. Hopefully with the weight of actual play data coming in, they'll see that Caster runes will be utterly fine and actually go a long way to smoothing out the over all play experience for all classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caster runes is one of the easiest homebrews in existence. If you think it's something the game needs (I do not, based on my play experience), then it's super simple to add it to the game. Adding a +1 caster rune probably wouldn't mess up game balance too much - so just add it if you strongly believe it makes the game at your table better. I think a +2 or especially a +3 caster rune would greatly tilt the game towards debuff then save-or-suck land though.
Not everyone has the luxury of house rules of course. This is the easiest one imaginable however, so for the tables that can and want to do it: just go for it!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding a +1 caster rune probably wouldn't mess up game balance too much - so just add it if you strongly believe it makes the game at your table better. I think a +2 or especially a +3 caster rune would greatly tilt the game towards debuff then save-or-suck land though
Honestly, I feel this isn't true.
At present, depending on build (I have a whole pile of test characters are use to war game these things), at 20th level, there is between a 12-15% success imbalance towards a Fighter vs a Wizard. Adding rune parity brings this down to a near 0%.
In addition, effects like Juggernaut, Evasion (& to a lesser extent Bravery) mean that the "Effects on Failure" benefit doesn't mean much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing to remember about how spells interact with the 4 tiers of success is that the differences are much larger and more different than just more damage. They also usually utilize the 4 tiers more fully than traditional attacks. This is least true with spells that make attack rolls, so item bonuses to spell attacks might eventually be in the works, but for the save DC, a +2 or 3 to a spell like slow is absolutely devastating. I think having items with more interesting interactions with spells than bonuses is the better idea. I think it would probably have been better with weapons too, but might have made the game feel too incompatible to its predecessors, if there was no +1 magic weapon.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
they were nerfed
nerfed into balance
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding a +1 caster rune probably wouldn't mess up game balance too much - so just add it if you strongly believe it makes the game at your table better. I think a +2 or especially a +3 caster rune would greatly tilt the game towards debuff then save-or-suck land thoughHonestly, I feel this isn't true.
At present, depending on build (I have a whole pile of test characters are use to war game these things), at 20th level, there is between a 12-15% success imbalance towards a Fighter vs a Wizard. Adding rune parity brings this down to a near 0%.
In addition, effects like Juggernaut, Evasion (& to a lesser extent Bravery) mean that the "Effects on Failure" benefit doesn't mean much.
I think we may have to agree to disagree, then. In my table experience, casters are equal (or close enough) to that of martials. So in my view a +3 (which represents about a +30% increase in effectiveness), is a world-shattering buff for classes that are already up to snuff. Assuming the +X comes from magic items, this also cuts into the item budget of casters which means they have less wiggle room to buy cool stuff.
As for the Juggernaut and Evasion stuff, almost no monsters have those abilities to my knowledge. I'm not sure what effect this has, if any, unless you're doing tons of PVP. Obviously I don't know how every single monster functions but a quick search over at AoN yielded one monster with either of those abilities. It's possible there are more monsters with similar abilities that I couldn't find - but if there are I haven't run into them at the table at least.
Adding a +1 caster rune probably wouldn't mess up game balance too much - so just add it if you strongly believe it makes the game at your table better. I think a +2 or especially a +3 caster rune would greatly tilt the game towards debuff then save-or-suck land thoughHonestly, I feel this isn't true.
At present, depending on build (I have a whole pile of test characters are use to war game these things), at 20th level, there is between a 12-15% success imbalance towards a Fighter vs a Wizard. Adding rune parity brings this down to a near 0%.
In addition, effects like Juggernaut, Evasion (& to a lesser extent Bravery) mean that the "Effects on Failure" benefit doesn't mean much.
I think we may have to agree to disagree, then. In my table experience, casters are equal (or close enough) to that of martials. So in my view a +3 (which represents about a +30% increase in effectiveness), is a world-shattering buff for classes that are already up to snuff. Assuming the +X comes from magic items, this also cuts into the item budget of casters which means they have less wiggle room to buy cool stuff.
As for the Juggernaut and Evasion stuff, almost no monsters have those abilities to my knowledge. I'm not sure what effect this has, if any, unless you're doing tons of PVP. Obviously I don't know how every single monster functions but a quick search over at AoN yielded one monster with either of those abilities. It's possible there are more monsters with similar abilities that I couldn't find - but if there are I haven't run into them at the table at least.
This is my experience too. Comparing characters you make as test characters against each other is not a good metric for balancing the game between classes because players dont typically fight enemies with class abilities. It might be true that a particularly powerful villain is going to be make with class levels and have those abilities, but generally monsters don't which means that 90%+ of the time casters have a big edge over their enemies because their spell will do something most of the time they are cast. The rare occasion where an enemy does have one feels more like an interesting new challenge than a general situation the party faces.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing to remember about how spells interact with the 4 tiers of success is that the differences are much larger and more different than just more damage. They also usually utilize the 4 tiers more fully than traditional attacks. This is least true with spells that make attack rolls, so item bonuses to spell attacks might eventually be in the works, but for the save DC, a +2 or 3 to a spell like slow is absolutely devastating. I think having items with more interesting interactions with spells than bonuses is the better idea. I think it would probably have been better with weapons too, but might have made the game feel too incompatible to its predecessors, if there was no +1 magic weapon.
Caster Striking Runes seem perfectly fine to me. +1 to +3, as long as it has the spell attack trait, would put their bonuses to attack in line with other classes just fine.
Saves, as a whole, look pretty balanced to me. The success to failure ratio seems on par across the board, with limited and specific exceptions (as one would hope), so I agree that they aren’t needed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding a +1 caster rune probably wouldn't mess up game balance too much - so just add it if you strongly believe it makes the game at your table better. I think a +2 or especially a +3 caster rune would greatly tilt the game towards debuff then save-or-suck land thoughHonestly, I feel this isn't true.
At present, depending on build (I have a whole pile of test characters are use to war game these things), at 20th level, there is between a 12-15% success imbalance towards a Fighter vs a Wizard. Adding rune parity brings this down to a near 0%.
In addition, effects like Juggernaut, Evasion (& to a lesser extent Bravery) mean that the "Effects on Failure" benefit doesn't mean much.
Which is the problem, a Fighter doesn't have +2 as a base thing, its a fighter perk vs. the other martials which are balanced around Master and have their own perks. All casters have legendary, but are meant to be balanced in their own right already (failure effects, their native versatility, other class features they have)
It's also a little telling that you're interpreting success rate as the only metric that matters, by suggesting that increasing the success rate without reducing something else to compensate would be fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A common counter point is that many spells now have effects on failures, which helps mitigate the numbers disparity.
To be fair, it does help a bit, but only with spells that have those failure effects to begin with.
The math gap between a spellcaster and a non-Fighter martial works out if you look at save-granting spells with failure effects against low saves.
But hitting low saves isn't reliable and spells that call for attack rolls instead of saves rarely have failure effects and are swinging against the same value martials do. I find spells that call for attack rolls to be really frustrating because if you can't stack bonuses it's often basically a coin flip that wastes a spell slot if you lose.
I made a wizard gish the other day for a table and I just miss constantly compared to the fighter. 5e gishes aren't exactly great either, but at least I can swing my sword and expect it to do something, even if the Fighter hits way harder.
A common counter point is that many spells now have effects on failures, which helps mitigate the numbers disparity.To be fair, it does help a bit, but only with spells that have those failure effects to begin with.
The math gap between a spellcaster and a non-Fighter martial works out if you look at save-granting spells with failure effects against low saves.
But hitting low saves isn't reliable and spells that call for attack rolls instead of saves rarely have failure effects and are swinging against the same value martials do. I find spells that call for attack rolls to be really frustrating because if you can't stack bonuses it's often basically a coin flip that wastes a spell slot if you lose.
** spoiler omitted **
Honestly, a Spell Potency Rune that doesn't actually effect saving throws might not be a terrible thing to introduce to the game, though it should probably cap lower to compensate for all the casters arbitrarily having legendary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All casters have legendary
It's true that most casters eventually hit legendary, but legendary is only at level 19 and 20, the very end of a campaign if it even lasts that long.
For most of the campaign they're on the same track as a barbarian, ranger or rogue. Heck, spellcasters have more levels (5-6, 13-14) where they're behind martials than levels where they're ahead of them.
I think it is very likely we will eventually get item bonuses for spells that make attack rolls. A lot changed about targeting AC and spell attacks between the playtest and the final core rule book, and they didn't get as much time to test out the feel of making spell attacks with the main casting attribute against general AC.
I think the general sentiment was that getting to use your primary spell casting attribute will see most casters making up for the loss in difference with touch AC, but the value of having an 18 in your primary attack attribute is so important that it is very rare for any character to be built without an 18 in thing they most want to be able to do, so the caster does end up feeling more like a martial, when attacking with spell attack roll spells. They are definitely the most underwhelming of the the spells and only really feel useful on select MC builds that will get extra benefit from making attack rolls. And True Strike. By higher levels, having one or two spell attack roll spells and the True Strikes to make them hit can often be pretty satisfying.
Cantrips though, that require attack rolls get frustratingly inaccurate, especially since they take 2 actions, but that might be intended to push casters towards picking attack spells with their slots instead of expecting cantrips to be their main combat schtick.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we may have to agree to disagree, then. In my table experience, casters are equal (or close enough) to that of martials. So in my view a +3 (which represents about a +30% increase in effectiveness), is a world-shattering buff for classes that are already up to snuff. Assuming the +X comes from magic items, this also cuts into the item budget of casters which means they have less wiggle room to buy cool stuffAdding a +1 caster rune probably wouldn't mess up game balance too much - so just add it if you strongly believe it makes the game at your table better. I think a +2 or especially a +3 caster rune would greatly tilt the game towards debuff then save-or-suck land thoughHonestly, I feel this isn't true.
At present, depending on build (I have a whole pile of test characters are use to war game these things), at 20th level, there is between a 12-15% success imbalance towards a Fighter vs a Wizard. Adding rune parity brings this down to a near 0%.
In addition, effects like Juggernaut, Evasion (& to a lesser extent Bravery) mean that the "Effects on Failure" benefit doesn't mean much.
A +3 is a 15% bonus, not 30%.
___________
A 20th level fighter can have an AC of 47 (10
base, +20 from level, +6 from master prof, +6 heavy armour, +3 from runes, +2 shield)
A 20th level Wizard can have an spell attack bonus of +35 (+20 from level, +8 from legendary prof, +7 from Int).
Wizard needs to roll a 12 to hit ~ 40% chance to success.
___________
A 20th level Wizard can have an AC of 41 (10 base, +20 from level, +4 Dex, +4 from Expert Prof, +3 runes)
A 20th level Fighter can have an attack bonus of +38 (+20 from level, +8 from Legendary prof, +7 from strength, +3 runes)
Fighter needs to roll a 4 to hit ~ 80% chance of success.
____________
Now this is without extending any limited resources, doing compromising builds or stuff out of character.
If a 20th level Wizard started carrying around a shield, and giving up one of their actions a turn to raise shield, they reduce the fighter chance of success to 60%.
If a Wizard spends a 10th level spell slot on Mage Armour, they can reduce this chance of success to a mere 45%.
_____________
Even with the presence of caster striking runes a fighter would still have possess an advantage. Without expending any resources or limiting their options like a Wizard would.
I think there’s some good design space for a spell or focus spell that gives an item bonus to spell attack. I think that kind of magical self-buff could be really sweet. Giving bonuses to spell attack only should be okay balance-wise, though I suppose it could be a little confusing.
I think we may have to agree to disagree, then. In my table experience, casters are equal (or close enough) to that of martials. So in my view a +3 (which represents about a +30% increase in effectiveness), is a world-shattering buff for classes that are already up to snuff. Assuming the +X comes from magic items, this also cuts into the item budget of casters which means they have less wiggle room to buy cool stuffAdding a +1 caster rune probably wouldn't mess up game balance too much - so just add it if you strongly believe it makes the game at your table better. I think a +2 or especially a +3 caster rune would greatly tilt the game towards debuff then save-or-suck land thoughHonestly, I feel this isn't true.
At present, depending on build (I have a whole pile of test characters are use to war game these things), at 20th level, there is between a 12-15% success imbalance towards a Fighter vs a Wizard. Adding rune parity brings this down to a near 0%.
In addition, effects like Juggernaut, Evasion (& to a lesser extent Bravery) mean that the "Effects on Failure" benefit doesn't mean much.
A +3 is a 15% bonus, not 30%.
___________
A 20th level fighter can have an AC of 47 (10
base, +20 from level, +6 from master prof, +6 heavy armour, +3 from runes, +2 shield)A 20th level Wizard can have an spell attack bonus of +35 (+20 from level, +8 from legendary prof, +7 from Int).
Wizard needs to roll a 12 to hit ~ 40% chance to success.
___________
A 20th level Wizard can have an AC of 41 (10 base, +20 from level, +4 Dex, +4 from Expert Prof, +3 runes)
A 20th level Fighter can have an attack bonus of +38 (+20 from level, +8 from Legendary prof, +7 from strength, +3 runes)
Fighter needs to roll a 4 to hit ~ 80% chance of success.
____________
Now this is without extending any limited resources, doing compromising builds or stuff out of character.
If a 20th level Wizard started...
The game isn't made for class v. class, you should just use the AC of at level creatures as outlined in the Monster Creation Guidelines.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can‘t really discuss if a class has been nerfed in a new edition without comparison to its contemporaries, as that’s what you are comparing it next to.
Plus you are, at very least, 20 years too late to the “hey now, let’s not directly compare Wizards and Fighters!” thing.
A +3 is a 15% bonus, not 30%.
A +3 represents a 15% increased chance to succeed plus a 15% increased chance to critically succeed (or in some circumstances, a 15% increased chance to normally fail instead of crit failing). Calling it a 30% increase is still simplifying things a bit since crit success doesn't always mean twice as good (sometimes it's way better than twice as good), but it's still a reasonable approximation.
Comparing the classes by having them fight each other tells you some things, but it doesn't really say much about the balance that actually shows up at most tables since PCs tend to fight together.
You can‘t really discuss if a class has been nerfed in a new edition without comparison to its contemporaries, as that’s what you are comparing it next to.
Plus you are, at very least, 20 years too late to the “hey now, let’s not directly compare Wizards and Fighters!” thing.
And the wizard has Dominate, DC 45, while the Fighter might have +31 Will. So that's a 15% chance to win instantly and 50% chance to put the fighter in a horrible situation.
What's your point?
I've read the majority of this thread over the past couple of days. I didn't expect my position to shift from thinking the wizard was generally well balanced, but the thread has done a surprisingly good job of pointing out the areas where they are failing.
I think it's been shown that spell attack rolls are a little under where they should be starting at the first dip at level 3 when martials get their item bonus and casters don't. They take another dip at 5 when martials up their proficiency and casters don't. They make up a little ground in the very late levels with legendary proficiency over master for the majority of martials, but they are down a +3 item bonus by then, so even that doesn't bring them all the way up. A staff of divination with True Strike does also make up a bit of ground here, but the action tax certainly isn't negligible. I'd say that a +1 to spell attack rolls rune available at level 5 should be in the game, which would make up the rest of the ground with non-fighter martials. Eventual parity with the average martial seems like enough given the ability to target different saves that the martials don't have access to.
As to buffing spell DC's in general, I think that is unnecessary. Targeting the worst save of an enemy easily beats any on the martial buffs available as far as manipulating success rate. This isn't easy, of course, but it is what you sign up for when you choose a caster. With this in the game, you have a higher top end than the martials if you execute perfectly.
I would prefer a spell that buffed spell attacks to a rune (I guess it would feel a little more wizard-y and tactical to me), but yeah I wouldn't mind a bonus to spell attacks to exist in the game. In fact I think it would be pretty cool.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can‘t really discuss if a class has been nerfed in a new edition without comparison to its contemporaries, as that’s what you are comparing it next to.
Plus you are, at very least, 20 years too late to the “hey now, let’s not directly compare Wizards and Fighters!” thing.
And the wizard has Dominate, DC 45, while the Fighter might have +31 Will. So that's a 15% chance to win instantly and 50% chance to put the fighter in a horrible situation.
What's your point?
We specifically and pointedly were talking about attacks not saves. Keep up chap!
I'd also suggest your fighter take Canny Acumen - [Will Saves]
A +3 is a 15% bonus, not 30%.A +3 represents a 15% increased chance to succeed plus a 15% increased chance to critically succeed (or in some circumstances, a 15% increased chance to normally fail instead of crit failing). Calling it a 30% increase is still simplifying things a bit since crit success doesn't always mean twice as good (sometimes it's way better than twice as good), but it's still a reasonable approximation.
IMO, an action should have some chance of success, and some chance that when you get a success, it will be a critical success. You seem to be saying that the chance of a critical success is independent of the chance of a success. Not sure how that would work.
IMO, an action should have some chance of success, and some chance that when you get a success, it will be a critical success. You seem to be saying that the chance of a critical success is independent of the chance of a success. Not sure how that would work.A +3 is a 15% bonus, not 30%.A +3 represents a 15% increased chance to succeed plus a 15% increased chance to critically succeed (or in some circumstances, a 15% increased chance to normally fail instead of crit failing). Calling it a 30% increase is still simplifying things a bit since crit success doesn't always mean twice as good (sometimes it's way better than twice as good), but it's still a reasonable approximation.
A +1 to your roll affects two rolls on the result of the d20. If you start at needing a 10 on the die and a 20 to crit, adding +1 affects both the 9 result and the 19. Each of these modifications is worth a full attacks worth of damage.
Spells are slightly more complicated since its not a simple 'doubling' of damage (+100% damage is the same as an additional hit), but its still similar.
I never paid much attention to the math behind D&D/Pathfinder, preferring a simpler system where if you wanted to do something, basically you rolled percentile dice and if the roll exceeded your skill level (pretty much everything is a skill) you failed, and if it didn't, you succeeded. Twenty percent of the time (when the roll ended in a zero or 5) it would be a critical failure or success. Much easier to figure out, and to understand. :-)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's feats and items that increase dcs, then those would end up as autopicks for the most part, which would limit meaningful customization.Yeah, but nobody really bats an eye at items that buff martial attacks being autopicks.
Like it or not they're part of the system math and right now the numbers on spellcasters can sometimes feel a little janky because the lack of them leaves them pretty meaningfully behind. Especially when it comes to spells with attack rolls.
Which is a bit odd because the martials can use their weapon bonus all day, every day, with every attack they make. So that could be up to 3 attacks in a round, plus 1 AoO or other reaction. By contrast the caster typically only gets 1 spell per round, and most of those are using a finite resource (spell slots).
A +1 to your roll affects two rolls on the result of the d20. If you start at needing a 10 on the die and a 20 to crit, adding +1 affects both the 9 result and the 19. Each of these modifications is worth a full attacks worth of damage.
Spells are slightly more complicated since its not a simple 'doubling' of damage (+100% damage is the same as an additional hit), but its still similar.
Just expanding on this.
If you start needing an 11 to hit, then a +1 only increases effectiveness by 5% since you still need a 20 to crit and still need a 1 to crit fail. This happens often enough versus even leveled enemies to be worth considering.
If you start needing a 12, then you get a 5% chance to hit with a +1 and a 5% chance not to crit fail, which probably is usually worth half the value of an attack given a standard save. That makes the +1 worth 7.5% extra on average.
I'd put needing an 11 at the center of the curve of most probable conditions then make everything outside of that less probable. If we just say each of the situations is equally likely, then we see a 7.5% improvement is gotten out of a +1 to hit. I'd say the needing an 11 share is maybe 1/5 of the time, though, so I'd think a +1 gives roughly an 8% improvement in result.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can‘t really discuss if a class has been nerfed in a new edition without comparison to its contemporaries, as that’s what you are comparing it next to.
Plus you are, at very least, 20 years too late to the “hey now, let’s not directly compare Wizards and Fighters!” thing.
And the wizard has Dominate, DC 45, while the Fighter might have +31 Will. So that's a 15% chance to win instantly and 50% chance to put the fighter in a horrible situation.
What's your point?
We specifically and pointedly were talking about attacks not saves. Keep up chap!
I'd also suggest your fighter take Canny Acumen - [Will Saves]
And you want wizards to be literally as good at hitting things as the best class in the game at hitting things, while also generally being able to target weak saves for an additional +3 (or +30% effectiveness), while also having solid effects if the enemy fails their save. Not to mention that every attack for a martial after the first is functionally at half the effectiveness of the previous one (outside of specific things like flurry ranger or agile grace), while casters don't care since they only need to make one attack.
And in the example above, if the fighter takes Canny Acumen then with the Wizard getting a +3 DC the fighter still has a 70% chance of getting instantly wiped off the map, with literally every investment that could be made. And the wizard still has 4 effective slots of 9th level and below.
Oh, and that's not even close to a level 20 monster's stats, which have AC 44-45, and saves of +30/+33/+36.
Bottom line is - sure, casters have a worse attack bonus. They also have the ability to switch their attack method to the weakest target, and have the ability to meaningfully affect the fight in a ton of different ways.
|
|
A +3 is a 15% bonus, not 30%.
___________
A 20th level fighter can have an AC of 47 (10
base, +20 from level, +6 from master prof, +6 heavy armour, +3 from runes, +2 shield)A 20th level Wizard can have an spell attack bonus of +35 (+20 from level, +8 from legendary prof, +7 from Int).
Wizard needs to roll a 12 to hit ~ 40% chance to success.
___________
A 20th level Wizard can have an AC of 41 (10 base, +20 from level, +4 Dex, +4 from Expert Prof, +3 runes)
A 20th level Fighter can have an attack bonus of +38 (+20 from level, +8 from Legendary prof, +7 from strength, +3 runes)
Fighter needs to roll a 4 to hit ~ 80% chance of success.
____________
Now this is without extending any limited resources, doing compromising builds or stuff out of character.
If a 20th level Wizard started...
This isn’t really a fair comparison. It’s not that difficult to get a wizard’s dexterity to 20, and if a fighter carries a shield, a wizard can do so just as well. At the least, a wizard can use the shield spell. The wizard giving up an action is the same as the fighter giving up an action and using a less damage focused weapon, so it would be closer to a 40% and 65% chance to hit for the wizard and fighter, respectively, or a 50% and 70% chance. That is completely disregarding that wizards can focus on three other saves that are likely to be lower, which the fighter needs to specifically build for to interact with. More so, comparing to-hit with the class focused on hitting is a bit disingenuous. A better portrayal would be looking at the other martial classes, who like wizards with their spells, usually have add-on effects in exchange for lower accuracy compared to fighters, or at least greater flexibility.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is completely disregarding that wizards can focus on three other saves that are likely to be lower
I mean, yeah? The whole point of that comparison is to talk about how AC targeting spells stack up. That the wizard can target a save instead is irrelevant.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is completely disregarding that wizards can focus on three other saves that are likely to be lowerI mean, yeah? The whole point of that comparison is to talk about how AC targeting spells stack up. That the wizard can target a save instead is irrelevant.
Is it really when wizards have options to target saves one or two that are easier to exploit than AC? Should they also be able to hit AC just as well? I think that’s ludicrous. For one, I’m glad that Paizo made casters great but not all around better than martials.
Did people forget that:
1) Everyone should be getting +3 to all saves at high level. So the worst save is at 27+stat (Expert) while the best save is at 31+stat (legendary), meanwhile the Save DC is 28+stat (26+stat for Warpriests).2) Master proficiency in a save makes it so any success becomes a critical success instead. Effectively +10 when you succeed. Most martials get at least 1.
3) Legendary proficiency in a save makes it so critical failures are just failures and failures are successes. Effectively +10 period on the save. (Not too rare for martials, very rare in casters.
So "being able to target different saves" is not a benefit, but a side grade. You have to spend resources and 2 actions, and hope the enemy doesnt have master proficiency vs the spell, otherwise the 50/50 nature of spells means the spell has no effect.
Also pray you dont use an incapcitation effects vs legendary saves, effectively wasting the turn. Only way to get any effect becomes if the enemy literally rolls a nat 1, and it will only result in a success effect.
**************
Just to iterate: Saves are not easier to exploit than AC. They are just more varied than AC, which actually makes them harder to exploit: Unless you can cast multiple spells, which means shorter adventuring days due to spending resources just trying to do something.Anyway the problem is Attack spells dont keep up with AC values due to lacking a stat buff of some kind. This will be worse for classes and archetypes like Warpriest who naturally dont have Legendary casting to shore up the number a bit.
Please show me all the enemies that have success -> crit success on saves.
Here, I'll list them out for you - enemies that are built like PCs. That is the entire list.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it really when wizards have options to target saves one or two that are easier to exploit than AC? Should they also be able to hit AC just as well?
If your argument is that the wizard shouldn't bother casting spells that target AC because spells that target saves are so much more reliable you're making the point for me.
I'm not even sure what your point is then. That spells that target AC should intentionally be worse than other spells? That's... dumb.For one, I’m glad that Paizo made casters great but not all around better than martials.
Cool. No one said anything about that, though.
Did people forget that:
1) Everyone should be getting +3 to all saves at high level. So the worst save is at 27+stat (Expert) while the best save is at 31+stat (legendary), meanwhile the Save DC is 28+stat (26+stat for Warpriests).2) Master proficiency in a save makes it so any success becomes a critical success instead. Effectively +10 when you succeed. Most martials get at least 1.
3) Legendary proficiency in a save makes it so critical failures are just failures and failures are successes. Effectively +10 period on the save. (Not too rare for martials, very rare in casters.
So "being able to target different saves" is not a benefit, but a side grade. You have to spend resources and 2 actions, and hope the enemy doesnt have master proficiency vs the spell, otherwise the 50/50 nature of spells means the spell has no effect.
Also pray you dont use an incapcitation effects vs legendary saves, effectively wasting the turn. Only way to get any effect becomes if the enemy literally rolls a nat 1, and it will only result in a success effect.
**************
Just to iterate: Saves are not easier to exploit than AC. They are just more varied than AC, which actually makes them harder to exploit: Unless you can cast multiple spells, which means shorter adventuring days due to spending resources just trying to do something.Anyway the problem is Attack spells dont keep up with AC values due to lacking a stat buff of some kind. This will be worse for classes and archetypes like Warpriest who naturally dont have Legendary casting to shore up the number a bit.
It's actually a +4 to saves with an antimagic property rune on the armor. Luckily, the DC to dispel the armor as a level 20 item is only 40, and you have a +34 bonus, so you need a 6 to take away that bonus. Now, you are going to need a 9th level dispel magic to do that, but you should probably have that prepared anyway for this sort of fight.
Targeting the weakest save gives you a better high end then the martials; your average without knowledge is abysmally worse. With your high Int score, you should be able to remedy that situation with some recall knowledge checks. Still, a martial getting the jump on a caster should have an advantage. A caster that was able to research the target heavily outclasses the martial. I think that is working as intended.
Is it really when wizards have options to target saves one or two that are easier to exploit than AC? Should they also be able to hit AC just as well?If your argument is that the wizard shouldn't bother casting spells that target AC because spells that target saves are so much more reliable you're making the point for me.
I'm not even sure what your point is then. That spells that target AC should intentionally be worse than other spells? That's... dumb.For one, I’m glad that Paizo made casters great but not all around better than martials.Cool. No one said anything about that, though.
I think spells that target AC are useful with true strike support. They give you an option to brute force throughwhen you can't figure out the weak save to exploit. The 1-3 point differential with martials while leveling up is a bit of a bummer, but the existence of true strike, staves of divination, and The fact that casters can easily wield staves since they don't need to hold another weapon does a lot to make up the difference.
Like I said before, I don't think True Strike quite makes up the distance, and I think the game should have a +1 to spell attacks rune.
|
|
Is it really when wizards have options to target saves one or two that are easier to exploit than AC? Should they also be able to hit AC just as well?If your argument is that the wizard shouldn't bother casting spells that target AC because spells that target saves are so much more reliable you're making the point for me.
I'm not even sure what your point is then. That spells that target AC should intentionally be worse than other spells? That's... dumb.For one, I’m glad that Paizo made casters great but not all around better than martials.Cool. No one said anything about that, though.
With the exception of the fighter, wizards are usually only one or two points behind martials on their to-hit with attack spells. They also have access to true strike, which greatly increases likelihood of to-hit. Spells that target saves are reliable because of their failure effects, but they are also useful when enemies have lower saves than AC, and if another caster, like a bard, uses an attack buff, that increases attack target viability. End game, a +1 item to wizards would give them equal attack to every martial besides fighters, while a +3 makes them superior to all except fighters. That’s... dumb.