martial vs caster effect rates

[citricking]

Here is a comparison of the chance for a martial character to hit or a spell caster to have it's target fail a save

So it seems effect rates for casters and martials are pretty consistent across 1 to 20. So spell casters are not falling behind.

[Pramxnim]

Thanks for posting empirical data to support your argument!

[Mark Seifter]

Looks right. Consider it vs other PC-built characters, which we've said we built the system to support if you want to use them. The reason why the math adds up so similarly for spellcasters vs weaker saves when comparing to non-fighter martials is that spellcasters go to legendary proficiency while non-fighters go to only master in attack rolls, plus characters with under 20 Dex can use armor to still have just as high of AC, whereas characters with under 20 Dex/Con/Wis don't have such a way to compensate for their saves. All this means that a PC with armor and equivalent proficiency between AC and Will save and 18 Wisdom, say, will have 1 lower Will DC than their AC; add in the legendary casting proficiency and you've already made up the 3 points that weapons can gain from item bonus (that plus a weak save might well have lower proficiency than AC to begin with). Strong saves are harder to defeat than AC because characters' strongest save is pretty much always master or legendary, perhaps legendary, whereas very few character classes reach legendary in armor and some only reach expert.

[NemoNoName]

Hm. While I can see your point on direct number comparison, it does not take into account that spells take on average more actions to perform, are a very limited resource while Martials can always Strike again, and again, and again, not to mention those Strikes can be enhanced with various feats and magic to reduce MAP, gain extra effects or damage, etc.

When you add the fact buffing spells have been reduced in potency, this means there is a push for casters to participate in martial combat. And this hits Wizards extra hard because they have no good ways of becoming even halfway acceptable in melee without taking Dedication feats.

This is especially hurtful on lower levels, before we get some decent polymorph combat forms.

And no, cantrips don't make up for it, they do less damage than a strike for 2 action investment.

EDIT: Just to make it clear, I'm not saying cantrips are not good, I'm just saying, they don't make up for the power differential. I'm perfectly fine with damage-dealing cantrips to stay as they are.

Also, this whole thing assumes casters have prepared the right spell in advance. Which is no guarantee.

Anyway, I want more battlefield control spells, where we influence things rather than decide them or just deal damage. More 1 action spells, more reaction spells, more pits, traps, slowing the enemy, etc. Tanglefoot is a great example of the spell I'd like, except it's Conjuration -.-

[Deadmanwalking]

Eh. I'd say the effects of successful spells are usually better than a successful martial attack as well. So them 'hitting' about as often seems about right, balance-wise.

And Cantrips are less effective than a Strike to make up for real spells being more so, which again seems pretty reasonable to me.

[NemoNoName]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Eh. I'd say the effects of successful spells are usually better than a successful martial attack as well. So them 'hitting' about as often seems about right, balance-wise.

But even looking at the most basic of basics, spells are on average 2 actions and thus must be better than a Strike and Strike at -5, not just a strike.

Not to mention that if you whiff, next round you Strike again. Or even if you get the guy, next round you move onto someone else with the same Strike.
You don't get that benefit from a spell.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

And Cantrips are less effective than a Strike to make up for real spells being more so, which again seems pretty reasonable to me.

As I said, it is perfectly reasonable, but it also means you can't use them as "making up for advantages of Strikes".

[Shisumo]

Casters usually create an effect except on a critical success for the save, while martials must hit to do anything at all. Comparing two Strikes against s a spell needs to be done from that perspective.

[MaxAstro]

That's a good point, Shisumo. Casters will almost always have a 95% chance of applying at least some damage or debuff.

[Ashborne]

Shisumo wrote:

Casters usually create an effect except on a critical success for the save, while martials must hit to do anything at all. Comparing two Strikes against s a spell needs to be done from that perspective.

If that is the case, then every spell needs to create an effect, not just the ones you make saves against. Spells that require a to-hit roll, most of them anyway, do nothing on a miss, and thus is a wasted 'Strike' subject to MAP.

[Ashborne]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Looks right. Consider it vs other PC-built characters, which we've said we built the system to support if you want to use them. The reason why the math adds up so similarly for spellcasters vs weaker saves when comparing to non-fighter martials is that spellcasters go to legendary proficiency while non-fighters go to only master in attack rolls, plus characters with under 20 Dex can use armor to still have just as high of AC, whereas characters with under 20 Dex/Con/Wis don't have such a way to compensate for their saves. All this means that a PC with armor and equivalent proficiency between AC and Will save and 18 Wisdom, say, will have 1 lower Will DC than their AC; add in the legendary casting proficiency and you've already made up the 3 points that weapons can gain from item bonus (that plus a weak save might well have lower proficiency than AC to begin with). Strong saves are harder to defeat than AC because characters' strongest save is pretty much always master or legendary, perhaps legendary, whereas very few character classes reach legendary in armor and some only reach expert.

Except that from what I can tell, most of the thematic damage-dealing spells that are single-target spells are spell-attack rolls. When you then add the magic items available by the time characters have access too by the time a spellcaster gets legendary proficiency, that difference once again usually will stack in the non-spellcaster's favor. Also, this comparison does not take into account acouple of other things, such as how a buff/de-buff may or may affect a combat, nor does it account for the AC and HP gap between spell-casters and martial characters. Spell-casters are not even glass cannons, they are more like glass pistol/shotguns with birdshot.

[lordcirth]

Ashborne wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Looks right. Consider it vs other PC-built characters, which we've said we built the system to support if you want to use them. The reason why the math adds up so similarly for spellcasters vs weaker saves when comparing to non-fighter martials is that spellcasters go to legendary proficiency while non-fighters go to only master in attack rolls, plus characters with under 20 Dex can use armor to still have just as high of AC, whereas characters with under 20 Dex/Con/Wis don't have such a way to compensate for their saves. All this means that a PC with armor and equivalent proficiency between AC and Will save and 18 Wisdom, say, will have 1 lower Will DC than their AC; add in the legendary casting proficiency and you've already made up the 3 points that weapons can gain from item bonus (that plus a weak save might well have lower proficiency than AC to begin with). Strong saves are harder to defeat than AC because characters' strongest save is pretty much always master or legendary, perhaps legendary, whereas very few character classes reach legendary in armor and some only reach expert.

Except that from what I can tell, most of the thematic damage-dealing spells that are single-target spells are spell-attack rolls. When you then add the magic items available by the time characters have access too by the time a spellcaster gets legendary proficiency, that difference once again usually will stack in the non-spellcaster's favor. Also, this comparison does not take into account acouple of other things, such as how a buff/de-buff may or may affect a combat, nor does it account for the AC and HP gap between spell-casters and martial characters. Spell-casters are not even glass cannons, they are more like glass pistol/shotguns with birdshot.

For higher-level attack spells like Disintegrate, you're going to be casting True Strike in advance - it's a tiny cost compared to the 6th level spell slot.

[Campbell]

I think much of this analysis is ignoring several features of the new meta for martial characters and placing them in a perfect position to utilize their narrow skill sets. Many of the things that were once free now have a cost. Step costs an action. Drawing your weapon costs an action. Rage costs an action. Even benefiting from a Shield requires an action. In the first round of combat if a Barbarian wants to draw their weapon, move, and attack they cannot rage.

Being in melee is also more fraught. Combat maneuvers like Trip, Grapple, and Shove are seriously good in this edition and just being in melee involves a potential chance to get knocked on your butt, grabbed, or pushed back. All of these require actions to recover from many of which involve risking things like Attacks of Opportunity. Even attempting to Escape from a Grapple is an Attack action so it becomes progressively harder if you do not make it. If you want to use a thrown weapon you need a free hand and it is an action to draw it and then another to attack. If you are using a two handed weapon you use a free action to shift it to one hand [Manipulate], one action to draw the thrown weapon [Manipulate], and another to throw it. Then it costs your third action if you want to be able to use your weapon [Manipulate]. All of these except the attack trigger an attack of opportunity. If it is a Critical Success you lose your action. Melee is not a friendly place to be.

Even if we're focused on dealing damage I would not compare a wizard or sorcerer to a melee damage dealer. I would look at other ranged damage dealers. Against most archers a wizard or sorcerer looks far more competitive.

From what I have seen so far it seems in areas where they are specialized martial characters are extremely potent in areas where they specialize and perfect situations, but spell casters are far more adaptable to changing circumstances.

[mcintma]

Campbell wrote:

Being in melee is also more fraught. Combat maneuvers like Trip, Grapple, and Shove are seriously good in this edition and just being in melee involves a potential chance to get knocked on your butt, grabbed, or pushed back.

Bear in mind that in PF2E casters are as likely if not more (if the GM is playing Int 10+ monsters tactically to prioritize the glass cannon) to be targeted by melee effects - PF2E's greater mobility works both ways, and shorter spell ranges force the casters closer-in.

[Eltacolibre]

Touch spells are also automatic hits anyway, only if the spell specifies an spell attack roll that you need one.

[Campbell]

mcintma wrote:

Campbell wrote:

Being in melee is also more fraught. Combat maneuvers like Trip, Grapple, and Shove are seriously good in this edition and just being in melee involves a potential chance to get knocked on your butt, grabbed, or pushed back.

Bear in mind that in PF2E casters are as likely if not more (if the GM is playing Int 10+ monsters tactically to prioritize the glass cannon) to be targeted by melee effects - PF2E's greater mobility works both ways, and shorter spell ranges force the casters closer-in.

I think that is highly situational. In some cases it might be the most sound tactical decision. If a raging barbarian is bearing down on you they might be the greater threat. If you are engaging with a fighter there is a significant cost to breaking away. This is particularly true because the defensive delta between characters has been significantly reduced.

Let's look at 3 characters: Vertigan is human fighter who wields a bastard sword. Draven is a human rogue (thief). Syria is a human wizard. I'm not going to go into class feats or spells here. Just looking at the basic numbers. Going to assume boosts were used instead of rolling.

Vertigan has Strength 18 Dexterity 12 Constitution 16 Wisdom 12 Intelligence 10 Charisma. He wears a breast plate.
He has 21 hp AC 18 Reflex DC 16 Fortitude DC 18 Will DC 14 Perception DC 16.
Draven has Strength 10 Dexterity 18 Constitution 12 Wisdom 16 Intelligence 12 Charisma 10. He wears Leather Armor.
He has 17 hp AC 18 Reflex DC 19 Fortitude DC 14 Will DC 18 Perception DC 18.
Syria has Strength 10 Dexterity 16 Constitution 12 Wisdom 12 Intelligence 18 Charisma 10.
She has 15 hp AC 16 Reflex DC 16 Fortitude DC 14 Will DC 16 Perception DC 14.

There are definitely some significant deltas here, but the gap is never more than 4. Relative hp are much closer than in other versions of the game, but Vertigan has a definite although not huge advantage. AC is really close. These characters all have different strengths and weaknesses. Vertigan is much stronger than the other two versus Grapple. Draven is unlikely to be tripped or disarmed, but Vertigan and Syria have the exact same chance. Demoralize is really likely to land against Vertigan, but unlikely to land on Draven.

I'm not saying that Orc Warrior would not rather be in melee against Syria than the other two, but it's not so overwhelming a difference that all enemies should make a beeline for the wizard. The wizard is not really made of glass. They can also do more on the move than the other two, particularly Vertigan who has to use his Dexterity to make Ranged attacks.

[mcintma]

Campbell wrote:

There are definitely some significant deltas here, but the gap is never more than 4. Relative hp are much closer than in other versions of the game, but Vertigan has a definite although not huge advantage. AC is really close. These characters all have different strengths and...

True but as levels rise those gaps will widen plus martials will be focusing on melee/defense with all their items/feats and will be very hard to take down relative to the glass cannons.

I get where you're coming from, there isn't an absolute truth here, but especially when there are multiple monsters most GMs will send some at the back rank - that's easier to do in PF2. And for ex. Dex 16 Syria's AC16 will not hold up when a mere Goblin has +8 to hit IIRC.

[ChibiNyan]

I dunno about the people saying Spells hitting are worth more than Strikes. Someone should do the math of the expected damage of evocation blasts vs a good melee routine. My hypothesis is that an average Martial will get more DPT with 3 attacks than, say, disintegrate or some other blast would deal at the same level. Of course, it's the "ideal" turn for them, but not a rare situation to be in. Spell is 2 actions compared to 3 attacks, but it's also a very limited resource, so it should even out on the economy end.

EDIT: What about spells that require an attack roll? The analysis seems to be for targeting weak saves.

[Campbell]

mcintma wrote:

Campbell wrote:

There are definitely some significant deltas here, but the gap is never more than 4. Relative hp are much closer than in other versions of the game, but Vertigan has a definite although not huge advantage. AC is really close. These characters all have different strengths and...

True but as levels rise those gaps will widen plus martials will be focusing on melee/defense with all their items/feats and will be very hard to take down relative to the glass cannons.

I get where you're coming from, there isn't an absolute truth here, but especially when there are multiple monsters most GMs will send some at the back rank - that's easier to do in PF2. And for ex. Dex 16 Syria's AC16 will not hold up when a mere Goblin has +8 to hit IIRC.

With the notable exception of specific classes (like the champion for AC and Rogue/Ranger for Perception) differences in Proficiency Tier are pretty well maintained. It is true in the case of Armor Class martial characters do jump a tier on spell casters, but for some (like the rogue) it's fairly late. The differences in saves between the Fighter and Wizard are maintained throughout the levels.

The fighter and champion will get a bump to AC when they are able to afford heavy armor, but the wizard will get a bump versus other armor wearers at level 5. They are also assumed to get magic robes that add to their AC and saves the same as everyone else. The only feat that affects those is Canny Acumen which is a general feat that anyone can take to turn a poor save into a good save.

Classes do get defensive abilities as they level, but those all have a cost in terms of the action economy and not taking offensive abilities. A wizard has defensive abilities they can utilize as well.

I'm not saying there is no delta, but it is much smaller than in any iteration of modern D&D.

[Corwin Icewolf]

lordcirth wrote:

For higher-level attack spells like Disintegrate, you're going to be casting True Strike in advance - it's a tiny cost compared to the 6th level spell slot.

Except you're probably not going to prepare one true strike for every high level attack spell because you lose out on utility, so this is only a definite if you're a sorcerer.

[Xenocrat]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

lordcirth wrote:

For higher-level attack spells like Disintegrate, you're going to be casting True Strike in advance - it's a tiny cost compared to the 6th level spell slot.

Except you're probably not going to prepare one true strike for every high level attack spell because you lose out on utility, so this is only a definite if you're a sorcerer.

You're going to carry a staff of divination and enjoy all those free True Strikes.

The level 6, 230 gp one is all you need, get your highest spell level in bonus True Strikes per day, plus any from an invested spell slot.

[shroudb]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

lordcirth wrote:

For higher-level attack spells like Disintegrate, you're going to be casting True Strike in advance - it's a tiny cost compared to the 6th level spell slot.

Except you're probably not going to prepare one true strike for every high level attack spell because you lose out on utility, so this is only a definite if you're a sorcerer.

ehh.. when you reach 6th level spells, it's probably worth to have a true strike for all of your high level spell attacks.

plus, you can always have a wand or a taff to supplement your low level spells. Not all of your offense will be spell attacks either way.

[Kyrone]

Because the defensive talking got me interested I decided to level up Campbell characters (thanks Pathbuilder beta for that), this is without spells and feats except for 1 mage armor at lvl5.

lvl5

Vertigan Str19/Dex14/Con18/Wis14/Int10/Cha10
HP78 AC23 (Half-Plate) For13/Ref11/Will9

Draven Str10/Dex19/Con14/Wis18/Int14/Cha10
HP58 AC22 (Leather) For9/Ref13/Will13

Syria Str10/Dex18/Con14/Wis14/Int19/Cha10
HP48 AC22 (1st Slot Mage Armor) For9/Ref13/Will11

lvl10

Vertigan Str20/Dex16/Con119/Wis16/Int10/Cha10
HP148 AC29 (+1 Half-Plate) For21/Ref18/Will16

Draven Str10/Dex20/Con16/Wis19/Int16/Cha10
HP118 AC28 (+1 Leather) For18/Ref22/Will19

Syria Str10/Dex19/Con16/Wis16/Int20/Cha10
HP98 AC27 (+1 Explore Clothes) For8/Ref19/Will18

lvl15

Vertigan Str21/Dex16/Con20/Wis18/Int12/Cha10
HP233 AC37 (+2 Half-Plate) For28/Ref26/Will23

Draven lvl15 Str12/Dex21/Con18/Wis20/Int16/Cha10
HP188 AC36 (+2 Leather) For25/Ref30/Will26

Syria Str12/Dex20/Con18/Wis16/Int21/Cha10
HP158 AC36 (+2 Explore Clothes) For25/Ref26/Will24

lvl20

Vertigan Str24/Dex18/Con20/Wis18/Int14/Cha12
HP308 AC45 (+3 Half-Plate) For34/Ref33/Wil29

Draven Str14/Dex24/Con18/Wis20/Int16/Cha12
HP248 AC44 (+3 Leather) For31/Ref38/Will34

Syria Str14/Dex20/Con18/Wis18/Int24/Cha12
HP208 AC42 (+3 Explore Clothes) For31/Ref32/Will33

Just putting these numbers here... the Wizard is not far from the Rogue defensively. And just for curiosity, Barbarian have 348 HP at lvl 20 with 20con and Champion reach 47AC.

[citricking]

I added a chart to the sheet with spell attack success rates for an equal level target. So there's a drop off after the first couple levels, but after that there's no trend. You can expect about a 50% chance of having any effect disregarding buffs and debuffs.

I'll add a pc target soon, but this is hard to do on a phone…

[citricking]

So I updated the document. I added the spell attack charts, and some charts comparing against an equal level fighter.

[ChibiNyan]

Spell attack rolls one is a bit worrying, it's never really over 50% and missing causes it to result in no effect whatsoever. Targeting will Save is in the 70s% success range on the other hand.

Removing touch AC has some consequences for sure.

[citricking]

Just to make sure. If you are looking at the document the saves were against a level-2 creature and the attack comparison was against an at level creature. There are more charts in the linked sheet.