| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hear me out...
There's a strong argument that casters have been nerfed too much. Having played a bunch of 2e, I tend to agree. But at the same level I don't want the linear-quadratic problem.
When we first got 2e, I get the impression that cantrips were going to be the workhorses of the caster's arsenal. That would have made a ton of sense. Cantrips were the utility spells that casters knew so well they could do them at will. The spell slots were the "game changing" things that a caster would pull out during those dramatic moments. And so it makes sense to limit those and turn some into rituals, etc..
But cantrips are watered down compared to what martials can do at the equivalent level. Moreover, a caster can only have 5 cantrips up at any time. (Granted you could choose spell substitution - but any option that becomes mandatory is a terrible design choice).
But I think that a lot of the above problems can be solved with a couple small rule tweaks.
First - make all cantrips 1 action. I know they have multiple tags - usually verbal and somatic. But.. seriously? You can't talk and wave your arms at the same time? I know why they did it, but I maintain its a terrible design choice. Cantrips are supposed to be those really short bits of magic that are literally at your fingertips.
Reducing a cantrip to one action would also make them subject to the -5, -10 multiple attack tax. Thats fine. I don't expect the third attack to hit anyways (unless you're hitting a stationary object or something). But it allows you a reasonable chance to double your damage and that puts you on par with the martials.
Second, I'd add a couple more cantrip slots. Or, failing that, to relearn a cantrip with a minute of review in your spellbook. This makes cantrips a little more versatile.
That would be a good first pass at restoring the balance. It gives casters something to do. Ideally, you'd also rebalance your Level 1-9 spells and spell slots so that they would packa little more punch and be available a little less frequently. And we'd also have a few more cantrips to cover the everyday things you could do with magic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hear me out...
There's a strong argument that casters have been nerfed too much. Having played a bunch of 2e, I tend to agree. But at the same level I don't want the linear-quadratic problem.
When we first got 2e, I get the impression that cantrips were going to be the workhorses of the caster's arsenal. That would have made a ton of sense. Cantrips were the utility spells that casters knew so well they could do them at will. The spell slots were the "game changing" things that a caster would pull out during those dramatic moments. And so it makes sense to limit those and turn some into rituals, etc..
But cantrips are watered down compared to what martials can do at the equivalent level. Moreover, a caster can only have 5 cantrips up at any time. (Granted you could choose spell substitution - but any option that becomes mandatory is a terrible design choice).
But I think that a lot of the above problems can be solved with a couple small rule tweaks.
First - make all cantrips 1 action. I know they have multiple tags - usually verbal and somatic. But.. seriously? You can't talk and wave your arms at the same time? I know why they did it, but I maintain its a terrible design choice. Cantrips are supposed to be those really short bits of magic that are literally at your fingertips.
Reducing a cantrip to one action would also make them subject to the -5, -10 multiple attack tax. Thats fine. I don't expect the third attack to hit anyways (unless you're hitting a stationary object or something). But it allows you a reasonable chance to double your damage and that puts you on par with the martials.
Second, I'd add a couple more cantrip slots. Or, failing that, to relearn a cantrip with a minute of review in your spellbook. This makes cantrips a little more versatile.
That would be a good first pass at restoring the balance. It gives casters something to do. Ideally, you'd also rebalance your Level 1-9 spells and spell slots so that they would packa little more punch and be available a...
I am on the camp of casters feel completely fine, i think buffing cantrips will more like invalidate spells than make caster stronger.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people just want to see the world lightning.
By which I mean, electric arc, electric arc, electric arc. What's shocking grasp compared to 3d4+12 again?
That would require a complete re-balancing of what certain cantrips do. Most cantrips already suffer MAP, except as Cyouni notes, electric arc; A cantrip that's already doing rather well and would be put beyond reason at one action.
Allowing a "can be combined with a move or reload action" under one of the casting actions would be alright, but I wouldn't go much further without completely reworking the cantrips. That is, unless you're trying to make a PF2 kineticist.
I'd welcome some cantrips that were free actions that modified some single or double actions in some way instead and relied on skill checks rather than spell attacks. But I think that would run counter to the desire to simplify the game.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hard disagree on casters being weak. They just aren't able to solve for every solution like they could in PF1. Further, the design space of cantrips aren't "nifty utility tricks" anymore. They are reliable and almost as powerful as slotted spells.
Just because you don't like a thing doesn't make it bad design. From what I understand about the design intent of cantrips, they seem to have hit their mark.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The trouble is right now the caster paradigm is sort of balanced around having an 'empty' third action that's meant to be flexible. You can cast and move or cast and swing a sword. Having one action cantrips basically 'solves' that third action.
Nevermind the rebalancing required when we go from one cantrip per turn to three.
There are a lot of improvements casters could see but this would cause more issues than it would fix.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be curious as to what the math would say about this. Cantrips are supposed to be and SHOULD be worse than what a martial character can do on their average round, in exchange for their spells being better. This might be too much of a buff if taken in a vacuum.
Now, I'm not saying this wouldn't be feasible. But it would have to be done cautiously.
For example, these cantrips would become far too powerful compared to level 1 and 2 spells. Heck, even now at level 1 some damaging cantrips compare favorably to level 1 spells. Ray of Frost at level 1 is just better than Snowball at level 1 unless you REALLY need that speed reduction. Both cold, 1d4 + 4 for RoF vs 2d4 for SB, RoF has a longer range (120 vs 30), and it can be done infinitely rather than using a level 1 spell slot. SB's only advantage is that it has a -5 foot penalty on a hit and -10 on a crit whereas RoF only has the -10 on a crit.
If RoF was also only 1 action, then SB would be basically useless.
Now, that's just one example and probably a more extreme example than most. But the point is that you can't just drop a single action and assume everything is hunky-dory. You can't just compare cantrips to a martial's basic round. You also have to compare cantrips to spells, spells to martials, and also look at both the base level martial and a tricked out and optimized martial.
And that's a LOT to consider.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
it also messes with crit changes, and gives almost guaranteed damage thanks to spell saves.
It would be a an awful change.
Also
There's a strong argument that casters have been nerfed too much.
I would make the argument that it has been a loud argument rather than a strong one. Drastically weaker than 1e, for sure. But weak, nah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While there is a very real argument that such a change would make a lot of lower level damage spells feel rather useless, I'd argue that they already do.
Low level damage spells have always, and continue even now, to feel really bad. Magic Missile is technically impressive (always hits, does hard-to-resist damage, does full damage to enemies that are typically harder to damage such as incorporeal enemies, etc.) but in action, mathematically, when dice hit the table, it pretty much always feels bad.
And I'm pretty sure I've seen enough of the arguments/math around up-casting damage spells to say that it's pretty much always a bad choice - you should just cast the higher level base spell as it will either do more damage, cover a better area, or simply both.
It really seems like the vocal minority that insisted that Wizards could do literally everything was taken too seriously, and spellcasting suffered for it.
No, casters didn't have an answer to everything. If they did, they could solo adventures, and that's just not happening. (I'd challenge anyone to show me a PF1 wizard/cleric/druid who could!)
Yes, they could do a lot of things that non-magical classes couldn't, but they weren't the gods that 3.5 made them. (And there's always the argument that if magic isn't fantastical, then what's the point of it?)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cantrips are supposed to be and SHOULD be worse than what a martial character can do on their average round, in exchange for their spells being better.
I'm not even sure about this. If you have three different attack cantrips, that's three different damage types that you can quite easily use. That's a lot more than the martial who relies on one or two weapons, and those weapons had better be the right ones for this particular monster.
I think the balance is that cantrips are individually weaker but you can have the most appropriate one for the situation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's just as likely that our hypothetical martial has one flexible damage type weapon for three damage types, as it is that our hypothetical caster spent 3/5 of his cantrips on damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(I'd challenge anyone to show me a PF1 wizard/cleric/druid who could!)
I distinctly remember people running Paizo AP's solo with just Caster+Companion. Druids, Summoners, Feather Domain Clerics obviously being the prime choices.
I think it's just as likely that our hypothetical martial has one flexible damage type weapon for three damage types, as it is that our hypothetical caster spent 3/5 of his cantrips on damage.
That's only if you have 5. You can pick up 2 from ancestry, 2 from multiclass, 1-2 from familiar, 2 from a feat, ect... If you have 10+ cantrips, does 3+ damage types with cantrips look more likely?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
Your assumption that all attacks hit and electric arc targets only one creature is incredibly misleading. The reason electric arc is the strongest attack cantrip is largely because it hits two people and does 1/2 damage on a save. Completely ignoring that makes this assessment less useful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could be interested in more cantrip that take one action with a reduced effect compared to existing cantrips, but I would be disappointed if they all had to be balanced around costing only one action. I want some cantrips to be more powerful than others in certain situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **Your assumption that all attacks hit and electric arc targets only one creature is incredibly misleading. The reason electric arc is the strongest attack cantrip is largely because it hits two people and does 1/2 damage on a save. Completely ignoring that makes this assessment less useful.
Also his level selection artificially makes weapons look better. At level 4, 3 electric arcs do 6d4+12 (lvl 2 spell 2d4 + Mod), but at level 5 this jumps to 9d4+12 and it hits TWO creatures, so it really does 18d4+24. That is a ton higher than your 6d8+3 for the longbow.
I think it's just as likely that our hypothetical martial has one flexible damage type weapon for three damage types, as it is that our hypothetical caster spent 3/5 of his cantrips on damage.That's only if you have 5. You can pick up 2 from ancestry, 2 from multiclass, 1-2 from familiar, 2 from a feat, ect... If you have 10+ cantrips, does 3+ damage types with cantrips look more likely?
I suppose you could spend your feats on more spells, but I'm pretty sure those options aren't relegated to casters alone.
At 4th level isn't electric arc doing 4d4+spell casting attribute to each target on a failed save? You don't multiply the attribute damage.
Also his level selection artificially makes weapons look better. At level 4, 3 electric arcs do 6d4+12 (lvl 2 spell 2d4 + Mod), but at level 5 this jumps to 9d4+12 and it hits TWO creatures, so it really does 18d4+24. That is a ton higher than your 6d8+3 for the longbow.** spoiler omitted **Your assumption that all attacks hit and electric arc targets only one creature is incredibly misleading. The reason electric arc is the strongest attack cantrip is largely because it hits two people and does 1/2 damage on a save. Completely ignoring that makes this assessment less useful.
You both might want to read the example a second time. Temperans said ‘assuming only one target’ in their example; so bringing up a second target is a moot point. They also use electric Arc as an example for why it would be a rather bad idea to make cantrips 1 action.
You both might want to read the example a second time. Temperans said ‘assuming only one target’ in their example; so bringing up a second target is a moot point. They also use electric Arc as an example for why it would be a rather bad idea to make cantrips 1 action.Also his level selection artificially makes weapons look better. At level 4, 3 electric arcs do 6d4+12 (lvl 2 spell 2d4 + Mod), but at level 5 this jumps to 9d4+12 and it hits TWO creatures, so it really does 18d4+24. That is a ton higher than your 6d8+3 for the longbow.** spoiler omitted **Your assumption that all attacks hit and electric arc targets only one creature is incredibly misleading. The reason electric arc is the strongest attack cantrip is largely because it hits two people and does 1/2 damage on a save. Completely ignoring that makes this assessment less useful.
The whole point of the example is to show how cantrip damage would compare to a weapon attack, but to ignore the fact that you can hit two creatures with one action underestimates how strong a single action cantrip would be. It is more accurate to show damage for hitting two targets. I also included the damage for only one target 9d4+12, an average of 34 damage (assuming failed saves) vs. 30 for the bow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose you could spend your feats on more spells, but I'm pretty sure those options aren't relegated to casters alone.I think it's just as likely that our hypothetical martial has one flexible damage type weapon for three damage types, as it is that our hypothetical caster spent 3/5 of his cantrips on damage.That's only if you have 5. You can pick up 2 from ancestry, 2 from multiclass, 1-2 from familiar, 2 from a feat, ect... If you have 10+ cantrips, does 3+ damage types with cantrips look more likely?
For reference, my wizard player wanted to multiclass for more utility spell slots. Cantrips came along for the ride.
They have:
Detect Magic (from Arcane Sense background feat)
Ray of Frost (from Staff of Evocation)
+1 Cantrip from Cantrip Connection familiar ability (Any 1)
+1 Cantrip from Evocation Bonus (Any evocation)
+5 Cantrips from Class Progression (Any 5)
+2 Cantrips from Sorcerer Dedication (Guidance, Know Direction)
+1 Cantrips from Bloodline Breadth (Stabilize)
+2 Cantrips from Bard Dedication (Sigil, Read Aura)
For a total of 14 cantrips. Again, they didn't go out of their way to acquire these, they came along with the other spell slots she was after.
Not saying that this is typical, but some casters are awash in cantrips.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, any cantrip that has a saving throw and no attack roll can’t be balanced around being 1 action without having trivially low damage (lower than daze). Maybe a future melee attack cantrip that does 1d4 with no attribute bonus and heightens every other or every third level, would be about balanced. But damage type would be an important factor too
How about cantrips are 1 action for the base damage and 2 action to heighten the damage.
e.g. 1 action electric arc will only ever do 1d4+ability per target. 2 Actions heightens it.
That would also mean other cantrips with crit riders might see more action for crit fishing. Also allows more choices without (once level 3 is hit) really affecting play.
That sounds like it would be fine, wouldn'tassively change around the damage numbers between classes and would allow for using some less-used cantrips for crit fishing, like you said (though they would probably feel bad to use, since the fighter's one action attack will be doing at least 10x what your one action cantrip will do 95% of the time).
You multiply all damage for criticals. There's no such rule for cantrips.You don't multiply the attribute damage.In PF2, you multiply all damage except for things specifically added upon the event of getting to double damage.
So if a spell says 'double damage' you double the whole damage, though some of the spells do have a specific damage listed for a critical success on the attack or a critical failure on a save, electric arc isn't one of them.
Cantrips with spell attack rolls hit criticals and basic saves double all damage too...
(You know, just because you move cantrips to 1 action doesn't preclude leaving electric arc at two....)
Then no one takes that since they can just 3 rounds rapid the other cantrips.
People already think that Electric Arc is overpowered compared to the other cantrips. Leaving it alone and making the other cantrips 1-action makes it useless?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Then no one takes that since they can just 3 rounds rapid the other cantrips.People already think that Electric Arc is overpowered compared to the other cantrips. Leaving it alone and making the other cantrips 1-action makes it useless?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
None of the other cantrips would be well balanced around being 1 action. Acid splash is a little confusing which I will post about in the rules section, but if splash works the way it does for everything else that is a splash, then it would do damage on a miss which is way too powerful for a one action cantrip (hence why chill touch is out too).
produce flame, ray of frost and telekinetic projectile would have to have their heightening mechanic completely rebalanced to work around being one action attacks, and the rogue ability to sneak attack with cantrips would definitely have to be examined as well.
Overall, this (making any existing cantrips 1 action) strikes me as a bad idea for a general houserule and I would still promote starting off by creating 1 cantrip that would be a one action attack and testing that in play for balance. Especially because the biggest balance issues are going to be seen at higher levels when casters are hitting legendary proficiency with spells (so fighter accuracy) doing large numbers of damage dice.
Here is my suggestion for a one action cantrip:
Jolt
1 action
Traits: Attack, Cantrip, Evocation
Traditions: Arcane, Primal.
Cast: Somatic
Range: 30ft
Target: 1 creature.
Effect: You send a bolt of electric enemy at your target. Make a ranged spell attack. If you hit, you deal 1d4 electric damage. You deal double damage on a critical success.
Heighten: (+2) increase damage by 1d4. +2d4 on a crit.
It is an incredibly bland spell, and eventually there might be room for applying very minor effects in place of additional damage on a crit, but they need to less than existing 2 action cantrip effects. so maybe something like a -5 spd penalty for 1 turn on a critical success. And you dont want the range to go over 30 on any 1 action spell attack.
I don’t think it’s overpowered.
FWIW, I don't either. I just said that there's a thread about it being "twice as good as other cantrips" and now there's this thread making every other cantrip twice as good by making them 1 action, but then everyone is like "nope, Electric Arc becomes useless then."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reducing a cantrip to one action would also make them subject to the -5, -10 multiple attack tax. Thats fine. I don't expect the third attack to hit anyways (unless you're hitting a stationary object or something). But it allows you a reasonable chance to double your damage and that puts you on par with the martials.
Why must casters be on par with martials as far as damage output is concerned? They can do so much more than attack. They can buff the party, make them invisible, make them fly, teleport them, charm foes, and the list goes on and on. Why should casters be as good as martials at dealing damage and still do all the other things?