| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are flaws inherent with the question.
-Looking at the attack roll/DCs gives only half the equation, the other half being the effects of the spells. Is the average damage (et al) where the devs want it to be after factoring in that casters' proficiency hasn't increased? Given some of the playtest feedback, yes. They had specific numbers they were shooting for. I believe, for example, that AoEs were meant to do 2/3 the damage of a Strike by a martial of the same level, including misses/saves/crits/etc.
-Weapons target AC while spells target a save or AC, so really you're looking at whether the spells are advancing as well vs. saves/AC as weapons are vs. AC.
Obviously casters are falling behind on the AC portion, so do spells w/ spell attack rolls have something else going for them (something which also accounts for them being of limited use)? Since spells are already behind for lacking an item bonus, they likely do, right? Are casters meant to play more of a gambling game with fewer, but bigger, hits? Probably.
Also, casters need to/get to target the weakest stat of the four. People relying on weapons are sort of stuck w/ tackling AC while a caster can focus on a vulnerability. That's a big advantage, if one can master that. Most enemies have a save that's better than their AC, which would make the situation even worse if you only have spells that focus on that one.
And then there's Magic Missile or True Strike. :)
Because the roller wins on ties, and d20s average 10.5% it's actually ~like~ a +2 buff to make saves into rolls.
And saves are based around you targetting the weak one, which is usually around 3 or so lower than moderate AC for a similar level of creature.
Spell attacks vs AC are different, but you should have access to either guidance or true strike to close the gap on that a little bit too.
Why 5 vs 7 and 13 vs 15 though?
I don't really know. Doesn't make sense to me. But the no DC boosting items is definitely built into the system at east at certain points.
|
So did the devs ever explain why full casters get their Proficiency boosts two levels later than martials (7,15) rather than (5, 13).
It seems a weird choice when casters already lag behind on chance to land their effect due to having no enhancement to dcs.
Honestly, it's probably because 3rd level spells are already a 'pretty big thing', so they pushed the proficiency buff back two levels to 'smooth things out' a bit...
Ah, I see yet another cohort of "move along, everything is perfect in P2E land" people have commented already.
I'm not gonna get into those discussions again, however, I want to target one specific claim:
And saves are based around you targetting the weak one, which is usually around 3 or so lower than moderate AC for a similar level of creature.
If this is true, this is horrible game design. It means there is no reward for picking the best save, only expected outcome. And if you don't (or can't, because for any one of million reasons you don't have the spell for correct save), the game is saying "go home, n00b".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I see yet another cohort of "move along, everything is perfect in P2E land" people have commented already.
I'm not gonna get into those discussions again, however, I want to target one specific claim:
And saves are based around you targetting the weak one, which is usually around 3 or so lower than moderate AC for a similar level of creature.If this is true, this is horrible game design. It means there is no reward for picking the best save, only expected outcome. And if you don't (or can't, because for any one of million reasons you don't have the spell for correct save), the game is saying "go home, n00b".
Sure. I mean I think it's saying spellcasters are all about having/using the right tools for the job. I don't think it's perfectly balanced around that. And I mean there are legitimate weaknesses, divine casters have very few ways to target reflex saves, though that one's clearly a design choice.
I probably shouldn't respond because no-one who starts a comment like you do, then jumps to saying a 15% difference between a good decision and okay decision is "horrible game design", and that the okay decision is the same as not playing at all.
But for anyone else listening, who actually wants to hear things and change their minds, that's what it actually is. Whether you agree, or think that's good enough. I personally think the idea is that spellcasters were supposed to make you feel like you are solving a puzzle. I think they require way more understanding of the system to play very well compared to a martial class, but I think again that that is intentional.
P.S. I think letting saves be rolled is a great big boost if you have inexperienced spellcaster players, want higher spell success rates, and also a very important factor of players like rolling dice. Apart from secret checks I'm all for small buffs to spellcasters and more dice rolled by players.
You might want to give all casters a one actin metamagic like "AIMED SPELL" which gives them +2 circumstance on the spell attack roll to make sure the spell attack spells don't feel WAY worse, but it works out well IMO.
What do people mean by “letting saves be rolled”? Does this mean how it currently is or changing saves into 10+saving throw as a DC and then rolling an “attack” against it.
What do people mean by “letting saves be rolled”? Does this mean how it currently is or changing saves into 10+saving throw as a DC and then rolling an “attack” against it.
I mean the latter. Because the roller wins ties and d20s are on average better than taking a 10.
Burning hands would be a spell attack vs Reflex DC, etc.
Say you burning hands a Goblin Warrior at level 1 with +4 spellcasting modifier.
RAW: +7 vs DC 17, 5% double damage | 40% full damage | 50% half damage | 5% no damage
"RollVsSaves": +7 vs DC 17, 5% double damage | 50% full damage | 40% half damage | 5% no damage
It mostly swaps an edge from fail to success, and doesn't wobble the critical edges too much.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I see yet another cohort of "move along, everything is perfect in P2E land" people have commented already.
I'm not gonna get into those discussions again, however...
Ah yes the "I am above doing the thing, now watch me do the thing but close off anyone criticising me for doing the thing because I said I wasn't doing the thing" approach to discourse.
Always a good opener -nods-
If this is true, this is horrible game design. It means there is no reward for picking the best save, only expected outcome. And if you don't (or can't, because for any one of million reasons you don't have the spell for correct save), the game is saying "go home, n00b".
The benefit is that saves get an effect on successes in many cases and cannot be buffed/interrupted as easily.
Look to a Tarn Linnorm and a level 20 character
Martials other than fighters are likely at master, have a +3 weapon +6 to their attacking stat. +29 (effective +31 with flatfooted from flanking). Against a 46AC they need a 17 or higher neat, 15 or higher with flanking. (now of course they get multiple actions, albeit with MAP and will almost certainly have status bonuses. But I won't go into debuffs to foe saves)
Spellcasters will have a DC of 44 most likely. Without any debuffs, the linnorm will need to roll a 13 or higher to save on the weakest, 12 or higher on the next, 8 or higher for the strongest.
Comparing that back to the martial
Neat: 20% chance to hit
Flat-Footed: 30% chance to hit
vs
Weakest: 60% (15% crit chance)
Middle: 55% (10% crit chance)
Strongest: 35% (5% crit chance)
Now, 2 actions usually so they do end up a bit closer, but then again the spells often do damage on a miss and have a higher base crit chance outside of the strongest save.
Again, there are lots of scenarios where these numbers can be adjusted through play. But from my experience so far it is easier to buff AC and ATK than buffing saves, and so many things decrease saves now.
If casters had a +3 to their DCs there could be problems.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I see yet another cohort of "move along, everything is perfect in P2E land" people have commented already.
I'm not gonna get into those discussions again, however...
Ah yes the "I am above doing the thing, now watch me do the thing but close off anyone criticising me for doing the thing because I said I wasn't doing the thing" approach to discourse.
Always a good opener -nods-
If this is true, this is horrible game design. It means there is no reward for picking the best save, only expected outcome. And if you don't (or can't, because for any one of million reasons you don't have the spell for correct save), the game is saying "go home, n00b".The benefit is that saves get an effect on successes in many cases and cannot be buffed/interrupted as easily.
Look to a Tarn Linnorm and a level 20 character
Martials other than fighters are likely at master, have a +3 weapon +6 to their attacking stat. +29 (effective +31 with flatfooted from flanking). Against a 46AC they need a 17 or higher neat, 15 or higher with flanking. (now of course they get multiple actions, albeit with MAP and will almost certainly have status bonuses. But I won't go into debuffs to foe saves)
Spellcasters will have a DC of 44 most likely. Without any debuffs, the linnorm will need to roll a 13 or higher to save on the weakest, 12 or higher on the next, 8 or higher for the strongest.
Comparing that back to the martial
Neat: 20% chance to hit
Flat-Footed: 30% chance to hitvs
Weakest: 60% (15% crit chance)
Middle: 55% (10% crit chance)
Strongest: 35% (5% crit chance)Now, 2 actions usually so they do end up a bit closer, but then again the spells often do damage on a miss and have a higher base crit chance outside of the strongest save.
Again, there are lots of scenarios where these numbers can be adjusted through play. But from my experience so far it is easier to buff AC and ATK than buffing saves, and so many things decrease saves now....
While I agree with your viewpoint, I think you might be missing around six or seven to attack from martials (level (20)+ master (6)+ item bonus (3)+ stat mod (6 or 7 with almost necessary epic item)). That should put martials (non-fighters) at +35 or +36.
Ah you are correct,I was 6 off... oopse I considered it but then completely missed the number -laughs- (I blame allergies and a lack of sleep :P)
So boost the martial numbers by 30% (dropping the casters by 10% if we are ignoring the level 19 legendary boost). (I chose level 20 lazily because I could guarantee a maxed out ability score and item bonus)
Less beneficial than I was thinking, still, my other points stand. Saves usually have an effect on a successful save and I have seen less ways to buff saves than there are to buff AC or decrease / influence ATK rolls.
Martial taking two swings, against an on-level moderate AC foe.
Lv1,3,6 | 8on a d20 to hit | x4 | x3 | x2 | x1 | x0
| | | 0.75% | 7.35% | 28.25% | 42.25% | 21%
Spellcasters in particular get weaker around level 5/6 because of the expert gap. At these levels you really want to be targetting low saves. So even taking a caster at level 6, at a low-ebb, vs a moderate save:
Lv6 | DC22 vs d20+14 | Crit success 5% | Success 30% | Failure 40% | Crit Failure 15%
21% vs 15% to do nothing.
42% vs 40% to do 1 hit or ~half damage
28% vs 30% to do 2 hits or full damage
7% vs 5% to do 1.5*2 hits or double damage.
On par damage spells do like 21 damage vs 4d8+4 equivalent.
Rogues work better vs flat-footed, two weapon or barbarians do more damage, fighters hit better, two weapon or rangers get to make more attacks, etc.
Attack spells need to be hitting more than one foe, or triggering weakness, or targetting low saves. So that's their niche. But you get to prepare or be ready for a variety of niches, so you're more general and less focused.
So it works mostly fine as it currently is, but if you and your group aren't really tactical players, or feel magic feels bad, change the things above.
You can also fix some of the worse spells, etc, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellcasters in particular get weaker around level 5/6 because of the expert gap. At these levels you really want to be targeting low saves.
So this jumped out at me. At level 1, your wizard has 2 first level spells, likely one attack roll and one save (if not one utility and on damaging spell). So you can't really "target" the bad save b/c you don't really have any options. At level 3 you have a total of 5 spells prepared: three 1st, two 2nds. Again, even as a full offensive spell list, you can only have 2 spells targeting a specific save or you are over committed, and you might want a spell attack roll spell in there. Additionally, by then your party might expect (need) you to prepare at least one utility spell, further reducing your chances to have the right spell queued up.
By level 5, you now have 8 prepared spells per day, 11 if you are a specialist. This means you have a large enough number of spells that you can cover your bases and still be able to have access to a variety of save targeting spells. This is even more apparent for spontaneous casters like the Sorcerer where you only know 11 spells at level 5.
This might be why the devs pushed expert back two levels for spellcasters, because they at this point have enough resources to really exploit the weaknesses of a specific creature.
TLDR; by level 5 you have enough spells to actually target bad save instead of just being stuck with one or two spells you have today.
One thing to note is that item bonuses to AC come online before item bonuses to saves do. That might be a factor.
One thing to note is that item bonuses to AC come online before item bonuses to saves do. That might be a factor.
Even though they are monsters monsters tend to follow the same general AC progression no? (as if they were wearing item bonus armour even though they aren't wearing any at all)
One thing to note is that item bonuses to AC come online before item bonuses to saves do. That might be a factor.Even though they are monsters monsters tend to follow the same general AC progression no? (as if they were wearing item bonus armour even though they aren't wearing any at all)
This is true. For most of the first half of the levels, a 2 level bump for a creature is a difference of 3 in it's saves and AC, and saves jump by about 3 between high-moderate-low. And most monsters fit the guidelines pretty well. This doesn't especially seem to care about when the PCs save or AC boosts come in. I think it's mostly to offset proficiency bumps slowly, which is why the levels before proficiency bump can seem like a slump.
If you look at the monster creation download Paizo put out it may be informative.
At level 3 AC is 19 (high) and saves are +12/+9/+6 (suggest one high one moderate and one low). Level 3 caster has a +9 (DC 19). Hits AC on a 10, creature saves on a 7/10/13 respectively.
At level 5 its AC 22, saves +15/+12/+9. Caster has +11, hits on an 11, but save is on a 6/9/12.
level 7 AC 25, saves +18/+15/+12. Caster is now expert, has a +15. Hits on 10, saves on 7/10/13, same numbers as level 3.
Non-fighters at level 3 have +9, assuming no item bonuses. So they also hit on a 10 or better.
Level 5 they hit expert, meaning they now have a +13. But a +1 rune is a level 2 item, so they probably have that by now. This puts them at +14, meaning they hit the above 22 at an 8.
By level 7, they are now at +16, only 1 ahead of they caster due to the potency rune. They hit on a 9.
I don't know if this answers the question or not.
This and examples from the Bestiary are mostly what I'm basing my comments off of, yes.