|
The trick, especially for sorcerers, is that it is the damage that is luring them in. So while I agree that more damage is not the solution, I can't help but see players being unsatisfied in play with accuracy boosts until those boosts are enough to almost trivialize the risk of failure, which is like the exact opposite of PF2's design philosophy.Between, debuffing, including making an enemy flat-footed, clumsy, or afraid,
And buffing accuracy, including apex items, true strike, and status bonuses to attack such as through bless and inspire courage.There are a lot of ways for blasters to get far more than a +3 total effective bonus to their attack rolls. The point, (as specified in the Core rule book, on page 447, "Spell attack rolls can benefit from circumstance bonuses and status bonuses, though item bonuses to spell attack rolls are rare") is that the developers always intended for casters to have to work for their bonuses and not just have them be an innate flat item bonus that is an assumed part of the math.
That wouldn't be so bad if that design philosophy carried through the whole game and all classes, but it doesn't. Martial characters get a ton of item bonuses, boosting their attack rolls and number of damage dice. And the monsters are scaled to fight those buffed-up fighters. There is no way to boost the caster's spell attack rolls or damage dice, while the martials get lots of item bonuses, feats, and class features to improve their abilities. Those clear differences are a lot of the problem, IMO. If and when caster's finally get items that increase their spell attack rolls to match the martial's and feats that also help, a lot of the complaints will probably fade away, but then those book(s) will be considered a "necessary resource" to play PF2e, as in "don't play PF2e without Book X"
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Samurai, have you played the game yet? That design philosophy is absolutely followed through with other classes. If you aren't debuffing and buffing, you're going to be just as unsuccessful as any other martial (exception, possibly, given to fighter). Item bonuses aren't changing that.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the idea that 'buffing spell damage dice' doesn't happen is kinda silly...I mean, that's literally what Heightening (something martials don't have) already does. It's accounted for.
I do agree that their accuracy on actual attack roll spells is a problem, and that an item would go a long way toward fixing that, but that's juts because that's the most convenient fix, not because the items for martials and spellcasters inherently need to mirror each other precisely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I gave my players wand of potency +1, which gives +1 on spell attacks only, few sessions back. Sorc has it now...but still uses only cantrip attack spells....none of his slot spells have a spell attack roll...
I don't think it will affect my game in any significant way even later when they get the wand to +2 or +3
I gave my players wand of potency +1, which gives +1 on spell attacks only, few sessions back. Sorc has it now...but still uses only cantrip attack spells....none of his slot spells have a spell attack roll...
I don't think it will affect my game in any significant way even later when they get the wand to +2 or +3
I'm curious, how well does a potency +2 rune for spell attack rolls stack up against say, a bunch of 5th level item (1st level spell) manifold missiles for 160 gp a pop? You can buy 5 for the 800gp, which is less than the presumably 935 gp for the +2 potency rune. That'd basically run you all day even in the worst situations, with the option to double up on particularly hard fights.
1-action to start (or 2-3 if you actually use it for the full magic missile effect), and then 1 missile free per turn for 10 turns. 3.5 average damage is a fair bit when comparing to a +1 or +2 to hit. Since its magic missiles, its 100% chance to hit each time, out to 120 feet.
At 10th level, +2 to hit on say, telekinetic projectile, is 2.25 to 4.5 per round, depending on the exact to-hit value. Even at 15th level, those 5th level wands are still comparable against harder targets, +2 at 15th on telekinetic projectile is 3.3 to 6.6 per round.
By 16th you could afford a stack of 4 9th level wands (3rd level manifold missile) for 2800 gp and two 13th level wands (5th level manifold missile) for 6,000gp, roughly the same price as the +3 potency rune (8,935 gp). Thats 7 to 10.5 extra damage per turn. 14 to 21 average damage if you use two wands at once.
Compared to 20th level telekinetic projection getting a +3 potency rune to hit(0.15 to 0.3 times 10d6+7), which is 6.3 to 12.6 extra average damage per turn, depending on how hard it is to hit the target. Not to mention the option to double up on using the manifold wands.
What are people's thoughts on using already existing wands to supplement arcane caster per turn damage? Most damage comparisons seem to assume wealth expenditures on the part of martials, but none on the part of casters. A few people brought up discussions of consumables like scrolls for extra backup in tough situations, but what about things like wands or staves for regular, daily use?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends a lot on the wand or staff.
Staffs specifically require that you spend spell slots to charge them, making them more of a side grade. While wands do act as more of +1 spell/day.
Sorry, I'm confused by this statement, and want to make sure I'm not missing something. You get free charges equal to your highest level spell everyday in one staff, whether you are prepared or spontaneous.
Page 592:
"During your daily preparations, you can prepare a staff to add charges to it for free. When you do so, that staff gains a number of charges equal to the highest-level spell slot you have. You don’t need to expend any spells to add charges in this way."
If a prepared caster wants, they can choose to sacrifice a spell slot to add charges.
So at 11th level, a staff defaults to 6 charges for a full caster, with no sacrifice. If he sacrifices a 3rd level spell, he has 9 charges. If he sacrifices a 6th level spell he's got 12 charges. But he can always choose to just get the free 6 without spending anything.
I'm not seeing how that is a side grade. It is directly comparable to +1 spell/day of your highest spell level, assuming the staff is of high enough level.
What are people's thoughts on using already existing wands to supplement arcane caster per turn damage? Most damage comparisons seem to assume wealth expenditures on the part of martials, but none on the part of casters. A few people brought up discussions of consumables like scrolls for extra backup in tough situations, but what about things like wands or staves for regular, daily use?
Wands and staves are for most of them extremely bad. You have Wands of Manifold Missiles which are competitive. For anything else, Scrolls are better (far less expensive and containing higher level spells).
And if you use scrolls, you greatly enhance your spell list size. You can easily double it without paying that much money. My casters are always loaded with scrolls (dozens of them) so I can last as much as I want.|
|
Samurai, have you played the game yet? That design philosophy is absolutely followed through with other classes. If you aren't debuffing and buffing, you're going to be just as unsuccessful as any other martial (exception, possibly, given to fighter). Item bonuses aren't changing that.
Yes, we've played multiple times now, and in fact, my Elven Ranger is Level 2 currently. We've switched to Roll20 during the pandemic.
|
Wands and staves are for most of them extremely bad. You have Wands of Manifold Missiles which are competitive. For anything else, Scrolls are better (far less expensive and containing higher level spells).
And if you use scrolls, you greatly enhance your spell list size. You can easily double it without paying that much money. My casters are always loaded with scrolls (dozens of them) so I can last as much as I want.
Staves are bad for blasting and healing IMO because it costs too many charges to make those a worthwhile option, but there’s still some good staves
Divination (True Strike)
Mentalist’s (Greater for Hypercognition, Major for Synesthesia)
Conjuration (Major for Black Tentacles)
Transmutation (Fleet Step and Jump)
What are people's thoughts on using already existing wands to supplement arcane caster per turn damage? Most damage comparisons seem to assume wealth expenditures on the part of martials, but none on the part of casters. A few people brought up discussions of consumables like scrolls for extra backup in tough situations, but what about things like wands or staves for regular, daily use?
It certainly has to be part of the equation.
I certainly do this with my Bard. I've carried a single wand of manifold missiles since level 5. I was planning for level 9 when I'd get the heightened version, and I realized it wasn't going to be worth trading in my wand because I don't get the rune upgrade deal of full price back. That made me realize it would be better for me to just use it for any defensively inclined encounter instead of selling it back. I would prefer to sell it back. Between my planned purchases of a greater Mentalist's Staff with +1 and shifting runes to wear it as a glove, Resilience Rune, Horn of Blasting, and greater Wand of Manifold Missiles as well as all the utility scrolls and spellbook fillers I'll need to buy, I've got way less gold than things I want to buy.
These caster items don't upgrade like weapons do, so you have to sell back your previous for 50% instead of 100% in order to get your next. Because of that, it's usually better to find a staff with a utility spell on it that you want to spam and just keep that one. It's better to keep the lower level wand and get what use you can out of it instead of upgrading. Also, the level they come out at isn't regulated like the weapon fundamental runes, as evidenced by all my items coming in at levels 8 and 9. More thought needed to go into the caster item economy to make it more like the martial economy. I'd like to see all greater items be upgradable from their lesser versions.
Our necromancer cleric player made a different character when it was time to upgrade their undead. We even houseruled in an undead market and transfer ritual so that he could get back 50% of his cost of his previous undead, but the costs were just too high to really sustain his play style of 2 undead permanent items.
A lesser staff of divination is a better investment than a +x magic item for casters. By level 6-7, (around when you could get it) You are never going to need more true strikes for your spell slot spells than you get from the staff. Pick up arcana as a skill, and trick magic item as a feat and even druids could have access to true strike without wasting a class feat. What better use of skills is there for a blaster Druid?
By level 8, with expert proficiency in arcana, you’d be fine with assurance to never have to roll. This would be a much better route to go than spending thousands of gold for a less valuable effect.
At higher levels you will have so many charges you can probably even be spending them on your cantrips and still never be running out out/ burn one spell slot at 3 levels lower than you maximumand have true strike all day.
Edit: I see that trick magic item would cost an extra item. Still might be worth MCing to bard or wizard or sorcerer (especially for clerics) since you’d only need the level 2 feat to make it work.
Yeah, Trick Magic item requires an additional action so it’s probably not workable. Staff of Divination is a serious buff to a spell attacker though, if they can use it.
What are people's thoughts on using already existing wands to supplement arcane caster per turn damage? Most damage comparisons seem to assume wealth expenditures on the part of martials, but none on the part of casters. A few people brought up discussions of consumables like scrolls for extra backup in tough situations, but what about things like wands or staves for regular, daily use?It certainly has to be part of the equation.
I certainly do this with my Bard. I've carried a single wand of manifold missiles since level 5. I was planning for level 9 when I'd get the heightened version, and I realized it wasn't going to be worth trading in my wand because I don't get the rune upgrade deal of full price back. That made me realize it would be better for me to just use it for any defensively inclined encounter instead of selling it back. I would prefer to sell it back. Between my planned purchases of a greater Mentalist's Staff with +1 and shifting runes to wear it as a glove, Resilience Rune, Horn of Blasting, and greater Wand of Manifold Missiles as well as all the utility scrolls and spellbook fillers I'll need to buy, I've got way less gold than things I want to buy.
These caster items don't upgrade like weapons do, so you have to sell back your previous for 50% instead of 100% in order to get your next. Because of that, it's usually better to find a staff with a utility spell on it that you want to spam and just keep that one. It's better to keep the lower level wand and get what use you can out of it instead of upgrading. Also, the level they come out at isn't regulated like the weapon fundamental runes, as evidenced by all my items coming in at levels 8 and 9. More thought needed to go into the caster item economy to make it more like the martial economy. I'd like to see all greater items be upgradable from their lesser versions.
Our necromancer cleric player made a different character when it was time to upgrade their undead. We even houseruled in an undead...
That is unfortunate.
I think it would be best if the rules didn't give a benefit to building a new character rather than keeping your old one.Selling items does not give enough. I think it would be best if every level you could sell you items for as much as a new character would get starting at that level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I'm seeing in a lot of the solutions people are proposing with the already existing content is that they are very complex for the most part. While some of them do work to at least lessen the problem, please consider one thing, guys: new players exist. Not everyone is willing or even able to spend hours looking through books to plan their consumable budget (if the GM even lets you buy any item at any time). I'm pretty sure if I tell someone who just started with the game and wants to be a cool magic guy who explodes things that they need to jump through a bunch of hoops to be somewhat effective at what they do, that's not the most encouraging thing to hear.
Not only that but it kind of goes against the phisophy of opt-in complexity that Mark mentions quite often: you should be able to build a character that's effective at what they do without having much mastery ot the rules. Can you currently do that with a Blaster Caster? Eh... I don't think so.
The only hoop you need to jump through currently is learning burning hands (or insert whatever AoE spell is available at your level), and then casting that spell. At that point you're a cool magic guy who can explode things quite efficiently.
Spell attacks in particular seems like it ended up being a slight new player trap, which I think is the most tragic thing to come out of this.
The only hoop you need to jump through currently is learning burning hands (or insert whatever AoE spell is available at your level), and then casting that spell. At that point you're a cool magic guy who can explode things quite efficiently.
Spell attacks in particular seems like it ended up being a slight new player trap, which I think is the most tragic thing to come out of this.
As long as you did not manage to mess up your starting stats the system already has a build-in failsafe mechanism called retraining.
So if "Sirius Spellstrike" is not working as imagined just spend a few weeks in any remote monastery and come back as "Xenon Megablast".
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Samurai, have you played the game yet? That design philosophy is absolutely followed through with other classes. If you aren't debuffing and buffing, you're going to be just as unsuccessful as any other martial (exception, possibly, given to fighter). Item bonuses aren't changing that.Yes, we've played multiple times now, and in fact, my Elven Ranger is Level 2 currently. We've switched to Roll20 during the pandemic.
Level 2 is indeed a solid vantage point for a bird-eye's view on how the ruleset works in practice. :)
|
|
My actual play experience of a wizard just went to level 5 (skipped level 4 - we earned enough XP in the one session to go from 3 to 5).
Haven’t done any blasting aside from with Hand of the Apprentice yet, mostly because level 1 and 2 blasts seemed kind of bad. I will say that Summon Animal has been quite useful so far, even if I only got to cast it twice, the first time I summoned a wolf which granted flanking to our frontline and also tripped the boss with knockdown (granted I rolled high - needed a 14+ to hit the boss).
The second time I summoned a Rat Swarm on top of 3 creatures which finished off the weaker ones, making it easier for the fighter to cleave through. That encounter was looking kind of dangerous because our entire party was caught in a Fireball and the Paladin dropped immediately due to a crit fail.
Now at level 5, I’ve decided to pick up some blasts since they’re looking somewhat decent now.
I will say that even at level 3 I haven’t really had to fall back on cantrips that much - I’ve mostly been able to use them when slots aren’t necessary and use slots for encounters that are actually relevant.
That is unfortunate.
I think it would be best if the rules didn't give a benefit to building a new character rather than keeping your old one.
Selling items does not give enough. I think it would be best if every level you could sell you items for as much as a new character would get starting at that level.
Whether its worth making a new character or not depends on if the GM is following the treasure by level guidelines and new character build, as well as the general advice in the treasure section. If the GM is contemplating allowing a player to create a new character due to wealth, there should be other options to correct the problem.
A character following the traditional path of leveling up normally should have more wealth than a new character purchases exactly what they want initially, so the incentive shouldn't be there. Its explicitly told to the GM to keep an eye on it to make sure characters don't end up behind, even in APs. If your martials have 3,000 gp worth of equipment each at 9th level, and the casters only have 1,600 gp worth of equipment, then the GM needs to add more treasure the casters want.
Take as an example, the GM has an adventure on a boat and the martial loses their +2 Striking Bastard sword of shock overboard on an ocean voyage. The GM is supposed to make provide more treasure in the very near future to make up for it, not have the character retire because they just lost 33% of their wealth. The same goes in an AP if treasure is provided that isn't usable by the party. If the GM is allowing a new character, the GM can also simply hand the party more treasure to fix the problem.
A new 9th level character, according to table 10-10, either starts with a lump sum of 1,600 gp or an 8th (~500 gp), 7th (~360 gp), 6th (~230 gp) and 5th item (~160 gp) and 250 gp, which is only 1500 gp.
A party of 4, leveling from 1-9 (thus earning up level 1-8), should each have split up 3021.25 gp in value. Assuming the party sold everything they found and rebought, they would still have 1510 gp, which is close to those other values. So the new character build is already assuming you've sold everything you found, whether you used it for 1 level or 8 levels.
Assuming at least some of the equipment you find will be usable by someone in the party (even if its just 1 in 4 items), a naturally leveled character should have more wealth than a new character based on table 10-10.
As for selling the 5th level magic wand for 160 gp instead of 80 gp, that is a small difference given you're earning around 145 gp in treasure per moderate encounter at 9th level (assuming party of 4). I also don't think it'd be a problem if you made the wands upgradable, since again, you're only saving 80 gp or so. Its essentially a rounding error by those levels, or a single at level consumable. Personally, I'd keep the 5th level wand, and just buy the 9th when funds allow. 1d4+1 five times for 1-action (spread over 5 rounds) is still a good choice at 9th level. Especially in harder to hit fights. Once bought the 9th level one, use both wands at the same time for 3d4+3 per round at the cost of 2-actions.
Seems to me house ruling upgrades might also solve your problem. Rather than an undead transfer ritual, just make an undead strengthening/transformation ritual. Cast the ritual with the gold difference cost and upgrade the undead. Same amount of house ruling, as the transfer ritual, and everyone is happy. Or rule minion undead can be used as components in the summon undead ritual at full "value".
If you're GM is looking for a reason that might let them rule you can upgrade wands to a higher tier version, page 534 under multiple types notes that "For some items, the types listed are upgrades to the base item." It is certainly a simple enough house rule to allow items listed as upgrades to be upgradable like runes. Some might argue that line allows upgrades for those items as part of the base game without house rules.
At the end of the day, if you look at a snapshot of wealth of the party at each level, ideally any differences should disappear quickly, and not systematically have any characters be consistently under (or over) equipped.
Selling for 50% and an exponential wealth curve get you reasonably close to that ideal. Its not perfect, and can't take into account all possible situations, but that is what the GM is for.
One thing I'm seeing in a lot of the solutions people are proposing with the already existing content is that they are very complex for the most part. While some of them do work to at least lessen the problem, please consider one thing, guys: new players exist. Not everyone is willing or even able to spend hours looking through books to plan their consumable budget (if the GM even lets you buy any item at any time). I'm pretty sure if I tell someone who just started with the game and wants to be a cool magic guy who explodes things that they need to jump through a bunch of hoops to be somewhat effective at what they do, that's not the most encouraging thing to hear.
Not only that but it kind of goes against the phisophy of opt-in complexity that Mark mentions quite often: you should be able to build a character that's effective at what they do without having much mastery ot the rules. Can you currently do that with a Blaster Caster? Eh... I don't think so.
PF2 is actually a lot better about this than PF1 as far as trap options for casters who have the world of spells at their finger tips. And the problem that we really want to avoid is having simple easy ways to boost caster accuracy that stack with all the tactical ways to improve caster accuracy until system master results in casters capable of solving every problem themselves with the right items and know-how.
I am not saying that item bonuses to spell attack rolls will cause that, but ones to Spell Save DCs probably will.
PF2 is actually a lot better about this than PF1 as far as trap options for casters who have the world of spells at their finger tips. And the problem that we really want to avoid is having simple easy ways to boost caster accuracy that stack with all the tactical ways to improve caster accuracy until system master results in casters capable of solving every problem themselves with the right items and know-how.
I am not saying that item bonuses to spell attack rolls will cause that, but ones to Spell Save DCs probably will.
I was mostly talking about spell attack rolls. I totally agree about Spell DCs, especially since targeting a bad save usually makes up or even surpasses the difference caused by the lack of items. And that's the main difference here for me. "I probably shouldn't use a Fortitude spell against this Troll" is something that can be easily understood by a new player, and if it's not, can be acquired with a simple Recall Knowledge check.
In the other hand, "Spell Attacks scale really badly since they hit AC with no item bonuses, and are even worse at some levels because of the proficiency gap, so maybe I should get a Staff of Divination to cast True Strike on all of them" is something that a new player not only will not understand and maybe not even know exists; they'll probably end up having bad results without being able to figure out why. They'll just know their things aren't working and be frustrated about it.
PF2 is actually a lot better about this than PF1 as far as trap options for casters who have the world of spells at their finger tips. And the problem that we really want to avoid is having simple easy ways to boost caster accuracy that stack with all the tactical ways to improve caster accuracy until system master results in casters capable of solving every problem themselves with the right items and know-how.
I am not saying that item bonuses to spell attack rolls will cause that, but ones to Spell Save DCs probably will.
I was mostly talking about spell attack rolls. I totally agree about Spell DCs, especially since targeting a bad save usually makes up or even surpasses the difference caused by the lack of items. And that's the main difference here for me. "I probably shouldn't use a Fortitude spell against this Troll" is something that can be easily understood by a new player, and if it's not, can be acquired with a simple Recall Knowledge check.
In the other hand, "Spell Attacks scale really badly since they hit AC with no item bonuses, and are even worse at some levels because of the proficiency gap, so maybe I should get a Staff of Divination to cast True Strike on all of them" is something that a new player not only will not understand and maybe not even know exists; they'll probably end up having bad results without being able to figure out why. They'll just know their things aren't working and be frustrated about it.
Well wizards don't need the staff to have access to the spell truestrike, so as soon as they cast a spell attack roll spell in a tense situation, miss and ask, "how can I make that less likely to happen?" The Answer is, "cast true strike first, and it will greatly improve your odds. Plus, just like martial characters, you can learn how to debuff your enemies with tactics (fear/flanking/clumsy/etc), it makes the enemies, especially powerful solo enemies, a lot more managable." Then when they realize that they can get a staff that lets them cast the true strike part all day, they will feel like they are really learning the system...Or they decide, "hm, casting spell attack roll spells doesn't really feel worth it," and move on to the whole host of other good spells that they have to cast.
Adding an item bonus item to spell attack rolls doesn't change the necessity of any of the above. For inexperienced players, it is not going to make casting Spell attack roll spells feel good, because you are still going to be missing with them and doing nothing with a high level spell slot very often, especially against the higher level foes that you thought you were saving your high level spells for. You are still going to feel terrible when you miss and wish you had taken the actions necessary to debuff your enemies and probably cast true strike as well.
I really feel like the big push to have item bonuses to spell attack rolls is more about people wanting magic items to feel the same for casters and for martials, and I think it was a wise and deliberate choice not to do that. If anything, it means casters are much more free to select any magic items they want, including keeping up with a magic weapon if they want to use it for their third actions, something that is going to become nearly impossible if the math expectation of casters being able to hit with some of their most exciting spells requires them to keep up on that as well.
If anything, the thing that is really hurting spell attack roll spells was the decision to drop Touch AC, but still have spell attack rolls use the same proficiency as their saving throw DCs, which were the numbers that spells were balanced around. Instead of giving item bonuses to spell attack rolls, the developers decided that they would up the damage dice to bring up the overall DPR of the spells, but that was probably a mistake, because it just encourages new players to chose less reliable spells.
Maybe I am totally wrong, and enough people asking for it is going to result in some kind of +x focus wand that boosts spell attack rolls with an item bonus, will make it happen, but that really feels like the beginning of the path to power creep, but if enough of you math people look at what happens to the uber-maximized disintegrate, cast with true strike against a flat-footed enemy with a -2 Status penalty to their AC, and adding the eventual +3 item bonus doesn't knock this spell into the absurd levels of damage past other strikers, I will switch sides on this debate.
Item bonuses just feel like the least efficient bonuses to give to spell attack roll spells cost wise/ but then have the largest unbalancing potential when used by the ultra-specialized caster who one shots bosses regularly with one or two rounds of true strike disintegrates and then forces the rest of party to rest after they have used their nova combination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well wizards don't need the staff to have access to the spell truestrike, so as soon as they cast a spell attack roll spell in a tense situation, miss and ask, "how can I make that less likely to happen?" The Answer is, "cast true strike first, and it will greatly improve your odds. Plus, just like martial characters, you can learn how to debuff your enemies with tactics (fear/flanking/clumsy/etc), it makes the enemies, especially powerful solo enemies, a lot more managable." Then when they realize that they can get a staff that lets them cast the true strike part all day, they will feel like they are really learning the system...Or they decide, "hm, casting spell attack roll spells doesn't really feel worth it," and move on to the whole host of other good spells that they have to cast...
To be fair, I actually hate how item dependant characters are in this game in general, and I am using and always will use APB in all of my games, but I just don't see a better solution for the issue of attack roll spells being extremely unreliable that doesn't involve making extremely deep changes to how the game plays.
In the end, I think the main issue comes from A: as you've mentioned, Touch AC being removed but casters not being given anything to compensate, and B: strong solo or duo enemies being simply "monsters with bigger numbers", which combined with the crit system makes so instead of boss fights being epic, the players just feel like crap because they're almost as likely to succeed as the boss is to crit and delete one of the characters in 1 turn. I'm making the switch myself to using modified, action-based versions of normal monsters as bosses instead of using high level creatures, but that's besides the point of this discussion. The thing is: changing the second aspect is completely unviable in a large game-wise scale, so I think giving the item bonuses to spell attacks at least helps with the first.
A 2-action spell has way more impact in terms of dice rolled than 2 1-actions, so I understand why they didn't cut spells into 1-action versions. Having to roll a truck load of Reflex saves because a player cast 3 1-action Fireballs in the same turn would just make the game too slow. Already, when I cast 3 Harms in a row it looks like it takes forever compared to martial actions as there is way more computations involved (different levels of success, when most martial attacks will fail and only one will hit on average).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to chime in and share my personal likes and dislikes. While I do think non electric arc cantrips could stand to be buffed, possibly becoming a single action, I hope the buff does not come in the form of an item. I gravitate towards options that are less item heavy, as I hate having a character that depends on them. It's the main reason I love shapeshifting classes and kineticist but also most casters need little to no items. I would like to keep items for casters as purely a little extra coolness, like a staff that can fire off a few more spells or what have you.
Staff of Divination for True Strike using Trick Magic Items only works for 1 action spells/abilities.
1 action to use Trick Magic Item, with a percent chance of success based on item level. On success work until end of turn.
1 action to cast True Strike. Works until end of turn.
1 action to do what you want.
So Divine and Primal casters have little if any use use of that staff as far as blasting goes, since most spells are 2 actions.
Yah i caught that at the end of my post. You can still get it through multi-classing if being a spell attack roll striker was going to be your main character concept, you'd probably want to do that. Sorcerer or bard is not hard for a cleric, but druids have it rough. Except that they get armor proficiencies, a higher HP die, and multiple options for decent other attacks
Heh, my PFS Druid just leveled and picked up True Strike with Basic Bardic Spellcasting, so we will see how it goes. I’ll be playing him in three quests this Sunday...
That is unfortunate.
I think it would be best if the rules didn't give a benefit to building a new character rather than keeping your old one.
Selling items does not give enough. I think it would be best if every level you could sell you items for as much as a new character would get starting at that level.Whether its worth making a new character or not depends on if the GM is following the treasure by level guidelines and new character build, as well as the general advice in the treasure section. If the GM is contemplating allowing a player to create a new character due to wealth, there should be other options to correct the problem.
A character following the traditional path of leveling up normally should have more wealth than a new character purchases exactly what they want initially, so the incentive shouldn't be there. Its explicitly told to the GM to keep an eye on it to make sure characters don't end up behind, even in APs. If your martials have 3,000 gp worth of equipment each at 9th level, and the casters only have 1,600 gp worth of equipment, then the GM needs to add more treasure the casters want.
Take as an example, the GM has an adventure on a boat and the martial loses their +2 Striking Bastard sword of shock overboard on an ocean voyage. The GM is supposed to make provide more treasure in the very near future to make up for it, not have the character retire because they just lost 33% of their wealth. The same goes in an AP if treasure is provided that isn't usable by the party. If the GM is allowing a new character, the GM can also simply hand the party more treasure to fix the problem.
A new 9th level character, according to table 10-10, either starts with a lump sum of 1,600 gp or an 8th (~500 gp), 7th (~360 gp), 6th (~230 gp) and 5th item (~160 gp) and 250 gp, which is only 1500 gp.
A party of 4, leveling from 1-9 (thus earning up level 1-8), should each have split up 3021.25 gp in value. Assuming the party sold everything they found...
Our group is a shared GM game. We decided to play the caster equipment within the current rules with 50% resale value and thought the undead for the cleric should follow the same formula. I'm not positive that's the correct decision, but we didn't want to play too off book in our first campaign. Either way, we essentially gave him a way to play a necromancer with 1 undead minion with our changes, but he decided it wasn't worth playing harm based cleric without the 2 undead or a more interesting Divine spell list. He is a committed necromancer player, though, so I expect he'll come back to that when he gets a few more options available.
I do think you're right that my level 5 wand of manifold missiles will still stay useful at level 9. The problem is that I won't be able to afford all of the on level items, so it would be nice to have the option for the upgrade to try to stretch to get them. As the full support utility caster in our party, though, I can always use one more scroll to handle problems. I'm always strapped for cash even with a full downtime allotment to earn income with my maxed out performance and item bonus based out of Absalom.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still yet to see any actual balance issues in real play in either of two Age of Ashes campaigns I'm running, and one of my parties is actually adventuring at 15th level at this point.
The casters define each of these parties, and are the lynchpins around how they differ from each other fundamentally. While the martial all have their own thing, they're the ones consistently pumping out damage numbers and killing foes. It is ALWAYS the spellcasters (or the limited spellcasting of say, a champion) that turns difficult encounters into easy ones or makes dangerous encounters safe.
It should not be underestimated how much some monsters are hosed by losing reactions or an action per turn, or by losing 1-2 of their minion screen to critical failures on saves against an AOE spell. Spells like Fear (more specifically, its damage dealing big brother Phantasmal Killer) are huge force multipliers by making other actions more effective.
Spell attack rolls arent super popular, sure, but theres a lot of things that buff attack rolls and nerf AC, making it a good defense to target when a weak save isnt apparent or in your current spell repertoire.
Just looking at the math here - even though most of it isnt actually that far out of whack - fails to capture the actual gameplay impact of what spells actually do to encounters.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is debating the benefits of AoE or Saved based spells; and everyone agrees that buffs and debuffs are extremely good specially when saved based.
You mentioned Champion's focus spells being encounter changing. How much of it is also true for full casters in your game? (I am curious.)
All those attack boost or AC penalties you mentioned affect martial classes just as well. The question is how well balanced Martial vs Caster spell attacks are, when spells are limited and have a lower base to hit. Or, should reliable attacks have roughly the same effect as limited and unreliable attacks?
How much value does having limited number of uses really have?
This is a team game, not a solo one. No party member exists in a vacuum, and no one should be able to carry a party on their own at full efficiency. Nor should everyone be equally good at the same tasks.
Casters not being able to go it solo is a feature, not a bug.
Spell attacks being less reliable than other attack rolls is... well, those are just one tool in your toolbox. Use the best tool for the task at hand? Being rewarded for choosing the appropriate tool for an obstacle is a fundamental part of game design.
The fact that not everything is a nail does not make hammers useless, but it does mean that The Guy That Only Hammers things is going to feel left out sometimes.
If I were complaining that everything wasnt equally vulnerable to Will Saves to support my Will Save specialist, I'm quite certain I'd be informed that is the cost of intentionally avoiding diversification.
Disintegrate is a terrible spell to throw at a boss - but it's quite effective at [helping to] deleting his supporting minion that may do something to enable that boss.
I'm not convinced that spell attack rolls need to be "balanced" or equivalent to martial rolls for the classes using them to be balanced. I'm not saying an item bonus for these rolls breaks the game, I'm just not sure you're solving a problem that needs fixed.
Casters can be bad at targeting AC as a tradeoff for their ability to target multiple other defenses easily.
That's valid - and arguably good - design. They arent forced into that path.
And for reference on the Champion thing, yes, regular spellcasters have options that change encounters. Which ones depend on where you are in play - but they're always there.
There's rarely a real resource stretch if casters limit themselves to 1-2 spells from their top two levels per encounter, and cantrips dont come up much. Spells that are good from lower level slots are not necessarily the same spells that were good when those were top level slots.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We’ve been playing since 2e cane out and our take has been that we enjoy playing martial sand casters equally. Our group of 5 has had immense fun playing a variety of classes, we’ve died a fair bit.
In fact we are currently enjoying this fat more than our 5e regular game, which may entirely be due to the “newness” factor of course.
If there is a discrepancy between casters and martials it haven’t been a big issue at our table - or evening a little one. The primal sorcery who died immediately rolled up a wizard, and then an occult sorcerer when he died (he’s not a very conservative player and does some odd stuff at the table which we all immensely enjoy, sometimes at his expense ) .
For completeness we’re all in our 50’s and have been playing in one for or another for over 30 years on average.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have found that making Electric Arc use two actions to hit one target and three actions (with material component) to hit two brings it inline nicely while still allowing it to hit two targets. It's not auto used every round and some builds pass on it for other cantrips and that prevents stuff like reach spell subverting the one meaningful limitation that's keeping it somewhat inline.
I do think Daze and Acid Spray could use some love. But other cantrips are fine compared to what ranged martials can do.