I've avoided making any major changes to the game's rules up until now, but this is something I've thought about doing for a decent bit now. My players have been missing with spell attacks fairly frequently, and I think it might be a good idea to include potency for spell attacks, but I want to be aware of any potential downsides to doing this. Note that I'm not adding anything that increases spell DC.
Isn't better they use True Strike?
That's only an option for one of the three casters in my group, unfortunately.
Will depend of how tactical your group is, because number stacking in battle is something that favors spell attacks more than Spell saves, because spell attacks can get advantage of status bonuses and the flat footed condition.
So if your group Spellcasters don't usually take advantage of that I don't see problem to put item bonus to spell attacks, but if they are the kind that can take advantage of the stuff above you might have unforeseen problems.
|
That's only an option for one of the three casters in my group, unfortunately.
Everyone can get a Staff of Divination.
That being said, there's only 16 or so non-focus non-cantrip spell attacks, many of them are just pretty bad in general (stuff like Acid Arrow and Polar Ray which would be bad even as basic save spells). My worry with +spell attacks isn't that it will buff those spells to be super strong (though they can already be decent if you stack up AC debuffs) but it will buff the focus spells, which already seem decently powerful, to be better than save-based focus spells.
|
|
It's really hard to find a direct comparison here, most focus spells that are single target and deal only damage are spell attacks, whereas save-based stuff has additional effects. So let's go Elemental Toss vs Force Bolt. We'd expect these to deal comparable damage.
At level 1, Force Bolt deals 3.5 damage.
At level 1, a caster has a +7 attack bonus against moderate AC 15, giving it the following probabilities - 15% critical success, 50% success. It deals 0.15(9)+0.5(4.5) = 3.6 damage. Very comparable.
At level 17, Force Bolt deals 17.5 damage.
At level 17, a caster has a +29 attack bonus (+17 level, +6 master, +6 stat) against moderate AC 39, giving the following probabilities - 5% critical success, 50% success. It deals 0.05(81)+0.5(40.5) = 24.3 damage. Elemental Toss is already better than Force Bolt at this level, a +3 potency bonus would definitely overpower it relatively.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've made Cantrip Attack Wands for my Homebrew that the lessor ones have charges but the rare ones do not but those are few and far between.
They can have a single weapon rune inscribed on the wand that will enhance the Attack Cantrip when cast using the wand and once the wand is out of charges its destroyed.
They work well for adding some flavor to the Attack Cantrips but they are not overpowered due to the charged nature of the wand. So yes while one can get a +1,+2 or +3 Potency Rune Cantrip Attack Wand but they only work for Cantrips and they have limited uses.
It was a way to experiment with adding Spell Attack bonus into my Game without overdoing it.
|
|
"You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list"
Ah, knew I missed something.
Praise Gorum (or your other True Strike deity of choice) I guess, if you want to use those spell attacks.
Druids are left a bit behind but I don't believe they even have that many spell attacks (certainly none of their focus powers are IIRC).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, casters have 4 DC's to target:
Reflex, Fortitude, Will, and AC.
Martial's need +1 and such because they are only targeting one of those. Still, cantrip selection is limited. A +1 item that only applied to cantrips would be a nice addition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would definitely make such items rarer and more limited than the martial equivalent. I would also have them affect both attack rolls and save DCs; there's not much reason not to, since they are based on the same math.
For example, an item that gave +1 to attack rolls and save DCs for a specific kind of spell, or for a short duration after costing an action to activate, would likely not be overwhelming around the time martials are starting to get +2 gear. I would hesitate to give any kind of global bonuses or much more than a +1, though.
The problem with +1 to DC's is that it is a +5% chance for the enemy to crit fail. Crit fail on a spell can end an encounter, while a crit success on an attack will just do more damage.
Having an item that only bolsters a single spell would be interesting, though, because it could be limited to less destructive spells. Like, crit failing Command isn't too bad, but Feeblemind...
"The target’s intellect is permanently reduced below that of an animal, and it treats its Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom modifiers as –5. It loses all class abilities that require mental faculties, including all spellcasting. If the target is a PC, they become an NPC under the GM’s control."
Imagine hitting the big bad with that.
|
Incapacitation just makes their save 1 better, it doesn't prevent the spells from working at all.
Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target is stupefied 2 for 1 round.
Failure The target is stupefied 4 with an unlimited duration.
Critical Failure The target’s intellect is permanently reduced below that of an animal, and it treats its Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom modifiers as –5. It loses all class abilities that require mental faculties, including all spellcasting. If the target is a PC, they become an NPC under the GM’s control.
So even on a Successful save they're debuffed.
So even on a Successful save they're debuffed.
The problem is that:
1) If they roll (what is normally) a success, they're unaffected at all
and
2) Being a level (or three) higher than the players, their base-d20 result needed in order to get (what is normally) a success is a very low value. Like 7.
For example, just because I have it open, a Lamia (level 6) has a +12 to their Fort (their lowest). A level 3 spellcaster has a save DC of about 19. Feel free to check whether or not my off-hand remark of 'needing a 7' is close enough to true.
...and a lot of your stuff isn’t going to be effective against them.
Well, yes.
But did they really need the extra bonus against Incap spells? The only time I--as a player--would ever want to use one is in "a very very tough fight" because using it against things that are under my own strength aren't going to be much of a challenge. Why take one out of the fight for a minute when the same number of actions has a good possibility of taking it out of the fight forever?
Without Incapacitation it would be an anticlimactic one shot.
Not really. The Sculptor in Plaguestone crit-failed his save against color spray.
Know how many rounds of him stumbling around blind before we landed another hit on him?
Four.
And oh yeah. He actually lived long enough for it to wear off.
|
|
Without Incapacitation it would be an anticlimactic one shot.Not really. The Sculptor in Plaguestone crit-failed his save against color spray.
Know how many rounds of him stumbling around blind before we landed another hit on him?
Four.
And oh yeah. He actually lived long enough for it to wear off.
Y'all rolling poorly doesn't really address this.
Haven't played that far in Plaguestone yet, does Incapition apply for the Sculptor by the time you fight him? If not refer to the above.
If yes then he would only have been blinded for 1 round rather than 1 minute. Even if you're missing due to poor rolls the fight is effectively over with him blinded.
Y'all rolling poorly doesn't really address this.
Haven't played that far in Plaguestone yet, does Incapition apply for the Sculptor by the time you fight him? If not refer to the above.
It does, he's 2 levels above the party.
If yes then he would only have been blinded for 1 round rather than 1 minute.
I am aware. The GM didn't know/realize that the spell had the Incap trait (another reason the incap trait is terrible), but looking over the difference the GM said, "it wouldn't have changed much."
Even if you're missing due to poor rolls the fight is effectively over with him blinded.
No, not it was not. He was basically still at full health, still had two healing potions, and our inability to hit him wasn't helped by the fact that three players were Dying, one (the ranger) was still dealing with the ooze (and moving out of the room), and the remaining two PCs didn't have the ability to hit or damage him at all (or for that matter, even really provide flanking, because are you SERIOUSLY asking a wizard to help flank?).
The fact that he was blind/dazzled just meant that we didn't immediately TPK. It wasn't "effectively over" the fact that he failed the save is what allowed us to even have a chance.
As for "rolling poorly," I'm sure "you need a natural 16 or better to hit" had NOTHING to do with it.
Okay, not trying to sound like a jerk but if the incap trait was overlooked it makes me wonder what else was as well.
More that its a new thing and the GM didn't know from the spell name that it had it.
Okay needing a 16? That's bugging me, I'm gonna go look over the blinded rules and whatnot again before I comment further.
Blinded and dazzled are basically both "everything is hidden from view." All it does is make the creature effected have a really hard time hitting things. It didn't stop the sculptor from throwing what splash bombs he had at us knowing our last squares, but with 3 PCs already hovering around zero (I don't recall exactly everyone's status at that point, but I know that three players were pushed to dying 4--hero point to stave off death--over the course of the fight and that at roughly this point in time all three had either been down or just gotten a heal to be back on their feet).
As for the 16, I'm not actually sure what the "right number" was, but it sure felt like we needed numbers that high. The entire game has felt like a an exercise in frustration. And yes, there's been some bad luck (I posted just the other day that I made 10 rolls on a swim check and rolled above 10 all of twice), but it also has felt like every fight is either:
a) a pushover where its over before some PCs even realize there WAS a fight
b) brutal where multiple PCs drop to zero
(With plaguestone being a lot more of the latter variety, I think as a group we could recall only 3-4 fights of the former, one of which was some caged rats that couldn't fight back).
Our barbarian has dropped to zero literally every fight while the rogue hasn't gone to zero every fight, but HAS gone to zero more often.
Which leads to players like myself preparing Heal in every spell slot and doing either Heal or Cantrip for plink damage while staying the hell out of range. Because if the sculptor had ever decided to throw a bomb at me, I would have gone from full health to Dying 2 in one attack.
Blinded makes it so you can't detect creatures with sight, presumably that means they'd be undetected which means he'd be flat-footed and have to guess at your location and roll a flat check to target you with anything other than area effects.
That's exactly what it means unless they have blind-fight or the like.
Source Core Rulebook pg. 618
You can’t see. All normal terrain is difficult terrain to you. You can’t detect anything using vision. You automatically critically fail Perception checks that require you to be able to see, and if vision is your only precise sense, you take a –4 status penalty to Perception checks. You are immune to visual effects. Blinded overrides dazzled.
Source Core Rulebook pg. 623
When you are undetected by a creature, that creature cannot see you at all, has no idea what space you occupy, and can’t target you, though you still can be affected by abilities that target an area. When you’re undetected by a creature, that creature is flat-footed to you.A creature you’re undetected by can guess which square you’re in to try targeting you. It must pick a square and attempt an attack. This works like targeting a hidden creature (requiring a DC 11 flat check), but the flat check and attack roll are rolled in secret by the GM, who doesn’t reveal whether the attack missed due to failing the flat check, failing the attack roll, or choosing the wrong square.
A creature can use the Seek action to try to find you.
But I'm assuming Draco's DM was accounting for that, although possibly not the flat-footed part.
It's worth mentioning that people probably shouldn't use Plaguestone as a paradigm for balance discussions.
That adventure - especially the Sculptor encounter - is brutally, brutally difficult, and not at all representative of 2e as a whole.
It's like basing your balance discussion around the infamously difficult "goblin king" fight in Age of Ashes - you are talking about an outlier, rather than the standard expectation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That adventure - especially the Sculptor encounter - is brutally, brutally difficult, and not at all representative of 2e as a whole.
I've certainly heard that. And I've certainly understood.
But having literally done a bunch of data analysis on various level 4 critters (I've now looked at a broad swath of the bestiary up to level 15)....
Not really.
You could swap the sculptor's stats for just about any other level 4 creature and find that the numbers are basically the same. The bestiary monsters are super consistent with their extreme-high-moderate-low choices. Nearly everything has High AC, High Attack, Moderate Saves (more variance here than other things, but there's never more than one save below Moderate), and Moderate to High ability DCs.
Here, I picked one of the level 4 critters I did at random, then went and found the Sculptor's stats.
https://i.postimg.cc/JzxwFBjG/daeodon.png
https://i.postimg.cc/d00Mct9n/sculptor.png
The final numbers are at the bottom, and they're not always exact (I try to find a best-fit, usually ends up off-by-1 and I'll either bias towards "variability" eg. if every other level 4 critter has had High AC or a point below and this next monster is a point above, I'll set it to Extreme and vice versa).
So either:
1) Plaguestone is brutal because the fight is actually against the sculptor and the ooze and the problem was that it was written as two encounters (but plays out as one)
2) Table 10-2 is wrong
3) Level +2 is more difficult than 10-2 gives it credit for
4) Low-level play in general is brutal
But given the other level+2 encounters in Plaguestone and how brutal those were, I'm not sure its entirely Plaguestone's fault. Did it use too many of them? Probably. But I think that even if every other fight hadn't been nearly as difficult and we ran into that one we (as players) would have walked away without finishing the module. If that was the mid-game boss, the final boss is going to be a bloodbath.*
I could maybe forgive the fight against the (bloodlash?) bushes, as we were 140 exp shy of level 2 and there was about 140 exp worth of exp we didn't discover in town before going "AH PLOT! FOLLOW THE PLOT! WE FOUND SOMETHING MEANINGFUL!" and chalk it up to the writers expected the players to find every last crumb first. Easy mistake.
But it was at every turn the fight was "only" against one or two creatures above our level and "only" above our level by 2.
Table 10-2 supports Level+4! for heaven's sake!
LOOK AT THIS
https://i.postimg.cc/6pp7gnFP/level-plus-4.png
LOOK AT HOW MUCH BLACK THAT IS. THAT'S INSANE.
(Black being a crit that is bad for the player)
Not that Level+2 is that much better, honestly.
https://i.postimg.cc/MZ3g1Sqj/level-plus-2.png
*It nearly was. Thanks for dropping us into a boss fight right after another (hard) fight so we didn't have full resources! THANKS SO MUCH. Fortunately one minion was dispatched before it could do its job (and the other was borderline useless).
we were 140 exp shy of level 2 and there was about 140 exp worth of exp we didn't discover in town before going "AH PLOT! FOLLOW THE PLOT! WE FOUND SOMETHING MEANINGFUL!" and chalk it up to the writers expected the players to find every last crumb first. Easy mistake.Sometimes the adventure writers put stuff in the book that just doesn't quite work out in practice. Like saying "Characters should be 2nd level at the start of chapter 2" and there being 982 experience that can be gained in chapter 1.
Naw, the GM told us that there was that last droplet of exp floating around in the town and we just hadn't found it. It was possible to have enough exp, we just missed one side quest.
But yes, such a thing could happen.
|
I would also have them affect both attack rolls and save DCs; there's not much reason not to, since they are based on the same math.I would not, for the - in my mind - pretty strong reason:
The whole idea is to make spells with attack rolls more palatable. The entirety of the evaluation is relative to spells with saves.
I would say it defeats everything about why we're discussing bonuses to spell attacks in the first place. An item that increases DC will simply be used to keep on trucking as usual (i.e. avoiding weak spell-attack-spells).
There may not be much choice in what save to attack. First, the players may not be able to determine which is the weakest save. Maybe they failed their Recall Knowledge skill checks. And even if they do determine which is weakest, they may not have any spells left that targets that save (perhaps used in previous encounters, or simply didn't prepare those spells that day.)
If the casters could choose to use any spells on their list with little to no prep time, the "just use spells that target their weakest save" might be a better comeback, but as it is, it may not be an option. If you an Enchanter, for example, you may have plenty of Will save spells, but Fort and Ref save spells might be much rarer.
What you say is true, Zapp, but it's also impossible to find a pacing that works well for every group.
A chain of encounters, each eroding the party's resources (HP included) is possible: just use easier encounters. PF2 makes it work quite well, since lower level enemies are still competent offensively and can definitely do some damage in the 1-2 rounds they will have before being dispatched. If something goes wrong and two enemy groups join forces, then you have an harder fight, though still manageable.
But then you will hear complaints that the adventure is too easy, the party steamrolls everything and players don't feel challenged. No memorable encounters, how boring!
The best you can do, in my opinion, is a mixing different experiences: sometimes you have no strict time constraints and you can use a 'dungeon' full of challenging fights; in other cases the main challenge is time itself and the group has to face less powerful enemies, but has to advance quickly and without taking too much damage because everyone knows that their real enemy will be tougher.
Of course, when using premade content, the adventure writer will have their own opinions about pacing. If they don't match yours, you will have to adjust.
Not really a lot I have a direct reply to at the moment, but.
I recently finished level 5 in the Extinction Curse AP, and boy, is it brutal.
And I've heard a few scattered complaints from Age of Ashes too.
So, sounds like it isn't just Plaguestone after all.