| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Proposed houserule addition to Electric Arc:
When targeting two creatures, the two creatures must be within X feet away from each other. Both creatures must be within 30 feet of you.
Possibly in addition: The maximum X distance can increase as the spell is Heightened.
This was prompted by this thread on the PF2 Subreddit.
Some disclaimers.
I don't subscribe to the idea that DPR is everything. In fact, in 2E I'd say it's impossible to quantify due to the premium placed on teamwork, synergy, and situational advantages.
However, DPR is something. The advantage to damage from Electric Arc means that the usual decision tree for a primal or arcane caster who doesn't want to spend a spell slot usually boils down to:
1. Do the enemies have resistance to electricity? If No, proceed to 2.
2. Is there anyone I likely can kill or knock out with a cantrip that is not Electric Arc? If No, proceed to 3.
3. Can I get two enemies within 30 feet of me with enough actions left over to cast Electric Arc? ...
(I've seen it said that getting yourself within 30 feet of an enemy puts you in danger. But you're not putting out SO much damage that you really make yourself a target, either.)
I propose that this houserule makes decisions more interesting in combat. It's no longer the clear answer in so many situations. And other characters can decide to group up, or Shove enemies, to make Electric Arc more useful.
Thoughts? Comments?
Hard to say much without knowing how you plan on scaling X.
As it is currently it reads that both creatures are within 30ft of you, your houserule adds a second clause/range within a range to the struck target.
Personally I prefer having it be "jumps to the nearest creature within range, if there are multiple valid target the caster chooses which one it jumps to"
This adds a bit of tactical think to the spell (even if it is also a nerf) and brings back a bit of the verisimilitude imo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than nerfing Electric Arc, I'd rather see the rules for other spells change to have their critical hit affects (or maybe a slightly weaker version) applied on not all hits, and an even greater effect on a critical.
Rather than nerfing Electric Arc, I'd rather see the rules for other spells change to have their critical hit affects (or maybe a slightly weaker version) applied on not all hits, and an even greater effect on a critical.
I see the appeal, but Daze imposes the Stunned 1 condition. That is often a Save effect for some spells that use actual spell slots. And persistent damage against a creature's weakness can be pretty devastating. Perhaps too powerful?
Hard to say much without knowing how you plan on scaling X.
As it is currently it reads that both creatures are within 30ft of you, your houserule adds a second clause/range within a range to the struck target.
Personally I prefer having it be "jumps to the nearest creature within range, if there are multiple valid target the caster chooses which one it jumps to"
This adds a bit of tactical think to the spell (even if it is also a nerf) and brings back a bit of the verisimilitude imo.
I rather like that as well, perhaps even more than my own -- an ally steps away to set up the arc. It also incentivizes enemies to "close with" the party.
This is how I would factor "X" in my proposal:
L1: 10 feet from 1st target
L3: 15 feet...
L5: 20 feet...
L7: 25 feet...
L9: 30 feet...
I see the appeal, but Daze imposes the Stunned 1 condition. That is often a Save effect for some spells that use actual spell slots. And persistent damage against a creature's weakness can be pretty devastating. Perhaps too powerful?Rather than nerfing Electric Arc, I'd rather see the rules for other spells change to have their critical hit affects (or maybe a slightly weaker version) applied on not all hits, and an even greater effect on a critical.
That's why I said perhaps a lesser version.
For Daze, perhaps a speed penalty on a non-critical hit to represent being sluggish.
For the elemental damage cantrips, perhaps it just does 1 persistent damage on non-crits. Sure that's still a lot when coupled with a creatures weakness, but I'm okay with that. I think that's the reward for knowing the creatures weakness.
Besides if you know the creature is weak against fire, you're still going to have incentive to cast something like Burning Hands if you were facing more than 1 or a creature with weakness.
The exact mechanics might need fine tuning, but I'd much rather see the other cantrips brought in line with Electric Arc rather than nerfing it.
+1
The real question is: Do the two targets need to have line of effect between eachother?
Bonus question: Do any of the specific targeting mechanics change with the environment in any way?
Yes, thematically I think they'd need to have line of effect with each other.
Not sure how the environment would play in... I think there needs to be line of effect between Targets 1 and 2, and the caster needs to be able to perceive both targets. (So if the caster can see Target 2 through a glass wall, and there is line of effect between Targets and 1 and 2, it works.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ll be honest, for a good while I thought the spell had the old haste rules, that not only did both targets need to be within 30ft, but they needed to be within 30ft of each other. IMO, that is the cleanest solution to the objection that people don’t like the idea of the two targets being within 30ft of the caster, but nearly 60ft apart because they are on either side.
First inclination was that the caster and both targets all needed to be within 30 feet of each other, not just 30 feet between the individual targets and caster. That was how I thought it was intended to be.
I also admit however that I thought common sense told me that there had to be relatively clear line between the two targets. Meaning you couldn't target two creatures on either side/flanking a companion, because the companion would be blocking between.
So I'd be fine with the requirement that all three individuals, the up to two targets and the caster all need to be within 30 feet of one another to function.
I'm also fine with some sort of limitation on LoE between the targets, although I'm not sure what the right limitation would be. Is another non-target being in the path too much, or should it only be limited by walls and other barriers, and does it have to be direct line, or could it be acceptable for it to be an arc that the path taken doesn't exceed 30'?
I like 15ft within the first target and both within 30ft. The scaling is unneeded IMO.
Rather than nerfing Electric Arc, I'd rather see the rules for other spells change to have their critical hit affects (or maybe a slightly weaker version) applied on not all hits, and an even greater effect on a critical.
Honestly the biggest reason the other Cantrips look lack luster is because most of the other cantrips are Spell Attack Rolls which inherently do less damage than spells like Electric arc (a 25% increase in DPS just for being a Save spell).
|
I’ll be honest, for a good while I thought the spell had the old haste rules, that not only did both targets need to be within 30ft, but they needed to be within 30ft of each other. IMO, that is the cleanest solution...
Well, Planely speaking, as three points determine a unique Circle, and as the spell is called electric Arc, this is clearly the only interpretation that makes geometric sense...
Actually, tell you what, I like the idea of all three points (caster and targets) must be within 30ft of one another, and the three lines drawn between the three points, at least two of those Lines of Effect must allow attacks through it.
This way, if you can attack one target directly, but would not be able to attack a second target you know about, but there is something in the way... but you would be able to if you were in the second target's spot. (and all you are within 30 feet of one another) your lighting strikes out hits target one and then streaks out to hit the second target from there. Alternately, and also viable, you have targets down two different corners of a corridor, that you see both. Both are within 30' or you and each other, but the line between them goes through solid rock. However, the path between you and each of them is clear... the lighting streaks from one target to you to the second target.
Honestly this sounds like how I would rule it unless there is a more official clarification.
Looking at your original question or request. No I don't think I can convince you that it isn't a good ruling to require all the points to be within 30 feet of one another. Sorry.