| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm running an Pathfinder 2e Eberron game converting 3.5 and 5e modules as we go. I came across this item:
WAND OF THE WAR MAGE +1
Wand, uncommon (requires attunement by a spellcaster)
While holding this wand, you gain a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls. In addition, you ignore half cover when making a spell attack.
I assume this is a fairly common (or uncommon as it says) 5e item. [I don't play 5e.]
I've noticed that while +1 weapons and +1 striking weapons are very common in 2e there seem to be no similar items for spellcasters. I'm sure that was a conscious design decision by the Paizo folks, but I'm wondering how much would it break the game if I introduced this type of item. ??
I know I can put what I want into my home games, rule 0, etc. What I'm looking for is advice on what to look out for, power-creep specific. I'm still getting used to the tighter math of this system over 1e/3.5. Would this item seriously skew things? Would also adding +1 to DCs or a separate item that does so be the same/worse?
Right now I'm considering introducing it as only a +1 attack boost and making it tradition specific (arcane, divine, etc). Then a separate item that boosts DCs, also tradition specific. Could use advice on what level to place these at too.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
I've introduced +1 spell attack runes into my game, plan on capping them out at +2. I don't feel like they've broken anything. I would keep it to attacks though, spell DCs are fine as-is.
There's been significant "vigorous discussion" on this topic, and the current situation is that by design, Spell Attack rolls are generally less accurate by the value of the missing item bonus.
Is this a problem? Eh...
The most reasonable compromise I saw that is less likely to skew things is allowing a wand or similar for an item bonus to CANTRIP attack rolls. I think all spell attacks could be too much.
That said, there is a RAW solution for spell attack accuracy that's worth keeping in mind - a lesser staff of divination provides True Strike, and should be an option for most spellcasters through multiclassing.
That said, there is a RAW solution for spell attack accuracy that's worth keeping in mind - a lesser staff of divination provides True Strike, and should be an option for most spellcasters through multiclassing or Trick Magic Item.
Trick Magic Item won't work due to the action economy: one action to Trick and one action to True Strike leaves only one action left for the spell. But yes, if you are an arcane or occult caster, or multiclass into same, this is an option available to you.
That said, there is a RAW solution for spell attack accuracy that's worth keeping in mind - a lesser staff of divination provides True Strike, and should be an option for most spellcasters through multiclassing or Trick Magic Item.Trick Magic Item won't work due to the action economy: one action to Trick and one action to True Strike leaves only one action left for the spell. But yes, if you are an arcane or occult caster, or multiclass into same, this is an option available to you.
Whelp, you are correct. I've removed the reference to avoid confusion.
Thanks much!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks all. Any thoughts on Item level? I like the idea of applying only to cantrips. Perhaps for a lesser version.
My current thought is to utilize Rods & Orbs since those seemed to be dropped in 2e.
Lesser Rod (+1 with cantrips) - level 4
Rod +1 (all spells) - level 10
Rod +2 - level 16
Orb +1 (DCs) - level 12
Orb +2 - level 18
My thought being to keep it a plus behind weapons of similar level and require actions to swap out between rod and orb.
If it's used only with cantrips, I feel it would be safe to have them available at the same rate and max bonus as weapon bonuses.
A bonus to attack spells in general could be offset by 1 tier, perhaps?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if it's actually necessary, here's why. There are four types of spell attack rolls:
- 1) Cantrips - These cantrips (TKP/Produce Flame) consistently do the highest damage across any level with the exclusion of electric arc. The only reason they seem weak is because of arc. Otherwise, the lowered accuracy is made up for by the higher damage/crit effect. They do roughly the same as chill touch which is melee range.
- 2) Focus spells - While they're a bit hit or miss, many of the better focus spells right now require attack rolls - Fire Ray, Winter Bolt and Elemental Toss to name a few - a +X to these is unnecessary
- 3) Non-cantrip, non-focus spells - Actually make up a very small portion of all spell lists. I believe this is something like 18 spells total.
- 4) Hand of the Apprentice - Already benefits from weapon potency runes (as it's a spell attack using the weapon) so a +spell attack bonus doesn't do anything to it.
|
To continue in Exocist's vein, should there be spell DC items?
If you look at the monster creation guidelines, you see that the difference between a Low and a High save for a monster is usually 6 points. A caster trying to brute-force a spell against a monster/NPC that happens to be really good at that save, isn't going to have a lot of success. You don't throw fireballs against rogues. But against a horde of shambling zombies, it works just fine. So spellcasters shouldn't need save DC items so much because they can vary which spells they use against which enemies, which actually gives them a much bigger improvement in odds.
From playing, and playing with, spellcasters, I get the impression the system in practice works better than people just reading it in theory give it credit for. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but I do think before you start adding things, give it a try without modification.
There's one particular rough spot though. Martial classes all improve their weapon proficiency at level 5; casters improve their spell proficiency at level 7. This creates a noticeable gap at level 5 and 6. I'm not sure why it was designed that way, because at later levels, the spellcasters actually pace ahead of martials in proficiency. My suspicion is because the level 3 spells that you get at level 5 tend to be quite good and game-changing, so they wanted to stretch out the evolution of the caster a bit.
For example, at level 5 all cantrips, even the ones with a slow heightening progression, become better; Magic Missile becomes better; you get area attacks like Fireball and Lightning Bolt, while clerics get stuff like Blindness, Crisis of Faith, Searing Light and Vampiric Touch that let you hit enemies in a lot of different ways. So being able to hit them on many difference defense surfaces should compensate a bit for not being to hit each surface as hard as the martials (who aren't hitting as many different surfaces).
As a rule when converting between editions. Ignore magical treasure when it comes to converting unless it serves an important role in world building or the story.
Had a friend griping that there weren't masterwork weapons in pf2e while converting rotrl last year. But reality is it adds nothing to the setting and wasn't important to convert for the story.
There's one particular rough spot though. Martial classes all improve their weapon proficiency at level 5; casters improve their spell proficiency at level 7. This creates a noticeable gap at level 5 and 6. I'm not sure why it was designed that way, because at later levels, the spellcasters actually pace ahead of martials in proficiency. My suspicion is because the level 3 spells that you get at level 5 tend to be quite good and game-changing, so they wanted to stretch out the evolution of the caster a bit.
That's my conclusion too. The spell level bump is supposed to be smoothed by higher effect/lower success. But I don't think it feels very good, and it happens at the levels lots of games get going, so I think that dip is a large contributor to negative feelings about spellcasting.
Expert at 5 instead of 7 and Master at 13 instead of 15 would be really interesting, it would turn those levels into large power spikes for casters as opposed to dips, which might really change people's feelings without shifting the goalposts permanently by add +DC items.
Expert at 5 instead of 7 and Master at 13 instead of 15 would be really interesting, it would turn those levels into large power spikes for casters as opposed to dips, which might really change people's feelings without shifting the goalposts permanently by add +DC items.
I agree. I wish I knew if this had been tried internally and what the results were.
I dont see any real issues with Expert spells at 5, but there were a lot of things I've found in PF2 so far that made more sense in play than on paper.
I agree. I wish I knew if this had been tried internally and what the results were.I dont see any real issues with Expert spells at 5, but there were a lot of things I've found in PF2 so far that made more sense in play than on paper.
I mean, spell levels are a pretty big bump in power, I feel like level 5 especially is because you have 3 levels or fairly use-able spells, so I kind of get the delay to 7th, but I think it causes a lot of the frustrations people have because you have to have either a big bump or a dip because proficiency bumps are so big. You see this in lots of PC math, just before a proficiency bump they get a little worse against on level and high level foes because monsters have a smoother progression than PCs for the most part.
I also had a go with letting players roll spell modifier vs Save DC but give creatures weakest saves a +1, which is a much bigger boost to players and it was mostly okay (I had reasons for this that don't necessarily apply at all tables, not so much huge issues with spellcasting RAW in general). So I think just shifting the expert and master bumps two levels forward would be fine for people who want spellcasters to have more oomph at key levels.
Once potency runes are factored in, spell attack rolls fall behind attack rolls for all martials. Now, this was probably intentional on Paizo's part, since Exocist did point out that cantrips tend to do higher damage, but I suspect that as more non-cantrip, non-focus spells come out that require a spell attack roll, the lack will start to feel more noticeable for spellcasters. I don't see much of an issue with giving spellcasters a way to gain a +1 potency rune to spell attack rolls at level 6, and then a +2 potency rune at level 14, in order to keep them from falling quite as far behind, especially since those are the points where spellcasting proficiency really lags behind martial attack rolls.
Thanks for posting the breakdown on attack values. That hits to the main point for my adding in spell attack boosts. Further, I would disagree with you and Exocist about cantrips doing higher damage. Again, once you factor in level appropriate Striking weapons a Fighter with a d8 weapon is on par with heightened cantrip damage and a Barbarian with a d12 weapon greatly outpaces both on damage output. And that is comparing a single-action strike vs. a 2-action cantrip.
I think I will introduce this into my game and see how it goes.
@Glass - I'm happy to report back. I doubt it will get to wonky though.
|
This is a Homebrew thread!
Rods
-Item bonus to Spell Attack rolls
-May purchase other Runes (ex. "Counteracting" for Item bonus to Counteract checks)
Cantrip Rod
-2nd for +1
-10th for +2
-16th for +3
Spell Slot Rod
-4th for +1
-12th for +2
-19th for +3
Orbs
-Item bonus to Spell DCs from a single School of magic
-May purchase other Runes (ex. "Abjurative" for Item bonus to additional Schools)
Cantrip Orb (Single School of Magic)
-5th for +1
-11th for +2
-18th for +3
Spell Slot Orb (Single School of Magic)
-8th for +1
-14th for +2
-20th for +3
...
Cheers!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When comparing martials to cantrips, you should really be using ranged weapons. Weapons still come ahead, as they should, but it's a much smaller gap.
This is a Homebrew thread!
I think we've wandered in that direction. My original intent was to get general advice/feedback.
Orbs
-Item bonus to Spell DCs from a single School of magic
-May purchase other Runes (ex. "Abjurative" for Item bonus to additional Schools)
What is your thoughts behind making them school specific? Seems like certain school orbs would never see play due to lack of DCs or DCs that matter. Why wouldn't you just up level/price to make it apply to all schools? Though my approach does limit to magic tradition... that could be seen as just as arbitrary.
|
|
zag01,
My thoughts can be summarized by what Ascalaphus said.
Limiting to One School would allow some wriggle room within that for casters who:
1) Are specialist wizards
2) Have a favorite spell
3) Want to collect all the Infinity Stones!
All without overly-distorting the game's fundamental math.
When comparing martials to cantrips, you should really be using ranged weapons. Weapons still come ahead, as they should, but it's a much smaller gap.
I don't know. 2 actions = cantrip or stride & strike. Most cantrips have a 30' range limitation so I don't see those choices as being unequal.
When comparing martials to cantrips, you should really be using ranged weapons. Weapons still come ahead, as they should, but it's a much smaller gap.I don't know. 2 actions = cantrip or stride & strike. Most cantrips have a 30' range limitation so I don't see those choices as being unequal.
You don't end in melee range with the cantrip though. An important distinction.
Anyway, I don't think +1 to spell attack rolls is the end of the world, but I'd be more wary of +1 DC items. The success grades for most spells are pretty well balanced already.
You've heard that lots already in this thread, and I don't think you'll completely ruin any game by introducing such things. Have fun.
You don't end in melee range with the cantrip though. An important distinction.
Important from a caster's perspective. Not as much from a martial's point of view. ;)
Anyway, I don't think +1 to spell attack rolls is the end of the world, but I'd be more wary of +1 DC items. The success grades for most spells are pretty well balanced already.
You've heard that lots already in this thread, and I don't think you'll completely ruin any game by introducing such things. Have fun.
I do appreciate the input.
|
|
I think cantrips are indeed best compared with ranged attacks, say from a sling or crossbow, which also take two actions per shot. Cantrips have poor range but scale up for cheap, and are far better at getting past damage resistances / exploiting weaknesses, simply by having two or three different ones. That reliability also costs something.
That said, I can see a case for a rod specifically for targeting cantrips. I did notice that as I level up I use them less and less, because I'm doing more with my main spells (of which I have more).
However, some caveats:
- 1E Pathfinder held out the tantalizing notion that magic rods were also usable as weapons as written in their descriptions, but then when you read them very few of them actually said that. This time, let's make it a blanket rule.
- Juggling stuff you have in your hands is a big deal in 2E. Now that you can use somatic components even with your hands full, cantrips are actually a good option for sword and board warriors who want a ranged backup plan that doesn't involve a lot of actions to switch weapons. So I'm not entirely sold on rods and orbs that require handfuls.
Here's a different spin: what if the ability to boost cantrips with item bonuses to hit were a weapon property rune, say about a L3 or L4 rune? It would mesh neatly with +1 staves, or gauntlets, shield bosses or bows, depending on the kind of caster you are.
- 1E Pathfinder held out the tantalizing notion that magic rods were also usable as weapons as written in their descriptions, but then when you read them very few of them actually said that. This time, let's make it a blanket rule.
Agreed. I made them all equivalent to light maces, though I was conservative in that I took away the weapon traits and said they also couldn't have weapon runes, however...
- Juggling stuff you have in your hands is a big deal in 2E. Now that you can use somatic components even with your hands full, cantrips are actually a good option for sword and board warriors who want a ranged backup plan that doesn't involve a lot of actions to switch weapons. So I'm not entirely sold on rods and orbs that require handfuls.
Here's a different spin: what if the ability to boost cantrips with item bonuses to hit were a weapon property rune, say about a L3 or L4 rune? It would mesh neatly with +1 staves, or gauntlets, shield bosses or bows, depending on the kind of caster you are.
A weapon property rune is an interesting idea. I assume your intent is to have this rune give the ability to use the weapon's potency rune to also add to cantrip/spell attacks? I'll have to think on that one.
|
|
Further, I would disagree with you and Exocist about cantrips doing higher damage. Again, once you factor in level appropriate Striking weapons a Fighter with a d8 weapon is on par with heightened cantrip damage and a Barbarian with a d12 weapon greatly outpaces both on damage output. And that is comparing a single-action strike vs. a 2-action cantrip.
Ah I might have worded incorrectly. I meant the spell attack cantrips (Produce Flame/TKP) do the highest damage relative to the other cantrips (excluding arc). If you want to buff cantrip damage, I would suggest increasing the dice size for all cantrips (except Arc) by 1-2, rather than adding spell attack/DC runes which have a flow on effect and buff other spells that are already strong as is.
|
|
@rainzax - As was said above, switching items is not a good thing in 2e, and both the Orb and Rod would need to be wielded. I feel a worn item, like a ring or pendant would work better,. so that if the caster chooses an attack roll spell 1 round and a DC spell the next, he doesn't need to waste a round in between switching his held weapon.
I'm fine with limiting each item to a casting tradition ("Amulet of Arcane Power" or "Amulet of Primal Power", for instance) It's rare that a character is trained in more than 1 casting tradition, and when they are, they tend to use one more than the other (my Wizard also has the Druid Dedication, but usually uses it for healing and non-combat spell, generally saving the combat spells for the Wizard's spell list (1 major reason is they it's hard to max out your stat for 2 different casting traditions).
Expert at 5 instead of 7 and Master at 13 instead of 15 would be really interesting, it would turn those levels into large power spikes for casters as opposed to dips, which might really change people's feelings without shifting the goalposts permanently by add +DC items.I agree. I wish I knew if this had been tried internally and what the results were.
I dont see any real issues with Expert spells at 5, but there were a lot of things I've found in PF2 so far that made more sense in play than on paper.
Well level 7 is when classes start getting master proficiency in saving throws and right about when resilient runes should start showing up. I haven't compared monster saves to PC saves, but I always assumed it had something to do with that. Meanwhile attack roll bumps come just after armor potency runes start coming into play.
If you assume monster and PCs are supposed to be pretty equal, it makes sense to me.
I really don't think that we need a Spell DC boosting item. I'd go so far as to say that would make playing as spellcasters a lot less fun as you wouldn't have to worry about strategy in regards to which spell save you were trying to target. It'd be much easier to just brute force it through your enemy's saves, at least as long as you weren't trying to throw a Fireball at a Fey (some of whom have VERY high Reflex saves).
Spell Attack Rolls though absolutely need these. Casting Disintegrate without True Strike feels really bad right now. At level 12, most creatures seem to have an AC of 33-+2, which means that your a caster generally needs a 12 to hit. Now of course you can up this change with True Strike, Flat-Footed, Frightened, and all sorts of other things, but that also doesn't consider that your highest level spell is likely going to be saved for the big enemy which is likely to be at a higher level than you are and thus be even harder to hit. And at this level Disintegrate is meant to be your "all chips in" sort of spell.
Now, of course the problem IS True Strike. Since it ups your chance of hitting so much while only expending a very minor resource, if we gave +1-3 items for Spell Attack items, there is a real potential that these sorts of spell attacks could end up too much of a sure thing.
But I have some issues with this. First is that this means you must use all 3 of your actions to ensure a hit, meaning that as a spellcaster you can't position yourself, cast shield, or do anything else this turn. Which can kind of make you feel less like a magical master of the battlefield and more like a turret.
Second is that True Strike shouldn't be a requirement for making certain spells worthwhile. That really limits build diversity.
SO here is my personal recommendation.
1) Include "Wand of the Spell Duelist" items, or just Fundamental Runes that can be added to wands to increase Spell Attack Rolls by 1-3. Same as Martials.
2) A slight Rehaul of True Strike. It is changed in the following ways
2a) Range is now "Touch" and target is now "Any Willing Creature". This now allows True Strike to be beneficial for Buff/Support builds as well as self-buffing.
2b) True Strike can target any Weapon Attack Roll or Spell Attack Roll from a Spell of Level 1.
2c) You can Heighten True Strike. When you do so, it can target any spell of the same level that you Heighten it to. If you want to use it for Disintegrate, you must Heighten True Strike using a second level 6 spell slot.
Now, this is all just an idea off the top of my head, and of course might need some fine tuning, but as a general concept I feel might allow for a generally better feel to spells with spell attack rolls. You can still use True Strike for those "I ABSOLUTELY have to hit now" moments, but your general usage of spells won't require it as much.
Thoughts?
|
|
Samurai,
The reason behind needing to Draw these items would be to offset their utility amongst different types of casters.
A caster who otherwise isn't using weapons or other held items (Staves, etc) is at the advantage here, proportional to how many "free hands" they are willing to apply.
That said, I was trying to help out OP - have given no thought as to whether I'd include these in my own campaigns. Just throwing out ideas based upon in-game precedents (ex: "Rune Scaling") as well as perceived design axioms (ex: "Choices Matter").
I wonder if the Magus's unique edge will be being able to give spell attack rolls an item bonus by delivering them through his weapons? Maybe that's why they shy away from an item bonus to spell attack rolls.
I wonder if the Magus's unique edge will be being able to give spell attack rolls an item bonus by delivering them through his weapons? Maybe that's why they shy away from an item bonus to spell attack rolls.
More likely, getting an item bonus to spell attacks will be what lets them make up for not being as Master weapon proficiency as a pseudo-martial.
|
Had a friend griping that there weren't masterwork weapons in pf2e while converting rotrl last year. But reality is it adds nothing to the setting and wasn't important to convert for the story.
I was originally irritated with this as well when I started to convert Ironfang Invasion for 2E. You don't really realize how prolific masterwork weapons were until they don't exist anymore and you are looking for something analogous to replace it with (to maintain WBL). However, a +1 weapon potency rune is almost identical to masterwork for all intents except for the rare case of the magic trait being meaningful. The rune and masterwork are not equally valued with respect to wealth, but you can replace a few masterwork items with a single rune and have roughly the same impact on the game.