Offering a variant to Incapacitation

[Cellion]

There are many ways to adjust Incapacitation that retain its function of protecting both PCs and bosses from fight-ending spells and effects, while reducing the impact. Currently, Incap causes an effective shift of +10 on a saving throw. While shifting by one degree of success is simple, its also such a big shift that some effects seem worthless.

Two alternatives that are still simple:

When incapacitation applies, the victim gains a +4 bonus on their saving throw and treats critical failures as normal failures.

When incapacitation applies, the victim rolls their saving throw twice and takes the better result.

The first option eliminates critical failures and reduces the chances of regular failure. The second option retains a very minor chance at critical failure (0.25% chance of a nat 1 when rolling twice taking better) for that one in a million stroke of good or bad luck, and also significantly reduces the chance of a regular failure. Both options have a higher chance of regular failure than the existing rules.

[Loreguard]

I worry about targeting all 'not top level' spell slots with a nerf because you want to remove some of the impact of the incapacitation trait on those spells. The spells are obviously tuned to be very powerful, but not against higher level foes. If you cut back the DCs of ALL lower spell slot spells to justify removing the balancing factor only applied to the incapacitation spells, you may have just invalidated two or three of the other categories of casters to make your disablers more viable in your view.

If a big part of your concern is 'wasting spell slots', what if spells that have the incapacitation trait, and are single target spells, if the incapacitation trait is 'triggered' and the attack is not considered a success in the end, (or the save considered a failure in the end for save effects) then the caster has the option of dropping the resultant effect, and saving the spell slot. (yes, you lost the actions, but not the spell)

This might even be doable for area incapacitation attacks. It would just be adjusted that the caster would only have the option to cancel the spell if no targets of the spell failed their save.

Yes it is painful when you don't hit, but if it doesn't use your spell slot up (or focus point) then it is a temporary disappointment, and you come away with additional knowledge about the scope of your opponent.

Actually, I really like the idea of having a metamagic action that increases the effective slot level for purposes of overcoming Incapacitation resistance. That seems like a very viable option in my mind. It would allow one to extend the usefulness of spells up, say one slot level, but at an action cost.

Non-spell incapacitation would not really be impacted if an at-will use. Per day/encounter abilities, or ones with cooldown would allow the creature to choose recind their power use and effect, if the target(not target) would have had a successful hit (or failed save).

Again, if a spell had a viable ability effect even on a successful save, it would be the caster's/attacker's choice to let their ability go through with that effect, or keep the ability use, and have that instance of the casting attempt have no effect.

[Rysky]

Quote:

It is the aspect where EVERY monster gets the plot armor just by virtue of being 1-2 levels above the heroes that bugs me.

I’m higher level than you so I’m stronger than you is not plot armor.

It is the exact opposite of plot armor.

[Squiggit]

Unicore wrote:

I want to specifically dig into this assertion and figure out how big of a problem it is for the game as a whole.

I think this is sort of an unfair way to characterize the problem. Yeah, if it's not a huge percentage of abilities it won't effect as many people, but if a spell is bad and broken then it's bad and broken and that's not a good thing.

Telling someone that they can just not play the character they want to play isn't a real solution.

It's the same sort of energy as the "crossbows are fine because real adventurers just use composite longbows anyways" argument from PF1. Except back then everyone ridiculed the position and for some reason today lots of people seem really complacent about it. Not just regarding the OP's specific concerns but in general "oh well you don't deserve to play that character then" is just a weirdly common response to someone pointing out a gap or shortcoming of PF2's rules as they stand now.

[Unicore]

Squiggit wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I want to specifically dig into this assertion and figure out how big of a problem it is for the game as a whole.

I think this is sort of an unfair way to characterize the problem. Yeah, if it's not a huge percentage of abilities it won't effect as many people, but if a spell is bad and broken then it's bad and broken and that's not a good thing.

Telling someone that they can just not play the character they want to play isn't a real solution.

But that is not what I did in that post. I looked at every single spell the OP was talking about when he was suggesting that single target incapacitation spells feel bad, analyzed them, discussed potential problems of just removing incapacitation flatly from all of them, and then even proposed a house rule feat that could basically fix the problem so that those spells would have the potential to work on enemies 2 to 3 levels higher than the PCs, which is really the upper limit of what would be necessary to make Enchanters feel like they can use their best spells when they want to.

[rainzax]

Hey folks,
OP wants to replace Incapacitation trait, asked not to argue the premise, and posted in the Homebrew section. It's not too difficult to oblige that.

1) Definitely too much mid-game math!
2) This one sounds like the monster (or player) decides on the spot whether to apply. Not bad.
3) I like Cellion's suggestion above even better though; the second better than the first.

Cellion,
How might Fortune / Misfortune interact with your second variant?

[Mellored]

I do agree it is a bit jarring to gain a level and suddenly have +10 to sleep certain targets.

1: This is the right idea, But I see no issue with a level 20 wizard easily sleeping a level 1 creature with a level 1 slot.

2: This does not work well if you want to use the same creatures again. Like have a level 1 group fight as single level 5 creature. Then have the same group at level 10, fight a horde of the same creature.

So, to keep things simple, I would just change it to -5 penalty.

Incapacitation
An ability with this trait can take a character completely out of the fight or even kill them, and it’s harder to use on a more powerful character. If a spell has the incapacitation trait targets any creature of more than twice the spell’s level, the DC or check takes a -5 penalty.

Edit: I like Cellion's suggestion to Roll twice better. That way, even a level 20 group facing 50 ghouls is still very dangerous.

[Cellion]

rainzax wrote:

Cellion,

How might Fortune / Misfortune interact with your second variant?

Not sure! The simplest in my mind is that the "roll twice" benefit counts as a fortune effect.

[Gortle]

Cellion wrote:

When incapacitation applies, the victim rolls their saving throw twice and takes the better result.

Thats the better of these options.

The problem with the incapacitation rules is one degree of success worse part of it which means that a critical failure is impossible - and some spell need to critically fail to be good. Plus a normal failure is a success. Typically the critical fail is only happening on a one. So an actual failure is probably just on a natural one.

Incapacitation is a plus 10 to saves, this variant reduces it to about a plus 5 and keeps alive the possibility of a critical fail. It is still a very major penalty but it is far more palatable. Importantly the caster still has a chance. The player feels like he is still in the game rather than the GM just saying no, doesn't work.

For a normal save for a boss.
Critical fail is 5% failure is 40% (pulling a number out of the air)

For Incapacitation
Critcal fail is impossible, failure is 5%

For this house rule with Incapacitation
A critical fail will be 0.25%, a failure will be ~20%.

I'm liking this more, the more as I think about it, as it preserves the intention of the designer and is very simple to implement. For a house rule it is the better option.

[Gortle]

Unicore wrote:

I want to specifically dig into this assertion and figure out how big of a problem it is for the game as a whole.

Arcane

26 total Incapactiation spells

Doesn't it show up more in the Occult list rather than the Arcance? Only one of these is not Occult. I think you will find it is a bigger portion of Occult attack spells. The Arcane list is larger and has more alternatives.

The point being that it disproportionalty affects a particular style of caster.

[3Doubloons]

A lot is being said about the trait's protection for BBEGs, but it's equally as important that it protects the PCs as well

Cult of Cinders:

With their +20 to hit, the dragon pillars can very easily critically hit the level 7-ish PCs (making the save from the beam's effect one degree worse). On the Violet pillar especially, the incapacitation trait turns a Stunned 7 into Stunned 3. Stunned 3 is painful, but manageable. Stunned 7 can easily turn into a TPK

[Zapp]

Samurai wrote:

Here's hoping PF3e takes the lessons learning in 2e and makes a better game, the same way WotC did from D&D4e to 5e...

Thank you!!

[Zapp]

thenobledrake wrote:

Zapp wrote:

Would it really kill the game if the caster was allowed to win once in a while?

This question needs unpacked and elaborated upon.

Firstly because the caster is allowed to win every encounter, just like the rest of the characters are, so it's not even clear what you mean by "win" since you are seeing that as not already happening.

Also, what counts as "kill he game" needs quantified. Because if you mean make the game not work even for people that enjoy "I made one choice, they biffed one roll, the encounter has ended in my victory" game-play that is entirely a different question from, say, if you meant dramatically change the game-play paradigm such that anyone liking the game as-is would probably dislike the game with this change made.

To get to what the changes you are proposing making feel like to me with an illustrative example and show why I think that the answer to what you actually mean by the quoted question is "yes it would, and you already knew that, what you want is the kill the game and replace it with the incapacitation spell game", I'm going to equate certain conditions in the effect of an existing spell to amounts of damage:

Paralyze - 3rd level: 1 creature makes a Will save: critical success 0 damage; success 20 damage; failure 60 damage; critical failure 100 damage every round for 4 rounds but it gets a Will save at the end of each of its turns to reduce the remaining duration 1 round or end it entirely on a critical success.

Against creatures that wouldn't trigger the incapacitation trait, this spell is amazing - and against those that do trigger the trait it still has a solid effect if they roll poorly.

But if a creature that actually has more than 100 hit points to lose has genuine risk of getting that critical failure, well, we may as well phrase your question in martial terms: Would it really kill the game if a fighter could have a one-hit-kill on a monster 4 levels higher than it once in a while?

Not sure this needs to presented as something complicated. It ain't.

Spellcasters have long paid for their general ineptitude and frailty by having the potential for fishing out an "I win" button out of their flowing robes. Sometimes that button even works.

Assuming you're not a newcomer to the Dungeons & Dragons subgenre of fantasy roleplaying you know that Incapacitation effectively decapacitates that power fantasy entirely.

Especially for single target save or die spells.

No mathematically minded player character ever takes such a spell, since using up your highest-levelled slots on a mook simply is a waste of a slot. There is zero cost in instead talking something with, say, half damage on a successful save. A save, mind you, that the BBEG for some reason *does not* gain any plot protection from!

Thus these single-target incapacitation spells are relegated to use only for NPCs and monsters:

Either by the BBEG who can use them as they actually are written and balanced... or by hapless mooks who basically need to pray for the hero rolling a "1". Something a GM would only resort to if said mook is powerless to any literally anything else.

In other words, an entire subtype of spellcaster hero is negated, nullified, voided even.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM YOU NEED TO ADDRESS IN YOUR REPLIES, Nobledrake. Please stop dancing around this issue, and face it head on.

You seem hellbent on simply attacking the deficiencies in my proposed fixes. That is a poor substitute for an actual defense of the RAW rule!

And if you aren't defending the RAW because you can't, then I would ask you to constructively help me arrive at a better fix, instead of just trying to shoot down my attempt. Thank you.

[Zapp]

Unicore wrote:

Zapp wrote:

My assertion is that any single-target spell that "incapacitates" the foe is meant for a significant foe (higher in level than you).

I want to specifically dig into this assertion and figure out how big of a problem it is for the game as a whole.

single target spells with the incapacitation trait are a much different thing than spells with the incapacitation trait. I did some analysis:

Arcane

26 total Incapactiation spells
15 spells that target only 1 creature
9 enchantment
2 Illusion
1 Abjuration
2 Necromancy
1 Transmutation

1st level:
Charm (distinctly not worth casting on higher-level foe) Enchantment

Level 3:
Blindness (success category is still pretty bad for a solo creature) Necromancy
Paralyze (success category is still pretty bad for a solo creature) Enchantment

Level 4:
Favorable Review (distinctly not worth casting on high-level foe)/ also not really a spell worth worrying about. Enchantment

Level 5:
Banishment (distinctly not worth casting on high-level foe), it would be cool if the material component removed the incapacitate tag. Abjuration
Hallucination (depends on whether second save also gets the incapacitation trait, but still an action waster on a success) Illusion
Subconscious suggestion (distinctly not worth casting on high-level foe) Enchantment

Level 6:
Baleful Polymorph (distinctly not worth casting on high-level foe) Transmutation
Dominate (success category is still pretty bad for a solo creature) Enchantment
Feeble Mind (Can be pretty bad, even on a success, when cast on a target worth casting it on) Enchantment

Level 7:
Warp Mind (success category is still pretty bad for a solo creature) Enchantment
Possession (has a weird but potentially useful effect against a solo creature/changes its purpose) Necromancy

Level 8:
Uncontrollable Dance (success category is still pretty bad for a solo creature) Enchantment
Undermine Reality (success category is still pretty bad for a solo creature) Illusion

Level 9:
Telepathic demand (distinctly not worth casting on high-level foe) Enchantment

The majority of incapacitation trait spells are AoE spells with devastating effects, oftentimes even on a success, which will be dealt with below.

The number of spells being "ruled-out" by the player that refuses to take single target incapacitation spells is pretty small, they are also mostly high level spells that will end up being usuable against probably 75% of all potential targets.

...

The only caster build that is really impacted by incapacitation spells on a significant level is the Enchanter, who, consequentially has the most spells that don't just win the encounter, they win the entire adventure/campaign. I'd definitely think twice before opening the flood gates on having Enchanters be able to target high level enemies repeatedly out of combat with enchantment spells with only a very small chance of having the target realize they are being enchanted.

...

Thank you for your good-faith engagement.

Unfortunately, you can't reduce the spell catalog to a numbers game. Just like people try to run the numbers on the Bestiary to arrive at conclusions like "specialize against aberrations, there are lots of them" or "avoid cold damage, many monsters have cold resistance". (examples pulled out of an orifice that seldom sees the sun, please don't quibble, they're for decorative use only)

You can easily play a whole campaign without ever encountering a single cold resistant aberration. In fact, I'd argue the overwhelming number of actually played campaigns are not nearly "typical" in this minmaxer numeric sense.

In the same way, in my opinion even having the single spell Charm be capped at the knees should be enough motivation to find a less brutally crude system than Implementation!

We need to ask ourselves: why were these spells written and balanced this way when the designers clearly don't trust us to use them as written (against narratively interesting targets)?!?

Why first create spells that have classic D&D effects, and then decide those effects are way overpowered, and just devastate them with a single imprecise broadside?

To me it's distasteful eatcakeism to both want to be able to point to the Spells chapters "look see Charm is there just like it has always been" and still not let player heroes use it as written...

[Zapp]

(cont'd)

what your numeric analysis tells me is probably not what you intend:

If there's only a dozen spells that's "worth worrying about" why not simply target them instead of coming up with clumsily broad metarules? (And without counting your list in detail it seems more like half a dozen)

So it would not be a large job to fix these spells individually.

For example, just spitballing here:

Charm is effectively a spell only monsters cast against heroes. So why not put in the Bestiary then? That would at least be honest.

If your argument is that the need is specifically at high level, for four or five specific spells, then why not add Incapacitation-ish language to each of those spells? Why cripple the Enchanter's entire low-level game?

Hope you see my point. Cheers

[Zapp]

Unicore wrote:

The majority of incapacitation trait spells are AoE spells with devastating effects, oftentimes even on a success, which will be dealt with below.

The number of spells being "ruled-out" by the player that refuses to take single target incapacitation spells is pretty small, they are also mostly high level spells that will end up being usuable against probably 75% of all potential targets.

Additionally, taking away that trait and giving a small bonus (like a +1 to +4 according to this proposed change) is a huge deal because most of the good combat oriented single target incapacitation spells do nasty things still on a success. Yes it is usually only for a round, but it is enough that having a 75% or better chance of at least partial success against a solo monster is incredibly good. PF2 saving throws just do not work like PF1, nor 5e.

The only caster build that is really impacted by incapacitation spells on a significant level is the Enchanter, who, consequentially has the most spells that don't just win the encounter, they win the entire adventure/campaign. I'd definitely think twice before opening the flood gates on having Enchanters be able to target high level enemies repeatedly out of combat with enchantment spells with only a very small chance of having the target realize they are being enchanted.

I think a much more proactive rule for players would be to give the enchanter a metamagic focus spell that lets the spell about to be cast count as 1 level higher for the purposes of counteracting and for overcoming the incapacitation trait against 1 target. I think that will end up solving 90+% of players complaints about incapacitation without exposing them to the effects of runaway monsters with debilitating abilities.

(now replying to the second part(s) of your insightful post)

The point of granting a smaller bonus (from +1 to +9, when a level 17 caster uses a level 1 slot) is to encourage heroes to keep using high-level slots to target BBEGs with save or die spells. I thought about going 2 points per spell level, but decided that would quickly amount to a ban, which would more easily be phrased as "you must use your top level slots to break through Incapacitation".

The part about not giving BBEGs effectively a +10 bonus to all their saves is simply because no sane player would ever waste a high-level slot on such a spell.

That the system currently allows you to spend a low-level slot instead is not a good argument to defend Incapacitation. That's an ugly bug that should be fixed.

Now let's discuss "75% or better chance of at least partial success against a solo monster is incredibly good"

Well, what does that mean? I'll tell you what it means. It means 75% chance of sticking a -1 to the BBEG.

To me, that's not even close to "incredibly good". Again, we can't escape the opportunity cost here. We need to look at this from the player's side, and not just from the system side.

How big of a shot do you need to be compelled into placing a single-target save or die spell into your highest levelled slots?

I'm asking for a percentage of outright defeating that monster, or at the very least significantly debilitating it. That one spell making a far bigger impact than anything else a hero can accomplish with two actions (with the possible exception of two critical Strikes in a row, perhaps).

I can assure you that if that chance is 5% only, I would never make that choice.

Do I demand a 75% chance? Of course not. But something around 25-50% seems reasonable. If the chance of my spell having a decisive effect isn't even 25%, I will simply use a damage-dealing spell in its place. Something with "half" as its effect on a failure.

Simple as that.

[Rysky]

Zapp wrote:

Charm is effectively a spell only monsters cast against heroes. So why not put in the Bestiary then? That would at least be honest.

This isn't honest in the slightest.

PCs can use charm just fine.

[Rysky]

Counter, what do you propose giving to martials so they can one-shot encounters as well?

[thenobledrake]

Zapp wrote:

<snipped for space>

Spellcasters have long paid for their general ineptitude and frailty by having the potential for fishing out an "I win" button out of their flowing robes. Sometimes that button even works.

There are two major issues with attempting to apply this to modern Pathfinder.

1) When the paradigm you speak of was created, these "I win button" spells weren't that. The game had high level spell effects that would end a fight if the save was failed, but the reality of saving throw success rates of high-level creatures were very high too.

It wasn't until a later dev team tweaked rule after rule making the 3rd edition and in almost every case where it was possible to increase the power of a spell-casting character did just that (while simultaneously taking things away from non-spell-casting characters in the name of "now you can customize!" but that's for a different thread) that the thing you want these spells to be like become an actual thing - and it only existed in PF1 because at the time the audience for Pathfinder didn't want significant math changes, but it was already slightly less the thing you want it to be because more ability to influence saving throws so that you could keep up with the ramped-up power of spell-casters if you had the system mastery to realize you'd get destroyed if you don't.

So the thing you pine for was a fluke - a one-(and a half)-off never to be intentionally repeated.

2) Spell-casters are no longer saddled with "general ineptitude and frailty" - so if they got extra power it'd just be straight up extra power, not balanced by any kind of cost they pay.

I'm not addressing any of the rest of your post, though, because you've gone full "no true Scotsman" and are also demanding that I repost posts I know you've already read "defending" (I put that in quotes because that's your word for it - my would be explaining) the incapacitation rules for whatever reason...

And I'm sorry that you don't like that my advice how to "fix" your game experience is to adjust your expectations to something within the realm of what the game actually presents, rather than house-rule one category of character into it's own tier of effectiveness. I know it can be hard being told your entire plan seems counter-productive... but like, I wouldn't help you build a house out of sugar bricks either, no matter how sure you were that's what you wanted.

[Unicore]

I am always happy to analyze existing rules and try to help players and GMs mod the game enough to be happy to keep playing PF2. PF2 is really good about being easy to mod, however, most mods do shift balance concerns rather quickly, because the game is pretty tightly wound.

Replaying to Zapp specifically about the spell charm:

Charm is not the best spell for trying to balance all single target incapacitation effects around. First of all, it is not really a combat spell (that -4 against hostile targets is already a doozy even against equal level targets or lower). Its effect on a failure or worse are not encounter winning, they can be campaign shifting and you don't need it to land against the ruler in order for it to be really really good, especially when you can cast it against lower level targets with very minimal chances of having a negative impact. A 1st level spell that can be so narratively defining is not the best spell to try to define your house rule around.

Now if you look at the third level spell blindness, you find a spell that, against a target not affected by the incapacitation trait, has a very, very powerful effect, even on a success. Giving a -1 or -2 to Blindness, effectively makes the spell "Blinds all opponents for at least 1 round 75-90% of the time."

Paralyze is in the same boat, (stunned being better than slow 1 because it also kills your AoO), as are most of the other spells I mentioned above, when I said they are still pretty dangerous on a successful save.

With a minor penalty to the save DC, most of these spells go from: tactically very good against certain opponents but not spells to throw around against every single NPC you encounter to Campaign winning super spells you might as well spam every encounter. Which is why I honestly think my own proposal for the enchanter might be too powerful/ at least have to be limited to using up a resource like a focus point, even just to shift incapacitation spells up just one level.

If the developers were ever going to consider removing incapacitation across the board, it would have been at the cost of all of these spells having strong effects on a save. Personally, I much prefer the strong effect on a save, but with a more limited pool of targets, than having every spell have weak effects on a save, but have it be easier just to memorize and cast the same spells over and over again. But I get that the reason that you are proposing this rule is because you don't.

I just think you might want to be careful about making a house rule that allows you to cast the spells with powerful success effects on every target, because those spells suddenly become massively better spells than all the spells around them.

If your issues are with charm specifically being not very useful unless you cast it out of higher spell slot, maybe it would be better to try to house rule that specific spell, along with probably baleful polymorph, which I know you have a problem with as well?

[Zapp]

Hmm.

Perhaps it's time to take a step back.

What I'm trying to explain is that D&D has supported the following and it's a good thing if PF2 does so too:

The Wizard selecting a single-target save or die spell in his highest slot for the express purpose of taking down a Big Game Target. This is what many player live for - hogging the whole spotlight even if it only happens once per level.

For this discussion to be fruitful, I want to discuss with people basically understanding this. You don't need to believe it is a huge deal; but if you don't agree at all then I honestly don't think you and I have anything to discuss, and I have a hard time seeing how your continued presence in this thread can be constructive.

[Zapp]

A Big Game target can be the BBEG. It can be his scary bodyguard or beast. Solo or not.

It definitely does not include anything there's two of (in the same encounter). (If you find it acceptable to entertain the idea a wizard would spend his high level slots on single mooks, we're living in different realities)

That's because the opportunity cost always remains: you could choose another spell in that slot.

I will never spend my highest level slot on taking out a mere mook. I want to use those slots for things that have a greater impact, such as making an area blast where even the BBEG will likely take half damage.

---

To put it in game terms: if the "incapacitation calculation" didn't top out at [your level] (rounded up to an even number), but four levels higher than that, much of my concerns would be allayed.

Putting it in simpler terms: If Incapacitation did not apply to your highest slot level, that would help, like a lot.

[Zapp]

Problem is, making an exception JUST for your level 7 slots (if you're a level 13 caster) creates problems of its own.

Spell design is predicated on the fact you can choose a less powerful spell and use that in a lower leveled slot.

You want the game to offer the choice between, just to make up an example:

A single target save or die spell you can use in, say, a 6th level slot or the same effect as a multi target spell but then you'd need to use a 7th level slot.

I trust you see how that breaks down if there was a blunt rule forcing you to use your level 7 slot regardless. You would never take the single target version in that case; why would you when you would be compelled to upcast it just to make it effective.

You'd get more targets for no extra cost if using a 7th level slot was your only option.

---

In the end this analysis boils down to that the decision to let spells use your full save DC regardless of spell slot level doesn't work.

The only thing that makes it work is Incapacitation, and that's too great a price to pay.

[Zapp]

But still, there's something to say for variant rules that try to effect the greatest impact with the smallest change.

Despite the above, I mean. (Choose your battles, and all that)

So I guess the only really simple suggestion would still be

Incapacitation does not apply to your highest slot level. It still applies to inherent spells, cantrips and other uses of magic that doesn't use up slots.

Longish aside:

I mean, ideally this is what we should be shooting for:
Highest level: four levels higher so it applies to practically everything
Lowest level: no change at all

Meaning you'd want a level 15 caster's spells to have the following "incapacitation range" (where the target doesn't get to shift the result one category):

8th level: 15+4=19
7th level: 13+3=16
6th level: 11+3=14
5th level: 9+2=11
4th level: 7+2=9
3th level: 5+1=6
2nd level: 3+1=4
1st level: 1

As you likely realizes, that's a boatload of math for very little benefit. Nobody cares whether a spell can affect a level 9 creature or only a level 7 creature. (At level 15 both are trivial that yield no xp)

Even your second highest slots doesn't change.

Yes, if the encounter features packs of "trivial" monsters (5 or more levels lower than you) you might want to interpret the rule as adding +4 to the Incapacitation calculation for that highest spell level, so that Incapacitation keeps protecting you.

I personally don't feel the need enough to justify cluttering down the rule. Just wanted to flag I see the argument.

No, in that case simplicity should win out.

[Unicore]

Zapp,
The idea of just not having incapacitation apply to your highest level spell slot is probably the best one for doing what you want it to do. I am not sure I understand what you are talking about with the rest of the post though because the numbers don't line up with DCs or with the way incapacitation currently works.

As far as whether the game is better with the "big game hunter" capabilities of the caster, that is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. That is what ruined solo monsters in Pathfinder 1E. Every party had a character ready to obliterate a single tough opponent, usually with a 75%+ chance of success.

Even with your house rule of not applying incapacitation to the highest level spell slot, it will mean that sorcerers will probably have a shut down spell for solo monsters 4 times a day. At the very least you probably want to keep your legendary save idea for the ones that are not supposed to spend the entire combat stunned 1 (so losing an action and their reaction), which is what happen when your boss monsters are exposed to spells that have major effects on a success.

[Zapp]

Unicore wrote:

I am not sure I understand what you are talking about with the rest of the post though because the numbers don't line up with DCs or with the way incapacitation currently works.

I guess to be exact, I should be talking about a 16th level caster.

Per the RAW he can cast 8th level spells that can affect 16th level monsters.

So:

8th level: 16+4=20
7th level: 14+3=17
6th level: 12+3=15
5th level: 10+2=12
4th level: 8+2=10
3th level: 6+1=7
2nd level: 4+1=5
1st level: 2

Guess thirty years of D&D has conditioned me on lining up odd slot levels to odd caster levels...

Hope you now see that singling out the highest level isn't much of a change to the above "full" maths experience. The only real difference is if you plan to feature monsters more than four levels lower than the heroes. (Sure, the "full" rule would allow our caster to use level 7 slots against level 17 monsters; but again, KISS)

[Zapp]

Unicore wrote:

At the very least you probably want to keep your legendary save idea for the ones that are not supposed to spend the entire combat stunned 1 (so losing an action and their reaction), which is what happen when your boss monsters are exposed to spells that have major effects on a success.

This tells me something else: that a spell that heroes only should be allowed to cast at narratively interesting foes when they get to upgrade Failure into Success is overpowered.

It would be better to fix that instead of crimping whole playing styles.

[Zapp]

Unicore wrote:

As far as whether the game is better with the "big game hunter" capabilities of the caster, that is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. That is what ruined solo monsters in Pathfinder 1E. Every party had a character ready to obliterate a single tough opponent, usually with a 75%+ chance of success.

You know I'm not talking about a return to the bad old days of d20. And you know PF2 heroes never get to a reliable 75% chance of success against a L+4 monster.

But yes, being able to stick a Forcecage to a Death Knight was our 5E Bard's greatest triumph.

Nobody in the playing group considers that a bad thing. That the caster gets to hog all the spotlight once in a while is not something to be avoided. It is a big reason why you bring along the caster in the first place.

You speak as if nailing a Stunned 1 condition to the BBEG was a disaster. Boy must Pathfinder 1 have been traumatizing to the devs...

If you tell me you can build a high level Sorcerer that can do that regularly I would appreciate the details. Seems fixing individual spells on a case by case basis is a worthwhile task, if it no longer means players automatically dismiss every single-target spell with the Incapacitation trait...

[Unicore]

The stunned 1 reference was to a sorcerer or wizard who could ignore incapacitation on their highest level spells slot. They just have paralyze memorized in that slot and 4 times a day they probably have a 50% chance of getting stunned 1, a 30-35% of paralyzing the foe for a round, a 5% of paralyzing for probably 2-3 rounds. and a 10-15% of having no effect. Against a solo monster or boss, that is pretty lights out. It is the big boss so you cast that every round you possibly can. If you can cast it out of a lower level spell slot and still be effective, it probably becomes the only thing you do.

Slow on the other hand, has about the same chances of denying an enemy 1 action a turn, but doesn't nick their reaction, and doesn't destroy them if they slip up on the save. It mostly just prevents the caster from having to cast the spell again, with a critical failure effect that is pretty awesome and heroic when it goes off, pretty much on par against a difficult opponent that could potentially survive 2 or 3 rounds of concentrated fire.

So you can get a similar effect with close to equal probability that won't really one shot the monster if it fails the save. That is really the difference between incapacitation spells and the other kinds of debuffs that are otherwise available in PF2.

And I agree with you that if you want spell casters to be able to one shot a higher level solo monster, as your default level of what a caster should be able to do, the incapacitation trait exists to stop that happening. Probably the least dangerous approach is to create a metamagic feat that lets the highest level spell slot spell work without incapacitation for the cost of 1 action. That way the player feels like they have a way to make that style of play an option if they want it, but it won't just be the default way casters always win everything.

[Zapp]

Thank you for getting into specifics.

Now I know to ignore those defending Incapacitation... ;) meaning I see nothing strange or overly powerful about Paralyze, your chosen example.

If you can't even have a 30% shot at significantly crippling a big bad, why would you EVER memorize it in your top level slot?!?

Per the RAW, you must use a top level slot just to take out a mook. (Using a low level slot means everything and their mother gets to upgrade their save) To me, that is effectively saying "players never use the spell Paralyze". Why on earth would you ever use your high level slot to maybe paralyze a single mook for a single round, when the same slot could be used for much stronger purposes?

Your language "They just have paralyze memorized in that slot and 4 times a day they" seems to assume this is some gamebreaking bad bad thing. But compared to all the versions of D&D I'm used to it isn't half bad. In my experience, casters don't fall over backwards to just spam save or dies.

And that's from versions of the game offering spells like Forcecage, Imprisonment or Banishment! Spells that shuts down the monster **completely**. At least this spell only shuts down the monster for 1 round. (It can even be used by law enforcement in Agents of Edgewatch!)

However, if you feel Stunned 1 is too powerful for a failure condition (even when we're talking the top slot of the caster), we can discuss that (I assume this spell isn't the only one doing something similar even on a fail).

Thanks

[voideternal]

Sorry, I'm reading this thread and don't really understand because a lot of people are saying a lot of different things for a lot of different reasons. Zapp, Are you still proposing the cumulative -1 penalty to lower level spell DCs and legendary saves for monsters? Is the goal to remove incapacitation tag but not give spellcasters access to full incapacitating-tier spells with full power spell DCs?

[Zapp]

voideternal wrote:

Sorry, I'm reading this thread and don't really understand because a lot of people are saying a lot of different things for a lot of different reasons. Zapp, Are you still proposing the cumulative -1 penalty to lower level spell DCs and legendary saves for monsters? Is the goal to remove incapacitation tag but not give spellcasters access to full incapacitating-tier spells with full power spell DCs?

I would say this thread has progressed. It helped me realize a far simpler solution:

Spells cast from slots of a creature's highest slot level aren't restricted by Incapacitation.

[Unicore]

Zapp wrote:

Thank you for getting into specifics.

Now I know to ignore those defending Incapacitation... ;) meaning I see nothing strange or overly powerful about Paralyze, your chosen example.

If you can't even have a 30% shot at significantly crippling a big bad, why would you EVER memorize it in your top level slot?!?

Per the RAW, you must use a top level slot just to take out a mook. (Using a low level slot means everything and their mother gets to upgrade their save) To me, that is effectively saying "players never use the spell Paralyze". Why on earth would you ever use your high level slot to maybe paralyze a single mook for a single round, when the same slot could be used for much stronger purposes?

Your language "They just have paralyze memorized in that slot and 4 times a day they" seems to assume this is some gamebreaking bad bad thing. But compared to all the versions of D&D I'm used to it isn't half bad. In my experience, casters don't fall over backwards to just spam save or dies.

And that's from versions of the game offering spells like Forcecage, Imprisonment or Banishment! Spells that shuts down the monster **completely**. At least this spell only shuts down the monster for 1 round. (It can even be used by law enforcement in Agents of Edgewatch!)

However, if you feel Stunned 1 is too powerful for a failure condition (even when we're talking the top slot of the caster), we can discuss that (I assume this spell isn't the only one doing something similar even on a fail).

Thanks

I have no problem with Stunned one as a failure condition on spells against solo targets. I have a problem with it as success condition because it makes caster 80-90 reliable at devastating a solo monster every round. When their are two creatures, 1 action and 1 creatures reaction are not a full half of their action potential. This is why all those other versions of D&D you have played don't have scary solo monsters. 4E tried it and came up short. PF2 finally got the big scary solo monster right. There are just no short cuts to fighting them.

But I full respect that you don't like the mechanic that I do and I am glad that PF2 is flexible enough to present you an option to make it work for you. I look forward to hearing how it works out for you. I think you made the right call backing away from letting lower level incapacitation spell be fully effective.

[Zapp]

Unicore wrote:

I have no problem with Stunned one as a failure condition on spells against solo targets. I have a problem with it as success condition because it makes caster 80-90 reliable at devastating a solo monster every round. When their are two creatures, 1 action and 1 creatures reaction are not a full half of their action potential. This is why all those other versions of D&D you have played don't have scary solo monsters. 4E tried it and came up short. PF2 finally got the big scary solo monster right. There are just no short cuts to fighting them.

But I full respect that you don't like the mechanic that I do and I am glad that PF2 is flexible enough to present you an option to make it work for you. I look forward to hearing how it works out for you. I think you made the right call backing away from letting lower level incapacitation spell be fully effective.

The benefit of "finally got the big scary solo monster right" is not worth the cost of Incapacitation nullifying single-target save or dies against every higher-levelled foe. (Well, 50% of L+1's but you know what I mean).

I never intended "letting lower level incapacitation spell be fully effective" - our level 16 caster would have had a -7 penalty to level 1 slots. But never mind, that's all over now.

If you have a problem with Stunned 1 as a success condition I would think fixing that spell is the obvious approach. Not throwing a wet blanket on an entire style of caster.

[Unicore]

Zapp wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I have no problem with Stunned one as a failure condition on spells against solo targets. I have a problem with it as success condition because it makes caster 80-90 reliable at devastating a solo monster every round. When their are two creatures, 1 action and 1 creatures reaction are not a full half of their action potential. This is why all those other versions of D&D you have played don't have scary solo monsters. 4E tried it and came up short. PF2 finally got the big scary solo monster right. There are just no short cuts to fighting them.

But I full respect that you don't like the mechanic that I do and I am glad that PF2 is flexible enough to present you an option to make it work for you. I look forward to hearing how it works out for you. I think you made the right call backing away from letting lower level incapacitation spell be fully effective.

The benefit of "finally got the big scary solo monster right" is not worth the cost of Incapacitation nullifying single-target save or dies against every higher-levelled foe. (Well, 50% of L+1's but you know what I mean).

I never intended "letting lower level incapacitation spell be fully effective" - our level 16 caster would have had a -7 penalty to level 1 slots. But never mind, that's all over now.

If you have a problem with Stunned 1 as a success condition I would think fixing that spell is the obvious approach. Not throwing a wet blanket on an entire style of caster.

There is nothing for me to fix because I like the way it works in all the situations that it works with the rules for incapacitation as they are. That "kind of caster" has alternative options for doing nearly the same thing with every level of spell, except the nullify single targets 80% with a single spell, which I don't want in the game at all.

In other words, incapacitation is what lets the domination wizard exist in PF2, be very useful in the vast majority of situations, and not make solo monsters irrelevant

[Unicore]

Narratively, it is also pretty weird for the ability of a spell at a certain level to be tied to the subjective position of the caster and not a relationship between the caster and the target.

Incapacitation makes a fair bit of sense in a world where character level is a tangible thing.

It is a little awkward that a 5th level wizard casting Paralyze out of a 3rd level slot is more powerful than a 7th level wizard casting paralyze out of a third level slot. The DC has gone up by 4 (2 for level, 2 for proficiency) but the effect of making the save has radically changed.

[Zapp]

What's more than a "little awkward" is having the Incapacitation rule in the first place.

On hand you're arguing to keep Incapacitation because otherwise Paralyze (etc) becomes too powerful. But why was it made too powerful in the first place? It's just so backwards to first create too-powerful spells and then have a general rule that brings them back down to par.

And you keep avoiding the core issue: nobody wants to spend their high level slots "incapacitating" single mooks. Single-target incapacitation is an entire playing style that's just obliterated. Examples of great such spells from various editions include feeblemind, forcecage, dominate, banish, hold person, paralyze... the list just goes on.

Most importantly - there just is no need to remove this playing style! Incapacitation is just so... wasteful. As if it ruined the game to have the wizard win with one of his spells for once...

Please don't speak of "domination wizards" to mean someone who never casts her spells at narratively interesting foes! Not everyone wants to play the +1/-1 guy...

And don't claim I'm trying to make solo monsters irrelevant! Again, any monster you deem need plot armor - give it plot armor! Just don't have rules that give it to every strong creature in the game, since then there's nothing worthwhile for the caster to target his single-target spells at!

It's not about you having to fix anything - but you *are* trying to defend Incapacitation, and I can't make the arguments fit together.

At best, I can envision the devs running out of time, and when they realized they wouldn't be able to rewrite all the troublesome spells, they came up with Incapacitation as a crude quick-fix.

[voideternal]

I think Unicore might have a point with the narrative issue with 'highest level spell slot'.
With the house rule, a level 8 wizard who casts confusion (spell level 4 incap) on a Fire Giant (level 10 monster) doesn't suffer incapacitation. When the above wizard levels up to level 9 and sees another Fire Giant and casts another level 4 confusion, suddenly incapacitation applies and is much less effective, even though the wizard leveled up and is theoretically got stronger.

Have you considered just outright removing incapacitation tag?

[The Raven Black]

Are there single target spells without Incapacitation that can take down a Boss that has been sufficiently weakened?

If yes, is that not enough to fill the need you describe, Zapp?

Otherwise an idea that occurred to me would be to spend hero points when casting to replace Incapacitation with a flat roll with a DC depending on the number of hero points spent. If you make the roll, no Incapacitation effect. If you do not, Incapacitation stays.

[Cyouni]

Zapp wrote:

Most importantly - there just is no need to remove this playing style! Incapacitation is just so... wasteful. As if it ruined the game to have the wizard win with one of his spells for once...

As a person who actually has seen a caster in 1e, it was never "for once". It was constant. Like the one caster who specialized in transmutation save-or-dies. Or any of the times I've used feeblemind.

And incapacitation is 100% from the knowledge they gained from the playtest, because it only came out after that. And as someone who was around during the playtest, the complaint of a lot of things still being incredibly rocket-taggy was there. (Similarly, the reason why finger of death changed its crit fail from "target dies instantly" to double damage.)

[dirtypool]

Zapp wrote:

As if it ruined the game to have the wizard win with one of his spells for once...

Yes, that poor maligned Wizard. Hounded by ineptitude from edition to edition, won't some designer allow him to win once? Just once? How dare we take from him the benefit of a monster rolling a crit fail based on a trait it has.

Zapp wrote:

Single-target incapacitation is an entire playing style that's just obliterated. Examples of great such spells from various editions include feeblemind, forcecage, dominate, banish, hold person, paralyze... the list just goes on.

I'm not sure how Stupefied 4 for an unlimited duration, compelled to follow orders until a will save is made, instant banishment, and one round of paralysis count as effects of a play style that has been "obliterated."

Seems your stated case is a tad hyperbolic.

[thenobledrake]

I really think the root of the issue stems from a mismatched view.

A poster on the internet says "single mooks" when referring to the same creature which the game itself calls "standard creature or low-threat boss" and regardless of the case what is being referred to is a participant in combat estimated to be roughly equal in power to a member of the players' party.

Creates a weird narrative in my head to call at-level enemies "mooks" because then, if being consistent, what's being complained about is that some "mook" can't one-shot a non-mook.

Maybe it's me not understanding the intended meaning of "mook" in this context? To me, the word "mook" is synonymous with the word "lackey" which the game uses for creatures of party level -2 and lower, more-so than it is synonymous with "standard creature" or "boss"

[pi4t]

thenobledrake wrote:

I really think the root of the issue stems from a mismatched view.

A poster on the internet says "single mooks" when referring to the same creature which the game itself calls "standard creature or low-threat boss" and regardless of the case what is being referred to is a participant in combat estimated to be roughly equal in power to a member of the players' party.

Creates a weird narrative in my head to call at-level enemies "mooks" because then, if being consistent, what's being complained about is that some "mook" can't one-shot a non-mook.

Maybe it's me not understanding the intended meaning of "mook" in this context? To me, the word "mook" is synonymous with the word "lackey" which the game uses for creatures of party level -2 and lower, more-so than it is synonymous with "standard creature" or "boss"

I think it might be because of the number of enemies you tend to face in a given day, and their distribution. True, an enemy of level equal to your own is theoretically equivalent to a PC in power, but in terms of how likely they are to survive? Not so much.

For example, the second chapter of Hellknight Hill includes the following encounters:
3 on level enemies
1 level +1
2 level -1
1 level +1
2 on level, with the help of a level +1 ally
1 level +1
2 on level
1 level +1
3 level -2
1 level +1
4 level -1
1 level +2 (the boss)

Total:
3 level -2
6 level -1
7 on level
5 level +1
1 level +2

As far as I can tell from a cursory reading, it's expected that the PCs get through most of these encounters within at most a couple of days, resting for an hour and using treat wounds every couple of encounters. If it takes much more time than that, then the boss's read-aloud text doesn't really make sense. (Side question: is there an official guideline for how many encounters are expected in an adventuring day?)

So, narratively, the on-level enemies //are// mooks in this adventure. They attack in groups, and exist to be killed in large numbers by the PCs over the course of a day. Even if it completely takes him enemy out of the battle, my instinct is that using one of your 2-3 highest level spell slots* to do something which only harms one enemy of your level is a waste of the spell slot.

Unless I've misunderstood badly (entirely possible, I'm new to 2e) and you're expected to rest for the night after every couple of battles, you won't be able to use your highest level spell slots in every combat, or anywhere near every combat. This isn't the case in 1e, where you can generally use a top level spell in each nontrivial encounter and still not run out. But in 2e, you have 2-3 spells of your maximum spell level, and have to conserve them carefully and use them only in encounters where they'll be most effective or are most needed. And when you use those high level slots, if you use them well, you should be having a bigger impact on the encounter than another party member who wasn't expending resources.

If we're playing at an even level in an adventure whose enemies follow this distribution, we have three spell slots of max level, or six if this takes place over a couple of days. Assuming you use incapacitation spells and about half the enemies fail their saves, you'll be able to remove about 3 equal level mooks from that roster over the course of the adventure - and then the rest of the time you have nothing left but lower level spell slots and cantrips. I don't have much experience with 2e, but to me that looks like a rather poor net contribution to the battle given how many enemies there are in total.

If we're at an odd level, things get a little better - you only have two spell slots, but at least you can use them against the level+1 enemies. Making the same assumption, you can probably remove a couple of those solo encounters entirely, although again at the cost of being significantly less useful in combat than the rest of the group for most of the rest of the adventure.

If I've misunderstood and it's expected that the group will expend top-level spell slots in even most "moderate" encounters and rests are expected every 3-4 encounters, then I agree that it doesn't make sense to call on-level enemies "mooks" and the balance is more sensible than perhaps it seems. If so, then I think we could do with some rather clearer guidelines in that regard, both in the rules and published adventures. (Or possibly those already exist and I could do with a higher proficiency rating in Perception.)

But if the number of encounters Paizo seems (to me) to expect PCs to get through in a day is accurate, then on-level enemies simply have to be treated as mooks when analysing which spells to use, to avoid running out of spell slots early on. The game claims that a single on-level enemy alone can constitute a "low-threat boss"; but that enemy will be worth only 40XP, which the game defines as a "trivial" encounter where you "shouldn't need to spend significant resources". So either Paizo's got a different definition of "boss" to me, or their guidelines are a bit confused here.

*Well, one of your two only spell slots as this particular adventure is level one. And I realise that as this is taking place at level 1, in this particular adventure you could actually use an incapacitate on the +1 level enemies. I'm just trying to get an idea for the way that Paizo is distributing their enemies relative to the PC level, though.

[Zapp]

voideternal wrote:

Have you considered just outright removing incapacitation tag?

Yes.

(It didn't end well. In fact, it ended up... with this very discussion!)

[voideternal]

Zapp wrote:

voideternal wrote:

Have you considered just outright removing incapacitation tag?

Yes.

(It didn't end well. In fact, it ended up... with this very discussion!)

I may have missed the discussion of what happens when the only applied houserule is 'remove incapacitation tag'. How did it not end up well?

[Zapp]

The Raven Black wrote:

Are there single target spells without Incapacitation that can take down a Boss that has been sufficiently weakened?

If yes, is that not enough to fill the need you describe, Zapp?

(I'm going to assume you don't mean damage spells)

Well, the criticism is that single target save or die spells are effectively removed from a player's menu (at least any player concerned about effectiveness).

The equivalent of "you can't have this but look here what a tasty alternative" still doesn't answer the question.

But yes, if there are such spells, I eagerly await them. That does not change the fact that during seven levels our Wizard has still not cast any. Which - given the experience of the player - tells me there aren't any at those levels.

Remember, any spell that does not deal damage does not add its contribution to the efforts of the martials. That is why a spell that does not deal damage needs to be extra good.

Furthermore note how quickly PF2 fights are resolved.

Also note that to warrant the wizard's attention, the foe more or less has to be higher level than the party. (Talking single target spells here) Lower level foes just aren't dangerous, and the players *know* they can and will be taken out eventually by the martials. What the wizard is therefore is to *change* the fight, meaning taking out a worthy adversary quicker than the martials.

Finally consider that to be effective against a worthwhile opponent we are assuming the Wizard needs to expend his high level slots.

Add all this together and you end up with one inevitable conclusion:

If the spell doesn't stand a good chance of insta-defeating the foe, it just isn't worth it in the long run. The notion that a Wizard should just accept that not only does he have to spend more than two slots on average to defeat the monster, the monster shouldn't even be defeated (just given a debuff); that analysis just doesn't work out.

Narratively it might be good for all the martials who doesn't have to watch their wizard friend doing something they just can't do.

But as the wizard you're much better off forgetting about save or dies, and just resorting to damage spells, area incapacitation spells, buff spells, utility and so on...

...not to mention forgetting the whole idea of playing a wizard!

In the end, the wizard's effectiveness must be compared to the options. Most people defending Incapacitation seem to just blithely assume players will just keep playing Wizards just for fun. But I've got news for them - there is an opportunity cost, and effective players just won't.

For instance, one such option is having a second Barbarian (or whatever) in the team. That is, if the Wizard can't compare his effectiveness to a martial, why not just play one? It's not as if the PF2 adventures I have seen put up Monte Cookian obstacles where an arcane caster just is required, where you just fail unless you can produce specific high-level arcane spells.

Far too much discussion seems to just assume players play wizards for fun, and that the game doesn't actually need to validate that choice by giving wizards an edge.

But why otherwise play a frail and weak character?

The whole POINT of the wizard is to be a glass cannon.

But Incapacitation makes the PF2 Wizard come dangerously close to not having any justification. That's what happens when you only look at the effects of spellcasting from the outside view, from the narrative view.

To boil all this down to its essence:

If the wizard isn't allowed to turn an exciting fight into an anticlimax once in a while, you have lost sight of what the wizard is there for.

By saying anticlimaxes aren't fun and we aren't going to have them, you have effectively removed the "magic" from magic.

Sure you can have debuffers, happily applying -1 everywhere. Sure you can have blasters which are essentially rangers but with magic. That's comparatively pedestrian magic. It's basically martial weaponry reskinned as magic.

But if you want magic to be able to defeat foes by rounding the usual hp game, then you need to allow magic users to press the win button.

[Zapp]

dirtypool wrote:

I'm not sure how Stupefied 4 for an unlimited duration, compelled to follow orders until a will save is made, instant banishment, and one round of paralysis count as effects of a play style that has been "obliterated."

Seems your stated case is a tad hyperbolic.

Snark isn't helpful.

Again, if you're thinking of three spells you find troublesome, why not fix these three spells.

Instead of throwing a wet blanket of the entire game system, I mean?

[Zapp]

thenobledrake wrote:

I really think the root of the issue stems from a mismatched view.

A poster on the internet says "single mooks" when referring to the same creature which the game itself calls "standard creature or low-threat boss" and regardless of the case what is being referred to is a participant in combat estimated to be roughly equal in power to a member of the players' party.

Creates a weird narrative in my head to call at-level enemies "mooks" because then, if being consistent, what's being complained about is that some "mook" can't one-shot a non-mook.

Maybe it's me not understanding the intended meaning of "mook" in this context? To me, the word "mook" is synonymous with the word "lackey" which the game uses for creatures of party level -2 and lower, more-so than it is synonymous with "standard creature" or "boss"

Based on what I've seen from official AP encounters thus far, there's usually a maximum of two creatures "in charge" of the monsters in an encounter.

Those aren't mooks. Everybody else is.

A mook is a monster that's narratively expendable, a monster that isn't unique.

In the context of an encounter facing the corrupt watch sergeant and his squad of greedy guards, the sergeant is the only creature worth casting a high-level single-target save or die on.

But later, that same sergeant is just a faceless nobody guarding the evil nobleman pulling the strings. In that encounter, the nobleman, and possibly his demonic bodyguard, are the two narratively interesting targets.

So when I use "mook" that's just convenient shorthand.

Do note that I have a hard time thinking of a use case where mooks aren't your level or lower, and an equally hard time thinking of a non-mook not being higher level than you, in the context of PF2 encounter budgets. But I'm sure they exist - just like you say, it's conceivable to face a group where the boss man still is only your own level. (Maybe his team is unusually large. So far in our AP, there has never been a single encounter with anything even close to a "horde". It's always just ~six foes or less)

Still, it means that Incapacitation (by design or by accident) completely and entirely kills off the idea of a player ever casting a single-target save or die.

Hope that helps.

[Zapp]

pi4t wrote:

So, narratively, the on-level enemies //are// mooks in this adventure. They attack in groups, and exist to be killed in large numbers by the PCs over the course of a day. Even if it completely takes him enemy out of the battle, my instinct is that using one of your 2-3 highest level spell slots* to do something which only harms one enemy of your level is a waste of the spell slot.

Yes. Of course. EXACTLY. Thank you.

---

Do note, this isn't up for debate as if "but change your spell tactics then" was a compelling argument.

That would entirely ignore the issue of opportunity cost.

The fact remains:

If your high level slot doesn't stand a decent chance of instantly defeating a narratively interesting foe....

...then a minmaxing player simply won't take it. The alternatives, such as using a damaging area spell, is simply just that much more effective.

This is cold hard math here. The goal is to render all foes dead or downed. Arguing players can use them is disingenuous. Yes they can, but that option is a trap option. It's just not effective enough.

You simply can't defend Incapacitation unless you concede that you like how single-target save or dies have been disabled for players, only to be used by monsters.

[Zapp]

voideternal wrote:

I may have missed the discussion of what happens when the only applied houserule is 'remove incapacitation tag'. How did it not end up well?

It's quite simple:

If low-level slots were effective against all monsters that would be incredibly unbalancing.

As soon as someone told me spellcasters only need level 1 spells I realized Incapacitation was needed for a legitimate reason: To *make* casters use their high level slots against high level targets.

Previously, this was achieved by spells not being "autoheightened". That is, the DC depended on the level of the slot. Now, Incapacitation fills that purpose. And that part of Incapacitation isn't what I'm objecting to.

---

Lets' make up an example of how this could have looked in Pathfinder 2 terms, to explain "autoheightened":

Let's assume a 6th level caster has a spell save DC of 22.

With the current rules all your spells make enemies save against DC 22, regardless of what spell/slot level you're using. The only thing that, when you want to cast a spell with the Incapacitation trait, makes you use your 3rd level slots, your highest slots, against your foes is the Incapacitation rule.

The alternative would be to base the save DC on the spell slot level. In PF2 terms, twice the level of the spell slot. The same caster as in the above example would get:

3rd level slots: DC 22
2nd level slots: DC 19
1st level slots: DC 16

(Again, don't worry about the specifics. I'm just making up numbers for illustrative purposes)

Casting a spell with only DC 16 against the monsters doesn't feel very attractive, does it?

Even if you wanted to use a first level spell, you would still consider heightening it to cast it in a 3rd level slot to get that sweet DC 22, right? This "heightening" is what happens automatically in the current rules, without you having to change the slot level. Thus my use of the term "autoheightening". And so the rules need another mechanism to stop you from winning battles using your 1st level slots. Enter "Incapacitation".

The point with all these rules alternatives is to create a reason for you to feel you have to use your high level slots against the big nasty monster.

tl;dr: Removing Incapacitation removes that reason, and makes spellcasters incredibly overpowered.