| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See this kind of reinforces the annoyance I have with some things in PF2, although tbh PF1 was far worse. (See grappling) I would have gone more in on leaving complexity solely within feats and spells. Make some very clear general rule about doubling effects and replacement stuff and then hammer down on not breaking it with the stuff you write.
5e is never going to compete with customization because of how much of a straight jacket they write their classes and feats. Most classes basically have no choices past level 3. Basically I want the simplification of rules that things like 3 actions, +/- 10, class DCs, simplified skills, attacks against save DCs, minimized stacking bonuses, etc give you.
Those are all great and really make a great foundation for the game but it pisses me off every time i see some change that’s solely in there as protection from something that doesn’t need it or added complexity for little gain. Sure it’s future proofing but just like replay in sports sometimes getting things right all the time is not as good as keeping things simple and the game flowing.
This is exactly why if you're not playing PFS, you should play the game in a way that is fun and interesting. Rewrite rules you don't like or think are unnecessary. And not argue about it.
Some of this stuff was completely unnecessary. The rule for having to use an Interact action to go from one hand to to two hands for a two-handed weapon was someone writing something unnecessary into the rule system. I strike so much of this down as it isn't causing problems in the game.
Sometimes I think game designers get weird little ideas in their heads and write it down as part of the rules, then it never gets edited out and it ends up in the game because the rulebook is so immense. That's why I feel like the PF2 could use a giant group edit to simplify it some and make the game better.
I don't mind modifying the rules more after release myself. That's how video games improve their games. Since TTRPGs compete with video games, no reason why constantly improving their rules based on player feedback wouldn't be a good idea.
If you don't mind me asking, how did you homebrew removing vancian casting? I come from 5e so I'm familiar with that casting. It seems like a nice buff to prepared casters. How do you handle spontaneous casters?And the biggest quality of life change I made to casting is getting rid of Vancian Magic and moving to the 5E flexible casting system. For all the things I love about PF2's very balanced system, 5E casting hit it out of the park for fun casting. Easy to use, highly flexible, and still balanced on a per caster basis. I ported 5E casting into PF2 and I will never go back to Vancian casting. I wish that PF2 had tossed out Vancian casting, but someone in the decision making process at Paizo must like it too much.
Vancian casting is an additional stopgap to already reduced power casting. It wasn't necessary.
I let Spontaneous Casters have the same number of spells plus their bloodline spells. It balanced the same surprisingly. A Spontaneous Caster ends with 27 spells plus their bloodline spells. So I gave them level + spellcasting stat plus bloodline spells for a total of 36 spells.
So far it has been unnecessary to reduce the number of spells as the sorcerer class features are sufficient to attract players against wizard class features.
What do you mean? Doesn't a sorcerer already know a total of 36 spells (4 per level including bloodline spells)? So you add extra spells known equal to their Charisma mod?
What do you mean? Doesn't a sorcerer already know a total of 36 spells (4 per level including bloodline spells)? So you add extra spells known equal to their Charisma mod?If you don't mind me asking, how did you homebrew removing vancian casting? I come from 5e so I'm familiar with that casting. It seems like a nice buff to prepared casters. How do you handle spontaneous casters?And the biggest quality of life change I made to casting is getting rid of Vancian Magic and moving to the 5E flexible casting system. For all the things I love about PF2's very balanced system, 5E casting hit it out of the park for fun casting. Easy to use, highly flexible, and still balanced on a per caster basis. I ported 5E casting into PF2 and I will never go back to Vancian casting. I wish that PF2 had tossed out Vancian casting, but someone in the decision making process at Paizo must like it too much.
Vancian casting is an additional stopgap to already reduced power casting. It wasn't necessary.
I let Spontaneous Casters have the same number of spells plus their bloodline spells. It balanced the same surprisingly. A Spontaneous Caster ends with 27 spells plus their bloodline spells. So I gave them level + spellcasting stat plus bloodline spells for a total of 36 spells.
So far it has been unnecessary to reduce the number of spells as the sorcerer class features are sufficient to attract players against wizard class features.
No. I used the 5 method with the bloodline signature spells. So you get level + Cha spells as your spell repertoire and bloodline signature spells as bonus spells. Which as luck would have it with a maxed stat and Apex Item is also 36 spells.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Especially at early level for casters who aren't bards or clerics THE paradigm of I do something not very impressive a couple of times per day's is not particulary fun.
Pffft! It's all a question of perception and expectations.
A first-level wizard can do cool stuff with cantrips alone, let alone casting his 1st-level spells.
The problem with rants about how much spellcasters (and especially wizards) have been nerfed is that they are generally based on a powergaming perspective.
PF1 and DD3.x wizards were "quadratic" compared to the "linear" fighters: increasingly superpowered and overpowered as they advanced in level. Especially for players who optimized them and used key feats and other game features for maximum cheese.
I won't claim that Paizo didn't "overnerf" wizards and other spellcasters to some degree. But to claim that the best a PF2 wizard can do is "do something not very impressive a couple of times per day" is simply disingenuous.
The power of wizards and other spellcasters isn't in the raw damage numbers they can dish out. It's in the unique and magical things they can accomplish if they use the right spells in the right situations.
Are there things I would change, if I were a senior Paizo editor? Sure. I'd start by making wizards a wee bit more versatile, like being able to swap out prepared spells using their spellbook and ten minutes of preparation. But they don't really need extra spell slots - that's what wands, staves and scrolls are for.
Anyway, this thread reads like a tempest in a teapot. A lot of angst and outrage over very little, with a few measured voices trying to bring order to the more extreme ones. Let's just chill a little, and try to get some perspective on this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Low level casters are weak. Before level 5, there's not much you can get out of them. Even Bards and Clerics are just one trick poneys. Nothing in comparison to what they will get at mid-level.
If you play before level 5, there's no much point in playing any casting class (or Alchemist).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with rants about how much spellcasters (and especially wizards) have been nerfed is that they are generally based on a powergaming perspective.
PF1 and DD3.x wizards were "quadratic" compared to the "linear" fighters: increasingly superpowered and overpowered as they advanced in level. Especially for players who optimized them and used key feats and other game features for maximum cheese.
While browsing the forum I don't fully agree to this line of reasoning as many complaints have not been raised about Wizard power level but missing class defining and fun low level features, be it either class feats or focus spells or other.
Bards have their composition cantrips, Clerics have divine font, Druids have excellent focus powers, Witches have hexes etc.
Note that it is a whole different question if a "vanilla" type caster needs any gimmicks but players have genuinely complained that especially Wizard is missing low level identity. School specialization is supposed to fill that void, however is considered lacking by many.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the trade off in earlier editions was that you do amazing things a limited number of times per day. It was a very much favoured the casters considering how amazing the things they could do were.
The pathfinder 2e trade off is you do things that aren't particulary amazing (at least compared to 1e) less times per day.
Given that casters effects are less impressive I am not sure they wouldn't have benefitted from keeping the longevity they had in previous editions. Especially at early level for casters who aren't bards or clerics THE paradigm of I do something not very impressive a couple of times per day's is not particulary fun.
What are you talking about? Are you saying summoning dragons, unleashing blasts that can destroy villages or small towns, blasting off fireballs and chain lightning, teleporting, transforming into elementals and monstrous creatures, and draining life isn't amazing?
Visually casters still do amazing things, more amazing than martials. What you are asking for is an extreme mechanical advantage like they had before, because as far as doing amazing things tell me what about what martials do is so amazing compared to what casters do?
What do you mean kept the longevity? Low level casters in PF1 were lame. I don't know people are pretending they had game changing abilities at low levels. Even in PF1 martials hit harder and did better until much higher levels when great power combinations came online like dazing spell, quicken spell, empower, and the like. Not at low level. Low level casters were not that great at all and didn't have longevity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Low level casters are weak. Before level 5, there's not much you can get out of them. Even Bards and Clerics are just one trick poneys. Nothing in comparison to what they will get at mid-level.
If you play before level 5, there's no much point in playing any casting class (or Alchemist).
The second Calm Emotions becomes available for Clerics/Bards (level 3), they're right back at 'ye olde encounter stomping' power tier.
First level spells include some solid and reliable debuffs, like Fear (better Demoralize) and Goblin Pox plus a number of massively powerful utility spells like illusions.
Bards are as strong as ever at low levels, and Druids get Tempest Surge and decent nukes right out the gates.
Unless it gets nerfed, Electric Arc is an extremely solid mini-nuke against creatures that show up in numbers for the first few levels, or against things with high ACs.
While they are more difficult to play than previous and lack a whole range of instant wins at level 1, I have not witnessed Spellcasters being anywhere near weak before level 5.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
4e is the only D&D like game I can think of where wizards in particular, and most other casters as well, are not just desperately trying to survive level one. The instant win spells of PF1 and 3.0 were incredibly limited in the targets they could effect and if you had the wrong spell memorized for the day your character was often a liability to the party.
Clerics, Bards and Druids have traditionally gotten good enough weapon and armor proficiencies to be survivable on their own, and that convention mostly holds true to early level play in PF2, but it leads to some confusion for players when they hit mid game and expect to be keeping up with their martial prowess while simultaneously gaining access to much more powerful casting. Casters can be very dangerous with debuff and even damage spells, even when their DCs are 1 to 3 points back from maximum, if you can get good at calling your shots against the right target save. This is a different dynamic than PF1 but I wouldn't necessarily call it a more difficult one. My players who are new to PF2 have picked up the new dynamics relatively easily. My players who have come from PF1 have had a little bit more difficulty unlearning their rocket tag, go in guns blazing and assume that your superior firepower will win the day without needing to assess the situation first, mentality.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless it gets nerfed, Electric Arc is an extremely solid mini-nuke against creatures that show up in numbers for the first few levels, or against things with high ACs.
Mini-Nuke?!
It does less damage than a standard longsword swing levels 1-2, averages out at (.5) more at 3rd, then at 4th when striking runes come into play, is back behind a standard longsword.
But it hits 2 targets.
Foregoing that all martial's have the option for 2nd and 3rd attacks as standard (an intrinsic advantage literally never open to casters until they make 1 action damage spells), almost every martial has a way to mitigate MAP as a 1st or 2nd level feat.
Flurry of blows, hunted shot, Twin Feint, Power Attack, etc, etc.
This isn't even wholly a range thing as Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, Rogues and Swashbucklers can equally do solid ranged builds at early levels as well.
Electric Arc is the best damage dealing cantrips. This highlights a problem with damaging spells, not that it's too strong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless it gets nerfed, Electric Arc is an extremely solid mini-nuke against creatures that show up in numbers for the first few levels, or against things with high ACs.
Mini-Nuke?!
It does less damage than a standard longsword swing levels 1-2, averages out at (.5) more at 3rd, then at 4th when striking runes come into play, is back behind a standard longsword.
But it hits 2 targets.
Foregoing that all martial's have the option for 2nd and 3rd attacks as standard (an intrinsic advantage literally never open to casters until they make 1 action damage spells), almost every martial has a way to mitigate MAP as a 1st or 2nd level feat.
Flurry of blows, hunted shot, Twin Feint, Power Attack, etc, etc.
This isn't even wholly a range thing as Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, Rogues and Swashbucklers can equally do solid ranged builds at early levels as well.
Electric Arc is the best damage dealing cantrips. This highlights a problem with damaging spells, not that it's too strong.
12(6x2) damage is perfectly serviceable at levels 1-2, where a large amount of your field is going to be creature -1 / creature 0 foes.
Sure, its less than a greataxe... but its almost guaranteed to do some damage to two foes, and the damage represents a significant portion of a low level creatures health.
Expecting to deal more than 1/3 of two creatures health bars on a cantrip is kindof... well, I want to say greedy.
Cantrip damage is fine relative to the encounter building guidelines expectations- you shouldn't be holding it up against fighters and barbarians.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Magic missile is an interesting test case for whether or not players want one action damage spells. It is already present in the game, it can't miss, which makes it a pretty reliable 3rd action spell, and yet the vast majority of players don't use it this way, instead just holding off from using it until they can cast it as a three action spell. This suggests to me that players are not really as interested in the one action damage spell as the boards would have people believe. Unless it is a cantrip, players seem incredibly resistant to filling spell slots with damage spells that don't do a lot of damage, even when that damage is automatic.
Barbarians having solid ranged options is news to me. With how inaccurate the barbarian is to begin with, anything that starts with having to use their dex to attack is already hurting
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Electric Arc is also a Save spell rather than an attack roll spell. That means that, unlike rolled attacks, it does something on a 'miss'. Sure, a longsword does more damage (though not a lot more), but it does absolutely nothing on a miss and doesn't hit two people nearly as reliably.
Really, Electric Arc is probably better than other attack cantrips even vs. a single foe, and while not quite on par with martial DPR it's very close if fighting two enemies or more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The second Calm Emotions becomes available for Clerics/Bards (level 3), they're right back at 'ye olde encounter stomping' power tier.
First level spells include some solid and reliable debuffs, like Fear (better Demoralize) and Goblin Pox plus a number of massively powerful utility spells like illusions.
Bards are as strong as ever at low levels, and Druids get Tempest Surge and decent nukes right out the gates.
Unless it gets nerfed, Electric Arc is an extremely solid mini-nuke against creatures that show up in numbers for the first few levels, or against things with high ACs.
While they are more difficult to play than previous and lack a whole range of instant wins at level 1, I have not witnessed Spellcasters being anywhere near weak before level 5.
No, I beg to disagree.
At level 1 and 2, casters have extremely few valid spells. They are one trick poneys. Electric Arc is fine and competes with martial damage, but not all casters have access to it (and those who haven't are screwed).But the important point is that you have lower hit points and defenses overall. So, even the most optimized low level caster will have issues staying alive, while not overshadowing martials through spells.
At level 3, you are fine, but as soon as Striking Runes arrive at level 4 martials clearly make a leap ahead of casters.
Level 5 is the moment where you can really start shining. I still think that you have to wait for level 7 for casters to be on par with martials, but at least at level 5 you feel like you play a caster.
And Calm Emotions is fine, but you can't that easily use it. There are moments where it shines, but not all fights can be solved through it: anytime you face a higher level enemy, a mental immune enemy, if enemies are split or if your allies are in the thick of things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore Electric Arc can hit two people within 30ft of the caster. A longsword wielder hitting two far away foes has to use an action to stride and risks provoking reactions. A wizard can just sit back and electrify two creatures safely from afar without moving. If anything we should be comparing its damage to ranged weapons since it's a ranged spell.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Magic missile is an interesting test case for whether or not players want one action damage spells. It is already present in the game, it can't miss, which makes it a pretty reliable 3rd action spell, and yet the vast majority of players don't use it this way, instead just holding off from using it until they can cast it as a three action spell. This suggests to me that players are not really as interested in the one action damage spell as the boards would have people believe. Unless it is a cantrip, players seem incredibly resistant to filling spell slots with damage spells that don't do a lot of damage, even when that damage is automatic.
Barbarians having solid ranged options is news to me. With how inaccurate the barbarian is to begin with, anything that starts with having to use their dex to attack is already hurting
They are not interested in doing that low of damage for 1 action even if it auto hits. Not that they don't want a one action damage option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are not interested in doing that low of damage for 1 action even if it auto hits. Not that they don't want a one action damage option.
3-action Magic Missile vs Greatsword Dragon Barbarian 3 strikes against a level +2 creature
If they are not interested in doing Barbarian level of damage at 120ft. with no MAP, I don't think increasing the strength of the spell is the best solution.
The problem with one-action spells is their resource cost. Casting 3 spells per turn doesn't seem like an interesting idea if you expect to last more than 2 rounds. 1-action spells are a perfect fit for focus spells but not for normal spells.
I really think the current state of the game, with most spells costing 2 actions, is working fine. Adding one action spells would ask for more spell slots. And if you add spell slot, then the other spells have to be reviewed, too. This is a completely different paradigm.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Magic missile is an interesting test case for whether or not players want one action damage spells. It is already present in the game, it can't miss, which makes it a pretty reliable 3rd action spell, and yet the vast majority of players don't use it this way, instead just holding off from using it until they can cast it as a three action spell. This suggests to me that players are not really as interested in the one action damage spell as the boards would have people believe. Unless it is a cantrip, players seem incredibly resistant to filling spell slots with damage spells that don't do a lot of damage, even when that damage is automatic.
Using (or not bothering to use) a one-action Magic Missile isn't the same thing. Magic Missile has the option to be cast with one, two, or three actions, but you've expended a spell slot regardless. I.e., there's no way to spend only a third of a slot for a one-action Magic Missile. It behooves you then to get the most hurt for your spell slot, since you're spending a complete spell slot anyway.
In contrast, a one action damage spell that only ever had its one-action output as its maximum setting would see more use (since you're not wasting any resources by only spending one action). Alternatively, a cantrip with a one, two, or three action version would also see more use (since, being a cantrip, it can't be used up anyway).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are not interested in doing that low of damage for 1 action even if it auto hits. Not that they don't want a one action damage option.3-action Magic Missile vs Greatsword Dragon Barbarian 3 strikes against a level +2 creature
If they are not interested in doing Barbarian level of damage at 120ft. with no MAP, I don't think increasing the strength of the spell is the best solution.
The problem with one-action spells is their resource cost. Casting 3 spells per turn doesn't seem like an interesting idea if you expect to last more than 2 rounds. 1-action spells are a perfect fit for focus spells but not for normal spells.
I really think the current state of the game, with most spells costing 2 actions, is working fine. Adding one action spells would ask for more spell slots. And if you add spell slot, then the other spells have to be reviewed, too. This is a completely different paradigm.
I didn't mention 3 action magic missile so I'm not sure as to your point .
And of course a +2 creature would be the best example as magic missile doesn't miss and the barbarian will run into accuracy issues. I laugh at your assessment of cherry picked data for your best case presentation. Not biased at all But still wasn't my point.
I'm not even simply discussing magic missile itself.
I was talking about 1 action damage options (I'm fine with focus spells TBH).
And it's up to the player in spell slot expenditure. We shouldn't have to hand hold them back imo.
This is another reason I use the variant bonus progression. Even a caster can shoot with a martial weapon as a third action without having to invest inordinate income.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
12(6x2) damage is perfectly serviceable at levels 1-2, where a large amount of your field is going to be creature -1 / creature 0 foes.
Sure, its less than a greataxe... but its almost guaranteed to do some damage to two foes, and the damage represents a significant portion of a low level creatures health.
Expecting to deal more than 1/3 of two creatures health bars on a cantrip is kindof... well, I want to say greedy.
Cantrip damage is fine relative to the encounter building guidelines expectations- you shouldn't be holding it up against fighters and barbarians.
Just to be clear, you are accepting then that "Mini-nuke" was a disingenuously hyperbolic statement?
Given that in this post Electric Arc became
perfectly serviceable
and that
you shouldn't be holding it up against fighters and barbarians.
In video game terms now casters are no longer shooting 1 hit kill bazzokas you can ease up on the ammo scarcity.
Except that high level magic (ie spells from your best slots) remain the most action efficient and reliable way to dealing lots of damage in the game. (Ignoring all the other things magic does for a moment)
As noted by others, high level magic missiles are just straight up excellent single target damage that do not fail - AOEs remain the king of damage in any scenario they actively apply in.
Just because spells got demoted from "one hit kill bazookas" doesn't mean there shouldn't be enforced scarcity as they remain the best options available while you have the slots to cast them.
Once I stop ignoring anything that isn't damage, we can also consider that low level spell slots can be used on plenty of things that scale perfectly well, such as all the illusions that provide +4 status bonuses, spells that cause sickened or fear, and spells that cause slow... many of which aren't connected to an Incapacitation trait at all.
Yeah, its not as nice as a 1st level slot scaling in damage... but the associated growth in resources for casters was one of the issues with them. If they hadn't grown in longevity quite so much as they leveled and kept gaining more and more win spells, then their powerful magic wouldn't have been such an issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
12(6x2) damage is perfectly serviceable at levels 1-2, where a large amount of your field is going to be creature -1 / creature 0 foes.
Sure, its less than a greataxe... but its almost guaranteed to do some damage to two foes, and the damage represents a significant portion of a low level creatures health.
Expecting to deal more than 1/3 of two creatures health bars on a cantrip is kindof... well, I want to say greedy.
Cantrip damage is fine relative to the encounter building guidelines expectations- you shouldn't be holding it up against fighters and barbarians.
Just to be clear, you are accepting then that "Mini-nuke" was a disingenuously hyperbolic statement?
Given that in this post Electric Arc became
perfectly serviceableand that
you shouldn't be holding it up against fighters and barbarians.
I meant nuke as in "offensive damage dealing spell", as was often used in mmos and tabletop games to describe such spells.
Not as in "reduces all opposition to ash instantly".
In contrast, a one action damage spell that only ever had its one-action output as its maximum setting would see more use (since you're not wasting any resources by only spending one action). Alternatively, a cantrip with a one, two, or three action version would also see more use (since, being a cantrip, it can't be used up anyway).
You mean, like, any two-action special attack or spell attack plus True Strike vs any two-action special attack or spell attack plus one-action Magic Missile? ;)
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Magic Missile is evidence of much of anything beyond the one action version being lackluster at best.
The Evoker's force bolt is a one action only Magic Missile as a Focus Spell...and is not considered a particularly good Focus Spell at that, which is a good indication that the power level of one action magic missile is well below what a one action spell slot spell should have (since it's apparently mediocre even for a Focus Spell, which are supposed to be worse than spell slot spells), or at least perceived as such.
So the simple answer isn't that people wouldn't do that, it's that Magic Missile's one action version specifically isn't very impressive, or at least isn't seen as being so.
...At level 1 and 2, casters have extremely few valid spells. They are one trick poneys. Electric Arc is fine and competes with martial damage, but not all casters have access to it (and those who haven't are screwed).
But the important point is that you have lower hit points and defenses overall. So, even the most optimized low level caster will have issues staying alive, while not overshadowing martials through spells. At level 3, you are fine, but as soon as Striking Runes arrive at level 4 martials clearly make a leap ahead of casters.
Level 5 is the moment where you can really start shining. I still think that you have to wait for level 7 for casters to be on par with martials, but at least at level 5 you feel like you play a caster...
Anecdotal evidence: When I was starting my Warpriest of Sarenrae's carreer I was severey out of damaging options because the character was not set up for melee and I failed to pick up Electric Arc via my human ancestry. My accuracy with Divine Lance was so bad my group quickly dubbed the spell "Divine Miss".
So it was not until level 5 that I finally picked up the spell ONLY to learn that I really did not need it anymore. My character is level 7 now and I have used the spell like once or twice within those two levels, mostly because I do not find time to cast a "low yield" attack spell in between casting spells from top slots (e.g. Fireball), using Heal, using Battle Medicine, using focus spells (e.g. Fire Ray) or conducting other actions. That is, I will probably respec out of Electric Arc at the first opportunity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anecdotal evidence: When I was starting my Warpriest of Sarenrae's carreer I was severey out of damaging options because the character was not set up for melee and I failed to pick up Electric Arc via my human ancestry. My accuracy with Divine Lance was so bad my group quickly dubbed the spell "Divine Miss".
So it was not until level 5 that I finally picked up the spell ONLY to learn that I really did not need it anymore. My character is level 7 now and I have used the spell like once or twice within those two levels, mostly because I do not find time to cast a "low yield" attack spell in between casting spells from top slots (e.g. Fireball), using Heal, using Battle Medicine, using focus spells (e.g. Fire Ray) or conducting other actions. That is, I will probably respec out of Electric Arc at the first opportunity.
I got similar experience with my Angelic Sorcerer. Only difference is that I took it right away. I used it a lot at level 1 and 2, sometimes at level 3 and 4 and nearly never since I'm level 5 (even if it happens, it stays an honorable spell).
But I took Adaptive Adept to True Strike my Searing Lights, so I don't respec it (I encourage you to try this one before respecing it, it works wonders).| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Magic Missile is evidence of much of anything beyond the one action version being lackluster at best.
The Evoker's force bolt is a one action only Magic Missile as a Focus Spell...and is not considered a particularly good Focus Spell at that, which is a good indication that the power level of one action magic missile is well below what a one action spell slot spell should have (since it's apparently mediocre even for a Focus Spell, which are supposed to be worse than spell slot spells), or at least perceived as such.
So the simple answer isn't that people wouldn't do that, it's that Magic Missile's one action version specifically isn't very impressive, or at least isn't seen as being so.
SO when people say they want more one action damage spells, we shouldn't look at the examples that already exist and see how they work if you use them that way?
I highly recommend people consider trying out following up a fireball with a single action level 3 magic missile to finish off the hardest target in the blast area, just to get a feel for what kind of damage output a wizard is capable of putting out.
Then remember that an evoker gets to do this every encounter, while other wizards can think about scrolls and such to keep up. As you go up in level your magic missile can trail your top spell levels and still be enough to be a better finishing move than any martial 3rd attack.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
SO when people say they want more one action damage spells, we shouldn't look at the examples that already exist and see how they work if you use them that way?
An important qualifier here is that Magic Missile is a slotted spell, which are precious enough that using it as a 1 action cast can feel like a waste, even if it was an Evoker doing it.
Yes, you can follow up that fireball with a magic missile. Or you can cast Shield, so your target's 2 other buddies don't fill you with arrows, and then cast a 3 action MM the next round and hit all 3 of them, assuming the fighter and rogue didn't finish them off in the meantime.
A 1 action cantrip would be a much better indication if people would prefer plinking away at a little damage or using Shield, since a cantrip wouldn't compete with a 3 action spell for your slot usage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SO when people say they want more one action damage spells, we shouldn't look at the examples that already exist and see how they work if you use them that way?An important qualifier here is that Magic Missile is a slotted spell, which are precious enough that using it as a 1 action cast can feel like a waste, even if it was an Evoker doing it.
Yes, you can follow up that fireball with a magic missile. Or you can cast Shield, so your target's 2 other buddies don't fill you with arrows, and then cast a 3 action MM the next round and hit all 3 of them, assuming the fighter and rogue didn't finish them off in the meantime.
A 1 action cantrip would be a much better indication if people would prefer plinking away at a little damage or using Shield, since a cantrip wouldn't compete with a 3 action spell for your slot usage.
I also think the real reason why people don't use one-action version of Heal and Magic Missile is the high resource cost. Because the efficiency is there (1-action Magic Missile with Dangerous Sorcery is actually one of the highest single-target damaging option of the game, equivalent to a Greatsword Dragon Barbarian secondary attack on same level enemies).
But I don't think 1-action cantrips will change anything. Right now, a cantrip deals twice the damage of a caster attack with a fully runed Returning Javelin. This is an option available to all casters already and, besides the cost, I don't think it's viewed as anywhere close to desirable because damage is so low it's half useless. So, unless 1-action cantrips deal more than 50% of 2-action cantrips, they will be seen as mostly useless. They will deal less damage than Daze...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do people think a one action damage cantrip would look like, given that daze is a two action cantrip that does ability modifier damage at range 60ft?
Ability modifier non-lethal bludgeoning damage at melee range that requires a spell attack roll? And heightens every other level. Would that really be any better than just attacking with a weapon?
Players really need to challenge their own ideas about what sustainable spell casting looks like and start asking themselves, "how do I cast as many of the most powerful spells that I can per day," and then actually trying out the different ways to do so, even if they feel counter intuitive to past caster strategies.
"The wizard doesn't play like I want it to" is a fine subjective position to take on the class. "The wizard is weak, because it doesn't play like I want it to" is a false claim.
A 5th level wizard, or a sorcerer, could cast a fire ball, and then a one action 3rd level magic missile, followed up by another 3 action level 1 or level 3 magic missile the following round to clean up the remains if they need to. Or they could likely clean up the remains with an electric arc and then still have a magic missile left over as a 3rd action if lives seem like they are on the line when it comes to finishing off a brutal target.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I made no claims about if the wizard or the spell is weak. I said 1 action magic missile can feel like a waste because of the resource cost of 1 spell slot, which could instead be used on a 3 action version of the same spell. If the resource cost was only 1 action, no slot or focus point involved, that would be a better illustration if people liked 1 action spells. Alternatively, a spell that can only be cast as 1 action, so that the slot does not compete with a 3 action version of itself, would also work.
Players really need to challenge their own ideas about what sustainable spell casting looks like and start asking themselves, "how do I cast as many of the most powerful spells that I can per day," and then actually trying out the different ways to do so, even if they feel counter intuitive to past caster strategies.
Given that you're the one throwing your hands up saying it can't be done, and telling us that we're being unrealistic for thinking it could be done in a balanced manner, I'm not sure we're the only ones that could stand to have their thinking challenged.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do people think a one action damage cantrip would look like, given that daze is a two action cantrip that does ability modifier damage at range 60ft?
Ability modifier non-lethal bludgeoning damage at melee range that requires a spell attack roll? And heightens every other level. Would that really be any better than just attacking with a weapon?
I think single action damage cantrips are a must, especially to help out the Magus not use all 3 actions on Striking Spell. Plus it helps give casters another single action option.
I think a 1 action cantrip could work like this:
Zap > (1 action)
Cast: verbal
Range: 30 feet; Targets 1 creature or object
You zap an enemy with lightning. Make a spell attack roll, dealing 1d4 electricity damage on a success, and double damage on a critical success.
Heightens (+2): The damage increases by 1d4.
This is simple, but obviously less powerful than a regular cantrip. Produce flame deals an average of 6.5 damage at 1st level, while Zap only deals 2.5 damage. By 20th level, Produce Flame deals 31 (32 with apex) on average, while Zap only deals 12.5 on average. If the damage is too low, then the base Zap deals ability mod damage and heightens to +1d4. So the base damage starts at 4 (still lower than regular cantrips) and scales to 4d4 + 6/7 (average 16-17).
Produce Flame and other cantrips cost 2 actions, but deal more damage, and offer cool effects on crits.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do people think a one action damage cantrip would look like, given that daze is a two action cantrip that does ability modifier damage at range 60ft?
And stuns on a crit. Not having the chance to stun would probably help.
Why use the lowest damage cantrip as an example, when there's other cantrips with shorter range but higher damage, and less useful crit success states? It seems like a bad faith argument to use the lowest damage as your starting point and then go "how much lower can this damage go and still be balanced?"
For instance, a cantrip that does not damage at all, but conveys a useful debuff, would be balanced. Throwing out flat-footed on a success or crit success would be within line of the Feint action, but perhaps targeting a save instead of Perception. Letting it minorly damage on top of that would just be a bonus; the real benefit would be the FF state.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well something that can only be used a few times a day without being able to recover it should be stronger than something that can be used often.
Not necessarily. The current balance is that casters have broad but limited abilities while martials have narrow but unlimited abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do people think a one action damage cantrip would look like, given that daze is a two action cantrip that does ability modifier damage at range 60ft?
And stuns on a crit. Not having the chance to stun would probably help.
Why use the lowest damage cantrip as an example, when there's other cantrips with shorter range but higher damage, and less useful crit success states? It seems like a bad faith argument to use the lowest damage as your starting point and then go "how much lower can this damage go and still be balanced?"
For instance, a cantrip that does not damage at all, but conveys a useful debuff, would be balanced. Throwing out flat-footed on a success or crit success would be within line of the Feint action, but perhaps targeting a save instead of Perception. Letting it minorly damage on top of that would just be a bonus; the real benefit would be the FF state.
I like the idea of non-damage cantrips that instead do a debuff. Guidance is similar except for buffing. You could even do the inverse of Guidance like this:
Curse > (1 action)
Cast: verbal
Range: 30 feet; Targets 1 creature
Duration: until the start of your next turn
You curse a target with misfortune, giving the target a -1 status penalty to the next attack roll, Perception check, saving throw, or skill check the target attempts before the duration ends. If the target takes the penalty, the spell ends. Either way, the target is then temporarily immune for 1 hour.
For instance, a cantrip that does not damage at all, but conveys a useful debuff, would be balanced. Throwing out flat-footed on a success or crit success would be within line of the Feint action, but perhaps targeting a save instead of Perception. Letting it minorly damage on top of that would just be a bonus; the real benefit would be the FF state.
Given all the hurdles that Feint has to overcome (range, skill investment, weapon and attribute investment, minimum level of required critical success to aid other players), its pretty clear that a cantrip that imposes Flat Footed at any greater than touch range would be bonkers good - even at two actions.
As a single action cantrip, even at touch range, its likely outside what is reasonable given that feint requires a critical success to benefit anything other than your next melee attack.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given all the hurdles that Feint has to overcome (range, skill investment, weapon and attribute investment, minimum level of required critical success to aid other players), its pretty clear that a cantrip that imposes Flat Footed at ant greater than touch range would be bonkers good - even at two actions.
I'm sorry, please show me where I specified a range for this spell?
This is what is so frustrating about talking to you all. You keep adding onto what I'm saying, and then saying that new thing that I never said is ridiculous. Please actually engage with what I say, not what you imagine I'm saying. It really feels like it is more important to you that you get to say "You're wrong" than actually have a discussion.
What do people think a one action damage cantrip would look like, given that daze is a two action cantrip that does ability modifier damage at range 60ft?
And stuns on a crit. Not having the chance to stun would probably help.
Why use the lowest damage cantrip as an example, when there's other cantrips with shorter range but higher damage, and less useful crit success states? It seems like a bad faith argument to use the lowest damage as your starting point and then go "how much lower can this damage go and still be balanced?"
For instance, a cantrip that does not damage at all, but conveys a useful debuff, would be balanced. Throwing out flat-footed on a success or crit success would be within line of the Feint action, but perhaps targeting a save instead of Perception. Letting it minorly damage on top of that would just be a bonus; the real benefit would be the FF state.
I like the idea of non-damage cantrips that instead do a debuff. Guidance is similar except for buffing. You could even do the inverse of Guidance like this:
Curse > (1 action)
Cast: verbal
Range: 30 feet; Targets 1 creature
Duration: until the start of your next turnYou curse a target with misfortune, giving the target a -1 status penalty to the next attack roll, Perception check, saving throw, or skill check the target attempts before the duration ends. If the target takes the penalty, the spell ends. Either way, the target is then temporarily immune for 1 hour.
The example spell here is absolutely broketier bonkers. Compare it to Demoralize, or even a Fear Spell (which is an excellent use of a first level spell slot).
Part of the issue is that it straight up stacks with Guidance, allowing many casters to set up a nearly entirely free "+2 turn" for a martial buddy with zero counterplay.
This sort of ability is not appropriate as general use cantrip in 2E.
See the Evil Eye Hex for what a balanced version of it looks like - available exclusively to Witches.