| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think by this point it's evident that Striking Spell is lackluster, but I didn't see any in depth calculations. I had some time on my hands so I cracked open a spreadsheet, and set out to answer the question: How does spell strike with a damaging attack spell compare to other 3-action combinations?
In short? Badly. In fact, out of all the options I checked, spell strike never improves round damage by more than 5%.
In the linked spreadsheet I calculated the ratio between damage dealt with striking spell and the best of the other three action options the magus has:
- -Strike then spell
- -Spell then strike
- -Strike three times
As parameters I took the chance to hit with a weapon attack (0.3-0.7), difference in hit chance between spells and weapons (0-0.25), and ratio between damage of spell on a success and damage of weapon success (0.5-5). The calculations don't take into account anything else.
Of the 2,484 options I calculated Striking Spell improved damage in only 39 cases, all in the 65%-70% weapon hit range
I've got to say, this is extremely disappointing. Not only is this ability just plain bad, it was an easily avoidable problem; it only took a couple of hours to do this calculation.
I know the team likes to low ball playtest abilities , but this is just sad.
Is this using all 4 spell slots for a powerful alpha strike 4 times per day?
Is this using all 4 spell slots for a powerful alpha strike 4 times per day?
The calculation is for a two action spell that on a hit does X times the damage that a weapon hit does. I took X to be up to 5, which probably covers all slotted spells, but I didn't check.
If you want to see how bad spell strike is for a specific spell and a specific level you'll need to calculate weapon damage, spell damage, and to hit and then reference the sheet
The ultimate alpha strike will build toward disintegrate from 6th level on up. Then it's cast that 4 times a day ad nauseum. Before disintegrate will probably be shocking grasp or sudden bolt ad nauseum switching up depending on the creature.
Did you include the (small odds) fun times of the fact. If the strike crits, the spell hits on a "miss" and crits on a "hit" roll for the spell attack. (or the equivalent modification on enemy saves.) Which, when occurs, is a bigger improvement than even getting legendary proficiency.
Yes, this is included.
The ultimate alpha strike will build toward disintegrate from 6th level on up. Then it's cast that 4 times a day ad nauseum. Before disintegrate will probably be shocking grasp or sudden bolt ad nauseum switching up depending on the creature.
The specific spell doesn't matter, just the damage ratios. Since Disintegrate isn't just an attack roll it isn't covered by my calculations, but a theoretical spell that does 20d10 on a hit is, and it doesn't look good.
I think it's likely that Striking Spell damage is balanced around spamming true strike. So if you do your analysis without that, and without accounting for the dramatic improvement that makes to your odds of critting on the Strike (especially when combined with AC debuffs), you won't appreciate how it's supposed to work.
Both AC debuffs and True Strike will also help just using the spell without spell strike, so going by the trend my calculations show I doubt it'll change much. Also the Magus doesn't have the slots to spam true strike; sure they can do the divination staff shtick, but that's a terrible edge case to balance around.
True strike stuff
So I ran the numbers with true strike, and it's only slightly better. If your spell does more than twice the damage of the weapon then spell striking is pretty much always bad (a few cases give a ~5% boost).
Using spells that do less damage can sometimes give a ~10% damage boost, but why are you spending a true strike on them?
Also these comparisons are only between Magus options; I'm pretty sure any gish multiclass will do much better.
I might share the true strike sheet tomorrow, but for now I need to go to sleep.
True strike stuffSo I ran the numbers with true strike, and it's only slightly better. If your spell does more than twice the damage of the weapon then spell striking is pretty much always bad (a few cases give a ~5% boost).
Using spells that do less damage can sometimes give a ~10% damage boost, but why are you spending a true strike on them?
Also these comparisons are only between Magus options; I'm pretty sure any gish multiclass will do much better.
I might share the true strike sheet tomorrow, but for now I need to go to sleep.
Does this factor the critical boost effect spell strike has?
Yes, as does the regular comparison.
Question, did you calculate this around standard MAP? Or around agile?
Is there much of a difference between the two?
Obviously it'll boost 3 strikes vs Strike+Cast, and probably also Striking Spell vs Strike+Cast, but hard to intuit by how much.
This does not match my math. Are you including the fact that - if the Strike misses - you have more chances to hit/crit with the spell on the following round? Even with cantrips, that has a significant damage increase over non-agile Strike three times routines with my calculations (at level 7 vs lvl + 0, it's 27.35 vs 21.75).
Question, did you calculate this around standard MAP? Or around agile?
Standard, which is the most favorable option for striking spell (since no MAP is involved). Adding agile will only change spell+strike and three strikes.
This does not match my math. Are you including the fact that - if the Strike misses - you have more chances to hit/crit with the spell on the following round?
That's an interesting point, I guess a fuller comparison will be for six actions options (with at most one cast).
|
Yeah counting round 2 is needed; Striking Spell Magus damage is greater than or equal to non-striking in every single round 2 strikestrikestrike scenario (because everything is identical except Striker may have bonus spell damage added).But only when your round 1 damage is 0, so you'll still fall behind overall except for a few situations.
Yeah counting round 2 is needed; Striking Spell Magus damage is greater than or equal to non-striking in every single round 2 strikestrikestrike scenario (because everything is identical except Striker may have bonus spell damage added).But only when your round 1 damage is 0, so you'll still fall behind overall except for a few situations.
It's zero and it SUCKS.
I've seen this similar several times with the Alchemist in my Age of Ashes group. The player always got frustrated and detached in EVERY battle against higher level enemies, where everyone has hard time but it was something else to see your character missing every round despite going full nova.
Spell strike should be better than what a Magus can do via two strikes when with cantrips. Especially with how spell strike currently works. So when you are in a bad position you have to settle for strikes.
In a better position you use spell strike with cantrips. Prime position you burn the spell.
|
|
Spell strike should be better than what a Magus can do via two strikes when with cantrips. Especially with how spell strike currently works. So when you are in a bad position you have to settle for strikes.
In a better position you use spell strike with cantrips. Prime position you burn the spell.
It really depends. The lower you can get the enemy AC, the better spellstrike and a cantrip does. But against a high-AC level +0 enemy, two attacks from a weapon and spellstrike with a cantrip (telekinetic projectile) are about equal. There are levels where the cantrip performs better, which are basically the odd levels when it heightens. And there are levels where the weapon performs better. When you pick up a new rune, etc.
But what's making that true is the free Stride from Slide Casting. Without that, you aren't getting to Striking Spell and attack in round 1. If you are, then you are already next to the enemy, and you could be attacking three times, which will do more damage than the cantrip.
Yes, if you've got a third action, you might be better off casting shield or spell parrying, but that's damage prevented that the Striking Spell user doesn't get, and you're doing so because you've already decided that preventing damage is more important than dealing a little extra.
EDIT: Electric Arc against a Moderate save is similar, dropping off for some reason at very high levels.
In a better position you use spell strike with cantrips. Prime position you burn the spell.
If you'll look at the table you'll see that in a prime position you shouldn't use spell strike with a slotted spell (without accounting for round 2).
*Slide*
I'm interested in the value of striking spell as a design, not as a
an option in combat, so I'm not counting any ride along effects. If striking spell is replaced the ride alongs can be applied to whatever replaces it.I'll try to take round 2 into account if I find the time today.
People like fancy bells and whistles. When one group has been arguing that something is not powerful enough, while another group argues that it is still fun and workable, for a month and then the end product gets something new and shiny but still rooted in the original concept at the end, there is probably more overall satisfaction than if some are arguing it is overturned and some are arguing it is fine and then it gets dialed back.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's more satisfying to see something disapointing at first reworked in something better than having something fun (but unbalanced) get nerfed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I found an error in the crit weapon hit contribution, and recalculated everything both for one round and two rounds.
Using the new calculations for one round routines Striking Spell is sometimes beneficial in weapon to hit >=60% range. In this range you could lose 10% damage output or gain up to 20% in some sweet spots. No damage ratio or to hit in range is always beneficial.
In the two rounds routine I took the second round to always be three strikes. Striking Spell turned out pretty beneficial in this calculation, giving a 5%-15% boost in most situations. There were some with less, and some with more, but overall an improvement.
My conclusions? Striking Spell can be beneficial, but it does so at great cost to action flexibility due to requiring all actions in round one and possibly many in round two; slide casting helps a lot with this issue, but the other syntheses don't.
The next question to answer is how does a base Magus compare with other gishes (either martial classes with caster dedications, casters with martial\combat style dedications, or some focus spell based builds). I'd like to see a comparison with the Eldritch archer in particular. I have to say I doubt the Magus will fare well against any of these, but we will see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
spell striking not being your go to for any situation you can apply it is like rage being situational. your a poormans martial without it and majority of your cool s!~# keys off of it. (since range is responsible for much more than raw damage)
I found an error in the crit weapon hit contribution, and recalculated everything both for one round and two rounds.
Using the new calculations for one round routines Striking Spell is sometimes beneficial in weapon to hit >=60% range. In this range you could lose 10% damage output or gain up to 20% in some sweet spots. No damage ratio or to hit in range is always beneficial.
In the two rounds routine I took the second round to always be three strikes. Striking Spell turned out pretty beneficial in this calculation, giving a 5%-15% boost in most situations. There were some with less, and some with more, but overall an improvement.
My conclusions? Striking Spell can be beneficial, but it does so at great cost to action flexibility due to requiring all actions in round one and possibly many in round two; slide casting helps a lot with this issue, but the other syntheses don't.
The next question to answer is how does a base Magus compare with other gishes (either martial classes with caster dedications, casters with martial\combat style dedications, or some focus spell based builds). I'd like to see a comparison with the Eldritch archer in particular. I have to say I doubt the Magus will fare well against any of these, but we will see.
Question: did you use an attack-roll based spell, or a save-based spell?
If the former, did you account for triggering on the 2nd or 3rd attack applying a -5 or 10MAP to the Spell's attack roll?
Question: did you use an attack-roll based spell, or a save-based spell?
If the former, did you account for triggering on the 2nd or 3rd attack applying a -5 or 10MAP to the Spell's attack roll?
I did use attack roll spells, and the second round comparison takes the MAP into account.
I found an error in the crit weapon hit contribution, and recalculated everything both for one round and two rounds.
Using the new calculations for one round routines Striking Spell is sometimes beneficial in weapon to hit >=60% range. In this range you could lose 10% damage output or gain up to 20% in some sweet spots. No damage ratio or to hit in range is always beneficial.
In the two rounds routine I took the second round to always be three strikes. Striking Spell turned out pretty beneficial in this calculation, giving a 5%-15% boost in most situations. There were some with less, and some with more, but overall an improvement.
My conclusions? Striking Spell can be beneficial, but it does so at great cost to action flexibility due to requiring all actions in round one and possibly many in round two; slide casting helps a lot with this issue, but the other syntheses don't.
The next question to answer is how does a base Magus compare with other gishes (either martial classes with caster dedications, casters with martial\combat style dedications, or some focus spell based builds). I'd like to see a comparison with the Eldritch archer in particular. I have to say I doubt the Magus will fare well against any of these, but we will see.
The magus really starts to shine when they can crit on the weapon hit with a 15-20% accuracy. Your data here is more representative of what I have seen with the class as well. The classes dependency on flanking is easy for a lot of newer players to miss.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Magus gets more benefit from to-hit bonuses, and more penalty from to-hit reductions.
They are much more sensitive to enemy AC than any other class so far.
That, and the fact that there is only currently one efficient build for them (sliding and crit-fishing) means that something needs to change. Both to make the rest of the game easier to balance (because bonuses and penalties have inordinate effect on a single class), but also to make the class itself viable across multiple playstyles. Like every other class in the game.
---
Anyway, thanks for doing the probability trees to calculate this out.
As a case study for striking spell with a cantrip I considered a d8 weapon (since we need one handed for slide) and telekinetic projectile, getting the fundamental runes at their level-1. Weapon specialization was also taken into account. Nothing else was considered. Anything that improves weapon damage will make these numbers worse
In levels 1-4 striking spell under preformed for all to hits.
Levels 5-6 see 1-5% increases in the 50% and over hit chance.
Levels 7-8 improve damage by around 0-5%
Level 9 has a 0-10% improvement
Level 10 is pretty bad, loosing 5% in the low to hits and gaining 5% in the highs.
Levels 11-12 are back at 0-5%
Levels 13-16 are bad again with -5% to 5% (greater weapon spec. is a big hit to 15-16)
Level 17 hurts at the lows(0-5% loss for to hits below 50%), but can get a respectable 10% in the highs.
Level 18 is sees losses in the lows, nothing in the mids, and only 5% in the highs.
Levels 19-20 have double spellstrike, making the tables irrelevant.
In conclusion, spell strike with cantrips is terrible before level 5, and afterwards is only beneficial (or at least worth the castle) for very high hit chances. The slide casting makes it worth it, but that has nothing with the specific design of spell strike.
Using a d6 weapon will improve everything by around 5%, and a higher die weapons will detract by around 5%.
The Magus gets more benefit from to-hit bonuses, and more penalty from to-hit reductions.
They are much more sensitive to enemy AC than any other class so far.
That, and the fact that there is only currently one efficient build for them (sliding and crit-fishing) means that something needs to change. Both to make the rest of the game easier to balance (because bonuses and penalties have inordinate effect on a single class), but also to make the class itself viable across multiple playstyles. Like every other class in the game.
---
Anyway, thanks for doing the probability trees to calculate this out.
I think this is the biggest issue. Spell striking with slotted spells is often worth it, but really suffers against bosses. Considering one mostly uses slots against bosses this is a big problem. Against mooks it does well, but at that point why not use spells that can target more of them.
And thank you for reading my mathematical ramblings :)