|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With a flank, you go to a 17.8% chance that you crit on the right attack vs a 6.15% chance that you miss completely. Which is a lot better, but assumes a flank on round 2 as well.
That’s against an at level opponent. Against a boss, flanking just gets you back close to the original numbers. And against a boss is when you’re likely to be casting a non-cantrip spell, meaning you’re more likely to actually lose something than to deal extra damage with it.
I find it unrealistic to assume zero bonuses on your one big attack. Especially if you are planning to spend a spell slot.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it unrealistic to assume zero bonuses on your one big attack. Especially if you are planning to spend a spell slot.
i find it unrealistic to assume every table is going to play to your level and to balance a class around that level.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it unrealistic to assume zero bonuses on your one big attack. Especially if you are planning to spend a spell slot.
We aren’t generally discussing your one big attack. We’re discussing cantrips.
Against a boss, I’m giving a +2 (at least flanking or some combination of other bonuses), and that only gets you to where the subpar numbers are against an at level opponent with no bonuses.
Just to show the math:
Against an at level High-AC opponent (high-ac has been established as the most common number), you’re generally at a 55% chance to hit (including crits on a 20):
Chance to miss round 1: 45%
Chance to miss round 2:
Attack 1: 45% Attack 2: 70% Attack 3: 95%Chance that all 4 miss = .45x.45x.7x.95 = 13.5%
That’s a 13.5% chance that your two actions to cast the spell are wasted, because you never get to make the spell attack or force them to make a save.
Your chance to crit on the attack and improve the spell is more complicated.
Chance that attack 1 crits: 5%
Chance that attack 1 misses, attack 1 crits round 2: .45x.05=2.25%
Chance that previous attacks miss, attack 2 crits: .45x.45x.05 =1.01%
Chance that previous attacks miss, attack 3 crits: .45x.45x.7x.05=.71%Chance that a crit improves the spell result: 5+2.25+1.01+.71 = 8.97%
You’re giving up using the spell 13.5% of the time for an 8.97% chance that you do an extra amount of damage equal to the normal damage of the spell. You’re more likely to do 0 damage with the spell than you are to do extra damage with the spell. You have to improve the situation to the point that you are more likely to crit on one of the 4 attack than you are to miss on all of the 4 attacks before it makes sense to use a saving throw cantrip with Striking Spell.
Or you are using it to get the free move or the temp hitpoints. Which is a separate ability and doesn’t need the mirage of nova crit damage to be there to function.
Most of the attack cantrips are spell attack rolls, though. They already have a chance to do nothing, and a higher one if you also suffer MAP.
If it doesn't work as well for saving throws, then that's less than ideal, but also true to the PF1 Magus, and how the spell storing runes work. Spell attacks have been lamenteded as being worse than saving throw spells pretty much since the game released, so a class having an incentive to use the former over the latter doesn't seem like a bad thing.
If spell strike is worse for Produce Flame, then that's a problem, but that is also hard to believe.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those numbers don’t include the chance that the spell fails to hit/enemy succeeds at their save. That is a 13% chance that you never make that roll at all. It’s not the chance that the spell fails. It’s the chance that there is no spelll, despite spending 2 actions to cast it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
when did hard to believe become an acceptable response to math
when did hard to believe become an acceptable response to mathAbout two weeks into the presidential campaigns back in 2016
lets not debase ourselves to tribal politics as a acceptable response. funny though
when did hard to believe become an acceptable response to mathAbout two weeks into the presidential campaigns back in 2016
Electoral colleges...
lets not debase ourselves to tribal politics as a acceptable response. funny though
Probably a good thing. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah yes, the EC. The great debate where apparently neither side can do math and openly demonstrate this at all times.
I have an opinion on it, which is not germane to this forum, but hearing arguments from either side usually make me go "that...that's not how demographics work."
Anyways, back to the thread.
If spell strike is worse for Produce Flame, then that's a problem, but that is also hard to believe.
You get a bit better odds using Striking Spell than if you were to Strike then Produce Flame (with MAP applying to the spell). Casting Produce Flame then Strike gives better damage than doing that or using Striking Spell though.
The wider the gap between your Strike roll vs Spell Attack roll, the better Striking Spell is over letting MAP apply to Produce Flame. However, that also means you were likely better off simply Striking 2 more times, especially if Energize is running (I love that feat by the way, that is the kind of thing I want to see in a Gish).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah yes, the EC. The great debate where apparently neither side can do math and openly demonstrate this at all times.
I have an opinion on it, which is not germane to this forum, but hearing arguments from either side usually make me go "that...that's not how demographics work."
Anyways, back to the thread.
If spell strike is worse for Produce Flame, then that's a problem, but that is also hard to believe.You get a bit better odds using Striking Spell than if you were to Strike then Produce Flame (with MAP applying to the spell). Casting Produce Flame then Strike gives better damage than doing that or using Striking Spell though.
The wider the gap between your Strike roll vs Spell Attack roll, the better Striking Spell is over letting MAP apply to Produce Flame. However, that also means you were likely better off simply Striking 2 more times, especially if Energize is running (I love that feat by the way, that is the kind of thing I want to see in a Gish).
Ok, yeah, something is wrong if Produce Flame > Strike is better than Spell Strike.
@Animate Paper, can you show us the math on produce flame + strike being better than spellstrike strike and produce flame?
Is this assuming an agile weapon with a low damage die?
I don't see how you are getting those numbers unless starting accuracy is worse than 50%.
As soon as your crit chance with the weapon strike hits 10%, that will cease to be true for certain, and that will very often be the case with as little as gaining flanking. By level 13, even if you were struggling with accuracy previously, the magus will have a 10% crit rate on all melee attacks with the keen rune from runic impression and then spell strike and produce flame or telekinetic projectile will be better again. The magus will be hard pressed to have many rounds where they can spend 3 actions attacking. They are too fragile to stand toe to toe with most enemies for more than 1 round at a time with out heavy healing. Sustained steel can hel a little with that, but not much. Standing still and flailing with a blade is a quick way to unconciousness for a magus. At least being able to use spell strike every other turn lets you prep it in a little bit of safety before unleasing, or getting away before casting, and then taking a defensive action, with the intention of stepping back in next round. My actual testing of the magus has shown their lack of defenses to be something that must be factored in to your combat routine. (Being in a party with a liberator champion and a cleric can help a lot, but that will be a rare situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's essentially two attacks with the first one having a worse proficiency bonus and likely lower damage and the second one eating MAP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Produce Flame + Strike (no striking spell) is bad compared to essentially anything, because MAP. Not really a useful comparison.
Yeah, it's like taking MAP's before you actually take MAP's
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see. I hadn't realized so many of the combat cantrips were save based not attack based.It's not just that. Spell Attack math is currently pretty flawed for the Magus. They have lower int, no (meaningful) master spellcaster proficiency, and spell attacks don't get weapon mod which means the higher level you go, the worse off spell attacks are. It's true that Striking Spell doesn't apply MAP. That doesn't mean much when your spell attacks are already at -5 compared to your weapon attack. At level 13 your weapon attacks are at +26, and your spell attacks are at +21. It's pretty flawed from the ground up.
This is exactly why the weapon attack roll should determine crit not a weapon attack roll and a spell attack roll. Only if the spell allows a save like disintegrate or electric arc should a save be made with an attack roll.
The new magus/summoner spell level progression (do we have a term for that yet?) reminds me of the 5e warlock. Cantrips make up the bulk of your spell casting activity, then you've got you focus spells as a rapidly renewable resources and then finally you've got a handful spells for when you need to pack a punch.
Overall I like this new approach to spell casting.
A warlock can get his spell slots back on a short rest after 1 hour? These 4 slot classes cannot. If they allowed a 1 hour recharge so you could cast around 8 to 12 slots a day, that would be much, much better.
If they going to do 5E warlock casting, then go all the way. Don't half-ass it and give a Magus some kind of unique cantrip for spellstriking like a warlock's Eldritch Blast.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Animate Paper, can you show us the math on produce flame + strike being better than spellstrike strike and produce flame?
Why? You're just going to come up with more conditions to add and modifiers that you feel should be baseline that must prove your point, without actually being willing to go to the trouble of doing the math yourself.
Believe me or don't. But do your own math homework.
It's essentially two attacks with the first one having a worse proficiency bonus and likely lower damage and the second one eating MAP.
That "likely" is doing a lot of lifting there. Cantrips, especially Produce Flame, scale up in damage faster than most weapons. At level 12, when weapons are getting their 3rd damage die, Produce Flame has 6, and also does effectively triple damage on a crit instead of double. Now, granted, that damage die is lower than most weapons and its crit rate will be lower. But not lower enough in many cases to be outpaced by a single weapon swing (d12 weapons more or less always win, d10s are iffy at many levels, d8s start strong but flag past level 7 or so, d6s and d4s need a strong deadly trait to compete).
It is, however, absolutely creamed by a second Strike with almost any weapons, due to the proficiency bump you mention, which is what you could have done with those actions instead.
All that said, Produce Flame > Strike doesn't outdamage Striking Spell as often as I thought once I ran more numbers through it, unless you trigger a weakness or some other strange circumstance. It just happened to be doing so on the particular graph I had open. Electric Arc does generally, while Daze only often does.
|
|
Cantrip damage dice scale faster than weapon dice, but cantrips are two actions. So as you point out, they should be compared to two attacks.
There are levels where striking spell with a cantrip exceeds attacking twice. Those are typically the odd levels above 1st where the cantrip is getting an extra die and the weapon attack isn't getting some kind of boost (extra die from a rune, weapon specialization, proficiency increase).
People have a habit of ignoring third attacks, though, and they really shouldn't. All of the same things that make it more likely that you will crit with the weapon in order to improve the success of the spell also improve your attacks with a weapon. When things are lined up right for my Rogue (flanking and maybe a party buff or condition on the enemy), I find myself often having a 20-25% chance to hit with a third attack.
For example, if you're flanking an at level opponent, your first attack typically has a 50% chance to hit but not crit and a 15% chance to crit. Your third attack with an agile weapon has a 20% chance to hit but not crit and a 5% chance to crit. So you have a 25% chance to hit with a third attack. That's not a great chance of hitting, but there's only a 15% chance that your first weapon attack is going to be a crit adding 1x spell damage and a 35% chance you don't get to roll the spell at all that round. That's why the expected damage charts come out ahead for attacking three times vs striking spell and an attack roll cantrip.
Even expanding it out over two rounds, you need to get the numbers to a point where you're more likely to crit with the attack that discharges the spell than you are to hit with the third attack to really make it worth it. And again, every point of buff, condition, or other modifier to your attack rolls also improves the chances of hitting with that third attack.
Deciding to never make a third attack or always thinking of it as crit-fishing for a 5% chance to hit is a mistake that I see happen at the table a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cantrip damage dice scale faster than weapon dice, but cantrips are two actions. So as you point out, they should be compared to two attacks.
The question was if Produce Flame > Strike every beat the full 3 action Striking Spell, not if Produce Flame ever beat 2 weapon swings.
But yes, full agreement on the rest of your post. In fact, I hadn't accounted for the Flaming Rune, so that tilts things even more against my original argument.
Spellstrike with cantrips should be two actions, martial roll dependent, and deal half the cantrip damage (or whatever amount to be comparable to power attack) or full damage if they wanna stay with 3 actions. Just make it reliable and nerf the damage ceiling to make it more agreeable to detractors