| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if you said, "I'm not a big fan of pizza, there's no tomato sauce in there," I think people are in the clear by informing you that there is. Sure, there's pizza without tomato sauce, but that's not what you referred to?
I don't think anyone is misconstruing anything you're saying. You said you haven't seen a dragon in the APs, people said there are, you reiterated that you haven't seen them, people are saying, yes, but the original point you made is invalid because your perception wasn't complete.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite part of War and Peace is Spy vs Spy.
LOL Me too. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is it, graystone. This is our thing that makes us put aside our differences and be forum buddies.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
...as is far too common on this forum, me not repeating literally everything I've already said has been leveraged to frame what I did say in a post as though it doesn't have the supporting context of the other things I've said in the same thread...
What I said was "Second, even when they do play the published adventures, that's not actually a guarantee that they are going to play them unaltered" - and yes, if someone has played an altered version of a published, no matter how severely altered it might be, they are going to say "yes, I've played that campaign."
Are they? I wouldn't. Saying that is a pretty sure way to cause confusion and make people go 'Wait, what?' when you talk about stuff not in the published adventure, which is bad for communication.
Which, to be clear, is exactly what I did. I went 'Wait, what, how?' when you said something that was directly contradictory to how the AP went.
Most of them won't know one way or the other whether the campaign was altered, and if so how, even, considering that most folks don't read through the AP books after they've finished playing through them.
I don't know how accurate this 'most' is. Certainly most people I've played with had an idea when the GM made major campaign changes. We could tell, since the tone tends to be pretty different for stuff the GM makes up them self.
You complained earlier about me generalizing from my own experiences (which I wasn't doing in that specific instance), but that's nevertheless exactly what you're doing here.
Can this happen, where they refer to having played something they actually didn't in ignorance? Sure. But if they talk about said campaign later and reference things that are untrue about the published version people are gonna understandably be confused and once they know it was completely different they should probably not say 'I played that campaign', since that isn't really true and will result in confusion. They played a campaign, but not the one people refer to by that name (ie: the published one).
I guess y'all could say "then they didn't really play that campaign" but that's a slippery slope - where do you draw the line between "really" played it and "didn't really" play it? because there's a lot of variance that happens even between two GMs who are both "sticking to the book" and what one GM might view as "a minor alteration" is another GM's "revised the entire plot"
There's room for nuance in terms of details, certainly, but if you dealt with zero of the published main bosses after the first book, you didn't play the campaign. And that's the degree of divergence we're talking if you're saying there are no dragons in AoA.
I'm not saying it is some kind of grave sin to refer to having played an AP with this kind of changes...but when you refer to playing any published content people in general will assume you are referring, more or less, to the published version, meaning the further you are from that the worse you are communicating to them what actually occurred. It's bad communication and will lead to confusion...exactly as it has in this case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reacting to my statements with "Oh, your GM must have taken out the dragons" rather than "if you didn't see a dragon, you must be wrong about what campaign you were playing"
Or, given the meaning of the term "Age of Ashes," a logical response might be, Oh, so your GM actually ran "Age Of." Because the reasons for everything that's happening, and what an Age of Ashes would look like if it comes to pass - it's ALL about the dragons.
It's like saying "I played Return of the Runelords but there weren't any Runelords mentioned in the whole adventure." Anyone who's actually seen those adventures is going to be completely confused by that statement. And is going to correct you. And they'll be right, because you never played 80%+ of the content that belongs to that name.
Seriously, go read the ultra-brief synopses of the six adventures on the Adventure Path product page - we'll wait.
And if you ever get the chance, read through the actual adventures to see what you missed. Because there's a lot of awesome stuff in those adventures that you never got the chance to see. And that's kinda sad.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, they did play the campaign people refer to by that name, and people in general will - being aware of the fact that table variance is a thing - not be confused at all when their experience of that adventure differs; whether that comes down to doing things in a different order, a GM making some alterations, or just a difference in approach taken by the players resulting in parts of the campaign playing out different.
This is fundamentally not how people work. If you say, 'I went and saw Romeo and Juliet' people will assume you mean the Shakespeare play (possibly in movie form). They will not assume you mean the ballet, and will be confused when you say you liked the music but couldn't tell what was going on because there was no dialogue. If you do not clarify that your experience was non-standard you are using language poorly and failing to communicate what you intend to.
Likewise, if you see the first half hour of The Godfather telling people you have seen The Godfather is both inaccurate and bad communication of what happened. And that's actually more like the current situation, since you admit you never finished AoA.
And yes, for the record, the Romeo and Juliet ballet is a thing. I saw part of it recently on PBS.
Reacting to my statements with "Oh, your GM must have taken out the dragons" rather than "if you didn't see a dragon, you must be wrong about what campaign you were playing"
I didn't say that second thing, though. I said, and I quote:
"Side issue entirely, but there are several dragons in AoA, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here."
You're the one who apparently took that as the second statement, or something like it. I intended it as more like 'Wait, what happened to the dragons?' (combined with noting to others in the thread that there were indeed dragons in AoA). You then neglected to actually explain yourself as to what happenedto said dragons in your first post thereafter and it all sort of ballooned into this from there.
My first post was a request for clarification because I was confused as to how what you said could be true. My whole point now is that what you said was confusing, not just to me but to many people, and that you should try and be clearer so as to avoid such confusion in the future. That is pretty much my entire point here.
You are the one trying to impart ideas to others here, if you confuse many people by your phrasing you are doing it wrong. That's how communication works. It's not a matter of whether, in a perfect world, they'd understand you, of course they would as the world would be perfect, it's a matter of whether they will actually do so in the world as it is. And the way you're talking about this subject is confusing to a lot of people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But at any rate, I am finished with this thread.
No. Stop. Please. No.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're dying on one of the dumbest hills. But whatever makes you feel valid.People attacking my integrity as a person is not a dumb hill.
Neither is gate-keeping, which is exactly what's going on with the aggressive "then you didn't even play the campaign" comments because people are more willing to fling muck at me than let someone that didn't have the same experience as they did with a campaign dare to say they played that campaign - and think that saying "RTFM" actually applies like a person has to have read the online summary blurbs, or the back of their GM's AP volumes, or I dunno what... temper their own statements with stuff like "Yeah, I dunno if I played Age of Ashes or not... my GM said that's what they were running, but I didn't check if they did it right or not."
But at any rate, I am finished with this thread.
Playing AoA is not being part of something, like being a gamer or the like, and is not an identity like being LGBTQA, and saying someone did not do it is not gatekeeping in the normal sense of that word.
It is a specific piece of media, written by specific people, and you either consumed it or you did not. Saying you did when, by most people's definitions at the very least, you did not, is confusing and causes people to misunderstand what you are saying.
I am, to be clear, not calling you a liar or a bad person or attacking your integrity. This is way too minor an issue for that even if I thought it true, and I don't know you and have seen no evidence of anything of the kind. I'm saying that, a little while ago, in a specific instance you communicated badly in a way that confused me and others and it would be good if you didn't do that in the same way going forward as it will cause more confusion. That's it.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
thenobledrake, you're a valued member of this forum, you have great insights and contribute to discussions intelligently. I bet you're a great person and also you would be fun to hang out with. But, I'm telling you as gently as a I can: it's okay to make mistakes, this time you said something confusing and it seems like you really didn't want to walk it back, so now it looks like you're feeling defensive and embarrassed. We've all been there. I hope you don't feel like anyone is trying to pick on you.
Now, regarding the topic of the post:
I do think having a rare wand or rune that could be put on a staff that grants +1/+2 to spell attacks would be a welcome addition to the game. That's the kind of treasure I'd love to drop on a caster. I used to think something of the sort should be made just for cantrips, but the more I play the more I think all spell attacks should benefit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Second, NPCs all have cheating spell attack bonuses, suggesting Paizo knows it's a problem, but isn't concerned about that for PC casters (NPCs don't just have attack bonuses higher than level would suggest, but higher than their DC - 10).Setting aside that NPCs are built on different rules so not matching up to PC rules isn't actually "cheating"...
NPC spell attack modifiers, just like their weapon attack modifiers, are higher than PC numbers are at their base because an NPC is meant to function as a relevant threat even if it doesn't have any form of assistance.
While PC numbers are set assuming a level of teamwork within the party, for things like flanking, inspire courage and other bonuses to attacks, and debuffs like the frightened condition.
So while a mage for hire NPC out of the GMG has a +12 spell attack modifier* while having the spells of a 4th-level wizard that would only have a +10 - that difference is easily balanced out.
And really interesting to me while looking up this NPC to use as an example... none of the spells listed in the stat block even use attack rolls, and it even has true strike (which I guess could make it more accurate with the staff it carries and has no damage bonus to).
I definitely think there is an assumption that the NPCs won't have the buffing (and often teamwork) of the PCs. That being said, the Mage for Hire has a High spell attack bonus for a creature of its level, which is the same as a High attack bonus for a creature of its level - +12. For the same level of NPC "investment", a PC can reach the attack bonus (a 18 STR fighter: +4 expert + 3 level + 4 strength + 1 item = +12), while (as you noted) the spellcasting PCs cannot (side note here - is there a reason you're comparing the 4th level wizard's attack bonus to the 3rd level monster's?). Given all the same methods are available for buffing/debuffing the attack or spell attack rolls/enemy AC, it's certainly a strange discrepancy. I guess one could make the argument that spell attack rolls are more important to be landing, so the bonus is kept lower, but given the vast majority of attack roll spells cast would (presumably) be cantrips, I'm not certain that holds true.
It's also worth noting that, following the GMG monster guidelines here, the same 3rd-level enemy with an Extreme attack bonus is only +2 ahead of the fighter (+14) while a 3rd level enemy with an Extreme spell attack bonus is a whopping +6 ahead of the wizard (+15). I think this definitely does point to the GMG monster building guidelines acknowledging the need for a slightly boosted spell attack roll - it's exceptionally unlikely a 3rd level party is going to swing the dice by +6, and if they do, they should really be rewarded very heavily for doing so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we really want to step back and look at the OP question of why magical items that boost spell attack rolls don't exist (as official content for everyone), I think we have to admit that collectively as a community of gamers, that we don't have an official answer to the why. We do have a description in the rules telling us that item bonuses to spell attack rolls are going to be rare (pg 447), so expecting any item to do that and be commonly available is going against the grain of the game's established expectations.
One factor to keep in mind though is that the future of spells that use spell attack rolls will probably be much more clearly defined by the time we get the secrets of magic book, and the development of the class that is very likely to be most engaged with spell attack roll spells. That is why again, for homebrewers, I recommend that if you feel like spell attack roll boosting items are a necessary part of your game, you make it a unique item for your party and not a common thing that players should be able to expect to have or buy just anywhere, at least not until after we see what that book holds.
That mage for hire is a pretty strange NPC stat block. Yes it has that boosted spell attack roll bonus, but it also has no spell attack roll spells to cast, some caster NPCs don't seem to get that boost (like the Magaambyan Adepts), but then the mystics do. The necromancer NPC stands out as one of the few caster NPCs who has the boost and actually has dangerous spells to take advantage of that bonus.
Edit: Never mind Vampiric touch is not a spell attack roll spell either.
Yeah when you look at it close, very few high level casters will be making spell attack roll attacks with any kind of frequency unless they are standing around and using cantrips, which is an especially bad idea for NPC casters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah when you look at it close, very few high level casters will be making spell attack roll attacks with any kind of frequency unless they are standing around and using cantrips, which is an especially bad idea for NPC casters.
This is true. It's also true for PC casters, though, since non-cantrip attack roll spells are rare.
I don't think it effects the fact that the guidelines seem to indicate that at least a +2 to Spell Attack rolls on top of the sources currently available is reasonable, though.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because there aren't all that many spell attack (SA) spells to begin with. If you remove the cantrips from the count it's a really small fraction of the total set of offensive spells.
I agree that Secrets of Magic is going to be decisive for how SA spells will look in the future. Maybe the magus will work more like the eldritch archer, using a melee attack roll to deliver a Strike plus a spell payload. If that happens then future SA spells have to be balanced around the assumption that they're more accurate than save-based spells, so they can't do a lot more damage than those. But on the other hand, if they get balanced around that assumption, that also opens the door for item bonuses to hit with spells.
---
My main question is, what kind of hand-held thing will that be? Will be it rod/staff/wands that give you a +1 to "point and click"? Or will it be perhaps only rods, because staves do something else already?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think having a rare wand or rune that could be put on a staff that grants +1/+2 to spell attacks would be a welcome addition to the game. That's the kind of treasure I'd love to drop on a caster. I used to think something of the sort should be made just for cantrips, but the more I play the more I think all spell attacks should benefit.
I have misgivings about it being rare, specifically. I feel that if want to adjust the overall balance point in the game, it should be common.
However, it could be a plot thing that there is a "The One Staff" that is in fact an unbalanced thing, and therefore super worth fighting over because there's nothing else that can do that thing that actually shouldn't be possible.
right, but that makes an item that boosts spell attack rolls a little bit of a trap option that players may confuse as being a necessary core item, especially because they will be using cantrips a lot, and missing with them, right up until the point that they get high enough level to possibly buy this item, and then have access to much better spells that don't even use spell attack rolls anymore.
A spell attack roll focused caster, outside of a potential magus or eldritch archer (who gets item bonuses to their spell attack roll spells already, when using eldritch shot), is a pretty tricky and niche build that can get stuck with very few spell options.
Also, I haven't done a deep dive into focus spells and I have no idea if it would be possible to make a super cheese focus spell attack roll build that would throw numbers way off.
Like I said, homebrew it if it feels like something necessary at your table and your players would enjoy it. Adding it to the game as a whole didn't happen for a reason that we may not yet be fully privy to and doesn't feel worth messing with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Likewise, if you see the first half hour of The Godfather telling people you have seen The Godfather is both inaccurate and bad communication of what happened. And that's actually more like the current situation, since you admit you never finished AoA.
And yes, for the record, the Romeo and Juliet ballet is a thing. I saw part of it recently on PBS.
Now I want to watch The Godfather the ballet. ;)
I do think having a rare wand or rune that could be put on a staff that grants +1/+2 to spell attacks would be a welcome addition to the game. That's the kind of treasure I'd love to drop on a caster. I used to think something of the sort should be made just for cantrips, but the more I play the more I think all spell attacks should benefit.
I have misgivings about it being rare, specifically. I feel that if want to adjust the overall balance point in the game, it should be common.
However, it could be a plot thing that there is a "The One Staff" that is in fact an unbalanced thing, and therefore super worth fighting over because there's nothing else that can do that thing that actually shouldn't be possible.
I figure Rare would let it be a nice loot drop rather than "that item you have to buy at this level"
I wouldn't complain if Secrets of Magic gives us a common version, but if it doesn't then I'd want to be cautious about giving them out as a baseline option.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of suspect there may have been a slight mismatch of expectations in the AC benchmarks. The roadmaps suggest using moderate values whenever something isn't listed, but most don't list high AC and yet the AC section says it is the default for combat creatures.
If monster AC was expected to be a little bit lower on average than it actually is, it could explain why spell attacks didn't get a boost.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A spell attack roll focused caster, outside of a potential magus or eldritch archer (who gets item bonuses to their spell attack roll spells already, when using eldritch shot), is a pretty tricky and niche build that can get stuck with very few spell options.
I think it might be an exaggeration to call my Age of Ashes cleric focused on spell attacks, but it's more like plan A where I tend to rapidly cycle in between plans A-E.
I've got a rogue dedication (cuz cloistered clerics need armor proficiency), Dread Striker, a variety of Intimidation focused stuff (cuz cloistered clerics want Charisma anyway for Font). So when I say Boo! at someone, their AC drops by 3 or so, and spell attacks don't look so bad. Or if that doesn't work I can fall back to a staff of divination for True Strike.
So are there good spell attacks? As a gnome I picked up Ray of Frost for a long range option, at closer range Divine Lance is nice. And when I feel like spending actual resources, there's Searching Light. Although the name might suggest otherwise, I actually run into lots of enemies that can burn and are also weak to Good damage.
It's plan A but of course there's also plan B (needing to Heal people), C (area blasts with Divine Smite), D (spending loose single actions with longbow shots) and E (other save-based spells to whack enemies with).
I don't feel like I sacrificed all that much just to be able to do spell attacks well. They're pretty efficient for combats where it feels like the front row has things reasonably under control and I wanna shoot enemies without wasting resources. And they also like the Frightened on enemies.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone keeps saying there's not enough Spells that use spell attacks. You are right, however, there are 3 important cantrips: Produce Flame, Ray of Frost and Telekinetic Projectile, that do use spell attacks, and they are a staple of most spellcasters. People in this forum probably don't know those spells exist because they use Electric Arc instead, but they're real.
You'll see a lot more spell attacks than you'd imagine just because those spells are very spammable! They start of pretty decent, but become kinda unhittable later even for the low damage they do. +1 to spell attacks is worth having in the game if only to keep the power level of cantrips a bit more consistent.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A suggested change would be to change true strike from "roll twice and take the best" to "reroll if you miss". That would still have it make things more accurate, but would prevent using it for crit-fishing.
I actually really like this a lot. It's clean.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the sake of a hypothetical homebrew, what would be good levels to drop in a +1 spell attack item of some sort? The +2?
I guess I shouldn't call this hypothetical, since I am now considering doing this for any future PF2E games I run, and I'm also likely to leave this at a +1/+2 bonus maximum rather than the typical +1/+3.
Tricky to say. Personally, I think low level spell accuracy is actually fine, making cantrips superior in damage to ranged weapons right up until Potency Runes kick in, so I'd say 4th level for the +1 is about right (though 3rd would also be fine).
The +2 is harder to say, though with Weapon Runes hitting +2 at 10th and spell attack Proficiency lagging behind a Martial's weapon attack proficiency at 13th and 14th, I'd definitely have it kick in between 10th and 13th.
My own House Rules are a bit different from this, but I give out the full +3, so that's rather inevitable.
Personally, I also have the item in question do something else (my version adds an attack roll cantrip to the wearer's list of options), and probably be Invested. Of course, mine are also gloves, if you're gonna require a free hand to use this item maybe having it be Invested on top is overkill...
For the sake of a hypothetical homebrew, what would be good levels to drop in a +1 spell attack item of some sort? The +2?
I guess I shouldn't call this hypothetical, since I am now considering doing this for any future PF2E games I run, and I'm also likely to leave this at a +1/+2 bonus maximum rather than the typical +1/+3.
Tricky to say. Personally, I think low level spell accuracy is actually fine, making cantrips superior in damage to ranged weapons right up until Potency Runes kick in, so I'd say 4th level for the +1 is about right (though 3rd would also be fine).
The +2 is harder to say, though with Weapon Runes hitting +2 at 10th and spell attack Proficiency lagging behind a Martial's weapon attack proficiency at 13th and 14th, I'd definitely have it kick in between 10th and 13th.
My own House Rules are a bit different from this, but I give out the full +3, so that's rather inevitable.
Personally, I also have the item in question do something else (my version adds an attack roll cantrip to the wearer's list of options), and probably be Invested. Of course, mine are also gloves, if you're gonna require a free hand to use this item maybe having it be Invested on top is overkill...
Can I see your full homebrew for the spell attack items?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I see your full homebrew for the spell attack items?
Sure. My House Rules can be found here in their entirety. The item in question is pretty bare bones and I'll post it here as well:
Invested, Magical,
Usage: worn gloves, Bulk: L
These unassuming gloves provide a +1 Item bonus on spell attack rolls, and access to one cantrip with the attack keyword as an innate spell of the appropriate tradition. Each pair of gloves is built with a particular cantrip infused, and the gloves gain the appropriate tradition’s keyword as well as others appropriate to the cantrip in question.
Item 3, Price 50 gp,
Item 10, Price 900 gp, The item bonus to spell attacks increases to +2
Item 16, Price 9,000 gp, The Item bonus to spell attacks increases to +3
So pretty straightforward really. It's worth noting that I might not make it an innate spell in a game that doesn't use my House Rule of letting you use innate spells with your tradition's spellcasting ability if you have spells from a Class...but that's just a wording change, really.
The name is stolen shamelessly from the playtest, for the record.
|
|
For the sake of a hypothetical homebrew, what would be good levels to drop in a +1 spell attack item of some sort? The +2?
I guess I shouldn't call this hypothetical, since I am now considering doing this for any future PF2E games I run, and I'm also likely to leave this at a +1/+2 bonus maximum rather than the typical +1/+3.
It's a good question. I think at the very low (1-3) levels, cantrips can easily outpace conventional weapons in damage because most casters can prepare more than one of them, and use the right one to avoid a resistance / exploit a weakness. So that would suggest that a good point to boost SAs would be when weapons start doing more damage because of Striking runes. That would be level 4.
Interestingly, this is also when Alchemist Goggles come into view. Although alchemical bombs get item bonuses of their own by that time which wouldn't stack, but ignoring cover is useful for an alchemist trying to keep the fighter in between them and the monster.
Another appropriate level might be level 5, which is when most martials get to Expert (and fighters get to Master) with their favorite weapons. Of course that's also a time when monster AC was rising a bit as well, so without an accuracy increase, level 5-6 is particularly harsh for spellcasters.
Looking then, what would be a reasonable level for the +2 to kick in? Well, alchemist goggles get an upgrade at level 11, one level after potency runes get to +2. At level 13, martials get Master weapon proficiency and at level 15 casters tend to get spell mastery. I'd suggest that level 11-13 would be about the point where a bonus to spell attacks should kick in.
And I see the case for not going beyond +2, kinda like how most martials don't get proficiency upgrades to their weapons anymore after level 13; because that's what enemy AC is mostly calibrated against.
|
|
Interesting about the duelist gloves. I still feel that it ought to be a held item though, so I'd be inclined to go with a Rune that can go on either a Rod or a Staff.
Next to that, introduce the idea of the Blasting Rod, which functions as a club and can take runes as such (yes, wizards know how to use clubs), but also enables you to Invest it during daily preparations to use an extra cantrip:
- as prepared caster, prepare an extra attack cantrip that you know which you can only use with that rod;
- as spontaneous caster, select one (common) attack cantrip from your spell list that you don't already have in your repertoire, and use it with the rod as if you had it in your repertoire.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting about the duelist gloves. I still feel that it ought to be a held item though, so I'd be inclined to go with a Rune that can go on either a Rod or a Staff.
The idea of making it a rune is interesting. I mostly made it gloves so people wouldn't be stuck with a specific implement, but a Rune that can be added to any staff or rod is a very interesting alternative I'll have to consider further...
A person at my table believes that there should be items to improve caster Spell DC's (not attack bonuses). I've never played a pure caster, and have no feel for it. This discussion seems to imply the real problem (or area of concern) is attack spells?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This discussion seems to imply the real problem (or area of concern) is attack spells?
Yes, that does seem to be the prevailing trend to me.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the focus on attack roll spells is largely for 2 reasons:
1. A lot of creatures have variation in their saves, so you can try to figure out and target the lowest, to improve your odds. Outside if things like crit-immune oozes, exceptionally low AC to target is a lot less common, since anything with exceptionally low AC and without crit immunity is likely not going to survive long in the presence if martial characters.
2. Spells with attack rolls tend to do nothing on a miss, while spells with saves are more likely to have some effect on a successful save. This makes low accuracy with spell attacks feel more painful for the user, and coyld create that feeling even with attack spells that did enough damage on success to work out to the same average performance as save spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet, but to answer the OP: although there is no equivalent of weapon potency runes for spells, there are in fact items that you can use to boost your spell attacks. Specifically, the Shadow Signet and any scroll, staff, or wand with sure strike will make your spell attacks much more accurate, and it is mainly due to the existence of sure strike that spells don't get potency runes (Shadow Signet came later).
If anyone is dissatisfied with the current state of spell attacks, I think it's Mark Seifter who proposed an alternative: decouple spell attack progression from spell DC progression, make spell attack proficiency go to expert at level 5 and master at level 13 (but never legendary), and have spell attacks benefit from weapon potency runes just like Strikes. If you do this, remove Shadow Signet and sure strike from your games so that casters don't beat martials on accuracy against AC. I'd probably also recommend toning down the cost of certain caster items to accommodate the cost of buying runes in this case, but this basic framework should allow spell attacks to mirror weapon attacks much more closely.
Those were both brought up a few times somewhere in the thread.
I think what I've learned since I first came to these threads with all of our back and forth and some developers popping in is that no one spell going after one defense matters for balance. You could have a different spell for each save ready to use and when you do and you RK or just already know weakest save you get a lower target to hit picking the right spell.
There are problems with that but thats the way spells are balanced. SO if spell attack isnt a great % against the target and fort is better then you should have prepared something to go against fort.
...and it is mainly due to the existence of sure strike that spells don't get potency runes...
Source? Though I see it postulated regularly, I have never seen any evidence of that anywhere in all my years of following Paizo.
Sometimes I wonder if a +1 is really going to make any difference for casters, or if it will just end up being one of those endless shifting goalposts situations. Where like, we start with +1 to hit, then it becomes wanting +1 to DCs, then the demand for a striking equivalent, and then a greater potency version, etc etc, while casters still feel as if they were behind their non-caster brethren.
I don't know if its just fatigue for this topic or what, but I feel like at this point, the only thing that will make people feel satisfied is something massively game-changing for casters. Something crazy like removing incap from like, 1/2 the spells in the game or something like that. I don't know anyone who complains about casters are is like "a small boost to attack spell accuracy solves my complaints", it's always about just feel and vibes of not being stronger, so it feels like this only stops being a recurring issue when casters get broken again by removing their save or suck limiters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Source? Though I see it postulated regularly, I have never seen any evidence of that anywhere in all my years of following Paizo.
I'll look for other examples, but here is Mark Seifter suggesting the decoupling I mentioned and excluding true strike from spell attacks if doing so, and here is another comment where he talks about its impact on spell attacks. The general gist appears to be that true strike is such an impactful spell when combined with spell attacks that so long as it (or sure strike now) exists, spell attacks can't be allowed to be made more accurate, because it's already a huge power boost to attack spells like disintegrate.