I think it's a little harder to add an item at this point, just because they wouldn't want something that changes the fundamental math of all the casting classes to be outside of core.Honestly, an item for attack rolls only in the Secrets of Magic book seems totally plausible to me. That fiddles with the math, sure, but really only for a very narrow subset of spells, and it's the first actual magic book, so magic essential items being in it makes sense to me.
If its going to be anywhere, SoM is the place to expect it.
There are so few spell attacks outside cantrips I could also just see Paizo cutting their losses rather than printing a semi-essential item out of core and just making new attack spells with failure effects to bring them more in line with save granting spells.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have mixed feelings about Item Bonuses to Spell Attacks.
On one hand, it can do a LOT to please the vocal segment of players who are upset that Casters have a lower to-hit than Martial PCs, but on the other hand, it would HAVE to be affordable, low level, and would end up being viewed as totally and utterly mandatory even beyond the scope of how we view Runes on Weapons for Martial Characters since the only reason to release it in the first place is to amend the perception of disparity between the PC roles. No Spellcaster would EVERY spend their coin on other things until they have purchased this, it's such a no-brainer that I doubt it will ever see 1st party release.
Personally, I think this would best be handled as an Optional Rule/Subsystem that adds special Fundamental Runes that add to Spell Attack. Even then the +2 version is where it should be capped and should be 11th Level or higher.
They would be so good that it would end up being an instant buy for ANY PC across the board who even so much as has an Innate Cantrip with Spell Attack. Time will only tell, although I am in agreement with others who think that if ANYWHERE these kinds of things are best placed in the SoM book given the theme of it.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would it be viewed as more mandatory than martial items? It's actually a lot less mandatory since for most casters it applies to cantrips and nothing else, while weapons apply to basically everything martials do.
I'd still expect it to get acquired ASAP, but a level 2 or 3 item needing to be acquired ASAP is not that big a deal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a little harder to add an item at this point, just because they wouldn't want something that changes the fundamental math of all the casting classes to be outside of core.Honestly, an item for attack rolls only in the Secrets of Magic book seems totally plausible to me. That fiddles with the math, sure, but really only for a very narrow subset of spells, and it's the first actual magic book, so magic essential items being in it makes sense to me.
Yeah, honestly I don't think a Spell Potency that started at +1 at level 5, and went up to +2 at 15 would break anything, alternatively a one action metamagic that applied the effect of True Strike to a spell, but with no slot expenditure required.
Or just more basic save cantrips...
Or just more basic save cantrips...
Anything to give the Electric Arc junkies pause.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, honestly I don't think a Spell Potency that started at +1 at level 5, and went up to +2 at 15 would break anything, alternatively a one action metamagic that applied the effect of True Strike to a spell, but with no slot expenditure required.I think it's a little harder to add an item at this point, just because they wouldn't want something that changes the fundamental math of all the casting classes to be outside of core.Honestly, an item for attack rolls only in the Secrets of Magic book seems totally plausible to me. That fiddles with the math, sure, but really only for a very narrow subset of spells, and it's the first actual magic book, so magic essential items being in it makes sense to me.
I'm actually going to be testing "True Strike as metamagic" in a home game soonish. Seemed like a fun idea to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Electric Arc is designed well. The other cantrips comparatively not so much, though produce flame can be nice on a crit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would it be viewed as more mandatory than martial items? It's actually a lot less mandatory since for most casters it applies to cantrips and nothing else, while weapons apply to basically everything martials do.
I'd still expect it to get acquired ASAP, but a level 2 or 3 item needing to be acquired ASAP is not that big a deal.
I think the item would be in a tricky spot of needing to not be too expensive or else it because a secret trap item for casters. Spell attack roll spells are really niche spells for most casters to throw around on a regular basis and are much, much better supported by having some true strikes on hand for pulling them off. a +1 to spell attack rolls doesn't really make casting a spell from a spell slot with a spell attack roll worthwhile, because the spell is a waste on a miss. By the time you got a +2 or even a +3 item, the number of spell slot spells that use spell attack rolls has dwindled to 2 or 3 and you can do much more impressive things with AoE and Debuff spells. Using cantrips at 15th level, especially ones that target only one enemy, out side of a creature having a particular weakness you can't hit any other way is a waste of actions. Spending money on being kind of alright doing so seems like even worse of an idea.
The range of ray of frost and the crit effect of produce flame are fun in the early levels of the game, and I know telekinetic projectile will always have its big advocates, but a staff of divination is a much better magic item for people who want to occasionally be accurate with a spell attack roll spell than an always on +1 item.
Electric Arc is designed well. The other cantrips comparatively not so much, though produce flame can be nice on a crit.
I'm loving Produce Flame on my Magus for those sweet flanking crits.
Removing spell attack period causes a lot more problems because some spells are all about targeting.
There are already a lot of spells that should had been spell attack. But were converted to saves. Which is why the numbers are so low right now.
But that does not mean they wont release more.
P.S. Spell attack never were the most numerous. But there certainly were more in the previous edition.
I have written a lot about it previously, but the biggest problem spell attack roll spells have in PF2 is how dangerous they are to players. They bypass the saving throw boosts that different classes get in the form of evasion like abilities and you can't spend a hero point to avoid a disastrous result.
At first I thought adding more of them would highlight the problems with their accuracy and make a stronger case for some kind of boost, but the closer I looked at how they work in PF2, the more I saw that high level ones that do what things that have an attack roll feel like they should do (like double damage on a crit) are just too brutal when used against players.
Something to mention in caster versus martial attack proficiencies..multiple attack penalty.
Aren't the frontline martial sorts expected to take at least a -5 attack as part of their design space, especially in later levels? Whereas I don't know how many spell attacks end up taking it. This might factor in too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thats because Monster have +2 or even +3 above regular casters for spell attacks. Before even looking at the bonus from level. Which is why people say that a spell attack rune is needed.
Spell attack spells are great if they can hit. But players using those spells can't hit because Paizo didnt given any way to hit.
Even Spell penetration isn't an accuracy bonus. Its just removing the increased AC from spell resistance. Which means casters have an even harder time hitting than martials.
So if spell attack rolls are only fun if you can be 2 levels higher than your enemy AND have a +2 - +3 bonus to your attack roll, as opposed to using a saving throw targeting spell that also does damage on a miss, why ask the whole game to bend over backwards to make spell attack roll spells work?
I get that swingy spells with high variance damage dice can be a lot of fun to use at the table, but they just don't work that well with a +/-10 crit system unless you can live with accuracy rates against powerful enemies that top out in the 60%-65% range. Although, Paizo did provide support for these kind of spells in the form of true strike, which actually does a very good job of increasing the reliability of landing the spell, with more of a curved effect on increasing critical hit chances.
And none of that has anything to do with the fact that spell attack roll spells, especially powerful high level ones, are bad for players because they remove all agency from the player in terms of surviving the spell, even as the game has worked a bunch of mechanics into the game to allow characters to get ways to survive the worst effects in the game, things that are built into class templates, and ancestry abilities, as well as hero points.
Now, if you are a GM, and you are aware of all of these potential issues, and your players really scoff at the idea of using true strike, but really want to keep choosing spell attack roll spells, I think it is fine to homebrew solutions like items that give a bonus to spell attack roll spells and even creating more high level spell attack roll spells to use them with. And if we get some uncommon and even rare high level spell attack roll spells in secrets of magic, as well as a rare item that gives a bonus to it, so that GMs have to be aware of what they are doing to end up with them in the game, I think that could work out too. But I think it would be really bad for the game to try to retroactively "fix" spell attack roll spells as a common high level element of the game that get thrown on to NPC and monster casters.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...a lot of good points about spell attack spells...
Reading your post reminded me that we have not discussed the psychology behind spell attack rolls versus DC much yet, namely who is the active part and why this is important.
When you cast an attack spell *you* roll and it is *you* who can miss, hit or crit. So if you drop that legendary nat 20 it is *you* who will likely hit with great effect.
However when using any spell that forces a saving throw *you* can usually do nothing (apart of selecting and casting the spell of course), but it is your opposition that can either crit succeed, succeed, fail or crit fail. So *you* can cast the most powerful spell in the world, if the enemy rolls that legendary nat 20 you will usually have achieved exactly nothing.
There is this saying which goes "It is not enough that you succeed, others must fail!" but regarding DC versus spell attack I feel it is more like "It is not enough that others fail, you must succeed!".
Which is why I think that "direct control" over your spells (aka being able to reliably hit your attack spells) is a big issue for many players even if just subconsciously.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, if you are a GM, and you are aware of all of these potential issues, and your players really scoff at the idea of using true strike, but really want to keep choosing spell attack roll spells, I think it is fine to homebrew solutions like items that give...
I get you, but "scoff at the idea of using true strike" doesn't really apply to the large amount of casters who don't get it. It doesn't provide any real support unless all casters get it.
A primal sorcerer might really want to use a fair amount of spell attack roll spells, for example, and probably didn't go with that option just to spite the true strike spell.
What would the impact be of converting all current spell attack spells to save spells, with success/crit success (of the target) equating to a simple miss and fail/crit fail (of the target) equating to a simple hit, or crit fail (of the target) equating to a crit attack result if the spell has such an effect stipulated? Judge it as a homerule or a potential rules change.
I understand the psychological concern... I know I *prefer* to roll and get a 20 as it feels much more like I'm somehow responsible for the result. I'm just wondering how it might impact things mechanically?
The main problem is figuring out which save to apply it to.
You'd also probably have to lower the damage somewhat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'd also probably have to lower the damage somewhat.
Not for cantrips. Most already do identical damage to Electric Arc, or less, and only hit one target. They're pretty justifiable as fine just switching to a Save directly.
I boosted their damage and left them as attack spells in my House Rules, but switching them to Save spells is also workable.
...a lot of good points about spell attack spells...Reading your post reminded me that we have not discussed the psychology behind spell attack rolls versus DC much yet, namely who is the active part and why this is important.
When you cast an attack spell *you* roll and it is *you* who can miss, hit or crit. So if you drop that legendary nat 20 it is *you* who will likely hit with great effect.
However when using any spell that forces a saving throw *you* can usually do nothing (apart of selecting and casting the spell of course), but it is your opposition that can either crit succeed, succeed, fail or crit fail. So *you* can cast the most powerful spell in the world, if the enemy rolls that legendary nat 20 you will usually have achieved exactly nothing.
There is this saying which goes "It is not enough that you succeed, others must fail!" but regarding DC versus spell attack I feel it is more like "It is not enough that others fail, you must succeed!".
Which is why I think that "direct control" over your spells (aka being able to reliably hit your attack spells) is a big issue for many players even if just subconsciously.
This is a really great point and it highlights the complexity of the system. Wanting to be a caster in charge of your own spell's fate makes perfect sense, but the system is set up to provide a certain level of parity in rules for how NPCs and monsters interact with the world as well. As a player, being able to bypass the question of saving throws and abilities that monsters or NPCs might have to mitigate effects is an awesome power. The bonus of magic resistance applies only to saving throws, not to all creature DCs, so a spell attack roll spell benefits from spell penetration automatically.
The problem (not a problem so much as a complexity) is that enemy casters use the same spells, and players get way, way more defenses built into their saving throws than they do their AC, whereas that is much less true generally of monsters, with the exception of magic resistance. There are systems that center the PCs in the game system so that enemies attacking you is a set DC and you roll your defense against that attack, but that has never fully been the model of D&D-esque games, even if 4e played with the idea of making all saves static DCs so casters targeted set numbers instead of having creature roll saves. It still applied the same to players.
I am 99% certain that the overall effect of having more high level spell attack roll spells would be dying PCs who couldn't do anything to stop the drubbing they got from a spell that ratio'd to be significantly more powerful than a single martial attack with a two handed weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bonus of magic resistance applies only to saving throws, not to all creature DCs, so a spell attack roll spell benefits from spell penetration automatically.
More like "doesn't interact." Classes that don't get spell penetration also "automatically get the benefits of spell penetration" when using spell attacks, if you want to word it that way.
The problem (not a problem so much as a complexity) is that enemy casters use the same spells, and players get way, way more defenses built into their saving throws than they do their AC, whereas that is much less true generally of monsters, with the exception of magic resistance.
Oh god yeah they do. There is ONE published creature that gets Evasion or an evasion-like saving throw. ONE across both Bestiary and Bestiary 2. The giant eagle. That's it.
Comparatively there are one hundred and sixty one that have "saves vs. magic" somewhere in their stat block.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading this I feel like people refuse to experiment with home brew for their campaigns.
Have you tried making+hit runes apply to spells? It went far for my group to have casters feel better and the martials do not feel outclassed in the slightest. Just potency runes are not all that expensive and can be put on staves fine.
If potency runes affecting your save spells make you squeamish you can do a little editing to recall knowledge mechanic's. Allowing a +1 to the dc in exchange for if the player succeeds they name the thing they wanted to recall. Or just let them choose what they wanted to recall.
Consistency creates a feeling of competence. Giving casters spells a little more consistency isn't game breaking. Not in my experience.
I'm actually going to be testing "True Strike as metamagic" in a home game soonish. Seemed like a fun idea to me.Yeah, honestly I don't think a Spell Potency that started at +1 at level 5, and went up to +2 at 15 would break anything, alternatively a one action metamagic that applied the effect of True Strike to a spell, but with no slot expenditure required.I think it's a little harder to add an item at this point, just because they wouldn't want something that changes the fundamental math of all the casting classes to be outside of core.Honestly, an item for attack rolls only in the Secrets of Magic book seems totally plausible to me. That fiddles with the math, sure, but really only for a very narrow subset of spells, and it's the first actual magic book, so magic essential items being in it makes sense to me.
Yeah, honestly its a bigger bonus than the potency rune, but its at a significant cost (an extra action) which helps to compensate for the spells still being balanced for their hit rate in the first place, it would still have the fortune effect so its already proof against stacking. Its a benefit that anyone with first level slots and True Strike on their list can already get, but there isn't a janky "my spell attacks are only useful until i run out of accompanying first level slots" and you can easily put it at like level 8 or something to leave True Strike a clear niche for quite a while. One feat to enable what feels like an entire playstyle isn't too shabby at all, considering some of the other things in the game.
Its a real winner in my eyes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading this I feel like people refuse to experiment with home brew for their campaigns.
Have you tried making+hit runes apply to spells? It went far for my group to have casters feel better and the martials do not feel outclassed in the slightest. Just potency runes are not all that expensive and can be put on staves fine.
If potency runes affecting your save spells make you squeamish you can do a little editing to recall knowledge mechanic's. Allowing a +1 to the dc in exchange for if the player succeeds they name the thing they wanted to recall. Or just let them choose what they wanted to recall.
Consistency creates a feeling of competence. Giving casters spells a little more consistency isn't game breaking. Not in my experience.
I did. I included runes that improve spell attacks in one of my campaigns. It hasn't really changed anything. Save spells already feel powerful, while attack spells still feel swingy and disappointing. It really only affected cantrips, which are unlimited use anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right now they could downscale the spell proficiency to the standard martial progression and add focus items and the math would still hold overall.
Focus items could be staves, instruments, deities favored weapons or weapon with a focus rune.
Would probably be better as an optional rule anyway, but I would definitely try it.
Humbly,
Yawar
Right now they could downscale the spell proficiency to the standard martial progression and add focus items and the math would still hold overall.
Focus items could be staves, instruments, deities favored weapons or weapon with a focus rune.
Would probably be better as an optional rule anyway, but I would definitely try it.
Humbly,
Yawar
Well, one issue I have with this idea currently is that then there is no way for Legendary Spell DCs to be acquired, and if we lock it as a 20th level class feat, it's going to be too damn good compared to even an additional 10th level spell slot.
I might be okay if a class like Wizards got the Fighter progression on spell attack and class DC (where you are Master+ with your specialized school by 5th or 7th level, and Universalist simply not getting a proficiency bonus for a school of spells, not getting Legendary casting until the usual 19th level), since they don't get very much in the way of actual features and scaling/powerful feats, and it's definitely the spellcasting analogue to Fighters, but it's definitely something to consider.
I would love for runes on spellcasting effects to take place (after all, it's where magic for weapons comes from, why not the same for spell incantations, too). I just worry about how they would apply. Does the +1 apply to attack rolls only, or does it work on Spell DCs, too? And if so, what does Striking (or the equivalent) do? Or would it simply just have potency effects?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The trouble I think is that it messes with some assumptions about the game's economy.
Right now, as some forum goers have pointed out in the past, a big balancing point for spellcasters is that they have extra money from not having to upgrade weapons that can go into things like staves and scrolls to improve their longevity and playability (it's one of the reasons casters with weapons feel awkward at higher levels).
Appropriately priced leveled items could screw with that balance to some degree, by adding an additional cost that spellcasters weren't originally balanced around having (and put spellcasters with real weapons even further behind).
Not that I dislike the idea of item bonuses to spell attacks or having the numbers be more internally consistent, but that there's a potential for wider reaching balance implications than might not be immediately apparent.
|
To fix weapon issues regarding gish casters and magi having to double spend, simply introduce another item
Spell Doubling Ring item 3 55GP
The potency runes on your wielded weapons apply to your spell attacks as well.
That being said, I don’t think spell attack focuses or cantrips need a buff, only the slotted ones.
Spell attack focuses already have some of the best spells in the game (for focuses) - fire Ray, elemental toss, Winter Bolt, etc.
Spell attack cantrips would similarly be the best if it weren’t for electric arc. Produce Flame and Telekinetic Projectile are tied for the highest average damage, competing otherwise with only Chill Touch which is melee range. I would do a cantrip buff over a spell attack buff.
Slotted spell attacks are the real issue, and many of them are terrible even with increased accuracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing you could do is make consumables bought in batches. So 3gp gets you 4 elixers of life instead of 1.
It'll give everyone a little more buying power, but for casters, those scrolls start looking like a good deal instead of egregious money sinks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just looking at level 6 items, consumables cost between 36 and 50 gp, and permanent items between 200 and 245 gp.
Are four consumables worth a permanent item?
Just looking at level 6 items, consumables cost between 36 and 50 gp, and permanent items between 200 and 245 gp.Are four consumables worth a permanent item?
It depends on the item.
Other than weapons or armor, you use most magical items less than you probably think. 20-25% of the cost of a permanent item is generally a good deal.
One level 3 spell wand is 360gp. 1 level 3 spell scroll is 30 gp. There are very few offensive spells you will use 12 times before you have leveled up enough that having that spell stuck at the same level will still be worth using. Its not impossible, but 12 scrolls gives a caster a lot more nova potential than a single wand.
It won't be for every player, but learning to see even permanent items as things you grow out of can help make it easier to think about trying out some new strategies you might have dismissed earlier.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One level 3 spell wand is 360gp. 1 level 3 spell scroll is 30 gp. There are very few offensive spells you will use 12 times before you have leveled up enough that having that spell stuck at the same level will still be worth using.
A 3rd level wand is a 7th level item while a 3rd level scroll is a 5th level item. This isn't comparable. I'm talking item-level with equal item-level. And even then scrolls vs. wands are kinda wonky (staves are almost always better than either).
Also "twelves scrolls or a wand" I can easily think of someone casting 12 spells from scrolls, but they won't always be the same spell. For that same cost, they probably could have gotten a staff for the same total cost and gotten a similar flexibility. But the right spell in a wand? Worth it.
That said, most of the problem I have with the consumables market is that:
(1) Talismans are almost universally garbage.
(2) "Would I spend gold on this?" tends to be "is it my level?" for permanent items and "is it five levels below my level?" for consumables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you restrict your reasoning like that though? You compare usage and mechanical benefit/vs cost to each other, not level.
Because of how item level works. Items that are Level X have a different cost scalar associated to them than items that are Level X+2.
You know how 3.5 and PF1 everything was kind of exponential? Its like that. Four consumables of level 5 are the same gold price as a permanent level 5 item. But it takes twelve of that same consumable to get the cost a level 7 permanent item (but only four level 7 consumables).
If you as a player have enough gold for a permanent item of your level, are you going to buy a permanent item of your level or four consumables of your level?