paizo.com Recent Posts in Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.paizo.com Recent Posts in Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.2020-10-30T21:34:19Z2020-10-30T21:34:19ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Malk_Contenthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3942020-11-01T16:13:27Z2020-10-31T20:51:21Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Draco18s wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Malk_Content wrote:</div><blockquote>Why would you restrict your reasoning like that though? You compare usage and mechanical benefit/vs cost to each other, not level. </blockquote><p>Because of how item level <i>works</i>. Items that are Level X have a different cost scalar associated to them than items that are Level X+2.
<p>You know how 3.5 and PF1 everything was kind of exponential? Its like that. Four consumables of level 5 are the same <i>gold price</i> as a permanent level 5 item. But it takes <i>twelve</i> of that same consumable to get the cost a level 7 permanent item (but only <i>four</i> level 7 consumables).</p>
<p>If you as a player have enough gold for a permanent item of your level, are you going to buy a permanent item <b>of your level</b> or four consumables <b>of your level</b>? </blockquote><p>Depends on myriad other factors. Like whether it is essential mathematical item or a use occasionally utility item. If I think I'll only use that permanent item 5 times, but I can buy 5 uses of it as consumables plus 7 uses of another equivalent consumbable, you bet I'm going to buy consumables. Of course this requires me to look at lower level items with identical effect (actually better), but to not do that is ridiculous.
<p>E.G I know we are coming to a sunken temple. Getting in and out will require swimming, but the temple itself we can navigate normally. I could buy a Wand of Feet to Fins for 360g, but oops actually I need to cast it 3 more times than the want allows in order to get my whole party in. So I buy the (shock horror!) lower level consumable version 8 times (4 in, 4 out) for only 240gp! Saving me 120gp and actually letting my use it how I wanted.</p>
<p>Looking at pure Level is stupid.</p>Draco18s wrote:Malk_Content wrote: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...Malk_Content2020-10-31T20:51:21ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Draco18shttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3932020-10-31T20:11:31Z2020-10-31T18:18:49Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Malk_Content wrote:</div><blockquote>Why would you restrict your reasoning like that though? You compare usage and mechanical benefit/vs cost to each other, not level. </blockquote><p>Because of how item level <i>works</i>. Items that are Level X have a different cost scalar associated to them than items that are Level X+2.
<p>You know how 3.5 and PF1 everything was kind of exponential? Its like that. Four consumables of level 5 are the same <i>gold price</i> as a permanent level 5 item. But it takes <i>twelve</i> of that same consumable to get the cost a level 7 permanent item (but only <i>four</i> level 7 consumables).</p>
<p>If you as a player have enough gold for a permanent item of your level, are you going to buy a permanent item <b>of your level</b> or four consumables <b>of your level</b>?</p>Malk_Content wrote: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...Draco18s2020-10-31T18:18:49ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Malk_Contenthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3922020-10-31T14:26:30Z2020-10-31T14:00:27Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Draco18s wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Unicore wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote><p>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).
<p></blockquote><p>Why would you restrict your reasoning like that though? You compare usage and mechanical benefit/vs cost to each other, not level.Draco18s wrote:Unicore wrote: 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...Malk_Content2020-10-31T14:00:27ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Draco18shttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3912020-11-02T03:47:31Z2020-10-30T22:23:43Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Unicore wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote><p>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).
<p>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.</p>
<p>That said, most of the problem I have with the consumables market is that:
<br />
(1) Talismans are almost universally garbage.
<br />
(2) "Would I spend gold on this?" tends to be "is it my level?" for permanent items and "is it five levels <i>below</i> my level?" for consumables.</p>Unicore wrote: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)....Draco18s2020-10-30T22:23:43ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Unicorehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3902020-10-30T20:47:05Z2020-10-30T20:47:05Z<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>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...Unicore2020-10-30T20:47:05ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.KrispyXIVhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3892020-10-30T19:23:56Z2020-10-30T19:23:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Draco18s wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Staffan Johansson wrote:</div><blockquote>Just looking at level 6 items, consumables cost between 36 and 50 gp, and permanent items between 200 and 245 gp. </blockquote>Are four consumables worth a permanent item? </blockquote><p>It depends on the item.
<p>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.</p>Draco18s wrote:Staffan Johansson wrote: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.KrispyXIV2020-10-30T19:23:56ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Draco18shttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3882020-10-31T00:11:04Z2020-10-30T18:21:21Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Staffan Johansson wrote:</div><blockquote>Just looking at level 6 items, consumables cost between 36 and 50 gp, and permanent items between 200 and 245 gp. </blockquote><p>Are four consumables worth a permanent item?Staffan Johansson wrote: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?Draco18s2020-10-30T18:21:21ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Staffan Johanssonhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3872020-10-30T17:23:53Z2020-10-30T17:22:32Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Draco18s wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The other thing you could do is make consumables bought in batches. So 3gp gets you 4 elixers of life instead of 1.</p>
<p>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. </blockquote><p>I'm pretty sure consumables being, well, consumable is already priced in. Just looking at level 6 items, consumables cost between 36 and 50 gp, and permanent items between 200 and 245 gp.Draco18s wrote: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.
I'm pretty sure consumables being, well, consumable is already priced in. Just looking at level 6 items, consumables cost between 36 and 50 gp, and permanent items between 200 and 245 gp.Staffan Johansson2020-10-30T17:22:32ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Draco18shttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3862020-10-31T00:11:05Z2020-10-30T02:55:22Z<p>The other thing you could do is make consumables bought in batches. So 3gp gets you 4 elixers of life instead of 1.</p>
<p>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.</p>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.Draco18s2020-10-30T02:55:22ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Exocisthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3852020-10-31T00:10:28Z2020-10-30T01:22:51Z<p>To fix weapon issues regarding gish casters and magi having to double spend, simply introduce another item</p>
<p>Spell Doubling Ring item 3 55GP</p>
<p>The potency runes on your wielded weapons apply to your spell attacks as well.</p>
<p>That being said, I don’t think spell attack focuses or cantrips need a buff, only the slotted ones.</p>
<p>Spell attack focuses already have some of the best spells in the game (for focuses) - fire Ray, elemental toss, Winter Bolt, etc.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Slotted spell attacks are the real issue, and many of them are terrible even with increased accuracy.</p>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...Exocist2020-10-30T01:22:51ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Temperanshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3842020-10-29T20:47:34Z2020-10-29T20:47:34Z<p>I do agree that changing the proficiency and needing casters to buy number boosting items would mess with the economy.</p>
<p>But the economy is also relatively easy to fix. Things like increasing the wealth pool, or even making crafting something that does save some money if invested.</p>I do agree that changing the proficiency and needing casters to buy number boosting items would mess with the economy.
But the economy is also relatively easy to fix. Things like increasing the wealth pool, or even making crafting something that does save some money if invested.Temperans2020-10-29T20:47:34ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Squiggithttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3832020-10-29T21:54:36Z2020-10-29T20:33:07Z<p>The trouble I think is that it messes with some assumptions about the game's economy. </p>
<p>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). </p>
<p>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). </p>
<p>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.</p>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...Squiggit2020-10-29T20:33:07ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Darksol the Painbringerhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3822020-10-29T20:30:19Z2020-10-29T20:30:19Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">YawarFiesta wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Right now they could downscale the spell proficiency to the standard martial progression and add focus items and the math would still hold overall.</p>
<p>Focus items could be staves, instruments, deities favored weapons or weapon with a focus rune. </p>
<p>Would probably be better as an optional rule anyway, but I would definitely try it.</p>
<p>Humbly,
<br />
Yawar </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>YawarFiesta wrote: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...Darksol the Painbringer2020-10-29T20:30:19ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.YawarFiestahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3812020-10-29T19:21:02Z2020-10-29T18:41:22Z<p>Right now they could downscale the spell proficiency to the standard martial progression and add focus items and the math would still hold overall.</p>
<p>Focus items could be staves, instruments, deities favored weapons or weapon with a focus rune. </p>
<p>Would probably be better as an optional rule anyway, but I would definitely try it.</p>
<p>Humbly,
<br />
Yawar</p>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,
YawarYawarFiesta2020-10-29T18:41:22ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Delmont91https://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3802020-10-28T22:04:35Z2020-10-28T22:04:35Z<p>We have but don't have results yet. The first group is too low and still outfitting the martials with +1 runes. The level 6 group just had it allowed and the bard hasn't had the time to upgrade their instrument so no results yet.</p>We have but don't have results yet. The first group is too low and still outfitting the martials with +1 runes. The level 6 group just had it allowed and the bard hasn't had the time to upgrade their instrument so no results yet.Delmont912020-10-28T22:04:35ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Salamileghttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3792020-10-29T19:21:01Z2020-10-28T20:08:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Martialmasters wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Reading this I feel like people refuse to experiment with home brew for their campaigns.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Consistency creates a feeling of competence. Giving casters spells a little more consistency isn't game breaking. Not in my experience. </blockquote><p>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.Martialmasters wrote: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...Salamileg2020-10-28T20:08:04ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.The-Magic-Swordhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3782020-10-28T19:43:51Z2020-10-28T19:43:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">MadMars wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">The-Magic-Sword wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">HammerJack wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote>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 <i>magic</i> book, so magic essential items being in it makes sense to me. </blockquote>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. </blockquote>I'm actually going to be testing "True Strike as metamagic" in a home game soonish. Seemed like a fun idea to me. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>Its a real winner in my eyes.</p>MadMars wrote:The-Magic-Sword wrote: Deadmanwalking wrote: HammerJack wrote: 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...The-Magic-Sword2020-10-28T19:43:51ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Martialmastershttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3772020-10-29T12:51:02Z2020-10-28T10:41:51Z<p>Reading this I feel like people refuse to experiment with home brew for their campaigns.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Consistency creates a feeling of competence. Giving casters spells a little more consistency isn't game breaking. Not in my experience.</p>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...Martialmasters2020-10-28T10:41:51ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Draco18shttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3762020-10-28T13:50:07Z2020-10-27T18:12:23Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Unicore wrote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>More like "doesn't interact." Classes that don't <i>get</i> spell penetration also "automatically get the benefits of spell penetration" when using spell attacks, if you want to word it that way.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>Oh god yeah they do. There is <b>ONE published creature</b> that gets Evasion or an evasion-like saving throw. ONE across both Bestiary and Bestiary 2. The giant eagle. That's it.
<p>Comparatively there are <i>one hundred and sixty one</i> that have "saves vs. magic" somewhere in their stat block.</p>Unicore wrote: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. Quote:The problem (not a problem so much as a complexity) is that enemy casters use the same spells, and players get way, way more...Draco18s2020-10-27T18:12:23ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Unicorehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3752020-10-27T17:05:07Z2020-10-27T17:05:07Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ubertron_X wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Unicore wrote:</div><blockquote>...a lot of good points about spell attack spells...</blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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!".</p>
<p>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>Ubertron_X wrote:Unicore wrote:...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*...Unicore2020-10-27T17:05:07ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Deadmanwalkinghttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3742020-10-27T22:32:00Z2020-10-27T16:44:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Salamileg wrote:</div><blockquote> You'd also probably have to lower the damage somewhat. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>I boosted their damage and left them as attack spells in my House Rules, but switching them to Save spells is also workable.</p>Salamileg wrote: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.Deadmanwalking2020-10-27T16:44:51ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Salamileghttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3732020-10-27T16:38:39Z2020-10-27T16:38:39Z<p>You'd also probably have to lower the damage somewhat.</p>You'd also probably have to lower the damage somewhat.Salamileg2020-10-27T16:38:39ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Draco18shttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3722020-10-27T16:30:10Z2020-10-27T16:30:10Z<p>The main problem is figuring out which save to apply it to.</p>The main problem is figuring out which save to apply it to.Draco18s2020-10-27T16:30:10ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.Quintessentially Mehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3712020-10-27T16:19:49Z2020-10-27T16:19:49Z<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>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...Quintessentially Me2020-10-27T16:19:49ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Some thoughts on 2nd Ed.MadMarshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437mh&page=8?Some-thoughts-on-2nd-Ed#3702020-10-28T14:03:57Z2020-10-27T14:59:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Unicore wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
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... </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>Unicore wrote: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...MadMars2020-10-27T14:59:56Z