| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they need to make more feats to specialize into the schools. I just don't know how they can do it. Maybe make more focus spells based on that and give options. Like multiple choices of focus spells per school.
I think wizard is balanced but i think the lack of specialization does suck.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, stronger specialization would be good.
Maybe beef up the theses a bit as well.
Otherwise they're fine.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see the following:
1. All attack roll cantrips increased to d6 damage or better.
2. Wizard school focus spells improved dramatically and built out so specialists have good school spells all the way up to high level.
3.Spell Substitution made a standard wizard ability. I have no idea why this is a thesis. If wizards are supposed to be the most versatile caster, they should just be able to do this. It shouldn't be some kind of special thesis. If every wizard could change out a spell in 10 minutes, that would encourage them to develop their spellbooks and truly make them the most versatile caster able to adapt to a situation with there vaunted number of spell slots.
4. Maybe a bonus to hit with cantrips or school spells. Something to show the wizard is the absolute master of magical combat similar to what the fighter gets with weapons. Make them a little better with cantrips or attack spells at least for their school.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen it championed everywhere, but honestly just a wand with a cantrip and a +1 to spell attack rolls. That feels fine.
Also more feats that allow you to feel a little bit more specialized without making it an objectively obvious specialization path (wanting to avoid that whole: This feat is more dice and damage and not much else). Something like "Illusion spells you cast cause you to be undetected," or something. "Spells with the poison tag may have their damage type changed to (element.)"
Everything you mentioned is pretty much true for every caster and has nothing to do with Wizards. Pretty much all caster feats are "okay" with some exceptions. Luckily dedications are a good way to add a lot of flavor/power to your character.
I am sure Paizo is well aware of spellcaster attack spells and if they feel it is a problem they might add runes. Only issue I see is true strike make attack spells accurate while runes would make them even better.
Main issue I have with Wizard is that pretty much every thesis except Familiar/Metamagic just feels kind of bad early game with 1-4. Schools for the most part seem to be on the weaker side of the focus pool spectrum too.
Sorcerers also have the issue where some bloodlines just feel bad for the first 1-5 levels, at least their focus spells feel better imo.
Most other casters get more upfront features. Sadly I am not sure how to fix this without going through and rebalancing all their focus spells. Wizard thesis are quite cool and mess around with their "spellbook" but when you have very low spells they just feel kind of bad.
If at level 7+ a player still doesnt like the Wizard it just might not be a class for them. I admit for levels 1-4 I would probably rather play any other class. Also "bland" is a very subjective term, I dont find their feats super interesting but I could say that with lots of classes.
I also would say Wizards in particular with their average focus spells just feel like they will feel much better on low encounter days and worse than other classes when there are a lot of encounters. Once a Wizard runs out of spells I bet they feel 10x worse than every other caster.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything you mentioned is pretty much true for every caster and has nothing to do with Wizards. Pretty much all caster feats are "okay" with some exceptions. Luckily dedications are a good way to add a lot of flavor/power to your character.
I am sure Paizo is well aware of spellcaster attack spells and if they feel it is a problem they might add runes. Only issue I see is true strike make attack spells accurate while runes would make them even better.
Main issue I have with Wizard is that pretty much every thesis except Familiar/Metamagic just feels kind of bad early game with 1-4. Schools for the most part seem to be on the weaker side of the focus pool spectrum too.
Sorcerers also have the issue where some bloodlines just feel bad for the first 1-5 levels, at least their focus spells feel better imo.
Most other casters get more upfront features. Sadly I am not sure how to fix this without going through and rebalancing all their focus spells. Wizard thesis are quite cool and mess around with their "spellbook" but when you have very low spells they just feel kind of bad.
If at level 7+ a player still doesnt like the Wizard it just might not be a class for them. I admit for levels 1-4 I would probably rather play any other class. Also "bland" is a very subjective term, I dont find their feats super interesting but I could say that with lots of classes.
I also would say Wizards in particular with their average focus spells just feel like they will feel much better on low encounter days and worse than other classes when there are a lot of encounters. Once a Wizard runs out of spells I bet they feel 10x worse than every other caster.
Druid, bard, and sorcerer feats are good. You feel like you're missing out not taking class feats.
Cleric feats are situationally good depending on the campaign. But on average cleric feats are pretty meh.
Witch and wizard feats are mostly terrible with a few that are worth getting.
Oracle feats don't look too good either.
Druid, bard, and sorcerer feats are good. You feel like you're missing out not taking class feats.
Cleric feats are situationally good depending on the campaign. But on average cleric feats are pretty meh.
Witch and wizard feats are mostly terrible with a few that are worth getting.
Oracle feats don't look too good either.
Druid I am not sure I agree. Shapeshifting/Animal Companion feats are great for specific builds and order explorer is nice other than that though I feel the rest were very situational and were more flavorful than anything.
Pretty much all casters felt okay to me, Bard was the only exception with a lot of fun feats that really stood out. No other casters have the ability to blend their features like they can.
Sorcerer I love in general and agree quite a few feats that are good, but they are imo very build specific and can easily fit dedications in.
It is definitely subjective but I feel every caster except bards have feats that I just feel are underwhelming. Of course there are a few standouts and I feel Wizards have some great ones too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Specialization in attacks and DC based on his school (Something like +1 +2) like everyone has said. And better/more focus spells.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of my actual House Rules (found here if you want the full thing), Wizards have received the following advantages:
#1. For all casters, I've upped the damage die on most cantrips one step (actually Daze and Acid Splash go to 1d4 per level plus casting stat, which is better than this). Telekinetic Projectile wound up a little overpowered at d8 so I gave it a few other advantages instead, and Electric Arc needs no help, while melee cantrips get upped two categories (to d8...for Produce Flame this is d6 at range, d8 in melee).
#2: I've added an item adding +1 to +3 to spell attack rolls. It also grants an additional attack cantrip. I may have the higher level versions grant once per day spells at some point, but I haven't decided for sure.
#3: For Wizards specifically, I've added some additional abilities by School Specialization. These are about equivalent to a Class Feat, either a Wizard one, or a slightly limited version of a non-Wizard one (Evokers get the equivalent of Dangerous Sorcery but only for Evocation spells, for example, while Diviners get Expert Perception upgrading to Master at 17th and Arcane Senses, and so on). I also made Augment Summoning have usable action economy.
#4: I've done some small buffs to Intelligence as a stat. Specifically, when you raise Int to 20+ I allow you to upgrade a Skill rather than get a new one at Trained, allow Bon Mot to be used with either Society or Diplomacy, and added both a new General Feat getting two more Skills at Expert and a Skill Feat giving a bonus to Recall Knowledge on the Wis Skills, but both with an Int 16 prerequisite.
I've also buffed other stuff in a few relatively small ways (most notably, I allow Cha or Wis to be used on Will Saves, player's choice), and Alchemist a lot, but honestly Wizard has more buffs than anything but Alchemist.
In terms of stuff I think should be done but haven't personally, I think more and better Focus Spells are top of the list, but spells are harder to design than the stuff I've done for Wizard and I have zero Wizards in my current game so I lack motivation to put in the work.
Druid, bard, and sorcerer feats are good. You feel like you're missing out not taking class feats.
Cleric feats are situationally good depending on the campaign. But on average cleric feats are pretty meh.
Witch and wizard feats are mostly terrible with a few that are worth getting.
Oracle feats don't look too good either.
Druid I am not sure I agree. Shapeshifting/Animal Companion feats are great for specific builds and order explorer is nice other than that though I feel the rest were very situational and were more flavorful than anything.
Pretty much all casters felt okay to me, Bard was the only exception with a lot of fun feats that really stood out. No other casters have the ability to blend their features like they can.
Sorcerer I love in general and agree quite a few feats that are good, but they are imo very build specific and can easily fit dedications in.
It is definitely subjective but I feel every caster except bards have feats that I just feel are underwhelming. Of course there are a few standouts and I feel Wizards have some great ones too.
I have not found a level I can't find a good druid feat. I did work in sorcerer from half-elf multiclass dedication to grab Dangerous Sorcery though. It's fun blasting things as a storm druid with a little extra oomph.
I like to get all the sorcerer bloodline spells. And picking spells from any list is hard to pass up. You get to cherry pick up to 3 of the best spells. Lots of versatility there.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
3.Spell Substitution made a standard wizard ability. I have no idea why this is a thesis. If wizards are supposed to be the most versatile caster, they should just be able to do this. It shouldn't be some kind of special thesis. If every wizard could change out a spell in 10 minutes, that would encourage them to develop their spellbooks and truly make them the most versatile caster able to adapt to a situation with there vaunted number of spell slots.
I disagree with this point. I don't know what makes you say that Wizards have to be versatile but right now I have the opposite feeling: Wizards are the most specialized casters (Spell Blending + Specialist is a big specialist's combo).
So, instead of forcing every Wizard to have Spell Substitution, you should allow to choose 2 Theses. It's roughly equivalent in power and many will choose Spell Substitution anyway, but some will choose more specialized options.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make all cantrips save-based. Electric arc is good because it can have two targets, but the real draw is the save-based part, which makes it so much better than anything else.
Acid Splash - Saving Throw basic Fortitude
You splash a glob of acid that splatters creatures and objects alike. You deal 1d6 acid damage plus 1 splash acid damage. On a critical failure, the target also takes 1d4 persistent acid damage.
Produce Flame - Saving Throw basic reflex
A small ball of flame appears in the palm of your hand, and you lash out with it either in melee or at range. On a success, you deal 1d6 fire damage plus your spellcasting ability modifier. On a critical failure, the target takes double damage and 1d4 persistent fire damage.
Ray of Frost - Saving Throw basic Fortitude
You blast an icy ray. The ray deals cold damage equal to 1d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier and gives a -5foot status penalty to its speed for 1 round. On a critical failure, the target takes double damage and takes a –10-foot status penalty to its Speeds for 1 round.
Telekinetic projectile - Saving Throw basic reflex
You hurl a loose, unattended object that is within range and that has 1 Bulk or less at the target. You deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage—as appropriate for the object you hurled—equal to 1d6 plus your spellcasting ability modifier. No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for wizard, I would love more interesting feats - not necessarily more powerful but more flavorful, like what the magus has so far. Something to block with your spellbook, to replicate a spell being cast by an opponent, to steal a buff..
Also, it would be nice to have a real gameplay change coming from your school specialization. So far, it's really, really bland.
Abjuration: You get d8hp and permanent free enhanced mage armor.
Conjuration: Your conjuration spells are always considered as one level higher.
Divination: You roll twice for initiative and cannot be flat-footed.
Enchantment: You start every fight under a sanctuary spell
Evocation: You can exclude one target from your AOE spells.
Illusion: You're under permanent blur
Necromancy: You get temp HP for every kill
Transmutation: You can cast while polymorphed.
Universalist: No vacian magic, all spells you prepare can be spontaneously cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think spell attack progression (the end bonus is almost fine and is equal to master martial attack -1) problem needs to be solved. Transforming spell attacks based spells to DC based spells is deleting a portion of the game and narrowing the design space.
One common solution I see often is adding runes to spell attacks (+1,+2 and +3). By using this method, the gaps between spell attack and master martial attacks will be few and small (I compare spell attacks to master martial attack because their similarity at max level). My main consern is that the bonus at high levels will be equal to the bonus of a fighter, which will make the later's niche less special (and could be unbalanced. This concern is a consequence of the comparison to master martial end bonus)
The solution I prefer is seperating spell attacks progression from spell DC and make the first scale like a master martial attack bonus up to master prof and creatig item that will function as potency runes.
This method can cause confusion and makes dispelling a bit clanky (there are more, but these are the major ones). Still I prefer it over the first one, but as I said, it comes from the comparison to master martials' bonus, so you can try to change my mind ;)
I've seen it championed everywhere, but honestly just a wand with a cantrip and a +1 to spell attack rolls. That feels fine.
Also more feats that allow you to feel a little bit more specialized without making it an objectively obvious specialization path (wanting to avoid that whole: This feat is more dice and damage and not much else). Something like "Illusion spells you cast cause you to be undetected," or something. "Spells with the poison tag may have their damage type changed to (element.)"
So after thinking about this today, I went and made a few of my ideas over in this thread. Not sure if this helps anyone, but there we go!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Wizards could greatly benefit from specialized feats. Currently, their school specialization ends up being pretty bland-feeling; you get a school spell (in many cases not a very good one) and that's about it. The APG took a few steps to address this; feats like Convincing Illusion, Diviner's Sense and Form Retention all feel like more or less reasonable ways to spec into your chosen school, or branch out into secondary ones. I'm hopeful we will see more and more feats like this as more core products release.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO incapacitation is what makes it so boss fights can actually be fun, PF1 was the worst where battles could end in 1 round if people were lucky/unlucky. 5e legendary resistance is bad too imo.
Overall all I feel Wizard is "okay". Has Paizo ever completely rebalanced classes? I guess unchained was kind of a rebalance.
After looking at the focus spells big difference is they are all quite situational while most other classes spells are good EVERY fight.
So I feel without a full rebalance all they really can do is add more feats and maybe add an item that adds to spell attacks.
Maybe one day they will make PF2E unchained where they rebalance the classes that feel too OP/UP but atm I feel that seems a little unnecessary.
I admit I loved summoning in PF1 but they were a little much... PF2E seemed to have been very conservative with summonings. Out of curosity has anyone played a pure summon group in PF2E? I am curious if they were effective at all. Summoning a level 5 monster at level 9 for you entire turn + 1 action a turn seems like it will never feel good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there is math stuff with feats/focus/etc it should be on the defensive side. Make the summons tougher.
Do they actually need to be tougher?
How many actions does it take to "undo" a Summon?
It should be considered how a Summon spell compares to something like Slow, in that if a Summon brings something useful like a Buff or Healing IN ADDITION to eating enemy actions, its a very good spell.
The AC and HP of a Summoned creature are specific numbers, but the relevant defensive figure is how many actions it actually takes the enemy to remove it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, if I was gonna increase anything on summons, it'd be their offense.
Even at 8 levels higher it tends to take something like four or five actions for a Jabberwock (level 23) to kill an Azure Worm (level 15, the highest level summoned creature available). They can hit it with area effects more easily, but that is iffy for the Jabberwock specifically.
The real issue is that, with the Azure Worm needing an 18 to hit the Jabberwock, there's no reason for the Jabberwock to bother.
Of course, that's an 8 level swing. A more modest 5 level swing and the Azure Worm can hit on a 15 (13 with flanking) vs. a Pit Fiend which is a bit better, but still not great. Some modest buffs on to-hit and that could be made decently viable in way it's really kinda not right now.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, summon spells could have just always summoned creatures twice the spell's level minus 3. That would keep level 1 and 2 spells the same, increase the summoned level for 3rd level spells by 1, and increase the rest by 2. Meaning a 10th level slot could summon up to 17th level creatures rather than 15th, which still feels fair.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to summons, I think Starfinder did a great job at balancing them. Paizo could create a generic summon spell with no (or limited) special abilities but higher combat statistics.
That's one of the few things I find better in SF than in PF2 and I'm sad Paizo didn't continue in this direction.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have just added a buff to summoned creatures to my House Rules. Specifically, I decided that the Item I have that adds to spell attacks, also adds its bonus to the attacks of creatures summoned via spell slots.
I thought that was a neat solution and likewise thought I should share it, since it's remarkably easy to implement.
Honestly, summon spells could have just always summoned creatures twice the spell's level minus 3. That would keep level 1 and 2 spells the same, increase the summoned level for 3rd level spells by 1, and increase the rest by 2. Meaning a 10th level slot could summon up to 17th level creatures rather than 15th, which still feels fair.
I think this is the way to do it. Summons start fairly relevant, but quickly become irrelevant as levels go up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to summons, I think Starfinder did a great job at balancing them. Paizo could create a generic summon spell with no (or limited) special abilities but higher combat statistics.
That's one of the few things I find better in SF than in PF2 and I'm sad Paizo didn't continue in this direction.
Fully agree.
Extremely minor buff, but I would like Wizards to have all simple weapons, just to make things somewhat more uniform across classes. I've heard all the arguments against it; I do not find them compelling. In particular, two other classes that didn't have access to all simple weapons in PF1 now do, for probably the same reason I'm arguing on behalf of the wizard class. The final class, the Shifter, we will have to see.
Buffing the attack stats of a summon seems like a reasonable way to go. I think summons are decent in some areas (more flankers, you can look for creatures with super useful spells like buffs to abuse). But they are really, really poor at making attacks. Therefore, a slight buff in that area shouldn't push them over the top I'd wager.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
#2: I've added an item adding +1 to +3 to spell attack rolls. It also grants an additional attack cantrip. I may have the higher level versions grant once per day spells at some point, but I haven't decided for sure.
Did you consider just making this a property rune that goes on a weapon, allowing the Weapons Potency Rune to apply to spell attacks?
It seems like the "lightest weight" solution if you wanted to go this direction, creates parity across all classes, and creates both a gold and minor opportunity cost (in addition to gold, theres also the rune slot and need to wield a weapon) but it also has the double benefit of encouraging casters to care about weapons like martials do - and helps them have a stronger third action if they need to smack someone.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
#2: I've added an item adding +1 to +3 to spell attack rolls. It also grants an additional attack cantrip. I may have the higher level versions grant once per day spells at some point, but I haven't decided for sure.
Did you consider just making this a property rune that goes on a weapon, allowing the Weapons Potency Rune to apply to spell attacks?
It seems like the "lightest weight" solution if you wanted to go this direction, creates parity across all classes, and creates both a gold and minor opportunity cost (in addition to gold, theres also the rune slot and need to wield a weapon) but it also has the double benefit of encouraging casters to care about weapons like martials do - and helps them have a stronger third action if they need to smack someone.
Weapon runes that gave casters cool casting benefits would actually be indescribably awesome, in general, and really mesh particularly with the Magus I feel.
#2: I've added an item adding +1 to +3 to spell attack rolls. It also grants an additional attack cantrip. I may have the higher level versions grant once per day spells at some point, but I haven't decided for sure.
Did you consider just making this a property rune that goes on a weapon, allowing the Weapons Potency Rune to apply to spell attacks?
It seems like the "lightest weight" solution if you wanted to go this direction, creates parity across all classes, and creates both a gold and minor opportunity cost (in addition to gold, theres also the rune slot and need to wield a weapon) but it also has the double benefit of encouraging casters to care about weapons like martials do - and helps them have a stronger third action if they need to smack someone.
I suppose the easiest way to do that would be to make a wand effectively a weapon for this purpose.
It would give wizards a use for doubling rings; They'd want their one wand or weapon with a rune on it, to be used it as a stat stick for all their other attack wands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
#2: I've added an item adding +1 to +3 to spell attack rolls. It also grants an additional attack cantrip. I may have the higher level versions grant once per day spells at some point, but I haven't decided for sure.
Did you consider just making this a property rune that goes on a weapon, allowing the Weapons Potency Rune to apply to spell attacks?
It seems like the "lightest weight" solution if you wanted to go this direction, creates parity across all classes, and creates both a gold and minor opportunity cost (in addition to gold, theres also the rune slot and need to wield a weapon) but it also has the double benefit of encouraging casters to care about weapons like martials do - and helps them have a stronger third action if they need to smack someone.
I suppose the easiest way to do that would be to make a wand effectively a weapon for this purpose.
It would give wizards a use for doubling rings; They'd want their one wand or weapon with a rune on it, to be used it as a stat stick for all their other attack wands.
I'm personally "anti-wand" for this purpose. Theres way too much media of battle-wizards channeling power through swords, staves, daggers, etc.
A Weapon Rune allows for all that, and doesn't require any modifications to the core functionality of wands or other items - as in, its self contained and requires the minimum of new rules.
I take then you missed he also gives a bonus attack cantrip with the same item as the item bonus? The weapon rune isn't going to do that by itself. Edit: I see what you mean now, you're making the bonus cantrip a property rune in and of itself. Yeah I kind of dislike that. Making wands weapons seems cleaner. Though it would have to be a different sort of wand for the cantrip, so perhaps an entire new item is fine too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Form Retention
All Form Retention does is make your Transmuter lose a class feat and waste spell slots.
I do agree on Convincing Illusion.
As for wizard, I would love more interesting feats - not necessarily more powerful but more flavorful, like what the magus has so far. Something to block with your spellbook, to replicate a spell being cast by an opponent, to steal a buff..
Also, it would be nice to have a real gameplay change coming from your school specialization. So far, it's really, really bland.
Abjuration: You get d8hp and permanent free enhanced mage armor.
Conjuration: Your conjuration spells are always considered as one level higher.
Divination: You roll twice for initiative and cannot be flat-footed.
Enchantment: You start every fight under a sanctuary spell
Evocation: You can exclude one target from your AOE spells.
Illusion: You're under permanent blur
Necromancy: You get temp HP for every kill
Transmutation: You can cast while polymorphed.
Universalist: No vacian magic, all spells you prepare can be spontaneously cast.
If arcanist style spellcasting could be granted via a single 1st level class feat, we would already have a way to grant that ability to universalist wizards. So either I have underestimated the power of that style of spellcasting, or the universalist needs something more powerful.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did you consider just making this a property rune that goes on a weapon, allowing the Weapons Potency Rune to apply to spell attacks?
Not really. It gets odd thematically that none of the other Runes apply, just Weapon Potency, makes for extra competition for any magic weapons the party finds, and forces the spellcaster to use a weapon, none of which seem particularly on-theme to me.
I made it a set of gloves.
It seems like the "lightest weight" solution if you wanted to go this direction, creates parity across all classes, and creates both a gold and minor opportunity cost (in addition to gold, theres also the rune slot and need to wield a weapon) but it also has the double benefit of encouraging casters to care about weapons like martials do - and helps them have a stronger third action if they need to smack someone.
See, I don't think this is really a benefit. Thematically, casters who never want to use a weapon, at least as a weapon, are probably more common than those that do use them. Upon reflection, I might try to work something out with Doubling Rings (or a similar item) to make this easier on casters who do want to do both, but I very much do not feel like this route as the sole option enforces or encourages the genre conventions of the kind of fantasy that Pathfinder otherwise adheres to.
Which is not to say you're wrong that it's a low impact way to institute such an item. It absolutely is that, and absolutely does encourage them to have a weapon and use it.
I just consider the latter to be, well, actively bad from a theme standpoint, especially since from an optimization perspective said weapon should never be a staff, but rather occasionally a dagger, or more often a ranged weapon like a shortbow if you can get Proficiency. I really don't want every Sorcerer who can get away with it wandering around with a magic shortbow. Magic and archery can go together, but it's a very specific archetype, not the default.
EDIT: And I've done my fix. It's a weapon rune and does more or less what you're suggesting at a cost equivalent to doubling rings, but does require wielding the weapon, and the gloves very much still exist and have advantages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Form RetentionAll Form Retention does is make your Transmuter lose a class feat and waste spell slots.
I do agree on Convincing Illusion.
My point wasn't necessarily that all of those feats are good (Convincing Illusion is, Form Retention isn't..). Rather, it's the space both feats encompass - that of speccing into a particular school of magic. I'd like to see Paizo take many more stabs at this until a Wizard is far more capable of specializing into the various schools of magic. Some attempts will inevitably be lackluster.
This is good if your only goal is balance. It also has the advantage of being self-contained — players don't need to know monster stats to make a good choice or to run their summons. However, it is immensely lacking in flavor.When it comes to summons, I think Starfinder did a great job at balancing them. Paizo could create a generic summon spell with no (or limited) special abilities but higher combat statistics.
That's one of the few things I find better in SF than in PF2 and I'm sad Paizo didn't continue in this direction.
I agree but flavor could have been easy to add. I would have loved Eidolon style summons. You pick a type, maybe an extra special ability, and you're fine.
I agree but flavor could have been easy to add. I would have loved Eidolon style summons. You pick a type, maybe an extra special ability, and you're fine.This is good if your only goal is balance. It also has the advantage of being self-contained — players don't need to know monster stats to make a good choice or to run their summons. However, it is immensely lacking in flavor.When it comes to summons, I think Starfinder did a great job at balancing them. Paizo could create a generic summon spell with no (or limited) special abilities but higher combat statistics.
That's one of the few things I find better in SF than in PF2 and I'm sad Paizo didn't continue in this direction.
It'd probably easier - and more effective long term - to allow Summoned creatures to use a fixed value for core rolls like attacks, the same way that Battle Forms provide a fixed value for attacks (or just your spell attack value).
That way you get flavor an effectiveness, and even allow for lower level creatures summoned by higher level slots to retain effectiveness.
Well, here's the problem with giving status bonus to Caster accuracy: it still won't stop those few spells to suck big time.
Let's face it, who in their right mind would use Produce Flame instead of electric arc, even if you COULD add +1 to your attack roll. And that's a cantrip so at least you're not wasting a slot.
Who would use Ray of enfeeblement ? Seriously ?
The only time where it would matter is on a True-striked disintegrate and even so, it's not that big a deal.
Spells with attack rolls suck, period.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who would use Ray of enfeeblement ? Seriously ?
If I could hit reliably with it?
Enfeebled 1 for a minute on a successful save without Incapacitation trait isn't a terrible use of a first level slot - if they fail their save, Enfeebled 2 for the rest of the fight is an amazing use of a first level spell slot.
Fear, at the same range, is infinitely more temporary.
Goblin Pox, with a better duration than fear, is touch range.
Ray of Enfeeblement with its range and duration isn't bad - its just too unreliable to justify as it stands. Accuracy would go a long way.
I'm not sure a +1 is it, but there is absolutely a degree of accuracy you could add to Ray of Enfeeblement that would make it a great spell. As Krispy said, it's not a bad effect, just too unreliable. Make it reliable enough (+2 or +3 might do the trick) and it becomes very strong. As 1st level Wizard, I don't think I'd be above preparing a True Strike + Ray of Enfeeblement combo if I knew a boss was up ahead in the hypothetical +2/+3 ray world - and I think that combo would absolutely slaughter a lot of low level boss monsters.
Well, but that's the thing, isn't it ? Hitting reliably ? Even with the same rune progression as a martial, you won't hit a boss monster reliably with it.
Let's say you get your wish and have a +1 bonus at level 4 like martials, you now have +11 to hit instead of +10, whoop dee doo.
A level 5 opponent (so a weak boss monster) has around 21 AC, so you still have 45% chance to miss.
We tend to forget that most martials (apart from fighters) whiff a lot against bosses because, well, it doesn't cost them anything and they only lose one action. But if it costs you a slot and two actions, you'll be very unhappy if it has no effect.