| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Especially after reading the blog post about the state of the playtest Magus, it seems like it is time to re-voice the the importance of adding some melee cantrips, before a drastically bad decision is made in regards to the Magus.
The power balance of spells definitely includes the ability to cast them at range, and the only melee only cantrip is actually pretty powerful in that it includes a powerful debuff on a crit and targets a saving throw. It seems like we could get either a D8 cantrip or a D6 cantrip with a second tier critical debuff that was melee ranged only and used spell attack rolls. This would really help out the magi as most of their "every round" spell options are losing their value by being reduced to melee range and only targeting one enemy.
The reason why I think this is an important consideration to make before designing the magi chassis, is because I believe the charged spell version of the magus is a really, really bad idea for the spellstrike/striking spell option. Especially in PF2, holding on to your big spell, instead of unleashing it early to have an important effect on the encounter is basically asking the magus to get less use out of their spell slots. Either the ability is as effective with a stored cantrip as with a spell slot spell, in which case the magus will never use powerful spell attack spells because they are just going to want to be running around with a charged weapon, and using their spell slots for buffing while keeping a cantrip in the weapon, or else the ability will be more powerful with a slotted spell stored in the weapon and then the magi is not going to want to actually release the spell. This really defeats the point of a class billed as a caster that delivers powerful spells through their blade.
There are ways to get around it, where the effect of having the spell stored reduces round by round, but all of that feels like extra complexity for the essential problem that existing cantrips were no fun to cast through striking spell.
If we had decent cantrips built up around having no range, and the striking spell mechanic was tweaked to not require 2 rolls, I think the vast majority of players would have been very happy to use it more often.
Completely agree.
The blog pointed out that having to wait to unleash the spell seemed to be an issue according to the surveys, so designing the class around a Swashbuckler-like chassis (keeping the charge longer) would double on that. Like you pointed out, the Magus strikes me as more dynamic.
If Fighters using them is a concern, maybe they could have them be Focus Cantrips.
If we had decent cantrips built up around having no range, and the striking spell mechanic was tweaked to not require 2 rolls, I think the vast majority of players would have been very happy to use it more often.
This solution would be ideal to me.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Completely agree.
The blog pointed out that having to wait to unleash the spell seemed to be an issue according to the surveys, so designing the class around a Swashbuckler-like chassis (keeping the charge longer) would double on that. Like you pointed out, the Magus strikes me as more dynamic.
If Fighters using them is a concern, maybe they could have them be Focus Cantrips.
If we had decent cantrips built up around having no range, and the striking spell mechanic was tweaked to not require 2 rolls, I think the vast majority of players would have been very happy to use it more often.This solution would be ideal to me.
Having them as focus cantrips seems to be against what they want to do with the Magus, but then again every time they make a magus they're surprised that the class made to deliver touch/spell attacks in melee focuses on delivering touch/spell attacks in melee. I think Focus Cantrips are a great idea.
I don't think you have to worry about fighters being too good with melee cantrips, since they take two actions and don't use the weapon proficiency.
All I mean by melee cantrips is ones with a range limited by your own touch range.
Most other casters won't really be tempted to rush into close quarters to use a single target cantrip when they can hit two enemies with an electric arc, because they aren't survivable enough to do so and have to contend with attacks of opportunity, while the magus can cast the spell, then potentially move through their synthesis, or get boosted Temp HP to counter the AoO.
Those factors should also allow the cantrips to be a little more powerful than other cantrips without having to be focus spells that take away from the magus' own power budget.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to ask if you meant like booming blade and greenflame blade, but you said a touch spell. Idk, I think cantrips like those in 5e would be fine. They could be two actions to mimick how the spells in 5e don't work with extra attack?
Especially after reading the blog post about the state of the playtest Magus, it seems like it is time to re-voice the the importance of adding some melee cantrips, before a drastically bad decision is made in regards to the Magus.
The power balance of spells definitely includes the ability to cast them at range, and the only melee only cantrip is actually pretty powerful in that it includes a powerful debuff on a crit and targets a saving throw. It seems like we could get either a D8 cantrip or a D6 cantrip with a second tier critical debuff that was melee ranged only and used spell attack rolls. This would really help out the magi as most of their "every round" spell options are losing their value by being reduced to melee range and only targeting one enemy.
The reason why I think this is an important consideration to make before designing the magi chassis, is because I believe the charged spell version of the magus is a really, really bad idea for the spellstrike/striking spell option. Especially in PF2, holding on to your big spell, instead of unleashing it early to have an important effect on the encounter is basically asking the magus to get less use out of their spell slots. Either the ability is as effective with a stored cantrip as with a spell slot spell, in which case the magus will never use powerful spell attack spells because they are just going to want to be running around with a charged weapon, and using their spell slots for buffing while keeping a cantrip in the weapon, or else the ability will be more powerful with a slotted spell stored in the weapon and then the magi is not going to want to actually release the spell. This really defeats the point of a class billed as a caster that delivers powerful spells through their blade.
There are ways to get around it, where the effect of having the spell stored reduces round by round, but all of that feels like extra complexity for the essential problem that existing cantrips were no fun to cast through striking spell.
If we had...
A simple fix for this would be to make energy-based cantrips delivered in melee range increase their damage die by one step. So now produce flame, ray of frost, electric arc, etc. Are now D6 damage die, with the added Intelligence and Strength to damage.
This gives them the all day power they need, and they can amp it up with spells like Shocking Grasp for the D12 dice, or Vampiric Touch for the temporary HP, all while still being able to throw Fireballs and Lightning Bolts around as needed.
I was going to ask if you meant like booming blade and greenflame blade, but you said a touch spell. Idk, I think cantrips like those in 5e would be fine. They could be two actions to mimick how the spells in 5e don't work with extra attack?
I think this would be ideal whether it’s regular cantrips or focus cantrips. Cantrips that require a weapon attack and add extra magical damage on top of it plus secondary effect on a crit. Make the cantrips 2 actions and then you don’t need to waste your whole turn using striking spell.
In general, I think some more people 1 action cantrips would be nice to have at least for Magus.
I was going to ask if you meant like booming blade and greenflame blade, but you said a touch spell. Idk, I think cantrips like those in 5e would be fine. They could be two actions to mimick how the spells in 5e don't work with extra attack?I think this would be ideal whether it’s regular cantrips or focus cantrips. Cantrips that require a weapon attack and add extra magical damage on top of it plus secondary effect on a crit. Make the cantrips 2 actions and then you don’t need to waste your whole turn using striking spell.
In general, I think some more people 1 action cantrips would be nice to have at least for Magus.
I don't know how the design space fits for this tbh. Cuz I still wanna put big boy spells on striking spell too, and you get the same effect by using striking spell and one of these better touch cantrips. Green flame blade and booming blade are balanced around not adding damage until level 5 unless a special circumstance accures, either an extra target, or the target moves. Builds using these spells often also use flaming sphere at these lower levels to force opponents to move and get extra damage with the bonus action. With striking spell already existing maybe there is no reason for spells like those two
I can see where something like that could be fun for an archetype, but it is definitely not what I was talking about to make spell strike more functional.
What I was envisioning was a 2 action cantrip that still used a spell attack roll, but did D8 damage, or D6 damage with a crit debuff, but was different from existing cantrips in that its range was exclusively melee.
Like:
Frightful touch
Emotion, Enchantment, Fear, mental
2 actions
range: Touch
Make a spell attack roll. If you hit you do 1d8+ability modifier mental damage. On a crit, the enemy is frightened 1 (no double damage).
I think double damage on a crit is still fine, even with the debuff. Compare it to both Chill Touch and Produce Flame, both of which deal double on a crit and have their rider effects.
Same with Daze, Ray of Frost, and Acid Splash, as well as Divine Lance, Electric Arc, and Telekinetic projectile (though the last three don't have rider effects).
Compare this spell also to Fear, which is a slotted spell that deals Frightened 1 even on a successful save and is ranged.
I get that you're reducing the effect for the d8 damage die (and further that this is just an off the cuff example), but it might be better to reduce the die and double damage on a crit to make it act more consistent to other spells. Though honestly 1d8 is probably fine, given the other limitations.
Edit: Overall though, I think you're right about this need and that the Magus class in particular would benefit, no matter what form it takes in the end.
I think a D8 that heightens every level, for a cantrip is probably too much to double on a crit. That is just a little too close to being as good as a full spell slot spell for something you can do over and over again. A d6 is not though, so it could be D6, double and still probably do double damage on a crit.
What about if it was the d8 for just damage (TKP style) and the d6 with a rider? The more cantrips the better (at leaat for the Magus)
As a level 10 spell, 10D8+attribute that doubles on a crit is pretty brutal for an at will attack. Polar Ray is a level 8 spell that only does 10D8 with no attribute and no doubling on a crit.
This kinda gets at why you don't see too many high damage spell attack roll spells that double on crits even as spell slots: They would be super too deadly when used against PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a level 10 spell, 10D8+attribute that doubles on a crit is pretty brutal for an at will attack. Polar Ray is a level 8 spell that only does 10D8 with no attribute and no doubling on a crit.
This kinda gets at why you don't see too many high damage spell attack roll spells that double on crits even as spell slots: They would be super too deadly when used against PCs.
This also doesn't include the weapon attack portion of it, which can make it even more brutal. Even a 4D8+ability on top of that is very strong.
But, this was balanced by making it go through 2 attack rolls (or 1 attack and 1 save), where the first one makes everything miss entirely, and the second one adding the big damage of 10d8 or so. It's less valuable when you consider that it's twice as likely to fail compared to other attacks.
With that in mind, I would probably say the damage from cantrips would be just fine if they make it go through a single pass (AKA 1 roll for both results). Even a simple 9d4+3d8+int+str is a very good round for a Magus against a boss character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is also a 120' ranged attack with a brutal debuff on hit.
Not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
Crit rider effects are safer from a design perspective than high damage die heightening every level for spells generally, but especially for cantrips because the damage numbers can get really obscene.
Insisting on double crit damage feels like the fastest track to getting lower damage die caps on cantrips/ or every other level heightening.
If that means cantrips more or less work the same across the board, I'm okay with that trade. I even said so upthread.
I also still don't think it is overpowered, especially if you are basing that comparing on Polar Ray. No, the spell does not double damage on a crit. The reason for that is, due to the nature of the debuff, that extra damage comes in a different manner.
10d8 averages to 45hp. At level 15, that Drained 2 works out to 30hp lost. And that happens if you crit or hit, and the extra cannot be healed by a mere heal spell. I can definitely see why that they felt no need to add additional damage on a crit to that, though I may have bumped the drained condition to 3 on a crit. Probably not though; the range is pretty good all on its own.
Meanwhile, our prospective Frightful touch would on a crit deal about 77 damage (on average) and give frightened 1, and would require the caster to be in the melee where they can be subject to AoOs while casting the spell. Not as big of a deal in PF2 as it was in PF1, but still a thing. It's definitely on the top end of reasonable, I certainly wouldn't advocate going higher (and the suggestion to cap scaling to every other level instead of each level seems reasonable as well), but I just don't think it is out of bounds yet.
Besides simply moving it to d6 instead of d8, other changes could be to require a will save on top of the spell attack roll, to give the victim a chance to resist the condition, or making the damage nonlethal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could be wrong but another problem is if they make melee cantrips that are stronger than ranged ones wouldn't casters just start using reach spell?
It might not be a huge problem. But any "strong" melee spell can easily be turned into range.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No that’s absolutely the case.
But at that point you also could have used Telekinetic Projectile and Intimidate for a similar effect and same range, and possibly gotten a stronger fear effect (and more top end damage going with Unicire’s version) More steps, but requires a skill instead of a feat.
That was part of why I’d rather drop the baseline die instead of disabling double damage. The closer that combination is to an existing effect, the more confident we can be that the spell is balanced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Letting full casters spend an action to use a melee cantrip at range is something worth considering when balancing the spell, but "requires a feat and an action" is a pretty hefty additional cost for the balance, as Animated Paper addresses above.
Part of why I think it would be nice to offer some higher damage die options that don't double on a crit is because so many players complained during the magus playtest about relying on critical hits to balance damage expectations. Seriously a whole lot of players absolutely hated striking spell because they felt like it encouraged crit fishing. Having spells who's damage ceiling is a little higher on standard hits is doable in PF2 with spells, and has some precedence, but it gets dangerous with a lot of dice and crit doubling stacked together. I am not as good at math as the developer team, which is why I don't really want to try to debate exactly what the numbers should be, but I think there are players who would be happy to have the chaotic element of the damage potential for their attack moved forward off of the attack die and on to the damage die, and spells like this would help them to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The decision for True Strike to exist, and be the limited resource mega boost for caster accuracy using limited resource spells is not really a useful one to keep debating at this point. It comes up every single time that people talk about spell attack roll spells, and I get that some people don't like it, and house ruling it out is fine for home tables, but it exists in the core assumptions of the game at this point and isn't going anywhere. What high level spells with spell attack rolls can do have to be balanced around it and that does include cantrips that end up with a whole lot of bigger damage dice at higher levels too.
I mean PF2 is a flexible core framework, so house ruling it out is not that difficult, but the problem is that you wont get official spells that don't take it into consideration, so if you do option 1 at home, you are kinda on your own for designing spell attack roll spells.
Just remember they are particularly dangerous to PCs, because PCs don't get any mitigating defensive abilities to AC like they do to saves--not even the ability to hero point a bad save roll--so be careful going too wild on what they can do the 5 percent of the time that nat 20 shows up, even on an unlikely attack roll.
Which is why option 3 is possible, but it will mean having to be particularly careful with massive extra damage on a crit, especially at high level. That is is why big damage die that heighten every level enter into "dangerous" territory very quickly. Even though it is a level 1 spell, I think shocking grasp is about the most damage you will see attached to a single target spell attack roll spell, as an absolute ceiling.
That is 11d12 with no attribute modifier for average damage of 71.5.
I think 60% of spell damage is probably about the most generous you could go with a cantrip which would pare down to 42.9 which would put a D8 scaling every spell level just out of reach at 45.
For a homebrew, I very much doubt it would be problematic to introduce a D8 cantrip with no attribute modifier that heightened every level, with no other crit rider than double damage, as long as you keep the damage type something like bludgeoning, but over the course of tables everywhere it would probably be the start of power creep, which is why it didn't happen in the first place? That is my guess. I could be wrong, but that seems about on par with the overall game logic that I have looked at with spells.
The decision for True Strike to exist, and be the limited resource mega boost for caster accuracy using limited resource spells is not really a useful one to keep debating at this point. It comes up every single time that people talk about spell attack roll spells, and I get that some people don't like it, and house ruling it out is fine for home tables, but it exists in the core assumptions of the game at this point and isn't going anywhere. What high level spells with spell attack rolls can do have to be balanced around it and that does include cantrips that end up with a whole lot of bigger damage dice at higher levels too.So, there are three options:
1. Nerfrrata True Strike somehow (perhaps to a reroll on a miss) and make attack roll spells that are actually competitive with other spells.
2. Keep True Strike as it is and never have anyone (particularly no divine or primal casters) use attack spells, because they're useless.
3. Keep True Strike as it is and make attack roll spells that are balanced on their own, and deal with the fact that they'll shine when combined with True Strike.
Given these three options, the first would be the best, the second is the worst, and the third is OK.
It sounds like Paizo went with a combination of 2 and 3, which is basically the worst of both worlds, and is probably why a lot of people have a bad taste in their mouth when we consider that half of the spellcasters in the game can't utilize a spell that the entirety of spell attacks was balanced around.
Honestly, even a universal Metamagic feat (called Striking Spell, wow what a shock!) that would make you roll twice and take the better on a spell attack roll is good, because you'll be limited by action economy (do you want to move to or attack from safety via Reach Spell or risk-it for a biscuit?), and spell slots for your big blast spells. It's actually exactly the same as True Strike is currently, mechanically, and it makes cantrips more usable for all spellcasters involved, not just Arcane or Occult. And since most spellcasters have garbage feats (except for maybe Bards, but they're the least likely to be using Attack Roll spells), I imagine they would much rather pay a "feat tax" than a spell slot tax (which isn't palatable at low levels, or not even viable for certain spellcasters).
I think 60% of spell damage is probably about the most generous you could go with a cantrip which would pare down to 42.9 which would put a D8 scaling every spell level just out of reach at 45.If your concern is monster-on-PC damage at high levels, the expected Strike damage for a level 20 creature is about 42 anyway. And that's for a single action, not a two-action cantrip.
My concern is more about PCs using these spells. And I'm telling you, as someone playing a primal Sorcerer, I can't ever see myself casting any of the attack roll spells using a spell slot. The payoff on a hit would have to be significantly higher than an equal-level basic save spell to make up for the fact that a miss means I wasted my turn and my spell slot, while a basic save spell at least gets me half damage on a successful save.
I am not trying to argue what would be cool, just try to help people homebrewing see what the assumptions that are already built into the game are running at and why certain things are unlikely in published material.
Shocking grasp with flanking and true strike is better than the DPR that most creatures can put out with two attacks. Cantrips tend to run under 60%, which is why one going over 60% is incredibly unlikely.
The accuracy boost of true strike and flanking is much better than can be worked onto any saving throw targeting spell, which can make true strike and shocking grasp a better pure striker damage option for a caster than saving throw spells. The fact that casters can debuff boss monsters relatively easily, even on a successful save, while martials can't is why there is so much pressure on casters to focus on debuffing against higher level solo monsters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The accuracy boost of true strike and flanking is much better than can be worked onto any saving throw targeting spell
I mean, if you're already in melee and already flanking...sure, but how often are you going to set yourself up like that on your previous turn?
Also, generally speaking, cantrips are considered weak and in need of a buff. So using their 60% value as a strict cap on cantrip damage is disingenuous.
The accuracy boost of true strike and flanking is much better than can be worked onto any saving throw targeting spellI mean, if you're already in melee and already flanking...sure, but how often are you going to set yourself up like that on your previous turn?
Also, generally speaking, cantrips are considered weak and in need of a buff. So using their 60% value as a strict cap on cantrip damage is disingenuous.
Spectral hand is a really good spell for a spell attack focused caster. It takes set up and isn't that useful before you get to level 5, but it lets you get flanking without having to move for the rest of combat as long as someone is engaging an enemy in melee.
Again, I think "demanding" cantrips that break what currently exists as limits is just pushing for power creep. Pointing out that limiting spells to melee only might create space for a slight boost to cantrip damage and make using cantrips on classes that will primarily be attacking from that range will be a way to make doing that more worthwhile.
Just as an aside on the whole attack spell thing, would it feel better to cast that attack spell if the enemy was debuffed hard by the rest of the party? I’ve had a party put frightened, sickened, flat footed etc on a target. They don’t always do that but they do it frequently enough. If the target is not a high AC target to begin with, all those debuffs make for a pretty easy AC to hit.
Just as an aside on the whole attack spell thing, would it feel better to cast that attack spell if the enemy was debuffed hard by the rest of the party? I’ve had a party put frightened, sickened, flat footed etc on a target. They don’t always do that but they do it frequently enough. If the target is not a high AC target to begin with, all those debuffs make for a pretty easy AC to hit.
Frightened and Sickened apply status penalties, which don't stack. Flat-footed is circumstance, which does apply with one of the other ones. A -2 or -3 to AC is pretty significant, but it should make already decent to-hit attacks more likely to crit, and less-likely to-hit attacks able to actually do so on a somewhat frequent basis.
The problem is that a two-action first-attack cantrip functions more as a secondary attack when it's the first (and probably only) attack being made in the round. It's just not a good feeling whatsoever that something you're able to do constantly just, you know, isn't very reliable, even though cantrips have been described as being something a spellcaster can (and should) be using all day without problem.
The problem is that a two-action first-attack cantrip functions more as a secondary attack when it's the first (and probably only) attack being made in the round. It's just not a good feeling whatsoever that something you're able to do constantly just, you know, isn't very reliable, even though cantrips have been described as being something a spellcaster can (and should) be using all day without problem.
This is kinda true at low levels, but I think the idea that a caster is "supposed" to cast cantrips most of the time has been pretty effectively disproven in the ongoing debates about casters.
Past level 4, attack cantrips are your clean up spells and your specific weak save or damage type spell. Druids, Bards and Witches have their own special focus powers that combine with 3 spells per level to make generic cantrips unnecessary. Wizards and Sorcerers get extra spells so their typical action is going to be casting a spell from a spell slot, either mixing up top slots with lower slot debuffs or using consumables to keep firing top slot spells. Clerics only have 3 spell slots, but they have that massive pool of extra heals/harms so they are a little bit of an exception, plus their cantrip selection is pretty terrible.
It is the birth of the new 4 spell slot caster that makes the need for serviceable generic cantrips to come back into the conversation, because 4 total spell slots a day is absolutely not enough for Magi and Summoners to be casting spells from spell slots every turn, much less every encounter.
60% of a standard spell slot spell is better than a second attack from a martial, but not by a whole lot. Electric Arc is currently the only DPR cantrip that holds up to being "worth casting" even into mid levels, because it can target 2 creatures, and targets an often middle or low save. Chill touch would be a decent melee cantrip if it targeted will instead of fortitude, as targeting fortitude and doing half damage on a save is barely better than a spell attack roll in melee, since flanking is easier to get at that range. That is why I think there is room for some more melee cantrips in the D6 and every level scaling, keeping x2 on a crit plus and effect, or D8 without crit doubling.
Spel
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Electric Arc is currently the only DPR cantrip that holds up to being "worth casting" even into mid levels, because it can target 2 creatures, and targets an often middle or low save.
Thank you for making my point for me.
I am not trying to argue against the fact that a lot of people find cantrips overall underpowered. What I am pointing out is that the game isn't going to radically back track on trying to adjust numbers up and that introducing a bunch of new ones that are just all around better than what currently exists would be bad for the game too, as that is basically the PF1 approach to balance, and it went pretty badly.
However, if range is considered a component of cantrip value, there is room for some higher damage cantrips that are melee cantrips, and showing us what Paizo thinks that could look like could help alleviate the situation that the magus was in in the play test, where cantrips just generally didn't feel worth casting, especially since the magus (except the shooting star) was just losing out on any balance factor given to cantrips range.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
and that introducing a bunch of new ones that are just all around better than what currently exists would be bad for the game too, as that is basically the PF1 approach to balance, and it went pretty badly.
If something that exists in its current state is bad, why would it hurt the game to release something better later down the road? We're already starting from the premise, for this example, that the currently existing thing is substandard and not in a healthy spot.
I can't fathom how fixing gaps in the system is somehow worse than leaving bad things bad forever.
It's also not just the PF1 approach. The APG already released a bunch of options that are cheaper, easier and sometimes just flat out better than similar options that existed in core... and that's definitely been a good thing for the system as a whole, not a bad thing.
However, if range is considered a component of cantrip value, there is room for some higher damage cantrips that are melee cantrips
But if we use your argument that we can't obsolete old options, doesn't Chill Touch and Produce Flame already mean we can't make better melee cantrips?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and that introducing a bunch of new ones that are just all around better than what currently exists would be bad for the game too, as that is basically the PF1 approach to balance, and it went pretty badly.If something that exists in its current state is bad, why would it hurt the game to release something better later down the road? We're already starting from the premise, for this example, that the currently existing thing is substandard and not in a healthy spot.
I can't fathom how fixing gaps in the system is somehow worse than leaving bad things bad forever.
It's also not just the PF1 approach. The APG already released a bunch of options that are cheaper, easier and sometimes just flat out better than similar options that existed in core... and that's definitely been a good thing for the system as a whole, not a bad thing.
However, if range is considered a component of cantrip value, there is room for some higher damage cantrips that are melee cantripsBut if we use your argument that we can't obsolete old options, doesn't Chill Touch and Produce Flame already mean we can't make better melee cantrips?
Chill touch and produce flame, have quite a bit of power set towards good critic riders. Produce flame's crit rider even scales, making it a nasty spell to get critically hit by. Chill touch is a little less powerful, but targets a save so it does damage on a miss, doubles on a crit and sticks a nasty debuff on there.
Produce flame was probably the best of the cantrips to use on the magus, and losing the crit rider of striking spell will reduce its efficacy, but it will still remain decent. Chill touch like wise will still retain value as a spell that will do some damage, even if you are likely to miss.
I honestly think there is room for more D6 damage melee only cantrips, or even a D8/no x2 on a crit cantrip. Hence the point of the thread.
As far as completely invalidating old options, I think the APG did a fairly good job of helping provide characters more direct paths to certain things through archetypes than fully multi-classing, but that feels pretty different than just replacing those options. If you only wanted armor, it made no narrative sense to have to be a champion. Deciding to MC to realize a character that is part champion though is still perfectly worth doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chill touch and produce flame, have quite a bit of power set towards good critic riders. Produce flame's crit rider even scales, making it a nasty spell to get critically hit by. Chill touch is a little less powerful, but targets a save so it does damage on a miss, doubles on a crit and sticks a nasty debuff on there.
Produce flame was probably the best of the cantrips to use on the magus, and losing the crit rider of striking spell will reduce its efficacy, but it will still remain decent. Chill touch like wise will still retain value as a spell that will do some damage, even if you are likely to miss.
Agreed that making an attack roll rather than a save effect would allow the damage ceiling to be raised, though in all honesty I think Chill Touch's damage should already be a little higher, given its range. I think they pare it down due to its flexibility in effects, but I think they went a bit too far. Compared to either electric arc or produce flame, it just does not hold up well.
As an aside, It is interesting to me that primal does not get access to this spell. I assume it is because it channels negative energy and that goes against theme, but for me being able to channel both negative and positive energy should be within the realm of primal, though I wouldn't go as far as to let them animate dead.
Chill touch and produce flame, have quite a bit of power set towards good critic riders. Produce flame's crit rider even scales, making it a nasty spell to get critically hit by. Chill touch is a little less powerful, but targets a save so it does damage on a miss, doubles on a crit and sticks a nasty debuff on there.
Produce flame was probably the best of the cantrips to use on the magus, and losing the crit rider of striking spell will reduce its efficacy, but it will still remain decent. Chill touch like wise will still retain value as a spell that will do some damage, even if you are likely to miss.
Agreed that making an attack roll rather than a save effect would allow the damage ceiling to be raised, though in all honesty I think Chill Touch's damage should already be a little higher, given its range. I think they pare it down due to its flexibility in effects, but I think they went a bit too far. Compared to either electric arc or produce flame, it just does not hold up well.
As an aside, It is interesting to me that primal does not get access to this spell. I assume it is because it channels negative energy and that goes against theme, but for me being able to channel both negative and positive energy should be within the realm of primal, though I wouldn't go as far as to let them animate dead.
But the primal list doesn't get access to the harm spell either, which is one of the most powerful offensive spells in the game, since it loses no damage when cast as a 1 action spell. Harm is pretty much THE spell that all magi wish they could have but can't, and getting it as a MC spell means having it be levels behind, with a poor proficiency and a poor stat modifier.
Enfeebled is a good crit rider, but it is no where near as good as Daze's stunned 1. I bet that chill touch was a spell on the cusp of getting a D6, but doing negative damage, targeting a save, and having a strong crit rider made it feel like too much of a risk to bump up the damage.
I don't think targeting fortitude is seen as much of a negative for the spell, since the undead usually have bad fort saves. I probably agree with you that it could have been a D6, but the difference between a D6 and a D4 becomes a pretty big deal with heightened spells. It does seem like "Targeting a save" is pretty close to "must use a D4" for cantrips.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They do get some spells with the negative trait, like Curse of Lost Time and Massacre, but it seems like any spell that so much as mentions or brushes against undead is a no fly zone. I agree with that generally, though I'd make an exception for this one.
Of course, that does leave room for an eventual Death Druid class archetype or order, so perhaps one day.
As to the damage, again, compare it to Produce Flame and Electric Arc. EA natively can do twice the damage as this spell, at range, assuming it can target a second creature, and scales just as fast. Produce flame does identical damage on a hit, but essentially triple damage on a crit instead of merely double and, as you say, a relatively minor debuff. That Chill Touch also does damage on a success where produce flame does nothing on a miss is an advantage in Chill Touch's favor, but not enough I think.
Especially if you compare it to EA, Chill Touch could go up to d8 die size and still not beat EA on average (4.5 average on the die vs 5 average with 2 targets, both doubled on crit). Actually, bumping it up to d8 would have made an interesting tactical choice, as you'd save this spell for a single creature attack or as an emergency when you find yourself in melee and unable to get away, but use EA when you can target 2 creatures, and do relatively the same damage in either case.
I do understand your concerns about powercreep, but given how underpowered most see cantrips (except EA), and that Magi will have to make more use of them due to simply not having enough slots or ability to make effective use of consumables (given action cost and the nerf to staffs) to do otherwise, I think all but Electric arc could use a slight boost, including Chill Touch.
With the Errata to Polar Ray, to double on a crit, I think that there is room for a new Cantrip that does 1d8, but I think it is going to be melee only and spell attack roll, with no where near as powerful a crit debuff as enfeebled. Maybe none at all. Expecting them to revise chill touch feels like a long shot to me. I am not really saying what I want to happen, just what seems possible/unlikely.
It sounds like they might be moving in a very different direction with the magus, but a D8 melee cantrip would probably see a lot more use than anything the magus had available to them.
With the Errata to Polar Ray, to double on a crit
That also tells me that the damage on Hydraulic Push should probably be looked at. Crit for +3d6 is now triple weird. The only other spell that even looks similar now is the paladin's Litany Against Wrath.
I'm really hoping with the new book we get a bunch of new cantrips. It probably won't happen, as martials are the go to for consistent dpr, but a person can dream. In my opinion, martials should do more damage, but casters should have more utility or at least more situational stuff.
Some ideas - melee cantrip that moves the caster after hitting (sort of a jet backwards type deal). Melee cantrip that targets all enemies around the caster (caster will almost never want to be in melee but in the odd situation they were, they could turn the tables a little. Have to be a little less powerful, maybe in the realm of daze). A cantrip that lingers in a square, possibly by sustaining it. A cantrip that makes a square difficult terrain.
With the Errata to Polar Ray, to double on a crit, I think that there is room for a new Cantrip that does 1d8, but I think it is going to be melee only and spell attack roll, with no where near as powerful a crit debuff as enfeebled. Maybe none at all. Expecting them to revise chill touch feels like a long shot to me. I am not really saying what I want to happen, just what seems possible/unlikely.
It sounds like they might be moving in a very different direction with the magus, but a D8 melee cantrip would probably see a lot more use than anything the magus had available to them.
Oh, I don't expect them to revise Chill Touch. If anything, they might errata it to d6, but I doubt it.
I was merely pointing out that the math doesn't pan out with your comment on the dangers of d6 doubling on a crit, because other core spells do even more damage, and would remain doing more damage even if you increased chill touch's die to d8 and changed nothing else.
With a d8+spell casting modifier, and +1 d8 per level, EA still has a higher top end and average damage when you can hit 2 targets, because its spellcasting modifier applies to both targets.