|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I was talking to some friends who recently completed the Fall of Plaguestone AP, and there were some points of order my friends had about high level play. Specifically that casters got the shaft. I wanted to know if this has been addressed in later APs or if it still a problem.
Specifically:
-Since You can buy +weapons but not +spell attack items, past level like, 2, most spell attacks are going to lag behind most martial attacks. To the point of not hitting at higher levels most the time.
-Enemies eventually have save bonuses EQUAL to PC spell DCs, meaning that most offensive spells are useless that require saves.
-Because of the above High level casters are basically reduced to healing, buffing, or rebuff removal. Now that’s fine for players who want to take that roll, but forcing all casters into that roll is. . . Boring.
Has this been fixed in later APs?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a table of monster defense by level, if you’re interested
But the issue is the earlier APs and modules (Plaguestone, AoA, ExC, AoE, and to some extent even the slithering) have a tendency to use single level+ enemies as the opponents - which are much harder at low levels. Enemies having save bonuses equal to your DC shouldn’t happen unless you target the strong save (usually fort) or they’re level+3/4.
AV, and Menace Under Otari, from what I’ve seen tend to constrain the level range and use more enemies at low levels, making the fights fairer.
High level casters are definitely potent debuffers in addition to buffers and healers - in fact, high level casters are part of the reason why level+ enemies are a joke at level 15+. Blasting... yeah well it just sucks. Not much to say. There’s few good blasting spells (of which, most of them are good because of riders) - the only decent just damage one is Meteor Swarm, and only under the interpretation that the bludgeoning damage can hit multiple times, allowing it to deal 21d10+14d6 to a large creature or 28d10+14d6 to a huge+ creature.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m only reporting what I heard. My friends said that the enemies had saves bonuses that equaled their spell DCs regularly at higher levels, and that their spell to-hits were a joke because they were 3 less than the rogues and 5 less than the fighter’s. I just want to know if that balance has been straightened out.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m only reporting what I heard. My friends said that the enemies had saves bonuses that equaled their spell DCs regularly at higher levels, and that their spell to-hits were a joke because they were 3 less than the rogues and 5 less than the fighter’s. I just want to know if that balance has been straightened out.
Either they’re not calculating things correctly, have bad stats or are at very specific levels for this to be true. Also might be very specific monsters (you can check the table, i don’t think the average save bonus ever reaches spell DC except against maybe level +3/4 on fort).
Level 1-4 fighter hit bonus should be +9/+11/+12/+13 (plaguestone ends at 4, so 4 is never played)
Level 1-4 rogue hit bonus should be +7/+9/+10/+11
Level 1-4 caster spatk should be +7/+8/+9/+10
Level 1-4 caster DC should be 17/18/19/20
I don’t think any enemy in plaguestone has that high of a save bonus.
But to answer your question - no. There has been nothing printed that increases spatk or spell dc.
Level 1-4 rogue hit bonus should be +7/+9/+10/+11
Level 1-4 caster spatk should be +7/+8/+9/+10
Level 1-4 caster DC should be 17/18/19/20
I don’t think any enemy in plaguestone has that high of a save bonus.
Caustic Wolf (pg.5), an enemy creature in very first combat of Fall of Plaguestone, has Fort+8, Ref+10, Will+6
Boss of first segment has Fort+8, Ref+10, Will+7.
Skipping to the very end, boss enemy has Fort+11, Ref+13, Will+8.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level 1-4 rogue hit bonus should be +7/+9/+10/+11
Level 1-4 caster spatk should be +7/+8/+9/+10
Level 1-4 caster DC should be 17/18/19/20
I don’t think any enemy in plaguestone has that high of a save bonus.
Caustic Wolf (pg.5), an enemy creature in very first combat of Fall of Plaguestone, has Fort+8, Ref+10, Will+6
Boss of first segment has Fort+8, Ref+10, Will+7.
Skipping to the very end, boss enemy has Fort+11, Ref+13, Will+8.
Okay...?
OP was under the impression that enemy saves rivalled caster DCs, which all of those clearly don't.
|
|
Ah, I think I got what is wrong. I am talking about high level play in the AP that STARTS with fall of plaguestone. Don’t know the name of the whole AP (I’m on my phone). Sorry, that was my bad. I am talking about lvl 15+ play
@Exorcist, I don’t. Know where you got that list, is is before or after The first AP? That was my question, have they fixed enemy saves since then? Listen these guys were seasoned role-players who know what they are doing and these were the complaints they had about the first AP. I just wanted to know if these issues were fixed. They have said that they hit this problem multiple times, I didn’t ask for exact specifics.
The Fall of Plaguestone is not connected to any AP.
They may mean "Age of Ashes" AP, which was released at the same time, but that's only a guess.
If they mean Age of Ashes then maybe they are refering to the
Greater Barghest?
It have
25AC 17/15/12 saves
But this is a +3 lvl enemy and even Fighters need 12+ to hit this enemy.
If you're asking if Paizo has made any fundamental changes to the game's math, then no. Without buffs/debuffs, landing spells on same level enemies is a toss up and difficult for higher level enemies by design.
If you're talking about specific AP stuff, AoA is often considered to be pretty overtuned and the later APs less so (YMMV, seen some criticism of a handful of encounters in extinction curse too).
Some math I'd be interested to see is how much differences in save modifiers affect the potency of white room underperforming spells. Like, against a target dummy electric arc deals more damage than daze even against a single target - how much higher does the reflex save have to be than the will save for that to no longer be true? Just talking about damage, not even the extra spike in utility Daze gets against bad will save targets by stunning them.
Some math I'd be interested to see is how much differences in save modifiers affect the potency of white room underperforming spells. Like, against a target dummy electric arc deals more damage than daze even against a single target - how much higher does the reflex save have to be than the will save for that to no longer be true? Just talking about damage, not even the extra spike in utility Daze gets against bad will save targets by stunning them.
I haven't sat down and done the math for every level, but quickly checking the endgame versions of the spells they about level out when a level 20 creature has a high reflex (+36) and a low will (+30).
That level favours electric arc a bit, since it heightens one last time at 20th and daze does not.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm unclear exactly what might've happened with your friends, but in my opinion one of four things have occurred.
1) Your friends got extremely unlucky on their attack rolls / enemy save rolls and felt like it was very unbalanced against them.
2) Your friends GM decided to boost monsters AC/Saves to make things more challenging without understanding the underlying math balance.
3) Your friends are being hyperbolic. Human nature means that we tend to react more strongly to negative experiences and recollections than we do to positive ones. For every failed attack roll or enemy save it's equally possible there were a higher number of successful attacks/effects.
4) Whatever they were playing in is severely overtuned, but even AoA wasn't THAT overtuned in my experience, especially at later levels.
Unless there is a DRASTIC level difference between your abilities and those of your enemy, an enemy's save bonus should never be equal to or greater than your spell DC.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that by "high level" we mean level 15. A level 15 sorcerer is a Master of their spellcasting DC, and let's assume a... 24 charisma. So 6+7+15+10. That means that your spellcasting DC at level 15 would be 38. A level 15 enemy's average STRONGEST SAVE would be +30, meaning they have a roughly 60 percent chance to succeed. This is usually about how the math checks out in even-level comparisons. An enemy with a +38 to their STRONGEST SAVE would have to be level 21. Meaning that monster is 6 levels higher than the party, which is respectively 3 levels higher than even a SEVERE encounter would necessitate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think this fundamentally changes the argument, but in the interest of fair discourse, I need to point out that your math is wrong.
A caster starting with an 18 in their casting stat should only be able to advance that stat to 21 by level 15 (every boost being a single point increase above 18). If you included a level 17 Apex item, you could get it to 23. It's...
Fair enough. I was doing some quick and dirty math and using an old spreadsheet for monster stat averages, so my numbers might've been off a bit. My point remains that it's pretty much impossible to have an even level monster with a save higher or equal to your spell DC, and any monster with a save as high as a 15th level caster's save DC is grossly overleveled for the encounter.
I do appreciate you keeping me honest with my math though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think this fundamentally changes the argument, but in the interest of fair discourse, I need to point out that your math is wrong.
A caster starting with an 18 in their casting stat should only be able to advance that stat to 21 by level 15 (every boost being a single point increase above 18). If you included a level 17 Apex item, you could get it to 23. It's...
Fair enough. I was doing some quick and dirty math and using an old spreadsheet for monster stat averages, so my numbers might've been off a bit. My point remains that it's pretty much impossible to have an even level monster with a save higher or equal to your spell DC, and any monster with a save as high as a 15th level caster's save DC is grossly overleveled for the encounter.
I do appreciate you keeping me honest with my math though.
The actual Spell DC for a level 15 caster when the number is corrected is almost always 36.
Looking at the first dozen level 15 monsters in the online reference. You can see that saving throw modifiers range from +20 to +32 with +26 being the average. Which means the numbers are bang on.
Targeting the right save is really important as all that difference can exist in the one creature. Do you really need to be told to target big animals on will not fortitude, or that the reflex saves of oozes, trolls and giants are really bad? Much of the time you can guess if not use Recall Knowledge.
Also Demoralise/BonMot/Evangelize the action before casting your spell. That will lower their DC.
I wouldn't object to casters getting access to a small bonus item. But its not required. The balance is there.
But also note martials can Trip which targets reflex, and Shove/Grab that targets fortitude. So they have some options too.
I’m only reporting what I heard. My friends said that the enemies had saves bonuses that equaled their spell DCs regularly at higher levels, and that their spell to-hits were a joke because they were 3 less than the rogues and 5 less than the fighter’s. I just want to know if that balance has been straightened out.Either they’re not calculating things correctly, have bad stats or are at very specific levels for this to be true. Also might be very specific monsters (you can check the table, i don’t think the average save bonus ever reaches spell DC except against maybe level +3/4 on fort).
Level 1-4 fighter hit bonus should be +9/+11/+12/+13 (plaguestone ends at 4, so 4 is never played)
Level 1-4 rogue hit bonus should be +7/+9/+10/+11
Level 1-4 caster spatk should be +7/+8/+9/+10
Level 1-4 caster DC should be 17/18/19/20
I don’t think any enemy in plaguestone has that high of a save bonus.
But to answer your question - no. There has been nothing printed that increases spatk or spell dc.
Just keep in mind that attack values don't exist in a vacuum, which often can be a reason for a larger gap in attack values than may be indicated if you just take into account proficiency and items alone.
For example, martials usually find it very easy to increase their to-hit by 2 simply by flanking, something casters usually don't want to do, especially versus a single strong opponent. It is a basic tactic and semi-infailable (unless somebody fails to move to the correct spot because of an enemy AoO or similar).
So if no advanced tactics are used, e.g. grabbing, tripping or demoralizing, which makes the target flat-footed or easier to hit for eveyone, the difference of 3 to 5 points is real.
Both our Wizard (Acid Arrow) and my Warpriest (Fire Ray) have seen this exact difference in play during the first volume of AoA and it gets even worse during levels 5 and 6 when you are behind a full 5 to 7 points on spell attack rolls (proficiency, item, flanking). Starting at level 5 blasting multiple opponents works nicely though, especially if you can stack damage fast because your party has access to more than one blaster caster.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blasting has still got it if you build for it, just like last edition.
Check out my latest blasting build, capable of dealing approximately 250 average damage in two rounds, which is enough to take out many on-level creatures, and even quite a few higher level creatures.
I'm running a fist of the ruby phoenix campaign later this year and I'm excited to see late lvl play casters (if any of my players feel up to it). Also excited to see how less brutal the balancing is for casters in these later adventure paths. I should run abomination vaults at some point to see if they've smoothed out encounter balance for early level casters as well. If the casters don't seem noticably more frustrated than the martials, as I've seen previously, then I can switch off of homebrew and return to running published content for ease of use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blasting has still got it if you build for it, just like last edition.
Check out my latest blasting build, capable of dealing approximately 250 average damage in two rounds, which is enough to take out many on-level creatures, and even quite a few higher level creatures.
Checked your build and it.... makes a lot of assumptions...plus uses a lot of consumables...
I think elemental (whatever) bloodline + Dangerous sorcery is the golden standard for blasty blast, fiery body being helpful too.
Produce flame benefits from neither though.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spellcasters work fine with their save spells. The ability to anticipate which save is the weakest (usually pretty easy and on creatures where it is less intuitive, that's what Recall Knowledge is for.), half effectiveness on a save, and the fact that most of those spells are AoE means that blasting works just fine with saves.
Spell attack rolls are abysmal. Spellcasters are always going to drag between 1 and 5 points behind any Martial. 3-5 points for most of their career. This on top of no half-damage on a miss and spellcasters generally finding it harder to benefit from some debuffs, like flanking, and spells being a limited resource just makes spell attacks baaaad.
Personally I am hoping for Dueling runes for weapons (or just a dueling wand) that gives +1 to +3 on spell attack rolls.
The argument against this is True Strike, and that it greatly increases your likelihood to hit.
Except 1) Fighters can get access to True Strike easily enough, 2) not every spellcaster has access to True Strike without going outside their class, 3) you shouldn't be required to take a specific option for a spell to do something as basic as hit reliably and not every spellcaster will do so, and 4) True Strike takes your last action and as such prevents you from doing anything else that turn and cannot be used reliably.
True Strike is a good option, but is woefully insufficient to make spellcasters good at spell attacks.
And frankly, they'd still be less good at attack spells than save spells, if only for the half damage on save, but what it would provide is a safer and more consistent means of attacking with spellcasters, that doesn't require as much planning around your opponent's saves and can just run and gun, or a safe backup for if you legit don't know what your enemy's strong and weak saves are and your recall knowledge checks aren't helping.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blasting has still got it if you build for it, just like last edition.
Check out my latest blasting build, capable of dealing approximately 250 average damage in two rounds, which is enough to take out many on-level creatures, and even quite a few higher level creatures.
Checked your build and it.... makes a lot of assumptions...plus uses a lot of consumables...
I think elemental (whatever) bloodline + Dangerous sorcery is the golden standard for blasty blast, fiery body being helpful too.
Produce flame benefits from neither though.
Produce flame does benefit from fiery body though. It goes from being two actions to one action. Improved action economy is one of the most powerful things this game offers. With Quickened Spell, I could hit with a chain lighting (one action cast), flaming sphere (one action maintain), and a produce flame spell (one action cast) all in one round. With clever positioning, I can also goad an enemy into attacking me to trigger one or more reactive spells for even more damage.
Also, if you check my notes, I did not give damage bonuses where they didn't belong (for example, I did not add Dangerous Sorcery bonuses to cantrips).
It's true that my calculations use consumables, but that's something that the game kind of expects you to do. People who don't take advantage of them are really kind of shooting themselves in the foot.
Finally, my example is clearly stated as a "nova" option, not meant to be used over and over. Most of the time your damage output will be a little less than that, but when you really need to bring out the big guns for a boss or something, they're more than available.
People get caught up on notions like "fireball does pitiful damage." Or that "I can only stack Dangerous Sorcery." Truth of the matter is, lots of things stack, as clearly demonstrated in my example character. When you take into account planning, proactive blast spells, reactive damage spells (all of which do seem to stack), environmental damage, etc. it all begins to add up.
I refer to it as "layering," rather than "stacking," since it generally requires multiple effects and a little bit of build up time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind maybe that casters get to legendary casting, while most martials only get to master weapon proficiency. So while martials can benefit from item bonuses, they're really only 1 point ahead of casters in the attacking department. But like others have said, targeting saves is usually the better way to go. And besides cantrips, there aren't many spells that are actual attack rolls anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind maybe that casters get to legendary casting, while most martials only get to master weapon proficiency. So while martials can benefit from item bonuses, they're really only 1 point ahead of casters in the attacking department. But like others have said, targeting saves is usually the better way to go. And besides cantrips, there aren't many spells that are actual attack rolls anyway.
That's only near the end of your career as an adventurer
Spellcasters get Expert at 7th level, while Martials get Expert at 5th. Spellcasters get Master at 15th, while Martials get Expert at 13th. Not counting the Fighter which is, of course special.
Yeah, Spellcasters get Legendary, but not until Level 19, which means that Martials not only get +1 - +3 to attack from items, but are often also ahead in proficiency. At levels 15 and 16, a Barbarian or Ranger is 4 or 5 points ahead of a Wizard to hit, and the Wizard finally almost catches up at 1 level away from max.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah but legendary casting is level 19. For most of the game spellcasters have the same proficiency as martials (and are even behind for a few levels because their proficiency is delayed for some reason).
Also worth noting that other forms of save-targeting effects (i.e., skill actions) can both scale up to legendary and benefit from item bonuses.
Not saying it necessarily breaks the balance, but I can understand why it's frustrating to have a system where you have both very limited ammunition and comparatively low accuracy.
Produce flame does benefit from fiery body though. It goes from being two actions to one action. Improved action economy is one of the most powerful things this game offers. With Quickened Spell, I could hit with a chain lighting (one action cast), flaming sphere (one action maintain), and a produce flame spell (one action cast) all in one round. With clever positioning, I can also goad an enemy into attacking me to trigger one or more reactive spells for even more damage.Also, if you check my notes, I did not give damage bonuses where they didn't belong (for example, I did not add Dangerous Sorcery bonuses to cantrips).
It's true that my calculations use consumables, but that's something that the game kind of expects you to do. People who don't take advantage of them are really kind of shooting themselves in the foot.
Finally, my example is clearly stated as a "nova" option, not meant to be used over and over. Most of the time your damage output will be a little less than that, but when you really need to bring out the big guns for a boss or something, they're more than available.
I'm not sure I really like counting potions of retaliation and reactive powers on a builds damage, as that requires the enemy to attak you. They really should choose to attack your allies first. But yes it is a good amount of damage.
Adopted Ancestry - Goblin, Burn It would help as it adds to Produce Flame, which, as you note, Dangerous Sorcery does not.
yeah but legendary casting is level 19. For most of the game spellcasters have the same proficiency as martials (and are even behind for a few levels because their proficiency is delayed for some reason).
Also worth noting that other forms of save-targeting effects (i.e., skill actions) can both scale up to legendary and benefit from item bonuses.
Not saying it necessarily breaks the balance, but I can understand why it's frustrating to have a system where you have both very limited ammunition and comparatively low accuracy.
Yeah, but martials can't pick which of the enemy's defenses to target.
If spellcasters weren't two levels behind the proficiency curve, there'd be no mechanical incentive to playing a martial character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but martials can't pick which of the enemy's defenses to target.
Yeah, but AC is largely standardized that way anyways, so it ends up being a wash.
If spellcasters weren't two levels behind the proficiency curve, there'd be no mechanical incentive to playing a martial character.
This however doesn't make any sense at all. They're only behind for four levels out of twenty, after all. I don't see how the logic holds even a little that being behind on their proficiency at specifically level 5 somehow is the lynchpin to the entire game's balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah but legendary casting is level 19. For most of the game spellcasters have the same proficiency as martials (and are even behind for a few levels because their proficiency is delayed for some reason).
Also worth noting that other forms of save-targeting effects (i.e., skill actions) can both scale up to legendary and benefit from item bonuses.
Not saying it necessarily breaks the balance, but I can understand why it's frustrating to have a system where you have both very limited ammunition and comparatively low accuracy.
I thiiink the idea with the delayed proficiency for casters is to line it up with when saves go up from resilient runes. It's not a perfect match and spell attacks are obviously getting screwed there.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters get really powerful new spells at level 5 and 13. It is not like wizards dread leveling up at the point they pick up fireball or the first power word spell. The interplay of what casters can do every other level is way more nuanced than “my cantrips are growing less effective than Martial attacks.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those are some mighty fine points, Staffan Johansson.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you never want a situation where a cantrip competes with or outpaces an Archer since casters get so much extra utility.
So I understand making their ranged attacks worse. Idk the numbers for it but electric arc at early levels could already be there.
I think the only thing that needs to be fixed are when martials get way ahead.
I actually strongly disagree that spell attack roll spells are universally bad for casters. There are many levels we’re having one or two of them memorized along side a true strike is very good for bards, wizards, witches and sorcerers.
There some have significant and long lasting debuffs associated with them that cause solo boss monsters a lot of problems and with true strike your odds of landing the hit or crit can be 75% or better, even against level +2 or 3 monsters. Additionally flat footed is a relatively easy debuff to get and status and circumstance bonuses to attack rolls are fairly common in game.
Acid arrow, for example can put a boss in a real uncomfortable spot and the drained 2 on polar ray is a nasty debuff.
There are many monsters were attacking the AC can be a great boost to a caster, such as against oozes that ignore crit but not effects triggered off of critical successes.
Spell attack rolls are not something a caster can specialize in, to the exclusion of all other types of spells, and not every caster is great with them, but every caster can save a hero point for a big spell attack roll spell and thus even clerics and druids can have a spell attack roll spell up their sleeve for when they really need it.
Casters who get a little too caught up in over specialization of combat abilities are very likely to get frustrated often in play, because enemy strengths often over power party strengths, but enemy weaknesses often are vulnerabilities that can be exploited with secondary or even tertiary abilities.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually strongly disagree that spell attack roll spells are universally bad for casters. There are many levels we’re having one or two of them memorized along side a true strike is very good for bards, wizards, witches and sorcerers.
There some have significant and long lasting debuffs associated with them that cause solo boss monsters a lot of problems and with true strike your odds of landing the hit or crit can be 75% or better, even against level +2 or 3 monsters. Additionally flat footed is a relatively easy debuff to get and status and circumstance bonuses to attack rolls are fairly common in game.
Acid arrow, for example can put a boss in a real uncomfortable spot and the drained 2 on polar ray is a nasty debuff.
There are many monsters were attacking the AC can be a great boost to a caster, such as against oozes that ignore crit but not effects triggered off of critical successes.
Spell attack rolls are not something a caster can specialize in, to the exclusion of all other types of spells, and not every caster is great with them, but every caster can save a hero point for a big spell attack roll spell and thus even clerics and druids can have a spell attack roll spell up their sleeve for when they really need it.
Casters who get a little too caught up in over specialization of combat abilities are very likely to get frustrated often in play, because enemy strengths often over power party strengths, but enemy weaknesses often are vulnerabilities that can be exploited with secondary or even tertiary abilities.
If a spell requires the expenditure of a second spell to be a viable strategy then that spell by itself was not balanced to be an affective use of limited resources. And as a player wasting two slots to have one competitive slot (again, of a limited resource) feels mega bad imho. I just consider true strike a poor consolidation to try to pacify undertuned spell attacks. It's the one spell in the game that raises my blood pressure on sight unless it's used for cheap in a staff or a staff nexus wizard
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters work far better if you have a cooperative team.
Even when I ask my fellow players not to rush into a room full of weak enemies before I have a chance to fireball the lot of them (which would essentially end the encounter in one stroke), they do so anyways.
When we're fighting at a chokepoint, I offer to use gust of wind to keep the enemy back while the whole party pelts them from safety with ranged attacks. Instead I am again denied, and only one melee martial in the party can effectively do anything while they block the chokepoint.
I totally understand wanting to take your own actions, and resenting being told to do something different (I actively discourage people playing others' characters in such a fashion), but time and time again I see fights get drawn out far longer than they should, or consume far more resources, simply due to lack of cooperative effort.
It can be disheartening, and makes the potential of spellcasting seem far less effective than it really is.
True strike is not necessary for any caster to have one or two spell attack roll spells up their sleeve, it just helps.
The problem is that a lot of players want to attack with spell attack roll spells against every enemy, and that is a terrible idea. Even without true strike there are situations were flat footed/ attack roll bonuses will make spell attack roll spells worth while, especially if you have a hero point to burn if you roll badly. With saving throw spells, you might get a minor effect on a successful save, but once you cast the spell, there is nothing you can really do, at least not easily to nudge your fate much. Plus creatures with magic resistance don’t get its benefit against spell attack rolls.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, they had the spell attack feedback in mind when writing Secrets of Magic (as per an answer to a question someone asked Logan on Twitter) so I wonder what that'll look like-- item bonuses to casting, an emphasis on saving throws for all the new spells (because partial effects on a success actually makes casting them super comfy), something like my true strike meta magic suggestion, or something entirely different.
Apparently, they had the spell attack feedback in mind when writing Secrets of Magic (as per an answer to a question someone asked Logan on Twitter) so I wonder what that'll look like-- item bonuses to casting, an emphasis on saving throws for all the new spells (because partial effects on a success actually makes casting them super comfy), something like my true strike meta magic suggestion, or something entirely different.
Interesting. There are a lot of different ways they could have run with it. People are generally having so much fun playing martials I could see the impetus to add something to make caster experience more plug and play rewarding, but I do hope secrets of magic isn’t the beginning of a rocket tag arms race of power creep/must have options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, they had the spell attack feedback in mind when writing Secrets of Magic (as per an answer to a question someone asked Logan on Twitter) so I wonder what that'll look like-- item bonuses to casting, an emphasis on saving throws for all the new spells (because partial effects on a success actually makes casting them super comfy), something like my true strike meta magic suggestion, or something entirely different.
That's encouraging! Secrets of magic is my most anticipated book for all of pathfinder 2e bc it has the possibility of nudging a new baseline of caster balance (which I find to be the one small freckle on an otherwise outstanding system). If the grins on the caster player faces can be as wide as the martial ones at my table, I'll be fully satisfied.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, they had the spell attack feedback in mind when writing Secrets of Magic (as per an answer to a question someone asked Logan on Twitter) so I wonder what that'll look like-- item bonuses to casting, an emphasis on saving throws for all the new spells (because partial effects on a success actually makes casting them super comfy), something like my true strike meta magic suggestion, or something entirely different.Interesting. There are a lot of different ways they could have run with it. People are generally having so much fun playing martials I could see the impetus to add something to make caster experience more plug and play rewarding, but I do hope secrets of magic isn’t the beginning of a rocket tag arms race of power creep/must have options.
Runes for casters wouldn't be any more detrimental than runes for martial weapons (which are currently just keeping magic outclassed in the accuracy department). Spell damage has been tweaked down to the point where I don't think increased accuracy is going to spoil the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only concern with casters are attack rolls with cantrips. I think the way they handle spell saves is elegant, and given that reflex saves have been doing partial effects forever, seemed like such an overlooked and obvious thing to do with other saves. As far as spell attacks using slots, those spells tend to be far more powerful and are generally worth the use of a True Strike. Cantrips I see as a caster’s equivalent to a weapon attack and should be able to hit more often than currently intended.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would personally like it if, instead of being on par with martials with attacking, casters skewed more towards situational utility. Like a metamagic that allowed an attack cantrip (not a save) to target a line or a burst - something that a caster won't spam, but in the right situation it could be good dpr. Maybe a sustained damage to a single 5 ft tile. There's a ton of cool ideas.