Spell Attack Rolls

[aobst128]

I think the problems with casters and spell attacks are a little overstated in this thread. Spell casters have always been a more in depth play style that you have to plan around. Psychic gives a more straight forward strategy with it's amps and bonus damage but it still has full caster progression minus 1 slot per level to figure out. You've got true strike for insurance on amps or psi burst for additional damage on your turn. It's in a good place. Maybe we'll get something in the future that just does blasting and damage bonuses without any spell slots to just pump out damage but right now, casters have more going on to deal with.

[YuriP]

roquepo wrote:

Casters are in a fine spot, and are destined to get stronger, as spells will be added at a faster rate than feats for current martials. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.

I had this hope a year ago for both spellcasters and alchemists. But after many book launches I've come to the conclusion that that's not going to happen. I don't expect any game-changing spell/item mechanics from Paizo like they did in PF1/3.5.

[Martialmasters]

I cannot help but have this perspective.

It's not the games problem to solve. It's the players having an expectation that isn't going to be fulfilled.

[Nyacolyte]

YuriP wrote:

roquepo wrote:

Casters are in a fine spot, and are destined to get stronger, as spells will be added at a faster rate than feats for current martials. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.

I had this hope a year ago for both spellcasters and alchemists. But after many book launches I've come to the conclusion that that's not going to happen. I don't expect any game-changing spell/item mechanics from Paizo like they did in PF1/3.5.

Just slip this bad boy and you're good-to-go.

Between the Shadow Signet, True Strike, and some metagame knowledge/common sense you really shouldn't be missing your shots.

[Gortle]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

They are an underclass of spell.

I'll take this as your answer to my question.

I agree. I just don't take these spells outside a special build, or as a plan backup option eg the odd cantrip or two.

They are a trap for new players in that they are noticably inferior, and as a mechanism they fall a bit short of normal PF2 balance standards. On the scale of d20 systems its not terrible. But it should be better. A few +1 or +2 items would make the situation better. Which is glaring because Paizo have deliberately left them out. Paizo obviously disagreed and haven't reevaluated their position.

[Captain Morgan]

I think we are starting to see some caster power creep for those with system mastery. Shadow Signet being one example. Temporal Twin being another. It isn't the best at the level you get it, but at level 20 that 3rd level spellslot can be a strike for 4d12+4d6+31 off your barbarian clone. We also have a lot of blasting options with riders, which shouldn't be sneezed at. Knocking an enemy prone enchanes your contribution significantly, even it is through setting up martials to punish.

I think the straightforward caster blaster niche hasn't been filled, though. Martials have increasingly complex classes but still have the perfectly straightforward fighter to fall back on for ease of use. Casters don't have that. I'm not sure if the psychic actually has problems in play with spell attack rolls, but I wouldn't call it a simple class.

[Martialmasters]

People have said this has been white boarded to death.

I'm curious as to the actual numbers across various classes when it comes to single Target options

[graystone]

Martialmasters wrote:

I cannot help but have this perspective.

It's not the games problem to solve. It's the players having an expectation that isn't going to be fulfilled.

It's more that one enemy DC for spells is treated differently than the others because true strike. IMO, it's the true strike band-aid that skews perspective: 'if you JUST cast true strike and maybe flat-foot the target and have Inspire Courage you can ALMOST be as good as a normal save spell...' Is it surprising that expectations aren't fulfilled when people get told that? :P

[Martialmasters]

graystone wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

I cannot help but have this perspective.

It's not the games problem to solve. It's the players having an expectation that isn't going to be fulfilled.

It's more that one enemy DC for spells is treated differently than the others because true strike. IMO, it's the true strike band-aid that skews perspective: 'if you JUST cast true strike and maybe flat-foot the target and have Inspire Courage you can ALMOST be as good as a normal save spell...' Is it surprising that expectations aren't fulfilled when people get told that? :P

It's true I think true strike is bad design in general. But I don't think teamwork bonuses are something to be scoffed at so lightly. I secretly roll my eyes at every great pick caster dedication fighter who just does true strike power attack every round. Not gonna tell someone to not do it. But I can't personally get behind it

[YuriP]

Nyacolyte wrote:

YuriP wrote:

roquepo wrote:

Casters are in a fine spot, and are destined to get stronger, as spells will be added at a faster rate than feats for current martials. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.

I had this hope a year ago for both spellcasters and alchemists. But after many book launches I've come to the conclusion that that's not going to happen. I don't expect any game-changing spell/item mechanics from Paizo like they did in PF1/3.5.

Just slip this bad boy and you're good-to-go.

True Strike is here since the game launch. The only thing that changed this was the Staff Nexus Thesis that allowed Wizard to have up to 36 charges in the staff making the Spell Strike practically daily unlimited but this isn't a item and is restricted to full wizard in place of other thesis.

Shadow Signet isn't that game change. It's very effective but many casters still prefer to not use it due it's not a true save (no failure effect) and many times they don't really knows what the opponent weakness (but many times can be easily guessed as you said).

Nyacolyte wrote:

Between the Shadow Signet, True Strike, and some metagame knowledge/common sense you really shouldn't be missing your shots.

This is what I must hate in the Shadow Signet mechanic. Basically nothing prevents a player that knows the weakness that a character doesn't know to select the best save. I can easily switch the shadow signet for a magical potency rune system just because of this.

[Temperans]

I think its telling to me that a lot of the people who say spell attack spells are fine are telling players to just go cast support or AoE spells. With the other major group effecrively saying (paraphrased), "you are playing wrong because you are not using these very specific items". This gets even worse when you have people using "its a cooperative game", while implying that people should stop complaining and just stop playing how they want.

Lets breaks those three things apart.:

1) Telling someone "this works but its hard to use" tells them what to expect when using it, so when they do use it they are already prepared for the likely result. But telling someone "don't use that use this totally different thing" then you are actively telling them that those options they were considering are not worth it. So you all keep saying "spell attack is fine" while simultaneously saying "don't use spell attacks they aren't worth it".

2) The worst thing you can do with an TTRPG is tell a player that they are playing wrong and that they should do things your way. That type of argument is the very definition of ivory tower design and it is almost universally hated. No one likes being told what to do, much less when they are told to ignore any plans that they might have to do what someone else wants. Then you have the fact that you are effectively defending bad game design with "its fine because if you master the game like I have maybe in a blue moon you might make it work once."

3) All TTRPG are cooperative board games, even the ones where the GM and players are out for each other throats; A TTRPG being cooperative is like saying that the sun is hot. But remember TTRPGs are ROLE PLAYING GAMES first and foremost. so why should the person that wants to roleplay as a magic user that blasts down their enemies not complain that their spells are useless and the devs should release options to fix it? Why should one player dictate that another player should stop playing their character because a different character is better? How does it hurt you if another player is actually happy to play the character that they want to play?

Youare saying "its fine just ignore those spells", "its fine just buy all this magic items even if they don't fit your character", "its fine just use those spells after you used a bunch of other spells", "its fine they aren't meant to be good", "its fine because they are meant to be niche uses", "its fine you just have to have all of these specific conditions", etc. Every single time this debate starts the reasons becomes closer and closer to just, "its bad because they are just bad".

*******************

P.S. The whole true strike argument is literally just "you can do less damage, you just have to spend twice as many limited time resources and your full turn". It is quite literally a slap to the face to what PF2 was sold on. 3 action economy? Not for casters. Interactive design? Not for casters. Highly mobile? Not for casters. Less daily use abilities? Not for casters.

[graystone]

Martialmasters wrote:

But I don't think teamwork bonuses are something to be scoffed at so lightly.

I never said they should be scoffed at but I do think they shouldn't be assumed when talking about save vs AC spells: I don't have to figure out how to flatfoot a foe or hug a bard to make my save spells work well but it's expected for AC spells to get them so they can just get to ok. It's just an unneeded horse and pony show as, IMO, teamwork bonuses should be a reward and not a requirement.

Martialmasters wrote:

I secretly roll my eyes at every great pick caster dedication fighter who just does true strike power attack every round. Not gonna tell someone to not do it. But I can't personally get behind it

I just can't deal with the true strike cheese. Just seeing the hoops some go through to get 72 true strikes a day gives me a headache. :(

[Martialmasters]

I think they should be assumed. Because it is a key balance point and much easier to influence than specific saves.

As far as temperans goes, everything just reads as bad faith arguments to me.

Just because you want to do something doesn't mean it should be that better option.

Why play a monk, fighter does more damage

Why play a gunslinger, a bow is better

Myriad of other examples. At a certain point. Some strategies won't be as strong as others or will be more situational.

My only agreement on this is if true strike is a true budget balance for attack spells it just further enforces my feelings that it's a badly designed spell and I'd be very curious as to what the designers would suggest is we removed the spell entirely.

Similar as you how I've suggested for combination weapons in an abp setting getting a basic inventor modification.

[Temperans]

Martialmasters wrote:

graystone wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

I cannot help but have this perspective.

It's not the games problem to solve. It's the players having an expectation that isn't going to be fulfilled.

It's more that one enemy DC for spells is treated differently than the others because true strike. IMO, it's the true strike band-aid that skews perspective: 'if you JUST cast true strike and maybe flat-foot the target and have Inspire Courage you can ALMOST be as good as a normal save spell...' Is it surprising that expectations aren't fulfilled when people get told that? :P

It's true I think true strike is bad design in general. But I don't think teamwork bonuses are something to be scoffed at so lightly. I secretly roll my eyes at every great pick caster dedication fighter who just does true strike power attack every round. Not gonna tell someone to not do it. But I can't personally get behind it

Everyone uses teamwork bonuses. That is why they are called "teamwork bonuses".

But spell attack outright require it just get to the baseline. How is that hard to understand? Those don't make spell attack good, it doesn't even make fine, it just makes them not complete waste of book space.

[Martialmasters]

Temperans wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

graystone wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

I cannot help but have this perspective.

It's not the games problem to solve. It's the players having an expectation that isn't going to be fulfilled.

It's more that one enemy DC for spells is treated differently than the others because true strike. IMO, it's the true strike band-aid that skews perspective: 'if you JUST cast true strike and maybe flat-foot the target and have Inspire Courage you can ALMOST be as good as a normal save spell...' Is it surprising that expectations aren't fulfilled when people get told that? :P

It's true I think true strike is bad design in general. But I don't think teamwork bonuses are something to be scoffed at so lightly. I secretly roll my eyes at every great pick caster dedication fighter who just does true strike power attack every round. Not gonna tell someone to not do it. But I can't personally get behind it

Everyone uses teamwork bonuses. That is why they are called "teamwork bonuses".

But spell attack outright require it just get to the baseline. How is that hard to understand? Those don't make spell attack good, it doesn't even make fine, it just makes them not complete waste of book space.

This is not true. /Shrug. I never said you needed those teamwork aids to be good. What I do agree that spell attacks see a larger boon from it though.

End of the day, unless we can address true strike. I see no reason to discuss further.

[YuriP]

Captain Morgan wrote:

I think we are starting to see some caster power creep for those with system mastery. Shadow Signet being one example. Temporal Twin being another. It isn't the best at the level you get it, but at level 20 that 3rd level spellslot can be a strike for 4d12+4d6+31 off your barbarian clone.

Temporal Twin isn't that good spell it's only able to repeat a basic 1-action only. Also uses an ally reaction (something that not all ally want to use, you need to coordinate with him/her) and the worst part is that the target becomes imune against the spell for 1 day.

If the player a have AoO allie like a Fighter you can do better using just the lvl 1 spell Command forcing a near opponent to prone basically making it to waste an action and ensuring an AoO against a prone opponent when it try to stand and you can do this while you have available spellslots or are using a staff with the spell.

[graystone]

Martialmasters wrote:

I think they should be assumed. Because it is a key balance point and much easier to influence than specific saves.

See for me, If I use group tactics on a spell attack spell and a save spell, they both improve but the save spell is just better: for instance if I flat foot a foe and Inspire Courage moves the AC by three but if I Demoralize and Bon Mot I also move the will Dc by three so it's a wash. The most common de-buffs, like frightened and sickened drop AC and saves equally: it's really only flat-footed that only targets AC for common debuffs.

Martialmasters wrote:

End of the day, unless we can address true strike. I see no reason to discuss further.

That's cool. There isn't much to do but complain about it with it in the picture.

[Thalaine]

So one of the things that we have all been dancing around but not actually discussing is number of encounters per day and length of encounters.

I think we would all agree that if you only have one fight a day that spell casters have a significant advantage. They also have esentially a set number of rounds at a given loadout at which they can do cool stuff after which they are significantly restricted in what they are able to do.

Equally if you had 20 encounters in a day martial characters would have a big advantage. Also for most martial characters the length of a fight doesn't make much difference as they don't have many encounter based powers (rage going away after 1 minute being one of many exceptions).

Somewhere in the middle are classes that rely on focus points like the Psychic. They like having lots of encounters a day but they don't like encounters going long as they quickly drop off in power level as they run out of focus points.

It feels like a lot of discussion is focused on the first few fights of the day where a caster has access to true strike and not a lot of focus on the later fights where those resources are gone.

Psychic reads like a class that should be good at having lots of fights a day. Unfortunately because of the math in PF2 that isn't really true unless you choose options that don't rely on Spell Attacks.

[Xenocrat]

YuriP wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

I think we are starting to see some caster power creep for those with system mastery. Shadow Signet being one example. Temporal Twin being another. It isn't the best at the level you get it, but at level 20 that 3rd level spellslot can be a strike for 4d12+4d6+31 off your barbarian clone.

Temporal Twin isn't that good spell it's only able to repeat a basic 1-action only. Also uses an ally reaction (something that not all ally want to use, you need to coordinate with him/her) and the worst part is that the target becomes imune against the spell for 1 day.

If the player a have AoO allie like a Fighter you can do better using just the lvl 1 spell Command forcing a near opponent to prone basically making it to waste an action and ensuring an AoO against a prone opponent when it try to stand and you can do this while you have available spellslots or are using a staff with the spell.

Very similar to amped psychic Message but worse.

[Martialmasters]

I have 3 encounters a day typically. At level 9. My table experience greatly differs from what you are saying.

[Unicore]

Let’s look at this again,

I am a level 7 caster, now facing a level 11 monster. We are going to stick to the generic numbers at first, and be comparing electric arc to produce flame, and then acid arrow (level 4) to fireball (level 4).

Monster: AC 31. Medium save +21.

Numbers for caster from previous example: Spell DC 25, +15 spell attack roll.

No modifiers:

Electric Arc: 4d4+4 = 14 average damage. 5%(28), 10%(14),50%(7), 35% (0) = 1.4+1.4+3.5 = 6.3 average damage.

Produce Flame: 4d4+4 = 14+10 av persistent on crit. 5%(38), 15%(14), 80%(0) = 1.9+2.1+0= 4 average damage.

Flanking alone

Electric Arc: 4d4+4 = 14 average damage. 5%(28), 10%(14),50%(7), 35% (0) = 1.4+1.4+3.5 = 6.3 average damage.

Produce Flame: 4d4+4 = 14+10 av persistent on crit. 5%(38), 25%(14), 70%(0) = 1.9+3.5+0= 5.4 average damage.

Flanking and a +1 attack bonus:

Electric Arc: 4d4+4 = 14 average damage. 5%(28), 10%(14),50%(7), 35% (0) = 1.4+1.4+3.5 = 6.3 average damage.

Produce Flame: 4d4+4 = 14+10 av persistent on crit. 5%(38), 30%(14), 65%(0) = 1.9+4.2+0= 6.1 average damage. (Produce flame has pretty much caught up since some of that damage could be persistent, just with flanking and a +1 bonus to attack).

If the monster is also debuffed by 1 we get:

Electric Arc: 4d4+4 = 14 average damage. 5%(28), 15%(14),50%(7), 30% (0) = 1.4+2.1+3.5 = 7 average damage.

Produce Flame: 4d4+4 = 14+10 av persistent on crit. 5%(38), 35%(14), 60%(0) = 1.9+4.9+0= 6.8 average damage.

Again, pretty close to a wash. But if for some reason the caster has true strike and is going to use it on a cantrip against a level +4 boss, produce flame jumps Electric Arc.

Electric Arc: 4d4+4 = 14 average damage. 5%(28), 15%(14),50%(7), 30% (0) = 1.4+2.1+3.5 = 7 average damage.

Produce Flame: 4d4+4 = 14+10 av persistent on crit. 9.75%(38), 34%(14), 56.25%(0) = 3.705+4.76+0=8.52 average damage. (Produce flame has nearly caught up, just with flanking and a +1 bonus to attack).

But throwing a level 7 party against a level 11 monster is an incredibly extreme encounter. If the party isn’t throwing everything they possibly can at the monster, they are probably getting TPKed.

So let’s look at the best case scenario for hitting a level +4 enemy with either a fireball or an acid arrow.

Let’s assume that your allies have debuffed the monster by 1 before you use your super combo. Let’s assume a party member is going to spend a third action aiding your attack, since a level 7 martial should have at least a +16 vs DC 20 for that reaction instead of a +6 vs 31 AC for that third attack. Let’s also assume that another ally has spent some action during this combat to give you a +1 status bonus to attack and between your 3rd action or a 3rd ally’s turn, the creature has been set up to be flat-footed. (This is the kind of team work that should be employed against a level +4 monster), but to be extra fair to the saving throw spell, let’s also assume the party did their research in advance to find a rare creature that has a reflex save as a low save…a cloud giant Ac 30, Reflex save +18. Debuffed this creature is going up against this attack with a +17 to save and an equivalent AC of 25 (flat-footed, debuffed 1, status bonus 1, circumstance bonus 1).

Fireball, best case scenario:

Level 4 fireball: 8d6 = 28 average damage. 5%(56), 30%(28), 50%(14), 15%(0)= 2.8+8.4+7= 18.2 average damage. Much better than either cantrip. And since there would be no point in having that ally aid your attack, lets give you the extra damage of that third attack giving you the highest damage dice situation possible, a Maul with a striking rune. +6 vs AC 26 (no one aided) = 2d12+5 (toss in an extra +1 to damage just for kindness sake) 5%(36),95%(0) = 1.8. SO let’s give the fireball a flat 20 points of average damage in this situation.

Acid Arrow: 5d8 +2d6 persistent = 22 average base + flat 7 persistent. 5%(51), 45%(29), 50% (0) = 2.55+ 13.05 = 15.6. (It is true, level +4 is a massively steep cut off for spell attack roll spells because you just can’t quite get over the hump to get 10% or better crits).

But if you can use your 3rd action for true strike and count on an ally to make flat footed (tripping giants isn’t too difficult) Acid arrow bounces to 9.75%(51), 65.25% (29), 25%(0)= 4.9725+18.9225 = 23.895 (with some of this damage being persistent damage if any damage was inflicted at all).

Against level +4 enemies (the rarest encounter in the game) it requires true strike to make spell attack roll spells better than saving throw spells against a single target, but only really for your highest level spells, which if you are not bringing true strike to the projected boss fight that the party was maximally prepared for, your party probably should not be facing off against level +4 enemies. Your GM is trying to kill you., or at least your player characters.

[Unicore]

True strike is only "necessary" for spell attack roll spells when you are trying to use them against very difficult enemies to hit. They are an ace up some caster's sleeve to out perform the very effective saving throw based spells that most casters should be using most of the time.

AND most importantly, the existence of Hero points accomplishes the exact same thing (only better because you only use them when you fail the first time, although that does reduce the number of crits you get from using them, which is why the math on both is exceedingly complicated to calculate and changes at every accuracy point you are examining). SO getting rid of True strike doesn't really make spell attack roll spells balanced in a way that they can take an extra +3 item bonus over the course of the game. It will just mean casters desperately save their Hero points to land spell attack roll spells that easily become the best nova attack in the game.

[YuriP]

Martialmasters wrote:

I have 3 encounters a day typically. At level 9. My table experience greatly differs from what you are saying.

So soft. Most APs that usually have 6 or more encounters in same "dungeon".

Extinction Course Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Legacy of the Lost God have 6 encounters in circus area at level 9

Age of Ashes Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Cult of cinders have 9 encounters in last fortress at level 8

[YuriP]

Temperans wrote:

I think its telling to me that a lot of the people who say spell attack spells are fine are telling players to just go cast support or AoE spells. With the other major group effecrively saying (paraphrased), "you are playing wrong because you are not using these very specific items". This gets even worse when you have people using "its a cooperative game", while implying that people should stop complaining and just stop playing how they want.

** spoiler omitted **...

You explained the situation perfectly Temperans. I have the same feel and isn't just here for spellcasters but for basically all others mechanic complains in the game like the firearms reload complains, monk weapons and so on. Many people comes with the same kind of justifications, "it's not bad it's just some players that don't know how to use it", "it's not bad it's just need to be used in a perfect situation", "it's not bad you just need to cooperate more" and so on.

It's just like "The Emperor's New Clothes": "No the king isn't naked it's just you aren't smart enough to see his clothes".

Ps.: I'm not complain or attacking anyone specifically I'm just trying to point that's many people are just search excuses to justify the problem because don't want to accept it.

[Martialmasters]

YuriP wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

I have 3 encounters a day typically. At level 9. My table experience greatly differs from what you are saying.

So soft. Most APs that usually have 6 or more encounters in same "dungeon".

Extinction Course Spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **
Age of Ashes Spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **

Eh, AP are great. But not that best designed in terms of balance.

You guys really facing enemies four levels above you often? That's terrible for a entirely different set of reasons. Highest I go is +3 and usually it's just +2 and I build things out wide instead of tall.

If we are going purely off PFS play my only argument is they need to revisit some of them for fine tuning.

[Unicore]

Also, it should be noted that shocking grasp is the queen of single target spell attack damage. In the examples above, if a caster used it, the damage breakdown would be 9.75%(65)+65.25%(32.5)+25%(0) = 6.3375+21.20625 = 27.54375 so about 30% more damage than the fireball. This can even be done relatively safely with a spectral hand cast before combat or in the first round in preparation, giving you 120ft range.

[Unicore]

YuriP wrote:

Temperans wrote:

I think its telling to me that a lot of the people who say spell attack spells are fine are telling players to just go cast support or AoE spells. With the other major group effecrively saying (paraphrased), "you are playing wrong because you are not using these very specific items". This gets even worse when you have people using "its a cooperative game", while implying that people should stop complaining and just stop playing how they want.

** spoiler omitted **...

You explained the situation perfectly Temperans. I have the same feel and isn't just here for spellcasters but for basically all others mechanic complains in the game like the firearms reload complains, monk weapons and so on. Many people comes with the same kind of justifications, "it's not bad it's just some players that don't know how to use it", "it's not bad it's just need to be used in a perfect situation", "it's not bad you just need to cooperate more" and so on.

It's just like "The Emperor's New Clothes": "No the king isn't naked it's just you aren't smart enough to see his clothes".

Ps.: I'm not complain or attacking anyone specifically I'm just trying to point that's many people are just search excuses to justify the problem because don't want to accept it.

See, I think the problem with a lot of the complaints are that they are essentially just asking for the game to flatten out as far as options go, and just make everything feel more samey. Because the only way to do things like give spell attack rolls the same attack bonuses as martial attacks and bring cantrips up to low-average martial attacks is to take away the tactical options that allow casters to surpass those numbers, just by casting a tactical spell, or have such an array of different damage types that they can do in every fight against monsters who very frequently have large weaknesses to those different damage types.

The failure to take those options away is what broke the math on PF1. Individually, spells in PF1 underperformed martial attacks significantly, and a good martial supported by a good caster in PF1 was what really broke the game. PF1 was a game of teamwork, it just required casters to really provide the best teamwork options and casters could get away with providing the martial companion well enough to absolutely crush most AP encounters.

In PF2 the teamwork goes more both ways and the consequences for not working it out well are much harsher.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

I don't consider spell attack based spells all too much. Post level 1, they have a lower to-hit than an average attack. I accept an argument that this is a problem, though I can't say that I care overly much.

The reality is that whether the attack bonus is the same or not, spell attack based spells do not have any effect if the attack roll misses. That is why I pretty much never use them. When casting a spell save based spell, the chances of your spell not having any effect is much lower. This is why I predominantly use spell save based spells.

I am not saying that people who use spell attack based spells are playing wrong, by any means. Merely that such people seem to be ignorant of how the mechanics of the game work, or they are just ignoring it.

This is not a criticism. You do you.

[Deriven Firelion]

After playing PF2 casters to higher level, I don't care about Spell Attack rolls. I don't use them very often other than an occasional cantrip. I could see maybe divine casters wanting better spell attack rolls as I do see Divine Casters using searing light and Divine Lance since they have more limited attack spells.

But Occult, Arcane, and Primal casters have plenty of non-attack roll spells much better than attack roll spells to use. When you reach high level you have so many means to keep on casting or do better things with focus spells, why would you bother with an attack roll spell? I don't.

I picked up that Shadow Signet ring on my Shadow Sorcerer and I forget to use it when it would be useful because I don't even use many attack roll spells. I literally don't even remember a supposedly very powerful magical item because of how little I use attack roll spells.

I can't get too wound up about attack roll spells. They aren't very good compared to save spells.

And casters feel way more powerful than martials at high level. Not the huge gap that existed in PF1, but you drop a slow spell, heal the party, maybe throw out a synesthesia, then spend your time chatting with a glass of wine or your favorite drink with your fellow casters while the martials are swinging hard every round yelling about how they need a heal or some debuff because they're having trouble landing a hit.

Casters are still king at higher level, just not a god any more. I don't worry about casters at all in PF2. They are in fact so powerful that they make the game boring. If my caster lands a slow, especially a group slow, the entire fight is over. If they land a synesthesia with a true target, boss is unlikely to last. When I drop some harsh AoE like chain lightning or phantasmal calamity on some group of level-1 or -2 creatures, I generally do more damage than the martials.

The entire caster-martial arguments don't hold up at high level. They pretty much kept the progression of martials and casters we all know from previous editions, but made the gap far less wide. Casters start off slower to end up stronger at higher level. Martials start off pretty good and stay much the same at higher level.

Not sure why this discussion is still going on. It doesn't stand up for long-term play this idea casters need buffs. They don't. They're already the biggest game changers as you level. Martials are super boring at high level. Just swing and do damage, wait for your weapon upgrade.

[Gortle]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Not sure why this discussion is still going on. It doesn't stand up for long-term play this idea casters need buffs.

Fair enough. But that is not really what people are saying. Just spell attacks need a few tweaks as they are terrible especially at some levels. Its just about bringing a markedly inferior option up a notch. That doesn't really affect balance much, because most people including yourself just don't use them.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Martials are super boring at high level. Just swing and do damage, wait for your weapon upgrade.

You can make boring Martial builds, but they have options if you want to use them. I often find melee characters much more interesting as positioning is tactically important, and I enjoy that aspect.

[Deriven Firelion]

Gortle wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Not sure why this discussion is still going on. It doesn't stand up for long-term play this idea casters need buffs.

Fair enough. But that is not really what people are saying. Just spell attacks need a few tweaks as they are terrible especially at some levels. Its just about bringing a markedly inferior option up a notch. That doesn't really affect balance much, because most people including yourself just don't use them.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Martials are super boring at high level. Just swing and do damage, wait for your weapon upgrade.

You can make boring Martial builds, but they have options if you want to use them. I often find melee characters much more interesting as positioning is tactically important, and I enjoy that aspect.

Flanking you find interesting? The whole tripping stick is pretty boring too. I'm not sure what you mean by positioning. I've found martials have extremely limited options for doing things mostly because the improved action economy of martials is an illusion due to the number of actions they must use to move into position.

Whereas casters operate at range, thus they rarely have to use an action to move unless they are out of range. They can even summon creatures or use an illusion to create flanks that require a martial to move into position.

It's nice to get some big critical hits with a martial for some good damage, but it can get so boring. Things die quickly so doing much other than swinging just slows the grinding fights down even more.

[YuriP]

Gortle wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Not sure why this discussion is still going on. It doesn't stand up for long-term play this idea casters need buffs.

Fair enough. But that is not really what people are saying. Just spell attacks need a few tweaks as they are terrible especially at some levels. Its just about bringing a markedly inferior option up a notch. That doesn't really affect balance much, because most people including yourself just don't use them.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Martials are super boring at high level. Just swing and do damage, wait for your weapon upgrade.

You can make boring Martial builds, but they have options if you want to use them. I often find melee characters much more interesting as positioning is tactically important, and I enjoy that aspect.

Backing to the OP in fact the discussion is about spell attack because of the psychic. Due the class is highly dependent from attack spells in half of it's Conscious Minds but don't receive any benefit from Shadow Signet.

That's the why this come back to discussion. Because the Shadow Signet don't work for amps, and attack spells cannot use runes and the True Strike solution is more limited to it due it's a spontaneous spellcaster (so it cannot add more charges to staff). So we digress and now we are here.

That said I remember now that Psychic have Unleash Psyche! Those who make calculations can verify if this can compensate the lack of Shadow Signet for a Oscillating Wave amped and non-amped Produce Flame (remembering that non-ampered version of is d6 and not d4 as normal).

[Unicore]

It is a pretty big stretch to say half of psychic cantrips are spell attack roll spells. There are 2 conscious minds that give you any spell attack roll spells.

[Thalaine]

Unicore wrote:

It is a pretty big stretch to say half of psychic cantrips are spell attack roll spells. There are 2 conscious minds that give you any spell attack roll spells.

Uh, 4 of the 6 Conscious Minds have spell attack rolls

The Distant Grasp - Telekinetic Projectile and Dancing Blade
The Infinite Eye - None
The Oscillating Wave - Produce Flame and Ray of Frost
The Silent Whisper - None
The Tangible Dream - Imaginary Weapon
The Unbound Step - Phase Bolt

[Gortle]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Flanking you find interesting?

Flanking is part of it, in many cases its not that easy and there are trade offs.

Getting into the right position to block or intercept enemy movement.

Prioritising targets.

Choosing to be more offensive and perhaps overexposing yourself to do more damage. That is a judgment call that I often see players be too cautious on or too aggressive with.

Working cooperatively with other martials. Especially when they are role playing their actions as much as they are being tactical.

Trip, Shove, Grab, Intimidate, Aid all have their place.

[Unicore]

Thalaine wrote:

Unicore wrote:

It is a pretty big stretch to say half of psychic cantrips are spell attack roll spells. There are 2 conscious minds that give you any spell attack roll spells.

Uh, 4 of the 6 Conscious Minds have spell attack rolls

The Distant Grasp - Telekinetic Projectile and Dancing Blade
The Infinite Eye - None
The Oscillating Wave - Produce Flame and Ray of Frost
The Silent Whisper - None
The Tangible Dream - Imaginary Weapon
The Unbound Step - Phase Bolt

Sorry I forgot phase bolt, a spell that ignores cover, and imaginary weapon, a D8+spell casting mod cantrip that heightens every level and is very high damage. Spectral hand is a great spell for the tangible dream psychic

[YuriP]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Flanking you find interesting? The whole tripping stick is pretty boring too. I'm not sure what you mean by positioning. I've found martials have extremely limited options for doing things mostly because the improved action economy of martials is an illusion due to the number of actions they must use to move into position.

I don't see this in practice. Melee usually don't need to move so much to approach and to flank but usually the only one who cares to flank is the rogue but other martials like barbarians and monks because they usually high move speed tends to use their actions to flank too. Usually the only exception goes to Fighters and Rangers that prefer to do 2 Strikes per turn once the -5/-4 MAP penalty for Fighters are the same of a -2/-3 for other martials and while for flurry ranger it's viable to do many attacks as possible.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Whereas casters operate at range, thus they rarely have to use an action to move unless they are out of range. They can even summon creatures or use an illusion to create flanks that require a martial to move into position.

Yep but they more rarely can do 2 attacks in same turn except for some more exceptional strategies. (like using bows in lower levels or sustaining a previous spell)

About summon creatures they usually are another joke. Even being used as distraction the caster need to use their best spellslots to prevents them to die too quickly or to be ignored due low hit rate and only some celestial summons that can cast some support spells and dragons that can breath and frenzy are the only ones that compensate the slot usage. Yet due the high lvl's spellslot number is too limited it's common to players to reserve them to very dangerous situation or when they know that's the last fight of the day.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

It's nice to get some big critical hits with a martial for some good damage, but it can get so boring. Things die quickly so doing much other than swinging just slows the grinding fights down even more.

Seriously!? I never saw before a player complaining about they are critiquing too much and usually the players enjoys when they kill their opponents fast and clean.

[Thalaine]

Unicore wrote:

Thalaine wrote:

Unicore wrote:

It is a pretty big stretch to say half of psychic cantrips are spell attack roll spells. There are 2 conscious minds that give you any spell attack roll spells.

Uh, 4 of the 6 Conscious Minds have spell attack rolls

The Distant Grasp - Telekinetic Projectile and Dancing Blade
The Infinite Eye - None
The Oscillating Wave - Produce Flame and Ray of Frost
The Silent Whisper - None
The Tangible Dream - Imaginary Weapon
The Unbound Step - Phase Bolt

Sorry I forgot phase bolt, a spell that ignores cover, and imaginary weapon, a D8+spell casting mod cantrip that heightens every level and is very high damage. Spectral hand is a great spell for the tangible dream psychic

Ah yes, a 2nd level spell that lasts 1 minute and costs 2 actions and does no damage. That is what is needed to make Psychic’s competitive.

[WWHsmackdown]

I don't feel too bad about the psychics attack stuff on second reflection considering the fact that they're focus cantrip stuff so effectively infinite over the course of an adventuring day. Distant grasp is still my number one pick

[Unicore]

1st round let's say it is a 3rd level psychic. Casts spectral hand and shield.

2nd round, you unleash psyche and cast amped imaginary weapon. Your range is 120, you can easily add flanking, you get two attacks and your damage is 3d8+6.

Woe is the psychic.

[Deriven Firelion]

YuriP wrote:

I don't see this in practice. Melee usually don't need to move so much to approach and to flank but usually the only one who cares to flank is the rogue but other martials like barbarians and monks because they usually high move speed tends to use their actions to flank too. Usually the only exception goes to Fighters and Rangers that prefer to do 2 Strikes per turn once the -5/-4 MAP penalty for Fighters are the same of a -2/-3 for other martials and while for flurry ranger it's viable to do many attacks as possible.[/qoute]

I see this in practice all the time, from target to target. Not sure why you wouldn't.

Almost every fight martials have to open a fight by closing into battle. Then they set up a flank to gain the bonus from flanking. Rogues don't have to worry about it too much because they get a feat that allows them to flank at any point near an enemy who is being attacked by an ally. They often have to do this for each enemy unless they get surrounded.

Whereas a caster once in range switches targets as long as the targets are in range which is usually 30 feet. If you open at longer range, then they can hit targets with ranged spells while the melee close.

You might be in a group where the DM starts encounters at very close distances, something I do not do as a DM. Parties that don't stealth may be multiple moves away when first engaging. Or if they fail their stealth abilities.

A lot of DMs tend to start fights at very close distances because they don't bother to determine detection range for when the fight would be engaged. If you are engaging at hearing distance for creatures, you will find ranged combatants have a decided advantage over martial for engaging quickly.

Quote:

Seriously!? I never saw before a player complaining about they are critiquing too much and usually the players enjoys when they kill their opponents fast and clean.

A player wants to use some of their higher level abilities. I had a monk player who started off using this feat that did 2d6 persistent negative damage against a target for 2 actions. But he figured out quickly that this was a waste of actions. It's better to just swing as 2d6 persistent negative damage is meaningless when you can hit the target for 3d8 plus all associated bonuses.

That encourages a martial to use their simplest, highest damage ability which they often get at a first level over and over and over again, while there other abilities become unnecessary fluff abilities that don't have a real impact on the success of the battle more so than just swinging.

Whereas a caster hitting the enemy with a group slow spell substantially affects the battle making powerful enemies pathetically weak taking away tactical options for an entire minute with one level 6 or spell.

Maritals don't have abilities that alter the field like a caster. Even using a wall spell to seal off half the enemies while you handle a smaller number at a time funneling enemies is something a martial ability can't equal.

I had my shadow sorcerer activate and use a single action to maintain consuming shadows or darkness causing it to spread out doing damage and impeding movement, while dropping additional spells round after round ripping apart a group of enemies while the martials swung weapons, flanked, and did little unnecessary maneuvers that didn't have near the affect on the outcome of the battle as the spellcasters.

Martials aren't that interesting past a certain point. They run up and swing. Move around to flank. Beg for healing and support when fighting really tough stuff as they get hammered with damage and need healing and caster debuffing to survive.

There's no way to build a martial to such power that they can stand toe to toe with much. If not for casters healing them and debuffing powerful enemies, they probably wouldn't even survive the major fights.

[Captain Morgan]

YuriP wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

I think we are starting to see some caster power creep for those with system mastery. Shadow Signet being one example. Temporal Twin being another. It isn't the best at the level you get it, but at level 20 that 3rd level spellslot can be a strike for 4d12+4d6+31 off your barbarian clone.

Temporal Twin isn't that good spell it's only able to repeat a basic 1-action only. Also uses an ally reaction (something that not all ally want to use, you need to coordinate with him/her) and the worst part is that the target becomes imune against the spell for 1 day.

If the player a have AoO allie like a Fighter you can do better using just the lvl 1 spell Command forcing a near opponent to prone basically making it to waste an action and ensuring an AoO against a prone opponent when it try to stand and you can do this while you have available spellslots or are using a staff with the spell.

Assuming the enemy fails a will save, sure. Command needs to land and the AoO needs to land. Temporal Twin just needs to land once. It also still works against mindless enemies.

The 1 day immunity just means it is a betrer spell for a prepared caster who prepares it once a day. And the basic strike thing is fine. Barbarians and non-flurry rangers tend to default to basic strikes since they don't get many specialized strike actions like the fighter. So do Thaumaturges and Champions.

The only real downside is it uses the reaction, and most martials should really have a good reaction by this point... But the thing is you usually only trigger one AoO in a fight anyway, because once the enemy sees you use it they won't trigger it.

It isn't an auto pick spell but it has legs with the right party for sure.

[Djinn71]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Assuming the enemy fails a will save, sure. Command needs to land and the AoO needs to land. Temporal Twin just needs to land once. It also still works against mindless enemies.

The 1 day immunity just means it is a betrer spell for a prepared caster who prepares it once a day. And the basic strike thing is fine. Barbarians and non-flurry rangers tend to default to basic strikes since they don't get many specialized strike actions like the fighter. So do Thaumaturges and Champions.

The only real downside is it uses the reaction, and most martials should really have a good reaction by this point... But the thing is you usually only trigger one AoO in a fight anyway, because once the enemy sees you use it they won't trigger it.

It isn't an auto pick spell but it has legs with the right party for sure.

Probably better in a party with an Archer Fighter, especially if your GM disallows ranged Aid actions (which I've seen some do).

Also, really good in a party with an Opportune Backstab Rogue with Prep, assuming your GM allows the temporal twin of your rogue to count as an ally to the rogue. Hilarious imagery as well, get backstabbed by a clone of the Rogue you're fighting, get distracted and then get stabbed in the back again by the same damn rogue, with flanking and sneak attack!

[YuriP]

Captain Morgan wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

I think we are starting to see some caster power creep for those with system mastery. Shadow Signet being one example. Temporal Twin being another. It isn't the best at the level you get it, but at level 20 that 3rd level spellslot can be a strike for 4d12+4d6+31 off your barbarian clone.

Temporal Twin isn't that good spell it's only able to repeat a basic 1-action only. Also uses an ally reaction (something that not all ally want to use, you need to coordinate with him/her) and the worst part is that the target becomes imune against the spell for 1 day.

If the player a have AoO allie like a Fighter you can do better using just the lvl 1 spell Command forcing a near opponent to prone basically making it to waste an action and ensuring an AoO against a prone opponent when it try to stand and you can do this while you have available spellslots or are using a staff with the spell.

Assuming the enemy fails a will save, sure. Command needs to land and the AoO needs to land. Temporal Twin just needs to land once. It also still works against mindless enemies.

The 1 day immunity just means it is a betrer spell for a prepared caster who prepares it once a day. And the basic strike thing is fine. Barbarians and non-flurry rangers tend to default to basic strikes since they don't get many specialized strike actions like the fighter. So do Thaumaturges and Champions.

The only real downside is it uses the reaction, and most martials should really have a good reaction by this point... But the thing is you usually only trigger one AoO in a fight anyway, because once the enemy sees you use it they won't trigger it.

It isn't an auto pick spell but it has legs with the right party for sure.

The main advantage of Command is in the fact that's as a lvl 1 it can be spammed by a prepared spellcaster with a Staff of Enchantment and specially is effective when you have a Fighter in the party where the hit hate of second check is higher. Also it's consume the opponent action and is the only effective way that I know to disarm without need to crit (yet it's not so useful than force the opponent to prone unless your GM consider that the char have to get down (prone), take the weapon then Stand).

As I said it's no like the Temporal Twin is bad it's just so good as some people think.
Making a comparison:

• Temporal Twin - Advantages
  
• Only 1 check
  
• Can be used with allies that haven't specific reactions
  
• Temporal Twin - Disadvantages
  
• Uses a lvl 3 spellslot
  
• Some players may don't want to loose their reaction
  
• Command - Advantages
  
• Uses a lvl 1 spellslot
  
• Can be spammable using staff
  
• "Force" the opponent to use up 2-actions (1 forced to prone and another volunteer to stand)
  
• Allies with Combat Reflexes can use their additional reaction
  
• If the opponent fail in will save but the allied attack don't hit the opponent still looses actions
  
• Command - Disadvantages
  
• The reaction attack only works if the ally have AoO or similar reaction
  
• Need 2 checks to do damage
  

[Martialmasters]

I get bored killing my opponents quickly if I'm honest. Standing there smashing my face into the enemy while I tell for heals is the exact opposite of how I want to play.

[Onkonk]

Unicore wrote:

1st round let's say it is a 3rd level psychic. Casts spectral hand and shield.

2nd round, you unleash psyche and cast amped imaginary weapon. Your range is 120, you can easily add flanking, you get two attacks and your damage is 3d8+6.

Woe is the psychic.

I don't think the Spectral Hand can flank since it is unable to attack people by the rules.

[HumbleGamer]

Onkonk wrote:

Unicore wrote:

1st round let's say it is a 3rd level psychic. Casts spectral hand and shield.

2nd round, you unleash psyche and cast amped imaginary weapon. Your range is 120, you can easily add flanking, you get two attacks and your damage is 3d8+6.

Woe is the psychic.

I don't think the Spectral Hand can flank since it is unable to attack people by the rules.

Same.

No threat, no flank.

[Thalaine]

Let us get back on topic

So let us compare a 7th level Distant Grasp Psychic who has got Electric Arc as an occult cantrip (human or racial plus ancestral mind)

Assume a 2 round fight versus 2 level 7 monsters with Moderate AC and Moderate Saves (AC 24, +15 to Saves)

If the Psychic goes Electric Arc (4d4 +4) Unleash Psyche Electric Arc (4d4 + 4 + 8) they do
Round 1: 10.5 per target = 21
Round 2: 16.5 per target = 33

Total: 27 per target = 54

If the Psychic goes Telekinetic Projectile (4d6 + 4) Unleash Psyche Telekinetic Projectile (7d6 + 4 + 8) they do
Round 1: 12.6 damage
Round 2: 25.55 damage

Total 38.15

If the Psychic had a +1 to hit with Spell Attacks it would be
Round 1: 14.4
Round 2: 29.2

Total 43.6

If the Psychic did half damage on a miss but not a critical miss it would be
Round 1: 15.75
Round 2: 31.94

Total: 47.69

So as it currently stands a single target Psychic does about 70% of the damage a multi attacking Psychic does with the expenditure of a Focus point. If Casters could get Item bonuses to Spell Attacks it would be 80% which seems about right since single target is more useful. Half damage on miss is about 88% and is probably too much on the high side.

[Onkonk]

Comparision with AoE and multi-target will always be off, focusing damage is much better than spreading it out.

Like you can take the most optimized Fighter build vs a single fireball in a bunch of weenies and the total damage of the fireball will probably be much more impressive.