What do you feel about the number of spell slot?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 620 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Isn't an electric arc spell heart stuck at DC 17, so the equivalent of a level 1 caster? Not terrible for some classes as a back up energy type action at low levels, but you have to get to level 8 before getting a DC boost and then only to 24.


Unicore wrote:
Isn't an electric arc spell heart stuck at DC 17, so the equivalent of a level 1 caster? Not terrible for some classes as a back up energy type action at low levels, but you have to get to level 8 before getting a DC boost and then only to 24.

Spellheart, Secrets of Magic pg. 170: "When casting a cantrip from a spellheart, you can use your own spell attack roll or spell DC if it's higher."


Electric arc is so boring and annoying, and every single time you are told "you are playing wrong if you don't have electric arc". Lets just nerf that clearly its over powered and should only be 1d3 to two characters.


Temperans wrote:
Electric arc is so boring and annoying, and every single time you are told "you are playing wrong if you don't have electric arc". Lets just nerf that clearly its over powered and should only be 1d3 to two characters.

Only after true strike takes a hit...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Electric arc is so boring and annoying, and every single time you are told "you are playing wrong if you don't have electric arc". Lets just nerf that clearly its over powered and should only be 1d3 to two characters.
Only after true strike takes a hit...

Oh please can we? That spell is also clearly overtuned. Spell casters are clearly not meant to be accurate after all. It totally invalidates martials!

Clearly only martial should be the ones benefiting from true strike, just like its only them who benefit from 90% of caster buffs.

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

* P.S. I accidentally posted that other post too quickly but don't want to edit given you responded.

I also wanted it to say: I absolutely hate electric arc, true strike, synthesia, haste, etc. Every single time "its okay just use this exact spells out of 500+".

But who cares right? Balance clearly doesn't matter. It's not like that's the selling point or anything.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Isn't an electric arc spell heart stuck at DC 17, so the equivalent of a level 1 caster? Not terrible for some classes as a back up energy type action at low levels, but you have to get to level 8 before getting a DC boost and then only to 24.
Spellheart, Secrets of Magic pg. 170: "When casting a cantrip from a spellheart, you can use your own spell attack roll or spell DC if it's higher."

Sorry I misread the comment, I thought the person was saying any class can now get electric arc, but it is actually any caster. Spell hearts are pretty cool items.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
graystone wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Electric arc is so boring and annoying, and every single time you are told "you are playing wrong if you don't have electric arc". Lets just nerf that clearly its over powered and should only be 1d3 to two characters.
Only after true strike takes a hit...

Oh please can we? That spell is also clearly overtuned. Spell casters are clearly not meant to be accurate after all. It totally invalidates martials!

Clearly only martial should be the ones benefiting from true strike, just like its only them who benefit from 90% of caster buffs.

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

* P.S. I accidentally posted that other post too quickly but don't want to edit given you responded.

I also wanted it to say: I absolutely hate electric arc, true strike, synthesia, haste, etc. Every single time "its okay just use this exact spells out of 500+".

But who cares right? Balance clearly doesn't matter. It's not like that's the selling point or anything.

“I think spell casting is bad in PF2. Let’s get rid of all the spells people like to cast so that we can then argue for an extra +1 or +2 to spell accuracy” is a pretty interesting take, but not one I endorse.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:
graystone wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Electric arc is so boring and annoying, and every single time you are told "you are playing wrong if you don't have electric arc". Lets just nerf that clearly its over powered and should only be 1d3 to two characters.
Only after true strike takes a hit...

Oh please can we? That spell is also clearly overtuned. Spell casters are clearly not meant to be accurate after all. It totally invalidates martials!

Clearly only martial should be the ones benefiting from true strike, just like its only them who benefit from 90% of caster buffs.

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

* P.S. I accidentally posted that other post too quickly but don't want to edit given you responded.

I also wanted it to say: I absolutely hate electric arc, true strike, synthesia, haste, etc. Every single time "its okay just use this exact spells out of 500+".

But who cares right? Balance clearly doesn't matter. It's not like that's the selling point or anything.

“I think spell casting is bad in PF2. Let’s get rid of all the spells people like to cast so that we can then argue for an extra +1 or +2 to spell accuracy” is a pretty interesting take, but not one I endorse.

It's pretty annoying that everyone that uses spell attacks has to figure out a way to get True Strike on their list if they don't start off with it and have to keep a stack of them on scroll to keep up. It seems like a massive tax by saying 'but true strike' to any complaint about spell accuracy...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I mean, casting a spell attack roll spell without truestrike is fine every once in a while if you have a spare hero point or are casting cantrips or focus spells that you can get back later. True strike is just more fun because you get to roll both dice and take the higher. But it also costs an action that could go to casting a one action spell or doing something else and have the same effect.

A +1 to +3 scaling item bonus isn’t really going to change that meta for spell slot spells. The still don’t do damage on a miss, and reducing the miss chance too low is going to break things on the critical end, especially because hero points are still going to exist. Critical effects and riders would still end up having to be dialed down.


Me: I ask for buffs to things that feel bad and are clearly undertuned.
Response: No that's bad it will break the game those are meant to be bad and I find it fun this way.

Me: *gets tired of arguing for removing bad gameplay* start asking for nerfs on stuff that's clearly way outside the expectation for everything else.
Response: No that's bad, people like those you just want to argue for a buff to the stuff that's meant to be bad.

I see how it it. So you cannot buff abilities that are bad, because how dare you. Nor can you nerf abilities that are too good because how dare you.

Yeah, that's complete BS, and you know it.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
especially because hero points are still going to exist.

Sorry, you are really really reaching here.

There is almost nothing this reasoning can't be applied to in the game. Its utterly immaterial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:


It's pretty annoying that everyone that uses spell attacks has to figure out a way to get True Strike on their list if they don't start off with it and have to keep a stack of them on scroll to keep up. It seems like a massive tax by saying 'but true strike' to any complaint about spell accuracy...

In addition to this, I think it also limits possibilities and automatize rotations.

For example, I had to bend before true strike with my magus:

-getting stacks of true strike scrolls.
-divination staff.
-gloves of storing ( with a true strike scroll inside ).
-keeping hero points for spellstrikes.

The standard rotation was:
Round 1) True Strike + SpellStrike
Round 2) Recharge + spell/strikes/movement

Being like a board game, it is understandable that better builds, rotations, items, spells, etc... exist, but feeling the need to find a way to get truestrike is very limiting in terms of possibilities and alternatives.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
“I think spell casting is bad in PF2. Let’s get rid of all the spells people like to cast so that we can then argue for an extra +1 or +2 to spell accuracy” is a pretty interesting take, but not one I endorse.

You could look up what 'sarcasm' means.


I think item bonus to spell attacks would be a good thing. I put them on staves and wands in my home game.

You should also remember at high level many creatures are often debuffed heavily reducing their AC or other stats to make them easier to hit. You don't always need true strike when something is heavily debuffed.

There is also a spell called true target which is a true strike for the entire party. It's only one action to cast. So you can set up a real hammer blow on a monster. One of my go to bard moves was either an Inspire Heroics or a synesthesia with a true target to set the party up for a huge hammer blow on a monster. If I had enough time, I would Extend Inspire Heroics and stack the synesthesia with the true target and Inspire Heroics. If that set up occurred, pretty hard to miss even against high AC creatures. Even a caster using a powered up attack spell had a great chance of bringing the hammer.

Lots of creatures end up tripped and debuffed with buffs on the PCs. You set things up right, even the ranged characters are getting fairly high percentage hit rolls.


Isn't it sort of balanced by the fact spell casters get Legendary prof, so in the end a spell caster is 1 level accuracy behind every martial except the fighter, with their mega 3+ weapon?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
Unicore wrote:
especially because hero points are still going to exist.

Sorry, you are really really reaching here.

There is almost nothing this reasoning can't be applied to in the game. Its utterly immaterial.

Martials pay for critical effects. Many classes have to take feats to get critical weapon effects, others get it as a class feature, so part of their class budget. Then they also have to buy property runes for many of the additional crit riders they can employ.

With spells, the crit riders are built into the spell. Even most cantrips have crit riders that clearly factor into their power budget. The ones that don’t usually doing more damage or affecting multiple targets. True strike’s effect on critical hits is significantly rounder in the curve than flat bonuses to attack. This design allowed spells to have flashier critical effects as a default. This is clear in the design. You don’t have to be reaching for anything to see it. The developers did not want casting spells to feel like making martial attacks.

Vigilant Seal

Temperans wrote:
graystone wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Electric arc is so boring and annoying, and every single time you are told "you are playing wrong if you don't have electric arc". Lets just nerf that clearly its over powered and should only be 1d3 to two characters.
Only after true strike takes a hit...

Oh please can we? That spell is also clearly overtuned. Spell casters are clearly not meant to be accurate after all. It totally invalidates martials!

Clearly only martial should be the ones benefiting from true strike, just like its only them who benefit from 90% of caster buffs.

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

* P.S. I accidentally posted that other post too quickly but don't want to edit given you responded.

I also wanted it to say: I absolutely hate electric arc, true strike, synthesia, haste, etc. Every single time "its okay just use this exact spells out of 500+".

But who cares right? Balance clearly doesn't matter. It's not like that's the selling point or anything.

It's okay to have some strong options. League of Legends has like 200+ champions, and believe it or not, about 5 of them are just better than others. Not so much so you can't play the other 500, but in a spell list, let's say a Sorcerer and you get 4 spells a level at worst (many ways to get more) and there's 20 levels with 10 spells levels and at 10th you get maybe 2 that's 38 spells in your repertoire and only 5 are dedicated? That gives you 33 wiggle room.

What about all the classes with a "feat tax" that's too good to pass on a certain level? Should we get rid of those too?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I see the thread has predictably degenerated into the 425th iteration of "why can't I win the game with casters like I could in PF1?"

Vigilant Seal

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
I see the thread has predictably degenerated into the 425th iteration of "why can't I win the game with casters like I could in PF1?"

For like, 1 guy, maybe. I find casters to be great, at least at 1st through 3rd level which is, so far, all I've experienced. When I say Casters, though, I guess I can only mean Sorcerer, but it's also been extremely fun. I absolutely love my Sorcerer. I feel very powerful.

It's always fun to set up a big debuff and then everyone else crushes a monster, or also be able to do either nice single target, or AOE damage. I have Befuddle, Burning Hands, True Strike and Magic Missile and my cantrips are Shield, Frost Ray, Produce Flame, Electric Arc and Detect Magic.

Extremely fun, and my focus spell is from the imperial bloodline which lets me flex into kind of an admittedly crappy skill monkey, but I still have a ton of variety! Especially for recall knowledge checks :) I feel useful in and out of combat at pretty much all times and I'm not writing down numbers or anything, but I've personally dropped quite a few enemies and feel like I've contributed a lot of damage in many fights.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
I see the thread has predictably degenerated into the 425th iteration of "why can't I win the game with casters like I could in PF1?"

Booo!

Boo you and your terrible, reductive opinion!

Boo!

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
Unicore wrote:
especially because hero points are still going to exist.

Sorry, you are really really reaching here.

There is almost nothing this reasoning can't be applied to in the game. Its utterly immaterial.

Martials pay for critical effects. Many classes have to take feats to get critical weapon effects, others get it as a class feature, so part of their class budget. Then they also have to buy property runes for many of the additional crit riders they can employ.

With spells, the crit riders are built into the spell. Even most cantrips have crit riders that clearly factor into their power budget. The ones that don’t usually doing more damage or affecting multiple targets. True strike’s effect on critical hits is significantly rounder in the curve than flat bonuses to attack. This design allowed spells to have flashier critical effects as a default. This is clear in the design. You don’t have to be reaching for anything to see it. The developers did not want casting spells to feel like making martial attacks.

The point is that hero points work on pretty much anything a GM allows, but, more importantly, they aren't a player controlled resource.

The idea that all spell effects are designed with hero point spending in mind is wholly unsubstantiated. It doesn't even make sense from a practical standpoint.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The point of bringing up hero points is that deciding now to remove truestrike from the game, won’t suddenly make existing spells free from the concerns that people have about giving spell attack roll spells item bonuses. The ability to reroll a really important spell attack roll spell won’t go away, and thus the issue of spells being more balanced around critical effects often being powerful and slightly more rare than melee attack criticals, which was designed into the system, will remain as an exploitable feature beyond true strike.

The thing Temprans in particular doesn’t like about PF2 is the 4 tiers of success and the effect that 10 over a DC counts as a critical. The thing is, that is not going anywhere, thankfully. Instead of trying to understand how the game has changed as a result and seeing how the options available work with it, suddenly the argument becomes to nerf or remove all of those options so the game can more closely work like a system that does not have that feature. It is misdirected and worse, it can get people lost in reeds of the the intended features of different options. True strike exists as a further way for spells and spell attack roll spells to be different than just swinging a sword. If you want a spell that is about lots of attacks, those spells exist. Magic missile is a particularly good one. A lot of people like scorching ray as well. But they are all different than directing as many energy arrows as possible at a single enemy and then rolling to attack like a martial.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

The point of bringing up hero points is that deciding now to remove truestrike from the game, won’t suddenly make existing spells free from the concerns that people have about giving spell attack roll spells item bonuses. The ability to reroll a really important spell attack roll spell won’t go away, and thus the issue of spells being more balanced around critical effects often being powerful and slightly more rare than melee attack criticals, which was designed into the system, will remain as an exploitable feature beyond true strike.

But why are we deciding that this idea is the cost trade off, and not something more intrinsic or obvious like scarcity or flexibility?

Spending a limited resource which also costs, at minimum, double the actions of a single strike, should have a better pay off than that single strike, right? Being able to break up strikes and have greater flexibility in your turn is a big part of being a martial in this edition.

Plus, lets not forget that hero points don't work like True Strike. You aren't rolling two and taking the better, you take the hero point reroll no matter the result. Which means you run the risk of it being worse, if you were trying to eek out additional value on an otherwise already successful attack.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Isn't it sort of balanced by the fact spell casters get Legendary prof, so in the end a spell caster is 1 level accuracy behind every martial except the fighter, with their mega 3+ weapon?

The problem with this approach is that the game doesn't start at 20th. Caster scaling is heavily backloaded, to the detriment of casters for the majority of their career.

When we say it shakes out at 19th and 20th, all we are actually saying is that it doesn't work out for casters for the 18 other levels of play. All of which come before the "good" ones.

My personally opinion is that the uniform caster scaling, and its proficiency levels, were always a fundamental error in this editions design. Its hampered too much potential design space, and locked in a lot of the underlying causes of disparity.

We could easily have had smoother gradients for all of these things, and tied of all class accuracy into a single set, with Master as the average top-out and rune support all round. Leaving Legendary to only a few classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:
graystone wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Electric arc is so boring and annoying, and every single time you are told "you are playing wrong if you don't have electric arc". Lets just nerf that clearly its over powered and should only be 1d3 to two characters.
Only after true strike takes a hit...

Oh please can we? That spell is also clearly overtuned. Spell casters are clearly not meant to be accurate after all. It totally invalidates martials!

Clearly only martial should be the ones benefiting from true strike, just like its only them who benefit from 90% of caster buffs.

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

* P.S. I accidentally posted that other post too quickly but don't want to edit given you responded.

I also wanted it to say: I absolutely hate electric arc, true strike, synthesia, haste, etc. Every single time "its okay just use this exact spells out of 500+".

But who cares right? Balance clearly doesn't matter. It's not like that's the selling point or anything.

“I think spell casting is bad in PF2. Let’s get rid of all the spells people like to cast so that we can then argue for an extra +1 or +2 to spell accuracy” is a pretty interesting take, but not one I endorse.

Right, and "Your spell attack roll modifiers are bad? Just use True Strike! They're balanced around ensuring you use this spell every time!" is both equally interesting as a take, and an absurd balance point when True Strike is not a universal spell.

Honestly, the easiest way to fix True Strike would be to implement a cooldown similar to what the Guidance cantrip has; only benefit from it once per hour. It's still going to be used and prepared regularly, but now it's not going to be a "mandatory" spell for every attack roll, because it simply can't be.

Another possible fix would be to restrict it to spells of the same level as True Strike, so that you don't have people deciding "Oh, all my 1st and 2nd level slots are going to be True Strikes so I get the most out of my highest level slots." You want the higher level slots to have the big(ger) payoffs? You gotta pay up for it.

In exchange, Spellcasters won't have stupid spellcasting progression and can benefit from potency runes like every other martial does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
We could easily have had smoother gradients for all of these things, and tied of all class accuracy into a single set, with Master as the average top-out and rune support all round. Leaving Legendary to only a few classes.

I actually would have appreciated this if they treated the Wizard as the Fighter of spellcasting; they would start out with being Expert in all spells, and then getting Master proficiency in their chosen School, with the Master increase bumping them to Legendary DCs for their chosen School, and eventually Legendary in all schools.

It would certainly make up for them having bad focus spells and class feats/features.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I still don't understand why they don't have wands and staves that add item bonuses to hit and add some damage. It seems like a missed opportunity to add some fun to caster items since cantrips are now useful. Having a wand or staff with a bonus to hit and some other bonus seems like a fun way for casters to add some oomph and make those items more meaningful rather than a fire and slip in your belt item.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

Isn't it sort of balanced by the fact spell casters get Legendary prof, so in the end a spell caster is 1 level accuracy behind every martial except the fighter, with their mega 3+ weapon?

Not really, Legendary only comes online at level 19 after all. Before that you're always equal or even behind standard martial proficiency.

At level 5 and 6 for instance, not only do you not have an item bonus, but you're also still Trained when all the martials got bumped up to Expert. I don't see how that's proficiency evening things out.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
I still don't understand why they don't have wands and staves that add item bonuses to hit and add some damage.

Because they were busy making items and abilities like staves, armor, weapons and feats so that you can tape cheap true strike scrolls to them: it boils down to 'cuz spell strike' and 'cuz spell strike only costs 4 gp so you can buy a huge pile of them and use them more often than toilet paper...'. When you can use true strike on every 2 action spell attack spell you cast, you have to factor that into the bonuses they get.

The only way around it would be to make "wands and staves that add item bonuses to hit and add some damage" a fortune effect so you can't use then AND true strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I still don't understand why they don't have wands and staves that add item bonuses to hit and add some damage.

Because they were busy making items and abilities like staves, armor, weapons and feats so that you can tape cheap true strike scrolls to them: it boils down to 'cuz spell strike' and 'cuz spell strike only costs 4 gp so you can buy a huge pile of them and use them more often than toilet paper...'. When you can use true strike on every 2 action spell attack spell you cast, you have to factor that into the bonuses they get.

The only way around it would be to make "wands and staves that add item bonuses to hit and add some damage" a fortune effect so you can't use then AND true strike.

Was that really the reason? True Strike is super cheap to make tons of them. I'd take true strike having some other limitation and have wands and staves with item bonuses. That seems more fun than lugging around my bag of true strike scrolls. I don't want to look like mailman caster with my satchel full of true strike scrolls just to able to hit stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I still don't understand why they don't have wands and staves that add item bonuses to hit and add some damage.

Because they were busy making items and abilities like staves, armor, weapons and feats so that you can tape cheap true strike scrolls to them: it boils down to 'cuz spell strike' and 'cuz true strike only costs 4 gp so you can buy a huge pile of them and use them more often than toilet paper...'. When you can use true strike on every 2 action spell attack spell you cast, you have to factor that into the bonuses they get.

The only way around it would be to make "wands and staves that add item bonuses to hit and add some damage" a fortune effect so you can't use then AND true strike.

Like I said before, just make True Strike only once per hour. Problem solved.

They did it with Guidance, which only gives +1 to a chosen check for a round; I don't see why they can't do so here.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
graystone wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I still don't understand why they don't have wands and staves that add item bonuses to hit and add some damage.

Because they were busy making items and abilities like staves, armor, weapons and feats so that you can tape cheap true strike scrolls to them: it boils down to 'cuz spell strike' and 'cuz spell strike only costs 4 gp so you can buy a huge pile of them and use them more often than toilet paper...'. When you can use true strike on every 2 action spell attack spell you cast, you have to factor that into the bonuses they get.

The only way around it would be to make "wands and staves that add item bonuses to hit and add some damage" a fortune effect so you can't use then AND true strike.

Was that really the reason? True Strike is super cheap to make tons of them. I'd take true strike having some other limitation and have wands and staves with item bonuses. That seems more fun than lugging around my bag of true strike scrolls. I don't want to look like mailman caster with my satchel full of true strike scrolls just to able to hit stuff.

They have never said that's the reason but it seems like a pretty common assumption especially the boost in accuracy it gives and how cheap and ubiquitous it is. I mean how many posts, threads and characters do you need to look at to see how it's used? I personally agree with you that I'd have rather seen the item route.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Like I said before, just make True Strike only once per hour. Problem solved.

They did it with Guidance, which only gives +1 to a chosen check for a round; I don't see why they can't do so here.

That can work too.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This meta on True strike is weird. You should not be casting so many spell attack roll spells from spell slots in a day that you need 10 truestrike scrolls. Maybe the magus needs this much, but no other caster really does.

In fact, in a fight against a level-2 enemy, an equal level enemy and a level +2 enemy, casting shocking grasp with true strike will do less damage than casting shocking grasp with possibly using a hero point if you miss, and then casting a magic missile. And the thing is, even against an equal level opponent you typically have a +50% chance of not burning your hero point. Realistically, this means that you probably only need 1 true strike for every 2 or 3 spell attack roll spells you memorize in a day. So, like 1 probably. Yes you have a slightly higher chance of critting with the true strike (which changes a lot by level) but it almost always comes out of the hit percent chance vs a hero point, and only the miss percent chance less than 1% of the time and only against much higher level enemies.

Taking true strike away from casters would hurt them significantly more than item bonuses to spell attack rolls would help, especially because those bonuses would be minor for the vast majority of the time you play your character, whereas true strike kicks in at level 1. This would be a very bad decision to try to implement over the current game's math.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

...using true strike is worse than than just using hero point and magic missile because of a miss. Meanwhile, younand literally everyone saying that casters are fine say to just use true strike or just use X non-blast spell.

But now you are saying that removing true strike would make it bad for casters and that even fixing the accuracy wouldn't be better?... I want you to carefully think about what you are saying.

Caster are supposedly "okay".
Cannot add item bonuses because that would make spells too good because true strike.
Cannot remove true strike because that would make spells too bad, even with item bonuses.
True strike is less damage than just using hero points and magic missile because of your chance to miss.

So casters are fine, they just need to be happy being bad and spending limited resources being worse.


Thats something else I was also wondering, I feel like most of the best blasts aren't spell attack rolls anyway


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My argument all along has been that blasting in PF2 is not bad Temperans. It is not Martial good at single target damage most of the time, but it can exceed it upon occasion and if there are even 2 enemies to target, blast casting can exceed martial total damage.

So in that context, adding item bonuses to spell attack roll spells with the system as is, is going to make blasting too good.

Taking away true strike is really bad at higher levels for spells like disintegrate and wizard combo spells and big magus spell strikes that can do very good damage, but missing really hurts too much. It is a good utility option to leave in the game for this style of play, and item bonuses aren't big enough to really make people happy with spell attack roll accuracy to build a blaster that only uses them.

That is what is not a good idea in PF2. Trying to cast only the same spell over and over again. This is a feature of the system and not a bug.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Thats something else I was also wondering, I feel like most of the best blasts aren't spell attack rolls anyway

There are 46 spells that have "spell attack" some where in their description. People mostly (to not say only) talk about: Shocking Grasp, Polar Ray, Disintegrate, Hydraulic Push, Spiritutal Weapon, and Acid Arrow.

There are 744 spells that do not have "spell attack". 178 of which have "damage" and "saving" and not "spell attack".

I am pretty sure Paizo gave up on spell attacks given how there have been only 18 released outside of the CRB and secrets of magic, compared to 254 spells of literally anything else.

Liberty's Edge

Temperans wrote:
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Thats something else I was also wondering, I feel like most of the best blasts aren't spell attack rolls anyway

There are 46 spells that have "spell attack" some where in their description. People mostly (to not say only) talk about: Shocking Grasp, Polar Ray, Disintegrate, Hydraulic Push, Spiritutal Weapon, and Acid Arrow.

There are 744 spells that do not have "spell attack". 178 of which have "damage" and "saving" and not "spell attack".

I am pretty sure Paizo gave up on spell attacks given how there have been only 18 released outside of the CRB and secrets of magic, compared to 254 spells of literally anything else.

The number of spell attack spells outside of the CRB/SOM - 18 out of 254 - is 7.1%, whereas for all spells - 46 out of (744+46) - it is 5.8%. It's interesting that you provide the numbers that show spell attack rolls have been included more frequently in books that aren't the CRB/SoM and use that to claim that they've 'given up' on them.


Whatever way you slice it, there’s not that many of them and with few exceptions they’re not that great.

Certainly not great enough to justify carrying a toilet rolls worth of true strike scrolls. I get you really want you disintegrate and polar ray to hit, but generally there’s normally gonna be something else you could be casting that’s as good/better surely?

I’d be interested to know how often targeting AC with caster accuracy progression is better than targeting a monsters weak save. (I know some blasters struggle to always hit the weak save but still)

Also circling back to the, which tradition is best for blasting debate, a point in arcades favour is I believe that’s the best list in terms of hitting every save.


The best spells for attack rolls are Spiritual Weapon (because it's sustained and lets you do the mix of save+attack roll after the first turn) and Horizon Thunder Sphere (ranged, spend 3 actions and it gets half damage on a miss, damage is roughly the same as Shocking Grasp) imo.

You will note that in both cases I don't lose the spell slot to no effect on a miss.

Using True Strike for my lower level slots is an option, but I mean, there's also good utility spells I can slot there, and I can just prepare save based spells that have similar damage to the attack rolls anyways while also being AoE. (Really, that's the big kicker - I'd rather lob a 5-10' burst that does slightly less damage but has a saving throw than an all or nothing single target attack)

Now with that said, Spiritual Weapon is great for divine casters because of that action economy and their overall lower options for blasting (Mostly fortitude saves and/or alignment damage). Not that a negative energy explosion isn't going to work on most enemy types (and the stuff it doesn't you just drop 3-action heals on anyways), but being able to chip away against AC while throwing support spells at the same time is useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

I absolutely hate electric arc, true strike, synthesia, haste, etc. Every single time "its okay just use this exact spells out of 500+".

But who cares right? Balance clearly doesn't matter. It's not like that's the selling point or anything.

Most of the time it is familiarity. I mean there are some other options is you want to look.

Electric Arc is the best offensive cantrip is maybe 70% of situations, so it really stands out. But sometimes Scatter Scree or Ray of Frost will work better.

True Strike really has nothing else in its niche. It really is its own category. There are other fortune effects they just arne't close. Just like Invisibility.

Synthesia has lower level and weaker alternatives. These all work well:
Befuddle
Agonizing Despair
Call the Blood
The better option are things like Maze - but that is a really different effect.

Haste has alternatives such as Loose Time's Arrow, Tortoise and the Hare, Winning Streak, Quicken Time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gortle wrote:

These all work well:

Befuddle
Agonizing Despair
Call the Blood

Befuddle is worse than fear in almost every way.

If it weren't for the flat check of the Stupefied condition against spellcasters, befuddle would scarcely have any niche at all.

Fear, on the other hand, bestows more comprehensive penalties, lasts longer, takes the target completely out of the fight on a critical failure, and has a heightened effect that lets you debuff whole groups of enemies.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

Befuddle is worse than fear in almost every way.

If it weren't for the flat check of the Stupefied condition against spellcasters, befuddle would scarcely have any niche at all.

Fear, on the other hand, bestows more comprehensive penalties, lasts longer, takes the target completely out of the fight on a critical failure, and has a heightened effect that lets you debuff whole groups of enemies.

Unless a target is immune to or has a large bonus to save vs fear effects but not emotion effects generally, I agree. The frighten condition only decreasing by 1 per round is quite a big boost in power to fear based effects over anything with a duration of 1 round. Especially since frightened effects everything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Gortle wrote:

These all work well:

Befuddle
Agonizing Despair
Call the Blood

Befuddle is worse than fear in almost every way.

If it weren't for the flat check of the Stupefied condition against spellcasters, befuddle would scarcely have any niche at all.

Fear, on the other hand, bestows more comprehensive penalties, lasts longer, takes the target completely out of the fight on a critical failure, and has a heightened effect that lets you debuff whole groups of enemies.

Frightened reduces at the end of the targets turn. Beffudle last until the casters next turn - which is longer. When you are talking about short durations that distinction matters. So in the case where the target makes their saving throw, Befuddle lasts longer that Fear 1.

I consider Fear 3 a different spell than Fear 1. Talking about them together like this can be confusing

Yes I agree that on reflection Fear 1 is typically better than Befuddle. I will include it next time I repeat such remarks. But Befuddle does do the role I have suggested reasonably. Only one round is a limit. But it is a spell whose role is versus a Boss as it is a useful debuff that contributes even if they make a save. Bosses likely do have options worth interfering with. It only makes sense if everyone is targetting that creature this round, but my players always focus fire. Bottom line is it is a level 1 spell that is useful out of its level 1 spell slot for a large part of the game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Actually here's a very important question, I think it would be helpful if we all saw a bunch of very direct answers to this, how many fights do our groups do per daily preparations?

I'll start: 2-4 (leaving out a bunch of days technically, but only because hexcrawling's single-encounter-sometimes travel days are very different than our days spent in dungeons and such.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Actually here's a very important question, I think it would be helpful if we all saw a bunch of very direct answers to this, how many fights do our groups do per daily preparations?

I'll start: 2-4

One table I'm at does 1-3 and the other 5-7.

You can guess which one has a higher opinion of wizards and which one puts a lot of value on good focus spells.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Actually here's a very important question, I think it would be helpful if we all saw a bunch of very direct answers to this, how many fights do our groups do per daily preparations?

I'll start: 2-4

The whole map, unless very bad rolls.

At earlier levels it could be different because the missing medicine feats, if there are no focus point healers or a second medicine user.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Actually here's a very important question, I think it would be helpful if we all saw a bunch of very direct answers to this, how many fights do our groups do per daily preparations?

I don't have a set group so i can only give ranges. As low as 1-2 and as high as 7-8.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

re: 5-7 and 7-8

That is a lot of spell slot rationing to go that many combat rounds, even accounting for staves and wands and other extenders, and I assume the map Humble's talking about is a similarly high number. Like strictly speaking as you gain levels I guess you could cast fear and such a lot of those rounds, or lower level AOE for the minion encounters, but stiiiiiiilll.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, agree.

It's a shame PF2 has absolutely no guidelines for what sort of encounter frequency it's balanced around.

551 to 600 of 620 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / What do you feel about the number of spell slot? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.