| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So currently spells that rely on spell attack rolls are inherently worse than saves spells in most cases for following reasons:
Those spell work on hit or miss princle which means that you get nothing if you fail to land a hit which leads to worse action economy because you always need to spend one action on true stike to reliably land a hit.
That also mean that you need to spend two spell slots for one spell which on low levels are to costly
And in most cases succeding in your spell attack dont provide you with much better results than enemy that fail his save against your spell so that big setup not worth it in most cases
So what can be done to make them better?
Obvious solution are
Add potency runes for spell attack while making true strike inapplicable to them
Separate spell attack and saves spells proficiency progression so spell attack can have better proficiency progression overall
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So currently spells that rely on spell attack rolls are inherently worse than saves spells in most cases for following reasons:
Those spell work on hit or miss princle which means that you get nothing if you fail to land a hit which leads to worse action economy because you always need to spend one action on true stike to reliably land a hit.
That also mean that you need to spend two spell slots for one spell which on low levels are to costly
And in most cases succeding in your spell attack dont provide you with much better results than enemy that fail his save against your spell so that big setup not worth it in most casesSo what can be done to make them better?
Obvious solution are
Add potency runes for spell attack while making true strike inapplicable to them
Separate spell attack and saves spells proficiency progression so spell attack can have better proficiency progression overall
The issue of spell attack roll spells has nothing to do with spell attack rolls. They are just worse because Paizo made them worse. For example, Produce Flame does the same damage than Electric Arc, with just a small bonus on critical hit while Electric Arc hits 2 targets. If Produce Flame was hitting 2 targets, I don't think anyone would complain about it.
There are a few spell attack roll spells that are good (Searing Light, Imaginary Weapon, Amped Telekinetic Projectile) and there's no issue with them. When Paizo designs spells with valid effects, them being based on spell attack rolls doesn't matter much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not entirely true spell attacks like the alchemist (ressoance) have some legacy issues from the playtest where touch AC was still a thing. When they removed touch AC they didn't buff spell attacks any and assume they just shrugged their shoulders and said close enough.
They (quite) fixed that with the Shadow Signet.
For example, I made these graphs.
I used Produce Flame as a base, with Shadow Signet for the spell attack rolls. The orange graph uses a save, the blue one a spell attack roll, the green uses a spell attack roll with a +2 to attack (One for All, Inspire Heroics, there are easy ways to get bonuses to an attack roll when it's nearly impossible to increase a DC).
And that's without considering how True Strike and Hero Points can strongly affect the balance between both types.
So Spell Attack Rolls are far from bad. You just need to know when and how to use them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apart from the fact that "fix" is not the right term here ( as you can fix what doesn't work, and not something that's intended to work in a specific way), I see no need to always cast a true strike to properly deal with a specific spell.
To make an example, at first I considered effects that made the target flat footed somehow redundant.
"Why would I waste a feat or an action to get my target flat footed when I can flank them with my allies?"
Turned out making the target flat footed helped spellcasters and ranged characters a lot.
Also making a good use of demoralize and the clumsy condition, that can stack with flat footed, contributed increasing the odds of success ( and the damage from a spell is way more higher than any strike ).
Pure blasters ( arcane tradition ) have also true strike, they can consider to use ( as you also mentioned, though it's not meant to be "used all the time" ) and, eventually, hero points ( normally, the game suggests handling a hero point per hour. This should cover up for a huge part of big spells "during the day", as they are a limited resource ).
By lvl 10 you can instantly get ( it's common, so available everywhere ) a shadow signet, that allows you to trade the enemy Armor Class for their REFL or FORT saves DC ( I still think it's way too strong as an item, both for action economy and power, but whatever ), so you can easily find yourself with a "bonus".
- Large enemies will have low reflexes and good fortitude.
- Non intelligent beings will have low will saves.
- slim targets will have high reflexes and low fortitude.
- Spellcasters will have high will saves and low fortitude/reflexes.You can also recall knowledge, hoping the DM would tell you about their lower save, though it's not mandatory as you can easily guess ( sometimes you'll get it wrong, but overall that's the outcome ).
Giving potency runes will make spellcasters stronger, but increasing spell DC would be 10 times worse in terms of power.
I wouldn't modify anything but, if I...
Flat-footed is good but its only condition that only affecting AC.
Saves spell have much more option they can target weakest saves and have other condition that can be applied to enemies and they still get at least half of their damage in most cases even if they failShadow signet is basically ignoring problem rather than fixing by turning your spell attack spells into save spells and it still shares same problem with true strike because it still cost one action and also cost magic item slot in addition its not avalible until level ten.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not entirely true spell attacks like the alchemist (ressoance) have some legacy issues from the playtest where touch AC was still a thing. When they removed touch AC they didn't buff spell attacks any and assume they just shrugged their shoulders and said close enough.They (quite) fixed that with the Shadow Signet.
For example, I made these graphs.
I used Produce Flame as a base, with Shadow Signet for the spell attack rolls. The orange graph uses a save, the blue one a spell attack roll, the green uses a spell attack roll with a +2 to attack (One for All, Inspire Heroics, there are easy ways to get bonuses to an attack roll when it's nearly impossible to increase a DC).
And that's without considering how True Strike and Hero Points can strongly affect the balance between both types.So Spell Attack Rolls are far from bad. You just need to know when and how to use them.
if we use Shadow Signet as a solution to the problem then we can as well simply turn all attack spells into saves spells
Shadow Signet is not useful before level 10 as targeting High AC gives you the same chances to hit than targeting Moderate saves before that level. The Shadow Signet has been made to solve the lack of Potency Runes on spell attack rolls, which is only getting important at level 10+.
Also, with Shadow Signet you can target your choice of Fortitude or Reflex, when save spells target only one save. You can of course have many of them targeting multiple saves, but most traditions target only 2 types of save anyway (Will and Fortitude for Divine and Occult, Reflex and Fortitude for Primal). So overall it's a bonus to spell attack roll spells.
shadow signet is free action
Well it still only available on level ten
if we use Shadow Signet as a solution to the problem then we can as well simply turn all attack spells into saves spells
You're throwing the baby with the bath water. Spell attack roll spells add something to the game, they don't interact like save based spells with the game rules. For simplification sake, I can understand why they would ditch one (and then I'd certainly think of removing save spells, but that would be a long story). But for balance sake, there's no need to do anything, now (but releasing a few good spell attack roll spells as they are quite lackluster).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Shadow Signet as Paizo solution to problem still have major flaws
1 It's not available for half of the game progression so before you get your ring you would have to rely on true strike
and sacrifice you action economy and spell slots for that
2 It still dodges problem rather then adress it by turning spell attack spells into save spells
3 That put Shadow signet on pair with martial property runes as someting that is mandatory for any caster that want to use spell attack but game itself currently isn't telling you about it and that also means that it should be a rune rather than a magic item
I think Shadow Signet as Paizo solution to problem still have major flaws
1 It's not available for half of the game progression so before you get your ring you would have to rely on true strike
and sacrifice you action economy and spell slots for that
2 It still dodges problem rather then adress it by turning spell attack spells into save spells
3 That put Shadow signet on pair with martial property runes as someting that is mandatory for any caster that want to use spell attack but game itself currently isn't telling you about it and that also means that it should be a rune rather than a magic item
Point 1 is moot as it's not really useful before level 10 anyway.
Point 2 is wrong: Spell attack rolls stay spell attack rolls. They just now can target saves.I fail to see the issue with point 3.
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Shadow Signet was the "intended" solution it wouldn't:
1) Be a 10th level item, it would be a 1st level item, or an inherent feature of spell attack spells
2) Been released 2 years after the game came out.
Spell Attack Rolls are a black spot in the systems design and Shadow Signet was a band-aid for that problem. It is not the method of correcting the issue many of us would have chosen, but so far its the best one we got.
Paizo "over corrected" on spellcasting in certain situations and this was one of them. Their motivations and rationale for doing so are pretty obvious, but it some cases they missed the mark on intersection of balance & effectiveness.
I think the issue might that you are considering it a possible solition because you think the spell attack is flawed ( and that spell attacks should have the same progression as martial strikes ).
In addition to this, while it's right that the signet will be available by lvl 10, it's also true that's not necessarily a "must have" for spellcasters ( they might prefer to invest in some other item, or they just prefer saves spells ).
Finally, consider that from lvl 1 to lthe moment you'll hit lvl 10, you'll just be +1 behind compared to a martial ( +2 potency rune kicks in the moment you get the signet ), but you'll also have the chance to target enemy saves in addition to their armor.
Making a comparison between the two roles, casters are in a better spot.
That problem is not that caster spell attack is behind martial attacks progression because it's completely different subject. Problem is that spell attack is generally worse than save save spell
I think Shadow Signet as Paizo solution to problem still have major flaws
1 It's not available for half of the game progression so before you get your ring you would have to rely on true strike
and sacrifice you action economy and spell slots for that
2 It still dodges problem rather then adress it by turning spell attack spells into save spells
3 That put Shadow signet on pair with martial property runes as someting that is mandatory for any caster that want to use spell attack but game itself currently isn't telling you about it and that also means that it should be a rune rather than a magic item
Point 1 is moot as it's not really useful before level 10 anyway.
Point 2 is wrong: Spell attack rolls stay spell attack rolls. They just now can target saves.
I fail to see the issue with point 3.
1.Yes that is exactly the point shadow signet do not help caster spell attack until they reach level ten so they have to rely on true strike or ignore those spell completely
2.Well that is the thing shadow siget just completely changed the approach to spell attack and now caster also have to play find weakest save game with them like it's not necessarily bad but still not address problem with targeting AC3 Well i suppose the only problem here is that devs need to tell GM that as shadow siget as much important for caster spell attack proggression as much as property runes important for matrial attack progression
Honestly, I don't think Spell Attack is a problem. It's not like you're obligated to use attack spells after all.
But I agree that Spell Attack started with a problem. The fact that it is all or nothing and increases the player's MAP and that its power level ended up being very close power level to the saving spells of the same level end up making it a 2nd category damage spell if we only consider the CRB.
But after the launch of Eldritch Archer in the APG and mainly after SoM added the Magus and the Shadow Signet it became in fact an alternative mechanic to the saving spells, much for hybrid classes like the Magus and the EA or as a way to launch some attack spells using Fortitude or Reflexes using the Shadow Signet, which more than covers the rune issue, for me, benefits prepared spellcasters who happen to have prepared few spells that affect different saves.
That's why I don't agree with the OP's premise. Spell Attacks are now an alternative to saves for some classes and builds, and no longer a 2nd category spell that needs to be fixed.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't think Spell Attack is a problem. It's not like you're obligated to use attack spells after all.
But I agree that Spell Attack started with a problem. The fact that it is all or nothing and increases the player's MAP and that its power level ended up being very close power level to the saving spells of the same level end up making it a 2nd category damage spell if we only consider the CRB.
But after the launch of Eldritch Archer in the APG and mainly after SoM added the Magus and the Shadow Signet it became in fact an alternative mechanic to the saving spells, much for hybrid classes like the Magus and the EA or as a way to launch some attack spells using Fortitude or Reflexes using the Shadow Signet, which more than covers the rune issue, for me, benefits prepared spellcasters who happen to have prepared few spells that affect different saves.
That's why I don't agree with the OP's premise. Spell Attacks are now an alternative to saves for some classes and builds, and no longer a 2nd category spell that needs to be fixed.
No, they still need to be fixed. Just because you can bypass the issue in select circumstances doesn't mean its fine. These are things which highlight the problem not solve it.
Ultimately what you are saying here is that Spell Attacks are fine as trap options for new players, as, when they learn the system better, they'll know to avoid them or circumvent their use.
Which is just bad.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, consider that from lvl 1 to lthe moment you'll hit lvl 10, you'll just be +1 behind compared to a martial ( +2 potency rune kicks in the moment you get the signet ), but you'll also have the chance to target enemy saves in addition to their armor.
This feels pretty disingenuous once you look at the actual levels and when proficiency improves.
+1 runes are available from 2nd.
Martial proficiency increases at 5th.
First spell proficiency increase is at 7th.
So between levels 1-10 casters oscillate between being 1 behind to 3 behind martials.
Honestly, I don't think Spell Attack is a problem. It's not like you're obligated to use attack spells after all.
But I agree that Spell Attack started with a problem. The fact that it is all or nothing and increases the player's MAP and that its power level ended up being very close power level to the saving spells of the same level end up making it a 2nd category damage spell if we only consider the CRB.
But after the launch of Eldritch Archer in the APG and mainly after SoM added the Magus and the Shadow Signet it became in fact an alternative mechanic to the saving spells, much for hybrid classes like the Magus and the EA or as a way to launch some attack spells using Fortitude or Reflexes using the Shadow Signet, which more than covers the rune issue, for me, benefits prepared spellcasters who happen to have prepared few spells that affect different saves.
That's why I don't agree with the OP's premise. Spell Attacks are now an alternative to saves for some classes and builds, and no longer a 2nd category spell that needs to be fixed.
No, they still need to be fixed. Just because you can bypass the issue in select circumstances doesn't mean its fine. These are things which highlight the problem not solve it.
Ultimately what you are saying here is that Spell Attacks are fine as trap options for new players, as, when they learn the system better, they'll know to avoid them or circumvent their use.
Which is just bad.
It will be!?
Is it such a trap that a novice player is not able to understand the differences and advantages/disadvantages of saving spells over attacking ones?
Honestly, I can't see a player looking at this and saying "Oh how awful, attack spells are worse than save spells! They are only effective in exception cases like SpellStrikes/Eldritch Shot and sometimes with Shadow Signet ! It ruined my character! It ruined my build! It ruined the game!" instead my experience is that they just look at me and say "Jeez! This Electric Arc/Scatter Scree is more interesting and useful than Produce Flame/Ray of Frost right? I'll stick with it!".
Sorry to be ironic and dramatic. But I just think you're worrying too much about something that isn't such a big issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't think Spell Attack is a problem. It's not like you're obligated to use attack spells after all.
But I agree that Spell Attack started with a problem. The fact that it is all or nothing and increases the player's MAP and that its power level ended up being very close power level to the saving spells of the same level end up making it a 2nd category damage spell if we only consider the CRB.
But after the launch of Eldritch Archer in the APG and mainly after SoM added the Magus and the Shadow Signet it became in fact an alternative mechanic to the saving spells, much for hybrid classes like the Magus and the EA or as a way to launch some attack spells using Fortitude or Reflexes using the Shadow Signet, which more than covers the rune issue, for me, benefits prepared spellcasters who happen to have prepared few spells that affect different saves.
That's why I don't agree with the OP's premise. Spell Attacks are now an alternative to saves for some classes and builds, and no longer a 2nd category spell that needs to be fixed.
It still remain a problem for full caster who have to rely on true strike thus sacrfice their spell slots and one action to keep up with save spells or should completely ignore those spell if their list don't have true strike until level ten when they can get shadow sidget.
That also make most spell attack cantrips worse than eletric arc as bonus
IMO EA case is more like about EA being a bit OP when compared to other cantrips than really a general attack spell problem (for exemple if we compare with Daze, in general Daze is just horrible and isn't an attack cantrip).
It's similar to composite bows situation where me and some other players just consider bows a little more OP than the rest of ranged weapons.
Some is more about some specific option being little more good or worse than avg alternatives than really an entire mechanic that's bad. For example IMO Scorching Ray is an excelente attack spell with a good range (60 fts covers 99% of scenarios) that can multi-target without risk of friend-fire or tactical positioning that most save spells have.
Yet if you still feels that attack spells are weaker and your are a GM of non-PFS game you can just increase the damage dice size of these spells or allow the casters to use handwraps to add item bonus to the attacks.
I don't spect that Paizo do some kind of complete overhaul into their spells so probably overtime we will receive some more stronger or interesting attack spells in the future than they try to "fix" all attack spells in general.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It still remain a problem for full caster who have to rely on true strike thus sacrfice their spell slots and one action to keep up with save spells or should completely ignore those spell if their list don't have true strike until level ten when they can get shadow sidget.
That also make most spell attack cantrips worse than eletric arc as bonus
That's a lot of disingenuous information.
Electric Arc is better than every other cantrip, including save based cantrips. So it has nothing to do with spell attack rolls.
Before level 10, the Shadow Signet doesn't increase your chances to hit against Moderate saves. It is just there to maintain spell attack roll spells at their previous chances to hit.
You don't rely on True Strike for Spell attack roll spells. But now, if you add True Strike, they are straight up amazing. My True Striked Searing Light has ended a few fights.
Searing Light, Imaginary Weapon, Scorching Ray, Amped Telekinetic Projectile, Elemental Toss, there are a bunch of absolutely excellent spell attack roll spells. And there are a much bigger amount of bad save based spells. Spell attack roll spells are just a minority, that's why you can completely ignore them and keep playing. If Paizo decides to release a much bigger amount of them, we should end up in a situation where they become a viable main strategy for a caster. But as long as you won't even have a nice spell attack roll spell per spell level, it's not close to happen.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It will be!?Is it such a trap that a novice player is not able to understand the differences and advantages/disadvantages of saving spells over attacking ones?
Honestly, I can't see a player looking at this and saying "Oh how awful, attack spells are worse than save spells! They are only effective in exception cases like SpellStrikes/Eldritch Shot and sometimes with Shadow Signet ! It ruined my character! It ruined my build! It ruined the game!" instead my experience is that they just look at me and say...
This is an awful take on what I said.
Spell attacks aren't presented as any different from other spells, it takes experience and a wider knowledge of the system before their downsides are apparent.
In the mean time, a player who doesn't know any different and is trying the system out, and is met with failure and ineffectiveness when they try to do things is going to be having less fun at the table and won't really be able to gage fully why this is.
Its not going to ruin someone's who character (though they may need to beg the GM to let them change out spells known), but it will impact their equal enjoy of the game.
This is why they are trap options.
From a new player perspective they don't look much different but will result in them feeling less impactful than other players through no fault of their own.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said exactly the same just in the post before the one you quoted
reson why the issue is not with the potency runes, but with the progression ( assuming there's not a granted save with -2/-3 on each enemy by that level ).What's more impactful is imo the proficiency progression.
On the one hand we have spellcasters ( 1-7-15-19 ) and on the other hand we have martial classes ( 1-5-13 ).I can see the enemy armor adjusted depends the martial classes, but this would indeed make it harder for spell attack rolls. I wonder whether each enemy had at least 1 saving throw -2/-3 compared to their own Armor Class.
If so, the spellcaster should have as the same odds as they were a martial.
But progression is much bigger issue to fix and would require errata to every book with a caster class in it.
Releasing Spell Potency runes at key levels is the much simpler solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It still remain a problem for full caster who have to rely on true strike thus sacrfice their spell slots and one action to keep up with save spells or should completely ignore those spell if their list don't have true strike until level ten when they can get shadow sidget.
That also make most spell attack cantrips worse than eletric arc as bonusThat's a lot of disingenuous information.
Electric Arc is better than every other cantrip, including save based cantrips. So it has nothing to do with spell attack rolls.
Before level 10, the Shadow Signet doesn't increase your chances to hit against Moderate saves. It is just there to maintain spell attack roll spells at their previous chances to hit.
You don't rely on True Strike for Spell attack roll spells. But now, if you add True Strike, they are straight up amazing. My True Striked Searing Light has ended a few fights.Searing Light, Imaginary Weapon, Scorching Ray, Amped Telekinetic Projectile, Elemental Toss, there are a bunch of absolutely excellent spell attack roll spells. And there are a much bigger amount of bad save based spells. Spell attack roll spells are just a minority, that's why you can completely ignore them and keep playing. If Paizo decides to release a much bigger amount of them, we should end up in a situation where they become a viable main strategy for a caster. But as long as you won't even have a nice spell attack roll spell per spell level, it's not close to happen.
Game overall have more save spell so yes in result it will have much more bad save spells than bad spell attack spells but spell attack nature is overall spell or suck so it overall should give you better result on sucess which for many spell are not case.
I aslo dont think that making new spells will be best solution because while it give us cool spells but it also lead to power creep where new content is cool and shiny and old are best to be avoid and ignore. I know that Paizo is limited in their abilities to make patches but i hope that there will at least some changes to old spells| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It still remain a problem for full caster who have to rely on true strike thus sacrfice their spell slots and one action to keep up with save spells or should completely ignore those spell if their list don't have true strike until level ten when they can get shadow sidget.
That also make most spell attack cantrips worse than eletric arc as bonusThat's a lot of disingenuous information.
Electric Arc is better than every other cantrip, including save based cantrips. So it has nothing to do with spell attack rolls.
Before level 10, the Shadow Signet doesn't increase your chances to hit against Moderate saves. It is just there to maintain spell attack roll spells at their previous chances to hit.
You don't rely on True Strike for Spell attack roll spells. But now, if you add True Strike, they are straight up amazing. My True Striked Searing Light has ended a few fights.Searing Light, Imaginary Weapon, Scorching Ray, Amped Telekinetic Projectile, Elemental Toss, there are a bunch of absolutely excellent spell attack roll spells. And there are a much bigger amount of bad save based spells. Spell attack roll spells are just a minority, that's why you can completely ignore them and keep playing. If Paizo decides to release a much bigger amount of them, we should end up in a situation where they become a viable main strategy for a caster. But as long as you won't even have a nice spell attack roll spell per spell level, it's not close to happen.
Game overall have more save spell so yes in result it will have much more bad save spells than bad spell attack spells but spell attack nature is overall hit or miss so it overall should give you better result on sucess which for many spell are not case.
I aslo dont think that making new spells will be best solution because while it give us cool spells but it also lead to power creep where new content is cool and shiny and old are best to be avoid and ignore. I know that Paizo is limited in their abilities to make patches but i hope that there will at least some changes to old spells|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also not thinking it's that big of a deal. Caster proficiency progression is 1/7/15/19. Typical martial proficiency progression is 1/5/13. You're behind the martials for levels 5, 6, 13, and 14, and ahead of them at 19 and 20. The other 14 levels of play, you have exactly the same lvl+attribute+proficiency vs. AC a typical martial does. That's not mirror-identical, but in my opinion I'd call those reasonable differences rather than declaring all attack roll spells "trap options".
I think you've made a mistake here. You are behind at literally every level except for 1st because of runes. There is zero point in analysing this without factoring in runes, because the game factors in runes for AC scaling.
Non-Fighter/Gunslinger Progression vs AC:
(Level + Proficiency + Ability mod + Item Bonus)
1st: +7
2nd: +9 (+1 Potency Rune)
3rd: +10
4th: +11
5th: +14 (Expert Prof)
6th: +15
7th: +16
8th: +17
9th: +18
10th: +21 (Stat increase, +2 Potency rune)
11th: +22
12th: +23
13th: +26 (Master Prof)
14th: +27
15th: +28
16th: +30 (+3 Potency rune)
17th: +32 (Apex Item)
18th: +33
19th: +34
20th: +36 (Stat Increase)
Spellcaster progression vs AC:
1st:+7
2nd:+8
3rd:+9
4th:+10
5th:+11
6th:+12
7th:+15 (Expert Prof)
8th:+16
9th:+17
10th:+19 (Stat increase)
11th:+20
12th:+21
13th:+22
14th:+23
15th:+26 (Master Prof)
16th:+27
17th:+29 (Apex item)
18th:+30
19th:+33 (Legendary Prof)
20th:+35 (Stat Increase)
Look at the trends here, we see can oscillating wave where casters are anywhere from 1 behind to 4 behind, depending on the level break (14th being the biggest gap)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is wrong with talking to newbie players about chargen? "Hi, I've GM'd PF2E before. Your wizard has the great advantage of being able to attack against a variety of different defenses - i.e. against AC, or against one of three different saves. So when you choose your spells, it'd be a good idea to pick some that target different things, so that you always have something that gets around the bad guy's main defensive strength. You picked all your damaging spells to target AC. That may not be the best option." As a GM for a newbie player, I would also allow them to recongifure their character after their first session or two, once they've been through a bunch of different scenes and understand a bit better how the system works. It's a collaborative game - collaborate. But that's just my GM style. YMMV. IMO it is not really a game design flaw needing fixing that a complete newbie doesn't play optimally. All games have that. If a newbie at Settlers of Catan doesn't understand why forest is important, you help them understand why forest is important. You don't change the game to let everything be used as forest so that they can't make a mistake.
The key, critical, difference you aren't getting here is that Spell Attacks don't play a strategic role at some point in the game. Its not like Catan at all, where early access to Ore can be a hinderance but flips to a boon at the later game. Spell attacks start bad and stay bad, and have no benefit or payoff for being bad.
Telling a player to avoid spell attacks is a fundamentally different scenario than advising someone on strategy or the finer points of design. I'm not telling my new player to get a good spread of options, and consider A, B or C because of our adventure path. What is generally being said here is to tell a player that a certain type of spell is be avoided.
That IS the flaw.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imo, spell attacks would be fixed if the interacted with the degrees of success system like save spells, where even failure still gives something; functionally turning them into yet another tool for weakness targetting.
Barring that, giving them power that punches above save spells to justify the risk of whiffing your main action of yoyr turn and making it into a high risk, high reward play. We see this in play with Imaginary Weapon already.
Personally, I think with the existance of magus, eldritch archer, etc; the former is better; since I think there's always going to be a want to "hit people with a weapon and a spell at the same time" mechanics no matter what and the latter has potential to break the game
I'm also not thinking it's that big of a deal. Caster proficiency progression is 1/7/15/19. Typical martial proficiency progression is 1/5/13. You're behind the martials for levels 5, 6, 13, and 14, and ahead of them at 19 and 20. The other 14 levels of play, you have exactly the same lvl+attribute+proficiency vs. AC a typical martial does. That's not mirror-identical, but in my opinion I'd call those reasonable differences rather than declaring all attack roll spells "trap options".I think you've made a mistake here. You are behind at literally every level except for 1st because of runes. There is zero point in analysing this without factoring in runes, because the game factors in runes for AC scaling.
Non-Fighter/Gunslinger Progression vs AC:
(Level + Proficiency + Ability mod + Item Bonus)1st: +7
2nd: +9 (+1 Potency Rune)
3rd: +10
4th: +11
5th: +14 (Expert Prof)
6th: +15
7th: +16
8th: +17
9th: +18
10th: +21 (Stat increase, +2 Potency rune)
11th: +22
12th: +23
13th: +26 (Master Prof)
14th: +27
15th: +28
16th: +30 (+3 Potency rune)
17th: +32 (Apex Item)
18th: +33
19th: +34
20th: +36 (Stat Increase)Spellcaster progression vs AC:
1st:+7
2nd:+8
3rd:+9
4th:+10
5th:+11
6th:+12
7th:+15 (Expert Prof)
8th:+16
9th:+17
10th:+19 (Stat increase)
11th:+20
12th:+21
13th:+22
14th:+23
15th:+26 (Master Prof)
16th:+27
17th:+29 (Apex item)
18th:+30
19th:+33 (Legendary Prof)
20th:+35 (Stat Increase)Look at the trends here, we see can oscillating wave where casters are anywhere from 1 behind to 4 behind, depending on the level break (14th being the biggest gap)
On the other hand, the damage of casters tends to be much higher over time.
I'll use a giant barbarian with a d12 weapon as an example:
LvL 1: 1d12 + 4 + 6 = 16.5
LvL 4: 2d12 + 4 + 6 = 23 (Striking)
LvL 7: 2d12 + 4 + 10 + 2 = 29 (Weapon Specialization)
LvL 8: 2d12 + 1d6 + 4 + 10 + 2 = 32.5 (Dmg property rune +1)
LvL 10: 2d12 + 2d6 + 5 + 10 + 2 = 37 (Dmg proterty rune +2 + 20 STR)
LvL 12: 3d12 + 2d6 + 5 + 10 + 2 = 43.5 (Greater Striking)
LvL 13: 3d12 + 2d6 + 5 + 10 + 3 = 44.5 (Master Weapon Specialization)
LvL 15: 3d12 + 2d6 + 5 + 18 + 6 = 55.5 (Greater Weapon Specialization)
LvL 16: 3d12 + 3d6 + 5 + 18 + 6 = 59 (Dmg proterty rune +3)
LvL 17: 3d12 + 3d6 + 6 + 18 + 6 = 60 (APEX - 23 STR)
LvL 18: 3d12 + 4d6 + 6 + 18 + 6 = 63.5 (Dmg proterty rune Orichalcum Weapon)
LvL 19: 4d12 + 4d6 + 6 + 18 + 6 = 70 (Major Striking)
LvL 20: 4d12 + 4d6 + 7 + 18 + 6 = 71 (24 STR)
Now let's use a Fire Phoenix Sorcerer with Dangerous Sorcery as a base:
LvL 1: 3d4+3 = 10.5 (Magic Missile)
LvL 3: 4d6 + 4 = 18 (Scorching Ray)
LvL 5: 6d6 + 6 = 27 (Fire Ball)
LvL 7: 8d6 + 8 = 36 (Fire Ball)
LvL 9: 10d6 + 10 = 45 (Fire Ball)
LvL 11: 12d6 + 12 = 54 (Fire Ball)
LvL 13: 14d6 + 3d6 + 1d6 + 10 = 70 (Volcanic Eruption + Fiery Body)
LvL 15: 16d6 + 4d6 + 1d6 + 12 = 81.5 (Volcanic Eruption + Fiery Body)
LvL 17: 6d10 + 14d6 + 1d6 + 18 = 103.5 (Meteor Swarm + Fiery Body)
Note that starting at level 13, the caster's 3 highest spell slots compete with or are stronger than the barbarian's damage. So even if the caster's hit progression ends up being lower, the effectiveness of the spells ends up making up for it.
As being alone in Spell Slot spells is not something very sustainable in some situations with little rest time, here is also a version using Elemental Blast + Burn It!:
LvL 10: 8d6 + 5 + 2 = 35
LvL 11: 10d6 + 6 + 3 = 44
LvL 13: 12d6 + 1d6 + 7 + 3 = 55.5 (EB + Fiery Body)
Lvl 15: 14d6 + 1d6 + 8 + 4 = 64.5 (EB + Fiery Body)
LvL 17: 16d6 + 1d6 + 9 + 4 = 72.5 (EB + Fiery Body)
LvL 19: 18d6 + 1d6 + 10 + 5 = 81.5 (EB + Fiery Body)
Note that even the focus spell surpasses the barbarian's damage already at level 11. So the same logic applies here, in addition to the focus spell, especially at late levels (starting from 12, but especially from 18 when you recover 3 focus points with refocus) allows you to maintain damage equal to or greater than that of a barbarian sustainably even on a day with many battles.
That's why it's difficult to make a comparison of martial efficiency vs caster only with the chance of success.
Returning to the topic, on the question of attack magic, here I give an interesting example with the Fiery Body, which takes the Produce Flame cantrip, reduces it to an action and adds an extra die of damage, this allows a blaster to use this cantrip to complete saving actions from a saving spell for example. That's why I argued that in the end the way the designers put the attack spells in the game is much more to be used in an auxiliary way than really competing with the saving spells. That's why my defense that considering attack spells worse than saving spells is a hasty idea, that these spells in practice end up having a much more niche, complex, and in my opinion, even interesting use.
Game overall have more save spell so yes in result it will have much more bad save spells than bad spell attack spells but spell attack nature is overall spell or suck so it overall should give you better result on sucess which for many spell are not case.
You have 2 more chances to land a spell attack roll than an enemy to fail their save (active rolls have more chance to succeed than passive rolls). And that's without counting all the varying bonuses to hit, that are quite easy to get, and penalties to AC, that are common at least in the form of Flat Footed.
So spell attack roll spells don't need better effects than save based spells to be competitive.
As for the comparison against martials... I'm not sure it's useful. Comparing spell attack roll spells to save based spells has a sense as both are cast by the same characters. But comparing them to a martial attack, which are very often at -5 due to MAP, is not necessarily a proper comparison.
I agree with super bidi. The longer you see casters in play, the more you realize that casters who refuse to memorize any spell attack roll spells are hurting themselves as effective blasters. Which can be fine, not everyone needs to blast, but you get a natural +1 to active die rolls over butting it on the enemies saves, and a good chunk of later enemies get a bonus to saving throws vs magic. Flat-footed is a circumstance penalty so it stacks with debuffing and it is very often the case that, in fights against more powerful opponents, you have a better chance of doing something encounter changing with a spell attack roll spell than a save spell.
Even without true strike, hero points make big boosts to spell attack roll accuracy something to be cautious about.
The reason the “feel” is so off, is because most of the in play comparisons here are happening with cantrips at low levels and especially comparing any any cantrip to electric arc is difficult. Electric arc dominates cantrip DPR because of 2 targets.
The issue is players getting hyper focused on either all spell attack roll spells or no spell attack roll spells, which is a false limitation to put on the dilemma. 2 or 3 spell attack roll spells form spell slots an adventuring day is probably fine with just saving a hero point. More probably means wanting one or two true strikes.
The ring is nice if you’re a caster planning on doing a lot of knowledge recalling and blasting, but is otherwise a possible option for many casters. It is only the magus that really got forced into the “use a lot of spell attack roll spells” and they are more than adequately compensated for it.
I went ahead and did a math example for just how easy it is to swing the average damage on a spell attack roll spell by comparing a 5th level caster casting a 3rd level Magic missile, Sudden Bolt and Shocking Grasp vs a 7th level monster.
This is an incredibly difficult level jump in game and a place where TPKs are not uncommon. Conventional wisdom often says sudden bolt is the best scaling single target damage spell and it is a save spell, and has an extra 1d12 damage over a third level shocking grasp.
I did my math on paper in front of me but here are my basic numbers in a spoiler. Feel free to double check if you doubt an English Professor doing math.
Base damage averages for the spell with no targets:
Sudden Bolt 3rd level
5d12 = 32.5 average damage.
Shocking grasp (spell attack roll) 3rd level
4d12 = 26 average points of damage.
Magic Missile 3rd level
6d4+6 = 21 average points.
Vs level 7 creature with 145hp, AC 25 and +15 save.
Level 5 caster with +11 to spell attack, DC 21
Monster needs to roll a 1 to crit fail, 6 to save, 16 to crit save
Caster needs to roll a 14 to hit, 20 to crit
No mods:
Magic Missile: 21 average damage.
Sudden Bolt: 17.975 average damage.
Shocking Grasp: 10.4 average damage.
But here is how easily Shocking grasp mods:
+Hero Point: 17.16 average damage.
Flat Footed: 13 average damage.
FF+Hero Point: 20.8 damage.
FF+1 status bonus to attack: 14.3 average damage
FF+1SB+Hero point: 22.165 average damage.
With just spending a hero point on a miss, Shocking grasp very nearly catches up to sudden bolt. With Flat-footed and the Hero Point it passes Sudden Bolt and almost catches magic missile. With a single +1 status or circumstance bonus to attack (something sudden bolt cannot benefit from) a third level shocking grasp passes magic missile as the best damage option against this target.
I didn't do all the math for adding in status debuffs to saves and AC because that complicates all the math for Sudden Bolt and Shocking Grasp, but at a +1 status bonus and flat-footed, AC is only 2 points away from getting the very big shift into a 10% chance at critting, while you would need to debuff 6 points to get there with saves.
When you are not fighting higher level enemies than yourself, saving throw spells can be very powerful, especially with how many of them target multiple targets. But the common "meta" on spell attack roll spells being terrible, or being terrible unless you have a boat load of true strikes is pretty off.
In a boss fight, a save spell probably has about a 75% chance of being worse than just casting an equal level magic missile, and there is very little you can do to make that even close to 50/50. If you can target a flat-footed enemy and you have a hero point left, you are probably better off using a Spell attack roll spell than a save spell, and in most circumstances (level 5 attacking level 7 is one of the worst case caster comparisons), better off than casting a top slot magic missile with 3 actions...especially because this is a boss fight and if you can, you can cast a level 3 shocking grasp with you hero point, and then still cast a 1 action level 3 magic missile.