Just want to jump in to highlight that metamagic can't be used with psychic amps. Any hotfix item should be aware of that, unlike Shadow Signet.
Maybe even if that's a Special entry on the item.
Ooh, good point. I'll have to look into that. I've never had the pleasure of playing or GMing for a Psychic so it wasn't top of mind. I'll have to look into how to rebalance the rune for that - off hand I'm thinking that you can activate an Amp and the Rune as part of the same Metamagic activity, but I'd need to do some testing and look at rules interactions. The Metamagic trait was more intended to prevent combination with the Shadow Signet as that would change the power level substantially, IMHO.
Yes. Fundamental Runes, as currrently implemented, don't affect spellcasting. If we (if Paizo) add a rune type that affects spellcasting, it would imo be a good idea not to call it a potency rune.
Agreed. I went with "Spell Attack" but honestly it's just a placeholder until I nail down the mechanics I want to use. Do you have any thoughts on what such a rune should be called? I'm partial to "Spellworking" but that might be overly clunky.
Why though?
Why not just design spell damage and accuracy from the beginning to be at the level you would want them to be?
I mean the thing about weapon runes is they only apply to one weapon. “Here is an item that works on all spells” might as well just be built into the spells to begin with. What interesting choice would this enable?
If a version of runes are designed to benefit spell casting they would not need to exactly follow what there is for weapons.
I had erased my initial post but my basic suggestion was to use Firelion’s idea for wands but make it very specific.A wand that has shocking grasp can have an upgrade that allows a +1 to spell attack for shocking grasp while holding the wand in one of your hands and casting the spell with a spell slot.
But i felt this thread had good arguments for the current balance between spells that target spell attack and ones that target saves. So a wand with a spell that targets saves would get the +1 to save DCs.
This might just be specific enough to be similar to a weapon potency rune. But i dont know that a version of striking is needed based on the information so far in this thread.
Do you have any thoughts on what such a rune should be called? I'm partial to "Spellworking" but that might be overly clunky.
That's a tough one. Perhaps "Casting" or "Spell Attack".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why though?
Why not just design spell damage and accuracy from the beginning to be at the level you would want them to be?
I mean the thing about weapon runes is they only apply to one weapon. “Here is an item that works on all spells” might as well just be built into the spells to begin with. What interesting choice would this enable?
Item solution is good after the spells have been done to avoid doing a 1k+ spell errata. If you are building the spell system from scratch then yeah its a lot easier to just have it built in to the spell system.
Weapon runes apply to only 1 weapon, unless you are using any of the "add X rune pulled out of this bag" items. Still affects all attacks with that weapon.
Spells are single use and so yeah it affect a bigger variety, but then its only a handful of attacks instead of all attacks.
If the developers wanted to rebalance spells, isn’t the remaster the time they would have done it? I mean they are doing it with cantrips and have to change every spell in the book a little already anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it only affects a spell attack roll then it does not matter what the Shadow Signet does.
It definitely should not be metamagic as that blacks a lot of stuff and is part of why Shadow Signet isn't as good as people make it out to be.
With respect, unless I'm mistaken, you're mistaken. Shadow Signet reads:
If your next action is to Cast a Spell that requires a spell attack roll against Armor Class, choose Fortitude DC or Reflex DC. You make your spell attack roll against that defense instead of AC. If the spell has multiple targets, the choice of DC applies to all of them.
Meaning, by my reading, that if you could stack the two, you could first apply my custom Spell Attack rune, then apply the Shadow Signet to target the lower of the DC's. This would pretty easily turn into a much more flexible (and therefore powerful) boost than I was intending, which was why I applied the metamagic tag to the action in the first place.
I'm open to correction on my reading though, if you can point me to a source?
If it only affects a spell attack roll then it does not matter what the Shadow Signet does.
It definitely should not be metamagic as that blacks a lot of stuff and is part of why Shadow Signet isn't as good as people make it out to be.
With respect, unless I'm mistaken, you're mistaken. Shadow Signet reads:
If your next action is to Cast a Spell that requires a spell attack roll against Armor Class, choose Fortitude DC or Reflex DC. You make your spell attack roll against that defense instead of AC. If the spell has multiple targets, the choice of DC applies to all of them.Meaning, by my reading, that if you could stack the two, you could first apply my custom Spell Attack rune, then apply the Shadow Signet to target the lower of the DC's. This would pretty easily turn into a much more flexible (and therefore powerful) boost than I was intending, which was why I applied the metamagic tag to the action in the first place.
I'm open to correction on my reading though, if you can point me to a source?
Fix the quote. Also I'll admit that when I wrote that comment I forgot you rolled not the enemy, that ring is confusing and I don't use it on principle (dislike the theme and way it was done).
The way you solve the stack is making it a bonus vs AC. That allows you to not apply it when targeting saves.
Fair play on your solution, though I'll have to work on the wording. What on which quote did you want me to fix? Still new here and don't know the etiquette.
|
Why though?
Why not just design spell damage and accuracy from the beginning to be at the level you would want them to be?
I mean the thing about weapon runes is they only apply to one weapon. “Here is an item that works on all spells” might as well just be built into the spells to begin with. What interesting choice would this enable?
Item solution is good after the spells have been done to avoid doing a 1k+ spell errata. If you are building the spell system from scratch then yeah its a lot easier to just have it built in to the spell system.
Weapon runes apply to only 1 weapon, unless you are using any of the "add X rune pulled out of this bag" items. Still affects all attacks with that weapon.
Spells are single use and so yeah it affect a bigger variety, but then its only a handful of attacks instead of all attacks.
Cantrips and Focus spells are definitely not Single use. Any thing impacting spells must include these too unless it specifically impacts "spells cast from your slots" only.
Imho the main problem with spell attack vs AC is that the caster's proficiency does not line up with when the enemies get their AC increases.
This creates the silly situation that your spell attack accuracy varies way too much. Against same level enemies with average AC it goes from 60% at lvl 1 to 45% at lvl 6. At lvl 7 you go back up to 55% to slide down to 40% at lvl 14. It is wildly inconsistent.
Another potential solution is to separate spell attack proficiency and spell DC. Matching spell attack proficiency increases to the standard martial model will fix this to a great extent. Add spell potency runes and reserve legendary spell attack proficiency for a select few classes/subclasses focusing on it.
Splitting the proficiency progression in this manner is problematic in that it requires players to track two proficiency values for the same entity. The only other class that does this is Fighter, but at least proficiency values between weapons is easier to track/manage by comparison.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2e is otherwise pretty tuned up mathematically but with spell attacks they dropped the ball.It's unclear to me whether they dropped the ball vs were aware but thought it was not a big issue.
I say that because Kineticist has a similar unevenness, ranging from +1 to -2 against moderate AC depending on level. Given that they just designed it after much playtesting, that that unevenness includes "with item bonus", and they were fully aware of these complaints relating to caster and attack spells when this all happened, it's difficult to see the unevenness as an oversight. Maybe not designed, but at least not a high priority.
Then again, the system makes it difficult to create a constant match. Opponent AC progresses +2, +1, +2, +1, etc. Attack proficiencies are gained at different levels for casters and martials, and bonuses to attributes are at +5 levels but cost double after +5. All of that combined is not going to work out to match perfectly.
I think we can take the release of the shadow signet as an indication it was not intentional though - or if it was intentional, they realized later that they had ganked it a little too much.
The Kineticist is basically slightly behind martial progression, but makes up for it with vastly uncommon utility, and overshadows them in class DCs.
But saying Shadow Signet should be an excuse for spell attack rolls to be bad further demonstrates that these should have simply been saving throw effects from the beginning, instead of making a purposefully bad option that requires 10 levels and a specific magic item to "fix."
I am fine with spells never making attack rolls, honestly. Turn them all into save-based effects, and if spellcasters want attack rolls, pick up a weapon or start punching/kicking. If that is what it takes to remove the bad option that is spell attacks from the game, do it.
|
|
PF2e is otherwise pretty tuned up mathematically but with spell attacks they dropped the ball.It's unclear to me whether they dropped the ball vs were aware but thought it was not a big issue.
I say that because Kineticist has a similar unevenness, ranging from +1 to -2 against moderate AC depending on level. Given that they just designed it after much playtesting, that that unevenness includes "with item bonus", and they were fully aware of these complaints relating to caster and attack spells when this all happened, it's difficult to see the unevenness as an oversight. Maybe not designed, but at least not a high priority.
Then again, the system makes it difficult to create a constant match. Opponent AC progresses +2, +1, +2, +1, etc. Attack proficiencies are gained at different levels for casters and martials, and bonuses to attributes are at +5 levels but cost double after +5. All of that combined is not going to work out to match perfectly.
I think we can take the release of the shadow signet as an indication it was not intentional though - or if it was intentional, they realized later that they had ganked it a little too much.
The Kineticist is basically slightly behind martial progression, but makes up for it with vastly uncommon utility, and overshadows them in class DCs.
But saying Shadow Signet should be an excuse for spell attack rolls to be bad further demonstrates that these should have simply been saving throw effects from the beginning, instead of making a purposefully bad option that requires 10 levels and a specific magic item to "fix."
I am fine with spells never making attack rolls, honestly. Turn them all into save-based effects, and if spellcasters want attack rolls, pick up a weapon or start punching/kicking. If that is what it takes to remove the bad option that is spell attacks from the game, do it.
I was having similar thoughts, that spell attacks were maybe just kept because of old habits of the target customers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of thoughts:
1. Accuracy vs defense progression is not meant to be smooth and 100% predictable. Especially not generically so. It is something dynamic and changing in every encounter. Some times different level differences will have imbalances that favor one defense or another, or be more favorable to the player or the enemy. It doesn’t matter what defense generic monster has, it matters what defenses this monster I am facing in this encounter has and what kind of challenge that should be.
Ideally this would factor in to adventure design…and lo and behold it does…pretty well. Do you tend to face early boss fight at level 2 or level 4? That last fight should be a tough one and the you start the next book with some serious new powers and spells. There is variance and adventure modules can deviate but this was a system designed to most easily accommodate APs.
2. Very predictable spells exist. You will almost always hit and do damage with magic missile. We know where the ceiling and the floor is for automatic damage in this game. We don’t need more than one automatic spell damage option.
3. It was a deliberate and intentional decision to eradicate spell focus and specialization. It won’t come back in any form that isn’t as restricted as the Kineticist. Any desire to add it for general casters is the domain of homebrew, and it would be bad for the game if it came back as archetypes. Because…
4. Spells should be at the ceiling of their niche through situational and tactical manipulation, not strategic build changes. This is the great strength of PF2 spell casting over PF1. Extensive playtesting lead to this decision and abandoning it mid stream would mechanically undermine the whole game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2e is otherwise pretty tuned up mathematically but with spell attacks they dropped the ball.It's unclear to me whether they dropped the ball vs were aware but thought it was not a big issue.
I say that because Kineticist has a similar unevenness, ranging from +1 to -2 against moderate AC depending on level. Given that they just designed it after much playtesting, that that unevenness includes "with item bonus", and they were fully aware of these complaints relating to caster and attack spells when this all happened, it's difficult to see the unevenness as an oversight. Maybe not designed, but at least not a high priority.
Then again, the system makes it difficult to create a constant match. Opponent AC progresses +2, +1, +2, +1, etc. Attack proficiencies are gained at different levels for casters and martials, and bonuses to attributes are at +5 levels but cost double after +5. All of that combined is not going to work out to match perfectly.
I think we can take the release of the shadow signet as an indication it was not intentional though - or if it was intentional, they realized later that they had ganked it a little too much.
The Kineticist is basically slightly behind martial progression, but makes up for it with vastly uncommon utility, and overshadows them in class DCs.
But saying Shadow Signet should be an excuse for spell attack rolls to be bad further demonstrates that these should have simply been saving throw effects from the beginning, instead of making a purposefully bad option that requires 10 levels and a specific magic item to "fix."
I am fine with spells never making attack rolls, honestly. Turn them all into save-based effects, and if spellcasters want attack rolls, pick up a weapon or start punching/kicking. If that is what it takes to remove the bad option that is spell attacks from the game, do it.
PROVIDED Recall Knowledge is actually fixed RAW, I'd actually be down for this. It's easier than balancing homebrew directly against martials.
PF2e is otherwise pretty tuned up mathematically but with spell attacks they dropped the ball.It's unclear to me whether they dropped the ball vs were aware but thought it was not a big issue.
I say that because Kineticist has a similar unevenness, ranging from +1 to -2 against moderate AC depending on level. Given that they just designed it after much playtesting, that that unevenness includes "with item bonus", and they were fully aware of these complaints relating to caster and attack spells when this all happened, it's difficult to see the unevenness as an oversight. Maybe not designed, but at least not a high priority.
Then again, the system makes it difficult to create a constant match. Opponent AC progresses +2, +1, +2, +1, etc. Attack proficiencies are gained at different levels for casters and martials, and bonuses to attributes are at +5 levels but cost double after +5. All of that combined is not going to work out to match perfectly.
I think we can take the release of the shadow signet as an indication it was not intentional though - or if it was intentional, they realized later that they had ganked it a little too much.
We know for a fact that weapon proficiencies match AC and spell proficiencies match saves. The difference in when you get what is based on this. Spell attacks falling behind is NBD as spells by and large don't target AC, the best spells don't target AC and the only spell that uses attack rolls and hit multiple enemies I can think of is scorching ray. Shadow signet exists to shore up a design limitations would be my best guess, but frankly it's unimportant if you ask me. Attack roll spells aren't worth using past low level when cantrips are good. Practically none of the attack roll spells are worth the slots even if they had incredible accuracy
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me at least the solution is simple just give the players a spell attack rune. If it breaks the game (it wont) then I just remove it. I don't need Paizo's "permission" to make magic items. The +1 to +3 to spell attack will not change the casters role overall. Sure some might try a full blaster caster but who cares. Someone else has to play the support instead. They will hit a tiny bit more often crit a tiny bit more often and decreases the risk of feeling like a total waste (miss and burn the slot).
I don't understand the design of making caster having to fill a specific role (controller/support). Just make a archetype where they have fewer option (like less spellslot or other spell restrictions) but harder hitting spells. Playing RPGs is about fulfilling fantasies. The blaster caster is a common trope, why not support it.
But I'm guessing this is a problem if you play with players/dm who treat the rules as gospel or in a game were homebrewing is not possible for some other reason.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me at least the solution is simple just give the players a spell attack rune. If it breaks the game (it wont) then I just remove it. I don't need Paizo's "permission" to make magic items. The +1 to +3 to spell attack will not change the casters role overall. Sure some might try a full blaster caster but who cares. Someone else has to play the support instead. They will hit a tiny bit more often crit a tiny bit more often and decreases the risk of feeling like a total waste (miss and burn the slot).
I don't understand the design of making caster having to fill a specific role (controller/support). Just make a archetype where they have fewer option (like less spellslot or other spell restrictions) but harder hitting spells. Playing RPGs is about fulfilling fantasies. The blaster caster is a common trope, why not support it.
But I'm guessing this is a problem if you play with players/dm who treat the rules as gospel or in a game were homebrewing is not possible for some other reason.
Here's hoping you give martials similar tools that allow them to easily poach casters' specialties such as save spells that deal damage, conditions, affect several targets ...
Aren't spell attack rolls largely disconnected from being a blaster caster anyway? There's tons of ways to blast well, they just usually involve primarily using save spells.
Some attack roll spells only scale like AoE save spells, which is kind of a problem. 2d6 is rough for the risk. But some double scale under the right circumstances, like searing light, which is 4d6 heightening. Disintegrate gets to use d10s instead of d6s, but has to deal with hitting and fortitude. Acid Arrow is good, but has heighten +2.
It feels to me like the AC targeting spells should maybe be postponed to the late game, where they should be less accurate but rewarded with higher damage. At a level where the consequences of targeting AC and missing are clear, and people aren't overly enticed by bigger dice pools.
Another aspect is that caster damage goes up by ~7 every two levels for many focus spells and slots. Could be why caster accuracy is delayed until the same levels martials get small damage boosts from weapon specialization.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At both high level and low level, there are times where AC is the debuffed defense that makes more sense to target than any other for any player. Casters don't need to be on the same level as martials at targeting AC for AC to sometimes be a better defense to target, especially when they have resources like hero points and true strike to make their high impact spells have a high impact. That is the point of Casters having some spell attack roll spells but not enough to make it any character's main thing, which is also why adding expensive items to the game for casters to use to with an incredibly limited selection of spells a bad idea.
If there is a powerful enemy with about 20% of their health left, going right after my caster, and my best saving throw spell is only going to knock off about 15% of the health on a success, and the creature has a 60+ percent chance of succeeding that save, but I have a spell attack roll spell that has 60%+ chance of landing (especially if the target has been knocked prone, or otherwise had their AC debuffed), and a hit from this spell is almost certain to do 20% or more of the creature's total health, then the Spell attack roll spell is the better play. This is "superduper" the case if this is an intense, late round boss fight where the party is in dire straights. If I am sitting on a hero point at this junction as a "just in case" I get knocked out...but the whole party is facing getting knocked out if the creature goes again...then I am much better off using my hero point to land my spell attack roll spell and end this combat.
If I miss with my spell attack roll spell or do partial damage with a success, then the creature is going to go again and either run off (possibly getting reinforcements), or go all in on doing their worst to the party, which could be a TPK. These are the situations that I see in play often enough that I don't really understand why any full caster doesn't want at least one decently damaging spell attack roll "gambler" spell that they can use to potentially finish off a difficult foe when the time is right. Is it a situation you really need to be prepared for more than once a day? probably not, but not being prepared for it and throwing out a save spell against a creature with really strong saves or a bonus to save against spells is the worse tactical option.
Every round spell casters face a new tactical situation that they have to evaluate and decide how much of their resources to allocate to "solving" this situation as effectively as possible. There will always be more than 1 possible solution to these problems, but it isn't just about what spell to cast in the first round of combat. Sometimes a round passes where the whole party can't roll higher than a 5 and the boss monster rolls 2 natural 20s on their second and third attack. In those situations, often the best spell a caster can cast is something that helps the whole party escape, if they have anything like that. Other times, the barbarian is rolling rocks and crits the boss 2 times in the first round, doing 60-75 percent of the creature's health just in their one turn. This tough encounter just became easy right? Sometimes, but this can be an equally dangerous situation to the first if the 2 crits were the result of luck and then the casters pull their punches on turn one, assuming the creature is done, only for the creature to turn out to have a powerful AoE emanation attack or control option and suddenly the martials are out of the combat after the creature's turn. I have seen both of these situations result in character death and one very nearly result in a TPK (one character managed to escape after being KO'd but still mounted on their animal companion, 1 died and 2 were captured and later rescued).
What I have found interesting is that it is usually players with no PF1 experience that tend to have a diverse enough array of spells available to them to actually have a spell that can save the day in a SNAFU situation, where many "experienced" players have written off spells that could have saved the day in these situations. I have seen Hydraulic push save the day because of both its high damage and push factor, I have seen Shocking Grasp obliterate a power enemy on a lucky crit after everyone in the party was like "don't cast that spell! That creature could have a Attack of Opportunity and if you don't kill it, your character is dead." I have seen aqueous orb used in conjunction with difficult terrain to waste way more actions than slow, I have seen gust of wind shut a hall way down and cause a reinforcement encounter to split into 2 trivial encounters as the low intelligence enemy had no idea how long the wind would keep blowing and couldn't move forward without critically succeeding on their saves, I have seen acid arrow create nasty dilemmas for injured intelligent enemies that have caused them to surrender for the promise of saving them from a slow burning death.
What makes spell casting really fun in PF2 is how dynamic and usable all your spells really are. You don't have to (and cant) specialize in one specific set of spells enough that your other spells are not completely functional when you need them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe the answer is to let the casters play a Kineticist, complete with gate attenuators.
Actually, this is likely what I would also tell a martial's player if they want to poach casters' utility and save-targetting abilities : play a Kineticist.
The refusal to play the kineticist by the people who want other casters to be the kineticist, and who would like the kineticist the most, is probably the single most annoying thing about these caster and wizard threads. The solution to these people's problems is right in front of them and they don't want it for reasons like "it's not actually a caster" (false) and "it doesn't have spells" (entirely cosmetic)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The refusal to play the kineticist by the people who want other casters to be the kineticist, and who would like the kineticist the most, is probably the single most annoying thing about these caster and wizard threads.
It feels kind of weird to call people having preferences that don't align with yours annoying.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like yeah disintegrate does on average 14 more points of damage compared to chain lightning, but it also misses 40% of the time while chain lightning doesn't.
I am not sure if people just don't read my posts because they are too long, or if they just ignore my comments, but this statement is, at most situationally true. For any caster, comparing their own spell attack roll spells vs saving throw spells against different actual monsters in different situations, there are times where your expected DPR with your best spell attack roll spell is higher than your expected DPR with your best saving throw spells.
You don't have to make any comparisons to other classes or anything. You just have to look at whether you have your opponent flat-footed, whether you are getting bonuses to your attacks, whether you have an available hero point, and whether they have strong defenses against the spells you would want to cast.
There are a non-trivial amount of situations where you will have an easier time doing a significant amount of damage to your enemy by casting an attack roll spell than a saving throw targeting spell. It is not probably even over 50% of the time, but it doesn't need to be, because no caster should have 50% of their spells limited to spell attack roll spells.
The refusal to play the kineticist by the people who want other casters to be the kineticist, and who would like the kineticist the most, is probably the single most annoying thing about these caster and wizard threads. The solution to these people's problems is right in front of them and they don't want it for reasons like "it's not actually a caster" (false) and "it doesn't have spells" (entirely cosmetic)
Sure everyone should at least consider it, but it can't work for everyone. Not everyone can easily mentally apply the trappings of one class over another, or navigate moments during play where your actual class can't do something that is expected of the class you're pretending to be. Plus some things simply aren't transferable, for instance someone for whom staves are important won't find their fix in a kineticist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The refusal to play the kineticist by the people who want other casters to be the kineticist, and who would like the kineticist the most, is probably the single most annoying thing about these caster and wizard threads. The solution to these people's problems is right in front of them and they don't want it for reasons like "it's not actually a caster" (false) and "it doesn't have spells" (entirely cosmetic)Sure everyone should at least consider it, but it can't work for everyone. Not everyone can easily mentally apply the trappings of one class over another, or navigate moments during play where your actual class can't do something that is expected of the class you're pretending to be. Plus some things simply aren't transferable, for instance someone for whom staves are important won't find their fix in a kineticist.
Kinetic activation is a level 2 feat that enables a Kineticist to prepare a staff or use a scroll.
Kinetic activation is a level 2 feat that enables a Kineticist to prepare a staff or use a scroll.
Ah, I knew about the scrolls but completely forgot it let you use a staff too, thanks for the correction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kinetic activation is a level 2 feat that enables a Kineticist to prepare a staff or use a scroll.The refusal to play the kineticist by the people who want other casters to be the kineticist, and who would like the kineticist the most, is probably the single most annoying thing about these caster and wizard threads. The solution to these people's problems is right in front of them and they don't want it for reasons like "it's not actually a caster" (false) and "it doesn't have spells" (entirely cosmetic)Sure everyone should at least consider it, but it can't work for everyone. Not everyone can easily mentally apply the trappings of one class over another, or navigate moments during play where your actual class can't do something that is expected of the class you're pretending to be. Plus some things simply aren't transferable, for instance someone for whom staves are important won't find their fix in a kineticist.
Which when you combine with a personal staff can give you a nice range of spells and really give the Kineticist a caster type flavour.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kinetic activation is a level 2 feat that enables a Kineticist to prepare a staff or use a scroll.Ah, I knew about the scrolls but completely forgot it let you use a staff too, thanks for the correction.
Or a wand, if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think its more that people want to a reason to use spell attacks over save spells and currently there isn't a whole lot of reason to. Like yeah disintegrate does on average 14 more points of damage compared to chain lightning, but it also misses 40% of the time while chain lightning doesn't.The refusal to play the kineticist by the people who want other casters to be the kineticist, and who would like the kineticist the most, is probably the single most annoying thing about these caster and wizard threads. The solution to these people's problems is right in front of them and they don't want it for reasons like "it's not actually a caster" (false) and "it doesn't have spells" (entirely cosmetic)Or maybe the answer is to let the casters play a Kineticist, complete with gate attenuators.
Actually, this is likely what I would also tell a martial's player if they want to poach casters' utility and save-targetting abilities : play a Kineticist.
I saw people complaining on these boards that they could not use a Hero Point to improve their chance of the enemy failing their save, whereas they can with spell attacks.
So, Fortune effects can be applied to spell attacks and not to save spells. That can be a huge advantage.
Really, Unicore's long post is extremely interesting and pretty clear about the value of spell attacks : a tool in your toolbox.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The refusal to play the kineticist by the people who want other casters to be the kineticist, and who would like the kineticist the most, is probably the single most annoying thing about these caster and wizard threads.It feels kind of weird to call people having preferences that don't align with yours annoying.
I like the wizard, I think the kineticist is okay. I don't want the things these posters want as in I don't want vancian magic removed and I don't want wizards in particular turned into "themed casters" such as a "pyromancer" (the example always given). What is annoying is people wanting that class to be a different class and the class that mechanically does what they want is something they won't give a fair shake over cosmetic reasons
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope Paizo is accumulating data on item bonuses for spell attack rolls from the Magus class and the new Kineticist as the data should tell them if item bonuses to attack rolls would imbalance the game. It's easy to strip out the weapon attack from the magus and see what the spell damage is like with an item bonus to the attack roll.
I think they have a lot of room in the wand design space to make wands casters can use with spell improvement runes.
Conceptually, take the idea of a wand with an item bonus to spell attack rolls, cast a single spell, and maybe have another effect like a property rune added to the spell. This design space would make wands more interesting and provide a casters are caster-like weapon that would be fun for them to use.
I do not believe an item bonus to spell attack rolls would imbalance the game. Nothing I've seen since including them in my house rules has shown spell attack rolls to be imbalanced.
If Paizo is continuing to collect data on their game, I think they would see the same thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wands with item bonuses to spell attacks was in the playtest iirc. They chose to remove it, as a consequence casters have more gold for cool gear and consumables. Bringing back potency runes for spellcasters would eat into that budget. Something to consider wr2 the whole design of the game. If you make casters buy these they will have trouble buying magic items and scrolls they're assumed to have. It might make sense to make scrolls cheaper. Probably also wouldn't give higher than +2 potency. Imagine fighter crits on disintegrate :) not good
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a caster wants to focus on spell attacks and spend the money for it why shouldn't the game provide it?
A caster that does not focus on that can still grab anything else they want just like every other character can.
You already can, it's called a staff of divination
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still remember when some posters were claiming the shadow signet was going to break the balance of the game by making spell attack rolls too good. Here we are still debating spell attack rolls, shadow signet been in the game for a year or more and hasn't broken the game at all.
Paizo needs to accept improving spell attack rolls doesn't break the game. They would be absolutely fine putting an item bonus to spell attack rolls in the game.
We've seen magus in the game.
They play-tested the kineticist and gave them a spell attack item bonus without breaking the game.
They made the shadow signet ring and it didn't break the game or make people happy enough to stop complaining about spell attack rolls likely because the item is high level and doesn't help the low levels where you're using spell attack rolls the most.
The only spell combination I've seen that would worry me as a DM is maybe a maxed out Horizon thunder sphere or mega-horizon thunder sphere or mega-disintegrate.
Basically the biggest danger with spell attack roll spells is a level 20 wizard with Spell Combination using some sick spell attack roll spell to blast someone with a combined spell. Not sure a spell item bonus changes that too much, but if you set a level 20 wizard up with spell combination that is some sickeningly brutal damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still remember when some posters were claiming the shadow signet was going to break the balance of the game by making spell attack rolls too good. Here we are still debating spell attack rolls, shadow signet been in the game for a year or more and hasn't broken the game at all.
Paizo needs to accept improving spell attack rolls doesn't break the game. They would be absolutely fine putting an item bonus to spell attack rolls in the game.
We've seen magus in the game.
They play-tested the kineticist and gave them a spell attack item bonus without breaking the game.
They made the shadow signet ring and it didn't break the game or make people happy enough to stop complaining about spell attack rolls likely because the item is high level and doesn't help the low levels where you're using spell attack rolls the most.
The only spell combination I've seen that would worry me as a DM is maybe a maxed out Horizon thunder sphere or mega-horizon thunder sphere or mega-disintegrate.
Basically the biggest danger with spell attack roll spells is a level 20 wizard with Spell Combination using some sick spell attack roll spell to blast someone with a combined spell. Not sure a spell item bonus changes that too much, but if you set a level 20 wizard up with spell combination that is some sickeningly brutal damage.
Shadow signet aligns spell attack progression with save progression like all other spells. Essentially bringing spell attacks in line with all other spells. To a degree I think this is an argument that maybe no spells should use attack rolls and they all target DCs instead. Then we won't have any outliers
|
|
I still remember when some posters were claiming the shadow signet was going to break the balance of the game by making spell attack rolls too good. Here we are still debating spell attack rolls, shadow signet been in the game for a year or more and hasn't broken the game at all.
Paizo needs to accept improving spell attack rolls doesn't break the game. They would be absolutely fine putting an item bonus to spell attack rolls in the game.
We've seen magus in the game.
They play-tested the kineticist and gave them a spell attack item bonus without breaking the game.
They made the shadow signet ring and it didn't break the game or make people happy enough to stop complaining about spell attack rolls likely because the item is high level and doesn't help the low levels where you're using spell attack rolls the most.
The only spell combination I've seen that would worry me as a DM is maybe a maxed out Horizon thunder sphere or mega-horizon thunder sphere or mega-disintegrate.
Basically the biggest danger with spell attack roll spells is a level 20 wizard with Spell Combination using some sick spell attack roll spell to blast someone with a combined spell. Not sure a spell item bonus changes that too much, but if you set a level 20 wizard up with spell combination that is some sickeningly brutal damage.
True Strike and big attack spell boosted by an item bonus.
The Magus does not have that many slots to take both. Much less than full casters.
Also the Magus does not go to Legendary proficiency in their attacks.
Finally, the full caster will be able to also use their KAS (and their Legendary proficiency in the very high levels) for save spells. Not so the Magus.
Not to mention the Magus is often in melee. And even the Starlit Span Magus would be able to do the True Strike +Spellstrike at most every other turn. Compared to the full caster who can do the True Strike + attack Spell on every turn.