|
Did someone say spell attacks should be the best always? Didn't see that.
I have only seen people asking that such spells get something to be worth the slot they are cast from without just making everything into a save.
How you read "make this type of spe3ll the best" from "this type of spell needs better accuracy to be worth it" is beyond me.
Then we need the "something" to be slot spells only. Not usable for cantrips and not usable for Focus spells. Would that be okay for you ?
I am not sure how many slot spells are spell attacks currently though.
People really should stop comparing spell attacks to Strikes. Because they are not the same at all.
Spell attacks are one tool in a whole toolbox. They can be the most efficient spells to cast in some situations but not always (and in fact most of the time). Because that is how spells work : no category of offensive spells will always be the best to use. For example, spells targeting Will saves will not always be the best to use. And sometimes they will be awesome. Same for the spell attacks. Though the latter are a bit more complicated because they deal with the martial paradigm of getting your enemies flat-footed to debuff their AC. Save-targetting spells can be used at the beginning of the fight and in later rounds with less variation than spell attacks.
A martial is all about the Strike. Almost every round in every fight, a martial will use the Strike action at least once.
Not so the caster.
The only caster that gets to do something similar is the Magus with spellstrike. And to enable this playstyle, the designers had to nerf the Magus' other offensive tools, aka save spells, very hard.
I don't know. Martials are pretty versatile.
My barbarian runs up, brutally trips something automatically on a hit, while doing good damage, then if it stands up I smash it again. I'm ding about 40 damage on a hit at level 13 and 90 to 100 on a crit with auto-damage on the crit from improved knockdown.
The archer in our group does damage and slows any target he hits with 2 actions. His average hit with a strike is 26 and 50 or 60 on a crit.
Fighter is hitting for about 40 a hit with a strike and 80 or so with a crit while lighting something on fire for 1d10 PF, possible slow.
It isn't like martials are as limited as before with strikes. They do a lot of stuff now.
Yes. But they are always Strikes.
The most similar classification for weapons that I feel could compare to the various categories of offensive spells would be...
Sometimes they are athletics checks, but with Improved Knockdown it's a strike with an automatic no save trip that does damage if I hit. Martials can do some crazy stuff and some insane damage.
The monk can be built pretty well for athletics and strikes.
Ranged attackers can be pretty brutal as well. Starlit Span Magus is a pretty sick damage dealer when they hit with a crit even with a cantrip.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are spellcasters required to wait for debuffs before making attack rolls when martials, who apply said debuffs, don't have to? Because they are more accurate, by way of higher progression and rune benefits? Cool, yet another reason to axe spell attack rolls as a mechanic, because it is literally a trap option. Thanks for the demonstration and proving my point.
|
|
Why are spellcasters required to wait for debuffs before making attack rolls when martials, who apply said debuffs, don't have to? Because they are more accurate, by way of higher progression and rune benefits? Cool, yet another reason to axe spell attack rolls as a mechanic, because it is literally a trap option. Thanks for the demonstration and proving my point.
Spell attack rolls are not a trap option. They are a tool in the great toolbox of casters (especially Arcane and Primal).
Now, a caster focused entirely on attack spells, not wanting to use the other tools in the toolbox, can be a trap build. Doubly so of they do not get True Strike.
I am beginning to think a caster build that uses debuffs to lower AC and/or buffs to improve attack rolls and then goes to True Strike + attack spells might be both enjoyable as a spell attacker and really appreciated by the martials in the party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's clear that the baseline assumption of the game is that spell attacks are a sometimes meals, not an everyday meal. They are fewer than all other categories of spells and require more set up to deliver. It is also true however that they are devastating when they hit, making them at time the optimal choice when set up properly. They are designed to not be used constantly because single target damage is not the primary role of casters, but it doesn't mean they are incapable of high burst damage with spell attacks. The primary reason people complain about spell attacks is that they can't do they every turn and it be worth it. This has developed into hyperbole about them being trap options and "not worth the spell slot". Both statements are demonstrably false
If someone complaining about spell attacks cannot reckon with this, I don't think they're worth replying to at this stage
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are spellcasters required to wait for debuffs before making attack rolls when martials, who apply said debuffs, don't have to?
This question has been answered several times already in this thread, and continuing to try to use it to ask for something the game was designed not to provide (the same accuracy between martials and casters all the time, without casters evaluating defenses) primarily just serves to create confusion for newer players who truly don’t know the answer to this this question, rather than continuing to advance a useful argument that the system should change.
It is ok if tables want to adopt house rules to hack the design of the game, but it gets very tiring seeing people make demands, and insist they understand the design of the game and game choices that went through playtesting better than the developers. I do get how frustrating it might feel to sincerely believe that this active choice was a mistake that could be corrected, but then just do it for your table. Evaluating whether that change would be significant enough to be worth implementing without being so significant that it changes the intended game play of casting for everyone else is beyond the scope of any individual player on these forums.
Martials almost exclusively attack AC. For casters, AC is probably not the best defense to target without the application of significant tactical advantages. The purpose of this is to avoid creating a game where every character can just target AC all day long and all game play can center around debuffing that one defense and boosting attacks that target it. If the game only cared about AC as a defense, there really would be no reason to have any others.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then why give spellcasters the ability to affect AC with spells if they aren't supposed to be good at doing so (and already aren't if weapon proficiencies are taken into consideration)? You are literally proposing a trap option and saying it is fine under XYZ circumstances, which are neither guaranteed nor common.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are spellcasters required to wait for debuffs before making attack rolls when martials, who apply said debuffs, don't have to? Because they are more accurate, by way of higher progression and rune benefits? Cool, yet another reason to axe spell attack rolls as a mechanic, because it is literally a trap option. Thanks for the demonstration and proving my point.Spell attack rolls are not a trap option. They are a tool in the great toolbox of casters (especially Arcane and Primal).
Now, a caster focused entirely on attack spells, not wanting to use the other tools in the toolbox, can be a trap build. Doubly so of they do not get True Strike.
I am beginning to think a caster build that uses debuffs to lower AC and/or buffs to improve attack rolls and then goes to True Strike + attack spells might be both enjoyable as a spell attacker and really appreciated by the martials in the party.
A trap build is comprised of trap options, so this comparison makes no sense, because we are simultaneously saying this both a trap and not a trap.
As for this build being helpful support, it is not innate to all spellcasters, since each spellcaster has its niche, none of which fully comprises this option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then why give spellcasters the ability to affect AC with spells if they aren't supposed to be good at doing so (and already aren't if weapon proficiencies are taken into consideration)? You are literally proposing a trap option and saying it is fine under XYZ circumstances, which are neither guaranteed nor common.
A low level caster with scorching ray will be good to use it against an Ochre Jelly. Let the party split it up with arrows or slashing then it ray down. That fight wont even need debuffs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that single-target attack spells aren't doing massive damage. They're often doing similar damage to an AoE spell of the same level with worse secondary effects and some of them are an attack roll into a save. So their damage might be okay, competitive with other spells that could work, but they take more setup, don't provide AoE, and offer fewer secondary benefits.
Unless you specialize in them or are at a level where they are best in slot for damage it often won't make sense to prepare them over other spells that require less setup to use.
Then why give spellcasters the ability to affect AC with spells if they aren't supposed to be good at doing soSo that they have an *option* of attacking AC when that's lower than saves or when they want to expend a limited resource (Hero point, true strike) for a scene-blowing effect. I mean, if they had *zero* spells which did that, wouldn't that be worse?
Designer: "Here's a Pronehammer kid. It's not great against anything standing up, but knock somebody down, it does massive damage to them."
Reasonable response: "cool, I'll keep it for when someone's prone, and continue to use other things when they aren't."
Unreasonable response: "wait, you're telling me I can't build my entire character concept around constant pronehammer use? This is a trap! That huge damage is so tasty it makes me want to use it all the time! Devs you really need to fix this. Make the pronehammer always as useful as my other weapons so I can get that big damage and not worry about all this 'only works when prone' thing."
On a less fictional note, there was literally a player who complained in the advice forum just a week or two ago about wanting an only-lightning caster who wouldn't have the problem of foes immune or resistant to electricity. Seems pretty silly, eh? They're literally choosing a concept that has a specific issue and then complaining about the issue. Is it bad caster design that this concept is hard to support, or is it more akin to an own goal? Extrapolate to the current situation as needed.
It was in the general discussion. And yes I just want to throw lightning at everything. I only play casters to throw chainlightning.
To look at this another way, what constraints are conspiring to confine attack roll spells to such a narrow design space and how might we change things such that they are allowed to be viable outside of their current niche? What can we do to get these spells in line with all-stars like Slow and Fireball without unbalancing things?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people just want to use 1 type of spell and those people are punished because "well you should had picked something different". That is bad design no matter how much you try to justify it.
If something has a worse chance to take effect than normal the expectation is that it has a much better effect to compensate. But spell attacks do not do this. Instead they are mediocre effects while also being more difficult to land.
This is not about being better than martials as some people keep trying to say. Its about 1/day abilities not being balanced properly for being 1/day.
Players that only want to cast one type of spell need a special class built to do that (like the kineticist) because full casters always have access to way more spells they can cast. It is unreasonable to expect one class to accommodate such specialization and breadth together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then why give spellcasters the ability to affect AC with spells if they aren't supposed to be good at doing soSo that they have an *option* of attacking AC when that's lower than saves or when they want to expend a limited resource (Hero point, true strike) for a scene-blowing effect. I mean, if they had *zero* spells which did that, wouldn't that be worse?
Designer: "Here's a Pronehammer kid. It's not great against anything standing up, but knock somebody down, it does massive damage to them."
Reasonable response: "cool, I'll keep it for when someone's prone, and continue to use other things when they aren't."
Unreasonable response: "wait, you're telling me I can't build my entire character concept around constant pronehammer use? This is a trap! That huge damage is so tasty it makes me want to use it all the time! Devs you really need to fix this. Make the pronehammer always as useful as my other weapons so I can get that big damage and not worry about all this 'only works when prone' thing."
On a less fictional note, there was literally a player who complained in the advice forum just a week or two ago about wanting an only-lightning caster who wouldn't have the problem of foes immune or resistant to electricity. Seems pretty silly, eh? They're literally choosing a concept that has a specific issue and then complaining about the issue. Is it bad caster design that this concept is hard to support, or is it more akin to an own goal? Extrapolate to the current situation as needed.
I think the example would hold up more if we compare a simple weapon to a martial weapon. But the point is ultimately that spell attack rolls (simple weapons) are traps compared to Save DC spells (martial weapons), which are already available to use.
Players that only want to cast one type of spell need a special class built to do that (like the kineticist) because full casters always have access to way more spells they can cast. It is unreasonable to expect one class to accommodate such specialization and breadth together.Some people just want to use 1 type of spell and those people are punished because "well you should had picked something different". That is bad design no matter how much you try to justify it.
If something has a worse chance to take effect than normal the expectation is that it has a much better effect to compensate. But spell attacks do not do this. Instead they are mediocre effects while also being more difficult to land.
This is not about being better than martials as some people keep trying to say. Its about 1/day abilities not being balanced properly for being 1/day.
It's almost like casting traditions as umbrellas all casters need to operate under is a design choice that's limiting the kinds of slot-based casters that can be designed. Who could have guessed that not wanting to design class-specific lists of spells would have major flaws?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
After 4+ years of this balance point not changing the continued complaining of some comes off as extremely bitter and extremely confusing bc the effort is ultimately wasted. I mean, why not direct that energy towards the eventual pf3 playtest; It's not gonna get you anything now. God knows if it legitimately gives you this much stress and anger then you're better served playing the systems that don't do this. Pf1e and dnd5e are right there giving you the casters you want. Throughout this game's entire run the attack benchmarks between casters and martials has not changed, will not change, and never had any intentions of changing from the designers. The best you got was an item to switch to saves. To continue to complain for changes that demonstrably will not come seems to me either lunacy or a deliberate desire to heckle the people who made the thing you don't like as well as the people who enjoy the thing you don't like. It can't be any genuine expectation of change, can it?
P.S. I don't like spell attacks, wizards, or alchemist but have enough common sense not to bang on these drums anymore bc doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is literal insanity
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players that only want to cast one type of spell need a special class built to do that (like the kineticist) because full casters always have access to way more spells they can cast. It is unreasonable to expect one class to accommodate such specialization and breadth together.Some people just want to use 1 type of spell and those people are punished because "well you should had picked something different". That is bad design no matter how much you try to justify it.
If something has a worse chance to take effect than normal the expectation is that it has a much better effect to compensate. But spell attacks do not do this. Instead they are mediocre effects while also being more difficult to land.
This is not about being better than martials as some people keep trying to say. Its about 1/day abilities not being balanced properly for being 1/day.
You should not need a whole new class just for this. It should just work.
Also no, the game expects you to have at most 4 of the highest spell level (up to 9th) and at most 2 10th level. 4 times a day I can have a 50/50 to be mediocre is bad no matter how much you try to justify it with "if you have this very specific situation its okay".
What does everyone on this thread think of as a decent chance of success for a slotted spell against a +2 or +3 level monster. A spell attack spell is mostly single target and if the enemies are same level or lower aoe would probably be much better to use if the fight needs a slotted spell at all.
And this chance should include the benefits of team work, fighting strong monsters is all about teamwork anyway.|
|
The issue is that single-target attack spells aren't doing massive damage. They're often doing similar damage to an AoE spell of the same level with worse secondary effects and some of them are an attack roll into a save. So their damage might be okay, competitive with other spells that could work, but they take more setup, don't provide AoE, and offer fewer secondary benefits.
Unless you specialize in them or are at a level where they are best in slot for damage it often won't make sense to prepare them over other spells that require less setup to use.
You cannot use Fortune effects such as True Strike or Hero Points to have a better chance of hurting your foes with save spells though.
|
|
Some people just want to use 1 type of spell and those people are punished because "well you should had picked something different". That is bad design no matter how much you try to justify it.
If something has a worse chance to take effect than normal the expectation is that it has a much better effect to compensate. But spell attacks do not do this. Instead they are mediocre effects while also being more difficult to land.
This is not about being better than martials as some people keep trying to say. Its about 1/day abilities not being balanced properly for being 1/day.
This is like complaining that people who just want to use spells that target Will are punished somehow because sometimes targeting Will save is not a good idea.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A martial is all about the Strike. Almost every round in every fight, a martial will use the Strike action at least once.
Which is why the unnecessary accuracy limitations on spell attacks are really bad.
Doesn't make sense for a skill that you can use once a day to be using the same system of reliability as something designed to be use 5-10 times a fight (much less being worse at it too!).
Good point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To look at this another way, what constraints are conspiring to confine attack roll spells to such a narrow design space and how might we change things such that they are allowed to be viable outside of their current niche? What can we do to get these spells in line with all-stars like Slow and Fireball without unbalancing things?
Magus does this. By both enhancing the attack spells and nerfing the save spells.
|
|
A martial is all about the Strike. Almost every round in every fight, a martial will use the Strike action at least once.Which is why the unnecessary accuracy limitations on spell attacks are really bad.
Doesn't make sense for a skill that you can use once a day to be using the same system of reliability as something designed to be use 5-10 times a fight (much less being worse at it too!).
Good point.
Spell attack Cantrips and Focus spells are a thing too.
Why do people always bring up the slot spells to complain and always forget that these other, renewable, spells have to be taken into account too ?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people always bring up the slot spells to complain and always forget that these other, renewable, spells have to be taken into account too ?
... Because one of the key complaints is that having your extremely limited daily resource abilities be so fundamentally unreliable (especially in their design niche of targeting powerful solo enemies) feels really bad?
I don't really understand the question because the answer is so obvious.
|
|
Why do people always bring up the slot spells to complain and always forget that these other, renewable, spells have to be taken into account too ?... Because one of the key complaints is that having your extremely limited daily resource abilities be so fundamentally unreliable (especially in their design niche of targeting powerful solo enemies) feels really bad?
I don't really understand the question because the answer is so obvious.
To me it feels dishonest that people complain about the wasted resource (a point I get perfectly) and ask for boosts that affect all spells, including renewable ones. Seemingly without caring about how those latter spells could become unbalanced.
I even asked earlier if a boost to spell attacks that would apply only to slot spells would be okay. And I got zero answer on this. So, this makes me feel people are just interested in ranting rather than in trying to imagine a workable solution.
Why do people always bring up the slot spells to complain and always forget that these other, renewable, spells have to be taken into account too ?... Because one of the key complaints is that having your extremely limited daily resource abilities be so fundamentally unreliable (especially in their design niche of targeting powerful solo enemies) feels really bad?
I don't really understand the question because the answer is so obvious.
To me it feels dishonest that people complain about the wasted resource (a point I get perfectly) and ask for boosts that affect all spells, including renewable ones. Seemingly without caring about how those latter spells could become unbalanced.
I even asked earlier if a boost to spell attacks that would apply only to slot spells would be okay. And I got zero answer on this. So, this makes me feel people are just interested in ranting rather than in trying to imagine a workable solution.
I think is more or less just being less specific than being dishonest. I am sure proponents of an increase in reliability of spell attacks would be more than happy if it only applied to slotted spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think is more or less just being less specific than being dishonest. I am sure proponents of an increase in reliability of spell attacks would be more than happy if it only applied to slotted spells.
Why do people always bring up the slot spells to complain and always forget that these other, renewable, spells have to be taken into account too ?... Because one of the key complaints is that having your extremely limited daily resource abilities be so fundamentally unreliable (especially in their design niche of targeting powerful solo enemies) feels really bad?
I don't really understand the question because the answer is so obvious.
To me it feels dishonest that people complain about the wasted resource (a point I get perfectly) and ask for boosts that affect all spells, including renewable ones. Seemingly without caring about how those latter spells could become unbalanced.
I even asked earlier if a boost to spell attacks that would apply only to slot spells would be okay. And I got zero answer on this. So, this makes me feel people are just interested in ranting rather than in trying to imagine a workable solution.
In fact i would be fine with it. My suggestion much earlier was even more specific than that. Allow enchanting a wand with a +1 to the exact spell in the want when casting that spell from a slot and holding the wand.
Although i did also want the +1 to apply to spell attacks or dc as appropriate for the spell in the wand.
After 4+ years of this balance point not changing the continued complaining of some comes off as extremely bitter and extremely confusing bc the effort is ultimately wasted. I mean, why not direct that energy towards the eventual pf3 playtest; It's not gonna get you anything now. God knows if it legitimately gives you this much stress and anger then you're better served playing the systems that don't do this. Pf1e and dnd5e are right there giving you the casters you want. Throughout this game's entire run the attack benchmarks between casters and martials has not changed, will not change, and never had any design intentions of changing from the designers. The best you got was an item to switch to saves. To continue to complain for changes that demonstrably will not come seems to me either lunacy or a deliberate desire to heckle the people who made the thing you don't like as well as the people who enjoy the thing you don't like. It can't be any genuine expectation of change, can it?So your take is that people should not complain about bad game design and just take whatever bad thing a developer adds. Are you also one that likes it when a dev adds a bunch of time wasters to justify micro transactions?
They say hope dies last, but you know what I am tired of this same argument being used every single time. You like your bad mechanics and want an echo chamber? Fine keep them. Congrats you won, one less person asking the devs to fix their mistakes.
Best of wishes to Paizo, but I'm done trying argue for a game that I enjoy to be made better while treated as if I was a second class citizen.
"Press X to doubt"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A martial is all about the Strike. Almost every round in every fight, a martial will use the Strike action at least once.Which is why the unnecessary accuracy limitations on spell attacks are really bad.
Doesn't make sense for a skill that you can use once a day to be using the same system of reliability as something designed to be use 5-10 times a fight (much less being worse at it too!).
Good point.
Spell attack Cantrips and Focus spells are a thing too.
Why do people always bring up the slot spells to complain and always forget that these other, renewable, spells have to be taken into account too ?
Cantrips really only hold their damage in the first 3 levels, and fall apart soon after, since they lose proficiency and eventually damage dice, not to mention functionality from feats and such.
As for it being a problem, the complaint is that cantrips are just as accurate as spells, meaning a thing I can do once per day is as inaccurate as the thing I do all day.
You cannot use Fortune effects such as True Strike or Hero Points to have a better chance of hurting your foes with save spells though.
True Strike is a mistake and Hero points aren't universally handed out at high enough rates to make using them for spell attacks an issue.
To look at this another way, what constraints are conspiring to confine attack roll spells to such a narrow design space and how might we change things such that they are allowed to be viable outside of their current niche? What can we do to get these spells in line with all-stars like Slow and Fireball without unbalancing things?Magus does this. By both enhancing the attack spells and nerfing the save spells.
Magus is its own thing and probably not the best example to use when we're talking about standard spellcasters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After 4+ years of this balance point not changing the continued complaining of some comes off as extremely bitter and extremely confusing bc the effort is ultimately wasted. I mean, why not direct that energy towards the eventual pf3 playtest; It's not gonna get you anything now. God knows if it legitimately gives you this much stress and anger then you're better served playing the systems that don't do this. Pf1e and dnd5e are right there giving you the casters you want. Throughout this game's entire run the attack benchmarks between casters and martials has not changed, will not change, and never had any intentions of changing from the designers. The best you got was an item to switch to saves. To continue to complain for changes that demonstrably will not come seems to me either lunacy or a deliberate desire to heckle the people who made the thing you don't like as well as the people who enjoy the thing you don't like. It can't be any genuine expectation of change, can it?
P.S. I don't like spell attacks, wizards, or alchemist but have enough common sense not to bang on these drums anymore bc doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is literal insanity
Just as a point of fact, shadow signet doesn't change attacks to saves, but has the attack roll go against save DC, meaning buffs to hit from spells like Heroism make attack roll spells very reliable, the only down side is you can't lower reflex and fortitude saves like you can AC, or even will saves. Another issue which is not really a down side so-to-speak is that shadow signet is a level 10 item, which doesn't help during the levels 5, 6, 8 and 9 where caster proficiency is behind potency runes and weapon proficiency
|
|
You cannot use Fortune effects such as True Strike or Hero Points to have a better chance of hurting your foes with save spells though.True Strike is a mistake and Hero points aren't universally handed out at high enough rates to make using them for spell attacks an issue.
There were people asking for Hero points to be usable to improve the results of save spells only a few days ago. They felt it was unfair that it could be done only with attacks, including attack spells IIRC
|
|
Magus is its own thing and probably not the best example to use when we're talking about standard spellcasters.To look at this another way, what constraints are conspiring to confine attack roll spells to such a narrow design space and how might we change things such that they are allowed to be viable outside of their current niche? What can we do to get these spells in line with all-stars like Slow and Fireball without unbalancing things?Magus does this. By both enhancing the attack spells and nerfing the save spells.
It is how Paizo did the very thing you ask for. But it had to be done within the confines of a specific class. So as not to unbalance the whole casting system.
You seem to be asking for a way to make spell attacks more likely to hit, while keeping save spells the same and keeping the balance of the casting system intact.
I am now pretty sure it cannot be done within the PF2 paradigm.
It is how Paizo did the very thing you ask for. But it had to be done within the confines of a specific class. So as not to unbalance the whole casting system.
You seem to be asking for a way to make spell attacks more likely to hit, while keeping save spells the same and keeping the balance of the casting system intact.
I am now pretty sure it cannot be done within the PF2 paradigm.
They haven't actually done what I want. I want specialist casters with tightly themed lists. Not a pseudo-martial with the full list and limited spells per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They haven't actually done what I want. I want specialist casters with tightly themed lists. Not a pseudo-martial with the full list and limited spells per day.It is how Paizo did the very thing you ask for. But it had to be done within the confines of a specific class. So as not to unbalance the whole casting system.
You seem to be asking for a way to make spell attacks more likely to hit, while keeping save spells the same and keeping the balance of the casting system intact.
I am now pretty sure it cannot be done within the PF2 paradigm.
and this would be a new class? Then that is fine, you can homebrew it if you want, or keep waiting, it seems like it might eventually make the list. It is also not the point of this thread. A new class could be blasty spell attack roll spell focused with a "list" as narrow as a kineticist and probably be fine to have the same accuracy as a ranged martial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They haven't actually done what I want. I want specialist casters with tightly themed lists. Not a pseudo-martial with the full list and limited spells per day.It is how Paizo did the very thing you ask for. But it had to be done within the confines of a specific class. So as not to unbalance the whole casting system.
You seem to be asking for a way to make spell attacks more likely to hit, while keeping save spells the same and keeping the balance of the casting system intact.
I am now pretty sure it cannot be done within the PF2 paradigm.
There is nothing "pseudo" about the martial status of the magus, it is a caster and a martial full stop. But this "themed caster" thing is only ever "pyromancer" for you. Which is a weak theme
But this "themed caster" thing is only ever "pyromancer" for you.
What?
I've asked for dedicated Necromancers, Summoners (slotted summons spells, not an Eidolon), and PF1-style smite Paladins. I also participated in the thread asking for ideas on how to make themed casters work in PF3.
Just as a point of fact, shadow signet doesn't change attacks to saves, but has the attack roll go against save DC, meaning buffs to hit from spells like Heroism make attack roll spells very reliable, the only down side is you can't lower reflex and fortitude saves like you can AC, or even will saves. Another issue which is not really a down side so-to-speak is that shadow signet is a level 10 item, which doesn't help during the levels 5, 6, 8 and 9 where caster proficiency is behind potency runes and weapon proficiencyAfter 4+ years of this balance point not changing the continued complaining of some comes off as extremely bitter and extremely confusing bc the effort is ultimately wasted. I mean, why not direct that energy towards the eventual pf3 playtest; It's not gonna get you anything now. God knows if it legitimately gives you this much stress and anger then you're better served playing the systems that don't do this. Pf1e and dnd5e are right there giving you the casters you want. Throughout this game's entire run the attack benchmarks between casters and martials has not changed, will not change, and never had any intentions of changing from the designers. The best you got was an item to switch to saves. To continue to complain for changes that demonstrably will not come seems to me either lunacy or a deliberate desire to heckle the people who made the thing you don't like as well as the people who enjoy the thing you don't like. It can't be any genuine expectation of change, can it?
P.S. I don't like spell attacks, wizards, or alchemist but have enough common sense not to bang on these drums anymore bc doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is literal insanity
You're right. Poor phrasing on my part, although I didn't stop to consider status and circumstance bonuses carrying over to the rolls targeting the new DCs. That is nice