Wow. Thanks a lot. Arcane really has the greatest versatility.It would be interesting to know the breakdown of attack spells and the various save spells in each Tradition.You ask? I deliver!
(note that this isn't all spells with the Attack trait since that's a lot of other options like Telekinetic Maneuver)
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
As we can see, Arcane and Primal have the vast majority of the spell attacks, with occult having the fewest. Arcane is fairly balanced between saves, while Divine really loves its Fortitude and Will saves and sucks at Reflex. Occult similarly sucks at Reflex and is heavily weighted towards Will, while Primal is good at Fortitude and Reflex but awful at Will.
Also note that I didn't comb through each list for attack spells. So the list of Will saves will include things like Charm, which is pretty much not a combat spell, or Catch Your Name, which definitely isn't (and caster's imposition which...really is irrelevant). I can filter that later...
Versatility on saves does not equal greatest versatility. Arcane certainly doesn't have the greatest versatility when it comes to doing different things with magic.
It has the most versatile combat saving throw spells. I have not found that to be necessary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Caster monsters have serious action economy issues against parties, which would show a bigger problem with casting being effective at challenging martials.
I rarely use solo caster monsters in battle. The action economy advantage of a party versus a caster monster is too insanely one sided because casting is action intensive with limited effectiveness.
A caster monster using a 2 action spell attack spell against a 4 to 5 person party is an even bigger loser situation than a PC using such a spell on a monster the party is engaging. If the monster cast some single target attack roll spell, be such an incredible waste of 2 actions and a spell slot to have their damage likely erased by one 2 action heal and then get hammered by 9 plus other actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fey blooded sorcerer can in one turn use fairy dust then charm triggering their bloodline effect twice.
Resulting in two concealed allys one foe that cant attack the caster from charm. Leaving the tankiest character as the only target left the enemies can go after without any hindrance.
In the right hands charm can work in battle.
As someone playing a fey blooded sorcerer this weekend who was not aware of the potency of this power, THANK YOU for pointing it out!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In exchange, so that they're still a match for at-level PCs, they get bigger numbers: more hp, higher to-hit bonuses, and so on.
That's only sort of true. Compared to my Ranger, at a wide variety of levels, a moderately statted monster (per creature building rules) tends to have slightly more HP, similar AC, similar to hit, and so on. The numbers vary a little, but not by a significant margin (even HP, where they're consistently ahead, is often not even necessarily enough to soak an extra attack).
Monster numbers tend to be a bit inflated, but for an 'average' monster of any given level they're not that far ahead of a robustly statted character.
Spellcaster attack rolls is one of the very notable exceptions to this paradigm, because they tend to be designed with stat lines more similar to a fighter than casters or even other martial statlines.
So while it's true that monster and player stats don't line up perfectly, it doesn't seem coincidental that one of the bigger discrepancies is in caster attack rolls, considering the state of attack rolls for PC spellcasters.
Ok going back to a party going up against a mirror of their own group compared to a severe encounter of 4 same level monsters.
Level 1 party.
They have a fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard. Would the challenge rating be less than…hold on let me pull 4 same level monsters….5 minutes later…
Keeping it simple. Four Nixies. They have hydraulic push and a +9 spell attack.
Ok probably not a fair example at level 1 given how quickly the party could go down. Most likely will come down to luck of the rolls.
Im thinking it gets easier for the party at higher levels against 4 same level monster verses their same level mirror party.
Ok going back to a party going up against a mirror of their own group compared to a severe encounter of 4 same level monsters.
Level 1 party.
They have a fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard. Would the challenge rating be less than…hold on let me pull 4 same level monsters….5 minutes later…
Keeping it simple. Four Nixies. They have hydraulic push and a +9 spell attack.
Ok probably not a fair example at level 1 given how quickly the party could go down. Most likely will come down to luck of the rolls.Im thinking it gets easier for the party at higher levels against 4 same level monster verses their same level mirror party.
Ok it looks like at level 6 putting the party up against 4 same level monsters is extreme. So its harder at that level.
And the example i looked at had vampiric touch at a +17 and fire ball at a 24 dc.With the encounter difficulty being extreme it changes my thoughts on this.
That is a level when casters are not going to be as effective as same level monster casters and its represented well in the expected difficulty rating.
So then It looks like its expected that a mirror of the players group would be easier to beat then 4 same level monsters at level 6.
I guess you are all right probably about the monsters not being comparable.
In exchange, so that they're still a match for at-level PCs, they get bigger numbers: more hp, higher to-hit bonuses, and so on.That's only sort of true. Compared to my Ranger, at a wide variety of levels, a moderately statted monster (per creature building rules) tends to have slightly more HP, similar AC, similar to hit, and so on. The numbers vary a little, but not by a significant margin (even HP, where they're consistently ahead, is often not even necessarily enough to soak an extra attack).
Monster numbers tend to be a bit inflated, but for an 'average' monster of any given level they're not that far ahead of a robustly statted character.
Spellcaster attack rolls is one of the very notable exceptions to this paradigm, because they tend to be designed with stat lines more similar to a fighter than casters or even other martial statlines.
So while it's true that monster and player stats don't line up perfectly, it doesn't seem coincidental that one of the bigger discrepancies is in caster attack rolls, considering the state of attack rolls for PC spellcasters.
Oh it's definitely NOT a coincidence. It's just that rather than inflated numbers PCs have other tools to deal with the accuracy discrepancy.
Such as true strike, shadow signet, inspire courage, and AC debuffing. The PC toolbelt is generally broader than the monster one.
In addition, monsters in modules very rarely have decent synergy. Most encounters consist of groups containing just one statblock, at the most two or three. "Four ghouls" is a standard fight. "One ghoul, one wizard, one healer, and one tank" isn't.
PCs aren't just identical copies of the same statblock, and it matters a lot. It means that the bard can buff the wizard's attacks, debuff enemy ac with synesthesia, even as the fighter knocks the enemy prone, and thus allow for a lot more damage than if there were just four copies of the wizard's statblock.
Some monsters are known to use good combat tactics, set up ambushes and can assess the party for optimal targets too though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some monsters are known to use good combat tactics, set up ambushes and can assess the party for optimal targets too though.
Not to speak for Calliope, but I believe they're saying that you won't see the same breadth of synergistic options in NPC stat blocks typically. That isn't to say that monsters can't or shouldn't be played tactically. There's a few reasons there.
Monsters with the same variety of player options is a lot of cognitive load for even experienced GMs and having three to four in a single encounter can make things rough. As well, large stat blocks tend to eat into page count, which makes spreading out impactful NPCs a bit more necessary than if you threw them all into one heavy encounter and left the adventure with a number of more generic feeling encounters.
And also there's just things that players can do that would be unfun on the recieving end of if you had to deal with them all of the time. I know my group sometimes gets upset when faced with certain abilities that they wouldn't bat an eye at if they possessed them. (Did you know there's an AP that allows an NPC to use a Reaction to instantly drop an opponent prone on a successful Feint? - Those sorts of abilities getting heaped on in every battle would grow tedious outside of the odd encounter, I feel)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ryangwy , welcome to the boards! For a first take, I think your comment is very insightful. I agree that the perception issue around spell attack roll spells is “the issue” that has people rushing to invent a mechanical solution to a communication problem.
It looks to me like the remaster is pulling back on low level spell attack roll spells that are not free or mostly free resources. Any exceptions are going to be niche spells where their niche is pretty clearly not “all the time spells.” It is aspect of the remaster I will be looking out for when the player core is released.
More in depth, looking at creatures ST we have that 1 is better than AC, other is "equal" (could vary +-1) and the other is worse.
So when using ST spells we have a 33% of being better, equal or worse than using an attack spell depending if we have info or the prepared spells.
Then casters are directly under the line of martials in hit rate in average.
But, in the case of ST, usually with succeed it applies a minor effect, so it is designed that against strong creatures you use those spells to apply those minor effects (so casting the spells round-by-round to hold some effect) and against minor targets you apply the full effect, congruent with the fact that many heightened spells applies to multiple targets.
In the case of attack spells the support, instead applying minor effect, is True Strike or reducing the target AC in some way. Notice that against an asleep target it is -6 to AC.
|
Then this whole thread is was really solved when this was mentioed earlier. All the arguments for spell attack not getting those pluses are undermined by the fact that monsters need thise bonuses to pose a threat to players with spell attacks. Its safe to assume monsters are attempting to apply tactical bonuses the same way players are by causing fear and trying to flank. The same applies the other way, players need the same bonuses to pose a threat with spell attacks to monsters.NPC casters tend to be designed with martial or even fighter level accuracy because Paizo realizes that having spell attacks that fail constantly would make for a boring enemy encounter.
Speaking of the receiving end. Do caster foes casting the same spell attack spells do so better than players at the same level?
Interestingly, in all my years of PFS, I have NEVER seen an opponent in a combat prepare their spells according to information they would have on the PCs.
The opponents are stuck with the spells they have. They do not have the versatility of PCs.
Comparison, in this case, is definitely not reason.
That's a bit misleading bc a "same lvl" caster enemy is designed to be fought by 4 PCs.Except it's not. Same level enemy against 4 PCs is a Trivial encounter. 40 xp. Unless you mean that 'designed to be fought' includes trivial encounters.
4 same levels is Extreme though. Which is according to definition, because it means PC deaths are very probable. Which is expected in roughly equal forces conflicts.
I mean it's designed to adequately fight 4 individuals at once instead of match up evenly in a one on one, pound for pound. I would expect something with a quarter of the action economy to have the stats to use each of those actions more productively than a PC
That's a bit misleading bc a "same lvl" caster enemy is designed to be fought by 4 PCs.Except it's not. Same level enemy against 4 PCs is a Trivial encounter. 40 xp. Unless you mean that 'designed to be fought' includes trivial encounters.
4 same levels is Extreme though. Which is according to definition, because it means PC deaths are very probable. Which is expected in roughly equal forces conflicts.
This is why I was trying to bring up the idea of comparing a 4 same level encounter to the players facing a mirror of themselves.
The 4 same level monsters will be better at spell attack then the mirror version of the caster in the group. Would the mirror encounter be extreme also?
Also, IIRC, I have never seen an opponent in PF2 cast True Strike before casting their big attack spell.
Ive seen monster stat blocks that have spell strike. If they have it they should use it.
Then this whole thread is was really solved when this was mentioed earlier. All the arguments for spell attack not getting those pluses are undermined by the fact that monsters need thise bonuses to pose a threat to players with spell attacks. Its safe to assume monsters are attempting to apply tactical bonuses the same way players are by causing fear and trying to flank. The same applies the other way, players need the same bonuses to pose a threat with spell attacks to monsters.NPC casters tend to be designed with martial or even fighter level accuracy because Paizo realizes that having spell attacks that fail constantly would make for a boring enemy encounter.
Speaking of the receiving end. Do caster foes casting the same spell attack spells do so better than players at the same level?Interestingly, in all my years of PFS, I have NEVER seen an opponent in a combat prepare their spells according to information they would have on the PCs.
The opponents are stuck with the spells they have. They do not have the versatility of PCs.
Comparison, in this case, is definitely not reason.
In a way every caster monster choice for an encounter is picking out spells for the encounter. Sometimes a GM is doing it to make an encounter less challenging and sometimes more challenging right?
So in that way the GM making encounters always has the most versatile spell list.
Some monsters are known to use good combat tactics, set up ambushes and can assess the party for optimal targets too though.Not to speak for Calliope, but I believe they're saying that you won't see the same breadth of synergistic options in NPC stat blocks typically. That isn't to say that monsters can't or shouldn't be played tactically. There's a few reasons there.
Monsters with the same variety of player options is a lot of cognitive load for even experienced GMs and having three to four in a single encounter can make things rough. As well, large stat blocks tend to eat into page count, which makes spreading out impactful NPCs a bit more necessary than if you threw them all into one heavy encounter and left the adventure with a number of more generic feeling encounters.
And also there's just things that players can do that would be unfun on the recieving end of if you had to deal with them all of the time. I know my group sometimes gets upset when faced with certain abilities that they wouldn't bat an eye at if they possessed them. (Did you know there's an AP that allows an NPC to use a Reaction to instantly drop an opponent prone on a successful Feint? - Those sorts of abilities getting heaped on in every battle would grow tedious outside of the odd encounter, I feel)
Good points. I can see the work load issue of too many smart pc like enemies. Turns encounters in to chess matches with both sides having so many options.
Encounters like that all the time would just be frustrating for the players and the GM.I just meant that if you're going to fight hobgoblins you can expect them to be organized and use tactics. If your party is being hunted by assassins an ambush would be expected.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then this whole thread is was really solved when this was mentioed earlier. All the arguments for spell attack not getting those pluses are undermined by the fact that monsters need thise bonuses to pose a threat to players with spell attacks. Its safe to assume monsters are attempting to apply tactical bonuses the same way players are by causing fear and trying to flank. The same applies the other way, players need the same bonuses to pose a threat with spell attacks to monsters.NPC casters tend to be designed with martial or even fighter level accuracy because Paizo realizes that having spell attacks that fail constantly would make for a boring enemy encounter.
Speaking of the receiving end. Do caster foes casting the same spell attack spells do so better than players at the same level?Interestingly, in all my years of PFS, I have NEVER seen an opponent in a combat prepare their spells according to information they would have on the PCs.
The opponents are stuck with the spells they have. They do not have the versatility of PCs.
Comparison, in this case, is definitely not reason.
In a way every caster monster choice for an encounter is picking out spells for the encounter. Sometimes a GM is doing it to make an encounter less challenging and sometimes more challenging right?
So in that way the GM making encounters always has the most versatile spell list.
That does not often happen when playing printed adventures and never in PFS though.
|
|
That's a bit misleading bc a "same lvl" caster enemy is designed to be fought by 4 PCs.Except it's not. Same level enemy against 4 PCs is a Trivial encounter. 40 xp. Unless you mean that 'designed to be fought' includes trivial encounters.
4 same levels is Extreme though. Which is according to definition, because it means PC deaths are very probable. Which is expected in roughly equal forces conflicts.This is why I was trying to bring up the idea of comparing a 4 same level encounter to the players facing a mirror of themselves.
The 4 same level monsters will be better at spell attack then the mirror version of the caster in the group. Would the mirror encounter be extreme also?
Yes. "Extreme-threat encounters are so dangerous that they are likely to be an even match for the characters".
The mirror encounter is exactly an even match for the characters.
And the budget for an Extreme encounter is equal to 4 opponents of the party level. Which is what the 4 PCs party would be if valued like an encounter.
Then this whole thread is was really solved when this was mentioed earlier. All the arguments for spell attack not getting those pluses are undermined by the fact that monsters need thise bonuses to pose a threat to players with spell attacks. Its safe to assume monsters are attempting to apply tactical bonuses the same way players are by causing fear and trying to flank. The same applies the other way, players need the same bonuses to pose a threat with spell attacks to monsters.NPC casters tend to be designed with martial or even fighter level accuracy because Paizo realizes that having spell attacks that fail constantly would make for a boring enemy encounter.
Speaking of the receiving end. Do caster foes casting the same spell attack spells do so better than players at the same level?Interestingly, in all my years of PFS, I have NEVER seen an opponent in a combat prepare their spells according to information they would have on the PCs.
The opponents are stuck with the spells they have. They do not have the versatility of PCs.
Comparison, in this case, is definitely not reason.
In a way every caster monster choice for an encounter is picking out spells for the encounter. Sometimes a GM is doing it to make an encounter less challenging and sometimes more challenging right?
So in that way the GM making encounters always has the most versatile spell list.Yes, your GM can totally tailor encounters to party weaknesses (or strengths, but that happens less). I've done it before. It's often frowned upon, though, since the point of encounters isn't to murder the PCs. It can come off as absurdly mean-spirited, too.
Also it's a ton of work. Most GMs use the bestiaries specifically so that they don't have to handmake their monsters.
"You are fighting a customized anti-encounter designed to murder your party" is just not the default...
Right , players usually have the goal of killing the enemy group, gm intentions are much more varied and as the oerson deciding on what is included in an encounter your versatility is the entire bestiary. Thats what i meant. I just dont think saying a single monsters stat block is limited matters when the gm has all the choices and near limitless versatility when choosing what is in an encounter.
With that said and considering 4 same level is like putting the part up against a threat just as likely to kill them as they the enemy right? The same level caster type monsters when using a spell attack will be better at it then caster players will. Given an encounter (for the sake of argument)all the same qualities and capabilities the same level enemies have the advantage specifically at spell attack. I think it is because for it to effective against players it needs to hit and those +15 to +17 at same level caster type monsters for a level 6 party dwarfs the +12 the player caster has. Players are missing out on that same level of effectiveness. The design is that players should not have that level of effectiveness with spell attack. I see that. Its just when you are the player spell attack looks like the under performer of spells when you do it and something to actually be worried about when enemies do it.
Also, IIRC, I have never seen an opponent in PF2 cast True Strike before casting their big attack spell.Ive seen monster stat blocks that have spell strike. If they have it they should use it.
I reread this and apologize. I think i come off here as rude.
It is rare that monsters have true strike.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, IIRC, I have never seen an opponent in PF2 cast True Strike before casting their big attack spell.Ive seen monster stat blocks that have spell strike. If they have it they should use it.I reread this and apologize. I think i come off here as rude.
It is rare that monsters have true strike.
No problem. I did not think you were rude at all. And yes, if they have the spell, they should use it just like a PC would.
|
|
Right , players usually have the goal of killing the enemy group, gm intentions are much more varied and as the oerson deciding on what is included in an encounter your versatility is the entire bestiary. Thats what i meant. I just dont think saying a single monsters stat block is limited matters when the gm has all the choices and near limitless versatility when choosing what is in an encounter.
With that said and considering 4 same level is like putting the part up against a threat just as likely to kill them as they the enemy right? The same level caster type monsters when using a spell attack will be better at it then caster players will. Given an encounter (for the sake of argument)all the same qualities and capabilities the same level enemies have the advantage specifically at spell attack. I think it is because for it to effective against players it needs to hit and those +15 to +17 at same level caster type monsters for a level 6 party dwarfs the +12 the player caster has. Players are missing out on that same level of effectiveness. The design is that players should not have that level of effectiveness with spell attack. I see that. Its just when you are the player spell attack looks like the under performer of spells when you do it and something to actually be worried about when enemies do it.
I think the comparison is not fair. The mirror encounter would not have better attacks than the PCs. And pre-written opponents have those because of the reasons given above.
I agree that it seems unfair, but that feeling is actually an illusion.
Right , players usually have the goal of killing the enemy group, gm intentions are much more varied and as the oerson deciding on what is included in an encounter your versatility is the entire bestiary. Thats what i meant. I just dont think saying a single monsters stat block is limited matters when the gm has all the choices and near limitless versatility when choosing what is in an encounter.
With that said and considering 4 same level is like putting the part up against a threat just as likely to kill them as they the enemy right? The same level caster type monsters when using a spell attack will be better at it then caster players will. Given an encounter (for the sake of argument)all the same qualities and capabilities the same level enemies have the advantage specifically at spell attack. I think it is because for it to effective against players it needs to hit and those +15 to +17 at same level caster type monsters for a level 6 party dwarfs the +12 the player caster has. Players are missing out on that same level of effectiveness. The design is that players should not have that level of effectiveness with spell attack. I see that. Its just when you are the player spell attack looks like the under performer of spells when you do it and something to actually be worried about when enemies do it.
I think the comparison is not fair. The mirror encounter would not have better attacks than the PCs. And pre-written opponents have those because of the reasons given above.
I agree that it seems unfair, but that feeling is actually an illusion.
Sorry yeah i threw a two things out there.
The mirror party wouldn't have better spell attack, right, they would have the same as the players. But the same level caster type monsters would have more spell attack then the players if the party was up against an encounter with 4 same level foes that have similar capabilities to the players. Both encounters are extreme but the spell attacks would be more accurate in the latter if they are used at all in either situation by the either the players or the foes.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But 4 caster monsters with increased spell attack modifiers and good spell attack roll spells to cast against a party of 4 would almost exclusively be scorching ray. An incredibly unlikely situation.
Spell attack is almost always most optimal for targeting higher level enemies, when you vastly out number your opponent. So monsters getting to fight solo PCs is almost a non-event, and thus the best case use of spell attack roll spells is taken away from the monsters. The increased spell attack bonus is mostly a recognition that they will be most used when the monster is lower level than the PCs and hitting in those situations is already difficult. Also remember monsters never get hero points. 1 hero point in a clutch fight is always better than a +2 or +3 to general spell attack accuracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But 4 caster monsters with increased spell attack modifiers and good spell attack roll spells to cast against a party of 4 would almost exclusively be scorching ray. An incredibly unlikely situation.
Spell attack is almost always most optimal for targeting higher level enemies, when you vastly out number your opponent. So monsters getting to fight solo PCs is almost a non-event, and thus the best case use of spell attack roll spells is taken away from the monsters. The increased spell attack bonus is mostly a recognition that they will be most used when the monster is lower level than the PCs and hitting in those situations is already difficult. Also remember monsters never get hero points. 1 hero point in a clutch fight is always better than a +2 or +3 to general spell attack accuracy.
Spell attack having a niche that monsters do not commonly enjoy is a good consideration.
You mentioned the hero point before. I get what you are saying with it, but isn't the point of a hero point to actually break the balance of the game in your favor for that one moment?If so its probably not something to balance combat around if its intended to throw balance out the window on rare occasion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But 4 caster monsters with increased spell attack modifiers and good spell attack roll spells to cast against a party of 4 would almost exclusively be scorching ray. An incredibly unlikely situation.
Spell attack is almost always most optimal for targeting higher level enemies, when you vastly out number your opponent. So monsters getting to fight solo PCs is almost a non-event, and thus the best case use of spell attack roll spells is taken away from the monsters. The increased spell attack bonus is mostly a recognition that they will be most used when the monster is lower level than the PCs and hitting in those situations is already difficult. Also remember monsters never get hero points. 1 hero point in a clutch fight is always better than a +2 or +3 to general spell attack accuracy.
Spell attack having a niche that monsters do not commonly enjoy is a good consideration.
You mentioned the hero point before. I get what you are saying with it, but isn't the point of a hero point to actually break the balance of the game in your favor for that one moment?
If so its probably not something to balance combat around if its intended to throw balance out the window on rare occasion.
Yep, but it's effectively another bonus to PC spell attacks that monsters don't have.
The point is that PCs don't need bigger numbers because they have hero points, true strike, coordinated debuffing, and shadow signet.
This goes to the point of perception thats been argued.
These benefits that shore up a seeming low spell attack bonus are not obvious and not always available. Which means there is really nothing straightforward about what I would consider conceptually the most direct and blunt kind of spell casting.We have these discussions i think because a spell attack in my mind is the most blunt expression of spellcasting but as it is designed it is not blunt at all, but very methodical if used where it works best.
But 4 caster monsters with increased spell attack modifiers and good spell attack roll spells to cast against a party of 4 would almost exclusively be scorching ray. An incredibly unlikely situation.
Spell attack is almost always most optimal for targeting higher level enemies, when you vastly out number your opponent. So monsters getting to fight solo PCs is almost a non-event, and thus the best case use of spell attack roll spells is taken away from the monsters. The increased spell attack bonus is mostly a recognition that they will be most used when the monster is lower level than the PCs and hitting in those situations is already difficult. Also remember monsters never get hero points. 1 hero point in a clutch fight is always better than a +2 or +3 to general spell attack accuracy.
Spell attack having a niche that monsters do not commonly enjoy is a good consideration.
You mentioned the hero point before. I get what you are saying with it, but isn't the point of a hero point to actually break the balance of the game in your favor for that one moment?
If so its probably not something to balance combat around if its intended to throw balance out the window on rare occasion.
Yep, but it's effectively another bonus to PC spell attacks that monsters don't have.
The point is that PCs don't need bigger numbers because they have hero points, true strike, coordinated debuffing, and shadow signet.
Paizo should add them in to make caster items more interesting and useful. They wouldn't impact the game much and would at least appease that group that wants better spell attack rolls.
It's hard to understand these discussions when months (if not over a year ago) some posters were claiming the Shadow Signet ring would lead to overpowered spell attack spells, but it didn't happen. These threads are still popping up.
I think they're popping up because at low level spell attack rolls are some of the best spells for a caster. So low level casters really notice the lack of item bonuses to spell attack rolls with the slower proficiency progression and lack of quality save spells until you hit about 3rd rank spells. So this is another low level caster problem.
Paizo should toss in a lower level item bonus to spell attack rolls to smooth this experience over as the shadow signet ring is higher level when players have mostly started using save spells over spell attack roll spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have these discussions i think because a spell attack in my mind is the most blunt expression of spellcasting but as it is designed it is not blunt at all, but very methodical if used where it works best.
I think the more they are really just cantrips and focus spells, or other specific niche spells, the less likely players will look at them as default blunt damage spells. at the very least, they are not spells burning up your spell slots.
The longer these conversations go on, the more clear it is why shocking grasp is getting replaced with a saving throw targeting spell that will do even more damage at higher levels.
We have these discussions i think because a spell attack in my mind is the most blunt expression of spellcasting but as it is designed it is not blunt at all, but very methodical if used where it works best.I think the more they are really just cantrips and focus spells, or other specific niche spells, the less likely players will look at them as default blunt damage spells. at the very least, they are not spells burning up your spell slots.
The longer these conversations go on, the more clear it is why shocking grasp is getting replaced with a saving throw targeting spell that will do even more damage at higher levels.
I wont miss shocking grasp.
here's an idea: give players the option to get a bonus to spell attack roll instead of the normal effect of heightening.
say most slotted spell attack spells get the following trait:
Pinpoint: when heightening this spell, for each rank added you may choose to replace the normal heightened effect with a +2 circumstance bonus to the spell attack rolls. For instance, when heightening Scorching Ray from rank 2 to rank 7 (+5 ranks), you could choose to heighten it 3 times for +3d6/+6d6 damage, and increase the accuracy 2 times for +4 circumstance bonus to attack.
The idea here is offering the best of both worlds: Players who want their spell attack rolls to hit often can have that, and players who want them to hit hard can have that too.
|
|
I don't have much to say about this right now but I want to chime in about one thing said a few posts back:
The idea that PCs don't need to have accuracy parity with on-level NPCs because "they have Hero Points, True Strike, and Shadow Signet" is an INSANE take because all three of those assumptions are flawed for different reasons:
Hero Points: These are the "Save my life" currency and points and the VAST majority of players, including myself, that I've been at a table with have NEVER used their last Hero Point to do ANYTHING AT ALL because doing so DRAMATICALLY increases the chance their character sheet will be ashes and scrap paper within the following 2 hours. The fact that they put "reroll a check" on par for spending them with "save your PCs life from guaranteed/determined death" was an insane decision. Sure, if you end up with two or three Hero Points then you should probably be using them but even the most generous GM I've ever seen only awarded one at the start of every session (with them resetting every time) and one for every 2 hours of gameplay if the player actually meaningfully RPd and interacted with the game more than just rolling dice.
True Strike: Not every Spellcaster has access to this or even if they do they should not be ASSUMED to be using as many as half of the Spell Slots on it every day. This is NUTS to assume that the entire balance of Spellcasters is based around this one Spell.
Shadow Signet: Rarity: Uncommon (In other words it isn't generally available to everyone) + It comes from a splatbook and isn't a component of even the expanded set of what is considered the "Core" rules.
I don't have much to say about this right now but I want to chime in about one thing said a few posts back:
The idea that PCs don't need to have accuracy parity with on-level NPCs because "they have Hero Points, True Strike, and Shadow Signet" is an INSANE take because all three of those assumptions are flawed for different reasons:
Hero Points: These are the "Save my life" currency and points and the VAST majority of players, including myself, that I've been at a table with have NEVER used their last Hero Point to do ANYTHING AT ALL because doing so DRAMATICALLY increases the chance their character sheet will be ashes and scrap paper within the following 2 hours. The fact that they put "reroll a check" on par for spending them with "save your PCs life from guaranteed/determined death" was an insane decision. Sure, if you end up with two or three Hero Points then you should probably be using them but even the most generous GM I've ever seen only awarded one at the start of every session (with them resetting every time) and one for every 2 hours of gameplay if the player actually meaningfully RPd and interacted with the game more than just rolling dice.
True Strike: Not every Spellcaster has access to this or even if they do they should not be ASSUMED to be using as many as half of the Spell Slots on it every day. This is NUTS to assume that the entire balance of Spellcasters is based around this one Spell.
Shadow Signet: Rarity: Uncommon (In other words it isn't generally available to everyone) + It comes from a splatbook and isn't a component of even the expanded set of what is considered the "Core" rules.
Ok for arguments sake lets remove these three things from the argument against some kind of improvement for spell attack spells.
What is left?
I don't have much to say about this right now but I want to chime in about one thing said a few posts back:
The idea that PCs don't need to have accuracy parity with on-level NPCs because "they have Hero Points, True Strike, and Shadow Signet" is an INSANE take because all three of those assumptions are flawed for different reasons:
Hero Points: These are the "Save my life" currency and points and the VAST majority of players, including myself, that I've been at a table with have NEVER used their last Hero Point to do ANYTHING AT ALL because doing so DRAMATICALLY increases the chance their character sheet will be ashes and scrap paper within the following 2 hours. The fact that they put "reroll a check" on par for spending them with "save your PCs life from guaranteed/determined death" was an insane decision. Sure, if you end up with two or three Hero Points then you should probably be using them but even the most generous GM I've ever seen only awarded one at the start of every session (with them resetting every time) and one for every 2 hours of gameplay if the player actually meaningfully RPd and interacted with the game more than just rolling dice.
True Strike: Not every Spellcaster has access to this or even if they do they should not be ASSUMED to be using as many as half of the Spell Slots on it every day. This is NUTS to assume that the entire balance of Spellcasters is based around this one Spell.
Shadow Signet: Rarity: Uncommon (In other words it isn't generally available to everyone) + It comes from a splatbook and isn't a component of even the expanded set of what is considered the "Core" rules.
Ok for arguments sake lets remove these three things from the argument against some kind of improvement for spell attack spells.
What is left?
I believe one was that player party composition and numbers generally offer more varied tactical advantages than the typical monster encounter has at their disposal.
What else?|
|
Ok for arguments sake lets remove these three things from the argument against some kind of improvement for spell attack spells.
What is left?
I suppose that Bon Mot could be one thing but again that's a specific character choice that requires a specific build that leans heavily into Charisma.
I don't have the answers to the questions and concerns here and I won't pretend to but the disparity between the accuracy of Martials between NPCs and PCs is quite decidedly smaller than the difference in Spell Attack between NPCs and PCs.
I can only hazard a guess that the difference is intentional, I just can't say why as that hasn't really been explained or accounted for, but it is certainly something that is interesting and worthy of note, I think.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What else?
There was the argument that if you approach spell attacks as a fourth kind of save to exploit on occasion instead of as a bread and butter then they are not better or worse than save spells.
Ok for arguments sake lets remove these three things from the argument against some kind of improvement for spell attack spells.
What is left?
I suppose that Bon Mot could be one thing but again that's a specific character choice that requires a specific build that leans heavily into Charisma.
I don't have the answers to the questions and concerns here and I won't pretend to but the disparity between the accuracy of Martials between NPCs and PCs is quite decidedly smaller than the difference in Spell Attack between NPCs and PCs.
I can only hazard a guess that the difference is intentional, I just can't say why as that hasn't really been explained or accounted for, but it is certainly something that is interesting and worthy of note, I think.
From what I read in threads leading up to this there were two things i remember.
One was the shift away from touch attack.The other was that a version of magic items increasing to hit were playtested but not favored in the playtest.
So far most seem to be ok with a +1 magic item for spell attack to help with the levels where accuracy is at its worst.
|
|
Ok for arguments sake lets remove these three things from the argument against some kind of improvement for spell attack spells.
What is left?
I suppose that Bon Mot could be one thing but again that's a specific character choice that requires a specific build that leans heavily into Charisma.
I don't have the answers to the questions and concerns here and I won't pretend to but the disparity between the accuracy of Martials between NPCs and PCs is quite decidedly smaller than the difference in Spell Attack between NPCs and PCs.
I can only hazard a guess that the difference is intentional, I just can't say why as that hasn't really been explained or accounted for, but it is certainly something that is interesting and worthy of note, I think.
Speaking of the receiving end. Do caster foes casting the same spell attack spells do so better than players at the same level?Just checked one on AoN. Not sure if all others are like this, but it had the same DC as my Witch, but a +2 to attack spells.
Now, a martial foe nearby that felt like a Barbarian had +3 to melee attacks and +6 to ranged attacks compared to my Barbarian.
Not a smaller accuracy for martials here. Pretty much the opposite actually.