|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Hero Points are a resource to use in the most efficient way possible. Sometimes it is by ensuring your big attack actually hits the BBEG.
True Strike should not be assumed to be using half your spells. Because the other half should not be assumed to be only spell attacks. And it is NUTS to assume that the entire balance of spellcasters is based around only one type of spells, ie spell attacks.
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.
That's true of everything PCs do though, so it doesn't really make sense as a defense of one specific dimension being notably different.
It's also, frankly, largely irrelevant to the actual issue of spell attack functionality.
Maybe if the spell energy doesn't dissipate for a few rounds on a miss.
So yeah you missed you used 2 actions for that turn but at least you have a few rounds to try again.
This along with a +1 magic item to increase hit at probably level 3 or 4 would put spell attack in a good place. 4 might be right as it keeps the 2 level spacing there seems to be with proficiency.
So i think the +1 doesn’t change anything about how the spell is used and if given at the appropriate level it keeps the fighters ahead but shores up the worst levels.
The spell not dissipating is a bigger change. I think having missed with 2 actions that turn is punishment enough for taking the risk. Losing the spell slot too on top of using two actions and failing with no effect is a bigger issue from the players perspective.
Neither of these changes make spell attack the go to over other spells. The balance remains and players will still want to do all the same things as before to increase their chances.
Hero Points are an invention of the Devil haha. I cannot remember granting any on D&D 5E. Well I like realistic sets so those things that feel like the hand of the gods taking care of players just because are the “heroes of the story” just don’t like.
We have a feat for being harder to die, becoming useless having those wonderful hero points.
In realistic sets taking care and foresight should be the way. At the same time no need to be so tight on encounter difficulty but for the boss.
I play one hero point at the start of the session and one more for each hour of play (you can expect 4-5 hero points a session). Serves us pretty well
|
|
Hero Points are an invention of the Devil haha. I cannot remember granting any on D&D 5E. Well I like realistic sets so those things that feel like the hand of the gods taking care of players just because are the “heroes of the story” just don’t like.
We have a feat for being harder to die, becoming useless having those wonderful hero points.In realistic sets taking care and foresight should be the way. At the same time no need to be so tight on encounter difficulty but for the boss.
The game is designed to be balanced when using Hero Points. Not using them will make the game more difficult than planned for the PCs.
I play one hero point at the start of the session and one more for each hour of play (you can expect 4-5 hero points a session). Serves us pretty well
1 at the start of a session but extra points Id give those out about as often as Paul Hollywood gives out handshakes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play one hero point at the start of the session and one more for each hour of play (you can expect 4-5 hero points a session). Serves us pretty well1 at the start of a session but extra points Id give those out about as often as Paul Hollywood gives out handshakes.
Works as intended for me. The resource becomes plentiful enough that players are encouraged to use them. In their zeal they sometimes over spend thinking the next hour mark isn't too far away and find themselves in tight spots. It generates what I consider an intended frequency of use without putting mental load on me to track and justify what does and doesn't constitute something worthy of getting a hero point. All in all, makes for a better session
Also, obviously you can't bank them for the next session. The next session restarts at 1
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is funny to see people insist the system must change, but deliberately ignore a tool the system gives GM for making sure players do heroic thing and have fun playing the game. Maybe every GM considering making house rules to improve spell attack roll spells might want to start with just giving out more hero points?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is funny to see people insist the system Mu at change, Bhutto deliberately ignore a tool the system gives GM for making sure players do heroic thing and have fun playing the game. Maybe every GM considering making house rules to improve spell attack roll spells might want to start with just giving out more hero points?
Saying "just use Hero Points" is really saying "just use True Strike" but with a different label for it. Which is not helpful.
We get 1 Hero Point per session, period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. "Just use Hero Points" is not helpful for tables like ours, and I can assure you that we are probably not the only table(s) that do this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hero Points also aren't a just combat offensive tool to be spending all over the place on trying to make spell attack spells work, there's the previously mentioned don't die option or just rerolling saving throws but also my biggest use of hero points, out of combat skill checks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is funny to see people insist the system Mu at change, Bhutto deliberately ignore a tool the system gives GM for making sure players do heroic thing and have fun playing the game. Maybe every GM considering making house rules to improve spell attack roll spells might want to start with just giving out more hero points?Saying "just use Hero Points" is really saying "just use True Strike" but with a different label for it. Which is not helpful.
We get 1 Hero Point per session, period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. "Just use Hero Points" is not helpful for tables like ours, and I can assure you that we are probably not the only table(s) that do this.
"The GM is in charge of awarding Hero Points. Usually, each character gets 1 Hero Point at the start of a session and can gain more later by performing heroic deeds—"
Not period; the GM controls the flow of hero points. If your GM only ever gives you one, that's on them. It's not codified stricture
|
|
Hero Points also aren't a just combat offensive tool to be spending all over the place on trying to make spell attack spells work, there's the previously mentioned don't die option or just rerolling saving throws but also my biggest use of hero points, out of combat skill checks
Those are all valid uses of Hero Points. Just like rerolling your key attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is funny to see people insist the system Mu at change, Bhutto deliberately ignore a tool the system gives GM for making sure players do heroic thing and have fun playing the game. Maybe every GM considering making house rules to improve spell attack roll spells might want to start with just giving out more hero points?
Don't you think it shouldn't take a heroic moment to simply cast a spell attack? Shouldn't that be a normal moment and work normally? I get what your saying with using the hero point for security to land it on a +3 boss. Cause that is heroic, everyone is having trouble hitting that guy.
But its having trouble especially at some low levels in general and not just on the +3 boss.|
|
It is funny to see people insist the system Mu at change, Bhutto deliberately ignore a tool the system gives GM for making sure players do heroic thing and have fun playing the game. Maybe every GM considering making house rules to improve spell attack roll spells might want to start with just giving out more hero points?Don't you think it shouldn't take a heroic moment to simply cast a spell attack? Shouldn't that be a normal moment and work normally? I get what your saying with using the hero point for security to land it on a +3 boss. Cause that is heroic, everyone is having trouble hitting that guy.
But its having trouble especially at some low levels in general and not just on the +3 boss.
The idea is that spell attacks are just a tool in the caster's toolbox. And not the most reliable at that (no effect on a failed attack vs effects on a successful save, just like Strikes). They are definitely not supposed to be the goto tool in all situations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea is that spell attacks are just a tool in the caster's toolbox. And not the most reliable at that (no effect on a failed attack vs effects on a successful save, just like Strikes). They are definitely not supposed to be the goto tool in all situations.It is funny to see people insist the system Mu at change, Bhutto deliberately ignore a tool the system gives GM for making sure players do heroic thing and have fun playing the game. Maybe every GM considering making house rules to improve spell attack roll spells might want to start with just giving out more hero points?Don't you think it shouldn't take a heroic moment to simply cast a spell attack? Shouldn't that be a normal moment and work normally? I get what your saying with using the hero point for security to land it on a +3 boss. Cause that is heroic, everyone is having trouble hitting that guy.
But its having trouble especially at some low levels in general and not just on the +3 boss.
A tool thats not reliable is probably not one to use in any situation without a hero point.
I dont think casting a spell of any kind should be reliant on such a fickle resource.
I play one hero point at the start of the session and one more for each hour of play (you can expect 4-5 hero points a session). Serves us pretty well1 at the start of a session but extra points Id give those out about as often as Paul Hollywood gives out handshakes.Works as intended for me. The resource becomes plentiful enough that players are encouraged to use them. In their zeal they sometimes over spend thinking the next hour mark isn't too far away and find themselves in tight spots. It generates what I consider an intended frequency of use without putting mental load on me to track and justify what does and doesn't constitute something worthy of getting a hero point. All in all, makes for a better session
Also, obviously you can't bank them for the next session. The next session restarts at 1
There is nothing wrong with playing this way. It sounds like fun. For me I would use my hero points to do cool social stuff and or take revenge on that enemy that crit me.
|
|
The idea is that spell attacks are just a tool in the caster's toolbox. And not the most reliable at that (no effect on a failed attack vs effects on a successful save, just like Strikes). They are definitely not supposed to be the goto tool in all situations.It is funny to see people insist the system Mu at change, Bhutto deliberately ignore a tool the system gives GM for making sure players do heroic thing and have fun playing the game. Maybe every GM considering making house rules to improve spell attack roll spells might want to start with just giving out more hero points?Don't you think it shouldn't take a heroic moment to simply cast a spell attack? Shouldn't that be a normal moment and work normally? I get what your saying with using the hero point for security to land it on a +3 boss. Cause that is heroic, everyone is having trouble hitting that guy.
But its having trouble especially at some low levels in general and not just on the +3 boss.A tool thats not reliable is probably not one to use in any situation without a hero point.
I dont think casting a spell of any kind should be reliant on such a fickle resource.
There are cases when AC is the optimal defense to target though.
There are cases when AC is the optimal defense to target though.The idea is that spell attacks are just a tool in the caster's toolbox. And not the most reliable at that (no effect on a failed attack vs effects on a successful save, just like Strikes). They are definitely not supposed to be the goto tool in all situations.It is funny to see people insist the system Mu at change, Bhutto deliberately ignore a tool the system gives GM for making sure players do heroic thing and have fun playing the game. Maybe every GM considering making house rules to improve spell attack roll spells might want to start with just giving out more hero points?Don't you think it shouldn't take a heroic moment to simply cast a spell attack? Shouldn't that be a normal moment and work normally? I get what your saying with using the hero point for security to land it on a +3 boss. Cause that is heroic, everyone is having trouble hitting that guy.
But its having trouble especially at some low levels in general and not just on the +3 boss.A tool thats not reliable is probably not one to use in any situation without a hero point.
I dont think casting a spell of any kind should be reliant on such a fickle resource.
True. Like the Ocre Jelly I put up the other day. Then again that thing also only had a +4 reflex save. So that was also an option.
True. Like the Ocre Jelly I put up the other day. Then again that thing also only had a +4 reflex save. So that was also an option.There are cases when AC is the optimal defense to target though.The idea is that spell attacks are just a tool in the caster's toolbox. And not the most reliable at that (no effect on a failed attack vs effects on a successful save, just like Strikes). They are definitely not supposed to be the goto tool in all situations.It is funny to see people insist the system Mu at change, Bhutto deliberately ignore a tool the system gives GM for making sure players do heroic thing and have fun playing the game. Maybe every GM considering making house rules to improve spell attack roll spells might want to start with just giving out more hero points?Don't you think it shouldn't take a heroic moment to simply cast a spell attack? Shouldn't that be a normal moment and work normally? I get what your saying with using the hero point for security to land it on a +3 boss. Cause that is heroic, everyone is having trouble hitting that guy.
But its having trouble especially at some low levels in general and not just on the +3 boss.A tool thats not reliable is probably not one to use in any situation without a hero point.
I dont think casting a spell of any kind should be reliant on such a fickle resource.
That actually might be something to look closet at. Ac might not have been a consideration for defenses against casters if there always a low save.
Its possible that spell attack was held onto but casters and monsters were not designed with it in mind at all.
Critical hit immunity also doesn't apply to save spells so reflex saves tend to average out a bit better.True. Like the Ocre Jelly I put up the other day. Then again that thing also only had a +4 reflex save. So that was also an option.There are cases when AC is the optimal defense to target though.The idea is that spell attacks are just a tool in the caster's toolbox. And not the most reliable at that (no effect on a failed attack vs effects on a successful save, just like Strikes). They are definitely not supposed to be the goto tool in all situations.It is funny to see people insist the system Mu at change, Bhutto deliberately ignore a tool the system gives GM for making sure players do heroic thing and have fun playing the game. Maybe every GM considering making house rules to improve spell attack roll spells might want to start with just giving out more hero points?Don't you think it shouldn't take a heroic moment to simply cast a spell attack? Shouldn't that be a normal moment and work normally? I get what your saying with using the hero point for security to land it on a +3 boss. Cause that is heroic, everyone is having trouble hitting that guy.
But its having trouble especially at some low levels in general and not just on the +3 boss.A tool thats not reliable is probably not one to use in any situation without a hero point.
I dont think casting a spell of any kind should be reliant on such a fickle resource.
So this is how it is? I have always wondered and played it by RAW, but I could have missed something.
The critical hit immunity seems to only apply to attack rolls and not spell saves. So a creature immune to critical hits can still take increased damage from a critical save fail. Oozes are to martials what magic immune creatures like golems are to casters. So I played it by RAW. Made casters really effective against oozes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are spell attack spells that do other things than double damage on a crit and are super effective against oozes. My necromancer got great use out of his focus spell and hydraulic push in the slithering campaign I played.
But also, critical hit immunity feels like a "let's wait and see how common that is in the remastery" to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a limited resource requires another limited resource to do its job why not have it baked in?
Is it a good or interesting choice to choose between option A which mostly works or option B that requires help for it to work as good as option A does without it?
Does anyone here think that spell attacks are as good for casters as save spells are in general (rather than the niche circumstances). I get the feeling that is a no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without spell attack roll spells, casters have very little use of hero points at all unless they are having just a terrible day with their own saving throws. Having at least one hard hitting spell attack roll spell is a good way for casters to leverage all of their resources more effectively.
If a limited resource requires another limited resource to do its job why not have it baked in?
Is it a good or interesting choice to choose between option A which mostly works or option B that requires help for it to work as good as option A does without it?
Does anyone here think that spell attacks are as good for casters as save spells are in general (rather than the niche circumstances). I get the feeling that is a no.
No, it's not good design. It should be baked in. But that doesn't mean it's not playable as is.
A tool thats not reliable is probably not one to use in any situation without a hero point.I dont think casting a spell of any kind should be reliant on such a fickle resource.
It's not fickle - you get one per session, plus more depending on your GM.
The point being made is more that spell attacks, unlike normal attacks, hit like a bus. And unlike normal spells, hero points can actually affect them, which is a balancing factor in their favor. That's all.
You may not get the chance to save it for a spell attack. Things happen outside of combat and in.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without spell attack roll spells, casters have very little use of hero points at all unless they are having just a terrible day with their own saving throws. Having at least one hard hitting spell attack roll spell is a good way for casters to leverage all of their resources more effectively.
I save my hero points for saving throws most of the time. Casters have not great saves, no legendary, and only resolve. Fort and Reflex saves hit like a truck. And on a critical fail, you get wrecked by spells.
I still to this day remember the critical fail of an eclipse burst on my bard in Age of Ashes. I was shocked by the amount of damage he took. It was brutal. I was down and out dying 2.
I definitely do not spend hero points on attack roll spells unless I'm 90% plus certain the enemy is going to die from it. My saves are too important.
The game is designed to be balanced when using Hero Points. Not using them will make the game more difficult than planned for the PCs.Hero Points are an invention of the Devil haha. I cannot remember granting any on D&D 5E. Well I like realistic sets so those things that feel like the hand of the gods taking care of players just because are the “heroes of the story” just don’t like.
We have a feat for being harder to die, becoming useless having those wonderful hero points.In realistic sets taking care and foresight should be the way. At the same time no need to be so tight on encounter difficulty but for the boss.
Can adjust encounters. No need for each encounter being a hard fight at the edge of dead.
Have played more deadly games than PF2 with no hero points rules or anything like that (old school games) and no problem. The players can take the situation and do things, improvise, flee, etc. And some players died, why not? We have plenty of stories which some character of the party dies and is an emotional moment. PF2 even gives tools to include new characters with levels greater than 1, and giving double XP to lower level characters. So you could introduce a new character replacing the dead one with some equipment and increasing 2 levels instead 1 if using milestone XP method until equal.
As mentioned I like realistic sets, so don't want something special for anyone with vague excuses of maths, for the sake of narrative, and all that stuff, which is boring.
In my games the adventure set is an environment with its own characteristics, and characters splitted in monsters/creatures, NPC (with their own motivations and etc), and PC. No one is special by the divine grace.
Instead playing a book, that is the way of the "narrative" one, I want we write the book given the scenario. The best scenes I lived in TTRPG have been not written in the adventure ones.
When everything is spontaneous is just fantastic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can adjust encounters. No need for each encounter being a hard fight at the edge of dead.
Have played more deadly games than PF2 with no hero points rules or anything like that (old school games) and no problem. The players can take the situation and do things, improvise, flee, etc. And some players died, why not? We have plenty of stories which some character of the party dies and is an emotional moment. PF2 even gives tools to include new characters with levels greater than 1, and giving double XP to lower level characters. So you could introduce a new character replacing the dead one with some equipment and increasing 2 levels instead 1 if using milestone XP method until equal.
As mentioned I like realistic sets, so don't want something special for anyone with vague excuses of maths, for the sake of narrative, and all that stuff, which is boring.
In my games the adventure set is an environment with its own characteristics, and characters splitted in monsters/creatures, NPC (with their own motivations and etc), and PC. No one is special by the divine grace.
Instead playing a book, that is the way of the "narrative" one, I want we write the book given the scenario. The best scenes I lived in TTRPG have been not written in the adventure ones.
When everything is spontaneous is just fantastic.
There is nothing particularly realistic about letting the swinging dice determine the outcomes of actions. Hero points exist because the d20 is such a swingy unreliable die. It smooths out a quirk of the physical dice so the game can better match the fiction of what the characters are supposed to be able to do. Just in my last session my character who is very strong with a great athletics was unable to climb up to something the other two scrawny PCs could simply because of the result of the die. Now I would never waste a hero point here, but this is an example of the die giving us a result that wouldn't happen in reality. There is nothing "realistic" about letting the die dictate fate, it's just a way for the game to be fun and interesting and have dramatic stakes. Hero points facilitate the fiction of the game my smoothing this out a little. The base assumption of the game is that you will have a hero point about every hour of play, but more over you can very reasonably justify hero points as something fairly "realistic" by acknowledging how doing heroic things gives people a boost in resolve, morale, focus and confidence. This is something easily justified within your paradigm
|
|
If a limited resource requires another limited resource to do its job why not have it baked in?
Is it a good or interesting choice to choose between option A which mostly works or option B that requires help for it to work as good as option A does without it?
Does anyone here think that spell attacks are as good for casters as save spells are in general (rather than the niche circumstances). I get the feeling that is a no.
The fair comparison would be between spell attacks and one (and only one) kind of saves.
I have seen plenty encounters where someone who only targets WILL would feel exceptionaly useless. Other encounters where it is true for casters targeting only REF. And still others for casters using only spells with FORT saves.
If anything, I feel spell attacks are more generally applicable because every opponent has AC and hit points.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slow is a really good spell, but a lot of players assume casting it to get a success result is better than targeting a weaker defense, and there are many more ways to steal a useful action from an enemy than by slowing them. The fact it targets fortitude is a bigger drawback than is usually discussed in these conversations. There are many level +3 brute monsters who can crit succeed a fort save on 15 or even lower.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can heroism, true strike and fine some circumstances bonus to shadow signet hit a very low reflex say for some insane crit potential that martials would be quite envious of. It requires set up, but I prefer the paradigm where we cast spells like slow, those debuffs, and buffs first and then hit a dude with polar ray at the end is much more interesting than a hypothetical case where spell attacks are consistent enough you can just throw them out every round
You can heroism, true strike and fine some circumstances bonus to shadow signet hit a very low reflex say for some insane crit potential that martials would be quite envious of. It requires set up, but I prefer the paradigm where we cast spells like slow, those debuffs, and buffs first and then hit a dude with polar ray at the end is much more interesting than a hypothetical case where spell attacks are consistent enough you can just throw them out every round
Does a +1 magic item increase to hit gained at level 4 change that play style?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can heroism, true strike and fine some circumstances bonus to shadow signet hit a very low reflex say for some insane crit potential that martials would be quite envious of. It requires set up, but I prefer the paradigm where we cast spells like slow, those debuffs, and buffs first and then hit a dude with polar ray at the end is much more interesting than a hypothetical case where spell attacks are consistent enough you can just throw them out every roundDoes a +1 magic item increase to hit gained at level 4 change that play style?
I think so
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it changes the playstyle because it encourages players to see " i cast spell attack roll spells' as an intentional and supported build for casters, which is not the case. Casters have very limited options for specializing in attacking one defense by design. it is general a bad thing to encourage.
it changes the playstyle because it encourages players to see " i cast spell attack roll spells' as an intentional and supported build for casters, which is not the case. Casters have very limited options for specializing in attacking one defense by design. it is general a bad thing to encourage.
My guess is it wont even be noticed. We will probably still have all the same complaints even if that +1 was there at level 4
|
|
it changes the playstyle because it encourages players to see " i cast spell attack roll spells' as an intentional and supported build for casters, which is not the case. Casters have very limited options for specializing in attacking one defense by design. it is general a bad thing to encourage.My guess is it wont even be noticed. We will probably still have all the same complaints even if that +1 was there at level 4
I honestly think that, if it was that easy and balanced, Paizo would not have created 2 classes (Magus and Kineticist) wholecloth to have those, and only those, benefit from attack-boosting items.
It would have been far simpler to just create the item you describe and give it to everyone. Yet, these people, who master the intricacies of PF2's balance far better than anyone here, have not done so.
I find it absolutely telling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
its not whether it changes the actual game math, it is about what it leads players to try to do in play.
its not whether it changes the actual game math, it is about what it leads players to try to do in play.
I would think what players try in play is as varied as the tables out there. The math however either supports that play or doesn't.
I don't see the +1 as changing behavior much. But it will have a few benefits.It will give casters a bonus to look forward to obtaining providing a sense of growth at a time when there is no feature/feat/magic bonus growth in this fashion till level 7.
And
It will soften the accuracy problems where it is at its worst while not making it go away.
This doesn't address all the problems people have with spell attack but its an easy thing to accommodate without changing much else.
|
|
I honestly think that, if it was that easy and balanced, Paizo would not have created 2 classes (Magus and Kineticist) wholecloth to have those, and only those, benefit from attack-boosting items.it changes the playstyle because it encourages players to see " i cast spell attack roll spells' as an intentional and supported build for casters, which is not the case. Casters have very limited options for specializing in attacking one defense by design. it is general a bad thing to encourage.My guess is it wont even be noticed. We will probably still have all the same complaints even if that +1 was there at level 4I won't pretend to know Paizo's reasoning, but I suspect it was more "these were popular 1E classes and people keep asking for them" or in the K. case "people want an all-day blaster." Not "there is a bad gap in spell attack use that needs filling." After all, the kineticist doesn't even do that - it doesn't use 'vs. AC' spells and most impulses are vs. Save.
My wording was not the best. My key argument is the one at the end : if there was no design problem with an item boosting all spell attacks, we would have one already.
Several people point to Magus and Kineticist benefiting from such items as proof that it could be given to all casters without causing problems. I think the opposite is true.
|
|
its not whether it changes the actual game math, it is about what it leads players to try to do in play.I would think what players try in play is as varied as the tables out there. The math however either supports that play or doesn't.
I don't see the +1 as changing behavior much. But it will have a few benefits.
It will give casters a bonus to look forward to obtaining providing a sense of growth at a time when there is no feature/feat/magic bonus growth in this fashion till level 7.
And
It will soften the accuracy problems where it is at its worst while not making it go away.This doesn't address all the problems people have with spell attack but its an easy thing to accommodate without changing much else.
There is a significant power up in the magic abilities of casters at every odd level. It is called higher spell rank.