There is a significant power up in the magic abilities of casters at every odd level. It is called higher spell rank.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.
Thats true spell rank does determine access to more capabilities but it doesn't change how accurate you are with spell attacks.
Also the challenges are comesurate to those new capabilities and are increasingly harder to hit because they have to be for their AC to stay relevant to a martial doing strike, especially fighter. I mean thats it right? AC on monsters is structured around a martial and their progression. Saves are structured around casters and their progression. But caster progression set to later levels than martials to establish DC appropriate for saves isn't up to the task tackling ac.A +1 doesn't remove the gap or change how a caster will be played but it makes the distance just a little more tolerable.
| 2 people 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.
I don't get this guardrail approach to player fun. Devs should make a system that plays well without needing to overly currate that fun. Instead, Paizo seems to have taken the wrong lessons from PF1 and thinks players and groups can't be trusted to find their own unique fun if given a box of legos without instructions.
| 2 people 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.I don't get this guardrail approach to player fun. Devs should make a system that plays well without needing to overly currate that fun. Instead, Paizo seems to have taken the wrong lessons from PF1 and thinks players and groups can't be trusted to find their own unique fun if given a box of legos without instructions.
I dont know about.
I think we as players ask for clarity and defined gameplay. And they deliver on it and keep working on it for us. I applaud Paizo there.
|
| 3 people 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.I don't get this guardrail approach to player fun. Devs should make a system that plays well without needing to overly currate that fun. Instead, Paizo seems to have taken the wrong lessons from PF1 and thinks players and groups can't be trusted to find their own unique fun if given a box of legos without instructions.
3.x/PF1 showed that a system without hard limits will often end up ruining most people's fun, and especially that of casual players and GMs.
I am still in awe of the ability of PF2's designers to have built such a resilient balanced system that allows for great variety in builds and puts great weight on tactics. And is pretty easy to adjust to the tone and power level each group prefers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to derail this any further but I definitely like the box of legos approach more.
| 2 people 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.I don't get this guardrail approach to player fun. Devs should make a system that plays well without needing to overly currate that fun. Instead, Paizo seems to have taken the wrong lessons from PF1 and thinks players and groups can't be trusted to find their own unique fun if given a box of legos without instructions.
Yeah, I don't get this viewpoint at all. The system is the opposite to me and my group, and to most people I talk to about it.
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...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.
But then why NPC cannot have them? They could also do things inspiring. As mentioned I prefer no one being “special” by divine grace, that is not new in all old schools games was that way. The die has weight always and depending the results is what it creates the narrative, instead having a predetermined narrative that must be accomplished no matter what.
As addition to both this sentence and the most recent post, I have to recommend to take a good look at GMG, taking parts and rules fully or partially as base to make your own you can customize your game very nicely to fit your expectations.
...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 nothingCan 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.
O
I don't think there is anything wrong with playing this way or having sessions with 4-5 or sessions with 1-2.Game balance should not take hero points into consideration. They are there to break balance in the players favor a limited number of times per session. Playing without them should be completely ok in a setting where players characters are no better than npcs
|
|
O
I don't think there is anything wrong with playing this way or having sessions with 4-5 or sessions with 1-2.
Game balance should not take hero points into consideration. They are there to break balance in the players favor a limited number of times per session. Playing without them should be completely ok in a setting where players characters are no better than npcs
In PF2, NPCs are not built like PCs though.
In PF2, NPCs are not built like PCs though.
More like "need not be", isn't it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF2, NPCs are not built like PCs though.More like "need not be", isn't it?
Right when i inject an npc i like to think of as my own character into the game ill build them like anyone making a pc.
Also when i make npc’s that will act as part of the group (as long as pc goals continue to align with the npc goals) i build them like pcs.| 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.I don't get this guardrail approach to player fun. Devs should make a system that plays well without needing to overly currate that fun. Instead, Paizo seems to have taken the wrong lessons from PF1 and thinks players and groups can't be trusted to find their own unique fun if given a box of legos without instructions.
The thing is, "uses spell attack roll spells all the time" isn't a character concept. There is no narrative addition to the game by adding a an item that provides a bonus to spell attack roll accuracy. The shadow signet ring is adding something narratively and mechanically to the game, because it plays into the intended "rock, paper, scissors" play style of casters, by giving them additional ways of flexibly targeting different defenses.
An +1 item bonus to spell attack rolls item is an item that provides much less value to a caster than a +1 potency rune to a martial, but has very particular and narrow niches where it can be an exploit that works counter to the intended play style of casters.
This isn't to say it will never be added, and who knows what spells or items are going to look like in the remastery yet. Maybe moving all spells, including more cantrips to less static damage bonuses and more lower dice size, but more dice number spreads will change the math enough that a number of things become possible that weren't before. That is why I am avoiding any specific math analysis until we see the remastered content.
In another game I played there was 3 categories for creating items with bonus, from cheaper to most expensive: weapon, armor, general.
The general could be used for a bonus to anything, so you could use it for your spell attacks the same than for any other skill. It just was a higher level feature, but no need to negate the chance, if I can get a bonus item for my Perception, why not for my spell attack?
Looking at ABP, could use the Skill Potency (two at +X) as reference, which are level 6, 13 and 20, with the option to just ignore the last one.
| 2 people 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.
This is an illogical assumption. I can easily apply this thinking to spell attacks or any action which may be worse than another in a given circumstance that exists.
So a +1 to spell hit iyem would encourage players to use spell attacks which I infer is 'bad.' However the existence of spell attacks won't encohrage players to try them.
Earlier in the thread you say spell attacks are ok as they are situational. At best a +1 item allows slightly more of those situation to exist or be worthwhile, how is that a bad thing? Either spell attacks are bad and shouldn't be encouraged or they are situational and could bemefit from some minor support. If +1 isn't a umbalancing why not give spell attacks some mimimal support?
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!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.
Wait-a-minute. Don't the blood magic effects need to target an ally or yourself? How do you effect two allies unless you're charming them or dusting them?
|
|
| 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.This is an illogical assumption. I can easily apply this thinking to spell attacks or any action which may be worse than another in a given circumstance that exists.
So a +1 to spell hit iyem would encourage players to use spell attacks which I infer is 'bad.' However the existence of spell attacks won't encohrage players to try them.
Earlier in the thread you say spell attacks are ok as they are situational. At best a +1 item allows slightly more of those situation to exist or be worthwhile, how is that a bad thing? Either spell attacks are bad and shouldn't be encouraged or they are situational and could bemefit from some minor support. If +1 isn't a umbalancing why not give spell attacks some mimimal support?
Why indeed ?
Why have the designers not created such an item already ? It would have been simpler that the Shadow Signet and would have soothed the people who want this.
But maybe it is actually that unbalancing.
its not whether it changes the actual game math, it is about what it leads players to try to do in play.This is an illogical assumption. I can easily apply this thinking to spell attacks or any action which may be worse than another in a given circumstance that exists.
So a +1 to spell hit iyem would encourage players to use spell attacks which I infer is 'bad.' However the existence of spell attacks won't encohrage players to try them.
Earlier in the thread you say spell attacks are ok as they are situational. At best a +1 item allows slightly more of those situation to exist or be worthwhile, how is that a bad thing? Either spell attacks are bad and shouldn't be encouraged or they are situational and could bemefit from some minor support. If +1 isn't a umbalancing why not give spell attacks some mimimal support?
Why indeed ?
Why have the designers not created such an item already ? It would have been simpler that the Shadow Signet and would have soothed the people who want this.
But maybe it is actually that unbalancing.
I think they haven't done it because spell attacks aren't much used past level 4 or so.
Searing Light may be one the more used higher level attack roll spells I see used, but it is situational.
I recall at low level Briny Bolt, Hydraulic Push, attack roll cantrips are used fairly heavily in those early caster levels when you don't good AoE or save spells.
Once you get fireball and such, you start using save spells and you use saves spells more and more unless you're a magus as get higher level. Magus already have item bonuses to attack roll spells as part of Spell Strike.
They already have the Shadow Signet ring which is better than an item bonus to attack roll spells at higher level. It doesn't get much use from what I've seen.
Until I see math proving there is a balance issue with attack roll spells, not real sure why it keeps getting used when it's not a provable theory. If anything the reason item bonuses aren't there for attack roll spells is something as simple as Paizo wanted to keep item bonuses a thing for martials so casters could just focus on spells rather than have to chase some item for their power like martials have to do.
As much as I like impactful magic weapons, martials are nothing without their striking weapons. If a martial didn't have a striking weapon, casters would rule this game like PF1 or worse.
Or spell attacks are already fine in the situations where they are worth casting and adding item bonuses to them would either increase the number of those situations, perhaps too far past balanced compared to other defenses, or it would just mislead more players into trying to make more situations spell attack roll situations than the e tra plus one or two would actually allow for.
An item that provided status bonuses or circumstance bonuses to attack rolls generally might be a better fit and more universally useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they haven't done it because spell attacks aren't much used past level 4 or so.
There are two attack spells that don't even start until after level 4: disintegrate (level 6) and polar ray (level 8). If folks aren't using them, they're missing a bet, probably because they believe the hype that "all attack spells are worthless".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or spell attacks are already fine in the situations where they are worth casting and adding item bonuses to them would either increase the number of those situations, perhaps too far past balanced compared to other defenses, or it would just mislead more players into trying to make more situations spell attack roll situations than the e tra plus one or two would actually allow for.
An item that provided status bonuses or circumstance bonuses to attack rolls generally might be a better fit and more universally useful.
If spell attacks were fine, they wouldn't have added the Shadow Signet ring.
I think it has more to do with there aren't enough attack roll spells used by casters for them to make this change. I still don't understand why these threads keep getting brought up since I don't see attack roll spells used much in play. I don't even see many worth using on the spell lists.
The most used attack roll spells I've seen are early level primal or arcane casters and Divine casters who don't have anything else to use with searing light being situationally good and deity strike being a pretty attack roll spell for the divine list.
I would love to see what people are using for attack roll spells that is making these threads continually pop up. What spells are they trying to use that are better than the save spell options they have? I'm not getting it.
I think they haven't done it because spell attacks aren't much used past level 4 or so.There are two attack spells that don't even start until after level 4: disintegrate (level 6) and polar ray (level 8). If folks aren't using them, they're missing a bet, probably because they believe the hype that "all attack spells are worthless".
So arcane casters want to use disintegrate? That's the reason for these threads.
I've played a ton of casters with access to polar ray.
Why am I used polar ray over a heightened chain lightning or some other spell I can sustain? Is it for the drained 2?
I don't like drained that much. Fights are 3 to 4 rounds. Drained doesn't lower AC or Reflex saves. It doesn't synergize very well for the party and when something is dead, the drained doesn't matter.
As a druid, my tempest surge is 8d12 damage with clumsy 2 and 8 persistent electrical damage on a failed save.
I can also heighten a chain lighting to 10d12 for multiple targets if needed.
Even a level 8 phantasmal killer can hit for a truck ton of damage with frightened condition almost guaranteed even on a success that sets up the whole party.
I can understand disintegrate, but I can find better options than polar ray to better synergize with a party. I don't see the appeal.
<shrug> I was reacting to Deriven's "spell attacks aren't used much after level four". I just wondered how many players fall into the "attack spells suck" trap and don't even look at these two spells.
Wait-a-minute. Don't the blood magic effects need to target an ally or yourself? How do you effect two allies unless you're charming them or dusting them?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!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.
When you meet the requirements for the fey blood magic effect you do what the blood magic effect says to, “choose yourself or one target, causing them to be concealed for 1 round.” That targeting has nothing to do with the target you chose for the spell that triggered the blood magic effect.
You do make the choice before resolving the spell that allowed you the blood magic effect and you do resolve the blood magic effect after the spell resolves. If you wanted to target the same target as the charm spell that effect would not happen unless the charm succeeded.But nothing says the target of the fey blood magic effect has to be the target of the charm or fey dust spells.
<shrug> I was reacting to Deriven's "spell attacks aren't used much after level four". I just wondered how many players fall into the "attack spells suck" trap and don't even look at these two spells.
I haven't played an arcane caster to very high level, so don't much think about disintegrate.
There are far better spells than polar ray. Drained isn't a very good condition in the party dynamic of PF2.
I imagine drained might be good if you had a grapple or poison or necromancy focused group. Trip goes against Reflex save. Clumsy lowers Reflex and AC. Frightened lowers everything.
Drained is fort saves and double CR hit points on top of damage. In a group that target fort saves more, might be useful. But that is pretty rare.
I haven't seen disintegrate used too much, but the theoretical damage on disintegrate is really high. polar ray would help set up disintegrate since it is a fort save.
Maybe I'm not as concerned with spell attack because I don't play many arcane casters. This is another area where arcane casters could use some help. I don't play many divine casters either and I have seen them use attack roll spells more often into the higher levels given searing light is great when the situation arises and deity's weapon is also very good.
I'm mostly a primal and occult caster. The attack roll options don't outdo the save options at higher level.
I feel like if spell attacks were good disintegrate would still be kind of bad, needing 2 rolls to work cuts into its damage a lot, especially against higher level targets. Polar ray is a bit better, but it still is highly reliant on fortune effects for consistency.I think they haven't done it because spell attacks aren't much used past level 4 or so.There are two attack spells that don't even start until after level 4: disintegrate (level 6)Disintegrate just isn't good unless you're using it on low level monsters. Fortitude saves are awful.
The irony is against low level monsters it's still bad because you should be using AOE. The one good use case is against oozes
Do you use polar ray?
Do you use polar ray?I feel like if spell attacks were good disintegrate would still be kind of bad, needing 2 rolls to work cuts into its damage a lot, especially against higher level targets. Polar ray is a bit better, but it still is highly reliant on fortune effects for consistency.I think they haven't done it because spell attacks aren't much used past level 4 or so.There are two attack spells that don't even start until after level 4: disintegrate (level 6)Disintegrate just isn't good unless you're using it on low level monsters. Fortitude saves are awful.
The irony is against low level monsters it's still bad because you should be using AOE. The one good use case is against oozes
Yup, from time to time. It's okay.
The best 8th that I've seen for an arcane caster is heightened confusion, though. It's absolutely devastating, especially when combined with stinking cloud to keep the targets debuffed and unable to hit anything.
How do you account for your allies engaging in a stinking cloud?
Wait-a-minute. Don't the blood magic effects need to target an ally or yourself? How do you effect two allies unless you're charming them or dusting them?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!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.When you meet the requirements for the fey blood magic effect you do what the blood magic effect says to, “choose yourself or one target, causing them to be concealed for 1 round.” That targeting has nothing to do with the target you chose for the spell that triggered the blood magic effect.
You do make the choice before resolving the spell that allowed you the blood magic effect and you do resolve the blood magic effect after the spell resolves. If you wanted to target the same target as the charm spell that effect would not happen unless the charm succeeded.
But nothing says the target of the fey blood magic effect has to be the target of the charm or fey dust spells.
If that's the case, then what is the range of the blood magic effect? EDIT: As this is off-topic, I'm moving this line of inquiry here.
How do you account for your allies engaging in a stinking cloud?Do you use polar ray?I feel like if spell attacks were good disintegrate would still be kind of bad, needing 2 rolls to work cuts into its damage a lot, especially against higher level targets. Polar ray is a bit better, but it still is highly reliant on fortune effects for consistency.I think they haven't done it because spell attacks aren't much used past level 4 or so.There are two attack spells that don't even start until after level 4: disintegrate (level 6)Disintegrate just isn't good unless you're using it on low level monsters. Fortitude saves are awful.
The irony is against low level monsters it's still bad because you should be using AOE. The one good use case is against oozes
Yup, from time to time. It's okay.
The best 8th that I've seen for an arcane caster is heightened confusion, though. It's absolutely devastating, especially when combined with stinking cloud to keep the targets debuffed and unable to hit anything.
air bubble is fun with a stinking cloud
air bubble is fun with a stinking cloudHow do you account for your allies engaging in a stinking cloud?Do you use polar ray?I feel like if spell attacks were good disintegrate would still be kind of bad, needing 2 rolls to work cuts into its damage a lot, especially against higher level targets. Polar ray is a bit better, but it still is highly reliant on fortune effects for consistency.I think they haven't done it because spell attacks aren't much used past level 4 or so.There are two attack spells that don't even start until after level 4: disintegrate (level 6)Disintegrate just isn't good unless you're using it on low level monsters. Fortitude saves are awful.
The irony is against low level monsters it's still bad because you should be using AOE. The one good use case is against oozes
Yup, from time to time. It's okay.
The best 8th that I've seen for an arcane caster is heightened confusion, though. It's absolutely devastating, especially when combined with stinking cloud to keep the targets debuffed and unable to hit anything.
Air bubble is one target. Most groups are larger than that. I'm wondering if he confusions, then stinking clouds, and the martials wait for the combination? Then engage if they leave the cloud or how does it work exactly?
Polar Ray is not the spell you will use typically. But can be nice for lowering the regeneration/healing cap of powerful creatures. So even if you have some "bad rolls" you start again from a lower value of HP. Notice that is a level 8 spell, and as mentioned usually a heightened spell would be better, so the base spell itself is targeted for those powerful creatures with regeneration or some kind of healing.
If you know that are going to face a creature of this kind, is not a waste to fill your 8th level slots with Polar Ray (for prepared casters) plus True Strike, then try to land at least one to the creature. Even if you land it and have some remaining, well is not a waste and can release them as it can deal a decent amount of damage though.
There is a significant power up in the magic abilities of casters at every odd level. It is called higher spell rank.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.
Thats true spell rank does determine access to more capabilities but it doesn't change how accurate you are with spell attacks.
Also the challenges are comesurate to those new capabilities and are increasingly harder to hit because they have to be for their AC to stay relevant to a martial doing strike, especially fighter. I mean thats it right? AC on monsters is structured around a martial and their progression. Saves are structured around casters and their progression. But caster progression set to later levels than martials to establish DC appropriate for saves isn't up to the task tackling ac.
A +1 doesn't remove the gap or change how a caster will be played but it makes the distance just a little more tolerable.No but going up to spellrank 3 is a major jump compared to rank 1 to 2 or rank 3 to 4.
as such i assume that the "decrees" in accuracy stems from the spells having a higher base power for those levels where you lack behind.
I am not so sure that can be assumed. Its not the spell attack spells that make rank 3 good. Its access to slow haste heroism and aoe damage. So better buffs and debuffs and aoe damage make rank 3 good. Correct me if I am missing something but spell attack isn't breaking the game at rank 3 spells such that the accuracy cant have any boosts.
But then why NPC cannot have them? They could also do things inspiring. As mentioned I prefer no one being “special” by divine grace, that is not new in all old schools games was that way. The die has weight always and depending the results is what it creates the narrative, instead having a predetermined narrative that must be accomplished no matter what.
As addition to both this sentence and the most recent post, I have to recommend to take a good look at GMG, taking parts and rules fully or partially as base to make your own you can customize your game very nicely to fit your expectations.
NPCs, particularly enemies, already have inflated stats. There is by that nature already a lack of symmetry. You can say monsters are affect by the divine grace of the game designers in being swole af
NPCs, particularly enemies, already have inflated stats. There is by that nature already a lack of symmetry. You can say monsters are affect by the divine grace of the game designers in being swole afBut then why NPC cannot have them? They could also do things inspiring. As mentioned I prefer no one being “special” by divine grace, that is not new in all old schools games was that way. The die has weight always and depending the results is what it creates the narrative, instead having a predetermined narrative that must be accomplished no matter what.
As addition to both this sentence and the most recent post, I have to recommend to take a good look at GMG, taking parts and rules fully or partially as base to make your own you can customize your game very nicely to fit your expectations.
I think humanoid have not them inflated, is that a creature CR 6 is mean to fight against 4 level 6th characters, not for comparing against only one. So the “level” (CR) of a creature is not its real individual level, but just used as reference.
And special creatures is normal to have betters stats than humanoid, don’t expect a dragon to have the same Str than an human of the same level, or it should not at least.
NPCs, particularly enemies, already have inflated stats. There is by that nature already a lack of symmetry. You can say monsters are affect by the divine grace of the game designers in being swole afBut then why NPC cannot have them? They could also do things inspiring. As mentioned I prefer no one being “special” by divine grace, that is not new in all old schools games was that way. The die has weight always and depending the results is what it creates the narrative, instead having a predetermined narrative that must be accomplished no matter what.
As addition to both this sentence and the most recent post, I have to recommend to take a good look at GMG, taking parts and rules fully or partially as base to make your own you can customize your game very nicely to fit your expectations.
I think humanoid have not them inflated, is that a creature CR 6 is mean to fight against 4 level 6th characters, not for comparing against only one. So the “level” (CR) of a creature is not its real individual level, but just used as reference.
And special creatures is normal to have betters stats than humanoid, don’t expect a dragon to have the same Str than an human of the same level, or it should not at least.
But isnt the following true?
No matter the stats the level players should encounter it comes down to the stat block it has, ac saves hp to hit dc skills and the spells/natural abilities it posses. So if its considered same level for a level 6 party all of its natural power will have been taken into consideration to be rated same level for a level 6 party.|
|
I am not so sure that can be assumed. Its not the spell attack spells that make...There is a significant power up in the magic abilities of casters at every odd level. It is called higher spell rank.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.
Thats true spell rank does determine access to more capabilities but it doesn't change how accurate you are with spell attacks.
Also the challenges are comesurate to those new capabilities and are increasingly harder to hit because they have to be for their AC to stay relevant to a martial doing strike, especially fighter. I mean thats it right? AC on monsters is structured around a martial and their progression. Saves are structured around casters and their progression. But caster progression set to later levels than martials to establish DC appropriate for saves isn't up to the task tackling ac.
A +1 doesn't remove the gap or change how a caster will be played but it makes the distance just a little more tolerable.No but going up to spellrank 3 is a major jump compared to rank 1 to 2 or rank 3 to 4.
as such i assume that the "decrees" in accuracy stems from the spells having a higher base power for those levels where you lack behind.
TBT I thought you were talking about a sense of growth for casters in a general fashion rather than only for spell attacks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
NPCs, particularly enemies, already have inflated stats. There is by that nature already a lack of symmetry. You can say monsters are affect by the divine grace of the game designers in being swole afBut then why NPC cannot have them? They could also do things inspiring. As mentioned I prefer no one being “special” by divine grace, that is not new in all old schools games was that way. The die has weight always and depending the results is what it creates the narrative, instead having a predetermined narrative that must be accomplished no matter what.
As addition to both this sentence and the most recent post, I have to recommend to take a good look at GMG, taking parts and rules fully or partially as base to make your own you can customize your game very nicely to fit your expectations.
I think humanoid have not them inflated, is that a creature CR 6 is mean to fight against 4 level 6th characters, not for comparing against only one. So the “level” (CR) of a creature is not its real individual level, but just used as reference.
And special creatures is normal to have betters stats than humanoid, don’t expect a dragon to have the same Str than an human of the same level, or it should not at least.
But isnt the following true?
No matter the stats the level players should encounter it comes down to the stat block it has, ac saves hp to hit dc skills and the spells/natural abilities it posses. So if its considered same level for a level 6 party all of its natural power will have been taken into consideration to be rated same level for a level 6 party.
If the game assumed that players never built synergistically and if build bonuses could trounce combat tactics, then yes. But in PF2 combat tactics alone can be a 3 point swing from circumstance bonuses and penalties from a pretty low level and quickly rise to a 5 point swing. This is just circumstance bonuses/penalties. Not status ones. It feels pretty reasonable for there to be a built accommodation that low level parties will manage 2 of this shift with tactics and higher level ones should manage 3 or 4. As a GM, it is entirely within your purview to balance encounters for your party given what they do or don’t do. That could include giving a special item bonus to your casters who just don’t want to interact with the intended play style of PF2 or casters, but it just doesn’t need to be a default part of the game to assume players won’t learn what is and what isn’t effective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NPCs, particularly enemies, already have inflated stats. There is by that nature already a lack of symmetry. You can say monsters are affect by the divine grace of the game designers in being swole afBut then why NPC cannot have them? They could also do things inspiring. As mentioned I prefer no one being “special” by divine grace, that is not new in all old schools games was that way. The die has weight always and depending the results is what it creates the narrative, instead having a predetermined narrative that must be accomplished no matter what.
As addition to both this sentence and the most recent post, I have to recommend to take a good look at GMG, taking parts and rules fully or partially as base to make your own you can customize your game very nicely to fit your expectations.
I think humanoid have not them inflated, is that a creature CR 6 is mean to fight against 4 level 6th characters, not for comparing against only one. So the “level” (CR) of a creature is not its real individual level, but just used as reference.
And special creatures is normal to have betters stats than humanoid, don’t expect a dragon to have the same Str than an human of the same level, or it should not at least.
Humanoids do have inflated numbers, and sometimes unique abilities. Typically a on level enemy, and I believe even ones slightly below your level too, have a higher bonus to checks and DCs regardless of whether their ability modifiers are any different from a PC. Enemies and NPCs use different rules. Players and non players follow a different set of rules and expectations. Players get hero points to smooth variance and enemy NPCs get jacked bonuses so that they're not a threat
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the game assumed that players never built synergistically and if build bonuses could trounce combat tactics, then yes. But in PF2 combat tactics alone can be a 3 point swing from circumstance bonuses and penalties from a pretty low level and quickly rise to a 5 point swing. This is just circumstance...
If we apply this same logic to martial characters, one of which gets a built-in accuracy bonus...
...I am not so sure that can be assumed. Its not theThere is a significant power up in the magic abilities of casters at every odd level. It is called higher spell rank.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.
Thats true spell rank does determine access to more capabilities but it doesn't change how accurate you are with spell attacks.
Also the challenges are comesurate to those new capabilities and are increasingly harder to hit because they have to be for their AC to stay relevant to a martial doing strike, especially fighter. I mean thats it right? AC on monsters is structured around a martial and their progression. Saves are structured around casters and their progression. But caster progression set to later levels than martials to establish DC appropriate for saves isn't up to the task tackling ac.
A +1 doesn't remove the gap or change how a caster will be played but it makes the distance just a little more tolerable.No but going up to spellrank 3 is a major jump compared to rank 1 to 2 or rank 3 to 4.
as such i assume that the "decrees" in accuracy stems from the spells having a higher base power for those levels where you lack behind.
I apologize I am not chat fluent. What is TBT?