| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we apply this same logic to martial characters, one of which gets a built-in accuracy bonus......then we can say thank you for confirming what caster defenders have generally said and which caster detractors constantly deny: that what you really want but don't admit to wanting is a fighter-equivalent wizard who will dominate single target combat without having to give up any of its broad spectrum magic utility.
I am not sure impugning motives is constructive. Or an argument for or against what we are currently discussing.
Are you arguing that a single +1 magic item at low level will catch casters up with fighters or are you saying that a single +1 unbalances the casters because of their existing utility?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I am not so sureThere 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 stands for Truth Be Told. My apologies.
If we apply this same logic to martial characters, one of which gets a built-in accuracy bonus......then we can say thank you for confirming what caster defenders have generally said and which caster detractors constantly deny: that what you really want but don't admit to wanting is a fighter-equivalent wizard who will dominate single target combat without having to give up any of its broad spectrum magic utility.
You say to the person who has consistently asked for bespoke spell lists and caster classes that use these narrow lists of spells. I'd trade away most of, but not all, of a caster's baseline utility for them to be able to specialize in a single narrow kind of casting.
If we apply this same logic to martial characters, one of which gets a built-in accuracy bonus......then we can say thank you for confirming what caster defenders have generally said and which caster detractors constantly deny: that what you really want but don't admit to wanting is a fighter-equivalent wizard who will dominate single target combat without having to give up any of its broad spectrum magic utility.
I am not sure impugning motives is constructive. Or an argument for or against what we are currently discussing.
Are you arguing that a single +1 magic item at low level will catch casters up with fighters or are you saying that a single +1 unbalances the casters because of their existing utility?
That +1 wouldn't even impact save DCs either so it's really difficult to say that it would do anything beyond making attack roll spells feel more usable.
...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
Thank you.
Admittedly i was vague and non committal there. The arguments in this thread best support the +1 to spell attack mainly.I still like the idea of a rune for wands that improve the dc of the spell you cast as long as thats the spell in the wand your holding but they probably should be considered separately as ideas even if some of the arguments apply to both ideas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As you can all see im not even chat literate lol. The response window is getting muddled. Next time ill try just copying the part i want to respond to into a new post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As you can all see im not even chat literate lol. The response window is getting muddled. Next time ill try just copying the part i want to respond to into a new post.
I typically copy the text of the post when it gets long then highlight everything but the
QUOTE= /quote parts and paste it in. Cleans up the messages and makes things more legible for everyone else
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
Don't think so. If we look at a creature HP for designing something like a level, i.e. a goblin, we see that it has stats that any PC could reach at character creation.
I repeat that the CR number is not the level, so cannot assure as you do they are inflated, because based on that number is incorrect as they usually will have a real higher "internal" level, not declared in any case, they only use CR.And unique abilities could be the same than feats for PC. In addition to natural abilities due to the specie, like breath, or having claws while your humanoid PC didn't, that is something related to specie not anything inflated or unique as advantage intended added for superiority over PCs. That is just in real life, a bear has better skin, claws and teeth than human. So no problem about it as is something natural and realistic.
Let's be clear the excuse for hero points is the survivability, as currently seems the gameplay must just go ahead with an improved chance of success, we have the same on video games with game saving very often so you can continue from just a moment earlier.
PF2 system does not have instant dead by hit (well it has but so so far) and added, like other modern games, the condition of dying, improving by itself the survivability, so those tools are more than enough for me who like more realistic sets so no need to add another excuse for survivability improvement.
It is the flavor of being by bare worst species than other superior (i.e. human inferior to an ogre) using the development of technology (armors, weapons), techniques and others (magic) can beat them with no divine intervention, just like happened in real life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 threatDon't think so. If we look at a creature HP for designing something like a level, i.e. a goblin, we see that it has stats that any PC could reach at character creation.
I repeat that the CR number is not the level, so cannot assure as you do they are inflated, because based on that number is incorrect as they usually will have a real higher "internal" level, not declared in any case, they only use CR.And unique abilities could be the same than feats for PC. In addition to natural abilities due to the specie, like breath, or having claws while your humanoid PC didn't, that is something related to specie not anything inflated or unique as advantage intended added for superiority over PCs. That is just in real life, a bear has better skin, claws and teeth than human. So no problem about it as is something natural and realistic.
Let's be clear the excuse for hero points is the survivability, as currently seems the gameplay must just go ahead with an improved chance of success, we have the same on video games with game saving very often so you can continue from just a moment earlier.
PF2 system does not have instant dead by hit (well it has but so so far) and added, like other modern games, the condition of dying, improving by itself the survivability, so those tools are more than enough for me who like more realistic sets so no need to add another excuse for survivability improvement.
It is the flavor of being by bare worst species than other superior (i.e. human inferior to an ogre) using...
Let's just get this straight, PF2's level for monsters is not directly comparable to CR like this. I recommend you open up the monster building guidelines though. You'll see that monsters on the whole are above the curve of PCs except in the case of goblins which are level -1 and have lower stats than PCs because you're intended to run several in a combat at levels 1 and 2, and with a create like a bugbear or hobgoblin to make it into a boss encounter. Hobgoblin Soldier is level 1, it has a lower strength than a starting PC at +3 instead of +4, but it has +8 to hit, which is above the PC +7 at level 1. 3+2+2, making it as if it's a level 2 PC but it's a level 1 monster. But Bugbear Thug level 2 monster +4 strength, +10 to hit. 4+2+4, this is as if the monster is a level 4 PC. Talking about monster levels not being PC levels is exactly in favor of my point here. This is "the divine grace of the designers" and abilities which are unavailable to PCs is not like "having a feat" if no such feat exists. A lich is level 12, but has stats which are more befitting something much higher level by having +6 intelligence which is only possible with +5 and apex item for a PC around levels 17-20, or at level 20 with no apex item. +5 is available at the soonest at level 10. Master spellcasting for a PC shouldn't be available until level 15. The spell DC of a creature level 12 lich is 36. 6+6+14+10 would suggest master level proficiency a level early, being a level 14 character, but they only have spells up to rank 6, but if they worked like a PC would have spells up to rank 7 by then. Mind you a lich is a thing a PC can become at level 12 also, but without undead immunities for gameplay purposes. Somewhere here the lich is either a level 12 caster with legendary spells proficiency five levels early, or is a level 14 caster without level 7 spells, or maybe some third or fourth thing. The specific don't matter. NPCs, creatures especially, do not follow PC rules even when they are things a player can be such as a humanoid lich
We also have designers on record saying the purpose of hero points is mainly because d20s are a swing-y die, this isn't conjecture or speculation on my part. Jason Buhlman said as much in I believe his "Hopefinder" video describing how to "hack" Pathfinder 2 to make your own game system. I believe I may have heard the former designer Mark Seifter say this as well, but I don't remember which Roll for Combat stream it would have been. Talk about this being an excuse for survivability is kind of wack. Not only because the whole stabilizing thing is not the primary purpose of the hero point, but also because it specifically only helps if you're just the right level of f**ked and not any thing less or more. In many cases spending the hero points to not die is less optimal than being proactive and getting better rolls and the designers know it, they designed it that way
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.
Again. There's no CR in PF2. If you are discussing PF2.
No, a Lvl 6 creature is not 'meant' to fight 4 lvl 6 PCs. 4 such lvl 6 creatures are 'meant' to fight 4 lvl 6 PCs.
Yes, individual level is used as a reference because NPCs and PCs are built (and played) differently. But also yes, it's a real individual level at the same time.
Unless of course I understood you wrong somehow.
But otherwise if you base any of your arguments on this you would be wrong.
According to the own rules, well is not like CR, but a creature with the same number than PC is considered a “boss”, and you don’t fight only against bosses.
hereFor a normal (any) creature you have to go to at least a APL-1 creature.
That corresponds with the fact mentioned in the message above about creatures curve some over the PC one. In a “hardcore” or “realistic” game (call is as wanted) the usual would be Moderate encounters, typically built by -1 or even -2 creatures, so corresponding more with a “real” PC level.
Just confused the CR concept with the fact that the encounter budget is computed for a party of 4. But looking at it:
here
Using creatures of the same APL you could only place 2, so it would be a 2 vs 4 players.
Think that this kind of game is not expected each encounter to be deadly hard, and with base rules the Moderate encounter is usually considered easy or even trivial.
For harder encounter, in a realistic game style players usually should prepare well, and planning some ways to address it beyond direct stats confrontation. In addition to many tactics based on caution. I.e. how many of you use the Alarm or Clairvoyance spells? The last one surely is typically ignored much, but in a hardcore game has much utility for when you don’t get info about what is behind a door (failed the Perception or not being able to get much info) so the party can prepare and start with advantage.
It also typically uses a slower pace, with more rests.
A small clarification, a single monster on level with the player is not a boss. I misspoke. If you wanted a tougher fight with a sort of miniboss, or mini-miniboss like enemy one thing you can do is throw a couple goblins with a hobgoblin. A single on level enemy is a fairly easy fight, and even level +1 greatly favors the players. It's at +2 and +3 that we see tougher boss encounters, and +4 is about where people stop at as that is 50/50 chance of TPK. A level 12 party against a level 12 lich will absolutely wreck it despite the inflated numbers, it won't go down without a fight but you can pretty much guarantee the party will win with minimal resources expenditure, if any. I am not a math guy but I believe two level -1 enemies are equal to one level 1 enemy. Making two goblins and a hobgoblin Soldier level 2 encounter. So if the party is level one this is a party level +1 fight, low to moderate threat. Mind you, goblins are one enemy where the level isn't totally accurate as their ranged weapons are too strong for their level and can swing encounters in a way which normally shouldn't happen
A small clarification, a single monster on level with the player is not a boss. I misspoke. If you wanted a tougher fight with a sort of miniboss, or mini-miniboss like enemy one thing you can do is throw a couple goblins with a hobgoblin. A single on level enemy is a fairly easy fight, and even level +1 greatly favors the players. It's at +2 and +3 that we see tougher boss encounters, and +4 is about where people stop at as that is 50/50 chance of TPK. A level 12 party against a level 12 lich will absolutely wreck it despite the inflated numbers, it won't go down without a fight but you can pretty much guarantee the party will win with minimal resources expenditure, if any. I am not a math guy but I believe two level -1 enemies are equal to one level 1 enemy. Making two goblins and a hobgoblin Soldier level 2 encounter. So if the party is level one this is a party level +1 fight, low to moderate threat. Mind you, goblins are one enemy where the level isn't totally accurate as their ranged weapons are too strong for their level and can swing encounters in a way which normally shouldn't happen
Its also that at level 1 there isn't much room to course correct in a fight when things go south.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more we talk about it the more it seems to me that spell attack is outdated and should be replaced completely.
I mean look at vampiric touch for example. This used to be a spell attack.
Disintegrate has is a spell attack and a fort save.
And with the remaster we already see they are removing shocking grasp.
It looks like its continued existence was an after thought that didn't fit well with the system they created in 2e.
They made monsters use of spell attack relevant because they could, monsters dont follow the same rules as pcs even at the same level of power. The rules they created for pc casters though make spell attack pretty bad because ac scales to martial progression to give them an appropriate challenge and spell attack for pcs are scaled to caster progression which is slower and has no magic item support.
So even if item support existed the chassis progression is slower so to my mind the real solution is to change all spell attack spells to a save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of why I am not jumping on any math right now is we don’t really know if/how spells like disintegrate will carry over to the remastery. It all seems premature to speculate
Again. There's no CR in PF2. If you are discussing PF2.
No, a Lvl 6 creature is not 'meant' to fight 4 lvl 6 PCs. 4 such lvl 6 creatures are 'meant' to fight 4 lvl 6 PCs.
Yes, individual level is used as a reference because NPCs and PCs are built (and played) differently. But also yes, it's a real individual level at the same time.
Unless of course I understood you wrong somehow.
But otherwise if you base any of your arguments on this you would be wrong.According to the own rules, well is not like CR, but a creature with the same number than PC is considered a “boss”, and you don’t fight only against bosses.
here
For a normal (any) creature you have to go to at least a APL-1 creature.That corresponds with the fact mentioned in the message above about creatures curve some over the PC one. In a “hardcore” or “realistic” game (call is as wanted) the usual would be Moderate encounters, typically built by -1 or even -2 creatures, so corresponding more with a “real” PC level.
<...>
Think that this kind of game is not expected each encounter to be deadly hard, and with base rules the Moderate encounter is usually considered easy or even trivial.It doesn't matter what 'normal' is and who you 'normally' fight and what difficulty is expected from a game.
If you are talking about levels as some more or less universal measure of a creature's power, it should work like this: you take two groups with the same number of same level creatures, and they should be roughly equal in power.
What does that mean? It means that the chance to win is about 50% for both groups. It also means that some of them are highly likely dead or at least they all are very close to defeat: if it didn't it wouldn't look like 50% chance of losing.
What does this mean in terms of PF2 encounters? It means this is an Extreme-threat encounter, by the definition: "Extreme-threat encounters are so dangerous that they...
In the case of craetures is much more obscure. I say again that an APL creature is considered a low-threat boss monster. And the system is pretty inconsistent if we just only look at the number, i.e. the same “level 10” creature can have in stats from +3 to +8!!
hereSo even if they call it “level”, it is really like the number to use as reference to the “line” of the creatures building tables to watch at. But is wide imprecise as already mentioned (from +3 to +8 is more than double).
So measuring creatures based on the number is not accurate, but just more like an approximation about what you can find.
I continue thinking that the creature level adequates with the corresponding PC having some extra level. The same APL is identified as a “mini-boss”, which should be some superior to a standard humanoid. It is normal that if you encounter some animal or monster of your “level” it has some more innate physical power, just like in real life, so a dog does not need to be higher level than oneself, but sure it has a more powerful jaw, and better perception to detect, is just something natural for the specie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more we talk about it the more it seems to me that spell attack is outdated and should be replaced completely.
I mean look at vampiric touch for example. This used to be a spell attack.
Disintegrate has is a spell attack and a fort save.
And with the remaster we already see they are removing shocking grasp.
It looks like its continued existence was an after thought that didn't fit well with the system they created in 2e.
They made monsters use of spell attack relevant because they could, monsters dont follow the same rules as pcs even at the same level of power. The rules they created for pc casters though make spell attack pretty bad because ac scales to martial progression to give them an appropriate challenge and spell attack for pcs are scaled to caster progression which is slower and has no magic item support.
So even if item support existed the chassis progression is slower so to my mind the real solution is to change all spell attack spells to a save.
I have said this should be done way earlier in the thread.
In the case of craetures is much more obscure. I say again that an APL creature is considered a low-threat boss monster. And the system is pretty inconsistent if we just only look at the number, i.e. the same “level 10” creature can have in stats from +3 to +8!!<...>
I continue thinking that the creature level adequates with the corresponding PC having some extra level. The same APL is identified as a “mini-boss”, which should be some superior to a standard humanoid.It doesn't matter at all that they are called 'bosses'. They are called that because the game does not mean for PCs to lose. Because equal fights with a chance of dying for PCs are almost never done and are considered Extreme. That's why 'bosses' aren't meant to be deadly threats (unless they are Extreme themselves), but only to become an obstacle, resource drain and a bit of a scare for the players. Nothing else. And basing your arguments on that word is senseless.
And yes, there are monsters-outliers in the Bestiaries. So what? Nobody said level was an exact measure or that the design is perfect.
And yes, monsters do have a bit of inflated stats taking into account players' tactics, mutual aid, creativity and great width of PC's abilities. NPCs may have bigger numbers, but PCs have wider choice. (Not that it really helps everytime, I'm not sold on counting breadth of abilities as pure power in this particular game. When you have a thousand of useless options it won't help you with one hard problem. But it's not nothing.)
What I mean, for summarizing, is that the creature level is not a data like PC level. I.e. get your example of 4 APL creatures, well put a level 7th party of 4 to fight against 4 black dragons, that is not a 50/50 fight but more like a 99/1 fight in favor of the dragons.
When the same “level” creature can have from +3 to +8 in stats…well.So at the end the creature level should not be used as direct reference to compare with PC, but as a number reference to what the party can engage, from APL -4 to +4, and that we just have an encounter budget to build with, and just that. And within the same number there is difference between creatures more to the Low side compared to the High or Extreme one.
Then players should use their resources like if they have the knowledge for deciding if they can afford it or have to look for another way, or weak points which can exploit, etc. But not for using like that players need Hero Points because a creature with the same number at the right of its name has better numbers, as that number really does not have the same meaning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Creatures tend to have Achilles heels in PF2 that players don't have.
You are right that black dragons are tough opponents and will probably slaughter the typical melee martial party very quickly. But they are actually incredibly vulnerable to reflex targeting saving throw spells (especially at level 7) and can be pretty devastated by things like tempest surge that can put them in critical fail jail for reflex saves.
PCs don't tend to have such massive swings in defenses, or at least, have party synergy coverage for it, especially when they are expecting to go against such an extreme fight. It is very rare (and something GMs should be very careful about) letting an extreme encounter's worth of NPCs be super prepared to face the particular strengths of the party.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more we talk about it the more it seems to me that spell attack is outdated and should be replaced completely.If Paizo did that, players would immediately start complaining that they have no spells that target AC. And that would be a perfectly reasonable complaint, IMO.
Frankly, I'm amazed that rolling saves still exist. They should have all been DCs like AC, and every attack spell, impulse, strike, or other offensiveaction) should roll against them.
WotC's Star Wars Saga Edition did it to great effect. To this day I'm confounded that it didn't explode into other systems.
It simplifies SO much!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine having a high level NPc caster roll a nat 20 on a fireball like AoE spell attack roll targeting the whole party? Or even a heightened slow or calm emotions. Single die rolls for multi targets are very very swingy.
It is also harder to have evasion like mechanics and especially reroll mechanics for saves and not dying
First, because conditionally useful damage spells tend to have higher than generally useful damage spells. Players looking to maximize/optimize damage see that and immediately go 'how do I leverage that into all-the-time-use? I can't? That stinks!"
You keep saying this but I've yet to see this backed up with data.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more we talk about it the more it seems to me that spell attack is outdated and should be replaced completely.If Paizo did that, players would immediately start complaining that they have no spells that target AC. And that would be a perfectly reasonable complaint, IMO.
The issue seems to be that 'this spell is conditionally useful' seems to really bug some people when it relates to damage spells. I think for two reasons.
First, because conditionally useful damage spells tend to have higher than generally useful damage spells. Players looking to maximize/optimize damage see that and immediately go 'how do I leverage that into all-the-time-use? I can't? That stinks!"
Second, because players looking to theme-build see a cool conditionally useful spell and go "how do I build a themed caster around that? It won't be practical to do so? That stinks!"
But taken as *conditionally* useful spells, they're fine.
Casters can target AC just fine. They can make unarmed strikes or weapon attacks that target AC the same as any other character. Saying they can't do so is wrong, and saying spells should target AC is ultimately a trap that the game shouldn't permit to exist.
There is a difference between "This spell is effective against undead" and "this spell requires my party members debuff the enemy for me." The former is because in those situations it is unequivocally useful, and not useful at all in other situations, which is pretty apparent, and the latter is an assumption of party tactics that may or may not be present, which is not as apparent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So do it like 4e did it and have an attack against everyone in the AoE? Its also not any harder to have the save defense stuff, you just have failures turn in to critical failures and critical hits into regular hits.Imagine having a high level NPc caster roll a nat 20 on a fireball like AoE spell attack roll targeting the whole party? Or even a heightened slow or calm emotions. Single die rolls for multi targets are very very swingy.
It is also harder to have evasion like mechanics and especially reroll mechanics for saves and not dying
That doesn’t work well with hero points and getting to use them to save yourself from terrible effects. Making it so hero points can affect other people’s rolls is a complex road to go down with little benefit, so either hero points are only good offensively (and to stop dying at dying 4) or you have an awkward situation for when they can and can’t be used. And for what benefit? If you have to roll attack for every creature with an AoE spell do you roll damage separately each time as well? It is pretty convenient with multi target effects to roll once and then have individuals figure out what applies and doesn’t apply to them with their own die rolls.
All in all that seems like an unnecessarily complex change to a system not designed from the floor up to work that way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Creatures tend to have Achilles heels in PF2 that players don't have.
You are right that black dragons are tough opponents and will probably slaughter the typical melee martial party very quickly. But they are actually incredibly vulnerable to reflex targeting saving throw spells (especially at level 7) and can be pretty devastated by things like tempest surge that can put them in critical fail jail for reflex saves.
PCs don't tend to have such massive swings in defenses, or at least, have party synergy coverage for it, especially when they are expecting to go against such an extreme fight. It is very rare (and something GMs should be very careful about) letting an extreme encounter's worth of NPCs be super prepared to face the particular strengths of the party.
Dragons are also vulnerable to PC martials with trip. Wrecks them even more than Reflex save spells with an often higher chance of success since you can stack up to Legendary for skill, maxed stat, with item bonuses.
You can knock them right out of the air with trip. And generally ruins one of their actions as well as making them easier to hit and less dangerous.
The more we talk about it the more it seems to me that spell attack is outdated and should be replaced completely.If Paizo did that, players would immediately start complaining that they have no spells that target AC. And that would be a perfectly reasonable complaint, IMO.
The issue seems to be that 'this spell is conditionally useful' seems to really bug some people when it relates to damage spells. I think for two reasons.
First, because conditionally useful damage spells tend to have higher than generally useful damage spells. Players looking to maximize/optimize damage see that and immediately go 'how do I leverage that into all-the-time-use? I can't? That stinks!"
Second, because players looking to theme-build see a cool conditionally useful spell and go "how do I build a themed caster around that? It won't be practical to do so? That stinks!"
But taken as *conditionally* useful spells, they're fine.
It looks like more than this to me. Its actually not supported play. AC is for the strike and scaled to classes that rely on strike. Spell attack is on a class whos proficiencies are scaled for saves which count on there being a lower save that provides a reasonable chance of success. Spell attack being situationally ok to try looks to only be coincidence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Debuffing AC and boosting ally attack rolls is a Tactic that most parties employ when they have the numeric advantage. Without any AC targeting spells, casters are completely left out in the cold when it comes to trying to pile on to a difficult solo enemy. This rarely has to do with AC being the lowest defense, as long as there is not a glaringly obvious weak save to target. They don’t need to be as good as martials at hitting AC to really exploit it well with a hero point or a truestrike once every 5 to 8 encounters.
I really think we have to wait and see what spell attack roll spells will be left after the remaster and what they will look like, but cantrips like ignition (one we assume is post remaster-ready) are not bad spells to have in the tool box. The problem is entirely players trying to build around always using these spells or never using these spells.
We also need to see if anything changes with builds like the eldritch trickster, which is a class that really like spell attack roll spells. Dread striker can make things like scorching ray or slashing gust rather brutal spells to cast, even with a lagging proficiency. This is to say nothing of the psychic and the magus which may never get fully remastered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By my calculations, Unicore is ultimately right, and I think it's ultimately a communication issue perhaps caused by limited print space.
If you have a True Strike available at level 15 against a level 17 monster, the raging, +2 flaming frost greater striking maul-wielding fury barbarian only beats your rank 8 Horizon Thundersphere roughly 15% of the time in DPR. You win that roughly 50-60% of the time. (The other 25-35% is bad luck for both of you.) The range depends on your usage of Shadow Signet as well, which nets you 44.7 DPR.
However, if you don't have all that, a Thunderstrike vs. the middle save's average DPR (41.1) is going to beat that barbarian's (36.8).
Now, 44.7 vs. 41.1 DPR doesn't tell the whole story. Horizon Thundersphere's success damage and sustained likelihood through fortune effects is what carries it to 44.7. Thunderstrike's 9 possible die results that still do half damage is what carries it to 41.1. As Unicore has been saying, if you need to make sure you meet an amount of damage caused by a hit or an enemy failing a save, the fortuned attack will be the best move there.
Though, I'd guess the drained 2 (34 damage in and of itself adding to 45 average from 10d8) of Polar Ray makes it even better than Horizon Thundersphere (average of 59.5). Presumably that ratio holds true, making fortuned Polar Ray peak at 59.3 DPR.
(Calcs are vs. AoN's non-unique level 17 creatures.)
Perhaps it's true that True Strike (attainable by all traditions through a Staff of Divination) and/or Shadow Signet (the way to target AC while potentially hitting a lower defense) shouldn't have existed. (Even though I like them both!)
But to adjust for that, the base damage for each AC-targeting spell would have to have higher scaling. And the higher scaling would attract more people to use it without realizing it was high-risk. And then they'd be even more disappointed when it missed, which would happen very often even if it were given an item bonus.
Perhaps 3e will make AC spells do half damage on miss instead of more damage and other spells would roll against DCs instead of trigger saving throws. But I'm satisfied with what we have now for the predictable future. I like the variation in tools.
Debuffing AC and boosting ally attack rolls is a Tactic that most parties employ when they have the numeric advantage. Without any AC targeting spells, casters are completely left out in the cold when it comes to trying to pile on to a difficult solo enemy. This rarely has to do with AC being the lowest defense, as long as there is not a glaringly obvious weak save to target. They don’t need to be as good as martials at hitting AC to really exploit it well with a hero point or a truestrike once every 5 to 8 encounters.
I really think we have to wait and see what spell attack roll spells will be left after the remaster and what they will look like, but cantrips like ignition (one we assume is post remaster-ready) are not bad spells to have in the tool box. The problem is entirely players trying to build around always using these spells or never using these spells.
We also need to see if anything changes with builds like the eldritch trickster, which is a class that really like spell attack roll spells. Dread striker can make things like scorching ray or slashing gust rather brutal spells to cast, even with a lagging proficiency. This is to say nothing of the psychic and the magus which may never get fully remastered.
It's employed regardless of numbers if it's easily accessible/applicable to the situation at hand. Saying that it's only done when the numbers are in their advantage already kind of undermines the real selling point of those tactics, which is to take a not-so-advantageous situation and make it more ideal.
But again, this keeps coming off as "Just use Hero Points/True Strike and spell attack rolls aren't bad," which is, again, not helpful to the discussion. Just as well, saying "One Hero Point/True Strike per 5/8 encounters" is undermining the issue, since the entirety of Spell Attack Rolls requires Hero Points/True Strikes at all times to maintain parity/relevance compared to even something as simple as save-based spells. Which once again beckons the question of why not just axe spell attacks entirely?
Eldritch Trickster has always been pretty meh, since they don't have the integrated feature of the Magus, and the Sneak Attack application (which requires a separate feat I believe) isn't enough to justify the weak spells when simply stabbing people in the face is good enough. If anything, Eldritch Trickster shines in that you are using your class feature to help invest into a dedication (which is undermined when in a Free Archetype game, or trying to use Ancient Elf shenanigans), meaning lower level magic would be more beneficial to you. Kind of like, oh, I don't know, True Strike? Not to mention spells like Invisibility, Mirror Image, Jump, Longstrider, etc. Heck, even Magic Missile has potential use, if you want automatic damage from a range without having to deal with ridiculous AC or high resistances.
Perhaps it's true that True Strike (attainable by all traditions through a Staff of Divination) and/or Shadow Signet (the way to target AC while potentially hitting a lower defense) shouldn't have existed. (Even though I like them both!)
Would like to clarify that you can't just cast a spell from a Staff unless you have that spell on your tradition's list, meaning unless you innately acquire it from your class or invest in it specifically through dedications, you can't just cast it simply by having a spellcasting feature.
That being said, the mistake is the developers ultimately admitting that Shadow Signet was designed to "fix" spell attack rolls and their poor scaling, which essentially should just translate to spell attack rolls not existing in the first place and being changed into save-based effects. At least then I could see the justification for attack roll cantrips being just as bad (if not worse) at damage as save-based ones.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By my calculations, Unicore is ultimately right, and I think it's ultimately a communication issue perhaps caused by limited print space.
If you have a True Strike available at level 15 against a level 17 monster, the raging, +2 flaming frost greater striking maul-wielding fury barbarian only beats your rank 8 Horizon Thundersphere roughly 15% of the time in DPR. You win that roughly 50-60% of the time. (The other 25-35% is bad luck for both of you.) The range depends on your usage of Shadow Signet as well, which nets you 44.7 DPR.
However, if you don't have all that, a Thunderstrike vs. the middle save's average DPR (41.1) is going to beat that barbarian's (36.8).
Now, 44.7 vs. 41.1 DPR doesn't tell the whole story. Horizon Thundersphere's success damage and sustained likelihood through fortune effects is what carries it to 44.7. Thunderstrike's 9 possible die results that still do half damage is what carries it to 41.1. As Unicore has been saying, if you need to make sure you meet an amount of damage caused by a hit or an enemy failing a save, the fortuned attack will be the best move there.
Though, I'd guess the drained 2 (34 damage in and of itself adding to 45 average from 10d8) of Polar Ray makes it even better than Horizon Thundersphere (average of 59.5). Presumably that ratio holds true, making fortuned Polar Ray peak at 59.3 DPR.
(Calcs are vs. AoN's non-unique level 17 creatures.)
Perhaps it's true that True Strike (attainable by all traditions through a Staff of Divination) and/or Shadow Signet (the way to target AC while potentially hitting a lower defense) shouldn't have existed. (Even though I like them both!)
But to adjust for that, the base damage for each AC-targeting spell would have to have higher scaling. And the higher scaling would attract more people to use it without realizing it was high-risk. And then they'd be even more disappointed when it missed, which would happen very often even if it were given an item bonus.
Perhaps 3e will make AC spells do half damage...
This makes things look even worse since a barbarian can keep on swinging why you used a level 8 spell which you have 3 to 5 of to do 5 more DPR than a fury barbarian (weakest of the instincts).
To do that 5 more DPR, you have probably a 100 less hit points at level 15 and much weaker saves.
And you had to use a true strike on top of it just do that DPR.
That is sad.
No offense calliope, but that is a lot of mental gymnastics for things could already do anyway. I am not a fan of fudging dice as a GM personally anymore, heropoints are much better, just give out more of them.
But if you would be able to fudge dice to keep your players up, you could fudge critical success saves just as easily to make your players feel like their spells are having an impact. And point3, I already address as a GM by saying when an enemy crit saves or crit fails with a natural 20 or 1, because the GM controls what information to give players. You could also just roll all dice publicly if you wanted.
It literally adds nothing to the game that isn’t already possible except complicating good existing mechanics for rerolls.
...By my calculations, Unicore is ultimately right, and I think it's ultimately a communication issue perhaps caused by limited print space.
If you have a True Strike available at level 15 against a level 17 monster, the raging, +2 flaming frost greater striking maul-wielding fury barbarian only beats your rank 8 Horizon Thundersphere roughly 15% of the time in DPR. You win that roughly 50-60% of the time. (The other 25-35% is bad luck for both of you.) The range depends on your usage of Shadow Signet as well, which nets you 44.7 DPR.
However, if you don't have all that, a Thunderstrike vs. the middle save's average DPR (41.1) is going to beat that barbarian's (36.8).
Now, 44.7 vs. 41.1 DPR doesn't tell the whole story. Horizon Thundersphere's success damage and sustained likelihood through fortune effects is what carries it to 44.7. Thunderstrike's 9 possible die results that still do half damage is what carries it to 41.1. As Unicore has been saying, if you need to make sure you meet an amount of damage caused by a hit or an enemy failing a save, the fortuned attack will be the best move there.
Though, I'd guess the drained 2 (34 damage in and of itself adding to 45 average from 10d8) of Polar Ray makes it even better than Horizon Thundersphere (average of 59.5). Presumably that ratio holds true, making fortuned Polar Ray peak at 59.3 DPR.
(Calcs are vs. AoN's non-unique level 17 creatures.)
Perhaps it's true that True Strike (attainable by all traditions through a Staff of Divination) and/or Shadow Signet (the way to target AC while potentially hitting a lower defense) shouldn't have existed. (Even though I like them both!)
But to adjust for that, the base damage for each AC-targeting spell would have to have higher scaling. And the higher scaling would attract more people to use it without realizing it was high-risk. And then they'd be even more disappointed when it missed, which would happen very often even if it were given an item bonus.
Also since that barbarian also has hero points couldn't they increase the damage they do over what was just calculated?
Really, there is very little in this life that out damages searing light against an undead or fiend. I've routinely out damaged martials with it using level 6 slots...at level 15. No multiple attack penalty plus true strike means it's vastly more accurate than you might initially expect, and it's cheap as heck, too - easy to grab via deity spells.
This sounds like "my character worships X deity because X deity allows him to cast Y spell". Which makes me wonder why (or if) said deity would want the character as a worshiper in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This makes things look even worse since a barbarian can keep on swinging why you used a level 8 spell which you have 3 to 5 of to do 5 more DPR than a fury barbarian (weakest of the instincts).
To do that 5 more DPR, you have probably a 100 less hit points at level 15 and much weaker saves.
And you had to use a true strike on top of it just do that DPR.
That is sad.
Hard disagree that it's sad.
Ranged damage is intentionally lower than melee damage and a barbarian is basically intended to be the hard hitting class. And two handed weapons are nothing to sneeze at as a mid-combat investment, especially one that's balanced around having nearly no traits for versatility.
The ability to beat the barbarian from range several times a day is fantastic. Especially while a good handful of focus spells compete with two strikes from the same 2-handed melee weapon (without rage) while being ranged and AoE or having rider effects.
The fury barbarian's 12 bonus damage at level 15 is basically the same as everything other than the giant (which comes with clumsy) and dragon (which may be stuck on a resistance or immunity). Dragon instinct only bumps the 36.8 to 39.8. Still a bit behind Thunderstrike. True Strike Horizon Thundersphere is about 5 or 12% ahead. True Strike Polar Ray due to drained 2 is about 20 or 49% ahead.
And it's basically just an extra action to cast True Strike by level 15. The first rank slot will hardly matter.
When I set out to do my calculations, I thought casters would be on par with ranged Ki monks due to the similarities in versatility and conditions as power, the lack of hand requirements, the range, and lack of damage boosts. I think that's a vastly more appropriate comparison to make generally, honestly.
But the fact was that their single target DPR against +2 enemies competed with maul barbarians when casting Thunderstrike against a middle save, and True Strike spell attacks often pull ahead of that. The caster pulls further ahead against +3 and +4. Below that, you're probably using AoE anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This makes things look even worse since a barbarian can keep on swinging why you used a level 8 spell which you have 3 to 5 of to do 5 more DPR than a fury barbarian (weakest of the instincts).
To do that 5 more DPR, you have probably a 100 less hit points at level 15 and much weaker saves.
And you had to use a true strike on top of it just do that DPR.
That is sad.
Hard disagree that it's sad.
Ranged damage is intentionally lower than melee damage and a barbarian is basically intended to be the hard hitting class. And two handed weapons are nothing to sneeze at as a mid-combat investment, especially one that's balanced around having nearly no traits for versatility.
The ability to beat the barbarian from range several times a day is fantastic. Especially while a good handful of focus spells compete with two strikes from the same 2-handed melee weapon (without rage) while being ranged and AoE or having rider effects.
The fury barbarian's 12 bonus damage at level 15 is basically the same as everything other than the giant (which comes with clumsy) and dragon (which may be stuck on a resistance or immunity). Dragon instinct only bumps the 36.8 to 39.8. Still a bit behind Thunderstrike. True Strike Horizon Thundersphere is about 5 or 12% ahead. True Strike Polar Ray due to drained 2 is about 20 or 49% ahead.
And it's basically just an extra action to cast True Strike by level 15. The first rank slot will hardly matter.
When I set out to do my calculations, I thought casters would be on par with ranged Ki monks due to the similarities in versatility and conditions as power, the lack of hand requirements, the range, and lack of damage boosts. I think that's a vastly more appropriate comparison to make generally, honestly.
But the fact was that their single target DPR against +2 enemies competed with maul barbarians when casting Thunderstrike against a middle save, and True Strike spell attacks often pull ahead of that. The caster pulls further ahead...
I would like to see if this plays out this way in real play.
I'm playing a dragon barbarian right now. My primary initial attack single target is Improved Knockdown, then the extra attack from an AoO if they stand. I'm using an Ogre Hook since a Improved Knockdown already handles the prone instead of the maul.
That barbarian is usually getting two full BAB attacks within a round. The Improved Knockdown on their turn and the AoO when they stand.
The caster is using a true strike followed by a high slot single target attack spell.
The question isn't how much DPR will the caster trying to do damage do in one attack. The question is how much damage will the caster do over the course of the fight? Can the caster sustain their DPR beyond the single round to match martial damage over the course of a fight.
Setting everything up to do one good hit a fight is not how these battles work. Fights are usually 3 or 4 rounds. How well will the caster keep up with the martial doing damage with attack roll spells over the course of a battle?
That's the more pertinent question.
Judging whether a caster should get item bonuses to attack roll spells based on the single use of a spell doesn't in anyway show if the item bonus to spell attacks leads to parity in damage over the course of a fight much less many fights.
My data indicates that a barbarian will exceed a caster's damage over the course of many fights over a day unless AOE is used. Then you will obtain parity unless the barbarian is able to use Whirlwind Strike.
That's the information I'd rather see proven than one idealized attack using a level 8 spell slot against the barbarian's round of attacks considering the barbarian is often doing other things as well as those attacks and doing them all day.
As an example, the Improved Knockdown barbarian I'm playing does the trip to set the rest of the group up (control martial), doing the AoO, has a hundred plus hit points to any caster in the group with legendary fortitude proficiency and damage resistance when raging.
Whenever there is this analysis that attempts to dismiss giving casters item bonus's to attack rolls, it's some idealized situation favoring the caster rather than an actual combat done over several rounds showing aggregate damage in changing battlefield variables.
In those situations, I'd often put my money on the barbarian doing more damage over the course of a day by a good margin as well as providing excellent control with knockdown or AoE damage with Whirlwind Strike.
I've seen the barbarian in operation. They are quite impressive. A blaster caster is nice too against AoE targets, the barb is a brutal killing machine I think a caster even focusing on damage would have trouble equaling over the course of adventuring days.
Item bonuses to attack roll spells won't change that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, the spell attack roll spell is not just for general damAge dealing, it is for doing a large chunk of damage in the middle or end of a fight vs a solo monster to either drop it, or knock it into a thread hold of “you either run or spend actions to save yourself.”
It isn’t for “maximum damage,” it’s a tool for “I need more damage than a successful save or 3 action magic missile against this creature…or in the case of acid arrow, it can sometimes be, “I want to sure to put persistent damage on this intelligent creature that doesn’t want to die a horrible death, even if they win.”