| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anything to "fix". Finally casters are not one-man-armies and need to hide behind martials to do their stuff to promote teamwork. Single target damage and mobility is martial cake in this edition and I really love it. Casters have utiltity spells, heal spells, summon spells, debuffs, buffs, crap ton of AoE damage spells/disable spells etc. Yes, I am well aware that most of those AoE spells are really effective on enemies same/-1/+1 level but that's also good in my book. The stronger single enemy there is: the more martials shine, the more lower level enemies are and more problem sloving/utility is required: the more casters shine. In the end they all meet somwhere in the middle via teamwork, using manouvers, buffs, debuffs, reactions, positioning, feats etc. to cover each other and support each other.
Seriously, it's a breath of fresh air after playing AD&D, D&D for so many years (didn't play PF1E but played 3.5 and 5e) to finally see casters being tonned down.
Also if you want to make casters stronger at your table: just do it if that's what your players want. But don't expect any official changes from Paizo as they were clear in their intent and reasoning behind their decisions why runes/proficiences work like they work for casters. The whole math behind system was built with that in mind, so they won't now mess up the whole nice balance they got just becasue some people want to be God-Wizards again.
TL:DR houserule that (e.g. give casters potency runes if you have to), but Paizo won't reinvent whole wheel after years now.
I wish we could put a label on discussions about intra-edition discourse vs inter-edition discourse.
Inter-edition hot takes aren't really relevant.
Yes, literally everyone likes these changes. Its why we are here.
This is discussing a minor imbalance for a particular subset of spells that aren't performing as well as they should given the system seeming design goals.
Everyone is also aware homebrew exists.
You don't have to go that far.
His point is just that it's fine the way it is. The rest is basically a historical basis of what he passed on to his opinion.
It's that thing we have in every topic of criticism of the system where we always have 3 sides:
Thinking on how to fix the problem again, how about an item which granted an effective proficiency increase at key levels, but naturally dropped off once you attained that proficiency?
Spellstrikers Totem, Minor, 3rd.
When you Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast, requires a spell attack roll and does not have a duration, you may cast that spell as though you had the Expert Spellcaster class feature for your class.
Spellstrikers Totem, 9th.
When you Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast, requires a spell attack roll and does not have a duration, you may cast that spell as though you had the Master Spellcaster class feature for your class.
Spellstrikers Totem, Greater, 16th.
When you Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast, requires a spell attack roll and does not have a duration, you may cast that spell as though you had the Legendary Spellcaster class feature for your class.
The idea here being pretty straight forward.
The overall problem with flat bonuses to Spellcasting feature is the heavily backended scaling means that any flat bonus granted at lower levels, where it is most needed, ends up pushing the curve too high at later levels.
By bringing the bonus from proficiency down in a way which includes a natural drop off, it smooths out the curve so its less spikey and actually makes Spell Attacks good options at certain levels, while not actually providing casters anything extra on top of their natural scaling.
The "For your class line" might need fixed, but the intent there is that if your class doesn't have the feature (Magus, for instance) it doesn't actually grant you anything.
i Suppose main problem with these solution is that it not solve problem for high level attack spell(when you get actual legendary casting)but overall seems fine for most part of the game.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A level 20 caster is -1 to hit relative to baseline AC compared to a level 1 caster, so it's not THAT bad at that point.
And that kind of makes sense, since monster AC is scaled for master proficiency attacks. Having legendary proficiency instead is the same as +2 potency on runes.
Phew! So at level 20 my blaster caster won’t be as far behind in accuracy. Good thing that is where most of the game is spent being played.
I’m sorry, but in my view talking about what a character is able to do at level 20 is like saying what one can do once they win the lotto. In my decades of playing TTRPGs, I have never once seen or played a character at level 20 (I truly want to do so), nor have I known anyone in real life that has. The vast majority of games either die or complete before that point. What matters are all the levels of play before then.
I was replying to the post before mine - the issue with spell attack isn't really at the highest levels because legendary proficiency closes the gap on AC. Like right before you hit legendary you're at -3 because everyone else is also master but they've got +3 potency.A level 20 caster is -1 to hit relative to baseline AC compared to a level 1 caster, so it's not THAT bad at that point.
And that kind of makes sense, since monster AC is scaled for master proficiency attacks. Having legendary proficiency instead is the same as +2 potency on runes.
Phew! So at level 20 my blaster caster won’t be as far behind in accuracy. Good thing that is where most of the game is spent being played.
I’m sorry, but in my view talking about what a character is able to do at level 20 is like saying what one can do once they win the lotto. In my decades of playing TTRPGs, I have never once seen or played a character at level 20 (I truly want to do so), nor have I known anyone in real life that has. The vast majority of games either die or complete before that point. What matters are all the levels of play before then.
Though I replied to your post, my statements weren’t directed at you. Sorry about that. I was more attacking the idea of the “but at level 20” argument that repeatedly pops up like a paranoid meerkat.
I should have been more clear. My apologies.
At level 20 the caster that wants to cast spell attack roll spells can trivially afford to target fort save or reflex or AC, depending on what kind of bonuses they have, and how easy the monster is to read.
Additionally, they should pretty easily have a handful of true strike spells or even better, true target spells to use as well. The only reason thus their accuracy won’t dwarf the martials is because they are giving the martial a massive accuracy boost as well. At the point you get true target, not having some powerful spell attack roll spells to throw around is just a travesty as you essentially have the best accuracy buff in the game to give 4 characters. What animal companion attack is going to benefit more from true target than a 10th level polar ray or disintegrate?
True target is an exceptional blast and buff the party for a nova round for the whole party.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A level 20 caster is -1 to hit relative to baseline AC compared to a level 1 caster, so it's not THAT bad at that point.
And that kind of makes sense, since monster AC is scaled for master proficiency attacks. Having legendary proficiency instead is the same as +2 potency on runes.
A level 14 caster is -4, which is pretty bad.
The problem is the weird curves in the scaling. The "Its okay after 19th" ignores the fact that the vast majority of gameplay happens before this point.
Paizo haven't left themselves a huge amount of room to bring Spell Attack rolls up to par.
They could go for the apparently-unpopular approach of making Spell Attacks actually good, by giving them a bonus to hit. Which, given their lack of failure riders and limited use per day, would help establish their place in the game.
But given the tooth & nail style argument over if they even should be allowed to be okay, I doubt we would see that.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
At level 20 the caster that wants to cast spell attack roll spells can trivially afford to target fort save or reflex or AC, depending on what kind of bonuses they have, and how easy the monster is to read.
Additionally, they should pretty easily have a handful of true strike spells or even better, true target spells to use as well. The only reason thus their accuracy won’t dwarf the martials is because they are giving the martial a massive accuracy boost as well. At the point you get true target, not having some powerful spell attack roll spells to throw around is just a travesty as you essentially have the best accuracy buff in the game to give 4 characters. What animal companion attack is going to benefit more from true target than a 10th level polar ray or disintegrate?
True target is an exceptional blast and buff the party for a nova round for the whole party.
But why should they have to?
Seriously, why does have a caster have to spend resources and more importantly, actions, to reach the base-level "I'm just moving my arm" level of accuracy as a martial.
The ask is for parity, nothing more.
Arguments around spending resources and actions to reach the do-nothing-special accuracy of martials basically means casters have a permanent slowed condition.
They are doing more for less of a return.
The only thing that makes it in any way worth is the comparatively higher damage that those spells possess, but the damage is not high enough to make the expense worth it. Many Spell Attacks don't even out-damage save based spells of the same level in all cases. So its not like they are actually nukes.
Yes, they out damage the do-nothing-special white damage of a non-Legendary martial, but thats not even true in all cases.
Synesthesia and, if it lands, true target is something I enjoyed a lot.
A bard with quickened casting ( synesthesia) + inspire heroics + true target is the best.
Insane combination. Probably the best attack roll shift in the game you can perform in a single round with a good chance of success.
A 20th level wizard casting true target and then a 10th level spell combined shocking grasp is doing 18d12 damage. How much higher does their potential damage ceiling need to be to make spell attack roll spells, that can target the lowest of 3 defenses need to be?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On this one I agree with Old Man Robot, there's nothing inherent in having cantrips dealing less damage than martial attacks. Casters are historically trading toughness for versatility. They can deal as much damage as martials with their at will options it won't break the game nor fantasies about martial/caster interactions. Even if I agree that martials should still have an advantage because they pay feats to improve their attacks, the basic level of damage can be the same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fun fact, if the true strike/target shadow signet combination shocking grasp doesn't target a low save, either because you picked wrong or it didn't have a low save to begin with, it actually winds up worse than true strike focus spell ranged magus. All that effort, for nothing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Paizo did exactly that lol! They made martials good at attacking single targets. "Good" in a game like this is relative to other classes and antagonists/challenges. So what do you propose to make martials good at in comparison to casters, instead of single-target attack?
I'm not sure it has been done on purpose. Single target damage for casters is mostly covered by cantrips and Focus Spells. Paizo didn't released much slotted spells aimed specifically at dealing single target damage and I think it's because it would generate comparisons with cantrips and they would feel worse because of that. But cantrips are quite bad, besides EA which happens to not be a single target spell. The result being that martials are the king of single target damage. But overall, is it a decision or an unexpected consequence?
Casters have, historically, been very able to deal single target damage. And as of now it doesn't seem that the balance would break apart if casters were better at single target damage through valid cantrips. Martials would still be far better tanks than casters and as such the only ones to be able to hold a front line, an ability that is paramount to a party success. So they definitely have their schtick that casters can't steal from them: Holding a frontline by combining toughness, damage and control (in the form of AoOs and maneuvers).
A 20th level wizard casting true target and then a 10th level spell combined shocking grasp is doing 18d12 damage. How much higher does their potential damage ceiling need to be to make spell attack roll spells, that can target the lowest of 3 defenses need to be?10th level slot spells as a baseline is literally laughable. Don't do that, please.
You don’t measure the ceiling of a class’s potential from anywhere except its highest point. It is the true ceilings that you need to account for, because players will build to meet it as often as possible. Spectral hand is a 2nd level spell. Your 8th level combined shocking grasp is still 14d12 which is still way out ahead of polar ray as far as damage goes. And you are not just single target blasting when you cast true target with a power house blast like that, you are also giving an incredible buff to the whole rest of your party.
Spell combination is a very good level 20 wizard feat. Once you have it. Hitting hard with single target damage is not hard and spell attack roll spells are a better choice for sticking the landing against solo monsters that are very likely to have a bonus to save vs Magic. This is no where near an improbable niche.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don’t measure the ceiling of a class’s potential from anywhere except its highest point. It is the true ceilings that you need to account for, because players will build to meet it as often as possible. Spectral hand is a 2nd level spell.A 20th level wizard casting true target and then a 10th level spell combined shocking grasp is doing 18d12 damage. How much higher does their potential damage ceiling need to be to make spell attack roll spells, that can target the lowest of 3 defenses need to be?10th level slot spells as a baseline is literally laughable. Don't do that, please.
Conveniently minimizing the counter arguments without actually having to address them.
Things get better for casters from 19th upwards. Its the levels before that which suffer. This happens to be the vast majority of playtime. Saying that it all works out at end-game isn't actually an answer, its admitting there is a problem the rest of the time.
inter-level disparities happen and are, in general, not a problem. But the disparity in this instance is constant and never rewarded or really made up for.
I’ve addressed cantrips at low level. I’ve addressed mid game spell attack roll spells cast from slot, I’ve addressed highest level play. What specific levels do you want me to look at to find a lowly wizard with no deadly sorcerer’s highest damage potential with single target spells (which will also most likely coincide with spell attack roll spells when cast against higher level opposition, unless magic missile jumps past due to resistances and very high defenses)? Give me any level to look at, and I will examine it, and the level above and below, because I think we’d agree an occasional spike or dip shouldn’t be too big a cause for alarm.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
But why should they have to?
Seriously, why does have a caster have to spend resources and more importantly, actions, to reach the base-level "I'm just moving my arm" level of accuracy as a martial.
The ask is for parity, nothing more.
Because casters get easier access to flight, teleport, mind reading and mind control, summoning critters, shapechanging, detection spells, AoE blasts, buffs, debuffs, insta-healing, etc. etc. I.e. high fantasy magic.
Unless they *don't* get parity at *something* important to the game, they will come to completely dominate it. So If not melee single target combat, then what important system/game aspect do you propose they be less good at than other classes, to balance out them being so flexible and able to do things that other classes simply can't do?
What game are you playing?
Martials have access to all those things. What abilities the various class can't get natively can be archetyped for or items purchased. There is no hard-gating of magic in this system, its incredibly ubiquitous.
And even if you want to make casters pay for utility (forgoing the fact that they have already paid with worse saves, hp, defences, proficiency, skill boosts, spells per day, restrictions on spell access, in-built costs to learn new abilities, worse feats, the impact of opportunity costs, etc, etc, etc), the level of access should not be the ability to contribute / be generally ineffective.
The idea that failure should be the default state of a casters attempts to engage in the system, as a punishment for having utility, is just absurd on its face.
____
Also, as an aside, I've put together a fighter build for an upcoming Stolen fates game.
Guess what it can do? Target all 4 saves, do persistent AoE damage, debuff opponents and can do some light in-combat healing. I even have some minor spell casting!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But why should they have to?
Seriously, why does have a caster have to spend resources and more importantly, actions, to reach the base-level "I'm just moving my arm" level of accuracy as a martial.
The ask is for parity, nothing more.
Because casters get easier access to flight, teleport, mind reading and mind control, summoning critters, shapechanging, detection spells, AoE blasts, buffs, debuffs, insta-healing, etc. etc. I.e. high fantasy magic.
Unless they *don't* get parity at *something* important to the game, they will come to completely dominate it. So If not melee single target combat, then what important system/game aspect do you propose they be less good at than other classes, to balance out them being so flexible and able to do things that other classes simply can't do?
Those other classes are generally ahead on HP, AC, and saving throws while often having better interaction with the three-action system all while having better endurance. A party with all martial classes that have a medic or two could theoretically adventure until the DM tells them they're risking exhaustion if they continue and while this won't come up often it does come up when the caster is the sole reason the group ends any given adventuring day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You want martials to be good? Give then something to be good, don't just arbitrarily make a complete play style useless.But Paizo did exactly that lol! They made martials good at attacking single targets. "Good" in a game like this is relative to other classes and antagonists/challenges. So what do you propose to make martials good at in comparison to casters, instead of single-target attack?
Martials in general are already good at combat maneuvers, can take third-action all-stars like Bon Mot, and enjoy this while having major advantages in survivability. Then Fighters get the single best class feature in the game in +2 accuracy, Champions get the best durability and reactions, Rangers are the easiest to build ranged DPS available, Monks are tanky and versatile with great movement options, etc. The martial classes are so good that there's room for casters to get bumped up here and there and single-target attack roll spells are one way to do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, the sweet spot for measuring class effectiveness is levels 1-10 (and possibly only 2 or 3 to 10). And this is because most campaigns succumb to inertial entropy (meaning they run out of the inertia needed to keep moving) by around levels 8-12. This makes the back half, levels 11-20 something of a, I hesitate to say edge case, but a smaller subset of cases that need to be examined.
That said, to some extent the martial vs. caster debate is somewhat moot. The multi-class rules make it trivial to be both a martial and a caster. Beyond that it's clear that a fighter/caster is going to be better than a caster/fighter (because of the extra attack proficiency bump that fighters get). Maybe if spells did slightly more damage or spell attacks/spell DCs worked off of the same levels of proficiency expertise, etc. etc., then maybe it would feel better to play a straight caster or caster/[put an archetype here]. Maybe.
But the advantage maths and biases are plain to see. And so, feels bad for casters.
This undead whipping horse is going to linger ad nauseum, which is okay. Most folks hanging out on web forums are realistically looking for a hockey fight to break out anyway (because the anonymity makes 'I'm right'-ism easy to participate in).
Better would be if we could help one another build house rules and community patches for individual tables, but that isn't going to happen because folks enjoy the bloodsport of 'I'm right'-ism too much. (I'm being morbid but this conversation is becoming exhausting.) At this point, positions are deeply entrenched and no argument is going to persuade folks to move to different ground.
Now in some cases, some folks may want the devs to address this issue, but IMO that would be a waste of their (the devs) time. Communities and sub-communities can fix these issues themselves (this is how modding video games [and other games] works). And frankly if they're (the devs) busy engaging in this tar pit then they aren't directly engaged in doing things that I take for...
If I have seemed confrontational to anyone that is just trying to explore ideas for their own home game, I am truly sorry for that. I have tried to express that I do not object to folks "hacking" the game in very different ways to fit the play style they are trying to encourage.
I encourage folks to play around and test out their ideas. I have found that as soon as you do so, it is pretty common to get a player that is going to want to dive into doing the thing you just house ruled as much as they possibly can. This will give you a lot of test data. It also has a good chance of resulting in your players deeper diving into the strategies that make that game element work most optimally. This could upset the balance at your table, or it might not, or not enough to be a problem for you.
Another possibility is that you are trying so hard to fix a very niche part of the game, that the thing you are trying to fix was never really intended to be that good outside of the niche and trying to turn it into an every encounter choice ends up being about more than just one little thing. The more different-sized bolts you use to try to prop something up, the more difficult it can be later to take it back apart if your rules are not working the way you want them to. Again, it might not matter. You might make the blaster caster good enough that the player pining for it is happy, but not so good that it makes other players at the table feel like they are being ignored to give the caster another way to solve problems without including them. Your house rules are not going to get exposed to the build variety and analysis that will show how your changes can really be exploited, which is something that developers really have to watch for carefully. As soon as your players start getting annoying with a house rule you added, you change or remove that rule.
My biggest suggestion for people wanting to hack spell casting in PF2 is to focus on adding special unique feats first that their characters learn connected to story elements. Give wizards something like dangerous sorcery for example.
Then consider unique items with similar narrative justifications for existing in your specific game. Consider going an artifact route and having the item have ways of powering up as it goes along to keep relevant and not become a replaceable item.
Modifying the game these ways will keep your story the central focus and be least likely to cause hard feelings for other players because you should try to make sure they are finding cool items and happy with their feat options as well. It won't feel like you have changed everything just for the caster.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Just homebrew it" is not, and cannot be the answer, because this is not a table-level problem.
Its a system-level problem.
Another possibility is that you are trying so hard to fix a very niche part of the game, that the thing you are trying to fix was never really intended to be that good outside of the niche and trying to turn it into an every encounter choice ends up being about more than just one little thing.
You understand this is an extremely messed up thought process right?
"It sucks because it was designed to suck, so you suck for even trying to make it work."
That's how this comes across to me anyhow.
Even the notion that Paizo deliberately, and with malice a forethought, designed a series of spells to perform worse than others, and then just kind of hide them in with the rest of the spells without clear demarcation they are intended to underperform to... what? Punish newer players? Make people who don't notice the issue feel bad when they keep failing?
What is the actual cash-out for this kind of thinking?
When Paizo wanted to reduce the effectiveness of certain kinds of spells, they did things like introduce the Incapacitate trait. This meant that some types of spells could not over perform and signals to the player "Hey, you can do this, but it probably isn't going to end tough encounters. So be aware of that." They didn't hide a statically higher chance of failure under the math.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its a system-level problem.
I don't think everyone agrees.
You understand this is an extremely messed up thought process right?
"It sucks because it was designed to suck, so you suck for even trying to make it work."
That's how this comes across to me anyhow.
Even the notion that Paizo deliberately, and with malice a forethought, designed a series of spells to perform worse than others, and then just kind of hide them in with the rest of the spells without clear demarcation they are intended to underperform to... what? Punish newer players? Make people who don't notice the issue feel bad when they keep failing?
What is the actual cash-out for this kind of thinking?
When Paizo wanted to reduce the effectiveness of certain kinds of spells, they did things like introduce the Incapacitate trait. This meant that some types of spells could not over perform and signals to the player "Hey, you can do this, but it probably isn't going to end tough encounters. So be aware of that." They didn't hide a statically higher chance of failure under the math.
There are some important factors here that need to be taken into account.
The first is the number of existing spells.
There are currently 1262 spells in the game, with 537 in CRB alone. With such a large number of spells it would be strange that they were all perfectly balanced, and that there weren't several that stood out from the rest, either up or down.
Also, as far as I know, these spells were made by different authors, with different mechanical points of view. OK, in the end they must have been revised, but I don't think the reviewers were scrutinizing every detail of the spell all the time, I don't doubt that for example the attack trait for them wasn't relevant enough to make significant changes to the balance from the magic up.
The other thing is the difference in our points of view, the designers and the game in practice. One thing I notice when looking at PF2 spells is, for example, the designers' appreciation of crit effects. Seeing spells like Produce Flame and Ray of Frost being d4+stat for having some critical effect (persistent damage in the case of Produce Flame and Ray of Frost with -10 foot speed), while Telekinetic Projectile for not having a critical effect additional is d6+stat. Still in this comparison the critics of Produce Flames and Ray of Frost are not exactly in the same proportion, especially in terms of progression, but I believe they have compensated for this with range.
Meanwhile Electric Arc, Scatter Scree and Spout are saving spells instead of attacking and basically do the same average damage as attacking spells, but without the same crit effects. However Electric Arc is capable of hitting 2 targets within range (remember that the fact that the spell jumps between targets does not allow it to extend beyond range), hits 2 adjacent squares in area (technically it can hit 2 targets nearby) and makes these difficult terrain squares (for a creature that is already on the terrain this is of little relevance, but potentially with a few turns you can create a good area of difficult terrain) and Spout is situational, being more efficient in situations where there is aqua and many nearby enemies, all these spells are d4+stat.
One thing I notice here is that on these saving spells it seems like the designers have given up crit effects in exchange for 1 additional target, or affecting 2 squares and also making them difficult terrain or in a specific situation being a 5ft burst . But they don't seem to treat the fact that it's a save as an advantage. In addition, they ignore the situationality of these spells, forgetting that basically Electric Arc works well on land, air or over water, while Scatter Scree does not work in air or underwater battles and Spout is only comparable to them over a certain amount of water or in underwater battles.
So while for most of us being a save is more advantageous than being an attack, for designers it's all the same. You've probably thought like some here, that in many situations attack magic gets some benefits that save magic doesn't (like for example True Strike, or against the reduced AC of a flat-footed creature), even if it means losing the basic save's effect of doing half the effect if it fails.
Another thing they do that many don't agree with, but which is quite clear to me, is that they make a trade-off between versatility and power, this is quite visible in classes like the alchemist who are not comparable in terms of power with the most martial ones, but which have a versatility that envy even spellcasters, or even the fighter, who receive power in exchange for versatility, where at levels 5 and 13, he becomes master and legendary respectively in just a single group of weapons ( returning to the same proficiency in all weapon groups only at level 19), sacrificing some of its versatility in exchange for power.
This to me comes across in the form of cantrips being 2-actions, even though they are comparatively very similar in power to 1-handed ranged weapons that require only one action. Because in return they have the versatility to change their damage type or perform several other effects very easily and in the form of spell slots with very limited uses, as a way to compensate for their extra power and versatility (especially in high-level spells, where you deal a lot of area damage along with debuff effects in one spell).
Do I personally like this trade-off? No! For me versatility and power shouldn't mix. But I understand that it was a design decision that they felt was fair and that a lot of people will agree with them.
Anyway, where am I going with this. In simply that while for some several of these issues are absurd and unacceptable. For many people, and most likely for Paizo's own team of designers, everything is fine. So claiming it's a system problem is basically imposing your opinion on theirs. Because while for you it is a serious problem, for them and for other players it is not even a problem. Your criticisms are valid, it's understandable that you don't like the way things are, so enjoy and make the changes you feel are right. But that's valid for you, it doesn't mean that others agree and want the same thing as you.
So yes, in the end it becomes a question of homebrew. Because you are more disagreeing with design decisions than really with a game problem shared by everyone (or at least the majority).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its a system-level problem.I don't think everyone agrees.
You understand this is an extremely messed up thought process right?
"It sucks because it was designed to suck, so you suck for even trying to make it work."
That's how this comes across to me anyhow.
Even the notion that Paizo deliberately, and with malice a forethought, designed a series of spells to perform worse than others, and then just kind of hide them in with the rest of the spells without clear demarcation they are intended to underperform to... what? Punish newer players? Make people who don't notice the issue feel bad when they keep failing?
What is the actual cash-out for this kind of thinking?
When Paizo wanted to reduce the effectiveness of certain kinds of spells, they did things like introduce the Incapacitate trait. This meant that some types of spells could not over perform and signals to the player "Hey, you can do this, but it probably isn't going to end tough encounters. So be aware of that." They didn't hide a statically higher chance of failure under the math.
There are some important factors here that need to be taken into account.
The first is the number of existing spells.
There are currently 1262 spells in the game, with 537 in CRB alone. With such a large number of spells it would be strange that they were all perfectly balanced, and that there weren't several that stood out from the rest, either up or down.
Also, as far as I know, these spells were made by different authors, with different mechanical points of view. OK, in the end they must have been revised, but I don't think the reviewers were scrutinizing every detail of the spell all the time, I don't doubt that for example the attack trait for them wasn't relevant enough to make significant changes to the balance from the magic up.The other thing is the difference in our points of view, the designers and the game in practice. One thing I notice when looking at PF2...
While I appreciate what you are trying to do with this post, and I mean that sincerely, I think we have talked passed each other a bit here.
When I talk about table-level problems vs system-level problems, I mean it in a very basic sense.
Table-level problems are ones which occur in specific instances that are unique to that instance. Not understanding a rule, not utilising tactics, the GM designing/running the encounter incorrectly. These are all table-level problems which don't impact anything beyond that table.
System-level problems are those which impact every and all tables which are engaging in the system correctly.
The under performance of Spell Attacks is at this system level, because everyone who engages with the math as presented and uses all rules and tactics correctly will still encounter the same results. Its part of the systems structure. You can naturally compensate at the table-level, but the system-level problem is still here.
I also would like to clarify that this is not actually a big or important personal issue for me. It does not impact my personal enjoyment of the game. It has impacted the enjoyment of my players, especially in the early days, and has impacted the enjoyment really bad of a player I met online last year, but I don't hold those as personal issues.
If it seems like I an overly invested in this its because it is a real, evident, easily demonstrable issue, that for some bizarre reason, people will bend over backwards to try and ignore or hand wave. We've gone years of people denying it, but the problem remains. It will be there for every group that picks up the game and starts running it in earnest, not realising that by using a certain type of spell that they are stacking the deck against themselves.
Is it a massive, game breaking problem? Of course not! A +2 bonus at some point in the pre-level 14 progress with remove it entirely. I think its why I find it particularly frustrating that people won't admit there is an issue.
Its a relatively small, easy to correct problem, with several different approaches to address it.
It was even an issue in the playtest! But the magic changes between playtest and release somehow got a bit wonky in places, and this is one of them.
In terms of costs and trade-offs. I'm not opposed to any form of trade off on principle. If there is to be a Power vs Utility trade off, I would much preferred to see a lower base damage for single target spells with on-par likelihood of success, as opposed to higher base damage with a below-par likelihood of success. Simply because one is a reasonable and understandable trade off, and the other one is an all-or-nothing but with no real rationale for being like that.
I think its important to remember that caster classes have a lot of trade-offs baked into them by default.
Before a caster can even cast their first spell at level 1, they have already paid several costs compared to some blank-slate martial chassis. Trade-offs are then added on top of those with things like opportunity costs of spell selection, actual costs to learn spells, your repertoire or prepared just making you flumb the day if you are wrong. There is probably more I'm not even thinking of right now.
But those are all front-loaded costs. We then get to casting the spell itself, where again we find various trade-offs baked in and accounted for.
In this particular and limited case, of spell attack rolls which target AC, under performing as consistently, level on level, from 2 - 20, it seems like cost / trade-off has not been considered properly for these particular subset of spells.
They need a system-level change to bring them up to par with their counterparts who don't face such an issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there is to be a Power vs Utility trade off, I would much preferred to see a lower base damage for single target spells with on-par likelihood of success, as opposed to higher base damage with a below-par likelihood of success. Simply because one is a reasonable and understandable trade off, and the other one is an all-or-nothing but with no real rationale for being like that.But the system has that! They are called save spells. Since they only do 0 damage on a critical miss, they give the caster a very high probability of doing a lower amount of damage. That's exactly what you say you want...and it exists.
Except in the explicit subset of spells which this entire thread is about.
P.S - If you edit part of your post after its already been quoted, the original text will still be in the quote.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except in the explicit subset of spells which this entire thread is about.But the system has that! They are called save spells. Since they only do 0 damage on a critical miss, they give the caster a very high probability of doing a lower amount of damage. That's exactly what you say you want...and it exists.
So your complaint is that vs. AC spells don't have a high-probability, low-damage option, and that this is a systemic problem that needs to be fixed. And you think this is a problem that the system needs to fix even though there are tens if not hundreds of vs. save spells which provide exactly the capability you're asking for, because for you, the existence of those spells doesn't address the problem. Is that correct?
It feels like you are trying to do some sort of "clap-back" while not understanding the root of the issue, even though the post you quoted laid out my exact complaint in some detail...
So... yes?
A subset of spells underperform compared to their peers because of a design asymmetry with how the system treats the "save" they target.
This is generally not the part of the conversation people have trouble with.
I have a question for you, if Paizo had made fire cantrips with 30ft range and 5ft burst and basic save. One of cold with 120ft of cold with an area of 1 cube of 5ft and slow down by 10ft or half on successful save and so on for other attack spells, swapping them for saves. Would you still be complaining?
I'm not criticizing anyone, just raising a scenario where attack spells didn't exist. How would you be dealing with that today?
I do not believe spell attack roll spells were designed to suck. I do believe that they are designed to generally be a little bit more high risk/high reward than saving throw targeting spells, just because the underlying mechanics of the game give a lot more more tactical options for manipulating attack rolls. I think there was also an underlying push for there to be more “magic should have magical effects” and less “magic is just another mundane tool to accomplish tasks.” These two factors together have lead to more powerful magical effects tied to critical results or spells trying not to just do what skills and training can do, but something characters without magic don’t have the same options for. For example magic missile just hitting, as well as non combat spells like augury and create water.
So attack roll spells “suck” when being compared to martial attacks with no tactical consideration for what makes that specific spell unique and magical is probably very intentional in the games design, but that is because the game wants to discourage players from trying to automate their 3 action encounter routine and engage with the elements of the game that make PF2 interesting and unique.
This is why I keep harping on “try to figure out how an option is intended to work before changing everything about how it works to make it look like the intended focus was the part you are looking at, and not everything else.”
There is no level where a caster wouldn’t want some spell attack roll spells on hand for combining with resources like hero points, status bonuses to attack, getting aided by an ally or a truestrike spell to be able to vastly swing probability in their favor in a crucial encounter.
|
|
I have a question for you, if Paizo had made fire cantrips with 30ft range and 5ft burst and basic save. One of cold with 120ft of cold with an area of 1 cube of 5ft and slow down by 10ft or half on successful save and so on for other attack spells, swapping them for saves. Would you still be complaining?
I'm not criticizing anyone, just raising a scenario where attack spells didn't exist. How would you be dealing with that today?
If all Spell Attack rolls were instead basic saves, then I think that would do along way to side-step the problem. If the save they targeted was AC, but they got to act like other save based spells, they would still under perform, but that under performance would not hurt as much.
Its not a path we can would chose at this point in the game, but it would certain take the sting out of the issue. We have to work with what we got.
Adding things like bursts and other things like that is another matter entirely imo, as it changes how you would approach the use of the spell and push its power up more than I think you are intending.
So from what I understand, if Paizo ever just made more save cantrips catering to different types of energy damage, that would sort of resolve most of this issue already.
That is, just having save cantrips to operate side-by-side would already please most of the complaints. It would end up in a situation similar to what we already have with Scorching Ray Heightened and Fireball. Being an alternative for those who prefer attack magic and the other alternative for those who prefer saves.
There's a tip for Paizo to put in Rage of Elements.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not believe spell attack roll spells were designed to suck. I do believe that they are designed to generally be a little bit more high risk/high reward than saving throw targeting spells, just because the underlying mechanics of the game give a lot more more tactical options for manipulating attack rolls.
That's fine for you to believe, but you have to understand that this isn't stated, implied or hinted at anywhere in the game. Its a belief you are drawing from inference.
Its why I mentioned the Incapacitate trait previously. There is a clear, distinct, well sign-posted example of the exact kind of high risk/high reward spell functionality that you are attributing to spell attacks. Those spells tell you in no uncertain terms, there is a high chance of failure but a strong payoff for success.
The issue with spell attacks is comparatively opaque. Where the circumstances of its under performance aren't related to the spell itself, but the environment in which it operates.
If Weapon Potency runes didn't exist, and enemy AC didn't scale with the anticipation of those runes, then Spell Attacks would function just fine with no problems with them at all.
The problem arises because a unique type of bonus is applied to both melee and ranged attacks, and enemy AC scaling does assume the existence of those runes.
So attack roll spells “suck” when being compared to martial attacks with no tactical consideration for what makes that specific spell unique and magical is probably very intentional in the games design, but that is because the game wants to discourage players from trying to automate their 3 action encounter routine and engage with the elements of the game that make PF2 interesting and unique.
Why do these conversations always turn on your assumption being that the martial is just doing a generic strike and not one of the literal hundreds of different options open to them?
If you want to make this spell contextual, then you have to make it strike contextual as well. There is no version of this where we can discuss all the unique interactions that can arise from specific spells without doing the same for other kinds of strikes.
This is why I keep harping on “try to figure out how an option is intended to work before changing everything about how it works to make it look like the intended focus was the part you are looking at, and not everything else.”
Look, I get it, but this seems like a silly game you are playing. Lots of martial strike options have all sorts of interesting accuracy / damage twists and turns to them. Lets stop pretending strikes are generic.
There is no level where a caster wouldn’t want some spell attack roll spells on hand for combining with resources like hero points, status bonuses to attack, getting aided by an ally or a truestrike spell to be able to vastly swing probability in their favor in a crucial encounter.
What I keep trying to express to you is that all of these things are strike agnostic.
When you apply every buff.
When you apply every debuff.
When you use true strike and get aid actions, etc.
A martial making an attack against AC is still going to perform better than a caster making a spell attack against the same AC because there is a type of bonus which is applied asymmetrically to these two parallel actives.
This is a fact. All other considerations aside for a moment, we have to agree on this one simple fact.
Then once you get into actual game play, and you realise you can't get every possible buff every time, and you can't always debuff the enemy to maximise effect, and there are no more true strikes, or whatever have you. The gap caused by this asymmetry widens.
So if you, as a caster, start having to spend additional actions and resources to engineer the state you need to succeed, but the martial classes don't... then you are just being penalised because you chose to do something which apparently just doesn't work as well for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell attacks are not high risk high reward, nor are they easy land consistent spells. That is the entire issue.
They are overall easier to land than save-based spells but at the cost of doing nothing in case of failure. High risk high reward seems a good description of them.
|
|
Spell attacks are not high risk high reward, nor are they easy land consistent spells. That is the entire issue.They are overall easier to land than save-based spells but at the cost of doing nothing in case of failure. High risk high reward seems a good description of them.
What do you mean by "easier to land", as I suspect you guys don't mean the same thing by it.
PF2e uses the meet or beat system. If AC is 20 and Spell Attack Roll is +10 the caster has a 55% hit rate. If Save DC is 20 and target has a +10 Save, caster success is 45%. Additionally, there are more ways to modify AC than there are ways to modify any single Save. Therefore it seems reasonable to state that spell attacks against AC are easier to land. It is true in certain common situations.
It is not true every time and it is not exactly fair to call them consistent and they do not always compare favorably to martial strikes. Face it with shock and chagrin if you must but this situation is nuanced.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
With every buff and debuff available (aid, heroism, synesthesia, flatfooted, for a net +12 to hit) 3 action true strike shocking grasp will outperform 2 action fighter (melee and ranged) with the same so long as you have top level spell slots to use.
You'll even outperform against bosses so long as you're brave enough to risk melee. Losing a turn to cast spectral hand, using reach spell instead of true strike or needing to stride instead of casting true strike will absolutly wipe out your minor damage gains.
Targeting a moderate save with shadow signet doesn't actually help so you need to hope the enemy has a low save and that it's reflex so synesthesia still applies.
So for investing buffs into the caster's attack spell to be worth it, they need to: already be in touch range or expend 1/day quicken spell, spend a top slot, spend a true strike and hope the scary boss doesn't interrupt them with their sub-par AC. You're also giving up the fighter's prone or pin on crit and their spellheart's dazzle/blind on crit (which is quite likely with this kind of buffing).
For me, that's a lot of things that need to go right just to end up with slightly higher damage without the debuff riders the fighter gets. Not to mention that this is still 3 actions vs 2. Attacking 3 times is still mediocre, but bow fighter is potentially adding slow through debilitating shot or prone and maybe stun with bola ammo, for example.
So, why should other players invest their aid and buffs into the spell attack caster that can only do damage if they start in melee instead of the fighter doing about the same, but isn't as constrained in action economy, has opportunity attacks, and is debuffing while dealing damage?