What do you mean by "easier to land", as I suspect you guys don't mean the same thing by it.
I already explained it before (it's nice to see you read my posts) but ReyalsKanras explains it again: You have 10% extra chances of hitting with a spell attack roll compared to the chances for the target to fail a save.
And that's without counting all the modifiers to attack rolls which are far more than the modifiers to save DC (even if a few are negative modifiers, but in general they are beneficial ones).That's why you deal more damage to creatures 3 levels under yours by using a spell attack roll (without any bonus) instead of a save based spell.
|
| 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.
I think it's obvious that not everyone agrees that this is the case. However, even if it was the case, house rules can still alleviate it. This is, in essence, how community patches work for various computer games.
Rather than complain, why not compile a list of the specific pain points and solutions you would apply to solve them? If it's as simple as the attack roll/save DC is inadequate, simply start your spellcasters with expert proficiencies and expedite their proficiency progression. Problem solved IMO.
Glances at every suggestion made in every thread about this topic for the last 4 years.
Sure, I'll get right to work on that list for you...
However, as I said before, fixing a problem on a table level doesn't remove the problem overall. Yes it will obviously fix the problem in my games, but its still, you know, there.
Other people, at other tables, which I don't run, will still encounter the problem.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sense your frustration. Folks have been open with their advice, agreement and disagreement. Not sure why you're choosing to act out with personal attacks (not this one but the previous post has all the hallmarks). IMO, you probably need to take a break from this topic for a while. It's obvious other community members don't agree with you and don't find your arguments persuasive. While I'm sympathetic to your position, my preference is not to make more work for the devs. Ultimately, the problem is your water. So, you carry it. Continuing to beat your head into the wall isn't going to accomplish what you want it to.
There is quite a bit to unpack here. So I'll be succinct.
1) If you want consistently polite and civil discourse, you, at a minimum, should consistently conduct your own discourse polite and civilly. Lets not pearl clutch that I replied in kind to someone's jab. Glass houses, stones, etc.
2) Just because the people who disagree with me are prolific posters, both by number of posts and text volume, that doesn't make them right. Unicorn, will be the first to tell you that apparent support doesn't equal truth. He has said so himself in threads were the popularity barrier swung the other way.
3) As I've consistently pointed out, its not "my problem" because its exists and is real. It would be there if I never picked up an RPG in my life. You can chose not to believe it, but it still exists regardless of your personal sentiments.
But to burst your general bubble, I'm not as emotionally invested in this as you seem to think.
That said, if it pleases the court, I shall endeavour to run all future replies through ChatGPT and ask it to strip out all emotive language. And shall continue to do so until I stop finding that funny.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Given that you have Flat 5 and Flat 11 DCs (which equate to 20% and 50% respectively), having the default assumption be "roll a 10" instead of "roll an 11," which the game literally resorts as the 50% mark due to Flat Checks using this as a means of arbitration, is a disingenuous argument, because you are purposefully trying to make to-hit have better chances to hit by moving the marker at which these effects are "met." It would make sense if we used the Zero method, but given that dice rolls cannot have a result less than 1, it's impossible.
It doesn't matter if an enemy has to roll an 11 or higher to Save or a caster has to roll an 11 or higher to Hit, as both of these are the 50% benchmark that Paizo has set forth in the system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry for the thread necro from a new guy here, but I came up with a solution that might interest people. It works at my table, but all my math is 10 years rusty so I don't have anything to "prove" it balances things out, I just have the feels of the caster who was unsatisfied at my table.
It took some talking but I figured out that my player was frustrated specifically because he was missing frequently rather than because he wasn't doing massive damage. My brain had a bit of an aha moment when I figured that out, so I figured I'd post the idea to the internet so people can toss it around and test it for balance. Maybe it can help some other people.
My solution was to add in a specific Spell Accuracy rune, in +1/+2/+3 flavors like the fundamental accuracy runes we all know. The rune functioned by giving my wizard player a Metamagic activity: For one action, he could add the item bonus to his next Spell Attack roll that turn (No DC's), but in exchange it would also push up the critical threshold for that attack by the same amount. For example, if he had an enemy with an AC of 25, and his base spell attack was 15, he could activate the rune to push his spell attack up by 1 to 16, but he would also push the critical threshold up from 35 to 36. Same die roll gets a critical, but he gets to hit more reliably in exchange for an action.
My player really seems to enjoy this; he hits more and feels like he can reliably do damage, but he isn't out there getting critical hits on scorching ray every turn. He also reports to me that it makes his wizard feel very wizard-y when he uses it - he can either choose to cast quickly or take a moment to focus himself and do it right, while critical hits are still an unexpectedly powerful attack.
Anyway, I flattered myself and thought it was an elegant solution, but I may just be full of it. Regardless, I figured I'd put it out there as a balance option and see what the community thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo seems pretty pleased with where they've placed spellcasters. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince them otherwise.
Just homebrew casting runes for your own games.
There is no system level problem with attack roll spells. Y'all just crazy. :P
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo seems pretty pleased with where they've placed spellcasters. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince them otherwise.
Just homebrew casting runes for your own games.
Nah, got to keep that wheel squeaking. The accuracy flaw of spell attacks remains, and has always been, a bad idea and a mistake.
It doesn't need to be attack runes as such, it just needs to not be consistently behind at every level of the game after 1st.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry for the thread necro from a new guy here, but I came up with a solution that might interest people. It works at my table, but all my math is 10 years rusty so I don't have anything to "prove" it balances things out, I just have the feels of the caster who was unsatisfied at my table.
It took some talking but I figured out that my player was frustrated specifically because he was missing frequently rather than because he wasn't doing massive damage. My brain had a bit of an aha moment when I figured that out, so I figured I'd post the idea to the internet so people can toss it around and test it for balance. Maybe it can help some other people.
My solution was to add in a specific Spell Accuracy rune, in +1/+2/+3 flavors like the fundamental accuracy runes we all know. The rune functioned by giving my wizard player a Metamagic activity: For one action, he could add the item bonus to his next Spell Attack roll that turn (No DC's), but in exchange it would also push up the critical threshold for that attack by the same amount. For example, if he had an enemy with an AC of 25, and his base spell attack was 15, he could activate the rune to push his spell attack up by 1 to 16, but he would also push the critical threshold up from 35 to 36. Same die roll gets a critical, but he gets to hit more reliably in exchange for an action.
My player really seems to enjoy this; he hits more and feels like he can reliably do damage, but he isn't out there getting critical hits on scorching ray every turn. He also reports to me that it makes his wizard feel very wizard-y when he uses it - he can either choose to cast quickly or take a moment to focus himself and do it right, while critical hits are still an unexpectedly powerful attack.
Anyway, I flattered myself and thought it was an elegant solution, but I may just be full of it. Regardless, I figured I'd put it out there as a balance option and see what the community thought.
This is interesting but I don't think that this really solves the main problems.
This "Spell Accuracy rune" works similar to the how Gate Attenuator works for kineticist's Elemental Blast (but probably a bit stronger at highest levels because it goes up to +3) but with a cap to critical at the cost of one-action what makes me thing of this isn't more interesting than the Shadow Signet (yet still need that you know the weakest save of the target in some way but this usually is easily to deduce too).
This also isn't enough to compete with a caster using EA + Shortbow due its lower damage, action hungriness and penalizing to weaponless caster's builds.
That's why I still insist that the ideal is something (a buff spell, free-action metamagic or an item) that reduces the action cost of attack cantrips like Fiery Body does to Produce Flame or Ferrous Form does to Needle Darts but for lower level.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why bother with making them fail quicker/more though?
Spell Attacks are still subject to MAP, and its their fundamental accuracy that causes much of the issues around them.
Being able to miss with two spells in a turn does not seem more appealing that failing with with one. Naturally this does have a different cost when it comes to cantrips, where all the resources you are wasting are your actions, but actions are important.
Spell attack accuracy just needs to be on par with enemy AC per level. There isn't much else to it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why bother with making them fail quicker/more though?
Spell Attacks are still subject to MAP, and its their fundamental accuracy that causes much of the issues around them.
Being able to miss with two spells in a turn does not seem more appealing that failing with with one. Naturally this does have a different cost when it comes to cantrips, where all the resources you are wasting are your actions, but actions are important.
Spell attack accuracy just needs to be on par with enemy AC per level. There isn't much else to it.
Then what do you give to Martials to rebalance the scales ?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't they already have better action economy, an easier time multiclassing, more support from items, and more benefit from buff/debuff abilities?Then what do you give to Martials to rebalance the scales ?Why bother with making them fail quicker/more though?
Spell Attacks are still subject to MAP, and its their fundamental accuracy that causes much of the issues around them.
Being able to miss with two spells in a turn does not seem more appealing that failing with with one. Naturally this does have a different cost when it comes to cantrips, where all the resources you are wasting are your actions, but actions are important.
Spell attack accuracy just needs to be on par with enemy AC per level. There isn't much else to it.
Ah, yes. All those mighty AoE Martials get for free, not to mention Electric Arc. And all those nice scrolls and wands and spellhearts... Thankfully, Talismans are a thing, and rituals too.
And so easy to benefit from Bon Mot. I mean, it's not as if casters could benefit from Frightened enemies or from Inspire Courage.
Poor Bard BTW. So weak compared to all these OP Martials.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Idk if you noticed but wands and scrolls can be used by anyone. Spellhearts are casters only, but martials have talismans. Rituals are also available to everyone.
Yeah martials get fewer AoE but they still get plenty of it from feats. They also have much better defenses than casters, and the still have much better single target damage given they can just keep swinging unlike a spell slot that is used and then is gone.
I hate how people always jump to Bon Mot to justify making casters worse. I wish they had never printed that feat.
Also bard is the best caster because it is the best at making martials better. While having the best action economy to do so. All other casters are not bard, so you are saying that casters should be punished because of bard. Are you also going to nerf all the martials because fighter is too good? Stop with the double standard.
The double standard IMO is pointing out all the Martials' strengths and none of their weaknesses while doing the opposite for Casters.
|
|
Absolutely nothing, they are already way ahead. This is rebalancing the scales
Then what do you give to Martials to rebalance the scales ?
Let's agree to very much disagree. My caster PCs feel quite different from my martial ones in how they play and what they bring to the table. But I have never felt them being far behind the martials, nor inadequate in any way.
But then, I'm not expecting my casters to do a martial's job, nor the other way around. I would sure be disappointed in both cases.
|
|
To be completely honest I don't see buffing spell attacks really making casters any better. Like bard is good because of its buffs and debuffs, not its damage output and I can't really see casters getting accuracy items with spells attacks changing that. I would have personally preferred it over shadow signet honestly.Don't they already have better action economy, an easier time multiclassing, more support from items, and more benefit from buff/debuff abilities?Then what do you give to Martials to rebalance the scales ?Why bother with making them fail quicker/more though?
Spell Attacks are still subject to MAP, and its their fundamental accuracy that causes much of the issues around them.
Being able to miss with two spells in a turn does not seem more appealing that failing with with one. Naturally this does have a different cost when it comes to cantrips, where all the resources you are wasting are your actions, but actions are important.
Spell attack accuracy just needs to be on par with enemy AC per level. There isn't much else to it.
Ah, yes. All those mighty AoE Martials get for free, not to mention Electric Arc. And all those nice scrolls and wands and spellhearts... Thankfully, Talismans are a thing, and rituals too.
And so easy to benefit from Bon Mot. I mean, it's not as if casters could benefit from Frightened enemies or from Inspire Courage.
Poor Bard BTW. So weak compared to all these OP Martials.
With no other change, it will increase the average damage casters do when using spell attacks, in addition to all they can already do. So a definite improvement.
For casters to get better spell attacks without making them any better, you would need to lower the spells' damage so that the average damage done stays the same : hit more often but for less damage.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell attack accuracy is a systemic issue which impacts all casters equally.
I can’t think of a single issue which is systemic to all martials in the same way.
There are no scales to balance here.
Individual classes need specific fixes to their under performing aspects, sure, but it’s just not the same.
For casters to get better spell attacks without making them any better, you would need to lower the spells' damage so that the average damage done stays the same : hit more often but for less damage.
Well, firstly, the point is to make them better than their current state. But, secondly, attack cantrip damage is being lowered.
I gave spell accuracy item bonuses to wands and staves. Helps cantrips and some spells on occasion. Doesn't change the balance point at all. Spells that require attack rolls are not as good as spells that work on saves the vast majority of the time. You can add item bonuses to attack roll spells and not upset the balance point in my experience. You will barely notice they exist and martials won't even care or notice that you're getting item bonuses to attack roll spells.
Do not mess with Spell DCs as that will screw up the balance point. There are a ton of good save spells. If DCs improve, the game balance point will fall heavily in favor of casters.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, because this needs to be said periodically it seems, the issue with Spell Attacks isn’t actually a caster vs martial issue.
Spell attacks generally perform worse than other spells for on-level and above enemies across the game.
The reason for this underperformance is because the “save” which spell attacks target is generally scaled with the assumption of player scaling in-line with a Master weapon prof martial with runes.
Because spell attacks get prof scaling later, and lack rune support, they lag behind your other, non-AC targeting spells. Meaning they aren’t on par with your other spell options.
Don't they already have better action economy, an easier time multiclassing, more support from items, and more benefit from buff/debuff abilities?Then what do you give to Martials to rebalance the scales ?Why bother with making them fail quicker/more though?
Spell Attacks are still subject to MAP, and its their fundamental accuracy that causes much of the issues around them.
Being able to miss with two spells in a turn does not seem more appealing that failing with with one. Naturally this does have a different cost when it comes to cantrips, where all the resources you are wasting are your actions, but actions are important.
Spell attack accuracy just needs to be on par with enemy AC per level. There isn't much else to it.
Ah, yes. All those mighty AoE Martials get for free, not to mention Electric Arc. And all those nice scrolls and wands and spellhearts... Thankfully, Talismans are a thing, and rituals too.
And so easy to benefit from Bon Mot. I mean, it's not as if casters could benefit from Frightened enemies or from Inspire Courage.
Poor Bard BTW. So weak compared to all these OP Martials.
Idk if you noticed but wands and scrolls can be used by anyone. Spellhearts are casters only, but martials have talismans. Rituals are also available to everyone.
Yeah martials get fewer AoE but they still get plenty of it from feats. They also have much better defenses than casters, and the still have much better single target damage given they can just keep swinging unlike a spell slot that is used and then is gone.
I hate how people always jump to Bon Mot to justify making casters worse. I wish they had never printed that feat.
Also bard is the best caster because it is the best at making martials better. While having the best action economy to do so. All other casters are not bard, so you are saying that casters should be punished because of bard. Are you also going to nerf all the martials because fighter is too good? Stop with the double standard.
IMO there's too much overvalue into wands, scrolls, talismans.
Spellhearts for other hand are the best IMO but I have difficult to compare them with the consumable (talismans, scrolls) and pseudo-consumable (wands) because they works more like alternatives to staves. Also spellhearts works well for both casters and non-casters. For casters they usually gives additional effects to their weapons attacks (pretty useful in lower-levels to compensate a little your lack of spellslots) for martials they give some extra spells and a cantrip to cast using tricking them and usually gives some extra effect to weapon that endures to the end of your next turn. For both can give a bit usually defensive or skill bonus.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If that’s your immediate response to challenge, why did you even bother making an comment in the first place?
There will always be value in knowing that not everyone thinks as you do.
If one side is not permitted to speak, then perceptions are easily skewed.
We’re all aware of the current status quo. Some people think it is incorrect.
And some people think it is fine as is. And now, because people have said as much, we know that as well.
To me is fine because I don't use attack spells directly. I only use them with Spellstrike/Eldritch Shot. But I understand perfectly those who complain that spell attacks are more limited than save spells and that specially some attack cantrips can be worse than do 2 shots with a bow using a wizard and that usually to use a Jolt Coil/Trinity Geode/Perfect Droplet/Thorn Triad to cast its spell and Strike is more effective than any attack cantrip.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The evidence that “spell attack damage is getting worse” in the remaster is pretty suspect. Some cantrips are likely getting a slight nerf to damage. Others, (like ignition to produce flame) are better damage than we had previously and we really don’t know over all what the spells are going to look like yet. Nor do we really know what items will look like after the remaster, nor all the feats. And any GM that doesn’t like the new spells can keep letting their players use the old ones so it is disingenuous to say the over all system is getting worse for casters or spell attack rolls unless your GM wants it to be a worse situation.
The only question left is whether spell attack roll spells are getting boosted at all in the remaster. I am skeptical they will because between creatures getting magic resistance, ties going to the roller, hero points, the spell true strike, and the ease of debuffing AC compared to other defenses, it is rarely the case that it is easier to substantially cause damage to a higher level enemy with a saving throw spell than with a spell attack targeting spell. The math of which has repeatedly been demonstrated, usually to the response “but hero points and true strike shouldn’t count!” But they do count, they exist in game, and they appear to be varying over to the remastered game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see item bonuses added to spell attack rolls at some point.
Spell attacks are mostly used for cantrips and single target attack roll spells. I think it would not be imbalanced to allow item bonuses to attack roll spells as an additional bonus given they mostly attack single targets.
If you're going to use a spell that hits only a single target, it should have a great chance to hit, especially using a limited resource like a spell.
Save spells are great because they can hit multiple targets with one use with some damage done on even a successful save for most.
But an attack roll spell does nothing on a miss.
Improved the hit chance of attack roll spells would increase their value without balance issues due to the way most attack roll spells are built.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's agree to very much disagree. My caster PCs feel quite different from my martial ones in how they play and what they bring to the table. But I have never felt them being far behind the martials, nor inadequate in any way.
But then, I'm not expecting my casters to do a martial's job, nor the other way around. I would sure be disappointed in both cases.
No the double standard is that for some reason a caster is meant to be barely on par with a martial for his/her 2-4 best actions per day only and then completely suck in comparison for the rest of the day.
And even then that is just under the most optimal conditions, knowing exactly what lies ahead, with full GM support interpreting rules a certain way and by taking/using the same 2 to 3 items, spells and feats.But then again, I'm not expecting my casters to be buff bots, martial's sidekicks and all play the same.
Martials have better accuracy, which is even better with flanking.
can tank more damage and have better saves.
have better action economy
can do their best actions over and over
don't have to be especially prepared to "work"
aren't all relying on the same few items or feats
have access to many of the so called "benefits of casters" with very cheap feat investment
don't need special treatment from the GMBuffing the accuracy of Attack Spells won't disturb the balance at all, it will give casters more viable options. Because those spells are simply worse than Save Spells right now, unless used under very specific (certain few) circumstances.
TBH if casters are that much worse than martials, I definitely do not see how boosting their spell attacks will be enough to put them on an equal footing, given all the things you have listed in the martials' favor.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's agree to very much disagree. My caster PCs feel quite different from my martial ones in how they play and what they bring to the table. But I have never felt them being far behind the martials, nor inadequate in any way.
But then, I'm not expecting my casters to do a martial's job, nor the other way around. I would sure be disappointed in both cases.
No the double standard is that for some reason a caster is meant to be barely on par with a martial for his/her 2-4 best actions per day only and then completely suck in comparison for the rest of the day.
And even then that is just under the most optimal conditions, knowing exactly what lies ahead, with full GM support interpreting rules a certain way and by taking/using the same 2 to 3 items, spells and feats.But then again, I'm not expecting my casters to be buff bots, martial's sidekicks and all play the same.
Martials have better accuracy, which is even better with flanking.
can tank more damage and have better saves.
have better action economy
can do their best actions over and over
don't have to be especially prepared to "work"
aren't all relying on the same few items or feats
have access to many of the so called "benefits of casters" with very cheap feat investment
don't need special treatment from the GMBuffing the accuracy of Attack Spells won't disturb the balance at all, it will give casters more viable options. Because those spells are simply worse than Save Spells right now, unless used under very specific (certain few) circumstances.
I still wish you caster vs. martial folks would focus your arguments on the classes that need help.
If the Paizo designers were asking me, I'd tell them I feel pretty great as a druid, bard, and sorcerer compared to martials. I'd tell them the cleric feats are boring, but clerics feel pretty strong as well.
I'd tell them the witch and wizard don't feel so great. I'd tell them why as I have.
And for martials I'd tell them most of the martials feel pretty good. Monk could use a damage booster.
Swashbuckler and Investigator feel pretty terrible. Swash because panache generation has too many issues to be viable for a martial. Investigator is too narrowly designed and feats don't feel very impactful. Abilities are too restricted.
Gish classes are in good shape. Magus and Summoner.
I can't support the idea of a general caster vs. martial disparity when my druid is ripping face. The bard is one of the most beloved casters in the game by every other class. I have big fun building sorcerers that have always been highly effective. Clerics are always performing well because Healing Font is super useful which makes for flexible builds.
If I were Paizo, I wouldn't know how to fix a caster vs. martial disparity that I could not prove exists with verifiable metrics. I cannot prove a caster vs. martial disparity.
Casters are still very strong overall in this edition. Classes like the druid easily challenge martials for damage if built even remotely well.
To me the caster problem is very narrowly focused on the wizard and the witch. I hope some of that is fixed with the Remaster.
Item bonuses to attack roll spells would be nice because Attack Roll spells are not well balanced against save spells. That can be argued and proven.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martials desperately need special treatment either from their allies or the GM to survive 4 or more encounters in a short period of time.
They are all dependent upon the same couple set of runes.
Their damage can pretty terrible unless they pick up a two-handed weapon (which can really eat into their action economy if they want to do more than just swing their weapon), pick up a monk stance (which again eats actions) or use two weapons and get a special feat, which can eat a lot of actions and be even more restrictive about what else you can do other than attack. Or are a rogue with an off-guard enemy. between this and the rune issue, I would say martials are pretty restricted in what they spend their wealth on and what what feats they can get to significantly focus on doing more damage, with most of those feat options seriously eating into their action economy. In fact, I would argue that very many martials end up suffering massively from bad action economy. Rangers, Inventors, Investigators, Swashbucklers probably have it the worst from what I have seen, but I've even seen Rogues and Barbarians spend rounds on decent-sized battle maps doing nothing but run around with move actions. Small battlefields being another GM conceit almost required to play a smashmouth melee martial without having to invest heavily in movement options, not just for you, but for your whole party if you don't want to end up unconscious and rounds away from any ally support.
Casters have very good ways to exploit flanking, bard boosts and all the other attack roll centric game play. You have to get pretty high level before heightened Shocking grasp damage (with a hero point to catch a bad roll) followed up by a top slot magic missile or force bolt as a third action will not out perform martial single target damage. Yeah, that is their nova burst and it is not going to happen all that often (thank goodness casters can't just bury martial damage with cantrips and focus spells...oh no, we've forgotten the psychic!). But it does happen (I've seen it), and it can do so without casters having to rely on anything from the GM that the martial character does not.
I think a very large amount of this woe-to-caster mentality really does center on the "Martials can do this all day and casters can't." That is an argument that is fundamentally about GM pacing and not game design. If you don't believe me about this, read the Encounter design sections of the GMG , especially looking at the dynamic encounters sections on page 48. Martials counting on full HP at the start of every encounter without using consumables is a massive GM conceit.
I am personally a way bigger fan of the wizard still than of the kineticist because I love nova options (in both combat and social encounters) and being prepared way more than I like running through encounter chain combat simulators, but I will concede that the kineticist is a very good "be a magical all day blaster class." We really don't want spell attack cantrips on equal footing to kineticist blast options. Top slot spell casting blasting options are, thankfully, already significantly better than Kineticist blasting options.
It rarely takes a caster more than a feat or two to have as many of the martial benefits that they can reasonably benefit from and still be casters. Yes, martial's can poach a lot of the utility of scrolls and low level spells, but keeping up a weapon and runes and armor and emergency healing options, and skill items doesn't leave martials a whole lot of extra wealth. Casters who choose weapons instead of spell casting items end up in a very similar boat, which I think is excellent game design.
Casters don't have very many "hey, just do this over and over again" options. I think this is a wonderful design choice that has made casters more fun to play in PF2 than they were in PF1. I understand how it increases complexity of playing many of them, but between kineticists, psychics, sorcerers, clerics and bards, there are enough casters that offer good "do this a whole lot" options that we don't really need ways to make every caster play that way.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unicore, I still don't understand why you don't want better feats and chassis options for the wizard.
Wizard base casting is fine. You seem to focus on base casting.
Wizard feat and build options are pretty limited and boring with a handful of good ones.
The theses are focused on two high value theses. One for versatility and the other allowing more high level spell slots for novaing. Though I don't even think high level spell slots are always the most valuable.
A 3rd level slow spell can be a better use of a slot than a 6th or 8th level slot in many boss fights.
I hear all these folks saying they don't use their lower level slots. But I use them. I like true strike and fleet step from 1st level to 20th. I like slow, haste, see invis, faerie fire, time jump, wood double, mirror image, phantasmal killer, fly, and many lower level spells I often use more often than higher level spells.
It's why I don't value spell blending as much as others. I like having lower level slots with high value spells.
When I make a wizard prior to my rule adjustment, I picked up Spell Substitution. Once I made it a class feature for wizards, I went with Metamagic Mastery hoping for more good metamagic feats to be added. And I like Reach Spell for free and Quicken Spell for free at max level.
I don't often need more slots. I do use cantrips when I know the fight is handled. I apply the powerful spell hammer when I need to. The most powerful spell hammer is usually....a slow spell.
I can be a level 13 to 15 caster and drop a slow spell, if it sticks the fight is practically over. Everything else is gravy.
I may drop a few big AoEs for fun, but once slow sticks either single target or multitarget the action economy advantage for our team becomes immense and the enemy is all done. No incap trait. You can easily make slow scrolls to cast it a lot for a wizard.
Suffice it to say, I'd like to see a more interesting wizard.
The witch has some real bad hex cantrips I hope they shored up. It seems they are increasing the value of the familiar, which is important if it is a core class feature. Some of the feats look better. My goodness those witch feats were bad for use though the flavor was good.
Martials are fine for the most part. I can understand the sentiment they have their own issues to overcome as they level. I to have watched more than a few martials before they find some way to fly sit there on the ground doing nothing against a flying enemy looking at the casters waiting for them to get them into action. It's why we always have an archer with us to ensure we can hammer a flying creature while we figure out how to bring it down.
I like spells. I want one class in the game to be the class that specializes in giving you spell slots. The wizard really delivers this in PF2.
I agree that lower level spell slots are still good. I also find those really easy slots to fill with scrolls. A recent trick I tried and really like is to use a scroll of spectral hand before opening a door (this was with a 9th level character). Spectral hand is awesome, but a waste of actions in the first round. 2nd level scrolls cost almost nothing at 9th level.
The GM I play with allows spectral hand to move to a specific spot and count as flanking in this game. It is a great way to get those melee spells to land.
Lots of spell slots are necessary if you want to really spam high level spell attack roll spells in fights against solo monsters. I like being able to fire off a level 4 acid arrow and then a level 4 shocking grasp against a boss. It hits like a truck. Spell blending is pretty necessary for that to be an option in more than 1 encounter a day.
I like spells. I want one class in the game to be the class that specializes in giving you spell slots. The wizard really delivers this in PF2.
I agree that lower level spell slots are still good. I also find those really easy slots to fill with scrolls. A recent trick I tried and really like is to use a scroll of spectral hand before opening a door (this was with a 9th level character). Spectral hand is awesome, but a waste of actions in the first round. 2nd level scrolls cost almost nothing at 9th level.
The GM I play with allows spectral hand to move to a specific spot and count as flanking in this game. It is a great way to get those melee spells to land.
Lots of spell slots are necessary if you want to really spam high level spell attack roll spells in fights against solo monsters. I like being able to fire off a level 4 acid arrow and then a level 4 shocking grasp against a boss. It hits like a truck. Spell blending is pretty necessary for that to be an option in more than 1 encounter a day.
I still think you should be able take Spell Blending without having to miss out on Spell Substitution.
If you feel satisfied with the class, then it works for you.
Always nice when the GM makes a spell a little cooler with a house rule.
|
|
The GM I play with allows spectral hand to move to a specific spot and count as flanking in this game. It is a great way to get those melee spells to land.
Up to 10 rounds of self-generated flanking within 120ft is a really powerful upgrade for that spell. That shouldn't be a 2nd level spell at that point.
The wording on spectral hand felt ambiguous to all of us at our table. The hand has to deliver a touch or melee touch spell by crawling out to the creature, and it has all of your bonuses for the purposes of delivering a melee touch spell, which we debated for a while, but felt like that would include your bonuses to making unarmed attacks. It didn’t really make sense to us to include that sentence otherwise. Perhaps the wording could stand some further clarity.
Has anyone who has read the spell any other way found it to be a spell worth casting?