Melee spell attack rolls are defined Ok in the rules. I'm not sure I'd do anything other than that, but yes it is odd.
The spell is good enough if you like a few of the range touch spells
Goblin Pox, Shocking Grasp, Vampiric Touch, Blood Feast, Wyvern Sting aren't terrible. I've just never really had the need to use them much when there are just good ranged options.
Is there anything in the game for holding the charge anymore?
Perhaps the Wizard could get a class feature that if they miss a spell attack roll, they can hold the charge and not lose the spell (unless you crit-fail). Maybe it cost an action and you can't use any actions with manipulate or you lose it. They could then try again next round without losing the spellslot. While this won't help with accuracy, at least you could still choose to keep the resource of a spell slot.
I haven't seen mention of this video before, is there a chance you are thinking of the familiar ability "spell delivery?" Spectral hand, even with our reading that the hand has all the characters normal bonuses, is still not an always cast spell in encounters, because it pretty much takes up the first round. It was ok to cast in some boss fights where the enemy was very far away at the start of the encounter before I realized that it was a really good spell to use with a scroll as a pre-buff, but if it was within 30ft to start then there are plenty of less costly options. When our party is ambushed, I would probably not cast it at all unless we were fighting a solo monster that was keeping its distance. After all, it is really only shocking grasp, and gouging claw I use it for regularly at this point and I have better options for blasting multiple enemies.
True strike is the much bigger "spell fix" to spell attack roll spells as it doesn't take an extra round to set up. If the target being off-guard is enough of a boost to makes spell attack roll spells work fine, then the current system is good, because there are tons of ways the whole party can contribute to making a target off guard, even against targets at range. Even just grabbing or tripping them accomplishes this.
I agree that it is nice for delivering goblin pox, and especially vampiric touch as well, but vampiric touch gives you enough temp HP to make being in melee range a lot less dangerous any way, especially when paired with something like mirror image as your pre-buff. I can't imagine anyone really using the spell if they can't use it to get flanking with melee touch attack spells. At our table, we tend to try to make judgements that make options usable, because we like having more options. If we try something out and it is unbalancing, then we stop using it.
All along I have said that I would definitely consider creating a unique item as a GM for a player that was really wanting to focus on spell attack roll spells at my table but was in a party that was struggling to help that player land those spells. However, I doubt it would be necessary to even go past +1, because as soon as the party did figure out how easy it is to group debuff AC and boost attack rolls, then the item bonuses to land would only contribute to a caster player over-relying on only one kind of spell, which isn't how spells in PF2 are designed to work. One of the clearest lessons about spell casting from PF1 that I have seen addressed in PF2 is that being able to specialize in casting 1 spell or one very small group of spells leads players very quickly down paths of trying to solve every single encounter with that one spell, and feeling like casting any other spell is a complete waste of time. This happened in PF1 just by offering a +1, then a +2 option for spells of a specific school. GMs then either had to choose to respond in kind, by remaking NPCs who were actually good at casting the spells that they were going to cast, or just let the party walk all over enemies with spells until they ran into someting immune to the kinds of spells the party specialized in, and then things got very, very dangerous.
PF2 casters are much better off having 3 or 4 more spells they can cast in a day than they are having a +1 item bonus to attack rolls for spell attack spells. Encouraging casters to cast more cantrips at higher levels (which are the most common kind of spell attack roll spells cast) is not a good idea outside of the psychic who's cantrips are basically focus spells.
|
Is there anything in the game for holding the charge anymore?
Perhaps the Wizard could get a class feature that if they miss a spell attack roll, they can hold the charge and not lose the spell (unless you crit-fail). Maybe it cost an action and you can't use any actions with manipulate or you lose it. They could then try again next round without losing the spellslot. While this won't help with accuracy, at least you could still choose to keep the resource of a spell slot.
I've pitched the idea of an item which provides a flat check to retain the spell on a miss, but I've never introduced it in play yet.
I agree though that Spell Attacks would suck less if something happened on a miss.
|
|
Spectral Hand seems awesome to use with Imaginary Weapon.
The wording feels similar to that of Spirit Object which does benefit from flanking (confirmed by Mark Seifter as an intended benefit compared to TK Projectile). So I would say it can benefit from flanking while delivering the attack.
The Witch cantrip? I don't really see the connection between them. They're very different spells with very different use cases.
|
The Witch cantrip? I don't really see the connection between them. They're very different spells with very different use cases.Spectral Hand seems awesome to use with Imaginary Weapon.
The wording feels similar to that of Spirit Object which does benefit from flanking (confirmed by Mark Seifter as an intended benefit compared to TK Projectile). So I would say it can benefit from flanking while delivering the attack.
Both have something (an item, a spectral hand) move to and attack a target and you make the melee spell attack roll in both cases.
That the spells mention it is a melee spell attack is IMO intended to interact with flanking rules, which apply to any melee attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Witch cantrip? I don't really see the connection between them. They're very different spells with very different use cases.Spectral Hand seems awesome to use with Imaginary Weapon.
The wording feels similar to that of Spirit Object which does benefit from flanking (confirmed by Mark Seifter as an intended benefit compared to TK Projectile). So I would say it can benefit from flanking while delivering the attack.
Both have something (an item, a spectral hand) move to and attack a target and you make the melee spell attack roll in both cases.
That the spells mention it is a melee spell attack is IMO intended to interact with flanking rules, which apply to any melee attack.
I can certainly see how Spell Attacks feel better if people are just giving themselves random bonuses to those rolls.
Spectral Hand is much closer to Spiritual Weapon than the cantrip, and spiritual weapon got a series of erratas to clarify it into its current state. I think its too good to be true that a 2nd level, non-sustain, 1m duration, 120ft ranged, spell delivery method also can be used to gain flanking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have to agree that Spectral Hand giving flanking/off-guard is a little too good.
On the other hand, I'm gonna have to remember to mention it to the guy who plays the Psychic in my Abomination Vaults campaign. I'm sure he'd love a 120' range Imaginary Weapon...
|
|
The Witch cantrip? I don't really see the connection between them. They're very different spells with very different use cases.Spectral Hand seems awesome to use with Imaginary Weapon.
The wording feels similar to that of Spirit Object which does benefit from flanking (confirmed by Mark Seifter as an intended benefit compared to TK Projectile). So I would say it can benefit from flanking while delivering the attack.
Both have something (an item, a spectral hand) move to and attack a target and you make the melee spell attack roll in both cases.
That the spells mention it is a melee spell attack is IMO intended to interact with flanking rules, which apply to any melee attack.
I can certainly see how Spell Attacks feel better if people are just giving themselves random bonuses to those rolls.
Spectral Hand is much closer to Spiritual Weapon than the cantrip, and spiritual weapon got a series of erratas to clarify it into its current state. I think its too good to be true that a 2nd level, non-sustain, 1m duration, 120ft ranged, spell delivery method also can be used to gain flanking.
Spiritual Weapon clearly mentions that it does not grant flanking. Not that it cannot benefit from it. But it might be RAI that it does not. The other spells we are talking about do not even mention such a caveat though.
Clearing up language that is ambiguous is something I am hoping for with a lot of spells. I recognize that developers are human and will have only gotten to make so many changes in such a little amount of time, but there will be future errata too. I would still be very interested to hear feedback from anyone who has actually used spectral hand read as not being able to flank for its melee spell attack rolls, and whether the spell felt worth casting.
The hand having basically 1 hp and doing damage to you when it gets destroyed is a pretty big setback. Any AoE spell basically does an extra D6 points of damage to you and ends the spell, unless your hand manages to critically succeed the check. And it is still susceptible to Attacks of Opportunity. 120ft is excellent range for touch spells, but you already have amazing range with magic missile, fireball, and chain lighting. Its not like casters are lacking good ranged options that don't cary nearly the same amount of risk. And again, flanking is useless against any creature that is already off-guard, a condition that very many parties prioritize giving to enemies, especially solo creatures, without relying on flanking.
|
|
Clearing up language that is ambiguous is something I am hoping for with a lot of spells. I recognize that developers are human and will have only gotten to make so many changes in such a little amount of time, but there will be future errata too. I would still be very interested to hear feedback from anyone who has actually used spectral hand read as not being able to flank for its melee spell attack rolls, and whether the spell felt worth casting.
The hand having basically 1 hp and doing damage to you when it gets destroyed is a pretty big setback. Any AoE spell basically does an extra D6 points of damage to you and ends the spell, unless your hand manages to critically succeed the check. And it is still susceptible to Attacks of Opportunity. 120ft is excellent range for touch spells, but you already have amazing range with magic missile, fireball, and chain lighting. Its not like casters are lacking good ranged options that don't cary nearly the same amount of risk. And again, flanking is useless against any creature that is already off-guard, a condition that very many parties prioritize giving to enemies, especially solo creatures, without relying on flanking.
On closer reading, it does seem that the hand is still with you as an independent creature when not in use. Which makes it susceptible to AoE and other attacks that would target it when it's with you.
That is indeed a huge drawback. Not sure it's RAI.
True strike is the much bigger "spell fix" to spell attack roll spells as it doesn't take an extra round to set up. If the target being off-guard is enough of a boost to makes spell attack roll spells work fine, then the current system is good, because there are tons of ways the whole party can contribute to making a target off guard, even against targets at range. Even just grabbing or tripping them accomplishes this.
Sorry Unicore but True Strike isn't better than just use use an attack cantrip + a bow with MAP-5 when using a Shadow Signet. True Strike doesn't fix anything. Maybe can be useful with a strong attack spell (using slot not cantrip) yet probably still better to sustain a spell like Flaming Sphere instead.
Even vs a Off-guard target True Strike isn't better than EA + Strike| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are only talking about cantrips. True striking with cantrips is a bad idea. Truestrike as a first response is a bad idea. If you have a heropoint to spare, hero points are much better than true strike for casters. True strike is about having a back up plan for making spells like polar ray, disintegrate, or heightened shocking grasp land. You don't need a lot of those spell memorized in a day, so you don't need a lot of true strike spells memorized.
And we really are talking about spell attack roll spells vs single targets here, because that is where they shine better than saving throw spells, so I hope you are only looking at electric arc vs 1 target.
The metrics of measuring spell attack roll damage are quite possibly the source of confusion. At higher levels, cantrip damage is not where casters are being effective. That is where they are being economical. economical attacks can afford to miss. Economical attacks are not attacks that are tactically sound attacks to make at a solo monster unless there is a massive battlefield advantage that has lowered the difficulty of the encounter to nearly trivial (like kiting an ooze).
True strike with some of the focus spells and spell slots can be important enough for true strike. I agree that true strike is not the "every spell attack" accuracy solution. The game very much does not need an every spell attack accuracy solution because casters should not be only casting spell attack roll spells. That is the inherent design decision of PF2. You change spells based upon the target and tactical situation you are in.
I don't allow spectral hand to flank. No idea what the official stance on that might be. I don't think it creates any balance issues. Just makes a rarely used spell worth giving a try.
It looks cool if some wizard's main schtick is his spectral hand. I can visualize that in the game.
You are only talking about cantrips. True striking with cantrips is a bad idea. Truestrike as a first response is a bad idea. If you have a heropoint to spare, hero points are much better than true strike for casters. True strike is about having a back up plan for making spells like polar ray, disintegrate, or heightened shocking grasp land. You don't need a lot of those spell memorized in a day, so you don't need a lot of true strike spells memorized.
And we really are talking about spell attack roll spells vs single targets here, because that is where they shine better than saving throw spells, so I hope you are only looking at electric arc vs 1 target.
The metrics of measuring spell attack roll damage are quite possibly the source of confusion. At higher levels, cantrip damage is not where casters are being effective. That is where they are being economical. economical attacks can afford to miss. Economical attacks are not attacks that are tactically sound attacks to make at a solo monster unless there is a massive battlefield advantage that has lowered the difficulty of the encounter to nearly trivial (like kiting an ooze).
True strike with some of the focus spells and spell slots can be important enough for true strike. I agree that true strike is not the "every spell attack" accuracy solution. The game very much does not need an every spell attack accuracy solution because casters should not be only casting spell attack roll spells. That is the inherent design decision of PF2. You change spells based upon the target and tactical situation you are in.
Sorry but still bad with non-cantrip spells too. Even a Fireball + Shortbow Strike still better even vs an off-guard enemy still hard to beat Fireball + Anything combination.
There's no way Unicore. Attack Spells are subpar outside the SpellStrike usage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters don’t get electric arc and shortbow proficiency without ancestry or class feats and investing a lot of wealth in keeping their bow up to date on runes. If you build to shoot a bow as a caster, then attack roll spells are less ideal for you, not because of their accuracy, but because of how they interact with your bow. Item bonuses to spell attack rolls won’t fix that situation anyway.
Again, true strike is the back up plan to heropoints for your big spell attack options. When you use a hero point to make sure you don’t miss, you follow up with a 1 action magic missile from a top slot or a force bolt. If you don’t have one to spare, then you use true strike with your spell attack roll spell, but only if it is a right spell for the job situation. Even if you want to take if flanking, spectral hand as a pre buff gives shocking grasp a range of 120ft.
And if we are talking high level, like I’ve seen in the ruby Phoenix campaign I run. True target and shocking grasp is an excellent team set up combo to bring down a solo. Absolutely brutal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters don’t get electric arc and shortbow proficiency without ancestry or class feats and investing a lot of wealth in keeping their bow up to date on runes. If you build to shoot a bow as a caster, then attack roll spells are less ideal for you, not because of their accuracy, but because of how they interact with your bow. Item bonuses to spell attack rolls won’t fix that situation anyway.
That's the why Fiery Body's Produce Flame and Flaming Sphere also have its lines in these graphs.
The idea of shortbows here is to show that even a weapon in a hand of a spellcaster is more efficient than to use all your actions with True Strike + attack spell.
Again, true strike is the back up plan to heropoints for your big spell attack options. When you use a hero point to make sure you don’t miss, you follow up with a 1 action magic missile from a top slot or a force bolt. If you don’t have one to spare, then you use true strike with your spell attack roll spell, but only if it is a right spell for the job situation. Even if you want to take if flanking, spectral hand as a pre buff gives shocking grasp a range of 120ft.
I don't know if you noticed but you reduced the attack spells with True Strike from "spell fix" to a "back up plan to heropoints" and now you are including a Spectral Hand to try to save the attack spells...
Sorry Unicore, but all this is just your self-belief that the designers did a good job with the attack spells. The more I analyze it, the more I realize how subpar this is outside of use in spellstrikes and that it takes immense effort for these spells to barely match a standard save spell.And if we are talking high level, like I’ve seen in the ruby Phoenix campaign I run. True target and shocking grasp is an excellent team set up combo to bring down a solo. Absolutely brutal.
Yes. A pretty good 2 spells using 1+2 actions to do a bit more damage than a Lightning Bolt.
Anyway there's little reason to continue to putting Shocking Grasp in this discussion. This spell probably with be switched to Thunderstrike that's far superior because it's no more melee and no more a spell attack (yet I will miss Shocking Grasp to use in stronger SpellStrikes).
Well potency should affect to spell attacks too, as any other attack type. So could add the Staves or Wands potency to them, in example. These items usually don't have it (I think) so when creating the loot set a chance for they to have Potency based on its level.
|
|
True Strike + Potency runes for spell attacks feels like a disaster waiting to happen.Why? 2 spell slots and 3 actions per attack is a hell of a limiting factor.
Cantrips do not take a spell slot.
Elemental Toss is only one action.
Spiritual Weapon uses spell attacks too.
All these need to be taken into account too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry I don't understand your question. True Strike cannot be used with save spells like Fireball.
Yes I agree with you. That's the why I said that True Strike doesn't fix anything is just a spell to help to the hit chance of an attack that you really want to hit.
|
|
Increasing the chance to hit through True Strike (mostly equivalent to a +4 bonus to hit) increases your average damage though.
How many spell attacks will you be doing on a given adventuring day ?
Making sure a high-damage spell attack gets the bonus is really worth it.
IME it tends to make your caster the star of the encounter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it doesn't work like this The Raven Black. The cost of 1 spell + 1 extra action breaks any DPR effectiveness given by True Strike. That's what I try to show with the graphs that if you want to improve your DPR there are many better options more effective and more sustainable.
The real true use of True Strike (yet this pun is intentionally :P) is when you really want that an attack hits like for example to use a Disintegrate to kill a creature that's hard to kill for some reason after the party had weakened it enough to you make your last hit with it and you don't want to loose this opportunity.
This also good for some MC martials with very good action economy like monks with Ki Strike and that doesn't want to risk to fail and loose its focus point.
|
|
Personally, I’ve used True Strike way more for martials than on any caster.
My Fighter in Stolen Fates with a Bard MC uses True Strike all the GD time.
True Strike is great on Fighter (massive crit) and Swashbuckler (finishers).
Not on spells where you are spending twice as many resources to do the same as a martial does with just normal attacks.
I do not remember a martial doing something similar to a Searing Light. Nor to the Fireballs our casters throw left and right.
I would be extremely interested in knowing how to do the same with just normal attacks.
|
|
Personally, I’ve used True Strike way more for martials than on any caster.
My Fighter in Stolen Fates with a Bard MC uses True Strike all the GD time.
True Strike is great on Fighter (massive crit) and Swashbuckler (finishers).
Not on spells where you are spending twice as many resources to do the same as a martial does with just normal attacks.
I do not remember a martial doing something similar to a Searing Light. Nor to the Fireballs our casters throw left and right.
I would be extremely interested in knowing how to do the same with just normal attacks.
That's a non sequitur and you know it.
A level 3 Searing Light does less damage than 2 attack by the Fighter, and can only be used a single time. The fighter can follow up 20 times if they want to.
Also fireball is not affected by true strike. Not to mention that a fighter can just as easily get the very scrolls people keep saying "its how you make casters better". So yeah that fighter can use fireball.
A Fighter using Fireball is definitely not a normal attack.
A Searing Light will deal 10d6 damage to a fiend. At level 5. I do not remember a way for even a Fighter to deal this kind of damage with normal attacks. Or maybe you mean they could do it by Striking 21 times at the same fiend ? TBT I do not remember seeing such an encounter ever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please try to not reduce the discussion to Casters vs Martials because this isn't the thread problem. It's like The Rules Lawyer says "in a fight of Martials vs Casters who wins is the dragon!".
The main focus here is about the Spell Attacks that are subpar outside the usage as SpellStrikes and similar. It's a self contained caster problem where until we know cannot be simply solved just using a True Strike and this is specially problematic for cantrips in lower levels where the number of options that casters have are pretty low, specially for casters focused in spell slots like wizards.
|
|
Personally, I’ve used True Strike way more for martials than on any caster.
My Fighter in Stolen Fates with a Bard MC uses True Strike all the GD time.
True Strike is great on Fighter (massive crit) and Swashbuckler (finishers).
Not on spells where you are spending twice as many resources to do the same as a martial does with just normal attacks.
I do not remember a martial doing something similar to a Searing Light. Nor to the Fireballs our casters throw left and right.
I would be extremely interested in knowing how to do the same with just normal attacks.
That's a non sequitur and you know it.
A level 3 Searing Light does less damage than 2 attack by the Fighter, and can only be used a single time. The fighter can follow up 20 times if they want to.
Also fireball is not affected by true strike. Not to mention that a fighter can just as easily get the very scrolls people keep saying "its how you make casters better". So yeah that fighter can use fireball.
A Fighter using Fireball is definitely not a normal attack.
A Searing Light will deal 10d6 damage to a fiend. At level 5. I do not remember a way for even a Fighter to deal this kind of damage with normal attacks. Or maybe you mean they could do it by Striking 21 times at the same fiend ? TBT I do not remember seeing such an encounter ever.
Really now? Those are your argument? That a fireball is not a normal attack for a martial, but its expected to be normal for a caster?
That because this one spell is good against a specific set of creature that it mitigates all the other spells? Or any time you don't have that spell? Or any time you run out of that spell? Or any time you don't prepare enough? Or just the fact a Fighter can match the damage in 6 hits, and can keep swinging even after you used your 2 3rd level spells for the day?
Spells are a caster things, aren't they ?
Matching the damage in 6 hits ? I guess that would be with 6 first attacks (ie no MAP), though I would need to make the calculation. That means your Fighter is attacking the same fiend for 6 rounds. What are the other PCs doing ? How come your Fighter is still alive ?
In these 6 rounds, your caster is left with 5 more rounds to cast any spell they have, including cantrips. While the Fighter is just hacking mindlessly at the fiend to equal the same damage dealt by the caster in 2 actions.
Please try to not reduce the discussion to Casters vs Martials because this isn't the thread problem. It's like The Rules Lawyer says "in a fight of Martials vs Casters who wins is the dragon!".
The main focus here is about the Spell Attacks that are subpar outside the usage as SpellStrikes and similar. It's a self contained caster problem where until we know cannot be simply solved just using a True Strike and this is specially problematic for cantrips in lower levels where the number of options that casters have are pretty low, specially for casters focused in spell slots like wizards.
Yuri, you are the one bringing in a short bow to this conversation.
Sometimes, trying to overcome saving throw spells as a caster is exceedingly difficult. Especially higher level ones. Sometimes the whole party is debuffing AC and party buffing attack rolls and you have a boss whose AC is functionally 4 or 5 points lower. Not using a powerful spell in those situations because your third action is going to be a bow attack is a choice you can make, but it is not a necessary one and getting good with a bow requires investment from the caster. A spell attack roll spell and a top slot 3rd action missile can very easily be better caster damage than a save spell and a bow attack.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spells are a caster things, aren't they ?
Nope. Not in this edition they aren’t.
Caster specialise in them, but access to magic is ubiquitous, easy, and relatively low cost all round.
Some classes splash into some kind of spellcasting easier than others, but martials with a bunch of spells is pretty common.
|
|
Spells are a caster things, aren't they ?Nope. Not in this edition they aren’t.
Caster specialise in them, but access to magic is ubiquitous, easy, and relatively low cost all round.
Some classes splash into some kind of spellcasting easier than others, but martials with a bunch of spells is pretty common.
Right. What is the cost for this ? And for which efficiency ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just an archetype, something many will use if want some variation. And buffs don't require any sacrifice as don't need high stat for DC or attack.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right. What is the cost for this ? And for which efficiency ?Spells are a caster things, aren't they ?Nope. Not in this edition they aren’t.
Caster specialise in them, but access to magic is ubiquitous, easy, and relatively low cost all round.
Some classes splash into some kind of spellcasting easier than others, but martials with a bunch of spells is pretty common.
Let’s not play dumb here. It’s disproportionately easy for a martial to play in the caster space than the inverse.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let’s not play dumb here. It’s disproportionately easy for a martial to play in the caster space than the inverse.
In this context I don't really agree. Martials have some decent access to utility magic, but trying to spend your archetype casting slots on blasting is objectively a horrible idea, your DCs are way behind the curve and so are your spell ranks (which means output) too.
A sorcerer spending an ancestry feat to pick up a shortbow is getting way more mileage out of that than a fighter trying to cast scorching ray.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That’s on me for not fully defining what I meant by “play in the space”.
That said, if the critique is coming down to “a marital cannot be 100% as good at spellcasting than a a full caster with only archetype feats” then I think we have reached a discussion point where we have fundamental difference on what’s a reasonable balance point for archetypes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, if the critique is coming down to “a marital cannot be 100% as good at spellcasting than a a full caster with only archetype feats” then I think we have reached a discussion point where we have fundamental difference on what’s a reasonable balance point for archetypes.
I mean, that's not what the critique is. The critique is that you said it's easier for a martial to invade a caster's space than the other way around in a thread about spell attack rolls.
Pointing out that spell attacks (and damage dealing spells in general) are garbage on archetype martials feels like a natural extension of that.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, this isn’t a marital vs caster discussion. It’s a problem with internal caster spell performance across spell types.
No one is asking for casters to be as good as martials for weapons, or have the same defences, or HP, or amount of 3 action utility, or any of the other things that come with being a martial.
Many spell’s don’t care about your stats, if a martial wants to gain magic. Much of the much-praised utility aspects of magic can be accessed without having to invest beyond the bare minimum.