| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don’t get your need for insisting that no one else is basing their analysis off of the data of play experience. There is a massive gap in spell attack roll spells between ranks 3 and 7, so of course those ranks see less people filling slots with them. I had a level 14 wizard true strike rank 7 shocking grasp crit a level 16 NPC caster for 120 points of damage. It seemed like that was about half their HP in one blow, and put them on the back foot, trying to retreat and recover. They were prone and adjacent to my caster at the start of my turn, so it was a particularly good circumstance. Wizards can pretty easily be sitting on a top slot or top-1 slot spell attack roll spell for the situation where it pops up. Honestly, now, I would go with horizon thunder sphere instead of shocking grasp as my spell attack roll to sit on, but it didn’t exist when I played this character. With spell substitution you can replace your SARS if you use it, or swap it out if you burn off other spells you are using more. It’s not even that big of a commitment for the day.
What would be terrible though is a player building a wizard only trying to spell attack roll everything. And I say that as some one playing an eldritch trickster wanting to play around with scrolls of scorching ray, and the slashing gust cantrip (it’s a new campaign so I haven’t gotten there yet). It is a free archetype game so I am planning on going the dread striker route with allies that like to demoralize and cast fear. But my rogue is still a martial character first and mostly going to use spell casting for utility, except when the situation to attack 2 or 3 off guard targets with no MAP presents itself.
If you were basing off data and play experience, then you would clearly see an item bonus to spell attack rolls would have no impact on the game.
You could see that we already have the data for this from Magus using an item bonus to spell attack rolls from their weapon. You can easily extract the weapon damage and measure it against what a normal caster can do.
You would also see the shadow signet ring has been in the game for over a year and it is even better than an item bonus to spell attack rolls by a good margin, it hasn't changed the opportunity cost analysis of using attack roll spells versus using save spells.
You keep asserting the developers have this concern about adding item bonuses to spell attack rolls. That isn't born out by the available information.
Ask yourself, why would the designers put in the game the shadow signet which has an even better value earlier than a +3 item bonus to spell attack rolls if there was some inherent problem with the balance of spell attack rolls?
If I felt like digging up that old thread with some poster absolutely insisting the shadow signet would break the game and make spell attack rolls too good, then I would pull it up as additional evidence of a false, unprovable claim I said would not happen.
I'm telling you the same thing. Item bonuses to spell attacks won't change the game at all. It will smooth out the lower level play experience.
Why?
Spell attack roll spells, even the ones you keep bringing up like polar ray, are low value spells. The opportunity cost for taking polar ray versus even something like heightening a phantasmal killer to level 8 is too high.
Humans engage in opportunity cost evaluations all the time. The opportunity cost of taking an attack roll spell increases greatly as you rise in levels as a caster. There are exceedingly rare time (if any) that will make you want to use an attack roll spell over a save spell at higher level.
We have enough game data to know with certainty attack roll spells are inferior to save spells.
Paizo has already put in the game an item as good or better than an item bonus to attack roll spells known as a shadow signet and it has not changed the game balance in favor of attack roll spells.
We know the magus almost exclusively uses attack roll spells with an item bonus which we can extract the weapon damage to see their effect.
So item bonuses have no impact on the game.
My suggestion to Paizo is toss in a +1 or +2 item bonus to attack roll spell item for lower level casters to smooth over their play experience at the early levels until they see that attack roll spells are inferior to save spells.
The only time the opportunity cost of attack roll spells is higher than save spells is when you are using rank 1 or 2 spells. After you hit rank 3, the opportunity cost of attack roll spells drops substantially for other than cantrips.
They could even fashion an item bonus to attack roll spells that only works for cantrips. This would make the item somewhat valuable as attack roll cantrips would be of higher value with an item bonus to spell attack rolls.
To me the fix is simple to make that handful of players happy who want more use of attack roll spells.
My experience tells me the following:
1. Attack roll cantrips would be better with an item bonus. I do like to use them sometimes at higher level when I don't feel blowing off a spell slot is necessary.
2. Attack roll spells are more valuable in the first 4 levels of caster play because rank 1 and 2 spells have some high value attack roll spells compared to the available save spells.
3. Shadow Signet is already in place for high level casters to use powerful attack roll spells like maybe disintegrate and I guess for those few who would want to use polar ray.
4. Item bonus to attack roll spells would be more valuable to Divine casters as they have more attack roll spells that would be fun like spiritual weapon or searing light or deity's strike.
5. A +1 item bonus may smooth over the low level play experience when casters are more reliant on their spell attack roll cantrips and rank 1 and 2 attack roll spells.
To me it seems easy to see and I don't know why you are creating convoluted ideas of why we don't need an item bonus to attack roll spells when the designers put an improvement in to attack roll spells over a year ago and it didn't move the meter for attack roll spells.
We're still seeing these threads because attack roll spells and cantrips make the low level caster feel terrible when martials are getting these big bumps to damage for striking weapons around level 4 or 5.
It's why magic weapon is such a powerful low level spell because it gives striking weapons at level 1. Then when martials actually get striking weapons at level 4 or 5, then low level casters really start to see a gap in that early damage that doesn't catch up for them until about level 7 when they pick up expert casting.
This stuff seems so obvious when you analyze it that when I get push back, I'm surprised. It's not a complicated issue requiring convoluted analysis. It's an obvious one that you see the points when things change and when they get smoothed over by the different levels of caster versus martial advancement meaning when each gets their power jumps.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is what you are missing:
The shadow signage ring doesn’t target AC anymore. Debuffing AC, the most common defense to lower and easiest to get a circumstance penalty on, doesn’t help it. So the reason the shadow signet was such a well designed item is because it doesn’t raise the ceiling on spell attack roll spells, but it does raise the floor, which is where people are having issues. A flat item bonus just raises both.
You have not looked for ceiling of spell attack roll spells so it is unsurprising your play experience hasn’t worried about them.
At higher levels, the signet ring is great for cantrips…cantrips just are not that great spells to be that worried about at high level.
Rage of elements has added a bunch of saving throw cantrips so the need to use spell attack cantrips so heavily is vastly reduced. The item bonus to SARS is just not something needed by anyone that is not trying to force themselves down a path that isn’t useful to go down. Why encourage players to buy an item that ends up having this one little niche where it can make really tactically proficient players a tiny touch better (with a fairly big numeric outcome) and will otherwise lead to players trying to force SARS over encounters they are not good for?
The best way to improve your ability to use spell attack roll spells is to learn when to use them and when not to. The signet helps with that. A flat item bonus will not.
One way to look at this.
If spell casting is around 50% effective with teamwork then it will produce very different experiences for players even when playing as intended."50% with teamwork" is big game hunting. If your point is that a wizard built around solely using vs. AC spells is not as balanced as a Fighter for big game hunting, I guess I agree.
But I can't see this as a game balance fail. That player has unnecessarily restricted their spell choice to one type of spell, of which there are comparatively few. They have restricted their role to damage dealer. They have refused (for some unknown reason) to target a lower save. They are measuring the classes' value based on one single, unusual (and yes, meeting a single opponent which is harder than severe counts as 'unusual' and probably unplaytested) encounter type. On top of all that, they have decided they don't like and don't want to use the obvious ways to greatly increase their chance to hit (+5/+25% in the 50% case!): True Strike and Hero Points. And they won't consider using the class Paizo designed to be a good blaster to play the blaster role they have chosen. Then they blame the game that their play experience involves a lot of 'ineffective' rounds. While I fully support their choice to play the class, game, style etc. they want, it is the case that not every combo of class, play style, and encounter style will all mesh together equally well. Sometimes, you gotta realize you're in a "cost, schedule, performance; you only get to pick two" type of situation, and recognize that to have a good time you might need to relax some of your idealized play requirements.
I'll take the schedule and performance version please and thank you.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deriven, you answer your own question. Trying to always use SARS is not a viable strategy. They are a spell to use when tactically advantageous. Those situations already exist, and stacking a 4th way to exploit SARS starts to get into situations where suddenly “cast the same spell all the time” becomes more and more feasible. That is what the developers are trying to avoid.You have no idea what the developers are trying to avoid. Once again, this is an unproven, theoretical argument that has no basis in real game play. I don't know why you keep asserting it when it is a position you have not proven.
I think the reason Spell Attack spells fall off at higher level is they aren't as good as save spells. Most players look at them and say, "Not worth slotting." Then they take a higher value spell.
Thus spell attack roll spells find use mostly at lower level or a particularly good spell like searing light is usable against some kind of fiend.
Since casters feel far more powerful doing damage blasting groups, they would rather have high level AoE to blast groups. Then use single target control/debuff spells on boss monsters that have a powerful effect even on a success.
They tossed a bone to those wanting to use spell attack spells with the shadow signet. But that didn't make people use them more because casters at that level really don't care about attack roll spells since they have tons of better options.
I would guess that the majority of caster players complaining about attack roll spells are low level, under 10 and haven't reached the point where they are glossing over spell attack spells.
I know when I make a low level caster, my early quality spells are hydraulic push or a shocking grasp for good damage. I don't even slot or look at these spells after level 5 or so.
I think that is the more likely theory. There isn't a high demand for spell attack roll spells at higher level and it's not a priority fix for the designers. They...
Actually we had one of the devs (Mark Seifter IIRC) saying exactly what Unicore mentioned.
And if bonus to spell attacks was so innocuous, why don't we have it yet ? Actually, why didn't we get it from the start ?
We could have done without all the repeated acrimonious threads.
Rage of elements has added a bunch of saving throw cantrips
Wasn't it just Timber - which is good BTW. But I don't recall any other saving throw cantrips in ROE. Excuse me if I ignore melee range options.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems a little unlikely to me that the math of spell damage is something that any of us players understand better than the developers do, especially at this point in the game cycle.
I think it is fine to disagree with the conclusions that the developers are basing game design decisions on, but assuming that the math of PF2 isn’t deliberate by the time the remaster went to the publishers is bad logic.
Right now, the vast majority of people anywho are arguing for item bonuses to SARS (and are doing so beyond the first time they wondered out of curiosity why those item bonuses aren’t there) are doing so from a position that they are spells never worth casting without some kind of flat accuracy boost (except for maybe at very low level as cantrips before other options are widely available), or that they want to build a caster that just focuses casting them most of the time, like a martial who uses the same attacks over and over again.
Well, the martial casters exist. That is the magus, the eldritch archer and the eldritch trickster rogue. If you want to cast SARS often, there are class options for adding big chunks of damage to SARS or using them through weapons and getting item bonuses to them.
The players who think the spells themselves are never worth casting are losing out on an option that is powerfully more effective than saving throw targeting spells already about 10 to 25 percent of the time, depending upon party composition, tactics and campaign type.
Item bonuses to spell attack roll spells generally as an argument feels like it is saying it is better to bring the 10% up to a 20% without worrying that it is bringing the 25% up to a 35%, making targeting any one specific other save much less useful.
Remember with Horizon Thunder Sphere SARS can already do damage on a miss, although true strike is much better for your DPR than spending an action to gain that ability.
All of the requests players have for SARS already exist, they just don’t exist as general options that can be applied to any spell by any class. So the requests really never are requests to raise the floor, they are requests to raise a ceiling that is mathematically fine.
Longer casting time is a wonderful idea like shows that spell. It would be nice if they standardize if not in the remaster (which would be excellent) in a new edition.
|
|
And if bonus to spell attacks was so innocuous, why don't we have it yet ? Actually, why didn't we get it from the start ?I mean we did, in playtesting there was items that have spell attack bonuses. They just also got a complete overhaul because TAC existed and they didn't use your spellcasting mod, working like 1e spell attacks did. (Also probably because items when from +5 max to +3 max due to proficiency changes) I feel like a similar thing happened to them as what happened to alchemist in that they got a big overhaul between the playtest and release that we are just kind of stuck with a version that just wasn't playtested super well.
There were many opportunities to release such an item since the start of PF2 though. And it did not happen.
Whereas the Alchemist got several revisions.
|
|
The Barbarian comparison is disingenuous I feel.Yes, as always when in these comparisons people competely ignore that slots are very limited and this awesome utility and options are mutually exclusive with damage.
Or say things pretending that spell attack spells have higher nominal damage then save spells - when they have exactly the same standard for some reason (except in niche cases).
_______
Yes, it's completely normal for a highly limited single target all-round activity to have higher damage in a round then even the highest martial damage. I don't even see how this can be argued otherwise.
And all claims that this somehow makes melee/weapon classes irrelevant are absurd when you are comparing things done 4 times per day with things done for free every round.And there's also so much terrible logical errors in assuming the designers infallibility and arguing almost everything from this point.
So 'were many opportunities' is a trash argument. And so is 'unlikely ... understand better than the developers do'. And all others in this line.
On the other hand, the designers could have a different picture/construction/concept or, well, design of the game in mind. And their solutions could align with that design very well. But it's an arbitrary thing. It's not 'correct' or 'right' or 'one true way'. Other people could have their own vision which is not worse. (And doesn't mean that they demand pf1-level caster omnipotence, that miserable strawman got brutally beaten to shreds and pieces already, leave it be, please.)
No need for trash talking to give your opinion and your arguments.
I find your opinion interesting and would know more about your arguments. Especially about the "Other people could have their own vision which is not worse" point.
Without the "all people who disagree with me use crap arguments / strawmen" if possible.
...Deriven, you answer your own question. Trying to always use SARS is not a viable strategy. They are a spell to use when tactically advantageous. Those situations already exist, and stacking a 4th way to exploit SARS starts to get into situations where suddenly “cast the same spell all the time” becomes more and more feasible. That is what the developers are trying to avoid.You have no idea what the developers are trying to avoid. Once again, this is an unproven, theoretical argument that has no basis in real game play. I don't know why you keep asserting it when it is a position you have not proven.
I think the reason Spell Attack spells fall off at higher level is they aren't as good as save spells. Most players look at them and say, "Not worth slotting." Then they take a higher value spell.
Thus spell attack roll spells find use mostly at lower level or a particularly good spell like searing light is usable against some kind of fiend.
Since casters feel far more powerful doing damage blasting groups, they would rather have high level AoE to blast groups. Then use single target control/debuff spells on boss monsters that have a powerful effect even on a success.
They tossed a bone to those wanting to use spell attack spells with the shadow signet. But that didn't make people use them more because casters at that level really don't care about attack roll spells since they have tons of better options.
I would guess that the majority of caster players complaining about attack roll spells are low level, under 10 and haven't reached the point where they are glossing over spell attack spells.
I know when I make a low level caster, my early quality spells are hydraulic push or a shocking grasp for good damage. I don't even slot or look at these spells after level 5 or so.
I think that is the more likely theory. There isn't a high demand for spell attack roll spells at higher level and it's not a
We do have it. It's the shadow signet. The designers put it in the game because it is so obvious spell attack rolls are set too low against AC that they tossed a bone in for those few that want to use spell attack rolls.
Spell attack rolls are primarily a low level issue, not a high level issue. So an item for high level casters doesn't fix the problem of the new player coming in to the game who looks at his low level caster toolbox and goes, "Oh, produce flame and ray of ice look decent. Oh, this [i]hydraulic push or shocking grasp does decent damage. I'll use those" and then reaching high level and going, "Cantrips? Hydraulic push? I don't use those trash spells. I've got slow and chain lightning and phantasmal killer."
How do I know what I know about item bonuses?
I implemented item bonuses to spell attack rolls because of the early caster level complaints. I watched my players stop complaining as they reached higher level because they weren't using attack roll spells any longer. I watched the primary point of dissatisfaction with caster performance occur when the martials got their first striking weapon and the casters had not yet seen the power of higher level spells as they were still using cantrips and low rank spells with few spell slots.
I've watched this occur in every campaign. My players don't complain as much any longer because they know the power up points now and what to expect. It sure was a major bumpy rise up for the early player seeing how much weaker they are than martials in those early levels.
I don't much care if Paizo fixes it. When I say item bonuses to spell attack rolls will have no impact on the game, I mean they won't impact the game in a positive or negative manner. It won't change my game at all. I don't care if they put item bonuses to spell attacks in.
I have item bonuses to attack roll spells in my game up to +3.
The shadow signet ring has been out for over a year.
No one buys shadow signet rings. No one uses spell attack roll spells for the items to matter. They barely remember they exist. My players don't care at all that I've put item bonus to attack roll spells in the game. The shadow signet ring has been bought one time and then forgotten about because it was barely used.
It was a big old zero change to the game positive or negative. It was like I didn't even do it.
Paizo would have to really load the game with powerful spell attack roll spells for my players to care. I don't think my players are particularly unique amongst Paizo's customer base. Spell attack roll spells are not powerful enough and there aren't enough of them for item bonuses to attack roll spells to do much.
I mostly engage this debate because I put item bonuses to attack roll spells in my game and notified my players of the shadow signet ring. It was a big old, "Who cares" from my players.
I have played or GM’d for two games that have been high enough level for the signet ring since SoM came out. Both parties had at least 1. It is pretty handy on a Druid, but it is the wizard I GM for Fists of the Ruby Phoenix using it the most. FotRP has an absurd number of encounters per day through the first book-like regularly 6 to 10. Secretly, the key to first book is bypassing the vast majority of encounters if you can because you just can’t waste a lot of time, and some of the must fight ones are brutal. That wizard ends up using ray of frost with shadow signet a fair bit to kite the megafauna. There are also some caster NPCs in that AP who have baad fort saves. That makes it pretty good for disintegrate. She hasn’t used it against them yet, but she has watched them fight and is planning on using it when she faces them in the tournament.
Everyone I've ever played with was aware of the Shadow Signet. I've yet to see anyone bother picking it up and have not seen it in play.
We've all been doing just fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone I've ever played with was aware of the Shadow Signet. I've yet to see anyone bother picking it up and have not seen it in play.
We've all been doing just fine.
Because you have some save based damage options anyway.
Doing direct damage as a caster is generally the wrong approach. It is a fallback option. There are normally better things to do. Which was what the designers intended anyway.
It is useful but not necessary for most casters.
So, Shadow Signet is neither a piece of junk nor a must have for every party. Well-designed item then.
That's the way I look at it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell attack spells shouldn't demand preparation and party cooperation to just be on par with basic save single target spells.
I think this is a very common argument from people wanting boosts to spell attack rolls, but is misunderstanding how difficult raising the floor without raising the ceiling can be, and is essentially what the shadow signet did, but even if the shadow signet was available from level one, it wouldn’t help raise the floor that much because it isn’t until the mid game that AC over takes low saves by enough that just off-guard is the better accuracy option.
The problem is that the tactical choices to debuff AC and help everyone targeting are such a basic tactic of the game that not factoring them in at all is like saying we need to evaluate the Rogue’s damage assuming they never get sneak attack. If the game were balanced to only the floor without understanding where the ceiling is at, then any moderately proficient party will blow encounters away and we end up back at PF1 adventure design where most encounters are cake walks and GMs have to put so much time in rewriting material to challenge the party that people people stop volunteering to GM (this is what happened with the two PF1 groups I used to play with).
Just within the balance of spells themselves: if spell attack roll spells and saving throw spells were exactly as good at doing damage with no tactical considerations whatsoever, and tactically boosting spell attack roll spells was much easier and something everyone else in the party benefits from, but increasing the effectiveness of saving throw spells tactically is much more difficult, then saving throw spells become bad.
From just the showcasing of Thunderstrike, it seems like the developers heard “we want casters who can do good single target damage reliably”, and decided to add more and better saving throw targeting spells to do so, rather than change the tactical situation of SARS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone I've ever played with was aware of the Shadow Signet. I've yet to see anyone bother picking it up and have not seen it in play.
We've all been doing just fine.
Well, let's look at the facts here:
At 9th level, the first point in time where this item is reasonably available (either as a drop or via purchase), you're getting 5th level spells, and a large amount of your spell repertoire consists of utilizing saving throw spells, or buffs. Shadow Signet doesn't affect either of those things, so players will not be inclined to purchase them, because it doesn't do much for them, and at this point, spell attack rolls are more of a tertiary option. Disintegrate, Polar Ray, etc. aren't available yet, and spells like Shocking Grasp (which is getting axed by the way in favor of a new save-based spell), Hydraulic Push, etc. don't scale worth a damn at this level. I mean, there is Scorching Ray, which gives up to 3 spell attacks in a turn against 3 different targets for decent damage, but that's what, one passable spell attack roll spell available for them? Unless it's your main signature spell, it's not really worth spending a large chunk of your earnings on it.
There is also the factor that its benefit is nebulous, since it merely gives a DC substitution, and not an actual bonus. Compared to an item that gives +1 to-hit, players are far less likely to purchase something that could give them anywhere from a +3 to a -3 to their check, depending on the enemy. With it being that much of a swing, players aren't exactly aware of how effective it would be (barring RK or having extensive knowledge of Beastiaries), and so would be hesitant to purchase such an item.
And, at the level it is available at, it costs a lot of gold. Gold that could be better spent either acquiring scrolls, wands, staves, etc. Things that give more to the player and have objective value, compared to something whose value is stringent on understanding enemy statistics (which is not something PCs can reliably do), and could be more detrimental than helpful in a fair amount of circumstances.
Even in the later levels, where spells like Polar Ray, Disintegrate et. al. exist, and the item is considered relatively cheap to acquire, once again, these attack roll spells are subpar compared to the other tools you have at your disposal. Maze doesn't even require a check to cast, it just works, and forces an enemy to waste an action (and not have presence for the remainder of a round) at-worst, and takes them out of the fight for a couple rounds at-best, leaving the martials to clean up the minions so all characters can beat down the BBEG. Mass Slow trivializes multi-enemy encounters, and when you can use a 6th level spell to defeat a 19th level encounter, it's the most feelsgood feeling you can have as a spellcaster with your lower level spell slots. Heck, Disintegrate's best use doesn't even require an attack roll; it just happens. Polar Ray is really only good because of Drained 2 being a relatively useful condition to apply (since it's both free automatic damage that scales, as well as reduced Fortitude saves) that is hard to acquire elsewhere, otherwise cantrips and/or save spells do just as much damage, if not add more effects (like Phantasmal Killer).
To me, Shadow Signet both should not be necessary, as well as highlights the major problem behind spell attack design, in that it doesn't scale well, and that even spell attacks are designed to be treated the same as save-based spells, which is ironic since they don't even affect the same value (and therefore shouldn't have the same scaling, since monsters have a different save progression compared to AC, one that assumes item bonuses will be present).
I think we are assuming to always using the best save spell, because there are 3 types. And the AC in many cases is equal to the save in the middle of one better and one worse.
Just because something is a certain way by design doesn't mean it works well as it is or won’t benefit from change.
|
|
Just because something is a certain way by design doesn't mean it works well as it is or won’t benefit from change.
Indeed. But if it does not change for years in spite of many opportunities to do so then it means the designers are satisfied with it.
Of course some people might not be satisfied with it and wish to explore alternatives.
But clamoring for a change in the game will never by itself make it happen.
And obviously there are people who are quite happy with the way things are and they do not deserve to be scorned or bashed for this.
I think we are assuming to always using the best save spell, because there are 3 types. And the AC in many cases is equal to the save in the middle of one better and one worse.
Which means that, in order for Shadow Signet to pull ahead compared to just going against AC, you must affect the lowest save DC (since it is usually 1 good, 1 middling, and 1 bad, and AC is usually middling), and that bad one must be Fortitude or Reflex, the former of which is almost universally middle-to-higher than AC, making it highly unlikely, and the latter of which can be all over the place (though at least more reasonably likely to be bad) depending on the monster. Again, Shadow Signet's benefit here is nebulous, because it varies based on the type of monster, and isn't objectively quantifiable. Heck, sometimes maybe affecting AC is the best course of action (because it has higher Fortitude and Reflex than AC).
Hence why, for Shadow Signet to be considered so good, you must always be assumed you're affecting the proper saving throw, and that saving throw must always be Fortitude or Reflex. And honestly, Shadow Signet is probably the biggest proponent for ditching Spell Attacks entirely, since spells are designed to go up against an enemy's Save DC, and not against an enemy's AC, as evidenced by spells not getting item bonuses to attack rolls, and enemy AC scaling with item bonuses assumed to be in place.
Or, perhaps, I would even settle with spells simply going against Save DCs to begin with, not unlike the existing combat maneuvers in Athletics. Turn Daze into a Spell Attack roll against an enemy's Will DC. Turn Ray of Frost and Ignition into Spell Attack rolls against an enemy's Reflex DC. Turn Chill Touch/Disrupt Undead into a Spell Attack roll against an enemy's Fortitude DC. I don't care about the specifics, really. But Spell Attacks going against AC is clearly a design flaw, even if spellcasters do eventually scale to Legendary by 19th; it's at the last 5% of the game where almost nobody ever plays.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because something is a certain way by design doesn't mean it works well as it is or won’t benefit from change.
Indeed. But if it does not change for years in spite of many opportunities to do so then it means the designers are satisfied with it.
Of course some people might not be satisfied with it and wish to explore alternatives.
But clamoring for a change in the game will never by itself make it happen.
And obviously there are people who are quite happy with the way things are and they do not deserve to be scorned or bashed for this.
We can't even know if the designers are satisfied. I'm not sure why anyone looks at that like a reason no change happens, especially if they played PF1 or 3E where plenty of problematic design issues took years to change to the detriment of the game and other classes. Pretty sure designer satisfaction has nothing to do with a lack of change.
Listening to the designers over the years, the following seems more the reason changes aren't made faster:
1. Lack of consensus on a suitable change.
2. Unwillingness to make a large change without first fully understanding what the change might do to other aspects of the game.
3. Lack of time. Lots of other projects going on and the designers are busy to spend the necessary time to push a change.
4. Not wanting to piss off customers by implementing a change that causes books players have bought to become obsolete or require a new printing. I guarantee you that a game company like Paizo understands how any major change they make will make some players feel like they need to buy new books and their old, released books will not get bought out because players will wait for reprints.
5. Easier to let player's house rule their own game and handle issues they might have than make a change to a game with so many different players with so many different ideas of what they want.
Certain times I'm surprised the designers missed certain things like how powerful they made spontaneous casting in this edition with sig spells on top of class features for spontaneous classes.
But I also understand they are a busy group with lots of considerations that must be made before implementing change. They cater to a very large audience with lots of different ideas about what this game should be like. They will only make a change with any speed if something is obviously wrong like with something like Heaven's Thunder, even though that change took months.
In no way do I ever interpret a lack of change for a problem players are pointing out as "the designers are satisfied." It may be they are satisfied, but likely there are other reasons why they might not implement a change, many more than a sense of satisfaction.
They are rarely going to tell us all, "Yeah. You are all right. This class sucks. We better fix it." Who would they tell anyway? There are bunch of us down on the wizard with all different ideas of how to fix it.
I've made my fixes in my game with house rules. I've tracked them to see if they had a dramatic effect on game balance. I know they did not. Just improved class performance and made the game more fun for my players, which was my goal.
Still hasn't made the wizard a more desirable class to play or spell attack spells more desirable to use. That's why I don't consider spell attack item bonus much of a priority. Paizo could toss it in or not toss it in, net zero effect on the game.
I know I put my input in on these forums after testing this stuff in my own games and seeing how my players make decisions on classes or feel after playing one. It's much easier on me if the fixes or at least some of them become official. If they don't, I just adjust the game as needed to make the experience more enjoyable for my group. Which I would do for any group I played with.
I've changed my mind on quite a few ideas I had from when I started PF2. I really hated the incap trait at the start of PF2. I tried and tried to get rid of this trait without breaking the game. I couldn't do it. The Incap trait is too integral to PF2 game balance for any easy fix to Incap. It affects the boss monster fights as well as the PCs. So I haven't touched the incap trait again. It works as is and is one of those balance blocks that forms a foundational element in PF2. Foundational elements are hard to remove without crumbling PF2 balance.
Other elements are higher up the PF2 balance tower and you can remove them without knocking the tower down. But Incap is a big old balance block on the bottom of the tower upon which the rest of it is built. Very hard to remove or adjust and generally not worth the effort.
Just because something is a certain way by design doesn't mean it works well as it is or won’t benefit from change.
Indeed. But if it does not change for years in spite of many opportunities to do so then it means the designers are satisfied with it.
Of course some people might not be satisfied with it and wish to explore alternatives.
But clamoring for a change in the game will never by itself make it happen.
And obviously there are people who are quite happy with the way things are and they do not deserve to be scorned or bashed for this.
No they dont. Neither do the folks that feel change would benefit the game.
Did I come off has bashing or scorning? I hope not.My intent is to point out something obvious because it seems to be forgotten in the exchanges. The remaster itself is change and it wont be the last change pathfinder ever makes. Game designers are looking to make changes to better the game and they themselves don't see their designs as perfect even with all the effort that goes into it so posters here shouldnt assume because something was by design that it would not benefit from a change. What that change should be and where is why we all have discussions. And no matter what we choose to discuss i wouldnt assume it obligates any changes at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a bit misleading bc a "same lvl" caster enemy is designed to be fought by 4 PCs. A balanced 1 v 1 versus a caster enemy would result in that NPC being a lower lvlSpeaking of the receiving end. Do caster foes casting the same spell attack spells do so better than players at the same level?Maybe some kind of testing a change for method? It would be interesting having only spell attack and using it against target AC or savings, instead the target using its resistances against caster DC. Just remove the DC thing and unify all the roll vs and apply only the multi-attack penalty if attacking the AC.True Strike would become far more of a problem/required spell. As well as Hero Points and any Reroll Fortune effect that would apply.Restrict True Strike for attacking AC only.
For rerolls no problem just make the attacker roll again its attack instead rolling yourself your saving.
This would change AoE spells but indeed IMHO is like it should be, the caster making attacks rolls again the target defenses, i.e. attack with a Fireball the target Reflexes. In Rolemaster it was that way and loved it as is your attack, no matter if AoE or not. And you save of making a loooot of rolls, 1 attack vs many saving throws.
I think players do not like it when they feel they have no agency in avoiding something that will weaken their character's abilities, such as conditions and other consequences that effects with a save often inflict.
While attacks, which mostly just subtract hit points, usually do not adversely affect said abilities.
Making every spell an attack would IMO make the players feel really bad when it's their PC who is on the receiving end.
That is missleading. for same level enemies a party of 4 should encounter 2-3 NPC's for it to be Moderate or Severe (4 is extream), a singel NPC of the same level is trivial
so the Question is actually kinda valid.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because something is a certain way by design doesn't mean it works well as it is or won’t benefit from change.
Indeed. But if it does not change for years in spite of many opportunities to do so then it means the designers are satisfied with it.
Of course some people might not be satisfied with it and wish to explore alternatives.
But clamoring for a change in the game will never by itself make it happen.
And obviously there are people who are quite happy with the way things are and they do not deserve to be scorned or bashed for this.
Claiming that "them not changing it" meaning the problem dont exist is incredibly naive, they could just not have found a solution they are happy with, or more likely they have almost completely gone way from attack spell in their spell design, and that in itself is a sign that something is wrong with it.
just look at the new spells in rage of elements (4 attack spells, and 117 other)Also i would not say that people accepting a flaw and working around it as "happy" with it.
I like pf2, its awesome but it still have problems and denying them is not helping anyone.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because something is a certain way by design doesn't mean it works well as it is or won’t benefit from change.
Indeed. But if it does not change for years in spite of many opportunities to do so then it means the designers are satisfied with it.
Of course some people might not be satisfied with it and wish to explore alternatives.
But clamoring for a change in the game will never by itself make it happen.
And obviously there are people who are quite happy with the way things are and they do not deserve to be scorned or bashed for this.
No they dont. Neither do the folks that feel change would benefit the game.
Did I come off has bashing or scorning? I hope not.
My intent is to point out something obvious because it seems to be forgotten in the exchanges. The remaster itself is change and it wont be the last change pathfinder ever makes. Game designers are looking to make changes to better the game and they themselves don't see their designs as perfect even with all the effort that goes into it so posters here shouldnt assume because something was by design that it would not benefit from a change. What that change should be and where is why we all have discussions. And no matter what we choose to discuss i wouldnt assume it obligates any changes at all.
Paizo has designed this edition for nearly half a decade now, and there have been numerous threads of expositing and discussing what we felt were "obvious" issues with spellcasters (Wizards and Witches in particular), and the developers have come in and both commented on (as well as explained in detail) the subject matter. This tells me that they are aware that there is an expression of concern/despair regarding the playstyle/class, and that they have engaged with the posters on the matter, explaining certain design decisions or commenting on certain interactions not considered previously. (One example is the "3 moderate encounters" soft rule for balancing an adventuring day, and what a typical spell slot expenditure would consist of.)
The thing is, even if some (or all) of the answers they gave weren't satisfactory, the point is, they responded to us; just because it wasn't the response we were hoping for (an acknowledgement and validation of our concerns and desires for changes) doesn't mean they aren't aware of anything, or that they are simply brushing it all under the rug. It mostly means that our concerns are either unfounded or shouldn't be present, and that they find the playstyle/class is working as intended. This is basically as close to a "We are aware of your concerns" response as we are going to get.
Whether we agree with their design points isn't really relevant in answering the question of "Does Paizo even care about X playstyle or Y class?", because if they didn't care, it wouldn't warrant responses from the developers themselves (even if the only reason a givdn developer doesn't respond is because "today is a busy day at work").
Paizo has designed this edition for nearly half a decade now, and there have been numerous threads of expositing and discussing what we felt were "obvious" issues with spellcasters (Wizards and Witches in particular), and the developers have come in and both commented on (as well as explained in detail) the subject matter. This tells me that they are aware that there is an expression of concern/despair regarding the playstyle/class, and that they have engaged with the posters on the matter, explaining certain design decisions or commenting on certain interactions not considered previously. (One example is the "3 moderate encounters" soft rule for balancing an adventuring day, and what a typical spell slot expenditure would consist of.)
The thing is, even if some (or all) of the answers they gave weren't satisfactory, the point is, they responded to us; just because it wasn't the response we were hoping for (an acknowledgement and validation of our concerns and desires for changes) doesn't mean they aren't aware of anything, or that they are simply brushing it all under the rug. It mostly means that our concerns are either unfounded or shouldn't be present, and that they find the playstyle/class is working as intended. This is basically as close to a "We are aware of your concerns" response as we are going to get.
Whether we agree with their design points isn't really relevant in answering the question of "Does Paizo even care about X playstyle or Y class?", because if they didn't care, it wouldn't warrant responses from the developers themselves (even if the only reason a givdn developer doesn't respond is because "today is a busy day at work").
Paizo is also a small close-knit team working on tight budgets (both time and resources) and with few ways of gathering feedback about how players are actually using the system they've created. It's entirely possible for something, especially something niche like spell attacks, to be a problem and for them to continually not encounter it in their own experiences using the system. Players find flaws in games all the time and they can go unfixed for vast stretches of time for various reasons.
I don't think anything Paizo does or doesn't do can ever show that something is or isn't balanced.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anything Paizo does or doesn't do can ever show that something is or isn't balanced.
If Paizo can't do it, neither can anyone else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a really thoughtful response Darksol. Thank you for sharing it.
One additional thing that has become more and more clear to me is that, as players, it can be easy for us to get super focused on specifics and details that might not be nearly as important a part of the intended picture as we think they are. That doesn't mean they aren't important, but it can mean that we fixate on trying to fix very small things that might be getting bypassed in future design.
For example, if the primary reason that people want item bonuses to spell attack rolls is because the identify spell attack roll spells as the best way for casters to do single target damage, and that low level casters end up stuck with a lot of spell attack roll cantrips before getting more and varied focus spells and spell slot spells, then it really looks like the company's solution is to provide more saving throw targeting single target spells and cantrips.
That may lead to new issues, and some players concerned that existing spell attack roll spells are just trap options, but if those options provide some players opportunities to exceed the potential damage output of saving throw targeting spells in very specific situations, then the decision to pursue those options is a personal, tactical choice of the player, not a playstyle forced on them because no other options exist.
The style of content publishing Paizo pursues with Pathfinder in particular means that there are always going to be more content than any one player can possibly use and options that feel bad in specific campaigns and to certain groups are probably best just avoided for those campaigns or groups, rather than expecting those options to get massive overhauls.
In other words, spells can have absolutely abysmal floors for effectiveness (with the potential for really high ceilings) and it isn't really that big a deal as long as that spell isn't the only spell that enables a specific play style. Targeting one specific defense with spells is really not a play style or narrative character build. It is very easy to imagine even a Mentalist type of caster that has many will save targeting abilites, but some that boost allies, and some that wear down a person physically, even if they are of strong mind, or some that begin taking effect as soon as there is contact.
I agree with whoever earlier stated that generally, Reflex and AC are the two safest default defenses to set as common target defenses for spells and abilities, with Fortitude tending to be a more challenging defense to overcome and will a less challenging defense to overcome, which is why we can't really have mix and match "build a spell" options where the caster can just pick a defense to target, damage type to deal, potential debuff or status to impart, and then all of those spells would have the same damage die. That doesn't mean that all enemies will always have higher fort saves than will saves, but it does mean that a powerhouse spell like slow made more sense to target Fort than Will, and for a lot of creatures to have immunity to some of the more powerful effects that can be imparted through will saves.
There are so many moving pieces with the design of the game, it is a really good idea, when making requests or suggestions for change, to make sure that the purpose of the request is being clearly stated, not just the expected outcome of change, because sometimes developers can address those larger purposes with changes that we might not even see coming (new spells/classes/feats/etc).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo is also a small close-knit team working on tight budgets (both time and resources) and with few ways of gathering feedback about how players are actually using the system they've created. It's entirely possible for something, especially something niche like spell attacks, to be a problem and for them to continually...Paizo has designed this edition for nearly half a decade now, and there have been numerous threads of expositing and discussing what we felt were "obvious" issues with spellcasters (Wizards and Witches in particular), and the developers have come in and both commented on (as well as explained in detail) the subject matter. This tells me that they are aware that there is an expression of concern/despair regarding the playstyle/class, and that they have engaged with the posters on the matter, explaining certain design decisions or commenting on certain interactions not considered previously. (One example is the "3 moderate encounters" soft rule for balancing an adventuring day, and what a typical spell slot expenditure would consist of.)
The thing is, even if some (or all) of the answers they gave weren't satisfactory, the point is, they responded to us; just because it wasn't the response we were hoping for (an acknowledgement and validation of our concerns and desires for changes) doesn't mean they aren't aware of anything, or that they are simply brushing it all under the rug. It mostly means that our concerns are either unfounded or shouldn't be present, and that they find the playstyle/class is working as intended. This is basically as close to a "We are aware of your concerns" response as we are going to get.
Whether we agree with their design points isn't really relevant in answering the question of "Does Paizo even care about X playstyle or Y class?", because if they didn't care, it wouldn't warrant responses from the developers themselves (even if the only reason a givdn developer doesn't respond is because "today is a busy day at work").
Sure, but this isn't a case of Paizo not being aware that such an issue exists, because they have interacted with the forum users and have stated their case for or against certain propositions. It's one thing to say "Paizo hasn't fixed X issues upon launch," and another to say "Paizo won't fix X issues in the future," especially when Paizo doesn't find them to be issues.
Whether we agree with their assessment doesn't matter in determining if they acknowledge a grievance being addressed to them, which is what we seem to keep forgetting.
A lot of us are probably still going to keep our opinions on the things Paizo has printed, but at least we can say that Paizo heard us and responded to us, even if it is in a way we didn't like, and that is a heck of a lot better than the typical radio silence treatment that comes from bigger corporations than Paizo.
I don't think anything Paizo does or doesn't do can ever show that something is or isn't balanced.If Paizo can't do it, neither can anyone else.
That's untrue. There are vastly more players interacting with the system than there are members of the design team and many fans of the game will find a small part of the game appeals to them and will dive into that. Players may not be very good at solving issues but they are very good at finding a system's pain points and complaining about them.
How that pain is dealt with will vary by developer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of what you describe players doing shows that any part of the game is or is not balanced.