| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What cantrip does better damage than shocking grasp?While not better damage, Electric Arc does the same amount of damage at 13, the same average as Shocking Grasp at 1st level. Shocking Grasp does outscale Electric Arc by nature of 1D12 having a higher average than 2D4, as well as having circumstantial benefits, but given that Electric Arc can be cast at-will, whereas Shocking Grasp cannot, you are paying spell slots for slightly better damage and to tie it to a single target, which at that point you should just be relying on the Martial with their D12 weapon to be making successful strikes and preparing a different, more useful spell instead.I guess the damage from EA is assessed for 2 targets who failed their save. What if only one fails ?
For that matter, what if there is only one target within range ?
Using a cantrip inoptimally isn't really a fair grounds to dismiss its viability/power, because most every option is going to have inoptimal circumstances where using it probably isn't the best course of action. This is like saying Produce Flame is bad because you used it on an enemy with Fire Resistance/Immunity; of course it's bad, we handpicked a scenario for the purposes of demonstrating how awful it is.
2 enemies failing their save is the equivalent of a successful attack in terms of determining an average result. What if the Shocking Grasp misses? Nothing happens, then. EA still doing damage on successful saves gives it a more reliable usage compared to Shocking Grasp.
All of these variables should be taken into account to provide valuable comparisons.
And having only a single target available is not that rare.
Sure, but those are usually done to gauge whether it's useful in a certain situation, as well as if those situations are too niche for its usefulness to really mean anything. Electric Arc isn't optimal for single target combat, but it's also not worse than any other single target cantrip, either, given it has identical to slightly higher DPR in equal chances of success/failure.
Most single target fights are reserved for boss-tier enemies whom are likely APL+2 or higher, in which case throwing cantrips around is already inoptimal to begin with unless the fight is nearly over. If they are APL+0 or less, they are otherwise easy enough for a party to quash regardless of which option they take, in which case the merits of optimization are superfluous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah spellheart require the spellcasting feature, something that martial can steal very easily. Unlike a caster who are hard press to benefit from any martial feat.
Two feats is not what I would call easily and honestly outside of a handful you need the entire feat tree for the spellheart to not become useless.
Unlike spellcasters who gain ridiculous and amazing benefit from a substantial amount of martial feats.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah spellheart require the spellcasting feature, something that martial can steal very easily. Unlike a caster who are hard press to benefit from any martial feat.
Two feats is not what I would call easily and honestly outside of a handful you need the entire feat tree for the spellheart to not become useless.
Unlike spellcasters who gain ridiculous and amazing benefit from a substantial amount of martial feats.
Which ones?
IME full-casters are kneecapped by low HP, AC, MAD, weapon proficiencies and saves, which stops then from Striking or withstanding a meleee.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unlike spellcasters who gain ridiculous and amazing benefit from a substantial amount of martial feats.
Can you detail some of these ridiculous and amazing benefits?
Generally the caster chassis makes doing anything martial-like a bad idea, varying anywhere from "sub-optimal" to "basically impossible".
Unlike spellcasters who gain ridiculous and amazing benefit from a substantial amount of martial feats.Can you detail some of these ridiculous and amazing benefits?
Generally the caster chassis makes doing anything martial-like a bad idea, varying anywhere from "sub-optimal" to "basically impossible".
Frankly this is a two way street when it comes to anything requiring a check or having a DC from one or the other. I suppose there are more spells with neither that martials can use just fine compared to martial abilities that don't, but it's still mostly fruitless for both
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly this is a two way street when it comes to anything requiring a check or having a DC from one or the other. I suppose there are more spells with neither that martials can use just fine compared to martial abilities that don't, but it's still mostly fruitless for both
Unlike spellcasters who gain ridiculous and amazing benefit from a substantial amount of martial feats.Can you detail some of these ridiculous and amazing benefits?
Generally the caster chassis makes doing anything martial-like a bad idea, varying anywhere from "sub-optimal" to "basically impossible".
A martial can take on spellcasting to a much greater degree than a caster can take on being a martial. Its not precisely a two way street.
While this was clearly an intentional design choice, it does generally widen the caster/martial disparity in this edition.
There are quite literally hundreds of spells open to martials that don't require them to have their casting proficiency nor casting stat above the entry requirements for the archetype. As, when casting isn't your primary offensive tool, these things largely don't matter.
That said, the ability to get to master prof and the ability to get a +5 in a casting stat are things which are pretty open to many martials as well. So even if they do opt for offensive spell options, they aren't at a complete disadvantage for attempting such. At least not to the extent a caster who tries to be a martial would.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are almost never behind a martial's second attack, usually pretty well ahead of it when attacking with weapons or unarmed strikes. For a third action, an attack with a weapon is very effective, at least parallel to a martial casting an offensive spell through a spell slot (which is at least a level behind a full caster anyway). The thing about MCing isn't how effective the non-focused feats are by themselves, but how well they give the character a more effective extra thing to do than their own class's primary thing.
Your first class has to be the one that defines the thing you want to do most often in PF2 or else your character will often struggle to feel effective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
attribute bonuses to damage are nice, but not that big a deal in PF2. And why does a level 10+ caster who wants to strike with a weapon not have damage bonuses? If attacking with a thrown or melee weapon is what you want to do, getting AC through armor is not that difficult.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martial casters can focus greatly on buffs with casting archetype which greatly improves their martial capabilities.
Caster taking most martial capabilities does almost nothing for them in terms of martial combat. The rogue can be used to boost skills and pick up feats like Mobility. The monk MC archetype can be used by the druid to pick up flurry of blows for wildshaping.
Martials get way more bang for the buck taking caster archetypes to get buffs and defensive spells than casters picking up martial archetypes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martial casters can focus greatly on buffs with casting archetype which greatly improves their martial capabilities.
Caster taking most martial capabilities does almost nothing for them in terms of martial combat. The rogue can be used to boost skills and pick up feats like Mobility. The monk MC archetype can be used by the druid to pick up flurry of blows for wildshaping.
Martials get way more bang for the buck taking caster archetypes to get buffs and defensive spells than casters picking up martial archetypes.
This is true in a technical, but I don't think it is true in a practical sense. I would argue you are always better off having the caster cast these spells rather than doing it yourself. Particularly during combat as far as action economy is concerned. A martial is still more often better off MC-ing into another martial, and the same goes for casters archetyping into other casters. Particularly with little tricks like how you can get legendary spellcasting in your primary attribute from the archetype if you pick things right giving you a mountain of spell slots up to 8th level. Not always the best, but very cool
This is true in a technical, but I don't think it is true in a practical sense. I would argue you are always better off having the caster cast these spells rather than doing it yourself. Particularly during combat as far as action economy is concerned. A martial is still more often better off MC-ing into another martial, and the same goes for casters archetyping into other casters. Particularly with little tricks like how you can get legendary spellcasting in your primary attribute from the archetype if you pick things right giving you a mountain of spell slots up to 8th level. Not always the best, but very coolMartial casters can focus greatly on buffs with casting archetype which greatly improves their martial capabilities.
Caster taking most martial capabilities does almost nothing for them in terms of martial combat. The rogue can be used to boost skills and pick up feats like Mobility. The monk MC archetype can be used by the druid to pick up flurry of blows for wildshaping.
Martials get way more bang for the buck taking caster archetypes to get buffs and defensive spells than casters picking up martial archetypes.
Depends on the class and the value of the class feats.
For a fighter a Caster MC is optimal. You gain more from being able to stack additional heroisms on yourself as you often use attack rolls and skills in tandem. There are a lot of good spells like True Strike or Blink for a fighter. You also have a lot of dead feat levels as a fighter and Combat Flexibility allowing you to take combat feats as needed.
Caster MC nearly worthless for a barbarian. Doesn't work well with rage and takes an extra action to cast with Moment of Clarity. You have to focus on Somatic only spells that don't have the Concentrate trait.
Rogue MC isn't bad either given you can obtain the skill for maximum MC easier than other classes, but Rogue does have a lot of good class feats.
Monk caster MC isn't bad either. With flurry of blows, you can cast and attack well. Though a caster can poach Flurry at level 10 and probably get more out of the Monk Archetype.
The problem with invoking the fatigue after 10 minutes rule is there's no definition of the "refractory" period duration. Can you do 8 minutes on, 8 minutes off? 9 minutes on, 1 minute off? Lot of GM discretion. Damaging structures in general is very GM fiat territory, more so than targeting regular objects.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM is willing to handwave targeting, and handwave repetitive action fatigue, then at that point they're just buying into the wizard melting the wall and I'm not sure that's really something we need to police in the first place.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you wait for the wizard to melt the wall when a fighter or barb with power attack can pound through it much quicker? Stealth?
Why would you wait for the wizard to melt the wall when a fighter or barb with power attack can pound through it much quicker? Stealth?
Considering that spells produce much sound and visual manifestations, the idea that it's stealthy doesn't track.
Taking a spell like Disintegrate for example, it's useful because of its automatic and instantaneous effects. Why take a minute or two busting it down when a Disintegrate works in just two actions without any care for material, and works on even magical barriers?
The problem with invoking the fatigue after 10 minutes rule is there's no definition of the "refractory" period duration. Can you do 8 minutes on, 8 minutes off? 9 minutes on, 1 minute off? Lot of GM discretion. Damaging structures in general is very GM fiat territory, more so than targeting regular objects.The rules handle exploration is 10 minute chunks which are composed of 1 action every minute is fine, 2 action every minute is fatiguing. Fatigued unless told otherwise last until you take a full night's rest.
You cannot do 8 minutes on and 2 minutes off because the game breaks down exploration into 10 minute sections. Just like it breaks down downtime into hours and days, and combat into 6 second rounds usually no longer than 2 minutes.
You're just straight up wrong there. Repeat a Spell makes no sense with that:
You repeatedly cast the same spell while moving at half speed. Typically, this spell is a cantrip that you want to have in effect in the event a combat breaks out, and it must be one you can cast in 2 actions or fewer. In order to prevent fatigue due to repeated casting, you’ll likely use this activity only when something out of the ordinary occurs.
If you catch a sign of danger and want to cast shield for a few minutes, you aren't obligated to keep casting until you fatigue yourself if an encounter doesn't trigger.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main beef with powering up cantrips to deal a bit more damage is that if they do that, suddenly the Acid cantrip becomes SUPERBLY GOOD at destroying stone traps and (not too thick) walls from afar. Instead of 1d4+4 damage = 0 effective damage vs stone, and then 1d4+5 after an ability boost becoming "ok you can destroy that 5 foot thick wall, it will only take you two or three days". Instead that 1d6+5 means you're effectively able to "destroy stony stuff" 6 times faster.
Nothing in the rules say you can't cast the same cantrip round after rounds... HUNDREDS OF TIMES. No rule for "your throat is getting too hoarse" or any stuff like that. Same thing a warrior can swing his greataxe hundreds of times in a row, without getting tired. Meanwhile the ranged guy will lack ammo way before making a dent.
Cantrips should be like secondary backup weapons. Not be as good as primary attacks.
This is such a niche complaint that I literally don't care about it.
If your GM makes a scenario where is this is the most effective way to solve the problem you are facing, and allows it to go ahead unabated, then its because its what they wanted you to do.
This is no different from someone powerattacking through stone, or having a sword which is made of a harder material, etc etc.
It has ZERO to do with the method of bring down the material (Cantrips in this instance) and everything to do with the flow of the game and what the GM is trying to achieve with the session.
If your GM is so inclined, why not just hire workers, give them pick axes and let them tunnel across the planet for all that that matters.
This is an actively dumb complaint.
Not to mention that you cannot target objects with attacks unless an ability says otherwise.
So the whole complain is predicated on the GM allowing you to attack objects with abilities that only target creatures.
Technically by the rules as written you can't strike an object at all, it specifies creatures. Yet some weapons also have the razing property which doubles damage to objects. It's clear the GM is intended to allow you to use a lot of, or most attacks, against objects where it makes sense and the books in life numerous examples that demonstrate this. Mark Seifter has also mentioned the design philosophy of pathfinder having been being the "strict parent" to allow GMs to be the "cool parents", in this instance wr2 the uncommon tag, but I think we can extrapolate here. I cannot find rules for targeting objects, just damaging them. I believe the game doesn't say you can hit or damage objects directly outside of specific instances so that the GM can allow you to when it makes sense. An example given in the gmg is produce flame used on barrels of oil. Which is not allowed by the rules but it is kind of ridiculous to say you couldn't do it. From what I am reading here is the game's ruling on targeting objects is that the GM rules when you can and can't
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, you're allowed to when the GM wants to make it part of the story for sure, but NOT by default. You're certainly NOT intended to be able to use the Strike Action on objects. Razing even specifically calls out ONLY situations where you're resolving attacks against things that already have defined interactions with Attacks/Strikes or have a normal AC of their own.
Attacking regular old objects that do not have an AC is completely justifiable but they are very much NOT intended to be damaged/targeted/attacked by way of the Strike Action. If there aren't specific rules that enable a Strike on objects it cannot be done by default, all else falls to Rule 0 and GM adjudication and should almost NEVER use the normal damage calculations, doing so results in the ability for anyone with a Dagger and a positive Str score to be able to tunnel through any wall or floor that's not made of something at least as hard as Iron/Steel or that has otherwise magically/alchemically hardened in a trivial amount of time.
Breaking walls down is cool, thematic, and interesting but allowing every Martial PC to be able to ignore locks/doors/walls/floors/ceilings/obstacles simply because there isn't something actively attacking and damaging them in 1 to 3 rounds of Strike Actions is not, it's game breaking and if allowed would similarly require Rule 0 for the GM to step in and say "No, you can't do that." If you want to bust something down with your Weapon that makes sense, esp if you have some kind of enabler or bonus such as Razing but doing Weapon Damage Dice is NOT it because with even a mundane Weapon, much less a Striking one (or one with a temporary bonus like Magic Weapon) turns nearly any Martial Classed PC with a bit of time into the likes of John Henry who famously DIED of exhaustion despite it being a fantastical fiction story.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also objects don't have HP rules, so good determining how long it takes.
Material Statistics [CRB 577] would seem to offer sufficient guidelines for most common objects, though it does require some amount of interpretation to get there.
Technically by the rules as written you can't strike an object at all, it specifies creatures. Yet some weapons also have the razing property which doubles damage to objects. It's clear the GM is intended to allow you to use a lot of, or most attacks, against objects where it makes sense and the books in life numerous examples that demonstrate this. Mark Seifter has also mentioned the design philosophy of pathfinder having been being the "strict parent" to allow GMs to be the "cool parents", in this instance wr2 the uncommon tag, but I think we can extrapolate here. I cannot find rules for targeting objects, just damaging them. I believe the game doesn't say you can hit or damage objects directly outside of specific instances so that the GM can allow you to when it makes sense. An example given in the gmg is produce flame used on barrels of oil. Which is not allowed by the rules but it is kind of ridiculous to say you couldn't do it. From what I am reading here is the game's ruling on targeting objects is that the GM rules when you can and can'tNot to mention that you cannot target objects with attacks unless an ability says otherwise.
So the whole complain is predicated on the GM allowing you to attack objects with abilities that only target creatures.
The rule is more particularly in regards to attended objects.
Items have Hit Points like creatures, but the rules for damaging them are different (page 272). An item has a Hardness statistic that reduces damage the item takes by that amount. The item then takes any damage left over. If an item is reduced to 0 HP, it’s destroyed. An item also has a Broken Threshold. If its HP are reduced to this amount or lower, it’s broken, meaning it can’t be used for its normal function and it doesn’t grant bonuses. Damaging an unattended item usually requires attacking it directly, and can be difficult due to that item’s Hardness and immunities. You usually can’t attack an attended object (one on a creature’s person).
So, if an enemy is wielding a weapon, that's considered an attended object. You can't attack it to deal damage, i.e. destroy it, unless you have an ability that specifically targets attended objects. Same goes if they're using a staff or wand, have a scroll or potion in their belongings, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not being able to attack objects by the rules is strange.
It's done out of balance than it is out of realism. Sundering weaponry was considered a viable tactic in PF1, but it both destroyed potential loot as well as made the encounters trivial/impossible, depending on if you destroyed a BBEG's weapon (if such one was reliant on it) or if your weapon got destroyed. And since enemies have attributes regardless of whatever gear they had, destroying their weapon doesn't mean much when they can punch/kick/whatever for the same damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to attack objects at will (in the name of realism) without having some kind of weapon durability mechanic along side it is even more strange to me than saying: "Lets say no as a default and then give GMs tools to say yes when it is appropriate."
The rule is more particularly in regards to attended objects.Items have Hit Points like creatures, but the rules for damaging them are different (page 272). An item has a Hardness statistic that reduces damage the item takes by that amount. The item then takes any damage left over. If an item is reduced to 0 HP, it’s destroyed. An item also has a Broken Threshold. If its HP are reduced to this amount or lower, it’s broken, meaning it can’t be used for its normal function and it doesn’t grant bonuses. Damaging an unattended item usually requires attacking it directly, and can be difficult due to that item’s Hardness and immunities. You usually...
I was specifically referring to the description of the strike action which does not mention objects:
You attack with a weapon you're wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack). Roll the attack roll for the weapon or unarmed attack you are using, and compare the result to the target creature's AC to determine the effect. See Attack Rolls and Damage for details on calculating your attack and damage rolls.
Critical Success As success, but you deal double damage.
Success You deal damage according to the weapon or unarmed attack, including any modifiers, bonuses, and penalties you have to damage.
|
|
It's done out of balance than it is out of realism. Sundering weaponry was considered a viable tactic in PF1, but it both destroyed potential loot as well as made the encounters trivial/impossible, depending on if you destroyed a BBEG's weapon (if such one was reliant on it) or if your weapon got destroyed. And since enemies have attributes regardless of whatever gear they had, destroying their weapon doesn't mean much when they can punch/kick/whatever for the same damage.
Also, if you could destroy weapons, armors ... why would NPCs not do it ?
And players sure hated it in 3.x/PF1. See all old threads blasting it as an anti-player tactic.
So, GMs had to avoid a completely sound tactic to avoid getting in a fight with players. Talk about nonsensical meta.
Better to just not allow it in the RAW.
Remember that PF2 aims to help the GM tell the stories they want with as little effort and conflict as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They do have a weapon and armor and object durability rule. Sometimes you do need to break objects. I'm not talking about sundering. I'm talking about walls and doors and such. Corrosive runes can hit armor. They wreck leather, cloth, and soft armors.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate hidden meta rules like this.
If it's intended to be in the GM's wheelhouse like many of you claim, then the rules should have said as much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 has some holes in it like every iteration of D&D or PF. I wing it for objects if the action seems reasonable and make up some AC or use my old PF1 auto-hit rule it is the size of barn and depending on the type of weapon. A rapier isn't cutting through a stone wall, but someone using a maul might.
Perhaps objects are one of those rules so varied due to everything involved, they left it up to the GM to use the existing rules from a variety of sources and do what they think is appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate hidden meta rules like this.
If it's intended to be in the GM's wheelhouse like many of you claim, then the rules should have said as much.
One place where I think we see this is in how one of the examples here for the "Yes, but" section of the GMG is about attacking an object. Something normally illegal but brought in-line with the rules to allow the creative idea to work despite no official rules support:
Require a directed attack against an object, then allow foes to attempt saving throws against the object’s effect at a DC you choose. Example: cast a produce flame spell at a barrel of explosives.
I found some of this information when looking up stuff about this and saw this other thread on another website talking about it. Link for anyone interested.
The jist is we have spells that target creatures, ones that target objects, attended or unattended, and some that target both. The game seems to differentiate between creatures and objects and upon looking up the strike action and trying to find other actions which might elucidate this I have found no way to attack/target objects so far outside of spells that specify it and the "force open" action where you break open door specifically. There are rules for damaging objects. There is hardness, HP etc for materials. The Razing trait exists, but rules to actually attack/hit... Well I won't say they don't exist definitively, but I haven't found them. All I have found is excerpts like the one above using produce flame to ignite barrels, and by RAW you can't target objects, attended or otherwise, with produce flame as it has a target of "1 creature"
More over the game is explicit that damage to objects due to area of effect spells, abilities etc is up to the GM:
Many area effects describe only the effects on creatures in the area. The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects.
It seems clear to me after all this that damaging objects and how to do it is something decided by the GM and that this could be considered the "RAW" interpretation, or at least damn near as close as we can get without spelling it out for us
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's rather telling, in the original playtest for Second edition that pretty much no one noticed there was no rules for Sunder anymore until the playtest was over.People did notice during the playtest and there were threads about it. In fact there are 157 instances of "Sunder" if you search the playtest forum.
People also certainly noticed that you cannot strike objects unless told otherwise.
Ah so I misremembered, it was noticed in August, close to the Playtest's end.
Also I only found 95 instances of "Sunder" mentioned, a bunch of which aren't even referring to the action (and also taking into acount a lot of posts are quoting previous posts).
So it was only noticed near the end and there wasn't a lot of noise over it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't attach too much weight to how often something is mentioned on this board, given that most online conversation about PF2 is happening elsewhere.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, I could have sworn it launched at Gencon, but then again that was 5 years ago.
And I don't know what to tell you, I typed "sunder" in the search in the P2 Playtest forum and it gave me 95 results with Sunder, as well as words that had sunder as a part of it (which meant posts that had nothing to do with the Sunder action).
Not a lot of people noticed is the point. (5 or 152 isn't a lot, especially when a number of those posts are part of the same convo.
I wouldn't attach too much weight to how often something is mentioned on this board, given that most online conversation about PF2 is happening elsewhere.
Where?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, I can't say that a few hundreds posts per day are at any level "dead".