| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
...and replace it with a gate attenuator analog for casters.
I understand this spell has its fans, but I think this is the number one reason why we don't have any item bonuses for spell attacks. And I get that I should be using my save spells to target monsters weak saves but then if spell attacks aren't suppossed to be viable then they really shouldn't exist at all.
Here is why I think True Strike is not a fun spell. I just don't think it makes sense why I should have to spam this one spell to make all these other spells viable. If I'm an evoker, I shouldn't have to carry a Staff of Divination just so that my disintigrate lands at least 50% of the time. Also, it precludes the use of any meta-magic with spell attack spells.
Now, I know this disregards the utility of True Strike for martials who might have a caster archetype. I admit that is kind of a bummer but martials have plenty of other ways to get bonuses to hit so I don't see this as being really all that much of a game changer for martials at the end of the day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Paizo, please send True Strike to the boneyard...] and replace it with a gate attenuator analog for casters.
This request is greatly weakened in my eyes because I don't know what a gate attenuator is.
I looked up the word. An attenuator is a device that reduces an energy surge to manageable levels. An Gating impact attenuator is a crash barrier that reduces the energy of an impact but also operates as a gate in other directions. Electronics also have attenuators for reducing a electrical surge in the electronics, and electric guitars have attenuators for noise, and some are called gates.
So Wizard of Ahhhs wants to replace True Strike with something that reduces the impact???
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's an item that provides an item bonus to kineticist's impulse attack modifier, but not their DC. So the OP wants an item bonus to spell attacks but not spell DC.
(In general, it's probably better to give some explanation when citing things from a book that isn't out yet).
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I dislike about true strike is that martials benefit from casting it more than spellcasters do, which is an odd position for a spell. Another issue is that true strike isn't available to all casters
While attack spells need a rework, I really don't like adding item bonuses to spell attqck rolls.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is, in effect, just another "please give caters an item bonus to attacks" thread.
The answer is no. There's an argument to be made that casters are a bit below the curve, and could use some help. Blaster casters in particular are a bit understrength... but giving them an extra static bonus to hit is taking it entirely too far.
What I dislike about true Strike is that martials benefit from casting it more than spellcasters do, which is an odd position for a spell.
They... don't, though? casting True Strike isn't free. It takes an action and a slot. Spending it on a standard martial attack isn't nearly as worthwhile as spending it to help make sure that a high-slot spell slams home.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A martial's Strike generally does more damage and only costs one action, so it benefits more from true strike. True strike + Strike takes 2 actions, but true strike + takes an entire turn.
True strike is a 1st-rank spell fhat doesn't require any spell DCs, so martials can pick it up fairly easily. True strike cast by a martial, especially one that has a powerful attack, is much deadlier than the same spell cast by a spellcaster.
I should've explained what a gate attenuator is. Here is a link to the discord notes from Paizocon.
"Gate attenuators are a magic item for kineticists that act both add grant 1/day spells to the kineticist and give them up to a +2 item bonus to their impulse attack rolls." So its ultimately less powerful than a weapon potency rune, but still much better than nothing.
So kineticists get the same proficiency bonuses that casters do, but they also get up to a +2 item bonus for their attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A martial's Strike generally does more damage and only costs one action, so it benefits more from true strike. True strike + Strike takes 2 actions, but true strike + takes an entire turn.
True strike is a 1st-rank spell fhat doesn't require any spell DCs, so martials can pick it up fairly easily. True strike cast by a martial, especially one that has a powerful attack, is much deadlier than the same spell cast by a spellcaster.
Okay. Let's look at that. We'll look at level 8. The martials get decently damaging property runes and weapon specialization, and the casters are throwing around level 4 slots, which means that it's reasonable to start breaking out the True Strike. We'll take 2-action Horizon Thunder Sphere, because it's pretty much pure damage, and we don't have to worry about doing things like calculating in the effects of the drained 2 from Polar Ray or the second save for disintegrate. We'll use the Giant Barbarian because we want to give the martials the strongest argument we can.
Level 8 caster throwing Horizon Thunder Sphere does 9d6 damage - 31.5 average damage.
Level 8 Giant Barbarian with a d12 weapon does 2d12+1d6(frost rune)+4(str)+2(weapon specialization)+6 (giant instinct rage) - 28.5 average damage.
Your argument? I'm not convinced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm for the item bonus for spell attacks. Seems within reason now with those attenuators.
It really doesn't. Attenuators are a kineticist thing. They mean absolutely nothing for the balance between casters and martials. Kineticists effectively aren't either one.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some sort of adjustment. I agree that there should. I'm hopeful about what might come with the remaster. I just assert that an item bonus is overkill.
The complication for martials using True strike is that a second attack is usually better than a true strike spell. With a feat like Exacting Strike, 3 attack actions are decent accuracy and it is difficult to get power attack and true strike to come anywhere close to as valuable without resistances that have to be gone through instead of around.
Magus is in a unique position of not being that accurate and having an incredible amount of damage riding on one attack roll. They are also casters and they already get item bonuses so taking away truestrike is just punishment.
A lot is going to change as far as spell names, and some whole spells, but the actual mechanics of PF2's true strike are very different from the 3.x spell, but it is almost the same as 5e's...so it is in a questionable space. The mechanics of a spell that makes an attack more accurate doesn't feel like protectable IP to me, but I am not a lawyer and I am not inside the legal rooms of either Paizo or Wizards so "what happens next?" is definitely a question mark.
I just think True strike is doing a lot more work in the game than item bonuses spread out over nearly 20 levels of play, and at the very least, if the spell gets dropped, the advice about handing out Hero points needs to really stress how much work they they have to do for many classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh... I also note that True Strike on a Giant Barb runs into the issue where it's a verbal spell and thus difficult to use in mid-Rage.
True Strike is absolutely a big deal for the Magus, though. That's true. Honestly, it feels pretty appropriate, too.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magus is in a unique position of not being that accurate and having an incredible amount of damage riding on one attack roll. They are also casters and they already get item bonuses so taking away truestrike is just punishment.
That's a really interesting point. I can see why a Magus would want that, especially when fighting a boss with high AC.
My issue with True Strike is that as a pure caster, spell attack spells and cantrips (which is like, probably half of the attack cantrips in the arcane list) are really not viable without it unless your just taking potshots at low level enemies. I don't understand why I need to spam this spell just so that all these other spells can be useful. That is why I think a static item bonus would be better.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should've explained what a gate attenuator is. Here is a link to the discord notes from Paizocon.
"Gate attenuators are a magic item for kineticists that act both add grant 1/day spells to the kineticist and give them up to a +2 item bonus to their impulse attack rolls." So its ultimately less powerful than a weapon potency rune, but still much better than nothing.
So kineticists get the same proficiency bonuses that casters do, but they also get up to a +2 item bonus for their attacks.
Incidentally, the gate attentuator is basically the same as the wands in the PF2 core rulebook playtests - add to spell attack, one spell per day.
Since Paizo accepted defeat in SoM with the shadow signet, SoM isn't getting remaster any time soon, and gate attenuators are here, I think something similar might be coming back for casters.
But probably not if True Strike sticks around unchanged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tradeoff is supposed to be that spellcasters, who are casting spells to do damage, can attack any of a target's defenses (Armor, Reflex, Will, or Fortitude). The Kineticist gets the gate attenuator primarily because it doesn't get that- some impulses attack reflex, a couple attack fort, none attack will.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. Let's look at that. We'll look at level 8. The martials get decently damaging property runes and weapon specialization, and the casters are throwing around level 4 slots, which means that it's reasonable to start breaking out the True Strike. We'll take 2-action Horizon Thunder Sphere, because it's pretty much pure damage, and we don't have to worry about doing things like calculating in the effects of the drained 2 from Polar Ray or the second save for disintegrate. We'll use the Giant Barbarian because we want to give the martials the strongest argument we can.
Level 8 caster throwing Horizon Thunder Sphere does 9d6 damage - 31.5 average damage.
Level 8 Giant Barbarian with a d12 weapon does 2d12+1d6(frost rune)+4(str)+2(weapon specialization)+6 (giant instinct rage) - 28.5 average damage.
Your argument? I'm not convinced.
You forgot to account for accuracy, somehow.
Also, casters run out of top-rank spells before they run out of castings of true strike. That's 3/day, max? Martials can have 6.
Also, casters run out of top-rank spells before they run out of castings of true strike. That's 3/day, max? Martials can have 6.
How is a level 8 martial getting 6 true strikes again? 3 top rank spell slots is also not universally true. Wizards get 4, 5 with drain bond, and can get more with spell blending. Also, focus spells and your second highest tiers remain viable damage sources as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With Shadow Signet, casters are actually very close to martial accuracy. Adding an item bonus to attack would put them ahead of martials.
Also, True Strike is paramount to smiting Clerics.
Spell attack roll spells should be buffed with the remaster (at least Divine Lance), so wait and see. I don't think True Strike is an issue per se, I'd even ask for more similar spells for Divine and Primal traditions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You forgot to account for accuracy, somehow.
Also, casters run out of top-rank spells before they run out of castings of true strike. That's 3/day, max? Martials can have 6.
It's true, a martial will have more opportunities to throw the spell than a caster will. Has that been a problem in your games? I mean, I personally haven't seem a lot of "martials archetyping into a caster class with three feats to fill up on True Strike" but maybe that's me. If that really is something that happens a lot out there in the parts of the world that I don't personally touch and see, I'll admit that that's weird and at least a little bad. I would have figured that the payoff mostly wasn't worth the cost of entry.
I didn't account for accuracy because it's a complicated mess, and highly dependent on exactly which enemies (and thus which AC) you're up against. Also, a well-run caster is going to be throwing vs-AC spells (and thus, potentially, True Striking) against enemies that have relatively low AC compared to their pertinent saves, while a martial is going vs-AC (and possibly True Striking) regardless, thus throwing off the numbers further. I also didn't include anything to adjust for the nullification of circumstance penalties or flat checks from concealment/hidden. If you're trying to math things, you gotta stop somewhere.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with True Strike is that as a pure caster, spell attack spells and cantrips (which is like, probably half of the attack cantrips in the arcane list) are really not viable without it unless your just taking potshots at low level enemies. I don't understand why I need to spam this spell just so that all these other spells can be useful. That is why I think a static item bonus would be better.
I think those are two different issues. The problem with spell attack rolls for actual spells isn't reeeeally that you have lagging accuracy. The problem is that you can whiff with them and suddenly be down two actions and a top tier spell slot with nothing to show for it. THAT is what actually feels bad. Item bonuses will slightly lower the odds of this happening, but won't prevent it, and will in fact do far less than True Strike does. You can still just roll bad.
What would actually help here is if spell attacks dealt half damage on a regular failure so a miss wasn't a complete waste. It would basically be a pseudo touch AC. (I get why they ditched touch AC for balance, narratively it doesn't actually make sense that a Disintegrate has a harder time "hitting" a hill giant than an arrow does penetrating it's skin.) That is a change that could justify killing True Strike.
Cantrips are a different story. You aren't burning a resource on them, so you really shouldn't be using True Strike to ensure they land. They are designed with mop-up in mind. Item bonuses would be nice here, but aren't strictly necessary. Even with the dominance of Electric Arc, other arcane cantrips have their place, particularly when flatfooted is easier to inflict than save penalties and high reflex enemies exist.
Ray of Frost -- Actual long range, cold weakness.
Produce Flame -- Benefits from flanking, fire weakness.
Telekinetic Projectile -- High base damage + great for killing skeletons and zombies
Needle Darts -- 60 ft range, triggers weakness against precious metals.
Gouging Claw -- High base damage + flankable.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, let's keep in mind that we know spell buffs are coming down the pipeline. Ray of Frost will add a weakness to bludgeoning damage, for example. Makes it pretty hard to say what kind of changed are needed for a meta that doesn't exist yet.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's true, a martial will have more opportunities to throw the spell than a caster will. Has that been a problem in your games?You forgot to account for accuracy, somehow.
Also, casters run out of top-rank spells before they run out of castings of true strike. That's 3/day, max? Martials can have 6.
My pount was that true strike is better on a martial than a caster, which is my two cents in a thread criticising the true strike spell.
I didn't account for accuracy because it's a complicated mess, and highly dependent on exactly which enemies (and thus which AC) you're up against. Also, a well-run caster is going to be throwing vs-AC spells (and thus, potentially, True Striking) against enemies that have relatively low AC compared to their pertinent saves, while a martial is going vs-AC (and possibly True Striking) regardless, thus throwing off the numbers further. I also didn't include anything to adjust for the nullification of circumstance penalties or flat checks from concealment/hidden. If you're trying to math things, you gotta stop somewhere.
I get that the game math is hard, especially with so many variables, but saying a single Strike from a barbarian deals less median damage than a caster's highest-level spell has nothing to do with true strike, which is about accuracy. You didn't stop somewhere as much as did not even start & then claim the math proved you right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My pount was that true strike is better on a martial than a caster, which is my two cents in a thread criticising the true strike spell.
So this is more of an aesthetic concern than a practical one?
I get that the game math is hard, especially with so many variables, but saying a single Strike from a barbarian deals less median damage than a caster's highest-level spell has nothing to do with true strike, which is about accuracy. You didn't stop somewhere as much as did not even start & then claim the math proved you right.
Did I? Did I really?
Your argument? I'm not convinced.
No. No I did not. I made a preliminary investigation in response to an unsupported claim, concluded that it cast some doubt on the claim made, and asserted that I wasn't convinced. I did not at any point say "the math has proved me right".
Also, your clam that the raw damage in question "has nothing to do with True Strike" is flatly incorrect, and if you don't get that, I encourage you to spend a bit of time educating yourself. The entire point of accuracy is that it gets the damage (and other effects) to land. Thus, the damage dealt is a direct multiplier on the effectiveness of any accuracy buffs you might have. The raw quantity of damage you're dealing with isn't the only factor involved, but it's by far the most important one.
So... maybe just back on down a bit and reconsider before you start throwing accusations, eh?
EDIT: oh, and the actual quote I was responding to?
A martial's Strike generally does more damage and only costs one action, so it benefits more from true strike.
so I was literally responding directly to an assertion about "a martial's strike generally does more damage" when I made that quick breakdown about damage that you attempted to undermine by asserting that damage didn't count, and that it needed accuracy numbers to mean anything. Really @NECR0G1ANT? Really?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a common misconception that spell attack roll spells are not good to use against higher level solo enemies, but a deep dive on the math, especially at higher levels, pretty easily shows how difficult it is to land useful effects and much damage from saving throw targeting spells on higher level opponents. The half damage, "chip shots" are not nothing, but defeating difficult enemies by trying to blast them with saving throw targeting damage focused spells (unless you are hitting a weakness) is a recipe for disaster in PF2.
Debuffing and then hitting enemies with powerful attacks is how higher level enemies are defeated in PF2. Debuffing AC is the easiest defense to target and can have the biggest accuracy swings in the game. Also, many higher level solo monsters get bonuses to save vs magi that will see them succeed on saves with a 5, and critically succeed 25% of the time. Also, being the person rolling the dice is a default +1 for getting the hit result vs getting the enemy to fail a save.
I think that many players perceive that throwing spells against an higher level enemy without debuffing them at all is generally an ineffective tactic, regardless of what defense is being targeted, and so it is much more of perception thing that landing spell attack roll spells vs higher level boss creatures feels risky. but as folks have pointed out above. Item bonuses to spell attack rolls will barely make a noticeable difference in the feel of throwing out spells against non-debuffed, higher level enemies -- it will still be a bad idea. But where the item bonuses will make a big impact, is when the creature is debuffed, and suddenly a creature making a save on a 5, is being hit by an attack roll spell on a 9, and that swings the damage wildly in the spell attack roll's favor.
Advantage is the far better mechanic than static bonuses for spells in a game with swingy +/-10 criticals if the goal is reliability when using powerful spells and not pushing harder for system mastery in the difference between uselessness and ridiculousness with the effect of powerful spells.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Item bonuses to spell attack rolls will barely make a noticeable difference in the feel of throwing out spells against non-debuffed, higher level enemies -- it will still be a bad idea. But where the item bonuses will make a big impact, is when the creature is debuffed, and suddenly a creature making a save on a 5, is being hit by an attack roll spell on a 9, and that swings the damage wildly in the spell attack roll's favor.
This why my preferred solution to attack spells being bad is for them to do half-damage on a miss. It uses the same four degrees of success mechanic as save DC spells, and raises the baseline effectiveness floor without benefiting optimization too much.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The raw quantity of damage you're dealing with isn't the only factor involved
Then why did you ignore everything but damage from your calculation? You didn't account for how easy it is for martials to get flanking or for weapon potency bonuses. Action economy is very important in 2E, but you were comparing a 3-action turn (true strike + horizon thunder sphere) against a 2-action true strike + Strike. Resource depletion is a part of 2E as well, but you also assumed that a spellcaster will have that used their highest-level spell slots for that one spell. You forgot critical specializations, etc.
That's the problem with white-room theorycrafting such as yours - it makes unfounded assumptions (usually in service of DPR, a clunky and inaccurate measure of utility). Your point that casters can spend two actions to deal 10% more damage than a martial that spends just one (only 3 or 4 times per day, tho), doesn't mean anything.
My observation that true strike on a martial is better than true strike on a caster wasn't a challenge for you to build a PC that just spends their turn doing just that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
id love it if they killed true strike (well, neuteured)
magus will be fine without
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather have an item bonus to hit for all traditions, than true strike for only some traditions.
Legendary proficiency at the far end of the campaign isn't a solution for casters feeling frustrated for all of the mid levels because their to hit is so far behind. You're dealing with a proficiency that lags behind, no item bonuses, harder to get flat-footed, and often some cover from your teammates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The raw quantity of damage you're dealing with isn't the only factor involvedThen why did you ignore everything but damage from your calculation? You didn't account for how easy it is for martials to get flanking or for weapon potency bonuses. Action economy is very important in 2E, but you were comparing a 3-action turn (true strike + horizon thunder sphere) against a 2-action true strike + Strike. Resource depletion is a part of 2E as well, but you also assumed that a spellcaster will have that used their highest-level spell slots for that one spell. You forgot critical specializations, etc.
That's the problem with white-room theorycrafting such as yours - it makes unfounded assumptions (usually in service of DPR, a clunky and inaccurate measure of utility). Your point that casters can spend two actions to deal 10% more damage than a martial that spends just one (only 3 or 4 times per day, tho), doesn't mean anything.
My observation that true strike on a martial is better than true strike on a caster wasn't a challenge for you to build a PC that just spends their turn doing just that.
I'll say it again. You made a specific, unsupported statement about damage. I responded to that statement with a quick analysis about damage. Now you're attempting to give me grief about only talking about damage? Way to move the goalposts. You don't like the results that I came up with? You feel like they should include deeper analysis of All The Things? Fine. Do it yourself. Show your work.
I'll be happy to see the results. Maybe they'll be convincing in a way that your unsupported words thus far have not been....and while you're assembling that in-depth analysis, be sure to include some consideration of the costs involved as well... where the caster just needs to blow a few lowest-level spell slots or maybe some charges from a staff and the martial has to throw around multiple class feats to get in the door. I mean, that certainly seems like it would be pertinent to the discussion, right? It certainly didn't sound like "Martials with True Strike" was something you'd seen much of at the gaming table. Maybe there's a reason for that.
...or decide that you're not willing to put in the effort to actually back your assertions up, and instead keep railing at me for having done my little calculations and decided that I don't find your currently stated arguments compelling enough to go any more in-depth than that. That's also an option, I guess.
|
|
...and while you're assembling that in-depth analysis, be sure to include some consideration of the costs involved as well... where the caster just needs to blow a few lowest-level spell slots or maybe some charges from a staff and the martial has to throw around...
Wait, earlier you had a L8 spellcaster using horizon thunder sphere to do 9d6 damage - that's heightened to spell level 4. For a L8 spellcaster, that's the highest-level spell slot they have. How is that only "a few lowest-level spell slots?"
...and while you're assembling that in-depth analysis, be sure to include some consideration of the costs involved as well... where the caster just needs to blow a few lowest-level spell slots or maybe some charges from a staff and the martial has to throw around...Wait, earlier you had a L8 spellcaster using horizon thunder sphere to do 9d6 damage - that's heightened to spell level 4. For a L8 spellcaster, that's the highest-level spell slot they have. How is that only "a few lowest-level spell slots?"
We're talking about throwing True Strike, yes? 1st level spell?
For a caster who's at their mid-levels or beyond, level 1 spell slots aren't worth all that much. Single charges out of a staff (if they have an appropriate staff) just aren't that expensive.
For most martials, the only real way to get access is via an archetype, and if you don't want to fill a hand doing it, you need to spend at least two feats in that archetype... in order to get as many as three spell slots. If you want another three hands-free slots to cast the spell with, that's *another* class feat spent. Also, the stat requirements generally won't line up with your preferences. You could pay off one of those class feats with ancient elf, but elf isn't generally an amazing ancestry for martials otherwise.
So, for a discussion on the usefulness of True Strike, I posit that the cost of getting access to that True Strike should be considered... and for midlevel and above casters it's very cheap (other than the single action to cast it) and for martials it's maybe not so much.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dare say that casters would feel a bit better If their skill proficiency was a little less backloaded
If its level 8, shouldn't giant instinct rage be 10 as they get their Specialization ability at the same time as Weapon Specialization? That will be more damage than the spell.
Besides that, HTS only doubles on crits. Martials can get deadly, fatal and crit specialization effects that encourage crit fishing.
Good catch on the instinct specialization. That would give it another 4 points, and thus put it over the top.
Of course, due to the other mistake that I made (and noted earlier) that doesn't actually mean much for this discussion. I picked Giant Barb because it's the classic "sacrifice everything on the altar of bigger damage numbers" martial and I figured I'd give the martial side as fair a shot as it was likely to have. Problem was that I failed to consider that "ability to do things that require concentration" (like spells with verbal components... like True Strike) was one of the things they sacrificed. So Giant Barb shouldn't really be in the running at all. I guess the next runner-up is two-handed fighter using Power Attack? So the fighter loses the +10 (which I incorrectly had as a +6) because he's not any kind of barbarian, gets another d12 to play with from Power Attack, and the weapon specialization bonus goes up to +3. Average damage on a standard noncritical hit of 30 - slightly better, if not at the "featless wizard blowing a top-level spell slot" level. Of course, it also took two actions... and at 8th level, they could have a standard strike at -5 instead of that True Strike, if they were willing. Technically, the wizard could also make some manner of weapon strike instead, but it's a less compelling option for them.
The point about crits is also fair. I admit that I even cheated slightly by using a frost rune, because a flame rune has a bit of extra crit damage built right in. At the same time, if you want to start racking up the deadly and/or fatal bonus dice, you need to drop down to a d10 at most. If you want it on a non-advanced one-handed melee weapon, it's a d6. I went with d12 because it seemed like a reasonable choice for someone who wanted a lot of damage to have made and I was doing what I could to simplify things. I'm simply not going to run the full-on "what about the crits, what about the different ACs what about..." analysis. I don't care enough, and I refuse to be shamed for it. I've yet to see anyone else in this discussion actually run numbers where we can see them even at the level I did.
I also get the impression that "power attacker with True Strike" is a bit of a niche build for fighters. I'm not going to say that it doesn't happen, but if what you really want is to spend two actions utterly flattening someone with a spell-assisted strike, I feel like Magus might give you what you're craving a bit better.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main problem with true strike isn't really with the spell itself. I use it sometimes but not always.
My main problem with it is that so many discussions about whether spell attack to hit is in the spot where it needs to be, get hijacked with "but if we gave them more, then true strike would make it OP" or such.
True strike gets in the way of tuning spell to hit correctly. Especially for classes that don't get true strike natively, or who just want to do something else instead of following the one True way.
IMO there's no problem with True Strike at all. The problem is in spell attacks.
The main point is that usually don't worth waste all you actions and 2 spellslots to True Strike then cast an attack spell and the risk of full failure stills high. I know is not exactly comparable in terms of spellslots and that this can difficulty you action economy in situations where you may need to Stride to self-protection but usually is better to Sustain a Spell to occupy your 3rd action and cast a save spell that the risks of full failure and loose a slot for nothing are way lower.
IMO instead to True Strike become something more useful for casters Paizo needs to review that attack spells at all. Making them more closer to Elemental Blasts, reducing them to one-action (or allowing to reduce them to one-action) and in many cases removing the manipulate from them (attack trait is already too penalty, we don't need another trait making the spell ever more penalizing).
I know the mean that some attack spells may have their effects nerfed due this but makes them way more useful and competitive with 2-actions save spells. Yet the spellslots attack spells won't will become more popular than save spells but will meet some useful edge cases while attack cantrips would be way more used to complete your 3rd action in place of force the player to have to use a weapon or when the player don't have/want to Sustain a better spell.
Like it or not true strike is valued by the devs as a balance point for blast spells along with the shadow signet
So the problem has to be addressed at these two points regardless of your thought on current spell attacks
Then maybe True Strike should be reassessed as a balance point for spells because I will say it again True Strike very much ends up feeling like an action tax and resource tax to do your cool s$%$ that you want to do
I agree, the devs have already mentioned in the past that if you adjust true strike to remove the 5e style advantage and removed shadow signet
It's perfectly fine to offer spell potency runes that only affects spell attacks targeting AC
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are people talking about cantrips or spell slot spells here when talking about feeling like spell attack roll spells feel bad to use without true strike?
Remember that hero points also exist and will be used by optimizing players to land their big spell attack roll spells the same as true strike, except it doesn’t cost an action. So all taking away truestrike does for the balance of spells is make the player dependent on the GM feeding them enough hero points, instead of giving the player a tool they can choose for themselves.
I promise that casting disintegrate is not going to feel much more worthwhile if you only have a +2 item bonus instead of true strike at the target’s low fort save instead of AC (with the signet ring). The same is true at lower-mid levels with a heightened shocking grasp or acid arrow.
It feels like the only spell attack roll spells getting cast enough for the averaging of dice rolls to make it feel worth it is probably cantrips. Honestly, if spells are feeling like they are falling into an unfun zone at your table because of accuracy, then just adding on an item bonus item at your table for your casters is a perfectly fine thing to do… unless suddenly your players go from never casting spell attack roll spells, to starting to cast them…then quickly learning to optimize the casting of them with tactics that they weren’t using before, and then martial players end up feeling like casters can just pretty much do anything they can do, only better, and get discouraged. Which is the threat of those item bonuses getting made available to everyone as a base part of the game and not as a table by table choice based upon player frustration.