Cantrip losing attribute modifier to damage roll.

[Calliope5431]

lucien pyrus wrote:

If someone three action strikes with the third being -10 sure.

2d4 compared to 1d4+4 is less consistent but it's not anywhere near useless. Considering the cantrip we know about increases it to 1d6 for melee and we haven't seen the secondary effects on others I'm hesitant to say that 2d4 makes low level spell casters using cantrips horribly worse.

We have a cantrip already in rage of elements that does 3d4 and this one does 2d4 but has a second purpose. I don't think removal of spellcasting modifier is going to ruin low level play at all and I trust the design team.

The problem I had was that cantrips were effective enough that the spell resources players had they didn't feel compelled to use because it was working well enough.

Encouraging spending the resources you have I think is good.

Last, I'm not saying spellcasters can't do damage but the system as part of being versatile sacrifices the option to do the consistant damage of martials for the many things casters can do.

Players using all the resouces at their disposal is a good thing.

Sure 2d4 is lower average but it's not horrible. Especially against something with a weakness.

That's quite fair - and 3d4 does alleviate a lot of the pain right there, as you and numerous other people have said (and the chance to ping weakness is gravy, but it's very nice gravy).

I think people (including me) may be more concerned with ignition - caster damage was already low, and it's 1.5 points lower than the old produce flame on average for only ~5 damage vs. 6.5 points. Compare to a fighter with a greataxe, who is dealing 1d12+4 ~ 10.5 with a single action, or even worse, a fighter with a greataxe and power attack, who is dealing 2d12+4 ~ 17 with two, and it's depressing.

[lucien pyrus]

Calliope5431 wrote:

lucien pyrus wrote:

If someone three action strikes with the third being -10 sure.

2d4 compared to 1d4+4 is less consistent but it's not anywhere near useless. Considering the cantrip we know about increases it to 1d6 for melee and we haven't seen the secondary effects on others I'm hesitant to say that 2d4 makes low level spell casters using cantrips horribly worse.

We have a cantrip already in rage of elements that does 3d4 and this one does 2d4 but has a second purpose. I don't think removal of spellcasting modifier is going to ruin low level play at all and I trust the design team.

The problem I had was that cantrips were effective enough that the spell resources players had they didn't feel compelled to use because it was working well enough.

Encouraging spending the resources you have I think is good.

Last, I'm not saying spellcasters can't do damage but the system as part of being versatile sacrifices the option to do the consistant damage of martials for the many things casters can do.

Players using all the resouces at their disposal is a good thing.

Sure 2d4 is lower average but it's not horrible. Especially against something with a weakness.

That's quite fair - and 3d4 does alleviate a lot of the pain right there, as you and numerous other people have said (and the chance to ping weakness is gravy, but it's very nice gravy).

I think people (including me) may be more concerned with ignition - caster damage was already low, and it's 1.5 points lower than the old produce flame on average for only ~5 damage vs. 6.5 points. Compare to a fighter with a greataxe, who is dealing 1d12+4 ~ 10.5 with a single action, or even worse, a fighter with a greataxe and power attack, who is dealing 2d12+4 ~ 17 with two, and it's depressing.

Yes but it's a very useful spell now for eldritch trickster or magus.It now does at base for melee 2d6. I'm excited for it as someone who loves eldritch trickster even if it isn't the best because 2d6+1d6 at second level is alright and then at 3rd it's 3d6+1d6

[shroudb]

Calliope5431 wrote:

lucien pyrus wrote:

If someone three action strikes with the third being -10 sure.

2d4 compared to 1d4+4 is less consistent but it's not anywhere near useless. Considering the cantrip we know about increases it to 1d6 for melee and we haven't seen the secondary effects on others I'm hesitant to say that 2d4 makes low level spell casters using cantrips horribly worse.

We have a cantrip already in rage of elements that does 3d4 and this one does 2d4 but has a second purpose. I don't think removal of spellcasting modifier is going to ruin low level play at all and I trust the design team.

The problem I had was that cantrips were effective enough that the spell resources players had they didn't feel compelled to use because it was working well enough.

Encouraging spending the resources you have I think is good.

Last, I'm not saying spellcasters can't do damage but the system as part of being versatile sacrifices the option to do the consistant damage of martials for the many things casters can do.

Players using all the resouces at their disposal is a good thing.

Sure 2d4 is lower average but it's not horrible. Especially against something with a weakness.

That's quite fair - and 3d4 does alleviate a lot of the pain right there, as you and numerous other people have said (and the chance to ping weakness is gravy, but it's very nice gravy).

I think people (including me) may be more concerned with ignition - caster damage was already low, and it's 1.5 points lower than the old produce flame on average for only ~5 damage vs. 6.5 points. Compare to a fighter with a greataxe, who is dealing 1d12+4 ~ 10.5 with a single action, or even worse, a fighter with a greataxe and power attack, who is dealing 2d12+4 ~ 17 with two, and it's depressing.

but Ignition gives you the option for d6s in melee, making a great choice for when you are in close range (lika a magus as an example).

so, with 1 cantrip slot you have both a ranged option that deals less damage but also a melee option that deals better damage.

i think that will be their focus on the redesign, making each cantrip basically either have alternate uses, secondary effects, or lower damage but multitarget.

likie, the only new cantrip we've seen that's strictly 2d4s is a line effect.

[Ectar]

shroudb wrote:

it doesn't really matter if you pick a focus power that isn't damage but it's a control or support or whatever you want.

a focus spell is generally more powerful than a cantrip, being able to use 2-3 of them each combat instead of 1 is 2-3 rounds of combat that you don't have to spam cantrips.

it is a massive change regardless of the type of focus powers you pick (as long as they are good powers ofc).

I'll concede my poor wording and rephrase:

It just punishes you even harder if you take a non-damagingcombat focus spell.

Also to respond to an earlier point: Tangle Vine is exactly Tanglefoot.

I can only speak for my own tables, but generally players don't like waiting around on one person past the first 10 minute between combat break. If caster A spends 3 focus points, caster B spends 1, only one round of ooc healing is required, plus 10 minutes of shield repair work, there's a very decent chance that caster A isn't getting their full resources back anyway. In which case, we're in the same spot as before except our cantrips are worse.

A lot of these problems naturally resolve themselves over the course of a campaign:
More spells slots means less reliance on cantrips
More stuff needs doing between fights so breaks tend to become a bit longer between fights
Even in current PF2, the +stat to damage matters less and less as we get more dice.

But those problems are more prevalent at low levels, where the change to cantrips is going to feel the worst. And it's the part of the game that gets substantially the most play.

[Calliope5431]

lucien pyrus wrote:

Yes but it's a very useful spell now for eldritch trickster or magus. It now does at base for melee 2d6.

Agreed - it's good it wasn't straight-up nerfed, especially since magi really would prefer to have some spell attacks to hit people with.

I was never one of the people praying for the demise of electric arc (I thought it was cool) but I do wish they'd made other spells more competitive with it by boosting said other spells. I can see a whole host of reasons other than "the wizard must die" to implement the change this way, but still.

[Calliope5431]

On a different note - looked at some of the spells from RoE, to compare with the big blasts from Ye Olde Core Rulebook (Requiescat in Pace, 2019). Only looking at zero-duration blasts for the most part.

Heaving earth: 7th, single-target, 6th level disintegrate damage but not gated behind an attack roll or a Fortitude save (basic reflex instead). Scaling is basically nonexistent, but very impressive!

Cave fangs: 3rd, AoE, fireball damage, fireball scaling. Next!

Exploding earth: 2nd, single-ish target, higher than scorching ray damage, slightly worse scaling but some of it is splash. Pretty decent.

Dehydrate: 1st, meh AoE to start but gets better, depends on how you value persistent damage but valued at roughly double normal damage it scales faster than fireball or horizon thunder sphere, getting up to higher than 5th cone of cold (7d6 persistent) at level 5 and higher than heightened chain lightning (10d6 persistent) and fireball radius at level 7. Plus some control! Very happy.

Rainbow fumarole: 8th, AoE, duration spell, averages out to 5th level cone of cold damage but awesome vibes and obscene control on some of the options. The pure damage roll is equivalent to 8th level chain lightning.

Beheading buzz saw: 7th, line, depends on how you value persistent damage but double-valued it's worth about 55.5 points, midway between chain lightning out of a 6th and chain lightning out of a 7th. Scales as fast as thunderstrike, but in a line that's a lot better.

Splinter volley: 2nd, it's wood scorching ray (blazing bolts now). Moving along.

Arrow salvo: 6th, AoE damage is roughly equal to the OG cone of cold out of a 5th. Tiny bit of control on a crit fail but it's mostly just damage. Meh.

One other thing that I do want to note. There are a LOT of reaction cantrips and other ways for casters to exploit the action economy that simply have never existed before (reaction spells that let you blow people up when they take damage, for instance). Which finally gives low-level slots on blasters a niche too.

If this is indicative of the core remaster, I'm no longer concerned. AT ALL.

[lucien pyrus]

Ectar wrote:

shroudb wrote:

it doesn't really matter if you pick a focus power that isn't damage but it's a control or support or whatever you want.

a focus spell is generally more powerful than a cantrip, being able to use 2-3 of them each combat instead of 1 is 2-3 rounds of combat that you don't have to spam cantrips.

it is a massive change regardless of the type of focus powers you pick (as long as they are good powers ofc).

I'll concede my poor wording and rephrase:

It just punishes you even harder if you take a non-damagingcombat focus spell.

Also to respond to an earlier point: Tangle Vine is exactly Tanglefoot.

I can only speak for my own tables, but generally players don't like waiting around on one person past the first 10 minute between combat break. If caster A spends 3 focus points, caster B spends 1, only one round of ooc healing is required, plus 10 minutes of shield repair work, there's a very decent chance that caster A isn't getting their full resources back anyway. In which case, we're in the same spot as before except our cantrips are worse.

A lot of these problems naturally resolve themselves over the course of a campaign:
More spells slots means less reliance on cantrips
More stuff needs doing between fights so breaks tend to become a bit longer between fights
Even in current PF2, the +stat to damage matters less and less as we get more dice.

But those problems are more prevalent at low levels, where the change to cantrips is going to feel the worst. And it's the part of the game that gets substantially the most play.

Right it does hurt non-combat focus spells. However there are only a few that spells+ focus spell are your only features to contribute to combat

Druids get enough martial ability to be in melee and especially now with the armor and shield change.

Clerics if they are warpriest now have melee. Cloistered clerics though can get kinda screwed with their domain. The font helps but doesn't fix this for them.

Bards still have inspire courage and what you can do depends on your muse. The loss of spell casting mod reduces their cantrip damage from the few damage cantrips it has but it has a ton of non-damage cantrips

Only life oracles would arguably have a less combat affecting thing but life link is still decent

Psychics may be hurt but they do start with elevated focus points

Diabolic sourcerers don't seem to get a great combat use focus spell. Draconic requires i think specific focus due to it being melee. Imperial is not really combat oriented. Nymph doesn't either. Undead is a bit situational and wyrmblessed is just another draconic.

Witches has hex cantrips that I hope get some love as well as their familiar.

Wizards we will see what the focus spells are. I hope they are mostly combat focused.

But talking about your single refocus that still gives at first level 3-5 combats where you get your focus and 1st rank spell in a combat that's unlikely to last more than 3 rounds. It does really hurt if you chose a non-combat focus spell however most classes have option that are more than spells or have focus spells that are all for combat.

We will see what cantrips are available but a 2d4 line, a 2d4 ranged with d6 melee and a 3d4 cantrip suggests that they won't be useless.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

This is the first remastered mechanic change that I don't like. It's nice having have a solid minimum of damage for a caster.

[Martialmasters]

lucien pyrus wrote:

If someone three action strikes with the third being -10 sure.

2d4 compared to 1d4+4 is less consistent but it's not anywhere near useless. Considering the cantrip we know about increases it to 1d6 for melee and we haven't seen the secondary effects on others I'm hesitant to say that 2d4 makes low level spell casters using cantrips horribly worse.

We have a cantrip already in rage of elements that does 3d4 and this one does 2d4 but has a second purpose. I don't think removal of spellcasting modifier is going to ruin low level play at all and I trust the design team.

The problem I had was that cantrips were effective enough that the spell resources players had they didn't feel compelled to use because it was working well enough.

Encouraging spending the resources you have I think is good.

Last, I'm not saying spellcasters can't do damage but the system as part of being versatile sacrifices the option to do the consistant damage of martials for the many things casters can do.

Players using all the resouces at their disposal is a good thing.

Sure 2d4 is lower average but it's not horrible. Especially against something with a weakness.

I pretty much disagree with your idea of good gameplay

[Deriven Firelion]

Karneios wrote:

Luis loza has said across places that the cap is staying, for from this specific forums you can find it here

I don't mind the cap. Fights don't usually last long enough to push the cap. And focus powers shouldn't be effectively equivalent to at will powers with a higher cap. 3 points as a maximum cap is about what you want for 99 percent of fights.

[Zakon05]

I'm just here to lend my voice to agreeing that this is a bad change on the face of it.

Spellcasters already feel quite bad to play at early levels to many players, this is changing something that nobody seemed to have an issue with.

I was hoping for buffs to the worse-performing spellcasters like Witch and Oracle, not nerfs which effect them and also the casters which are generally regarded as good classes.

I hope there's some buffs to spellcasters to go along with this, especially if the impact of those buffs are felt strongly at lower levels.

[Laclale♪]

Zakon05 wrote:

I hope there's some buffs to spellcasters to go along with this, especially if the impact of those buffs are felt strongly at lower levels.

Option

1: Low level spell or cantrip without hightened effect(beside counteract and incapaciation)
2: Better saves just like alchemist did
3: Low level Free action spellshape that does +stat(Better if as free feat), or axiomatic/anarchic spell

[Temperans]

lucien pyrus wrote:

If someone three action strikes with the third being -10 sure.

2d4 compared to 1d4+4 is less consistent but it's not anywhere near useless. Considering the cantrip we know about increases it to 1d6 for melee and we haven't seen the secondary effects on others I'm hesitant to say that 2d4 makes low level spell casters using cantrips horribly worse.

We have a cantrip already in rage of elements that does 3d4 and this one does 2d4 but has a second purpose. I don't think removal of spellcasting modifier is going to ruin low level play at all and I trust the design team.

The problem I had was that cantrips were effective enough that the spell resources players had they didn't feel compelled to use because it was working well enough.

Encouraging spending the resources you have I think is good.

Last, I'm not saying spellcasters can't do damage but the system as part of being versatile sacrifices the option to do the consistant damage of martials for the many things casters can do.

Players using all the resouces at their disposal is a good thing.

Sure 2d4 is lower average but it's not horrible. Especially against something with a weakness.

... The reason why people spammed cantrips was not because they are good. Cantrips were bad uses of actions, but they were better than just using a weapon.

No the reason why people spammed cantrips is that you literally start the game being only able to cast 2 1st level spells. At most you can only cast 4 spells per spell level. Then you have the bad chance of success and yeah no one in their right mind is going to waste one of their very limited resources on something that is just going to fizzle.

Paizo nerfed how many spells one could have from 48+ to 37. They added scaling cantrips as compensation for removing damage scalling from low level spells. Now after 4 years of asking for spell attacks to get buffed and that casters don't do enough damage, the response is... cantrips deal less damage and everything is just reworked fireball.

[AestheticDialectic]

Temperans wrote:

... The reason why people spammed cantrips was not because they are good. Cantrips were bad uses of actions, but they were better than just using a weapon.

No the reason why people spammed cantrips is that you literally start the game being only able to cast 2 1st level spells. At most you can only cast 4 spells per spell level. Then you have the bad chance of success and yeah no one in their right mind is going to waste one of their very limited resources on something that is just going to fizzle.

Paizo nerfed how many spells one could have from 48+ to 37. They added scaling cantrips as compensation for removing damage scalling from low level spells. Now after 4 years of asking for spell attacks to get buffed and that casters don't do enough damage, the response is... cantrips deal less damage and everything is just...

37 is a lot, a whole hell of a lot. Especially with staves, scrolls, wands and focus spells. Yeah levels 1 and 2, and to a lesser extent 3, have few spell slots, but those are when cantrips are pretty decent and they're still decent. Cantrips are the least important part of a caster's toolkit and there are still some very stellar spells. Cantrips doing slightly less damage is not the end of the world and we should wait for the full remaster before complaining. We don't know what is coming with this. Whether casters get an item bonus to attack rolls like kineticists or not, or whether we have more slots, or whether the increase in focus pool use makes cantrips even more obsolete to begin with. I would also be careful what you wish for. Cantrips are NOT where I want my wizard's power budget to be

[Temperans]

Eoran wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Congrats the Int based martial can now dump Int... how positive that is.

Let's get rid of Int giving trained skills while we are at it. That stat is clearly meant to be a dump stat at this point. Intelligent characters? Nope only charismatic or wise characters allowed.

This is hyperbole, yes?

You are aware that for intelligence based spellcasting the intelligence modifier would still apply to spell attack rolls and save DC.

And I would personally be fine with trading a couple points of average damage for additional effects on cantrips. I suspect that even some Magus characters would be willing to make that trade.

Its a bit of hyperbole, but honestly just look at the current state of Int.

The only Int based class that is not outright considered bad is the Investigator; and even that class gets tons of complaints about it being clunky and not having a lot of use for Int.

Yeah its still useful for DC and attack rolls, for the wizard/witch the two worst full casters in the game.

[Calliope5431]

Temperans wrote:

Paizo nerfed how many spells one could have from 48+ to 37. They added scaling cantrips as compensation for removing damage scalling from low level spells. Now after 4 years of asking for spell attacks to get buffed and that casters don't do enough damage, the response is... cantrips deal less damage and everything is just reworked fireball.

1. Needle darts deal a point more damage than pre-remaster produce flame with double the range (60 feet) at levels 1-9, at levels 10+ you shouldn't be using cantrips. This cannot be called anything a boost.

2. Everything is not reworked fireball. Falling stars would beg to differ. So would dehydration (better damage at 5th level than 5th level pre-remaster cone of cold and better damage at 7th level than 7th level pre-remaster chain lightning). Thunderstrike hits like a bus and deals roughly half again as much damage as fireball does (with much better types) by 4th or 5th level, and only gets better from there. There is a fireball-knockoff at 3rd level that deals pretty much the same damage and also SICKENS.

3. There are demonstrably new caster capabilities coming out. There are reactions that add to caster damage while not consuming on-turn damage.

4. Yes, I just referenced some Rage of Elements spells. I get it. It won't be out for a bit. But neither will the remaster. Take a deep breath, it's gonna be fine.

[AestheticDialectic]

Calliope5431 wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Paizo nerfed how many spells one could have from 48+ to 37. They added scaling cantrips as compensation for removing damage scalling from low level spells. Now after 4 years of asking for spell attacks to get buffed and that casters don't do enough damage, the response is... cantrips deal less damage and everything is just reworked fireball.

1. Needle darts deal a point more damage than pre-remaster produce flame with double the range (60 feet) at levels 1-9, at levels 10+ you shouldn't be using cantrips. This cannot be called anything a boost.

2. Everything is not reworked fireball. Falling stars would beg to differ. So would dehydration (better damage at 5th level than 5th level pre-remaster cone of cold and better damage at 7th level than 7th level pre-remaster chain lightning). Thunderstrike hits like a bus and deals roughly half again as much damage as fireball does (with much better types) by 4th or 5th level, and only gets better from there. There is a fireball-knockoff at 3rd level that deals pretty much the same damage and also SICKENS.

3. There are demonstrably new caster capabilities coming out. There are reactions that add to caster damage while not consuming on-turn damage.

4. Yes, I just referenced some Rage of Elements spells. I get it. It won't be out for a bit. But neither will the remaster. Take a deep breath, it's gonna be fine.

I'm very here for slot spells being the premier feature of casters who aren't psychics. If you don't get excited for spells that go in your spell slots, are you really at all interested in spellcasters?

[Rysky]

shroudb wrote:

either way it is, i think it's a mistake to incorporate it now, before Core 1 is released.

Preview Page wrote:

The Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project reimagines the core books for the game. Though these books release in November, Rage of Elements is fully compatible with the new rules. This preview PDF includes all the rules, spells, and tools referenced in Rage of Elements! You’ll also find an explanation of some of the changes coming in the remastered books, and advice on how you can use these in your games.

Would you rather they release already outdated rules that need to be immediately errated on release, thus doubling work involved and the invalidating the book when the Remaster rules are released in full?

[Zakon05]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

37 is a lot, a whole hell of a lot. Especially with staves, scrolls, wands and focus spells. Yeah levels 1 and 2, and to a lesser extent 3, have few spell slots, but those are when cantrips are pretty decent and they're still decent. Cantrips are the least important part of a caster's toolkit and there are still some very stellar spells. Cantrips doing slightly less damage is not the end of the world and we should wait for the full remaster before complaining. We don't know what is coming with this. Whether casters get an item bonus to attack rolls like kineticists or not, or whether we have more slots, or whether the increase in focus pool use makes cantrips even more obsolete to begin with. I would also be careful what you wish for. Cantrips are NOT where I want my wizard's power budget to be

There's parts about this I agree with and parts I don't.

Yes, we don't have the full picture yet. I think the feedback so far has been pretty reasonable as far as backlashes to unpopular changes go. I think most who contribute to these discussions know that we don't have the full picture yet.

Which is why I don't think it's a bad thing for us to be like "Hey, this change kind of sucks based on what we know right now, we really hope you all have a good reason for this"

The fact this is happening to spellcasters, which many people regard as feeling bad to play and has been a sticking point of the system for some people, just makes it worse. As does the fact it's specifically happening to spellcaster damage, where blasters are something people have noted don't work very well in PF2e (thankfully we have the Kineticist now).

I'm okay with a cantrip nerf if that power "budget" is redistributed to other parts of spellcasters.

However, that being said, I disagree that cantrips in their current form are very good. Electric Arc is obviously very good, but that's the only one that people generally regard as being a great damage cantrip.

Keep in mind that cantrips cost 2 actions and are the main source of fight contribution for dedicated spellcasters for a large portion of their character's career. Casters also have to deal with lower HP, lower defenses, and lower physical abilities to help them do things that adventurers often have to do like climb and jump.

Much is often said of lower damage being the tax for being able to stay at range, but it's not often considered that characters who do have to go into melee range have higher defenses to allow them to stay there once they've gotten in, where they now get to enjoy their huge damage.

I'm not saying martials need nerfs or anything, just that casters need to be made more exciting and satisfying to play at early levels where their selection of full spells is more limited, and this cantrip nerf definitely does not help with that.

[Pieces-Kai]

I mean I think the strength of the Kineticist isn't even that it is a blaster caster but the fact that is a magic user that puts having a theme over being tool box solutions which I would say is a weakness of the system that being trying to play to a theme for a caster it will just punish you

[AestheticDialectic]

Zakon05 wrote:

There's parts about this I agree with and parts I don't.

Yes, we don't have the full picture yet. I think the feedback so far has been pretty reasonable as far as backlashes to unpopular changes go. I think most who contribute to these discussions know that we don't have the full picture yet.

Which is why I don't think it's a bad thing for us to be like "Hey, this change kind of sucks based on what we know right now, we really hope you all have a good reason for this"

The fact this is happening to spellcasters, which many people regard as feeling bad to play and has been a sticking point of the system for some people, just makes it worse. As does the fact it's specifically happening to spellcaster damage, where blasters are something people have noted don't work very well in PF2e (thankfully we have the Kineticist now).

I'm okay with a cantrip nerf if that power "budget" is redistributed to other parts of spellcasters.

However, that being said, I disagree that cantrips in their current form are very good. Electric Arc is obviously very good, but that's the only one that people generally regard as being a great damage cantrip.

Keep in mind that cantrips cost 2...

I want to clarify something. When I said there are still some stellar spells, I meant in spell slots. I only consider cantrips *decent* and that is where they should stay. I think they're still decent and they're decent at the levels you use them at, I would say you might still use them a lot until somewhere between levels 4 and 7 maybe, beyond this point you have so many slot spells and magic items that the need for cantrips diminishes greatly. Something not brought up is that spellcasters not needing a weapon and property runes frees up their money for wands and staves, making cantrips even more obsolete. I kind of wish we could call these rank 0/level 0 spells again to emphasize where their power is supposed to be

[Squiggit]

Temperans wrote:

The only Int based class that is not outright considered bad is the Investigator

Did you mean Inventor?

Investigator is literally the worst class in the entire game and it's not even close.

[gesalt]

Squiggit wrote:

Temperans wrote:

The only Int based class that is not outright considered bad is the Investigator

Did you mean Inventor?

Investigator is literally the worst class in the entire game and it's not even close.

Yeah, at this point even I'd say alchemist is better than it unless you're desperate for a rogue adjacent character but nobody wants to play a rogue or tome thaumaturge.

[shroudb]

Rysky wrote:

shroudb wrote:

either way it is, i think it's a mistake to incorporate it now, before Core 1 is released.

Preview Page wrote:

The Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project reimagines the core books for the game. Though these books release in November, Rage of Elements is fully compatible with the new rules. This preview PDF includes all the rules, spells, and tools referenced in Rage of Elements! You’ll also find an explanation of some of the changes coming in the remastered books, and advice on how you can use these in your games.

Would you rather they release already outdated rules that need to be immediately errated on release, thus doubling work involved and the invalidating the book when the Remaster rules are released in full?

no?

making the new cantrips use the new scaling is correct.

changing the old cantrips (that deal die+stat) before core 1 is releashed is the questionable thing.

[Rysky]

shroudb wrote:

Rysky wrote:

shroudb wrote:

either way it is, i think it's a mistake to incorporate it now, before Core 1 is released.

Preview Page wrote:

The Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project reimagines the core books for the game. Though these books release in November, Rage of Elements is fully compatible with the new rules. This preview PDF includes all the rules, spells, and tools referenced in Rage of Elements! You’ll also find an explanation of some of the changes coming in the remastered books, and advice on how you can use these in your games.

Would you rather they release already outdated rules that need to be immediately errated on release, thus doubling work involved and the invalidating the book when the Remaster rules are released in full?

no?

making the new cantrips use the new scaling is correct.

changing the old cantrips (that deal die+stat) before core 1 is releashed is the questionable thing.

?

[Captain Morgan]

I think you misunderstood shroudb, Rysky. Their comment wasn't about what Paizo should do, but the player base. They said it was a mistake for the player base to try and incorporate these changes before player core is released.

[shroudb]

correct.

paizo is trapped between a rock and a hard place.

they can't release the new book with old rules, but the new rules won't be out for a few months at least.

using the "nerfed" cantrips (changing them from die+stat to 2xDie) without the actual (hopefully positive) changes from core 1 is just a bad idea that will only help to bring discontent.

so the correct decision is just using the cantrips as they are now and wait and see, even if it makes the "new" cantrips bad and not-usable in the meantime.

[The Raven Black]

Errenor wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

If the average damage for attack cantrips also goes down, it might open the door for permanent boosts to accuracy on attack spells, which is something that people have been clamoring for for a long long time.

Like, are you serious?! The reason for lesser accuracy was that casters got ahead of melee chars in damage with cantrips?! Cantrips? I hope you are trolling.

Not trolling.

It just occurred to me on another thread that the only reason I could think of for Paizo to repeatedly deny permanent accuracy boost to casters was so that casting a cantrip would deal on average less damage than a non-Fighter martial Striking twice.

Which is a good design guideline IMO.

So, to get this kind of permanent accuracy boost to attack spells that people have been clamoring for for a long long time, you would need to lower the damage of cantrips. It's just math.

So, I was wondering if that was one of the changes we would get in Remastered.

Now, if you have another theory for not having permanent accuracy boost to attack rolls that is not "Paizo hates casters / wizards", I am quite ready to change my analysis.

[Errenor]

So, numbers time!
Chances to get X damage or less for d4 cantrips. The old (caster) minimum is 5 for 1st level char and 6 for 3rd level char:
2d4 (1st level char)
2 dmg 6%
3 and less 19%
4 and less 48% !!!

3d4 (3rd level char, 1st level char for some cantrips)
3 dmg 2%
4 and less 6%
5 and less 16%

So, if all cantrips were 3d4 it would be actually ok. 6% chance to get less plus 7.5 average comparing to 6.5 old average at first level is acceptable. For 3rd level char 4d4 vs 2d4+mod is 2% to get less than old minimum and 10 vs 9 average.

[Old_Man_Robot]

The Raven Black wrote:

Not trolling.

It just occurred to me on another thread that the only reason I could think of for Paizo to repeatedly deny permanent accuracy boost to casters was so that casting a cantrip would deal on average less damage than a non-Fighter martial Striking twice.

Which is a good design guideline IMO.

So, to get this kind of permanent accuracy boost to attack spells that people have been clamoring for for a long long time, you would need to lower the damage of cantrips. It's just math.

So, I was wondering if that was one of the changes we would get in Remastered.

Now, if you have another theory for not having permanent accuracy boost to attack rolls that is not "Paizo hates casters / wizards", I am quite ready to change my analysis.

I think, at this point in time, its just a fundamental difference of opinion the balancing points of the system.

I think their opinion is incorrect. From the public statements we've got over the years, it seems like Paizo take a less holistic approach to the overall flow of gameplay than the community tries to. There just doesn't seem to be as much weight given to considerations like opportunity cost, supplemental action costs, low-level player feel, 2+ Encounter days, ubiquity of utility magic for non-casters, and general enjoyment factors.

Its almost a certainty that there will not be a general accuracy increase for Spell Attacks in the Remaster.

Given everything involved with the Kineticist, the only real block to caster accuracy seems to be an overvaluing by Paizo of versatility of spells. However spells, in general, have an awful lot of intersecting value considerations to them, these value considerations are further modified by things like your caster chassis, focus spell access, access to spell slots, spending habits of players (consumables vs permanent items).

Its a potentially a big conversation, but it seems like there is little stomach to actual have it vs just having a certain class of spell just suck more than others.

I found a post by Michael Sayre the other day, wherein he talk about the role of Shadow Signet. In it he had a statement which I think defines this whole issue

Michael Sayre wrote:

So the shadow signet essentially serves two purposes-

1) Help guide people into understanding how to play a spellcaster

2) Provide some additional support for spell attack spells if a player wants to focus on them more than the base engine of the game assumes they will.

Essentially, "the correct way to play a spell caster is not to use Spell Attacks, because we assume you will use more save based spells as you learn the system better."

Given the above is from two weeks ago, I think we fundamentally have our answer to what to expect in the Remaster.

[siegfriedliner]

It think the change is fine cantrips apart from electric arc were never great and this hasn't changed that. The changes to focus powers should be a far bigger positive for most practitioners than this is a negative.

[Errenor]

The Raven Black wrote:

Now, if you have another theory for not having permanent accuracy boost to attack rolls that is not "Paizo hates casters / wizards", I am quite ready to change my analysis.

In general I don't like guessing games (as I'm quite bad at it), and that's what it is, not really analysis.

But I looked at some damage calculator (as I assume people did a lot of times here on boards) and (re-)discovered that spell attack cantrips can't be even close to 2 attacks from non-fighter martial even with normal item bonuses to accuracy. They are 2 times less in damage. Crit effect from Produce flame included.
If you add to that True strike (plus item bonuses) - yes, then they become equal at 3,7,11,17 and more at 19,20 (though I suspect I haven't included something at high levels to martial damage), and still less at all other levels. I can't remotely see this as a problem: 3 actions and a slot/item use on a cantrip is not very impressive.
P.S. I've even compared spell attack cantrips with normal item bonuses to accuracy to non-flurry non-propulsive shortbow 2 attacks: they are close up to level 3 and then 2 ranged attacks are always more.

[Pieces-Kai]

I wonder if making cantrips one action would be fine now since they are weaker

[Laclale♪]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Essentially, "the correct way to play a spell caster is not to use Spell Attacks, because we assume you will use more save based spells as you learn the system better."

Given the above is from two weeks ago, I think we fundamentally have our answer to what to expect in the Remaster.

But DC is still...

[Arcaian]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Essentially, "the correct way to play a spell caster is not to use Spell Attacks, because we assume you will use more save based spells as you learn the system better."

Given the above is from two weeks ago, I think we fundamentally have our answer to what to expect in the Remaster.

I think that's a very uncharitable reading of Sayre's post. They're saying that the expectation for casters in the system is that they're trying to target weak defences, he's not saying anything about not using spell attacks. When he says 'focus on [spell attacks] more than the base engine of the game assumed they will', that means that there is the expectation that these spells are appropriate in some situations, but the Shadow Signet ring expands those situations. That's very explicitly the opposite of your takeaway of 'never use spell attacks'.

Spellcasters are balanced around having a variety of defences to target, and trying to selectively target those - I don't think that's a surprise to people who are focusing heavily on the impacts of these changes. There are valid questions about that balancing, with table variation making it harder to know the defence to target (hopefully the Remaster's new Recall Knowledge helps there), and with this expectation not being fully communicated to all players/not being as easy to live up to for all classes. I think it's one of the hidden advantages of the Arcane list - the rest of the lists mostly struggle to easily target all defences. But if you view spell attack rolls as something that you use when the situation is appropriate, they do work well - AC can be debuffed more heavily than saving throws, and it can very easily end up the appropriate defence to target. That's what Sayre is saying there - Shadow Signet teaches you to think about enemy weaknesses, and to try and target your spells specifically for those weaknesses.

[Blave]

siegfriedliner wrote:

The changes to focus powers should be a far bigger positive for most practitioners than this is a negative.

The change is largely irrelevant for many characters. There a VERY limited amount of classes that can start with 2 focus spells/points at level 1 and (if things stay as they are) barely any class actually gets additional focus spell/points unless they spend feats on them.

The new wizard school gets the old enchantment power charming words with a few usability buffs and a new name. It's not worthless but hardly something that makes up for weakened cantrips, especially since you're stuck with one cast per combat until at least level 8.

And there's plenty of (sub)classes that have much worse or at least more situational focus spells. So a minor buff to refocusing is really not a good argument to balance out lowering the power of spells - IF that is something that will actually happen.

[YuriP]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Its a potentially a big conversation, but it seems like there is little stomach to actual have it vs just having a certain class of spell just suck more than others.

I found a post by Michael Sayre the other day, wherein he talk about the role of Shadow Signet. In it he had a statement which I think defines this whole issue

Michael Sayre wrote:
So the shadow signet essentially serves two purposes-
1) Help guide people into understanding how to play a spellcaster
2) Provide some additional support for spell attack spells if a player wants to focus on them more than the base engine of the game assumes they will.
Essentially, "the correct way to play a spell caster is not to use Spell Attacks, because we assume you will use more save based spells as you learn the system better."

Given the above is from two weeks ago, I think we fundamentally have our answer to what to expect in the Remaster.

Old_Man_Robot, I think it's worth a criticism here that this quote needs to be better contextualized.

That was Michael's response in a situation where people were advocating that the Attenuators would be the Kineticist's equivalent of the Shadow Signet.

In this Michael argued that no, that the idea of the Shadow Signet is to provide a middle ground to allow spellcasting players to exploit the idea that they can benefit from the weaknesses of monsters and that in practice the Shadow Signet is not even mandatory because supposedly if you have good magical versatility you can meet this demand by choosing spells that exploit different weaknesses.

The important points he points out to me here is that attack spells are not the focus of spellcasters, something quite obvious to anyone who has played with one and that he sees versatility as the main tool of spellcasters and that it would be exploiting it where casters would benefit [and supposedly even out with kineticist and non-casters].

I personally don't agree with this view and I think they overvalue this aspect that in my experience as a GM and player, especially at low levels, it's not that useful.

And they know that, but I don't think they've taken it well until now. The fact that many players don't think that reducing spellcasters to a magical toolbox that tries to have the right tool for the right job is something interesting and fun, the truth is that many players would like what a spellcaster was actually capable of of commanding reality to its bell pleasure after much study and/or effort in impressive, devastating and even trivializing ways over worldly difficulties.

And the most curious part of all this is that the one who ends up proposing to meet this demand is precisely the kineticist, who is presented as the one who dominates one or more elements so that they mold themselves to his will in an impressive, devastating and even trivializing and this is indeed reflected in Impulses.

In other words, as long as designers keep this mentality that spellcasters are mere boxes of magical tools that are there to help solve problems and exploit weaknesses, we will continue to have all these complaints about nerfs and questionable efficiency of magical classes in the game.

[Laclale♪]

Pieces-Kai wrote:

I wonder if making cantrips one action would be fine now since they are weaker

Same so 1 action spellshape is acceptable also

[Errenor]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

I think their opinion is incorrect. From the public statements we've got over the years, it seems like Paizo take a less holistic approach to the overall flow of gameplay than the community tries to. There just doesn't seem to be as much weight given to considerations like opportunity cost, supplemental action costs, low-level player feel, 2+ Encounter days, ubiquity of utility magic for non-casters, and general enjoyment factors.

Oh, yes. And an extreme overvaluing of 'coolness' and themes.

For example, Silent Whisper giving Mindlink at 1st level as one of the 2 known spells with 1 spell slot. Cool? Oh yes, touch telepathy! Thematic? Extremely! Useful at least a little bit? Not a chance in hell in all games ever!
These types of abilities must be given 'for free' and in addition to generally useful things, not instead of them. (No, known spells from minds/bloodlines/schools/domains are not 'in addition', they are the base.)
And cases like this are overwhelmingly common throughout the game :(

Arcaian wrote:

Spellcasters are balanced around having a variety of defences to target, and trying to selectively target those - I don't think that's a surprise to people who are focusing heavily on the impacts of these changes. There are valid questions about that balancing, with table variation making it harder to know the defence to target (hopefully the Remaster's new Recall Knowledge helps there), and with this expectation not being fully communicated to all players/not being as easy to live up to for all classes. I think it's one of the hidden advantages of the Arcane list - the rest of the lists mostly struggle to easily target all defences.

You yourself list most reasons why this 'target weak defences' concept just doesn't work. It could work only with full information and limitless resources with full attack targets variability all the time. But you have like about 6 valid spells per day and not all traditions can meaningfully target all saves. This monster has weak Will, but how would this help if I'm Primal? Nice, weak Fort! Oh, I don't have Fort save spells anymore because the 2 I had are already spent?

[shroudb]

Laclale♪ wrote:

Pieces-Kai wrote:

I wonder if making cantrips one action would be fine now since they are weaker

Same so 1 action spellshape is acceptable also

To quickly answer that : no

Even without any other enhancements, spamming 6d4 damage on two targets at level 1, with save base, would not be OK.

[Martialmasters]

I've seen first hand the difference between a player who leans into the caster's strengths vs just throwing fire spells.

Witch vs druid

Levels 1-10

The witch, at every turn, was the MVP of nearly every moderate or higher threat encounter.

The druid, occasionally, had good power moments, but just as many bad ones.

The issue is, people want what the druid player is doing to be the way a caster plays

But, despite comments about willingly losing versatility for it to function, I am very doubtful that people will agree with how much they will lose.

In the end, I disagree that the versatility is over valued by paizo

It's under valued by many players though

Edit: this didn't even begin to touch the ooc power the witch had that the druid gave up on in favor of more fire spells

[gesalt]

Martialmasters wrote:

I've seen first hand the difference between a player who leans into the caster's strengths vs just throwing fire spells.

Witch vs druid

Levels 1-10

The witch, at every turn, was the MVP of nearly every moderate or higher threat encounter.

The druid, occasionally, had good power moments, but just as many bad ones.

The issue is, people want what the druid player is doing to be the way a caster plays

But, despite comments about willingly losing versatility for it to function, I am very doubtful that people will agree with how much they will lose.

In the end, I disagree that the versatility is over valued by paizo

It's under valued by many players though

Edit: this didn't even begin to touch the ooc power the witch had that the druid gave up on in favor of more fire spells

And how many different spells did the witch wind up using? Because in my experience it's always the same dozen or so spells 1-20 with the occasional supplemental scroll. The same tired buffs and debuffs that have been carrying the entire spellcaster playstyle since the system launched. I wouldn't call that versatility either. It's just that pigeonholing yourself into hard support is a stronger playstyle than pigeonholing yourself into blasting.

[Unicore]

You aren’t pigeonholing yourself by having a mix of spells. Some damage spells (targeting a variety of defenses), some buffs, some debuffs. At low levels, it is hard to have all of these options. By level 5 most casters can have most of these covered even still while having a slight focus, but pathfinder creatures are interesting because it is not uncommon for there to be a 5 point swing between a high defense and a low one. You don’t “win” as a team (much less as a caster), by pigeonholing yourself into attacking the high defense just because you have a +1 or 2 while doing so.

I do hope the remastery makes it easier and more clear that casters should be able to figure out how to do this with recalling knowledge.

[YuriP]

I also didn't saw these versatility shining in my games. It's not uncommon for my players to try to RK to see what they can use but end in a "OK, there's nothing really useful here". The only full casters who said that they get a good experience was a Bard that liked the supportive from composite spells + healing + sometimes cast some offensive spell when he judges that would help to kill someone that needs to be killed more faster. Another player tried a Tempest Druid buy don't like the experience they said that he feels weak even with all the party being grateful from his healings and sometimes exploiting some weakness (but this was pretty rare) and then change to an Elemental Sorcerer that he only said that the experience becomes good after level 10 when he gets elemental blast and a good amount of spellslots.

In general the spellcasting experience strongly depends from other class abilities like the available focus spells, blood magic, amps... and like happens since D&D 3.5 only really becomes and it only becomes really satisfying after level 10.

[Unicore]

Recalling knowledge, succeeding. And finding nothing useful should not be possible. The very definition of a successful recalling of knowledge is that you learn something useful. Even if the GM finds nothing mechanical (which really shouldn’t be possible either), helping the players figure out what the creature is trying to do in the encounter and what will stop it should be the information you (as GM) are striving to feed to your players. If, as a GM, none of your encounters have meaning for for the NPCs beyond “they want to fight and win, the party can stop them by fighting better,” you are setting yourself up for a pretty disappointing campaign.

[Ravingdork]

Luke Styer wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

You heavily depend on cantrips for the first 3 to 5 levels or so where it is very easy tor run of spells.

This is where a negative impact will be felt, as cantrip damage becomes less reliable and more swingy.

Which is literally every single game that doesn't stat at high levels.

Not a great marketing move by Paizo to add a "doesn't feel good" element to nearly every game.

[Rub-Eta]

I can't believe there's a thread this long about how some (one?) cantrip(s) in the preview document have been changed from having 1d4 + caster stat to 2d4 damage; which would be a difference of 1.5 points of damage on average for a caster with a starting modifier of 4 and ~0.5 if you didn't start with a maxed casting stat.

But to be fair, I guess the thread's length isn't because of that.

Quote:

Is there a particular reason for this?

Unification and standardization of spell damage, without randomly sprinkling in extra modifiers on a spell-by-spell basis could be a (very good) reason.

Also the game would punish players less for not min-maxing caster stats.

[Ravingdork]

BookBird wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I wonder how many folks lamenting this change will be alright with it if most casters have a low level feat that lets them add an attribute to their spell damage rolls, not limited just to cantrips? That seems like the kind of thing people will get really excited about because it will apply to focus spells and spell slot spells too, and be seen as a boost for the ability of casters to take on blasting. It would limit the utility of people grabbing damaging cantrips with ancestry feats but I could see that being an intentional shift as well.

Honestly, this kinda seems like it'd be a feat tax, and casters already don't get class feats at level 1. It'd be pretty hard to justify getting anything else at it's level.

Yeah, going from not having any good feats to not having any good feats and having to buy a feat tax seems like it would just be a second punch to the gut, pouring salt into the wound, yet another step backwards.