| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe this is because martial proficiencies are designed to keep pace with enemy AC whereas caster proficiencies are designed to keep pace with enemy saves. Monsters are generally supposed to have at least one low save, per the monster creation rules and AC advances faster generally.
Now this results in spells that target AC generally being weaker, since very few creatures have low AC and your proficiencies are lagging.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe this is because martial proficiencies are designed to keep pace with enemy AC whereas caster proficiencies are designed to keep pace with enemy saves. Monsters are generally supposed to have at least one low save, per the monster creation rules and AC advances faster generally.
That doesn't really feel like an answer though because all of these are designed systems. So caster scaling might match save scaling, but save scaling only scales that way because Paizo created that too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you certain that what you want is for every choice in the game to have exactly the same impact?
Are you certain that what you want is for every choice in the game to have exactly the same impact?
Post in the wrong thread?
Are you certain that what you want is for every choice in the game to have exactly the same impact?Post in the wrong thread?
It's the correct thread
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 3rd level spells that casters gain access to at 5th level are traditionally a major upgrade (your actual mileage will vary, of course): Presumably, they decided the proficiency boost could wait a little bit to keep your power progression from being too spiky...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you certain that what you want is for every choice in the game to have exactly the same impact?Post in the wrong thread?
No.
It seems like some are proposing that all proficiencies and defenses should scale at the exact same rate. Which would make there be no meaningful difference between them.
Spell attack proficiency of spellcasting classes should increase at the same time as weapon proficiency for martial classes. And then in order to keep things balanced, 3rd rank spells should do the same damage as two Strike actions. And saving throws shouldn't do half damage if the target saves. Things like that. Because apparently it is not of benefit to the game to have different classes have different strengths, or have their strengths come available at different levels.
The game rules could certainly be developed in this manner. But would people actually enjoy playing it?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Setting aside that you're extrapolating a ton of things no one in this thread has actually said:
It seems like some are proposing that all proficiencies and defenses should scale at the exact same rate.
That's not correct. OP is asking about a specific disparity that exists and whether it's inherently good for the game. The simple fact that it's different is not a virtue. Unless you think it is?
Which would make there be no meaningful difference between them.
How much value do you put in this? Does simply having a "meaningful difference" creates inherent value? I'm asking, not trying to put words in your mouth.
Would Pathfinder be a better game if Barbarians got martial weapons at 6 or 8 instead of 5? That would make them more different than other martials, after all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I am also simply asking the question. Noticing the difference in proficiency level gain and discussing it is a worthwhile activity.
A simple change of giving the spellcasting proficiency increase earlier without changing anything else would affect a lot of other areas. Spells often do area effects or otherwise impact multiple targets. Save values are different than Armor Class values. Basic Save results deal half damage when the target succeeds at the save, but Strike does not do partial damage if the attack roll does not exceed AC. There are many differences between martial weapon attacks and casting spells.
So if we are not considering changing proficiency increase level without adjusting other aspects of spellcaster characters, and we are wanting to make the spellcaster characters more similar to martial characters - is that what is actually desired? Do we want to make spellcaster characters more similar to martial characters in many aspects?
Is gaining Expert proficiency earlier something that people are willing to pay for in other aspects of their spellcaster characters? Perhaps a class archetype that gives the proficiency increases at the same rate as a martial character, but limits the selection of spells available to ones that generally only do damage and single round effects. The character idea being that instead of a general spellcaster, this spellcasting character focuses on combat - dealing damage with spells with great accuracy, but struggles to do other things that spellcasters typically do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what do you think it achieves and why did the developers put it in.
Given 5 and 6 are already not great levels for casters I would prefer a smoother progression.
I think that you should choose whether you are asking a question and seeking an answer, or whether you are phrasing a complaint in the form of a question.
The only way to have easily verifiable balance between options is if those options are only superficially different.
The reason there's a difference is alluded to above; the casters are getting 3rd rank spells. Meanwhile, the martials already had their damage bump w/ 2dX weapon a few levels earlier, so their bump is in accuracy (and Weapon Specialization effects for most).
This is about more than two proficiency tracks, but two sets of effects scaling alongside. (Actually more since many martials rely on non-weapon damage increases too, but those tend to align w/ weapon bumps. Plus the four types of magic vary in effect too.) To compare martials vs. casters, one must compare (proficiency + effect) vs. (proficiency + effect). If looking at only one side, one may as well ask why do casters get such good AoEs at 5th while martials don't. (And I think 4th ed showed many of us that such "balance" gets quite bland.)
As for why most casters get Legendary unless paid handsomely in other ways, it's because they're casting many of the same spells, aka getting the same effects out of them. Any difference in casting proficiency would be too noteworthy. Heck, the Fighter dominates because of their proficiency advantage, even though other classes get better base damage (et al), or defense in the case of Champions.
This resembles how people compare Spell Attacks to Attacks w/o noting how the effects of non-Cantrip Spell Attacks are superior (albeit limited in quantity, another factor in PF2's complex web).
If casters have their progression because of spell rank progression, what does that mean for kineticist having it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It probably means that they took this balance trade.
gives the proficiency increases at the same rate as a martial character, but limits the selection of spells available to ones that generally only do damage and single round effects. The character idea being that instead of a general spellcaster, this spellcasting character focuses on combat - dealing damage with spells with great accuracy, but struggles to do other things that spellcasters typically do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monster numbers are relevant to this conversation but in tricky ways for players to see. The general monster number guidelines see AC increase by 2 every even level and by 1 at every odd level. Saves go up significantly slower. At level 1 a high save as a DC is 4 higher than AC. By level 20 that drops to 1. A low save starts out 2 lower and ends up at 5.
Thus while targeting a low save remains 6 lower than tarting a high save the whole game, at level 1, even a medium save is higher than AC, so getting creatures to fail saves is generally more difficult. By higher levels, targeting a medium or lower save is better than targeting AC *
Side note: some times AC is the low defense, and sometimes individual creatures deviate from the general numbers. Collectively, most creatures do have a save significantly easier to target than AC, and this increases in likelihood at higher levels. Debuffing AC is easier too, but debuffing it lower than a low save requires more than just flanking by level 2.
Long story short, casters can debuff an enemy by 6 points just by targeting the low save instead of the high save. At level 1 martials have no accuracy bonuses near to counter that so saves are higher and AC lower. At low level, casters targeting a flat-footed enemy’s AC are pretty much targeting a low save. Interestingly enough, cantrips lean towards targeting AC. At higher rank, spells target saves much more frequently. Meanwhile saves fall behind AC as a defense.
There are numbers moving across 4 planes when looking at the math of attacking creatures. There is attack accuracy, damage, defender’s defense, and HP/resistances/weaknesses. Sometimes the numbers move where the players don’t see them. All of this is to make casting and martial attacks different from each other. Martials have many less options for changing the answers to the questions:
Can I get more accurate? Can I target a weaker defense? Can I increase my damage on this attack? Can I bypass a resistance or trigger a weakness with one of my damage types?
Yeah, I think the useful comparison is not "average saves" but "targeting the lowest save" since casters get to do that.
With rare exceptions monsters are supposed to have one low save, which by the creature building rules increases by 2 at 4th, 6th, 9th, 11th, 14th, 16th, 19th, 21st, and 24th. Meanwhile moderate AC increases by 2 every other level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
There are numbers moving across 4 planes when looking at the math of attacking creatures. There is attack accuracy, damage, defender’s defense, and HP/resistances/weaknesses. Sometimes the numbers move where the players don’t see them. All of this is to make casting and martial attacks different from each other. Martials have many less options for changing the answers to the questions:
...
Good analysis.
I'd argue that there is a 5th dimension to consider here — the number of targets (or more precisely something along the lines of the numbers of targets per action). Casters generally have more options for affecting larger numbers of opponents than martials do, and that can result in equal or more overall damage for the casters even if they have a lower probability of affecting any individual opponent than a martial does.
|
It's also worth noting that casters, unlike martials, don't get item bonuses to saves or to spell attacks. What this means is that there's actually a wider gulf from level 13 to level 14 (where martials have master weapon prof and casters still have expert) because you also have to factor in the +2 from weapon potency.
What's really interesting though is here are the average save bonuses for bestiary monsters, level 4-7, and also level 12-15 (these are averages web scraped from AON for bestiaries 1-3).
I also added the expected save DCs for casters (with 18 in their primary casting stat at levels 4-7 and a 20 in their primary casting stat at levels 12-15). I've also put in what the monster needs to save vs. the caster's DC:
Level 4: Fort +11, Reflex +11, Will +10, caster DC 20. Saves on a 9 (Fort), 9 (Reflex), 10 (Will)
Level 5: Fort +13, Reflex +12, Will +11, caster DC 21. Saves on an 8 (Fort), 9 (Reflex), 10 (Will)
Level 6: Fort +15, Reflex +14, Will +13, caster DC 22. Saves on a 7 (Fort), 8 (Reflex), 9 (Will)
Level 7: Fort +15, Reflex +15, Will +14, caster DC 25. Saves on a 10 (Fort), 10 (Reflex), 11 (Will)Level 12: Fort +23, Reflex +21, Will +21, caster DC 31. Saves on a 9 (Fort), 11 (Reflex), 11 (Will)
Level 13: Fort +24, Reflex +22, Will +23, caster DC 32. Saves on an 8 (Fort), 10 (Reflex), 9 (Will)
Level 14: Fort +26, Reflex +24, Will +25, caster DC 33. Saves on a 7 (Fort), 9 (Reflex), 8 (Will)
Level 15: Fort +27, Reflex +25, Will +27, caster DC 36. Saves on a 9 (Fort), 11 (Reflex), 9 (Will)That means that monsters are always succeeding at least 50% of the time, and often more like 60% of the time.
Compare this to (non-fighter, so ranger/rogue/barbarian/monk) martial to-hit vs. ACs
Monster ACs and martial to-hits (18 in attack stat at levels 4-7, 20 at levels 12-15). Assuming +1 potency rune at levels 4-7, +2 potency rune at levels 12-15:
Level 4: +11 vs. AC 21, hits on a 10
Level 5: +14 vs. AC 22, hits on an 8
Level 6: +15 vs. AC 24, hits on a 9
Level 7: +16 vs. AC...
Pulling the collective averages for saves is a bit disingenuous, because in the majority of cases one of the saves is an outlier, either decently higher or lower than the others. So, theoretically, a caster could target the lowest save. If that's the kind of information the GM gives them on a successful recall knowledge.
In my personal experience, I usually end up getting "the most well-known bit of trivia" about the monster on a success, which is virtually never the monster's lowest save. But there's probably some table variance there.However, I do think your point about magic weapons poignant, because it exacerbates the issues with slower caster proficiency.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except its way easier to debuff AC then it is to a debuff a save so its not really the same at all. Flanking is super easy to get, prone is easy as althletics bonus scales better than spell save DC or attack roll and can get prof bonuses.
Choosing lowest save involves either extensive knowledge of the bestiary, a good RK roll (doesn't happen much at lower levels very easy to fail), a lucky guess and having a useful spell prepared for that situation that target's that save. Its not a good balance trade off at all.
Yes, at very low levels, it is true that debuffing AC and attacking it as a dense is often equal or better to attacking a low save. This is part of why AC targeting cantrips are not bad for low level casters.
Level 8 is really where that stops being true, which probably exemplifies why levels 5 and 6 feel rough on caster’s currently, since martials have now gotten +3 to attacks without the caster feeling like they have gotten the same.
The thing is, most casters struggle to have enough spells to feel like they can really target a wide array of saves with effective spells at very low levels. A level 1 wizard might have daze and/or fear for targeting will, and is far more likely to be trying to figure out if AC or reflex is the better defense to target. By level 5, they should reliably have enough slots to have at least one more defense to target more than 1 time per day. I am curious about how all of this will change or be reinforced in the remastery. The shadow signage ring doesn’t become reliably better to use than targeting a flat footed AC until level 10, so it could be a little trappy to offer it earlier, but I wonder how many players of casters feel like their character’s reliably have options for targeting 3 out of 4 defenses by level 5?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, at very low levels, it is true that debuffing AC and attacking it as a dense is often equal or better to attacking a low save. This is part of why AC targeting cantrips are not bad for low level casters.
Total ability to improve chance of enemy failing a save: +5 (status penalty, caps at a wildly unrealistic frightened 5)
Total ability to improve an attack vs AC: +12 (heroism, synesthesia, aid, flatfooted). +14 for that unrealistic frightened 5.
It's actually the opposite. Targeting a low save is best at lower levels while at higher levels you can achieve a truly filthy attack bonus. You can even reach +8 without expending anything other than focus points depending on party builds (aid, flatfooted, lingering dirge, lingering inspire or marshal aura).
Saves on the other hand have a practical stop at +3 to targeting ref off of Synesthesia, +2 to will from bon mot and +2 to fort from Polar Ray.
|
Yes, at very low levels, it is true that debuffing AC and attacking it as a dense is often equal or better to attacking a low save. This is part of why AC targeting cantrips are not bad for low level casters.Total ability to improve chance of enemy failing a save: +5 (status penalty, caps at a wildly unrealistic frightened 5)
Total ability to improve an attack vs AC: +12 (heroism, synesthesia, aid, flatfooted). +14 for that unrealistic frightened 5.
It's actually the opposite. Targeting a low save is best at lower levels while at higher levels you can achieve a truly filthy attack bonus. You can even reach +8 without expending anything other than focus points depending on party builds (aid, flatfooted, lingering dirge, lingering inspire or marshal aura).
Saves on the other hand have a practical stop at +3 to targeting ref off of Synesthesia, +2 to will from bon mot and +2 to fort from Polar Ray.
Shouldn't that make spell attacks OP ?
Because many people seem to think they are pretty bad.
|
|
Setting aside that you're extrapolating a ton of things no one in this thread has actually said:
It seems like some are proposing that all proficiencies and defenses should scale at the exact same rate.That's not correct. OP is asking about a specific disparity that exists and whether it's inherently good for the game. The simple fact that it's different is not a virtue. Unless you think it is?
Which would make there be no meaningful difference between them.How much value do you put in this? Does simply having a "meaningful difference" creates inherent value? I'm asking, not trying to put words in your mouth.
Would Pathfinder be a better game if Barbarians got martial weapons at 6 or 8 instead of 5? That would make them more different than other martials, after all.
TBT I have seen many posters on the boards explaining the failure of 5e by the differences between classes being inexistent. As in you reached the same result whether being a Fighter or a Wizard or whatever.
Which apparently made people feel they were all playing the same character, just with a different paint coat.
I can see how avoiding this could be a valuable design goal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caster save abilities all do something on a successful save.
I am not arguing that casters shouldn’t use attack roll spells. In fact I think they are heavily underutilized in boss fights when the whole party is focused on debuffing AC.
But against multiple foes, debuffing can be a waste of actions, especially with AoE abilities that do damage and potentially debuff or battlefield control at the same time. The boon of casting is having the resources to exploit the situation at hand. It is how the spell casting system was designed.
There is also another factor that is not taken into account for the math done by Calliope.
When targeting a save you still do half damage on a success. So taking the above math from Calliope, while the creature saves on a 8 or higher, they are still taking half damage on anything below an 18, where a martial gets nothing on a miss.
This is a similar problem with the Alchemist. Alchemist feels bad because you miss a lot, but with the splash damage even on a miss, you are actually doing very similar damage as any other martial.
If feels bad for everyone to save on your spell but you are still doing better than the martial who rolled poorly on their first attack and have just "wasted" their whole turn.