Expansive Spellstrike proposed homebrew rule change

[Kay9Cop]

Expansive Spellstrike allows taking three actions (strike plus cast a two-action spell) for two actions, but decouples the damage from the attack roll and allows the target(s) a saving throw. The second part is what I don't like and I feel it doesn't align with the normal Spellstrike coupling the attack roll with the spell damage.

Here is my proposed homebrew rule change. The damage portion of the spell cast with Expansive Spellstrike will couple with the attack roll against the initial target of the strike, as if it were a normal Spellstrike. Any additional effects from the spell that might affect the initial target will be adjudicated by a saving throw. Any additional targets from an AoE spell will have their damage and affects adjudicated by a saving throw, as is the current way with Expansive Spellstrike. So, the only change is linking damage with the attack roll against the target of the strike.

Example: Magus uses Expansive Spellstrike and casts Polar Ray / Arctic Rift against three creatures in a line. Under the proposed rule, the Magus rolls an attack roll to hit against creature #1 and critically succeeds. Creature #1 takes 12d8 x 2 spell damage plus the appropriate double weapon damage. Creature #1 also rolls a fortitude save and succeeds, so it gets no slowed condition. The next two creatures in line roll fortitude saves and fail, so take 12d8 and are slowed 1.

Thoughts? It doesn't seem too overpowered and seems more in line with normal Spellstrike, but I might be missing something.

[YuriP]

It's OK IMO. But we need to remember that Expansive Spellstrike usually requires 2 checks because different creatures have different saves. So a big monster probably will have a pretty high fortitude and the official Expansive Spellstrike respects this when you choose a spell that requires a fortitude save.

That said I don't really expect that change the damage result to attack will break the game (in fact is pretty hard to break PF2 with homebrews) but once that you are trying to do this why not to apply the entire effect with the attack roll vs the primary target? This will reduce one additional roll and simplifies. Separate the damage from the rest of the effect overcomplicate the effect for you and your players and also can create some strangeness. Like for example you missing an Arctic Rift but applying only its slow effect because the creature failures it save.

[Ascalaphus]

I don't think this house rule is really harmful or anything. But personally I like the standard rule more.

* Generally as magus your to-hit is better than your save DC. The proficiency goes up faster, it's linked to your key stat, and benefits from weapon item bonuses and off-guard and such things.

* However, sometimes you care more about doing just a bit of damage even on a missed attack, maybe you want to trigger a weakness for example.

* This won't fully standardize things anyway, because you could also use spells that don't do any damage at all, like Slow.

[Loreguard]

If I am understanding correctly, taking any damage and decoupling it from any subsequent spell save by the target, and having it based on the 'strike' (i.e. inverse result of the strike CS =CF, S=F, for example). While this sort of makes sense and for damage only spells might simplify things. However things that do damage plus effect this could get really confusing.

I rolled a regular success on the strike, so I do regular failed damage for the spell... but for the spell's extra effects, I have to have them roll a save. And say they get the Crit Fail on the save. Now they took normal weapon damage, and normal spell damage, but critical failure effect. Or they critical on their weapon strike, and do critical spell damage, but the accompanying effects expected to go with the spell's damage, they make their save, so they take the damage, but get no effects from the damage that are supposed to be part of the spell.

Honestly, I'd be more willing to consider the spell's DC to be benefiting against the target of the SpellStrike as if it were boosted by an AID action. (on a successful strike, boost the DC of your SpellStriked spell by 1, or +2, +3, or +4 based on the spellcasting Rank)

It would trade the coupling of the spell to a weapon strike, to a gain a bit of bonus to the DC, which seems like a very viable trade.