I don't have a good track record for making topics like this but I'm going to give it a shot. Something that has been nagging at me for a while now is the lack of support for effects that target saving throws. I'm wondering if I'm in the minority as I see more people complaining about how bad caster attack spells are, whereas I feel they are more reliable than saves some of the time.
The good parts about saving throws are that you might be able to target a creatures worst save, and sometimes that can be significant. That, and some smaller effects on an enemy saving.
The bad parts about saving throws are, imo, more numerous.
Firstly is access to saves that can target all saving throws; casters like druids have a couple options but not much. Some kineticists are poo out of luck if they come up against a high reflex enemy.
Second and probably my biggest gripe is the lack of bonuses and penalties. Attack rolls have easyish access in most cases to item bonuses (not so much for casters, but they do get shadow signet which is a whole other thing), status bonuses, and circumstance bonuses (aid mostly). Likewise, penalties to AC via status and circumstance are also easy to come by. Hell, attack rolls have things like sure strike and hero points. The only thing that saves have is status penalties, and extremely rarely circumstance (I think maybe only catfolk dance). So while an attack rolls can have massive numerical swings with things like heroism, flanking, aid, fury cocktail, frightened and a hero point, saves have status penalties and that's about it.
Thirdly is that creatures themselves often play around with established rules saves are loosely built around. Some have overtuned saves straight up. Others have straight up bonuses vs magic, or immunities to things like fear or mental and a low will save which is nearly every will save. Some enemies might have evasion or similar ability too.
That's the end of my rant, but mostly I'm curious as to what others think. Is targeting a weaker save as an option and half effects on an enemy saving enough to balance out saving throw effects? Should the game implement more support for saving throw effects like sf2e's get em?
I'll just give each paragraph a number to make the analysis easier
1) well, got to try to figure things out, but the 'more reliable' then saves is something few will agree, partially because on a save spell you still get effect on a miss
2) that is *exactly* what you are supposed to do and what recall knowledge checks are premier for, finding which save to target and then - boom
3) another problem 'fixed' with a successful recall knowledge
4) strengths and weaknesses of the spell lists - and I guess bad luck for kineticists, but they still have an attack more reliable then casters
5) that is by design, there are monsters with a difference of 6 between the different saving throws (possibly more, those were found with a spontaneous find) and saving throws can on top be weakened with conditions (the easiest being fear, but many others possible like clumsy, drained, stupefied) if you *then* still put boni on top it gets wild
5.1) hero points are a bit lackluster in base variation, since it can vastly vary how generous gms are with those and they are an emergency survival option I wouldnt *exactly) count them
6) and some enemies have physical resistance and you dont hear martials bringing that up every discussion :P
balance can be wonky but its the job of the gm to adjust on the fly should it be to extreme - and of course, when you know the course of a campaign choosing your spells wisely goes a long way
7) good rant, I hope my points make sense to you
you will surely get limited agreement from some people, but I also think I have covered many of the counterarguments already
I don't have a good track record for making topics like this but I'm going to give it a shot. Something that has been nagging at me for a while now is the lack of support for effects that target saving throws. I'm wondering if I'm in the minority as I see more people complaining about how bad caster attack spells are, whereas I feel they are more reliable than saves some of the time.
Mathematically speaking this is very rarely true. Spell attacks lag behind most of the game, and lag behind hard at some levels. At level 13 they are -4 vs a martial attack roll (-6 for a Fighter/Gunslinger) and there's just no making up that gap in this system since extremely few of them can benefit from things like Flanking.
Firstly is access to saves that can target all saving throws; casters like druids have a couple options but not much. Some kineticists are poo out of luck if they come up against a high reflex enemy.
I agree with this. Some spell lists are heavy on certain saves vs others, especially within certain level bands. People say "just use the right save", but its not like you're going to always have an appropriate spell that can target every save available. Especially later in an adventuring day when you've used a bunch of spells.
Second and probably my biggest gripe is the lack of bonuses and penalties. Attack rolls have easyish access in most cases to item bonuses (not so much for casters, but they do get shadow signet which is a whole other thing), status bonuses, and circumstance bonuses (aid mostly). Likewise, penalties to AC via status and circumstance are also easy to come by. Hell, attack rolls have things like sure strike and hero points. The only thing that saves have is status penalties, and extremely rarely circumstance (I think maybe only catfolk dance). So while an attack rolls can have massive numerical swings with things like heroism, flanking, aid, fury cocktail, frightened and a hero point, saves have status penalties and that's about it.
I somewhat agree with this. There's fewer things you can do to buff save things than attack spells, in particular the lack of ally buffs. No courageous anthem, no heroism, etc. That stuff just doesn't work.
So there's a bunch of cool parts of the system that casters only get to interact with in one direction: giving buffs to the martials. They can't give buffs to other casters in the same way.
(Debuffs are in a better spot since quite a few do work.)
Thirdly is that creatures themselves often play around with established rules saves are loosely built around. Some have overtuned saves straight up. Others have straight up bonuses vs magic, or immunities to things like fear or mental and a low will save which is nearly every will save. Some enemies might have evasion or similar ability too.
This doesn't bother me since the most egregous offenders like golems going "nah, casters can sit this out unless you have the one specific thing" aren't really a thing anymore. Some enemies have more resistence, but others have less, most save spells tend to do something on a success, so there's usually something you can do.
Having some variety here isn't a bad thing, really.
Some good points being made already. Recall knowledge to figure out a weakness or low save can definitely be a big help, of course. I'm making the assumption that parties figure out an enemies lowest save or weakness, and yeah in some cases being able to target that low save can make a huge difference. Maybe it's that I'm much more of a fan of consistency which attack rolls are, but I guess that's one of the things I'm trying to say; the stars don't seem to align often enough for spells/abilities that target saves. A PC has to be fighting something that has low saves, and you have to have the right ability to target that save. And even then the creature might be a construct or an ooze or a swarm or undead, etc with immunity to the effect you're dropping. Also I don't think resistances really factor into this, physical vs special or what have you, that's a whole other thing and both attack rolls and saves can be either anyway.
As far as mathing out attack rolls vs saves, I am very aware of those level ranges where casters lag behind. I played an elemental sorcerer all the way to 20 and I did feel it. But I maintain that between getting the enemy off guard (which there are so many ways to do, not just flanking obvs), hero points, aid, true strike, and other penalties and buffs, even those dead levels are better spent using attack rolls sometimes. My most reliable spells by endgame would crit very often due to being attack rolls.
As far as my third point, while golems were the worst offender for sure (and wisps), there are a lot of creatures immune to most will saves, poisons, void, and vitality. And while thats a big no doy, those tend to be the traits of a good chunk of the rare few spells that target will and fortitude. So that construct that has a super low fortitude as a 'weakness' doesn't really have much of a weakness.
And yeah I think one of the most rewarding parts of 2e is the teamwork part. Handing out buffs or tripping or whatever is a great time, and I think it can be a bummer when it benefits attack rolls so much more than things that target saves. That being said, in this thread I am mostly talking about blasting, and bringing up debuff spells is a pretty good point. If a PC could get the same massive numerical swing with saving throws abilities that attack rolls can, it might be too easy to land a crit fail on some of the more devastating spells like slow.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm mostly satisfied with the way things are now. But yeah, giving a monster a weak save so balance out something strong, but then making it immune to most things that target that save, is lame.
It's worst with Will because practically all Will saves get blocked by mental immunity. Fortitude covers a wider range, both poison/vitality/void/disease stuff but also various concussive effects, Divine Wrath, Slow, and Grab/Shove.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think my main gripe comes down to the recall knowledge/target weakness loop.
Like on paper the idea of being rewarded for targeting the right save feels good and makes players feel smart, especially when the gap is so huge. Targeting a weak save can be a free, untyped +1 or 2 or 3 or 4, which is wild.
But not everyone can properly engage with this minigame.
I have a sorcerer at one table who has a signature spell of each save type and can basically freely target whatever they want all day long.
On the other end of it there's a druid who has a lot of trouble targeting will. Against any low will enemy they don't feel like they have a lot of answers.
On the farthest end, we have a lowish level game with a kineticist that can only target fort. High fort enemies are pretty common, which means lots of fails/crit fails and their ability to target AC is also a bit underwhelming.
Yet glancing between these options, it almost doesn't feel like a meaningful balance consideration. I can't say the Kineticist or Druid feel meaningfully better in any way than the Sorcerer to make up for being more volaltile and less versatile. If anything the Sorcerer seems to generally be the strongest overall, and only shines that much more against enemies with heavily skewed saves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that people usually don't talk is the roller advantage, the person rolling the dice effectively have +1.
But generally saves values are lower than AC ones, and attack rolls have to interact with MAP.
But what really annoys me in the system are the proficiency gaps at some levels, they could very well made the Expert, Master of casters be lvl 5 and 13 as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as my third point, while golems were the worst offender for sure (and wisps), there are a lot of creatures immune to most will saves, poisons, void, and vitality. And while thats a big no doy, those tend to be the traits of a good chunk of the rare few spells that target will and fortitude. So that construct that has a super low fortitude as a 'weakness' doesn't really have much of a weakness.
And yeah I think one of the most rewarding parts of 2e is the teamwork part. Handing out buffs or tripping or whatever is a great time, and I think it can be a bummer when it benefits attack rolls so much more than things that target saves. That being said, in this thread I am mostly talking about blasting, and bringing up debuff spells is a pretty good point. If a PC could get the same massive numerical swing with saving throws abilities that attack rolls can, it might be too easy to land a crit fail on some of the more devastating spells like slow.
Ah! This feels illuminating. It wasn't super clear you were talking about blasting rather than saves in general.
Part of the balancing of PF2 that is often complained about is that because casters can do more than just deal damage by targeting AC, they are pretty much expected to do that to keep up with martials. No one tool is always meant to be optimal because casters can use so many of them. If you're finding great success with spell attack rolls, keep using them! But when you suddenly aren't, that's when other tactics need to fill the gap.
Golems and mindless foes can be pretty annoying to directly effect, but it is a great place to let summons shine because mindless enemies aren't smart enough to ignore low threat summons. With some teamwork kiting, you can effectively stun lock mindless foes without any rolls involved.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think my main gripe comes down to the recall knowledge/target weakness loop.
Like on paper the idea of being rewarded for targeting the right save feels good and makes players feel smart, especially when the gap is so huge. Targeting a weak save can be a free, untyped +1 or 2 or 3 or 4, which is wild.
But not everyone can properly engage with this minigame.
I find this especially true in groups that aren't especially consistent. I've been in plenty of PFS games (in 1e) where nobody had knowledge skills.
This feels less common to me now, partially because my groups are more consistent, partially because I tend to focus know the RK skills, and partially because the RK skills are split across Int and Wis which makes it seem more likely that someone covers at least half.But sometimes our Cleric or Ranger can't make it, and we feel the missing RK on those sessions, even if we still have 4 or 5 people.
However, if your group ends up with a CHA caster as your only finger wiggler, it's pretty realistic that nobody adequately covers RK. So how are you ever supposed to engage with targeting the correct save? Guess? Metagame?
Spellcasting, imo, is too dependent on successful RK without otherwise ensuring that all spellcasting characters are engaging with that system in some way. Besides the ancillary expectation (which I think is mostly only known by the forum and reddit dwellers) that spellcasters are intended by the devs to be using RK to his the requisite saves.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I find this especially true in groups that aren't especially consistent. I've been in plenty of PFS games (in 1e) where nobody had knowledge skills.
This feels less common to me now, partially because my groups are more consistent, partially because I tend to focus know the RK skills, and partially because the RK skills are split across Int and Wis which makes it seem more likely that someone covers at least half.
But sometimes our Cleric or Ranger can't make it, and we feel the missing RK on those sessions, even if we still have 4 or 5 people.However, if your group ends up with a CHA caster as your only finger wiggler, it's pretty realistic that nobody adequately covers RK. So how are you ever supposed to engage with targeting the correct save? Guess? Metagame?
Spellcasting, imo, is too dependent on successful RK without otherwise ensuring that all spellcasting characters are engaging with that system in some way. Besides the ancillary expectation (which I think is mostly only known by the forum and reddit dwellers) that spellcasters are intended by the devs to be using RK to his the requisite saves.
I think there's an area in between successful RK, and real metagaming. The area covered by "educated guess" or "reasonable inference".
Is it behaving like a spellcaster? You can bet that Will is not their weak save. Is it doing roguelike stuff or sneak attacking? Probably don't want to focus on Reflex. Is it animalistic? It's probably going to lean toward Reflex/Fortitude over Will. Is it really big? It'll probably have Fortitude as a strong save.
I don't think this is any metagaming; you don't need to have read the actual creature's Bestiary page to make any of these guesses. And this gives you enough information as a caster to narrow down your spell choices.
What if the game was set up where creatures used their highest save for anything unless RK was done to gain access to the lower saves.
Like a Otyug would have a +12 to every save.
But a pc can RK to learn how to leverage the listed lower reflex save of +8. But until they succeed at RK or have done so in the past against an Otyug or an ally has done it and shared the info they dont have the specific knowledge to capitalize on that lower save for an Otyug
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if the game was set up where creatures used their highest save for anything unless RK was done to gain access to the lower saves.
Is that an actual query? It doesn't have a question mark at the end of it. But it is phrased as a question.
Taking it as a legitimate question:
It sounds like a terrible idea to me. Now the GM is simply imposing an action tax and a skill check in order to let spellcasters even try to get saving throw spell accuracy that is even close to what martial characters have against AC.
This would be especially rough when applied to creatures that have one exceptionally strong or weak save.
If it was completely randomized and recall knowledge doesn't even exist, then a spellcaster would have some of their save spells be more accurate than attack rolls, and some spells less accurate. It would be like rolling a 1d3 to decide if you are above, equal, or behind par. If the odds were set up right, it could be considered fair and balanced.
But it feels bad to have the 1d3 roll not matter and the spellcaster using save spells is always behind par unless they pay the action tax.
-----
I'm sure the players would absolutely love that houserule though. It means that their characters don't have to try and pump all of their save values. They can focus on their best save.
If the enemies don't spend an action on recall knowledge, then they have to target the pumped save. If they do spend the action on recall knowledge, hey, that's a free Stunned 1 effect - really nice on solo boss enemies.
Yep, Finoan, the simplest litmus rule of a proposed change to the game is to invert PCs & NPCs/monsters to see how it feels the other direction. I've dissuaded my table of many "cool" ideas by embracing how well the changes would help the enemy fight PCs.
Plus there are non-RK ways to determine high or low saves, and the paradigm is too wonky like collapsing some wave function for what exactly?
As for how I feel about attacks vs. saves, I hardly feel anything. PCs can easily (and IMO should) develop a breadth of abilities to tackle more than just the meaty melee monsters, like all kinds of bizarre physiological oddness with all sorts of terrain & tactical formations. PF2 allows for this breadth (and hardly rewards over-specialization anyway).
What about more ways of buffing or debuffing saves? I don't feel that targeting a monster weakest save makes up for not being able to get any bonuses to spell/class DC and few penalties. I don't think spell/class DC's should get as many buff/debuff options, maybe half as many as opposed to no bonuses and only status penalties. Or is that also not something the community feels?
What if the game was set up where creatures used their highest save for anything unless RK was done to gain access to the lower saves.Is that an actual query? It doesn't have a question mark at the end of it. But it is phrased as a question.
Taking it as a legitimate question:
It sounds like a terrible idea to me. Now the GM is simply imposing an action tax and a skill check in order to let spellcasters even try to get saving throw spell accuracy that is even close to what martial characters have against AC.
This would be especially rough when applied to creatures that have one exceptionally strong or weak save.
If it was completely randomized and recall knowledge doesn't even exist, then a spellcaster would have some of their save spells be more accurate than attack rolls, and some spells less accurate. It would be like rolling a 1d3 to decide if you are above, equal, or behind par. If the odds were set up right, it could be considered fair and balanced.
But it feels bad to have the 1d3 roll not matter and the spellcaster using save spells is always behind par unless they pay the action tax.
-----
I'm sure the players would absolutely love that houserule though. It means that their characters don't have to try and pump all of their save values. They can focus on their best save.
If the enemies don't spend an action on recall knowledge, then they have to target the pumped save. If they do spend the action on recall knowledge, hey, that's a free Stunned 1 effect - really nice on solo boss enemies.
Thanks, yeah I meant to pose it as a question.
But really II was just throwing out a thought, not really something I put much though into.I didnt think about applying it to PCs saves, that does lay its problems bare.
Although, using RK before throwing slotted spells wouldnt be something spellcasters are not already doing or asking for another party member to do for them. Or at least probably should be doing. Also knowing once is good enough per kind of creature. Calling it an action tax as the reason it shouldn’t be implemented is more or less showing distain for the existing RK mechanic.
I guess a more serious consequence is it would invert the spellcaster paradigm removing meta knowledge and guessing from the game. (Im in favor of that outcome) Making knowledgable casters good at finding weaknesses for things they can RK well against and cha based ones dependent on someone else using RK to be able to do anything.
Your points about creatures with extreme highs or the low save with immunity.
Extreme highs would make succeeding at RK mandatory or spellcasting against saves would be pretty useless so thats a good point.
The severity for casters on a failed RK though is too much. That I think is the biggest reason its a bad idea after thinking about it.
Attack roll spells -can- be reliable, but only with setup. It's situational and requires more teamwork than an equivalent save spell.
-You can't flank, yeah, but grapple and trip can still give you off-guard
-Sure strike/hero points are usable
-Can benefit from effects like fake out, and large penalties to AC like Synesthesia
Altogether, this can get you into extremely reliable territory, approaching 70%+ hit rate even on difficult targets. However... it's some "when the stars align" stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about more ways of buffing or debuffing saves? I don't feel that targeting a monster weakest save makes up for not being able to get any bonuses to spell/class DC and few penalties. I don't think spell/class DC's should get as many buff/debuff options, maybe half as many as opposed to no bonuses and only status penalties. Or is that also not something the community feels?
"Buffing or debuffing saves" is part of the whole "use your third action or special abilities/attacks to add bonuses to allies or impose conditions on enemies" paradigm of PF2. Intimidation to demoralize (frightened; 'The frightened condition always includes a value. You take a status penalty equal to this value to all your checks and DCs.'), the Bon Mot feat (-2 or -3 to Perception checks or Will saves on a success or critical success); some abilities or attacks can impose clumsy (Reflex saves), drained (Fortitude saves), or stupefied (Will saves).
What PF2 does not have is a lot of ways to add a bunch of different long-term bonuses on PCs and/or stack a bunch of different penalties on enemies so that the PCs can just "mash the 'I win' button" and be a one-trick pony that overpowers enemies with a single tactic every time.
Attack roll spells are great thanks to their being able to take advantage of huge number swings that simply aren't possible with save spells.
I've had plenty of caster characters that have done incredible things with attack roll spells.
You use save spells for their reliability and attack spells when you absolutely want to annihilate something at the right moment.
What about more ways of buffing or debuffing saves? I don't feel that targeting a monster weakest save makes up for not being able to get any bonuses to spell/class DC and few penalties. I don't think spell/class DC's should get as many buff/debuff options, maybe half as many as opposed to no bonuses and only status penalties. Or is that also not something the community feels?
"Buffing or debuffing saves" is part of the whole "use your third action or special abilities/attacks to add bonuses to allies or impose conditions on enemies" paradigm of PF2. Intimidation to demoralize (frightened; 'The frightened condition always includes a value. You take a status penalty equal to this value to all your checks and DCs.'), the Bon Mot feat (-2 or -3 to Perception checks or Will saves on a success or critical success); some abilities or attacks can impose clumsy (Reflex saves), drained (Fortitude saves), or stupefied (Will saves).
What PF2 does not have is a lot of ways to add a bunch of different long-term bonuses on PCs and/or stack a bunch of different penalties on enemies so that the PCs can just "mash the 'I win' button" and be a one-trick pony that overpowers enemies with a single tactic every time.
Right, but everything you listed in regards to impose conditions are all status penalties. It seems like a long list until you realize that basically the max you can get is a -3, whereas attack rolls can get up to a 16 point under swing and have easier access to rerolling to boot.
Attack roll spells -can- be reliable, but only with setup. It's situational and requires more teamwork than an equivalent save spell.
-You can't flank, yeah, but grapple and trip can still give you off-guard
-Sure strike/hero points are usable
-Can benefit from effects like fake out, and large penalties to AC like SynesthesiaAltogether, this can get you into extremely reliable territory, approaching 70%+ hit rate even on difficult targets. However... it's some "when the stars align" stuff.
Grapple/Trip probably require a martial to help you out applying them. If no one in your party is set up for that, a Cloistered Cleric probably isn't going to be great at it. If someone is doing it for you then it helps a lot, but that's a big if.
Sure Strike is 1/combat and hero points aren't exactly plentiful. So yeah, you can do it once a fight once you have enough spell slots to spend them this way.
Synethesia only helps the caster on a failure. On a success, it ends at the start of your turn so you don't benefit from it... and on a failure the creature is basically done anyway so you probably aren't going to hit it with any big spells (the Fighter/Barbarian will crit it into the ground in short order anyway).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's remember that effect balances with odds of that effect; i.e. the Fighter has better odds, but the Barbarian hits with more effect (and even gets that effect lessened if they wield Agile, a trait to better one's odds.) So when comparing spell attack rolls with saves (or Strikes), it's too multifactorial even before one considers Conditions, teamwork, and partial effects to just compare odds & buffs/debuffs to those odds. It's way too complicated for such simplicity.
And in play, there's a lot of subjectivity and table variation, but it seems there are fans for all sorts of play at all levels. That's remarkable given the constant debates/lamentations about class or spell list balance in previous editions. Yay, PF2!
While I do think being able to target two saves is usually enough, I agree that things can get a bit rough for Kineticists, though the class in general has a bit of underlying jank because they follow constraints closer to those of martial classes than casters (your resourceless abilities limit how many of them you know at a time to a small subset), while still being mapped onto a lot of the expectations of casters, such as strong saves or damage immunities.
I'd normally argue that save DCs not being boostable means they can be more readily used right out of the gate and can thus make casters more independent, I think that independence isn't necessarily a good thing either: there's been the argument made that casters are just as deserving of support as martials, and that's true, but because casters tend to rely much more on save effects than martials, and save effects can't be easily boosted other than by applying debuffs that weaken enemies (which also works for Strikes), that still tends to mean that casters are much more liable to be buffing martials than the reverse. It also has the issue in my opinion of causing many casters to not roll d20s quite as often as they'd want to in encounters, which to some players can be a bit of a bummer.
In some future edition, I'd be quite keen to see how Pathfinder could work with fully player-sided rolling. It's become a standard across many systems, and with good reason: it's quicker and simpler, lets players have the fun of rolling dice while giving the GM/storyteller more room in-between rolls to decide what to throw at the players, and also puts player characters on more equal footing where they get to interact with the same core mechanics in generally the same amounts. In this case, it could perhaps allow casters to benefit from buffs just as well as martials, and if martial classes receive more ways to buff as well, that could enable more diverse parties where certain contributions become more available to everyone, much like healing in 2e compared to 1e.
Right, but everything you listed in regards to impose conditions are all status penalties. It seems like a long list until you realize that basically the max you can get is a -3, whereas attack rolls can get up to a 16 point under swing and have easier access to rerolling to boot.What about more ways of buffing or debuffing saves? I don't feel that targeting a monster weakest save makes up for not being able to get any bonuses to spell/class DC and few penalties. I don't think spell/class DC's should get as many buff/debuff options, maybe half as many as opposed to no bonuses and only status penalties. Or is that also not something the community feels?
"Buffing or debuffing saves" is part of the whole "use your third action or special abilities/attacks to add bonuses to allies or impose conditions on enemies" paradigm of PF2. Intimidation to demoralize (frightened; 'The frightened condition always includes a value. You take a status penalty equal to this value to all your checks and DCs.'), the Bon Mot feat (-2 or -3 to Perception checks or Will saves on a success or critical success); some abilities or attacks can impose clumsy (Reflex saves), drained (Fortitude saves), or stupefied (Will saves).
What PF2 does not have is a lot of ways to add a bunch of different long-term bonuses on PCs and/or stack a bunch of different penalties on enemies so that the PCs can just "mash the 'I win' button" and be a one-trick pony that overpowers enemies with a single tactic every time.
And thats a problem, because?
There are circumstance penalties to save within the game, But they are purposefully locked behind access barriers. Distracting Feint just of the top of my head.
The entire balancing point about gaining half-effect on a successful save is because it's harder to manipulate. So should a save be just as easy to 'buff' as an attack roll while also having half-effect on what constitutes an...
Whether it's a problem or not is subjective, and the whole point of this thread. It does seem like I am in the minority, but personally I don't feel like half effects on a failure is enough to compensate for the potential and reliability of attack rolls.
Also, yes distracting feint does give a -2 circumstance penalty to reflex saves, as does catfolk dance. But I'm pretty sure those are the only two. Let's not sit here and pretend that is anywhere close to as many options that off guard has, and even then it's only to reflex saves, to say nothing about the other two saves.
Considering how quite alot of the sentiment of Attack VS Saves is "never use attack-roll spells"
Can't say I think saves really need more ways to increase their effectiveness, I feel like saves typically having effect on failure is what makes up for them not being as easily buffed/penalized, and that has also been given as one of the balancing points given for Shadow Signet, Capable of targeting more defences, But it costs an action and you give up penalties such as offguard.
if a character has the potential to do anything and a goal of your game is balance, it must be assumed that the character will do all those things they're capable of. Since a wizard very much can have a spell for every situation that targets every possible defense, the game has to assume they do, otherwise you cannot meet the goal of balance.was said in regards to their response to balance issues in older systems. Notably the 1e Arcanist and Wizard.
If you give circumstance bonuses and penalties to DCs then the game would've likely needed to be adjusted to account for it, If we want to meet the same design goals.
I was thinking about that quote while making this thread, even though it was talking more about the power level of wizards. But if we assume that balance is to be done with the most optimized party, doesn't that push attack rolls to be that much better with all the support that's been mentioned in this thread?
That quote is also talking about arcane casters who have much easier access to spells that target any save. Primal has barely any fortitude (they have some but they're not very reliable damage types for the most part) or will (that deal damage). Kineticists can be out of luck depending on what element is chosen if you're fighting a bunch of high reflex enemies, etc.
All that said, I did and do enjoy the characters I've played (elemental sorc and kineticist mostly so far) that rely mostly on reflex saves. But in those times I couldn't reliably target reflex saves, the options I picked allowed me to pivot to a support role. So yes, I do very much realize that just by having so many tools in your toolbox, your character is likely never to feel useless; but it does feel bad to feel forced to have to pivot.
I dunno I'm probably making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm just the type that likes a more reliable method of attacking, and attack rolls are just that, while saves are a lot more hit or miss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether it's a problem or not is subjective, and the whole point of this thread. It does seem like I am in the minority, but personally I don't feel like half effects on a failure is enough to compensate for the potential and reliability of attack rolls.
Except Spell Attack rolls aren't reliable. That's the problem. They are the worst attack roll in the game.
It takes a LOT of work to overcome a baked in -4 on your accuracy, and missing on a die roll of 10 when that same roll is a hit for every martial in the game feels awful, especially when you had to use twice as many actions and a limited resource (a spell slot) to do it.
Spell Attacks are just penalized by delayed proficiency and lack of item bonuses for nearly the entire game and aren't balanced to account for that the way saves are. That's why save spells end up being better in play despite having to play the "figure out which one to target" minigame.
IME/O, spell attack rolls are mainly for cantrips (effectively a no resource, backup damage option that is often at least as accurate and more damaging as a caster using a weapon) and/or magi (whose entire focus is stacking spells with attack rolls on a weapon strike). Maybe for a rogue Magical Trickster, as well.
Note, as mentioned, casters' damage output is fairly well balanced with martials' damage output because many of the spells that target saves do partial damage on a failure (but not a critical failure) while (most) strikes do 0 damage on a failure. I do believe that some spells which target AC may need to be looked at to check that they are doing equivalent average damage (especially for the non-cantrips).
Thank you for sharing that. While I'm still in the minority on the topic it's nice to have a little validation
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"These spells aren't worth casting unless you stack a significant amount of modifiers then they maybe become a decent idea sometimes" doesn't really strike me as all that validating of the idea that they're the better kind of spell.
All right, cut me a little slack. I said a little validation, and your paraphrase is not very fair.
At any point in the game theres a threshold a caster could realistically meet trough the party's actions, where using an attack spell over a corresponding save-spell is the objectively correct decision
Vs
These spells aren't worth casting unless you stack a significant amount of modifiers then they maybe become a decent idea sometimes
I mean come on. I know you're the resident 'pop into threads to make people feel foolish' person, but I don't think that's necessary here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one aspect of PF2e's combat that often gets missed in these kinds of discussions is that against tougher enemies, it's often an engine-building game: not only are you shoring up your side's numbers, you're also trying to lower your enemies' numbers beyond just their Hit Points, so that everything you do becomes dramatically more effective. Save effects can be used at full power generally relatively early on in this process, because they don't benefit from accuracy buffs, but then attack rolls become massively more potent when that engine is built: even if you're a caster and your spell attacks are at a relative -1 to most martials (and even then, your Inventors and Thaumaturges will be making even less accurate attacks as a baseline), casting a sure strike-empowered disintegrate against an off-guard enemy that's also got a status penalty to their AC and Fort saves is going to hurt, a lot, even more so if you yourself have a status and/or circumstance bonus to your attack roll. It really sucks to miss with a spell attack, and that loss aversion I think is one of the key reasons why spell attacks are so unpopular (that, and their proficiency scaling is incredibly janky), but they can and often do make a big difference in a party that's cooperating to empower everyone's attacks. That's not every party, as NorrKnekten mentions, and so often you might want to stick to saves instead, but it's within the ability of most parties still, I'd say.
