My critique of Pathfinder 2E and the future of PF

[Teridax]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

It seems like it could be a lot more interesting if a Fighter had the choice between being naturally super charismatic or being incredibly strong without that affecting their core combat competency. One might argue that this is just one step removed from deleting attributes entirely and only using skill training, but I think maybe there are plenty of people who would agree that "My character is super charming, and thus has a flat bonus to all social skills before accounting for her Intimidation specialty" could yet still be a desirable mechanical expression.

This is actually where I think PF2e specifically isn't that well-suited for that expression of attributes, because while attributes do make a big difference in checks, an attribute modifier is nothing at most levels without at least trained proficiency. A character could have a +4 to their Strength, yet if they were untrained in Athletics they'd still end up performing far worse than the weedy Strength -1 character who's so much as trained. In a game that operated closer to the Proficiency Without Level variant and flattened modifiers and DCs, attributes would be able to carry their own weight independently of proficiency, but when proficiency also adds your level in addition to their bonus, the latter is necessary to even begin expressing the impact of attributes in checks past the first few levels.

I also feel that the kind of expression mentioned above already exists in skill proficiencies: if someone has really good social graces, that is something that proficiency in Diplomacy would express directly, and if they're also good at lying, that would also imply proficiency in Deception. If they can also turn that charm into effective menace, that's something proficiency in Intimidation would cover, and if they can't, then they'd be untrained. I'd even go as far as to say that proficiencies can help cover these situations better than attributes, as with the classic case of the Barbarian who's not necessarily at all charming or socially apt, but still likely to be one of the more intimidating party members around. When attributes dominate over skill proficiencies, you end up with the baby-faced Barbarian paradox where the character should by all rights be among the best at something, but in practice isn't great at the thing because they lack an attribute that is arbitrarily designated as the only one to cover said thing. If we decide that Strength or other attributes can factor into these skills instead, that would address the issue only by making attributes more fungible with one another, which I imagine would undermine their roleplaying contribution.

[exequiel759]

Ngl I'm kinda digging a system where attributes only affect skills. I agree that's not much different than a system without attributes and the character expression that attributes give could be given by skill proficiencies instead like Teridax said, but there's a part of me that thinks Paizo probably wouldn't want to let go of attributes just because of tradition, even if PF3e went even more away from D&D on its design.

After all, the only thing that has existed in all editions of D&D without changes (AFAIK) are the six attributes. I could see them changing them though.

Like Sibelius Eos Owm said, if attributes only applied to skills then Constitution is either gone (fingers crossed!) or a new Constitution skill is added (worst outcome IMO). Strength would also be in a weird spot since it only applies to a single skill, and if the point of attributes is that would be suited more around skills and thus to out of combat scenes then its very likely grapple, trip, repotision and the like likely become divorced from Athletics in such a system as well.

[Unknown Sage]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Unknown Sage wrote:

...

I think the goal of staggered proficiency is something else actually.

A common complaint about 2E is that leveling feels like a treadmill. You go up a level, the monsters also go up a level, everything stays the same, you don't really get more powerful.

Staggered proficiency I think is meant to take that smooth line and make it less smooth. Suddenly, at level 5 the martials get a bump to hit. Meanwhile the casters get rank 3 spells like fireball, which is one of the first solid large area long distance AoEs. Then at level 7 the barbarian starts to do a lot more damage while the champion races ahead in AC.

Some levels, one martial will be ahead of other classes in to-hit, and other times someone will be ahead in AC. I think Paizo intentionally creates some minor imbalance to make things more interesting.

Assuming it is the case that this was indeed their intent with the staggered proficiency progression, though I do not believe this to be very likely, then, as Squiggit nicely summarizes (see quote below), it is not a very good way of achieving this.

Squiggit wrote:

I'm a little skeptical of this. The 'treadmill' never stops being a treadmill because of staggered proficiency, it's just that certain classes become uniquely bad at things at certain level brackets.

The last sentence is especially frustrating because I can't find anything especially interesting about just being bad at hitting things for two specific levels before I'm allowed to be normal again.

... The argument that it's just way to inject forced differences into the game doesn't even really make sense, imo, because it happens at such narrow and specific level ranges and tends to apply only to certain classes.

Like every primary martial is on the exact same weapon training track. That kind of blows up the idea that it's some special way to make classes more unique.

I mostly agree with everything he says. It is simply not interesting to have the game go: "Hey you, yes you in particular, you will now suck at this thing you were previously good at relative to everyone else".

In fact I would go a bit further and state this actually has the opposite effect of what you think the intended goal was. And fixes the "oh the monsters are always equally strong" problem in the worst way possible. Because now instead of you outgrowing the monsters you fight which would be a cool "look how strong we have become" moment. Or even instead of some levels you are stronger than the monsters, and some levels you are weaker to get a nice back and forth. It now is always the case that you become weaker than the monsters. It is always a proficiency delay. No one ever gets them early with the sole exception of the guardians AC gain, which was only introduced extremely recently.

And because the monsters grow based on the quickest increase for. It is always the case that the classes that get their proficiency 2 levels delayed actively become worse not just relative to your fellow adventurers who may have gotten a boost to their weapon hit chance or armor class, but also the monsters that grew with them.

This effectively makes the level up into the delayed levels into a de facto direct nerf to the classes that get delayed proficiency. It is akin to leveling down in that particular ability. And that is a problem.

You may call it more interesting because it changes things up. But I disagree. I consider this to be more a fundamental design flaw in the game, because it essentially punishes you for leveling up. And because it is only for 2 levels at a time, randomly spread across classes for defense and attack proficiencies (except for martials who are all perfectly in lockstep with their attack proficiencies), it seems to me to be a mistake that didn't need to have been made.

What I think would actually make a more interesting game, is not to mess with the mathematical backbone of the game, but rather to introduce cool class-unique abilities that are exciting to use.

[Claxon]

I think what you suggest here is actually made a problem based on the context of encounter composition.

I admit that what you're suggestion, it can very much feel that way. But is so because the party is constantly fighting creatures at party level +1 , or at party level, or whatever fights.

Which means, ignoring the bumps that happen due to proficiency changes, you basically always feel like your in the same relative spot against enemies (because you are, more of less).

GMs and written adventures need to mix in a lot more fight's that use party level -1, -2, -3, or even -4 creatures.

Can you imagine how you would feel at level 10, fighting a horde of like 10 Babau demons? Technically that should be somewhere between a moderate and severe encounter. But because the PCs are 4 levels above the enemies, there is no real threat to be had. It will make the players feel like bad asses. Be sure that you use enemies that had been encountered previously and were challenging at that time, only for them now to be trivial.

The main problem with the treadmill of progression (in my mind) is that you never really get the chance to look back. You're always facing new threats at or above your level. And thus you always feel you're struggling (because you are) against your enemies. Go fight enemies that you once struggled against but have out leveled and see how you feel.

[Unicore]

I disagree that players really experience staggered proficiency progression as a big problem/when they do it is kinda just the same problem as boring adventure design in the first place.

Like I have never had a wizard character hit level 5 and said to myself, “oh no! Now my character is worse than the martials!” It’s more like, “I just got slow and fireball and can hit 5 creatures with a fear spell.” And when we face 2 cave giants (level +1 monsters) and I cast slow on one and it crit saves, I feel bad, but that’s not the staggered proficiency, that is the targeting a big bulky giant’s fort save problem, and if I had instead cast hieghtened fear, on them, the odds of a critical success on either of them are very low and the fact they have gotten a +2 to saves at level 6 and my providence boost to spells hasn’t kicked in is not likely to register at all unless I am hyperaware of creature numbers and barely playing a game at all anymore.

[Unknown Sage]

Unicore wrote:

I disagree that players really experience staggered proficiency progression as a big problem/when they do it is kinda just the same problem as boring adventure design in the first place.

Like I have never had a wizard character hit level 5 and said to myself, “oh no! Now my character is worse than the martials!” It’s more like, “I just got slow and fireball and can hit 5 creatures with a fear spell.” And when we face 2 cave giants (level +1 monsters) and I cast slow on one and it crit saves, I feel bad, but that’s not the staggered proficiency, that is the targeting a big bulky giant’s fort save problem, and if I had instead cast hieghtened fear, on them, the odds of a critical success on either of them are very low and the fact they have gotten a +2 to saves at level 6 and my providence boost to spells hasn’t kicked in is not likely to register at all unless I am hyperaware of creature numbers and barely playing a game at all anymore.

That is certainly true for your wizard example. And I suppose my example was mostly in reference to the spell attack rolls on casters. Spell saves for wizards aren't delayed. as they are a different category of 'attacks' and have their own base progression. If you were to hit level 5 and wanted to cast say blazing bolt or hydraulic push or any spell attack roll spell/cantrip. You would suddenly find that your accuracy has effectively taken a permanent -2 until you reach lvl 7. Which if those were spells you liked using for either their function or because of thematics. yes that would be a "Oh no now my signature (not of the spontaneous type) spells don't work well anymore" moment. And that is definitely frustrating. Because there is now an permanent artificial -2 dragging you down.

for save spells this would more be akin to looking at a magus or summoner. who from level 1 to 6 would be exactly equivalent to a wizard in save spell effectiveness (assuming same attribute bonus. or at -1 with one less int) but then level 7 and 8 come and suddenly all their save spells suck (which for save spells is especially frustrating because they already often have very low chance to succeed. luckily though there is the failure effect still.

Now granted this could be perceived as a very minor problem depending on your playstyle. and you could certainly ignore it and do other stuff with your turns during those levels. But that does not mean it isn't a frustrating design choice that has an extremely easy fix without any negative consequences. Simply aligning the proficiencies will do. And for easier compatability with existing monster design you can leave the spell save progression increase on 7 15 and 19. just make sure all spellcasting classes have it on the same levels.

But yeah I see this is not a particularly popular opinion of mine. But still I'd like to see it be different. since there aren't downsides to fixing it

[Squiggit]

Unicore wrote:

Like I have never had a wizard character hit level 5 and said to myself, “oh no! Now my character is worse than the martials!” It’s more like, “I just got slow and fireball and can hit 5 creatures with a fear spell.” And when we face 2 cave giants (level +1 monsters) and I cast slow on one and it crit saves, I feel bad, but that’s not the staggered proficiency

... This example is backwards though. Martials are the one with staggered/inferior progression on save DCs, not spellcasters. Spellcasters fall behind on attacks, but none of your example spells target AC.

[Tridus]

Unicore wrote:

I disagree that players really experience staggered proficiency progression as a big problem/when they do it is kinda just the same problem as boring adventure design in the first place.

Like I have never had a wizard character hit level 5 and said to myself, “oh no! Now my character is worse than the martials!” It’s more like, “I just got slow and fireball and can hit 5 creatures with a fear spell.” And when we face 2 cave giants (level +1 monsters) and I cast slow on one and it crit saves, I feel bad, but that’s not the staggered proficiency, that is the targeting a big bulky giant’s fort save problem, and if I had instead cast hieghtened fear, on them, the odds of a critical success on either of them are very low and the fact they have gotten a +2 to saves at level 6 and my providence boost to spells hasn’t kicked in is not likely to register at all unless I am hyperaware of creature numbers and barely playing a game at all anymore.

Funny I was replying to another post this morning about someone whose level 6 Wizard feels bad because they can't hit a damn thing. They're using Spell Attack spells, and their proficiency is lagging behind the martials.

They're definitely feeling it. They don't have the system mastery to understand what problem they're feeling, but they noticed their accuracy dropped off a cliff compared to everyone around them and that it feels bad.

So I know for a fact that this does happen and people feel this way. The usual answer here is "don't use spell attack spells", but that in itself is an acknowledgement of the problem because the answer is "avoid the things with the problem."

[The Raven Black]

Tridus wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I disagree that players really experience staggered proficiency progression as a big problem/when they do it is kinda just the same problem as boring adventure design in the first place.

Like I have never had a wizard character hit level 5 and said to myself, “oh no! Now my character is worse than the martials!” It’s more like, “I just got slow and fireball and can hit 5 creatures with a fear spell.” And when we face 2 cave giants (level +1 monsters) and I cast slow on one and it crit saves, I feel bad, but that’s not the staggered proficiency, that is the targeting a big bulky giant’s fort save problem, and if I had instead cast hieghtened fear, on them, the odds of a critical success on either of them are very low and the fact they have gotten a +2 to saves at level 6 and my providence boost to spells hasn’t kicked in is not likely to register at all unless I am hyperaware of creature numbers and barely playing a game at all anymore.

Funny I was replying to another post this morning about someone whose level 6 Wizard feels bad because they can't hit a damn thing. They're using Spell Attack spells, and their proficiency is lagging behind the martials.

They're definitely feeling it. They don't have the system mastery to understand what problem they're feeling, but they noticed their accuracy dropped off a cliff compared to everyone around them and that it feels bad.

So I know for a fact that this does happen and people feel this way. The usual answer here is "don't use spell attack spells", but that in itself is an acknowledgement of the problem because the answer is "avoid the things with the problem."

The answer is actually "Do not try to equal the martials at their own game."

What would people tell a player complaining that their martial PC does not have all the varied possibilities that casters casually get ?

[Unicore]

Spell attack roll spells don’t “catch up” at level 7 though. It is a very real problem if caster players are coming into casting trying to have a “signature” (as in stylistically) spell they cast at all and especially for that spell to be a spell attack roll spells. Not the least of which because there are not enough of them in the game for that to be a good idea and probably reflects a character over casting cantrips like telekinetic projectile into higher levels because the damage die feels higher.

I actually think having one or two spell attack roll spells are worth having on hand in a day, because your accuracy with them against higher level creatures can be better than targeting anything but a weakest save…but you have to use the tools of the game to make that work, like true strike or a reserved hero point, and it’s not a multiple times an encounter activity. I think casters would be much worse overall if power budget went into boosting their accuracy with spell attack roll spells at level 5 instead of getting a much bigger box of toys to get to start playing with at level 5.

[Unknown Sage]

Unicore wrote:

Spell attack roll spells don’t “catch up” at level 7 though. It is a very real problem if caster players are coming into casting trying to have a “signature” (as in stylistically) spell they cast at all and especially for that spell to be a spell attack roll spells. Not the least of which because there are not enough of them in the game for that to be a good idea and probably reflects a character over casting cantrips like telekinetic projectile into higher levels because the damage die feels higher.

I actually think having one or two spell attack roll spells are worth having on hand in a day, because your accuracy with them against higher level creatures can be better than targeting anything but a weakest save…but you have to use the tools of the game to make that work, like true strike or a reserved hero point, and it’s not a multiple times an encounter activity. I think casters would be much worse overall if power budget went into boosting their accuracy with spell attack roll spells at level 5 instead of getting a much bigger box of toys to get to start playing with at level 5.

The thing though is that it doesn't cost any power budget to move those proficiencies forward 2 levels for spell attack rolls. because it is only a bump in levels 5,6,13, and 14. For the rest of the game they are at the 'correct' proficiency. All the earlier spell attack proficiency would do is make the relative accuracy consistent across the whole game rather than having random drops at those levels. make spell attack rolls actually consistently useable. And eliminate all the feel bad moments about at least the first 2 levels at literally 0 cost. All spells are already balanced for the equal proficiency because that's what they are using for 80% of the game. if it isn't a problem to have the same accuracy for 16 out of the 20 levels then it also wouldn't be a problem to just have this be the case all 20 levels.

It has literally 0 downsides and doesn't take away from their already existing features on level 5 and 13. It doesn't require any of the class's power budget to be moved away from their other features. because rather than increasing their power it is fixing a kink in the mathematics so that they'll be on the same level as before and after the 4 levels in which this is a problem.

[The Raven Black]

The Raven Black wrote:

What would people tell a player complaining that their martial PC does not have all the varied possibilities that casters casually get ?

Also, in many Casters are nerfed threads, I often see people clamoring for potency-like Runes that would boost their attack spells.

Yet I have never once seen any clamoring to get Striking-like Runes to boost their spell's damage.

Maybe because they already get this for free?

[Unknown Sage]

The Raven Black wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Unicore wrote:

....

....

The answer is actually "Do not try to equal the martials at their own game."

What would people tell a player complaining that their martial PC does not have all the varied possibilities that casters casually get ?

forgive me if I don't find that a particularly convincing answer. why is it that we specifically should not try to equal the martials at their own game at levels 5,6,13, and 14. But we are allowed to do try at all other levels?

And even then why should it be balanced through accuracy rather than damage (like it already is for cantrips, or by costing limited resources in addition to damage, as it already is for regular ranked spells? oh wait. looks like they already have built in counters to not be on the level of martials.

making spellcasters not step on martials feet by making them terrible at accuracy is a terrible idea when it could be done through lower damage values. because there is nothing more frustrating than playing a roleplaying game in which your character misses 80% of their attacks and essentially achieves nothing for turns on end.

[Unicore]

The game doesn’t have spell attack proficiency. It has one proficiency for all spell casting. Boosting spell DCs 2 levels earlier, twice, absolutely would have a cost elsewhere in the caster chassis or be an absolutely massive power boost to all spell casters.

[Unknown Sage]

Unicore wrote:

The game doesn’t have spell attack proficiency. It has one proficiency for all spell casting. Boosting spell DCs 2 levels earlier, twice, absolutely would have a cost elsewhere in the caster chassis or be an absolutely massive power boost to all spell casters.

They actually do specifically have a separate "spell attack modifier" proficiency and a "spell DC" proficiency

so spell dc proficiency can be left alone. and thus there would be no cost. because it is simply keeping their spell attack spells consistent between levels rather than suffering for 2 levels early game for no reason and 2 levels late game for no reason.

But I can see that we are not going to agree on this. we clearly have different ideas/preferences on how the games balance works/should work

[ottdmk]

I like at least one or two Attack Roll spells in my back pocket because Debuffs happen. If the target is off-guard and frightened 1, yeah, if I'm down to Cantrips that's when I pull out Telekinetic Projectile over Electric Arc.

[The Raven Black]

Unknown Sage wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Unicore wrote:

....

....

The answer is actually "Do not try to equal the martials at their own game."

What would people tell a player complaining that their martial PC does not have all the varied possibilities that casters casually get ?

forgive me if I don't find that a particularly convincing answer. why is it that we specifically should not try to equal the martials at their own game at levels 5,6,13, and 14. But we are allowed to do try at all other levels?

And even then why should it be balanced through accuracy rather than damage (like it already is for cantrips, or by costing limited resources in addition to damage, as it already is for regular ranked spells? oh wait. looks like they already have built in counters to not be on the level of martials.

making spellcasters not step on martials feet by making them terrible at accuracy is a terrible idea when it could be done through lower damage values. because there is nothing more frustrating than playing a roleplaying game in which your character misses 80% of their attacks and essentially achieves nothing for turns on end.

Not only proficiency though, KAS too. Not to mention class features and feats.

Now, what about making Striking Runes free ? Or offering caster-like multitude of abilities to martials ?

A PC that only wants to attack creatures cannot be built on a caster chassis, as it offers a bevy of other ways to impact the game.

The magically attacking class is either the Magus or the Kineticist. But many people who want attacking casters do not see those as real casters.

[The Raven Black]

ottdmk wrote:

I like at least one or two Attack Roll spells in my back pocket because Debuffs happen. If the target is off-guard and frightened 1, yeah, if I'm down to Cantrips that's when I pull out Telekinetic Projectile over Electric Arc.

Also buffs to attacks, like Bards provide.

[exequiel759]

The Raven Black wrote:

Unknown Sage wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Unicore wrote:

....

....

The answer is actually "Do not try to equal the martials at their own game."

What would people tell a player complaining that their martial PC does not have all the varied possibilities that casters casually get ?

forgive me if I don't find that a particularly convincing answer. why is it that we specifically should not try to equal the martials at their own game at levels 5,6,13, and 14. But we are allowed to do try at all other levels?

And even then why should it be balanced through accuracy rather than damage (like it already is for cantrips, or by costing limited resources in addition to damage, as it already is for regular ranked spells? oh wait. looks like they already have built in counters to not be on the level of martials.

making spellcasters not step on martials feet by making them terrible at accuracy is a terrible idea when it could be done through lower damage values. because there is nothing more frustrating than playing a roleplaying game in which your character misses 80% of their attacks and essentially achieves nothing for turns on end.

Not only proficiency though, KAS too. Not to mention class features and feats.

Now, what about making Striking Runes free ? Or offering caster-like multitude of abilities to martials ?

A PC that only wants to attack creatures cannot be built on a caster chassis, as it offers a bevy of other ways to impact the game.

The magically attacking class is either the Magus or the Kineticist. But many people who want attacking casters do not see those as real casters.

Call me crazy, but the people that want to make attacking casters want to use magic while doing so. The magus is hitting you with a sword that holds a spell and the kineticist has like 1 build that uses elemental blast as your primary way of dealing damage, and even then it takes a while to set up.

People want to sling magic bolts at range and not feel like the system was designed for them to be bad while doing it. Casting proficiencies scaling more slowly and the lack of access to potency runes are never going to be good design choices. The current system could be designed around those restrictions (and even then, it could be argued that the design isn’t perfect, given how many people seem to struggle with it) but that doesn’t change the fact that the system could just as well have been designed to include those elements in the first place. I feel its not outrageous to want casters to not be behind martials in terms of accuracy.

[Bluemagetim]

Spell attack is the only vector through which a spellcaster can fully participate in the game’s teamwork accuracy economy with spells.
But it was not built to be something that is always the best option, it needed to be an option to weight against using a spell against the weakest save.

Keeping that in mind when is spellattack weighing in strongly?
When the circumstances are specific and add up to outweigh going against a save spell. Thats it.
So an enemy might be grabbed or prone, and an ally is willing to use aid on your spell attack. You might have a circumstance bonus or a status bonus to attack rolls. Enemies might have other penalties to AC.
Its just when the math of the moment makes going against AC even with low spell attack actually better than the weakest save.
And then you can consider how surstrike or a hero point could make it even more sure a thing if you have them to spare.

Lets take a level 5 party.Spellcaster has +11 spell attack and 21 Spell DC. Trained in spellcasting proficiency until level 7.

Smilodon - level 6 - AC 23; Fort +15, Ref +12, Will +10. Will save is a good bet to go after if you RKed. But when off guard is applied, and you have courageous anthem, spell attack looks pretty good in comparison. Either can have a decent chance.

CON RIT - level 7 - AC 27; Fort +17, Ref +14, Will +10. Will save again is the best option. This time though spell attack does not get competitive.

COARTI - level 7 - AC 24; Fort +13, Ref +17, Will +15; +1 status to all saves vs. magic. Fort is weakest but notice this creature was made to make spell attack equal to weakest save before teamwork is in play. This is the ideal creature defense block for spell attack.

The point is that spell attack is meant as a way for the spellcaster to benefit from teamwork. Its only with teamwork that it is considered balanced with other options they have on purpose. That was the only desing choice that kept it from being the best option all the time when teamwork was present.

[Tridus]

The Raven Black wrote:

The answer is actually "Do not try to equal the martials at their own game."

What would people tell a player complaining that their martial PC does not have all the varied possibilities that casters casually get ?

"Do not expect to hit with spells that are explicitly in the game and target AC" is a completely absurd take. The whole problem is the spells are in the game, people expect to use them, and they are bad at what they do because of both delayed proficiency and also the lack of item bonus. Delayed proficiency happens to be relevant to the discussion.

These spells feel really bad at level 6 because you can roll a 15 on the dice and miss while a Fighter rolls an 11 and hits targeting the same defense. Obviously a new player is going to look at that and go "wtf? because it's a bad design.

[Tridus]

Bluemagetim wrote:

Spell attack is the only vector through which a spellcaster can fully participate in the game’s teamwork accuracy economy with spells.

But it was not built to be something that is always the best option, it needed to be an option to weight against using a spell against the weakest save.

Keeping that in mind when is spellattack weighing in strongly?
When the circumstances are specific and add up to outweigh going against a save spell. Thats it.

See, I'd accept this if it was true at all levels of play. But it's not. It starts off as a minor issue, then grows into a bigger one, then a really big one, and then shrinks to basically nothing.

Spell attacks are on par with standard martials at level 1 and only at -1 from level 2-5 & level 19-20. That's 7 out of 20 levels, which is a pretty sizable chunk of the level range.

But at level 5-6 that gap is -3 and at 13-14 it's -4 (or a comical -6 vs Fighter/Gunslinger). Those are HUGE differences in this system.

It takes a lot more teamwork to compensate for a -4 than it does for a -1. This is not a normal amount of unevenness for this system.

[Unicore]

Even when the proficiency numbers are the same, single target, single spell, spell attack roll blasting is not a strategy that the game should encourage players to adopt. Even when the difference between a martial character’s weapon attack and a spell caster’s spell attack roll accuracy is 4 or more points, there will still be times where a caster is best off casting a spell attack roll spell.

PF2 is not a competition between characters, and is not designed to be played where every character need to be filling the same roles.

All that said, it will probably be necessary to wait until impossible magic comes out to see what the state of spell attack roll spells are going to be in PF2 remastered.

[Riggler]

Tridus wrote:

"Do not expect to hit with spells that are explicitly in the game and target AC" is a completely absurd take. The whole problem is the spells are in the game, people expect to use them, and they are bad at what they do because of both delayed proficiency and also the lack of item bonus. Delayed proficiency happens to be relevant to the discussion.

These spells feel really bad at level 6 because you can roll a 15 on the dice and miss while a Fighter rolls an 11 and hits targeting the same defense. Obviously a new player is going to look at that and go "wtf? because it's a bad design.

Exactly. Not only do spells feel bad when compared to martials, but they are a limited resource.

Going back to the game's origins, the spellcaster's game-breaking power was always balanced against it's resource limitation. Sure, you got nukes and utility, but resource management was the name of the game.

Casters still have resource limitations martials don't have, but their nukes have been made WORSE than the martials.

Thus, when new players come to PF2e, the hero fantasy of the powerful caster is missing from the game as they see their martial friends do better/more every turn than they can do on their nuke turn.

Hopefully Impossible Magic sends help to casters.

[Gaulin]

Just to play devils advocate a bit, even though I mostly agree with spellcasting proficiency level up timing is wonky, I wonder if spell attacks are treated as such in part because of how strong they are? Like, a martial making an attack is not going to do as much damage as an attack spell. I remember towards the end of one of our campaigns I was critting with searing light for absurd amounts of damage and I think it kind of annoyed the martials in the party a little. That's an extreme example of course, but still. Trading power for consistency isn't the craziest thing.

[The Raven Black]

So great that people want spell attacks to hit as easily as a martial's Strikes but do not consider the access to save spells, the free heightening of damage and all the other tricks a caster takes for granted that a martial lacks.

And of course the required comparison to Fighter's to hit when it is the whole point of the class and leaves even other martials in the dust.

I want casters to have attack spells that get an effect even on a failure (though not a crit fail).

I definitely do not want to go back to casters leaving martials far behind in the formers' shadow.

[Ascalaphus]

I feel spell attacks are in a weird place and not entirely satisfactory.

1. It's a bit off that they start out the same accuracy as weapon attacks but then fall behind.

2. There's not really all that many of them. Compared to how many spells target saves, it feels like spell attacks are a small minority that could have been just absorbed into the other types.

With saving throws you know that saving throw numbers are modeled significantly on what numbers monsters need to balance well against casters. With AC you know AC is mostly balanced against martials because those are the biggest group rolling against AC.

I feel we'd be better off by either leaning more heavily into spell attacks (and adding some accuracy boosters there) or by removing it from the game and converting those spells to saving throws instead.

[Bluemagetim]

Tridus wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Spell attack is the only vector through which a spellcaster can fully participate in the game’s teamwork accuracy economy with spells.

But it was not built to be something that is always the best option, it needed to be an option to weight against using a spell against the weakest save.

Keeping that in mind when is spellattack weighing in strongly?
When the circumstances are specific and add up to outweigh going against a save spell. Thats it.

See, I'd accept this if it was true at all levels of play. But it's not. It starts off as a minor issue, then grows into a bigger one, then a really big one, and then shrinks to basically nothing.

Spell attacks are on par with standard martials at level 1 and only at -1 from level 2-5 & level 19-20. That's 7 out of 20 levels, which is a pretty sizable chunk of the level range.

But at level 5-6 that gap is -3 and at 13-14 it's -4 (or a comical -6 vs Fighter/Gunslinger). Those are HUGE differences in this system.

It takes a lot more teamwork to compensate for a -4 than it does for a -1. This is not a normal amount of unevenness for this system.

Ill take a look at level 6 and level 14 next.

And to be fair the best accuracy a spellcaster should have is always a comparison to the weakest save they could target and not what a martial could be doing.
If the accuracy against weakest save is the problem against a varied set of creature builds thats an indictment of spellcasting in the system as a whole.

Also teamwork is assumed in the balance point for spell attack because the game design expects it to be there and the swing potential for spell attack exceeds the potential for most save spells.

[exequiel759]

The Raven Black wrote:

So great that people want spell attacks to hit as easily as a martial's Strikes but do not consider the access to save spells, the free heightening of damage and all the other tricks a caster takes for granted that a martial lacks.

And of course the required comparison to Fighter's to hit when it is the whole point of the class and leaves even other martials in the dust.

I want casters to have attack spells that get an effect even on a failure (though not a crit fail).

I definitely do not want to go back to casters leaving martials far behind in the formers' shadow.

I think you aren't understaind the point here. This isn't a "I want to use spell attacks ignoring there's save spells", this is a "why bother making spell attacks worse for no reason". If spell attacks are bad then don't include them in the first place. What's the point of adding them if they are trap options?

Gaulin wrote:

Just to play devils advocate a bit, even though I mostly agree with spellcasting proficiency level up timing is wonky, I wonder if spell attacks are treated as such in part because of how strong they are? Like, a martial making an attack is not going to do as much damage as an attack spell. I remember towards the end of one of our campaigns I was critting with searing light for absurd amounts of damage and I think it kind of annoyed the martials in the party a little. That's an extreme example of course, but still. Trading power for consistency isn't the craziest thing.

This isn't true either. Attack spells are (almost) universally 2 actions, which means they don't compete against 1 martial weapon attack, but rather 2 martial weapon attacks or feats like Double Slice and Power Attack. Just from their higher accuracy alone, even on -5 MAP attacks, I'm pretty sure martials are still ahead.

But even then, if that's the problem we could have instead got casters scaling like martials, spell runes, and 1A spell attacks cantrips and spells that had a similar scaling to weapon damage die and 2A spell attack cantrips and spells that were roughly 1.5 times stronger.

[Tridus]

Gaulin wrote:

Just to play devils advocate a bit, even though I mostly agree with spellcasting proficiency level up timing is wonky, I wonder if spell attacks are treated as such in part because of how strong they are? Like, a martial making an attack is not going to do as much damage as an attack spell. I remember towards the end of one of our campaigns I was critting with searing light for absurd amounts of damage and I think it kind of annoyed the martials in the party a little. That's an extreme example of course, but still. Trading power for consistency isn't the craziest thing.

A lot of them aren't actually that strong. The ones that are still around that are tend to have niche targeting. Searing Light and Moonlight Ray are two of those: they scale extremely well against Unholy targets and are very good against them, while not being pretty meh against more general targets.

There's a bunch out there that are useful, but for general purpose use there's not a lot of spell attacks on the strongest spells overall list. That list shrank some in the remaster too with spells like Polar Ray becoming saves.

As for why it's that way? Well the playtest had both item bonuses to spell attacks and touch AC. Both went away and were replaced with nothing. Now that Sure Strike is nerfed there doesn't seem to be any real balance reason for it since the strongest spells are generally all saves.

If it was consistently off a bit from martials you could call it niche protection and that'd probably make sense (especially with Sure Strike letting you compensate when it really matters), but the gap in the middle levels is so much wider than early and late that it doesn't seem like a deliberate outcome if that was the goal.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Ill take a look at level 6 and level 14 next.
And to be fair the best accuracy a spellcaster should have is always a comparison to the weakest save they could target and not what a martial could be doing.

If that's a design goal, spell attack rolls shouldn't exist. That's the problem, really. If they exist, they should be functional. Right now they exist in this weird space where they're pretty solid for a few levels, then feel lousy because they don't keep up with anything, then catch up and feel decent again.

That doesn't make sense. If they're meant to be a secondary, weaker option, they should always be that. If they're meant to be a viable alternative to saves, they should always be that. They shouldn't be both depending on what level band your campaign is in.

Quote:

Also teamwork is assumed in the balance point for spell attack because the game design expects it to be there and the swing potential for spell attack exceeds the potential for most save spells.

I don't think thats true. If you're trying to swing a fight are you casting a spell attack, or are you casting Synesthesia/Slow/Quandry/etc?

The Raven Black wrote:

So great that people want spell attacks to hit as easily as a martial's Strikes but do not consider the access to save spells, the free heightening of damage and all the other tricks a caster takes for granted that a martial lacks.

And of course the required comparison to Fighter's to hit when it is the whole point of the class and leaves even other martials in the dust.

If your plan is just to make up strawmen to argue against, everyone is wasting their time. This is another totally nonsensical take, except now you're making up a position and then arguing against it.

I want spell attacks to, you know, work reliably. They do that well enough at low and very high level. When they're at such a massive deficiency in attack probability, they don't. Especially since you're forgetting they take significantly more resources and more actions than an attack.

Quote:

I definitely do not want to go back to casters leaving martials far behind in the formers' shadow.

I'm pretty confident having a class of spells that people aren't just told to avoid for a majority of the game's level range actually working won't do that.

[Karys]

To be honest, I always wonder if the spell attack rolls were made this way on purpose or they just forgot to compensate for removing touch AC and/or the dueling wand after the playtest. They really are just in such an awkward position I find it hard to believe it was intentional.

[Unicore]

There are monsters with terrible AC. Not being able to target that at all with spells would be a real downer. Hydraulic Push was absolutely fantastic of a spell in the slithering. The funky crit was what made it so great because I could actually do more damage when I did crit.

Demons can have impossibly high saves, especially when paired with bonuses to save vs magic. Dragons now too.

As part of a tool box, there was a decent number of them pre-remaster, and with truestrike, they were in a very good, well balanced place. Post remaster and the limitations of sure strike, they are harder to use as effectively. None of that is really related to the staggered proficiency difference though. It is seems like only in comparing a caster who is over using them against enemies they should be targeting with other spells to martials that the staggered proficiency is presenting a problem at tables.

[OceanshieldwolPF 2.5]

All of this discussion of spell attacks vs. saves is quite pertinent to my current experience. I get the feeling the casters in my game find the “vs. save” spells kinda deflating merely due to not rolling to attack - I’m rolling the opponents saves behind a screen…I guess it really affects a sense of agency.

[Bluemagetim]

Ok so i started with level 14 because It should be the level where the problem peaks the highest.

looking at the data from archives for level 14.
Median AC is 36 with a SD of 1.39.
Thats a tight band around 36.

Lowest saves are commonly 22-24.

So if the caster has +19 for spell attack and Spell DC at 29 they are not doing well.

Hitting only on a 17 or up without debuffs and buffs. Creatures saving against the spells best suited against them on a 5 to 7 or up with crit success on 15-17. Spellcasting is rough all around while martials are still on a high from reaching master or expert proficiency at 13.

So what does a spellcaster do at this level to function, cause it looks all around bad? They need teamwork to fix the math. lets assume some baselines that are likely up in moderate or worse fights that everyone can benefit from. Meaning these are going to be up because everyone gets something not just the spell attack.

Save spells dont get these but spell attack does:
+1 status to hit with attack rolls (bless/courageous anthem, thats not even including fortissimo)
+2-3 Circumstance to hit (Aid, master +3 is possible here)
-2 Circumstance to AC (Off guard from trip or grapple are better for spell attack at range)

Save spells can benefit from status penalties on the creature that affect all rolls or specific rolls that saves use.
-1 maybe -2 status penalty, Frighten (fear/demoralize/intimidating strike/fearsome rune)
Or cause they wont stack
-3 status penalty from clumsy reflex and AC but not fort or will (synesthesia)
-2 Status penalty to Will (Bon Mot)

The first round or two is probably setting this up.
So spell casters should not be blasting here unless they are hitting a group from big distances and leveraging the multiple rolls the group is taking to fish out fails for some of them.

If aided and all the other pieces are in place the spell attack is hitting on a 9 or up criting on a 19. Compare that to what is happening with spell saves.
spell saves are benefiting from the status penalty.
The weakest save is still getting a success on an 7-9 and crit success on a 17-19.
Now that spell attack can still benefit from a surestrike or hero point.
Added: Here is where shadow signet really does help conditionally, especially if one of your team had synesthesia. When the low save is reflex you can get that full swing without the creature being off guard to you since the 23 or so lowest save +10 to make it save DC is still lower than the off guard 36 AC.

Which is better to use when all the pieces are in play?

You could say that all these teamwork benefits are not going to be live all at the same time, or that aiding the spellcaster is not the priority, but it can be done, these are typical buffs and debuffs, and why not give your spellcaster aid for a spell attack if that is what the player wants to do?

Against PL+ creatures we would just adjust the AC and weakest saves and yes it gets harder. AC at PL+2 is likely a 38 or 39. Weakest saves might see more variability but overall will be 2 higher too.

[Tridus]

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

All of this discussion of spell attacks vs. saves is quite pertinent to my current experience. I get the feeling the casters in my game find the “vs. save” spells kinda deflating merely due to not rolling to attack - I’m rolling the opponents saves behind a screen…I guess it really affects a sense of agency.

That issue is actually why I don't use secret checks for in-person games: players like rolling dice. Players don't like saying they want to do something and then watching the GM roll dice nearly as much. In any situation with a lot of secret checks it's downright painful as they don't roll anything and watch me roll tons of dice behind a screen.

So I just say "nope" and let them roll. They groan when the nat 1's happen, but they play along fairly and everyone's happy.

Save spells do somewhat have that, but a lot of them have damage and players are still rolling that. The ones that don't... yeah, I get how player psychology would play into it.

You could let them roll a defacto "save attack" (aka: spell attack) against the creature's save DC instead of letting the creature roll. I think that changes the math slightly but for players that really feel the lack of rolling, it would give them that back. Could be a fun house rule for those folks.

[Gaulin]

Again I do think casting proficiency should be bumped down to lower levels. But I do think the saves vs attacks debate is kind of a different story.

https://youtu.be/oeFVhu1xcuE?si=XeYvzIvLjyu7rKVM

The video is from math finders YouTube channel and does a really good job or the strengths and weaknesses of saves vs attacks. Personally I played an elemental sorcerer to level 20 and I definitely felt the dead levels, but I also really felt that a lot of the time, attack rolls were a better use of a spell slot because of the buffs and debuffs that my party and I made work. Saves have such little support and they aren't as reliable to get a fail or crit fail on, and at high levels especially so many enemies have soooo much health that half damage can feel super bad.

[Berselius]

I honestly just wish the statblocks and the whole system of 2E Pathfinder was less complicated. I feel it needs to be simplified a helluva lot more.

[Dragorine]

The last game I ran I tried out letting my casters use the bonus from the gate actuator for their spell attack rolls. We didn't get much past level 5 but it didn't break anything and her oracle was not overpowered.

[UnArcaneElection]

Tridus wrote:

{. . .}

Hell, non-Vancian spellcasting would be on my PF3 things to consider list. That would fix this, lol.

Hey, could be worse. Just be glad we don't have JD Vancian spellcasting . . . .

[glass]

glass wrote:

I have just run the numbers at level 7, and it looks like you are correct for attributes up to +3. I don't know what Wis my player's PC has OTTOMH, but they're a bard so I very much doubt it is higher than that (without then Medic boosts, +3 is ahead of Assurance but only by a fraction of an hp per roll).

When I ran the numbers, I was forgetting the bonus for an expanded healers kit. So attributes up to +2 where Assurance is ahead, not +3. Which quite likely still includes my player's bard.

glass wrote:

Whether or not there actually is a treadmill is not what matters (practically speaking, there is always going to be for level-appropriate challenges - that's what makes them level appropriate). What matters is how much it feels like one.

Now that's subjective - maybe the way things are staggered in PF2 does not help how it feels for you. But I think it does for me and, I suspect, quite a few other people.

Just to be clear, when I said this I was defending the principle of proficiency increases being staggered, not the specific implementation with regard to Spell Attacks.

The Raven Black wrote:

So great that people want spell attacks to hit as easily as a martial's Strikes but do not consider the access to save spells, the free heightening of damage and all the other tricks a caster takes for granted that a martial lacks.

Actually, I am pretty sure everyone is considering Save spells - they are precisely what makes Attack-roll spells such a trap. If all offensive spells had attack rolls, the the internal balance would be much better (external balance is another question, of course).

D&D 4e had attacker roll for every kind of attack, and it worked great. PF3 should do that IMNSHO. And then rebalnce from there as necessary.

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

All of this discussion of spell attacks vs. saves is quite pertinent to my current experience. I get the feeling the casters in my game find the “vs. save” spells kinda deflating merely due to not rolling to attack - I’m rolling the opponents saves behind a screen…I guess it really affects a sense of agency.

Good point, and another reason to make everything "attacker rolls".

[Bluemagetim]

So there was lengthy thread on how to fix spell attack a few years ago where I asked this question. No one back then responded to it, but I still think its the right place to start. How do we know what is functional for spell attacks if we cant answer it?

Bluemagetim wrote:

Bluemagetim Oct 4, 2023, 12:08 pm | Flag | List | Reply

What does everyone on this thread think of as a decent chance of success for a slotted spell against a +2 or +3 level monster. A spell attack spell is mostly single target and if the enemies are same level or lower aoe would probably be much better to use if the fight needs a slotted spell at all.
And this chance should include the benefits of team work, fighting strong monsters is all about teamwork anyway.

[Unicore]

The issue is that accuracy is only one small part of the equation there, because damage, add on effects, and ways attack roll accuracy can be modified also factor into the puzzle.

Damage can be dropped to increase accuracy. Limitations like one one sure strike an encounter could in theory increase damage or general accuracy. Then spells like disintegrate can have additional riders on them that require saves and can make them generally worse than a pure spell attack roll spell, but also have utility benefits that are nearly auto win buttons in some situations.

Until we see if a lot more spell attack roll spells are coming into the game with impossible magic, you will pretty much be having some people weighing in who primarily cast cantrips, some who have stronger focus spell options and even some who’s GMs are still letting them use legacy options like polar ray with the old version of True strike.

As far as remastered spell slot options, we are looking at spells as varied as scorching ray, hydraulic push and searing light. Generic accuracy boosting to scorching ray is going to increase damage very very rapidly.

[Bluemagetim]

Unicore wrote:

The issue is that accuracy is only one small part of the equation there, because damage, add on effects, and ways attack roll accuracy can be modified also factor into the puzzle.

Damage can be dropped to increase accuracy. Limitations like one one sure strike an encounter could in theory increase damage or general accuracy. Then spells like disintegrate can have additional riders on them that require saves and can make them generally worse than a pure spell attack roll spell, but also have utility benefits that are nearly auto win buttons in some situations.

Until we see if a lot more spell attack roll spells are coming into the game with impossible magic, you will pretty much be having some people weighing in who primarily cast cantrips, some who have stronger focus spell options and even some who’s GMs are still letting them use legacy options like polar ray with the old version of True strike.

As far as remastered spell slot options, we are looking at spells as varied as scorching ray, hydraulic push and searing light. Generic accuracy boosting to scorching ray is going to increase damage very very rapidly.

even back then in the 2023 discussion I though the best solution was potency like runes for wands. They increase the spell attack or spell DC of the exact spell in the wand when cast either from a slot or the wand while it is one hand. The bonus only applies to the spell in the wand so its contained and targeted, there is a hand requirement limiting swapablity with others like it, a cost thats an investment in a single spell, and the +s dont have to mirror the progression levels of normal potency runes(they can be targeted at alleviating the pain points of spellcasting in general)

From the numbers I showed at level 14 its not a spell attack only problem, its a spellcasting problem.
Edit: since then though I can see a that the cost of placing the rune on a breath of fire compared to a fireball or a chain lightning cannot be the same. They are effectively improving something much stronger.

[Gortle]

Making Off Guard have a penalty to reflex saves and otherwise making small changes to the flanking rules to help ranged players might be a part of the solution. Encouraging team work....

[Driftbourne]

Verzen wrote:

3) Paizo keeps releasing new class after new class but they almost never give options to already existing classes.

SF1e has way fewer classes than PF2e, but the SF1e classes got updates. I'd also be more interested in seeing more options for existing classes in PF2e as well.

Question: Do you play in home games or organized play? I only play in organized play, and I'm always having fun, but I don't play the same character each game or with the exact same party each week, so the game always feels fresh. I wonder if I only played one character all the time, if I'd feel different about the game.

___________

The thing I wish PF2e had is for hero points to have some kind of fail forward machanic. I've been in games where almost every hero point spent resulted in a lower roll, which feels really bad, especially for new players. Maybe something like every time you roll lower with a hero point, and fail because of it, you get the better luck condition, which adds +1 to your next hero point. Fail twice, and you have +2 better luck, up to a max of +3.

Another option for hero points is to make it so you can't crit fail.

The other thing I find odd in a game that often promotes teamwork is that the rule about stacking bonuses often gets in the way of teamwork. Maybe some kind of teamwork action or feat that lets you spend an action to stack a bonus of the same type, as long as all the bonuses of any type are not greater than +3

[ottdmk]

Bluemagetim wrote:

So if the caster has +19 for spell attack and Spell DC at 29 they are not doing well.

Umnn, aren't your numbers a bit off? Proficiency Bonus at L14 is 18(L14 + Expert 4) plus normally Casting Attribute+5 for a total of +23 Spell Attack and Spell DC of 33.

So, hitting AC on a 13+ and Low Saves succeeding on 9-11.

Still not great, but not as bleak as you describe. If you get off-guard, that's hitting on an 11. With a Status Bonus, 10 or better.

If I missed something about how you arrived at +19/29, apologies.

[The Contrarian]

WatersLethe wrote:

Unicore wrote:

One mechanical issue I have with trying to represent abilities mathematically in a system where level is so much more relevant is that ability scores only actually matter in a very specific level range

That's just flatly untrue. A +1 vs +3 cha person using intimidate is a significant difference all the way throughout levels 1 to 20.

It's just 10%. It's certainly noticeable, but it's not significant. 9/10 times the +1 guy achieves the same results as the +3 guy.

[QuidEst]

The Contrarian wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Unicore wrote:

One mechanical issue I have with trying to represent abilities mathematically in a system where level is so much more relevant is that ability scores only actually matter in a very specific level range

That's just flatly untrue. A +1 vs +3 cha person using intimidate is a significant difference all the way throughout levels 1 to 20.

It's just 10%. It's certainly noticeable, but it's not significant. 9/10 times the +1 guy achieves the same results as the +3 guy.

It makes a difference one-in-ten times, sure, but that's probably at least a 33% increase in how often it succeeds.

[The Contrarian]

QuidEst wrote:

The Contrarian wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Unicore wrote:

One mechanical issue I have with trying to represent abilities mathematically in a system where level is so much more relevant is that ability scores only actually matter in a very specific level range

That's just flatly untrue. A +1 vs +3 cha person using intimidate is a significant difference all the way throughout levels 1 to 20.

It's just 10%. It's certainly noticeable, but it's not significant. 9/10 times the +1 guy achieves the same results as the +3 guy.

It makes a difference one-in-ten times, sure, but that's probably at least a 33% increase in how often it succeeds.

LOLWut? The +3 guy literally has a 10% increase in how often it succeeds. You're totally going to have to walk me through that 33% reasoning.

[glass]

I am not QuidEst, but....

The Contrarian wrote:

LOLWut? The +3 guy literally has a 10% increase in how often it succeeds.

No he doesn't. He succeeds on 10% of the total possible rolls where he otherwise would not have, but that is not the same thing.

The Contrarian wrote:

You're totally going to have to walk me through that 33% reasoning.

If the +1 character would succeed on a 15+, then the +3 character succeeds on a 13+. That is 8 results rather than 6. 8 is 33% greater than 6.