I am not QuidEst, but....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.
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.
Exactly this. In a more extreme example, if somebody needs exactly a 20 to get a success, getting +2 triples how often they succeed (because they succeed on three numbers instead of one). That's still only ten percent of the rolls becoming a success, but it's very significant because the expected time between successes decreases to a third of what it was.
And, if you aren't looking at increases to the critical success rate, that means it's somebody who is succeeding less than half the time. That's pretty normal for demoralizing, since it resolves against Will DC. But it does mean that the +2 shift has a more noticeable difference in things like "how many times do I have to fail before I succeed".
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.
You are absolutely right and thank you for the correction.
14+4+5=23 spell attack 33 spell DC. I should have double checked myself.That means that 13 or up is a hit with spell attack against an on level threat.
It allows that same analysis to shift to facing PL+ creatures instead of on level ones. PL+2 have around 39 AC which is closer to the discrepancy I mistakenly showed
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Thank you for this clear and concise explanation. I think I got carried away by many memories of similar threads where people were asking for casters to be as good as martials on single target attacks while keeping on being also better on everything else.
My apologies for being so belligerent.
I am not QuidEst, but....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.
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.Exactly this. In a more extreme example, if somebody needs exactly a 20 to get a success, getting +2 triples how often they succeed (because they succeed on three numbers instead of one). That's still only ten percent of the rolls becoming a success, but it's very significant because the expected time between successes decreases to a third of what it was.
And, if you aren't looking at increases to the critical success rate, that means it's somebody who is succeeding less than half the time. That's pretty normal for demoralizing, since it resolves against Will DC. But it does mean that the +2 shift has a more noticeable difference in things like "how many times do I have to fail before I succeed".
Bah! Lousy statisticians always swapping numbers to benefit their own arguments!
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics!
Bah! Lousy statisticians always swapping numbers to benefit their own arguments!
My favorite part of statistics that depending on how you're looking at it, you're both right. :)
People definitely feel a +2 in terms of success, and doubly so if it's also increasing your chance to crit succeed. Taking the success number from 15 to 13 feels nice, but taking the success number from 11 to 9 and thus the crit success number from 20 to 19 feels like a huge boost for players. It's only one more number on the die, but it's also a 100% increase in the number of crits in a standard distribution of rolls.
Plus just the general "I crit on something that wasn't a nat 20" good vibes. When PF2 folks talk about "every +1 matters", it's really the increased crit rate that drives that.
Thank you for this clear and concise explanation. I think I got carried away by many memories of similar threads where people were asking for casters to be as good as martials on single target attacks while keeping on being also better on everything else.
My apologies for being so belligerent.
Thanks. No worries. :) That definitely has come up before, especially in "casters are weak" conversations. It's why I try to focus specifically on spell attacks, because casters definitely aren't weak in the midgame overall.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never subscribed to the notion that first edition PF was broken, rather that the average player doesn't respect the tactical wargaming roots of D&D. This mentality has lead to the average 5e player thinking every PC build should be able to walk into the midst of enemy forces in combat regardless of their build. Really, that should be the purview of the tankier classes like fighter and barbarian, but even then Boromir was brought down by a war party of orcs.
Still playing my Pathfinder First Edition and loving it.
I buy Lost Omens books to support Paizo because I love the lore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...username checks out?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never subscribed to the notion that first edition PF was broken, rather that the average player doesn't respect the tactical wargaming roots of D&D. This mentality has lead to the average 5e player thinking every PC build should be able to walk into the midst of enemy forces in combat regardless of their build.
The problem is that some people worked the PF1 build system in multiple different ways. So PCs had wildy different damage ouputs and defenses. It became difficult to challenge as a GM without arbitrarily limiting the combos your particular group liked. Especially if you have groups with a few casual players. If your group has come to a satisfactory position then please enjoy PF1.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never subscribed to the notion that first edition PF was broken, rather that the average player doesn't respect the tactical wargaming roots of D&D. This mentality has lead to the average 5e player thinking every PC build should be able to walk into the midst of enemy forces in combat regardless of their build. Really, that should be the purview of the tankier classes like fighter and barbarian, but even then Boromir was brought down by a war party of orcs.
Still playing my Pathfinder First Edition and loving it.
I buy Lost Omens books to support Paizo because I love the lore.
How does this apply to PF1 players who migrated to PF2 and never looked back? I know quite a few, including myself.
It sounds like disparaging PF2 players to uphold PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not QuidEst, but....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.
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.Exactly this. In a more extreme example, if somebody needs exactly a 20 to get a success, getting +2 triples how often they succeed (because they succeed on three numbers instead of one). That's still only ten percent of the rolls becoming a success, but it's very significant because the expected time between successes decreases to a third of what it was.
And, if you aren't looking at increases to the critical success rate, that means it's somebody who is succeeding less than half the time. That's pretty normal for demoralizing, since it resolves against Will DC. But it does mean that the +2 shift has a more noticeable difference in things like "how many times do I have to fail before I succeed".
I do want to add, while it's technically correct that in the example given it's a 33% increase, I don't actually like the analysis performed in this way because it's misleading.
It's misleading in the sense that the amount of increase is relative to the target value.
For instance, if the +1 character succeeds on a 4, then the +3 character succeeds on a 2. That means going from 17 successes on a D20, to 19 successes. That is a ~12% increase.
At the other end of the extreme is +1 character succeeds on an 19 and thus +3 character succeeds on a 17. That's going from 2 successes to 4 successes. That's a 100% increase.
Since we don't know the target value, talking about the relative increase in success is misleading (IMO).
But I do have to admit, that because the rules force us towards enemies that fall into a pretty narrow ranges (and more generally the challenges we face, in terms of what target values relative to our bonuses) that in terms of "how it feels" it is actually pretty meaningful. But it's because of the "treadmill" affect where you get one better, and the enemy gets 1 better and everything stays basically as it was.
I am not QuidEst, but....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.
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.Exactly this. In a more extreme example, if somebody needs exactly a 20 to get a success, getting +2 triples how often they succeed (because they succeed on three numbers instead of one). That's still only ten percent of the rolls becoming a success, but it's very significant because the expected time between successes decreases to a third of what it was.
And, if you aren't looking at increases to the critical success rate, that means it's somebody who is succeeding less than half the time. That's pretty normal for demoralizing, since it resolves against Will DC. But it does mean that the +2 shift has a more noticeable difference in things like "how many times do I have to fail before I succeed".
I do want to add, while it's technically correct that in the example given it's a 33% increase, I don't actually like the analysis performed in this way because it's misleading.
It's misleading in the sense that the amount of increase is relative to the target value.
For instance, if the +1 character succeeds on a 4, then the +3 character succeeds on a 2. That means going from 17 successes on a D20, to 19 successes. That is a ~12% increase.
At the other end of the extreme is +1 character succeeds on an 19 and thus +3 character succeeds on a 17. That's going from 2 successes to 4 successes. That's a 100% increase.
Since we don't know the target value, talking about the relative increase in success is misleading (IMO).
But I do have to admit,...
Not quite- the "10% chance of making a difference" narrows the range. If our +3 friend succeeds on a 9 or lower, then it starts impacting the crit chance as well.
That means the lowest number our +3 stat friend could succeed on would be a 10. That's pretty generous for hitting Will DC anyway, so I went with 13.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never subscribed to the notion that first edition PF was broken, rather that the average player doesn't respect the tactical wargaming roots of D&D. This mentality has lead to the average 5e player thinking every PC build should be able to walk into the midst of enemy forces in combat regardless of their build. Really, that should be the purview of the tankier classes like fighter and barbarian, but even then Boromir was brought down by a war party of orcs.
Still playing my Pathfinder First Edition and loving it.
I buy Lost Omens books to support Paizo because I love the lore.
How does this apply to PF1 players who migrated to PF2 and never looked back? I know quite a few, including myself.
It sounds like disparaging PF2 players to uphold PF1.
The group of PF 1e heads were like, mostly casual or themed character builders and 2 optimizers. We played through Strange Aeons and Tyrants Grasp, clamoring over mountains of dead bodies of our PC's to do so, before switching to PF 2e.
Only 1 of the optimizers decided they didn't like it. It's been a profoundly more positive experience all around. There's a lot to be said about character expression, but what I find annoying is 9 times out of 10 "character expression" is just "expressing how big I can get my Attack and Damage numbers".
Not quite- the "10% chance of making a difference" narrows the range. If our +3 friend succeeds on a 9 or lower, then it starts impacting the crit chance as well.
That means the lowest number our +3 stat friend could succeed on would be a 10. That's pretty generous for hitting Will DC anyway, so I went with 13.
You're not wrong that the +10/-10 (crit)success/(crit)failure does throw a wrench into things, but for the general purposes of discussion I was ignoring it (because honestly I don't know how to relay how that impacts the overall evaluation) simply to illustrate why I find that describing it as a 33% increase for a positive outcome is misleading.
I am curious to see what everything thinks on these two points.
What is functional to hit for spell attack?
What is the acceptable crit chance on a spell attack after including the best common case for teamwork math swings?
I am curious to see what everything thinks on these two points.
What is functional to hit for spell attack?
What is the acceptable crit chance on a spell attack after including the best common case for teamwork math swings?
My hot take?
For the first question, somewhere close to martial levels of ability to hit.
Not accounting for situational bonuses though, martial (not fighter) to hit and spell caster to hit (for spells) are already close right? Well, only kinda.
Examples:
Wizard gets expert spellcasting at 7, master at 15, and legendary at 19.
Ranger/Barbarian (most martials) get expert in weapons at 5, master at 13, but never gets to legendary. On top of that, martials also get accuracy boosters in the form of weapon runes. And on top of that, there are bonuses that apply to melee weapons, that don't apply to ranged attacks (including ranged spells). Off-guard from flanking being a common one that melee attackers will see that ranged attackers (including spells) wont.
So... what would I do?
1) Smooth the proficiency bump increases. This may actually require separating spell DC and spell attack proficiency from one another as giving the bump to spell DC 2 levels earlier is probably not good.
2) Additionally provide an item bonus similar to martial levels
Ultimately spell casters who want to make spell attack rolls probably need to be at the same level of attack bonus as melee martials are. They're expending limited spell slot, and if they miss the spell is expended with no effect. Subsequently this is why I'm also okay with them criting more often than they currently do, because it is limited by spell slots.
There are about 37 spells total (including focus spells and cantrips) that target AC, compared to the hundreds that don't.
We might need to look at how those spells scale up if crits become problematic. But honestly I'd rather look at minimizing how much damage gets added on a crit, than keep spell attack rolls as something no one wants to bother with.
That said, I know it wouldn't be done because you're basically completely decoupling spell attack from spell DC and creating a bunch of special rules just for it...and while that might be great for a home game it makes the game more complicated in a way that I don't think Paizo would ever really consider.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious to see what everything thinks on these two points.
What is functional to hit for spell attack?
What is the acceptable crit chance on a spell attack after including the best common case for teamwork math swings?
Depends on the damage, and relative to save spells.
The expected damage of a to-hit and save spell should be about the same. However, most to-hit spells don't do any damage on a miss. This means that the damage they do on a hit/crit needs to be higher than that of a save spell.
There's a few rare spells that still deal damage on a miss (horizon thunder sphere) that skew this a bit but they're exceptional. If we stick to the paradigm that a to-hit that misses does almost nothing, then the results of a hit need to be bigger than a failure on a basic save. That, or the chance of hitting needs to be much bigger than the chance of an enemy failing a save. (Which, I don't think is the case?)
So either to-hit on spells should go up, or damage should go up, by a lot. I'd be quite okay with to-hit spells being the all or nothing high risk high reward option. But currently it feels like high risk average reward.
|
I am curious to see what everything thinks on these two points.
What is functional to hit for spell attack?
What is the acceptable crit chance on a spell attack after including the best common case for teamwork math swings?
My simple take is for them to take a page from the Kineticist book. Their impulses are like spells in so many ways and they get Attenuators to add to their attack roll (but not saves). Simply give casters similar items and call it a day. It keeps Kineticists behind (level wise) martials for a while, but makes them feel so much better as things scale.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious to see what everything thinks on these two points.
What is functional to hit for spell attack?
What is the acceptable crit chance on a spell attack after including the best common case for teamwork math swings?
Well, it's generally 2 actions and a resource (spell slot), almost all of which do nothing unless you hit, and competing with Save spells that often do something even on a success (so the odds of doing something are higher).
That means the hit chance has to be high enough that it doesn't feel like a mistake to even attempt it.
I don't know what the actual raw number is. I do know it feels pretty okay at low level (1-4) when it's not that much different from a standard martial's chance to hit (either even or -1, all other things being equal). The big problem at that level is the spell attack spells aren't particularly better than the save spells and those are far more likely to do something. But if you're getting something extra like Needle Darts or Sanctified Divine Lance triggering a weakness, it's worth the risk/reward to attempt it (or melee Ignition getting Off-Guard). Otherwise? Well, we see a lot of Electric Arc spam for a reason.
This calculus kind of falls off at high level even when the actual math on hitting is similar because you now have dramatically stronger save spells that do stuff on a success and thus only very rarely do nothing. So even a 50% hit chance is pretty meh here because the alternative is something you can land closer to 90% of the time for strong effects.
But I think the hit chance once you get up to level 19 is entirely decent in itself, but it's not worth the much higher miss chance in a typical situation. Sometimes it is, like a max rank Moonlight Ray against a Fiend as if you can land that it's a HUGE amount of damage.
I just know that if I roll a 15 and miss, and a Fighter/Gunslinger rolls a 10 and hits, all other things being equal, I'm feeling pretty annoyed at how the deck is stacked against the spell I'm trying to use so severely. That's what happens at level 13-14 and whatever the number should be, it ain't that.