| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Recently I was selecting cantrips and I realized that the experience wasn't all that fun. Cantrips are a pretty fundamental part of playing a spellcaster, and there are a bunch of ways to get cantrips, but... there don't seem to be enough non-focus cantrip options.
I feel like we should have the ability to pick out cantrips like a martial picks out weapons: going through a big list, picking the right ones with the right combinations of stats and traits, planning how to use them as part of your go-to combat or exploration routine.
But in reality there aren't that many, they don't have overlaps in ranges and damage types and saves, and several of them are just kind of bad. There are hardly any decent debuff or buff cantrips. There's also not that many really amazing cantrips to sell one spell list over another.
It just seems like cantrips aren't living up to their potential.
There are hardly any decent debuff or buff cantrips.
I think that one, specifically, is a 'painted into a corner' type of thing.
One, there are only a handful of types of buffs/debuffs. For example, the difference between Frightened and Sickened is not very big. At the end of the math, there are only a handful of stats that can be affected. Calling them by different names isn't going to make the feeling of sameness any better.
Two, buffs and debuffs that are spell slot spells are generally considered the evergreen ones. A +1 bonus from Bless is always appreciated whether you are playing at level 1 or level 18. Creating more of those as Cantrips is just going to make Cantrips the most powerful or the most cost-effective method of buffing/debuffing available. Don't invest in skill boosts to use Aid - just acquire and use the 1-action single target buff cantrip. Spend your skill boosts on something better and keep your reaction available for other things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do we?
I'm unsure you've made your case. I have gotten a lot of mileage out of Cantrips, even several non-combat ones, and when I have fewer (like via MCD or Ancestry abilities) or am locked into a set, I'm hard pressed to choose since so many have advantages dependent on the circumstances. A few, like Daze or Puff of Poison, sadden me, but I doubt Paizo's going to make "Daze, but better". I also doubt buffs will get better than Guidance (not that I take it, but it's popular with my peers).
And, what do you desire that leads to you to imply spell lists need "really amazing cantrips" that sell them? While most (maybe all?) Cantrips feature on multiple lists, there are definite differences in lists already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A single action no-limit cantrip that uses the skill associated with that tradition's casting to Aid would actually be a great way to close the gap between cha casters that can poach one for all and everyone else.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, I get mileage out of what we have, but I want more options. I want better variety of damage cantrips with variations on range, save, and damage type, so I can take things more thematically aligned with my character. Range variation in particular is brutal, severely limiting options if I want to play around beyond 30ft. I've also used all the better cantrips many times over, and have seen them in play many times over, and it's getting old.
In this scenario, I was picking out an ancestry cantrip for an Intelligent Weapon, and while doing so I could select which tradition I wanted as well. There were no "killer apps" that made one cantrip list feel all that different from the others and there's perhaps too much overlap. As a full caster, at least from a cantrip perspective, it is trivially easy to load up on a bunch of useful spells and end up having a loadout that's quite similar to a caster of a different tradition.
As for buffs and debuffs, I feel like they could get clever with little boons and annoyances. Things like 1 action +5ft speed to your ally, or a spell to give you a bonus reaction to aid twice, could be the type of tactical nitty gritty I'd like to see. As for debuffs, playing around with resistances and weaknesses is fun, as well as SF2's Stumble which helps pull enemies out of the air!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem of cantrips is a consequence of how spellcasting was designed in PF2e. Don't get me wrong, if we compare cantrips in PF2e to cantrips in PF1e its night and day, but cantrips are supposed to be the caster's equivalent of martial's weapons but they just don't compare.
I honestly think they should have probably went with making cantrips 1A all across the board, with a similar damage scaling to weapon runes (1dX+spellcasting stat, heightening to 2dX+stat at 5th level, 3dX+stat at 9th level, 4dX+stat at 13th level, and 5dX+stat at 17th level).
If all cantrips were spell attacks as well (and ideally spell runes existed too, since we are it) it could lead to IMO a more satisfying playstyle for spellcasters of 2A spell + 1A cantrip if they don't need to reposition. I think the aspect that feels the worst about spellcaster is that they effectively gamble their whole turn on a single check, which involves a dice roll that they don't even get to make, on a system where is kinda common for monsters to have high saves, and with casters that are already a bit below the math in terms of accuracy. If your only chance to do something each turn fails and you are wasting your limited spell slots into it, it feels really bad.
I think the problem of cantrips is a consequence of how spellcasting was designed in PF2e. Don't get me wrong, if we compare cantrips in PF2e to cantrips in PF1e its night and day, but cantrips are supposed to be the caster's equivalent of martial's weapons but they just don't compare.
I feel focus spells are meant to be closer to the equivalent of martial weapons; combat cantrips are useful at low level but quickly become redundant for the most part when caster classes get enough spell slots to throw around every encounter.
To answer the OP, I personally would like to see more cantrips, and in particular I'd like to see more utility-oriented cantrips. I find that I tend to look forward more to having those at later levels, and find them generally more interesting than more damage cantrips, which I think are limited by how much a cantrip is allowed to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem of cantrips is a consequence of how spellcasting was designed in PF2e. Don't get me wrong, if we compare cantrips in PF2e to cantrips in PF1e its night and day, but cantrips are supposed to be the caster's equivalent of martial's weapons but they just don't compare.I feel focus spells are meant to be closer to the equivalent of martial weapons; combat cantrips are useful at low level but quickly become redundant for the most part when caster classes get enough spell slots to throw around every encounter.
I think the important part of what I said is that "cantrips are supposed to be the caster's equivalent of martial's weapons". IMO focus spells are more like the feats martials tend to get with a 1 minute or higher frequency. A thing you can use at best 3 times each combat can't really be a "weapon" IMO.
Though I agree part of the problem comes from the fact that cantrips are redundant when you have so many spell slots to use. If spell slots were more limited, then cantrips would need to be designed to be an actual meaningful back-up option and not something that you use for 3 or 4 levels and that's it.
I suppose we're coming at it from different angles, but to me focus spells represent the kind of power output you'd expect from a martial class making a Strike, typically using a feat as you mention, with top-rank slot spells being a cut above. Cantrips start off a cut below focus spells, which makes for perfectly valid output in combat at low level, but I think intentionally fall off after that because casters are expected to switch to focus spells and low-rank spell slots as backup options. In a game that didn't structure itself around Vancian spellcasting and instead allowed each spell to be consistent and unbound by daily attrition, we likely wouldn't have this three-part separation to begin with, but them's the breaks for 2e I think.
A set of Cantrips can target Weaknesses more often than a set of weapons (which in turn require multiple Runes or Doubling Rings, etc if swapping). Targeting a Weakness can be a significant damage boost. Plus Cantrips work at range, so we should be comparing them to ranged weapons (albeit vs. two actions so two Strikes and w/ shorter range increments). And for most Cantrips, one can have full hands, so Seed Pods. Cantrips are best compared to Leshy Seed Pods. :-)
Which is to say that comparison gets quite complex.
Still not seeing a need for more. A want, yes, and I do think there's space for expansion. Thing is, I do expect more Cantrips as much as I do other spells. I don't expect them to become more powerful, or even more useful w/ combat numbers, only offer broader utility & flavor.
I very much agree that we need more cantrips in terms of general function / roles, more apples to oranges options instead of yet another save +1d4 damage cantrip.
Sadly, it's still genuinely problematic that Electric Arc gets to exist in its current state, as most damage cantrips, past and future, will never compete. That's a big angle to this frustration, as we know they'll never meaningfully nerf EA, nor add another cantrip of equivalent power, leaving many new additions feeling toothless.
________________________
rare Puff of Poison mention
This one is especially tragic, in part becaue I might have been one of the only players to (fully) use the old Puff of Poison when it was genuinely great, before it was remastered and gutted.
The original reason for P.o.P's bad dmg scaling was due to it's unique orange of a mechanic, one that was super easy to miss. It had the [inhaled] trait, and my GM was happy to agree that meant the cantrip created a 1 min lingering, 2x2x2 cube of poison.
(That's why it had a 5ft range; spells don't have Interact reach like poison vials, so you needed that listed range to not poison yourself. The upping from 5 --> 10 feet was done to respect the effective range of creating a 2x2 AoE)
Some of the damage being back-loaded into the non-stacking persistent, plus PoP only threatening cantrip-level damage, meant foes could face tank it when they needed to, but it gave the cantrip a completely unique use case as area denial, especially preemptively when lack of range or LoS upon foes was a consideration.
Even in that pre-nerf state, it was never enough of a threat to ever be a balance problem, but I genuinely used it a few times in Gatewalkers. Even on a PC wearing a Jolt Coil for that blatantly-too-good Electric Arc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
cantrips supposed to compare to martial strikes?
An easy to miss angle of this comparison is that the martial classes are never supposed to only deal raw weapon damage via Strikes.
Martials are intended to have passive chassis boosts like Sneak Attack, Rage damage, etc. Even Fighters & Gunslingers have their higher to-hit numbers, which indirectly serve that same key function.Meanwhile, it's very hard to boost cantrip damage. The MAP 0 martial Strike is definitely intended to outpace a cantrip of matching range and action cost, and as far as I can see, it very much does. Even the 2 swings vs 2A cantrip has the striker come out on top, as it should.
Except for the times it doesn't. Like an Alchemist comparing 2 Quick Vial Strikes against their (archetype!) spellcasting's Electric Arc, lol.
It is super yikes for an archetype cantrip to have such a clear win, but that situation is more the summation of [Alchemist sucks] + [EA is specifically OP] problem. The exception that helps to prove the rule as mostly true.
(and I agree w/ Paizo's choice that Alchemist *should* deal less damage than a normal martial! but archetype casting cantrips should still never outpace your base vial strikes, c'mon)
Which do yall think makes sense to pick as 'the' general standard martial chassis booster to use for comparisons like that? Fury Barb's Rage damage, at +3 -> +7 -> +13 per hit?
I think the important part of what I said is that "cantrips are supposed to be the caster's equivalent of martial's weapons".I agree with the OP's request for wider breadth of available cantrips, but I don't think the cantrip system as a whole needs a damage upgrade to "martial weapon" damage...because it's already close. Here's a quick comparison.
L1, longsword d8+4, against equal AC expected damage is .55 for first strike and .30 for second, so expected damage over two actions (for comparison to one cantrip) is (9.5*.85)=7.2 with no feat tricks or class bonuses. EA 2d4 against equal saves expected damage is .775 against two targets, so expected damage is (5*.775*2)= 7.75.
So EA = longsword in expected damage output, as long as you've got two targets. Keeping in mind this is "over many different outcomes" so the reason it's so competitive is because there are many times when the longsword whiffs and the save spell lands some damage. think of it like rolling two different d20s for damage; one of them does 1 on 19 faces, the other does 2 on 9 faces; the second die hits harder when it hits, but the first averages more over time. I expect the second die feels stronger or more fun to roll, but mathematically, they're about the same over time. That's what's going on here.
L4, martial gets striking rune. Same math, only 2d8+4 vs. 3d4. Expected output: longsword 11.05 vs. EA 11.625.
L8, martial gets +1d6 property rune, EA is now 5d4. Expected output: longsword 14.0, EA 19.375
I'll stop there, but the point is EA is keeping up with raw weapon damage. It is your longsword, with a couple caveats.
It won't keep up with class feats and abilities. But should it? The caster's equivalent of class feats and abilities are their slot spells.
EA is good. Not all cantrips are EA. I would agree that many cantrips need to be tuned a bit higher than they are. Though I wouldn't tune them higher than 2d4+1d4/rank, multiple targets....
I'm not talking about damage either, I'm talking about their usefulness. Cantrips in PF2e usually start at 1dX at 1st level, increasing by one damage die every two levels thereafter, up to 10dX at 19th level. My proposal changes this to 1dX+casting stat at 1st level, increasing by one damage die every 4 levels thereafter, up to 5xD+casting stat at 17th level. Even when I'm proposing to change cantrips to one action all across the board, due to the lack of accuracy on a potential second cantrip attack, the damage is arguably worse than right now on average for the same amount of actions.
What I'm trying to adress here is that nobody has a reason to use cantrips after 4th-5th level, both because of the amount of spell slots most casters get at that point, and because there's other options like focus spells which provide a more "readily available" alternative to cantrips that doesn't run on a source that refreshes daily.
I'm also trying to give a bit more parity between casters and martials in terms of gameplay. Most martials usually do 2 attacks each turn, while a caster, due to the action cost of most spells, gambles their whole turn on a d20 roll that they don't even get to make most of the time. A 1A cantrip can fill the role of that second attack martials get to make in most turns, while also providing a non-resource way to contribute to combat in the case they would run out of spells.
I think its important to note that I don't think we could really apply this to the current system though, mostly because some caster classes already have a better use for that third action in most scenarios anyways. I'm mostly proposing this for a future edition, with casters probably having less spell slots overall that recharge per encounter, with cantrips being an slightly weaker yet reliable source spells.
But in reality there aren't that many, they don't have overlaps in ranges and damage types and saves, and several of them are just kind of bad. There are hardly any decent debuff or buff cantrips. There's also not that many really amazing cantrips to sell one spell list over another.
It just seems like cantrips aren't living up to their potential.
Personally I see no issue with considering certain damage types interchangeable ("energy": acid/cold/fire/electricity; "physical": bludgeoning/slashing/piercing; "brainy": mental/spirit). So if a player wants Ignition with cold damage instead of fire, Frostbite with electricity instead of cold, Acid Splash with fire, or Needle Darts with slashing damage, there's no reason to deny that imo. Oscillating Wave Psychics and Elemental Wrath Elves already have some of those options after all.
For example, the difference between Frightened and Sickened is not very big.
Sickened is far superior since it doesn't tick down automatically, though for a cantrip it could just be "sickened 1 for 1 round", ofc.
However, sickened is also great since it prevents enemies from swallowing whole your party members, and it doesn't care about mental immunities. (Technically immunity to mental doesn't make you immune to frightened, but there are only very few non-mental abilities that frighten.)A single action no-limit cantrip that uses the skill associated with that tradition's casting to Aid would actually be a great way to close the gap between cha casters that can poach one for all and everyone else.
Starfinder 2e has Analyze Target. There are a few others that people might want to take a look at (Sf2e Archives of Nethys link).
Eldritch Lance is basically Divine Lance but with mental damage, while Injury Echo looks like a cool replacement for Daze at first, until you see the same bad +2 heightening crap (lower damage but H+1 would go a long way).
As for buffs and debuffs, I feel like they could get clever with little boons and annoyances. Things like 1 action +5ft speed to your ally, or a spell to give you a bonus reaction to aid twice, could be the type of tactical nitty gritty I'd like to see.
Vague Idea is a great Recall Knowledge "aid" cantrip! Its circumstance bonus also combines well with Analyze Target (a status bonus), boosting your party's chance of successful Recall Knowledge checks.
The Reorient cantrip, for example, removes the off-guard condition from an ally (though I dislike the Vitality trait and the long immunity on it).
Funnily enough, I think at high levels cantrips are mostly failing non-full-casters who took them for fun or for a non-weapon ranged option. I don't think it's necessarily bad if casters are having too much fun with their main spells that they don't always fall back to their cantrips.
Funnily enough, I think at high levels cantrips are mostly failing non-casters who took them for fun or for a non-weapon ranged option. I don't think it's necessarily bad if casters are having too much fun with their main spells that they don't always fall back to their cantrips.The two wave casters may still be using them. Though if they were able to poach good focus spells, they're using those first.
You're right! I was actually building a Summoner alongside my intelligent weapon when I thought of starting this thread.
Ugh no, you and I definitely have different tastes. I hate the 'big step' increments. To me, that makes it useful only half the levels (i.e. when you've just incremented). Also, save spells don't lose accuracy on a second cast, so your 1a variants are doing more than you think. And probably doing a lot more at low levels than you think, because of the +4 instead of +1d4 change back.
I want to insist this isn't a proposal for the current system, but for a future edition, one where potentially there woulnd't make a difference between "spell attacks" and "spell saves", so MAP would apply to both. But still, even in the current system, I have the feeling most casters already get to use their third action for something that's arguably better than a 5d6+stat damage cantrip anyways. Witch hexes, the sustain effects from animist vessel spells, the bard's inspire courage, just to name a few. Even if we got a few universal 1A cantrips with the damage scaling I'm proposing here, I don't think it would change much as most classes would still use the options they already have anyways since those are clearly better.
Also, the damage you make when a singular foe when they succeed on a save is pretty much neglible. The damage casters make in general is neglible, even with single target spells, but the only reason why I don't think their damage is bad per se its because it usually applies to multiple targets. I feel there's very few cantrips that do AoE damage, which IMO if cantrips are already not worth the effort most of the time, then these are even less worth. A generic rotation of 2A save spell > 1A spell attack spell would, in practice, not be much of a change even in the current system.
I get you. However it's not much of a gamble: casters do some damage the vast majority of the time, because of the 'half on a successful save' mechanic. If you want to make them more martial, you could add a feat something like this:
Fast Casting [Feat; Free action; Spellshape; Flourish]. Requirement: Your next action would be to cast a 2-action cantrip that requires a saving throw and does damage. Effect: the spell requires only 1 action to cast, however, it does no damage on a Successful save.
Adding an ability like that is a lot simpler than reinventing the whole cantrip list :)
If you make a feat to patch a failure of the system, then you are making it a feat tax, which is against the whole design ethos of PF2e.
Also, making your whole turn revolve a single check is a gamble, it doesn't matter how strong or weak the thing you make is. This isn't a thing for martials because, even on the chance that you happen to fail your 2 Strikes, you likely still used your third action for something useful, like a demoralize or just moving into melee, providing flanking benefits for other melee martials and potentially making reposition for the foe harder as well if you have Reactive Strike.
A 5th-level caster that stays away from danger that throws a 3rd-rank fireball against foes is likely going to deal an average of 15 damage between the foes that succeed and fail, which isn't horrible but isn't great either to each individual target, and unlike a martial, you are spending limited spell slots for this and you aren't really providing any support benefits for the rest of the group like flanking or whatever.
This isn't a matter of "casters suck" because that's not what I think, its a matter of "casters feel bad in play" and I think a future edition should adress this.
When PF2e changed Cantrips to not use Casting Stat, they also changed the base damage to 2dX, with some exceptions (Needle Darts starts at 3d4, for example.)
The average damage stayed basically the same, the ceiling was raised for any d6 Cantrip, and the floor fell from 5 pts (maxed Stat) to 2.
|
Asking for a cantrip that inflicts Sickened is a non-starter, as there is already a 1st level spell that inflicts it. (Note the range.)
I believe the problem is that you expect too much from cantrips; they are the _simple_ weapons of a spell caster.
Goblin Pox, two action
Range touch; Targets 1 creature
Defense Fortitude
Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target is sickened 1.
Failure The target is afflicted with goblin pox at stage 1.
Critical Failure The target is afflicted with goblin pox at stage 2.
Goblin Pox (disease) Level 1; Creatures that have the goblin trait and goblin dogs are immune; Stage 1 sickened 1 (1 round); Stage 2 sickened 1 and slowed 1 (1 round); Stage 3 sickened 1 and the creature can't reduce its sickened value below 1 (1 day)
Reminds me of Alzarius (NPC from Spore War) who is a "Frozen Bloodline" Sorcerer doing cold damage with his elemental spells. Kinda mean that NPCs get that but players can't…
Maybe we can enhance the idea of spellhearts and give casters some implements (rods, orbs, …) again that have interesting cantrip options. Since holding an item is a cost in & of itself, those cantrips could offer options that are usually not available for normal cantrips.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if we're talking about a brand-new edition, particularly one that does away with Vancian spellcasting, it might be worth questioning why we'd need cantrips in the first place: if spells by default could be used at-will, then those spells would effectively accomplish the basic function of cantrips in that they'd be usable without resource constraints. If that future edition relaxes its niche protection both ways, then giving casters the magical equivalent of Strikes for significant amounts of single-target damage could also be completely fine.
I will say, though, that in the context of the current edition, casters and martials play differently with both action costs and accuracy: although casters tend to take at least two actions to Cast a Spell, their save spells also tend to still do something on a successful save, which makes them significantly more reliable. One way to make spell attacks better could be to take the experiment that was the live wire cantrip and generalize it to other spell attacks, so that they feel less binary. The alternative could also be to just do away with spell attacks as much as possible and turn those into save effects (assuming the poor Magus gets adapted accordingly), which would particularly benefit cantrips.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then there should also be a rule that spell attacks do double damage on critical hits (unless specified otherwise)…
Or a once per day ability on an item to apply Quickened Casting to a cantrip of your choice, maybe the Shadow Signet (which is a bandaid item on a system failure anyway).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly support an expansion to cantrips. The biggest issue for me is that cantrips are the bread and butter of caster gameplay at low levels, but they feel very unidimensional in terms of character fantasy. If I want to be a blaster, they're great, providing a significant contribution to the group from level 1. If my dream is to primarily support or control, there are very few cantrips that let me do that as my 2-action activity for the turn. The few that do so are just deeply underwhelming when compared to making an attack. I have to use slotted spells instead and (frankly) even the first rank control and support spells are, with a couple exceptions, not even that great.
Guidance and shield are quite good (especially with the psychic ability to put shields on other people), but they're not the primary spell you're casting on a turn. There is certainly room to have support or control effects at the cantrip level that are simple, short duration, and still punchy and effective compared to their purely damaging counterparts, without overshadowing slotted spells.
One example cantrip would be a cantrip version of runic weapon. Imagine a cantrip with the same effect as runic weapon, but only lasting one round or one attack. It's indirect damage, but the flavor is purely supportive.
Yes, totally... especially some with the Attack trait...
Seriously, the Magus got screwed big time with the convertion...
Like, take an energy or elemental trait, double-check if there's a cantrip with an attack roll and if not, add it.
|
I feel like casters do already have decent 1A options: recall knowledge, demoralize, bon mot, spellshape feats, moving to a better spot, stepping away from a bad spot, raising a shield, drawing a scroll, bonking someone with a staff, just to name some obvious ones. I think it would actually be bad to create a 1A damaging cantrip because if it's any good, it'll really crowd that space and promote a "stand and blast" more boring fighting style.
Damage cantrips do seem like they curve rather poorly; a spell-from-slots or a good focus spell heightens by about 2d6 per rank and a cantrip by 1d6 per rank if you're lucky. For combats that are usually decided in three rounds, at some point you can just start out with slots and focus spells and cantrips are just for mopping up. They really do measure out more like simple weapons.
I think electric arc is a good power level for cantrips, and maybe the floor could rise a bit for others. But I'd be bored if they were all just elemental arcs. Comparing electric arc to for example timber (15ft line), you're much more likely to hit two enemies with electric arc. If timber allowed you to drop a 15 foot line anywhere within 30 feet, that'd be more competitive. (Scatter Scree is so close to being good enough.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like casters do already have decent 1A options: recall knowledge, demoralize, bon mot, spellshape feats, moving to a better spot, stepping away from a bad spot, raising a shield, drawing a scroll, bonking someone with a staff, just to name some obvious ones. I think it would actually be bad to create a 1A damaging cantrip because if it's any good, it'll really crowd that space and promote a "stand and blast" more boring fighting style.
I mean, half of these IMO don't really count. Bon Mot mostly applies only to yourself unless there's other caster in the team (and it requires the player to invest into Diplomacy to keep it relevant as well), the same with spellshapes, which only exist to empower the one spell you are going to cast that turn, while moving away, raising a shield, or attacking (which has problems that have been adressed in this thread earlier) are like universal options that everyone has. The problem here never was the lack of 1A options for casters, I even adressed that 1A cantrips wouldn't the meta that much since casters usually have good 1A actions anyways, but rather the lack of 1A good damage options and that casters are too much dependant on a single roll from the enemy's side which doesn't happen to martials.
Half of the problem is 100% psychological, even though I think those more adept at math can confirm that the one that makes the roll technically has a +0.5 advantage over the one that sets the DC, but I also think its kinda bad mechanically that the playstyle of most casters is identically the same (cast 2A spell > whatever).
I know its not like martials have much more diverse turns, but they at least have access to combat feats that spice up things a little bit, like Viscious Swing to trade an extra attack for extra damage, Double Slice to combine the damage of two attacks that otherwise wouldn't deal as much damage, the monk's Flurry of Blows or the ranger's Hunted Shot to compress 2 actions into 1, etc. Spellshapes are technically similar in nature, but since require an extra action to use they can be perfectly negated by good positioning from the enemy's part.
That's probably one thing I would like for PF3e (or an unchained book) as well. Make spellshapes into free actions that can only be used once per turn, and only once per casting of a spell. Of course there would be exceptions like Quickened Casting that would be once per encounter instead (I hate once per day abilities, I never take them and when I do I usually forget about them) but a new variant rule for this would be a thing that IMO would make playing casters a bit more fun and engaging.
In reality, the more I think about it, the real problem of casters isn't their power but rather their lack of options. 90% of their class budget is spent on their spellcasting, leaving no room whatsoever to truly differentiate each caster from each other (though Paizo has been doing better recently in this regard), and most casters tend to lack good feat options until way later too (but again, Paizo has been doing better recently in this regard as well).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll also add this to my list of proposals for a future edition; make casters casters lean into 3 action system a bit more. If most spells have 1A, 2A, and 3A variants, it could IMO result in a more fun playstyle of mix-and-match 1A and 2A version of certain spells to make action rotations. If you mix this up with 1/round free action spellshapes, it can lead to a ton of possibilities. Spell slots are going to burn fast though, if they still exist in 3e.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced. I think "I can do this thing to do damage" has a strong psychological tendency to capture people's attention, to the detriment of doing other things. Martials are strongly pushed by MAP to do other things than spend all their actions on striking. Spellcasters have only a few 1-action damaging spells and I suspect with the same design intent. You're supposed to do other things than just try to deal damage with all your actions.
Also, yeah there's a fair bit of dud caster feats. For the Cha casters at least there's solid skill feats you can look at for third action usage. It would help a lot of there were more Int skill feats that had combat applications.
That said, as a high level caster you really do end up with a lot to choose from. Playing a level 14-17 sorcerer in Prey for Death was an interesting look into just how much you got to work with. While I'd taken some spellhearts for extra cantrips I never really needed to. Spells from slots and the excellent dragon breath focus spell was enough for substantial adventuring days.
I'm starting to think that the ideal progression as a caster really is to:
- start out at level 1 using mostly offensive cantrips
- pick up a really good damaging focus spell, and other things to grow your focus pool
- take the feat for fast recharging your pool if possible
- from level 5-6 onward, you lean mostly on using your focus spells and slots for combat
- by level 9, you might have only 2 cantrips left for "mopping up" but the rest should be utility cantrips instead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced. I think "I can do this thing to do damage" has a strong psychological tendency to capture people's attention, to the detriment of doing other things. Martials are strongly pushed by MAP to do other things than spend all their actions on striking. Spellcasters have only a few 1-action damaging spells and I suspect with the same design intent. You're supposed to do other things than just try to deal damage with all your actions.
This isn't what I'm saying here at all. A martial that goes into melee is not only doing it to benefit from a +2 to to flanking, but also likely to provide flanking to someone else (if they are the first one to go into melee) and restrict reposition from the enemy's side if they have Reactive Strike. A caster that uses Bon Mot is only benefitting themselves most of the time, and that's kinda the norm with martials and casters in the system.
A rogue that wants to do feints only needs to needs to take skill increases and buy items that increase their Deception modifier, while a caster that wants to cover most RK skills to know which spells to prepare that day (assuming they somehow have a way to know that) has to ask at least one other player in the party to help them because otherwise they just can't cover all of them. In addition to what I said earlier about a martial going to melee, another benefit that a melee martial brings just by virtue of existing is taking the agro from most enemies, which protects the cloth caster from getting squeezed. I find particularly weird that, in a game that encourages teamwork like PF2e, all the "teamwork" options that aren't spells that caster can provide usually only help them (and require feats or be from a specific ancestry or class), while martials have innate ways of not only helping themselves but the whole team while doing so, but surprisingly lack options to help the casters in particular.
(I still can't understand why off-guard doesn't give a penalty to Reflex saves).
But anyways, I don't know from where you are getting I'm saying that all that martials want to do is Strike when I'm precisely talking that martials have more than enough spare actions to do something else and can play with those actions to their liking way better than casters will ever want to be. All casters that cast fireball are spending exactly the same amount of actions and dealing (nearly) the same damage, while a fighter that Strikes with a greatsword could be doing it as 1 action or as 2 actions as part of Viscious Swing, while a barbarian could do it as 1 action like the fighter, or as 2 actions and including a Stride as part of Sudden Charge, just to name a few low level examples. And to make matters worse, the caster that casts fireball won't be able to do that an indefinite amount of times each day, unlike the fighter that uses Viscious Swing or the barbarian that uses Sudden Charge, and the save roll that determines if that precious spell slot used to cast fireball is going to be succesful or not doesn't even depend on your own luck rolling but rather the GM's, which for a ton of players feels weird.
(and, not to mention, that unlike the martial that's likely benefiting from flanking and thus has a +2 to attack, the caster won't have a similar benefit applied to their DC, which is important to remember that it also scales slower than regular martial progression as well).
A caster doesn't need 1A non-damage options because it already has access to those, but it needs at least a few 1A damage options because some people prefer to not gamble their whole turn into a single dice roll, more so looking at the martial next to them which has more interesting ways to interact with the system than them.
I think it's worth noting that single-action cantrips do exist, such as guidance, message, and shield: thus, I do think there is precedent to make more of those on the assumption that they're appropriately situational or otherwise non-spammable. It's also worth noting that casters at early levels will often carry a ranged weapon such as a crossbow just to deal a bit of damage with their third action, and will do decently well with that at around the same levels where cantrips are at their most relevant.
I think with respect to single-action damage cantrips, which have no direct precedent in 2e when putting aside class-specific spells such as hex cantrips, there are also some models that could be followed: Psi Burst is a 2nd-level Psychic feat that lets you deal damage as a third action while your psyche is unleashed, and various hex cantrips tend to deal a d4 of damage at range with a save at range. I thus think it wouldn't be outside the realm of the impossible to offer, say, a single-action spell attack as a cantrip, provided the cantrip were more limited than those examples, such as by being melee-ranged or having a very low damage die with the dreaded +2 heightening.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@exequiel759: I'd say the way that a caster doesn't risk their whole turn on one dice roll is by throwing spells that target multiple enemies (electric arc, fireball, divine wrath) or that still do something significant on a success (slow, synesthesia) or something that doesn't even require a roll (haste).
I do think there's more ways that martials and casters can help each other. Tripping or grabbing makes an enemy off-guard to ranged spell attacks too. Dirty Trick does actually debuff Reflex. Anyone could learn Bon Mot to help against will saves but also Feint. And Demoralize is pretty popular for good reason. But yeah, there could be more; Dirty Trick feels a lot less powerful than Bon Mot and there's nothing like that for Fortitude.
Your examples about Sudden Charge etc. make me wonder if spellshapes shouldn't be free action feats actually. I still believe we should be leaning on "cast a spell and do something else" as the main paradigm, not "spend everything to cast one spell" or even "cast a spell and a small spell".
And count me in the camp of wanting more Will save cantrips. Some that deal Spirit damage, which is less frequently resisted, or maybe another Vitality/Void cantrip.
I could even see a spell that deals physical damage but still goes off Will, call it "Clash of Wills" and flavor it like a brief psychic contest resulting in a telekinetic blast, but that may be a bit much for a cantrip.
Have you checked out the Starfinder cantrips I linked to above? There is a 60 ft, non-mental, Will-save cantrip that does physical damage.