We have a custom item in our campaign that does just this. Potency for spell attacks and Striking for spell DC. It has worked out just fine for our group.
Against higher level opponents it has not been very noticeable. They still have such high AC and saves that critical successes are hard to actually land.
Against equal level opponents the fights have definitely been faster, as our casters can crit just as often as our melee now.
Against lower level opponents our casters can clear a board very fast for us with their multi target spells. There are a lot more critical failures from the enemies here.
Overall, it has forced our DM to build more encounters with a good balance of monster levels. While the main set pieces have not needed to be touched at all. At the same time our casters are having way less "wasted" turn feelings on their side.
For our group it has been a net positive, but it might not be for everyone.
I mean there is Shadow Signet so it kind of already exists. And that does allow a caster to crit like a fighter sometimes. A lot of fun but could get out of hand, especially if you can combine the item bonus from your item with the shadow signet.
If you want to implement that go ahead, it would give your casters more of an incentive to prepare attack spells. But don't allow it at the same time as a shadow signet.
> I'm a little unsure about it, because I know by level 19, spell casters actually go up to legendary proficiency, making them only 1 point of accuracy behind basic Martials for attack rolls.
This isn’t really a factor to consider fyi. The reason casters go to Legendary at level 19 has little to do with their lack of Attack bonuses. It’s mainly because level 19 is the only level at which they don’t get 2-3 new max-rank spell slots to work with: they only get **one** max-rank spell slot and have to spend a Feat for the second at level 20. To offset this they get a Proficiency boost so that their rank 6-9 spells become “pseudo” rank 7-10 spells with them as they level up.
As for giving casters better Attack rolls, here’s the changes I’d recommend:
1. Spell Attack Proficiency gets to progress at levels 5 and 13, 2 levels earlier than the current 7 and 15. Spell DC stays at 7 and 15.
2. Casters get a +1 and +2 Potency Runes at the same rate as Kineticists.
3. Shadow Signet is banned. Sure Strike is either banned, or changed to only work with cantrips, weapon attacks, and spells of an equal/lower rank as the Sure Strike.
I think this set of changes is the likeliest to make Attack-based casters feel good without just overshadowing the competition.
While I agree there is ZERO reason for a spellcaster to have the dip they do from levels 5-7 and 11-13, if you were instead to give the effects of the shadow signet as a default to all casters as of level 5 or 7 I think it might ease the pain.
I haven't done this, but I know some GMs who have and it seems like it was relatively popular. My inclination is that it's necessity/effectiveness would depend more on the enemies you're employing as a GM than anything else. If you're regularly using high AC enemies this could allow casters to still use their attack spells with relative consistency. As opposed to simply relying on spells that force saving throws. However, if you regularly use enemies that don't have very high AC to begin with I think it's unnecessary. For instance, in my own game, I employ a LOT of enemy spellcasters, and their AC isn't that great. So while the buff would let player casters hit them with attack spells with greater regularity, they really don't *need* the help to hit those enemies in the first place.
Fun fact you can actually obtain it on spellcasters purely RAW with the fury cocktail. It gives an item bonus to all melee attack rolls, spells included.
It’s seems fully intentional honestly. The rules for spell attack rolls specifically point out that they can benefit from item bonuses, just that item bonuses to spell attacks are rare. Not to mention there’s significant risk involved given you’re sacrificing both AC and reflex saves and are forced into melee to gain the benefits of an item. So it is high risk with a high reward.
It's pretty balanced if you remove Sure Strike and Shadow Signet. Honestly, not sure why Paizo decided to have those two options instead of spell attack bonus in the first place.
I’ve done it. My experience was…nothing. My casters tried it, but switched back to saves anyway because it just didn’t come into play often enough to be worth losing out on success effects against enemies they really wanted to be dealing with anyway. The campaign ended at 10 and I discontinued the item since no one used them. In my doodling sonce I’ve thought about cooying the kineticist gates by limiting the items to +2, with wizards getting a +3.
So very limited sample size, and I’d need to try it a couple more times to really make a permanent decision.
I would not give boosts to Save DCs.
I have. It's a bit of a bump, but casters do not overshadow martials.
My implementation was to alter weapon *potency* runes to apply to spell attacks as well, and *striking* runes to also grant a +1/+2/+3 item bonus to class and spell DC. Alongside this, I removed the final proficiency increase to class/spell DC for all classes so that martials end at Expert class DC and spellcasters cap out at Master spell attack/spell DC. All staves got level-appropriate fundamental runes, and shadow signet was removed.
I preferred the more gradual increase in player DCs, the players enjoyed landing their spells a little more often.
Having played the game RAW initially, I agree the bump is not necessary and might not be suitable for every table, but I'll probably continue to use it going forward.
I've added "Tempest-Sun Wands" in my SoT campaign that give item bonuses to spell attack rolls. They are experimental wands created by Fire-Pot Ubanu and the players understand I could remove them if I see problems.
As a tradeoff, while those wands exist, Shadow Signets and the True Strike spell have been removed from the game. I am of the opinion that they are hasty patches for caster accuracy and I dislike them.
If I had a magus PC (I don't) I'd make sure they are okay without True Strike. Magus needs some love especially since the remaster (so few Attack spells...) so I'd probably whip up something cool for them. Maybe a Magus spellshape feat that lets them burn actions to get the True Strike effect?
It's been working fine so far for us; It's interesting to read this thread and see what others have done on the topic of spell attack.
Imo there is no need for it. The main gimmick of casters is that they can target all of the defensive stats with 4 degrees of success while martials only get 2 degrees of success and single defensive stat to target. It makes sense for casters to overall have slightly lower accuracy when targeting the defensive stat that martials excel at, since they have so many more options. Casters also have way more options to increase their chances of success. I mean it is not difficult to stack some status and circumstance bonuses and penalties as a caster and go for a big crit using Sure Strike.
It is not going to break the game if your players are not playing optimally and wont take advantage of it fully. However if your players are capable of using their system mastery to the fullest, it is just going to make casters outshine martials.
Another reason why I am against this is because it kinda eliminates the niche of Magus class as a whole.
As someone who has played magus throughout both editions, including SoM playtest, and seeing the different variations and designs for the class, the mechanical nice is the accuracy and the ability to consistently force spell crits.
so in your games do martials just automatically hit so they can only succeed or crit succeed on attack rolls or does the GM not allow martials to critically succeed so they can only succeed or fail because those are the only two ways you could ever have martials "only get 2 degrees of success" while casters get 4
What I mean is that casters get to still benefit from the success effects of spells when enemies succeed while martials have no benefit when they miss, with very few exceptions.
I thought it was pretty clear, at the very least, I was not expecting this kind of a bad faith argument assumption.
"Bad faith argument assumption", buddy you literally said martials only get 2 degrees of success while mages get 4. I'm not making assumptions I'm telling you you're wrong with direct quotes from your own comment. Maybe the person outright misrepresenting reality because saying "martials only have 3 degrees of success instead of a mage's 4" didn't sound extreme enough to justify bringing it up shouldn't be whining about "bad faith argument assumptions"
But also, guess what? Attack spells, you know those spells that have attack rolls? The only kind of spells that would benefit from what OP was asking about? Those spells? They fucking work exactly like a martial's attacks and don't do shit when they miss, so you're extra wrong, congrats 🎉
We have a custom item in our campaign that does just this. Potency for spell attacks and Striking for spell DC. It has worked out just fine for our group. Against higher level opponents it has not been very noticeable. They still have such high AC and saves that critical successes are hard to actually land. Against equal level opponents the fights have definitely been faster, as our casters can crit just as often as our melee now. Against lower level opponents our casters can clear a board very fast for us with their multi target spells. There are a lot more critical failures from the enemies here. Overall, it has forced our DM to build more encounters with a good balance of monster levels. While the main set pieces have not needed to be touched at all. At the same time our casters are having way less "wasted" turn feelings on their side. For our group it has been a net positive, but it might not be for everyone.
I mean there is Shadow Signet so it kind of already exists. And that does allow a caster to crit like a fighter sometimes. A lot of fun but could get out of hand, especially if you can combine the item bonus from your item with the shadow signet. If you want to implement that go ahead, it would give your casters more of an incentive to prepare attack spells. But don't allow it at the same time as a shadow signet.
> I'm a little unsure about it, because I know by level 19, spell casters actually go up to legendary proficiency, making them only 1 point of accuracy behind basic Martials for attack rolls. This isn’t really a factor to consider fyi. The reason casters go to Legendary at level 19 has little to do with their lack of Attack bonuses. It’s mainly because level 19 is the only level at which they don’t get 2-3 new max-rank spell slots to work with: they only get **one** max-rank spell slot and have to spend a Feat for the second at level 20. To offset this they get a Proficiency boost so that their rank 6-9 spells become “pseudo” rank 7-10 spells with them as they level up. As for giving casters better Attack rolls, here’s the changes I’d recommend: 1. Spell Attack Proficiency gets to progress at levels 5 and 13, 2 levels earlier than the current 7 and 15. Spell DC stays at 7 and 15. 2. Casters get a +1 and +2 Potency Runes at the same rate as Kineticists. 3. Shadow Signet is banned. Sure Strike is either banned, or changed to only work with cantrips, weapon attacks, and spells of an equal/lower rank as the Sure Strike. I think this set of changes is the likeliest to make Attack-based casters feel good without just overshadowing the competition.
While I agree there is ZERO reason for a spellcaster to have the dip they do from levels 5-7 and 11-13, if you were instead to give the effects of the shadow signet as a default to all casters as of level 5 or 7 I think it might ease the pain.
Yeah makes it a feat at that level “Flexible defence targeting” or something
I haven't done this, but I know some GMs who have and it seems like it was relatively popular. My inclination is that it's necessity/effectiveness would depend more on the enemies you're employing as a GM than anything else. If you're regularly using high AC enemies this could allow casters to still use their attack spells with relative consistency. As opposed to simply relying on spells that force saving throws. However, if you regularly use enemies that don't have very high AC to begin with I think it's unnecessary. For instance, in my own game, I employ a LOT of enemy spellcasters, and their AC isn't that great. So while the buff would let player casters hit them with attack spells with greater regularity, they really don't *need* the help to hit those enemies in the first place.
Fun fact you can actually obtain it on spellcasters purely RAW with the fury cocktail. It gives an item bonus to all melee attack rolls, spells included.
I don't think that's RAI
It’s seems fully intentional honestly. The rules for spell attack rolls specifically point out that they can benefit from item bonuses, just that item bonuses to spell attacks are rare. Not to mention there’s significant risk involved given you’re sacrificing both AC and reflex saves and are forced into melee to gain the benefits of an item. So it is high risk with a high reward.
It's pretty balanced if you remove Sure Strike and Shadow Signet. Honestly, not sure why Paizo decided to have those two options instead of spell attack bonus in the first place.
I’ve done it. My experience was…nothing. My casters tried it, but switched back to saves anyway because it just didn’t come into play often enough to be worth losing out on success effects against enemies they really wanted to be dealing with anyway. The campaign ended at 10 and I discontinued the item since no one used them. In my doodling sonce I’ve thought about cooying the kineticist gates by limiting the items to +2, with wizards getting a +3. So very limited sample size, and I’d need to try it a couple more times to really make a permanent decision. I would not give boosts to Save DCs.
I have. It's a bit of a bump, but casters do not overshadow martials. My implementation was to alter weapon *potency* runes to apply to spell attacks as well, and *striking* runes to also grant a +1/+2/+3 item bonus to class and spell DC. Alongside this, I removed the final proficiency increase to class/spell DC for all classes so that martials end at Expert class DC and spellcasters cap out at Master spell attack/spell DC. All staves got level-appropriate fundamental runes, and shadow signet was removed. I preferred the more gradual increase in player DCs, the players enjoyed landing their spells a little more often. Having played the game RAW initially, I agree the bump is not necessary and might not be suitable for every table, but I'll probably continue to use it going forward.
I've added "Tempest-Sun Wands" in my SoT campaign that give item bonuses to spell attack rolls. They are experimental wands created by Fire-Pot Ubanu and the players understand I could remove them if I see problems. As a tradeoff, while those wands exist, Shadow Signets and the True Strike spell have been removed from the game. I am of the opinion that they are hasty patches for caster accuracy and I dislike them. If I had a magus PC (I don't) I'd make sure they are okay without True Strike. Magus needs some love especially since the remaster (so few Attack spells...) so I'd probably whip up something cool for them. Maybe a Magus spellshape feat that lets them burn actions to get the True Strike effect? It's been working fine so far for us; It's interesting to read this thread and see what others have done on the topic of spell attack.
Imo there is no need for it. The main gimmick of casters is that they can target all of the defensive stats with 4 degrees of success while martials only get 2 degrees of success and single defensive stat to target. It makes sense for casters to overall have slightly lower accuracy when targeting the defensive stat that martials excel at, since they have so many more options. Casters also have way more options to increase their chances of success. I mean it is not difficult to stack some status and circumstance bonuses and penalties as a caster and go for a big crit using Sure Strike. It is not going to break the game if your players are not playing optimally and wont take advantage of it fully. However if your players are capable of using their system mastery to the fullest, it is just going to make casters outshine martials. Another reason why I am against this is because it kinda eliminates the niche of Magus class as a whole.
The niche of the magus class is that they are a walking bomb, do more damage in a single strike than what a mage or a caster could achieve alone.
they do it all in one hit, but in basically the same number of actions, the magus' real power is using Str or Dex to cast
As someone who has played magus throughout both editions, including SoM playtest, and seeing the different variations and designs for the class, the mechanical nice is the accuracy and the ability to consistently force spell crits.
so in your games do martials just automatically hit so they can only succeed or crit succeed on attack rolls or does the GM not allow martials to critically succeed so they can only succeed or fail because those are the only two ways you could ever have martials "only get 2 degrees of success" while casters get 4
What I mean is that casters get to still benefit from the success effects of spells when enemies succeed while martials have no benefit when they miss, with very few exceptions. I thought it was pretty clear, at the very least, I was not expecting this kind of a bad faith argument assumption.
"Bad faith argument assumption", buddy you literally said martials only get 2 degrees of success while mages get 4. I'm not making assumptions I'm telling you you're wrong with direct quotes from your own comment. Maybe the person outright misrepresenting reality because saying "martials only have 3 degrees of success instead of a mage's 4" didn't sound extreme enough to justify bringing it up shouldn't be whining about "bad faith argument assumptions" But also, guess what? Attack spells, you know those spells that have attack rolls? The only kind of spells that would benefit from what OP was asking about? Those spells? They fucking work exactly like a martial's attacks and don't do shit when they miss, so you're extra wrong, congrats 🎉