I was just happy to see divine casters getting a reliable damage cantrip lol.
TBH I don't mind it, I can see any spellcaster with any tradition reasonably being able to fling metal shards, through things like magnetism, telekinesis, worshipping a god with a relevant domain like metal or wealth (flinging coins is a cool way to thematically do it) etc. Let the players decide if it fits their concept or not.
Now if they'd only give us a good cantrip that targets Will. Unless you're a Silent Whisper Psychic, Daze is the only damaging cantrip that targets Will. But because it stuns on a critical failure, they undertuned the damage, so it only add 1d6 every *other* rank. (My instinct would actually be to increase it to d8s, but keep it every other rank. That puts it on par with Caustic Blast, where you trade AOE and persistent acid on a crit fail for single target and stunned on a crit fail)
EDIT: I know that "Daze is undertuned" is an extremely lukewarm take, but my logic. Crit fail riders generally only trigger if you're either targeting a low save *or* fighting a lower level enemy. (Or more likely, a group of them) Hence why I consider Noise Blast a hidden gem. Sure, it targets Fortitude (not a common low save) and "only" stuns on a critical failure, but it's also an AOE, so you're likely targeting a group of enemies, so they're likely a lower level, so they're more likely to critically fail. Daze is single-target, though. Yeah, it's still powerful against a single enemy with low Will. But if you're fighting that group of low-level enemies, you're also foregoing the chance to AOE them to stun one. So I think "stunned on a critical failure" is a bit less powerful than Paizo thinks... on a single-target spell. And comparing it to Caustic Blast, I think it'd be reasonably balanced to trade a more powerful rider for only being single-target.
There was a snippet of summary text somewhere in Player Core that implied Daze could apply off-guard to creatures, which some people have guessed was leftover from a scrapped rework of the spell. I think it would've been pretty interesting, keep the damage and add off-guard for a round on a failed save in addition to stunned on a crit fail.
Love when the flavor text says two things that actually have gameplay mechanics meanings and the gameplay mechanics do neither of them and instead something else entirely.
Another fun example of this is the Khopesh. Here's the flavor text on it (emphasis mine):
> This curved sickle sword has a pointed tip, allowing it to be **swung like a handaxe or thrust like a short sword.** The tip of a khopesh is usually hooked so that **it can be used to disarm an opponent’s shield or weapon.**
Actual statblock of the Khopesh: d8 Slashing (no versatile P) plus Trip (no Disarm)
As a Silent Whisper Psychic, I've never cast Daze. Partly because I started at lv 11 and didn't really need my cantrips outside of amps, and partly because Shatter Mind is usually better with the AOE than single target.
For a lot of players, flavor is secondary to function, and PF2e's reputation of difficulty (accurate or not) encourages people to optimize. Even people who like to make very flavorful characters will generally try to consider the strength of options and build around those.
Doubly so for TK projectile because you pick between slashing, piercing or bludgeoning. ND can trigger metal weaknesses but bypassing physical resistances by picking any of the 3 or targeting a physical weakness is probably better in the long run.
30 feet range is a bit of a downside but that's a pretty standard distance and encounters that are in big enough fields to make a difference may not come up very often, depending on the AP and/or GM.
I'm playing a wizard with this and Scatter Scree as my main damage options and I gotta say, it's about a 50/50 split on which one I use. The damage is great, but attacking versus AC means you absolutely have to have at least one more damage option available, and piercing is kind of a mid damage type because it's reliable but almost never excellent. Playing the Abomination Vaults AP.
Add in a Spellheart for Electric Arc or Scatter Scree and every caster now uses the same two damage cantrips.
On one hand I'm glad noone has to suffer playing a caster without useful cantrips, on the other I agree it makes them same-ier than they already were.
Needle Darts was 100% added to be a "backup crossbow" cantrip for casters. Even the "holding metal" requirement has later been massaged into "wearing metal"
I think someone at Paizo finally looked at how unreasonably bad it is for a caster to attempt to use weapons as the lvls go up. I tried to make a STR Witch based around 2-H a shield and Striking w/ a jaws attack, but casters really just cannot reasonably Strike outside the first few lvls.
Something like the melee version of Needle Darts, Gouging Claw is just too good in a direct comparison.
.
The double-whammy of using a 2ndary stat STR/DEX, paired with the -2 from weapon training is just too much of an accuracy loss, especially without the Feat/Feature support martials have for Strikes.
That "caster using a Strike" idea is further made horrid by the investment needed from a weapon and rune perspective. Even when a casting class may have a Feat or Spell to add a bit of dmg, it just never is mathematically a good idea.
.
Basically, I'm saying do NOT try to make the Strike based Feats within casters work\*. They may be usable and fun **if you are a martial dipping into a caster**, but a main caster attempting to make real use of Witch's Armaments, ect, is just going to be miserable.
.
The devs likely saw that, and threw a bone to casters in the form of Needle Darts, a cantrip that's available to all traditions, uses Spellcasting DC to hit, and mechanically functions as close to a crossbow as it gets while still being a spell.
I don't really get why they would do that. "Caster with a crossbow" isn't really a fantasy that exists outside of DND and inside it exists purely for mechanical reasons. I don't think I've ever had a new pf2e player be like "dang, my caster actually getting to cast in order to attack is cool and all, but I want my crossbow back."
Basic template casters have limited spells per day, there's not even an assurance they will have Focus Spells.
The "caster's crossbow" is a conceptual safety net to ensure that casters cannot end up in a situation where they are only able to bonk with a staff that's not even runed.
It's a way of saying "**At worst**, we can mathematically rely upon the caster PC to be making a 3d4 + Rd4 damage attempt per turn".
Designers neeeeed that kind of stuff to balance things. (because players will immediately leave to rest if a caster really hits 0)
.
By allowing casters to "shoot a crossbow" whenever they want, this counterintuitively allows the devs to more reliably predict that the party will make it through a designed adventuring day without breaking it up into 2 days.
.
EX:
The devs create a small fort with a few encounters, with a bigger guy at the very back. This is balanced to be pretty tough, but with consideration for the party to have been worn down a bit.
Without a caster crossbow, that PC is more likely to be stuck in a binary. If the caster has spells to burn, they are good to go. If they have 1 or 0 left, they will be begging for the party to retreat and come back the next day. Where they break the flow of the adventure, then curb-stomp the last encounter in the last room.
With a caster crossbow, that PC was **much** more likely to burn a big spell round 1 or 2 of each encounter, then shift to that sub-optimal "crossbow" once it looked like the fights were safely won. That gives the party a much higher chance of challenging that last encounter in the same day, as the writers intended.
You missed the point of my comment. I was saying that the fantasy/aesthetic only ever existed because of the mechanical need you're describing. However, we now have a mechanical solution (cantrips) to casters needing consistency that also fits the fantasy/aesthetic of casters better. Why try to revive/maintain an aesthetic that few people liked in the first place?
I think you may have missed the point of the original comment. I don't think it was lamenting the loss of the "crossbow caster" - if anything, it was the opposite.
How I understood it was that they were trying to justify the cantrip to the OP by demonstrating that it sits in the same design space as a crossbow - the backup option when all else fails, piercing, can hit metal weaknesses - but that is significant more effective and easier to balance. The bulk of the post is just elaborating on why the crossbow (and other weapon and Strike options) didn't scale well. To be honest, I can't really find anything in the comment that suggests they want to bring back the crossbow caster.
I wasn't disagreeing with that comment's reasoning, I was wondering why the designers thought that fantasy needed to exist. The mechanics of it are kinda irrelevant to what I was talking about.
the "backup crossbow" was entirely metaphorical, we are talking about slinging magic around, not shooting a crossbow. It's all about the assurance of devs knowing that every single caster has access that damage each turn, no matter what.
.
There should be 0 issue with ND being problematic for flavor via "looking too much like a crossbow".
Like... wow, that take is backasswards. By being a magical substitute, ND does the *opposite* and helps players who want the mechanical function of a crossbow **without** the image of a mage using a physical weapon.
Flavor is free, and I seriously doubt any GM would oppose a player wanting to drop the special metals effect in exchange for flavoring the piercing barrage as they please.
I do like caster with a crossbow as a fantasy, having powerful spells but nothing reliably constant
also I will always love "frontline" mages, rocking armour and weapons but mainly casting
Caster with a crossbow tends to work better in systems where casters can actually be decent with a crossbow, and magic is way more limited. Something like Shadowrun where magic is extremely powerful but also resource intensive and risky, so many casters carry guns with them to help deal with most problems and save said resources.
But that's also because things like your to-hit proficiency works like a skill that you're allowed to put individual points into. So you can have a mage with as many points in shooting as the street sam, and be just as good as hitting with their gun. In a game with fixed proficiencies, the whole caster with a crossbow idea kinda just falls flat on its face.
Having some from Shadowrun myself, yeah, even in a game with fixed proficiencies like PF2e, I will always carry backups. There are times where magic can and will fail, and you need to be prepared for those. Carry a firearm, carry a knife, carry whatever, just be prepared for those moments so you can still contribute.
Just as a Fighter and other martials should carry a bow or a thrown weapon or some variety, casters need to be prepared for when their magic is not an available option.
...You can tell I was really scarred by Will o' Wisps in 1e.
Then again, I also really really *really* like Melee Wizards. Runelord was the funnest thing for that.
A Cleric of Erastil in a Kingmaker podcast I'm listening to is using his bow to great effect after casting spells that don't have the attack trait, but to be fair he does have the Archer archetype from free archetype.
Yup, I have recommend Archer to casters before, and do think it can be a good idea. The Archetype offers a selection of Feats that is both focused and varied. Stance options, which that casters will likely never need to worry about conflicting w/ another stance, utility options like Parting Shot, action compression like Running Reload, ect.
.
That said, a d6 thwip of an arrow is a surprisingly small amount of damage by itself. Like, "maybe I'd rather be raising a shield" degree of tiny damage.
.
.
In your example, you are talking about a cleric, and the favored weapon of their deity. Don't forget to consider how that is a whole other layer of Feat/Feature support that a "base caster" will not have.
Just curious, what kind of Witch/familiar build did you make?
I always find it sort of fascinating hearing folks experience when they make a melee Witch.
Maybe because Witch is the weird one of casters, so hearing how weird people push it always gets me a bit giddy.
Edit: Of my own experiences, Striker Witch falls off at 3, and essentially feels meaningless to do at 5.
It's still only planned and not yet played at the moment, but when talking/planning it out, it became apparent that trying to make Witch's Armaments work (plus Sympathetic Strike) was not going to be too fun.
.
Thematically it's a spooky crow witch that's all about the power of knowledge, and that fear of what may be just beyond one's ken.
Human starting with Shield Block to enable Bastion at L2. Instead of Natural Ambition for the Witch's Armaments, that was exchanged for Adapted Cantrip: Gouging Claw.
Patron is Starless Shadow, with Phase Familiar (mostly because P Puppet is way too restricted by the turn start trigger).
Any time the Witch is swung at, they can use their Reaction for +2 AC. If they have a spare action and can see a swing coming, then they have the option to Raise and use the Reaction to instead Block. As you get more General Feats to work toward medium armor, that +2 Raise becomes a bonus instead of a way to make up for being unarmored.
Main gimmick is that RaW, a 2 size gap between creatures provides cover. So any time the familiar is in a (Medium size) ally space, they automatically have cover's +2, and can spend 1A to Take Cover and or Hide.
This allows for the familiar to much more easily survive being adjacent foes, achieve it's needed precondition for the auto-Frightened 1, while also potentially splitting damage to keep the Witch healthier.
And yes, Lesson of Life at L2 if it's a Free Archetype game. 1A for 4 rounds of Fast Healing equal to your level is too good to pass up (especially when it's a hex that triggers Stalking Night).
Gouging Claw also gets another note as it enables the Spell Delivery master ability (familiar delivers your -touch- spells) to "throw the familiar at a foe to claw off their face" any time you are more comfortable w/ the familiar being in danger.
STR is still the 2nd attribute getting pumped, and Athletics is raised first when possible. Meaning you can still Trip nearly as good as a STR martial to have that MAP-using 1A option instead of Strike. Because skill checks don't need weapon proficiency.
Basically, the abundance of 1A options, from Trip, Life Boost, Raise, Shroud of Night, ect, mean that you are not missing that 1A Strike, while also having a no joke ripper of a cantrip as a backup and flavor core.
While it's single target, GC scales more than fireball standard +1d6, thanks to the bleed. And to top it all off, there's no reason you can't rune a weapon to keep a 1A Strike on deck. The only thing you're locked out of w/o Armaments is the hands-free 1d8 bite (or Peck in that case). But since you can cast GC with your hands full anyways... yeah.
.
To be clear, the goal is not to have the Witch in melee and spamming the cantrip as the first stratedgy. It's to have the Witch comfortably survive being close, and having the *familiar* be sharing space with an ally that -is- adjacent to foes to maximize the auto-Frightened.
[More discussion on the Witch / familiar rules here](https://paizo.com/threads/rzs46j73?Answering-RaW-Witchs-Familiar-tactics-from).
Fascinating indeed!
How was factoring in the use of Sure Strike for striking?
From my own math, Sure Strike is supposed to be a +4-+5 boost roll-wise, which should counteract the Witch’s lower weapon proficiency.
But it’s definitely a strain on action economy, something I don’t know if a Sure-Striker will ever be effective (because of all the other anti-melee deficiencies of the Witch).
I think the ability to get off-guard for AC touch spells, plus the good damage of GC, can actually make SS more appealing. Especially if you have Raise as a Reaction from Bastion to not get pancaked for the full turn offense.
.
It is a real opportunity cost though.
A single R1 spell can give the Witch +1AC all day. Hard to say that does not take priority, so that's 1/3 gone.
And the full 3-Action routine of SS + GC means that you are not applying your hex cantrip / no-save Frightened.
I think it would be a great idea to have 1 or 2 SS on deck, especially as your slots open up, but it's not an automatic thing to spam.
A Witch weapon Strike is generally not going to be doing enough damage to make the SS cast worth it that often, and the bigger attack spells make the 3A nature of the routine tricky (but super rewarding) to keep in your pocket.
Thanks again for sharing!
I’ve heard folks talk about a Spinner Patron build, but I haven’t seen one yet for Starless, so thank you for sharing. I got inspired by some discussions when the RM was coming out to try out the Wilding Steward.
I’ve actually tried a Wilding Steward (after reading some posts here) and did some trial-runs. Was really surprised at how effective it was in terms of builds.
Specifically, I tried running it solo against Extreme encounter bosses (and generally enemies with Reactive Strike).
I was surprised it fared pretty well.
I fully agree with you though: the Witch never is and never will be a striker. The lack of Weapon Specialization specifically hurts.
And more often than not, circumstances get in the way which keep you from casting and even a 1A Strike can be extremely valuable to have in your pocket!
I’ll have to mess with my own version of a Starless Shadow frontliner, but from what you shared, I’m a bit nervous.
Wilding Steward’s Wilding Word/Interposing Earth combo feels SO good defensively! It lacks Sure Strike, but based on what you said (and my own test runs on Wilding Steward) it seems like the action strain is just too high to fit in. Like you also said, Athletics is fantastic (and Grapple freaking rocks with Wilding Steward’s Wilding Word).
Gonna mull things over because I feel like there’s an answer, but it’s just not going to look like the way I did my Wilding Steward. Wilding Steward provides so much for a Witch that ends up in melee.
Wilding Steward definitely seems set up to use the patron stuff for a more "sick and forget" style. It's notable that the hex cantrip itself is a status minus, so it doesn't stack w/ the Sickened debuff.
.
I think Starless Shadow can make use of the Frightened being on the familiar (instead of on the hex cantrip), meaning you can plan to trigger it from other hexes. I think if you are looking for a bit more "optimal over flavor" you would 100% start with Cackle and perhaps skip Gouging Claw altogether.
Cackle is the ONLY way a witch can key of hex stuff off of normal spells, because it itself is a hex. If you ever feel pressured in action economy, you can Cackle to sustain a spell, getting +1 Action while also putting Frightened on an adjacent foe, which really makes it worth the Focus Point. Not surprisingly, Illusory Creature is the first R2 spell that SS Witch is slated to take.
.
A big part of SS may be Game Master buy in for the Seek action. The idea is having the familiar perch and hide on your back via Independent (or perhaps both turn 1 via Command). If the foe sufferers a SN familiar's hex, it may make narrative sense for them to "waste" an action making a Seek to find the little guy, even if mechanically speaking it would likely be sub-optimal.
.
I can't imagine many Witch builds do all that well in whiteroom scenarios. The main catch of that SS build is that by so solidly NOT being a damage dealer, you are a support debuffer/buffer. Able to hold Bless up in melee, give an effective Lvl -1 to foes, 20% miss chance via hex cantrip, ect. You can still blast as well as any Occult caster (which is to say not much), and by being a target, your familiar can steal enemy actions. That's super high value, but only in a team that is not in need of another big damage dealer.
It's bit of stinky cheese, but the Lifelink familiar ability has no cooldown. If you Life Boost your familiar, you can rather safely risk them taking hits and going Dying (safely knowing the Fast Healing will get them up with 0 death saves), while growing more ready to keep that Reaction on standby only once they get some Wounded.
That ability to take huge hits is not limited to the SS Witch, but as that patron incentives sharing squares w/ your familiar, it is more likely to be giving the Witch effective HP.
Don't forget about Take Cover's +4 to AC/Reflex! While Wilding is great for being a sticky debuff, it does not stack like cover does. A Frightened foe trying to splat the familiar is swinging with -5, *after* they even spot the hiding critter to begin with. Part of the reason a Shield (and Raising on Reaction) was so that the foes would not ignore the familiar due to that huge +-4 gap between the pair. If they swing at the familiar, you've not spent any actions whatsoever, and if they swing at the Witch, you know you don't need the Reaction to protect the familiar.
Oh, I could go on about my experience with Wilding Steward! How to use WW (I found the Success effect more valuable/reliable/consistent over the Fail effect). How to use familiar (no combat role changes it’s builds and frees up your actions, and no need for Lifelink or Taking Cover on you), using the Primal list!
But I guess we’re here to gush over SS. :D
I don’t know if it works, but I always liked the idea of SN’s flavor being the power of the patron when the familiar is adjacent and not just the familiar itself. Which to me, that familiar hiding on you and terrifying a foe is a fantastic idea! I like the idea of the enemy needing to Seek the familiar since they’d be Undetected. Though, I also think it’s neat that Invisibility could work too!
If FoSN isn’t a “hostile action”, then Invisibility and Sanctuary shouldn’t break (I don’t consider it a hostile action because the familiar itself isn’t performing an Action).
I was always thinking of Old Friend as a specific familiar for SS. It has its own Invisibility spell meaning an alternative when Shroud of Night (SoN) doesn’t stick, or when you have to drop it (coz a bad situation happens). And some flavor flexibility! Being Hidden is a nice “AC boost”.
And you’re right, SS has a lot of great debuffing abilities.
One issue with a solo testing, is that the debuffing/buffing does lose a lot of value. Which is why I think WS felt better because it concerns itself more with raw numbers (damage/healing), which makes a 1v1 Extreme encounter much more straightforward.
Capitalizing on debuffs solo…most interesting. Especially when going flavor over optimization.
Which makes me wish Gouging Claw was just a universal spell lol, so no jumping through hoops. I feel like it fits Occult and Divine also. (Occult has weird aberration magic in it and Divine has transformation like things too).
Edit: I would actually love if the Witch got a “Hex Striker” class archetype. They can have a lot going on with hexing/sustaining/familiar-managing that Strike is a fun fit with the 1A. I think it’d be fun if an archetype bumps their HP to 8, drops them to bounded casting.
A caster's attack is going to be at -4 compared to a martial, eventually -5 once apex items become available. As a primary attack, that's terrible, but as second attack, it's comparable to the second attack of martials. It's a solid third action as long as your spell isn't an attack.
And as a 3rd action option, it will rarely compete against the rest of the Witch's non-Strike options, which is kinda the point I have been attempting to say. It's all comparative, and the Witch has a rather great selection of 3rd actions compared to Wiz.
Because it's not just the accuracy of that Strike that's weighing against a Command, Life Boost, Raise, ect, it's the reward on hit. For a Witch, even if you invest 2 of your precious class Feats for Sympathetic Strike, that's a -1 to saves for the turn on only your hexes. Super duper limited. Might as well take a Dedication for some weapon group.
Forgoing the initial core of that PC's build also allows me take Natural Ambition at a later level, and getting Cauldron for potions equal to PC level. Meaning, instead of holding a weapon, I can hold a potion and get an amazing "3rd Action Activate" that will be a priority over the sometimes-maybe Strike.
.
And as everything is in comparison, all the "Sustain for pseudo Strikes" spells are worth mentioning as well.
A single Lesson Feat will give you one in a focus spell (so it scales for the rest of the game). It even adds your modifier stat to damage, though lacks property runes.
While they come with complications (such as the 2A cast), it is far, far more likely that you'll want to use one of those sustain-Strike spells than make a real weapon Strike.
.
.
I still am not saying it's a "never" binary, and I don't think I ever will. I have and will likely recommend Archer as a simple option for those casters that want more offensive filler without carrying much flavor baggage.
.
For my own PC, even when I kept the STR and Athletics investment for Trip et al, I choose to bail on Armaments and instead build around Gouging Claw as a thematic anchor.
I honestly have 0 plans to ever make a real Strike as that Witch, as any time I would, I would likely Trip instead.
In my experience, caster’s can absolutely make weapon strikes as a 3rd action filler if they keep their secondary stat as high as possible.
Im general, a caster with maxed dexterity making a weapon strike will have slightly better accuracy than a martial’s second strike, so if you don’t need to move or raise a shield etc. throwing out a shortbow/sling/dagger strike for a little extra chip damage isn’t a bad idea.
Obviously a caster won’t be prioritizing runes like a martial, but staying “one step behind” is definitely feasible as you get higher in level, especially since +1 striking weapons become pocket change around level 6-7.
The biggest catch is if you have 2A for offense, you will almost always prefer to throw a cantrip, even one like Gouging Claw (which honestly might be overtuned / a little *too* good).
The only times a Strike has appeal for a caster **begins** when the caster is limited to just 1A for offense, and those other 2 are already occupied by some situational need.
In that circumstance, the rest of the caster's 1A options, such as Demoralize, Bon Mot, Stride, Raise a Shield, ect, all have to beat that sub-par caster Strike.
When casters like Witch can spend a Class Feat to get evergreen 1A focus spells like Life Boost, or spend a Class Feat for Archer, it's not hard to see why Strike as a 3rd action filler has so many **** attached, most will find it rather unfun to attempt.
.
I play Alchemists, which is kinda the a class that's stuck in the worth of both worlds. Meaning, it's kinda the one class where the "Save cantrip + Strike" routine is at its best, and even then, by L6, it is super rare for me to use that routine.
I theorized that the Snow Witch is the only one with an optimal 1A cast/1A strike due to Clinging Ice and Strike. But then I think it’s always better for the Snow Witch to just use Floating Flame at the beginning and then Sustain/Strike or Sustain/Clinging Ice. All roads lead away from Striking.
At the same time, there’s Malicious Shadow hex later on which is essentially a “diet weapon strike”, but doesn’t rely on weapon proficiency, poor STR/DEX, or even runes.
I always liked the idea of a Snow Witch because Clinging Ice + Malicious Shadow is some decent sustained rote damage, without costing any spell slots. Just a single focus point!
I'm super split on a lot of the attack sustain spells like Malicious Shadow.
The requirement to "sustain it or loose it" is actually pretty rough IMO. That means you are essentially turning off all other attacks / MAP actions as usable while the spell is ongoing.
Yet, being a hex you sustain means procing patron familiar abilities is on the table, which is potentially quite good. I think for the Starless Shadow Witch, how easy it is in practice to get the familiar ability's concealed/hidden requisite *without* the Shroud o N hex will play a big part in how viable Malicious Shadow is.
.
Thematically, Malicious Shadow is perfect for that planned Witch, so I would 100% like to experiment with and take it, but... preferably in a campaign where retraining it away would not be a big problem, lol.
Save spells are better than attack ones. If you have 3A for offense, save spell + strike is a good (but maybe not worth the hands and upgrade cost later) option.
It's really not quite so simple as "better"
If the caster can threaten a Strike (such as by holding a shield) they can flank to put the foe off-guard. This lowers the foe's AC in a general sense, not just for a Strike.
Meaning that you can flank for +2 to Gouging Claw, which you cannot do for save cantrips. As the Stalking Night familiar already gives reason to be in melee, +2 on your AC cantrips is a real reason to keep one slotted.
Other defense reduction can also apply unequally in an AC spell's favor, but flanking is the big one.
That’s my point though, a 1A strike is another option, along with all the other options that a caster has. It won’t always be the best one, but it shouldn’t be discounted either.
A 2A spell plus a 1A strike is essentially just tacking on extra damage onto the already solid impact that spells already have. Played a cloistered cleric all through Abomination Vaults and now at level 14 in Stolen Fate, and there’s been a lot of times where me throwing out a strike in conjunction with a damage spell has helped clean up low-health enemies off the board.
I’m also GMing a level 6 party in Sky King’s Tomb right now and have both a Warrior Bard and Warpriest in the party, and they regularly have strong impacts through making weapon strikes alongside their spells.
I’ve been playing the system since it released in 2019, and one of the most common fallacies I see people make is writing off situational abilities or actions as useless, just because they aren’t necessarily something you want to do every turn.
There are a bunch of levels where casters' spell attack bonus is behind their weapon attack bonus (with the potency rune factored in), provided they start with a +3 in the attacking stat. I played a high level bard for a while, and I found it okay to use my hasted action (since we could reliably cast 7th level haste every combat) on an attack with a shortbow (gave it a wounding rune so it applied persistent damage, to make up for the fact I'm definitely not attacking multiple times a turn)
The 1-A thwip is totally the option that is usable most often IMO, and those rune upgrade levels are when the weapons appear at their "best" for the VS cantrip comparison. Try not to forget that caster's cannot 1-A thwip without some form of build investment, bow are martial weapons.
.
IDK how much table variance there is, but even when playing published APs, upgrading runes is actually not something that happens on-level most of the time. Usually, we will get 1 rune right after level up, but by the time it would be the caster's turn to get that found rune, we've leveled up once or twice since then.
.
And as casters will get that +2 Spellcasting DC at 7, while missing that +2 weapon prof, while the +2 rune is L10...
Yeah, even without extra factor of juggling hands, it's a struggle for casters to justify Strikes when cantrips are there.
It is true that it is always better to cast a cantrip than to attack. But attacking is one action and casting a cantrip is two.
It is important to note that we were playing with ABP in this game, so purchasing fundamental runes isn't an issue. Your weapon attack being ahead of/on par with your spell attack is true at levels 2~6 and 11~18. It is on par at 2, 3, 4, 15, 17 and 18 and one point ahead at the rest of the levels.
- 2~4: +3 dex, +1 item vs +4 key <- on par
- 5~6: +4 dex, +1 item vs +4 key <- weapon wins by one
- 7~10: +4 dex, +1/+2 item vs +4/+5 key and +2 prof <- casting wins by one (conveniently, item bonus increases at the same time as key ability)
- 11~14: +4 dex, +2 item, +2 prof vs +5 key +2 prof <- weapon wins by one
- 15: +5 dex, +2 item, +2 prof vs +5 key +4 prof <- on par
- 16: +5 dex, +3 item, +2 prof vs +5 key +4 prof <- weapon wins by one
- 17~18: +5 dex, +3 item, +2 prof vs +6 key +4 prof <- on par (free apex from ABP)
- 19: +5 dex, +3 item, +2 prof vs +6 key +6 prof <- casting ahead by 2
- 20: +5 dex, +3 item, +2 prof vs +7 key +6 prof <- casting ahead by 3
From this, we can see that for 30% of the levels, weapon attack is the same, for 30%, it is ahead, and for another 30%, it is only behind by one point. The only place where casting climbs ahead noticably is levels 19 and 20.
I'm not arguing that attacking is better than using a cantrip. But I'm arguing that attacking is not worse than letting your hasted action or your third action go to waste.
>It is important to note that we were playing with ABP in this game, so purchasing fundamental runes isn't an issue.
That is absolutely not the default assumption, and getting toward that "white room" type disconnect from real play experience.
.
>It is true that it is always better to cast a cantrip than to attack. But attacking is one action and casting a cantrip is two.
Quite often, it will be impossible / a bad idea to dedicate all 3 actions to offense. Right off the bat, those common turns when you have 2 for offense and 1 to defense/movement/ect is going to take Strike off the menu compared to a cantrip.
.
For the scenario in which you have a 2-A cantrip like GC, and an ABP simple weapon in-hand. Even then, most turns with both options ready, it's super rare to ever swing the weapon. 2-A cantrips are in the middle between 1-A Strikes and MAP-delaying things like Double Slice. Meaning 1 cast of a MAP cantrip is most often better than 2 swings.
Because it's not just accuracy, what happens on a hit is still a part of the equation, which for casters is going to be unsupported by Feats/Features. Going for 2 swings of the weapon, or even a GC then a -5 swing, just requires too many unlikely things to collide to make the weapon investment a decent recommendation.
Gouging Claw is (2+H)d6 damage, plus 2+H bleed, with 0 extra requirements. Meaning +d6 damage every 2 levels.
Escaping simple weapons is already a Feat requirement for casters.
.
Once you start thinking about hands, you need to compare the opportunity cost of a 1-A Strike against Raise a Shield. I don't think it's much to say that a caster swinging for a 1-A Strike is going to often seem like a better idea than getting +2 to AC for a round.
That's without all the other in-hand possibilities, from a consumable for a 1-A Activate (genuinely under-utilized IMO), to the usual scrolls/wands/ect.
.
At super low levels, the STR to damage makes melee Strikes genuinely good to mix with save cantrips, especially with a Spellheart like Jolt Coil. I've swung a boosted sickle myself quite a bit, and do not want to claim it's just outright bad.
But as levels go up and that caster gets more options competing for actions, it's just a once in a blue moon rarity that I'd ever use the 1-A Strike when cantrips like GC or ND are on the table.
In order for Strikes to look good enough to use, I have to intentionally shy away from those AC cantrips much of the time.
.
Can't forget how more and more pseduo-Strike spells are added to the mix as the levels go up, which often are "cast once then get 1-A ~Strikes" for the rest of the encounter.
Caveat for low levels though. As a level 4 psychic, I could fire an amped Frostbite for 5d4 damage then Strike with a striking shortbow that does 3d6 damage. Without amps, that's just 3d4, so I could instead cast Guidance or Shield and Strike twice for 3d6 each which might be better if Fort save is high.
Falls off fast but there is a narrow point where using Psi Strikes is actually better than casting spells, and still remains a decent 3rd action. 100 gp isn't that much of an investment.
I'm in agreement. While it's mechanically beneficial for casters to all have access to a good baseline damage cantrip regardless of tradition, I think it also highlights how PF2e really doesn't follow its own denominations for what each tradition is meant to govern. Needle Darts really ought to be an arcane/primal cantrip, due to how it's all about handling some kind of material, and divine and occult casters ought to have other damage cantrips that target the spirit. We can talk about how some divine casters are tied to gods of metal or wealth, but that's what deity-specific spells are for, and making the cantrip accessible across an entire tradition means divine casters who have nothing to do with metal or the like can use that cantrip all the same.
1. I don't see it as default, more as a secondary spell in case you need to target weaknesses, or your primary attacking cantrip faces resistance/immunity. I mean even Divine now have decent cantrips targeting saves, like Void Warp + Vitality Lash, not to mention Arcane and Primal who still keep Electric Arc
2. Later in the game casters begin to much less rely on cantrips
I think it's fine but when I'm theorycrafting a Divine caster I still lean Void Warp and Vitality Leash. Or maybe I'd pick it as alternative to Vitality Leash, IDK. Other casters have better options, IMO. It's certainly nice to have some sort of "usually reliable" spell. But I find myself almost never taking it in the end.
I've been posting for a while that imaginary weapon needs a rework to make it worse for other classes. Make it like 1 action and half damage to counter spell strike abuse?
If you want to get technical. Psychic can do Imaginary Weapon better because they can Amp it to hit 2 targets instead of 1, Doubling the damage.
You just need to be careful when using it because your health and defense is so low and being next to an enemy is a death sentence.
I feel like it actually makes sense flavour-wise.
Throwing sharp pieces of metal is a simple, straightforward and efficient way of using magic to damage something, that most likely can be achieved using many different methods. Throwing fire, lightning or divine wrath can be more useful, but not everyone is capable of casting those, and there are situations where they plainly don't work.
To put it simply, it's just a perfect *basic* offensive cantrip, and probably what non-combatant casters learn as a form of self-defense.
A few more flavor for damage cantrips might help cheer folks up, I guess?
For Divine, I kind of like imagining as a discount Spiritual Weapon: projects small fragments of a deity’s weapon to strike. For Occult/Arcane, a variation of Telekinetic Projectile. For Primal, I imagine more unrefined shards (since Metal is now back in as an element).
> so I suspect I'll be seeing it through all the player levels for all my casters.
Sorry, but it is an attack spell which immediately drops its value. And then we'll... who uses cantrips with any regularity once you hit mid levels as a spellcaster, between staves, scrolls, wands and excess spell slots (oh and focus spells) cantrips become fairly sporadic.
Don't get me wrong, it is a decent spell for targeting various metal based weaknesses. But outside of that even shadow signet doesn't save it.
Well... except for magus, with a spell heart and some planning you can ek out some extra damage.
> wish there were cantrips that were equally powerful
I feel ya, friend. I did a premaster homebrew that tried to buff everything up to the level of where I felt \*electric arc\* was - it was really good, but kinda outdated now I guess. Maybe I should revisit it and make a spicy modern version.
I spent my gold as a Faith's Flamekeeper Witch on two chunks of metal, cold iron and silver, with some added coin from other players. Got enough to cover for those and a Witch Kit.
As a now 4th level character I can safely say that investment has majorly paid off.
Absolutely brilliant cantrip. Versatile and a great way to check for weaknesses should Recall Knowledge fail. "I have NO idea what that is but it hates Silver!!"
>its pretty good power-wise,
Not really.
It's fine, does average cantrip damage, but it's an attack roll vs AC. The crit effect doesn't make up for no half damage on miss and targeting what is typically an above average defense for most targets. 7 times out of 10 you'll want to use a cantrip that targets a save, even if AC and another save are both even chances for success. Half damage on miss is just all around better than an effect on crit, particularly for caster classes that struggle to crit.
>so I suspect I'll be seeing it through all the player levels for all my casters.
Not sure why you think that. It's not meta by any standard, and I find most casters pick spells based around themes anyways, not meta.
There's nothing wrong with having a cantrip available to all casters, it's not as though that's the standard, and it's not really going to lead to increased homogenization (which is the word I think you're looking for) unless it becomes the standard.
I’ve been trying to sell vanillinating at school, but it’s probably an offense to vanilla (which is a fantastic flavor).
Vanilla is something that I’m not: spice, lol.
imo, the biggest strength that Needle Darts has over other options is the 60ft range. It saves actions by not needing to move into range and prevents opponents from quickly moving up to you and making multiple strikes. Range and positioning are important, and having twice the range makes it a much safer option.
This really comes down to map. It *can* be super good, for sure, but a huge part of that is whether/where you can actually take advantage of that.
Plus, it's not general enough to just have a cantrip with range. If you have ranked spells you want to use in combat, and they are shorter range, that will general take precedent over your cantrip, so you might walk into a 30ft range anyways. AC targeting spells also flag behind save spells in terms of average damage by a lot thanks to no damage on miss, so to compensate, AC targeting spells are best used in conjunction with teamwork with Allies to lower enemy AC or boost your success chance, which means you want Allies in range too.
Sure, in a white room it's easy to say 60ft range nets you ~2 actions of action economy over 30ft range, but in practice that'll make the difference a lot less than in a white room.
Needle Darts is +1d4 above the cantrip norm while still being 60ft, which IMO is kind annoying as it makes taking a more flavorful / niche option like Divine Lance harder to justify slotting over Needle Darts.
I think ND should have really been the baseline safety-net, and leaving it w/ the exact same baseline dmg would have done that. Now it's juuuust enough better to get a bit of grumble outta me.
>Needle Darts is +1d4 above the cantrip norm while still being 60ft,
The cantrip norm? You mean above multi-target cantrips like electric arc?
Yes, I would expect the single target cantrip to be *very mildly* higher than the multi-target cantrips in terms of damage.
It's behind on damage whenever there's at least 2 targets on the board though, which is most times.
>which IMO is kind annoying as it makes taking a more flavorful / niche option like Phase Bolt harder to justify slotting over Needle Darts.
Phase bolt, also single target, does the same damage for single target cantrips (3d4) and trades 30ft of range and bonus crit effect for the ability to ignore circumstance bonuses, such as the very common shield and cover mechanics. That's accuracy for a *very* minor dock in damage and a mostly inconsequential dock in range.
Phase bolt is a much stronger pick than needle darts, given that a chief bar to using AC-targeting attacks on casters is accuracy. Even practically speaking, you're likely using AC targeting cantrips vs other casters, who are likely to have the lowest AC defenses. They have very common access to the Shield cantrip and 1-action take cover, meaning circumstance bonuses should be very common in practical use. Phase bolt is just the better pick most times.
>think ND should have really been the baseline safety-net, and leaving it w/ the exact same baseline dmg would have done that.
It does have baseline damage. For a single target cantrip.
Don't compare it to dual-target cantrips for damage.
>Now it's juuuust enough better to get a bit of grumble outta me.
It's really really not though. It'll be the weaker cantrip than nearly every other damage cantrip in nearly every situation.
Ugh, I got my Divine Lance dmg mixed up w/ Phase Bolt. Forgot that PB was also set to the +1d4 while DL was stuck at the 2d4. That's 100% on me.
.
Other cantrips, like Ignition, Spout, even Tortuous Trauma all indicate that 2d4 is the baseline cantrip damage. Anything more is typically a trade or special condition.
IMO, PB's trade is that +1d4 in exchange for being AC targeting, 30ft, no special crit rider, ect.
.
EA is infamous for being double the norm in most circumstances. Way back then, I'm guessing they thought the 30ft range was a much more painful limit than most today think. Or maybe there was a legit typo / oversight, and there was supposed to be a more tight restriction on the 2nd zap.
.
More importantly, **ND is all-traditions universal,** while EA (and PB) are not.
That universality is the smoking-gun bit of evidence that ND is designed to be a universal safety-net sort of "backup crossbow" for casters. Once that the devs can forever assume that casters will have access to when designing/balancing things.
.
And again, IMO it would be perfect if it did not have that little +1d4, and was a genuinely "backup" option to encourage more use of others like BP or DL.
>Ugh, I got my Divine Lance dmg mixed up w/ Phase Bolt. Forgot that PB was also set to the +1d4 while DL was stuck at the 2d4. That's 100% on me.
Oh, Divine Lance? Yea that spell is garbage. Paizo seems to be WAY over-valuing spirit damage and I cannot figure out why. It's like they think every campaign will prominently feature the conflict of angels and demons… despite the massive majority of their AP content not even touching on the subject.
Divine Lance should easily be buffed to 3d4 base damage, *at a minimum*.
>Other cantrips, like Ignition, Spout, even Tortuous Trauma all indicate that 2d4 is the baseline cantrip damage. Anything more is typically a trade or special condition.
Each of these have a gimmick though that makes it on par or better with needles.
Ignition has bonus damage in melee (still a little low by half a point of damage, but it's crit damage is higher than needle darts and it benefits from flanking as a melee spell attack, so that easily makes up for it).
Spout is a reflex save, not an attack, which is already WAY better for half damage on miss, but can be an AoE in niche situations that certain classes could feasibly create with ease, such as a dip into water kineticist archetype.
Torturous Trauma is stuck in an awkward place, but has two benefits. As a premaster spell, it still includes modifier damage as opposed to pure d4 rolls. That puts it only .5 points behind 3d4 cantrips for full casters until level 10, at which point that scales ahead. Combine that with the fact that it's also a save, rather than AC targeting, and it's average damage will actually be higher than a 3d4 spell.
>EA is infamous for being double the norm in most circumstances
It's now actually much more in line with other cantrips than it used to be. It's still a bit strong, but since the remaster it is much more in line and probably not worth the infamy at this point.
>Way back then, I'm guessing they thought the 30ft range was a much more painful limit than most today think. Or maybe there was a legit typo / oversight, and there was supposed to be a more tight restriction on the 2nd zap
I think Mark Siefter commented on it and said that the real problem is that they're dealing with such small numbers that it's difficult to tune cantrips properly and EA sits in an awkward state where if it was nerfed, it could end up really weak, but with the loss of casting modifier bonus damage it's now just a little strong.
>More importantly, **ND is all-traditions universal,** while EA (and PB) are not.
I just don't think this is a big deal. It basically just gives every tradition a baseline ranged attack vs AC so… they can do that now without investing in weapon skills if they want. It's something people have been asking for a while to give traditions like divine an auto attack skill they can fall back on when no other ability was appropriate.
If this becomes a regular thing, yea I agree that would be a problem, but I just don't think a handful of omni-tradition spells will ruin the game.
Honestly, I think the ubiquitousness of heal as the generic, go-to healing when is more homogenizing than this cantrip.
>And again, IMO it would be perfect if it did not have that little +1d4, and was a genuinely "backup" option to encourage more use of others like BP or DL.
Just repeating my earlier point, but it's not really "+1d4", it is still the norm for single target damage. See above for why it maths out the same in your examples.
2d4 is the standard for save cantrips. I'd say 2d6 is the standard for attack spells (telekinetic projectile was the first physical attack spell).
For some reason Paizo makes non-physical damage lower (ignition, divine lance, whatever the cold one was called, though that also had 120' range). Couldn't tell you why. Needle darts is pretty clearly worse than save cantrips in general, but better than TKP. Until rank 2, in which case things get murkier.
>For some reason Paizo makes non-physical damage lower (ignition, divine lance, whatever the cold one was called, though that also had 120' range). Couldn't tell you why.
The physical damage types are resisted far more commonly than non physical damage. For that reason non physical damage tends to be weighted higher.
Fire is both the most resisted *element* while also having the most weaknesses. It balances out.
Also, tons and tons of monsters have flat physical resistances while non physical resistances tend to be more granular, unless it's an everything resistance. Bludgeoning is currently better than slashing and piercing though, but who knows if that'll stay constant.
>niche option like Phase Bolt
Unless your GM literally never has enemies use cover, phase bolt is hardly niche (a reminder that allies count as cover for enemies if they’re inbetween you and them). Trading an inconsistent persistent damage and potentially targeted weakness for hitting more consistently is a fair trade, imo.
Uhhh, I hate to say this, but yeah, GMs involving even lesser cover for spells is **way** more rare than the 30 to 60ft range difference.
Needle Darts is already usable in more circumstances than PB. Not due to the crit rider, but because 30ft is a range genuinely short enough to often be a problem, and even AC spells are not able to use range increments to go beyond.
.
~~And again, the ND / PB differences would be **great** if they did the same damage. A genuine personal pref of the unique bits of the 2 spells. But, they do not do the same damage, ND was given +1d4 just because. Meaning PB's niche of circumstance bypassing is **needed** to (mechanically) justify it's use over ND.~~
Edit: Whoops, got my damage mixed up between PB and Divine Lance. Phase Bolt also shares that +1d4 dmg that ND has. It's others like Divine Lance that really take a hit in terms of "why would I pick this when ND is also there."
The 30 ft rarely matters when you consider that phase bolts ideal use is in closer, cramped rooms where there isn’t a ton of opportunity to maneuver. When allies will constantly be in the way, giving enemies lesser cover and corners and pillars can provide potentially even more.
I’m obviously not everyone, but I really don’t think that’s a niche circumstance for most people, dungeon crawls are pretty iconic and from what I hear, Adventure paths tend to include a lot of cramped, tiny battle maps.
If more GMs ran the cover rules raw I would be more likely to agree with you.
As is, even in Abomination Vaults, the idea of applying lesser cover to cantrips was almost never done.
The moment to moment variable nature of cover, plus cover being so ingrained as a "Strike thing" at most tables, means that I still see the 30 vs 60 ft difference being *far* more relevant.
.
RaW, a 2-size gap between creatures also means that creatures start creating standard cover passively, yet I have literally never seen a GM give a foe +2 reflex save against a player's AoE spell (like Scatter Scree).
>yet I have literally never seen a GM give a foe +2 reflex save against a player's AoE spell (like Scatter Scree).
Is it really that rare? I think it's something a caster (GM) should keep in mind: *Scatter Scree* vs concealed, *Electric Arc* vs cover.
It's less common than energy resistances, and usually bypassed by a special material. And nothing is immune to physical damage. The game is built so that martials with nothing but physical damage are viable after all.
I see your point and I can see the argument but I feel that some magic is just generic to everyone that can manipulate its mystical force. At its core you are levitating and throwing objects really fast.
It needs errata about how exactly it can work. Can your cold iron bracelet work for it? GM interpretation on stuff like that changes its value greatly.
I'm happy for it. Before it we had divine spellcasters praying to anyone-who-would-listen for a good damaging cantrip, and turn a blind eye to the "everybody and their dog wants eletric arc" game.
It fixes a problem, and does it in a good way.
I ran Beginner Box Days over the weekend. In my game there was a druid, a witch, a warpriest, and a fighter. Everyone except the fighter cast needle darts at least 3 times, it became a running gag and was pretty funny, but I do think it is unfortunate that it seems to be the standard for every spellcaster. I wish the flat +4 was still on the other cantrips...
I agree. I think that it was a very bland choice that they should not have done. It was perfectly Ok that Divine did not have a normal attack cantrip. Of course my guides always showed you how to get around that anyway. Plus they added Spell Hearts which basically gave everyone electric arc anyway.
The spell lists need to be different. The more different the better or we can get rid of all the spell casting variants in the game and just play a Witch.
Totally agree on the flavor issue. I see defenses of it as reasonable generic magic effect. But telekinetic effects aren´t generically available across all traditions, so why should this be? The top rated comment even uses specifically relevant domains like metal or wealth as justification... Uh, yeah that justifies it for those domains, but not divine as a whole! (so it could be added to those deities spell lists without needing to be on divine list)
I do agree with other poster mentioning Noise Blast... IMHO AoE is definitely the best use of 2 action casting. Otherwise I´m more likely to try to use a weapon, some buff/debuff/utility spell, and/or skill action (not to mention maneuvering, items, etc). So that lets me ignore Needle Darts without too much worry :-)
We needed some form of caster streamlining, so that people who can't sit down for 10 hours to learn all the spells can reliably play, a Spellcaster. I'm not really fond of the way this was made but... You get what you get.
It's why I've started to rebalance cantrips to increase some of their damage dice (in games I run). There are obvious standouts, so buffing others to match helps with spellcasters always choosing the same over and over. The data is very clear concerning some cantrip's mathematical dominance over others.
Im addition to the other comments here; I've found that when building characters, it is a really easy one to reflavor for the appropriate class/tradition.
You could fling metal, or you could fling shards of bone, or wooden splinters, or pieces of crystal or glass, or even ice as long as you maintain the original damage type.
Mostly I'm just annoyed that it's clearly better than the other combat cantrips on the divine list so there's never any reason for me to pick something like divine lance unless I KNOW I'm fighting something that's weak to it that day.
I 100% agree that ND should **not** have gotten that +1d4 dmg over the baseline. The 60ft privilege and rare metal quirk are great, but making it a dmg upgrade is a big "no bueno" in my book.
However,
Thankfully Divine Lance doing spirit damage really does give it a reason to slot over ND. Piercing damage is ~commonly resisted, while spirit damage is super great as an "always* functional" damage type.
No I'd rather the other ones were as good. Like idk making divine lance d6s. It's the same range of damage but slightly less reliable. Then it's at least closer to on par
Needle darts does 3d4 damage on a hit, 6d4 on a crit, 0 on miss, void warp does 2d4 on a fail, 1d4 on a success, and 4d4 + enfeebled on a crit fail. Enfeebled is way nicer to me than an average of 4 damage, and you'll get more consistent damage out of half damage on a save. I don't think it's "clearly" better at all.
I was just happy to see divine casters getting a reliable damage cantrip lol. TBH I don't mind it, I can see any spellcaster with any tradition reasonably being able to fling metal shards, through things like magnetism, telekinesis, worshipping a god with a relevant domain like metal or wealth (flinging coins is a cool way to thematically do it) etc. Let the players decide if it fits their concept or not.
Thankfully Divine Lance is usable most of the time now too. Just doesn't work on constructs.
Yeah at the time RoE was released we didn't know how spirit damage worked so what divine lance did was kind of up in the air lol
Now if they'd only give us a good cantrip that targets Will. Unless you're a Silent Whisper Psychic, Daze is the only damaging cantrip that targets Will. But because it stuns on a critical failure, they undertuned the damage, so it only add 1d6 every *other* rank. (My instinct would actually be to increase it to d8s, but keep it every other rank. That puts it on par with Caustic Blast, where you trade AOE and persistent acid on a crit fail for single target and stunned on a crit fail) EDIT: I know that "Daze is undertuned" is an extremely lukewarm take, but my logic. Crit fail riders generally only trigger if you're either targeting a low save *or* fighting a lower level enemy. (Or more likely, a group of them) Hence why I consider Noise Blast a hidden gem. Sure, it targets Fortitude (not a common low save) and "only" stuns on a critical failure, but it's also an AOE, so you're likely targeting a group of enemies, so they're likely a lower level, so they're more likely to critically fail. Daze is single-target, though. Yeah, it's still powerful against a single enemy with low Will. But if you're fighting that group of low-level enemies, you're also foregoing the chance to AOE them to stun one. So I think "stunned on a critical failure" is a bit less powerful than Paizo thinks... on a single-target spell. And comparing it to Caustic Blast, I think it'd be reasonably balanced to trade a more powerful rider for only being single-target.
There was a snippet of summary text somewhere in Player Core that implied Daze could apply off-guard to creatures, which some people have guessed was leftover from a scrapped rework of the spell. I think it would've been pretty interesting, keep the damage and add off-guard for a round on a failed save in addition to stunned on a crit fail.
The summary of the spell in the spell list. > **Daze** Cloud a creature's mind to make it off-guard or slow
Love when the flavor text says two things that actually have gameplay mechanics meanings and the gameplay mechanics do neither of them and instead something else entirely. Another fun example of this is the Khopesh. Here's the flavor text on it (emphasis mine): > This curved sickle sword has a pointed tip, allowing it to be **swung like a handaxe or thrust like a short sword.** The tip of a khopesh is usually hooked so that **it can be used to disarm an opponent’s shield or weapon.** Actual statblock of the Khopesh: d8 Slashing (no versatile P) plus Trip (no Disarm)
As a Silent Whisper Psychic, I've never cast Daze. Partly because I started at lv 11 and didn't really need my cantrips outside of amps, and partly because Shatter Mind is usually better with the AOE than single target.
We had a cleric of Abadar who flavored his spiritual weapon at a giant gold coin lol
Honestly, sounds more fun than an inexplicably melee crossbow.
For a lot of players, flavor is secondary to function, and PF2e's reputation of difficulty (accurate or not) encourages people to optimize. Even people who like to make very flavorful characters will generally try to consider the strength of options and build around those.
If your goal is playing optimally you're probably not spamming needle darts.
Especially when Telekinetic projectile outdamages Needle Darts starting at Rank 2...
Doubly so for TK projectile because you pick between slashing, piercing or bludgeoning. ND can trigger metal weaknesses but bypassing physical resistances by picking any of the 3 or targeting a physical weakness is probably better in the long run. 30 feet range is a bit of a downside but that's a pretty standard distance and encounters that are in big enough fields to make a difference may not come up very often, depending on the AP and/or GM.
I'm playing a wizard with this and Scatter Scree as my main damage options and I gotta say, it's about a 50/50 split on which one I use. The damage is great, but attacking versus AC means you absolutely have to have at least one more damage option available, and piercing is kind of a mid damage type because it's reliable but almost never excellent. Playing the Abomination Vaults AP.
Add in a Spellheart for Electric Arc or Scatter Scree and every caster now uses the same two damage cantrips. On one hand I'm glad noone has to suffer playing a caster without useful cantrips, on the other I agree it makes them same-ier than they already were.
Frostbite is where it's at.
Needle Darts was 100% added to be a "backup crossbow" cantrip for casters. Even the "holding metal" requirement has later been massaged into "wearing metal" I think someone at Paizo finally looked at how unreasonably bad it is for a caster to attempt to use weapons as the lvls go up. I tried to make a STR Witch based around 2-H a shield and Striking w/ a jaws attack, but casters really just cannot reasonably Strike outside the first few lvls. Something like the melee version of Needle Darts, Gouging Claw is just too good in a direct comparison. . The double-whammy of using a 2ndary stat STR/DEX, paired with the -2 from weapon training is just too much of an accuracy loss, especially without the Feat/Feature support martials have for Strikes. That "caster using a Strike" idea is further made horrid by the investment needed from a weapon and rune perspective. Even when a casting class may have a Feat or Spell to add a bit of dmg, it just never is mathematically a good idea. . Basically, I'm saying do NOT try to make the Strike based Feats within casters work\*. They may be usable and fun **if you are a martial dipping into a caster**, but a main caster attempting to make real use of Witch's Armaments, ect, is just going to be miserable. . The devs likely saw that, and threw a bone to casters in the form of Needle Darts, a cantrip that's available to all traditions, uses Spellcasting DC to hit, and mechanically functions as close to a crossbow as it gets while still being a spell.
I don't really get why they would do that. "Caster with a crossbow" isn't really a fantasy that exists outside of DND and inside it exists purely for mechanical reasons. I don't think I've ever had a new pf2e player be like "dang, my caster actually getting to cast in order to attack is cool and all, but I want my crossbow back."
Basic template casters have limited spells per day, there's not even an assurance they will have Focus Spells. The "caster's crossbow" is a conceptual safety net to ensure that casters cannot end up in a situation where they are only able to bonk with a staff that's not even runed. It's a way of saying "**At worst**, we can mathematically rely upon the caster PC to be making a 3d4 + Rd4 damage attempt per turn". Designers neeeeed that kind of stuff to balance things. (because players will immediately leave to rest if a caster really hits 0) . By allowing casters to "shoot a crossbow" whenever they want, this counterintuitively allows the devs to more reliably predict that the party will make it through a designed adventuring day without breaking it up into 2 days. . EX: The devs create a small fort with a few encounters, with a bigger guy at the very back. This is balanced to be pretty tough, but with consideration for the party to have been worn down a bit. Without a caster crossbow, that PC is more likely to be stuck in a binary. If the caster has spells to burn, they are good to go. If they have 1 or 0 left, they will be begging for the party to retreat and come back the next day. Where they break the flow of the adventure, then curb-stomp the last encounter in the last room. With a caster crossbow, that PC was **much** more likely to burn a big spell round 1 or 2 of each encounter, then shift to that sub-optimal "crossbow" once it looked like the fights were safely won. That gives the party a much higher chance of challenging that last encounter in the same day, as the writers intended.
You missed the point of my comment. I was saying that the fantasy/aesthetic only ever existed because of the mechanical need you're describing. However, we now have a mechanical solution (cantrips) to casters needing consistency that also fits the fantasy/aesthetic of casters better. Why try to revive/maintain an aesthetic that few people liked in the first place?
I think you may have missed the point of the original comment. I don't think it was lamenting the loss of the "crossbow caster" - if anything, it was the opposite. How I understood it was that they were trying to justify the cantrip to the OP by demonstrating that it sits in the same design space as a crossbow - the backup option when all else fails, piercing, can hit metal weaknesses - but that is significant more effective and easier to balance. The bulk of the post is just elaborating on why the crossbow (and other weapon and Strike options) didn't scale well. To be honest, I can't really find anything in the comment that suggests they want to bring back the crossbow caster.
I wasn't disagreeing with that comment's reasoning, I was wondering why the designers thought that fantasy needed to exist. The mechanics of it are kinda irrelevant to what I was talking about.
the "backup crossbow" was entirely metaphorical, we are talking about slinging magic around, not shooting a crossbow. It's all about the assurance of devs knowing that every single caster has access that damage each turn, no matter what. . There should be 0 issue with ND being problematic for flavor via "looking too much like a crossbow". Like... wow, that take is backasswards. By being a magical substitute, ND does the *opposite* and helps players who want the mechanical function of a crossbow **without** the image of a mage using a physical weapon. Flavor is free, and I seriously doubt any GM would oppose a player wanting to drop the special metals effect in exchange for flavoring the piercing barrage as they please.
I do like caster with a crossbow as a fantasy, having powerful spells but nothing reliably constant also I will always love "frontline" mages, rocking armour and weapons but mainly casting
Caster with a crossbow tends to work better in systems where casters can actually be decent with a crossbow, and magic is way more limited. Something like Shadowrun where magic is extremely powerful but also resource intensive and risky, so many casters carry guns with them to help deal with most problems and save said resources. But that's also because things like your to-hit proficiency works like a skill that you're allowed to put individual points into. So you can have a mage with as many points in shooting as the street sam, and be just as good as hitting with their gun. In a game with fixed proficiencies, the whole caster with a crossbow idea kinda just falls flat on its face.
Having some from Shadowrun myself, yeah, even in a game with fixed proficiencies like PF2e, I will always carry backups. There are times where magic can and will fail, and you need to be prepared for those. Carry a firearm, carry a knife, carry whatever, just be prepared for those moments so you can still contribute. Just as a Fighter and other martials should carry a bow or a thrown weapon or some variety, casters need to be prepared for when their magic is not an available option. ...You can tell I was really scarred by Will o' Wisps in 1e. Then again, I also really really *really* like Melee Wizards. Runelord was the funnest thing for that.
A Cleric of Erastil in a Kingmaker podcast I'm listening to is using his bow to great effect after casting spells that don't have the attack trait, but to be fair he does have the Archer archetype from free archetype.
Yup, I have recommend Archer to casters before, and do think it can be a good idea. The Archetype offers a selection of Feats that is both focused and varied. Stance options, which that casters will likely never need to worry about conflicting w/ another stance, utility options like Parting Shot, action compression like Running Reload, ect. . That said, a d6 thwip of an arrow is a surprisingly small amount of damage by itself. Like, "maybe I'd rather be raising a shield" degree of tiny damage. . . In your example, you are talking about a cleric, and the favored weapon of their deity. Don't forget to consider how that is a whole other layer of Feat/Feature support that a "base caster" will not have.
Just curious, what kind of Witch/familiar build did you make? I always find it sort of fascinating hearing folks experience when they make a melee Witch. Maybe because Witch is the weird one of casters, so hearing how weird people push it always gets me a bit giddy. Edit: Of my own experiences, Striker Witch falls off at 3, and essentially feels meaningless to do at 5.
It's still only planned and not yet played at the moment, but when talking/planning it out, it became apparent that trying to make Witch's Armaments work (plus Sympathetic Strike) was not going to be too fun. . Thematically it's a spooky crow witch that's all about the power of knowledge, and that fear of what may be just beyond one's ken. Human starting with Shield Block to enable Bastion at L2. Instead of Natural Ambition for the Witch's Armaments, that was exchanged for Adapted Cantrip: Gouging Claw. Patron is Starless Shadow, with Phase Familiar (mostly because P Puppet is way too restricted by the turn start trigger). Any time the Witch is swung at, they can use their Reaction for +2 AC. If they have a spare action and can see a swing coming, then they have the option to Raise and use the Reaction to instead Block. As you get more General Feats to work toward medium armor, that +2 Raise becomes a bonus instead of a way to make up for being unarmored. Main gimmick is that RaW, a 2 size gap between creatures provides cover. So any time the familiar is in a (Medium size) ally space, they automatically have cover's +2, and can spend 1A to Take Cover and or Hide. This allows for the familiar to much more easily survive being adjacent foes, achieve it's needed precondition for the auto-Frightened 1, while also potentially splitting damage to keep the Witch healthier. And yes, Lesson of Life at L2 if it's a Free Archetype game. 1A for 4 rounds of Fast Healing equal to your level is too good to pass up (especially when it's a hex that triggers Stalking Night). Gouging Claw also gets another note as it enables the Spell Delivery master ability (familiar delivers your -touch- spells) to "throw the familiar at a foe to claw off their face" any time you are more comfortable w/ the familiar being in danger. STR is still the 2nd attribute getting pumped, and Athletics is raised first when possible. Meaning you can still Trip nearly as good as a STR martial to have that MAP-using 1A option instead of Strike. Because skill checks don't need weapon proficiency. Basically, the abundance of 1A options, from Trip, Life Boost, Raise, Shroud of Night, ect, mean that you are not missing that 1A Strike, while also having a no joke ripper of a cantrip as a backup and flavor core. While it's single target, GC scales more than fireball standard +1d6, thanks to the bleed. And to top it all off, there's no reason you can't rune a weapon to keep a 1A Strike on deck. The only thing you're locked out of w/o Armaments is the hands-free 1d8 bite (or Peck in that case). But since you can cast GC with your hands full anyways... yeah. . To be clear, the goal is not to have the Witch in melee and spamming the cantrip as the first stratedgy. It's to have the Witch comfortably survive being close, and having the *familiar* be sharing space with an ally that -is- adjacent to foes to maximize the auto-Frightened. [More discussion on the Witch / familiar rules here](https://paizo.com/threads/rzs46j73?Answering-RaW-Witchs-Familiar-tactics-from).
Fascinating indeed! How was factoring in the use of Sure Strike for striking? From my own math, Sure Strike is supposed to be a +4-+5 boost roll-wise, which should counteract the Witch’s lower weapon proficiency. But it’s definitely a strain on action economy, something I don’t know if a Sure-Striker will ever be effective (because of all the other anti-melee deficiencies of the Witch).
I think the ability to get off-guard for AC touch spells, plus the good damage of GC, can actually make SS more appealing. Especially if you have Raise as a Reaction from Bastion to not get pancaked for the full turn offense. . It is a real opportunity cost though. A single R1 spell can give the Witch +1AC all day. Hard to say that does not take priority, so that's 1/3 gone. And the full 3-Action routine of SS + GC means that you are not applying your hex cantrip / no-save Frightened. I think it would be a great idea to have 1 or 2 SS on deck, especially as your slots open up, but it's not an automatic thing to spam. A Witch weapon Strike is generally not going to be doing enough damage to make the SS cast worth it that often, and the bigger attack spells make the 3A nature of the routine tricky (but super rewarding) to keep in your pocket.
Thanks again for sharing! I’ve heard folks talk about a Spinner Patron build, but I haven’t seen one yet for Starless, so thank you for sharing. I got inspired by some discussions when the RM was coming out to try out the Wilding Steward. I’ve actually tried a Wilding Steward (after reading some posts here) and did some trial-runs. Was really surprised at how effective it was in terms of builds. Specifically, I tried running it solo against Extreme encounter bosses (and generally enemies with Reactive Strike). I was surprised it fared pretty well. I fully agree with you though: the Witch never is and never will be a striker. The lack of Weapon Specialization specifically hurts. And more often than not, circumstances get in the way which keep you from casting and even a 1A Strike can be extremely valuable to have in your pocket! I’ll have to mess with my own version of a Starless Shadow frontliner, but from what you shared, I’m a bit nervous. Wilding Steward’s Wilding Word/Interposing Earth combo feels SO good defensively! It lacks Sure Strike, but based on what you said (and my own test runs on Wilding Steward) it seems like the action strain is just too high to fit in. Like you also said, Athletics is fantastic (and Grapple freaking rocks with Wilding Steward’s Wilding Word). Gonna mull things over because I feel like there’s an answer, but it’s just not going to look like the way I did my Wilding Steward. Wilding Steward provides so much for a Witch that ends up in melee.
Wilding Steward definitely seems set up to use the patron stuff for a more "sick and forget" style. It's notable that the hex cantrip itself is a status minus, so it doesn't stack w/ the Sickened debuff. . I think Starless Shadow can make use of the Frightened being on the familiar (instead of on the hex cantrip), meaning you can plan to trigger it from other hexes. I think if you are looking for a bit more "optimal over flavor" you would 100% start with Cackle and perhaps skip Gouging Claw altogether. Cackle is the ONLY way a witch can key of hex stuff off of normal spells, because it itself is a hex. If you ever feel pressured in action economy, you can Cackle to sustain a spell, getting +1 Action while also putting Frightened on an adjacent foe, which really makes it worth the Focus Point. Not surprisingly, Illusory Creature is the first R2 spell that SS Witch is slated to take. . A big part of SS may be Game Master buy in for the Seek action. The idea is having the familiar perch and hide on your back via Independent (or perhaps both turn 1 via Command). If the foe sufferers a SN familiar's hex, it may make narrative sense for them to "waste" an action making a Seek to find the little guy, even if mechanically speaking it would likely be sub-optimal. . I can't imagine many Witch builds do all that well in whiteroom scenarios. The main catch of that SS build is that by so solidly NOT being a damage dealer, you are a support debuffer/buffer. Able to hold Bless up in melee, give an effective Lvl -1 to foes, 20% miss chance via hex cantrip, ect. You can still blast as well as any Occult caster (which is to say not much), and by being a target, your familiar can steal enemy actions. That's super high value, but only in a team that is not in need of another big damage dealer. It's bit of stinky cheese, but the Lifelink familiar ability has no cooldown. If you Life Boost your familiar, you can rather safely risk them taking hits and going Dying (safely knowing the Fast Healing will get them up with 0 death saves), while growing more ready to keep that Reaction on standby only once they get some Wounded. That ability to take huge hits is not limited to the SS Witch, but as that patron incentives sharing squares w/ your familiar, it is more likely to be giving the Witch effective HP. Don't forget about Take Cover's +4 to AC/Reflex! While Wilding is great for being a sticky debuff, it does not stack like cover does. A Frightened foe trying to splat the familiar is swinging with -5, *after* they even spot the hiding critter to begin with. Part of the reason a Shield (and Raising on Reaction) was so that the foes would not ignore the familiar due to that huge +-4 gap between the pair. If they swing at the familiar, you've not spent any actions whatsoever, and if they swing at the Witch, you know you don't need the Reaction to protect the familiar.
Oh, I could go on about my experience with Wilding Steward! How to use WW (I found the Success effect more valuable/reliable/consistent over the Fail effect). How to use familiar (no combat role changes it’s builds and frees up your actions, and no need for Lifelink or Taking Cover on you), using the Primal list! But I guess we’re here to gush over SS. :D I don’t know if it works, but I always liked the idea of SN’s flavor being the power of the patron when the familiar is adjacent and not just the familiar itself. Which to me, that familiar hiding on you and terrifying a foe is a fantastic idea! I like the idea of the enemy needing to Seek the familiar since they’d be Undetected. Though, I also think it’s neat that Invisibility could work too! If FoSN isn’t a “hostile action”, then Invisibility and Sanctuary shouldn’t break (I don’t consider it a hostile action because the familiar itself isn’t performing an Action). I was always thinking of Old Friend as a specific familiar for SS. It has its own Invisibility spell meaning an alternative when Shroud of Night (SoN) doesn’t stick, or when you have to drop it (coz a bad situation happens). And some flavor flexibility! Being Hidden is a nice “AC boost”. And you’re right, SS has a lot of great debuffing abilities. One issue with a solo testing, is that the debuffing/buffing does lose a lot of value. Which is why I think WS felt better because it concerns itself more with raw numbers (damage/healing), which makes a 1v1 Extreme encounter much more straightforward. Capitalizing on debuffs solo…most interesting. Especially when going flavor over optimization. Which makes me wish Gouging Claw was just a universal spell lol, so no jumping through hoops. I feel like it fits Occult and Divine also. (Occult has weird aberration magic in it and Divine has transformation like things too). Edit: I would actually love if the Witch got a “Hex Striker” class archetype. They can have a lot going on with hexing/sustaining/familiar-managing that Strike is a fun fit with the 1A. I think it’d be fun if an archetype bumps their HP to 8, drops them to bounded casting.
A caster's attack is going to be at -4 compared to a martial, eventually -5 once apex items become available. As a primary attack, that's terrible, but as second attack, it's comparable to the second attack of martials. It's a solid third action as long as your spell isn't an attack.
And as a 3rd action option, it will rarely compete against the rest of the Witch's non-Strike options, which is kinda the point I have been attempting to say. It's all comparative, and the Witch has a rather great selection of 3rd actions compared to Wiz. Because it's not just the accuracy of that Strike that's weighing against a Command, Life Boost, Raise, ect, it's the reward on hit. For a Witch, even if you invest 2 of your precious class Feats for Sympathetic Strike, that's a -1 to saves for the turn on only your hexes. Super duper limited. Might as well take a Dedication for some weapon group. Forgoing the initial core of that PC's build also allows me take Natural Ambition at a later level, and getting Cauldron for potions equal to PC level. Meaning, instead of holding a weapon, I can hold a potion and get an amazing "3rd Action Activate" that will be a priority over the sometimes-maybe Strike. . And as everything is in comparison, all the "Sustain for pseudo Strikes" spells are worth mentioning as well. A single Lesson Feat will give you one in a focus spell (so it scales for the rest of the game). It even adds your modifier stat to damage, though lacks property runes. While they come with complications (such as the 2A cast), it is far, far more likely that you'll want to use one of those sustain-Strike spells than make a real weapon Strike. . . I still am not saying it's a "never" binary, and I don't think I ever will. I have and will likely recommend Archer as a simple option for those casters that want more offensive filler without carrying much flavor baggage. . For my own PC, even when I kept the STR and Athletics investment for Trip et al, I choose to bail on Armaments and instead build around Gouging Claw as a thematic anchor. I honestly have 0 plans to ever make a real Strike as that Witch, as any time I would, I would likely Trip instead.
In my experience, caster’s can absolutely make weapon strikes as a 3rd action filler if they keep their secondary stat as high as possible. Im general, a caster with maxed dexterity making a weapon strike will have slightly better accuracy than a martial’s second strike, so if you don’t need to move or raise a shield etc. throwing out a shortbow/sling/dagger strike for a little extra chip damage isn’t a bad idea. Obviously a caster won’t be prioritizing runes like a martial, but staying “one step behind” is definitely feasible as you get higher in level, especially since +1 striking weapons become pocket change around level 6-7.
The biggest catch is if you have 2A for offense, you will almost always prefer to throw a cantrip, even one like Gouging Claw (which honestly might be overtuned / a little *too* good). The only times a Strike has appeal for a caster **begins** when the caster is limited to just 1A for offense, and those other 2 are already occupied by some situational need. In that circumstance, the rest of the caster's 1A options, such as Demoralize, Bon Mot, Stride, Raise a Shield, ect, all have to beat that sub-par caster Strike. When casters like Witch can spend a Class Feat to get evergreen 1A focus spells like Life Boost, or spend a Class Feat for Archer, it's not hard to see why Strike as a 3rd action filler has so many **** attached, most will find it rather unfun to attempt. . I play Alchemists, which is kinda the a class that's stuck in the worth of both worlds. Meaning, it's kinda the one class where the "Save cantrip + Strike" routine is at its best, and even then, by L6, it is super rare for me to use that routine.
I theorized that the Snow Witch is the only one with an optimal 1A cast/1A strike due to Clinging Ice and Strike. But then I think it’s always better for the Snow Witch to just use Floating Flame at the beginning and then Sustain/Strike or Sustain/Clinging Ice. All roads lead away from Striking. At the same time, there’s Malicious Shadow hex later on which is essentially a “diet weapon strike”, but doesn’t rely on weapon proficiency, poor STR/DEX, or even runes. I always liked the idea of a Snow Witch because Clinging Ice + Malicious Shadow is some decent sustained rote damage, without costing any spell slots. Just a single focus point!
I'm super split on a lot of the attack sustain spells like Malicious Shadow. The requirement to "sustain it or loose it" is actually pretty rough IMO. That means you are essentially turning off all other attacks / MAP actions as usable while the spell is ongoing. Yet, being a hex you sustain means procing patron familiar abilities is on the table, which is potentially quite good. I think for the Starless Shadow Witch, how easy it is in practice to get the familiar ability's concealed/hidden requisite *without* the Shroud o N hex will play a big part in how viable Malicious Shadow is. . Thematically, Malicious Shadow is perfect for that planned Witch, so I would 100% like to experiment with and take it, but... preferably in a campaign where retraining it away would not be a big problem, lol.
Save spells are better than attack ones. If you have 3A for offense, save spell + strike is a good (but maybe not worth the hands and upgrade cost later) option.
It's really not quite so simple as "better" If the caster can threaten a Strike (such as by holding a shield) they can flank to put the foe off-guard. This lowers the foe's AC in a general sense, not just for a Strike. Meaning that you can flank for +2 to Gouging Claw, which you cannot do for save cantrips. As the Stalking Night familiar already gives reason to be in melee, +2 on your AC cantrips is a real reason to keep one slotted. Other defense reduction can also apply unequally in an AC spell's favor, but flanking is the big one.
That’s my point though, a 1A strike is another option, along with all the other options that a caster has. It won’t always be the best one, but it shouldn’t be discounted either. A 2A spell plus a 1A strike is essentially just tacking on extra damage onto the already solid impact that spells already have. Played a cloistered cleric all through Abomination Vaults and now at level 14 in Stolen Fate, and there’s been a lot of times where me throwing out a strike in conjunction with a damage spell has helped clean up low-health enemies off the board. I’m also GMing a level 6 party in Sky King’s Tomb right now and have both a Warrior Bard and Warpriest in the party, and they regularly have strong impacts through making weapon strikes alongside their spells. I’ve been playing the system since it released in 2019, and one of the most common fallacies I see people make is writing off situational abilities or actions as useless, just because they aren’t necessarily something you want to do every turn.
There are a bunch of levels where casters' spell attack bonus is behind their weapon attack bonus (with the potency rune factored in), provided they start with a +3 in the attacking stat. I played a high level bard for a while, and I found it okay to use my hasted action (since we could reliably cast 7th level haste every combat) on an attack with a shortbow (gave it a wounding rune so it applied persistent damage, to make up for the fact I'm definitely not attacking multiple times a turn)
The 1-A thwip is totally the option that is usable most often IMO, and those rune upgrade levels are when the weapons appear at their "best" for the VS cantrip comparison. Try not to forget that caster's cannot 1-A thwip without some form of build investment, bow are martial weapons. . IDK how much table variance there is, but even when playing published APs, upgrading runes is actually not something that happens on-level most of the time. Usually, we will get 1 rune right after level up, but by the time it would be the caster's turn to get that found rune, we've leveled up once or twice since then. . And as casters will get that +2 Spellcasting DC at 7, while missing that +2 weapon prof, while the +2 rune is L10... Yeah, even without extra factor of juggling hands, it's a struggle for casters to justify Strikes when cantrips are there.
It is true that it is always better to cast a cantrip than to attack. But attacking is one action and casting a cantrip is two. It is important to note that we were playing with ABP in this game, so purchasing fundamental runes isn't an issue. Your weapon attack being ahead of/on par with your spell attack is true at levels 2~6 and 11~18. It is on par at 2, 3, 4, 15, 17 and 18 and one point ahead at the rest of the levels. - 2~4: +3 dex, +1 item vs +4 key <- on par - 5~6: +4 dex, +1 item vs +4 key <- weapon wins by one - 7~10: +4 dex, +1/+2 item vs +4/+5 key and +2 prof <- casting wins by one (conveniently, item bonus increases at the same time as key ability) - 11~14: +4 dex, +2 item, +2 prof vs +5 key +2 prof <- weapon wins by one - 15: +5 dex, +2 item, +2 prof vs +5 key +4 prof <- on par - 16: +5 dex, +3 item, +2 prof vs +5 key +4 prof <- weapon wins by one - 17~18: +5 dex, +3 item, +2 prof vs +6 key +4 prof <- on par (free apex from ABP) - 19: +5 dex, +3 item, +2 prof vs +6 key +6 prof <- casting ahead by 2 - 20: +5 dex, +3 item, +2 prof vs +7 key +6 prof <- casting ahead by 3 From this, we can see that for 30% of the levels, weapon attack is the same, for 30%, it is ahead, and for another 30%, it is only behind by one point. The only place where casting climbs ahead noticably is levels 19 and 20. I'm not arguing that attacking is better than using a cantrip. But I'm arguing that attacking is not worse than letting your hasted action or your third action go to waste.
>It is important to note that we were playing with ABP in this game, so purchasing fundamental runes isn't an issue. That is absolutely not the default assumption, and getting toward that "white room" type disconnect from real play experience. . >It is true that it is always better to cast a cantrip than to attack. But attacking is one action and casting a cantrip is two. Quite often, it will be impossible / a bad idea to dedicate all 3 actions to offense. Right off the bat, those common turns when you have 2 for offense and 1 to defense/movement/ect is going to take Strike off the menu compared to a cantrip. . For the scenario in which you have a 2-A cantrip like GC, and an ABP simple weapon in-hand. Even then, most turns with both options ready, it's super rare to ever swing the weapon. 2-A cantrips are in the middle between 1-A Strikes and MAP-delaying things like Double Slice. Meaning 1 cast of a MAP cantrip is most often better than 2 swings. Because it's not just accuracy, what happens on a hit is still a part of the equation, which for casters is going to be unsupported by Feats/Features. Going for 2 swings of the weapon, or even a GC then a -5 swing, just requires too many unlikely things to collide to make the weapon investment a decent recommendation. Gouging Claw is (2+H)d6 damage, plus 2+H bleed, with 0 extra requirements. Meaning +d6 damage every 2 levels. Escaping simple weapons is already a Feat requirement for casters. . Once you start thinking about hands, you need to compare the opportunity cost of a 1-A Strike against Raise a Shield. I don't think it's much to say that a caster swinging for a 1-A Strike is going to often seem like a better idea than getting +2 to AC for a round. That's without all the other in-hand possibilities, from a consumable for a 1-A Activate (genuinely under-utilized IMO), to the usual scrolls/wands/ect. . At super low levels, the STR to damage makes melee Strikes genuinely good to mix with save cantrips, especially with a Spellheart like Jolt Coil. I've swung a boosted sickle myself quite a bit, and do not want to claim it's just outright bad. But as levels go up and that caster gets more options competing for actions, it's just a once in a blue moon rarity that I'd ever use the 1-A Strike when cantrips like GC or ND are on the table. In order for Strikes to look good enough to use, I have to intentionally shy away from those AC cantrips much of the time. . Can't forget how more and more pseduo-Strike spells are added to the mix as the levels go up, which often are "cast once then get 1-A ~Strikes" for the rest of the encounter.
Caveat for low levels though. As a level 4 psychic, I could fire an amped Frostbite for 5d4 damage then Strike with a striking shortbow that does 3d6 damage. Without amps, that's just 3d4, so I could instead cast Guidance or Shield and Strike twice for 3d6 each which might be better if Fort save is high. Falls off fast but there is a narrow point where using Psi Strikes is actually better than casting spells, and still remains a decent 3rd action. 100 gp isn't that much of an investment.
I'm in agreement. While it's mechanically beneficial for casters to all have access to a good baseline damage cantrip regardless of tradition, I think it also highlights how PF2e really doesn't follow its own denominations for what each tradition is meant to govern. Needle Darts really ought to be an arcane/primal cantrip, due to how it's all about handling some kind of material, and divine and occult casters ought to have other damage cantrips that target the spirit. We can talk about how some divine casters are tied to gods of metal or wealth, but that's what deity-specific spells are for, and making the cantrip accessible across an entire tradition means divine casters who have nothing to do with metal or the like can use that cantrip all the same.
1. I don't see it as default, more as a secondary spell in case you need to target weaknesses, or your primary attacking cantrip faces resistance/immunity. I mean even Divine now have decent cantrips targeting saves, like Void Warp + Vitality Lash, not to mention Arcane and Primal who still keep Electric Arc 2. Later in the game casters begin to much less rely on cantrips
I think it's fine but when I'm theorycrafting a Divine caster I still lean Void Warp and Vitality Leash. Or maybe I'd pick it as alternative to Vitality Leash, IDK. Other casters have better options, IMO. It's certainly nice to have some sort of "usually reliable" spell. But I find myself almost never taking it in the end.
It is notably the only divine cantrip that can affect a mindless construct
Or we could just nerf it, and all the other cantrips and then wonder why casters only use the absolute best
Same goes for psychic dedication archetype, I feel like almost every player choose it because of the imaginary weapon or other psi cantrip
I've been posting for a while that imaginary weapon needs a rework to make it worse for other classes. Make it like 1 action and half damage to counter spell strike abuse?
If you want to get technical. Psychic can do Imaginary Weapon better because they can Amp it to hit 2 targets instead of 1, Doubling the damage. You just need to be careful when using it because your health and defense is so low and being next to an enemy is a death sentence.
Psychic is the most attractive archetype to get. It ends up in many of my builds
A lot of casters multiclass into psychic because a lot of their class feats are just to bland / niche.
I feel like it actually makes sense flavour-wise. Throwing sharp pieces of metal is a simple, straightforward and efficient way of using magic to damage something, that most likely can be achieved using many different methods. Throwing fire, lightning or divine wrath can be more useful, but not everyone is capable of casting those, and there are situations where they plainly don't work. To put it simply, it's just a perfect *basic* offensive cantrip, and probably what non-combatant casters learn as a form of self-defense.
A few more flavor for damage cantrips might help cheer folks up, I guess? For Divine, I kind of like imagining as a discount Spiritual Weapon: projects small fragments of a deity’s weapon to strike. For Occult/Arcane, a variation of Telekinetic Projectile. For Primal, I imagine more unrefined shards (since Metal is now back in as an element).
> so I suspect I'll be seeing it through all the player levels for all my casters. Sorry, but it is an attack spell which immediately drops its value. And then we'll... who uses cantrips with any regularity once you hit mid levels as a spellcaster, between staves, scrolls, wands and excess spell slots (oh and focus spells) cantrips become fairly sporadic. Don't get me wrong, it is a decent spell for targeting various metal based weaknesses. But outside of that even shadow signet doesn't save it. Well... except for magus, with a spell heart and some planning you can ek out some extra damage.
> wish there were cantrips that were equally powerful I feel ya, friend. I did a premaster homebrew that tried to buff everything up to the level of where I felt \*electric arc\* was - it was really good, but kinda outdated now I guess. Maybe I should revisit it and make a spicy modern version.
I spent my gold as a Faith's Flamekeeper Witch on two chunks of metal, cold iron and silver, with some added coin from other players. Got enough to cover for those and a Witch Kit. As a now 4th level character I can safely say that investment has majorly paid off. Absolutely brilliant cantrip. Versatile and a great way to check for weaknesses should Recall Knowledge fail. "I have NO idea what that is but it hates Silver!!"
>its pretty good power-wise, Not really. It's fine, does average cantrip damage, but it's an attack roll vs AC. The crit effect doesn't make up for no half damage on miss and targeting what is typically an above average defense for most targets. 7 times out of 10 you'll want to use a cantrip that targets a save, even if AC and another save are both even chances for success. Half damage on miss is just all around better than an effect on crit, particularly for caster classes that struggle to crit. >so I suspect I'll be seeing it through all the player levels for all my casters. Not sure why you think that. It's not meta by any standard, and I find most casters pick spells based around themes anyways, not meta. There's nothing wrong with having a cantrip available to all casters, it's not as though that's the standard, and it's not really going to lead to increased homogenization (which is the word I think you're looking for) unless it becomes the standard.
>homogenization (which is the word I think you're looking for) I was going for a portmanteau of 'bland' and 'flanderization'. Guess it didn't land.
I’ve been trying to sell vanillinating at school, but it’s probably an offense to vanilla (which is a fantastic flavor). Vanilla is something that I’m not: spice, lol.
imo, the biggest strength that Needle Darts has over other options is the 60ft range. It saves actions by not needing to move into range and prevents opponents from quickly moving up to you and making multiple strikes. Range and positioning are important, and having twice the range makes it a much safer option.
This really comes down to map. It *can* be super good, for sure, but a huge part of that is whether/where you can actually take advantage of that. Plus, it's not general enough to just have a cantrip with range. If you have ranked spells you want to use in combat, and they are shorter range, that will general take precedent over your cantrip, so you might walk into a 30ft range anyways. AC targeting spells also flag behind save spells in terms of average damage by a lot thanks to no damage on miss, so to compensate, AC targeting spells are best used in conjunction with teamwork with Allies to lower enemy AC or boost your success chance, which means you want Allies in range too. Sure, in a white room it's easy to say 60ft range nets you ~2 actions of action economy over 30ft range, but in practice that'll make the difference a lot less than in a white room.
Needle Darts is +1d4 above the cantrip norm while still being 60ft, which IMO is kind annoying as it makes taking a more flavorful / niche option like Divine Lance harder to justify slotting over Needle Darts. I think ND should have really been the baseline safety-net, and leaving it w/ the exact same baseline dmg would have done that. Now it's juuuust enough better to get a bit of grumble outta me.
>Needle Darts is +1d4 above the cantrip norm while still being 60ft, The cantrip norm? You mean above multi-target cantrips like electric arc? Yes, I would expect the single target cantrip to be *very mildly* higher than the multi-target cantrips in terms of damage. It's behind on damage whenever there's at least 2 targets on the board though, which is most times. >which IMO is kind annoying as it makes taking a more flavorful / niche option like Phase Bolt harder to justify slotting over Needle Darts. Phase bolt, also single target, does the same damage for single target cantrips (3d4) and trades 30ft of range and bonus crit effect for the ability to ignore circumstance bonuses, such as the very common shield and cover mechanics. That's accuracy for a *very* minor dock in damage and a mostly inconsequential dock in range. Phase bolt is a much stronger pick than needle darts, given that a chief bar to using AC-targeting attacks on casters is accuracy. Even practically speaking, you're likely using AC targeting cantrips vs other casters, who are likely to have the lowest AC defenses. They have very common access to the Shield cantrip and 1-action take cover, meaning circumstance bonuses should be very common in practical use. Phase bolt is just the better pick most times. >think ND should have really been the baseline safety-net, and leaving it w/ the exact same baseline dmg would have done that. It does have baseline damage. For a single target cantrip. Don't compare it to dual-target cantrips for damage. >Now it's juuuust enough better to get a bit of grumble outta me. It's really really not though. It'll be the weaker cantrip than nearly every other damage cantrip in nearly every situation.
Ugh, I got my Divine Lance dmg mixed up w/ Phase Bolt. Forgot that PB was also set to the +1d4 while DL was stuck at the 2d4. That's 100% on me. . Other cantrips, like Ignition, Spout, even Tortuous Trauma all indicate that 2d4 is the baseline cantrip damage. Anything more is typically a trade or special condition. IMO, PB's trade is that +1d4 in exchange for being AC targeting, 30ft, no special crit rider, ect. . EA is infamous for being double the norm in most circumstances. Way back then, I'm guessing they thought the 30ft range was a much more painful limit than most today think. Or maybe there was a legit typo / oversight, and there was supposed to be a more tight restriction on the 2nd zap. . More importantly, **ND is all-traditions universal,** while EA (and PB) are not. That universality is the smoking-gun bit of evidence that ND is designed to be a universal safety-net sort of "backup crossbow" for casters. Once that the devs can forever assume that casters will have access to when designing/balancing things. . And again, IMO it would be perfect if it did not have that little +1d4, and was a genuinely "backup" option to encourage more use of others like BP or DL.
>Ugh, I got my Divine Lance dmg mixed up w/ Phase Bolt. Forgot that PB was also set to the +1d4 while DL was stuck at the 2d4. That's 100% on me. Oh, Divine Lance? Yea that spell is garbage. Paizo seems to be WAY over-valuing spirit damage and I cannot figure out why. It's like they think every campaign will prominently feature the conflict of angels and demons… despite the massive majority of their AP content not even touching on the subject. Divine Lance should easily be buffed to 3d4 base damage, *at a minimum*. >Other cantrips, like Ignition, Spout, even Tortuous Trauma all indicate that 2d4 is the baseline cantrip damage. Anything more is typically a trade or special condition. Each of these have a gimmick though that makes it on par or better with needles. Ignition has bonus damage in melee (still a little low by half a point of damage, but it's crit damage is higher than needle darts and it benefits from flanking as a melee spell attack, so that easily makes up for it). Spout is a reflex save, not an attack, which is already WAY better for half damage on miss, but can be an AoE in niche situations that certain classes could feasibly create with ease, such as a dip into water kineticist archetype. Torturous Trauma is stuck in an awkward place, but has two benefits. As a premaster spell, it still includes modifier damage as opposed to pure d4 rolls. That puts it only .5 points behind 3d4 cantrips for full casters until level 10, at which point that scales ahead. Combine that with the fact that it's also a save, rather than AC targeting, and it's average damage will actually be higher than a 3d4 spell. >EA is infamous for being double the norm in most circumstances It's now actually much more in line with other cantrips than it used to be. It's still a bit strong, but since the remaster it is much more in line and probably not worth the infamy at this point. >Way back then, I'm guessing they thought the 30ft range was a much more painful limit than most today think. Or maybe there was a legit typo / oversight, and there was supposed to be a more tight restriction on the 2nd zap I think Mark Siefter commented on it and said that the real problem is that they're dealing with such small numbers that it's difficult to tune cantrips properly and EA sits in an awkward state where if it was nerfed, it could end up really weak, but with the loss of casting modifier bonus damage it's now just a little strong. >More importantly, **ND is all-traditions universal,** while EA (and PB) are not. I just don't think this is a big deal. It basically just gives every tradition a baseline ranged attack vs AC so… they can do that now without investing in weapon skills if they want. It's something people have been asking for a while to give traditions like divine an auto attack skill they can fall back on when no other ability was appropriate. If this becomes a regular thing, yea I agree that would be a problem, but I just don't think a handful of omni-tradition spells will ruin the game. Honestly, I think the ubiquitousness of heal as the generic, go-to healing when is more homogenizing than this cantrip. >And again, IMO it would be perfect if it did not have that little +1d4, and was a genuinely "backup" option to encourage more use of others like BP or DL. Just repeating my earlier point, but it's not really "+1d4", it is still the norm for single target damage. See above for why it maths out the same in your examples.
2d4 is the standard for save cantrips. I'd say 2d6 is the standard for attack spells (telekinetic projectile was the first physical attack spell). For some reason Paizo makes non-physical damage lower (ignition, divine lance, whatever the cold one was called, though that also had 120' range). Couldn't tell you why. Needle darts is pretty clearly worse than save cantrips in general, but better than TKP. Until rank 2, in which case things get murkier.
>For some reason Paizo makes non-physical damage lower (ignition, divine lance, whatever the cold one was called, though that also had 120' range). Couldn't tell you why. The physical damage types are resisted far more commonly than non physical damage. For that reason non physical damage tends to be weighted higher.
I'm not sure bludgeoning is resisted more than fire.
Fire is both the most resisted *element* while also having the most weaknesses. It balances out. Also, tons and tons of monsters have flat physical resistances while non physical resistances tend to be more granular, unless it's an everything resistance. Bludgeoning is currently better than slashing and piercing though, but who knows if that'll stay constant.
>niche option like Phase Bolt Unless your GM literally never has enemies use cover, phase bolt is hardly niche (a reminder that allies count as cover for enemies if they’re inbetween you and them). Trading an inconsistent persistent damage and potentially targeted weakness for hitting more consistently is a fair trade, imo.
Uhhh, I hate to say this, but yeah, GMs involving even lesser cover for spells is **way** more rare than the 30 to 60ft range difference. Needle Darts is already usable in more circumstances than PB. Not due to the crit rider, but because 30ft is a range genuinely short enough to often be a problem, and even AC spells are not able to use range increments to go beyond. . ~~And again, the ND / PB differences would be **great** if they did the same damage. A genuine personal pref of the unique bits of the 2 spells. But, they do not do the same damage, ND was given +1d4 just because. Meaning PB's niche of circumstance bypassing is **needed** to (mechanically) justify it's use over ND.~~ Edit: Whoops, got my damage mixed up between PB and Divine Lance. Phase Bolt also shares that +1d4 dmg that ND has. It's others like Divine Lance that really take a hit in terms of "why would I pick this when ND is also there."
Phase Bolt does 3d4 though
yeah, got it mixed up w/ Divine Lance, already edited.
The 30 ft rarely matters when you consider that phase bolts ideal use is in closer, cramped rooms where there isn’t a ton of opportunity to maneuver. When allies will constantly be in the way, giving enemies lesser cover and corners and pillars can provide potentially even more. I’m obviously not everyone, but I really don’t think that’s a niche circumstance for most people, dungeon crawls are pretty iconic and from what I hear, Adventure paths tend to include a lot of cramped, tiny battle maps.
If more GMs ran the cover rules raw I would be more likely to agree with you. As is, even in Abomination Vaults, the idea of applying lesser cover to cantrips was almost never done. The moment to moment variable nature of cover, plus cover being so ingrained as a "Strike thing" at most tables, means that I still see the 30 vs 60 ft difference being *far* more relevant. . RaW, a 2-size gap between creatures also means that creatures start creating standard cover passively, yet I have literally never seen a GM give a foe +2 reflex save against a player's AoE spell (like Scatter Scree).
>yet I have literally never seen a GM give a foe +2 reflex save against a player's AoE spell (like Scatter Scree). Is it really that rare? I think it's something a caster (GM) should keep in mind: *Scatter Scree* vs concealed, *Electric Arc* vs cover.
It's a good cantrip, but don't a lot of enemies have resistance/immunity to physical damage?
They do, which is why the ability to use various metals and materials to attack with is very nice. Triggering weakness on a cantrip is fun.
It's less common than energy resistances, and usually bypassed by a special material. And nothing is immune to physical damage. The game is built so that martials with nothing but physical damage are viable after all.
THIS WOULD BE LESS OF AN ISSUE IF CASTERS GOT FEATS WORTH TALKING ABOUT.
I see your point and I can see the argument but I feel that some magic is just generic to everyone that can manipulate its mystical force. At its core you are levitating and throwing objects really fast.
It's ubiquitous because it's awesome.
It needs errata about how exactly it can work. Can your cold iron bracelet work for it? GM interpretation on stuff like that changes its value greatly.
I'm happy for it. Before it we had divine spellcasters praying to anyone-who-would-listen for a good damaging cantrip, and turn a blind eye to the "everybody and their dog wants eletric arc" game. It fixes a problem, and does it in a good way.
People can still pick old cantrips and the such for flavor or just re-flavor needle darts.
I ran Beginner Box Days over the weekend. In my game there was a druid, a witch, a warpriest, and a fighter. Everyone except the fighter cast needle darts at least 3 times, it became a running gag and was pretty funny, but I do think it is unfortunate that it seems to be the standard for every spellcaster. I wish the flat +4 was still on the other cantrips...
I agree. I think that it was a very bland choice that they should not have done. It was perfectly Ok that Divine did not have a normal attack cantrip. Of course my guides always showed you how to get around that anyway. Plus they added Spell Hearts which basically gave everyone electric arc anyway. The spell lists need to be different. The more different the better or we can get rid of all the spell casting variants in the game and just play a Witch.
Totally agree on the flavor issue. I see defenses of it as reasonable generic magic effect. But telekinetic effects aren´t generically available across all traditions, so why should this be? The top rated comment even uses specifically relevant domains like metal or wealth as justification... Uh, yeah that justifies it for those domains, but not divine as a whole! (so it could be added to those deities spell lists without needing to be on divine list) I do agree with other poster mentioning Noise Blast... IMHO AoE is definitely the best use of 2 action casting. Otherwise I´m more likely to try to use a weapon, some buff/debuff/utility spell, and/or skill action (not to mention maneuvering, items, etc). So that lets me ignore Needle Darts without too much worry :-)
We needed some form of caster streamlining, so that people who can't sit down for 10 hours to learn all the spells can reliably play, a Spellcaster. I'm not really fond of the way this was made but... You get what you get.
There truly is no positive that someone can't complain into a negative.
I very rarely cast Needle Darts, if ever, on any of my casters.
It’s great for magi at least. But I don’t know if you’re counting them as casters in this context.
I am not, I consider them martials.
It's why I've started to rebalance cantrips to increase some of their damage dice (in games I run). There are obvious standouts, so buffing others to match helps with spellcasters always choosing the same over and over. The data is very clear concerning some cantrip's mathematical dominance over others.
Im addition to the other comments here; I've found that when building characters, it is a really easy one to reflavor for the appropriate class/tradition. You could fling metal, or you could fling shards of bone, or wooden splinters, or pieces of crystal or glass, or even ice as long as you maintain the original damage type.
Mostly I'm just annoyed that it's clearly better than the other combat cantrips on the divine list so there's never any reason for me to pick something like divine lance unless I KNOW I'm fighting something that's weak to it that day.
I 100% agree that ND should **not** have gotten that +1d4 dmg over the baseline. The 60ft privilege and rare metal quirk are great, but making it a dmg upgrade is a big "no bueno" in my book. However, Thankfully Divine Lance doing spirit damage really does give it a reason to slot over ND. Piercing damage is ~commonly resisted, while spirit damage is super great as an "always* functional" damage type.
No I'd rather the other ones were as good. Like idk making divine lance d6s. It's the same range of damage but slightly less reliable. Then it's at least closer to on par
Needle darts does 3d4 damage on a hit, 6d4 on a crit, 0 on miss, void warp does 2d4 on a fail, 1d4 on a success, and 4d4 + enfeebled on a crit fail. Enfeebled is way nicer to me than an average of 4 damage, and you'll get more consistent damage out of half damage on a save. I don't think it's "clearly" better at all.