[PFKM] Do spellcasters need spell penetration?

[Desiderius]

No Trash you’re theorycrafting again. Those are DLC mobs where you’re not very high level at all so you really do need it.

I do not have the dlc. Which of the SR enemies are met in dlc in lower level than in the base game?

All the ones you mentioned. They're not in the base game (some are in depths, others in Varnhold).

 

[Ramnozack]

RE: Blindfight

I always take it on everyone. It is extremely useful against the Wild Hunt and Medusas. I think it also works against the Defaced Sisters, but tbh I will have to check this again in practice.

Note that in Ch7 you are constantly completely surrounded by Wild Hunt who are gazing from all sides. It is an optional chapter of course, and you may or may not be interested in it. Similar situations can arise in Ch 6, depending on your approach to getting through HATEOT. If you go guns blazing, you are bound to need Blindfight there too.

You guys who don't use Blindfight, what buffs are you using that provide the same effect?

Echolocation. Why waste a feat on something a spell can provide at 10min/lvl

 

[Desiderius]

RE: Blindfight

I always take it on everyone. It is extremely useful against the Wild Hunt and Medusas. I think it also works against the Defaced Sisters, but tbh I will have to check this again in practice.

Note that in Ch7 you are constantly completely surrounded by Wild Hunt who are gazing from all sides. It is an optional chapter of course, and you may or may not be interested in it. Similar situations can arise in Ch 6, depending on your approach to getting through HATEOT. If you go guns blazing, you are bound to need Blindfight there too.

You guys who don't use Blindfight, what buffs are you using that provide the same effect?

Echolocation. Why waste a feat on something a spell can provide at 10min/lvl

Because Echo doesn’t give you gaze immunity.

 

[Desiderius]

Note that they finally fixed Blindfight TODAY. Previously had zero range so was doing nothing unless mob was on top of you (or maybe if you were enlarged). Echo was doing what that part of Blindfight was supposed to be doing.

So if you gave Blindfight to Blind Tristian he was still flat-footed to everything while Echolocation (from Alchemist Infusion) got him back to normal.

 

[Ramnozack]

RE: Blindfight

I always take it on everyone. It is extremely useful against the Wild Hunt and Medusas. I think it also works against the Defaced Sisters, but tbh I will have to check this again in practice.

Note that in Ch7 you are constantly completely surrounded by Wild Hunt who are gazing from all sides. It is an optional chapter of course, and you may or may not be interested in it. Similar situations can arise in Ch 6, depending on your approach to getting through HATEOT. If you go guns blazing, you are bound to need Blindfight there too.

You guys who don't use Blindfight, what buffs are you using that provide the same effect?

Echolocation. Why waste a feat on something a spell can provide at 10min/lvl

Because Echo doesn’t give you gaze immunity.

True, its been a while since I've played the House though, the gaze only stuns you right? That can also be circumvented with a spell, freedom of movement, and by the end game you should be able to buy as many scrolls as you could want of FoM and echo

EDIT: can also have a wizard put mind blank on your whole party, those 3 spells echo, FoM, and Mind blank keep you pretty much completely protected from wild hunt shenanigans

 

[Trashos]

Echolocation. Why waste a feat on something a spell can provide at 10min/lvl

Because Echo doesn’t give you gaze immunity.

Also, in Ch7 you need 6 of them, and you do not get to sleep whenever you want!

Note that they finally fixed Blindfight TODAY.

Did it have more problems or only the flat-footedness?
Also, next fix or WotR?

 

[Desiderius]

Echolocation. Why waste a feat on something a spell can provide at 10min/lvl

Because Echo doesn’t give you gaze immunity.

Also, in Ch7 you need 6 of them, and you do not get to sleep whenever you want!

Note that they finally fixed Blindfight TODAY.

Did it have more problems or only the flat-footedness?
Also, next fix or WotR?

Should be working properly. Range set at zero was reported by some guy over a year ago.

Echo lasts forever though. Didn’t have much trouble keeping it up by that point.

 

[Xamenos]

Your main argument seems to be "What are Spell Penetration feats competing with?". Indeed, this is the best way to think about it.

My main argument is that your question is wrong. Or rather incomplete. Do spellcasters need spell penetration? The answer is "insufficient data for a meaningful answer".

The list of enemies against which Spell Penetration works is useful, but to get a real answer we must start elsewhere. First, you need to decide: What does your character want to do? If he DOESN'T want to be casting spells affected by Spell Resistance, then the answer is easy. He doesn't need Penetration feats, end of discussion. But if he DOES want to cast such spells, then we need to start talking about opportunity cost. What does your character gain by taking those feats? The benefit that he can use those spells when fighting against those enemies (and it is not an irrelevant benefit at all. In the Siroket fight, for example, you need a way to deal with the Erinyes fast, before they decimate your party from afar). What does he lose? Whatever benefit he would get by picking some other feat over Penetration.

Now, you may still think the tradeoff is worth it. But you need to be aware of the cost of your choices to make informed decisions about them. Examining the benefit of a single choice in a vacuum is only a small piece of the puzzle.

PS. Shake it Off is freaking awesome, and I unite my voice with everyone who mentioned it here.

You guys seem to be clumping your party way more than I am. I can see it for melee, they're next to each other anyway, but not for ranged guys. How do you deal with enemies in your backline engaging all casters at once, or AOE attacks like the Spawn's?

This is all very well but Wild Hunt are very capable of Dispelling so all those protections can easily get dropped

I can honestly say that I've never had a problem with buffs getting dispelled in KM at any point before the Lantern King.

You guys who don't use Blindfight, what buffs are you using that provide the same effect?

Freedom of Movement protects against Paralyzation. Holy Aura protects against Mind-Affecting effects. And Echolocation lets you ignore concealment, even if it doesn't protect against Gazes (thanks Desiderius). Though it really should, for the same reason Blindfight does: They emulate being unaffected by closing your eyes, as you can do in tabletop.

You should easily be able to have those buffs up whenever you need them by the endgame. What are you using those spells slots for? (again, opportunity cost) And why do you not have consumables of them?

 

[razvedchiki]

relevant thread from owlcat forums
https://forum.owlcatgames.com/t/wizard-sorcerer-dc-use-by-spell-school/19961

 

[Xamenos]

relevant thread from owlcat forums
https://forum.owlcatgames.com/t/wizard-sorcerer-dc-use-by-spell-school/19961

This is exactly the kind of retarded forum theorycrafting that leads one astray. Why the fuck do you care about the percentage of spells that use a DC at any given school? It's a completely meaningless number. What you do care about is what those spells are, specifically, and how often are you going to use them.

 

[LannTheStupid]

What you do care about is what those spells are, specifically, and how often are you going to use them.

But the spells differ depending on the foe, and, ideally, the player does not know what s/he encounters. Like, OK, we have huge tomb full of dead giants, so no stinking clouds necessary, but then suddenly there are outsiders who are, apparently, living beings. However, the feat is taken once and forever, and the only way to roll it back is to load a save before the level up.

So I do not understand your reasoning.

 

[NJClaw]

What you do care about is what those spells are, specifically, and how often are you going to use them.

But the spells differ depending on the foe, and, ideally, the player does not know what s/he encounters. Like, OK, we have huge tomb full of dead giants, so no stinking clouds necessary, but then suddenly there are outsiders who are, apparently, living beings. However, the feat is taken once and forever, and the only way to roll it back is to load a save before the level up.

So I do not understand your reasoning.

Put it this way: Ablutomancy has 100 spells, 99 of which use a DC; the single spell that doesn't use a DC kills every enemy on the map, spawns all the artisans' masterpieces, resurrects and heals all your characters, and gives you unrestricted access to all buttons on the Codex. Do you really need Spell Focus: Ablutomancy?

What percentage of spells requires a saving throw isn't a very useful piece of information, if we don't know what spells we are talking about.

 

[Desiderius]

But Spell Pen is for the greatest challenges, so the question there is “what is my action economy for the hardest fights?”

If it’s offensive casting you’d better bring all the Spell Pen you can scrape together.

 

[Xamenos]

What you do care about is what those spells are, specifically, and how often are you going to use them.

But the spells differ depending on the foe, and, ideally, the player does not know what s/he encounters. Like, OK, we have huge tomb full of dead giants, so no stinking clouds necessary, but then suddenly there are outsiders who are, apparently, living beings. However, the feat is taken once and forever, and the only way to roll it back is to load a save before the level up.

So I do not understand your reasoning.

Or, the opposite example from NJClaw's: Let's assume conjuration has no other spells with a DC. None. Just Stinking Cloud. According to that metric, you don't want Spell Focus: Conjuration because it has a low number. But do you really care when Stinking Cloud is all you want to cast from that school?

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I've seen that link before. It has useful information, particularly to someone who may only be getting introduced to the game system. Whether the feat investment is merited is exactly what the list helps the player decide. At minimum, a good starting point. I'll agree that Spell Penetration is worth it. It's just a low priority whose value is in part by weak alternatives.

 

[Xamenos]

I've seen that link before. It has useful information, particularly to someone who may only be getting introduced to the game system.

No, it is not useful information at all. Less than useful, actually. It is misleading, and anyone new player taking it into heart can only be picking up bad habits. It WOULD have been useful if instead of dry, contextless numbers it had a list of actual spells from each schools that have a DC, and ideally an explanation of which ones are useful, against what, and why.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Knowing 0% Divination and 1% Abjuration spells use DC is useful. Perhaps taking feats which improve those spells DC, or playing a specialist in those schools is ill advised? Same applies to the rest of the schools. The elemental list even more so. It gives the player a broad overview of which schools and elements benefit most/least from feats. This isn't a high stakes medical decision where the player must be duly informed of every nuance. Nor does this breakdown need to present itself like one. It's a starting point that will help a new player begin, by beginning, rather than consuming the entire rule set and spell list before rolling their first wizard.

 

[LannTheStupid]

Well, I am still not convinced.

Imagine this abstract case. We have the school of absolvation. Different spells of this school attack all 3 saves and require DC. And one spell can even open all Codex buttons. But - it can never absolve demons, who are, as such, completely immune to all the spells from this school. And we have the game where 2/3 of the opponents are demons.

Will it be reasonable to specialize in this school just by the spells not knowing the enemies?

 

[Xamenos]

Well, I am still not convinced.

Imagine this abstract case. We have the school of absolvation. Different spells of this school attack all 3 saves and require DC. And one spell can even open all Codex buttons. But - it can never absolve demons, who are, as such, completely immune to all the spells from this school. And we have the game where 2/3 of the opponents are demons.

Will it be reasonable to specialize in this school just by the spells not knowing the enemies?

But, you are agreeing with me? You don't care that 90% of the absolution spells have a DC. You care that they are useless and you are never going to cast them. A Spell Focus is ill-advised, no matter what the percentage tells you.

Knowing 0% Divination and 1% Abjuration spells use DC is useful. Perhaps taking feats which improve those spells DC, or playing a specialist in those schools is ill advised? Same applies to the rest of the schools. The elemental list even more so. It gives the player a broad overview of which schools and elements benefit most/least from feats. This isn't a high stakes medical decision where the player must be duly informed of every nuance. Nor does this breakdown need to present itself like one. It's a starting point that will help a new player begin, by beginning, rather than consuming the entire rule set and spell list before rolling their first wizard.

No, it is a completely useless number. You don't care if a school has 0% or 10% or 90%. You care about the specific spells you are going to be using. If those spells have a DC, then you should get a Focus even if they're two out of a thousand. As, for playing a specialist, spells with a DC are an even more meaningless number. All you care about is if there are spells at every level that you will be using. If yes, it is a candidate for specialization. If not, it's a waste.

Not having lives at stake doesn't excuse refusing to make informed choices. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[LannTheStupid]

But, you are agreeing with me? You don't care that 90% of the absolution spells have a DC. You care that they are useless and you are never going to cast them. A Spell Focus is ill-advised, no matter what the percentage tells you.

Partially. I agree with you that using just percentage of DC spells is not enough to choose the specialization. There is one glaring example in the referred thread: Enchantment school which attacks almost exclusively Will is recommended for full specialization. And then the player encounters Wild Hunt.

On the other hand, even the best balanced and OP school might become useless if at some point the game starts throwing enemies that are immune to it. So truly informed decision requires meta-knowledge which, IMHO, is absolute haram for the first (and may be for several first) playthrough.

 

[Xamenos]

But, you are agreeing with me? You don't care that 90% of the absolution spells have a DC. You care that they are useless and you are never going to cast them. A Spell Focus is ill-advised, no matter what the percentage tells you.

Partially. I agree with you that using just percentage of DC spells is not enough to choose the specialization. There is one glaring example in the referred thread: Enchantment school which attacks almost exclusively Will is recommended for full specialization. And then the player encounters Wild Hunt.

On the other hand, even the best balanced and OP school might become useless if at some point the game starts throwing enemies that are immune to it. So truly informed decision requires meta-knowledge which, IMHO, is absolute haram for the first (and may be for several first) playthrough.

I still do not see where we disagree.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

You seem to have an odd sort of venom against pertinent, if general information.

If a spell school has 0-1% spells utilizing DC, it means feats improving the DC of that school are exceedingly likely to have marginal utility. It also strongly indicates that the schools have little to no offensive capability. I can also suggest that the spells schools aren't as robustly supported. This list even displays the quantity of spells at what spell level ranges. This breakdown shows that ,Conjuration, with only 6% using DC, has more spells more evenly distributed across all levels than Abjuration and Divination combined. That's a useful indicator when creating a character. The elemental breakdown even shows which spells by level use which element. That's even more useful. None of the information presented is incorrect. The whole point of the list is to demonstrate cost analysis of feats which increase DC. "Bang for buck". It's a quantitative, not qualitative analysis. Know the distinction.

Anyway, I'm definitely going to bow out at this point. The list itself a very foolish thing to debate, and an overall derailment of the thread.

 

[Trashos]

But Spell Pen is for the greatest challenges, so the question there is “what is my action economy for the hardest fights?”

If it’s offensive casting you’d better bring all the Spell Pen you can scrape together.

Some mini bosses have SR. The big Chapter Bosses do not seem to have SR, according to the listing.

 

[Xamenos]

You seem to have an odd sort of venom against pertinent, if general information.

If a spell school has 0-1% spells utilizing DC, it means feats improving the DC of that school are exceedingly likely to have marginal utility. It also strongly indicates that the schools have little to no offensive capability. I can also suggest that the spells schools aren't as robustly supported. This list even displays the quantity of spells at what spell level ranges. This breakdown shows that ,Conjuration, with only 6% using DC, has more spells more evenly distributed across all levels than Abjuration and Divination combined. That's a useful indicator when creating a character. The elemental breakdown even shows which spells by level use which element. That's even more useful. None of the information presented is incorrect. The whole point of the list is to demonstrate cost analysis of feats which increase DC. "Bang for buck". It's a quantitative, not qualitative analysis. Know the distinction.

Anyway, I'm definitely going to bow out at this point. The list itself a very foolish thing to debate, and an overall derailment of the thread.

My venom is reserved for idiots who mistake meaningless numbers for meaningful information. 3.5 and Pathfinder discussions are rife with them, and my patience has long since run out.

A school that has 0.01% spells with DC is STILL worth taking a Spell Focus for if those few spells are ones you actually use. A school with 99.99% spells with DC is NOT worth taking a Spell Focus for if you never actually cast those spells. A number can be correct and useless at the same time, and that fucking percentage is the perfect example.

 

[Cleric of Asmodeus]

As a hypothetical, suppose you wanted to prepare for a zone with entirely high spell resistance encounters. Here is a potential load out of spells:

1st: Grease, Snowball, Shield, Retreat, Enlarge
2nd: Create Pit, Web, Stone Call, Glitterdust, Mirror Image, Blur
3rd: Spiked Pit, Stinking Cloud, Haste, Displacement, Summons
4th: Shout, Dragon’s Breath, Animate Dead, Obsidian Flow, Acid Pit, summons, stone skin, energy protection
5th: Hungry Pit, Cloudkill, Stoneskin Communal, Animal Growth
6th: Acid Fog, Eyebite, Summon Huge Elemental
etc

So I think if it’s a question of pure abstract competency, you could have a conjurist who barely skips a beat without taking any spells affected by spell resistance.

When it comes to ergonomics, that’s why I have an arcane trickster with spell pen because the persistent pits and stuff are pure aids from that perspective.