The IOUN Stone is a pyramid-shaped item that allows a spell caster to cast any spell stored in it while orbiting the wearer’s head. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user must concentrate if the spell requires concentration. While attuned to the stone, a spell caster may concentrate on two spells simultaneously.
A creature can cast a spell of 1st through 3rd level into the stone by touching it as the spell is cast. The spell has no effect other than being stored in the stone. If the stone is used, the spell uses the slot level, spell save DC, spell attack bonus, and spellcasting ability of the original caster, but is otherwise treated as if the spell was cast.
The stone requires two attunement slots and allows a spell caster to concentrate on two spells simultaneously. Spells with longer casting times than an action show that they do not require concentration because concentration is specific to magic. To cast a fly spell, the user must concentrate, which only lasts 10 minutes. The circlet allows the attuned wearer to cast a second concentration spell while already concentrating on a spell and maintain concentration on both for two.
In summary, the IOUN Stone is not applicable to spells with longer casting times than an action. A spell of 5th level or lower that has a casting time of 10 minutes can be cast using the stone. Loss of level, whether using the stone or not, results in loss of HP, which would wreck all concentration-based spells. If the spell is not concentration-based, the spell cannot be used.
📹 DM’s Guild Review: 101 Ioun Stones | Nerd Immersion
Looking for more Ioun Stones for your D&D campaign? How about 101? Well then…I guess you know why you’re here! Get a copy …
Do sorcerers need a focus to cast?
An Arcane Focus is a crucial item in DnD 5e spellcasters’ toolkit, reducing the need for expensive material components and channeling powerful arcane energies for spell casting. These simple items can include Warlock’s wand, Wizard’s staff, and Sorcerer’s crystal ball. However, the concept of an Arcane Focus is often more complicated than it seems, with questions about their function, interaction with spell components, and which classes can use them.
The new 2024 Player’s Handbook has made subtle changes to these magical conduits and introduced new DnD spells. Understanding the concept of an Arcane Focus is essential for effective spell casting in DnD 5e.
Can you cast a cantrip without a focus?
Spellcasters prepare a list of spells from their class’s list for casting, while cantrips are ready to cast once learned. A spellcasting focus is an object used to channel magical energy, and some cantrips may require a focus. Components (V, S, M) include verbal (V), somatic (S), and material (M) components required for casting many spells, and some cantrips may require one or more of these components.
Can you cast spells without a focus?
A spell focus is a tool that a wizard must have at least one level of wizarding and the ability to cast arcane spells. First-level wizards begin play with a focus, and most wizards do. Specialist wizards can cast spells from their chosen school at +1 caster level. To use a spell focus, a wizard must mentally attune themselves to it and mentally imbue spells into it, creating crystalline formations tied to specific spell effects. The total number of spell levels a focus can hold is tied to the wizard’s level.
The focus’ owner knows how much storage remains within the focus at any given time. When a wizard actively channels magic to cast a spell, wild magic fills the focus’s formations before discharging it appropriately. Mentally linking with a new spell focus takes one day per caster level and requires deep concentration. A wizard mentally linked to a focus cannot cast spells with it, but can review and copy its contents to a spellbook or focus. Unless otherwise stated, spells from scrolls, borrowed spellbooks, or other sources may be acquired and imbued into the focus per normal rules.
Do all spells need a focus?
A spell focus is a tool that a character must have at least one level of wizarding and the ability to cast arcane spells. First-level wizards begin with a focus, and most wizards do. Specialist wizards with the correct focus can cast spells from their chosen school at +1 caster level. To use a spell focus, a wizard must mentally attune themselves to it and mentally imbue spells into it. Crystalline formations appear inside the focus, tied to specific spell effects.
The total number of spell levels a focus can hold is tied to the wizard’s level. The focus’ owner knows how much storage remains within the focus at any given time. When a wizard actively channels magic to cast a spell, wild magic fills the focus’s formations before discharging it appropriately. Mentally linking with a new spell focus takes one day per caster level and requires deep concentration. A mentally linked wizard can prepare spells from the focus similarly to a spellbook.
Do spells from items require components?
As indicated in the rules pertaining to the spells section, the utilization of components is not a prerequisite, unless otherwise specified. It is also noteworthy that JavaScript may be disabled or blocked by an extension, and that your browser does not support cookies.
Do spells from items require concentration?
Magic items allow users to cast spells at the lowest possible spell level, without expending any spell slots or components, unless otherwise specified. These spells use their normal casting time, range, and duration, and require concentration if needed. Some items, like potions, bypass the casting process and confer the spell’s effects with their usual duration. Some items, like staffs, may require users to use their own spellcasting ability when casting a spell. If a user doesn’t have a spellcasting ability, their proficiency bonus applies.
Some magic items have charges that must be expended to activate their properties. The number of charges an item has remaining is revealed when an identify spell is cast on it or when a creature attunes to it. When an item regains charges, the creature attuned to it learns how many charges it regained.
Is a spellcasting focus required?
A magical focus is an item used by spellcasters to channel their power, allowing them to forgo material components for their spells. There are three primary categories of magical foci: Arcane Focus, Divine Focus, and Nature Focus. Arcane Focus is soaked in arcane power and often engraved with eldritch symbols and cosmic iconography. Divine Focus is representations of a deity, pantheon, or ideal, often depicting the crest or icon of a specific god or symbol of a particular faith.
Nature Focus consists of furs, feathers, living plants, sacred wood, or the bones or teeth of sacred animals. Focus Tattoos are permanent marks made on a person’s body with symbols of their deity, eldritch runes, or ritualistic symbols. These tattoos draw on a bearer’s own magics and require an attunement slot. When casting spells with a focus tattoo, the bearer must briefly touch their focus tattoo with their free hand.
Do spell scrolls require concentration?
In the 5e playbooks, concentration is required for certain spells, such as wild magic surges and potions, and for certain demon summoning spells where loss of concentration allows the summon to endure for a limited duration. However, scrolls and magic items still require concentration for spells that typically require concentration. Spells cast from scrolls do not require costed material components, as they were provided and consumed during the scroll’s creation.
Magic items with spells rarely contain costed components. In the novel Death of the Dragon, King Azon uses a ring to cast Cloud of Daggers in two different locations, making them active at the same time. In the series, webs have been used with no concentration required as they perform other tasks.
Can Hermione cast spells without a wand?
In Half Blood Prince: Gryffindor Quidditch team selections, Hermoine misses her last save when she casts the confundus charm without a wand. The movie shows her whispering “confundus” without a wand, which raises questions about the purpose of this mistake. The list in the wiki lists some powerful wizards, not all NEWT level and up wizards. The author does not claim that the NEWT tests require able to cast every spell wandlessly, but only the most simple ones, which may explain why their names aren’t listed.
Do spells cast from wands require concentration?
In Magic and D&D, it is generally accepted that specific rules trump general rules, so concentration is required when casting a spell, regardless of the item’s specific instructions. This applies to scrolls, wands, beads, potions, and other magic items. However, if a concentration spell is cast, the player must concentrate on it unless the item explicitly states otherwise. An example of this is the errata-ed Wild Magic Surge, which states that a DM can roll a d20 after casting a sorcerer spell of 1st level or higher. If a roll of 1 indicates a magical effect, it is too wild to be affected by the player’s Metamagic. This exception is crucial for understanding the concept of concentration in Magic and D&D.
Can you cast two spells that require concentration?
The casting of another spell that requires concentration can result in the loss of concentration on the current spell, as it is not possible to concentrate on two spells simultaneously.
📹 This Most BROKEN Item in Pathfinder 2e!
This item is the single strongest option for spellcasters and limits the overall design space for spell attack rolls as a whole. Pledge …
FYI, Dragon Magazine had an article back in the 2e days that added a massive number of ioun stones as well. Plus it had a great write up on the section of the quasi elemental plane of mineral where they originated. I can’t say I’d buy this supplement when I could easily update that list instead. These don’t seem anywhere near as good those were.
How in the hell do you think ‘it’d be ok to give someone this early on’ for the ‘Catapult’ one????? It’s a bonus action for 3d8 Force Damage. That’s like giving someone 2 powerful ranged attacks with the best damage type in the entire game… Going to ruin some poor naive DM’s game saying stuff like that
Shadow Signet has a few drawbacks when used: 1) Activation is a metamagic, which means that you can’t use other metamagics with it. I don’t know about you, but at level 10 and above, if I am using Produce Flame, I don’t want to shoot it at someone within 1 Stride of me, so I personally would rather slap Reach metamagic on it; 2) Sometimes (like in the Troll example), both Fort and Ref DCs are equal or higher than the AC, so I would rather cast a Will save spell on them, or hit the AC despite having the Shadow Signet; 3) Spell Resistance (like Ancient Dragon’s +1 status vs. magic to saves) applies to the Fort and Ref DCs against the Shadow Signet, so often, especially at high levels of play, the difference is not as impressive. 4) Not all spellcasters have a lot of spell attack roll spells. The wizard I plan to play in an upcoming campaign, for example, will likely only ever have Ray of Frost and Disintegrate that would benefit from Shadow Signet. The former I would use when I don’t want to/ need to cast any levelled spell, so I won’t really care if it hits or not, and the later I will cast at walls and other objects who can’t dodge it. So, I might spare an investment slot for something more useful.
This is a knee-jerk reaction. Physical save dc’s are the highest on most monsters especially fort. It would be very different if you could target will. Due to caster proficiency scaling, you accuracy with spell attacks with the ring will deffinately get close to martials if you hit the lower save, but this is nowhere near broken given action and resource expenditure.
With hypothetical spell potency runes, a simple solution is to specify that it only applies when targeting AC. (Similar idea that you suggested.) That said, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal, ultimately. It’s strong but it doesn’t come off as totally broken. With cantrips, take like Electric Arc vs Produce Flame. They both deal the same damage, but you often just want to bring both so you can target reflex when the target has slow reflexes but high AC. The ring makes it so Produce Flame or Ray of Frost are just as usable in the same situations that Electric Arc would be (and just lack the multi-target property). The only times it actually makes a character stronger is where it lets them use an actual stronger spell instead of just a different one. Comparing to the stronger Telekinetic Projectile (assuming you always have ammo), you’d actually get a direct mechanical improvement rather than a sidegrade over Electric Arc. (Sorta. Again EA can target 2 creatures so it’s still more useful in some situations.) For a lot of spell-slot-using spell attacks, there’s not a lot of single target damaging spells that require saves, as those are usually AOEs, but I’d assume it’d be roughly the same situation. The big perk seems to more be it frees up your spell choices a bit more.
Eh, I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. I don’t think this item is the reason why we will never see an item bonus to spell attack rolls, it’s just a consequence. Paizo most likely has already decided that they don’t wish to improve spell attack rolls or DCs, and this item is meant to remedy that. One thing that you are overlooking is that spell attack rolls are actually a very small part of a spellcasters arsenal, and I’d say that’s entirely possible to play a level 1-20 spellcaster without ever doing a spell attack roll, considering how good half damage on saves is. Even the spell selection for spell attacks dies off rather quickly, with the bulk being level 1-3 spells, and only Disintegrate and Polar Ray after level 4 spells. This is relevant because from levels 2 to 9, the difference is only a +1, so those spells aren’t that behind the curve. Note that this is also the level range in which the Shadow Signet becomes available. So, is the Shadow Signet a great item? For casters that wish to use a lot of spell attack rolls? Definitely. For every caster? IMO, not really.
I’d just argue that after using it for a few months it just made me not actively avoid spell attacks rolls spells. Doesn’t break absolutely anything as far as I’ve seen, even using it combo Signet+True Strike it just helps me not waste that clutch lvl 6 hidraulic push to disrupt a flanking conga line 🙂
I like the Shadow Signet because of the play style it encourages for offensive spellcasters: a lot of Recalling Knowledge to find weaknesses, then surgical strikes to target those weaknesses. Gives casters, especially casters that focus on knowledge skills, a real cool “Sherlock Holmes meets Harry Dresden” feel
I play in a living world and this item ended up being amazing for some casters and passed by others. Some casters just don’t use that many spell attack roles. That being said, some blaster builds love it and were hyped as soon as SoM dropped. You tend to look for items your build can use, haha. I want to add that you have to figure out which save is the lowest, and that promotes teamwork! Thoughtful Reload and other RK abilities now synergize with the caster in a new way!
I been playing around with with automatic bonus progression variant and allowing spell casters to increase spell attacks and DCs, as well as class DCs. I read the Shadow Signet when it came out, but it didn’t register as that powerful because most save spells still do a partial effect on a success and most attacks still miss completely on a failure
Interesting, but I don’t think the ring is particularly OP or broken. You have to know which to target: AC, Fort or Ref – that requires successful Recall Knowledge checks, which is non trivial and takes actions and successful rolls. Meanwhile for most monsters at least one save is a higher DC than the AC, so the caster has to be careful, or they’re actually making things harder for themselves. I do agree it shouldn’t stack with (future) attack roll bonuses – at least the ones that target Saves.
Honestly the signet ring and item bonuses would bring spellcasters in line with martials. A martial can already benefit from a +3 item bonus AND a +3 status bonus from an effect such as the heroism spell for a total of +6 on top of any debuffs such as frighten or fortune bonuses such as true strike. As for the design aspect of the shadow ring, Paizo has already solved a similar issue in the book of the dead. There was a summonable monster called a bone croupier that could make a creature automatically fail a saving throw once per day AS A FREE ACTION. An updated version was reprinted in the book of the dead that was not nearly as broken. Paizo could simply update the shadow ring to make it a once per hour/day effect which is more reasonable.
I don’t think it’s that powerful, considering that it really only shores up your accuracy against at best 3 target spells, and most likely only single target ones. Sure, a blaster caster would love it, but a control mage doesn’t really need it, since not every caster is built for damage output. Also, targeting the weakest of the 3 DCs with an attack is more or less just as powerful as targeting the creature with a spell that targets their weaker save, it’s just a different person rolling the dice.
Honestly, they can very easily add things to up caster attack rolls with one very small errata: you just add uncommon or rare to the shadow signet. That’s it. The other more gimmicky option (other than what was mentioned at end of article) is to make the shadow signet have some kind of save given to attacks using it (since it is shadow stuffs like some illusion spells from 1e)
Having lots of nun-attack spells that can affect the encounter is the trade-off, plus spells that can impact exploration mode, and as you note attacks spells deal more damage. This is the balance. I won’t be allowing potency runes for staffs or holy symbols/focus. As for that ring, I’ll make it a lvl 16 item so it won’t show up till towards the end of the campaign (or I might slap a curse on it).
Currently working on World of Pathcraft, a pf2e adaptation for World of Warcraft and I think you could not have given me a better idea to give spellcasters an advantage without being overpowered : what about taking the idea of potency runes OR the idea of the shadow signet to a more restrictive field of application ? I think that would be very flavorful and nice to have around !
But what if your spellcaster never casts spells that use spell attack rolls? There aren’t that many of those kind of spells in the game to begin with (much to the consternation of the magus), plus spell attack roll spells never have any effect on an enemy on a miss, whereas spells like electric arc deal half damage if an enemy fails a spell saving throw.
Gotta say, I think a more elegant solution to the problem than just allowing a spell potency rune and balancing the cost for all three levels (or just copying it from the martials) would be to port the Shadow Signet effect to a rune and price it higher than the shadow signet itself, maybe at the cost of a +2 rune. This removes the best in slot problem and allows casters to have a way of keeping up with martials, and the balance itself isn’t too terrible – because the effect is metamagic, it doesn’t allow other metamagics to apply, and there are always things like spell resistance and monsters with good physical saves. It would let casters keep up with the martials a bit better without wildly throwing off the balance.
interesting. i saw this item existed and did not realy consider it that overpowerd. it requires knowlege and at lvl 10 inteligent oponents will be able to play around it. to that end i did homebrew the “spellstrike” property rune to my game. witch lets you infuse a spell into your weapon to strike with so it has the weapons +X to hit. i expekted it to be kindof broken but no not realy, it all but requires a reatch weapon to use as even the cleric in my group that arctypes into champion dont realy have our fighter or monks durabilety with having stats alocated to both charisma and wisdom first. even with spellstrike in my game i dont realy think i need to bann the shadow signet as it fundamentaly rewards using recall knowlege, investigation and alike. if my players did a witcher-style readupp on a monster im fine with them having an edge.
The way I see it, most if not all spells that use an attack roll are single target. That means the ring only helps a relatively small portion of spells. It’s reasonably doable to make a spellcaster that only has buff, debuff, AoE, and utility spells. TL;DR: It’s great if you like casting Disintegrate, not so much for Fireball, Bless, Slow, or Tongues.
I think people who compare weapon attack bonuses vs spell attack bonuses have a fundamental misunderstanding over how spellcasters work and how they are balanced. Martials need the potency boost because they can only target a single defense stat: AC. But this is NOT the case for spellcasters. Spellcasters have other options, that is, spells that target saving throws. With an educated guess or uses of Recall Knowledge, one can learn and target the enemy’s weakest saving throw which will likely give them the same or better “bonus” as the martial’s potency bonus at that level. And we should also consider the 4 degrees of success. Even on a successful saving throw, a target is still effected by the spell, compared to a martial’s missed weapon attack that has no effect. The game was designed for spellcasters to be more tactical and not to hit the enemy’s AC blindly – that’s the martial’s job. Sometimes, an enemy’s AC is their weakest defense and hence it is a good idea to pummel them with spell attacks. Sometimes, you should target their fortitude, will, or reflex instead. That’s what makes playing a spellcaster different and I think it’s a good thing they don’t have a potency bonus. Furthermore, the Signet Ring isn’t as good or compulsory as you think it is. A caster’s repertoire should contain a wide variety of spells that target different defenses. The signet ring takes that burden off of you a little bit, but the ability it grants, that of letting you target multiple different defense types, can already be done by every spellcaster just by choosing to cast different spells depending on the situation.
The Shadow Signet was a bandaid to a massive anti fun design choice in 2e. Spell attack rolls were awful on casters, especially at higher levels. It feels like absolute ass to have cool thematic spells like Searing Light or Chilling Darkness, but have way lower accuracy. It’s especially bad when you have a Fighter Eldritch Archer or Gunslinger Beast Gunner, who have way more accuracy and range, while also able to do martial stuff. Heck, before Secrets of Magic, the highest level Spell Attack Roll spell was 8th level, and there was only one. Burning a 3/4 a day resource on a less than 50% chance to do anything, especially when your class is balanced around that resource and is garbage at martial stuff because of it, feels very bad. And since 99% of spells are 2 actions, a missed spell attack roll is likely to be your turn. The Shadow Signet is the bandaid to that. Some creatures have a 3+ difference to their saves and AC, some don’t (or have it with Will saves), so it gives casters a type of enemy they’re better at hitting than martials and a type they’re worse at. And since Paizo was explicitly avoiding adding potency runes to spell attack rolls for some reason, this is the equivalent. It allows casters to keep up with martials in regards to spell attack rolls. Plus, the Shadow Signet does have drawbacks over potency runes, mainly it’s enemy and knowledge dependent, effects only a small part of your kit (one kind spell), and is meta magic (meaning you can’t use it with other meta magic like Reach Spell).
I’d rather have my caster’s use catalysts or talisman’s to increase attack rolls and DCs. This leans more into the prepared and learned class. Casters also usually have a lot more money on hands as they don’t need up upgrade multiple wepaons with runes to rely on damage. So I am hoping on more support for catalysts in the future.
I changed my 1 1/2 year running 5e campaign into PF2e recently and because of that I decided to give the spellcasters their +2 focuses. I’m glad I heard about this item here first, I think adding in the homebrew suggested is a great way to prevent it from being broken. I may also just not include the ring, we’ll see how I feel (they’re still only level 8).
I havent allowed the shadow signet even if its an official product. I would rather have the equivalent of runes for spells added first. As far as spellcasters being weaker than martials, blow for blow i dont agree. The problem with casters is basically ammo, their spell slots. A fighter can swing his enchanted sword for 4d8 +mods all day while an equivalent mage has maybe 3 to 6 spells that would do 12-18 dice of damage. Ive found that I would give casters either bonus spell slots or more cantrip options to even it out since the higher level fights tend to last longer. I’ve house ruled new combat cantrips (a variety, not just dps) and stat bonus spell slots like 2nd and 3rd edition used to give for high int or wis or cha.
From my point of view, you cant give an item bonus to the spellcasters because they can target any of the 4 defences of a creature (if they are well prepared) while martials, if they wanna do damage, can only arget the AC. What I mean is that they already are extremely powerfull as every creature has lower one of those, that they can even be as powerfull as martials. Furthermore, every spellcaster (except warpriest, but let’s not count it as is just a bad subclass), when they reach level 19, they get legendary proficiency with their spellcasting ability, making them just have a -1 on spell attack rolls in comparisson with martial classes (fighter doesn’t count). So, if you are giving them the possibility to have a +3 item bonus to their spell attack rolls, you are just making them as good as a fighter when targeting the AC, what is stupidly broken, as they are much more acurate than a martial and the damage output they can get is much more higher, even their spellslots are limited but not the cantrips. Finally, to fix this situation, I believe that it is as simple as making that, as almost every metamagic action in the game, it costs 1 action to take it and that it is limited to 1 time a day, and i believe that that is perfectly balanced because, as it is writen is stupidly broken. Then, as a level 17+ item, you can make a grater version of the item which you can use it once per minute/10 minutes, but never at will and allways costing an action, because if not you are making it the single best metamagic feat, and its from a common item To compare it to another metamagic feat of the same level, you can choose to ignore a bit of an elemental resistance a creature has for 1 action, or you can f***ing GIVE YOU A +3plus TO HIT FOR A FREE ACTION EVERY SINGLE TURN!
I mean, you could just make a potency rune like item that says that it “doesn’t work with the shadow signet.” Call it the daylight signet, and you can’t have both attuned at the same time. I do agree, strong item that probably should at least get a second option at some point, maybe one that is lower level but targets will or reflex but is also mind effecting because it makes your attacks illusions?
Honestly, Nonat’s idea is ok – I mean, just put “mutually exclusive with potency runes” and bam. BUT… well, given the fact that the number of spells, and even cantrips, that use saving throws rather than attack rolls increases with every new book I’d say this item is just a fun little extra. A Witch that wants this effect, for example, can get the Winter patron and have both Ray of Frost (attack roll) and Clinging Ice (her focus cantrip, that strikes Dex saves). Boom, same effect with no items. Same deal with many elemental cantrips. Basically, mix and match and you’re good to go. The reason they made the attack roll for spellcasters lower, IMHO, is because martials usually attack AC, AC and, for a change… AC. Saves, if any, are only for after the hit landed. Put a freakin’ Jabberwock or other humongous brute in front of the team and most martials will start whiffing like crazy.
At DnD 4 there was an Weapon bonus like +2/+3 that most caster doesn’t have BUT weapon users rarely deals any attacks vs Reflex or Fort deffences (and most of those attacks with a low damage) And casters mostly never attack AC So Paizo just take what DnD4 did good (short short-rest for 10 minutes also is 4th edition inheritance)
The problem with this article and all who might come along and buy into is that it buys into the fallacy that if it’s published its allowable. A GM have final say in everything in their game. Banning Dwarves, just cause, completely OK. So banning some obscure bloat ring cause it causes issues? Slap a house rule of Unique on it and never let it in your game if you are a GM that fears using a ban hammer. For me, I carry a spare Ban Hammer and have no fear of using it, and neither should any other GM in any game they ever run.
Lets stop you at the line “you are weaker then any other martial character”. First off, I don’t think that is entirely true as martials are more accurate with “weapons” but that doesn’t invalidate the effects of spells. And secondly, magic is still magic with all the utility and potentially world changing consequences that come with. Piazo made the right move in placing distinct limitations on spellcasters. How do I know this? Because not doing so, you end up with D&D 5e.
I haven’t played high level, so I can’t account from experience. But many spells, including cantrips, already allow the ability to target reflex, fortitude, or will. Wizards shine throw diversity, not through hammering the exact same attack through every time like martials do. So do they even really need this ring? I’d say runes to boost their AC tarheting spells, yes. But this does seem broken.
The thing is, this can be easily fixed by adding this item’s requirement that you cannot use the item bonus to attack rolls when you use the alternative way of attacking. And even then, the item might still have purpose, since some monsters have insane ACs, but crappy Reflex saves (like Red Dragons)…
The biggest flaw of the shadow signet is that it requires you to Cast a spell attack. It’s conditionally a large bonus, to a very bad set of spells. Take that dragon for example. Sure, you COULD cast use a spell attack. Or you could just use a saving throw spell, which generally do more damage to more targets. Heck, even a fort save throw might be better than a spell attack. That is unless your caster can also cast true strike. That does change things.
They could errata the ring to add the uncommon trait basically solves that problem since it makes it an opt-in item for GMs. Spellcasters are already not weaker anyway. The people who say spellcasters are weaker are ONLY able to do so by ignoring everything except single target damage. That’s called cherry picking.
Meh. I took a look at my spell list and the overwhelming majority of them require saves, not attack rolls. In fact, because of some feats I found that gives boosts on attack rolls, I wish I had an item where I could choose to do an attack roll instead, lol. Mind you, most saves are basic saves, meaning they do half damage on a miss. P.S: reason why casters are still stronger is because the vast majority of their spells take two actions to do two actions worth of damage, instead of two attack rolls, the second which is at a penalty. So yeah, martials NEED those magic item bonuses.
With the power and superior versatility of spells, the lower attack accuracy compared to martials is actually a good balancing thing. Let the martials have their weapon attacks, it’s what they are good at. You as a caster excel in being way more versatile with your much wider range of spell options, especially as you level up and get more spell slots to use. I did not know that Shadow Signet existed. In fact, I’m disappointed that it exists, mostly for the same reasons you pointed out in this article. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if it received an errata, similar to the one suggested in this article, to limit it just so they could do more in it’s design space.
I think a better solution is to have the spell attack roll boosting item be a free action Metamagic like the Shadow Signet’s free action Metamagic since Metamagic has this part of its ruling: “If you use any action (including free actions and reactions) other than Cast a Spell directly after, you waste the benefits of the metamagic action”. Has the same Either/Or effect you went but didn’t change the existing item nor add stipulations that weren’t already existing in the game since this already affects Shadow Signet in not being working with other Metamagic effects
Martials deal damage, casters provide healing, control and utility. I’m happy with casters having less consistent damage or even worse damage than martials because its a team game and support classes need to be a thing. Wizards should cast invisibility on the Rogue, forbidden warding on the fighter or trying to impose status effects like enfeeble or silence to allow them to do the dirty work better; rather than just nuking things from orbit. Let martials shine and let casters be the people who let them soar.
I don’t know the math on this but considering it takes 2 actions for spellcasters to do practically any damage and the best options are a limited recourse I don’t think on top of both of these casters need to also have a considerably lower to hit. spell DC for all PCs is so low to the point that for the most part if the party is fighting a single powerful enemy that enemy will probably only fail on like a 2 and there is absolutely no improving class DC either.
I don’t see any issue. Figuring out what defense to target is what it means to be a caster (and why the complaints about needing spell attack boost are silly.) all this item does is dumb that down so if someone wants to not really think ahead much about what spells to have on hand they can spend gold to make one spell do what they already could do with just a few spells.
It’s a good item, but not without drawbacks or interesting choices. It’s well designed. And no, I don’t think it’s a mandatory buy. I’m confused by the complaint that it will prevent the introduction of item bonuses to spell attack rolls – why would these be introduced in the first place, Shadow Signet or not? They’re supremely boring, and if the choice of what to have in the game is between Shadow Signet and them, it’s Shadow Signet every time for me. That’s a part of the “design space” I can perfectly do without.
I honestly think you’re blowing this way out of proportion, people don’t talk about shadow signet, because its just really not that great. It let’s your mediocre attack spells do what casters can already do with their spells, target a save other than AC. But it doesn’t get rid of the save or suck portion of doing absolutely nothing when you fail. It will make your attack cantrips better i guess (though most times i’d still rather cast electric arc), but by level 10, who cares about that by that level most normal caster builds barely ever cast cantrips. I know my current level 8 Sorcerer hasn’t cast a single cantrip for his whole level.
I agree about the “best in slot”. There should always be about 2-3 ‘best items’ in a function, if Not more. This allows Characters with different concepts to be equally strong. I personally hate those Players, who are like “DO THIS It’s STRONGER, WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS IT’S NOT OPTIMAL’. Or in other words, the guys who just criticise you for taking a rp Option over the optimal one. It’s a difficult thing to desing, but i think it’s important.
This magic ring is insane! Especially at level 10 letting you target two alternative DCs? I’d think something like this would be closer to level 12-14 with single alternative stat ones being lower. So a hypothetical for this, couldn’t you make bonuses to accuracy a metamagic similar to this? As if I remember correctly you cannot stack metamagics? Of course that isn’t a potency rune so it isn’t the same but just a thought. A “Ring of arcane accuracy +1/2/3” which gives a metamagic effect of boosting your accuracy before casting the spell.
I think spellcasters don’t need potency runes. Its the price they pay for the wide variety of choices they have. Shadow signet is a lc 10 common item. Its price is in line with other magic items of its level and it comes to play when the casters start to fall behind in accuracy. After lv 7 and before 13. At this point 5th lv spells are available and most of the characters builds and combos are online.
You can still do potency rune type item bonus just have a note that they only work when targeting AC so bvb that they do not work with the ring. Oops just got to the end of your article. I think either would work to solve the problem. 2nd edit. Another idea is no item bonuses but put the effect on more items so that everyone is packing bvb the same ring.
I have a solution. You’re thinking of a line to add at the end of the Shadow Signet, but I’m more enclined to let it unchanged, so that they can add more items of the likes. No my solution is to word carefully the “new potency runes for spell attack rolls (NPRSAR)”. You just need to specify that it is not an item bonus to your roll, but that it gives your target an ITEM PENALTY TO AC. This way if you target reflex or fortitude, then it won’t apply the NPRSAR bonus. Solved. And, although I’ve never played at a high enough level to feel this gap, I’m eager to allow NPRSAR, so I like my idea! What do you think? Since its a penalty, you could even flavor it as a hex ring of some sort (for occult for instance, like 1 type for each tradition), or require you previously succeed at a recall knowledge check against a creature of its type (encouraging more spellcasters to not sit as their third action). Idk, tell me what you think!
Honestly I’d argue that given the fact attack roll spells often lack any effect on a miss that the shadow signet is, while a very good item, not as powerful as you’re making it out to be. And a simple balance change like say making it 1 action rather than a free action to use would fix the issue but honestly it seems unnecessary. You could argue factoring in True Strike changes the equation but True Strike is still an extra action and a whole extra spell slot which is just blowing resources to make an attack roll spell stick, and it may very well still fail and do nothing.
I think it should be apart of a series of items that switch targets and conflict with each other. Lower level ones switch to just one other save while higher level ones do multiple. Because you can’t have multiple on at once you have to plan ahead or switch mid fight. Then you can add variation without fully letting it stand on top
8:33. Giving straight up potency runes for mages isn’t that good idea imo, it would be better to give them +1 to hit at lvl 6-8th and +2 at 16-18th. Spells shouldn’t target ac in 2e in my opinion, the majority of spells from 1e like shocking grasp would target touch ac (which didn’t include armor), flat footed ac or armor ac depending on the spell. Shadow signet is somehow of a boost but it is also a metamagic which sucks because you can’t use other metamagics with it like reach spell for vampiric touch. And about the dmg, in perspective the dmg of spells targeting saving throws is lesser not because they target saving throws, but because they are either area of effect or they are sustained for multiple of rounds.
If I recall, martials outside of fighters and gunslingers only have +1 to attack over casters, since they cap at Master with their weapons and casters go to Legendary (+2). Your solution is pretty nice actually, kind of works like Assurance in a way, maybe having it ignore all item and status bonuses to the attack roll would be a good limitation ? (So no benefiting from buffs etc) Or limit the number of activation per day or hour. Something like 3/day or 1/hour could also work. A limited amount of time per fight or day you can have that one, massively accurate strike (if you know the saves of the target). Plus, an errata could come to nerf it. There has been erratas for stuff like Ice Storm that changed the area from a 5ft burst to a 20ft burst. So adding a line like “Spells used under this item’s activation effect do not benefit from bonuses to attack rolls other than circumstance bonuses”
Tl;dr- I disagree, but respect the sentiment. Solutions are available, I like the article all in all. Main body: I’m going to disagree with the assessment here, because I disagree with the underlying premise. By and large, I’m of a mindset closer to the Rules Lawyer YouTube website- yes, casters have a lower attack bonus for spells compared to martials, by and large, because the strength of a caster is in the diversity of effects they have access to, and the problem-solving tools they have that martials don’t get, period. So to make up for it, martials are unambiguously better in a straight fight with a small number of opponents. With that said, if you’re in the camp that does want potency runes for casters, then there is a solution for GMs who are worried about this- make the Shadow Signet Uncommon, if it isn’t already (I don’t have the item block in front of me). That way the GM can weigh whether it’s appropriate for their table, and a player who wants to build one or buy one will at least talk to the GM before they get one. In any event, even though I disagree, I respect the view presented here. To each their own, and an argument compellingly presented. Love the content, keep it up and take care.
I disagree with this, you can apply the same argument to normal potency runes. A martial has to take them or else they just are weaker. Additionally, they limit the design space in a similar way; you can never have something that lets a martial hit against Fort/Reflex DC. Also the fact that you can never have spell attack potency runes now isn’t really important. The shadow signet is the spell potency runes, nevermind the fact that they were very deliberately removed from the playtest; I don’t think they’d add such a thing now, Shadow Signet or not. (It is a bit bizarre that they added such a fundamental item in a supplement, but whatever). Bottom line, ABP superiority! 😁
Personally, I would split the Shadow Signet out into two items, one for Fortitude and the other for Reflex. Then, eliminate the choice. If you’re wearing the item, you target the specific resistance only. You don’t get a command to switch. You have to burn an action to carefully take the ring off or put it on. Trying to put on both rings at the same time will gate the mage into the Shadow Plane.
Again with the inane argument that spellcasters should be as good as martials with their accuracy… they should not. Spellcasters have way more options than martials do. Wanting them to be as good as martials doing the stuff martials are meant to do is simply a way to go back to 3.5 and PF1E when Casters were simply better than martials at anything and their players even made fun of martial classes. Now that PF has done with the imbalance these same people want to reinstate the disparity…
I dont think that spellcasters need item bonus thanks to their buffing ability and using save spells. Martials have better accuracy for single target, but its rare to see an AoE attack for martials. AND they can basically get secured damage through the save spells. So I find it kinda unecessary if they already have these advantages
On the “best item in class” for spellcasters. I don’t think this is as big of a deal as it seems. Literally every martial character is going to rock a weapon with potency runes and striking runes. The spellcaster’s potency runes happen to be in the form of this ring. Is it overpowered? Maybe? Probably? Is it a problem that every casting class will want one? Nah i dont think so.
Granted they get it late but all pure casters get up to legendary putting them only 1 point behind non-fighter/gunslinger martials. Casters are only weak if they’re playing wrong. If they just stick to one game plan they’ll have a hard time. Thet need to tailor their spell use to the situation. If they play smart and go against lowest save or AC they do great. Really that’s how 2e is designed over all. Strong builds aren’t ones that focus on doing one thing amazingly well but builds that can deal with a wide variety of situations because power progression is baked in.