All About Spells

Re school and other traits: just list the school first, with other traits in parenthesis. So the Heal spell is Necromancy (Healing, Positive).

Re spell areas, having a square origin instead of a vertex origin is more natural and intuitive. So if something is a 20 ft radius, it hits the target, four squares out in each cardinal direction, and three squares out in each diagonal direction. I have literally never seen anyone use vertex origin at any table, to the point that I didn't realize until this thread that it is technically the official rule. Just go with what people actually intuitively use in real world play.

That way it become a 22.5 foot radius. And at my table we never used the square origin, so "Just go with what people actually intuitively use in real world play." don't work. For your group squares are intuitive, for mine vertex and actual distances are intuitive, adapting them to a square grid is chafing.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Friendly Rogue wrote:

But the Druid gets access to neither Cone of Cold or Fireball by default

The rest of your post made some pretty good points, but are you sure about this one? ;)

This lends further credence to the Four Essences spell lists theory! Wizards are Material/Mental and Druids are Material/Vital. Cone of Cold and Fireball are on the Material spell list, so Druids and Wizards will both get access to them!!

I really like this setup in general. My only concern: where do the really Druid-y spells like Goodberry and Shillelagh live? If they're Vital, then Clerics get them; if they're Material, then Wizards get them. If that winds up being the case it'll take an adjustment on the players' part, but I suppose it's something I could get used to. Of course, there's always other possible solutions; for instance, the really Druid-y spells could become spell point powers.

I feel a bad feeling of 2nd ed. AD&D spheres. Something that I did find limiting and at the same time too permissive. With the help of a friend I ended redoing it with specific spell list for each god.

If the Druids where to receive a spell list based only on the Material/Vital groups they will move away from the nature oriented theme to something different. A problem that they had with some sphere in 2nd ed AD&D.

To make an example of spells that don't fit a Material/Vital spell list (unless some spell have mixed descriptions and require access to both lists): losing reincarnation. I can see how most druid spells can be stretched to fit into that description, but for some it seem really forced.

This is the nice thing of using Roll20. You just switch to the drawing tool and make a 20 foot radius circle, and then adjust the circle to hit where the party wants it.

I may be the only one, but I'd very much like to see PF2 move away from the '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' model. It is for the most part meaningless and adds needless complexity/bookkeeping. The Heal spell is a great example - removing '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' from that spell description multiple times would make it read much cleaner (it appears 4 times). And when you are dealing with 3d8, 5d8, etc - +2, +3, are not a significant impact, numbers wise.

Diego Rossi wrote:

CLARIFY FROM THE START IF SPELLS AND ABILITIES HAVE SOME FORM OF MANIFESTATION AND IF IT IS VISIBLE, AUDIBLE OR PERCEIVED IN SOME OTHER WAY

Sorry for shouting that, but I think it is important. It change the balance about having access to mind affecting magic.

Personally I am in favor of easily perceptible manifestations that point to the spellcaster, with costly (in term of actions, prerequisites or chance of success) abilities that allow a caster to remove the manifestation, or to make it appear to generate from a different location.

- * - * -

I suppose that now all spellcasters work like the arcanist for spell know/prepared?

- * - * -

Please, be careful with the spell point and related abilities. Having people that go nova in the first two encounters and then ask the party to rest for the whole day is something I (and most if not all of my friends) really dislike.

I have no idea what you mean. The three spell components are self-explanatory: Verbal, Somatic, and Material.

Verbal= speech
Somatic= hand movements
Material= use of material

If you take actions to remove verbal and somatic from a spell that includes all 3, the caster still has to use a material component, which means handling it in some fashion. Likely to be seen unless they've got a good sleight of hand, etc. or nobody is paying attention.

The whole thing about this FAQ:

What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?

Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

Deciding from the start if a spell is detectable even if the caster is invisible or mixed in a crowd or if instead is easy to hide spellcasting is important and change the influence of spellcasters in the world.

The bard singing in a foreign language and strumming with is lute is casting a spell?
The difference between recognizing spellcasting requiring a spellcraft skill check or not has a large impact in word development.
If you can't recognize that a spell is being cast Enchantment spells will be despised in most of the world and probably knowing them would be a major crime.

Revan wrote:

Roughly circa the release of Occult Adventures, and thus the advent of casters whose spells naturally lacked visible components, Paizo issued a clarification through FAQs that both Psychic spells and 'normal' magic which had been metamagiced to remove components nonetheless still had visible 'manifestations' which meant that any onlooker could recognize that a spell was being cast, and make a Spellcraft check to identify it as appropriate. The intention was to avoid empowering psychic casters with an ability to hide their castings which required sigificant investment for arcane/divine casters, but...

This *really*, *really* needs to be addressed, especially when it comes to spells written and intended for trickery, intrigue, heists and other shenanigans.

An example from another gaming system: From Earthdawn I particularly remember an illusion spell that was short-durationed, immovable, and explicitly started with a "wave of bright color sweeping over the room". Made it absolutely impossible to use it for any form of deceit - which one would assume was the main purpose of illusions.

So, Detect Magic aside, do illusion spells in PF2 have visual manifestations (like that Earthdawn wave of color) that reveal them to be illusions?

Yes. some limit to contain shenanigans should exist, but at the same time there should exist a way to do shenanigans if you invest in them.

"Any bard out of the box can charm the king without being noticed" is bad, but "a great bard that has invested in it can charm the king without being noticed and a beginner bard that has chosen that path will be able to charm a serving maid or a peddler" is good (that is, assuming that the king and peddler take normal precautions for their importance and power level).

This is how the structure of magic is coming together in my head
what do you think of this model?

Imagine a d4

Each face of the d4 represents a Magical Tradition
Each edge of the d4 represents a Class
Each point of the d4 represents an Anti-Node

Wizard is the Edge between the Material and Mental Faces
Cleric is the Edge between the Spiritual and Vital Faces
Druid is the Edge between the Material and Vital Faces
Bard is the Edge between the Mental and Vital Faces

Summoner is the Edge between the Material and Spiritual Faces
Oculist is the Edge between the Mental and Spiritual Faces

Each point is opposite to a Face
The point opposite the Spiritual Face is the Soulless Node
Wizards, Bards, and Druids are connected to this Node

The point opposite the Vital Face is the Lifeless Node
Wizards, Summoners, and Occultists are connected to this Node

The point opposite the Mental Face is the Mindless Node
Druids, Summoners, and Clerics are connected to this Node

The point opposite the Material Face is the Formless Node
Clerics, Occultists and Bards are connected to this Node

Bottom View from Vital Face
the other faces recede behind the vital face, but are mentioned here

{spiritual face}

....[Mindless Node]..-----Cleric----- [Formless]
....................................\........................../
.....................................\....................../
......................................\................../
..{material face}.Druid............Bard..{mental face}
........................................\........../
.........................................\....../
..........................................\../
....................................[Soulless Node]

*the ms paint and notepad versions of this diagram looked much better than this

I may be the only one, but I'd very much like to see PF2 move away from the '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' model. It is for the most part meaningless and adds needless complexity/bookkeeping. The Heal spell is a great example - removing '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' from that spell description multiple times would make it read much cleaner (it appears 4 times). And when you are dealing with 3d8, 5d8, etc - +2, +3, are not a significant impact, numbers wise.

It would make "you have a natural aptitude for arcane/divine/whatever magic" irrelevant. For me that is a part of world flavor created by the rules that I will miss.

To people saying "Just use Roll20 to look up spell radius/Just click on a button to see all your spell options!" Realize that a large number of people use pen and paper, it's not inferior, as face-to-face interactions and getting away from a computer can be goals for people gaming.

To people who say "yes but using a stat calculator is just a crutch". Realize that using tools to make your gaming experience easier/faster isn't a crutch if you actually know the rules. Computers are faster than humans at basic math, and therefor provide a good way to do calculations that humans could easily get wrong.

*drops mic* *steps off soapbox*

David knott 242 wrote:

I wonder whether the Curse mechanic might be pulled out and made into a handicapping option for characters of all classes? It might be designed to open up access to additional feats that are not necessarily tied to the Oracle class.

I doubt that would be the case as most of the 'Curses' barely hindered the character at all even at low level...

Obviously that is something that needs to be fixed for the curses -- they need to hinder whoever can take them in some way.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Finally as a sidenote: In my opinion (based on my own experience) electronic character builders are a crutch that encourages players to not learn the rules for their characters or understand the game they're playing.

While it can be, it's not universal. I know I always read the books/pdf's first and use the tools just to speed up character creation: the same way various online sites have search engines and/or reworked section like the kineticist which was MUCH better presented there than in the actual book.

David knott 242 wrote:

I had one friend who could not locate another friend's house without a GPS.

Hey! Some of us didn't have any sense of direction BEFORE GPS was a thing. ;)

I have a friend that gave all of us a detailed, hand draw, map of the location of his new house when he changed residence. Some of us needed it.

Game rules are similar: you start by using a support like Herolab, you never learn them completely or coherently. If you first read the manuals and at least once use them without assist make them clear and Herolab become a very good tool.

graystone wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Finally as a sidenote: In my opinion (based on my own experience) electronic character builders are a crutch that encourages players to not learn the rules for their characters or understand the game they're playing.

While it can be, it's not universal. I know I always read the books/pdf's first and use the tools just to speed up character creation: the same way various online sites have search engines and/or reworked section like the kineticist which was MUCH better presented there than in the actual book.

David knott 242 wrote:

I had one friend who could not locate another friend's house without a GPS.

Hey! Some of us didn't have any sense of direction BEFORE GPS was a thing. ;)

I have a friend that gave all of us a detailed, hand draw, map of the location of his new house when he changed residence. Some of us needed it.

I, if I am the passenger in a car, have some serious difficulty memorizing a route. After making it by myself even once it become easy.

Game rules are similar: you start by using a support like Herolab, you never learn them completely or coherently. If you first read the manuals and at least once use them without assist make them clear and Herolab become a very good tool.

There are five people in a car. The car is traveling somewhere that only one of them has been before. That person turns on the GPS just as a reminder. Sometimes they take roads that the GPS doesn't want them to because they have specialized routes they like... but the GPS does give them a Time of Arrival so it's still handy.

Of the four passengers, one is paying attention and starts learning the route on their own. Another tries to learn but is completely hopeless and keeps getting mixed up. A third keeps offering their own suggested roads but is ignored. The fourth remains in a corner just reading the book they brought along.

This could easily be described as "the driver knows the route by heart and doesn't bother with a GPS at all" and it won't change things any. The point is that the driver (the GM) knows the route (the rules). Other players only need learn those rules that really involve them. Some never learn the rules at all and are just there to have fun.

Someone may very well be playing a Fighter or a Ranger and just barely know the rules for their character. They might not know their bonuses at all. They might rely on other players to help, or the GM to tell them what they need. They are as much a part of the game as the Runes Lawyer who has books even the GM doesn't and thinks such-and-such a rule should be used instead, or the person who gradually learns the rules, or even the person who remains hopelessly lost when it comes to rules but tries to learn.

Now let's go one point further with our metaphor. The driver knows there is a quicker route. It takes multiple back roads. They're not entirely familiar with that path and know traffic can sometimes slow them down so it takes longer so they instead go via the highway every time, even though two of the other players keep urging that alternative path. The GM is the one running the game. They can run it as they choose. Some choose to play with Hero Labs or Roll20 or other such games. Some have their own spreadsheets and the like. Some insist on paper-and-pencil for everything. Whatever they and their players are happy with is more than sufficient! :)

Oh, here's the funny thing about using a GPS. Eventually the driver learns the route anyway. It doesn't matter that they are confused at points and have to rely on this aid. Ultimately they learn more and more of the way until the GPS works in synergy with the driver and if the GPS stopped working they would still be able to find their way.

GMs who use a "crutch" even when first learning the rules will still learn the rules. And eventually when push goes to shove? They'll be able to go without aids (or rulebooks even) to run the game. But they are no less a GM for using those aids or learning by them than someone who mastered the game by reading the books and doing everything by pencil-and-paper.

Looks like people brought up Spell Resistance, speculating on it's continued existence.
Of course SR uses caster level (CL) as it's core mechanic, which Paizo is reducing in other areas (spell scaling).

Exploring what it would mean to remove CL as mechanic (which confusingly is distinct from caster class levels, via mechanics directly altering it)
Looking at what SR might be without CL seems highly appropriate...
IMHO a model like Globe of Invulnerability and/or Fortification/Concealment is obvious.

That lower level spells would be easier for SR to negate (ala Globe) seems appropriate, yet not modelled by current mechanic.
(3.x/P1E's disconnect of Spell Level / CL seems akin to it's disconnect of Crits and Attack Bonus, so rectifying both seems logical)
A Fortification or Concealment/Miss Chance style approach yields variability in result like SR currently.
Perhaps they could be combined, so depending on "Spell Level" rating of SR it outrights negates low level spells,
imposes "Miss Chance" on spells above that, although spells of sufficiently higher level than SR can bypass that simply due to spell level?

Incidentally, SR always was pain in the ass re: "friendly" spells, although I understand value behind that function.
Still, could that general approach be retained while smoothing the edges? IMHO, the Reaction system is obvious means for this:
Allowing a Reaction to drop SR (when you want to allow "friendly" spell) seems balanced because you're "spending" a Reaction
which seems important part of action economy, although removing the awkward part of having to do so 1 round before.
With that the paradigm should probably shift from "SR automatically turns itself back on" to "you must spend action to turn it back on".

Over all, I think it is compelling to get rid of "Caster Level" (CL) completely if mechanics like Spell Level can be doubled down on.
If it is to be retained, I feel renaming it "Casting Bonus" (reflecting it's use as bonus to check, akin to Attack Bonus) is advisable,
as "Caster LEVEL" just doesn't carry that inherent connotation, and of course creates confusion with (closely related) (caster) class level.

Expanding ALL Spell Levels (not just 9th->10th) to cover 1-20 can be attractive in combination with a retained "Caster Bonus" or without it:
With Caster Bonus (/CL) means it has a 1:1 default correlation for full casters (although distinct "Bonus" terminology is then even more important)
Without "Caster Bonus" (/CL), relying on Spell Level 100%, the 1-20 granularity in spells/metamagic makes it easier to directly implement
similar mechanics we have expected of CL, e.g. "treat Divination spells as +1 CL" can be transposed to "treat as +1 Spell Level".
You can do that without 20 Spell Levels, you just have half the granularity, if 1/20 distinctions are relevant everywhere else in game why not here?

I, if I am the passenger in a car, have some serious difficulty memorizing a route. After making it by myself even once it become easy.

Game rules are similar: you start by using a support like Herolab, you never learn them completely or coherently. If you first read the manuals and at least once use them without assist make them clear and Herolab become a very good tool.

And I, personally, learn routes just fine if I'm a passenger. In the most extreme example, I once helped one of my drivers find his way over the radio because I had been to that area frequently as a child but hadn't been back as an adult. But I still knew the turns to make to get back to the freeway.

Someone may very well be playing a Fighter or a Ranger and just barely know the rules for their character. They might not know their bonuses at all. They might rely on other players to help, or the GM to tell them what they need. They are as much a part of the game as the Runes Lawyer who has books even the GM doesn't and thinks such-and-such a rule should be used instead, or the person who gradually learns the rules, or even the person who remains hopelessly lost when it comes to rules but tries to learn.

I've played with people who couldn't tell their d10 from their d8. I've played with people who didn't speak in character, didn't know each other's names and barely were aware of what was happening at any given time. I've played with people who were getting dragged along by their parnters and had no real interest in the game.

Every single time these people became more involved and learned the rules when the GM and/or other players stopped doing everything for them and required them to do things for themselves. Your experiences do not dissuade me that this is true in the vast majority of cases. I'm also not convinced, based on my own experiences and what you've described about your situation, that your group/player is the exception. In fact, they seem to be a textbook example of the above.

The GM is the one running the game. They can run it as they choose. Some choose to play with Hero Labs or Roll20 or other such games.

No-one is saying you can't do whatever you feel like and whatever enables your group to have fun. What I am saying is: Your experiences have nothing to do with the rules (as evidenced by the fact you've played various D&D derivatives with no actual change in behaviour across many years). This is in fact a table issue and not a game issue. If you want it fixed (which you seem to based on the fact your advocating changes in PF2e in order to address issues you're experiencing at your table) here are some suggestions on what could help your group address the problems your experiencing.

Your welcome to take the advice or leave it. But don't be surprised if counterpoints are posted to the points your raising.

But they are no less a GM for using those aids or learning by them than someone who mastered the game by reading the books and doing everything by pencil-and-paper.

Sure. But is it really surprising that the changes your advocating to address problems you have which are caused by the tools you use aren't being welcomed by people who don't use tools that have the same shortcomings?

Realize that using tools to make your gaming experience easier/faster isn't a crutch if you actually know the rules.

In my experience the reliance on character building tools is directly proportional to a lack of understand on how their character works.

Computers are faster than humans at basic math, and therefor provide a good way to do calculations that humans could easily get wrong.

I couldn't do any math at all before starting playing D&D. I was absolutely terrible with any math. D&D has improved my ability to do math dramatically and I can now do addition and some subtraction in my head. I've seen this phenomenon repeated in others every single time. Those who rely on a calculator don't get better at math. Those who don't use them, do get better. This isn't an isolated incident.

Also on the point humans make mistakes: So do character builders. Maybe they've finally progressed to a state where they're finally 100% error free. But I'm skeptical.

Now that the thread is open again. I can deposit my 2 cents.

I noticed this in your column Critical Hits and Critical Failures Fri, Mar 30, 2018 and I waved off of any commenting, because I wanted to relax and see what formatting you would ultimately use with Critical Successes and Failures.

Now that the spell blog has released, I am seeing the same formatting and it seems appropriate to comment.

In Vampiric Exsanguination your success/fail block appears like this:

Success Half damage.
Critical Success No damage.
Failure Full damage.
Critical Failure Double damage.

I get the order of success then failure, but it screws me up to read success then critical success in the context of the entire block.

Realizing that I do not know your requirements for publication and what not. The following is a suggestion that changes the order of items in your block, but does not change the layout of the block as a whole but improves the readability.

Critical Success No damage.
Success Half damage.
Failure Full damage.
Critical Failure Double damage.

I imagined gaming and how I would use this at the gaming table; how would I read this after a roll and my DM needs to know what has happened to the monster. I used your spells, detailed in the spells blog, as my guinea pigs for my imaginary "look up and read".

Hope this helps you.

I may be the only one, but I'd very much like to see PF2 move away from the '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' model. It is for the most part meaningless and adds needless complexity/bookkeeping. The Heal spell is a great example - removing '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' from that spell description multiple times would make it read much cleaner (it appears 4 times). And when you are dealing with 3d8, 5d8, etc - +2, +3, are not a significant impact, numbers wise.

It was stated on the Glass Cannon playtest that your spellcasting modifier adds your level as well as the relevant ability modifier, so it does quickly become a significant bonus.

Blake Duffey wrote:

I may be the only one, but I'd very much like to see PF2 move away from the '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' model. It is for the most part meaningless and adds needless complexity/bookkeeping. The Heal spell is a great example - removing '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' from that spell description multiple times would make it read much cleaner (it appears 4 times). And when you are dealing with 3d8, 5d8, etc - +2, +3, are not a significant impact, numbers wise.

It was stated on the Glass Cannon playtest that your spellcasting modifier adds your level as well as the relevant ability modifier, so it does quickly become a significant bonus.

Thank you for that clarity, I apparently missed that during the podcast.

Over all, I think it is compelling to get rid of "Caster Level" (CL) completely if mechanics like Spell Level can be doubled down on.

If it is to be retained, I feel renaming it "Casting Bonus" (reflecting it's use as bonus to check, akin to Attack Bonus) is advisable,
as "Caster LEVEL" just doesn't carry that inherent connotation, and of course creates confusion with (closely related) (caster) class level.

Expanding ALL Spell Levels (not just 9th->10th) to cover 1-20 can be attractive in combination with a retained "Caster Bonus" or without it:
With Caster Bonus (/CL) means it has a 1:1 default correlation for full casters (although distinct "Bonus" terminology is then even more important)
Without "Caster Bonus" (/CL), relying on Spell Level 100%, the 1-20 granularity in spells/metamagic makes it easier to directly implement
similar mechanics we have expected of CL, e.g. "treat Divination spells as +1 CL" can be transposed to "treat as +1 Spell Level".
You can do that without 20 Spell Levels, you just have half the granularity, if 1/20 distinctions are relevant everywhere else in game why not here?

Or putting it another way, 1-9 (or 10) Spell Levels don't seem to interface well with d20 system. +9 or +10 DC doesn't match disparity we expect from Level 1 vs Level 20, given potential opposing mechanics all draw bonuses at least 2x that if not more. If Spell Levels exist, why shouldn't they play well with other game mechanics? Shifting to 1-20 Spell Levels is obvious way to do that, and since Paizo is ALREADY increasing the number of spell levels (9->10), that obviously isn't a sacred cow.

I think it also makes the Spell Level progression immediately easier to "grok". "3/4 Caster" is 15th Spell Level caster. If you multiclass your Wizard with 5 levels of Fighter, you have the same top spell level as 20th level Bard for example, and the relationship to your class levels is directly tangible. Higher granularity is easy fix for worries about disparity in over/underpowered "for their spell level" spells. It's easy to implement, just by splitting each spell level into 2, with weaker and stronger half, similar to what Paizo did with 9th/10th level spells already. That also reduces the "jolt" of acquiring a new spell level, each step will be less abrupt increase in power.

I've played with people who couldn't tell their d10 from their d8. I've played with people who didn't speak in character, didn't know each other's names and barely were aware of what was happening at any given time. I've played with people who were getting dragged along by their parnters and had no real interest in the game.

Every single time these people became more involved and learned the rules when the GM and/or other players stopped doing everything for them and required them to do things for themselves. Your experiences do not dissuade me that this is true in the vast majority of cases. I'm also not convinced, based on my own experiences and what you've described about your situation, that your group/player is the exception. In fact, they seem to be a textbook example of the above.

This is not always the case. I know a young lady who is quite smart. Despite her intelligence, she cannot do basic math. If you tell her "you have plus six to hit. What is your roll?" she will look at the die, go "Um, I rolled a 17... plus six is..." and for half a minute just freeze while she tries to do 17 + 6 in her head. This is a quiet game, just her, her husband, and myself. Tabletop. There is no social pressure. There is no time pressure. She freezes every time.

In my Skype group I have several people who get frustrated trying to add everything together. They hate the die-roller on Roll20 but when they have 3d6+16 for each weapon that hits and hit with four attacks, they're also stopping and having a devil of a time figuring out what their bonuses and such are. It's why I use Hero Labs - I can track that bonus, I can pull out a calculator, figure out from basic math that they're rolling 12d6 and adding 64 to that.

It's frustrating. But if I'm not handling details like this, our game drags on for another hour as they struggle to do basic math later at night often after having worked for six or more hours retail.

This is supposed to be a fun game. Not an exercise in mathematics that they haven't been focusing on to any extent after graduating college. If I, as the GM, can make things a little easier? I do. That's part of my duties as GM - to ensure the game remains fun.

This is not always the case. I know a young lady who is quite smart. Despite her intelligence, she cannot do basic math. If you tell her "you have plus six to hit. What is your roll?" she will look at the die, go "Um, I rolled a 17... plus six is..." and for half a minute just freeze while she tries to do 17 + 6 in her head. This is a quiet game, just her, her husband, and myself. Tabletop. There is no social pressure. There is no time pressure. She freezes every time.

Seen plenty of examples of that. Often those people start using their fingers and then eventually, every single time I've seen this, they get better at the math. Doesn't happen overnight but it does happen.

It's frustrating. But if I'm not handling details like this, our game drags on for another hour......If I, as the GM, can make things a little easier? I do.

And in my experience you're only ensuring they never capable of handling details like this. No doubt if you stop doing these things the game will drag on dramatically more, at the start. But based on my experience it will improve over time.

Your group might be the exception to everyone I've ever gamed with. But even that (lacking any further evidence to demonstrate my experience is in fact the exception) demonstrates it's a table issue and not a game issue. Given that any changes to the greater game in order to address the table issue should be looked at very closely to make sure they don't make the game worse for everyone who doesn't experience such issues.

Shifting to 1-20 Spell Levels is obvious way to do that, and since Paizo is ALREADY increasing the number of spell levels (9->10), that obviously isn't a sacred cow.

Introducing one extra spell level that comes online at high level play isn't a significant change to the system or how characters are run. Introducing 11 new spell levels that come online as early as level 2 would be a dramatic change to how characters are run and the assigning of spell slots. It'd also decrease the versatility of casters dramatically.

It'd also sure look like a 4th ed solution to the problem

I wouldn't have a problem with 20 levels of spells. I would want most of them to be low level with the ability to cast in higher-level slots, though. There aren't that many spells you can't scale down to lower levels. Wish could be implemented as a 4th Level spell if it could only emulate a 1st Level spell (for example, not intended to be an airtight estimate of the proper lowest level of Wish). Resurrection could be relatively low level, too (but you would have to cast it within 1 round of death or some such). Even Gate could be characterized as a Summon Monster spell with a two-way variant available at a certain level.

I don't think it would be that hard, as long as you bust out the sacred cow sledge hammer (they die better with a sledge hammer).

John, given I'm not alone in what I've encountered... have you considered maybe you're just lucking out with your players?

Also, there is a difference between simplifying game mechanics and 4th Edition D&D. 4th Edition D&D altered how the classes played, eliminated races, and generally made the game into something that wasn't D&D anymore. And there were plenty of folk who enjoyed it. There were folk who cried foul when 5th Edition returned to its 3rd edition roots and continue to play 4th edition instead.

From the looks of Pathfinder 2, they are simplifying things and increasing the versatility and player choice in others. For instance, their explanation for how spells are shown is they are standardizing the format to resemble that of how Feats are written up. This can improve comprehension. But it also alters it from a format folk are familiar with, and some folk dislike it, claiming it's too "4th Edition" - but from what I can understand, it's more that "it looks different so I'm going to claim it's too 4th Ed. because Pathfinder was built because of 4th Ed. hatred and we can convince the developers to make minimal changes as a result."

Pathfinder 2 is going to change. It's not going to be the same game the first Pathfinder was - much like the first Pathfinder was in a number of ways different from D&D 3.5 and from 3.0.

One step by which you simplify is you reduce the number of die rolls and how many things the GM has to look up. For instance, Spell Points for abilities that can be used a limited number of times a day helps consolidate abilities from a half dozen or more separate abilities that could be used between once and a dozen times a day to a unified pool similar to Panache/Grit, Channel Positive Energy and Smite for Paladins, or the pool Monks and Ninjas share.

This consolidates things and makes it easier to track.

Though ultimately we only have snippets here and there. We won't know for a little under four months what the Playtest will provide.

------------

Any ideas what we'll see for a Blog for Friday? It seems likely we'd be going with half-elves and half-orcs but we also didn't see a class blog this last time so...

Also I have to wonder. Will Resonance end up being a Monday Blog in the future? It's also going to draw a lot of comments and discussion I'm sure so....

John, given I'm not alone in what I've encountered... have you considered maybe you're just lucking out with your players?

Half the players in my game can take a look at other players rolls and tell you what the total is, without looking at their character sheet. They've just gotten good at figuring out what stats and character options being used are, along with what buffs/debuffs are going. Person with the most problem figuring out bonuses exclusively uses herolabs. I don't think John's alone in this. If you have to get better at something, you usually do. I mean there are people with learning disabilities where no amount of practice is going to help, but that's usually the exception in my experience, not the rule.

Tangent101 wrote:

John, given I'm not alone in what I've encountered... have you considered maybe you're just lucking out with your players?

Half the players in my game can take a look at other players rolls and tell you what the total is, without looking at their character sheet. They've just gotten good at figuring out what stats and character options being used are, along with what buffs/debuffs are going. Person with the most problem figuring out bonuses exclusively uses herolabs. I don't think John's alone in this. If you have to get better at something, you usually do. I mean there are people with learning disabilities where no amount of practice is going to help, but that's usually the exception in my experience, not the rule.

I've two groups. The first is my Skype group. We've played for 5.5 years now and just finished up Rise of the Runelords. None of them have Hero Labs. They rely on PDFs of their character sheets that I e-mail to them.

My tabletop group is a husband-wife team. The wife bought Hero Labs for use in character generation. They print out their character sheets and bring them to the table.

The only use of Hero Labs is by me. I level up characters with it, I track initiatives, hit points, and buffs through it. (Next campaign I'm not going to track the buffs for players. It should save me a considerable amount of time not having to program it in.)

In short, my group games electronically, but doesn't keep track of stats and such electronically. I do. And I'll be stopping that with the next campaign. (And also for the Goblin games I'll be running while waiting for the playtest to arise, but those are low level games in any event.)

I started tracking buffs using my computer because people kept losing track of who had what. And trust me. I know far better than my players what buffs do what, especially as half the time they never bothered with basic spells such as Bless, Prayer, or the like. It's the players. Not the software.

@Tangent101, @John Lynch 106 (primarily): I feel this has gotten off topic at this point. Not saying it's not something that should be discussed, but we're quite a few steps removed from talking about Spellcasting in Pathfinder 2.0. Can we close this out here/move to another thread please?

I think the wording on Heal could use some tightening up, especially in the Heightening text.

Heightened (+1) Increase the amount of healing or damage by 1d8, or by 2d8 if you're using the one- or two-action version to heal the living.

vs

Heightened (+1) Add an extra d8. If casting on a single target for healing, add 2d8 instead.

Or, if the area of affect doesn't get a boost when heightened (and I think it should)

Heightened (+1) Increase the roll by +1d8. If casting on a single target for healing, increase by +2d8 instead.

PLEASE stop calling them 'spell levels' - it's too easily confused with 'character levels' - can we have "SPELL ORDERS" or something folks?

graystone wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Finally as a sidenote: In my opinion (based on my own experience) electronic character builders are a crutch that encourages players to not learn the rules for their characters or understand the game they're playing.

While it can be, it's not universal. I know I always read the books/pdf's first and use the tools just to speed up character creation: the same way various online sites have search engines and/or reworked section like the kineticist which was MUCH better presented there than in the actual book.

David knott 242 wrote:

I had one friend who could not locate another friend's house without a GPS.

Hey! Some of us didn't have any sense of direction BEFORE GPS was a thing. ;)

I have a friend that gave all of us a detailed, hand draw, map of the location of his new house when he changed residence. Some of us needed it.

I, if I am the passenger in a car, have some serious difficulty memorizing a route. After making it by myself even once it become easy.

Game rules are similar: you start by using a support like Herolab, you never learn them completely or coherently. If you first read the manuals and at least once use them without assist make them clear and Herolab become a very good tool.

Eh, the bolded certainly wasn't true for me. I used PC Gen for my very first Pathfinder character, and 99% of the time after I have used some flavor of character generation. I know the rules very, very well despite not even owning a copy of the core rulebook.

The thing about using a character generator is it can affirm that you are doing it right. I may think I've allocated my skill ranks right, but with a Gen I KNOW. And I can see the numbers changing in action, which can be very helpful in learning things like class skills.

Now, this feels like a separate issue from whether or not players will be more invested if forced to do their own legwork in making a character. There's probably some wisdom there, and I have definitely done more work on other people's characters than I should have. But I want to play with people I actually like, as opposed to people that just know the game really well, which means a certain degree of compromise to lower the barriers of entry to this very complicated game.

They can't be Orders. Druids have Orders. You'll have Storm Order Druids casting nth Order spells.

Finally as a sidenote: In my opinion (based on my own experience) electronic character builders are a crutch that encourages players to not learn the rules for their characters or understand the game they're playing. I've had it happen to me. The issues you're raising as "needlessly complicated" only demonstrate that further.

Pieces of paper and pencils ensure players understand the rules to a much greater degree and I have only seen "substandard"* players become better players by removing electronic character builders. I've also played with some really dumb players as well who struggled to understand even basic concepts of the game they were playing. Removing the electronic character builder helped them understand the game much better than any amount of running their character for them did. This isn't a Pathfinder phenomenon either. This is a tabletop RPG phenomenon that carries across various different styles of RPG rulesets.

*By this I mean players who have limited understanding of the rules and/or their characters

Excuse me? "Substandard players?" Because they choose to use a few tools to simplify the gameplay experience? Accusing players of not understanding the game because they don't want to scribble everything out on pen and paper? This is extremely insulting, especially the "substandard" remark, and objectively false. I prefer to, say, write out my M&M hero sheets and powers in my own format, and do it all myself, but plenty of players who use Hero Lab understand what they're doing just as much as I do.

Your own understanding of the rules of high-level 3.x/PF play is demonstrably lacking, based on what you've erroneously claimed, but putting down whole swathes of players because they play differently than you do? That's exactly the kind of toxic behavior this hobby (like the rest of gaming) absolutely does not need, thank you.

This discussion is getting into dangerous territory. Let's drop it please and get back into discussing the magic system and areas where you think it could be improved, things you like about it, and so forth.

For instance, while I'm not exactly happy with Paizo's decision to eliminate gradual increases in spell power for each level, I must admit it has some interesting aspects to it. For one thing, it means more powerful incarnations of Fireball will be increasingly difficult to avoid even as they do more damage. That's a rather fascinating aspect - it's as if the spell burns hotter (in the case of Fireball) and becomes harder to avoid as a result.

And while some people might feel spells having fixed damage ranges for the level they first come about diminishes the spells, at the same time you have critical failures for saving throws which means that Third Tier Fireball could actually do 10d6 damage if some poor sap falls flat on their face when trying to dodge it. ;)

PLEASE stop calling them 'spell levels' - it's too easily confused with 'character levels' - can we have "SPELL ORDERS" or something folks?

Can We please stop calling them character levels. They're too easily confused with dungeon levels. Can we please call them class ranks?

I'd rather not get another thread locked Lady Firebird arguing with you. If you actually want to discuss this with me (rather than fight with me) feel free to PM me. Otherwise I'll Not be continuing this conversation.

Pretty sure saving throws are based on character level, not spell level. The magic of a more experienced caster is harder to avoid.

I'd rather not get another thread locked Lady Firebird arguing with you. If you actually want to discuss this with me (rather than fight with me) feel free to PM me. Otherwise I'll Not be continuing this conversation.

It's not an "argument." Please don't insult huge amounts of players for not playing the way you do. It's not that hard. I flagged the post, and if I see any further ones along those lines, I will continue to do so.

For instance, while I'm not exactly happy with Paizo's decision to eliminate gradual increases in spell power for each level, I must admit it has some interesting aspects to it. For one thing, it means more powerful incarnations of Fireball will be increasingly difficult to avoid even as they do more damage. That's a rather fascinating aspect - it's as if the spell burns hotter (in the case of Fireball) and becomes harder to avoid as a result.

And while some people might feel spells having fixed damage ranges for the level they first come about diminishes the spells, at the same time you have critical failures for saving throws which means that Third Tier Fireball could actually do 10d6 damage if some poor sap falls flat on their face when trying to dodge it. ;)

Some of it may be in the fact that more powerful mages simply summon more flames and are more accurate. So far, I like what I see and it seems very promising. I do still worry about caster supremacy with spells, but I really love the way they're doing magic. I look forward to seeing more. What I really want to see are feats.

Have you ever played FantasyCraft? That game was a good example of how to take the 3.x engine and do some unique stuff with it. In particular, every class, including martial classes, got awesome stuff to do, and the feat chains were shorter, with less speedbumps, and very powerful. Style feats, measuring (of course) fighting styles, were especially awesome.

Please don't insult huge amounts of players for not playing the way you do. It's not that hard. I flagged the post, and if I see any further ones along those lines, I will continue to do so.

Not what I was doing. But if you or anyone else believes that is what I'm doing then they're welcome to either flag my posts or PM me and I'd be happy to discuss the topic further. I'll end my part in this derail now.

In Vampiric Exsanguination your success/fail block appears like this:

Success Half damage.
Critical Success No damage.
Failure Full damage.
Critical Failure Double damage.

I get the order of success then failure, but it screws me up to read success then critical success in the context of the entire block.

Realizing that I do not know your requirements for publication and what not. The following is a suggestion that changes the order of items in your block, but does not change the layout of the block as a whole but improves the readability.

Critical Success No damage.
Success Half damage.
Failure Full damage.
Critical Failure Double damage.

Mark has already addressed this.

Blake Duffey wrote:

I may be the only one, but I'd very much like to see PF2 move away from the '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' model. It is for the most part meaningless and adds needless complexity/bookkeeping. The Heal spell is a great example - removing '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' from that spell description multiple times would make it read much cleaner (it appears 4 times). And when you are dealing with 3d8, 5d8, etc - +2, +3, are not a significant impact, numbers wise.

It was stated on the Glass Cannon playtest that your spellcasting modifier adds your level as well as the relevant ability modifier, so it does quickly become a significant bonus.

Kyra has Wis 18 and heals 1d8+4 at 1st, so that doesn‘t seem to be the case.

JRutterbush wrote:

Blake Duffey wrote:

I may be the only one, but I'd very much like to see PF2 move away from the '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' model. It is for the most part meaningless and adds needless complexity/bookkeeping. The Heal spell is a great example - removing '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' from that spell description multiple times would make it read much cleaner (it appears 4 times). And when you are dealing with 3d8, 5d8, etc - +2, +3, are not a significant impact, numbers wise.

It was stated on the Glass Cannon playtest that your spellcasting modifier adds your level as well as the relevant ability modifier, so it does quickly become a significant bonus.

Kyra has Wis 18 and heals 1d8+4 at 1st, so that doesn‘t seem to be the case.

This is definitely an area where some evidence points one way and some another. Either way someone made an error in one of the demo games, the question is simply which is the error in regards to spellcasting modifier: Adding Level, or Not Adding Level.

This level is approximately half of that level. Yes I can see why newcomers would prefer avoiding this

I would be ok with using spell magnitudes

As for lists and essences, I first thought of lists being a mix of 2 essences but it does seem a bit overcomplicated, so the likely answer is that list = essence, though I would not rule out some spells requiring access to 2 specific essences (for example for all those specifically druidic spells out there)

My initial take on list being a mix of 2 essences is that the 4 essences come in pairs : Material vs Spiritual and Mental vs Vital. So I first thought of them as the 4 points of a square with the 4 core lists being the sides of the square : Arcane = Material + Mental, Divine = Spiritual + Vital, Nature = Material + Vital, xxx = Spiritual + Mental

The 4th list might deal with summoning outsiders or affecting souls in a precise and calculated way. I could see spells dealing with emotions on that list. Which would fit the Bard

On another note, I dislike that Necromancy (literally magic of death) is used for healing people freely. But it seems I'm in the minority here

Necromancy is already used for negative energy, so why shouldn't it manipulate positive energy as well? The point of necromancy is to have power over life and death, conjuration is for summoning and dimensional stuff (teleport, plane shift and so on).

On another note, I dislike that Necromancy (literally magic of death) is used for healing people freely. But it seems I'm in the minority here

I'm kind of with you on this one. I feel like it's a legacy thing where people just want it classified that way because it's the way things were when they first learned the d20 ruleset, probably AD&D. Though, to be pedantic, necromancy isn't the magic of death, it's divination by means of death. It originally refers to cases where spirits were summoned, or humans were raised bodily so that the magician may use their insight to find answers or predict the future. It's kind of morphed into the word for death magic in the modern lexicon, but's that's not really it's definition. I'm okay with it being used as the magic that controls the forces of life and death, but I'm still surprised by the push to have the cure spells, or heal in PF2, to be classified as necromancy.

I'm surprised that (EDIT: in dnd/pf1) they chose conjuration for cure/inflict, since it's a form of energy manipulation more than summoning/creation. In my opinion it would have made more sense if it was evocation since we are dealing with raw energy, but for simplicity sake i'm fine with them being classified as necromantic spells.

{. . .}

On another note, I dislike that Necromancy (literally magic of death) is used for healing people freely. But it seems I'm in the minority here

It doesn't have to be necessarily just magic of death causation. It can also be magic of death prevention or even rollback.

In my games I already change conjuration (healing) to necromancy (healing) so it's a good change for me!

Personally, I would have liked to see a number of different forms of healing, falling under a couple different schools. Regenerate - for instance - seems it should fall under transmutation, as it is physical repair of the creature's form.

I’m more than okay with transmutation and conjuration no longer being grab-bag catch-alls that can replicate the effects of any other school. It’s easy to explain- trolls have a natural necromantic effect, rather than the spell transmuting you.

Conjuration works on the basis that it allows de novo creation of flesh and bone which worked fine, I feel.

Necromancy, I guess works too, but it feels more like a transmutation effect to me - though I can understand why they wouldn't want to put it there...

This discussion is getting into dangerous territory. Let's drop it please and get back into discussing the magic system and areas where you think it could be improved, things you like about it, and so forth.

For instance, while I'm not exactly happy with Paizo's decision to eliminate gradual increases in spell power for each level, I must admit it has some interesting aspects to it. For one thing, it means more powerful incarnations of Fireball will be increasingly difficult to avoid even as they do more damage. That's a rather fascinating aspect - it's as if the spell burns hotter (in the case of Fireball) and becomes harder to avoid as a result.

And while some people might feel spells having fixed damage ranges for the level they first come about diminishes the spells, at the same time you have critical failures for saving throws which means that Third Tier Fireball could actually do 10d6 damage if some poor sap falls flat on their face when trying to dodge it. ;)

The new system makes it easier to balance spells. In the old one, you had spells like haste that were very useful at high levels vs spells like Fireball that became less and less powerful at high levels.

Now, you can keep those damage spells relevant instead of having to introduce new ones that do basically the same thing.

I may be the only one, but I'd very much like to see PF2 move away from the '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' model. It is for the most part meaningless and adds needless complexity/bookkeeping. The Heal spell is a great example - removing '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' from that spell description multiple times would make it read much cleaner (it appears 4 times). And when you are dealing with 3d8, 5d8, etc - +2, +3, are not a significant impact, numbers wise.

It makes a difference. Out of combat, it is MUCH more efficient to cast the spell at lower level multiple times.