Michael Miller 36's page

you CAN get around caster level but the DC of creation goes up for each requirement you do not meet. The only thing you MUST have is the feat itself. So you CAN create a construct at a lower level (level 5 for your homunculus) but your chances of failing are that much higher.

Although the theory is that there are fewer GMs to sell to than players... in practice, it's the GMs who buy the most stuff. Players tend to pick and choose. Is it better to sell EVERYTHING to 1/4 of your audience? Or to sell 25% of Everything to Everyone? It's a complicated problem, that's for sure.

We saw some evidence of this when back in the day we relaunched Dragon and Dungeon magazines. At that time, the theme was "Dragon is for Players, and Dungeon is for Gamemasters." And lo and behold, sales for Dragon declined and sales for Dungeon rose.

I know for a fact that the gamers in my own groups tend to follow this theory pretty well—players buy FAR fewer products than gamers who are GMs. Even if they're only GMs part time or in theory only.

While I am quite heavily invested in pathfinder (yet to find a product I DON'T like that I've purchased, if anything its ones I like less than I do others) I'm probably not your average consumer. That being said I'm not exactly in a hurry for a monster book. Would I buy it when it comes out? Certainly. But IF it were done I think I would want it done right. For example, I LOVE how you handled the lycanthropes in the Bestiary, its now easy to use them at level 2 (or even level 1 really) without it being too unbalanced.

I hope you don't think we're being ungrateful, we certainly don't want to bite the hand that feeds us all this great gaming goodness. (God knows -I- wouldn't put in the time you guys do, your nuts!) I'm not really sure what a good compromise is, but at least now you know that the demand is there (in at least some amount) and including the product IS a good idea at some point even if not a huge priority.

Keep up the good work (and get some sleep man!)

They've made no secret of the fact that they focus on humans and demihumans as the core races and that its the main thrust of the game. Its most certainly not a big priority for them and probably something that JAMES at the least is not eager to do, but that is not saying that SOMEONE at Paizo might go and say "Hey James, I think I might have a good idea for that monster PC book...mind if I give it a whack?"

Who knows? Maybe someone on the boards will come up with a system. Maybe you yourself will. People expect Paizo and WotC to write all our game content for us. They forget they started out just like us gamers who liked playing and writing their own adventures. Nothing saying you can't do the same if you have a better idea.

My party of 4 had enough treasure through the AP for the most part and they had no real problems (though we didn't make it all the way through, we stopped at book 4 since we wanted to switch to beta and it rather than convert characters we just started a new campaign)

I would even go so far as to say that unless your converting the adventure to pathfinder and your using pathfinder characters you might have the opposite problem and it being too easy. Your milage may vary, give it a shot and see what happens, you can always compensate later.

I DO throw out slightly more treasure in my pathfinder game i'm running now (running CotCT currently) but then I rebuild all the monsters and NPCs to pathfinder stats and add in a few more mooks to challenge the PCs.

Treantmonk wrote:

The OP should not have caused any harm. If he had included a shot on people who play 4.0, that would be different. If the response had been more to the case of, "I disagree, I think 4.0 is a pretty good system *insert rationale here*" we could be having a meaninful and healthy discussion on that topic right now.

Unfortunately, the OP wasn't inviting rational discussion. He was making a joking dig at 4e, not discussing the merit of this or that part of the system.

If I titled a thread, "One thing PFRPG gave us," and then went on to discuss how I use the book as a door stop, there would rightly be hell to pay. It's not funny, it's not cool, and it's disrespectful to the game designers and those who value the game. It's blatantly antagonistic.

As for as the doorstop reference, I suspect the PFRPG core book would be quite useful in that regard. Its durable, got some weight and mass to it. If you can keep its smooth cover from sliding on the floor then it should serve quite well. Also doubles as a paperweight, spider-killer and if you slam the open book shut incredibly useful in scaring the cat!

With a lot of things, going out of your way to find insult is more work than its worth. Its much easier to roll with the joke, find some amusement in the post (especially as he was NOT insulting anyone in particular or even the game really, just that he found some use for his purchase) and move on. Life's too short for needless conflict and its just a game.

I always get amused when i see people get all bent out of shape because someone doesn't like the game they play. Unless the criticism is aimed at YOU such as "wow, you play XXX? what are you an idiot?" taking offense is silly. People are entitled to an opinion, it wasn't stated crassly or in a vulgar nature. 4e is a decent game, I don't much care for it but I played it for a while. I currently play pathfinder. I've run into several players that when they found out our group played that, they got fed up for us playing a "stupid game" and that 3.5 was much better. One even claimed that pathfinder was a bastardization of D&D. To each their own.

Expecting a someone who likes one system and hates another to not comment in some way is like expecting a dwarf to kiss a kobold and not get sick. Its an opinion. We're adults. Can't we act like it?

It looks like we are getting closer to this becoming a reality for roleplaying, with a Microsoft Surface Table. Here is a great video showcasing it as a battlemap.

When used as just a battlemap, it would still be useful for Pathfinder, however the team working on it (right now just as a student project) is making it a fully automated battlemap for 4E D&D.

http://www.etc.cmu.edu/projects/surfacescapes/demo.html

I might be wrong (wouldn't be the first time!) I think something like this would be better as a virtual tabletop type system for PBEM games or gaming over the internet but for people who meet in person I would think most would prefer the battlemat, minis and die rolling.

Now one thing I think this would be GREAT for, would be conventions, PF society games and such. Cases where you wanted to get rid of some of the randomness of die rolling or (in conventions) the confusion of looking for floor dice.

Cool product most certainly, but probably not for your average gamer.

I like playing Kobolds too, but personally I've always seen as their deficiencies and penalties to be challenges to overcome. First level is definitely a struggle, but once you gain a level or two the difference is negligible. Its definitely not for everyone, but if you want a challenge go for it. Personally I never play a gnome or halfling unless its a caster because of the slow movement. Between the small size and reduced damage the penalties are too much.

I DO like the idea of separatating standard kobolds and "wyrmkin" which I might incorporate into my games (and see if the other DM who runs games is kosher with it) and the addition of a bonus feat or NPC class isn't a bad idea either.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

stuart haffenden wrote:

How can an AP give more detailed info on a God than the God book does???

Because the god book only has 2 pages allocated to each god (as the Chronicles line is always 64 pages, 20 major gods x 2 pages = 40 pages, plus room for info on the lesser gods), whereas the AP can devote 6, 8, or even 10 pages to a god article that is especially relevant to that AP. Iomedae and Asmodeus are particularly associated with Council of Thieves, for example, so they get big writeups that can go into more detail than Gods and Magic.

That's all well and good but if someone doesn't buy the AP's they get shafted in the info stakes for Gods... imo, that's plain wrong.

I DO hope that paizo at some point does a compilation of the 20 articles when they are done, and consider releasing a compilation of the Pathfinder/Golarion specific monsters they have created.

Heyo,

Noticed that while others have had access to the bestiary PDF, while mine shows pending I have not yet gained access to it. If its waiting on something (either seekers of secrets or book of the damned) can you move them to another order and ship the bestiary as soon as possible?

Thanks in advance

Michael Miller 36 wrote:

Quote:

The normal TWF problems of DR don't apply, because fighters get to ignore 10 points of DR. You get more chances to apply the amazing critical feats. You get all the AC bonuses of using a shield, the dex you apply to TWF also helps armor training, and all of your nice static bonuses to damage apply to both hands.

-Cross

Where is this? I don't recall seeing any place where it states the fighter can ignore DR

There are two fighter only feats in the weapon focus tree that allow the fighter in question to ignore 5 points of DR (regardless of source) each.

My PCs are talking about just outright buying a house in Sandpoint, my question is what would a person buying a house in sandpoint expect to pay? none of the books I own cover that. Also, the house of the blue stones is currently ownerless (the PCs had Sabyl accompany them to thistletop where Gogmurts Firepelt made mincemeat of them in the tunnels.) so do you think the price for that specific building (the library is being auctioned off and most of the books will wind up at the curious goblin so no accounting for the library in the cost)

Depending on how you want to handle it, the PCs could get a deal on the property if no relatives, or the price might be higher if they are blamed for the death of the previous owner.

The normal TWF problems of DR don't apply, because fighters get to ignore 10 points of DR. You get more chances to apply the amazing critical feats. You get all the AC bonuses of using a shield, the dex you apply to TWF also helps armor training, and all of your nice static bonuses to damage apply to both hands.

-Cross

With two secondary sources of healing you should be okay. Our party in second darkness has a paladin, a dragon disciple, a druid and a monk. so far we've been doing just fine, and the paladin has done very little healing. Most of that has been a lay on hands here and there. Depending on how optimized you are, how your tactics are it'll change though.

You know, I'm almost tempted to pick some of this up if only for the fact that I could draw out maps for the my next session, and not have to redraw anything when I don't run for two weeks and have to draw new maps in between (I run Star Wars Saga one week and then Pathfinder Society on the other week).

This is one case where its definitely better to order directly from the manufacturer if you want more than one roll. Cost per roll is the same, but shipping is reduced.

Gamingpaper.com

Definitely a cool product! I'm going to see how well it holds up, going to use it to make my life easier on the upcoming battles in Scarwall, and later Castle Korvosa

I'm thinking about creating some variant magic items based on the Bag of Tricks in the 3.5 DMG. I was thinking it might be fun to have "themed" bags that create one animal type.

The first I'd like to create would be a "Bag of Bats".

Much like a bag of tricks you reach in and pull out a creature. However, I kind of like the "charges per day" concept that allot of items from the Magic Item Compendium have. So 3 times per day you can reach in a pull out a bat at the cost of 1 charge.

I was also thinking of adding one more ability. At the cost of 3 charges you can turn the bag inside out to create a swarm of bats.

How would I go about pricing an item like this for Pathfinder?

if i were to do this, i would estimate it thusly:

User activated or continuous: spell level (1 - Summon monster 1 (or natures ally))x caster level (going with 3 in this case to keep them around a bit)x2000gp =6000gp base price

under special for charges per day, you want 3 charges, so you take the base price divided by (5 divided by 3 which is 1.66)=3,614 gp base price

to create, you'd need half in material costs plus the spell summon monster 1 (or natures ally)

this would create an item that 3 times per day you could summon a bat for 3 rounds at a time, though you could increase this by simply increasing the caster level of the item

of course this is a little higher than the cost of the smallest bag of tricks, and summons lesser variety creatures with the bonus of summoning a swarm and the bag of tricks item summons the creature for ten minutes.

If i were the DM in this case i would go with the higher cost (it does summon a swarm after all, and go with a compromise of duration. 10 minutes for single creatures, (1 at a time) or rounds per level of the caster creating the item for the swarm. Possibly even just 10 rounds for the swarm instead of ten minutes.

I started getting all my stuff from paizo directly BECAUSE of the reluctance of my game store to carry it. If i had a nickel for everytime i heard someone say "3.5 is dead" I'd have core rulebooks for my entire table.

The attitude is slowly changing, but the rest of my table had to beg just to get him to place an order for the rulebooks. We asked for 4, he ordered two. Its a start at least. Theres at least 3 groups in the area playing pathfinder actively though so with luck he'll see the logic in stocking the books. The one bright spot is he DID place a order for the 3 monster books we asked for plus a few extras since "monsters always sell"

I wish more gaming stores realized the benefit of customer service

I could see it being useful, say for an evil cleric to use on a necromancer summoning undead, since it could hurt him without bolstering his allies.

However it does seem too situational to be of much use.

I agree that its situational to a lot of campaigns and the enemies you'll be fighting but then so are a lot of feats. All those grapple feats are situational too...but in the right circumstances...deadly :)

no need to enchant hand wraps when you can simply improve the monks hands themselves with "Magic Fang" and permanency. Hardest part is finding a high enough level caster willing to do it for you.

up til recently I rarely saw a human being played in one of my games. When it did happen it was generally a human fighter just for the extra feat.

However now with pathfinder humans are interesting again. A variety of cultures, some with their own feats and traits. We are now on our third AP (second darkness and CotCT are being played concurrently) and 2/3 or more of our group have been humans. Wasn't until a near party wipe in SD that we had a party of mostly non humans and that was because the two that died started elves from the Crying Leaf settlement.

if you make humans interesting, with different cultures and backgrounds you'll likely see an increase in the number of them. Eliminate the fantasy races if you like.... but a simpler way might be to just downplay them. Perhaps the elves or dwarves are not very numerous. Either because they live in remote areas (by choice, chance, or geographical oddities) or some calamity has befallen them in the past.

Its your world, do what you want with it as long as you and your players have fun :)

The only real issue I have with casting in melee being so tough at low level is touch spells. Clearly they are meant for use in melee, so why is casting them in melee so very tough. Spells like shoking grasp are built for emergency situations when the wizard is caught in melee. I would think it would thus be easy to cast in melee, but unfortunately it isn't. You know how using ranged touch provokes attacks of oppertunity is a special case maybe touch spells should by their nature not provoke attacks of oppertunity. Just a thought.

Cool information...would be sweet to play with the people from the boards! I have a bunch of characters on Steamwheedle Cartel. Reluctant to switch servers, but perhaps a dedicated play day could be an option for me ^_^

Is the /paizo channel still in use? if so I'll keep an eye out for other gamers via that

Michael Miller 36 wrote:

Generally sex roles in the medieval period came from the fact that life was hard and it was short. many women died in childbirth, many children died from disease.

This is probably true from the beginning of time up until the turn of the 19th century. Giving birth was always life-threatening. I guess male dominance rests on the sheer power of men for the most part - men are on the average stronger and more aggressive than women, and do not hesitate to use this power. Women have been seen as being weaker not too long ago, and the responsibility of child-rearing rested almost exclusively on the womens shoulders. Now, in the end it is indeed up the the DM how he portrays these fantasy societies, but real-world behaviour is of course easily transported into fiction, and in most societies today, we still see a male dominance - or how many women do we see each day in politics, financial markets or at the helm of big companies or corporations?

Stefan

To each their own though. Racism, sexism, like it or not is part of life and its only natural it creeps into our R&R to a degree. How much is up to you.

One suggestion, though. If a wizard has any kind of dex, the light crossbow isn't an unreasonable option for some situations. No, they're not going to be as good as the fighter, but they're not going to be that bad, really.

You also have to consider that melee is NOT a wizards friend. I'm please that pfRPG has made that mechanically clear now.

We had a situation with a 2H sword "build" (I so hate that term) Fighter was unable to reach the enemy. The wizard kicked butt and the fighter stood around (didn't even have a bow). But as a wizard you can fly, teleport, go invisiable, change shape, etc, etc you take these things in a non-combat context and fighter just plain sucks. Seriously you come to a stone wall and need to get on the other side, you have a 10th wizard and 20th fighter - who is more useful?

My point is there will always be situations where class A or class B won't be at their best and others where they will shine. Job of the DM is to balance these out over the course of the adventure.

If I read into something that more than likely isn't there... You issues are not doing damage which I suggest stems from the path D&D has taken - combat is where ALL the real fun is. If you want a spell caster effect each and every round you I would suggest you look to 4e. It does this very well, each round has everyone doing something always. Don't take this as me being rude, I am serious, have you tried 4e? It may be your answer for having more fun in an RPG session - and fun is why we play right?

Cheers,
S.

Brodiggan Gale wrote:

Some call me Tim wrote:

As to the second question, the rules really don't address it. I probably wouldn't allow it, as it offends my sense of how the armor is crafted with the spikes incorporated into the design, but nothing in the rules prevent "bolt-on" or "after-market" accessories.

And now I have to photoshop up a picture of a Dwarf with some sick vinyls, underbody lighting, and a sweet full plate body kit.

Well, I seriously rushed this out, and it's chock full of reaaaaally bad photoshop shortcuts, but hopefully it will amuse someone.

May I present, the aftermarket dwarf (http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/5645/atermarketdwarf.jpg).

Personally i prefer 4d6, drop lowest and assign as desired. But just before converting over to pathfinder for the APs for RotR we reluctantly changed to point buy because one of our players had consistently poor rolls. We still do the organic roll for when we're in the mood for a good old fashioned dungeon crawl though as a change of pace.

Near as i can tell with some exceptions Golarion is rather diverse both in gender roles and sexual orientation. Obviously there are exceptions, not everyone will like the equality.

Generally sex roles in the medieval period came from the fact that life was hard and it was short. many women died in childbirth, many children died from disease. You add magic to the mix, not to mention hardy races like dwarves or inventive races like gnomes and your gonna see an effect.

If your player WANTS to play up that s/he obviously can if you or your group is comfortable with that. I personally had fun playing a halfling in our Rise of the Runelords campaign. The attitudes I got while in Magnimar were an interesting change and nice flavor for the region.

Michael Miller 36 wrote:

Thanks for the imput. It has been most illuminating. I DO offer sincere thanks to the initial posters in the thread for offering some potential solutions to the situation, which I will be testing out and see which ones work for my group.

So be it, I've done my best to make some helpful suggestions about ways your casters might be able to handle things a little more effectively (with or without the change to concentration, control/disabling spells are frighteningly effective, and using some group tactics can really help get them off), but, as I said before, it's your game, and whatever makes it the most fun for you and your group is the right thing to do.

Michael Miller 36 wrote:

Brodiggan Gale wrote:

Did he not have room to take a 5 ft. step?

Could he not have used tactics to lure his opponents into making an AOO before he cast?

Could any of the other players (the cleric or fighter for instance) have done anything to get the opponents off his back (bullrush, disarm, sunder, etc.)?

Having to consider tactics and work together is part of the fun for a lot of groups.

Not after the first one he took no. That in fact is how he got off his first spell, a blur which is likely the only reason he survived the encounter. Fighter DID attempt a disarm, but it failed.

Sounds like the encounter was essentially designed to force him into melee immediately and keep him there, which, since you're the one DMing, would be on your doorstep.

Even then, if he was able to get out of melee by taking a 5 ft. step, he could easily have lead off with invis or fly, which you've already stated he eventually used to escape the melee. So it sounds to me like he just made a bad decision (cast blur, hope I can hold in melee despite being a cloth caster vs. cast invis or fly now, spend one round moving to a more effective position, and then rain hell upon them).

I'm not saying the wizard should be dealing OMGWTF damage every round, but they should be able to contribute SOMETHING. When there is only 3 players at the table noone can afford to just sit around. Since the problem has not come up until the change to concentration I think its obvious where the problem lies.

Apparently either other groups are not having this problem, the ones that are are not speaking up or apparently according to some my players don't know what the hell they are doing.

Thanks for the imput. It has been most illuminating. I DO offer sincere thanks to the initial posters in the thread for offering some potential solutions to the situation, which I will be testing out and see which ones work for my group.

Did he not have room to take a 5 ft. step?

Could he not have used tactics to lure his opponents into making an AOO before he cast?

Could any of the other players (the cleric or fighter for instance) have done anything to get the opponents off his back (bullrush, disarm, sunder, etc.)?

Having to consider tactics and work together is part of the fun for a lot of groups.

+1.

FLY and INVISIBILITY EXIST so wizards can survive combat. Which means, after five rounds, the player actually started acting like a wizard!

OMG!

;)

Why was the wizard in melee? I know everyone has their own play style but going from a d4 to a d6 is not an invitation to sit in the front row.

Bad analogy. It's more like AD&D = Boss 302 Mustang in cherry condition, has it's warts, doesn't handle well, and guzzles gas, but, damn it's sexy, and 3x = boring old 2005 Corolla that runs great, gets wonderful mileage, and bores the hell out of you ;)

Sorry, you just lost your own argument right there. The wizard used tactical sense and got the h*** out of combat. Then he was effective.

Obviously you (and your players) want your wizard to be a front line fighter. That is not the class, not it's purpose.

Wow, it's amazing that casters somehow managed to dominate quite a bit of the time way back in the dark ages (OD&D/AD&D) when a sneeze could make them lose a spell.

I guess it's another one of those "old school/new school" things...

Guess compared to olden days the wizard has it good, but just because my toyota is better than the model T my great great whatever had doesn't mean it can't use some work :)

Michael Miller 36 wrote:

If you go that a wizard shouldn't be able to cast because their threatened by combat, than any class should have their primary ability to fight affected by the fact that they have a threat in their face.

Most other classes can't use the majority of their class abilities from 400 ft. + 40 ft/level away.

Most other classes can't disable an opponent without once rolling against their AC.

Most other classes don't have class abilities that let them fly, teleport, become ethereal/astral/incorporeal etc.

Most other classes don't have so many ways they can avoid melee combat entirely, while still being able to use their class abilities to full effect.

Fly, teleport, and the various projections are useful yes, but only one of them is likely to be used in combat.

casters pay for casting in melee as is simply because they lack hit points to stay in the front lines. They don't have the AC either. I think this is payment enough. They won't survive more than a few rounds in toe to toe combat with a fighter and they shouldn't. doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to cast their spells.

If you go that a wizard shouldn't be able to cast because their threatened by combat, than any class should have their primary ability to fight affected by the fact that they have a threat in their face.

I will NOT be using the rules as written, it was tested rather thoroughly at game tonight. In one combat the party wizard got off a measly ONE spell in 5 rounds. Finally he resorted to fly and invisibility just to be able to be effective.

If a rule is made that makes a class subpar that it won't be used, its a bad rule. The rule might work for larger groups, but the AP's simply don't give you the luxury of being out of threatened range most of the time. If there was rules put into play that made fighters subpar unless they were using a sword and shield and penalized all other builds people would be raising hell. but because its a caster nerf everyone is okay with it.

This is okay with me, people are inclined to have their opinions. And its good to know that next time I have a question or seeking advice about caster problems to not come here unless I'm seeking a nerf.

Laithoron wrote:

Switch the order of Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain. After all, at first level it may be obvious where the adventure is being set, but it might take a few levels to figure out who you are fighting.

This is a great idea if a GM feels it's cheating to drop hints about what the players would be facing this would give the player some leverage from his favored terrain while he figures out what's going on. Of course I think most folks feel FE is the stronger of the 2 and delaying its onset and later boost is a hit to the power of the class. Regardless, a good option for players.

I believe that a good GM makes the game fun for all players, and deliberately making your choices subpar or doing nothing to help you succeed isn't good sportsmanship. Echoing some of what was said above, generally if I'm running a game I let a player who's doing a ranger know what sorts of creatures/humanoids that s/he is likely to have clashed with in the past and what is a problem in the area. That will almost always come in handy for the first few levels, and by the time they chose thier second enemy they have an idea of what the rest of the campaign will be about and can make a choice for further levels

I can't think of any real world activity I'd be able to continue doing without interruption, to say nothing of using my will to reign the very fundamental energies of the universe to accomplish my ends.

How do you get that doing that takes *less* concentration?
-Campbell

Sounds a little silly doesn't it? We're talking a game. not real life. If I wanted reality I doubt I'd be playing RPGs.

I like the extra danger to casters. None of this 5th level caster getting 8 ranks+ 2 Con+ Skill Focus 3= +13 for a DC 18 check. 5+(80%) success while in melee? That's silly for a standard caster. Even 75% is silly (and I've almost never seen a caster with a Con of less than 12)

It was that way back in first edition. Your players maybe shouldn't play wizards. Works in the DM's favor, no?

That being said, I'm not saying they don't like pathfinder. They do like most of it. I like most of it. I may even end up accepting the change and just drastically altering my own wizards tactics and suggesting the same change for my players.

Myself I would rather a wizard who was less afraid of casting spells in combat and just hoping he didn't take a lot of damage (considering he has about a third of the hit points of the usual front line defenders) than a rule that encourages a wizard to be invisible and flying and even more of a game breaker. One is fun, and a challenge in a fight. The other is annoying, and potentially an impossible opponent to defeat.

I think the point is that we want concentration to be difficult, not overly easy or frustratingly hard.

That being said, lowering the DC from 15+2x mod to 10+2x mod or something in between might be something for me to look at too.

Michael Miller 36 wrote:

and you STILL face two attacks of oppertunity.

Where do you get that? that's only true if casting a spell with a ranged touch attack, you can cast a million spells, including spells that have ranges, that don't provoke a second AoO.

Thurgon wrote:

And I am one of the most obstinate people I know still I tried it from level 4 to level 10 with the group and saw it's effect.

Yeah, you quit just before defensive casting returned to the auto-success it always used to be. Like I said (three times now?), the final PF rule penalizes low-level casters disproportionately.

My wizard in second darkness might just end up being swapped out for a cleric :)

The problem with the new Concentration is that it has the opposite effect as intended: low-level casters have a hard time succeeding, but defensive casting is even more of an auto-success at higher levels, because both caster level and casting stat are level-dependent. So instead of the static DC 15 + (2 x spell level), we're using

DC = 10 + (1/2 threatener's BAB) + (2 x spell level).

That way, the difficulty scales meaningfully even at higher levels.

true, it is about the same as if you took the skill focus, but when it was a SKILL the feat was unnecessary. just an option. Now its a neccesary feat just to make your spell potentially useful. and you STILL face two attacks of oppertunity. I like most of what PFRPG did and I appreciate what Jason and company did for us, but I won't be using much if any of the magic chapter of the new book. Back to a skill for me and my players.

And on the off chance I do ever get to play at a con.... I just won't be playing a wizard or sorcerer. I do find myself liking the new cleric though.

*edit

last wasn't meant to reopen the wound, just trying to point out that I don't think ALL the changes are bad :)

I also think that this change makes combat casting almost a required feat. NO feat should be required in order to do your job. A feat should be useful, a feat should be good. any feat that is REQUIRED or a must take should be part of the class to begin with. No caster in my game has taken combat casting in the past, now they have to do that just to have a chance to cast a spell and still have a 2 in 10 (or more) chance to fail. and risking two attacks of oppertunity per casting is a bit much. More I look at PFRPG, the less of the magic system I'll be using