edduardco's page

MaxAstro wrote:

Mark, you may have seen me saying this in another thread (and I'm not the person you asked in the first place, but...):

As someone who loves wizards (my first D&D character ever was a wizard; I play martials a bit more these days but when I really want to break a campaign wizard is it): Quick Preparation is exactly what wizards needed. It felt like too much at first, but upon thinking on it, I think you guys picked exactly the right thing. It would be cool if arcane bond was unique to each wizard, but I think Quick Preparation does a lot more to make wizards more approachable in play.

That said, I think a lot of the complaints you are seeing about quick preparation don't actually have anything to do with wizards being too strong. I think it really comes down to sorcerers being too... I don't know if weak is the right word, I want to say "undirected" instead.

Sorcerers need more support for non-arcane spell lists, but I think they also need something to really make them "pop" as a class compared to wizards. You've opened up sorcerers with this cool idea of having different spell lists, and that's awesome, but any given sorcerer will only have one spell list, which means that sorcerer has to compete with the class that normally has that spell list. OR sorcerer has to have something unique enough to compete with everything else another class does outside of their spell list.

This is probably all stuff you are fully aware of, but it's basically in summation a way for me to say that I'd like to see some way for sorcerer's to cherry pick spells from other spell lists; I think that would really help their niche.

Yeah, we were hoping Quick Prep would make the wizard a little more approachable for less experienced players while giving something else fun but not too intimidating to do during a break while treat wounds and repair are going on (there isn't always a new item to identify or the like). Given it was an extremely popular feat choice already,the difference is...

For what is worth I think you made the right call with Quick Preparation.

Is good to finally see a bit of acknowledgement about the regrettable state of magic in the Playtest, having said that, I don't think a fewer more dices to blasting is a good direction, the more I've thought about it the more convinced I am that Auto-Scaling needs to be back, it will go and adjust more along the design lines of +lvl to everything.

Is the current iteration really all that bad?

Yes, it is.

Awesome opening

Excellent points magnuskn, I too hope that Paizo reconsider the direction they are going to take magic in PF2. But until some changes are announced I'm done with PF2.

WHY KILL THE GOLDEN GOOSE?...

For me is the rarity system, and more so after seeing the number of staple spells that are uncommon.

The prospect of a new edition is inevitably going to bring back the conflict between the "I hate the way my Fighter/Rogue was made to look obsolete by a Wizard/Druid/Magus" crowd and the "I like playing an awesome caster who can do anything" crowd.

Is just me or seems like both issues could have been solved by giving martials more toys? High level martials would play like mythological heroes and casters would still be awesome.

I'd rather a wand have a small number of uses per day than a moderate or large number of uses forever.

I can agree with that

The best solution is probably that one of the benefits of School Specialization should be access to all spells of that school regardless of class list. I don't care if a universalist wizard or diviner can never cast Finger of Death, but a necromancer should definitely get it.

Like how Psionic Disiplines worked.

I might say the unpopular thing here, but maybe it's not that the casters are too powerful. The way I see the whole issue is that the "mundanes" are pretty crap overall (even if in PF2 they seem to be a bit better than the average).

Why keep going in this downward spiral of nerfing magic in a FANTASY game, a genre that is almost defined by exactly the existance and power of magic in the first place?

Wouldn't it be better to make mundanes more heroic and both powerful and useful instead?

D&D/PF keeps tossing casters from high fantasy in the same game with mundanes that are straight out of a nerfed version of history (monk, fighter and barbarians first of them).
And I think that's the source of the issue.

If the mundanes were to have the power they deserve (and often have in fantasy settings), magic would get to be both awesome and much less at risk of "stealing the scene" from the rest of the party.

Maybe I'm the weird one, but I want my monk to be like a charater from asian fantasy, like Guo Jing from the classic Legend of the Condor Heroes, or even better someone out of a xianxia. Not some close-to-real-life shaolin monk that has been the butt end of jokes since 3.0.
I want my warrior to be like a warrior from the legends, like Beowulf, Heracles or Cu Chulainn (spelling?), not some random historically accurate-ish fighter.

Funnily enough, comic and games have been solving this issue by making mundanes more powerful since ages ago, but for some reason RPGs are stuck on "if I'm a mundane I don't get good things that might look too close to magic" mindset.

After all, if you play a game to be a hero, would you really rather be an average warrior with a nerfed-to-s!%&farming caster besides you or an epic one fighting side by side with an actual caster?

(and yes, I did like the Tome of Battle if you were wondering and still had any doubt about it)

Exactly this, I really thought that PF2 was going to cover the niche of high fantasy that 5e left available, but looks like is not going to be the case. And on top of that right now PF2 feels too similar to 5e for me, and if that ends to be the case in the final version I rather play 5e or stay with PF1.

John Mechalas wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

This illustrates the impossible problem Paizo faces. In P1, casters enjoy a power level that you admit is "silly." As you astutely point out, it starts by level 5 and the gap just keeps growing. I play only PFS, where casters cannot even craft magic items and the disparity is prominent. If Paizo is going to bring casters in-line with martials, the changes will have to be drastic compared with P1.

I don't think anyone (well, anyone reasonable) is arguing that drastic changes are not needed. The question is, how drastic do they need to be? I believe Red Griffyn is merely suggesting that the (at least) 6 different nerfs to spells and casters is, perhaps, excessive.

In exchange for that, casters were given tools to make them more effective in direct combat (e.g. auto-scaling cantrips, easier access to weapons and armor). Which is kind of depressing, since utility wizards didn't want that anyway, and battlefield control is now harder and less fun. And that is ironic, since that was the primary way a caster with "silly" power levels could intentionally dial themselves back, still have fun, and ensure everyone at the table is having fun, too.

Oh yeah, the weakening certainly seems excessive. I don't even play casters and it's painful to see all the dramatic reductions from multiple angles: Spells per day, power level of spells, short durations, few targets, punishing concentration with it's action tax and ease of losing the spell, etc. Even Unseen Servant and Rope Trick have been dramatically weakened to the point that I can't see anyone ever using the spells. I did start another thread with a proposed fix for unseen servant, turn it into a ritual and tie it to a location.

And not only that, have you read the rules for spell disruption? Is ridiculous easy to disrupt spells.

This are my thoughts on magic

By far, this is the biggest complaint my group has had with the playtest, along with resonance. It's caused a lot of disappointment and anger. I've tried to explain to them that power reductions for casters is widely popular, and it just boggles their minds. Most of them recognize that some reduction was likely needed, but what happened is very excessive.

I certainly didn't wanted casters to be dragged down in line with martials, and would have instead preferred that martials be elevated in line to casters.

While I agree with your comments, and even more with your tone, I think there is one thing you are partially wrong:

Casters have been nerfed: This is partially incorrect, due to two reasons:
First nerf is when something needs fixing, and this was not the case.
Second is that casters have their power reduce, this is true, but only on magic: Casters have received better attack, AC and Hitpoints, something that most caster players like me don't want at all!!!!

What I am really worried is the general attitude of this forum:
NERF THE CASTERS!
NERF THE CASTERS!
There is nothing appealing on the casters from 1 to 2. Less spells, everyone gets skills save wizards, some saves are improved, not wizards, spell list has been reduced. It is a nightmare!!!

And a lot of people are clapping and cheerin, sincerely I don't know if I want to play if this is the general attitude of the players.

I could not agree more

Well, I guess if martials can't have nice things, casters shouldn't either.

That's PF2 in a nutshell

Arachnofiend wrote:

It's honestly kind of cute seeing so many people complain about the caster nerfs. These nerfs were definitely needed with how dominant 9th level casting was in PF1... but then they've been coupled with major nerfs to the martial classes as well, with powerful tools moved much further back and more restricted (I'm looking at you, Spell Sunder). The best class in the playtest is easily the Cleric, and surprise surprise the Wizard falls in line at #2.

Yeah, they were really not needed, IMO. What was needed was moving the martials up to the level of casters in many respects. But I know that it is basically religious dogma for some that casters needed to be nerfed into the ground.

Totally agree.

I dont see how pf2e is going to be better than any of these systems, there would have been a place for a higher magic, more gonzo system, especially if martials had been given meaningful high level abilities, which was what i thought you were going for, considering the last few years class additions (kineticist is my favorite class in pf1e, and i love all the caster hybrid classes).

This is also what I was expecting, instead we got nerf over nerf on magic, I'm severely disappointed by magic in the playtest

I wrote about it here

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vb8i?Wish-spells-now-for-every-full-caster-cla ss
but I think the "bug" deserved its own thread.

Bards do not currently have an option for a 20th level feat to take 10th level spells.

I noticed this too,I guess is just an omission, not a big deal given is the same feat for all casters, but it definitely needs to be addressed in the erratas.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Only point I agree is the last one, I prefer resources (resolve, resonance, whatever) to 1x day uses.

When I first heard the idea of Resonance, I had envisioned something like the Focus Points of the Occultist from PF1, which had me pretty excited.

Kind of a gadget-y approach, invest X points in the item for effect A, Y points for effect B, and so on. Never crossed my mind that you'd need to burn one do down a potion, which is supposed to be self-contained magic. I really don't like what we wound up with. I'd love an Occultist -style system.

And not only that, check the thread of Bag of Holding, it cost a resonance point to open it each time.

If Paizo wants to make PF2 low magic game/setting is their call, but that is not a game in which I'm interested.

Prepared spells. I've never liked prepared casting at all, but if they ever make an arcanist it wouldn't have much uniqueness if the wizard prepared spells the same way. just exploits.

Not that i think they'll make an arcanist, but this early in the playtest who knows what they might do in the future.

so the choices would be either leave it alone, or make all casters spontaneous. since a wizard's thing is that they can learn spells, the second would be horribly unbalanced given the sorcerer's limited spell repertoire. so they left it alone.

I don't think any of the ACG are going to exist in PF2 as anything that Archetypes.

After trying the Arcanist and 5e Prepared casting I find very difficult to return to the previous method.

Rarity. dude, Pathfinder 1e had so many spell options from so many little splats that were A LOT stronger than options in the main books. having a system in place that says "You have to have run across this spell someplace in character to learn it at level up," really reduces that issue, and plenty of GMs do that sort of thing anyway. this just puts it in the main book and keeps GMs from having to make their own system for it.

That shows that those spells were badly designed. Rarity goes much further than that requieren GM fiat for uncommon spells, there are a lot of uncommon spells just in the playtest many of them staples for me, I cannot stand a system that requires that level a fiat.

Staves. Staves require those things for a reason. They're basically a permanent source of extra spells per day.

And resonance per activation is not enough?

Wands. let's not. making them non consumables limited to a small number of charges per day (1-3) I could see, but keep the cap at 4th level spells, and you certainly shouldn't be able to spam wands all day.

I proposed to remove charges completely, that is the point of having Resonance, is it not?

As for the 4th level cap I don't see the point, Spell Dueling Wands already allow spells of any level.

I'm fine with the most powerful previously 9th tier spells being pushed to 10 tier. But after seeing them, they're not so much better than the remaining 9th tier spells that they warrant breaking the progression and requiring a feat. Just extend out the 1-9 progression, so you pick up 10th tier slots normally at 19th level.

Exactly.

Remove the feat tax and continue the spell slot progression, two 10th level spell slots at 19th and another one at 20th.

Wish was buffed inasmuch as it no longer costs money, making it equivalent to the most common use of Miracle in PF1. Gate got a bump because accurate transportation magic is otherwise impossible, and calling is now a ritual and was a horribly OP use of the old spell. Time Stop was pretty abusable and still is - just not as often per day.

Incidentally it’s not clear whether Sorcerer and Wizard boosts to spells at every level apply as well to 10th, giving them access to 2 per day, or 3 for specialist Wizards.

The only reason Wish had a material cost was for ability score increments and item creation, options that are now removed from PF2.

Gate was nerfed, Time Stop is almost the same, but the fact remains that they were pushed to level 20th, behind a feat tax, and casters gain a single spell slot.

Most of the 10th level spells are just nerfed versions of previous 9th level spells, with a feat tax, pushed to level 20th, and usable once per day.

This negative reaction does go along with an early concern I had. I was worried that they were changing too much and would run into backlash from the old players who came to PF1 explicitly because of the negative reaction to the D&D 4 change. Paizo seemed to go for maximum change with the option to potentially dial things back later. But there is less chance of having a 'later' if the initial reaction puts a lot of people off. I can understand why they did it, it's better to overshoot and then dial back instead of make something that's only slightly changed and therefore doesn't do much to expand the appeal. But I suspect PF1 players are a bit more resistant to major changes because of the bad experience with 3.5 to 4.

Plus it's not like what we got is without flaws. The way magic has been knocked down is possibly excessive for example. I still think this could be turned into an excellent second edition, but maybe not in the time they have. This is a drum I've been beating since the announcement, but I think it's still valid. There needs to be at least one more iteration of the rules before they lock down a final version. This schedule of playtest for 5 months and then get to writing a final release for next GenCon would be fine for a smaller change, but with this level of overhaul I don't think it's going to cut it. It looks like a lot of the playtest version will need to be changed, but those changes need to be tested too to see if they're too much or not enough.

Totally agree on both points.

The nerfs on magic went too far I posted my thoughts here

When the first blogs were presented I was very exited about PF2 and still think some of the changes to the core system are very good improvements, but later blogs diminished my enthusiasm, specially the ones concerned with magic, and frankly some were quite disappointing. Now that I have been able to read the complete systems involved I must said the disappointment on how magic is being handle in PF2 has only increased.

I will list the parts which I disagree with the direction taken and propose a design I will prefer.

• Prepared spellcasting Prepared casting can be quite unfun and is really difficult for new players.
  I think arcanist style should be used instead.

• Spontaneous heightening Spontaneous casting already has a very hard limiting factor in spells known, the limit on heightening on spontaneous caster doubles down on it.
  Spontaneous heightening should be free, I think it will be balanced with Arcanist style for prepared caster as long as spontaneous caster gain enough spells known.

• Spell disruption Is ridiculous easy to disrupt spells, that damage equal to level is enough to disrupt spells without offering any opportunity to the caster doesn't seem fair.
  There should be Spell Roll vs damage dealt to prevent disruption.

• Rarity Lots of staple spells are uncommon which is quite disappointing in itself, but frankly, I think games should aim to remove GM Fiat as much as possible, not increase it.
  This needs to disappear completely.

• Rods I don't know if Rods are just absent from the playtest or removed from the game, but I suspect the later.
  Bring Rods back, specially Metamagic Rods.

• Staves Staves are quite taxing to use, from what I have read is the only held item that require investment, it cause that nobody else could use the Staff for a day, and depending on the level is the charges it gets.
  Remove investing and charges from Staves, Resonance should be the only cap for activations.

• Wands level cap I’m very disappointed to see there is still spell level cap on wands, and with Spell roll cap on top of it.
  Remove the 4th level cap on wands.

• Wands charges I really think that Wands should not be consumables, actually I think consumables should be one use only.
  Wands should be like Dueling Wands without once per day limit.

• Magic items once per day Once per day abilities are quite unfun, and more so when is on top of expending Resonance.
  Remove the once per day cap, Resonance should be the only cap for activations.

• Resonance for consumables I already don't like consumables very much, the idea of using money on something that once used is gone instead of a permanent magic item that can be used over and over is already quite unappealing to me, that now on tops will consume a resource like Resonance is just too much.
  Seriously consider dropping it for consumables.

• 10th level spells Is really jarring to see that spells are gained every odd level except 19th, class progression should not be mutilated like that, and frankly 10th level spells are not that impressive to justify a feat gate for once per day at level 20th
  10th level spells should be gained automatically, two slots at level 19th and another at 20th.

• Metamagic feats I seriously cannot understand why metamagic feats are not general feats anymore
  Metamagic should not be class specific, return metamagic to general feats.

• Class feats Once per day abilities are unfun, at least I avoid them like the plague.
  Replace caps of once per day with Spell Points or another resource that allows a choice of number of activations
  

There are other things I have not make up mind still like concentrate, summoning, polymorph, and planar binding, but it doesn't look promising.

To conclude, I play RPGs because I like magic and high fantasy, so that is what I will be looking for to evaluate if the migration is worth it for me or not.

I too am very disappointed with the playtest document, the nerf on magic/casters was worse than what I first feared from the blogs, right now I'm on the point of questioning if the time investment is worth it because I'm not sure how much could be changed based on feedback, and the playtest document gave me the impression that Paizo has ill will toward casters.

After reading a bit more this thread I have to agree that multi-classing is dead, and I'm very glad about it. I guess Paizo was afraid to said it so and chose to keep the name, from my perspective Paizo has never liked multi-classing or prestige classes (neither do I), so it makes perfect sense to remove them and convert them into archetypes.

Now we will have 3 types of Archetypes:

General Archetypes
Prestige Archetypes
Multi-class Archetypes

I like to think the following: Players create characters, GMs create campaigns.

So what I expect is support to create and run campaigns, I would like if the system makes gamemastering easier: reduced preparation time, less bookkeeping, consistent and intuitive rules, smaller stat blocks, quicker customization, etc.

Having said that, this blog could have used more examples.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Dekalinder wrote:

world building needs that fluff reason.

What is the difference?

To me, world building are mechanics that impact how a theoretical world is build when made up from scratc. The most famous example of such a case is the Tippyverse. The Tippyverse would not be possible if Teleportation Circle was deemed an incredibly rare spell only one knows and does not want to share.

Fluff is a themathical flavor for some specific mechanics, that in general does not impact the use of the mechanics per se. Sleeping poison being a fan favorite of the Drows is a fluff decision, that in general does not impact the world since has no impact on where the city are placed or the general need of a poisoner expert at a noble table.

The presence of an ubiquitous way to Dominate people impact the world as a whole, since countermeasures need to be in place at every major seat of power. Someone having a thougher armor is not going to shape the destiny of the masses.
Execpt for the players that get cut of from such character building option.

I have bad news for you, Paizo doesn't believe there is a distinction between fluff and mechanics, so you can expect to see rarity applied for fluff reasons, like sleep Poison for example, is most probably going to be tagged as uncommon.

edduardco wrote:

Is the 10 min cooldown for Shield really necessary?

They want it to be an encounter power, so yes. They've explicitly said they've messed with durations of spells to create spells that last an encounter. So expect more encounter powers to be disguised as cantrips and daily spells.

I totally agree with you, right now Shields is an Encounter Power in disguise. Frankly I rather see Shield nerfed and the cooldown removed, the idea of a cooldown in cantrips is really unappealing to me.

Folks... the announcement on this is coming, but I will give it to you in a nutshell just to alleviate some concerns that we are moving things around.

There are 7 chapters in Doomsday Dawn. We are giving three weeks after Gen Con for part 1 and two weeks for each part after that. To go any slower would make it so that we do not get feedback in time to make any reasonable changes to the game.

We will have plenty more news on how this will work right before release.

I've been wondering, if any game change is made, will it be announced? or we will need to wait for PF2 launch to know of it?

edduardco wrote:

I understand that is not a barrier for homebrewing, noting is actually, but now that PF2 has Golarion baked in along the mechanics it gives me the impression that the further you stray from the Inner Sea Region assumptions it will require more work to homebrew and balance.

I understand why Paizo is doing it and is OK, APs are awesome and the main selling point, but I think it will still leave a sour taste for some homebrew enthusiasts.

This isn't a problem unique to PF2. To some degree every single edition of D&D and Pathfinder have had an assumed, default setting.

For example in 3rd Edition that setting was Greyhawk, in 2nd it was the Forgotten Realms. Regardless, it is evident from every Campaign Setting book in my library (I've read dozens of them for 3rd edition+) that the further you deviate from the default setting the worse the rules as written emulate that setting.

For example, in the Iron Kingdoms planar travel and conjuration magic of any kind breaks basic setting assumptions. Yet those spells appear at every level of D&D/Pathfinder.

Ah but you see, in 3.X even if Greyhawk was the base setting the impact to the rules were minimum, making 3.X practically setting agnostic, and allowed to introduce other settings with their own modifications: Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun, Homebrew.

Early PF1 thanks to backward compatibility followed the same apporach, the rules and the setting info was separate, making rules easier to tweak, no so in PF2.

The system is useful because I can say to my players "you can obtain any common item for the price listed in the book without any trouble while you are in downtime". Instead of "here is the exhaustive list I wrote of what you can and can't get which I spent 6 hours agonising over because I am ridiculous and can't help myself".

The former saves me a lot of work and smooths out the game (and means players expectations are already set by the book so it doesn't make them salty when I say they can't find an orcish double ended axe). The latter creates space for me to overthink and over-world build which is a constant temptation for me.

Wow, you have big assumption there, you seems to be assuming that Paizo is going to tag as uncommon or rarer everything that you would have written on your list.

Also, if you have a problem with X spell/item/etc you will still need to check what rarity Paizo assigned it to it, and if you make a change, you will still need to write a list of those changes to let your players know.

edduardco wrote:

And BTW I'm not saying that PF2 seems less user friendly to homebrew just because of this blog, Resonance has been another indicator for me, and some bits in other blogs too.

Oh no, of course. I'm not assuming it's just because of this blog.

I think maybe we just have a different way of looking at it.
For example. Resonance as is has I think some issues with implementation (actually using charges and slots on top of points is the main issue for how I wish to use it, as I can just ignore homebrewing in items with X/day restrictions, though it isn't pleasant to avoid some inconsistencies), but I see it more as an opportunity for homebrewing rather than a barrier. Resonance batteries or shackles and locations that grant or drain resonance are big options for me, and I can imagine having doors that only open by people paying resonance to keep either the unworthy or mindless undead out.
I also quite like the idea of letting cosmic events affect it. E.g. imagine a solar alignment that, for a day, floods the world with tremendous power, giving everyone access to massively increased or regenerating resonance. For that day the world goes crazy thanks to the knock-on effects.

I understand that is not a barrier for homebrewing, noting is actually, but now that PF2 has Golarion baked in along the mechanics it gives me the impression that the further you stray from the Inner Sea Region assumptions it will require more work to homebrew and balance.

I understand why Paizo is doing it and is OK, APs are awesome and the main selling point, but I think it will still leave a sour taste for some homebrew enthusiasts.

You also have the option of taking the default rarity from the PF2e rulebook, and only modifying a few things (or classes of things). That's far less work than PF1e to get a complete set of "how available is this," while still allowing some customization. So that's a net win compared with PF1e.

Even if you only change a few things you still need to review all to see what to change.

And BTW I'm not saying that PF2 seems less user friendly to homebrew just because of this blog, Resonance has been another indicator for me, and some bits in other blogs too.

While the article does kind of describe the objectives, it was rather unclear to me how these were to be reached as they seemed to have nothing to do with each other or the mechanic presented.

Part of the problem, I think, may have come from misunderstanding the world-building bit as referring to GMs building their own worlds. The problem, of course, being that each world is unique and any categories created will be too arbitrary. Maybe something 'Common' on Golarion is 'Rare' on my homebrew world or vice-versa and if I have to go over the lists and redefine every spell, item, and weapon based on how appropriate it is to the milieu I'm in the exact same boat that I was in PF1.

If you take it as making it easier for the Paizo folks to organize splatbooks on the different regions of Golarion I suppose I can see some utility.

I've noticed this too, PF2 seems to be less user friendly for homebrew games.

Gorbacz wrote:

Of course, libertarian gamists will cry foul, because it will limit their dumpster diving frenzy.

Speaking as a libertarian, we're all about consensus in terms of rules. As long as the group agrees most libertarians are fine with some restrictions.

Unless they're a#$%*&@s, of course. Every group has some of those.

What if is the GM? I've noticed in this thread there is a mentality of "there is no such a thing as a bad GM, only bad players".

edduardco wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

edduardco wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

Isn't the whole book prefaced with "these are racial options"?

If by that you mean lazy and arbitrary tags, then yes I guess.

If something that can be acquired like a spell, feat, or an item is going to be race exclusive I expect that is because it only makes sense for that race, and that race only, like Paragon Surge for Half-elves.

So, yeah. Paragon Surge is half-elf exclusive, while Windy Escape makes more sense as an uncommon spell found on the Plane of Air. It is not exclusive to sylphs, but you should have a reason for knowing it.

Shouldn't be more like uncommon in Material Plane and common in the Plane of Air?

I don't think the speculated region tags will exist. It's just more clutter. The spell is listed as Uncommon, and being from or being on the Plane of Air can grant you access.

But that is what the blog says, right above, it has the Katana being common in Minkai as an example and all.

edduardco wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

Isn't the whole book prefaced with "these are racial options"?

If by that you mean lazy and arbitrary tags, then yes I guess.

If something that can be acquired like a spell, feat, or an item is going to be race exclusive I expect that is because it only makes sense for that race, and that race only, like Paragon Surge for Half-elves.

So, yeah. Paragon Surge is half-elf exclusive, while Windy Escape makes more sense as an uncommon spell found on the Plane of Air. It is not exclusive to sylphs, but you should have a reason for knowing it.

Shouldn't be more like uncommon in Material Plane and common in the Plane of Air?

Isn't the whole book prefaced with "these are racial options"?

If by that you mean lazy and arbitrary tags, then yes I guess.

If something that can be acquired like a spell, feat, or an item is going to be race exclusive I expect that is because it only makes sense for that race, and that race only, like Paragon Surge for Half-elves.

edduardco wrote:

Cuup wrote:

I've had to deal with the problem this system is fixing several times - Level 2 Half-orc Skald rolls up to the fight, his player very pleased with his level up. The bad guy swings at the Half-orc, and the player goes "I cast WINDY ESCAPE! I get DR 10/magic vs. his attack and I'm immune to x, y, and z, too!"

Before I can say "That spell is supposed to be for Sylphs," The rest of the group is going "Whoa, cool spell, dude!" and the player is continuing to gush over his favorite new spell, which I wouldn't have allowed him to take, but he found it on the SRD and forgot to check the spell's source, so now I'm gonna feel like a dictator GM if I tell him to pick a different spell.

As a spell normally developed for a specific race, Windy Escape would have been labeled as Uncommon, which would have been a much easier indicator to the Player that he couldn't take it than scrolling down to the copyright footnote to see "Advanced Race Guide", and then needing to cross reference that book to see exactly which race normally gets it.

As a GM, I STRONGLY support this system!

To be fair, I think the problem here has more to do with putting arbitrary restrictions, I don't see any reason for a spell like Windy Escape as written should be Sylph exclusive, and most of the options in Advanced Race Guide suffer the same problem.

Because Sylphs have a hereditary connection to the Plane of Air (typically Djinni), and sylph spellcasters can build off of this connection to temporarily shift their body into air to avoid an attack? (Similar to a lesser version of the tactics Djinni use to turn themselves into a whirlwind when they wish to escape from a combat.) Something that a spellcaster who isn't a native outsider with a connection to the plane of air wouldn't be able to easily replicate - since the magic doesn't have the correct base to work off of?

There can be a number of reasons why options could be limited to a particular race, their customs, unique makeup,...

But Windy Escape doesn't match that criteria. It doesn't establish that you need to be a Sylph to cast it or benefit from it.

School transmutation [air]; Level bard 1, druid 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1

Casting Time 1 immediate action

Components V, S

Range personal

Target you

Duration instantaneous

You respond to an attack by briefly becoming vaporous and insubstantial, allowing the attack to pass harmlessly through you. You gain DR 10/magic against this attack and are immune to any poison, sneak attacks, or critical hit effect from that attack.

You cannot use windy escape against an attack of opportunity you provoked by casting a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using any other magical ability that provokes an attack of opportunity when used.

Now compare it to Paragon Surge

School transmutation (polymorph); Level alchemist 3, cleric 3, magus 4, paladin 4, sorcerer/wizard 3, witch 3

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S

Range personal (half-elf only)

Target you

Duration 1 minute/level

You surge with ancestral power, temporarily embodying all the strengths of both elvenkind and humankind simultaneously, and transforming into a paragon of both races, something greater than elf or human alone. Unlike with most polymorph effects, your basic form does not change, so you keep all extraordinary and supernatural abilities of your half-elven form as well as all of your gear.

For the duration of the spell, you receive a +2 enhancement bonus to Dexterity and Intelligence and are treated as if you possessed any one feat for which you meet the prerequisites, chosen when you cast this spell. The first time each day that you cast this spell, you must select a feat and make all the associated choices that come with it. Once that choice is made, it is set for the day and additional castings must make the exact same decisions.

If Windy Escape was intended to be Sylph exclusive is poorly written.

I've had to deal with the problem this system is fixing several times - Level 2 Half-orc Skald rolls up to the fight, his player very pleased with his level up. The bad guy swings at the Half-orc, and the player goes "I cast WINDY ESCAPE! I get DR 10/magic vs. his attack and I'm immune to x, y, and z, too!"

Before I can say "That spell is supposed to be for Sylphs," The rest of the group is going "Whoa, cool spell, dude!" and the player is continuing to gush over his favorite new spell, which I wouldn't have allowed him to take, but he found it on the SRD and forgot to check the spell's source, so now I'm gonna feel like a dictator GM if I tell him to pick a different spell.

As a spell normally developed for a specific race, Windy Escape would have been labeled as Uncommon, which would have been a much easier indicator to the Player that he couldn't take it than scrolling down to the copyright footnote to see "Advanced Race Guide", and then needing to cross reference that book to see exactly which race normally gets it.

As a GM, I STRONGLY support this system!

To be fair, I think the problem here has more to do with putting arbitrary restrictions, I don't see any reason for a spell like Windy Escape as written should be Sylph exclusive, and most of the options in Advanced Race Guide suffer the same problem.

MerlinCross wrote:

5) Bitterness. Okay yes this one is personal. I have said that one of the ways I curb CLW spam is limiting the ability to find them. I basically just moved them to Uncommon. This seems to be however a bad move on my part from some of the responses I saw over some of the topics. So everyone's cheering for something I did and got flak for. K.

This is actually (perhaps unintentionally) an interesting point. Not the bitterness, but the reference to the issue of CLW spamming.

From discussion in the Resonance blog post thread (as well as items and others), it was made clear that one of the reasons behind Resonance was as a stopgap to help ease the issue of CLW spam/healing and similar "abuses" of PF1.

However, with the introduction of this new Commonality/Rarity mechanic, wouldn't that serve just as well as Resonance, without adding yet another resource pool to keep track of? Simply rank certain types of items with different levels of rarity to prevent unlimited purchases.

Because Paizo loves to create entire new systems to limit 1st level spells, see:

Cure Light Wounds --> Resonance
Blood Money --> Rarity

*half joking*

I will be saving money. No point in getting a setting book if I am not going to run a game in the setting. Only need to get books that cover general settings and thus have usable stuff in them. I hope this does not cause too many problems with only general setting books being made since fewer people will be will to buy the non-general setting books knowing they will not be able to use what is in them without getting their DM ok.

PF2 is no going to be setting agnostic, all books are going to be written with Golarion in mind, or at least that is what I get from Golarion infused.

edduardco wrote:

As a side note, I think this further cements that Sorcerers in PF2 are not really spontaneous anylonger, they just don't prepare spells, and that's all. RIP spontaneous casters.

I mean, the reason I like sorcerers is "you don't have to prepare your spells, you're just ready to go". Not "you simultaneously have awareness of every spell, even ones developed on other planes or planets and have never been cast on Golarion."

It seems like *some* limitation on "what spells sorcerers can pick up on level up" being roughly "the spells the sorcerer in question is potentially aware of" is warranted. Like if some Bone Sage on Eox comes up with a spell for "doing certain things in an airless environment" or some Druid on Triaxus invents some way to make transitioning between seasons easier, people who have never left Avistan should not be waking up with unbidden knowledge of these spells.

The following is just my headcanon speaking. That Sorcerers could just know spells inherently was the reason behind the hard cap on spells known, but if they need to learn them the hard cap on spells known doesn't seems justificable.

MerlinCross wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

On rereading the blog, one thing stands out - the dilemma of a party emerging from some ruins with a spell which no one has seen in thousands of years. Just the question of "what do you do with it, to disseminate or hide the knowledge, to use it for the greatest good, or get the highest price from it is a great roleplaying opportunity and something that was literally impossible to do in PF1.

How's it impossible? I see nothing in the rule book that prevents it.

Because there's literally nothing which prevents a sorcerer from straight up "having Blood Money pop into your head" when they leveled up in PF1, short of GM fiat (which some people seem super-allergic to, I guess), but now there is?

As a side note, I think this further cements that Sorcerers in PF2 are not really spontaneous anylonger, they just don't prepare spells, and that's all. RIP spontaneous casters.

I've just realized that this is the GM version of the Goblin, it will encourage arbitrary GMs to be even worse.

edduardco wrote:

You are missing the point, it doesn't need to be custom spells, is about allowing research of spells alredy in the playtest, exactly the same as crafting for magic items already works.

And evidently you missed mine, since 90% of post you quoted was talking about existing spells. I'll try to say it more clearly. You don't just pull the spells out of no where when you learn them, or really come up with anything new. You just copy something someone else discovered. Which means you need a thing to copy, or it needs to be either well known or a simple enough secret to figure out independently. Rare spells are neither of these things.

That is just your headcanon speaking. Crafting, feats, skills, all other abilities don't follow that logic, they don't need to be copied. Also, it doesn't explain how spells came to be.

Again, I'd be shocked if an optional system like creating new spells made it into a playtest document designed around having controlled parameters.

And once you remove the idea of simply creating your own spells, you get into some really wacky meta considerations for how spells work and why "researching" them doesn't make a lot of sense. Spells in Pathfinder have always been unrealistically precise and uniform. Every 5th level caster's fireball does the same damage over the same dimensions at the same range, minus very modifications that tend to be agnostic of the spell in question anyway. Asking "why can't I research this rare spell effect?" is bad question when we haven't even answered "Why can't I make a fireball that concentrates twice the damage into half the areas?"

There's an analogy for magic in Pathfinder that magic is part of the source code of the universe, and that spell caster are it's hackers. But while this analogy may be accurate for Pathfinder as a world, it definitely isn't true for Pathfinder as a game. See, once you hack into something and start rooting around in the code, you have a lot of freedom with what you can do with it. Hack into the source code of Skyrim and you can turn all the trees in the world to hands, turn dragons into Thomas the Tank Engine, grant yourself immortality, or just about anything else if you put your mind to it long enough.

In Pathfinder, we have a more limited set of pre-defined ways we can alter the world. In effect, spells are old school style cheat codes left into the developer. You input the right button combination and a very specific thing happens. Clerics get these codes directly from their gods. Sorcerers and wizards learn to punch them in themselves, with sorcerers being able to do it more intuitively than wizards. And fighters and other non-casters just spent their time learning to play the game better instead of learning complicated cheat codes. ;)

When your wizard "researches a spell" in actual play he's not actually creating...

You are missing the point, it doesn't need to be custom spells, is about allowing research of spells alredy in the playtest, exactly the same as crafting for magic items already works.

dragonhunterq wrote:

Roswynn wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

If I have an idea then that can be treated as my character inspiration, but if I read it somewhere it can't? what about a spell I read about in another game? or an effect I see in a film? does my character have to justify that too?

Who's saying anything about character concepts? They're quite obviously not putting tags on those.

A spell you read about in another game? It has no tags at the moment, it doesn't exist. You'll have to talk about it with the GM, adapt it, and research it, same as always.

It really is mind-boggling how a lot of people are getting so hung-up with the basic concept that a katana can't be found at every single Wiscrani swordsmith's, or that Blood Money is just not a thing outside of Karzoug's personal spellbook, or that to take the Gray Maiden prestige archetype you must have been, big shocker, a friggin' Gray Maiden.

I think you misunderstand - I do not understand why a GM would treat a players request to research a spell differently based on where the player got the idea from - either you allow spell research or you don't and if you do you base the merits of the proposed spell on what it does, not on where the original idea for it came from.

I don't have a problem with a spell only existing in Karzougs spell book, but saying no-one else in the whole world can come up with a similar idea is, to me, ridiculous and metagamey.

I mean sure, say no because the spell is too powerful, or thematically inappropriate, or any of a dozen other legitimate reasons, but if you are allowing spell research I don't think you should just say no because it's already printed somewhere else.

Well, I'd need more info about how rarity and spell research interconnect. It might be that non-common spells are actually more difficult to research, as well as it might not. If they're not inherently more difficult though, why isn't every caster who is capable of researching spells actually using them? I...

Yes spell research should be more difficult according to rarity, but from what I understood from Mark research is just not allowed, and I think it should be a legit downtime activity along sides crafting or building a stronghold.

dragonhunterq wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

edduardco wrote:

If it is not possible to research rare spells, does that mean that research and development is no longer allowed?

How those rare and unique spells came to be? Were they spontaneously generated somewhere? Or does it mean R&D is something that only NPCs can do because reasons?

So if a player has an idea for a spell they want to create and they have the chops to pull this off, we can work together to come up with the rules for the spell (per rules for this when they exist).

If a spell already exists in a book somewhere, and it's marked as "rare" I would require the character to have some idea that the spell actually exists and what it does before they can research it. Spells which have been sealed in some Runelord's vault for several thousand years are spells that a character has no reason to be aware of before cracking said vault.

If a player read about a rare spell in a book and wants it for their character, they can let me know and I will try to work it in somewhere. It's not fundamentally different from when the fighter says "I'm looking for magic fauchards".

So if a player has an idea for a spell they can research it, but if it is already printed they need to justify why they can research it?

If I have an idea then that can be treated as my character inspiration, but if I read it somewhere it can't? what about a spell I read about in another game? or an effect I see in a film? does my character have to justify that too?

Yes. And for that matter, I may very well do this even if it's a unique spell if I feel it would unbalance the game in some way.

Unless you have a history of your character coming up with various interesting spells and then have your character constantly doing spell research, then if I find you created Blood Money for a spell you want to research, I'm going to suspect you got it from Paizo.

After all, what would you do if your GM just said "I don't approve of this spell and...

How is spell research any different than crafting magic items? In more games were crafting is even allowed, characters can only craft magic items published and very rarely custom magic items. But for some reason spells have this reversed, a character could create custom spells but not spells published? How does that make any sense?

If it is not possible to research rare spells, does that mean that research and development is no longer allowed?

How those rare and unique spells came to be? Were they spontaneously generated somewhere? Or does it mean R&D is something that only NPCs can do because reasons?

Charon Onozuka wrote:

edduardco wrote:

What about Research? There will be a Downtime option to Research Spells and Formulas similar to Crafting items? And if yes, would a PC able to Research Rare Spells and Formulas?

With the way rare is defined, I'd probably guess "no." Rare stuff seems to require explicit interaction with the GM, rather than being something you can do on your own as part of a general rule.

And to be fair, I personally kinda like that. After all, it lessens how special a rare spell is if any wizard can spend a week in the library and just happen to perfectly recreate the secret spell of an ancient runelord which has been lost for ages...

This is roughly accurate. Now, if you found a few rare scribbled notes that weren't the whole lost spell but enough to begin the process of research? That's a whole different animal!

This is exactly what I feared from this, I don't like systems that rely on GM fiat.