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.

The playtest nerfed spellcasting by three elements;

A) Lower number of slots per day
B) No automatic scaling
C) Individual effects weakened

...which critically shrunk its old cubic power.
If they decide to give back one or two of those elements back, what is your order of preference?

B and C. If PF2 will keep +lvl to everything (which most certainly will be) spells should Auto Scale in order to keep the pace. As for the weakened effects, other posters have already elaborated on this topic better than I could do.

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.

Am I the only one here loving Mythic ?...

I think Mythic is fantastic for a solo PC

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

Zecrin wrote:

I do wish that instead of supporting severe casters nerfs, we could see significant buffs to martial classes. I think that maneuvers like those seen in path of war and tomb of battle offer melee characters significantly more battlefield options than the baseline PF1 or 3.5 combat feat systems.

I also feel as if, in high fantasy settings, fighter shouldn't have to equal mundane. If for example, a fighter wants to teleport 60 ft. into the air to slam a flying enemy into the ground with a hammer the size of a grand piano, more power to them.

Even if you don't like the idea of a super magical fighter, you can refluff many existing spells as fighter abilities. For example, fireball becomes hail of dragonfire arrows. Haste becomes rally allies. Time stop becomes battlefield acceleration.

I'm not saying we should give martials all a casters toys, just something to bring them past: 5ft. step, full attack over and over again.

I understand that their are people out their who enjoy playing mundane characters. But its unreasonable to expect other characters to be balanced (mechanically) around such an obvious limitation in a fantasy setting.

Finally, Casters are not perfect in either 3.5 or PF1. However, I find their main issue to be certain specific spells that consistently cause problems at a table when in the hands of power-gamers. Power gamers will always find a way to break the game, especially when it is a game that offers lots of player choice (I still remember a player with a tier 0 paladin build that made my 3.5 game especially unpleasant). In the end, its just up to the DM to tell a player no.

It's always heartwarming to see someone of a very similar mind to me in the vast, dark depths of the Internet...

Indeed, maybe there is still hope for casters

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

Xenocrat wrote:

Blave wrote:

Not sure why some of you seem to think concentration on a spell is easily broken. It's no longer "take damage on an enemies turn and lose the spell".

Concentration takes a single action on your turn each round. Only being damaged on this action will make you lose concentration. The action has only the concentrate trait, so it doesn't even trigger attacks of opportunity.

Not counting exotic reactions some monsters might have (haven't read the bestiary yet), the only reliable way to hit a caster when he does his concentration action is to ready an action with that trigger.

There four monsters in the bestiary who have Disruptive on their AoO, which allows them to trigger on a Concentrate action. Levels 13, 20, 20, and 22, though.

It can't be RAI for disrupting spells to be this difficult for enemies, even if it is RAW (at least for now).

Are you kidding? Spell disruption is ridiculous easy, it only takes damage equals to caster level, and anyone can use the Ready Action to Ready a Strike when the caster cast a spell.

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.

Animate Dead and Astral Projection were removed :(

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.

edduardco wrote:

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

Because they fit the design space that Paizo wants class feats to fill, not general feats. They aren't all that class specific, either. Multiple metamagic feats are shared across several classes.

You know what I could have been more clear there, what I mean is that metamagic feats should not be class gated, but you are right that class feats is the way to access to metamagic feats, so I guess PF2 needs a section for feats that can be taken by multiple classes in order to avoid repetition.

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 don't think it's accurate to suggest that because we don't have time for a months-long playtest of the final draft that there won't be substantive changes to the rules based on player feedback.

What sort of "sweeping changes" are you personally looking for that you doubt there will be time to implement?

I wrote this post, hope any of you guys can give it a read.

Wow thanks a lot, much appreciated

Thanks a lot, much appreciated.

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.

I know, 10th level spell are one of the most disappointing features/bugs of PF2

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.

edduardco wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Can I help influence them to not nerf everything from the last version of the game?

Exactly this, if magic remains in the final version as it is in the playtest I will never play PF2, so it will be good to know if the nerfs can be reversed or the playtest is a waste of my time.

I cannot tell you with certainity, but my gut hunch is that, if those are the only two possible options, the playtest will be waste of your time. Because while I can see some spells being changed, it seems like leaving Simulacrum style spells aside is a design goal, not an oversight.

I don't think PF2 intends to have PF1 style of magic, regardless of what individual playtesters think. Unless it's a massive thing that virtually all players will vote against (and here's a hint, that's not going to be the case if we see how often the martial-caster disparity debates flare up), that's not going to substantially change.

Now, THIS or THAT spell getting a buff, or a further nerf, that's possible based on feedback. The whole spell system going back to PF1 levels, I doubt it.

Yeah I'm having the same hunch, my problem is not so much with individual spells but the systems around magic like casting or magic items.

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.

My first knee-jerk reaction reading the playtest documented was Spell Disruption, is ridiculously easy to disrupt spells, bring Concentration back, make it a Spell Roll.

Can I help influence them to not nerf everything from the last version of the game?

Exactly this, if magic remains in the final version as it is in the playtest I will never play PF2, so it will be good to know if the nerfs can be reversed or the playtest is a waste of my time.

JDLPF wrote:

I'm still disappointed they not only moved Teleport from 5th to 6th level, but also made it Uncommon.

Because, y'know, not many people would want to know how to travel a hundred miles in an instant.

It’s not because people don’t want or know how to do that. It’s backed it can be very disruptive the GM’s campaign. Lord of the Rings wouldn’t be as fun if they had teleport.

That is because LotR is level 4th, so is several levels behind Teleport

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 have never been a fan of multiclassing but this looks goods enough. Making classes also be archetypes that can be taken by any other class is a good compromise that will not cut features like spellcasting, certainly is an improvement over VMC from Unchained. BTW this approach reminds me of prestige classes for Bard, Ranger, and Paladin in Unearthed Arcana.

edduardco wrote:

Wow Tuesday blog, that catched me unguarded.

Before I read the comments, I really want to congratulates Paizo for making half-bloods part of the Human ancestry. For a long time I've thought that half-bloods should be a template, the approach presented here covers that design space good enough. There is still hope for PF2 :)

If only it wasn't tied to Human... ;-) Me want's some Dworcs or Half-halflings.

Mmmm I don't know, I've never believed that all humanoids could interbreed between them, quite the opposite actually, for me racial interbreeding is a Human only characteristic, that is why one of the halves of half-bloods is always Human.

Wow Tuesday blog, that catched me unguarded.

Before I read the comments, I really want to congratulates Paizo for making half-bloods part of the Human ancestry. For a long time I've thought that half-bloods should be a template, the approach presented here covers that design space good enough. There is still hope for PF2 :)

My thoughts:

• Social encounter interesting, I don't remeber those mentioned before.
  
• Maybe I didn't understand something but Verdant Metamporphosis looks kinda lame for 18th level feat.
  
• Contro Weather now is 9th level, more nerfs >:v
  
• "POWER 1/SPAN>" on Tempest Surge looks super weird
  
• I don't like the association between Str and Wild Shape
  
• OK I have said this enough times but it still bothers me a lot: "new spell levels at every odd level save 19th" booo
  
• Looks like cooldowns are really going to be thing in PF2 eh? Looking at Frequency
  
• 8 HP seems like too few for a bear, even a small one

edduardco wrote:

houser2112 wrote:

Gyor wrote:

I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like this system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.

Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".

To be fair, neo-vancian was kinda off introduced in 3.5, Spell Points variant in Unearthed Arcana uses neo-vancian casting along side spell points.

Paizo (I think it may have been Jason who authored the post) has explicitly said that they don't like 3.5's point-based psionics, so I doubt they have too high an opinion of UA's point-based magic casting rules. In any case, that wasn't what I meant by neovancian.

I know what you mean by neo-vancian, is how 5e Wizards and PF1 Arcanist prepare spells and Sorcerer with free heightening, with Spell Point variant Wizard prepares spells that way and Sorcerers have free heightening.

EDIT: BTW I remember that post too, so no much wonder why PF2 is turning out to be like this.

There are rules for building encounters, and we highly recommend it for groups who are interested in trying out some homebrewed adventures.

But there's a huge difference in how usable the data is from a game where the GM built encounters using the monsters we built for the playtest and a game where the GM built the monsters. We are not only stress-testing the PCs, we also need to stress-test the monsters themselves for the first Bestiary, and custom monsters that wind up with an unusual power level not only dilute the monster feedback on the Bestiary monsters, they can potentially ramify into the feedback about the PCs as well, since what the PCs can do is in many respects colored by the foes they face.

What about doing the playtest in two parts? One from custom PCs with pre-generated monsters and encounter like the one we are already going to have, and a second one with pre-generated characters were GM use custom monsters and other options that checks creation rules for monsters, NPC, etc. Would that have been helpful?

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.

Gyor wrote:

I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like this system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.

Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".

To be fair, neo-vancian was kinda off introduced in 3.5, Spell Points variant in Unearthed Arcana uses neo-vancian casting along side spell points.

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:

Rysky wrote:

edduardco wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

It might be more narrative to say that instead of it takes 10 minutes to recharge the shield spell when broken say it takes a three action casting to form a new shield. It would amount to about the same thing in use but for some reason it sits better with me. Thoughts?

EDIT: Maybe its a three action spell that lasts all day or until dispelled which creates an arcane shield that you can raise as an action.... That way it kind of matches mage armor which I think is a 24 hour duration spell.

I don't know, you are still adding a recharge time to cantrips that wasn't there before, I just don't like the idea of cantrips requiring time to recharge.

It's still shorter than the old recharge time of 8 hours for the 1st Edition shield spell, since it was a 1st level spell, not a cantrip.

You could still cast it again, but that is besides the point, now is a cantrip, I thought the idea of cantrips was that could be spammed every round.

Daze in PF1 could only be used once per minute against a target: a conditional cooldown. Shield can be spammed every round, until you use the emergency red button: a conditional cooldown.

Now that you mention it, those conditional cooldowns as you call them have never make much sense to me to begin with, I will like to see them removed too.

edduardco wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

It might be more narrative to say that instead of it takes 10 minutes to recharge the shield spell when broken say it takes a three action casting to form a new shield. It would amount to about the same thing in use but for some reason it sits better with me. Thoughts?

EDIT: Maybe its a three action spell that lasts all day or until dispelled which creates an arcane shield that you can raise as an action.... That way it kind of matches mage armor which I think is a 24 hour duration spell.

I don't know, you are still adding a recharge time to cantrips that wasn't there before, I just don't like the idea of cantrips requiring time to recharge.

It's still shorter than the old recharge time of 8 hours for the 1st Edition shield spell, since it was a 1st level spell, not a cantrip.

You could still cast it again, but that is besides the point, now is a cantrip, I thought the idea of cantrips was that could be spammed every round.

See, this is pretty much the same as a spell being listed as lasting a minute or two. It's a spell that is designed to last the length of the encounter and not be available for the next encounter.

It's not the same, not even close. A spell with a duration provides the benefit for the whole duration, and when runs out you can cast it again.

This is the same thing. You cast shield during combat and you have a single-dent shield available during that combat. It is balanced around the fact does a single block. The difference is they just don't want it recast again during the fight.

That makes a huge difference.