3-Body Problem |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As per recent discussions about the viability and relative merits of different spells, it feels like people aren't on the same page as I am when I talk about a spell being bad. So here I am to clarify my stance on spells, balance, and why I feel the way I feel.
Balance is a Zero Sum Game
First and foremost you must understand this concept. In a two-player game such as chess if either side has an advantage (and white does have a clear advantage) the other side is negatively impacted by the same degree. In Pathfinder, this doesn't apply as concretely but I feel it still applies.
I feel that the balance in Pathfinder's Second Edition is still zero-sum because every spell has an opportunity cost associated with it and thus competes with every other spell at that rank. This cost might be paid in terms of spells known for a spontaneous caster, in terms of a literal cost in gold for a Wizard to scribe a spell into their book, in terms of taking up a slot for a prepared caster, and in terms of its action cost to end effect ratio if/when it is finally cast. Given that these costs are the same for all spells all spells must equally reward casters who choose to use them. This is currently not the case.
Utility spells, like Knock, are especially bad now that they no longer automatically solve a problem when cast. Summons are bad because they are only effective in very narrow situations. Spells like Slow and Cone of Cold are far more predictably useful and thus often find themselves cast and prepared while other spells that aim to be equally useful in combat simply go uncast.
I find that this is undesirable and that Paizo should have been aware of the narrowness of certain spells and given them more power to compensate.
That said, what can be done to bring underused spells up to par and how can we identify such spells in the first place with the data at our disposal?
EDIT: Feel free to discuss feats, class features, and class chassis here as well.
3-Body Problem |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a specific thread to contain the topic that has spread to other threads and to help define what I mean when I say a spell is bad. I made it so that we can actually work on ideas for fixing spells that aren't used very often by bringing them up to the level of all-stars like Fireball, Slow, and Synesthesia. It's my attempt to stop derailing other threads and make a place where we can work at addressing concerns rather than arguing about them.
Please kindly take your negativity and vendettas against me elsewhere.
Totally Not Gorbacz |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that Remaster is at the printer and Paizo won't rebalance the entire spellcasting in the game anytime soon (likely not before the next edition, which now got pushed back even further due to PF2.1), this could have some merit in the Homebrew as "hey, I think the game balance should be this, and I want to rebalance spells in my game in line with that concept, any help?" but here I have no idea what the aim of the thread is.
3-Body Problem |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that Remaster is at the printer and Paizo won't rebalance the entire spellcasting in the game anytime soon (likely not before the next edition, which now got pushed back even further due to PF2.1), this could have some merit in the Homebrew as "hey, I think the game balance should be this, and I want to rebalance spells in my game in line with that concept, any help?" but here I have no idea what the aim of the thread is.
I'm not asking Paizo to balance anything - though I strongly feel that in the present day, quarterly (or even more frequent) balance updates and errata are reasonable expectations to have of a TTRPG publisher - what I want to do is make a space in PF2 General for open discussion of spell balance. It's not in Homebrew because Homebrew gets far less traffic and because I don't actually expect to generate a ton of usable spells from this thought experiment. Really I'm here for the discussion and back and forth on why a spell that looks too strong/weak actually isn't and to figure out a framework for what a good spell in PF2 should look like.
If the developers happen to wander by and offer feedback or borrow anything that's a plus.
R3st8 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see your point some spells are almost universally useful specially the ones that deal damage while others are situational and thus completely wasted if the situation they are never use for doesn't happens like feather fall or fold metal, so there is higher risk in picking situational spells where you are basically reducing your damage potential in exchange for them, this is why people tend to pick only damage spells and use spell substitution to get any utility spell when they are needed.
R3st8 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real step towards balancing spells would be to move further away from Vancian magic like I'm not someone who is super against Vancian magic but I personally think it doesn't suit a system like PF2e
Oh god you have no idea how many people have wanted to get rid of that dinosaur for years, if by some unlikely miracles the remaster removed Vancian I would cry tears of joy, make no mistake it was great in its time but its due time for a upgrade.
3-Body Problem |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would you guys put in lieu of the Vancian magic dinosaur? Really I'm not opposed to it, big advocate of "Unlimited magic all the time" and all, but I'm not sure how I would do it.
I like the game actions as skill checks style of TTRPG design myself. So a caster that approximates a 5th-level Wizard might have the following skills:
Evocation Magic: +13
Divination Magic: +11
Conjuration Magic: +9
Necromantic Magic: +9
A spell that deals elemental damage would be a straight Evocation Magic check. You would increase the DC to add more range, damage, AoE, etc. with each way you use magic having different baselines. If you want to blend schools the check automatically gets more difficult - +2 per school added - and you cast it using the school that contributes the most to the DC. So if you wanted to make a Fireball that goes off when specific conditions are met that would be cast using Evocation but with +2 to its DC because setting conditions is a Divination effect.
Failing by 5 or less means the spell goes off but you need to make a fatigue check. Failing by 6 - 10 means the spell is cast but weaker and you automatically take fatigue. Failing by 11+ means the spell fails and you take fatigue. Fatigue is a flat +2 to spell DCs and can stack any number of times. It goes away at [insert playtested rate here] with rest and can be temporarily reduced/removed by certain other effects.
I'd also include plenty of Iconic spells like a basic Fireball to show new players how to build spells as well as prebuilt characters and their iconic spells at stages that correspond to levels 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 to signpost how spellcasters grow.
Martials would also interact with the same fatigue system but their skills would be weapon arts, combat maneuvers, movement options, etc.
EDIT: I'd also probably ditch the d20 for either 3d6 or D% in which case the values for skills and skill failures would change to match.
glass |
What would you guys put in lieu of the Vancian magic dinosaur? Really I'm not opposed to it, big advocate of "Unlimited magic all the time" and all, but I'm not sure how I would do it.
The simplest ways would be to make all the currently vancian classes work like they had a mandatory Flexible Spellcasting arcehtype (ie the 5e model) or convert every class to Repertoire/Spontaneous.
The former would not be my preference (I actually like vancian magic), but I could live with it. The latter would be a deal breaker for me.
3-Body Problem |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reza la Canaille wrote:What would you guys put in lieu of the Vancian magic dinosaur? Really I'm not opposed to it, big advocate of "Unlimited magic all the time" and all, but I'm not sure how I would do it.The simplest ways would be to make all the currently vancian classes work like they had a mandatory Flexible Spellcasting arcehtype (ie the 5e model) or convert every class to Repertoire/Spontaneous.
The former would not be my preference (I actually like vancian magic), but I could live with it. The latter would be a deal breaker for me.
That doesn't fix Vancian though. It solves some of the issues but doesn't fix caster vs. martial endurance or the fact that it forces developers to spend hours and page space to write out new bespoke spells, half of which are niche enough that most tables will never cast them. You should aim for a fix that solves all three problems at once.
3-Body Problem |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean I think unique and weird spells are fun (I do think the spells should be whittled down a bit) which is something I like about Pathfinder/DnD.
You can still do those in a skill system. You just write them like you would a Vancian spell but add the casting skill, base DC, and modifiers to the spell's stat block. So if you want to have something like:
Pieces-Kai's Shattering Skies:
Evocation DC: 17
Area: 30 ft. burst
Range: 60 ft.
Damage: 4d6 Cold and 4d6 Sonic
Special: This spell causes all flying creatures within its emanation to make a check equal to the casting roll of this spell or become grounded until the end of their next turn.
With a sudden crash of thunder and a bone-chilling wave of cold this evocation knocks flying foes caught within its burst out of the sky in dramatic fashion.
The range, area, and damage of this spells scale as standard for an Evocation spell.
Easy as that.
Deriven Firelion |
9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe you're use of "zero sum" game is accurate at all.
Zero sum game implies someone loses and that isn't what happens using a spell at all.
The game is not balanced at all around a zero sum game. Plenty of other players have fun doing their their schtick while other classes do theirs. I don't see a zero sum balance at all. Not even sure why you're trying this nonsensical, easily disprovable argument.
It's hyperbole with no basis in fact.
Temperans |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going to agree with Deriven the game as a whole is not a zero sum game as players cooperating will all win. You could argue its closer to a positive sum game as the condition for failure is for someone to sabotage the others (Ex: The GM making an encounter too difficult). It is miss applying the concept to use it on spells as they are not players and thus cannot win/lose.
But yes R3st8, 3-body problem seems to actually be talking about trap options and measuring comparative and absolute advantages. While those concepts are useful for overall power (level 10 spell > level 1 spell) they are entirely subjective outside of specific metrics (can measure damage but not utility). Also, you cannot fix things as easily as he wants outside of video games, specially given that errata should preferably be reserved for actual errors not "random" balance patches.
pauljathome |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're going to discuss balance then you have to keep in mind that balance is different for every player and every table.
PF2 gives a huge variety of spells and other options, at least partly to cover a wide range of tastes and campaigns.
It is very common in any discussion of balance to see opinions all the way from "very overpowered" to "essentially useless".
When we're talking specifically about spells some are intended to be useful in only very particular circumstances. That is a design goal and a good thing. One of the benefits of a prepared caster is their ability to fairly easily and cheaply handle a specific issue.
In other words I think the purported purpose of this thread is inherently flawed.
The Gleeful Grognard |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Utility spells, like Knock, are especially bad now that they no longer automatically solve a problem when cast. Summons are bad because they are only effective in very narrow situations.
I actually feel like paizo have struck a decent balance with spells like this. Knock especially knocked it out of the park (badump tiss) for me, it never invalidates people who are trained in the skill, doesn't auto invalidate lock but still gives extra benefits against it with the counteract.
For a level 2 spell knock is pretty much always worth having around imo, especially on a scroll.Sure it isn't a guaranteed success, but a +4 bonus is pretty great, especially if someone is a thievery focused character (and it is on multiple checks)
WWHsmackdown |
I see your point some spells are almost universally useful specially the ones that deal damage while others are situational and thus completely wasted if the situation they are never use for doesn't happens like feather fall or fold metal, so there is higher risk in picking situational spells where you are basically reducing your damage potential in exchange for them, this is why people tend to pick only damage spells and use spell substitution to get any utility spell when they are needed.
Feather fall is my favorite spell! I view feather fall as a mandatory slot holder if I have access to it; slips, trips, and falls are no joke. Always wear or prepare your PPE while adventuring, and just like PPE the one time out of 100 that you use those spells you'll be thankful that you had them
The Raven Black |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see your point some spells are almost universally useful specially the ones that deal damage while others are situational and thus completely wasted if the situation they are never use for doesn't happens like feather fall or fold metal, so there is higher risk in picking situational spells where you are basically reducing your damage potential in exchange for them, this is why people tend to pick only damage spells and use spell substitution to get any utility spell when they are needed.
I think many people use scrolls for utility spells.
Keirine, Human Rogue |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reza la Canaille wrote:What would you guys put in lieu of the Vancian magic dinosaur? Really I'm not opposed to it, big advocate of "Unlimited magic all the time" and all, but I'm not sure how I would do it.I like the game actions as skill checks style of TTRPG design myself. So a caster that approximates a 5th-level Wizard might have the following skills:
Evocation Magic: +13
Divination Magic: +11
Conjuration Magic: +9
Necromantic Magic: +9A spell that deals elemental damage would be a straight Evocation Magic check. You would increase the DC to add more range, damage, AoE, etc. with each way you use magic having different baselines. If you want to blend schools the check automatically gets more difficult - +2 per school added - and you cast it using the school that contributes the most to the DC. So if you wanted to make a Fireball that goes off when specific conditions are met that would be cast using Evocation but with +2 to its DC because setting conditions is a Divination effect.
Failing by 5 or less means the spell goes off but you need to make a fatigue check. Failing by 6 - 10 means the spell is cast but weaker and you automatically take fatigue. Failing by 11+ means the spell fails and you take fatigue. Fatigue is a flat +2 to spell DCs and can stack any number of times. It goes away at [insert playtested rate here] with rest and can be temporarily reduced/removed by certain other effects.
I'd also include plenty of Iconic spells like a basic Fireball to show new players how to build spells as well as prebuilt characters and their iconic spells at stages that correspond to levels 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 to signpost how spellcasters grow.
Martials would also interact with the same fatigue system but their skills would be weapon arts, combat maneuvers, movement options, etc.
EDIT: I'd also probably ditch the d20 for either 3d6 or D% in which case the values for skills and skill failures would change to match.
Your system completely invalidates Martials. ***ESPECIALLY*** if you have them interact with your fatigue system.
Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I am extrapolating incorrectly, but if you had:
Blast Magic +19
Sneak Magic: +14
Divination: +9
Summoning: +9
etc
would the system also be:
Sword: +19
Axe: +14
Unarmed: +9
Bows: +9
and attacks work the same way as your spells?
Because if so, we have a problem. Either weapon attacks are going to be based on weapon damage and there won't be the ability to increase the damage by increasing the DC while still risking the fatigue, making them strictly and inherently worse than spells. OR, we have a situation where you can just increase the DC a bit to alter weapon attacks the same way as spells in which case there's no difference between a spell caster and a martial. Classes cease to be Wizard, Fighter, Monk, and become Attacker, Utility, Healer.
Even if the skills are rolled into one for martiaals, just a basic 'Martial Attack' skill, there's no reason to ever be a martial if you have unlimited access to at least 4d6 damage of whatever type you wanted.
The way the system works currently, in great abstractness, the martials chug along at a 7 effectiveness. All day, every day, in and out, they are doing reliable damage. They are 7 out of 10.
Meanwhile, spellcasters are currently usually at a 6 out of 10, with brief moments of being 11 out of 10 in the correct situations a limited number of times per day. Just enough that it averages out to a 7 out of 10.
Pathfinder is an INCREDIBLY complex system to balance, and I agree that there are spells that aren't 'good enough' (for want of a better term) to have permanent spaces on an adventurer's daily spell list. But that's also why scrolls exist. There are some spells that are just better as scrolls, but those spells have to exist as spells in order to exist as scrolls.
I can't think of a closer, so in the immortal words of Laura Bailey:
Do doo doooo do do dooo do!
Unicore |
11 people marked this as a favorite. |
When players are making up rules that they think will make the game better, that is homebrew. All homebrew rules have reasons for making those changes. Discussing that with solutions is homebrew.
Thinking that moving such discussions invalidates them is a problematic viewpoint. It speaks badly of your thoughts of developers and the work they do, and it speaks badly of your thoughts towards the work other players have done to make the game work best for them.
It is saying “my idea is too important to be anything less than the rules of the game for everyone!” People react strongly when others make that claim, especially about rules they don’t like.
If your ideas work, make a 3rd party splat. If you can’t make the rules work on your own, why would the devs want to spend their time trying to make them work for you?
Mathmuse |
I don't believe you're use of "zero sum" game is accurate at all.
Zero sum game implies someone loses and that isn't what happens using a spell at all.
The game is not balanced at all around a zero sum game. Plenty of other players have fun doing their their schtick while other classes do theirs. I don't see a zero sum balance at all. Not even sure why you're trying this nonsensical, easily disprovable argument.
It's hyperbole with no basis in fact.
I think that 3-Body Problem simply chose the wrong metaphor. The concept they are trying to express is that each spell competes with similar spells for space in a caster's spell repertoire or daily prepared spells. A better metaphor would have been Ecological Niche.
The targeted blaster cantrips provide a clear-cut example: Acid Splash versus Chill Touch versus Divine Lance versus Electric Arc versus Needle Darts versus Phase Bolt versus Produce Flame versus Ray of Frost versus Rousing Splash versus Slashing Gust versus Telekinetic Projectile versus Torturous Trauma. They fill the same niche, a damage-dealing repeatable spell. Their main difference is the type of damage they deal, but they have other differences such as amount of damage or range or additional targets or persistent effects on the target. Rage of Elements released last month added a few more to a crowded list, so the problem of choosing between them has recently grown harder.
Yet Electric Arc stands out because it deals damage to two targets and its total damage is the most damage of the cantrips (unless a new one has claimed that title). Divine Lance stands out for being overly specialized, since it has no effect on enemies of the wrong alignment.
The trading card game Magic: The Gathering thrives on small differences between spells. Unsummon is a staple card in blue magic (at least, it was back when I played Magic: The Gathering). It returns a creature card back to its owner's hand at a particularly opportune time that favors the caster of Unsummon. Its biggest weakness is that if used on an opponent's creature card, the opponent does not lose the creature card but the caster spends the Unsummon card, so it causes card disadvantage. Thus, Wizards of the Coast later introduced Repulse which does the same thing as Unsummon, but costs an extra two mana and also says, "Draw a card," to remove the card disadvantage. But the extra mana cost means that the caster might not have the mana to cast it when unsummoning is most needed. The slight differences are a trade-off. I used to carefully analyze my Magic decks to decide which form of unsummon would best fit my strategy.
Magic: The Gathering is all about carefully measuring trade-offs when selecting spells. Pathfinder 2nd Edition is not about these trade-offs; instead, it is a roleplaying game where each spell adds flavor to the spellcaster who chose them.
3-Body Problem wants Paizo to carefully balance the trade-offs. This would remove some of the stress from spell selection when all spells of the same level were equally good. Unfortunately, the precise measurement of good depends on the player's strategy for their spellcasting character. They won't be equally good in different contexts.
My recent campaign had two primal casters. Stormdancer was a stormborn druid who focussed on destroying enemy armies with area-of-effect and multitargeted damage. That campaign had a lot of armies, so though mass damge is a niche specialty, Stormdancer got a lot of use out of those spells. Honey was a primal sorcerer who joined the campaign at 6th level. The player saw that Stormdancer had the damage-dealing spells covered, so she built Honey for support. She would begin most combats by casting Haste on a martial PC; at 13th level she switched to the 7th-level Haste on six characters. She also liked Dragon Form for its versatility, especially its mobility through high-speed flight to be able to join a teammate who needed a combat partner or to serve as a flying mount.
The difference between two similar spells did not matter to those two characters. They had a style and would simply pick one that fit their style. Stormdancer chose one cantrip of each of her favorite energy types, because she liked to test her opponent for energy weakness before casting her big spells on them. Honey chose Ray of Frost as her only damage cantrip, because sometimes a battle needed no assistance from support spells, so she would stand at a distance and take potshots with the cantrip with the longest range. The party also included Sam, a scoundrel-racket rogue who took an arcane sorcerer archetype. Sam's magic was almost entirely cantrips and focus spells. Sam selected Produce Flame and Telekinetic Projectile as the cantrips that would best combine with the Magical Trickster rogue feat.
And Pathfinder answers the question about learning very-niche spells by providing those spells on scrolls and wands as an alternative. Sam once looted a wand of Jump. He made use of it, using Jump instead of climbing, but he would have never learned that spell in his very limited spell repertoire.
Jonathan Morgantini Community and Social Media Specialist |
Jonathan Morgantini Community and Social Media Specialist |