Undercasting should be used by all or none


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Undercasting in Occult Adventures seems really out of balance with non-psychic casters. For example, Wizards/Sorcerers still have have to know multiple versions of the Summon Monster and Beast Shape series.

If they wanted to give this to the psychic casters, it should apply to all arcane and divine casters too to be balanaced.

Am I missing something?


Things you are missing:

The iterative spells in Occult Adventures are mostly weaksauce.
Wizards don't need a power boost.
Pathfinder tends to keep sacred cows and not retroactively apply better rules in order to keep compatibility at a maximum.
If that was to be applied retroactively, it would make many people see Occult Adventures as a required book and complaints would be had.


Also, spells that can be undercast are all exclusive to the Psychic spell list


Haven't read Occult Adventures yet, would this be similar to the ability progression of a class like the Shadowcaster in 3.5e ToM?

They'd never do it because it would take up too much book space, but a skill-tree similar progression of spells, and limited spells known for all classes (give clerics and wizards more known than spontaneous casters of course, since that's a staple of the class), would be friggin awesome. increasing specialization and limiting knowledge of spells does help with the power tier disparity, and helps make spellcasters feel more unique, even within the class. When one Conjurer wizard knows Orb of Force, and the 3 others cannot ever learn it because their abilities developed in a different direction is one of the best things that could be done. Martials have to deal with feat chains, spellcasters should have spell chains.

Spoiler:
I limit spells known to even classes like Clerics in games I run, with what spells you can know heavily limited on what the character concept, deity, race, etc. It's something that's hard to write rules for and takes an hour or so of actually talking to the player when they're leveling up, but it is a role playing game after all, and such things have worked wonders in my games


oldsaxhleel wrote:

Haven't read Occult Adventures yet, would this be similar to the ability progression of a class like the Shadowcaster in 3.5e ToM?

They'd never do it because it would take up too much book space, but a skill-tree similar progression of spells, and limited spells known for all classes (give clerics and wizards more known than spontaneous casters of course, since that's a staple of the class), would be friggin awesome. increasing specialization and limiting knowledge of spells does help with the power tier disparity, and helps make spellcasters feel more unique, even within the class. When one Conjurer wizard knows Orb of Force, and the 3 others cannot ever learn it because their abilities developed in a different direction is one of the best things that could be done. Martials have to deal with feat chains, spellcasters should have spell chains.

** spoiler omitted **

No. As I understand it, essentially if have one of them on your Spells Known, you also get all the versions lower than that one on your Spells Known for free.


Well, maybe not prepared casters, not like it really hurts them anyways, but I think it should for spontaneous ones. I don't get why it works for one and not the other.


DracoLord wrote:
Well, maybe not prepared casters, not like it really hurts them anyways, but I think it should for spontaneous ones. I don't get why it works for one and not the other.

It applies to specific spells, not all spells.


Undercasting (and overcasting) makes a lot more sense than Vancian magic. However, Paizo tries to keep compatibility and balance instead of making sense. It would make sense to make undercasting a thing. It would make sense to have everybody cast like an arcanist. If you want a magic system that makes (probably more) sense, look at 5e. However, if wizards cast like arcanists and could undercast spells, wizards would be even more powerful than they are right now.

Undercasting would be a great houserule for spontaneous casters.


darth_borehd wrote:

Undercasting in Occult Adventures seems really out of balance with non-psychic casters. For example, Wizards/Sorcerers still have have to know multiple versions of the Summon Monster and Beast Shape series.

If they wanted to give this to the psychic casters, it should apply to all arcane and divine casters too to be balanaced.

Am I missing something?

You obviously have not actually read the spells to which undercasting applies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Undercasting is a backwards way of duplicating the power point and augmentation system of the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:

Undercasting in Occult Adventures seems really out of balance with non-psychic casters. For example, Wizards/Sorcerers still have have to know multiple versions of the Summon Monster and Beast Shape series.

If they wanted to give this to the psychic casters, it should apply to all arcane and divine casters too to be balanaced.

Am I missing something?

Wizards and sorcerers just can't have nice things.


Knitifine wrote:
DracoLord wrote:
Well, maybe not prepared casters, not like it really hurts them anyways, but I think it should for spontaneous ones. I don't get why it works for one and not the other.
It applies to specific spells, not all spells.
Serisan wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:

Undercasting in Occult Adventures seems really out of balance with non-psychic casters. For example, Wizards/Sorcerers still have have to know multiple versions of the Summon Monster and Beast Shape series.

If they wanted to give this to the psychic casters, it should apply to all arcane and divine casters too to be balanaced.

Am I missing something?

You obviously have not actually read the spells to which undercasting applies.

It applies to all spells with a Number (sort of) in the name. Like Beast Shape I, II, III. Summoner Monster I, II, III, etc. What is so bad about that? And if you only apply to spontaneous casters, it doesn't do much in the way of damage. The casters are pretty OP already, this gives them a few extra spell slots.


DracoLord wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
DracoLord wrote:
Well, maybe not prepared casters, not like it really hurts them anyways, but I think it should for spontaneous ones. I don't get why it works for one and not the other.
It applies to specific spells, not all spells.
Serisan wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:

Undercasting in Occult Adventures seems really out of balance with non-psychic casters. For example, Wizards/Sorcerers still have have to know multiple versions of the Summon Monster and Beast Shape series.

If they wanted to give this to the psychic casters, it should apply to all arcane and divine casters too to be balanaced.

Am I missing something?

You obviously have not actually read the spells to which undercasting applies.
It applies to all spells with a Number (sort of) in the name. Like Beast Shape I, II, III. Summoner Monster I, II, III, etc. What is so bad about that? And if you only apply to spontaneous casters, it doesn't do much in the way of damage. The casters are pretty OP already, this gives them a few extra spell slots.

Nope! It only applies to spells that say "This spell can be undercast." The numbered spells that lack this text cannot be undercast. The only spells with that text are psychic caster exclusive (Ego Whip, Id Insinuation, etc.). If Summon Monster, Beast Shape, etc. were intended to be undercast, they would have been reprinted.


Serisan wrote:
Nope! It only applies to spells that say "This spell can be undercast." The numbered spells that lack this text cannot be undercast. The only spells with that text are psychic caster exclusive (Ego Whip, Id Insinuation, etc.). If Summon Monster, Beast Shape, etc. were intended to be undercast, they would have been reprinted.

Okay, but as far as I can tell, my example works, in that I can't find a spell that can be undercast that does not have a number, or a spell with a number that can't be undercast (in the book) it was only a five minute search, so I could be wrong. Anyways houserule, since that is what this thread is about, that any spell with a II, III etc in the name can be undercast.

Sovereign Court

A fast homebrew fix or option if Paizo wanted to add it later would be to make a feat or feats that allowed other lists of spells to be undercast. You could have one for SM I-IX and others for Beast Shape or Cure spells. The feats would list the specific spells and how the undercasting would work. I also imagine with a line in special allowing spontaneous casters to sawp a known spell covered by it for free when learning a higher level one that is also on the list.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Undercasting is really just another variation on a theme which has existed all along. Clerics always had the 'spontaneous casting' ability for any cure/inflict spells... Summoners automatically get each level of 'Summon Monster'... each of the 'Summon Monster' spells themselves can effectively be 'undercast' to call lower CR monsters... et cetera.

Indeed, many single spells (e.g. Greater Magic Weapon) increase in power significantly as the caster level increases... effectively making them comparatively underpowered for their assigned spell level at low caster levels and overpowered for that spell level at high caster levels. Undercasting could similarly be viewed as a single spell with different effects at different levels... but with the added bonus that the spell slot expended always corresponds to the power of the effect.

Had undercasting been introduced first I wouldn't be surprised to have seen it applied to some of these other scenarios, but doing so retroactively could seriously mess with game balance if not handled carefully. Maybe in a future Pathfinder 2.0.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Undercasting is really just another variation on a theme which has existed all along. Clerics always had the 'spontaneous casting' ability for any cure/inflict spells... Summoners automatically get each level of 'Summon Monster'... each of the 'Summon Monster' spells themselves can effectively be 'undercast' to call lower CR monsters... et cetera.

I didn't think of it that way. You have a good point.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Undercasting should be used by all or none All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.