So as of now, there are only spontaneous casters, no prepared ones. What do you guys think of that?
Personally, I'm 50/50 on the subject. I think it definitely feels more genre-accurate as I can't think of any established popular scifi characters with that style of magic, with spontaneous casting being far more in line-you have abilities you can use, but only until you exhaust your abilities.
On the other hand though, I feel having them eventually is something that will happen. This is the world of pathfinder, even though the game is different. Someone out there will try to use magic the way wizards of old did. Sure it may not be perfect, but it's likely to happen. Personally, I'm surprised the Technomancer isn't one, as having a datafile of spells to chose from fits as an evolution of pathfinder. Plus it's odd that they left out out of the Core rulebook. What about you guys?
(Also, lets get the themes thread back on track)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the trend is moving away from "prepared" casters overall - the Arcanist was essentially an experiment to see what Wizards would look like as "spontaneous" casters, I believe, and even 5e D&D made everyone a sort of spontaneous caster and it worked pretty well. While i don't have access to the rules, might the Mystic and Technomancer work similarly to Arcanists, and make prep casters unneeded?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was never a huge fan of prepared casters so I'm down for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
WAY easier to balance than things like spell points or just rolling to cast.
Prepared casters are easy to balance? That hasn't been my experience in Pathfinder, or any version of D&D...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say good riddance to a non-sensical holdover from the 1970s.No more nonsensical than any other magic mechanics system, and from a gameplay point of view, WAY easier to balance than things like spell points or just rolling to cast.
Prepared casters are the most imbalanced spellcasting subsystem ever published for 3.x.
Point-based systems tend to have far fewer balance issues.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say good riddance to a non-sensical holdover from the 1970s.No more nonsensical than any other magic mechanics system, and from a gameplay point of view, WAY easier to balance than things like spell points or just rolling to cast.Prepared casters are the most imbalanced spellcasting subsystem ever published for 3.x.
Point-based systems tend to have far fewer balance issues.
I differ with that, because my experience on point-based has been negative (3e style psionics for example was FAR too easy to go nova and perform the equivalent of "spamming" max-level spells in a combat, which a prep caster could not do). Honestly, ANY magic system is going to be hard to balance because magic by definition breaks things, especially game physics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like if it gets added to the game, sooner or later, but it should be a niche option. Maybe an archetype, to satisfy the planners and DnD veterans.
That's from a design and mechanics perspective - flavor for a magic system can always be made up. Prepared casting could be presented as saving magical energy in catalysts, like a PF alchemist does - it needs too much time to do it in combat, so you do it in the morning.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say good riddance to a non-sensical holdover from the 1970s.No more nonsensical than any other magic mechanics system, and from a gameplay point of view, WAY easier to balance than things like spell points or just rolling to cast.Prepared casters are the most imbalanced spellcasting subsystem ever published for 3.x.
Point-based systems tend to have far fewer balance issues.I differ with that, because my experience on point-based has been negative (3e style psionics for example was FAR too easy to go nova and perform the equivalent of "spamming" max-level spells in a combat, which a prep caster could not do). Honestly, ANY magic system is going to be hard to balance because magic by definition breaks things, especially game physics.
That's less about systems and more about individual spells and often individual mechanics. 3.5 and dreamscarred press style psionics is far better with relatively minor changes.
Point pool based casting is also much more wieldly and accessible to newer players.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think vancian casting as a whole is a bullshit system that never made sense to me, prepared casting even moreso.
I'm really happy that prepared casting is gone, now if only they'd've gotten rid of leveled spell slots as well.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say good riddance to a non-sensical holdover from the 1970s.No more nonsensical than any other magic mechanics system, and from a gameplay point of view, WAY easier to balance than things like spell points or just rolling to cast.Prepared casters are the most imbalanced spellcasting subsystem ever published for 3.x.
Point-based systems tend to have far fewer balance issues.I differ with that, because my experience on point-based has been negative (3e style psionics for example was FAR too easy to go nova and perform the equivalent of "spamming" max-level spells in a combat, which a prep caster could not do). Honestly, ANY magic system is going to be hard to balance because magic by definition breaks things, especially game physics.
Personal opinion time: I think 3.5 psionics was more balanced overall (if you used it without magic, instead of as an add-on) than 3.5 regular casters, but I do think that inherently all things being equal, slot-based casting would be easier to balance. It comes down to the differences in individual expression that Tark mentions in a later post. The main reason 3.5 psionics was more balanced was auto-scaling spells. 3.5 psionics usually required a greater investment to get a greater effect from a spell, but slot-based casting didn't. To use AC for an example, this leads to spells like barkskin, where 2nd-level slots are eventually creating an incredibly powerful effect (will you spend 50,000 gp for a +5 amulet of natural armor or 4,000 gp for a pearl of power II and 120 minutes of the same benefit?) that casters would have easily cast in a higher slot (my Jade Regent group did use 3rd-level slots to prepare more barkskins so they could have it up on everyone in the party), whereas psionic characters have to pay more power points to gain extra AC from their powers (does it perhaps scale a bit too high at the high end if you have several active for a high cost at once? Perhaps, but you paid a heavy price for it, and it's self-only, rather than some low-level slots to give +5 to the whole group). Because of this effect (not just for AC, that's just one example), a higher-level slot-based caster with good knowledge of the options available can pull off a bunch of undercosted effects that add up to more than the psionic character over the day, even if the psionic character novas harder and casts top-level powers, running out of points quickly. But that's not an inherent truth about all point-based vs slot-based systems. You could easily create a point-based system that doesn't require an increased cost to get better effects from the lower level spells (consider just converting Pathfinder's casters to a spell point system with the same costs per spell level as psionic powers, but with no changes in the spells) that would be even less predictable/easy to balance than the current magic system (keeping all the problem spells but now allowing more flexible casts and in some cases extreme spam of them with their low cost out of a large pool, as opposed to novaing), or a psionic system that used spell slots but still required augment costs that was even more predictable/easier to balance the current psionics system (keeps the costed scaling, but can't nova, so more predictably only has a certain number of big guns without running dry completely and demanding a rest).
In basic summary, slot-based systems are more predictable and easier to balance around than point-based all else being equal, but those benefits can wind up being outweighed by specifics of each system.
I give my group maybe a 15% chance of even noticing the absence of prepared casting, buried under all the other mechanics and thematic changes coming with Starfinder. Personally, I'm okay with it. Coupled with the merging of arcane & divine magic, this really paints a picture of a system where magic is no longer the be-all-end-all, but one tool among many.
"Magic vs. tech" is the new "arcane vs. divine". That's what I'm seeing, at least, and from that viewpoint the elimination of prepared casters (at least for now) is a reduction of unnecessary complexity, not a reduction of player choice.
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, do you have a newsletter i could subscribe too or some webinars on game theory perhaps?
That could be fun. I wonder if enough people would be interested in that, then I'd have to look into how to set it up.
Personal opinion time: I think 3.5 psionics was more balanced overall (if you used it without magic, instead of as an add-on) than 3.5 regular casters, but I do think that inherently all things being equal, slot-based casting would be easier to balance. It comes down to the differences in individual expression that Tark mentions in a later post. The main reason 3.5 psionics was more balanced was auto-scaling spells. 3.5 psionics usually required a greater investment to get a greater effect from a spell, but slot-based casting didn't. To use AC for an example, this leads to spells like barkskin, where 2nd-level slots are eventually creating an incredibly powerful effect (will you spend 50,000 gp for a +5 amulet of natural armor or 4,000 gp for a pearl of power II and 120 minutes of the same benefit?) that casters would have easily cast in a higher slot (my Jade Regent group did use 3rd-level slots to prepare more barkskins so they could have it up on everyone in the party), whereas psionic characters have to pay more power points to gain extra AC from their powers (does it perhaps scale a bit too high at the high end if you have several active for a high...I say good riddance to a non-sensical holdover from the 1970s.No more nonsensical than any other magic mechanics system, and from a gameplay point of view, WAY easier to balance than things like spell points or just rolling to cast.Prepared casters are the most imbalanced spellcasting subsystem ever published for 3.x.
Point-based systems tend to have far fewer balance issues.I differ with that, because my experience on point-based has been negative (3e style psionics for example was FAR too easy to go nova and perform the equivalent of "spamming" max-level spells in a combat, which a prep caster could not do). Honestly, ANY magic system is going to be hard to balance because magic by definition breaks things, especially game physics.
I'd like to point out that, on one hand, the system you described isn't very different from 3.5 psionics in the first place, making the balance benefits fairly low, while point-based systems are significantly more intuitive and user-friendly by their nature, thus giving them a relevant advantage.
Personal opinion time: I think 3.5 psionics was more balanced overall (if you used it without magic, instead of as an add-on) than 3.5 regular casters, but I do think that inherently all things being equal, slot-based casting would be easier to balance. It comes down to the differences in individual expression that Tark mentions in a later post. The main reason 3.5 psionics was more balanced was auto-scaling spells. 3.5 psionics usually required a greater investment to get a greater effect from a spell, but slot-based casting didn't. To use AC for an example, this leads to spells like barkskin, where 2nd-level slots are eventually creating an incredibly powerful effect (will you spend 50,000 gp for a +5 amulet of natural armor or 4,000 gp for a pearl of power II and 120 minutes of the same benefit?) that casters would have easily cast in a higher slot (my Jade Regent group did use 3rd-level slots to prepare more barkskins so they could have it up on everyone in the party), whereas psionic characters have to pay more power points to gain extra AC from their powers (does it perhaps scale a bit too high at the high end if you have several active for a high...I say good riddance to a non-sensical holdover from the 1970s.No more nonsensical than any other magic mechanics system, and from a gameplay point of view, WAY easier to balance than things like spell points or just rolling to cast.Prepared casters are the most imbalanced spellcasting subsystem ever published for 3.x.
Point-based systems tend to have far fewer balance issues.I differ with that, because my experience on point-based has been negative (3e style psionics for example was FAR too easy to go nova and perform the equivalent of "spamming" max-level spells in a combat, which a prep caster could not do). Honestly, ANY magic system is going to be hard to balance because magic by definition breaks things, especially game physics.
My experience is similar to this Mark, except I see the effects of the Vancian casting as beneficial to the party a a whole. Low level spell slot become so effective that spell caster share them with everyone, making the party as a whole better. Whoever, those same spell slots generally lack any offensive power.
Conversely, the reason why I think Psionics was a big problem was because they would steal the spot light from the entire party by blowing all their power points in one go (practically). They had very little staying power in comparison to Vancian casters, which exacerbated the problem even worse. The "15 minute adventuring day" with normal spell casters became the 1 encounter adventuring day before the psionic user wanted to rest.
These are extremes, but explain why I absolutely hate Psionics as it was implemented in 3.5.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to point out that, on one hand, the system you described isn't very different from 3.5 psionics in the first place, making the balance benefits fairly low, while point-based systems are significantly more intuitive and user-friendly by their nature, thus giving them a relevant advantage.
You can get some relatively big benefits from those relatively small changes, believe it or not (for instance, it would negate the disadvantages Claxon mentions in the next post). The intuitiveness is certainly a plus for point-based, however; I actually almost included it in my big post but felt I was starting to get too long.
In addition to what Claxon points out, the other hidden benefit is that you can work with closer to the changing value of the spell slots more practically in a spell slot system than in a point cost system simply because a point cost system is going to be forced to use a user-friendly formula for the point cost that sacrifices some amount of accuracy in cost comparison by spell level in exchange for the formula being tractable.
In any case, I suppose that point-based systems are only tangentially on topic for a thread about slot-based prepared or spontaneous casting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to fluff your ego on the subject but I at least would follow your blog, you have a tendency to discuss the theory behind your answers whenever we manage to get you into a conversation and it is genuinely interesting to see.So, do you have a newsletter i could subscribe too or some webinars on game theory perhaps?That could be fun. I wonder if enough people would be interested in that, then I'd have to look into how to set it up.
I think a little ego fluffing for staff members in general isn't such a bad thing. By which I mean, I think we all have this tendency to apologize for positive statements because they feel like they could be taken as flattery or don't lead to any particular needed change and just not post them (I did the same thing before I worked here, where I felt nervous posting positive statements) but have a much easier time posting negative statements because they feel to us like constructive criticism that could elicit a change towards something we'd like more. The trouble is, when we keep positive statements to ourselves and post negative statements, we wind up with an environment where the empirical evidence coming in tends to make the entire outlook seem more negative than it really is, and that can be demoralizing for creative types even if you have enough confidence to remind yourself that there's all these reasons why you'll always see more negativity in public and positivity in private.
Note for the discussion- there are two casters. It's not surprising that they're both the most common caster setup. We haven't been told that there won't be prepared casters or that there won't be full casters. Those can potentially be developed after seeing how Starfinder plays out in the real world.
I say good riddance to a non-sensical holdover from the 1970s.No more nonsensical than any other magic mechanics system, and from a gameplay point of view, WAY easier to balance than things like spell points or just rolling to cast.
The "balance" of prepared casting depends a lot of how good or bad the player is at either predicting what they'll need or at adapting what they have to the situation.
I remember one game where we completely misjudged the clues on what was coming up and almost none of my spells were going to be effective. I've also had days where the GM though I had read the module because my choices were so perfect.
Pathfinder wizards getting scribe scroll as a freebie makes it easier, as you can keep lots of niche spells handy. But that has it's drawbacks as well.
The spell point nova issue is based on player expectations that they'll be able to rest frequently without consequences. For some games this works. for others, taking the time to rest will let the bad guys get proactive. A good GM should tell people what his running style is so that people can adapt to it.
Developer, Starfinder Team
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a little ego fluffing for staff members in general isn't such a bad thing. By which I mean, I think we all have this tendency to apologize for positive statements because they feel like they could be taken as flattery or don't lead to any particular needed change and just not post them (I did the same thing before I worked here, where I felt nervous posting positive statements) but have a much easier time posting negative statements because they feel to us like constructive criticism that could elicit a change towards something we'd like more. The trouble is, when we keep positive statements to ourselves and post negative statements, we wind up with an environment where the empirical evidence coming in tends to make the entire outlook seem more negative than it really is, and that can be demoralizing for creative types even if you have enough confidence to remind yourself that there's all these reasons why you'll always see more negativity in public and positivity in private.
Not for nothing, but I would be stunned if a newsletter, blog, website of thoughts, or even Patreon project of yours didn't garner a fair amount of interest.
|
|
Prepared casters can really lead to the martial/caster disparity issues in pathfinder, simply because the sheer number of spells known are so huge. If you leave a slot free you can prepare the right spell in minutes. When you're limited in spells known, you don't have the luxury of just preparing a tounges if you need to interact with locals or not bothering with a restoration unless someone takes ability damage.
If you want to have utility or status healing, you need to make sacrifices elsewhere. I really don't want there to be easy access to additional spells known like there is for pathfinder.
And while we're at it, I hope there isn't any metamagic rods. Or if there is make using them cost a resolve point. Free metamagic is a big problem with pathfinder casters.
|
Yeah, with an absence of prepared casters - at least to start with - I suspect that whatever fills the niche of wands and scrolls in Starfinder (I think I remember hearing of something that sounded like something along those lines) will wind up being rather popular...even more so if it acts like a page of spell knowledge.
The Eoxian not-a-lich (I am blanking on the name) from First Contact has a couple of... shards? I think?
Someone who has the book handy go look this up for me and save me from looking like an idiot, please.
Yeah, with an absence of prepared casters - at least to start with - I suspect that whatever fills the niche of wands and scrolls in Starfinder (I think I remember hearing of something that sounded like something along those lines) will wind up being rather popular...even more so if it acts like a page of spell knowledge.The Eoxian not-a-lich (I am blanking on the name) from First Contact has a couple of... shards? I think?
Someone who has the book handy go look this up for me and save me from looking like an idiot, please.
Yeah they have spell gems which I assume are the equivalent of scrolls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I'm hella glad that prepared is out. Just from a gameplay standpoint. It is so much easier to teach somebody to play a Sorcerer than it is to teach somebody to play a Wizard.
Agreed. One of my current players is playing an Enchanter Wizard, and it took me about six sessions to realize they really wanted to play a Sorcerer all along. Won't expand their spellbook past spells received at every level, won't leave spell slots open for later in the day, because to do so would be "too confusing". Their play style is still fun and contributory, but I secretly know they would be happier as a sorcerer.
It looks like Starfinder is focusing on "learnability", which is much more important for a new system than it would be for an expansion to a current system. I'm fine with reserving the more complex character concepts for a future installment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a magus, and eldritch knight, a magus and an ordained templar, and I'm playing an investigator. I'm not particularly sad at the absence of prepared casters.
That said, I think that C/MD is caused by the spells themselves, not any of the implemented methods of casting them.
Also, I ran the numbers at one point, and I think a 20th level Psion gets as many or more manifests of ML20 powers than a 20th level wizard gets spell slots? Then adhesive the psion gets many fewer powers known.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technomancer is actually a class where it makes sense for it to be prepared, and I always find it weird when "Oh look, here is my scholarly mage, but sorry no, I cannot learn the spell that is right in front of me, it is impossible to learn new things.".
Admittedly, I'm also the type of GM who lets fighters learn feats as martial techniques between level ups and uses the downtime rules to let people learn languages between level ups.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technomancer is actually a class where it makes sense for it to be prepared, and I always find it weird when "Oh look, here is my scholarly mage, but sorry no, I cannot learn the spell that is right in front of me, it is impossible to learn new things.".
Admittedly, I'm also the type of GM who lets fighters learn feats as martial techniques between level ups and uses the downtime rules to let people learn languages between level ups.
You monster.
Prepared vancian spellcasting is the best there is in Fantasy, dont feel like it add a lot to sci fi.
The hunt for new spells, the negotiation for spells with other wizards, the joy of discovering the unique spells frome the archmage Phandaal...
Phandaal's omnipotent Sphere, The call to the wild cloud, those are the spells you want to be hunting...
So much fluff... so much better the i always cast yonder spell for xx damage...
It would make thematic and mechanical sense to have ports/updates of the Alchemist and Investigator to use in Starfinder. These would need to stay as prepared casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always hated prepared spellcasters and was always kind of happy if I could get a spontaneous alternative.
Just the idea of the character sitting in front of the book, memorizing a spell, using it later and then ...
"I cast a spell now I can't cast that spell anymore"
WTF?
So, do you have a newsletter i could subscribe too or some webinars on game theory perhaps?That could be fun. I wonder if enough people would be interested in that, then I'd have to look into how to set it up.
Yes please.