So no current prepared casters.


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 184 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Ckorik wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
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.

Agreed. It would be awesome if more people working at Paizo did this too. A lot of us seem to want, you know, information on stuff. Go figure.

Adding kudos to the Kineticist. It's likely my favorite class in Pathfinder. :)


I like the kineticist also a lot but in some points the class was a bit...weird
he seemed never to be able to decide if it was good to have a lot of life or it was better to burn a lot

and the way the class worked together with mythic adventures was straightup horrible


Seisho wrote:

I like the kineticist also a lot but in some points the class was a bit...weird

he seemed never to be able to decide if it was good to have a lot of life or it was better to burn a lot

and the way the class worked together with mythic adventures was straightup horrible

Mythic Adventures is sort of... not supported anymore? When was the last time new mythic content was released? I've flirted around with the idea of using those rules before but i can never get any sense of balance out of them.

And the HP/Burn dilemma was an on purpose design choice for the class i thought...


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
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.

Agreed. It would be awesome if more people working at Paizo did this too. A lot of us seem to want, you know, information on stuff. Go figure.

Adding kudos to the Kineticist. It's likely my favorite class in Pathfinder. :)

If more votes are needed, I would definitely follow/subscribe.


Whoo! Lets make this happen!! Mark! Mark! Mark! Oooh! Do this in the best, worst, way; make a blog post with some of your game design thoughts or discussing class creation, really whatever you want and then post that blog post up instead of the next Starfinder class preview. ever see someone cry over getting exactly what they want? :P


Count me in too, blogs on classes and general gaming are too few


Mashallah wrote:
YogoZuno wrote:
Quote:
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'm not sure which point-based systems you've played, but generally the issue with them is that you have a pool of points to cast your spells, which grows as you level. Eventually you can choose between casting 1 big high level spell or effectively indefinite low level spells. Which makes it very hard to balance. There are ways to balance them, but they all approach the "spell slots" solution from a different angle and to a different degree.

I think the Arcanist is the "right" path to go down for a DnD type game. I personally enjoy it more than either of the other types.


the "one big hit" from point based casting usually comes from no one reading the rule for how many points can be spent on any given effect though. when followed according to the rules for 3.5 psionics the casters get way more than 1 or 2 high level effects but in general their effects will be a little weaker than a slot and level based caster. i havent played with the Dreamscarred psionics yet but i hear nothing other than the highest praise for them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
YogoZuno wrote:
Quote:
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'm not sure which point-based systems you've played, but generally the issue with them is that you have a pool of points to cast your spells, which grows as you level. Eventually you can choose between casting 1 big high level spell or effectively indefinite low level spells. Which makes it very hard to balance. There are ways to balance them, but they all approach the "spell slots" solution from a different angle and to a different degree.

I think the Arcanist is the "right" path to go down for a DnD type game. I personally enjoy it more than either of the other types.

I also love the casting mechanics of the arcanist, and had hoped that the Technomancer had this style of casting. It would make so much sense: using their techno-magic, they pre-load a bunch of magical hacks (aka. spells) and run that code until he's out of juice. Which is exactly how the arcanist works.

As a side note, I think the Kineticist has a very interesting point-based system (those points are basically your health).
Having a small pool of points and then giving ways to discount the low-level spells seems like a system that could work, and it would reduce the bloat of points. I have to admit that I love the Kineticist though, so I may be biased. I'm sure it'd be a pain to balance this method. :)


Arcanist casting would be easy to implement for Technomancers, what's hard to implement is spell scribing, you'll have to work around the lack of scrolls and also define prices for scribing spells. And define how spell scribing would work in a world with freeshare and internet!

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:
Vancian casting was the system used by D&D. Fair enough. But Starfinder isn't D&D, so it's up to supporters of vancian casting to make a case for why why Starfinder should copy that particular system.

Starfinder is clearly set in the same universe as Pathfinder. Pathfinder has vancian casters. Therefore, there should still be vancian casters somewhere in the Starfinder universe.

Of course, I didn't in any way say that vancian casters should be present in the Starfinder game as a player option at all. I was simply pointing out that vancian casting is nor more or less 'realistic' or workable than any other magic systems - they're all just variations on a theme. I've never quite understood why people disparage vancian-style casting so much.


YogoZuno wrote:
Quote:
Vancian casting was the system used by D&D. Fair enough. But Starfinder isn't D&D, so it's up to supporters of vancian casting to make a case for why why Starfinder should copy that particular system.

Starfinder is clearly set in the same universe as Pathfinder. Pathfinder has vancian casters. Therefore, there should still be vancian casters somewhere in the Starfinder universe.

Of course, I didn't in any way say that vancian casters should be present in the Starfinder game as a player option at all. I was simply pointing out that vancian casting is nor more or less 'realistic' or workable than any other magic systems - they're all just variations on a theme. I've never quite understood why people disparage vancian-style casting so much.

I think it's one of those 'we lost all knowledge of it during the gap' things, which is fine by me but I can see why people see it as a bit of a lackluster reason.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
YogoZuno wrote:
Quote:
Vancian casting was the system used by D&D. Fair enough. But Starfinder isn't D&D, so it's up to supporters of vancian casting to make a case for why why Starfinder should copy that particular system.
Starfinder is clearly set in the same universe as Pathfinder. Pathfinder has vancian casters. Therefore, there should still be vancian casters somewhere in the Starfinder universe.

There is no longer a distinction between arcane and divine magics. Magic has changed more than a bit already, there is no reason to assume there is still vancian casting widely practiced.


Just because we had somehting thousands of years ago doesn't mean we still have it or do it the same way.


TarkXT wrote:
Just because we had somehting thousands of years ago doesn't mean we still have it or do it the same way.

It might be an extinct practice. I mean, in a setting where a god could literally wake up one morning, look at the state of things and say, "Nah, mate. F*** that." and wipe out all knowledge of Vancian spell casting from the face of existence, I'm up to believe anything could change given thousands and thousands of years.


Seisho wrote:

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?

I know what you mean . . . but the funny thing is: If I look up something like a phone number that I don't already know and then use it (dial it, etc.), if I have to use it again, I often have to look it up again before I can use it again, even if the time between uses is much shorter than the time between first lookup and first use. Almost like I had to prepare it . . . .

Liberty's Edge

I don't really care for spontaneous casters, to be quite frank. I like the idea of preparing the spell.

Perhaps in a couple of months we'll get a new batch of classes and there will be a prepared caster in it. It'd make me really happy.


I was looking forward to having a technomancer who loads up his spells at the start of the day and casts them from his spelldeck. Now we're stuck with the force from starwars.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Torbyne wrote:
Seisho wrote:

I like the kineticist also a lot but in some points the class was a bit...weird

he seemed never to be able to decide if it was good to have a lot of life or it was better to burn a lot

and the way the class worked together with mythic adventures was straightup horrible

Mythic Adventures is sort of... not supported anymore? When was the last time new mythic content was released? I've flirted around with the idea of using those rules before but i can never get any sense of balance out of them.

And the HP/Burn dilemma was an on purpose design choice for the class i thought...

Wasn't Mythic adventures merged with Munchkin?


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Seisho wrote:

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?

I know what you mean . . . but the funny thing is: If I look up something like a phone number that I don't already know and then use it (dial it, etc.), if I have to use it again, I often have to look it up again before I can use it again, even if the time between uses is much shorter than the time between first lookup and first use. Almost like I had to prepare it . . . .

Except that when you prepare a spell you actually remember it indefinitely until you cast it. To use your phone number analogy, it's like reading a phone number and being able to remember it for months or even years until you dial it. And then immediately forgetting it once you dial it. And having to somehow memorize it multiple times at once to dial it multiple times in a row, even if it's within a few seconds of the first time.


Torbyne wrote:
Seisho wrote:

I like the kineticist also a lot but in some points the class was a bit...weird

he seemed never to be able to decide if it was good to have a lot of life or it was better to burn a lot

and the way the class worked together with mythic adventures was straightup horrible

Mythic Adventures is sort of... not supported anymore? When was the last time new mythic content was released? I've flirted around with the idea of using those rules before but i can never get any sense of balance out of them.

And the HP/Burn dilemma was an on purpose design choice for the class i thought...

Yeah it sucked a lot that mythic adventures lost support, it was since it existed always a big part in my campaigns

And i think the HP/Burn thing could have been solved more elegant - having high hopes for the Solarian here

IonutRO wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Seisho wrote:

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?

I know what you mean . . . but the funny thing is: If I look up something like a phone number that I don't already know and then use it (dial it, etc.), if I have to use it again, I often have to look it up again before I can use it again, even if the time between uses is much shorter than the time between first lookup and first use. Almost like I had to prepare it . . . .

Except that when you prepare a spell you actually remember it indefinitely until you cast it. To use your phone number analogy, it's like reading a phone number and being able to remember it for months or even years until you dial it. And then immediately forgetting it once you dial it. And having to somehow memorize it multiple times at once to dial it multiple times in a row, even if it's within a few seconds of the first time.

Which is still weird, especially since spells are complex constructs which some mages are study years to understand (learning a new spell for wizard would be for me more like 'finally finished the spell training') and not a series of random digits

I understand the analogy but it is still werid to me


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't remember the spell indefinitely. You, using your book, started casting the spell. It's when you finish that you unleash the power. You didn't memorize it, not really. It's like having a phone number in your phone. You remember some numbers (Cantrips?) But most you don't. Your phone stores it till you call the number. Lose the phone, lose your ability to call friends. Sure, you can indefinitely memorize phone numbers. But spells ate more complicated than that.


^Yeah . . . it's like I need the Phone Number Mastery feat to finally get a phone number into long-term memory.


.... in Pathfinder and D&D preparing spell is not memorising the spell. If you actually acknowledge that it's "by using my spellbook as reference, I can cast multiple spells but leave the last bit unfinished so I can trigger it when I desire" it makes perfect sense.


Spells haven't been "memorized" in D&D for a long time. Even in 3.0 mages were "preparing" spells- it had nothing to do with forgetting how to use your magic, and everything to do with spells being something that took a long time to set up but a usually very short time to complete in the field.

One game in the D&D lineage that tried to codify how that worked in fluff was Earthdawn. Earthdawn mages had spell matrices in their bodies and woven into their equipment, and spell preparation was charging each matrix with a spell you could unleash later. There are a lot of bits in 3e that learned from or reacted to what Earthdawn did, and ditching spell memorization was one of them.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Yeah . . . it's like I need the Phone Number Mastery feat to finally get a phone number into long-term memory.

Well when a level 4 phone number is 4 pages worth of phone numbers you'd need to memorize for the call for one instance, not to mention all the pages of phone numbers for all your other spells


And some numbers and strings of numbers are harder to keep within long-term than others, so the more numbers there are in a sequence the harder it is to encode.

I actually prefer the idea of wizards being likened to memorising a ton of phone numbers in short-term memory. It kind of demonstrates that they have really trained themselves to keep that much information in memory for that long at all. Which is why preparation spells make sense.

That said, technomancers probably have computers to help them with this stuff, so that's why they're spontaneous. (That said, I'd have loved for a hybrid, like an arcanist, over just spontaneous)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
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.

I tend to go the opposite way with my posts... If I'm really upset about something and want to rant (*cough* Bret's and my conversation with you & Linda at PaizoCon *cough*), I try to tell you guys privately. I much prefer to share the good news of what you guys do publicly because I want you to keep doing it. It is as important to know that you are on the right track as it is to know about stuff that is wonky.

That is not to say that I won't ever publicly gripe about something, but it's much rarer for me than the positive feedback. Part of that is that I genuinely think that you guys do a great job, 90% of the time.

Really looking forward to seeing Starfinder and how the new game balances out!

Hmm


Mark Seifter wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
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.

Start with a blog! I would read that blog.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I frequently throw prepared casters out of my regular PF games, because it never made sense to me, so I'm definitely down with spontaneous only.

The prepared caster thing, especially wizards, was that unless you took Spell Mastery (I think that's the one), at no point could you actually say you knew a spell. That doesn't feel all that wizardy to me. The concept of 'I truly KNOW this spell and can cast it repeatedly' makes far more sense to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:

I frequently throw prepared casters out of my regular PF games, because it never made sense to me, so I'm definitely down with spontaneous only.

The prepared caster thing, especially wizards, was that unless you took Spell Mastery (I think that's the one), at no point could you actually say you knew a spell. That doesn't feel all that wizardy to me. The concept of 'I truly KNOW this spell and can cast it repeatedly' makes far more sense to me.

Totally this. If one of my players wanted to play a prepared caster class as spontaneous I also regular allowed it.

Wizard literally means "Wise of the Arts" and not "Wise guy of remembering one phone number till you dialed it"

Scarab Sages

Wizard would make a lot more sense if it was renamed to a ritualist. Or maybe a Hermetic Mage, with Clerics being called ritualists.

The point is that prepared spellcasting is just going through a long ritual for each spell, and then not completing it until it's actually "cast". This isn't "memorizing and forgetting, but just preparing the long part of the ritual beforehand and then just finishing it to empower the effect and select the target. Once the ritual is complete it's not forgotten, but in order to power the spell again you must go through the entire ritual again. The spellbook is a necessary reference tool to get the precise details of the ritual right to account for variables in local magical environment and for the time of day or day of the year, solar position, whatever.


Imbicatus wrote:

account for variables in local magical environment and for the time of day or day of the year, solar position, whatever.

I'd be more likely to buy this if spells didn't remain permanently prepared until you used them or died, no matter how much time has passed or if you moved from the arctic to the equator.

I don't think any of us here are necessarily not getting the concept of 'the wizard is the gun, the spells are bullets, you gotta reload after you shoot'. I certainly understand the idea. I just don't *like* it.


Imbicatus wrote:

Wizard would make a lot more sense if it was renamed to a ritualist. Or maybe a Hermetic Mage, with Clerics being called ritualists.

The point is that prepared spellcasting is just going through a long ritual for each spell, and then not completing it until it's actually "cast". This isn't "memorizing and forgetting, but just preparing the long part of the ritual beforehand and then just finishing it to empower the effect and select the target. Once the ritual is complete it's not forgotten, but in order to power the spell again you must go through the entire ritual again. The spellbook is a necessary reference tool to get the precise details of the ritual right to account for variables in local magical environment and for the time of day or day of the year, solar position, whatever.

Please, don't ruin hermetic theurgy for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if I will miss prepared casters in Starfinder or not, but as a GM, they are one of my favorite 'things' in Pathfinder. The wizard who researches obscure spells, the cleric who comes through in a pinch...

I feel that most of the MOST interesting spells would never get picked by spontaneous casters, just because (sensibly) a caster with a very limited list of spells will tend to pick those spells that are generally useful and generally applicable, and not those quirky spells that are only useful in really specific circumstances.

Now, if the spell lists are entirely composed of good, general utility spells, then I might not miss it al all.

But when the party wizard created a map to the hoard from the hide of the dragon we defeated, or turned the heavy, bulky treasure into felted objects on a quilt? Priceless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not having a real opportunity for characters to take non-adventuring spells is my biggest worry with the lack of prepared casters.


I would refrain from early pessimism on this matter.
After all, spell gems (an equivalent of scrolls) have been confirmed to exist and scrolls were a staple of any Sorcerer's inventory in Pathfinder.
We also don't know the spell known tables of either spellcasting class - they might rock increased numbers of spells known to compensate for the lack of prepared casters - we simply don't know.


Seisho wrote:

{. . .}

Wizard literally means "Wise of the Arts" and not "Wise guy of remembering one phone number till you dialed it"

Hey, I didn't say I was wise . . . .


Mashallah wrote:

I would refrain from early pessimism on this matter.

After all, spell gems (an equivalent of scrolls) have been confirmed to exist and scrolls were a staple of any Sorcerer's inventory in Pathfinder.
We also don't know the spell known tables of either spellcasting class - they might rock increased numbers of spells known to compensate for the lack of prepared casters - we simply don't know.

Even if you have a larger number of spells known, you still have a limited number of spells known, so you're probably going to take the spells which make you useful as a team member rather than "make this wine taste fruitier" or whatever.

Only way to get around that would be to have spellcasters also get "utility" spells known, which would mean they'd need to make a lot of minor fluff spells (which would take up a lot of page space for something only a very small minority is interested in), or they'd have to make fluff spells not count towards spells known.


Milo v3 wrote:
Mashallah wrote:

I would refrain from early pessimism on this matter.

After all, spell gems (an equivalent of scrolls) have been confirmed to exist and scrolls were a staple of any Sorcerer's inventory in Pathfinder.
We also don't know the spell known tables of either spellcasting class - they might rock increased numbers of spells known to compensate for the lack of prepared casters - we simply don't know.
Even if you have a larger number of spells known, you still have a limited number of spells known, so you're probably going to take the spells which make you useful as a team member rather than "make this wine taste fruitier" or whatever.

You can rely on spell gems or hiring NPC spellcasters for those, though.


Mashallah wrote:
You can rely on spell gems or hiring NPC spellcasters for those, though.

Yay... I get to choose between weakening my character via lack of spell slots or lack of gear when I want to have a character who regularly uses fluff-y spells. That really doesn't fix the issue at all. You're still being discouraged against non-adventuring magic.

In PF I could at least have my caster go "X spell looks neat even if it's never going to be useful in an adventure, so I'll purchase a scroll of it and learn it, that way I can use it whenever."

Also it's pretty pathetic if your mighty technomancer is too stupid to learn "clean up this room" when he's able to conjure massive fireballs, manipulating gravity, and teleporting between planes of existence, so he is stuck carrying a billion spell crystals with him at all times.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it requires more system mastery, but personally I like spontaneous casters so I don't have to deal with the book keeping.

I don't think it will hurt the game


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
You can rely on spell gems or hiring NPC spellcasters for those, though.

Yay... I get to choose between weakening my character via lack of spell slots or lack of gear when I want to have a character who regularly uses fluff-y spells. That really doesn't fix the issue at all. You're still being discouraged against non-adventuring magic.

In PF I could at least have my caster go "X spell looks neat even if it's never going to be useful in an adventure, so I'll purchase a scroll of it and learn it, that way I can use it whenever."

Also it's pretty pathetic if your mighty technomancer is too stupid to learn "clean up this room" when he's able to conjure massive fireballs, manipulating gravity, and teleporting between planes of existence, so he is stuck carrying a billion spell crystals with him at all times.

It's less 'too stupid' and more 'made a conscious decision to learn different spells', isn't it?


Luthorne wrote:
It's less 'too stupid' and more 'made a conscious decision to learn different spells', isn't it?

Except the method on casting the spell is written on the phone in front of the technomancer... He could just learn how to cast it, but no... His brain got full up on simple magic nine levels ago, he can only learn super complex spells it'd be completely impossible for him to learn how to unseen servant.

"I can only research the most up to date things ever and can never learn the basics of anything aside from what I learnt at the start of my life adventuring" (and yet can still learn the basics of any other class).


Milo v3 wrote:
Luthorne wrote:
It's less 'too stupid' and more 'made a conscious decision to learn different spells', isn't it?

Except the method on casting the spell is written on the phone in front of the technomancer... He could just learn how to cast it, but no... His brain got full up on simple magic nine levels ago, he can only learn super complex spells it'd be completely impossible for him to learn how to unseen servant.

"I can only research the most up to date things ever and can never learn the basics of anything aside from what I learnt at the start of my life adventuring" (and yet can still learn the basics of any other class).

Seems like an exaggeration. Spontaneous casters can swap out a known spell every level now, so he could research that in between researching cutting-edge spells. And while he could learn the basics of any other class, that would be at the cost of not learning any cutting edge magic. Do you really want the ability to learn first level spells instead of fifth level spells without multiclassing? That sounds a lot worse than just trading out an equivalent-level spell known.

There are a number of things we don't know yet, though.
- Spells known progression. The spells per day progression got a small boost, so there might be some tweaks there as well.
- Technomancer magic hacks. There might be ways for technomancers to swap known spells more easily, or to expend a higher level slot to cast a spell they don't know.
- Spells themselves. There could be a spell to temporarily add a lower-level spell to your list of spells known.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing about a lot of Pathfinder's utility spells is that most of them can be replaced by cheap technology, so there's less reason to store loads of situationally useful minor spells because you can have gadgets that do it all for you, you could even have a kind of multi-tool that performs several useful functions. There's really no practical reason to have magic for things that machines can do more cheaply.


Indeed. If there are no useless fluff spells in the game because there is tech for that, then the whole argument becomes meaningless.

Anyway, this is PnP, not a MMO. Most GMs will adapt the adventure to suit whatever skills the players choose, however obscure they might seem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who needs prestidigitation when you have a hover-roomba?


Fardragon wrote:
Indeed. If there are no useless fluff spells in the game because there is tech for that, then the whole argument becomes meaningless.

It would mean we'd gone from a system that encouraged and supported using magic to build up the setting and do stuff that's fun even if it's not practical, to one that shuns people who enjoy those qualities. That's not the argument becoming meaningless at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We already know the setting favours using technology for everyday stuff.

Magic is for doing awesome stuff that can't be easily achieved with tech.

51 to 100 of 184 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / So no current prepared casters. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.