| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So this week we look at spells. The first change is one that's already been mentioned before, which is that spells now take 1 to 3 actions to cast, i.e. verbal, somatic and material casting actions, which is an interesting change. It means that, given the right combination, it should be possible to cast multiple spells in a single round. It also seems, from some of the previews that some spells will have options that allow you to use several of the casting actions, to make the spell more powerful. I'm quite keen on this change as it allows an added degree of flexibility with many spells.
The next change is heightened spells, the ability to cast spells at a higher level, apparently without using a feat for it, and with it having an additional effect. The most obvious is of course heal, which is now one single spell, but which can be heightened and allows you to use that single spells as the healing spell for each level (though arguably the previewed regenerate spell is more powerful once you get access to it, provided your group has a chance to do some downtime). - being able to combine that with the use of MORE actions to really make that heal spell pop is just a godsend (no pun intended). But yeah an AOE Heightened heal spell sounds really good to me.
Cantrips are also changed, to now automatically be of your highest level spell, though you can still use them at will. That means that not only do you not run out of spells and options, but the options you have are far more of a viable fall-back option than the ones that are currently available in Pathfinder 1. I have to admit that I really like this particular change, though it could potentially unbalance the magic users, but on its own, I'm very much on board. It also makes perfect sense for an archmage to have more powerful cantrips than a mere apprentice.
Spell Points I'm on the fence about however. While the idea of swapping domain, bloodline and other powers over for something more broadly usable is a good one, I think we need to see some examples of this before we can pass judgment about whether it's a good thing or not. As a general rule, I'm against having pools of points of any sort. Not because they're a bad design, but because they're an added thing for a player to manage when gaming and accounting can really bog down gameplay.
10th level spells: Now this'll be interesting, and it makes sense to move wish and miracle to this level due to the sheer flexibility of them, and the sheer wonder of what it SHOULD be possible to do with them. (See your nearest copy of Aladdin for details :P ). The other spells that are mentioned, we, of course, have no details on, but I'm guessing that the critical failure that's mentioned in today's blog is for fabricated truth and that it pertains to this line "The target believes the fact for an unlimited duration.".
Rituals: Give me those magic summoning circles. The idea of planar binding and other spells of that nature going wrong is so central to a lot of fantasy and horror stories, that it's hard to understand why it's not built into the system already. That said, other systems, like Dungeon Crawl Classics, have dived into the deep end of this particular pool, with some very interesting results. I like this addition a lot, and I'm looking forward to seeing what Game Masters can come up with, for wicked ideas, when that evil wizard completes his ritual and summons some beast from the dark netherworld.
Three final notes to make: The saving throw is now no longer specified in the short "blurb" text, but it's contained within the description of the spell, and there are now apparently more descriptors of the spells (just from the ones we've seen today, we have Death, Healing, Necromancy, Negative and Positive - at a guess I'd say that Necromancy appears to be remaining a schoold with the others being descriptors, but could it be that Necromancy (and the other old schools) will now be descriptors instead? We shall see).
My final note might be a bit of a stretch, but one thing I definitely noticed is that there's no mention of SPELL RESISTANCE. Could it be gone? If it's still there, I suspect there may have been some changes to it.
What are your thoughts on this?
Until next time,
My thoughts ??
I like most of the preview but seriously :
- Spell Slots
- Spell Points for domain/scholl powers
- and rituals
3 different magic systems for ONE CLASS ?
Come on Paizo !! Can't you just keep things simple ??
My thoughts ??
I like most of the preview but seriously :
- Spell Slots
- Spell Points for domain/scholl powers
- and rituals3 different magic systems for ONE CLASS ?
Come on Paizo !! Can't you just keep things simple ??
To be fair, rituals are for all classes as they don't require spell-casting to use.
|
My thoughts ??
I like most of the preview but seriously :
- Spell Slots
- Spell Points for domain/scholl powers
- and rituals3 different magic systems for ONE CLASS ?
Come on Paizo !! Can't you just keep things simple ??
All classes with spells pretty much already had spell slots and 'Spell Points' (ie: X per day domain or school abilities). So all that's getting added is rituals.
Which is perhaps a small increase in complexity, but a great increase in flexibility, and they've decreased complexity enough elsewhere that I'm cool with it.
I hadn't notice that Spell Resistance was missing, but you're right. Not sure how I feel about that.
One thing I did notice was that the single target damage seems to scale weirdly slowly... to the point at which I'm not seeing why you wouldn't just always use the area of effect option instead of the single-target option when using the spell against undead. Presuming a Cleric with 22 wisdom using a 4th level spell slot, you're looking at 4d8+6 (avg 24) damage to a single target or 3d8+6 (avg 19.5) damage in an area of effect plus the same amount as healing in an area of effect. Sure, the single-target version uses one fewer action, but that doesn't seem to justify such a tiny increase in damage at the cost of losing the AoE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts ??
I like most of the preview but seriously :
- Spell Slots
- Spell Points for domain/scholl powers
- and rituals3 different magic systems for ONE CLASS ?
Come on Paizo !! Can't you just keep things simple ??
Past experience says no.
I hadn't notice that Spell Resistance was missing, but you're right. Not sure how I feel about that.
One thing I did notice was that the damage seems to scale weirdly slowly... to the point at which I'm not seeing why you wouldn't just always use the area of effect option instead of the single-target option when using the spell against undead. Presuming a Cleric with 22 wisdom using a 4th level spell slot, you're looking at 4d8+6 (avg 24) damage to a single target or 3d8+6 (avg 19.5) damage in an area of effect plus the same amount as healing in an area of effect. Sure, the single-target version uses one fewer action, but that doesn't seem to justify such a tiny increase in damage at the cost of losing the AoE.
The single action version allows no save, while the ranged and AoE version both allow undead creatures to save for half damage.
But if you're talking 2 Action vs 3 Action....well it'd depend a lot on what you can do with that 1 Action left.
The single action version allows no save, while the ranged and AoE version both allow undead creatures to save for half damage.
The single-target version also calls for a touch attack. While I do think a touch attack is generally better than a save (at least in PF1; remains to be seen if that's different in PF2) it's not that much better. This is particularly true since the wisdom modifier is incorporated into the damage formula, necessarily meaning that any character who uses this spell offensively will have good DC's anyways. Even presuming everything saves for half against the AoE version, that's still 10 damage per target. You still only need to affect three targets for it to net even for damage. And remember, it's also healing on top of that. The action is only part of the cost here, too. There's also the cost of the spell slot to consider, which is the same whether you use the one action or three action version.
I just don't see how the advantages can make up for the disadvantages here, not when the single-target damage is that close to the AoE damage.
single target is 7d8.
That's not what the blog post said:
Heightened (+1) Increase the amount of healing or damage by 1d8, or by 2d8 if you're using the one- or two-action version to heal the living.
The 2d8/level heighten bonus only applies to the single-target healing variants, not the single-target damage variants or AoE variant. Is this text in error, then?
single target is 7d8. AoE is still worth it if at least three people are injured or if the damage on two targets isn't high enough to need 7 whole dice.I hadn't notice that Spell Resistance was missing, but you're right. Not sure how I feel about that.
One thing I did notice was that the single target damage seems to scale weirdly slowly... to the point at which I'm not seeing why you wouldn't just always use the area of effect option instead of the single-target option when using the spell against undead. Presuming a Cleric with 22 wisdom using a 4th level spell slot, you're looking at 4d8+6 (avg 24) damage to a single target or 3d8+6 (avg 19.5) damage in an area of effect plus the same amount as healing in an area of effect. Sure, the single-target version uses one fewer action, but that doesn't seem to justify such a tiny increase in damage at the cost of losing the AoE.
He's talking specifically about damage though, and single target damage when using the 1 or 2 Action Heal at 4th level is 4d8+Spellcasting vs 3d8+Spellcasting when using the 3 Action Area to deal damage (and Heal).
That's one action to affect a 30 foot Aura at the cost of an average of 4.5 damage less, but you gain the benefit of healing people at the same time.
Oh and both the 2 and 3 Action version require a Save, so by using the Area (and getting more targets) you're increasing the number of saves, thus increasing the chances of a Crit Fail, for more damage.
The single action version allows no save, while the ranged and AoE version both allow undead creatures to save for half damage.The single-target version also calls for a touch attack. While I do think a touch attack is generally better than a save (at least in PF1; remains to be seen if that's different in PF2) it's not that much better. This is particularly true since the wisdom modifier is incorporated into the damage formula, necessarily meaning that any character who uses this spell offensively will have good DC's anyways. Even presuming everything saves for half against the AoE version, that's still 10 damage per target. You still only need to affect three targets for it to net even for damage. And remember, it's also healing on top of that. The action is only part of the cost here, too. There's also the cost of the spell slot to consider, which is the same whether you use the one action or three action version.
I just don't see how the advantages can make up for the disadvantages here, not when the single-target damage is that close to the AoE damage.
Oh I agree entirely. There's a definite advantage when healing, but if you want to damage people....not so much.
Maybe if the range on the 2 Action version was bigger, but as it is...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's talking specifically about damage though, and single target damage when using the 1 or 2 Action Heal at 4th level is 4d8+Spellcasting vs 3d8+Spellcasting when using the 3 Action Area to deal damage (and Heal).
That's true! I actually removed my post shortly after making it because I saw he was talking about damage. When trying to attack enemies and heal allies, it's a very impressive turn if you can finagle it, and it sounds amazing to us here thinking about what it could potentially do, but it has a lot of requirements to work quite that well in actual play, simply because using all your actions means everyone has to be perfectly in your radius without moving.
The single action version allows no save, while the ranged and AoE version both allow undead creatures to save for half damage.The single-target version also calls for a touch attack. While I do think a touch attack is generally better than a save (at least in PF1; remains to be seen if that's different in PF2) it's not that much better. This is particularly true since the wisdom modifier is incorporated into the damage formula, necessarily meaning that any character who uses this spell offensively will have good DC's anyways.
There's a touch AC vs. will save trade off to make here, remembering that the touch attack can crit, and perhaps easier than the will save can critically fail.
but it has a lot of requirements to work quite that well in actual play, simply because using all your actions means everyone has to be perfectly in your radius without moving.
30 ft is pretty forgiving when dealing with melee foes. Especially since it's not a spell you'd lead with on the first turn, so everyone has likely already closed distance by the time you're looking to use it.
I just don't see the two-action or single-action version being worth it at those numbers. Admittedly I don't know what kind of damage is normal in PF2, but 24 damage from a 4th level spell seems extremely low by my PF1 sensibilities. On the other hand, 19.5 damage with a save for half in an area of effect on top of healing my allies? That sounds very usable, even if it is coming at the cost of a full round action casting time.
There's a touch AC vs. will save trade off to make here, remembering that the touch attack can crit, and perhaps easier than the will save can critically fail.
I don't have the PF2 numbers, so let's just use some ballpark PF1 numbers.
Let's presume we have +9 to hit against a touch AC of 12. This means we miss 10% of the time, hit 50% of the time, and crit 40% of the time. That gives an average of 31 damage.
Now let's presume we have a DC of 20 against saving throws of +10. This gives a 5% chance to critical save, 50% chance to save, and a 45% chance to fail. That gives an average damage of 13.65 per target.
So if there are two targets within reach, the average damage is about the same. Slightly lower for the AoE version, but you're getting healing on the side.
Again, the PF2 numbers could be quite different and it could be I'm vastly overestimating the practical limitations of a 3-action spell, but based on my PF1 sensibilities the single-target version seems very underwhelming.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
but it has a lot of requirements to work quite that well in actual play, simply because using all your actions means everyone has to be perfectly in your radius without moving.30 ft is pretty forgiving when dealing with melee foes. Especially since it's not a spell you'd lead with on the first turn, so everyone has likely already closed distance by the time you're looking to use it.
I just don't see the two-action or single-action version being worth it at those numbers. Admittedly I don't know what kind of damage is normal in PF2, but 24 damage from a 4th level spell seems extremely low by my PF1 sensibilities.
It is low for a PF2 spell because most PF2 spells are 2-action spells. 1 action spells tend to be light on damage compared to 2 action spells because they can be triple cast (or thrown in as n extra after casting a 2-action) and 2 action spells can be single cast only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to bet that spell resistance is now just a flat bonus to saves against spells.
I have recommended this exact thing before, so I certainly hope so.
It is low for a PF2 spell because most PF2 spells are 2-action spells. 1 action spells tend to be light on damage compared to 2 action spells because they can be triple cast and 2 action spells can be single cast only.
Perhaps I'm just not giving enough attention to the "nova" potential, then. That doesn't much help the 2-action version, but I'll set that aside and look strictly at the 1-action version as a single-target nuking tool.
Using the numbers I did in my last post (+9 to hit, 12 touch AC) and taking critical success into account, that gives an average of 31 damage. So for a three action burst that's 93 damage. Which is indeed very high, even if it is a once-per-day nuke given the number of spell slots it consumes. So yes, I can definitely see the concern on the single-action version. Not sure how practical that would be due to how many spell slots it would consume, but it's definitely quite strong in that capacity. The 2-action version is still an unloved middle child by comparison, though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is low for a PF2 spell because most PF2 spells are 2-action spells. 1 action spells tend to be light on damage compared to 2 action spells because they can be triple cast and 2 action spells can be single cast only.Perhaps I'm just not giving enough attention to the "nova" potential, then. That doesn't much help the 2-action version, but I'll set that aside and look strictly at the 1-action version as a single-target nuking tool.
Using the numbers I did in my last post (+9 to hit, 12 touch AC) and taking critical success into account, that gives an average of 31 damage. So for a three action burst that's 93 damage. Which is indeed very high, even if it is a once-per-day nuke given the number of spell slots it consumes. So yes, I can definitely see the concern on the single-action version. Not sure how practical that would be due to how many spell slots it would consume, but it's definitely quite strong in that capacity. The 2-action version is still an unloved middle child by comparison, though.
2 action is a Reach Spell-esque convenience option for when you just don't want to have to move up (or can't). 1 action and 3 action are both more common, but 2 action can be clutch to have in your toolbox when you need it.
|
Also keep in mind that Heal is, well... a healing spell. It's not meant to be used as a primary attack, that's just a situational bonus. If you want high single target damage, you're gonna want to pick a different spell.
Now I'm curious to see if the "Harm" spell is the opposite (replacing "inflict X wounds") and scale more in the damage category than in the "heal undeads" one.
Also keep in mind that Heal is, well... a healing spell.
Against undead it is. The Cure and Inflict spell lines have always been mirror images of each other with regards to living/undead, and at this juncture we don't have any reason to believe that's changed.
Now I'm curious to see if the "Harm" spell is the opposite (replacing "inflict X wounds") and scale more in the damage category than in the "heal undeads" one.
After crunching the the single-action heal spell above, I don't think the inflict spell could have higher damage at that action cost. The nuke potential would be too high. I think it's more likely we'll get a mirror image.
|
|
The only reason I can see to use the two action version for damage is as an immediate follow up to the one action version. That costs two spells, sure, but it's potentially, at 9th level, 10d8 + 2x casting Modifier that doesn't involve an attack at -5.
And there are some indications that casting modifier is actually Stat + Level rather than just stat, which makes the damage/healing quite a bit heftier if true.
It is low for a PF2 spell because most PF2 spells are 2-action spells. 1 action spells tend to be light on damage compared to 2 action spells because they can be triple cast (or thrown in as n extra after casting a 2-action) and 2 action spells can be single cast only.but it has a lot of requirements to work quite that well in actual play, simply because using all your actions means everyone has to be perfectly in your radius without moving.30 ft is pretty forgiving when dealing with melee foes. Especially since it's not a spell you'd lead with on the first turn, so everyone has likely already closed distance by the time you're looking to use it.
I just don't see the two-action or single-action version being worth it at those numbers. Admittedly I don't know what kind of damage is normal in PF2, but 24 damage from a 4th level spell seems extremely low by my PF1 sensibilities.
Assuming no Quicken Cast is possible and Haste doesn't affect your available actions, yes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming no Quicken Cast is possible and Haste doesn't affect your available actions, yes.Well, if anyone would know...
Oh there are tricks some characters can throw with the right set-up, but even then, on a turn where you managed effective 4 actions (whether by action reduction or by adding an action somehow), that's still two 2-action spells versus four 1-action spells. And you are correct that 1-action heal + 2-action heal is a pretty damaging combo (and could be a pretty high likelihood of a one-round where your wizard goes down to the evil cleric's harm combo if we upped the damage to the same as the healing).
Assuming no Quicken Cast is possible and Haste doesn't affect your available actions, yes.Well, if anyone would know...
My guess is Quicken won't be a thing since you can reduce the amount of actions required to cast spells through pre-existing feats like Silent/Still spells, removing the actions required for a spell, with a minimum of 1 action required (though you don't need to fulfill respective components).
As for Haste, who knows if there aren't clauses to include for spellcasting actions, but my guess is that it will be limited.
My thoughts ??
I like most of the preview but seriously :
- Spell Slots
- Spell Points for domain/scholl powers
- and rituals3 different magic systems for ONE CLASS ?
Come on Paizo !! Can't you just keep things simple ??
I think there was a statement on that in line of, but might have been about resonance.
"...tracking one system that governs all aspects should be easier then tracking individual uses / durations per day, for each ability on their own..."
So they make it even simpler? Wonder what that implies on multiclassing. Where such abilities truly tend to add up, Eldritch Heritages and Ancestries ("Yes of course my greatgrandma was the angel that had a relationship with an eldritch abonimation. It was my elven mother who fell in love with that pureblooded orc. I had it all scryed out. Poor wizard needed therapy after that. Quiete a ride, I tell you! Did you know I'm actually 2/3 Osirian...?") Bloodlines and Prestige Classes in general and so on.
There is power in naming something; while you don't really count them differently than if you had a pool of uses per day, this allowed us to create new and interesting abilities that cost multiple Spell Points or that you could add extra features to at the cost of more Spell Points, in a way that works across classes more smoothly.
I could be wrong, but the way they said it indicates to me that Spell Points will not be split by class, so a multiclassed character where both his classes use spell points probably has the same point pool as if he was single classed, and both class's abilities use it.
It does sound more complex on the face of it, but I think in the long run they're right and only tracking one pool for most of your limited use special abilities is simpler overall.
Does this mean non-casters won't have pools of points then that power their abilities?
Does this mean non-casters won't have pools of points then that power their abilities?
They might have their own pool too. Maybe something like the stamina system (the Pathfinder one, not the Starfinder one).