Sorcerer Class Preview

Alright, apparently I understood downcasting wrong, I stand corrected. Good, it would have been another whammy if you couldn't use higher level spell slots to cast lower level spells, like with Fly for example.

I usually GM, so no (indeed, I think I've only ever played four or so Pathfinder characters more than a couple of levels), but I've seen quite a number of them played in games I've run or played in, and helped my players build them, and built NPC Sorcerers, and monkeyed around with the Class design in general quite a bit.

And it's certainly a limitation of the Class, but I've historically mostly seen it come up as one on the top two level of spells...the ones you actually get more of in PF2.

Well, I've played a few and GM'ed for half a dozen of them. My experience is that lower level spells are often very important even at higher levels. Reducing the amount known there drastically also reduces the versatility of the class.

The free Heightens also effectively give that 16th level character an extra 10-14 spells known in practice, which then completely exceed the PF1 version.

Yeah, not really. It is very nice to have all Summon Monster spells with spontaneous heightening, but you probably will almost never need the lower level versions again after getting access to the higher level ones. Summon Monster really only gets good in the current edition with the sixth level version. Getting the heightened versions of Fireball only means that you will probably cast the highest level one, making the lower level versions obsolete as well.

The fixed spell thing is an issue in some ways, but it's a huge opportunity in others. You can maximize the opportunity and minimize the problems pretty readily with a bit of thought.

From what I've seen I disagree, but we'll only know with a full look at the playtest document.

I disagree, but that argument seems off topic. I'm not pleased with certain things about the current version of Resonance, but the basic idea seems fine to me.

I'm only noting my progression of thought on resonance. I went from "Hmmm, interesting" to "That seems off..." to "This is a terrible idea and needs to be excised ASAP" over the last weeks and indubitably this will be a huge point of contention for the whole playerbase when the playtest releases.

Absolutely. And the current version of the Sorcerer seems pretty capable of doing all that fairly well if built like a PF2 Sorcerer rather than a PF1 Sorcerer. It's probably not as versatile as a Sorcerer in PF1 using the Human FCB...but let's be honest, that was always pretty broken.

I find your confidence in the playtest rules to be premature, given that we haven't seen the entire set of rules. To be honest, I've seen you running up and down during the last weeks defending the previews from all comers and I hope you are not overinvesting yourself in defending the playtest rules without really considering the points others are making.

As for declaring the human FCB "broken", I wholeheartedly disagree. I saw it as a fix for the PF1E version of the sorcerer, which was badly in need of it.

The paradigm has changed so completely I think you can't see the advantages, many of which more than compensate for the downsides. You're continuing to compare it to PF1 directly, which is a huge mistake.

PF2 has a greater focus on cantrips as an alternative to low level spells in combat (making having low level damaging spells generally pointless, at least for single target ones), gives Wizards and Clerics less spell slots as well, has Spell Points to round out the character's abilities, and offers flexibility to Sorcerer no prepared caster gets in the form of Spontaneous Heightening (indeed, with Arcane Evolution, a Sorcerer can potentially have 7 options of what to cast at their highest level of spells, nearly double what the Wizard can have on any individual day).

Again, I think you seem overconfident of the new rules without the full context. I guess we'll have to see in a few weeks.

Ok, people, I just want to say it's best not to assume things about classes which didn't even show up.
We know barely nothing about the Bard, except it's perhaps a full caster. However, they didn't told us everything about the playtest, so they could be up to a surprise for Witch or Psychic. I remember the designers, when comparing why the Alchemist is in the playtest, that the "Witch is a close second".
You all may be right, and the bard may be a full occult caster, but I think it's better to not come up with such conclusions right now. People may get disappointed because of hype about stuff that was never said. The playtest is only next month.

I'm pretty sure they've said all the classes which will be in the playtest are the core classes from PF1 plus the alchemist- there will not be surprise classes.

I'm pretty sure they've said all the classes which will be in the playtest are the core classes from PF1 plus the alchemist- there will not be surprise classes.

So, people never lie or backtrack to create surprises, huh?

JRutterbush wrote:

How many fights have you been in where the only way to contribute was to spam the same spell over and over? Maybe one in dozens. Overall, the Wizard is still at an advantage. Pointing out one very specific and very rare circumstance where the Sorcerer can shine doesn't change that.

Also, a Wizard will likely prepare multiple elemental spells and be fine against most enemies. But if, say, they're fighting fire elementals, the Wizard still has 2 or 3 solid blasting spells they can use, while a Sorcerer who chose a fire spell as their primary damage spell is just plain out of luck. So again, large scale versatility trumps small scale.

You appear to suffer from some conceptual limitations that I'm not sure I can break through

I understand what you're saying, I just think you're wrong. And your condescending tone isn't really helping the matter, either.

So, people never lie or backtrack to create surprises, huh?

I just think we should wait until we have the bard preview before theorizing something like this ^^

The Bard being an Occult caster is certainly speculation. The Bard being in the playtest is not.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about up-casting and down-casting.

Let’s take the example of the Flight spell from Starfinder.

In Starfinder, if you take the spell at one level you get all the lower level versions. This is what I believe many are calling down-casting.

Note that the Flight spell from Starfinder is approximately the same as the PF1 spellls Feather Fall, Levitate, Fly, Overland Flight and Mass Fly. A PF1 Sorcerer would have to use up a spell known at each of those levels, a Starfinder Technomancer can learn it at one level and use any of the lower level spells.

Spontaneous Heightened casting as I read it in PF2 would allow you to only know Flight 1, but if you used the ability on it that day you could use the spell at any of your levels. Unlike with Fireball, you would be getting several different effects. That is a really powerful ability.

I can think of several other spells they could collapse:
* Magic Weapon, Greater Magic Weapon
* Endure Elements, Resist Elements, Protection from Elements
* Vanish, Invisibility, Greater Invisibility
* All the other spells that have a lesser and/or greater version.

Allowing either option would give a lot more spells known. Getting to choose it each day can cause a spell list to explode with options that you may not use very often.

Down casting is fixed, so you don’t have the same sort of explosion of options. The list you had yesterday is the same as today. The Spontaneous Heightened ability does cause an explosion because you can change which spells you get the full range of options on.

I like the Starfinder ability to use the lower level version of the spell. The PF2 Spontaneous Heightened ability is much stronger.

Igwilly wrote:

So, people never lie or backtrack to create surprises, huh?

I just think we should wait until we have the bard preview before theorizing something like this ^^

The Bard being an Occult caster is certainly speculation. The Bard being in the playtest is not.

Weird. I never said the Bard wasn't in the playtest, just that I would like to wait the Bard preview ^^

Rises from torpor

I've always wanted to like the sorcerer, there's something very interesting to me about the idea behind the class. But there was always that feeling in PF1 that I was basically just playing a different flavor of wizard, rather than something entirely its own thing.

But holy heck, this new iteration of the sorcerer is so incredibly exciting to me in both lore and mechanics! The idea that your spell list changes based on what type of sorcerer you are, while still being granted those theme-specific spells at the same time... it's everything I ever wanted from the sorcerer before, but wasn't able to put my finger on it. It ties the whole class concept together.

I had been a little hesitant about the idea of lineage spells when I first heard about them. You can only spontaneously heighten some spells? It struck me as artificially limiting. But now understanding that you can pick and choose which spells to apply the ability on a daily basis? It turns it into an interesting tactical choice, something that the PF1 sorcerer never really had.

The last couple weeks of blogs have been interesting, but there just hasn't been a lot to get excited about. I admit I had started to get complacent. But this sorcerer blog has refreshed my enthusiasm. Well done!

Well, I've played a few and GM'ed for half a dozen of them. My experience is that lower level spells are often very important even at higher levels. Reducing the amount known there drastically also reduces the versatility of the class.

That's because lower level spells basically scaled up to your caster level, making them constantly effective.

I'm only noting my progression of thought on resonance. I went from "Hmmm, interesting" to "That seems off..." to "This is a terrible idea and needs to be excised ASAP" over the last weeks and indubitably this will be a huge point of contention for the whole playerbase when the playtest releases.

I suspect that can happen really easily when you're exposed to constant negative opinions (most of which don't actually know any more than you do), and would suggest you test the rules for yourself before making a decision.

Xenocrat wrote:

WBL for consumables is a gray area. Most guidelines are that a certain percentage of your WBL should be invested at any particular time in consumables. When you spend them, you should get more WBL to replace them.

Well... it seems like Adventure Paths and Pathfinder Society do not agree with that affirmation, and thus I think your interpretation might not be the official one.

Where did you see this guideline? I'd like to keep it for future reference if it's true.

WBL is meant to be the wealth you have, not the sum of wealth you have and the wealth you have spent, so some player feels that part of the duty of the GM is to adjust wealth found so that approximately they are at WBL, regardless of the quantity of consumable used.

AP give about 20% more than what is needed to keep up with WBL, if you find everything.

Darkorin wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

WBL for consumables is a gray area. Most guidelines are that a certain percentage of your WBL should be invested at any particular time in consumables. When you spend them, you should get more WBL to replace them.

Well... it seems like Adventure Paths and Pathfinder Society do not agree with that affirmation, and thus I think your interpretation might not be the official one.

Where did you see this guideline? I'd like to keep it for future reference if it's true.

WBL is meant to be the wealth you have, not the sum of wealth you have and the wealth you have spent, so some player feels that part of the duty of the GM is to adjust wealth found so that approximately they are at WBL, regardless of the quantity of consumable used.

AP give about 20% more than what is needed to keep up with WBL, if you find everything.

Yeah. Forcing the GM to manage player wealth is a real crap situation, IMO. That said, that discussion is perhaps better suited to another thread unless it ties in somehow to the mechanics of the sorceror (for instance: the efficacy of Arcane Evolution is going to vary quite a bit depending on the cost and availability of magic scrolls).

That's because lower level spells basically scaled up to your caster level, making them constantly effective.

There simply are some buff and utility spells which only exist at lower levels, so that taking a higher level version is not possible. As the playtest rules are not out, we don't know exactly how spells like Resist Energy, Knock, Protection from Energy, Fly and so on will be handled. But assuming that there are now higher level versions of all of them, that means that the limited spells known of the Sorcerer will be much more taxed than before, making the class obviously less versatile than its PF1E counterpart. I view that as a bad direction to take.

I suspect that can happen really easily when you're exposed to constant negative opinions (most of which don't actually know any more than you do), and would suggest you test the rules for yourself before making a decision.

Or I read the blogs dealing with resonance and observed with growing alarm that the rules as presented have some severe implications for adventuring downtime and parties with no dedicated healer and then observed that the devs seemed to avoid discussing this with the players like the plague. And now I've discovered another limiter imposed by resonance. So, yeah, I can actually form my own opinions.

It occurs to me that Lineage Spells, which we had heard about weeks ago in some threads, might be the name of the class feat(ure) you pick to add how many spells you get to heighten. Too bad such a thing has to exist at all, really...

Amaranthine Witch wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

edduardco wrote:

Sorry DMW to hijack your discussion with magnuskn, but I think something to consider is that although PF2 Sorcerers have overall a little more spells known, PF1 Sorcerers have the advantage of automatic spell progression, and no and I don't think 2 Spontaneous Heightening is good enough compensation for that.

That is not all that PF2 sorcerers have going for them. While their damage may not increase automatically, their spell DCs do, keeping lower level spells relevant in a different yet similar way to caster level scaling.

Except that only (to be fair a very big only) DC scales with level. Not range or area of effect, not duration, not number of targets, not buff modifiers, or any other variable (if there are more).

For some spells, critical fails/success can impart effects with larger mechanical consequences or longer effects. As such, some of those improvements happen indirectly through increasing DCs.

That said, I'd say you are mostly correct. Lower level spells fall off in relevancy as the game goes on and I believe that is at the service of game balance.

I don't see how lower level Save of sucks spells lose in relevancy as the games go on.

Damaging spells, yes, but spells that make you lose 1 action a turn for X turns are as relevant when your highest spell level is 3 as when it is 6. Spell level doesn't change the DC of the spell. That is changed by caster level.

Higher spell level Sos spells will be more potent, probably, but the lowest level spells will not lose their effect.

I don't understand what this means.

Signature skills as far as we know so far just determine what you can eventually go Legendary in. So an abyssal sorcerer is naturally talented by instinct at lying, scaring people, and physically adept athletic tasks, in addition to understanding of the knowledge skill that underlies their magic type. Why would different sorcerers whose magic comes from different sources and provides instinctive rather than learned abilities have the same signature skills?

Limited uses? You get to use it four times a day (assuming 18 Cha) at level 1. How many fights do you ordinarily get in per day? It takes two actions to start (vs one for drawing an ordinary weapon) and lasts longer than the expected duration of a fight. And it autoscales like a magical weapon and gives temporary HP, does more damage than the nothing weapon proficiencies that most casters likely have, and hits off...

Simplified due to quote system sucking.

I will go them in order.

1) To use a PF1 comparison, hunter is lazy and bad design as it is simply 1-6 spell levels of the druid. Bard is good desing due to having a totally custom made spell list for it, mind you that spell list causes some issues with magic items. But the basic point is that by customizing a spell list you will get better results than mere 4 lists that every single class uses.

2) Yet your actual race instead of some far forgotten ancestros miniscule amount of blood is more relevant in that? One or the other has to change or it does not make sense. And training and experience(not the game term) are vastly more influential in vast majority of skills than genetics. To be fair I think the whole idea of signature skills is stupid and if I decide to go into PF2 they will be houseruled from session 0 to eternity.

3) It uses spell points, which presumably will have lot of other uses. And it is still limited even if under normal circumstances don't run out of it. It is still nothing more than a glorified dagger, just a level appropriate dagger. The level of usefulness that this power has is so low, that it is barely worth writing it on your character sheet.

WBL is meant to be the wealth you have, not the sum of wealth you have and the wealth you have spent, so some player feels that part of the duty of the GM is to adjust wealth found so that approximately they are at WBL, regardless of the quantity of consumable used.

AP give about 20% more than what is needed to keep up with WBL, if you find everything.

Which is fairly reasonable because the treasure rules assume you consume or otherwise lose 15% of everything you loot. Leaving the remaining +5% as your margin of error. I imagine 'fumbles' end up eating into most the consumable budget instead of potions and scrolls.

Xenocrat wrote:

JRutterbush wrote:

The only time the Sorcerer's versatility outshines the Wizard's is when there is a time-sensitive issue that must be solved within 24 hours that requires more than 2 or 3 uses of a given spell that is common enough for the Sorcerer to use a limited spell known slot on. This does not come up nearly enough to balance out the Wizard's versatility in most other situations.

Do you even random encounter or engage in combat without knowing the enemy a day ahead of time, bro.

And the Sorcerer knew the enemy three levels ahead of time? We're comparing Sorcerer to Wizard here, not just looking at the Wizard on its own. In a surprise encounter like the one you're describing, the Sorcerer and Wizard are on even footing, since neither of them knew enough about the encounter in advance to prepare their spells to match it.

However, in an encounter where the enemy is known in advance, the clear advantage is to the Wizard, since the Sorcerer can't change their spells to match an upcoming encounter, even if they know it's coming.

Both the Wizard and the Sorcerer can take a set of general spells that allow them to solve the most common problems in the game. The difference is that when they know about a specific problem in advance, the Wizard can spend some time to specialize their spell selection to overcome it, while the Sorcerer can't.

So again, either the Sorcerer and Wizard are on equal footing, or the Wizard has the clear advantage.

As already said, it depends on "how much in advance". Retraining is a thing in PF2, it is available in the basic set of rules. So a sorcerer can change his entire set of spells, if he has enough time.

As already said, it depends on "how much in advance". Retraining is a thing in PF2, it is available in the basic set of rules. So a sorcerer can change his entire set of spells, if he has enough time.

Or so we hope. That would remove quite a few of my concerns if it can be done in a reasonable amount of time and with a amount of effort which cannot be easily limited by the GM going "You can't find a higher level Sorcerer to help you retrain, nahnahnahnah!".

Okay, so I love bloodline spell lists. That's great.

I do not like that they are now on par with wizards in spell slots, but worse at actual spellcasting. I doubt their proficiency is a match for wizards too, so another strike against them.

Rest in peace, spontaneous casting, you will be missed.

As with other spellcasters, her proficiency with spell rolls and spell DCs increases to expert at 12th level, master at 16th, and legendary at 19th.

It seems to say, in no uncertain terms, that all the spellcasters become expert, master and legendary at the same levels.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm pretty sure they've said all the classes which will be in the playtest are the core classes from PF1 plus the alchemist- there will not be surprise classes.

So, people never lie or backtrack to create surprises, huh?

I just think we should wait until we have the bard preview before theorizing something like this ^^

I'm really unclear on what there is to be gained from clearly stating: "the classes in the playtest are: Alchemist, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard" and then having 2-3 classes that aren't in that list show up come August.

Like it seems like there's more lost in terms of "breach of trust" than there is to gain from there being a surprise. No matter what, a good portion of every class is going to be a surprise come August, just not "what the classes are."

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Amaranthine Witch wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

edduardco wrote:

Sorry DMW to hijack your discussion with magnuskn, but I think something to consider is that although PF2 Sorcerers have overall a little more spells known, PF1 Sorcerers have the advantage of automatic spell progression, and no and I don't think 2 Spontaneous Heightening is good enough compensation for that.

That is not all that PF2 sorcerers have going for them. While their damage may not increase automatically, their spell DCs do, keeping lower level spells relevant in a different yet similar way to caster level scaling.

Except that only (to be fair a very big only) DC scales with level. Not range or area of effect, not duration, not number of targets, not buff modifiers, or any other variable (if there are more).

For some spells, critical fails/success can impart effects with larger mechanical consequences or longer effects. As such, some of those improvements happen indirectly through increasing DCs.

That said, I'd say you are mostly correct. Lower level spells fall off in relevancy as the game goes on and I believe that is at the service of game balance.

I don't see how lower level Save of sucks spells lose in relevancy as the games go on.

Damaging spells, yes, but spells that make you lose 1 action a turn for X turns are as relevant when your highest spell level is 3 as when it is 6. Spell level doesn't change the DC of the spell. That is changed by caster level.

Higher spell level Sos spells will be more potent, probably, but the lowest level spells will not lose their effect.

Honestly, I don't think that I have the full picture just yet either. To my knowledge, the lowest level SoS spell that we have seen is phantasmal killer (which is level 4 and is a mix of damage and a status effect). I essentially think that low level SoS options are going to have limitations (CR/Max HP/whatever) or will generally be kind of lame in terms of the kinds of penalties that they impart.

JRutterbush wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

JRutterbush wrote:

The only time the Sorcerer's versatility outshines the Wizard's is when there is a time-sensitive issue that must be solved within 24 hours that requires more than 2 or 3 uses of a given spell that is common enough for the Sorcerer to use a limited spell known slot on. This does not come up nearly enough to balance out the Wizard's versatility in most other situations.

Do you even random encounter or engage in combat without knowing the enemy a day ahead of time, bro.

And the Sorcerer knew the enemy three levels ahead of time? We're comparing Sorcerer to Wizard here, not just looking at the Wizard on its own. In a surprise encounter like the one you're describing, the Sorcerer and Wizard are on even footing, since neither of them knew enough about the encounter in advance to prepare their spells to match it.

However, in an encounter where the enemy is known in advance, the clear advantage is to the Wizard, since the Sorcerer can't change their spells to match an upcoming encounter, even if they know it's coming.

Both the Wizard and the Sorcerer can take a set of general spells that allow them to solve the most common problems in the game. The difference is that when they know about a specific problem in advance, the Wizard can spend some time to specialize their spell selection to overcome it, while the Sorcerer can't.

So again, either the Sorcerer and Wizard are on equal footing, or the Wizard has the clear advantage.

As already said, it depends on "how much in advance". Retraining is a thing in PF2, it is available in the basic set of rules. So a sorcerer can change his entire set of spells, if he has enough time.

And the Wizard can do it in one day, and use the rest of those downtime days that the Sorcerer is spending to retrain to edge ahead on the WBL curve... Again, advantage Wizard.

Remember, were comparing the Sorcerer to the Wizard here, not just listing what the Sorcerer can do.

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Okay, so I love bloodline spell lists. That's great.

I do not like that they are now on par with wizards in spell slots, but worse at actual spellcasting. I doubt their proficiency is a match for wizards too, so another strike against them.

Rest in peace, spontaneous casting, you will be missed.

Blog wrote:

As with other spellcasters, her proficiency with spell rolls and spell DCs increases to expert at 12th level, master at 16th, and legendary at 19th.

It seems to say, in no uncertain terms, that all the spellcasters become expert, master and legendary at the same levels.

Thank you, I had missed that when reading the blog.

I ponder how difficult it will be to get Staves containing favored spells. We know about the Staff of Healing and thank the gods fo it. However the framework of the staff of healing implies they are always going to be pregenerated items. Which I fear will lead to a dearth of 'optimal' staves for sorcerers that want to leverage their higher Resonance Pools to gain additional combat-versatility).
Will there be rules for generating staves? Or will it be one of those 'more art than science' things? The latter almost insures I'll never play under a GM willing to deal with it.

Otherwise, I wonder if there will be low-level staves containing crowd favorites like magic missile (which arcane sorcerers can use in lieu of a spontaneous heightening slot). Or do they have to wait for the inevitable Staff of the Archmagi to get all those spells at once?

Igwilly wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm pretty sure they've said all the classes which will be in the playtest are the core classes from PF1 plus the alchemist- there will not be surprise classes.

So, people never lie or backtrack to create surprises, huh?

I just think we should wait until we have the bard preview before theorizing something like this ^^

I'm really unclear on what there is to be gained from clearly stating: "the classes in the playtest are: Alchemist, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard" and then having 2-3 classes that aren't in that list show up come August.

Like it seems like there's more lost in terms of "breach of trust" than there is to gain from there being a surprise. No matter what, a good portion of every class is going to be a surprise come August, just not "what the classes are."

If I ever "lie" to my friend, saying there won't be a surprise party for his birthday, while I'm just concocting that, I wouldn't be seriously called a liar.

Anyway, that's not my main point. My point is: the bard being occult is a too big change to just "assume" it's going to happen because of a sorcerer's bloodline.
Also, the core rulebook may have more stuff than the playtest. They may very well introduce a full occult class later, while watching what sort of reaction this list causes.
Bard being occult may be right, may be wrong. I just want to wait until the preview so I can then think on those terms ^^

Igwilly wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm pretty sure they've said all the classes which will be in the playtest are the core classes from PF1 plus the alchemist- there will not be surprise classes.

So, people never lie or backtrack to create surprises, huh?

I just think we should wait until we have the bard preview before theorizing something like this ^^

I'm really unclear on what there is to be gained from clearly stating: "the classes in the playtest are: Alchemist, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard" and then having 2-3 classes that aren't in that list show up come August.

Like it seems like there's more lost in terms of "breach of trust" than there is to gain from there being a surprise. No matter what, a good portion of every class is going to be a surprise come August, just not "what the classes are."

I would hardly consider "Hey, we reformatted some stuff and found page count for the Witch after all" to be a "breach of trust." I mean, what the heck.

IF witch makes it in, then I'd say it's up in the air whether bard is occult or primal, the other list that seems to best suit it thematically to me. Or maybe even picking spells off every list. But given the witch is probably NOT present, it's almost certainly occult.

I mean, the actual playtest books were printed months ago. So what reason is there for them not to disclose "hey, we added this other thing that some of you are excited about" since that die is cast.

Diego Rossi wrote:

WBL is meant to be the wealth you have, not the sum of wealth you have and the wealth you have spent, so some player feels that part of the duty of the GM is to adjust wealth found so that approximately they are at WBL, regardless of the quantity of consumable used.

AP give about 20% more than what is needed to keep up with WBL, if you find everything.

Which is fairly reasonable because the treasure rules assume you consume or otherwise lose 15% of everything you loot. Leaving the remaining +5% as your margin of error. I imagine 'fumbles' end up eating into most the consumable budget instead of potions and scrolls.

I only disagree with the idea of some players that the GM should replace the consumable they use, regardless of how may hey use. I recall some old discussion in the forum with people saying that doing that was the duty of the GM.

If someone dring a potion of barkskin CL 12 and one of shield of faith CL 15 before every fight, burning up 1950 to kill 3 ogres, the WBL reduction is his problem, not a GM problem.

On the other hand, the GM should try to keep the WBL on level, if the players use it reasonably or they are simply unlucky (a raise dead plus two restorations can be a huge drain of resources at mid levels).

I mean, the actual playtest books were printed months ago. So what reason is there for them not to disclose "hey, we added this other thing that some of you are excited about" since that die is cast.

Fear of backlash and canceled pre-orders?

Cantriped wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

WBL is meant to be the wealth you have, not the sum of wealth you have and the wealth you have spent, so some player feels that part of the duty of the GM is to adjust wealth found so that approximately they are at WBL, regardless of the quantity of consumable used.

AP give about 20% more than what is needed to keep up with WBL, if you find everything.

Which is fairly reasonable because the treasure rules assume you consume or otherwise lose 15% of everything you loot. Leaving the remaining +5% as your margin of error. I imagine 'fumbles' end up eating into most the consumable budget instead of potions and scrolls.

I only disagree with the idea of some players that the GM should replace the consumable they use, regardless of how may hey use. I recall some old discussion in the forum with people saying that doing that was the duty of the GM.

If someone dring a potion of barkskin CL 12 and one of shield of faith CL 15 before every fight, burning up 1950 to kill 3 ogres, the WBL reduction is his problem, not a GM problem.

On the other hand, the GM should try to keep the WBL on level, if the players use it reasonably or they are simply unlucky (a raise dead plus two restorations can be a huge drain of resources at mid levels).

The interpretation and implication that's there's an obligation to replace consumable wealth spent is something I find incredibly bizarre, when the referenced rules and other related rules such as wealth found through encounters imply that not that the wealth is expected to be replaced, but wealth by level and wealth per encounter say that they assume a percentage of wealth shrinkage as you level based on consuming consumables and converting inappropriate gear for more appropriate gear at a loss.

I only disagree with the idea of some players that the GM should replace the consumable they use, regardless of how may hey use. I recall some old discussion in the forum with people saying that doing that was the duty of the GM.

If someone dring a potion of barkskin CL 12 and one of shield of faith CL 15 before every fight, burning up 1950 to kill 3 ogres, the WBL reduction is his problem, not a GM problem.

On the other hand, the GM should try to keep the WBL on level, if the players use it reasonably or they are simply unlucky (a raise dead plus two restorations can be a huge drain of resources at mid levels).

I think we are generally in agreement in this regard. I wasn't trying to advocate 'infinite' consumables so much as an encouragement to have at least 15% of the party's treasure come in the form of consumables they'll actually want to consume. However it is also more fun for everyone if you let them recoup the losses of a poor financial decision or a string of ill fortune eventually. Afterall, all manner of heroic fantasy involves comming into vast wealth... and then promptly losing it all to justify the next adventure.

Also Seoni's new look is horrible.

That's not very constructive, to be honest.

Are casters in Starfinder considered extremely strong and causing option paralysis? They can Undercast but are otherwise extremely similar to the PF 2E Sorcerer.

Granted, Prepared casitng doesn't exist there.

There are also only six spell levels in Starfinder.

Are casters in Starfinder considered extremely strong and causing option paralysis? They can Undercast but are otherwise extremely similar to the PF 2E Sorcerer.

Granted, Prepared casitng doesn't exist there.

Starfinder doesn’t have spontaneous heightening, so people don’t go from having all levels of Flight to all levels of Summon Creature based on a daily choice. Summon Creature is done quite a bit differently in Starfinder.

Although option paralysis is a concern, the amount of power gained in my mind is a much bigger problem. As a GM, I would also be concerned about the player’s knowledge of all the options when they use this power. I would rather not have something like this slow down the game.

TheFinish wrote:

My issue with the "option paralysis" reason is twofold:

1) Why isn't this a problem with the Wizard? A wizard knows more spells and can have more slots as well, depending on specialisation. And they can heighten their spells to any level. But they also have to choose that heightening at the start of the day. I can see a lot more option paralysis there as they hem and haw about what to prepare in which slot at the start of the day than a Sorcerer during a fight. Especially since I've seen it happen in PF1 (but with a Cleric, not a wizard).

Because a wizard doesn't prepare/choose their spells in the middle if combat for casting.

And? If anything, having to lock your choices at the start of the day would generate more option paralysis, not less.

"Man, should I prepare dispel magic as 5th level? Or 4th? Well the bad guy is supposed to be a wizard. But I got no idea what level. Oh man."

Repeated ad nauseam. With more spells. And more slots. Telling me the sorcerer somehow locks up in combat but the wizard doesn't spend half an hour tying up the game at the start is not something I'll buy for even a second.

I'd say give them full heightening, cut their spells known to 2+Bloodline per level. Or limit their spells more but do like 5th edition and just make them Spells Known, in total, not per Spell Level. The whole spell system right now is worse than PF1 and that's not something you should strive for.

And? If anything, having to lock your choices at the start of the day would generate more option paralysis, not less.

"Man, should I prepare dispel magic as 5th level? Or 4th? Well the bad guy is supposed to be a wizard. But I got no idea what level. Oh man."

Repeated ad nauseam. With more spells. And more slots. Telling me the sorcerer somehow locks up in combat but the wizard doesn't spend half an hour tying up the game at the start is not something I'll buy for even a second.

Why in earth would that tie up the whole table? The player, sure, but then you move along the story with the other players as the wizard quietly has their collapse.

willuwontu wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

My issue with the "option paralysis" reason is twofold:

1) Why isn't this a problem with the Wizard? A wizard knows more spells and can have more slots as well, depending on specialisation. And they can heighten their spells to any level. But they also have to choose that heightening at the start of the day. I can see a lot more option paralysis there as they hem and haw about what to prepare in which slot at the start of the day than a Sorcerer during a fight. Especially since I've seen it happen in PF1 (but with a Cleric, not a wizard).

Because a wizard doesn't prepare/choose their spells in the middle if combat for casting.

And? If anything, having to lock your choices at the start of the day would generate more option paralysis, not less.

"Man, should I prepare dispel magic as 5th level? Or 4th? Well the bad guy is supposed to be a wizard. But I got no idea what level. Oh man."

The difference is that this decision-making process is done at the start of the day, when everybody's just puttering around and doing whatever. It doesn't come in the middle of combat, where one person is taking forever deciding what to do with their turn when combat is supposed to be fast-paced and fun.

To be clear, I'm not convinced that free heightening for the Sorcerer would create this decision paralysis problem, I'm just trying to clarify why it happening during combat as opposed to during prep time would be a problem.

TheFinish wrote:

And? If anything, having to lock your choices at the start of the day would generate more option paralysis, not less.

"Man, should I prepare dispel magic as 5th level? Or 4th? Well the bad guy is supposed to be a wizard. But I got no idea what level. Oh man."

Repeated ad nauseam. With more spells. And more slots. Telling me the sorcerer somehow locks up in combat but the wizard doesn't spend half an hour tying up the game at the start is not something I'll buy for even a second.

Why in earth would that tie up the whole table? The player, sure, but then you move along the story with the other players as the wizard quietly has their collapse.

"Ignoring the player" works for the Sorcerer mid combat too. That or telling them "Just pick a spell already!". That tends to work wonders, in my experience. Especially now in PF2 with cantrips autoscaling, they can just zot someone with a cantrip if they somehow can't for the life of them choose a spell to cast.

The difference is that this decision-making process is done at the start of the day, when everybody's just puttering around and doing whatever. It doesn't come in the middle of combat, where one person is taking forever deciding what to do with their turn when combat is supposed to be fast-paced and fun.

To be clear, I'm not convinced that free heightening for the Sorcerer would create this decision paralysis problem, I'm just trying to clarify why it happening during combat as opposed to during prep time would be a problem.

The thing is, I've never had to deal with players having option paralysis in combat when it comes to spells. Not in Shadowrun (where you have to choose Force, which is an analogue to Spell Level), not in 5th Edition, not in PF1 (where the closest analogue to heightening would be Metamagic Feats on the fly), not in Earthdawn (though granted, spellcasting in Earthdawn is much more different), etc.

I have had problems with players not knowing what to prepare. Or leaving slots open to prepare mid dungeon. That's why I don't buy that somehow auto-heightening makes people lock up at the table.

I find the "it's too powerful" and "it lets the Sorcerer solve problems with the least powerful required spell slot" reasons to be much more believable, but both of them can be solved by drastically reducing spells known.

I feel like drastically reducing spells known *and* autoheightening any spell the Sorcerer knows to an appropriate level would basically be saying "don't ever learn those spells which don't heighten to every level" since it would be a big loss in versatility to take a spell which can only ever be cast at 2 levels (like Regenerate) or even a spell that only comes in one version instead of a spell which you can cast at as many levels as possible.

I mean, we're going to have some low level spells which don't even do 3 different things at different levels let alone 8-9.

That's because lower level spells basically scaled up to your caster level, making them constantly effective.

There are plenty of spells that work and work well without any real scaling or are useful without using the scaling. I would have no issues preparing any of the following if they were limited to CL 1 only. Alchemical Tinkering, Crafter's Fortune, Ears of the City, Endure Elements, Fabricate Disguise, Feather Fall, Infernal Healing, Liberating Command, Rune Trace, Serren's Swift Girding, Windy Escape. That's only on a quick skim over the sorcerer list.

Allowing Sorcerers to automatically heighten all their spells creates some problems. Let’s take a spell load out for a Sorcerer of level 7.

You get: 4, 4, 4, 3

You might take:

Level 1 : Vanish, Summon Monster I, Magic Missile, Mage Armour
Level 2 : Glitter Dust, Create Pit, Scare, Darkness
Level 3 : Dispel Magic, Fire Ball, Haste, Protection from Energy
Level 4 : Dimension Door, Confusion, Overland Flight

Now assuming you get automatic heightening, what does this turn in to (definitely some guess work on what spells are lumped together):

Level 1 : Vanish, Summon Monster I, Magic Missile, Mage Armour

Level 2 : Invisibility, Summon Monster II, Magic Missile II, Glitter Dust, Create Pit, Pit, Scare, Darkness

Level 3 : Invisibility Sphere, Summon Monster III, Magic Missile III, Mage Armour II, Spiked Pit, Deeper Darkness, Dispel Magic, Fire Ball, Haste, Protection from Energy

Level 4 : Improve Invisibility, Summon Monster IV, Acid Pit, Fear, Dispel Magic 4th, Fire Ball 4th, Protection from Energy Communal, Dimension Door, Confusion, Overland Flight.

It is only level 7, and it is seriously out of hand.

I will do a down casting version later. It looks better, but I still prefer spontaneous heighten for its adaption and planning element.

"Ignoring the player" works for the Sorcerer mid combat too. That or telling them "Just pick a spell already!". That tends to work wonders, in my experience. Especially now in PF2 with cantrips autoscaling, they can just zot someone with a cantrip if they somehow can't for the life of them choose a spell to cast.

Ignoring the player would mean the player losing their turn in combat. WHich if that's what you want to do, that's fine, but it has a bit bigger consequence for that combat than the wizard fretting in the corner while the bard chats up the bartender for information.

The thing is, I've never had to deal with players having option paralysis in combat when it comes to spells. Not in Shadowrun (where you have to choose Force, which is an analogue to Spell Level), not in 5th Edition, not in PF1 (where the closest analogue to heightening would be Metamagic Feats on the fly), not in Earthdawn (though granted, spellcasting in Earthdawn is much more different), etc.

I have experienced it, most recently in 5e. And lest we turn this into an endless round of "Taint so!" the critical role podcast has lots of examples of the players not knowing what to do mid-combat and so having to be prodded by the DM to make a decision.

More importantly, the Devs stated they saw it during their testing. Why would they lie?

Allowing Sorcerers to automatically heighten all their spells creates some problems. Let’s take a spell load out for a Sorcerer of level 7.

You get: 4, 4, 4, 3

You might take:

Level 1 : Vanish, Summon Monster I, Magic Missile, Mage Armour
Level 2 : Glitter Dust, Create Pit, Scare, Darkness
Level 3 : Dispel Magic, Fire Ball, Haste, Protection from Energy
Level 4 : Dimension Door, Confusion, Overland Flight

Now assuming you get automatic heightening, what does this turn in to (definitely some guess work on what spells are lumped together):

Level 1 : Vanish, Summon Monster I, Magic Missile, Mage Armour

Level 2 : Invisibility, Summon Monster II, Magic Missile II, Glitter Dust, Create Pit, Pit, Scare, Darkness

Level 3 : Invisibility Sphere, Summon Monster III, Magic Missile III, Mage Armour II, Spiked Pit, Deeper Darkness, Dispel Magic, Fire Ball, Haste, Protection from Energy

Level 4 : Improve Invisibility, Summon Monster IV, Acid Pit, Fear, Dispel Magic 4th, Fire Ball 4th, Protection from Energy Communal, Dimension Door, Confusion, Overland Flight.

It is only level 7, and it is seriously out of hand.

I will do a down casting version later. It looks better, but I still prefer spontaneous heighten for its adaption and planning element.

This is assuming a whole lot though. For example, Mark confirmed (in the Trinkets and Treasures Blog, IIRC) that invisibility starts at 2nd level, and goes to Improved Invisibility at 4th. So no Vanish, and no Invisibility Sphere.

Not to mention you're assuming a lot of the old PF1 spells are Heighten +1. For one, you're wrong about magic missile (that one is heighten +2), and heal is also another one that scaled in +1 increments in PF1 (all the cure X spells), but now heightens at +2. And that's just the ones we know of. Your list is chock full of just assumptions everywhere. You also have Create Pit and Pit in your 2nd level spells, but that's probably just a typo.

You're also just giving them whatever 4th Spell they want when that obviously doesn't happen, they get their bloodline spells (and your examples don't match the only bloodline we know of).

And I yet fail to see how it's seriously out of hand when a wizard gets the exact same thing, and they could in fact cast any combination a sorcerer can cast (they just have to prepare it ahead of time, which, granted, is not easy.) with the right school.

I mean, one of the reasons I like sorcerers to begin with is that I don't have to choose which of 10 different 4th level spells I'm going to cast.

Cyouni wrote:

That's because lower level spells basically scaled up to your caster level, making them constantly effective.

There simply are some buff and utility spells which only exist at lower levels, so that taking a higher level version is not possible. As the playtest rules are not out, we don't know exactly how spells like Resist Energy, Knock, Protection from Energy, Fly and so on will be handled. But assuming that there are now higher level versions of all of them, that means that the limited spells known of the Sorcerer will be much more taxed than before, making the class obviously less versatile than its PF1E counterpart. I view that as a bad direction to take.

Well, considering resist energy scales up to level 11 (and protection from energy 10) while also being sufficient to no-sell the vast majority of elemental attacks, yes. Similarly, knock scales infinitely with your caster level while also generally invalidating the people that chose to invest in that skill.

We actually know exactly how Knock (and other skill-adjacent spells) is handled, just not the exact numbers on it. You use your spellcasting proficiency instead of your proficiency in that skill, or you grant a bonus in that skill to another person.

What you are 100% going to have to deal with: spellcasters are no longer the guaranteed problem solvers with infinite spells they are in 1E.

Quote:

I suspect that can happen really easily when you're exposed to constant negative opinions (most of which don't actually know any more than you do), and would suggest you test the rules for yourself before making a decision.

Or I read the blogs dealing with resonance and observed with growing alarm that the rules as presented have some severe implications for adventuring downtime and parties with no dedicated healer and then observed that the devs seemed to avoid discussing this with the players like the plague. And now I've discovered another limiter imposed by resonance. So, yeah, I can actually form my own opinions.

While we're on the subject of that, we know there's a ton of ways for out-of-combat healing to happen (wands, Medicine skill, cleric, bard, and now sorcerer among them). We know the devs have mentioned that doesn't run up hard against resonance limits. These are things that have been stated. Whether those hold up to pressure in all aspects remains to be seen, but presenting it as though you cannot heal out of combat is ridiculous - but present it as such people did.

When literally every remark made by the devs was met with "SO THIS IS TO COUNTER CURE LIGHT WANDS HUH", there was literally no point in the devs engaging in that. There's no point in engaging with people determined to twist every word you say out of context, and sometimes it's better to just leave it.

heal is also another one that scaled in +1 increments in PF1 (all the cure X spells), but now heightens at +2.

Heal heightens at +1

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.

But the rest of your point stands

I have experienced it, most recently in 5e. And lest we turn this into an endless round of "Taint so!" the critical role podcast has lots of examples of the players not knowing what to do mid-combat and so having to be prodded by the DM to make a decision.

More importantly, the Devs stated they saw it during their testing. Why would they lie?

Gah, gods take the Edit system here. I'd written an edit and during it, boom, limit reached.

At any rate, I've no plans of turning it into and endless "T'aint so!" as you put it. You've your experiences, I've mine, and they colour our points of view. That's why I write them down. Not to claim they're worth more or less than yours.

As for the second point, I never said they lied (though thank you for implying it). But the developers have, more than once, shown they aren't perfect. Which they don't claim to be. But it does mean, sometimes, they're wrong. Stuff they think is a problem isn't, and stuff they think isn't a problem actually is.

And since, until we get the playtest book, I can't tell one way or the other, I make my doubts/grievances known now. Both to set precedent, and because the devs have the habit of popping into these threads sometimes. Which means if you ask early, you might get an early response. Which may allay your fears, or deepen them. But hey, you get the good with the bad.