Sorcerer Class Preview

Gavmania wrote:

In pf2, that I know of, both Shield and mage Armor are cantrips now and both scale automatically without requiring slots.

I know Shield is a Cantrip now, which makes perfect sense given how it functions now, but as far as I know Mage Armor is still a normal spell. It just lasts 24 hours.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The designers have specifically noted the cantrip thing. Cantrips level with you, and are an entirely valid combat strategy, or intended to be so, anyway. If they fail at that task, that's an issue, but they're certainly intended to step up and fill the void left by fewer and lower powered low-level spells, and have explicitly been stated to be so.

As a bit of a side-track, related to cantrip use and "the void left by... lower powered low-level spells", this is actually a large part of why I want the "use 'blasting' spells to enhance cantrips" thing I mentioned previously. Personally, when I play a caster, I like being thematic in my spell choice (and yes, I know in my previous post I was talking about how having a wide bag of tricks is the caster thing and advocating about having a slew of different kinds of spell, I often argue PoVs outside my own ^.^; ) so honestly... when I'm playing a blaster, my favored casting style TBH, I want my spells to be blasting spells. It honestly kinda sucks to be basically told that my preferred casting style is being reduced to cantrip-mancer, while my spells below the highest levels have to be off-theme if they are to be remotely useful. As such, I continue to advocate for something that makes those low-level blasting spells useful (not optimal for higher level of course, but still useful like damage meant for a character half your level isn't)... like them enhancing the auto-scaling damage cantrips.

I think low level blast spells will still have uses, just in slightly more specific scenarios. 3rd level fireball is still just as good for fighting 5th level or lower enemies as hordes-- better even, since the save goes up and the enemies will be more likely to critically fail. It actually doesn't take super long for reflex save DCs to hit the point where ogres critically them 95% of the time, and because they are sacks of hit points even 12d6 probably won't kill them in one shot, but 2 3rd level fireballs certainly will for example, or your party archer can quickly mop them up. (And this is without feats, mind. One imagines that someone who loves blowing stuff up as much as you has taken stuff like Dangerous Sorcery and Burn It, and the net effect may very well push your damage into one shot territory.)

Damage over time spells like acid arrow can trigger weakness damage multiple times off a single casting, and multi-shot spells like Scorching Ray might as well.

I think your highest level blasts will basically be your few nukes that can mess up things regardless of context, your cantrips will be your workhorse spells, and your lower level blast slots will be used where it seems like their particular effects will be maximized.

Darkorin wrote:

As the devs themselves said before: my playtest group never really hit hard against the resonance caps, even the ones with lower Charisma. (From Mark Seifter), which means that sorcerers having an edge thanks to their charisma is plainly false, and even the designers should know it

Alternative interpretation: Wizard players didn't go with consumable/use heavy builds, because they didn't want to blow through their Resonance in the first fight. Thus, they never hit hard against Resonance caps because they made reasonable choices. Sorcerers had more freedom in their item builds, and this is reflected in Dev comments

Pros: we don't have to assume the devs are incompetent or lying.
Cons: we have to assume playtesters behaved in a certain way

I'm not calling the devs incompetent or that they are lying, my Edit 2 made sure of that and you're ignoring it. Everyone can be victim of faulty logic, otherwise we wouldn't be having a playtest since the devs would be able to produce a perfect game on their first try.

Thing is, you're ignoring the point that the sorcerer will become the default group-magic-item user of the group, which means that this is a burden he has to take for the whole group.

Yes it does mean than having a sorcerer in your team means you'll probably be able to have 1-3 more usage of the group wands per day, but don't say that this increases the sorcerer versatility.

You're also talking as if as soon as a consumable will get consumed by the sorcerer, he will find another one to be used on the next day. That's probably false, or it won't make sense. Which means that if the sorcerer consumes more magic items, he will be longer in a "recovering wealth" state. And this kind of state depends too much on the DM, which I find bad.

And being able to use your 5 consummables vs having to choose 2-3 out of your 5 consummables in a single day means that the wizard will have the same versatility, but it won't have the same endurance.

Resonance points doesn't make versatility, it makes endurance, Sorcerer will be a little bit more competent in a day where all of your resources are going to be used, but having a use-case for your 5 back up scrolls on the same day?
That should be really rare, and you're almost always better to have very different scroll which should not be used for similar situation, which diminishes the chance to use your 5 scrolls in the same day, making only one or two relevant and thus have the same benefit as the wizard.

Let's also not forget that the sorcerer will be at the mercy of the DM for his scroll procuration, when at least the wizard could create scroll from his known spells.

A wizard prepare general usage spells and craft specific cases scrolls. A Sorcerer is limited by his spell list and crafting scrolls makes almost no sense. His scrolls is DM dependent, while the wizard scrolls can be controlled by the player as a way to bypass the "prepare spells for the day" limitation.

I think low level blast spells will still have uses, just in slightly more specific scenarios. 3rd level fireball is still just as good for fighting 5th level or lower enemies as hordes-- better even, since the save goes up and the enemies will be more likely to critically fail. It actually doesn't take super long for reflex save DCs to hit the point where ogres critically them 95% of the time, and because they are sacks of hit points even 12d6 probably won't kill them in one shot, but 2 3rd level fireballs certainly will for example, or your party archer can quickly mop them up. (And this is without feats, mind. One imagines that someone who loves blowing stuff up as much as you has taken stuff like Dangerous Sorcery and Burn It, and the net effect may very well push your damage into one shot territory.)

Damage over time spells like acid arrow can trigger weakness damage multiple times off a single casting, and multi-shot spells like Scorching Ray might as well.

I think your highest level blasts will basically be your few nukes that can mess up things regardless of context, your cantrips will be your workhorse spells, and your lower level blast slots will be used where it seems like their particular effects will be maximized.

I hope adventure design actually includes situations like that ever coming up then. In all the games I've played in the past 4 years (and since I'd frequently have 4 or more games I was involved in at a time, that was a lot of games) fighting stuff half our level or lower has come up... I think once. And even then it was, like, 5 people that just got brutalized by the martials. I've never seen the mythical swarm of low-levels that AoE is supposed to be best used on. Now maybe I've just not played the *right* games for that, but I've played a lot of things.

edduardco wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

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?

I don't understand, as far as I know this wasn't a problem in 3.5 with Psionics or Dreamscarred Psionics for that matter.

So why is problem now?
What changed?
The percentage of players with option paralysis is really that large?

I can actually attest that this is indeed a problem with Dreamscarred Psionics. It probably wouldn't be for you or I, but to someone who is less obsessive about optimization or learning the rules, it very much can be. One of my favorite player/PC combinations was a really awesome psion from my first pathfinder campaign. My PC had awesome role-play synergy with the character and the player and I were tight as hell. But the player didn't have quite my grasp on the rules or skill with optimization. Not only was there decision paralysis, but there was also mistakes made with the rules like spending more powers points than allowed to amplify a spell.

As Mark and Sslarn have pointed out, the folks posting in these threads are a lot better at the game than 90% of the PF market/players. It is entirely reasonable for the core classes to be accessible to that 90%. I think a more complex mechanic like psionics could very well have a place in the game, but it should be in a later book.

This seems to imply that 90% of PF player base suffers for option paralysis, if this is really the case then fine, PF2 is just not the game for me, but if is not the case, if option paralysis only affects a small percentage then option paralysis should be handle through guidelines, and should not be affecting system design to the degree shown here.

One of the big failings of PF1 (IMO, of course) was how many of the core classes were the most complex to play. Wizard spell books and vancian casting are a headache for newbies. Clerics have a similar issue but full access to their entire spell list, potentially making it worse. Druids have all that plus a ton of other features pulling them in multiple directions which also makes them a pain to build. Fighters are simple to play but VERY hard to build well. And of course the core monk was a mess; most people agree you not only needed excellent skill to make them work but also access to archetypes which came later. Rogues had all sorts of problems. Sorcerers weren't the worst offenders, but stuff like stricter spell swapping and the human FCB made it easy to do them "wrong."

I think the paladin and barbarian are the only two classes that were really easy to pick up and play. Honorable mention to the bard, whose generalist nature meant they would probably be relevant at SOMETHING, and the Ranger, who while having some pitfalls a scrub can fill into can be done well with some very light guidance and serves as a well rounded introductory class thanks to having a little bit of everything doled out gradually.

You see, here is where I start doubting Paizo that option paralysis is really such a big concern. I agree that vancian magic for prepared casters is unintuitive and difficult to teach, and yet it remained practically the same, why not use neo-vancian* for PF2?

*By neo-vancian I mean how the Arcanist functions, or 5e Wizards.

The Sorcerer is to spells what the Barbarian is to heavy weapons : if I hit it often enough, it will fall

Enervate
Enervate
Enervate

is the Sorcerer's motto

So, with the system described in this blog post, I get to have more high-level slots but lose some low-level ones compared to PF1 AND get my highest-level spells earlier ? Sign me in

And I can choose 2 low-level spells that will give me access to more high-level spells in addition to those I know ? Excellent and much better than the other way around

and made even better by the possibility to change those 2 each day :-D

While the Wizard still has to guess at dawn what spells of what level (including heightening) he will need ? Ain't life great ?

Not to mention that I will from the start be able to use more magic items ? Mwahaha

Captain Morgan wrote:

I think low level blast spells will still have uses, just in slightly more specific scenarios. 3rd level fireball is still just as good for fighting 5th level or lower enemies as hordes-- better even, since the save goes up and the enemies will be more likely to critically fail. It actually doesn't take super long for reflex save DCs to hit the point where ogres critically them 95% of the time, and because they are sacks of hit points even 12d6 probably won't kill them in one shot, but 2 3rd level fireballs certainly will for example, or your party archer can quickly mop them up. (And this is without feats, mind. One imagines that someone who loves blowing stuff up as much as you has taken stuff like Dangerous Sorcery and Burn It, and the net effect may very well push your damage into one shot territory.)

Damage over time spells like acid arrow can trigger weakness damage multiple times off a single casting, and multi-shot spells like Scorching Ray might as well.

I think your highest level blasts will basically be your few nukes that can mess up things regardless of context, your cantrips will be your workhorse spells, and your lower level blast slots will be used where it seems like their particular effects will be maximized.

I hope adventure design actually includes situations like that ever coming up then. In all the games I've played in the past 4 years (and since I'd frequently have 4 or more games I was involved in at a time, that was a lot of games) fighting stuff half our level or lower has come up... I think once. And even then it was, like, 5 people that just got brutalized by the martials. I've never seen the mythical swarm of low-levels that AoE is supposed to be best used on. Now maybe I've just not played the *right* games for that, but I've played a lot of things.

I've seen it come up in various forms. The first book of rise of the tune Lords has it happen a bunch with goblins, and book 3 gives you lots of orcs to kill in the scenario I described.

However, I'll point out that if you find you aren't fighting large groups of enemies you probably shouldn't be focusing on AoE stuff. We know single target blasting will hit harder, unlike PF1. PF1 had a terrible problem with fireball being the best blast in almost any context, and certainly good enough often enough to be the one you always focused on. I'm glad that will change this time around.

You see, here is where I start doubting Paizo that option paralysis is really such a big concern. I agree that vancian magic for prepared casters is unintuitive and difficult to teach, and yet it remained practically the same, why not use neo-vancian* for PF2?

I'm not sure any of us get that one. Even those that like vancian casting, and want it to stay, seem to be arguing from a perspective of taste rather than function. Which is a fine argument to make, don't get me wrong, but when not even they can advocate for it on merits rather than tradition, well...

Captain Morgan wrote:

edduardco wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

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?

I don't understand, as far as I know this wasn't a problem in 3.5 with Psionics or Dreamscarred Psionics for that matter.

So why is problem now?
What changed?
The percentage of players with option paralysis is really that large?

I can actually attest that this is indeed a problem with Dreamscarred Psionics. It probably wouldn't be for you or I, but to someone who is less obsessive about optimization or learning the rules, it very much can be. One of my favorite player/PC combinations was a really awesome psion from my first pathfinder campaign. My PC had awesome role-play synergy with the character and the player and I were tight as hell. But the player didn't have quite my grasp on the rules or skill with optimization. Not only was there decision paralysis, but there was also mistakes made with the rules like spending more powers points than allowed to amplify a spell.

As Mark and Sslarn have pointed out, the folks posting in these threads are a lot better at the game than 90% of the PF market/players. It is entirely reasonable for the core classes to be accessible to that 90%. I think a more complex mechanic like psionics could very well have

...

It may indeed not be the game for you. Speaking as someone who can handle PF1 but doesn't have a lot of friends who can, I'm stoked for it being easier to learn while still giving me lots of super hero shenanigans and plenty of choice. I may finally be able to find folks who will run it for me instead of 5e.

You'll still have PF1 though, and no one will fault you for sticking with it.

Also, neo vancian carries a whole host of problems which are probably beyond the scope of this thread, but I think how bad the 5e sorcerer feels compared to the 5e wizard illustrates some of them.

I like the spell list tied to bloodline, but it's going to make each bloodline feel like it's own class. Honestly I saw this coming after the Alchemist preview and they mentioned that Oracle was also the most popular class, but it wasn't among the core class list, but they were going to explain later. Then they said 4 spell lists and I knew then it wasn't going to be a Arcane and Divine spell list options, but all of them.

I don't like the changes to the Iconic Sorcereress, another victory for neovictorianism is disappointing to me.

There is nothing wrong with some sex appeal.

However, I'll point out that if you find you aren't fighting large groups of enemies you probably shouldn't be focusing on AoE stuff. We know single target blasting will hit harder, unlike PF1. PF1 had a terrible problem with fireball being the best blast in almost any context, and certainly good enough often enough to be the one you always focused on. I'm glad that will change this time around.

I mean yeah single target fights deserve single target spells... in which case where do I use my low level blasts? They're not going to do more than tickle a level-appropriate single target after all. And if enemies of an appropriate level for those spells shows up and it's not the mythical horde, then the martials will deal with it probably before I can even blink. Which just comes back to my point I have to pointedly go off-theme to use my low-level slots at all, and I become the cantrip-mancer with a few good nukes for bosses. So in conclusion... I hope Kineticist makes a conversion quickly and stays at least relatively close to it's roots, since it basically functions the same way but much more satisfyingly so.

EDIT: And for something at least more related to Sorcerers... I guess I'm just gonna save Sorcs for stuff like my Healers and occasional Charmer or Illusionist, since the blasting-focused Sorc just feels so wrong.

edduardco wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

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?

I don't understand, as far as I know this wasn't a problem in 3.5 with Psionics or Dreamscarred Psionics for that matter.

So why is problem now?
What changed?
The percentage of players with option paralysis is really that large?

As to what percentage, I couldn't tell you. Possibly big, possibly small, who knows?

My guess as to what changed is that, because they collapsed so many spells into one another, spells having fundamentally different effects at different levels changed the game enough that what spell level you cast utility and buff spells matters a lot more. Damage and healing spells just increase die for the most part, no mental effort there, but picking between fog cloud and acid fog might cause some strain.

I'd be curious if they've been seeing an uptick in option overload in Starfinder Society, since that does have undercasting.

Are you sure the heightened spells have fundamental different effects? Because for what has been previewed this looks unlikely.

As for you question of fog cloud and acid fog, how is that any different than now? In PF1 if a Sorcerer knows both it still needs to ponder which one to use, in PF2 is still the same, if the Sorcerer knows both it still needs to ponder which one to use, so I don't see the relevance of the question or how PF2 is better in that regard.

Are you sure the heightened spells have fundamental different effects? Because for what has been previewed this looks unlikely.

Some do, some don't. For instance, stuff like Heal, damage spells, Cure probably, and Summon Monster just get incrementally stronger. On the other hand, Feather Falling and Fly are notably rather different and yet Feather Fall is now Fly 1.

I don't like the changes to the Iconic Sorcereress, another victory for neovictorianism is disappointing to me.

There is nothing wrong with some sex appeal.

I got the impression it's more that she didn't fit the proper cultural trappings that her background (written after the picture was complete) indicated. That was certainly the impression the artist gave in his comment earlier in the thread.

Additionally, while a certain amount of scantily clad characters might well make sense, and I certainly have no inherent objections to that, but Pathfinder's Iconics were a bit lopsided in that regard (with more scantily clad women than men) so balancing that out a little seems reasonable.

So, I was thinking and maybe undercasting and relearning a spell at a higher level could work for prepared casters too - the explanation would be that you added a few notes and observations to your grimmoire based on your own experiences with the spell.

I don't like the changes to the Iconic Sorcereress, another victory for neovictorianism is disappointing to me.

There is nothing wrong with some sex appeal.

Sure, when it makes sense. For Seoni, it doesn't make sense. As Wayne Reynolds said, he didn't know where she came from when he first drew her. Now that he knows she comes from a cooler region, he's drawing her as being dressed appropriately for her climate.

I sincerely hope Seltyiel did not fall to the "cover thy flesh" imperative :-)

I sincerely hope Seltyiel did not fall to the "cover thy flesh" imperative :-)

Yeah, he and Alahazra should stick with their life choices in this regard. Everyone else can cover up if they want (though Feiya and Crowe retaining their current looks, more or less, would also be solid...assuming Crowe even comes back, of course).

fog cloud[/i] and acid fog, how is that any different than now? In PF1 if a Sorcerer knows both it still needs to ponder...

It wasn't a question.

I feel they explained their points about how undercasting and heightening creates at-table paralysis and off-table makes spells that scale widely more valuable than intended. If you don't, hopefully they'll address that at some point, both for you and for others that feel that way.

I'm also, like you, unconvinced this is the correct solution, but we'll see for ourselves in a few weeks. Maybe in play it works out fine.

Edit: edited to be less of a jerk.

If auto-heighten is to be a feature of the game, then it oughta be featured. The game design seems too worried about bringing character strength down in arbitrary ways.

Arcanist style casting on all prepared casters with access to auto-heighten fixes the balance problem with just nixing spontaneous heighten.

Ideally, the mechanics for all spell casting will be identical, you have a repertoire of spells and cast from that list by choosing a spell slot to spend. The only difference is the scope of that repertoire on the daily basis. Overall prepared casters have more options, but in the moment spontaneous casters feel stronger.

It’s not a feature, they missed key wording in the spells blog, they put heightened as a way to show what the spell does when it is taken at a higher level, rather then have 9 written iterations of the same spell. This makes sorcerers spontaneous heighten better because the sorcerer doesn’t need to take the heightened spells he can choose 2 to heighten as he wants.

Captain Morgan wrote:

However, I'll point out that if you find you aren't fighting large groups of enemies you probably shouldn't be focusing on AoE stuff. We know single target blasting will hit harder, unlike PF1. PF1 had a terrible problem with fireball being the best blast in almost any context, and certainly good enough often enough to be the one you always focused on. I'm glad that will change this time around.

I mean yeah single target fights deserve single target spells... in which case where do I use my low level blasts? They're not going to do more than tickle a level-appropriate single target after all. And if enemies of an appropriate level for those spells shows up and it's not the mythical horde, then the martials will deal with it probably before I can even blink. Which just comes back to my point I have to pointedly go off-theme to use my low-level slots at all, and I become the cantrip-mancer with a few good nukes for bosses. So in conclusion... I hope Kineticist makes a conversion quickly and stays at least relatively close to it's roots, since it basically functions the same way but much more satisfyingly so.

EDIT: And for something at least more related to Sorcerers... I guess I'm just gonna save Sorcs for stuff like my Healers and occasional Charmer or Illusionist, since the blasting-focused Sorc just feels so wrong.

I already outlined several scenarios where low level blasts can be relevant against level appropriate foes. Heck, you don't need "mythical hordes, just swarms.

That being said, yes, I think low level blasts will drop off some in power. However, powers scale too and are stronger than cantrips but weaker than your top level spells. Powers will help fill the role mid level blasts played I expect, and are tied to a finite resource. A couple powers, some cantrip, and some low level blasts for weakness exploitation seems to leave you looking pretty lose to the PF1 blaster experience.

tivadar27 wrote:

We also know Rogue gets Dexterity to Damage, so there *may* be a way to get that as a Sorcerer as well (I'm guessing there is, as that's *probably* something that will be made generally available).

I really, really, really hope you're wrong about this.

Dex2Dam is a plague upon the d20 system - the game needs a vaccine against it, with the possible exception of class-specific features.

The last thing we need is a Dex2Dam epidemic...

We already know that Dex bonus to damage isn't a default part of the system, because the sample Barbarian that Jason Buhlman prepared on the Paizo Twitch stream used a shortbow, and the PC had a Dex bonus, but it was reflected in the attack bonus of the shortbow, but not its damage.

Whether it's part of certain class features, I cannot say. I will say I don't consider it a "plague" on all of d20 - it works just fine in other systems like D&D5, and the big burly fighters can stock up on heavy armor and massive weapons, and wade into combat with just as much effectiveness (in part because they're in there with equivalent AC, attacks, and damage to the all-dex characters thanks to other design elements.) It's all in the overall design, and if it's accounted for.

dysartes wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

We also know Rogue gets Dexterity to Damage, so there *may* be a way to get that as a Sorcerer as well (I'm guessing there is, as that's *probably* something that will be made generally available).

I really, really, really hope you're wrong about this.

Dex2Dam is a plague upon the d20 system - the game needs a vaccine against it, with the possible exception of class-specific features.

The last thing we need is a Dex2Dam epidemic...

We already know that Dex bonus to damage isn't a default part of the system, because the sample Barbarian that Jason Buhlman prepared on the Paizo Twitch stream used a shortbow, and the PC had a Dex bonus, but it was reflected in the attack bonus of the shortbow, but not its damage.

Whether it's part of certain class features, I cannot say. I will say I don't consider it a "plague" on all of d20 - it works just fine in other systems like D&D5, and the big burly fighters can stock up on heavy armor and massive weapons, and wade into combat with just as much effectiveness (in part because they're in there with equivalent AC, attacks, and damage to the all-dex characters thanks to other design elements.) It's all in the overall design, and if it's accounted for.

I looks to be a Rogue thing, so far. I think Dex mod to damage, as standard, is one of the egregious design mistakes of 5th Ed (along with tying grappling to the Athletics skill, and then you have Expertise...just stupid...).

I sincerely hope Seltyiel did not fall to the "cover thy flesh" imperative :-)

100% agreed!

I really like this. So far this is my favorite of the previews

master_marshmallow wrote:

If auto-heighten is to be a feature of the game, then it oughta be featured. The game design seems too worried about bringing character strength down in arbitrary ways.

Arcanist style casting on all prepared casters with access to auto-heighten fixes the balance problem with just nixing spontaneous heighten.

Ideally, the mechanics for all spell casting will be identical, you have a repertoire of spells and cast from that list by choosing a spell slot to spend. The only difference is the scope of that repertoire on the daily basis. Overall prepared casters have more options, but in the moment spontaneous casters feel stronger.

It’s not a feature, they missed key wording in the spells blog, they put heightened as a way to show what the spell does when it is taken at a higher level, rather then have 9 written iterations of the same spell. This makes sorcerers spontaneous heighten better because the sorcerer doesn’t need to take the heightened spells he can choose 2 to heighten as he wants.

Or let her heighten whichever spell she wants anyway?

Let wizards do the same with a smaller repertoire they can change daily.

It's better for everyone, ultimately, and less confusing.

@Darkorin, I missed your edits before I posted, and certainly don't want to put words in your mouth; however, I also don't agree that the devs are employing faulty logic here. I suspect, in fact, that they're speaking both from possibilities and from what they saw in internal playtests. That suggests to me that the starting assumptions of your logical chain may not be 100% accurate.

Thing is, you're ignoring the point that the sorcerer will become the default group-magic-item user of the group, which means that this is a burden he has to take for the whole group.

I see little reason for this to be the case. I expect that almost any group with a sorcerer could also get by with a wizard. That means they don't "need" the extra resonance that a sorcerer brings to the table. I don't expect that a sorcerer will have to act as a "Resonance battery" for other classes in PF2e any more than a wizard had to act as a "buff battery" for other classes in PF1e. If individual players choose to, then one could argue they're bringing a competitive advantage to their groups compared with a wizard.

Assuming that a sorcerer does not "need" to contribute more to communal uses of Resonance than a wizard does (which is dependent on the culture of the individual table), a sorcerer can invest in more items (probably using multiple lower cost items with different abilities) than a wizard. A sorcerer can use those items more times through the course of the day than a wizard. A sorcerer can invest Resonance in more staves than a wizard (potentially Investing in multiple lower level staves than a wizard). A sorcerer can use more scrolls when necessary than a wizard.

TLDR: You are assuming that all or most of a sorcerer's extra resonance will get dumped into the "party pool" and cannot be used for items. I think that while certain groups might want this, it is by no means a guarantee.

I will say, it's also unclear to me what the process for acquiring/purchasing new spells is in PF2e, as well as the rules for scribing a scroll. Thus, I'm not sure that it's reasonable to assume that a wizard will have any spells they need and a sorcerer will not (it may be reasonable, but we have to see magic item availability and crafting/scroll scribing rules in more detail than we have). I do think that a wizard will probably be more careful with spending their Resonance points than a sorcerer, and may think twice about activating especially low level scrolls that a sorcerer wouldn't have to worry about.

I looks to be a Rogue thing, so far. I think Dex mod to damage, as standard, is one of the egregious design mistakes of 5th Ed (along with tying grappling to the Athletics skill, and then you have Expertise...just stupid...).

I still feel like "Dex to Damage" being a problem is largely abrogated by how small the damage dice are on agile weapons compared to the bigger weapons strength folks are going to want to use.

Like the difference between a 12 str 22 dex character getting dex to damage or not is 5 points of damage, basically the difference between a +5 d6 weapon and a +5 d8 weapon.

I don't expect that a sorcerer will have to act as a "Resonance battery" for other classes in PF2e any more than a wizard had to act as a "buff battery" for other classes in PF1e.

I think it would be helpful if people spoke it objective terms as to their expectations in this area. As far as I can tell, it's plausible a Sorceror would have around 3 more RP than a low-OK CHA character. With 4 stats/boost, anybody else who wants to can keep up. And CHA starting at 10-12 will advance at 2x the rate per boost up to 16 (or 18?) helping close initial gap, so it doesn't even need to use EVERY stat boost. I just don't see ~3 RP difference as being massive party role determinant. Yet somehow this is being discussed as if Sorceror is some God of Resonance to who entire party will grovel to beg RP from.

UNRELATED... About the Glutton's Jaw power, I do have to say I didn't realize on my first reading that the +X enhancement / potency per Heighten tier also is increasing the damage dice (up to 5d6 max). It actually clarifies that in the first mention... I wonder if that will be standard style guideline, to clarify that +X potency increases damage dice also? Seems very useful, although Paizo seems inclined to cut back on boiler plate, so....?????

Cheburn wrote:

I don't expect that a sorcerer will have to act as a "Resonance battery" for other classes in PF2e any more than a wizard had to act as a "buff battery" for other classes in PF1e.

I think it would be helpful if people spoke it objective terms as to their expectations in this area. As far as I can tell, it's plausible a Sorceror would have around 3 more RP than a low-OK CHA character. With 4 stats/boost, anybody else who wants to can keep up. And CHA starting at 10-12 will advance at 2x the rate per boost up to 16 (or 18?) helping close initial gap. I just don't see ~3 RP difference as being massive party role determinant.

UNRELATED... About the Glutton's Jaw power, I do have to say I didn't realize on my first reading that the +X enhancement / potency per Heighten tier also is increasing the damage dice (up to 5d6 max). It actually clarifies that in the first mention... I wonder if that will be standard style guideline, to clarify that +X potency increases damage dice also? Seems very useful, although Paizo seems inclined to cut back on boiler plate, so....?????

I can definitely see a sorceror taking a turn where they cast a 2 action spell and then bite an enemy at their full BAB (which will be around 2-7 behind a fight boys BAB in all likelihood). I feel like it may fall off in usefulness at higher levels if the sorceror never increases their unarmed proficiency. Maybe they can multiclass monk somehow?

A sorcerer can invest Resonance in more staves than a wizard (potentially Investing in multiple lower level staves than a wizard). A sorcerer can use more scrolls when necessary than a wizard.

TLDR: You are assuming that all or most of a sorcerer's extra resonance will get dumped into the "party pool" and cannot be used for items. I think that while certain groups might want this, it is by no means a guarantee.

I will say, it's also unclear to me what the process for acquiring/purchasing new spells is in PF2e,...

Investing resonance in multiple staves and not using it most of the time is a resonance tax. The sorcerer and the wizard are probably better off not investing into staves for the day until the time they will know for sure that one staff is better than the other. And if you look at a single staff usage, the sorcerer has almost no advantage over the wizard since the staff usage isn't limited by resonance but by spell point/spell slot.

I know that dumping the sorcerer's extra resonance might not be a guarantee in all groups, what I'm saying is that it's a pervasive effect of the resonance system that will affect all CHA based class, and thus seeing the increased resonance pool as a personal edge might not always be true.

I am currently unable the judge the whole playtest, I am only giving my opinion with some assumption about rules that might persist (scroll scribing) in the new edition, like all of us here. Like the previous post I made in this discussion about the oracle future, I'm only giving my opinion on system that might feel dangerous to the game's balance or enjoyment as a whole.

For a final note on what I think the dev should stay away from after all the comments in this discussion, I'm going to do a small list of things I wish to see (or not).

No Spontaneous Heightening feat: Any feat increasing the number of spontaneous heightening or permitting any effect similiar. Such feats will probably become tax feats that every sorcerer will take to increase their versatility. If they exist, that probably means that the class need some more work.

Out of combat powers: What the domain preview showed me was that you can have GREAT out of combat powers that uses the spell point system. Please include some as bloodline powers.

Additional way to spend spell points: Bloodline powers are really cool, but sometime the powers don't fit the characters. I know that a few people are no fan of melee attack bloodline powers and I understand why. This point can be quite challenging since we do not want to give too many powers, but spell points should be relevant.

What if the number of spells for Spontaneous Heighten increases at certain levels?

No Spontaneous Heightening feat: Any feat increasing the number of spontaneous heightening or permitting any effect similiar. Such feats will probably become tax feats that every sorcerer will take to increase their versatility. If they exist, that probably means that the class need some more work.

What about a feat that I suggested before where you could trade a "spontaneous" heightening for two "locked in" heightened spells or a group of thematically tied spells as citricking suggests in another thread? I could also see such feats balanced in other ways: perhaps you could gain an additional spontaneous heightening is exchange for a reduction of spells known, for instance.

What if the number of spells for Spontaneous Heighten increases at certain levels?

That eventually causes a lesser version of having all spells being heightened for free.

Actually it might be interesting if Sorcerers had a choice as to what abilities they can choose for Bloodline Powers. I mean, what if that Sorcerer doesn't want to have a bite attack? Why not give them something else like one minute of Dark Vision by using a Spell Point?

While I'm primarily a GM and haven't played in years, I will say that efforts to reduce Sorcerer Complexity with spell choices is a good thing. This may seem ironic seeing I have derided halving the number of spells available to Wizards and Clerics... but I just recently concluded a Runelords campaign with a Sorcerer as one of the PCs. The young lady playing the Sorcerer was quite talented at choosing the spell that would best disrupt the villains they faced (though after a bit the entire group teased her and when she'd hem and haw about what spell to cast we'd say "come on, we all know you want to cast Strangling Hair...")

It could take her upward of 20 minutes to make up her mind on what spell to cast, what Quickened Spell to cast, and how to utilize her Move Action (often maneuvering into position so she'd be able to Intimidate her foes). I also know that the Cleric and Eldritch Knight players almost never changed their spell lists because it got too complex and they just reused the same spells over and over again (and because I'd included Mythic in the game, so the EK player would burn through Mythic and cast whatever spell he *actually* needed).

Too much choice can be paralyzing. This is one of the reasons why lower level games go by far more quickly than high level games do. It will be interesting to see what Paizo does to help balance the scales for higher level combat.

What if the number of spells for Spontaneous Heighten increases at certain levels?

Then the sorcerer would be even more overpowered.

Consider, at 1st level the sorcerer gets 2 spells known, plus his bloodline spell. That's 3 spells.
At 3rd level and every other level after that they can get 2 spells picked, pus a bloodline spell, plus 2 spontaneously heightened spells. That's 5 spells. (except for level 10 spells for which there is no bloodline spell)

By the time he's 19th level he will know 3+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+4= 47 spells. He can cast any of them in combat, up to the number of spell slots he has.

A wizard gains 2+school spells known every other level, auto heightens them and can get more from scrolls and spellbooks but is still limited to what he can prepare. In combat, if hasn't got the exact spell prepared, tough.

Giving a sorcerer more isn't necessary. If he's careful in his choices he already has more than enough.

More overpowered? That implies it is overpowered now, when it just has 2 free heightens and it really isn't. Spontaneous casting is just getting shafted again.

Darkorin wrote:

No Spontaneous Heightening feat: Any feat increasing the number of spontaneous heightening or permitting any effect similiar. Such feats will probably become tax feats that every sorcerer will take to increase their versatility. If they exist, that probably means that the class need some more work.

What about a feat that I suggested before where you could trade a "spontaneous" heightening for two "locked in" heightened spells or a group of thematically tied spells as citricking suggests in another thread? I could also see such feats balanced in other ways: perhaps you could gain an additional spontaneous heightening is exchange for a reduction of spells known, for instance.

That's not a feat, it's a PF1e archetype. Feat should improve things, not take away or trade off

More overpowered? That implies it is overpowered now, when it just has 2 free heightens and it really isn't. Spontaneous casting is just getting shafted again.

It's called Hyperbole.

Seriously though, mark mentioned that he was in conversation with a friend who prefers wizards and they were agreeing that they think the sorcerer is now more powerful than the wizard.

The rest of us are a little behind the curve as we haven't seen or tested the document, but spontaneous heighten is very powerful.

Summon spells typically give you access to about 8 creature types per level. getting summon (1) - (10) gives you access to about 80 different types of creature, many of whom can cast spells of their own or have special abilities, so in reality this alone gives you access to pretty much all the spells from all the lists up to say level 5? (we don't know for certain yet, and even then someone would have to do an exhaustive analysis, so to a certain extent I'm spitballing) plus a dozen special abilities.

and the sorcere can cast these at whatever level he chooses, using up as many or as few spell slots as he needs to get the job done.

To replicate this, the wizard would have to prepare say summon (6) - summon (10), using up a quarter of his 6th to 10th level spell slots without even having cast a single spell, and that assumes he won't need to cast the same spell twice (though to some extent the old summons overlapped, I would assume they still do).

So for a lowly investment of 1 1st level spell known and 1 spontaneous heighten, the sorcerer can do what it takes the wizard a quarter of his best spells to do, and he still does it better.

In contrast, the wizard can swap aout at 10 or 15 minutes notice his repertoire of spells, getting powerful niche spells as needed while the sorcerer is still stuck with the same spells.

The last thing we need is a Dex2Dam epidemic...

Me, I'm all for it. I hope to see plenty of alternate damage abilities.

Gyor wrote:

I don't like the changes to the Iconic Sorcereress, another victory for neovictorianism is disappointing to me.

There is nothing wrong with some sex appeal.

Sure, when it makes sense. For Seoni, it doesn't make sense. As Wayne Reynolds said, he didn't know where she came from when he first drew her. Now that he knows she comes from a cooler region, he's drawing her as being dressed appropriately for her climate.

Ah... Looking at the new outfit, I have to ask myself: "how is THAT outfit meant to keep her warm? Does the high neckline somehow keep her exposed arms and legs heated?" IMO the outfit is busier by far than the old outfit, being much more likely to catch an any random object passed, but not substantially better suited for keeping anyone warm on a cold night.

I didn't mean that drastic of an increase, though. Just... Something.

Anyway, it was just a thought.

Mbertorch wrote:

What if the number of spells for Spontaneous Heighten increases at certain levels?

Then the sorcerer would be even more overpowered.

Consider, at 1st level the sorcerer gets 2 spells known, plus his bloodline spell. That's 3 spells.
At 3rd level and every other level after that they can get 2 spells picked, pus a bloodline spell, plus 2 spontaneously heightened spells. That's 5 spells. (except for level 10 spells for which there is no bloodline spell)

By the time he's 19th level he will know 3+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+4= 47 spells. He can cast any of them in combat, up to the number of spell slots he has.

A wizard gains 2+school spells known every other level, auto heightens them and can get more from scrolls and spellbooks but is still limited to what he can prepare. In combat, if hasn't got the exact spell prepared, tough.

Giving a sorcerer more isn't necessary. If he's careful in his choices he already has more than enough.

A Wizard can have every spell in his spellbook and prepare what he needs, when he needs it. I imagine there is a feat that lets him change his prepared spells on-the-spot (probably a higher level feat, but still), and I'm almost positive there are feats that let him prepare faster than usual, as there were in PF1.

In addition, Spontaneous Heightening shoehorns your spell selection choices into stuff you are most likely to use with your feature than with spells you just won't because they're garbage otherwise. I'd rather that players be permitted to take a feat once or twice to expand those choices, similar to how Clerics can choose to expand their Domain abilities with feats.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Darkorin wrote:

No Spontaneous Heightening feat: Any feat increasing the number of spontaneous heightening or permitting any effect similiar. Such feats will probably become tax feats that every sorcerer will take to increase their versatility. If they exist, that probably means that the class need some more work.

What about a feat that I suggested before where you could trade a "spontaneous" heightening for two "locked in" heightened spells or a group of thematically tied spells as citricking suggests in another thread? I could also see such feats balanced in other ways: perhaps you could gain an additional spontaneous heightening is exchange for a reduction of spells known, for instance.

That's not a feat, it's a PF1e archetype. Feat should improve things, not take away or trade off

Easy peasy.

Then the feat would be as follows:
The sorceror may meditate for two weeks of downtime to choose two "free heighten" spells at the cost of one spontaneous heightening. She may regain her normal spontaneous heightening by spending one week in meditation. A sorceror can change these special heightening options without spending two weeks in meditation when she gains a new level.

There are ways to create similar options that play with spells known.

I feel like a feat which allows a Wizard to prepare a spell in the middle of combat would be inappropriate. Faster than "1 hour"? Sure. 6 seconds? No.

The Raven Black wrote:

I sincerely hope Seltyiel did not fall to the "cover thy flesh" imperative :-)

Yeah, he and Alahazra should stick with their life choices in this regard. Everyone else can cover up if they want (though Feiya and Crowe retaining their current looks, more or less, would also be solid...assuming Crowe even comes back, of course).

Why Alahazra? She's the other massive failure to communicate in Reynold's art gallery, she only looks the way she does because nobody told him she's supposed to be wearing medium armor.

Has it occurred to anyone else, but Divine Sorcerers are going to be better at channel energy then clerics? Do Divine Sorcerers still have pick a God or does the Bloodline Dictate the form the ability takes?

Has it occurred to anyone else, but Divine Sorcerers are going to be better at channel energy then clerics? Do Divine Sorcerers still have pick a God or does the Bloodline Dictate the form the ability takes?

Frankly I don't care that she gets medium armour Prof, I like the way she looks now, maybe she likes to live dangerously, she is an adventurer.

Bah I'm idiot who quoted himself instead who he intended to.

Has it occurred to anyone else, but Divine Sorcerers are going to be better at channel energy then clerics? Do Divine Sorcerers still have pick a God or does the Bloodline Dictate the form the ability takes?

I assume they don't have to pick a god, you just get the spell list. No anathema either.

As for being better at Channeling...no chance. A Cleric gets 3+CHA per day of either heal or harm automatically heightened to their highest spell level for free. For a sorcerer to match that they'd need to spend all (or at least, most) of their highest level slots on the spell (plus one of their two daily Spontaneous Heightening uses) just to match what the Cleric is doing for free.

Gyor wrote:

Has it occurred to anyone else, but Divine Sorcerers are going to be better at channel energy then clerics? Do Divine Sorcerers still have pick a God or does the Bloodline Dictate the form the ability takes?

I assume they don't have to pick a god, you just get the spell list. No anathema either.

As for being better at Channeling...no chance. A Cleric gets 3+CHA per day of either heal or harm automatically heightened to their highest spell level for free. For a sorcerer to match that they'd need to spend all (or at least, most) of their highest level slots on the spell (plus one of their two daily Spontaneous Heightening uses) just to match what the Cleric is doing for free.

"Divine Evolution lets you channel energy like a cleric. "

Like a Cleric. The Sorcerer, unlike the Cleric, is CHA based, so they'll have more channels. Plus they can take Heal/Harm at 1st level and choose it for heightening if they want even more.