Sorcerer Class Preview

houser2112 wrote:

I don't understand Paizo's reasoning regarding spell heightening: "Sorcerers have limited spells known, so we'll require them to burn a known spell slot for each level they want to cast it at, and give them this 2/day patch. Wizards have unlimited spells known, so we'll let them learn each spell just once at its lowest level, and freely let them prepare it in higher slots to get its heightened effects."

This is completely backwards. Sorcerers should be the ones able to learn once and manipulate it at will, and wizards should have to learn at each level because they can.

The only conclusion I get from this is that they really like paleovancian casting.

The thread has gone over this multiple times, and the devs have said that they've fully understood how absurdly strong giving sorcerers such a boon would be, so they gave them a 2 day because giving them none would make them too weak, but all is too strong. And doing such a thing to wizard would absolutely destroy their viability, even compared to a sorcerer with no free heightening.

I strongly disagree, though the type of spells and how they grow does have some impact. Having a cone of fire that gets bigger and more damaging at higher levels is one thing, having silent image upgrade into shadow evocation is something else entirely. The latter adds additional abilities while the former simply makes them more powerful.

Wizards can freely swap spells with an unlimited list, thus each spell known costs little, and therefore, upgrading to higher levels costs little even if the wizard had to pay (so not exactly a big benefit to getting free heightening).

Sorcerers however, can't swap spells except at level up (I don't agree with this at all) thus each spell known is very precious.

It seems odd to me that making something go from cheap to free would balance out with making something go from free to very expensive.

As I said before though, how spells progress does make a difference.

Allowing a caster to freely make burning hands into a 30' cone with cl*d6 damage by spending a higher slot makes for free (spells known-wise) makes narrative sense for both sorcerers and wizards (sorcerers are pumping more power, wizards are not altering the basic structure, they are simply strengthening it).

This type of spell progress also would not give sorcerers unfair access to spell variety at high levels.

However, for spells that do not simply grow more power but gain additional capabilities that make them barely recognizable as their lower forms (i.e. silent image -> shadow conjuration) would have problems. Firstly, it makes no sense what-so-ever narratively, for any caster. Secondly, it would actually improve a sorcerer's spell variety at higher levels, though the increase would easily be mitigated by simply reducing spells known as that would keep the sorcerer's spell variety about right and yet unifies the spell heightening rules to just be a flat "free" for all casters. Oh, and it helps focus a sorcerer on a theme of spells.

Sorcerers however, can't swap spells except at level up (I don't agree with this at all) thus each spell known is very precious.

They can also do it in their downtime, which is a large plus on my book

Quote:

Sorcerers however, can't swap spells except at level up (I don't agree with this at all) thus each spell known is very precious.

They can also do it in their downtime, which is a large plus on my book

But at some undetermined cost. Could be just a matter of time; but it could be the '20 X Sorc Level X Spell Level gold', 2 days per spell level, and whatever measures it takes to find a trainer with the exact spell you want to learn that it took in PF1e. Sure that might not be much for 1 spell, but if you need to retrain a few, a system like that could quickly add up. And Gods help you if you do need a trainer and you're looking to learn an Uncommon Spell, or heavens forbid you want to learn that Rare spell you just 'unlocked' before your next level (or next Even level even, by PF1e standards).

I would agree with GM DarkLightHitomi that the spell heightening that is basically duplicating a different spell, like greater invisibility, should not be free for the sorcerer (I don't think it should be a thing in the first place, actually), but he should be able to freely intensify the effectiveness of his spells.

The sorcerer has made the choice to trade overall versatility for momentary versatility, limiting spontaneous heighten just doubles down on his weakness.

Seisho wrote:

Quote:

Sorcerers however, can't swap spells except at level up (I don't agree with this at all) thus each spell known is very precious.

They can also do it in their downtime, which is a large plus on my book

But at some undetermined cost. Could be just a matter of time; but it could be the '20 X Sorc Level X Spell Level gold', 2 days per spell level, and whatever measures it takes to find a trainer with the exact spell you want to learn that it took in PF1e. Sure that might not be much for 1 spell, but if you need to retrain a few, a system like that could quickly add up. And Gods help you if you do need a trainer and you're looking to learn an Uncommon Spell, or heavens forbid you want to learn that Rare spell you just 'unlocked' before your next level (or next Even level even, by PF1e standards).

I might be wrong about this, but I sincerely doubt there is going to be a meaningful gold cost associated with retraining. It it has been pitched as a way for folks who made bad choices to avoid feeling punished, and having it cost lots of money would undermine that.

I think the biggest case for "abusing" free downtime retraining can also be accounted for by spell rarity.

Someone who gets that! In 5e a lot of people complain about the low number of Sorcerer Spells, not realizing that for example casting Chromatic Orb in higher slots means their are effectly 9 different Chromatic Orb Spells and that is before you factor in energy type choice and metamagic. This is similar to spell heighting in PF 2e, except that not all casting classes use neovancian spontaneous casting in PF 2e, so sponteous spell heighting is more damaging to balance.

PF2e also has stronger heightening than 5e, which doesn't help. (Also, I don't think 5e did a great job of balancing the casters against each other anyway, but I think you and I disagree on that.)

Shinigami02 wrote:

Seisho wrote:

Quote:

Sorcerers however, can't swap spells except at level up (I don't agree with this at all) thus each spell known is very precious.

They can also do it in their downtime, which is a large plus on my book

But at some undetermined cost. Could be just a matter of time; but it could be the '20 X Sorc Level X Spell Level gold', 2 days per spell level, and whatever measures it takes to find a trainer with the exact spell you want to learn that it took in PF1e. Sure that might not be much for 1 spell, but if you need to retrain a few, a system like that could quickly add up. And Gods help you if you do need a trainer and you're looking to learn an Uncommon Spell, or heavens forbid you want to learn that Rare spell you just 'unlocked' before your next level (or next Even level even, by PF1e standards).

I might be wrong about this, but I sincerely doubt there is going to be a meaningful gold cost associated with retraining. It it has been pitched as a way for folks who made bad choices to avoid feeling punished, and having it cost lots of money would undermine that.

Seconding this. But also, I'd personally rather not see all problems being solved with big wads of money. I... was not a fan of that from what I played in 3.X

Quote:

Someone who gets that! In 5e a lot of people complain about the low number of Sorcerer Spells, not realizing that for example casting Chromatic Orb in higher slots means their are effectly 9 different Chromatic Orb Spells and that is before you factor in energy type choice and metamagic. This is similar to spell heighting in PF 2e, except that not all casting classes use neovancian spontaneous casting in PF 2e, so sponteous spell heighting is more damaging to balance.

PF2e also has stronger heightening than 5e, which doesn't help. (Also, I don't think 5e did a great job of balancing the casters against each other anyway, but I think you and I disagree on that.)

Seconding the neovancian thing. In 5e all full casters have the same number of spell slots and all casters can freely heighten, which means in that regard they're on par. In PF2 hard Vancian vs neovancian is something I'm not convinced would be a fair fight.

I would agree with GM DarkLightHitomi that the spell heightening that is basically duplicating a different spell, like greater invisibility, should not be free for the sorcerer (I don't think it should be a thing in the first place, actually), but he should be able to freely intensify the effectiveness of his spells.

The sorcerer has made the choice to trade overall versatility for momentary versatility, limiting spontaneous heighten just doubles down on his weakness.

I am not sure being able to intensify spells for mere damage increases is actually a huge advantage for the perpared caster, actually. Not when you consider how valuable your top level slots are going to be thanks to the reduction in spell slots and removal of caster level scaling.

Consider fireball. How often do you think the wizard is going to decide to prepare fireball in higher level slots? One imagines that if they are enthusiastic about blasting they would have picked up a higher level blast. If they aren't an enthusiast then there are other things they probably want to prepare more.

So the one time the wizard will prepare a higher level fireball is when they know that morning they will need it-- there is some encounter where AoE fire damage will be vitally important. In that scenario, the sorcerer can ALSO heighten the fireballs, while still maintaining more spell choices in the moment than the wizard.

And in a scenario where you need a heightened fireball, who is to say you only need 1, maybe 2 with arcane focus? For every extra fireball the wizard prepares, the sorcerer has an additional spell known advantage. If the party had bad intelligence and the enemy's turn out to be Resistant or warded against fire, the wizard just prepared a bunch of duds while the sorcerer still has their entire repertoire to fall back on.

The only time the wizard can really take advantage of heightening where the sorcerer can't is if the sorcerer has to spend their two heightened spells that day on something more important. Even then, the sorcerer can cast fireball more times than the wizard (unless the wizard prepares nothing but fireball) and with the way weaknesses now trigger set damage amounts instead of 1.5X the damage, multiple castings at a lower spell slot may wind up being just as good. 2 castings of 3rd level fireball do more damage than a 5th level fireball even before weakness, and a 5th level slot is significantly more valuable than a 3rd level. (It is obviously better to front load your damage in case you can kill a thing that round, but on the other hand you may wind up needing to use it for multiple encounters anyway.)

The one time I think the prepared heightening will really shine is rather particular: condition removal. If your fighter gets a high level curse, the cleric can prepare just the right spell slot to remove it while retaining the rest of their power, where the divine sorcerer would need to either be prepared to risk a few lower level attempts or give up one of their heightened slots for the day. Even that is rather particular though, because it assumes the party has time to rest for one night but not two. Just pausing for 24 hours would let the divine sorcerer get back to full power anyway.

Obviously, the sorcerer would be stronger if they could intensify all their spells. But they look pretty strong compared to the prepared caster as is, and there's that whole cognitive load thing too.

I will also add that this is a tricky conversation because when we compare spontaneous vs prepared casting, prepared always sounds better on paper. The Schrodinger's Wizard meme exists for a reason. (And to be fair, this is also probably true to some degree for my criticism of the 5e sorcerer, though I think the PF2 sorcerer has several relative advantages compared her 5e counterpart.)

Spontaneous can wind up working out just as well in actual play, but none of us have actual play experience yet. There's a lot of stuff changing the play from what we are used to. Having less slots means both casters can cast fewer times per day, but it specifically means the prepared caster can't have as many different options, thus reducing the odds the prepared caster happened to prepare exactly the right spell for this situation.

houser2112 wrote:

I don't understand Paizo's reasoning regarding spell heightening: "Sorcerers have limited spells known, so we'll require them to burn a known spell slot for each level they want to cast it at, and give them this 2/day patch. Wizards have unlimited spells known, so we'll let them learn each spell just once at its lowest level, and freely let them prepare it in higher slots to get its heightened effects."

This is completely backwards. Sorcerers should be the ones able to learn once and manipulate it at will, and wizards should have to learn at each level because they can.

The only conclusion I get from this is that they really like paleovancian casting.

The thread has gone over this multiple times, and the devs have said that they've fully understood how absurdly strong giving sorcerers such a boon would be, so they gave them a 2 day because giving them none would make them too weak, but all is too strong. And doing such a thing to wizard would absolutely destroy their viability, even compared to a sorcerer with no free heightening.

Why not allow a sorcerer to heighten a number of spells equal to their Charisma modifier? It being drawn from their natural ability seems more intuitive to me than an arbitrary 2/day.

MusicAddict wrote:

houser2112 wrote:

I don't understand Paizo's reasoning regarding spell heightening: "Sorcerers have limited spells known, so we'll require them to burn a known spell slot for each level they want to cast it at, and give them this 2/day patch. Wizards have unlimited spells known, so we'll let them learn each spell just once at its lowest level, and freely let them prepare it in higher slots to get its heightened effects."

This is completely backwards. Sorcerers should be the ones able to learn once and manipulate it at will, and wizards should have to learn at each level because they can.

The only conclusion I get from this is that they really like paleovancian casting.

The thread has gone over this multiple times, and the devs have said that they've fully understood how absurdly strong giving sorcerers such a boon would be, so they gave them a 2 day because giving them none would make them too weak, but all is too strong. And doing such a thing to wizard would absolutely destroy their viability, even compared to a sorcerer with no free heightening.

Why not allow a sorcerer to heighten a number of spells equal to their Charisma modifier? It being drawn from their natural ability seems more intuitive to me than an arbitrary 2/day.

It is 2 you pick each day you can heighten as often as you want, not just flat 2 per day

MusicAddict wrote:

houser2112 wrote:

I don't understand Paizo's reasoning regarding spell heightening: "Sorcerers have limited spells known, so we'll require them to burn a known spell slot for each level they want to cast it at, and give them this 2/day patch. Wizards have unlimited spells known, so we'll let them learn each spell just once at its lowest level, and freely let them prepare it in higher slots to get its heightened effects."

This is completely backwards. Sorcerers should be the ones able to learn once and manipulate it at will, and wizards should have to learn at each level because they can.

The only conclusion I get from this is that they really like paleovancian casting.

The thread has gone over this multiple times, and the devs have said that they've fully understood how absurdly strong giving sorcerers such a boon would be, so they gave them a 2 day because giving them none would make them too weak, but all is too strong. And doing such a thing to wizard would absolutely destroy their viability, even compared to a sorcerer with no free heightening.

Why not allow a sorcerer to heighten a number of spells equal to their Charisma modifier? It being drawn from their natural ability seems more intuitive to me than an arbitrary 2/day.

TBH I wouldn't really mind this, or at least have it related. I just think that free heightening would be probably OP, but I like there to be some.

For what it is worth, the exact number of heightened spells is something they have said they have a keen eye on and may change from the playtest.

However, I doubt it will be your charisma modifier. That means you are starting out with 4, which is all the spells known for any given level. One of the problems with free heightening was it created an undue amount of pressure to select spells which scale with level. You'd have that issue right out the bat with the CHA mod.

Some thing which scales with level somehow doesn't sound ridiculous though. Like a 3rd spell when you hit expert in spellcasting, a 4th when you hit master, etc.

Heighten spell number has to go up somehown. Either spell-point, CHA based, level scaling, or free heighten on bloodline spells (tho this would make balancing bloodlines list too much of a nightmare), probably more than one option from the list.
I think 1 +1 for each spell level you know is a decent amount. So, 2-10 from level 3 to 17.

I'd prefer a nice clean 'Spell Mastery' class feat that gave me an additional 'fixed' heightening slot (which could be retrained if necessary).

One could (in certain limits) maybe invest feats and/or resonance to increse it from the base 2

One of my players is also worried about the number, if there is no build in way to increase it I'm going to cobbel something, linked to feats, resonance, spellcraft mastery or any combination of them

I'd prefer a nice clean 'Spell Mastery' class feat that gave me an additional 'fixed' heightening slot (which could be retrained if necessary).

This is also my preference. Two you can choose per day plus one 'signature' seems a reasonable number of choices.

MusicAddict wrote:

houser2112 wrote:

I don't understand Paizo's reasoning regarding spell heightening: "Sorcerers have limited spells known, so we'll require them to burn a known spell slot for each level they want to cast it at, and give them this 2/day patch. Wizards have unlimited spells known, so we'll let them learn each spell just once at its lowest level, and freely let them prepare it in higher slots to get its heightened effects."

This is completely backwards. Sorcerers should be the ones able to learn once and manipulate it at will, and wizards should have to learn at each level because they can.

The only conclusion I get from this is that they really like paleovancian casting.

The thread has gone over this multiple times, and the devs have said that they've fully understood how absurdly strong giving sorcerers such a boon would be, so they gave them a 2 day because giving them none would make them too weak, but all is too strong. And doing such a thing to wizard would absolutely destroy their viability, even compared to a sorcerer with no free heightening.

Why not allow a sorcerer to heighten a number of spells equal to their Charisma modifier? It being drawn from their natural ability seems more intuitive to me than an arbitrary 2/day.

You then get the downside of nerfing support Sorcerers who don't care about DCs and thus otherwise wouldn't care too much about low Cha.

I'd prefer a nice clean 'Spell Mastery' class feat that gave me an additional 'fixed' heightening slot (which could be retrained if necessary).

I find 3 to be still very low from a list with 9 x 4 = 36 spells.

Also, additional concern, can I get a melee attack that is a little more refined than biting a slime?

Finally, if lists are so easly swappable, why not chose them independently from the bloodline? I can't see any immediate balance concern given that the spell granted list already mostly include non-listed spells.

I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like this system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.

I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like this system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.

Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".

Gyor wrote:

I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like this system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.

Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".

By how you mean not at all?

Gyor wrote:

I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like this system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.

Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".

To be fair, neo-vancian was kinda off introduced in 3.5, Spell Points variant in Unearthed Arcana uses neo-vancian casting along side spell points.

Cantriped wrote:

I'd prefer a nice clean 'Spell Mastery' class feat that gave me an additional 'fixed' heightening slot (which could be retrained if necessary).

This is also my preference. Two you can choose per day plus one 'signature' seems a reasonable number of choices.

Agreed. I am strongly against the "Sorcerer can heighten everything they know whenever they want" since that would strongly disincentivize taking spells which hardly heighten at all, even if it's a 2nd level spell that's very useful as a 2nd level spell.

"Pick 2 spells/day and spend a feat for your favorite spell" is my preference.

Gyor wrote:

I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like tis system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.

Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".

This terminology is so awkward and looks like gibberish to me, I'm not going to lie. But 5es implementation of scaling spells, and how they handled spells known and prepared is a terrible mess for me. And I rather like how wizard and sorcerer are laid out in 2e, and would like to see the return of arcanist style crafting, but not on the wizard as is.

Even if sorcerer at the moment is likely a few degrees stronger (according to in house playtesting), removing spell waste from the wizard, cleric, and druid would honestly probably need a reduction in the number of spells available to keep the niche of spontaneous casting safe, and you're already pretty low as is.

Cantriped wrote:

I'd prefer a nice clean 'Spell Mastery' class feat that gave me an additional 'fixed' heightening slot (which could be retrained if necessary).

I find 3 to be still very low from a list with 9 x 4 = 36 spells.

I would allow Spell Mastery to be taken multiple times...

Regardless, there are only so many spells you actually need to be able to use 'any slot' for. If you can't manage to pare it down to two favorites you're spread too thinly. I want the ability to acquire extra 'fixed'slots so that you could have a signiture spell or two without giving up your class's daily versatility.

I never had a problem spending two or three repertoire slots on Invisibility (Vanish, Invisibility and/or Greater Invisibility). The problem is spending nine repertoire slots on magic missile or heal.

houser2112 wrote:

Gyor wrote:

I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like this system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.

Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".

By how you mean not at all?

Exactly. We asked for 3.5 psionics, we got vancian psychic spells. I'm thankful Dreamscarred stepped up.

houser2112 wrote:

Gyor wrote:

I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like this system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.

Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".

To be fair, neo-vancian was kinda off introduced in 3.5, Spell Points variant in Unearthed Arcana uses neo-vancian casting along side spell points.

Paizo (I think it may have been Jason who authored the post) has explicitly said that they don't like 3.5's point-based psionics, so I doubt they have too high an opinion of UA's point-based magic casting rules. In any case, that wasn't what I meant by neovancian.

This terminology is so awkward and looks like gibberish to me, I'm not going to lie. But 5es implementation of scaling spells, and how they handled spells known and prepared is a terrible mess for me. And I rather like how wizard and sorcerer are laid out in 2e, and would like to see the return of arcanist style crafting, but not on the wizard as is.

I'm sorry, I thought people were already aware of these terms. Paleovancian = wizard/cleric/druid casting (specific spells in specific slots), neovancian = PF1 Arcanist/5E wizard/cleric/druid casting (prepare a small list for the day from a larger list, spontaneously cast from the small list, spontaneously heighten as needed).

I feel this is a more elegant compromise between paleovancian and full spontaneous. It's one of the few things I like about 5E.

edduardco wrote:

houser2112 wrote:

Gyor wrote:

I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like this system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.

Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".

To be fair, neo-vancian was kinda off introduced in 3.5, Spell Points variant in Unearthed Arcana uses neo-vancian casting along side spell points.

Paizo (I think it may have been Jason who authored the post) has explicitly said that they don't like 3.5's point-based psionics, so I doubt they have too high an opinion of UA's point-based magic casting rules. In any case, that wasn't what I meant by neovancian.

I know what you mean by neo-vancian, is how 5e Wizards and PF1 Arcanist prepare spells and Sorcerer with free heightening, with Spell Point variant Wizard prepares spells that way and Sorcerers have free heightening.

EDIT: BTW I remember that post too, so no much wonder why PF2 is turning out to be like this.

Interestingly, PF1 arcanist is the closest to true vancian casting. 3.x and pf1 core casters are called vancian but don't really mimic vancian casting very well at all.

In any case, I don't like slots very much.

I find Spheres of Power the best I've seen published, but barring that, points would be preferable.

As far as balancing goes, which is not really on my "important stuff" list, but I much prefer magic that was balanced to be cast at will alongside mundane stuff, which means, less damage than mundane (cause magic has greater versatility), or less reliability (and reliability should be dropped at least on par with mundane). Much preferable that way.

Rysky wrote:

houser2112 wrote:

Gyor wrote:

I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like this system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.

Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".

By how you mean not at all?

Exactly. We asked for 3.5 psionics, we got vancian psychic spells. I'm thankful Dreamscarred stepped up.

”We” being a indeterminate subset of people, not the majority whole.

I certainly didn’t ask for Psionics and was glad we got Occult instead.

”Edit: Also didn’t DP’s Psionics stuff come out really early in 1st Edition’s life cycle? I’m pretty sure Pathfinder already having updated and compatible Psionics rules through them was one of the big reasons Paizo didn’t bother making it.

houser2112 wrote:

Rysky wrote:

houser2112 wrote:

Gyor wrote:

I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like this system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.

Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".

By how you mean not at all?

Exactly. We asked for 3.5 psionics, we got vancian psychic spells. I'm thankful Dreamscarred stepped up.

”We” being a indeterminate subset of people, not the majority whole.

I certainly didn’t ask for Psionics and was glad we got Occult instead.

”Edit: Also didn’t DP’s Psionics stuff come out really early in 1st Edition’s life cycle? I’m pretty sure Pathfinder already having updated and compatible Psionics rules through them was one of the big reasons Paizo didn’t bother making it.

I think Paizo may have even said that the Dreamscarred had already done a solid job with it as part of why they weren't gonna do psionics.

Spell list determined by bloodline is pretty cool, and glad to see it implemented here.

Where you lose me is in that they gain the same number of spells, and have the same spell slots (as wizards) yet don't need to prepare them as all spells are perpetually "memorized".

Isn't this a bit imbalanced, or am I missing something important? In 1st edition; Wizards had a wider variety of spells, but could cast less per day while Sorcerers had less spells but could cast more often.

Spell list determined by bloodline is pretty cool, and glad to see it implemented here.

Where you lose me is in that they gain the same number of spells, and have the same spell slots (as wizards) yet don't need to prepare them as all spells are perpetually "memorized".

Isn't this a bit imbalanced, or am I missing something important? In 1st edition; Wizards had a wider variety of spells, but could cast less per day while Sorcerers had less spells but could cast more often.

you missed that they have to have the spell as spell known for every spell level they want to cast it on

Spell list determined by bloodline is pretty cool, and glad to see it implemented here.

Where you lose me is in that they gain the same number of spells, and have the same spell slots (as wizards) yet don't need to prepare them as all spells are perpetually "memorized".

Isn't this a bit imbalanced, or am I missing something important? In 1st edition; Wizards had a wider variety of spells, but could cast less per day while Sorcerers had less spells but could cast more often.

While I emotionally agree, it’s not true. Wizard had as many or more spells per day at most (all?) levels in PF1 thanks to bonus school spell and earlier access. I’d still like Sorc to have better low-level casting (you’re probably using two first-level spells for heightening, and bloodline possibly leaves you with only one “free” choice of spell.)

edduardco wrote:

houser2112 wrote:

Gyor wrote:

I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like this system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.

Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".

To be fair, neo-vancian was kinda off introduced in 3.5, Spell Points variant in Unearthed Arcana uses neo-vancian casting along side spell points.

Paizo (I think it may have been Jason who authored the post) has explicitly said that they don't like 3.5's point-based psionics, so I doubt they have too high an opinion of UA's point-based magic casting rules. In any case, that wasn't what I meant by neovancian.

MusicAddict wrote:

This terminology is so awkward and looks like gibberish to me, I'm not going to lie. But 5es implementation of scaling spells, and how they handled spells known and prepared is a terrible mess for me. And I rather like how wizard and sorcerer are laid out in 2e, and would like to see the return of arcanist style crafting, but not on the wizard as is.

I'm sorry, I thought people were already aware of these terms. Paleovancian = wizard/cleric/druid casting (specific spells in specific slots), neovancian = PF1 Arcanist/5E wizard/cleric/druid casting (prepare a small list for the day from a larger list, spontaneously cast from the small list, spontaneously heighten as needed).

I feel this is a more elegant compromise between paleovancian and full spontaneous. It's one of the few things I like about 5E.

No one remembers the poor Spirit Shaman from the Complete Divine, that retrieved his spells known each morning and casted as spontaneous druid.

EDIT: wow, ninjaed by 4 hours by Brock Landers. That's what I get for opening the thread before lunch and responding after without updating.

As far as balancing goes, which is not really on my "important stuff" list, but I much prefer magic that was balanced to be cast at will alongside mundane stuff, which means, less damage than mundane (cause magic has greater versatility), or less reliability (and reliability should be dropped at least on par with mundane). Much preferable that way.

This is fair, I also like that sort of magic more. I don't think it's likely to be seen in a D&D or Pathfinder game though outside of cantrips and niche classes.

Personally (despite my other complaints about the organisation of the system) I really like how Shadowrun 5 handled spellcasting.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

As far as balancing goes, which is not really on my "important stuff" list, but I much prefer magic that was balanced to be cast at will alongside mundane stuff, which means, less damage than mundane (cause magic has greater versatility), or less reliability (and reliability should be dropped at least on par with mundane). Much preferable that way.

This is fair, I also like that sort of magic more. I don't think it's likely to be seen in a D&D or Pathfinder game though outside of cantrips and niche classes.

Personally (despite my other complaints about the organisation of the system) I really like how Shadowrun 5 handled spellcasting.

I never actually played shadowrun 5e, only looked through the books at a friend's house, but wasn't the magic system basically like the Kineticist? I remember each spell dealt damage to you, and you could resist some of that damage (though I think it wasn't a flat number, but a roll of some sort?), and it was kind of like burn in that you couldn't heal it easily. Is that correct?

Elleth wrote:

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

As far as balancing goes, which is not really on my "important stuff" list, but I much prefer magic that was balanced to be cast at will alongside mundane stuff, which means, less damage than mundane (cause magic has greater versatility), or less reliability (and reliability should be dropped at least on par with mundane). Much preferable that way.

This is fair, I also like that sort of magic more. I don't think it's likely to be seen in a D&D or Pathfinder game though outside of cantrips and niche classes.

Personally (despite my other complaints about the organisation of the system) I really like how Shadowrun 5 handled spellcasting.

I never actually played shadowrun 5e, only looked through the books at a friend's house, but wasn't the magic system basically like the Kineticist? I remember each spell dealt damage to you, and you could resist some of that damage (though I think it wasn't a flat number, but a roll of some sort?), and it was kind of like burn in that you couldn't heal it easily. Is that correct?

Sort of. Shadowrun runs off dicepools so it'll work better there, but TL;DR:

Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".

I think they both owe a debt to Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed - at least, that's the first place I saw what is now called neo-vancian spellcasting (choose prepared spells at start of day, then use spell slots to cast those in any combination you choose). But then again, I think at least one of the optional systems in Player's Option: Spells & Magic for AD&D2 was similar, albeit spell point-based.

The Arcana Unearthed system was absolutely bonkers when it came to caster flexibility. In addition to neo-vancian casting, most spells could be cast using a spell slot one level lower or higher, for a diminished/enhanced effect. You also had a lot of meta-magic feats that could be added on the fly, some for free (other than the opportunity cost of taking the feat), others requiring you to use two spell slots to cast the spell. And you could up-/downgrade slots as well: trade in three slots of level N for one of level N+1, or one slot of level N for two of level N+1. And at really high levels, you started getting infinite spell slots of low-level spells.

In addition, you usually had a lot of spells known. Spells were divided into Simple, Complex, and Exotic. All casters knew all Simple spells of appropriate level. Magisters, the equivalent of wizards, also knew all Complex spells, and many classes/sub-classes and/or feats gave you access to all spells with a particular descriptor (e.g. a Fire Elementalist feat would give you all spells with the Fire descriptor).

MusicAddict wrote:

This terminology is so awkward and looks like gibberish to me, I'm not going to lie. But 5es implementation of scaling spells, and how they handled spells known and prepared is a terrible mess for me. And I rather like how wizard and sorcerer are laid out in 2e, and would like to see the return of arcanist style crafting, but not on the wizard as is.

I'm sorry, I thought people were already aware of these terms. Paleovancian = wizard/cleric/druid casting (specific spells in specific slots), neovancian = PF1 Arcanist/5E wizard/cleric/druid casting (prepare a small list for the day from a larger list, spontaneously cast from the small list, spontaneously heighten as needed).

So, paleovancian = vancian, with a meaninless prefix that does not do anything except cause confusion? I was confused too, and no wonder!

Rysky wrote:

Also didn’t DP’s Psionics stuff come out really early in 1st Edition’s life cycle? I’m pretty sure Pathfinder already having updated and compatible Psionics rules through them was one of the big reasons Paizo didn’t bother making it.

I think Paizo may have even said that the Dreamscarred had already done a solid job with it as part of why they weren't gonna do psionics.

I seem to recall that DSP didn't do it until after they knew Paizo wasn't going to port 3.5's psionic rules.

So, paleovancian = vancian, with a meaninless prefix that does not do anything except cause confusion? I was confused too, and no wonder!

I didn't make up the term, and I've seen it used extensively, so I didn't think I needed to define it here. Meaningless? The term makes sense, as a way to differentiate it from Arcanist/5E-style casting (which still uses slots, so it's similar to vancian, but doesn't require specific spells in specific slots).

I am almost always confused whenever I hear ANY version of vancian casting...

So basically I lost track whats happening like five pages ago...

I didn't make up the term, and I've seen it used extensively, so I didn't think I needed to define it here. Meaningless? The term makes sense, as a way to differentiate it from Arcanist/5E-style casting (which still uses slots, so it's similar to vancian, but doesn't require specific spells in specific slots).

So, then the distinction is arcanist style vs. Vancian. No other outside jargon needs to be used to confuse the issue.

I am almost always confused whenever I hear ANY version of vancian casting...

So basically I lost track whats happening like five pages ago...

You and me both.

houser2112 wrote:

I didn't make up the term, and I've seen it used extensively, so I didn't think I needed to define it here. Meaningless? The term makes sense, as a way to differentiate it from Arcanist/5E-style casting (which still uses slots, so it's similar to vancian, but doesn't require specific spells in specific slots).

So, then the distinction is arcanist style vs. Vancian. No other outside jargon needs to be used to confuse the issue.

Except that 'vancian' is a reference to a specific magic system from a specific work of literature. It brings with it certain fluff/special effects. Namely that all spells are slow, laborous things all but cast entirely in advance (aka prepared/memorized) and left with but a word and gesture uncompleted (so that the spell can be unleashed later). "Spell Slots" was just a way to limit how many such spells a magic-user could leave prepared at once, and to make sure they weren't all Fireball/Meteor Swarm.

Clerics and Druids were never actually vancian casters, and neither were Wizards from 3rd edition on. Only Magic-Users ever actually qualified as a 'vancian' spellcaster, the rest of them have simply been using the spell-slot system gygax invented for ease of play or legacy reasons.

And here I thought the "Paleo" was just a play on people thinking it was old and out-dated.

Personally I used to think that PF2e would be better off going strictly to NeoVancian too... until I actually looked at 5e's casters and realized how screwed Spontaneous are in that system. Everyone has the same spell slots, and casts their spells spontaneously... but in 5e the Prepared Casters have more "known" spells per day almost always *and* have the entire spellbook (or entire spell list) they can pull their Known from each day. In order to not leave Spont in the dust Sponts would have to have a significantly larger number of Known than Prepped can cast each day or else the Wizard will just be doing the same thing the Sorcerer is but better.

Now maybe there are ways to balance that out, but it would be a complex project, as compared to just, like, leaving the classic Prepared Caster alone. I might not personally ever play it because I hate Prepped Casting, but plenty of people like Prepped Casting and the system at least kinda sorta works. There's still things I'm unhappy with as far as the perceived balance between spellcasters, but maybe that'll come out in the wash, who knows.

Voss wrote:

houser2112 wrote:

I didn't make up the term, and I've seen it used extensively, so I didn't think I needed to define it here. Meaningless? The term makes sense, as a way to differentiate it from Arcanist/5E-style casting (which still uses slots, so it's similar to vancian, but doesn't require specific spells in specific slots).

So, then the distinction is arcanist style vs. Vancian. No other outside jargon needs to be used to confuse the issue.

Except that 'vancian' is a reference to a specific magic system from a specific work of literature. It brings with it certain fluff/special effects. Namely that all spells are slow, laborous things all but cast entirely in advance (aka prepared/memorized) and left with but a word and gesture uncompleted (so that the spell can be unleashed later). "Spell Slots" was just a way to limit how many such spells a magic-user could leave prepared at once, and to make sure they weren't all Fireball/Meteor Swarm.

Clerics and Druids were never actually vancian casters, and neither were Wizards from 3rd edition on. Only Magic-Users ever actually qualified as a 'vancian' spellcaster, the rest of them have simply been using the spell-slot system gygax invented for ease of play or legacy reasons.

Linguistic drift is a thing. Past time to accept it. When people refer to Vancian casting, they're talking about D&D and PF1, not the minutiae of some poorly known 60s/70s SciFi/fantasy novels. This isn't unclear in anything resembling the context of the discussion.

Paleo neo proto bizarro add nothing to what's actually being said.

I vote Brawler for bizzarovancian caster.