The Prestige

Monday, October 29, 2018

As we draw ever closer to the end of the playtest, there are still a number of questions we need to ask you about the way the game works and how that's conveyed to you in the book. Today, we're launching a pair of surveys that do just that, one focusing on presentation and another focusing on magic.

Presentation

First up, we have a survey looking at the presentation of the book. This survey looks at our use of symbols, color, and language to convey game rules to you. We tried some experimental things with the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, and want to know what you think of these tests. Your answers will help us determine what the final version of the game actually looks like. When you're ready to take this survey, follow the link below.

Presentation Survey

Spells and Magic

Next up, we've opened up a survey to look at how spells and magic items work in the game. This isn't the first time we've asked about these topics, but previously, it's always been in the context of other surveys with other goals. This time, we want to know specifically what you think about how magic works in the Pathfinder Playtest.

One of our primary goals in designing the playtest rules was to ensure that spells and magic items are still an integral part of the game, but also to make sure characters who don't rely heavily on such abilities aren't overshadowed. We did this in a variety of ways, but there are some places where it seems clear that the restrictions may have taken away a bit too much from magic and its role in the game. This survey looks at ways that we might add some sizzle back into your lightning bolt and some charm into your, well, charm.

In particular, there are three levers we can manipulate to add power and versatility to magic that we want you to think about when taking this survey:

  1. Number of spells per day.
  2. Chance that a spell will succeed (or that foes will fail saving throws).
  3. Power of individual spells.

Once you've given those some thought, you can find the survey at the link below.

Magic Survey

Looking Forward

Finally, I want to take a moment to talk about where we're at right now in the playtest and where we're heading in the future. We've gotten a lot of data about the game, and much of it has been synthesized into a very large list of tasks and things that we need to do to the game before it goes to the printer next year. In the coming months, the playtest will draw to a close, and there will be no additional public updates to the rules while we focus on making changes to the game.

That said, we're not going to leave you without an idea of where things are going. Next week, we'll be dropping an absolutely huge Update 1.6, which adds or adjusts aspects of every class in the game! This ranges from a small alteration in stances that affects the fighter to major changes for the alchemist and paladin. We think you'll see a lot of your concerns addressed in some of these changes, and the best part is, these are just a fraction of what we're doing behind the scenes to make the game even better!

As always, I want to thank each and every one of you for participating in this playtest. The game is really shaping up to be something great, and you helped make that happen!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Join the Pathfinder Playtest designers every Friday throughout the playtest on our Twitch Channel to hear all about the process and chat directly with the team.

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
1 to 50 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have been looking forward to giving feedback on those issues, though I didn't even have the time to do the survey for the Resonance Test I ran on Sunday.
The teased 1.6 changes sound very promising, as those classes are among those who have received some negative feedback/request for options.

Silver Crusade

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

This playtest is going by so fast...

Paizo Employee Designer

18 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
This playtest is going by so fast...

Tell me about it...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I say thank you


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
This playtest is going by so fast...
Tell me about it...

I'm glad you guys have been able to keep up with us in updates and changes. I haven't had the ability to take place in the playtest, and at this point never will, but I'm glad to see what's going on, for the most part anyways lol.


31 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A few of the survey questions I want to give specific remarks about:

Survey wrote:
Spellcasters often made classes without spellcasting feel unable to contribute

I feel that this is a bit of a loaded question. It's not the casters that make the non-casters unable to contribute, it's the non-casters who lacked the abilities to meaningfully contribute in those situations in the first place.

Non-casters tended to require a much greater degree of specialization than casters did, and as such were much more easily put out of their element. This isn't actually much different in PF2; a melee fighter without good flight options is just as hard-put as he was in PF1. Probably worse, since flight is more limited in PF2.

Survey wrote:
On average, spellcasters in the Pathfinder Playtest have one fewer spell per day of each level they can cast

Due to bonus spells from ability scores, it's actually 2 spells fewer per level. Exact numbers vary from one class to the next and which levels you compare (bard and sorcerer aren't exactly clean).

Survey wrote:
In the Pathfinder Playtest, the bard and the sorcerer are both spontaneous casters who know a number of spells equal to the number that they can cast each day. What do you think of this change?

I'd like to point out that I feel that spontaneous casters have about the right number of spells at the higher spell levels, but too few at their low spell levels. Right now it's not too bad because there just aren't that many spells to learn, but I'll tell you that I struggle even with human sorcerers in PF1 because 6 or 7 spells known just scratches the surface of all the good stuff you want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good luck, gang.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I find it odd that the Presentation survey asks how experienced I am as a GM instead of as a player. Wonder what the rationale was for that change? Players look at the book too.


i'd say that "power of spells" and "chance that a spell will succeed" are the same thing, as most of the more powerful or debilitating spells directly hinge on their success rates.

EDIT: filled out survey, though Im not sure it accepted it (no verification screen or anything).


Thanks for your continued hard work on the game. Running a playtest at this scale cannot be easy. It's been a blast to be a part of it, and I hope the rest of the development goes well!


10 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
i'd say that "power of spells" and "chance that a spell will succeed" are the same thing, as most of the more powerful or debilitating spells directly hinge on their success rates.

If Prestidigitation and Wish have same success rate, most people will still not say they are equally powerful.

Success rate is precondition or modifier of power, but is not identical to it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Would have liked more questions about buff durations, but overall a good survey!

Keep up the good work guys.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
This playtest is going by so fast...
Tell me about it...

I'm not the guy from the post, but I've been constantly playing 5 hours/week for my group and I'm still at part 4: Mirrored Moon. We all want to do the surveys and contribute for PF2E, but we can't find time to play more. We don't want to rush the Campaign because we fell we'll be sending poor feedback if we do that, but we don't want to can't be able to contribute because we couldn't keep up with the dates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been wondering. There's still over a month left in the year after the playtest of "When the Stars go Dark." Is there more playtest to come in that month? Will there be a playtest of level 20 play? I hope there will be because I think that would be very important to test. Furthermore if that is tested and it goes well, I know I for one would love to see more adventures that go from 1 to 20. In the paths now level 20 always seems like this unattainable goal. I've never played a class all the way there and I don't think I'd want to in the current system. I'm at level 17 in my Mummy's Mask game right now and I'm missing the days when I was level 7 just because of how complicated level 17 is. At least on the surface, the playtest looks like something I'd like to play at higher levels as well as lower ones, but it'd be nice to test.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope there's major changes to the barbarian too. I'm playing one in the level 12 part of the playtest and the 3 up 1 down mechanic, while interesting in concept, isn't that conducive for fun gameplay. They don't really gain enough from it to have the -1 AC and the useless turn worth it, and they also don't have any reason not to rage unless they multiclass a spellcaster (although moment of clarity is nice).


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
Survey wrote:
On average, spellcasters in the Pathfinder Playtest have one fewer spell per day of each level they can cast

Due to bonus spells from ability scores, it's actually 2 spells fewer per level. Exact numbers vary from one class to the next and which levels you compare (bard and sorcerer aren't exactly clean).

Yeah I'm not sure what "average" they mean here, but my current 1e Cleric and the Clerics I made in the playtest were not off by 1 spell per level. It was 2 (1 base + 1 domain) before bonus slots. With bonus slots factored in, at mid level with decent items you start having double the spell slots in 1e at a given level than 2e.

Channel in 2e is far better than Channel in 1e, but if they think my 1e Cleric really has 4 spells per level, then I don't even know what to say.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I really missed a question about the current method of preparing spells vs the Arcanist/5e way. Maybe they aren't willing to change that, I don't know, but I've seen a lot of people (me included) saying that they would prefer no one having to prepare how many times they will use each spell and giving spontaneous casters other advantage instead. Apart from that and some questions being repeated for each edition in a confusing manner, these were probably the best surveys we had so far, in my opinion. Most people here come to complain because... well, this is how things work I guess, and I'm not excluded from that, but this was probably the best playtest I've participated in.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've actually got a tabletop group who'd be interested in me adapting Rise of the Runelords for the Playtest Rules (and then the eventual Pathfinder 2 rules) and then the other two parts of the series as well. So at least one of my two gaming groups has enjoyed this.

Personally I think there was one lost aspect to the Playtest. That is having several adventures in a row with the same adventurers but one level apart - so players could see what it was like adding just one level to a character and how long (and how it changed things) it took. But that's a moot point at this point and no doubt private internal playtests already gave input on this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
VikingGoth wrote:
I hope there's major changes to the barbarian too. I'm playing one in the level 12 part of the playtest and the 3 up 1 down mechanic, while interesting in concept, isn't that conducive for fun gameplay. They don't really gain enough from it to have the -1 AC and the useless turn worth it, and they also don't have any reason not to rage unless they multiclass a spellcaster (although moment of clarity is nice).

I would prefer more of a risk/reward mechanic with say increasing penalties that you take the longer you rage after say 3 turns instead of just dropping out with a cap of maybe 1min. This allows you to push your luck or play it safe but it puts the choice in the players hands instead of an arbitrary 3 turn duration. This also solves some of the problems of the Barbarian only being able to fly for 3 turns then falling to possibly their death.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TheNewbie wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
This playtest is going by so fast...
Tell me about it...
I'm not the guy from the post, but I've been constantly playing 5 hours/week for my group and I'm still at part 4: Mirrored Moon. We all want to do the surveys and contribute for PF2E, but we can't find time to play more. We don't want to rush the Campaign because we fell we'll be sending poor feedback if we do that, but we don't want to can't be able to contribute because we couldn't keep up with the dates.

The surveys are open until New Year's, I believe, so those us who are still behind can continue to play and submit surveys until that time.

Jason has suggested that we might skip an adventure or two if necessary, and that in such a case adventures 1,4, and 7 are the most important.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
I really missed a question about the current method of preparing spells vs the Arcanist/5e way. Maybe they aren't willing to change that, I don't know, but I've seen a lot of people (me included) saying that they would prefer no one having to prepare how many times they will use each spell and giving spontaneous casters other advantage instead.

I completely agree with this. Arcanist-style or 5e style of preparing spells is wonderful, and I find it preferable to the current system. Also what I was wondering, at least for spontaneous casters, is why doesn't heightening spells work a little more like multi-level spells in starfinder? The ability to spontaneously heighten a couple spells every day is nice, but I like that in starfinder I can learn a spell at a higher level and cast them at lower levels without the spell taking up a spell known at every level I'd like to cast it at.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I was momentarily really excited for this blog when I saw the title, but then saw what it was about. :<

I mean, still awesome to see them making changes and hopefully fixing up the problems I have with the current playtest, which this particular update looks to be trying at- but ouch. You know EXACTLY what you did with that title, don't even pretend :P


Raiderrpg wrote:

I was momentarily really excited for this blog when I saw the title, but then saw what it was about. :<

I mean, still awesome to see them making changes and hopefully fixing up the problems I have with the current playtest, which this particular update looks to be trying at- but ouch. You know EXACTLY what you did with that title, don't even pretend :P

It was a bit misleading lol. I'm glad magic is being scrutinized so thoroughly though considering how overpowered it is in 1e, but I'm in the minority that quite likes how spells are in the playtest at the moment, particularly cantrips and powers. I love playing my Bard. I am excited to see how they develop though. But yeah I was expecting stuff about prestige classes also.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
How important is it that wands are consumable items that use charges?

That is a great survey question. Asking it suggests that if people don't care about charges, they will do more radical things to fix wands.

It's important to identify what the actual sacred cows are, and what stuff is just coasting along because of inertia that really doesn't matter.


Was hoping for prestige classes too, damn. Oh well. I just wish that they could ditch vancian casting, since that is the core problem with spellcasters in any version of dnd or pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
Quote:
How important is it that wands are consumable items that use charges?

That is a great survey question. Asking it suggests that if people don't care about charges, they will do more radical things to fix wands.

It's important to identify what the actual sacred cows are, and what stuff is just coasting along because of inertia that really doesn't matter.

What exactly is that question asking? "As opposed to consumable items that don't use charges" or "as opposed to nonconsumable items that may or may not still use charges"? Is that distinction in that question?

I know I'll find out eventually; I'm just behind on the other surveys.


Telefax wrote:
Was hoping for prestige classes too, damn. Oh well. I just wish that they could ditch vancian casting, since that is the core problem with spellcasters in any version of dnd or pathfinder.

Vancian casting? I'm unfamiliar with the term.


Baelor the Bard wrote:
Telefax wrote:
Was hoping for prestige classes too, damn. Oh well. I just wish that they could ditch vancian casting, since that is the core problem with spellcasters in any version of dnd or pathfinder.
Vancian casting? I'm unfamiliar with the term.

Vancian Casting is the system with spell slots and spell levels that we have in D&D, Pathfinder 1 and some other systems. People have come to a lot of alternatives to that since then, things like mana points, etc.

I personally like Vancian Casting, but I can see its problems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
Baelor the Bard wrote:
Telefax wrote:
Was hoping for prestige classes too, damn. Oh well. I just wish that they could ditch vancian casting, since that is the core problem with spellcasters in any version of dnd or pathfinder.
Vancian casting? I'm unfamiliar with the term.

Vancian Casting is the system with spell slots and spell levels that we have in D&D, Pathfinder 1 and some other systems. People have come to a lot of alternatives to that since then, things like mana points, etc.

I personally like Vancian Casting, but I can see its problems.

To expand on this, when most people say Vancian casting, they mean the way the Wizard and the Cleric work in PF1e (you pick every spell that goes in every slot for the day and then that's that). It does not apply to the Arcanist or the Sorcerer or others that work differently from the Wizard and Cleric.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aramar wrote:
TheNewbie wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
This playtest is going by so fast...
Tell me about it...
I'm not the guy from the post, but I've been constantly playing 5 hours/week for my group and I'm still at part 4: Mirrored Moon. We all want to do the surveys and contribute for PF2E, but we can't find time to play more. We don't want to rush the Campaign because we fell we'll be sending poor feedback if we do that, but we don't want to can't be able to contribute because we couldn't keep up with the dates.

The surveys are open until New Year's, I believe, so those us who are still behind can continue to play and submit surveys until that time.

Jason has suggested that we might skip an adventure or two if necessary, and that in such a case adventures 1,4, and 7 are the most important.

I've made some calculations about how we play and the time we take and we probably will only be able to finish doomsday dawn mid-january. I know they need time to actually pick all the playtest data to use, but 2 weeks for part's too fast for us. We maybe try to play extra games at hollydays but I really would like to have 3~4 more weeks of playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alyran wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
Baelor the Bard wrote:
Telefax wrote:
Was hoping for prestige classes too, damn. Oh well. I just wish that they could ditch vancian casting, since that is the core problem with spellcasters in any version of dnd or pathfinder.
Vancian casting? I'm unfamiliar with the term.

Vancian Casting is the system with spell slots and spell levels that we have in D&D, Pathfinder 1 and some other systems. People have come to a lot of alternatives to that since then, things like mana points, etc.

I personally like Vancian Casting, but I can see its problems.

To expand on this, when most people say Vancian casting, they mean the way the Wizard and the Cleric work in PF1e (you pick every spell that goes in every slot for the day and then that's that). It does not apply to the Arcanist or the Sorcerer or others that work differently from the Wizard and Cleric.

Doesn't it? I always thought this was just a different type of Vancian Casting, and I've seen people refer to this as "neo-Vancian". Well, sorry for the incomplete answer, then.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
In the coming months, the playtest will draw to a close, and there will be no additional public updates to the rules while we focus on making changes to the game.

and there it is, my worst fears realized.

so we'll just have to hope and pray that whatever alterations they make post 1.6 aren't completely nonfunctional or over-/undertuned-and-requiring-another-book-purchase to correct, because by the time we see it to test things it'll already be set in stone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
Alyran wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
Baelor the Bard wrote:
Telefax wrote:
Was hoping for prestige classes too, damn. Oh well. I just wish that they could ditch vancian casting, since that is the core problem with spellcasters in any version of dnd or pathfinder.
Vancian casting? I'm unfamiliar with the term.

Vancian Casting is the system with spell slots and spell levels that we have in D&D, Pathfinder 1 and some other systems. People have come to a lot of alternatives to that since then, things like mana points, etc.

I personally like Vancian Casting, but I can see its problems.

To expand on this, when most people say Vancian casting, they mean the way the Wizard and the Cleric work in PF1e (you pick every spell that goes in every slot for the day and then that's that). It does not apply to the Arcanist or the Sorcerer or others that work differently from the Wizard and Cleric.
Doesn't it? I always thought this was just a different type of Vancian Casting, and I've seen people refer to this as "neo-Vancian". Well, sorry for the incomplete answer, then.

Your answer wasn't really incomplete and you're not exactly wrong. But most of what I've seen of the use of vancian casting refers to the strict and rigid framework used by the wizard and cleric. The others have their roots there, but have clear distinctions. A common desire around here is "ditch vancian for arcanist casting."


20 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
Quote:
In the coming months, the playtest will draw to a close, and there will be no additional public updates to the rules while we focus on making changes to the game.

and there it is, my worst fears realized.

so we'll just have to hope and pray that whatever alterations they make post 1.6 aren't completely nonfunctional or over-/undertuned-and-requiring-another-book-purchase to correct, because by the time we see it to test things it'll already be set in stone.

If the changes keep going until the surveys close, and keep their current update schedule, we should get to like 1.9.

That being said, at some point they have to stop giving us updates and make the final product. That isn't an unreasonable thing to do, it's just how it works.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, if they were going to keep soliciting feedback until the book is ready to print, the book would literally never come out.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't wait for the 1.6 update :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Quote:
In the coming months, the playtest will draw to a close, and there will be no additional public updates to the rules while we focus on making changes to the game.

and there it is, my worst fears realized.

so we'll just have to hope and pray that whatever alterations they make post 1.6 aren't completely nonfunctional or over-/undertuned-and-requiring-another-book-purchase to correct, because by the time we see it to test things it'll already be set in stone.

If the changes keep going until the surveys close, and keep their current update schedule, we should get to like 1.9.

That being said, at some point they have to stop giving us updates and make the final product. That isn't an unreasonable thing to do, it's just how it works.

I suppose I'm just mistrustful towards any "closed doors" devving from paizo at this point, since the last edition went seven entire years with three core classes being garbage pretty much from top to bottom. EDIT: for this edition i'm especially worried about the alchemist and paladin, but as those were specifically mentioned, i will remain hopeful for the time being on that topic. not so sure on things like druid requiring wasted stats for wildshape that don't actually apply to wildshape at all (they just determine the pool, since shapes have fixed bonuses).

I dread the thought of some odd contradiction added without outside testing suddenly completely breaking a class and then being met with "nope it's already in print nothing that can be done--can we interest you in a $30+ purchase that has a character tax to skirt around that?" again (hey there shadow strike feat tax, for when we broke the rogue entirely by altering the concealment rules for light levels).

that kind of neglectful marketing is exactly the kind of thing i want to be wrong in predicting


I theorize that there will still be blog posts. Just no more rules updates to the playtest book. But yeah, they have to stop playtesting it at some point. Everyone will have had more than enough opportunity to give their opinions on what they like and what they don't. For me, there's no way my group is finishing the playtest. We're still on part 2. That being said, I've given what feedback I can, and I've seen pretty much every concern I had but whasn't able to test get addressed by someone else.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I really want that items' DC should not be fixed by the item, but for the user power/level.

Just as a sword is more effective in the hands of a higher level character, also should all other items.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Mares wrote:

I really want that items' DC should not be fixed by the item, but for the user power/level.

Just as a sword is more effective in the hands of a higher level character, also should all other items.

Yah if they wanted to keep some sort of Cha dependence for items they could even just make an Item DC stat that is Cha based then ditch focus.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Ugh! Even the surveys have impenetrable, dense, hard to comprehend language like the rules do.

I've read this question 3 times and still don't know what it actually means "21. The examples above use "Casting," but the text could instead use the verb-form action name. Which do you most prefer?"

is there a survey glossary which contains "verb-form action name" listed?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:

Ugh! Even the surveys have impenetrable, dense, hard to comprehend language like the rules do.

I've read this question 3 times and still don't know what it actually means "21. The examples above use "Casting," but the text could instead use the verb-form action name. Which do you most prefer?"

is there a survey glossary which contains "verb-form action name" listed?

there were a few questions in the presentation survey that made me do a triple-take to try and understand what they were trying to ask as well, yeah.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This was a hard survey to fill out. I found many of the questions missed the problem entirely as the rules are written in a style that expects an interactive document. In some cases, a formatting and readability issues would exist entirely due to a new rule that hadn't been honed sufficiently.

So, while my response on this is overwhelmingly negative, I hope its understood that this doesn't reflect entirely on the formatters abilities.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

22 people marked this as a favorite.

I spent the last six years running a campaign with characters that reached level 20.

The main problem with high level spellcasting lies mostly with martials rather than the spells themselves. Martials get little to no narrative power beyond just stabbing or shooting things.

While the feat system helps, martials still get hosed. Most of them don't get any abilities that help them outside of combat. All characters get the same number of feats and class features as they level up, but spellcasters get spells ontop of that while martials (except the rogue) get nothing in return except for the proficiencies they got at 1st level.

The survey doesn't even consider any this and has way too many leading questions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Filling the presentation survey wasn't very fun indeed, but hey, it's an important topic. I hope our feedback is helpful.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:

I spent the last six years running a campaign with characters that reached level 20.

The main problem with high level spellcasting lies mostly with martials rather than the spells themselves. Martials get little to no narrative power beyond just stabbing or shooting things.

While the feat system helps, martials still get hosed. Most of them don't get any abilities that help them outside of combat. All characters get the same number of feats and class features as they level up, but spellcasters get spells ontop of that while martials (except the rogue) get nothing in return except for the proficiencies they got at 1st level.

The survey doesn't even consider any this and has way too many leading questions.

preaching to the choir there man (contains a nested post as well), i've been talking about martials needing some Thing of their own (that MUST NOT be a feat tax or other cost, as that defeats the entire purpose) on top of class abilities/feats to push them into the same ballpark as casters since shortly after the playtest started.

EDIT: it occurs to me how thunder-stealing that came across, which isnt the intention! it's just great to see someone else on the same wavelength.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Next week, we'll be dropping an absolutely huge Update 1.6, which adds or adjusts aspects of every class in the game! This ranges from a small alteration in stances that affects the fighter to major changes for the alchemist and paladin.

I love how Paizo is constantly reiterating the playtest, but it makes it a pain to create pre-gens for. I *was* going to spend the week making pre-gens for the playtest on the 10th, but no point in that, since they'll be obsolete by then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it a certain thing that feedback through surveys closes at the first of the year? I would like to be clear for my players and make good recommendations about what we can accomplish before the mic shuts off.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the choice of uestions for magic items survey. They were spot-on for the most part. Spells I would have liked more about spell durations and utility.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:

I spent the last six years running a campaign with characters that reached level 20.

The main problem with high level spellcasting lies mostly with martials rather than the spells themselves. Martials get little to no narrative power beyond just stabbing or shooting things.

While the feat system helps, martials still get hosed. Most of them don't get any abilities that help them outside of combat. All characters get the same number of feats and class features as they level up, but spellcasters get spells ontop of that while martials (except the rogue) get nothing in return except for the proficiencies they got at 1st level.

The survey doesn't even consider any this and has way too many leading questions.

Not to say the overall point isn't true but casters don't actually get as many features before spells as other classes. They actually get less feats, most casters lacking 1st, 12th, and I think 16th level feats (So 8 instead of 11. Some get a 1st level thing for 9 instead of 11) and aside from their initial power (School, domain, bloodline, muse, order) they don't get hardly any actual class features. If I remember correctly the upgrades to spell proficiency are all they get in class features outside of level 1, while other classes get a feature every odd level I believe.

Specifically non-casters get initial stuff and a class feat at 1st level and then class feats every even level and a feature every odd level. Casters follow this same template except they either get no 1st level feat or it's determined by their level 1 choice thing (Bard Muse and Druid Order give a specific feat, Universalist Wizrd gets a feat. Clerics, Sorcerers, and other Wizards don't) and they continue to get class feats at even levels except 12th and 16th where they give them up for proficiency increase. And then instead of getting class features on odd levels like non casters they get new levels of spells (Except at 19th level they get a proficiency boost instead since there's no spell increase there). Essentially their spells take the place of class features.

So while it's certainly a valid opinion that casters have more versatility than non casters when you consider spellcasting as a whole, but they definitely don't get the same amount of features and feats aside from casting compared to non casters. They give up a couple feats and almost any kind of class features for their casting.

1 to 50 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Paizo Blog: The Prestige All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.