Shining Lights and Dark Stars

Most of the changes to the classes look good. I’ll be playtesting them this year and next.

I don’t like the changes to Barbarian. Rolling each round to stay in rage is not desirable, it will just slow down each turn.

While I like the other versions of “paladin” (and would like to play them, we had them back in version 1 of D&D), do these new paladin archetypes need to be in the core game? Are they similar enough that you want them to share every feat with the paladin core class or should they have their own special unique abilities? These are questions you should ask yourself.

I think you might want to consider taking automatic crits (in melee/ranged combat) out of the game. Confirming crits is preferable to what we have right now, even criting only on a “20” would be better. Right now, crits happen too often and it makes the system too dependent on that your math is (perfectly) “tight”. It’s the crits that make it so that we have trouble fighting creatures more than 2 CR above our level and make it too easy fighting creatures 2 CR below our level. Auto crits and have more crits is causing a lot of problems in my games. They’re not worth it.

FWIW, I disagree.

While it does make above-level encounters hard, the ease of critting below-level enemies significantly increased the fun level of those fights, at least for my group.

And the fact that a CR-2 encounter is even worth running is a change from PF1e that I approve of.

Overall, I like most of changes. I am particularly impressed with the paladin changes. Opening up the character design space to more alignments is a good thing. The redeemer is an excellent idea that fits both the more peace oriented deities as well as being something different. The Liberator abilities may be a bit too situational. I also like the changes to cleric spell casting regarding somatic components.

N N 959 wrote:

Another major issue I've had is the loss of spells. There is a vocal minority of posters on the forums who clamor for spells to be removed. I suspect the main reason is that spells for a Ranger in PF1 where poorly implemented. You got like so few spells and you have to choose it in advance? What? Naturally people felt that getting rid of spells for something more useful.

The fix is to give the Ranger spontaneous casting from the entire list. You're still only getting one spell, but now you have a LOT more versatility and can actually use so many of the spells that were simply to situational to prepare in advance. Instead, Paizo got rid of spells and give the class nothing. Why? The Ranger was never overpowered with spells. How is the Ranger better without spells? I simply don't get it.

I agree with all of that, except I think the Ranger should have a number of spells known from the list, not the entire list.

Why not? If we go back to PF1 and change the Ranger's spell casting to any spell on the list, but the same frequency fo casting, what's the problem?

Now, if PF2 were to make Ranger's full casters, then that's a different thing, but they aren't going to do that. I'm all for limited amounts of spells, but make it spontaneous casting from the entire list and you're dramatically improving the perception of the Ranger's versatility without substantively changing the power dynamic.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Vic Ferrari wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Another major issue I've had is the loss of spells. There is a vocal minority of posters on the forums who clamor for spells to be removed. I suspect the main reason is that spells for a Ranger in PF1 where poorly implemented. You got like so few spells and you have to choose it in advance? What? Naturally people felt that getting rid of spells for something more useful.

The fix is to give the Ranger spontaneous casting from the entire list. You're still only getting one spell, but now you have a LOT more versatility and can actually use so many of the spells that were simply to situational to prepare in advance. Instead, Paizo got rid of spells and give the class nothing. Why? The Ranger was never overpowered with spells. How is the Ranger better without spells? I simply don't get it.

I agree with all of that, except I think the Ranger should have a number of spells known from the list, not the entire list.

Why not?

I think of ranger spells as more like tools, and it doesn't seem right for a ranger to have access to every spell on a list at all times (and if ranger spells are constantly being added, as in 3rd Ed/PF1, that could get absurd), no class has that.

As a random sidenote.
For Alchemist.

Pretty sure the You can't use the "make two items with quick alchemy" lv 9 ability with the perpitual stuff. because perpetual specifically states it requires no reagents.. so you can't pay double nothing. So it can't interact.

I think of ranger spells as more like tools

That's a great analogy. And when someone travels in the wild, they don't take one tool, they take a Swiss army knife. PF1, via the legacy 3.5, required the Ranger to decide which tool they were going to need on any given day and then the character was stuck with just that one tool What made it more ridiculous is that the Ranger spells were extremely situational. So WotC was expecting a player to sort through a list of extremely situational spells and pick one or two for the entire adventuring day. It's no wonder that there are people who wanted to get rid of spells.

and it doesn't seem right for a ranger to have access to every spell on a list at all times

That's an emotional reaction which actually underscores why this type of change would be a home run for Paizo and the Ranger class without breaking anything or stepping on any other class' toes.

(and if ranger spells are constantly being added, as in 3rd Ed/PF1, that could get absurd), no class has that.

Every class should feel unique. The fact that no class has it is even more reason why at least one class should. More to the point, no class has it because there is no class which has such extremely situational spells combined with so few on a stat that is of secondary or even tertiary importance.

Do me a favor and playtest this change in either PF1 or PF2 and tell me what you think. Keep the number of spells limited. Tell me if the Ranger is substantively that more effective compared to how it feels psychologically.

Thematically I think I'd be cool if ranger spells were handled like ki powers.

I don't actually like rangers being spellcasters by default, but it would be a nice option.

That said, I'll confess to just very much liking the place the Monk is in right now in general. Which is funny, as it was one of the two classes I was most concerned about prior to the playtest dropping.

Removed some posts and their replies.

Profanity and other vulgar language is not allowed on our forums.

Ensure that when you chose to participate in the conversation, that your words contribute constructively to the discourse and avoid attacking individuals personally for their contributed ideas.

Quote:

and it doesn't seem right for a ranger to have access to every spell on a list at all times

That's an emotional reaction which actually underscores why this type of change would be a home run for Paizo and the Ranger class without breaking anything or stepping on any other class' toes.

Ha, oh dear, nothing to do with emotions (the spin is kind of creepy), it's just excessive for a class to have access to every spell on the list as long as they have the appropriate level slot (not even the Wizard has that versatility/access to that many different spells in a day).

Vic Ferrari wrote:

stuff

More stuff...

Actually, there is one concern with spontaneous casting from the list regarding slowing down the game. I think that could be handled by requiring a casting time of 1 minute for any spells spontaneously unless prepared in advance. This would preclude someone wanting to read through the spell list during combat.

N N 959 wrote:

Quote:

and it doesn't seem right for a ranger to have access to every spell on a list at all times

That's an emotional reaction which actually underscores why this type of change would be a home run for Paizo and the Ranger class without breaking anything or stepping on any other class' toes.

Ha, oh dear, nothing to do with emotions (the spin is kind of creepy), it's just excessive for a class to have access to every spell on the list as long as they have the appropriate level slot (not even the Wizard has that versatility/access to that many different spells in a day).

A wizard has a lot more spells they can cast in any day. I'm making this suggestion with the idea that the number of spells per day is similar to what it was in PF1. In PF1, a 10th level Ranger can cast three spells. A 10th level Wizard can cast twenty. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I don't mind that the Ranger can only cast three spells, so long as he can choose those from the entire list if he casts them out of combat.

...So basically the Ranger should also have Quick Preparation, is what you are saying? :)

I don't mind that the Ranger can only cast three spells, so long as he can choose those from the entire list if he casts them out of combat.

Ah, so now there's suddenly an out combat caveat...so it's cool if they can choose from a hundred (thousand, eventually?) spells to cast at any one time, as long they can only cast 3 spells, and must be out of combat?

Voss wrote:

Eh? Prepared casters can cast the same spell repeatedly just fine. Wizards can find it exceptionally easy (and can do it more).

The Sorcerer's problem is it doesn't have schtick. It's just a weaker version of another class, and being able to choose which class to be inferior to at level 1 isn't a benefit.

I was not clear in my post. Prepared casters can indeed cast the same spell repeatedly but only as often as the slots where they prepared it. If they prepared it N times but need to cast it more, they are screwed

While the Sorcerer can cast the same spell all day long as long as they have slots to do so

The Sorcerer will never face the situation of "If only I could cast this spell that I know but did not prepare enough times". What they face is "Oops, no slot left"

Here. Here.

Vancian casting is great in stories, but a bit more restrictive in a role playing game environment. We will need to work with it this time around, but at least I can just play the Sorcerer instead and not have to worry about which spell to prepare or if I should change them out for something else.

I was hoping for the sorcerer to be the various caster types that are not from the main schools, like the shadow casters or Wild Mages, or be Elementalists and have bloodlines that mimic the Kinestist powers.

Nope, two mages. Oh well.

N N 959 wrote:

I don't mind that the Ranger can only cast three spells, so long as he can choose those from the entire list if he casts them out of combat.

Ah, so now there's suddenly an out combat caveat...so it's cool if they can choose from a hundred (thousand, eventually?) spells to cast at any one time, as long they can only cast 3 spells, and must be out of combat?

Your statements are disingenuous. A Ranger is not ever going to have thousands of spells. In PF1, they are limited to level 4 spells. Your entire opposition is based on your attempt to equate Ranger casting to Wizard casting. They aren't comparable. What works or does not work for the Wizard or Druid has nothing to do with what makes sense for the Ranger. That is the problem with Ranger casting in PF1. The Ranger is using a system devised for full casters and meant to balance full casters.

PF1 has a huge list of Ranger spells that no one ever uses because no one is going to prepare them in advance. WotC and to some extent Paizo spent real assets in making that list and essentially got nothing out of it. It was wasted development. Granted, the Ranger no longer has its own spell list, so that problem is alleviated.

The casting duration is really just for OOC purposes. Getting access to one's entire list would slow the game down in combat. That's the reason no one gets this type of ability and I think that's a valid reason not to give it. The combat spells have to be prepared in advance.

...So basically the Ranger should also have Quick Preparation, is what you are saying? :)

Technically no, essentially yes. The Ranger's relationship with spells should be based on the concept of the Ranger being able to improvise. The Ranger comes up with something given a few moments i.e. a MacGyver type of quality, but with the Nature theme.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

I don't mind that the Ranger can only cast three spells, so long as he can choose those from the entire list if he casts them out of combat.

Ah, so now there's suddenly an out combat caveat...so it's cool if they can choose from a hundred (thousand, eventually?) spells to cast at any one time, as long they can only cast 3 spells, and must be out of combat?

Your statements are disingenuous.

Again, creepy spin, please stop. The ranger could end up with who knows how many spells on its list (in 3rd Ed there are hundreds, across the books, maybe a thousand +), and you suggested as long as they can only cast 3, and out of combat, then access to all spells on the list is fine.

That, to me, is absurd.

N N 959 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

I don't mind that the Ranger can only cast three spells, so long as he can choose those from the entire list if he casts them out of combat.

Ah, so now there's suddenly an out combat caveat...so it's cool if they can choose from a hundred (thousand, eventually?) spells to cast at any one time, as long they can only cast 3 spells, and must be out of combat?

Your statements are disingenuous.

Again, creepy spin, please stop. The ranger could end up with who knows how many spells on its list (in 3rd Ed there are hundreds, across the books, maybe a thousand +), and you suggested as long as they can only cast 3, and out of combat, then access to all spells on the list is fine.

That, to me, is absurd.

No, the Ranger will not end up with thousands of spells. The 3.5 Ranger does not have thousands of spells. Your use of hyperbole to discredit the idea is equally absurd.

Let me point out that every time a player with a Divine character sits down for a session, they can choose from any spell on the spell list. A lvl 10 Cleric, has got to sort through your alleged "thousands of spells" and whittle it down to 20 + bonus spells. Amazingly, the game survives under that "absurdity."

After my last post, I feel like adding that most of these changes are, to my mind, positive ones. I was particularly thrilled at the addition of the diabolic bloodline.

There remain niggling things about many of the classes or the system that I don't entirely agree with – particularly the bard – but those are just a personal opinion and, judging by the survey results, a minority one at that ;) Still, I play/run a lot of games with less than the standard number of party members (often only 2-3 players). As a result I am not fond of classes whose main role is support and thus tend to be weaker when there are fewer players to benefit. I hoped that the survey would push for a bard with some different play style options, but it was not to be (at least not for now).

I am quite keen to see what happens with the paladin. I still remember attending GenCon Brisbane and hearing the promotions for the Advanced Players Guide. The cavalier was touted as being "a paladin for every alignment", which isn't quite how the class turned out in the end... but I like where the PF2 paladin/templar/thing seems to be going.

Sadly, the latest batch of alterations will probably go untested at our table just due to time constraints. On the whole I am looking forward to seeing the final result :)

No, the Ranger will not end up with thousands of spells. The 3.5 Ranger does not have thousands of spells. Your use of hyperbole to discredit the idea is equally absurd.

Let me point out that every time a player with a Divine character sits down for a session, they can choose from any spell on the spell list. A lvl 10 Cleric, has got to sort through your alleged "thousands of spells" and whittle it down to 20 + bonus spells. Amazingly, the game survives under that "absurdity."

You're right the Ranger does not have thousands of spells in PF1e. On the SRD there are in fact only 284, I just counted them. But there is one key difference between the Ranger's 284 spells in this case and the however many the Cleric has: The Cleric only has to sort through their spells once a day, and just guess at what they might be dealing with that day. The ranger in this system will be flipping through whatever chunk of that 284 spells they have at their level probably just about any time anything happens, because almost 300 spells is too many to remotely remember off the top of your head and the exact perfect spell to deal with this situation might be there. Out of Combat condition or not, that's going to slow things down.

Because I just write a lot:

^The most relatable thing I've ever seen.

You're right the Ranger does not have thousands of spells in PF1e. On the SRD there are in fact only 284, I just counted them.

The Ranger has about 385 spells in the Archives of Nethys. The CRB for PF has a copyright from like 2009 and the OGL dates back to 2000. So after about 18 years, we've got 385 spells. At 1st level that list is 120. Do you know how much every 1st Ranger spell would cost you? 3000gp. That's chump change to a level 14 Ranger. So PF1 already has a situation where a high level Ranger can have access to every spell 1st level spell and probably 2nd level. Same is true for all the casting classes.

The playtest list 24 Primal spells at 1st level and around 81 total. So even if that list doubles, we're talking about 160 spells by 14th level. By contrast, a druid in PF1 has about 780 spells.

But there is one key difference between the Ranger's 284 spells in this case and the however many the Cleric has: The Cleric only has to sort through their spells once a day, and just guess at what they might be dealing with that day. The ranger in this system will be flipping through whatever chunk of that 284 spells they have at their level probably just about any time anything happens, because almost 300 spells is too many to remotely remember off the top of your head and the exact perfect spell to deal with this situation might be there. Out of Combat condition or not, that's going to slow things down.

Emphasis mine.

You're intentionally trying to ignore the details and present it as worse case scenario at all times. "whatever chunk" is a fraction of the 385 spells until 14 level. Up until 8th level, a Ranger in PF1 only has access to 1st level spells. It takes three levels to gain access to a new spell level. IF PFS is any indication of character longevity, most players won't make it that far. The ones that do, will absolutely have a working memory of what types of spells they can cast and whether or not they have might have spell that is useful.

just about any time anything happens,

That's completely false. A player won't go looking at every spell unless something happens that can't be solved by some standard method. How many times does that happen in a scenario?

Do me a favor and playtest it with a Ranger at 4th level. Tell me how much your game was slowed down by a player looking for a spell out of combat and slowed the game down. And you're also overlooking the fact that if a Ranger has access to more utility, it might actually speed up the non-combat encounters. What's far more likely is that a player will use a spell they are already familiar with, and with so few spells, the Ranger will burn through them quickly.

More importantly, this would add a tremendous improvement in the psychological feel of the class. Even at 1 spell out of a list of 24, will breathe life into the class and let players feel a new level of creativity. This would rejuvenate the Ranger's lost sense of utility and make up for the lost skill leverage.

Try it out.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

I don't mind that the Ranger can only cast three spells, so long as he can choose those from the entire list if he casts them out of combat.

Ah, so now there's suddenly an out combat caveat...so it's cool if they can choose from a hundred (thousand, eventually?) spells to cast at any one time, as long they can only cast 3 spells, and must be out of combat?

Your statements are disingenuous.

Again, creepy spin, please stop. The ranger could end up with who knows how many spells on its list (in 3rd Ed there are hundreds, across the books, maybe a thousand +), and you suggested as long as they can only cast 3, and out of combat, then access to all spells on the list is fine.

That, to me, is absurd.

1) No, the Ranger will not end up with thousands of spells.

2) Let me point out that every time a player with a Divine character sits down for a session, they can choose from any spell on the spell list.

1) You never know, count up how many they have in 3rd Ed (it is quite a considerable amount), and even if it's 50, that is still silly.

2), Ah, now that would be an actual case of disingenuousness. They prepare spells from a list, they can't cast any spell from that list, as long as they have the appropriate level slot.

This might sound dumb but can anyone clarify the Ranger's new Hunter's Edge? Do you pick one at the start of a build? Do you pick one every time you activate Hunt Target? Or do you have access to all 3? It does not implicitly tell you to pick one. Even it has a line that says "You have trained for countless hours to become a more skilled hunter and tracker, gaining additional benefits when you Hunt a Target.) Benefit(s)...plural. Masterful Hunter,"You also gain an additional benefit depending on your hunter’s edge", implies that there was an individual choice from before.

The Rogue's Rogue's Technique specifically states " You gain one of the following techniques of your choice."

The Paladin's Righteous Form is chosen at the start and again later if you get a feat. "Once you have chosen the ally’s form, it cannot be changed"

Can anyone clarify? It's not like there are any class feats that require a specific build choice for the Ranger unlike The Paladin and Rogue.

So some remarks that I'm not sure about.. Maybe it's already been said or I'm misreading something.. :D

That's completely false. A player won't go looking at every spell unless something happens that can't be solved by some standard method. How many times does that happen in a scenario?

Do me a favor and playtest it with a Ranger at 4th level. Tell me how much your game was slowed down by a player looking for a spell out of combat and slowed the game down. And you're also overlooking the fact that if a Ranger has access to more utility, it might actually speed up the non-combat encounters. What's far more likely is that a player will use a spell they are already familiar with, and with so few spells, the Ranger will burn through them quickly.

More importantly, this would add a tremendous improvement in the psychological feel of the class. Even at 1 spell out of a list of 24, will breathe life into the class and let players feel a new level of creativity. This would rejuvenate the Ranger's lost sense of utility and make up for the lost skill leverage.

1) You are dramatically underestimating how much people want to use their magic. I have seen people completely ignore the mundane answer because they have a spell that can do it, and want to use that magic. If there's so much as a chance that they might have the right spell for this situation, they will look for that spell before even considering less 'cool' mundane solutions.

2) Frankly, me testing it would be a waste of time, since my games are PbP. Results won't show what it would be like to actually play with these rules for most people, because in the games I play I can take hours to casually skim the spell list. Of course, my group flat out called the very idea nuts the first time I mentioned it, so since I literally cannot GM, there's no way I would be able to test it anyways.

And with all that said, I will be backing out of this conversation now, because it's very off topic to this thread and frankly we had this whole debate before I stopped following your original thread back in April or so.

I'll just say this:

The new Wizard is actually cool. Please don't nerf it. It's actually interesting to play now and feels useful to any party. The only improvement I would suggest is to make the "combine spell slots" thing come online earlier since it's so cool but won't come into play until years into a campaign.
EDIT: This might be the fix that Evocation Wizards really needed to get something out of low level slots. Good job, Paizo!

I realize the Sorcerer looks very bad in comparison now. That class should be changed instead to catch up, not the other way around. Have you considered letting them spontaneously combine spell slots in the same way? It wouldn't fix everything but be pretty cool.

2), Ah, now that would be an actual case of disingenuousness. They prepare spells from a list, they can't cast any spell from that list, as long as they have the appropriate level slot.

The "list" for a Cleric or Druid is every spell for their levels. In PF2, that list is all the "Common" spells, so the same restriction would apply to the Ranger.

Up until now I've thought that the people saying to just get rid of the Sorcerer and give the other classes full Arcanist style casting were being too extreme, but the Sorcerer is a bad joke at this point. Ditch it and make the other casters more fun to play in the process.

1) You are dramatically underestimating how much people want to use their magic. I have seen people completely ignore the mundane answer because they have a spell that can do it, and want to use that magic.

And I'll bet those are full casting classes. Yes, I've played with Wizards who want to use a scroll, spell, or wand at every opportunity. The Ranger isn't a full caster and won't have that many spells to use willy nilly.

If there is a dramatic error in estimation here, I would point it in the direction of failing to recognize how players play. A person isn't going to read through every spell, every time something comes up. People have this thing called "memory" which allows them to retain information. You are giving zero credence to the idea that players will be familiar with their spell lists and have go-to-spells. The bottom line is I completely disagree with the notion that this would substantively slow down the game in actual use. Yes, maybe if you started at 14th level and had to learn all your spells from scratch, but that would be true for any casting class.

And...your point about divine casters only selecting spells once, isn't universally true. It happens every time there is a new in-game day in a session. In the PFS playtest, it took three days for us to complete the adventure and that meant three times the cleric got to review his entire Common spell list. But the person playing the cleric didn't read every single spell, they already have mental shortcuts for dealing with this type of thing, and that is exactly what would happen. Yes, there is the odd person who does re-read every spell. I'd say that person is 1 out of 1000.

2) Frankly, me testing it would be a waste of time, since my games are PbP. Results won't show what it would be like to actually play with these rules for most people, because in the games I play I can take hours to casually skim the spell list. Of course, my group flat out called the very idea nuts the first time I mentioned it, so since I literally cannot GM, there's no way I would be able to test it anyways.

What you can test is how does this change the class. Since it will have no impact on the duration of the game, you're in a perfect situation to see how players feel about using this when they have full access to it. Is the Ranger suddenly overpowered?

I'll also point out that as an Investigator or Alchemist n PF1, I can easily purchase all the low level spells and do the exact same thing I'm proposing. I have no problem with modifying this idea so that the Ranger has to purchase the spell first and Ranger spells becoming a kind of herbal alchemy. In fact, I originally thought the Ranger spells were going to be transformed into Rituals.

Hum. I haven't actually looked at the casters too much. I'm more an alchemist player.

but. A random bit.
If the Sorcerer is too generic or too not as good as wizard. Could you turn their casting into something weirder? Instead of formulzied spells. Could you pull something like Word magic out?

A modular effects system of some sort. LIke how the Sypha in Castlvania casts. She has "wall" "fire" "ice" and "air" "slow fall" and "spike shaped projectile" and she combines and makes differenty effects out of all of them to do things.

Though that would probably leave a lot of GM adjucating (such as using a ice wall effect to make an elevator or a way up)

Just here to say that I actually like Rangers not being spellcasters. I agree that they are a bit too similar to Fighters now depending on your fighting style (specially for archery and two-weapon fighting), but I think that can be solved by improving the rules on Animal Companions, Snares and especially Exploration Mode in general. Currently it is such a mess that you can't even use your cool Ranger exploration stuff properly.

I really like all the changes to Alchemist, up to and including the way bombers gain improved proficiency with their bomb attacks.

Poisons still seem like they suck really badly, though. Has anyone actually successfully poisoned an enemy in the playtest?

I really like all the changes to Alchemist, up to and including the way bombers gain improved proficiency with their bomb attacks.

Poisons still seem like they suck really badly, though. Has anyone actually successfully poisoned an enemy in the playtest?

i playtested a poison based alchemist early on at level 10-12.

mc into rogue to be able to apply poisons and had most of my prepared elixirs being poison, as well as powerful alchemy for quick poison application with high DC.

in the whole adventure, something like 3 days of encounters with most of my elixirs and most of my quicks as poisons, the number of successful applications was ridiculously low (less than 20% chance for sure).

i don't recall the exact number, but i do remember that the whole first day of adventuring, there was a SINGLE target that actually failed his save twice.

And...your point about divine casters only selecting spells once, isn't universally true. It happens every time there is a new in-game day in a session.

...I said once a day, not once ever. Maybe you missed that? Once a day is still better than several times a day.

And no, the players I was referring to were not full casters, very few people play full casters in my group. It was mostly 6-levels, and a few 4-levels (Bloodragers and Paladins mostly, not many people in my group actually ever seem interested in Rangers. And before you go saying anything about this being at all related to spellcasting, it's actually mostly because Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain require being meta to get for them to actually be relevant, and the survivalist stuff is rarely relevant in the campaigns we run. Nothing to do with casting.)

What you can test is how does this change the class. Since it will have no impact on the duration of the game, you're in a perfect situation to see how players feel about using this when they have full access to it. Is the Ranger suddenly overpowered?

...Did you miss the second half of that quote, the part where I said my group rejected the very notion outright and I can't GM?

Excaliburproxy wrote:

I really like all the changes to Alchemist, up to and including the way bombers gain improved proficiency with their bomb attacks.

Poisons still seem like they suck really badly, though. Has anyone actually successfully poisoned an enemy in the playtest?

i playtested a poison based alchemist early on at level 10-12.

mc into rogue to be able to apply poisons and had most of my prepared elixirs being poison, as well as powerful alchemy for quick poison application with high DC.

in the whole adventure, something like 3 days of encounters with most of my elixirs and most of my quicks as poisons, the number of successful applications was ridiculously low (less than 20% chance for sure).

i don't recall the exact number, but i do remember that the whole first day of adventuring, there was a SINGLE target that actually failed his save twice.

Hey thanks. I have run and played in quite a few playtest sessions at this point and I have literally never seen a poison successfully go off for a player character and that is with several players making alchemists that handed out poisons. Just making a guess, people have tried to use poisons around 10 times and they have either missed the attack (and wasted the dose) or the monster made their save.

...and the survivalist stuff is rarely relevant in the campaigns we run.

Yup, I find the exact same thing to be true in PFS. I can count on one hand the number of times any of my 7 of PFS characters have had to track something. This is one of the problems with the Ranger in PF1 that I was hoping Paizo would address. Change the nature of the survivalist stuff so that it has practical use without having to be in a Nature setting. Tracking could be used anywhere.

Unfortunately, Paizo seems to have doubled-down on pointless wilderness theme. I look at the Ranger-ish backgrounds and I have to facepalm. I have never been in a PFS or homebrew adventure where something like Survey Wildlife would have any substantive benefit to the campaign. Sure, it sounds topical, but it does nothing. That would be fine if none of the other backgrounds did anything, but some of them are incredibly useful.

If you look at the list of Primal spell list, some of these could be situationally useful in an urban setting. The problem is who is going to prepare Ventriloquism or Detect Poison in advance? Nobody. At best someone might buy a scroll. But if you let Rangers prep any spell as need, the game would be enriched by the use of many of these non-combat spells. If you require advanced prep, you're only going to go combat.

The Ranger needs spells back, but if Paizo uses the same broken system as PF1, then they aren't improving the class.

I still don't understand the wasting the dose thing from either a narrative or balance perspective.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

2), Ah, now that would be an actual case of disingenuousness. They prepare spells from a list, they can't cast any spell from that list, as long as they have the appropriate level slot.

The "list" for a Cleric or Druid is every spell for their levels.

We know this, and they prepare spells for the day from that list. They cannot prepare them all, so why should the ranger suddenly have every spell from their list prepared (available for casting)?

Mark Seifter wrote:

We were hoping the ability to be especially good at preparing would be seen as more of an interesting/versatility increase, as opposed to a raw power boost, based on the feedback you guys gave us. Of our other ideas, I think the best one we didn't use was customizing your arcane bond from wizard to wizard (something like: amulets give you defensive benefits, staff for the extra spell, etc, with the possibility of adding more in later books) but then that would leave the wizard making two subclass choices as opposed to one for most other characters. Does that strike you as a wizard fan as adding more to the "interesting" factor than the "power" factor?

Power and flexibility tend to be two sides of the same coin for a wizard. Quick Preparation means great flexibility outside of combat, which means great noncombat power, and great power with which to quickly prepare for an upcoming battle.

I would much rather see a little more flexibility with arcane bonds rather than Quick Preparation.

As a player of wizards, I'd rather have the all-powerful ability to change my spells with quick prep than anything an arcane focus could do. Does everyone think a Sorcerer is different enough regarding class abilities to allow a wizard to have quick prep to make the difference? I, for one, think the spell versatility aspect of Sorcerers are their main benefit, but I also am a lover of wizard PCs and see this as a big boon for wizards. Perhaps the Sorc players can describe how they feel about spell versatility in this regard?

Colette Brunel wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

We were hoping the ability to be especially good at preparing would be seen as more of an interesting/versatility increase, as opposed to a raw power boost, based on the feedback you guys gave us. Of our other ideas, I think the best one we didn't use was customizing your arcane bond from wizard to wizard (something like: amulets give you defensive benefits, staff for the extra spell, etc, with the possibility of adding more in later books) but then that would leave the wizard making two subclass choices as opposed to one for most other characters. Does that strike you as a wizard fan as adding more to the "interesting" factor than the "power" factor?

Power and flexibility tend to be two sides of the same coin for a wizard. Quick Preparation means great flexibility outside of combat, which means great noncombat power, and great power with which to quickly prepare for an upcoming battle.

I would much rather see a little more flexibility with arcane bonds rather than Quick Preparation.

As a player of wizards, I'd rather have the all-powerful ability to change my spells with quick prep than anything an arcane focus could do. Does everyone think a Sorcerer is different enough regarding class abilities to allow a wizard to have quick prep to make the difference? I, for one, think the spell versatility aspect of Sorcerers are their main benefit, but I also am a lover of wizard PCs and see this as a big boon for wizards. Perhaps the Sorc players can describe how they feel about spell versatility in this regard?

With Quick prep wizards firmly establish themselves as the kings of versatility (spell wise) .

In that sense, Sorcs would need to be kings of power (spell wise).

There is already a very slight motion towards there with feats like dangerous sorcery.

But it needs to be more prominent.

Either with flat out more spells, or with additional passive ways that make their rest spells more powerful.

As an example, giving Imperial bloodline a different power, and making the default power a free feature of all level 1 sorcs (that doesn't cost RP) would be ideal.

In this case we have wizards with more spells known that can change their spells on the fly with Quick prep, and Sorcs with less spells, but the ability to boost them a bit if they spend additional actions on them.

The more I think about it, I really don't care for, or feel like the swapping lower level slots for higher level ones really make sense for wizards, I'd suggest dropping it.

To help Sorcerer's feel like they aren't losing out on power/versatility as much due to the wizards ability to reset over time, give a sorcerer a number of reserve spell slots equal to their highest level spell they can cast. They can use a 10 minute exploration action to refocus and replace a single expended spell slot of any level. It means in any particular battle they won't have more power than the wizard, but will have more versatility within that encounter. However, they would last longer throughout the day as they use their time to focus and re-energize themselves, recovering slots.

Wizards will have much less versatility within the confines of a specific encounter, but much a stronger long term versatility when you move into the exploration time scale, where they can use their time to swap to more esoteric but useful spells they know. However, in the end have a few less spells per day, leaving their raw power perhaps a little lower when compared to a whole day.

If people are worried about a high level sorcerer being able to leverage some total of 12 9th level spells in a day, which would have to be spread out over several hours, we could limit what level spell a reserve slot can renew, perhaps = max level -1 (minimum of 1) or require 2 reserve slots to replenish your highest level slot, and 1 slot being able to replenish any slot below your top slot. (but then you'd probably start a 1st level sorcerer with 2 reserve slots)

I also really think sorcerers should gain more cantrips as they advance. It would give them additional flavor, but doesn't require that much of a change to the game, and gives them additional flexibility to combat the growth in flexibility that wizards get over time, without really infringing on the wizards thing. The wizard can know even more cantrips, but only have so many prepared at a time. A Sorcerer only knows so many cantrips, but it is more than a wizard can normally prepare.

Ohh... interesting idea... what if most bloodlines had a uncommon cantrip associated with them that that bloodline would have access to, or would get for free.

I also like the idea of some cantrips potentially having prerequisites either to level, or magic tradition proficiency rank, for instance, which would be things that higher level casters might want to pick up later on. There is even already a sort of precedent of cantrips having prerequisites. Composition Cantrips for instance require you be able to use Compositions, for instance.

... so why should the ranger suddenly have every spell from their list prepared (available for casting)?

First off, I'm making this suggestion under the paradigm that Ranger casting will be as limited as it was in PF1, at level 10 a Ranger got two 1st level spells and one 2nd level spell cast as a lvl 7 caster.

Because it improves the game experience without breaking anything. The reason you give any class something is because it improves a player's experience with that class in alignment with how that class is suppose to play. A class' abilities are intended to form a cohesive concept and experience. The caveat is that you can't break other things.

A Ranger's spells were intended to provide either utility or buff. The Ranger has very few, if any, directly damaging spells. However, as I've already explained, the implementation of Ranger spell casting results in an exceedingly small fraction of of these spells being used. So all this utility/flexibility that the Ranger is intended to have access to, is non-existent outside of scrolls.

Your objection continually reads as if its unfair. Like Im asking you to apply this change to a class with full casting abilities. A Ranger has ONE spells up until 7th level. How much actual impact is one 1st level Ranger spell going to have at 7th level? What about three at 10th level?

An Investigator, I can fairly quickly buy all the formula for my 1st level spells, Long before 7th level, and do exactly what you're objecting against, except I get more spells. An Investigator can also craft tons of alchemical stuff on top of it. With feats, you can craft stuff in minutes

I don't really get your objection other that than it's not status quo. What do think is going to happen if Paizo were to make this change to PF1 tomorrow? Is the four or five spells (with Wisdom bonus) at level 10 going to suddenly make the Ranger solo entire encounters? The fact that a Ranger might cast jump or heightened senses three times a session going to throw the universe out of whack?

The Ranger never should have had this type of spell implementation to start with. WotC got a lot of things wrong, and this is one of them. Prepared spells in the face of so few spells, such a slow spell progressions, and restrictively situational spells makes zero sense. This is something that Paizo can fix for PF2.

Opening this up will improve the game experience for the character with only minor improvement in actual efficacy. Now, if PF2 were to dramatically change the amount of spells a Ranger could cast, then I would modify this accordingly. At the very least, the Rangers spells should work like a Bard. Prepared casting of situational spells is just plain silly when you have so few spells.

I use spell casting on my Rangers all the time. But because I have to prepare the spells in advance, it's the same combat-centric spells every time. The only utility I get out of the spells is from wands or scrolls. I can't believe that was the intention when you look at the actual uses of Ranger spells. The implementation of Ranger spell casting is counter-productive given the goals of the Ranger. The spells are great...but no one gets to use them. That can be fixed.

Barbarian's variable rage feels like thematic. But rolling each round feels fiddly. What about you can Rage for 3 rounds, but can extend it by one round with a Flat DC10 check if you have received damage on the last round?

Like this concept, how about instead of "if you took damage on the last round", "If you took damage last round, reduce the DC by 5" and make it a DC 15 + additional rounds flat check.

The if you took damage last round seems a bit too restrictive and makes it to where the GM/enemy clunkily wants to avoid attacking the Barbarian simply to avoid giving him an opportunity to continue raging, where as the above makes it to where it's possible regardless but easier (and eventually even if he is taking damage, the rounds will become too great to continue).