Player Core Preview: Spells and Spellcasting, Remastered

Thursday, September 21, 2023

Hello, there! I’m Logan Bonner, Pathfinder Lead Designer, here to discuss some of the changes to spells and spellcasting in the remastered books, especially Pathfinder Player Core. James recently went over some details about the remastered wizard, and I’m going to cover the changes to spellcasting overall.

If you want to read some more on the subject, the Core Preview file goes into detail about the term “spell rank” replacing “spell level,” the removal of spell schools, the new spell format seen in the following examples, and some more information about focus spells and the remastered Refocus action.

Spellcasting

As we’ve mentioned in several places, we’ve removed spell components from spells for several reasons:

  • They were highly tied to OGL content. We’re moving away from them.
  • They were mostly redundant with traits. Though there were some shades of nuance here, most of the time, the player needed to remember that material, somatic, and focus components added the manipulate trait to a spell and verbal components added concentrate. The new system adds those traits directly and cuts out the middleman (the components).
  • There were a ton of exceptions to make classes play as intended. You can see in the sidebar on page 303 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebookthat the bard, cleric, druid, and sorcerer all had exceptions for how their components work. This removal lets the classes work as intended without having to learn the system and then having to learn which parts of that system you could ignore.
  • Classes wanted more freedom to define how they cast spells. As the game has grown, both over the course of 1st Edition and 2nd Edition, more class concepts came up that wanted to cast spells with different particulars and presentation. Ultimately, we decided we preferred to let the classes define how they cast and let the theme dictate their mechanics rather than to have a “consistent” system that must either restrict classes or be undermined by them.
Pathfinder Iconic Druid, Lini casting Wall of Thorns

Lini casts wall of thorns to impede charau-ka adversaries! Illustration by Firat Solhan

Spell Statistics

If you’ve looked at the War of Immortals playtest classes, you may have noticed that the animist is “Trained in spell attack modifier” and “Trained in spell DC.” Why doesn’t it say “divine?” This represents a change to spellcasting for all characters who get spells, whether it’s from a class, innate spells, an archetype, or any other source. You no longer need to track proficiency separately for each tradition; there’s just one proficiency now. To update an existing character, you’ll simply use the highest proficiency you already have for all your spells. Why has this changed?

  • Reduce tracking. Having multiple proficiencies could be annoying to keep track of, especially for a complicated character.
  • Enable interesting character concepts. Though you might think it would be fun to play a cleric with a bard archetype, the spell statistics could be so much worse that it wasn’t worth pursuing.
  • Let the attributes do the work. We already have another way that the secondary spells you acquire can be worse—they likely use different attributes. In the above example, you’d still need Wisdom for cleric spells and Charisma for bard spells. That’s enough of a difference to account for without tossing in a gulf between proficiencies that pushes the stats further apart. It also allows you to eliminate the gap entirely if you choose options that use the same attribute.

Cantrips

We’ve made several revisions to damaging cantrips, with the broadest change being to use only damage dice rather than adding an attribute modifier. Like with most changes we made to the system, this was decided after examining multiple factors that were causing problems together.

  • Consistency with how other spells work. Most spells deal just dice for damage, and cantrips were an outlier. Making spells look and function more consistently across the board helps in understanding the rules, especially for new players.
  • Match their damage to our intended spell benchmarks. One-target cantrips were supposed to deal around 6 damage, with focus spells and spell slots dealing a bit more. Adding the spellcasting attribute modifier pushed all the damage numbers off their baseline.
  • Avoid penalizing characters who have damage cantrips from innate spells or multiclassing twice. Characters who got damaging cantrips from multiclassing or as innate spells from ancestry feats or the like often have a lower attribute modifier than a dedicated spellcaster and were dealing with both a lower chance of success and lower damage if they hit. This is a smaller issue, but often led to players being unhappy with their character options.
  • Cleaning up how cantrips work for monsters. This is another smaller issue, but a pain point for GMs. It was unclear how to apply the spellcasting attribute modifier for monsters with cantrips.

A good example of a cantrip built in a new manner is caustic blast, which now uses a burst and works a bit more like other spells rather than having a player need to learn how splash damage works for the purposes of a single spell the way acid splash did.

Caustic Blast [two-actions] Cantrip

Acid, Cantrip, Concentrate, Manipulate
Traditions arcane, primal
Range 30 feet; Area 5-foot burst
Defense basic Reflex
You fling a large glob of acid that immediately detonates, spraying nearby creatures. Creatures in the area take 1d8 acid damage with a basic Reflex save; on a critical failure, the creature also takes 1 persistent acid damage.
Heightened (+2) The initial damage increases by 1d8, and the persistent damage on a critical failure increases by 1.

We’ve also revamped many of the non-damaging cantrips. Here you can see both read aura, which needed adjustment due to the removal of spell schools and now speaks more directly to identifying the item, and light, which incorporates both parts of the original light spell and the removed spell dancing lights to provide players with an alternative that allows for more creativity and flexibility.


Read Aura Cantrip 1

Cantrip, Concentrate, Detection, Manipulate
Traditions arcane, divine, occult, primal
Cast 1 minute
Range 30 feet; Targets 1 object
You focus on the target object, opening your mind to perceive magical auras. When the casting is complete, you know whether that item is magical. You (or anyone you advise about the aura) gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Identify Magic on the item. If the object is illusory, you detect this only if the effect’s rank is lower than the rank of your read aura spell.
Heightened (3rd) You can target up to 10 objects.
Heightened (6th) You can target any number of objects.


Light [two-actions] Cantrip 1

Cantrip, Concentrate, Light, Manipulate
Traditions arcane, divine, occult, primal
Range 120 feet
Duration until your next daily preparations
You create an orb of light that sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius (and dim light for the next 20 feet) in a color you choose. If you create the light in the same space as a willing creature, you can attach the light to the creature, causing it to float near that creature as it moves. You can Sustain the spell to move the light up to 60 feet; you can attach or detach it from a creature as part of this movement.
You can Dismiss the spell. If you Cast the Spell while you already have four light spells active, you must choose one of the existing spells to end.
Heightened (4th) The orb sheds light in a 60-foot radius (and dim light for the next 60 feet).


Focus Spells

We’ve already mentioned and shown several changes to how Focus Points work in the Core Preview document. Mainly, the number of points for your focus pool is always equal to the number of focus spells you know, to a maximum of 3, and you can Refocus for 10 minutes to regain 1 Focus Point regardless of how many points you’ve already spent. If you want to see the new Refocus rules for yourself, take a look at the Core Preview document.

This alone should make focus spells more dependable and simpler to use and track. Additionally, we’ve taken a look at a few of the focus spells that didn’t function well as focus spells and tuned them up. Let’s look at waking nightmare, for example. It can now make a creature paralyzed instead of fleeing and can make the creature take extra mental damage.

Waking Nightmare [two-actions] Focus 1

Uncommon, Cleric, Concentrate, Emotion, Fear, Focus, Manipulate, Mental
Range 30 feet; Targets 1 creature
Saving Throw Will; Duration varies
You fill the creature’s mind with a terrifying vision. The target must attempt a Will save. A creature frightened by this spell takes 1 additional mental damage each time it’s hit by a Strike.
Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target is frightened 1.
Failure The target is frightened 2. If it’s asleep, it wakes up and is paralyzed for 1 round.
Critical Failure As failure, but frightened 3.
Heightened (+1) The mental damage increases by 1.

Many focus spells with longer casting times, like read fate and safeguard secret, have had their casting times reduced, so you can use them in the middle of an encounter or scene.


What About Normal Spells?

So, you’ve heard about cantrips and focus spells, but what about all those other spells? For the most part, spells cast from slots work similarly to how they did before. Let’s look at a couple of those spells! First is thunderstrike, which replaces shocking grasp. It starts off with lower damage, but it becomes ranged instead of being a melee spell and heightened versions increase its damage output.

Thunderstrike [two-actions] Spell 1

Concentrate, Electricity, Manipulate, Sonic
Traditions arcane, primal
Range 120 feet; Targets 1 creature
Defense basic Reflex
You call down a tendril of lightning that cracks with thunder, dealing 1d12 electricity damage and 1d4 sonic damage to the target with a basic Reflex save. A target wearing metal armor or made of metal takes a –1 circumstance bonus to its save, and if damaged by the spell is clumsy 1 for 1 round.

Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 1d12 electricity and 1d4 sonic.

Second, we have tree of seasons, which we’ve previously mentioned in streams and such. It’s taking the “explosive seeds” spot formerly held by fire seeds, but with a bit more variety, higher damage, and the option to create the tree farther away from you.


Tree of Seasons [two-actions] Spell 6

Concentrate, Manipulate, Plant, Wood
Traditions primal
Range 60 feet
Duration 1 minute
You cause a Small tree to instantly sprout in an unoccupied space on the ground. Four seedpods grow from the tree, each filled with the magic of a different one of the four seasons. A creature can Interact to pluck one of the pods and can then either throw it up to 30 feet as part of the same action or do so with a separate Interact action later. When thrown, a pod explodes in a 5-foot burst, dealing 6d6 damage with a basic Reflex save against your spell DC. The damage type depends on the season of the pod: electricity for spring, fire for summer, poison for autumn, or cold for winter. When the spell ends, the tree withers away and any remaining pods rot, leaving behind non-magical seeds.
Heightened (+1) The burst’s damage increases by 1d6.

Logan Bonner)
Pathfinder Lead Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Pathfinder Remaster Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Second Edition
251 to 300 of 355 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

DemonicDem wrote:
Sy Kerraduess wrote:
DemonicDem wrote:
I'd love it if Archives of Nethys took it that way! But they didn't, and that's why there has been content removed from Archives of Nethys, because that's what this conversation is about.
The splash page for AON has an announcement that they will add a toggle to easily swap between remaster and pre-remaster. Since the toggle does not yet exist, I would assume they're still working on it and that the remaster-only state of some content is temporary.
Unfortunately, I've asked several times and they told me they were not doing so, regarding the spell list change.

I guess there are technical reasons behind this decision.


The Raven Black wrote:
DemonicDem wrote:
Sy Kerraduess wrote:
DemonicDem wrote:
I'd love it if Archives of Nethys took it that way! But they didn't, and that's why there has been content removed from Archives of Nethys, because that's what this conversation is about.
The splash page for AON has an announcement that they will add a toggle to easily swap between remaster and pre-remaster. Since the toggle does not yet exist, I would assume they're still working on it and that the remaster-only state of some content is temporary.
Unfortunately, I've asked several times and they told me they were not doing so, regarding the spell list change.
I guess there are technical reasons behind this decision.

Oh I would shocked if there weren't. That sounds like an absolute NIGHTMARE to have to implement, speaking as someone who works with databases.

Easiest solution would probably be splitting it into premaster and remaster content? And just making a clean split? But then you have the issue of "but what about this rage of elements spell?"

You definitely COULD do it. But it would be a load of work with a questionable reward.

Personally I'll be interested to see if with the remaster Paizo republishes some of the old spells from Secrets of Magic and Dark Archive in remaster books, or if they don't bother and mostly work on new content. The latter makes more sense from a business perspective, but is also a compatibility nightmare. I imagine most of the APG spells will be in Player Core 1 & 2 though.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sy Kerraduess wrote:
DemonicDem wrote:
Unfortunately, I've asked several times and they told me they were not doing so, regarding the spell list change.
That's unfortunate. As a workaround, you can see the original list on Pathbuilder by creating a character that uses the original archetype.

Oh that's another good idea, thank you.


Michael Sayre wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:


HUH yeah unexpected, we originally thought it was a replacement for Sudden Bolt.

I wonder if we'll just get some more spell attacks, or if they'll hit the Magus with an errata that makes it not rely on spell attacks.

One thing to keep in mind is that magi have extremely limited slots and are more reliant on their cantrips and focus spells. Ignition is a significant buff for the magus with how it boosts their basic routine compared to produce flame, while thunderstrike is much better for classes like the wizard, who are significantly more reliant on their slotted spells.

Giving too micro a look at a specific interaction can lead to missing a broader macro picture where each kind of class and character got buffs in the places they most needed it.

The limited slots is exactly why Thunderstrike was good for Magi, you can only do it once or twice a day so it better hit like a truck. Anyway I'm not gonna ban any Magi in my table to select Thunderstrike, the spell has been the class bread and butter for ages, I dunno why you guys felt the need to take it away from them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DakonBlackblade wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:


HUH yeah unexpected, we originally thought it was a replacement for Sudden Bolt.

I wonder if we'll just get some more spell attacks, or if they'll hit the Magus with an errata that makes it not rely on spell attacks.

One thing to keep in mind is that magi have extremely limited slots and are more reliant on their cantrips and focus spells. Ignition is a significant buff for the magus with how it boosts their basic routine compared to produce flame, while thunderstrike is much better for classes like the wizard, who are significantly more reliant on their slotted spells.

Giving too micro a look at a specific interaction can lead to missing a broader macro picture where each kind of class and character got buffs in the places they most needed it.

The limited slots is exactly why Thunderstrike was good for Magi, you can only do it once or twice a day so it better hit like a truck. Anyway I'm not gonna ban any Magi in my table to select Thunderstrike, the spell has been the class bread and butter for ages, I dunno why you guys felt the need to take it away from them.

Lawsuits.

Because if they didn't WotC may have taken away the entire game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner said wrote:

Avoid penalizing characters who have damage cantrips from innate spells or multiclassing twice.

Characters who got damaging cantrips from multiclassing or as innate spells from ancestry feats or the like often have a lower attribute modifier than a dedicated spellcaster and were dealing with both a lower chance of success and lower damage if they hit. This is a smaller issue, but often led to players being unhappy with their character options.

Not to be the guy who brings up the most contentious conversation on this entire board, but... I'm gonna be that guy.

I'm not sure this makes sense? Just from a ludonarrative perspective, unless the implication is spells don't benefit from having a more skillful person performing them, except in terms of accuracy, which I guess may be the look of the system post remaster. It just feels kind of funky.

I guess it's not any different than a bow, but then, (queue most common complaint) bows benefit from accuracy runes, so... spells are worse (by which I mean less reliable and less impacted by the user's skill) to specialize in than melee, thrown and ranged for purposes of combat, as a design choice?

I mean, I'm waiting to see, but I'm reaaaaaaaal skeptical this is gonna feel good for primary casters, particularly wizard and witch. Just throwing my meaningless two cents into the void.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
AJung wrote:
Logan Bonner said wrote:

Avoid penalizing characters who have damage cantrips from innate spells or multiclassing twice.

Characters who got damaging cantrips from multiclassing or as innate spells from ancestry feats or the like often have a lower attribute modifier than a dedicated spellcaster and were dealing with both a lower chance of success and lower damage if they hit. This is a smaller issue, but often led to players being unhappy with their character options.

Not to be the guy who brings up the most contentious conversation on this entire board, but... I'm gonna be that guy.

I'm not sure this makes sense? Just from a ludonarrative perspective, unless the implication is spells don't benefit from having a more skillful person performing them, except in terms of accuracy, which I guess may be the look of the system post remaster. It just feels kind of funky.

I guess it's not any different than a bow, but then, (queue most common complaint) bows benefit from accuracy runes, so... spells are worse (by which I mean less reliable and less impacted by the user's skill) to specialize in than melee, thrown and ranged for purposes of combat, as a design choice?

I mean, I'm waiting to see, but I'm reaaaaaaaal skeptical this is gonna feel good for primary casters, particularly wizard and witch. Just throwing my meaningless two cents into the void.

If we are talking about narrative consistency, then pretty much no spells outside of cantrips got ability modifiers to damage. There was no real reason for cantrips to act differently in that regard.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
AJung wrote:
Logan Bonner said wrote:

Avoid penalizing characters who have damage cantrips from innate spells or multiclassing twice.

Characters who got damaging cantrips from multiclassing or as innate spells from ancestry feats or the like often have a lower attribute modifier than a dedicated spellcaster and were dealing with both a lower chance of success and lower damage if they hit. This is a smaller issue, but often led to players being unhappy with their character options.

Not to be the guy who brings up the most contentious conversation on this entire board, but... I'm gonna be that guy.

I'm not sure this makes sense? Just from a ludonarrative perspective, unless the implication is spells don't benefit from having a more skillful person performing them, except in terms of accuracy, which I guess may be the look of the system post remaster. It just feels kind of funky.

I guess it's not any different than a bow, but then, (queue most common complaint) bows benefit from accuracy runes, so... spells are worse (by which I mean less reliable and less impacted by the user's skill) to specialize in than melee, thrown and ranged for purposes of combat, as a design choice?

I mean, I'm waiting to see, but I'm reaaaaaaaal skeptical this is gonna feel good for primary casters, particularly wizard and witch. Just throwing my meaningless two cents into the void.

sees fire. adds some gas

Depends what you mean. Accuracy runes DO NOT impact class DC. Given that 413/902 spells published target saving throws while 43/902 spells published use attack rolls (and 5/902 use both)...class DC is a FAR more appropriate comparison than spell attack bonus for this sort of thing. And if you choose to specialize in spells...your spell DC scales to legendary, higher than ANYONE's class DC.

So from a narrative consistency perspective, the issue is sort of not there. Also, the VAST majority of those spells (as in, like, all of them) don't add spellcasting ability modifier. I think the goal here was to bring cantrips in line with other spells in that regard.

I don't disagree that it feels like a kick in the shins to casters when they didn't really need it at low level, for the record. It does. Myself, I might houserule that they get to add their spellcasting ability modifier to cantrips even though the system says they don't - but I am going to wait until the full remaster comes out before doing so. If in my opinion casters don't get anything meaningful...yeah, I'll cheerfully buff them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Calliope5431 wrote:
... Myself, I might houserule that they get to add their spellcasting ability modifier to cantrips even though the system says they don't - but I am going to wait until the full remaster comes out before doing so. If in my opinion casters don't get anything meaningful...yeah, I'll cheerfully buff them.

Hrmm personally adding the ability modifier to their slotted spells might be a better balanced buff. Maybe halved on AoE/multi-target spells. It'd be a boost still but not run into the issue of making cantrips significantly better than slotted spells. (I mean 3d4+4 from Needle Darts would be a similar amount of damage to the 1d12 and 1d4 from Thunderstrike. Mind you an attack spell vs. a save spell but still.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Calliope5431 wrote:

Lawsuits.

Because if they didn't WotC may have taken away the entire game.

Thats a very weak argument. They could of just renamed it while keeping the mechanics like they have done for other spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Davido1000 wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:

Lawsuits.

Because if they didn't WotC may have taken away the entire game.

Thats a very weak argument. They could of just renamed it while keeping the mechanics like they have done for other spells.

Unfortunately this argument holds no water. Changing the name but keeping the mechanics the same is absolutely not enough for a lot of game content. Serial numbers filed off is not always distinct enough to be safe and even if it were, in many of those cases the benefit of plastering a new name over and old thing can be not worth it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Davido1000 wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:

Lawsuits.

Because if they didn't WotC may have taken away the entire game.

Thats a very weak argument. They could of just renamed it while keeping the mechanics like they have done for other spells.

No, they couldn't have. If you actually look at the spells they just renamed, they are things which already has unique spins on them, usually stuff specific to the Pathfinder action economy like Magic Missile and Scorching Ray. Things that functioned just like their D&D counterparts got tweaks to their existing mechanics to make them less obviously infringement, like Meteor Swarm.

The problem is there is only much you can do with "1st level touch spell that deals electricity damage" to make it unique. And if there's not a meaningful distinction with the new version of the spell, they are still legally vulnerable.

Instead, I think it is safe to assume there's going to be new touch spells added which can serve the same mechanical niche.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Since shocking grasp is the only spell slot attacking touch spell they've printed at all ever I don't think it's that safe to assume, hell just looking at attack spells available at all in the arcane list kills any belief that there's gonna be some great replacement coming for the magus

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karneios wrote:
Since shocking grasp is the only spell slot attacking touch spell they've printed at all ever I don't think it's that safe to assume, hell just looking at attack spells available at all in the arcane list kills any belief that there's gonna be some great replacement coming for the magus

I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.

Liberty's Edge

AJung wrote:
Logan Bonner said wrote:

Avoid penalizing characters who have damage cantrips from innate spells or multiclassing twice.

Characters who got damaging cantrips from multiclassing or as innate spells from ancestry feats or the like often have a lower attribute modifier than a dedicated spellcaster and were dealing with both a lower chance of success and lower damage if they hit. This is a smaller issue, but often led to players being unhappy with their character options.

Not to be the guy who brings up the most contentious conversation on this entire board, but... I'm gonna be that guy.

I'm not sure this makes sense? Just from a ludonarrative perspective, unless the implication is spells don't benefit from having a more skillful person performing them, except in terms of accuracy, which I guess may be the look of the system post remaster. It just feels kind of funky.

I guess it's not any different than a bow, but then, (queue most common complaint) bows benefit from accuracy runes, so... spells are worse (by which I mean less reliable and less impacted by the user's skill) to specialize in than melee, thrown and ranged for purposes of combat, as a design choice?

I mean, I'm waiting to see, but I'm reaaaaaaaal skeptical this is gonna feel good for primary casters, particularly wizard and witch. Just throwing my meaningless two cents into the void.

If you use a bow, you can pay for Runes on it. That's true.

Unless it's a back-up weapon though, because it would be far too costly.


The Raven Black wrote:
Karneios wrote:
Since shocking grasp is the only spell slot attacking touch spell they've printed at all ever I don't think it's that safe to assume, hell just looking at attack spells available at all in the arcane list kills any belief that there's gonna be some great replacement coming for the magus
I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.

I don't think it was a goal either, I just think it was an outcome that wasn't really considered because I look at the attack spells on the arcane list and just don't think that magus in general is really considered


Was anyone mentioned Spout?

Liberty's Edge

Karneios wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Karneios wrote:
Since shocking grasp is the only spell slot attacking touch spell they've printed at all ever I don't think it's that safe to assume, hell just looking at attack spells available at all in the arcane list kills any belief that there's gonna be some great replacement coming for the magus
I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.
I don't think it was a goal either, I just think it was an outcome that wasn't really considered because I look at the attack spells on the arcane list and just don't think that magus in general is really considered

Unlikely IMO.


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

Since the magus is not remastered content, maybe they don’t really need to worry about making spells that work for the magus until/unless they have some eventual need to remaster the magus. Put even that is projecting. We have no idea what the full spell list in the remaster will be yet. We don’t know if PFS is planning on banning all pre-remastered spells or how any of this is going to work in full. Certainly for your home tables, “don’t take away options vital to your player’s enjoyment of the game,” is pretty obvious advice to follow.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

Since the magus is not remastered content, maybe they don’t really need to worry about making spells that work for the magus until/unless they have some eventual need to remaster the magus. Put even that is projecting. We have no idea what the full spell list in the remaster will be yet. We don’t know if PFS is planning on banning all pre-remastered spells or how any of this is going to work in full. Certainly for your home tables, “don’t take away options vital to your player’s enjoyment of the game,” is pretty obvious advice to follow.

I think the Magus will get early post-Remaster errata because of the 8 schools not being there anymore.

I do not think it will go further than this, so yes all pre-Remaster spells are still available / not banned AFAIK.


Karneios wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.
I don't think it was a goal either, I just think it was an outcome that wasn't really considered because I look at the attack spells on the arcane list and just don't think that magus in general is really considered

Well the orginial arcane list predates the Magus by something like 2 years, so obviously yeah, they weren't considered when that list was created. But we don't know what the remastered descriptions of most spells will be, yet. It seems quite premature to me to conclude that the remaster will have no spells that are good for them.

Calliope5431 wrote:
I don't disagree that it feels like a kick in the shins to casters when they didn't really need it at low level, for the record. It does. Myself, I might houserule that they get to add their spellcasting ability modifier to cantrips even though the system says they don't - but I am going to wait until the full remaster comes out before doing so. If in my opinion casters don't get anything meaningful...yeah, I'll cheerfully buff them.

Didn't they give cantrips an extra damage die? So 2d4 instead of 1d4 as the starting point. I don't have any inside knowledge but it also seems to me that every damaging spell is going to have some 'bonus effect' (e.g. multitarget, cone, persistent, etc.) by default. All of that is not the same as a +4, but it's not nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Easl wrote:
Karneios wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.
I don't think it was a goal either, I just think it was an outcome that wasn't really considered because I look at the attack spells on the arcane list and just don't think that magus in general is really considered

Well the orginial arcane list predates the Magus by something like 2 years, so obviously yeah, they weren't considered when that list was created. But we don't know what the remastered descriptions of most spells will be, yet. It seems quite premature to me to conclude that the remaster will have no spells that are good for them.

Calliope5431 wrote:
I don't disagree that it feels like a kick in the shins to casters when they didn't really need it at low level, for the record. It does. Myself, I might houserule that they get to add their spellcasting ability modifier to cantrips even though the system says they don't - but I am going to wait until the full remaster comes out before doing so. If in my opinion casters don't get anything meaningful...yeah, I'll cheerfully buff them.

Didn't they give cantrips an extra damage die? So 2d4 instead of 1d4 as the starting point. I don't have any inside knowledge but it also seems to me that every damaging spell is going to have some 'bonus effect' (e.g. multitarget, cone, persistent, etc.) by default. All of that is not the same as a +4, but it's not nothing.

The default seems to be 3d4 for single target to start, or 2d4 plus a significant rider, multi target, or niche benefit.

Verdant Wheel

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

Handfuls of d4's for all casters of all levels!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Karneios wrote:
Since shocking grasp is the only spell slot attacking touch spell they've printed at all ever I don't think it's that safe to assume, hell just looking at attack spells available at all in the arcane list kills any belief that there's gonna be some great replacement coming for the magus
I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.

Bug slaughter was a not a design goal of windshields.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Karneios wrote:
Since shocking grasp is the only spell slot attacking touch spell they've printed at all ever I don't think it's that safe to assume, hell just looking at attack spells available at all in the arcane list kills any belief that there's gonna be some great replacement coming for the magus
I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.
Bug slaughter was a not a design goal of windshields.

Actually, that is exactly the intent. That bugs die in the windshield instead of on you or your teeth.


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

Is there really any narrative difference at all between a magus casting Shocking Grasp and a Magus casting Horizon Thunder sphere?
Mechanically the difference is 2.5 points less average damage at level 1 that shrinks by .5 every rank until HTS and SG are the same at rank 6, then HTS is better for 3 ranks.

This feels very much like a "I am used to using this spell and now it is gone," situation and not a "the game is going to change in any meaningful way" situation. Why try to keep a spell that is obviously D&D when there is already a replacement for it that works for the situations that players are using it in and is a PF2 original spell?


Captain Morgan wrote:
The default seems to be 3d4 for single target to start, or 2d4 plus a significant rider, multi target, or niche benefit.

Oh that's quite good. I'd take 3d4 over d4+4 any day. I think it equals or outperforms it 70% of the time.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

....I don't think the efficacy of the magus rests precipitously on one spell. Those slots are better used for utility anyway


Unicore wrote:

Is there really any narrative difference at all between a magus casting Shocking Grasp and a Magus casting Horizon Thunder sphere?

Mechanically the difference is 2.5 points less average damage at level 1 that shrinks by .5 every rank until HTS and SG are the same at rank 6, then HTS is better for 3 ranks.

This feels very much like a "I am used to using this spell and now it is gone," situation and not a "the game is going to change in any meaningful way" situation. Why try to keep a spell that is obviously D&D when there is already a replacement for it that works for the situations that players are using it in and is a PF2 original spell?

It feels weird for the replacement for shocking grasp to focus on the lightning damage aspect rather than the melee aspect. If they made a spell that was "deal 2d12 fire damage and 1d4 persistent fire damage" with touch range it would fill the same niche as shocking grasp while thunderstrike is completely different in its use cases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
WWHsmackdown wrote:
....I don't think the efficacy of the magus rests precipitously on one spell. Those slots are better used for utility anyway

Yeah, people complaining about it are telling on themselves. Even at early levels, Magic Weapon is significantly better spell to prepare.

Spellstrike cantrips are still nukes.


Calliope5431 wrote:
DakonBlackblade wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:


HUH yeah unexpected, we originally thought it was a replacement for Sudden Bolt.

I wonder if we'll just get some more spell attacks, or if they'll hit the Magus with an errata that makes it not rely on spell attacks.

One thing to keep in mind is that magi have extremely limited slots and are more reliant on their cantrips and focus spells. Ignition is a significant buff for the magus with how it boosts their basic routine compared to produce flame, while thunderstrike is much better for classes like the wizard, who are significantly more reliant on their slotted spells.

Giving too micro a look at a specific interaction can lead to missing a broader macro picture where each kind of class and character got buffs in the places they most needed it.

The limited slots is exactly why Thunderstrike was good for Magi, you can only do it once or twice a day so it better hit like a truck. Anyway I'm not gonna ban any Magi in my table to select Thunderstrike, the spell has been the class bread and butter for ages, I dunno why you guys felt the need to take it away from them.

Lawsuits.

Because if they didn't WotC may have taken away the entire game.

Common man, you understood what I said, they did not need to change how the spell worked, just the name. It could be called whatever and still have the same effect. Also I'm pretty sure they are overeacting at some points, anyone can call a spell Tunderstrike, that is no one's intelectual property.

Liberty's Edge

Easl wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
The default seems to be 3d4 for single target to start, or 2d4 plus a significant rider, multi target, or niche benefit.

Oh that's quite good. I'd take 3d4 over d4+4 any day. I think it equals or outperforms it 70% of the time.

Let's see. Results of 2d4 compared to 4.

4 x 4 = 16 possibilities.

1 and 1 = 2

1 and 2, 2 and 1 = 3

1 and 3, 2 and 2, 3 and 1 = 4

All others are strictly above 4.

So 3d4 will be strictly worse than 1d4+4 3/16 = 18,75% of the time.

It will be equal 3/16 = 18,75% of the time.

It will be strictly better 10/16 = 62,5% of the time.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DakonBlackblade wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
DakonBlackblade wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:


HUH yeah unexpected, we originally thought it was a replacement for Sudden Bolt.

I wonder if we'll just get some more spell attacks, or if they'll hit the Magus with an errata that makes it not rely on spell attacks.

One thing to keep in mind is that magi have extremely limited slots and are more reliant on their cantrips and focus spells. Ignition is a significant buff for the magus with how it boosts their basic routine compared to produce flame, while thunderstrike is much better for classes like the wizard, who are significantly more reliant on their slotted spells.

Giving too micro a look at a specific interaction can lead to missing a broader macro picture where each kind of class and character got buffs in the places they most needed it.

The limited slots is exactly why Thunderstrike was good for Magi, you can only do it once or twice a day so it better hit like a truck. Anyway I'm not gonna ban any Magi in my table to select Thunderstrike, the spell has been the class bread and butter for ages, I dunno why you guys felt the need to take it away from them.

Lawsuits.

Because if they didn't WotC may have taken away the entire game.

Common man, you understood what I said, they did not need to change how the spell worked, just the name. It could be called whatever and still have the same effect. Also I'm pretty sure they are overeacting at some points, anyone can call a spell Tunderstrike, that is no one's intelectual property.

I trust Paizo's legal counsel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
DakonBlackblade wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
DakonBlackblade wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:


HUH yeah unexpected, we originally thought it was a replacement for Sudden Bolt.

I wonder if we'll just get some more spell attacks, or if they'll hit the Magus with an errata that makes it not rely on spell attacks.

One thing to keep in mind is that magi have extremely limited slots and are more reliant on their cantrips and focus spells. Ignition is a significant buff for the magus with how it boosts their basic routine compared to produce flame, while thunderstrike is much better for classes like the wizard, who are significantly more reliant on their slotted spells.

Giving too micro a look at a specific interaction can lead to missing a broader macro picture where each kind of class and character got buffs in the places they most needed it.

The limited slots is exactly why Thunderstrike was good for Magi, you can only do it once or twice a day so it better hit like a truck. Anyway I'm not gonna ban any Magi in my table to select Thunderstrike, the spell has been the class bread and butter for ages, I dunno why you guys felt the need to take it away from them.

Lawsuits.

Because if they didn't WotC may have taken away the entire game.

Common man, you understood what I said, they did not need to change how the spell worked, just the name. It could be called whatever and still have the same effect. Also I'm pretty sure they are overeacting at some points, anyone can call a spell Tunderstrike, that is no one's intelectual property.
I trust Paizo's legal counsel.

That is not an argument at all, I'm still pretty sure no one can actually have generic name and generic spells as intellectual property, what is protectable here, touch spell that deals lightning damage? Because the rest of this spell is completely different from its 5e counterpart, the damage is different and the mechanics are different. If that's the case Wizards can claim an infinite amount of concepts as theirs. Paizo did not at all needed to go scorched earth here, but since they decided to go nuts they could have changed the spell to "Acidstrike" made the damage acid and there you changed the spell, the name and did not shaft the Magus class. Call it "Force Blast" makes the damage force and there you have another and Magus kept their best spell. Call it Eletric Conduit, remove the word touch, say it only works if you use something to conduct the electricity like a piece of metal (or a sword like a Magus would) and there you changed the spell again without screwing an entire class.

Not everything they are changing are because of lawsuits, there are things that were design choices, this is one of those cases and it wasn’t a good decision at all. It’s already kinda bad they are treating some classes as second rate since they don’t have a players core planned to update every class, they did not also need to remove powerful tools from those classes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Karneios wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Karneios wrote:
Since shocking grasp is the only spell slot attacking touch spell they've printed at all ever I don't think it's that safe to assume, hell just looking at attack spells available at all in the arcane list kills any belief that there's gonna be some great replacement coming for the magus
I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.
I don't think it was a goal either, I just think it was an outcome that wasn't really considered because I look at the attack spells on the arcane list and just don't think that magus in general is really considered
Unlikely IMO.

I mean, the evidence that they didn't consider Magus very much in this change is evident in Sayre's post. He first talks about Ignition being a big benefit for Maguses when it's roughly the same damage as Gouging Claw or Telekinetic Projectile. It's only a boost for Maguses in the subrange of targets where fire is preferred to physical. Fire is a common weakness so I don't want to minimize that too much, but is it more common than once a day if I was preparing Shocking Grasp in one spell slot per day?

And THEN, after using what amounts to a micro-example, he says we shouldn't look at micro-examples when considering design. When the entire base Magus spell selection is an investigation of micro-examples because there are so few of them.

Shocking Grasp fills these design niches pretty much exclusively for a Magus:
- Balanced for touch-range damage
- Balanced for damage only
- Based on an attack roll

To be clear, Shocking Grasp wasn't ever overpowered, it was just designed to be used in a niche that the Magus excels in: doing as much damage as possible with the most risk involved.

The reason you could make a claim that Shocking Grasp should be "replaced" by Thunderstrike is that, well, the reward for other mage classes to enter melee range is less than the risk involved, so it's only useful for one class. But Maguses have less risk with martial key ability scores and fill most of the game's niche of casting arcane spells while in melee range, so taking them into account when you "replace" Shocking Grasp is pretty important!

This actually widens the gap between the cheese-the-design leader of taking a Psychic dedication for amped Imaginary Weapon, the only other spell I know that fills the same niche as Shocking Grasp (touch range balance, damage only, attack roll).

Seriously-- when you go to AoN and search all spells for touch spells with the Attack trait, you get Shocking Grasp, Imaginary Weapon, Gouging Claw. (And three uncommon AP-based curses that are actually save-based anyway and probably mislabeled.) Unsurprisingly, these are the most effective spells for the Magus as cantrips, Focus Spells, and slotted spells. This is the core of the optimal Magus in the design space.

The terminology of "replaces" is important here, even if it's a single word in a blog post. It replaces, say, the CRB rank 1 lightning-based spell, but it doesn't replace the design space that Shocking Grasp uniquely filled.

Not that Thunderstrike isn't a valuable addition for ranged casters. Damage-centric single-target save-based spells are also fairly under-represented, at least if Sudden Bolt isn't available as a spell.

The fact that Shocking Grasp is termed as replaced by a ranged, save-based spell really just speaks to the fact that other arcane or primal caster classes aren't particularly viable when casting spells at melee range, and the way that's being addressed is by replacing the non-viable option in their core rules rather than making it viable. Which honestly may be better than leaving it in.

Except it's perfectly viable on the martial class that also casts.

I do agree that all of the comments about the new spells being additive to old CRB stuff is valid for most games, but stuff like PFS that requires you to have original sources to play the game now requires you to purchase an otherwise-obsolete rulebook to access the old spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Karneios wrote:
Since shocking grasp is the only spell slot attacking touch spell they've printed at all ever I don't think it's that safe to assume, hell just looking at attack spells available at all in the arcane list kills any belief that there's gonna be some great replacement coming for the magus
I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.
Bug slaughter was a not a design goal of windshields.
Actually, that is exactly the intent. That bugs die in the windshield instead of on you or your teeth.

Then why wasn't it called a bugshield?


10 people marked this as a favorite.
DakonBlackblade wrote:
I'm still pretty sure no one can actually have generic name and generic spells as intellectual property

Unless you are an intellectual property lawyer well versed in Paizo's use of the OGL, then I have no reason to believe that your opinion actually protects Paizo from being sued by Hasbro.

As has repeatedly been said, Hasbro doesn't need to win a lawsuit. They just need to inflict a great deal of financial damage via court costs and defense lawyers.

They can be factually wrong, and still cripple Paizo.

I trust Paizo's legal counsel.


Dancing Wind wrote:
DakonBlackblade wrote:
I'm still pretty sure no one can actually have generic name and generic spells as intellectual property

Unless you are an intellectual property lawyer well versed in Paizo's use of the OGL, then I have no reason to believe that your opinion actually protects Paizo from being sued by Hasbro.

As has repeatedly been said, Hasbro doesn't need to win a lawsuit. They just need to inflict a great deal of financial damage via court costs and defense lawyers.

They can be factually wrong, and still cripple Paizo.

I trust Paizo's legal counsel.

As has repeatedly been said as well this is not an argument because they aren't changing stuff only because of legal reasons, they made a lot of design choice changes. And pls don't quote one sentence out of a 2 paragraphs answer and then comment on it out of context, I gave plenty of examples how the spell could be completely changed while keeping the same functionality and you chose to ignore it.

Also if the fear is Wizards using some bogus reason for a lawsuit they can’t really do much, the game was born in the OGL, a bunch of books are still OGL, if Wizards intention were to do that they would, they could claim the new Thunderstrike is still similar to Shocking Grasp for instance, it’d be just as bogus as claiming a spell called Acidstrike that deals 2d12 acid damage with a melee touch attack was based on Shocking Grasp and therefore is infringing copyright, but they could do that. They know, however, that doing this bull would be terrible press and they hopefully learned their lesson with the OGL debacle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Karneios wrote:
Since shocking grasp is the only spell slot attacking touch spell they've printed at all ever I don't think it's that safe to assume, hell just looking at attack spells available at all in the arcane list kills any belief that there's gonna be some great replacement coming for the magus
I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.
Bug slaughter was a not a design goal of windshields.
Actually, that is exactly the intent. That bugs die in the windshield instead of on you or your teeth.
Then why wasn't it called a bugshield?

Because bugshield sounds dumb and windshields block other stuff that get carried by the wind.

Why are they called mice and not clicker?


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

if shocking grasp is important to you table, you still have that content. It would be like someone saying there are no more red dragons in Golarion because they won't immediately be in the Monster Core.

It is also possible that "spells designed for arcane casters to use in melee" might be a bit of a trap option in a book that doesn't have an arcane caster that can well survive melee combat. Until we get the ORC version of such a class, spells that are exclusively ORC and designed for spell striking just doesn't need to be anyone's concern.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DakonBlackblade wrote:
Dancing Wind wrote:
DakonBlackblade wrote:
I'm still pretty sure no one can actually have generic name and generic spells as intellectual property

Unless you are an intellectual property lawyer well versed in Paizo's use of the OGL, then I have no reason to believe that your opinion actually protects Paizo from being sued by Hasbro.

As has repeatedly been said, Hasbro doesn't need to win a lawsuit. They just need to inflict a great deal of financial damage via court costs and defense lawyers.

They can be factually wrong, and still cripple Paizo.

I trust Paizo's legal counsel.

As has repeatedly been said as well this is not an argument because they aren't changing stuff only because of legal reasons, they made a lot of design choice changes. And pls don't quote one sentence out of a 2 paragraphs answer and then comment on it out of context, I gave plenty of examples how the spell could be completely changed while keeping the same functionality and you chose to ignore it.

Also if the fear is Wizards using some bogus reason for a lawsuit they can’t really do much, the game was born in the OGL, a bunch of books are still OGL, if Wizards intention were to do that they would, they could claim the new Thunderstrike is still similar to Shocking Grasp for instance, it’d be just as bogus as claiming a spell called Acidstrike that deals 2d12 acid damage with a melee touch attack was based on Shocking Grasp and therefore is infringing copyright, but they could do that. They know, however, that doing this bull would be terrible press and they hopefully learned their lesson with the OGL debacle.

You were the one mentioning only legal topics before switching later to design topics.

And bad press is not the foremost reason for WotC/Hasbro to need some basis before attacking Paizo.

Again, on legal matters, Paizo's legal counsel are the experts. We're not.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tooosk wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Karneios wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Karneios wrote:
Since shocking grasp is the only spell slot attacking touch spell they've printed at all ever I don't think it's that safe to assume, hell just looking at attack spells available at all in the arcane list kills any belief that there's gonna be some great replacement coming for the magus
I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.
I don't think it was a goal either, I just think it was an outcome that wasn't really considered because I look at the attack spells on the arcane list and just don't think that magus in general is really considered
Unlikely IMO.

I mean, the evidence that they didn't consider Magus very much in this change is evident in Sayre's post. He first talks about Ignition being a big benefit for Maguses when it's roughly the same damage as Gouging Claw or Telekinetic Projectile. It's only a boost for Maguses in the subrange of targets where fire is preferred to physical. Fire is a common weakness so I don't want to minimize that too much, but is it more common than once a day if I was preparing Shocking Grasp in one spell slot per day?

And THEN, after using what amounts to a micro-example, he says we shouldn't look at micro-examples when considering design. When the entire base Magus spell selection is an investigation of micro-examples because there are so few of them.

Shocking Grasp fills these design niches pretty much exclusively for a Magus:
- Balanced for touch-range damage
- Balanced for damage only
- Based on an attack roll

To be clear, Shocking Grasp wasn't ever overpowered, it was just designed to be used in a niche that the Magus excels in: doing as much damage as possible with the most risk involved.

The reason you could make a claim that Shocking Grasp should be "replaced" by Thunderstrike is that, well, the reward for other mage classes to enter melee range is less than the risk involved, so it's only...

I believe Shocking Grasp being the inescapable bread and butter of the Magus is not a good thing for the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Karneios wrote:
Since shocking grasp is the only spell slot attacking touch spell they've printed at all ever I don't think it's that safe to assume, hell just looking at attack spells available at all in the arcane list kills any belief that there's gonna be some great replacement coming for the magus
I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.
Bug slaughter was a not a design goal of windshields.
Actually, that is exactly the intent. That bugs die in the windshield instead of on you or your teeth.
Then why wasn't it called a bugshield?

Because bugshield sounds dumb and windshields block other stuff that get carried by the wind.

Why are they called mice and not clicker?

It blocks the high velocity wind from forcing you to close your eyes, which obstructs your vision. Just because bugs and rocks and other things fly around in the wind doesn't mean that it was designed with those in mind as well.

I believe they are called mouse because from a distance it originally looks like a mouse. There is another term for it that is applicable, but it escapes me at the moment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I believe Shocking Grasp being the inescapable bread and butter of the Magus is not a good thing for the game.

Then make more melee spell attacks? Like there are only 14 arcane slot spells that work with normal spell strike and several which aren't that great with it (scorching ray and ray of enfeeblement for example), I don't think it was needed for that number to be lowered.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MEATSHED wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I believe Shocking Grasp being the inescapable bread and butter of the Magus is not a good thing for the game.
Then make more melee spell attacks? Like there are only 14 arcane slot spells that work with normal spell strike and several which aren't that great with it (scorching ray and ray of enfeeblement for example), I don't think it was needed for that number to be lowered.

Again, we don't actually know that the overall number was lowered. We know 2 were "removed" while still being eligible for use, and that dozens of new spells will be added, any of which could fill the now vacant mechanical niche.


The Raven Black wrote:
Tooosk wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Karneios wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Karneios wrote:
Since shocking grasp is the only spell slot attacking touch spell they've printed at all ever I don't think it's that safe to assume, hell just looking at attack spells available at all in the arcane list kills any belief that there's gonna be some great replacement coming for the magus
I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.
I don't think it was a goal either, I just think it was an outcome that wasn't really considered because I look at the attack spells on the arcane list and just don't think that magus in general is really considered
Unlikely IMO.

I mean, the evidence that they didn't consider Magus very much in this change is evident in Sayre's post. He first talks about Ignition being a big benefit for Maguses when it's roughly the same damage as Gouging Claw or Telekinetic Projectile. It's only a boost for Maguses in the subrange of targets where fire is preferred to physical. Fire is a common weakness so I don't want to minimize that too much, but is it more common than once a day if I was preparing Shocking Grasp in one spell slot per day?

And THEN, after using what amounts to a micro-example, he says we shouldn't look at micro-examples when considering design. When the entire base Magus spell selection is an investigation of micro-examples because there are so few of them.

Shocking Grasp fills these design niches pretty much exclusively for a Magus:
- Balanced for touch-range damage
- Balanced for damage only
- Based on an attack roll

To be clear, Shocking Grasp wasn't ever overpowered, it was just designed to be used in a niche that the Magus excels in: doing as much damage as possible with the most risk involved.

The reason you could make a claim that Shocking Grasp should be "replaced" by Thunderstrike is that, well, the reward for other mage classes to enter melee range is less than the risk

...

No I wasn't, I was replying to someone that answered my original post, where I said I don't see the reason to remove the Magus best spell form the class, and the person said "they had to cause lawsuit", which for the 100th time, isn't an argument in this case, there were ways to change the spell without repurposing it and they are clearly not only changing things for legal reasons, as they themselves said so.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
MEATSHED wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I believe Shocking Grasp being the inescapable bread and butter of the Magus is not a good thing for the game.
Then make more melee spell attacks? Like there are only 14 arcane slot spells that work with normal spell strike and several which aren't that great with it (scorching ray and ray of enfeeblement for example), I don't think it was needed for that number to be lowered.
Again, we don't actually know that the overall number was lowered. We know 2 were "removed" while still being eligible for use, and that dozens of new spells will be added, any of which could fill the now vacant mechanical niche.

I don't really see it happening is the thing, there has been 2 new slotted attack spells printed after secrets of magic, paizo just doesn't make them a lot (which makes sense given people's problems with spell attacks, just kind of sucks for magi.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Dancing Wind wrote:
I trust Paizo's legal counsel.

Whether you or I or any other buyer of Paizo's products trusts Paizo's legal counsel is really irrelevant. The question is whether Paizo trusts Paizo's legal counsel. Which they presumably do, or they'd fire 'em and get another one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

i dont think it is fair to assume the purpose of the player core is to enable building characters dependent upon OGL content in the first place. It is not going to have a lot of great options for sorcerers, champions, oracles, etc. The feats, spells, items and content generally is at a more basic character level.
Shocking grasp (with a whole lot of hoops to jump through), was the best higher level single target damage spell for casters but you had to have a lot of system mastery ever to use it that way. Thunderstrike is a much simpler spell to fill this role. When a class that needs more spell attack roll spells comes out, maybe we'll get more options for it.

At the same time, if anything like item bonuses to spell attack roll spells is forthcoming, shocking grasp could have been the problem child of the lot


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Magic Weapon is a useful spell. It has a one minute duration, though, so one cast per each fight or so.

It's a first level spell, so it takes up a spell slot. If you want not to take up a spell slot, you put it on a scroll or a wand. Scrolls are destroyed on use, and wands can be used more than once per day only with a very significant chance of destroying the wand. Also, scrolls of first level spells are first level items and cost 4 gp, wands of first level spells are third level items and cost 60 gp. So in the unlikely event you have 60 gp to spare at first level, you could buy 15 scrolls for the price of one wand. I'd go with the scrolls.

A secondary consideration is whose weapon you use it on. A Magus will probably want to use it on his own weapon. A wizard would be better off putting it on a martial's weapon.

251 to 300 of 355 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Player Core Preview: Spells and Spellcasting, Remastered All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.