Aramil the Halfelf's page

Thank you for the replies. Good to know I haven't missed anything. I vaguely recall 5e also having some redundant rules around material components so I guess these things sometimes hang around from previous editions but it's not a "material" issue, ha, see what I did there?

What does this feat do? As far as I can tell the only effect, mechanically, is that your character saves 5 SP by not having to buy a Material Component Pouch. You still need to have a hand free. You still need to pay the price if a spell has a listed cost. If you have a component pouch it automatically refills after resting so eschew materials doesn't help there either. Sorcerers and, I believe, some other classes get this for free but a wizard can select this as a feat. Why?

Aramil halfelven wrote:

For myself, this all boils down to a frustration with the Vancian magic system. The limitation is too great or at least *feels* too great. The greatest modern innovation in tabletop rpgs to combat this? Cantrips that you can cast at will.

The ability to cast scalable cantrips doesn't offset this. Balance gets talked about a lot. However, I don't think this is a problem of balance. It's about human psychology. The feel of it. Maybe, mathematically speaking, casters are balanced. But it doesn't matter if they're not enjoyable.

I remember playing pillars of eternity where the Cipher class could cast more spells as he damaged opponents. Mathematically, he would be objectively weaker as he had to roll to hit with a physical attack and then roll to hit with his spells but the freedom of not having limited spells felt great. It's about feeling not maths.

But Balance is a far easier metric to analyze than fun.

I love vancian magic and find the limits to be the reason i enjoy playing the game. I wouldn't want to play a spellcaster that didn't have the spellcasting limits in the game now.

I find Paizo's dedication to the maths charming and I appreciate it but with the casters it feels like they've taken the magic out of them. I still like the game and there are always the martial classes. If other people like the casters then that's great. Everyone has their favourite class(es). I by no means am saying that Paizo did a bad job with the casters. This is just my opinion. My assumption would be that Paizo listened to what people wanted and mostly people are happy with the casters.

For myself, this all boils down to a frustration with the Vancian magic system. The limitation is too great or at least *feels* too great. The greatest modern innovation in tabletop rpgs to combat this? Cantrips that you can cast at will.

The ability to cast scalable cantrips doesn't offset this. Balance gets talked about a lot. However, I don't think this is a problem of balance. It's about human psychology. The feel of it. Maybe, mathematically speaking, casters are balanced. But it doesn't matter if they're not enjoyable.

I remember playing pillars of eternity where the Cipher class could cast more spells as he damaged opponents. Mathematically, he would be objectively weaker as he had to roll to hit with a physical attack and then roll to hit with his spells but the freedom of not having limited spells felt great. It's about feeling not maths.