Please cancel all of my subscriptions. My current financial situation makes this untenable.
Thank you.
Search Posts
I'm tempted to write up a general feat called "Decay Spell Slot" that allows a caster to sacrifice a higher level spell slot to gain a lower level spell slot. So if a sorcerer had 4 1st-level slots and 4 2nd-level slots and wanted to cast more 1st-level spells that day, the caster would chose to lose 2 of the 2nd-level slots that day and in exchange gain 2 more 1st-level slots that day. Now the sorcerer will have 6 1st-level slots and 2 2nd-level slots for the day. Even if the sorcerer "decayed" a 9th-level slot to down to 1st-level slot, it would still only make one 1st-level slot. Would this (having a mechanic that specifically depowers the spell slots) be an acceptable framing mechanism to satisfy those arguing that letting spontaneous casters use higher level spell slots to cast lower level spells is overpowered?
Lets take a spell like True StrikeI really wish we wouldn't... Every time someone tries to point out why something would be an issue, they point to True Strike... I think that spell might be the biggest problem child the system has. :P True Strike is kind of like a black hole: it's so powerful that it creates a gravitational field that warps the spell attack math, even for Primal and Divine casters (druids, most clerics, about half the sorcerer's) that don't get the spell.
If casters are fine at late levels I'm not sure how you patch the early ones without overturning the former. granted I've never seen late lvl casters so all I have firsthand experience with are ones lvls 1-10 I'm in the same boat, my group rarely gets above level 10 (heck, we rarely get above level 8), so talk of things like, "you may suck at first, but your caster will get Legendary Casting at level 19" ends up sounding like "you may have financial problems now, but they'll all be gone once you win the lottery."
There is no item which adds to your spell attack roll edit> "that I know about" Which is why, if you are playing a primal/divine sorcerer, you don't want to pick any attack roll spells (at least in the early levels), as the primal/divine traditions do not have the true strike spell. Outside of multiclassing, you need to wait for Crossblood Evolution to get the spell.
Could you please cancel my Pathfinder Battles Case Subscription? Thank you.
I just opened my case, and had a similar experience. I also had *10* broken minis, and several that had been stuffed in with the • Leng Spider (4 out of 4 broken) - I really wanted at least 1 good one, but the plastic piece connecting to the base seems to be too small. 3 out of the 4 were broken off of the base, while the 4th had the base still attached to the web, but the spider thread holding the leng spider was broken. In addition, 2 to them had a leg broken off.
I will try to glue together what I can, but I am very disappointed with the rate of breakage in this set, especially at this price point, and will be cancelling my subscription.
Ascalaphus didn't talk about Wizards. Also, the discussion is about spellcasters. Well it definitely favors bards, healbots, and support builds. On the other hand, playing an offensive sorcerer (focusing on evocation) often feels like I'm fighting against the game system.
Wanting a point-based system and having a unique eidolon that cannot be changed constantly isn't a contradiction. While I wouldn't like a system like this, a point-based system where once a point is spent it can never be changed would fulfill both those statements. It would be annoying because I wouldn't be able to recreate my first PF1e summoner, but I can't do that with the current playtest summoner either (my first summoner was a "devil summoner" who would make temporary contracts with progressively more powerful devils, mechanically done by rebuilding the eidolon to match a different type of devil as closely as possible every few levels).
The thing I would be concerned about if it were to become a feat is that it provides so much of an advantage that it simply becomes a feat tax. It would have to be weakened. Maybe it would have to give a lesser version of a permanent feat (such as having Alacritous Evolution changed to give a permanent +20 to speed, while Evolution Surge gives a temporary +10) and not be able to stack with permanent abilities/boosts granted by feats. If it were to become a feat as it is, you would be hard pressed not to take it.
Agreed, if your entire class is built around having a companion, said companion should not be upstaged by the optional companion of a non-dedicated class. A druid is just fine without a companion, but a summoner is barely functional without the eidolon. If the animal companion is superior to the eidolon in many situations, then the summoner has to ask why they didn't just hire a bodyguard instead of learning to summon.
Looking at it like that, Evolution Surge seems like the True Strike of Summoners: a spell that temporarily patches a mechanical/mathematical hole in the design. The spell then crowds out any attempts to actually fix the hole. In this case, the argument seems to be that because you can just cast Evolution Surge at the beginning of combat and give the eidolon improved abilities then, there is no need to give these abilities to the eidolon permanently. Of course, if you follow this to the logical extreme, why not just make all eidolons the same pregen blob and have Evolution Surge give the eidolon everything: type, attacks, ability modifiers, etc.
In the end, bards are just better. About the only thing that occult sorcerers have over bards is one additional spell slot per spell level and a set list of spells from other traditions. Bards focusing on casting can eventually draw from any tradition, can get more powerful unique cantrips, and at 20th level bards can get the holy grail of spontaneous spellcasting, making all of their spells signature spells.
Legendary at Level 19, something probably 95% of caster players will never see...
So I'm curious, with the changes you make to prepared casting, why don't you just eliminate the sorcerer altogether? The wizard and sorcerer now both have the same number of spell slots, both cast the same way with the spells they have available, but the wizard can change its entire set of prepared spells every day and individual ones every 10 minutes, while the sorcerer can still only change one spell each time it levels up (or goes through retraining at the GMs allowance). The advantage to wizards just seems so massive that I don't see a need for the sorcerer under this system. Sorcerer focus spells tend to be hit or miss. In one campaign (which is still technically ongoing, but it's been so long since we played that it's probably dead), my undead bloodline sorcerer never once used his level 1 focus spell. I also place more importance on signature spells, as in my new campaign, I already planned out paying a 2-feat feat tax ("bard dedication" and 'basic muse's whispers") just to get "versatile signature" for my sorcerer at level 8.
So I'm curious, with the changes you make to prepared casting, why don't you just eliminate the sorcerer altogether? The wizard and sorcerer now both have the same number of spell slots, both cast the same way with the spells they have available, but the wizard can change its entire set of prepared spells every day and individual ones every 10 minutes, while the sorcerer can still only change one spell each time it levels up (or goes through retraining at the GMs allowance). The advantage to wizards just seems so massive that I don't see a need for the sorcerer under this system.
Could you check with USPS on this order? I haven't received it yet. It says it was shipped on July 27th, and the tracking on my order last shows it being processed by the post office on August 2nd (10 days ago).
I think it depends on the bloodline. If I had a Primal bloodline, I would probably want all of the sorcerer feats I could get, but my undead-bloodline sorcerer simply has better options if he multiclasses.
I'd like to see an AP about a quest through the planes, as well as a "Journey to the Center of Golarion" type AP. In the past, we've had APs that went to another plane or to a vault for a single book, but I'd like to see the entire AP focused on it.
I have never had anyone ask what a creature level was nor seen it happen. If I was asked by a player I would not give that information. If they made a recall knowledge check I might give them an idea of how they might react to an incapacitation based spell. It's the same with the table culture in my area, the GM never tells the players the level of a monster or exact numbers on a monster's AC or saves. Telling players a monster's level is just seen as too metagamey. On a related note, the group also sees the incapacitation trait as a trap, as we always have to assume the monster we're facing will succeed on its save, and thus incapacitation will make it a critical success.
Until then, enjoy your mighty and terrible staff of Ray of Frost Oh well, at least ray of frost is a better damage-dealing cantrip than anything the Divine tradition gives me (daze is non-lethal and has half the range, and divine lance is 30 ft and my character is Rahadoumi, so can't use it anyway).
I have two questions about casting from a staff that I'm hoping someone here can answer. To preface, my character who will be using the staff is an undead bloodline sorcerer (so a Divine tradition), and will be taking the Wizard Dedication at level 6. The staff in question is a Greater Staff of Evocation we found. My two questions are: 1. Can I only cast spells from the staff that my wizard dedication "level" can cast? In other words, with just the Wizard Dedication, would I only be able to cast ray of frost, and at level 8 after taking Basic Spellcasting, I would suddenly be able to cast up to level three spells from the staff, or would just having the Wizard Dedication be enough to grant me access to all the Arcane tradition spells on the staff? 2. Spontaneous and prepared casters cast from staves differently. Would I be able to use sorcerer spell slots to cast spells from the staff, or would I have to have wizard spell slots and just add charges?
Huh. Since the divine sorcerer I played was a Rahadoumi undead-bloodline sorcerer (we remade our PF1e campaign characters and I made the mistake of choosing backstory over mechanics, leading to the party artillery piece suddenly becoming the backup healbot), I didn't even bother looking at any feats that had "worship a deity" as a requirement. Good to know there is a way to get an off-tradition spell before level 10, even if I can't use it.
How did you get access to Fireball? It's not on the divine list, nor is it given by the Angelic bloodline.
Personally, I really dislike Magic Missile, much like I dislike Fireball. If you want to be doing damage in this form, play a Sorcerer. As an aside, I hope the new APG will give us something like the 1st Edition Sage Bloodline, something that lets sorcerers cast from Int instead of Cha. I always have preferred spontaneous casting over prepared casting, but I hate being the party face.
Wizard feats, in comparison to Sorcerer feats, are boring. I'm curious which sorcerer feats you think are less boring than wizard feats, as other than cross-blooded evolution, they seem pretty similar until high levels. Wizards even get more valuable metamagic (Silent Spell being one I really wish my sorcerer had).
Really quick answer, you're a Pokemon Master with one pokemon. A slightly longer answer would be that the class essentially allows you to play a specially-built monster while at the same time having a more "normal" character for social interaction. The ability to change its form as you leveled up in PF1e was an extra benefit for when you got bored of using the same creature.
I'd like to see some clarification on the spells granted to divine sorcerers by their bloodlines. It seems obvious that the divine spell list was written with the cleric in mind, thus many spells have deity (or deity plus specific alignment) requirements. Divine sorcerers don't need to worship gods, but their bloodlines give them some of these spells automatically, spells that take up space in the repertoire and can never be retrained. Is there some exception for sorcerers that allows them to cast these spells (like there seems to be for monsters like demons who often don't worship gods), or is it just a case of "sorry, but you Rahadoumi divine sorcerers (and Pharasmins) can't cast those and you effectively have less spells known than other sorcerers."
What would my primal sorcerer give up to we a better blaster? Would losing all buff/debuff effects and spells be enough (I want to play a blaster, not an inferior bard)? I could throw in restrictions on training in all Charisma-based skills if that's not enough. As a primal sorcerer, my character doesn't even get access to true strike or invisibility, and can only learn one of them using crossblooded evolution at 8th level (when the martials are all getting their cloaks of elvenkind). I'm not as worried about increasing the damage as about accuracy. It doesn't matter if I do 1000 points of damage on a hit if I can never hit anything. And that's the thing, when everyone talks about how sorcerers are better blasters, yes they have dangerous sorcery to increase damage, but your chances of success on a spell attack roll are the same as a wizard (or less for a majority of bloodlines, as they don't get true strike).
What would my primal sorcerer give up to we a better blaster? Would losing all buff/debuff effects and spells be enough (I want to play a blaster, not an inferior bard)? I could throw in restrictions on training in all Charisma-based skills if that's not enough. As a primal sorcerer, my character doesn't even get access to true strike or invisibility, and can only learn one of them using crossblooded evolution at 8th level (when the martials are all getting their cloaks of elvenkind).
I was looking at the guide, and the write-up on the usefulness of "undeath's blessing" ("touch of undeath" in the book) seems to have an error. It says that this focus spell reverses the effects of positive and negative energy, but the wording on the spell says that "harm" spells treat the recipient as undead and "heal" spells treat the recipient as living, so it looks like it can only restore hit points, not make the living be injured by "heal" spells.
Something I'd like is more support for sorcerer bloodlines. Yeah, when the oracle first came out, I thought that if Paizo ever did a new edition, the sorcerer bloodlines should be set up to work more like oracle mysteries. It would have made the class feel less like most of the important decisions were made at character creation. I was disappointed that they went with the PF1e approach to the class.
Something I'd like is more support for sorcerer bloodlines. Not just new bloodlines, but support for existing bloodlines. For example: Feat: Basic Bloodline Mutation (enter bloodline name) - Replaces a sorcerer's level 1 focus spell with the alternate focus spell provided. There would also be feats for the level 6 and level 10 focus spells, so that you can get more choices for a sorcerer beyond level one. I'd like to avoid the PF1e trap of giving other classes post-first level options but only giving sorcerers yet another bloodline. It was annoying that wizards got discoveries, but sorcerers got nothing comparable.
Also, at the moment, from a math perspective, part of the reason spellcasters get to Legendary in spells is to make up for missing out on magic weapon enhancements. Just wanted to comment on this since I've seen this argument before. Getting Legendary spellcasting at level 19 doesn't really make up for a lack of enhancements before then. Given that most at home campaigns tend to die out by the mid-teens in levels, getting a math fix at level 19 is kind of academic, as almost no caster will ever be around long enough to see it.
Recently there have been discussions about what some see as deficiencies in casters (focused on wizards, but sometimes including other classes). Unfortunately, these discussions tend to get mired in arguments and genuinely interesting ideas get buried in the ensuing flood of posts. So I wanted to create a thread for ideas people have on *how* they would like to have casters improved in the future, be it errata, feats, archetypes, new classes, new items, etc. I'll start it off with a feat, and archetype, and a class I would like to see: (Note that I primarily play spontaneous casters, and the archetypal caster in my mind has always been the NES/SNES era Final Fantasy Black Mage, a spontaneous elemental evoker who is the living embodiment of a glass cannon, so there is an obvious bias in my examples.) Feat: Focused Spontaneity - Metamagic, Free Action - A spontaneous caster with this feat can spend a focus point to treat one non-signature spell in their repertoire as a signature spell until the end of the turn the focus point was spent in. (The wording would need to be cleaned up.) Archetype: Specialist Caster - Can be taken by any caster, prepared or spontaneous. The caster gains a bonus to attack rolls (and maybe DCs) for spells of one tradition, but loses the ability to cast spells from a different tradition (I'm not sure if the different tradition should be hard-coded or chosen by the player). Class: Summoner - I should note that while I said Final Fantasy had my archetypal caster, in my mind the archetypal summoner is a pokemon trainer. This would require a new system for eidolons, as the eidolon would be more important than the summoner and thus the current minion/animal companion system wouldn't work. The summoner's purpose would be support for the eidolon, not the other way around. I wouldn't have the summoner be a full caster, but instead use a system similar to multiclassing where the can take an "introductory" spellcasting feat at level 2 that grants them 2 cantrips of their choice, then basic spellcasting (feat 4), expert spellcasting (feat 12), and master spellcasting (feat 18). Also, taking a page from bard composition cantrips, there would be special spells specifically to support eidolons that the summoner takes feats to gain, with the exception of a Summon Eidolon cantrip at would be automatically received at level 1. It would be nice to also be able to have a secondary eidolon, though a summoner could only have one out at a time, and they would probably have to share a common HP pool so you couldn't abuse swapping out. I look forward to seeing other ideas.
So I was looking through the monsters in the "Adventure Toolkit" of Pathfinder #149 and came across a demon with the Divine Wrath spell. I thought that odd, so I checked the Bestiary and it turned out 2 demons in there had the Divine Decree spell. According to both the Divine Decree and Divine Wrath spells, the spells cannot be cast unless you are a worshiper of a (non-neutral) deity. I can see these demons casting these spells if they serve a Demon Lord, but what about free agents? Are demons who don't serve a Demon Lord or god unable to cast the spell, or is this a case where NPCs simply follow different rules than PCs and can ignore spell restrictions?
I actually preferred the old style with the NPCs right after the adventure, then various articles, then the bestiary at the back. With the Age of Ashes Adventurer's Toolbox, I spend a lot of time flipping through the back trying to find what I'm looking for. (Of course, I also seem to be in the minority on disliking how PF2 Bestiary 1 is formatted; I preferred the PF1 style there as well.)
That isn't my impression. What is an example of a character concept that you could build with pre-APG PF1 that you cannot build properly with PF2? Most of the transformational bloodlines the sorcerers had available to them were gutted. Take for instance the undead bloodline. In PF1, the character is slowly becoming more of an undead over time, permanently gaining undead traits until at 20th level the character is all but undead. In PF2, you can get a few focus spells and get stuck with the divine spell list. Even the dragon bloodline, which grants some of the transformational effects, only grants them as temporary focus spells. No permanently transforming into a humanoid dragon.
I do like that Asmodeus only allows LE clerics. Does it say why he only accepts LE clerics? I would think that the god of lies...er Law would want LN clerics around for plausible deniability at least.
While you might not get the physical book before street date you’ll still get as you note the PDF before street date and also for free, which are the main benefits for subscribing. Not so much getting the physical before street date.Not necessarily, from what I understand the PDF doesn't become available until after the physical ships out. If it doesn't ship out til after street date, you're just SOL. Correct, the PDF does not become available for download until the physical book ships. If the book ships a week after the release date, then the PDF becomes available a week after the release date (trust me, it's happened to me many times).
Recently, there has been much hay of the damage-dealing mage being, if not a trap, a choice that the system doesn't favor. But is this true? I'm not a CharOp person (as anyone who has seen any of my characters would agree), but many people here are. So my question is: can you make an effective evocation specialist? One that focuses on dealing damage, and casts few to no debuffs. Would it be able to help fight in boss battles, or would the evoker have to stay to the side and hope some below-level minions come along to fight? Also, would a wizard or a sorcerer be a better damage-dealer?
If it's about the true neutral god, a player in my group once had a discussion about how true neutral clerics suck for a few things. The way I see it, it is the same as any stat, yes you get less with a poor choice in alignment, same as if you make your Charisma and Wisdom 8's. There are poor options that most people avoid.Neutral gods also tend to get other blast options. Lightning Bolt for Gozreh, Phantasmal Killer for Pharasma. Even Gorum, who is CN, gets Weapon Storm. Too bad there aren't other options for divine sorcerers who worship no god or a neutral god yet are given Divine Wrath by their bloodline (and by RAW cannot cast it).
I think the fact that so many people prefer the sorcerer to the prepared options means something is being done right with it, even if other people don't care for it. Seems like folks gravitating to different classes is working as intended. Of course, some people (like me) don't choose to play sorcerers because they love the class, but because the alternative is Vancian casting. I hate being the face of the party, but because sorcerers are forced to have a high charisma, the rest of the party feels free to dump the stat. I would rather play an intelligence-based caster, but all the int-based casters are prepared casters, so I'm stuck with sorcerer.
and the cleric has the advantage the next day. What I meant by the cleric having an advantage the next day was that if you needed a spell neither had that day, say remove curse, the cleric could prepare it the next day. The sorcerer has more flexibility with the spells they know, but need anything outside of those few spells and the flexibility advantage vanishes.
That only really works if the sorcerer actually knows the spell that's needed. Otherwise, both classes are in the same boat that day, and the cleric has the advantage the next day.
Just spitballing ideas here, but what if casters were all given the ability to spend a focus point as a free action to reduce the number of actions the next spell they cast takes (to a minimum of 1 action)? I'd probably specify that these don't stack, so you can't spend a focus point at the end of one turn and the beginning of the next turn to try to reduce a 3-action spell down to 1.
Now that I give it some thought, I think giving Sorcerers more spells learned per level than Bards would've been a good way to balance the classes. The general consensus is that Bards are better than Sorcerers, and I'd have to agree.They do have more spells learned per level... They've got an extra spell slot, so they have one extra spell learned per level than do bards. Did you mean something else by this? Those extra spells are chosen for you by your bloodline, and they are not always ones you want. Heck, many of the spells granted by divine bloodlines require the sorcerer to be a follower of a strongly aligned deity or they are forbidden from casting it (Divine Wrath, etc.).
Could you help clarify for me how it has changed ? I clearly haven’t looked closely enough Also in PF1e, if you wanted to cast a lower level spell using a higher level slot, you could, but that's not allowed in PF2e (for instance, if you ran out of 2nd level slots, but still had a 3rd level slot available, you could "downgrade" that slot to cast a 2nd level spell. Now you can't do that; if you want to use a higher level spell slot to cast a lower level spell, you have to heighten the spell to the level of the slot.).
Sorcerers are hit and miss based on their bloodline, because some of them give you reliable new actions and some of them... don't. Though even then comparing Tempest Surge and Elemental Toss feels pretty bad.What do you mean? Tempest Surge does damage and a debuff for two actions, while Elemental Toss deals damage for one action. Why is one more or less reliable than the other? Well, Tempest Surge is a Reflex save while Elemental Toss is an attack roll, and attack rolls often aren't ideal for casters.
Same. The arcanist felt in a lot of ways like a huge revision of the Wizard, fixing a lot of its bad mechanics and actually giving it real class features. Seems like a mistake to have essentially just decided to go back to the old version and bring back a lot of its old problems in PF2.Thinking about it further if someone had asked me to design the wizard for 2e I would have probably just skipped the wizard and make the arcanist the primary prepared casting class. We could still call it the wizard if people got super defensive about tradition and flavor. But that's just me.I would have still called it a wizard, but I definitely would have pillaged arcanist tricks for wizard feat ideas. Well the designers did say that they wanted every class from the PF1e Core Rulebook in the PF2e Core Rulebook, and wanted to keep them recognizable (though looking at the Champion and the Ranger, the definition of "recognizable" varied). I'm sure I said this during the playtest, but if it were up to me, I would have cannibalized the Arcanist to make the PF2e Wizard and cannibalized the Kineticist to make the PF2e Sorcerer. Kineticist casting always felt like a better fit for inborn magic than Wizards' spells. Plus it would have baked Kineticist style casting into the core of the game, instead of it being an add-on later. |