CaffeinatedNinja's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 685 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 6 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 685 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Easl wrote:
YuriP wrote:
The dead curriculum slots from some curriculums needs to be heightened to keep working efficiently (or they will become weaker than even cantrips)-

Curriculum spells are added to your spellbook. They work like any other spell. So there is no special deadness about them different from any other spell. Agreed, rank 1 damage dealing spells need to be heightened to be useful at higher levels...but again, this does not make curriculum spells 'deader' than any other spell.

IOW what you are complaining about is the entire level-based spell system, where lower-rank spells are superceded by higher-rank spells as the character gains levels.

Nothing about the remastered Wizard changed that system. It did not make it better...but it in no way made it worse. To go to a system where that wasn't the case (e.g., where a 1st rank spell you gained at level 1 is still part of your standard rotation at level 20, because it autoscales in an impactful way) would be to radically alter the entire game's casting and magic system. That's maybe a 3rd edition move, it is certainly not something I think any player should have reasonably expected from the remaster. At least, IMO.

I don't think you understand the issue people are having. It isn't that the spell is in your spellbook. It is that you have a low level slot you HAVE To prepare one of those "dead" spells in.

Low level slots aren't your power hitters later, but they are valuable utility. There are a lot of low level spells that are useful to have all game.

Unfortunately, with the curriculum, specialists have a slot they can't put any of those "useful all game" spells in. Instead they have a slot they can only prep a spell that is literally useless later. Hence, a dead slot.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

I would have liked the Wizard to have 4 free spell slots, their curriculum spells added for free and a School Focus spell that synergized with their curriculum spells.

Maybe in Unchained Remaster. Or in PF3.

But I LOVE the new definition of Wizard's schools. So much more personal and flavorful.

Agree. Give 1 top level bonus slot that has to be your curriculum.

The bonus spell system is a holdover from 1e that was already kind of restrictive, now it is super restrictive.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Arcane shroud was nerfed rather badly. More flexibility in what you cast but the spell now only lasts until the end of your next turn at best. It used to be end of your next turn or the spell's duration, whichever is longer.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Player Core Page 157

Hunted Shot just says the target must be your "prey" not your hunted prey. The intent is clear given the context but I am sure people will argue that means you don't have to hunt prey against your target before using it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Blave wrote:
TheWayofPie wrote:
Kinda bummed Wizard feats didn't get a bit more sauce. Did they at least get put to regular amount of skills like everyone else? I wasn't a fan of them having one less skill just because they used Intelligence.

I asked that on discord and the answer I got was: No change to skills. Still trained in arcana and 2+INT additional skills.

Disappointing, to say the least.

Can confirm, one of the first things I checked. I was REALLY hoping INT would get at least a little love in the remaster so it isn't a dump stat, but alas.

Also wizard feats were not improved, with the exception of Silent and conceal spell being rolled into one feat. Oh and Scroll Savant (now scroll adept) no longer requires expert crafting.

Honestly, just MC and skip 90% of wizard feats. The Witch MC is crazy overpowered now (they buffed it, starts with 2 familiar abilities instead of 1) so take that or Psychic. Witch also has a really powerful level one potion ability you can poach with MC easily.

And since spell proficiency is just one stat now, you can get spells from other schools at full proficiency.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Calliope5431 wrote:

Another thing I can't say I'm a fan of even if it probably needs the ax for being OP: Blessed Strikes is now gone.

Yes I know you can houserule all the old aasimar and tiefling feats as being available for nephilim, but that feat was one of the core reasons to take the heritage.

It also meant you could be evil and still have access to good damage without enfeebling yourself with a holy weapon. And without burning a property rune

I hope they bring em back. Lvl 13 ancestry feat, should be good. Can always add a line that if you are sanctified to evil can't use holy strikes, and vice versa.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The scaling is all over the place and it is bizaare.

Let us take Armor Proficiency. It now scales to expert at lvl 13 now, yay! Good improvement, nice for casters.

For martials, it gives them scaling heavy armor.... except for lvl 11-12 and 19-20 for most classes, when they get their proficiency bumps early.

Why on earth? Just make it scale. It is clunky, akward, and makes zero sense to have it scale except for a few levels.

Weapon proficiency is equally strange.

A lvl 1 ancestry feat will give you scaling martial/advanced proficiency AND crit spec.

A general feat will give you caster scaling only.

A lvl 12 class feat with fighter archetype gives you expert?

It makes no sense that these things co-exist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You know, it would be nice if this thread could be about actual critiques of the remaster and not endlessly going back and forth about the change to wounded. Maybe that could be its own thread?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't know if this is exactly errata, but the shield rules are a little unclear with strapping now.

All shields need to be strapped unless they say otherwise.

Player Core page 274

"All shields, unless specifically noted or described
otherwise, must be strapped to your arm and held in one
hand, so you can’t hold anything with that hand and
Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield’s benefits if that
hand is no longer free."

But nowhere is there mention of what is required to strap on a shield. It is an interact to unstrap we know, but to put on a shield do you have to draw it then strap it? Also, there are the following weird interactions

Lightning Swap, Fighter Feat - Lets you change your weapons and draw a shield. But with this rule the shield still needs to be strapped, right?

Also, the strapped rule seems to say that you can have a shield strapped to your arm and use the hand for anything, even wield a weapon, unless you want to raise the shield, at that point you grip it.

So there is nothing stopping you from having a steel shield strapped to each arm while you swing a greatsword, lol.

These rules could be cleaned up a bit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Page 403 of Player Core, under Spell Attack Modifiers

If you have the ability to cast spells, you’ll have a proficiency rank for your spell attack modifier, so you’ll always add a proficiency bonus. Like your attribute modifier, this proficiency rank may vary from one spell to another if you have spells from multiple sources. Spell attack rolls can benefit from circumstance bonuses and status bonuses, though item bonuses to spell attack rolls are rare. Penalties affect spell attack rolls just like any other attack roll—including your multiple attack penalty.

The bolded line is no longer correct. Spell proficiency rank doesn’t vary anymore since the remaster consolidated it into one proficiency.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

The witch archetype now gives a familiar with 2 abilities for the dedication, in addition to the cantrip and skills.

It goes up to 3 abilities with basic lesson. None of the other caster archetypes got a boost.

I find this super confusing as witch was already considered an amazing archetype that many considered to obsolete wizard archetype. Now they boost it but leave the other caster archetypes alone? The others should give 3 cantrips to let them keep up.

It was considered good because of its choice of tradition and its hexes. Not because it had a familiar that could be ruled that you lose the entirety of the archetype if that fragile body dies.

Does the Witch archetype still only give 1 cantrip? If so, then I really don't think the other caster archetypes need boosted to 3 of them.

That is why the familiar tattoo exists:)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I've heard the wording on Spell Blending hasn't changed at all, which would imply that Spell Blending away your low level school slots is still a thing. So there's that, at least.
Have any thesis options changed at all? I was hoping some of the less useful ones Metamagical Experimentation would have got more than an name update.

Nope


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The witch archetype now gives a familiar with 2 abilities for the dedication, in addition to the cantrip and skills.

It goes up to 3 abilities with basic lesson. None of the other caster archetypes got a boost.

I find this super confusing as witch was already considered an amazing archetype that many considered to obsolete wizard archetype. Now they boost it but leave the other caster archetypes alone? The others should give 3 cantrips to let them keep up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The new raise emblem ability is much better than spellguard shield. It is better than sparkling targes class ability.

Spellguard only works on spells targeting you, no AoE spells, no spell like effects.

This new ability works on everything. Every spell, every save, even against trip and grapple. It is really really good.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Argonar_Alfaran wrote:
So the actual necessary amount of times a wand needs to be used to be more profitable than scrolls is half of the listed amounts (so depending on the level 5 to 8 times, instead of 10 to 15)

You know, I never thought about that. But you are absolutely right.


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


As for bond conservation...eh. It just requires burning a lower-level slot before burning a higher level slot. That is pretty likely to happen during the course of a workday, and you can guarantee it by casting an all-day buff ( see invisibility , mind blank , energy aegis and tongues are premium picks, there are plenty more) at the start of the day.

Bond conservation isn't that good. It takes an action for each usage, basically turning you into a turret.

Then it just gives you an extra use of your bond at -2 tour spell level. So in your above example, if the one spell you used from that spell level was tongues, that is the ONLY spell you can use drain bonded item with.

So all that work to get an extra -2 spell of limited selection is.... not great?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wizards should't have to take spell blending for get sufficient power. And while sorcerers have a lot more options with their upper spells, tons really with signature spells.

Also, you can't really equate bond conservation to full value, making that actually work is super tricky and not that awesome. Scrolls cost extra actions to use.

Also, by blending away your lower slots, you give up some versatility.

That being said, spell blending is the most powerful wizard thesis.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Calliope5431 wrote:

And then there's the top-end wizard feats. Like spell combination . Spell combination is horrifying when used correctly. Combining chain lightning with itself gets you very silly blasting ("Why yes, I would like to deal 104 damage on a basic save out of an 8th level spell, thank you"), ditto combining rays with each other and then casting true strike . Or maybe you want a combo-buff so you pick up haste and 4th rank invisibility . Gets even more absurd with quickened spell so that you can toss out the equivalent of 4 spells per turn, and you can recharge them with Drain Bonded Item and bond conservation (multiple times as a universalist).

At least it probably doesn't work with multiclassing for spells on other lists...

I don't think we should consider class balance based on lvl 20 feats hah. Most characters will never see them, and those that do have them for a handful of fights.

Plus not sure chain lightning is the best example, good single target damage but you miss all the bounces!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:

I actually agree with most of the folks who say that the real stumbling block of the wizard in PF2 is the Arcane tradition.

What really is the arcane tradition? Where does this power come from in the world? And what makes it unique? It is not coming from the gods. Is it magic pulled from a specific plane? I don't think so. Sometimes it seems like it is magic pulled from creatures but not consistently and even the most arcane power focus creature in the game, the dragon, is now being pulled away from being arcane only, so arcane magic is not even "the stuff dragons are made of" anymore. The Occult tradition has massively stepped on the toes of the arcane tradition narratively, stealing away all the "mysterious power" elements of arcane magic. Like what are the arcane secrets of the universe and how are they really different from the occult secrets of the universe? or the primal secrets of the planes and how they are all connected?

I really hope that the section of the core rule book talking about the traditions of magics does a good job filling in the giant chunk of lore that is now a confusing mess from secrets of magic.

Narratively we have the essences, but the arcane list never really was a good representation of matter and mind when it had to include spells from every school of magic. Traditions and the fixed schools were a bad fit from the start of PF2. We will see what the new spell lists look like in the remastery and where there is room to give the arcane tradition a lore that feels as powerful, interesting and purposeful as the other 3 traditions.

Personally I always liked the idea as Arcane being the one for people that really understood magic.

Divine magic is granted by a god.
Primal tapping into natural power.
Occult by some weird entities.

Arcane is the one for people that have none of that. They tap it by willpower and understanding and shape it themselves.

But that is more head canon than game lore hah.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
YuriP wrote:


  • Split Slot: Just remove the level cap.
  • Even then it is still far worse than the lvl 4 sorcerer feat Arcane Evolution. I was really hoping wizards would get some from of the magus feat "Stanby Spell" but no, we got Knowledge is Power (who cares lol) instead.


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

    I think a good question to ask is: would prepared spellcasters break the system if they all had Flexible Spellcaster without losing spellslots per day, cantrips learned, or having a specific collection of spells to prepare from?

    I would like that to be a variant rule presented in the GM Core - mainly to hear the designers' thoughts on it. Does that make prepared spellcasters too strong?

    Here's another question: would Wizard be too strong if they had Flexible Spellcaster but with the same amount of spellslots and cantrips learned as of now, and being able to use any spell in their spellbook whenever?

    Nope. I mean it would be better than a sorcerer if they could cast any spell, but still worse than a bard or cleric I think.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Hmm, there are a lot of different things. Not saying all of them should be implemented, but here are a few thoughts.

    1 - More Flexibility - I would love to see some form of flex casting without the massive cost, even if the flexibility is reduced. For exacmple, magus gets Standby Spell, which lets you pick a spell to convert a slot into. This would be a great way to help wizard pick niche spells they may never use.

    2 - Feats - Lord they are bad. Take a look at split slot, lvl 6, vs the lvl 4 Arcane Evolution sorcerers get. Split slot is 10x worse and higher level. Way too many wizard feats are too limited or too many caveats to be practically good.

    3 - 4 slot caster - The bonus slot system is unduly restrictive and is just a legacy from DnD. Just make them 4 slot casters, do something else with the schools (like let you use those spells as standby spells, etc)

    4 - Focus Spells - They are bad, as many here have stated. They should be consistently useful and reliable. Like Force Bolt, how about you can cast it as 1-2-3 actions or something instead of just the 1 action filler. Wizards also don't even get a third focus point, which means everyone is going to archetype for it.

    5 - Intelligence - It is an awful primary stat. This has been said many times by many people, but it is basically a dump stat for anyone else. Trained is easy to get (not to mention wizards start with -1 skill for some reason?) So their main stat is mostly useless. This should be fixed with either class features, or preferably errata actually making intelligence a good stat.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    The new magical shorthand helps. Skill feat that turns a success into a crit success for spells. Appears to work with assurance too.

    That being said, it is a strange “benefit” as most other classes just know their whole common spell list.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    I agree that we shouldn’t speak ill of the devs. I often disagree with them but that is the nature of things, no one is going to agree with anyone all of the time. People acting in good faith can disagree.

    I am hoping there are unreleased wizard buffs that help, like spell sub being a class feature, but who knows.

    I do think just making curriculum bigger would have helped a lot of these concerns. If they were 4 spells a level, and picked with a kind to having lower level spell slots that don’t become dead it would help a lot.

    I think spell blending is going to be even more popular to ditch the now useless slots.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Squiggit wrote:

    I feel like if they were adding some cool new thing to wizards they would be advertising it, not turning it into some secret thing people need to treasure hunt for clues to.

    Makes more sense imo to just assume this is what wizards look like.

    I am hopeful, but I suspect you are right. Not sure why cleric needed a buff and wizard… well, let’s wait for the final release.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Deriven Firelion wrote:

    What am I missing about the wizard? Do they get a free slot still for jsut those battle magic spells? How do their slots work? Their theses are the same? Anything new to give them a boost?

    I do like the cleric flat 4 and less reliance on charisma. 4 is a good number. Never seen much more than that used in a day.

    Frpom everything we have seen, the basic slot structure hasn't changed. 3 splot spellcaster and 1 bonus slot, just like we have now.


    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Unicore wrote:

    It is not level 5 that is the question, it is level 15,17,19, where you are still going to have to have a first level school slot spell that could get questionable for the battle mage. I mean, at least magic missile is automatic damage, so there will always be the "finishing off" ability with a level 1 Force Barrage spell, but I can see some players feeling down about it.

    At the same time, Force Barrage is a nice option for filling many higher level school slot spells and it looks like the school of battle is keeping the evocation focus spells which were very good to begin with.

    I don't think it is a spoiled milk situation for the evoker School of Battle. It is not like evocation had a great 1st level spell that everyone was transferring over to before.

    Burning hands instead of the shocking grasp (or shocking grasp alternative) feels like a bigger deal...but again, this is one spell slot per level. You still have all the rest of your spell slots to fill with any spell you want. Even at level 19, having one unused level 1 spell each day is not a big deal and if there is a magic missile/fore barrage there, then you probably will use it at some point, at least as a 3rd action, automatic damage spell. Even just for zapping a confused ally or bursting a mirror image off an enemy caster.

    With respect, having a bad spell slot per level is pretty awful. Might as well be a witch then, or a bard. This is REALLY going to push people into spell blending.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Yeah…. Was hoping for some more info on wizard to counterbalance the nerf that is curriculum. Nada. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist! Clearly willing to make changes like the flat +4 for clerics don’t (big early game boost)


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Yeah I am not sure where the PFS ruling came from as the spell never even suggests you must be holding the metal. Just in your possession.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Calliope5431 wrote:

    Needle Darts does actually have this to say: "PFS Note Any spells which require metal to function require the PC to be holding at least one chunk of that metal or an item made of that metal."

    So you need to buy a chunk of each metal you plan to use - doesn't have to be high-grade though!

    Issue with this ruling is now this spell ties up a hand. You have to be holding a metal item just to use it, even if not using a special metal.

    Odd as the spell is explicit that it has to be in your possession, not taking up a hand.

    Do gauntlets count?


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
    SuperBidi wrote:
    Karmagator wrote:
    As Ninja said, it' really 5 stats.

    You can ignore Strength if you go Dex based and Dex if you grab a Heavy Armor. So you can build a 4 stat spread Magus easily.

    Karmagator wrote:
    Of those stats, INT is by far your least important.
    It governs your Spell DCs. There are multiple situations where Spellstrike is no solution to the task at hand: Bunch of enemies waiting for their Fireball, boss that will launch you into orbit the second you land a Spellstrike so Slow is a better move, enemies with AoOs, especially when they disrupt your spell on a normal hit, etc...

    How is a Magus' spell DC relevant? Enemies will always succeed or critically succeed due to your lagging attribute bonus and your reduced proficiency, even when you target their weak save, that's the price they pay for full martial progression. Having played a Magus up to 5th level, only a handful of enemies have actually failed my saving throws, whereas the majority of them have saved or critically saved. Not to mention that a Magus' Spellstrike mechanic literally incentivizes them to utilize Spell Attack Roll spells, due that you are benefitting from the martial progression/item bonuses for them, whereas spell DCs are purposefully detrimented because that's what a pure spellcaster is for.

    Legit, Magic Missile (or other auto-damage effects) is the only spell that is actually worth taking the Expansive Spellstrike feat for, since you are still doing automatic damage on a missed strike with no save to make it a waste of actions and spell slots, whereas if you use something like Fireball or Crashing Wave, enemies will either save for half or critically save for no damage.

    Magus DC can be painful even if you focus on int, this is true.

    I find it a sometimes frustrating part of this system with how stingy it is giving good DCs, given how important every point is with the +10/-10 system.

    It just pushes magus into using spells that are just as powerful but don't care about DC.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    SuperBidi wrote:
    Karmagator wrote:
    As Ninja said, it' really 5 stats.

    You can ignore Strength if you go Dex based and Dex if you grab a Heavy Armor. So you can build a 4 stat spread Magus easily.

    True as to dex. Another reason starlit is really good. But Str magus doesn't natively get access to heavy armor so that is archetyping instead of taking psychic or something. Or being human and spending a general feat up till lvl 11. So yeah, heavy armor is great on magus but not part of the kit.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    SuperBidi wrote:
    Karmagator wrote:
    My only real wish is for the Magus to have a good reason to invest into INT.
    I hardly see how not to start with 16 Int on a Magus, especially since the release of the Psychic. The Magus only needs 4 stats (Str/Dex, Int, Con, Wis) and Int is the second most important one.

    Str magus needs str and dex. So 5 stats. That is why trying to get into heavy armor is so good.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Let magus sub int for reflex.

    Magus is insanely improved by heavy armor then it can dump dex. Magus doesn’t really need dex but has to have it for reflex saves.

    Call it predictive combat, can only be used for damaging or impairing effects.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Magus MC Psychic is going to be even more mandatory.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Maybe casters will finally get class feats at lvl 1 in the remaster?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Deriven Firelion wrote:

    Some of this looks cool

    Ignition/Produce Flame is upgraded.

    Thunder Strike looks cool.

    I like the tags better. No more schools is nice. I never loved the schools of magic. Unnecessary complexity for one class.

    I like some of this. I'll have to look closer, but it looks like they are adding versatility. I like more actions making spells more powerful. It fits fictional magic well.

    Ignition was nerfed early on when it matters. Used to be 1d4+4 (6.5) on a hit for a full caster. Now 2d4 (4)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Air Kinet has a couple abilities, lightning dash and aeriel boomerang, that don't say they can be fired "up to" a distance, just say the whole way. Lightning dash in particular can be frustrating this way.

    HOWEVER!!! Lines terminate when you hit a wall/floor. Just aim your lightning dash slightly down, or your boomerang at the space the enemy is in, and it will end where you want it to.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Pretty much nothing the kineticist does triggers AoO.

    Seriously, thank you Paizo.

    Hope for similar treatment in magus remaster heh


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    The issue really is that spell attacks are bad and can’t compete with save effects that do half damage on a fail.

    My hope is that spell attacks are universally buffed to compete. Probably have to kill or nerf true strike to balance that, but that is fine.

    Maybe half damage on a spell attack fail? Glancing blow with a fire bolt still going to sting!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    If Warpriest is going to get a feat to upgrade to heavy without going into Sentinel, then every medium armor class should.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Innate Casting stat should be at a minimum your spell DC, not just charisma based. Class DC ok too.

    Hybrid cases need full DC scaling.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Kobold Catgirl wrote:

    The argument shouldn't be over, "Are those changes enough?" It should be over, "Are those changes too much?"

    Because they're a lot. I don't know if they're too much, but they're a lot. Sorcerer's meant to be the main 4-slot caster--their whole shtick is, "I only have a few tricks, but I can hammer them over and over again". Giving wizards 4 fully customizable slots and a spontaneous spell would blur those lines a little and greatly expand their existing advantages while reducing their key weak points.

    I'm not saying it's a bad idea, of course! I just think we should be careful about letting the Overton Window drift too far. That kind of change should be on the further end of what wizards could get, not the baseline.

    I know it's an unpopular opinion lately, but wizards are pretty darn strong. They do at times feel a little clunky, but... well, this comparison won't help a lot of people, but I see them as sort of like the Heavy Weapons Guy from the fighting game Team Fortress 2. The Heavy is meant to be a sluggish tank, a guy who can put out massive damage with his minigun while holding a relatively small, sheltered position. He's a very vulnerable class who struggles with versatility, but buffing him incautiously would make him one of the deadliest classes in the game for his ability to secure a choke point.

    I'm excited for wizards to get a bit of a buff, though, or at least for the Divine list to be made a bit less competitive with the Arcane list for versatility.

    Well, a properly built sorcerer has a LOT of tricks. 4 spells per level known, signature spells, better and earlier focus spells than a wizard, stealing spells from other traditions.. you get my point. It isn't just the slots, they have a LOT of power.

    Also, lets compare feats lol.

    Split slot - Level 6 - Prepare two spells in a slot -1 from your top slot. Not awful you think.

    Arcane Evolution - Add a spell to your repetoire. Top level is fine. Cast it from any slot that level! OR add a signature spell. And get a skill!

    Lvl 4?

    Giving wizards what I suggested (Or something similar) wouldn't make them OP in the slightest.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    We already have 4 slot arcane casters (sorcerers) who get a lot of goodies like being able to add a spell to their repetoire a day, great focus spells, stealing spells from other traditions, etc.

    So this seems in line with that.

    And yes, this would be a bit of a buff from currently (kind of need it) ut not really, just a little more versatile.

    I am unclear how this would make them a worse cleric?


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    1. Wizard is a straight 4 slot caster
    2. 2 Curiculum spells Per level
    3. You have mastered your school spells to such a degree that you can cast that spell using any slot of that level, despite another spell being prepared there. (Like the Stanby Spell Magus feat)
    4. Universal Theory wizards can pick any spell for #3, but only one per level instead of 2

    Mix in some standby spell type flavor!


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Scaling armor and weapon proficiency general feats.

    Kill or severely nerf true strike so spell attacks can be improved.

    Martial 2 handed reach sword (just cause it is fun)

    Intelligence gives expert/master or has some sort of boost after early game.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Kobold Catgirl wrote:
    Yeah, I can house rule a whole game by myself, and make up the players, too, but it sure is nice to have something cool to work with that's worth paying money for.

    I think that is an entirely unfair example, as I suspect you know.

    There are some classes with more flavor/lore built into them than others. While it does have advantages, the disadvantage is is locks you in a bit more.

    Some prefer one type, some the other.

    Clearly I prefer more malleable or open lore, while you prefer if pre-written and more defined.

    Neither is wrong it is just preference, and I was presenting mine.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
    Sanityfaerie wrote:
    I just love that Paizo attitude about this whole thing. "Oh, look! Yet another crevice we can inject some flavor into." It's just so *rich*.
    This is one of the things that makes me happiest about the remaster because wizards were one of my favorites in 1e but when I saw all the cool flavour coming to the other classes it really made "you are good at these arbitrary categories" stick out to me as somewhat artificial and divorced from what wizards actually do in their societies.

    Meh, I can insert the flavor myself. I don't need a class feat saying I did this or came from this school or whatever. I can just make it part of my backstory.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Martialmasters wrote:
    CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
    Martialmasters wrote:
    CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
    Martialmasters wrote:

    Flexible caster archetype literally is described as an Arcanist and you get fluff detriment to casting too much in the form of headaches and such.

    You still got say... Access to illusion spell slots prior to this change, but you obviously never went to school.

    I think in this case, you can fluff it however you want?

    Price is too high on flex casting. And heightening every spell is nice... but honestly there are a lot of spells that you don't care about heightening much, so it is a massive cost for so-so benefit.

    You misunderstood.

    The fluff text is what I was referring to. The fact you can story it however you want.

    But, I've ran the numbers, a flexible wizard with a school, was honestly really powerful. Well worth the cost imo.

    Depends greatly on your game. One fight a day game, sure. Long fight day games? Just be a sorcerer at that point.

    I wasn't aware you only slotted combat spells

    Mine as well be a sorcerer at that point

    I mean, if you play a game with minimal combat and lots of out of combat magic, enough that scrolls and the 1 spell a day sorcerers can prep won't cut it, then yeah, I see your point.

    I suspect such a game is vanishingly rare.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Martialmasters wrote:
    CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
    Martialmasters wrote:

    Flexible caster archetype literally is described as an Arcanist and you get fluff detriment to casting too much in the form of headaches and such.

    You still got say... Access to illusion spell slots prior to this change, but you obviously never went to school.

    I think in this case, you can fluff it however you want?

    Price is too high on flex casting. And heightening every spell is nice... but honestly there are a lot of spells that you don't care about heightening much, so it is a massive cost for so-so benefit.

    You misunderstood.

    The fluff text is what I was referring to. The fact you can story it however you want.

    But, I've ran the numbers, a flexible wizard with a school, was honestly really powerful. Well worth the cost imo.

    Depends greatly on your game. One fight a day game, sure. Long fight day games? Just be a sorcerer at that point.

    1 to 50 of 685 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>