CaffeinatedNinja's page

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

The other is more about what the vision for magus is. Is magus a spellstriker who hits hard and maybe occasionally casts another spell? Or is a magus a wizard like character with limited slots that also mixes it up in melee?

Is it really a bad thing that there's room left for the player to answer that question themselves with their build choices?

Not at all! But really a LOT of magus power and feats etc are tied up in the whole spellstrike routine.

The fundamental issue is that the magus relies on attack spells. There are very very very few of them though, and they seem to be moving away from them. So we basically have illusion of choice for the most part here.

Nodachi and Falcata.

Specifically, Falcata is a d8 Fatal d12 1 handed sword.
That is essentially equivalent to a d10 1handed weapon. (Sometimes a bit better, sometimes a bit worse, but that is essentially it)

Advanced weapons shouldn't be just a die bump over regular weapons.

Also, Nodachi. It has the opposite problem, way underpowered. It is a d8 Deadly D12. That is not as good as a d10. And Brace, while interesting, is not that good.

To put it in perspective, a simple Guisarme, D10, Reach, Trip, is a flat out better weapon, doing more damage, and an arguably better trait, and it is only martial.

I would LOVE to see a d10 reach martial sword. Just for fun. A d10 Reach Sweep Zweihander would be great.

I would also like to see a thrown sword, just so fighters using sword have something to throw. Side note, aren't daggers just tiny sword? hah

Starfinder 2e seems to have copied the elemental property damage rune system from pathfinder 2e. Except there are 4 max runes now.

Please don’t. The rune ecosystem in 2e is not healthy. Property damage runes tend to crowd out everything else, since more damage is always good. Particularly on low damage die weapons. A 1d6 weapon, a property damage rune is as good or better than a striking rune!

Every weapon doesn’t need to do 5 types of damage. And let the other types of runes shine!

Please done duplicate this system. You can just add more levels of striking runes to keep balance leveled. Or limit property damage runes to 1 max, or one you upgrade, or whatever.

I think the Alchemist Archetype lvl 6 feat Voluminous Vials is in need of errata.

The dedication, at lvl 2, gives you 4 versatile vials. A lvl 6 feat (which you can retake at 12th and 18th) gives you 1... more...

I suspect this was written when the alchemist archetype had a way of regaining versatile vials during the day. But since it doesn't, I think it is in error now.

Possibly the Imperial Sorcerer Focus 3?

It extends blood magic on the next spell cast, but it itself causes blood magic lol.

Also super weak for the price so, maybe some errors slipped in there.

Wait, the Imperial bloodline can do what?!

Yup. RIP wizard man.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I will track inexorable iron magus versus a fighter and two-weapon ranger using falcatas. See how it goes.

I have a quality build plan and will explain it when I track the damage comparisons.

So far I'm 100 percent sure the starlit span magus is a top tier damage dealer and the best archer in the game.

I'm less sure of the comparison against a melee magus as clearly the top, though I'm fairly certain they are on par with the top. I will record the data as my current opinion is based on effect on the game.

This is playing the magus not to spellstrike every round, but to use other tactics between spellstrikes to sustain and then boost damage during spellstrike rounds. Even with Starlit Span I did not spellstrike every round as I had to move or do something else like cast a self-buff.

I agree with the approach, I think Starlit Span needs to be reigned in as is and shouldn't be our benchmark

Starlit span has always been the best magus. And with psychic now, their weak focus spells aren't even a weakness anymore, as they can just spam psychic focus spells.

Getting rid of AoO on spellstrike and making cascade much easier would only benefit melee magus.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Magus MC Psychic is going to be even more mandatory.

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

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)

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.

Pretty much nothing the kineticist does triggers AoO.

Seriously, thank you Paizo.

Hope for similar treatment in magus remaster heh

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!

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

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.

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.

Closest comments I could find about bonus slots and curiculum. Sounds like they are not really changing but not 100% clear.

Question - Hmm, you may not answer, but is the way wizards casting spells changing at all? As in will there be options more similar to spont casting? Will they keep their “fourth slot” as one that is exclusive to their spell schools?

Michael Sayer - Rather than answer your question directly, I will say that we covered the vast majority of significant changes in Player Core 1 and GM Core during today's panel.

Question - Do the new spell schools function mechanically the same as the old schools Like if evocation gives you a list of spells you can do certain things with (your “forth” spell slot of each level for example,) does Civic Wizard do the same just with a different list of spells, if that makes sense?

James Case - yep! it's called your curriculum. the school of civic wizardry gives you stuff related to construction/infrastructure and the kind of scry/mobility you might use to run a city, like *wall of stone* or *control water*. Think "what would the fire department / civil engineers / etc need, if they had a wizard on staff"

I don't think the list will be that small. That would be a rather amateurish mistake for a company of Paizo's caliber to make. My guess would be that either the list will be much longer, or the schools will work differently than they used to so a shorter list won't be a problem. Most likely the former.

The number I saw tossed around was 18-27 spells. So somewhere between 2-3 spells a level (technically less if you count cantrips)

Here is kind of the core of my concern, pardon me if I am a broken record.

Currently, say you are a lvl 9 Conjuration wizard, and are prepping you Spell rank 5 bonus slot.

Here are the spells you could put in it, not counting heighen options.
Black Tentacles
Blink Charge
Flammable Fumes
Impaling Spike
Incendiary Fog
Passwall
Pillars of Sand
Return Beacon
Secret Chest
Shadow Walk
Summon Dragon
Wall of Stone

Now if you are a civics wizard.
2-3 Spells.

It massively cuts down on the options you have for that already annoyingly restrictive bonus slot.

I saw some ask this question "Are wizards still 3 slots +1 bonus spell (bonus has to be a school spell?)?" to James Case, but he didn't actually answer it in his Ask a developer thread. Did you see it somewhere else?

The closest response I saw was from James Case saying:

James Case wrote:

t's true that the set curriculum list is fewer spells than "any spell with this trait that we're always making more of", but wizards already don't really have any limit to their spells known, so if you wanted to acquire a bunch of blasting spells beyond say what the school of battle magic gives you, you still can add them to your spellbook and such. ultimately, linkign the wizard to other traits (mental wizard, force wizard) would have just put another limit on what we could create and reintroduce a lot of the problems of the eight spell schools (not all the traits make sense either, like incapacitation). Having a tight and flavorful curriculum with unique focus spells lets us have a flavorful core to your wizard while still letting them be the masters of arcane utility they've always been

You know, I could have sworn there was a response to a question in that chat about no major mechanical changes that hadn't been discussed, but I can't find it. Either I imagined it or it got deleted.

So yes, the whole 3+1 bonus spell thing may not be as set in stone as I thought. Hopefully!

Get rid of the bonus spells, except maybe a top level one.
Give some other bonus for school spells (Automatically in your spellbook, can expend a spell slot to cast one of them freely, whatever)

Yeah, I am actually getting more concerned. Devs indicated they covered the major mechanical changes in wizard, and kind of said bonus spells still work on schools.

So if I have a school with 18 spells, I get what, 2 choices of bonus spell per spell level? And odds are a bunch of the spells are "thematic" as in not that good.

That seems like a big nerf to me.

However, still reserving judgement, but not loving that.

To be clear, I have no issues with the idea of the new schools, but it seems like a heavy nerf to the bonus slot, which was already weird as sorcerers get four actual slots.

We don't really know about mechanical differences, they have been pretty vague on that.

Are wizards even keeping the "bonus slot per level from their specialty" thing? Wouldn't be surpised if it changed as that came right out of DND, and they just became 4 slot casters. Who knows.

But my main issue is how the spells are defined.

If it is a discrete list for each school, that is going to be a SUPER LONG list, if not, it is kind of a nerf from existing things. Also, it makes it hard to update for new spells. If it is a short list it offers way less flexibility than we have now.

I doubt it is trait based, as I think they said they got rid of the traits except illusion? Plus if it is trait based it is basically the old evocation-transmutation etc by a different name.

Almost sounds like spell lists are making a comeback.

My concern is the “curriculum” being discrete lists is they can’t adapt to new spells coming out. That and I am hopeful to see some mechanical changes.

I would LOVE an Arcanist thesis. Flex casting but no signature spells maybe. Probably weaker than spell blending but would love it.

I don't agree on Int being bad, but we already had, like, 2.5 threads about it.

Hah, true.

Anyways, the designers have made it very clear that they don't like substitution mechanics and implement them as little as possible. Sorry, fellow scarred witch doctor "bruiser witch" fans. ;)

Yeah, I think we could use a bit more limited stat sub in Bulwark type ways (capped, not as good as the main stat, etc) so that some of the more MAD classes have a few more options.

But it would have to be tightly controlled.

I actually think some stats could be tweaked for sure (like int just being bad as you never get better than trained) but wholesale replacing one stat's main function with another is iffy.

Limited stat replacements like bulwark? Those I like, but it isn't the same thing.

Dex isn't punished.

The thing is, dex is NOT really designed to be a primary melee stat in this game. It is ranged.

The cases were dex is intended to be used for melee tend to have explicit class support (swashbuckler, thief rogue etc.)

Lots of people want a dex melee fighter thematically, but the game isn't really designed for that.

Dex was the god stat in 5e, not sure we want to replicate that.

The problem is Dex does a LOT. Ranged combat, reflex saves, stealth, thievery, acrobatics.

Making it a sub in for strength for damage or athletics makes strength pretty sub par.

I know it’s a hot-take, but I really feel that Sorcerers really need to lose that 4th spell slot.

Or at least having some bloodline / signature restrictions placed on it. That unrestricted 4th slot pushes them too much over other casters for my personal liking.

You aren't wrong, but bards should lose a slot too then.

How about just make wizards a 5 slot class, witches four slot, and call it a day lol.

MadamReshi wrote:

I feel like I'm missing something about Flexible Casting being default for Prepared Casters versus Spontanious Casters as they are now, and that being something that wouldn't make the Spontanious Caster chasis strictly worse at spellcasting.

What is the advantage, as a chasis, for Spontanious Casters if Prepared Casters got Flexible Casting for free? Not as a class - I can accept that with class abilities, Spontanious Casters have a place still. But it would seem to me then that being a Spontanious Caster would be a limit on your raw spellcasting power versus being a Prepared Flexible Spellcaster.

Am I misreading the rules?

In my particular games, the sorcerer has better and more flexible build options with a better key stat.

So when I made the wizard and witch with flexible casting, they still weren't played very often because the other build options with feats and focus spells are still much better on the sorcerer.

The thing I'm noticing about PF2 is there are so many limiters in place, you can take one limiter off and the game runs fine. Even with flexible casting, the creature saves and innate power of the spells keeps them from becoming overpowered. Martials have sufficient options with higher success rates than casters to do things like knock creatures prone, slow them (Debilitating Shot), and there is no power shift from allowing fully flexible casting without reducing spell slots.

Casters are already very limited in PF2. So letting them cast a key spell at the right time at a level they need makes them more fun without disrupting the balance of the game.

Yup. It also tends to help casters more in long dungeons, where they need the help the most. One fight in a day, you have a lot of spells prepped. Towards the end of a dungeon, without flex or spontaneous casting your options have dwindled greatly.

My problem with non-flexible prepared casters is that the prepared casting was never look liked a better option than spontaneous and with PC1 having no other spontaneous option than Bards it will be like the only option available to new players that don't know about AoN or that don't have older versions with sorcerers.

Huh. Never thought about this, but it is an excellent choice.

Yeah it is funny how in previous editions spontaneous casters had slower spell progression to balance it out, but now they don't.

The thing is if they eliminate focus point feat taxes or make it so you can recover all three out the gate, they have largely eliminated the justification for psychics to have 2 slots a spell rank. Since psychics aren't getting a remaster, it seems a little unlikely to me.

Now they could just buff the pyschic with regular errata to keep it competitive, but I don't have the impression that is happening.

Well, the weird part about psychic is that while they start out with the advantage of regenerating 2 focus points at once, they lose that advantage at lvl 12, to other classes that get it too, as they get 3 focus points per regen the same time as everyone else.

To address the above point, flexible casting just feels good. It is easy to use, intuitive, and more fun to play. It is basically what people from 5e expect too which helps. But paying a slot per spell level is painful, and a feat.

That is why I think it keeps coming up that this should be the default.

Now, I hear the complaints/concerns that this makes it better than spontaneous. Two points there. First, you can tweak flexible and spontaneous to make it work.

Second, a class shouldn’t be denied cool thing a just because some other class looks worse.

Take bard. Even if wizards had free flex casting and 4 regular slow, bard is still better for raw power.

Sorcerers could be given something else, every spell signature, d8 hp, more focus, whatever.

It wouldn’t be hard to do.

I realize this will likely never happen in this edition, I think we all do. But it would be an awesome change.

I doubt it will ever happen, but I would have greatly preferred if the Wizard (really, all prepared casters) had just worked like a flexible spellcaster out-of-the-box. In my opinion flexible casting just models fiction so much better, and in my experience doesn't really have much of a downside.

This would be my dream. And I absolutely guarantee it would help 5e people to come onboard. Of those ones I have introduced to the game, they all love the combat changes but tend to recoil from the older type of vancian casting. It is a real sticking point. And no one wants to lose slots from flex casting.

It will never happen hah, but this would be the perfect time to do it. Bard is the best class in the game, they can keep spontaneous even if it isn’t quite as good in comparison now. And just give the spont casters in the core 2 books something extra to balance em out.

I also think focus points should be an auto recharge after 10 minutes or whatever like the sorcerer does. Honestly I have never been in a game where the specific details of focus point recharging was enforced, although I am sure they exist.

It also frees up page space for describing it for every single class!