Crouza's page

Let us look at Pf 1e for answers. There were about 40 classes, depending on how you count alternative classes or the Omdura. Each of those a variety of archetypes, some even getting close to 50. So let's be conservative and assume every class had about 20 archetypes.

That's about 800 permutations of classes that existed in PF 1e. So to answer your question, yes. We will be getting more classes. Considering that instead of giving a existing class an archetype that completely alters how it plays, Paizo makes a new class to fullfill that radically different class idea, we will probably see more classes than Pf 1e.

I want dedicated Gish classes for Primal and Occult schools. Magus is magus and cleric now has both war cleirc and battle harbinger to help fill the niche. I would like to see similar for primal magic and occult magic.

That's not my point. What I'm saying is that the GM tends to respect Taunt for both thematic and mechanical reasons.

With this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that expect the GM to try to disrespect Taunt?

There's a high probability that feats like Proud Nail and Ring Their Bell will never be used because the GM can simply make the provoked creatures attack the guardian (what is the main intention of Taunt). Unless there are two guardians in the group, which would effectively make the creature negatively affected by both guardians, these feats would be the only thing preventing it from ignoring them and attacking other PCs, since it will suffer the effects of Taunt anyway.

So, with this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that will never, or almost never, will have its requirements met?

There are tons of feats like that, and the answer is always "It's useless until it isn't." Rogue for example has Nimble Dodge, which went 12 sessions without ever stopping a hit or crit, and then stopped that "crit by 1" strike from downing me. Likewise, Sly Striker is a very niche feat because you can always flank an enemy, and then we fought an enemy who we couldn't easily make off guard and Sly Striker paid its dues adding extra damage on my strikes.

If I am a GM and there is a sorcerer with low hp whose been hitting me with spells vs the guardian in front of me, I don't see why I wouldn't go after the sorcerer to prioritize threat.

If a rogue is flanking the guardian and pounding my butt, I'm going to kill the rogue first to cut off that high damage and then focus down the guardian afterwards.

Maybe GM's will focus on the Guardian most of the time. But there's going to be those cases where they don't, and that's why you take those feats.

You can argue about the GM not doing that, but I find that to be a unfair steelman tbh. Because a GM can be the source of all kinds of problems. It's like "Don't play a caster because the GM can only pick monsters with high saves and low AC's". Or "Don't build for melee because the GM can always use flying enemies or enemies who use ranged attacks and teleports."

Like, you're right. Fair point by the technical merit that it can happen. But that's not a fair position to start the discussion at, imo. After all, you can also just as easily make the case of the GM always ignoring your taunts, and suddenly those feats become goated.

I think Paizo has made the choice of using new classes to explore new mechanical ideas. This is similar to how they used to include new archetypes for existing classes in their previous works.

Instead of a class getting a new archetype that completely changes how they played, or fulfilled a new niche for that class, instead they are taking that idea and turning it into its own bespoke class.

I don't know how I feel about it, personally. Reducing it down to 1 class and creating more options for existing classes could be fun. But at the same time, I feel like Pathfinder would rather you have 50 classes to pick from, and each class is relatively simple to figure out and play, than to have 30 classes, but each one having an alt mode essentially.

Taunt doesn’t have the emotion or mental trait, so it’s not really a taunt at all. You’re not making the mindless zombie mad at you.

Maybe I'm just MMO brained but I don't see a problem with Taunt being named Taunt as "universal ability that draws aggro to you". Since that is ubiquitously what that kind of ability is called in games.

I haven't seen all of the class but I really like the changes I have seen to Guardian. I'm actually really excited to give it a shot, since I tend to enjoy support characters and, well, they chonk.

Crouza wrote:

The whole region being so far north had me expected it to be cold but it looks like volcanos and geothermal activity are keeping that warmer meditteranian sea feel.

It's to the East of the Isle of Jalmeray, so it's in the tropics. If it was significantly farther South, it would be colder (just with summer and winter seasons occurring at the opposite times as the Northern hemisphere).

I completely misread that map. I thought it was that cluster of islands off the saga lands. My bad lol.

As long as nobody kills any random sheeps or cows than things should be a breeze. Loving Iblydos amd I can't wait to dig in to the city states. The whole region being so far north had me expected it to be cold but it looks like volcanos and geothermal activity are keeping that warmer meditteranian sea feel.

Grimmyr is such a Deku and I really like them for it. The fact he always takes notes of the non-combatants first is such a great detail for him.

Something that also might be a factor in this is that, frankly, the engagement I've seen on Pathfinder 2e videos is awful.

Almost every single video I've seen about 2e has had comments that ignore 99% of everything OP is saying, in order to nitpick them misreading or misremembering how a feat works.

And yeah, of course that's going to happen, Pathfinder 2e is a game that specifically rewards the kind of people with brains who latch onto those tiny details. (Y'know. Us. The kind of people who care enough to post on Paizo forums. We're not the normal ones)

But it also means that these comments are being made instead of, say "That's a fascinating point you made OP! Let me address and engage with it". Or even a comment like "Hey, I liked the video! Keep up the good work!".

If you don't believe me, check out ThrabenU_Gaming. Amongst a sea of dry, poorly made videos where people just read feats at a camera, Phil stands above the rest. His videos are in-depth, unique, and fun- and every single comment will pick ONE thing they felt that he did wrong and focus solely on that.

I guess if you don't have completely encyclopedic system mastery, you just shouldn't talk at all? (And if you don't believe me- he tries posting on these very forums, and everyone here just complained that the videos were too long!)

Ok, so if you ignore videos ABOUT Pathfinder 2e, what about actual plays using Pathfinder 2e?

...Why on earth would you ever use Pathfinder 2e for an actual play? Everything about PF2E that makes it more fun to PLAY kind of makes for terrible radio- from the modular characters building (that the audience doesn't engage with) to be map-focused tactical combat (that the audience doesn't see or play).

Narrative Declaration is a gem to watch and i don't care who i need to fist fight in the parking lot to say it.

I take back everything I complained about in the other thread. Ulka is an absolute gem and I absolutely love her. Might be a bit of a pull for those here, but she's like an Orc version of Ciaphus Cain, and that's a major compliment.

I'm not personally surprised, for many of the reasons others have already brought up. But also, you really can't discount the effect of star power when it comes to getting eyes on a product.

Critical Role is a massive influence on many people, and it's theater kid style approach to dnd is what set a new standard for how many people approach ttrpgs. Pathfinder doesn't really do that, and that isn't really something it demonstrates. Pathfinder loves the mechanics first, builds and number crunching, abilities defining your character approach to ttrpg playing, and the community for a very long time earlier, and even a sizeable chunk now, play that way.

But a lot of the content creators who play dnd and specifically make youtube videos on it, they all rose up on the critical role style of playing ttrpgs. Whether as a show they liked to watch or a game they directly took inspiration from, the influence critical role holds is powerful. So when Critical Role, not WOTC, says they're doing their own TTRPG system, that makes people a lot more willing to put eyes on them than pathfinder, a game they may have 0 emotional attachment to and who feel it plays opposite to their style of imrpov heavy, winging the rules, narrative before mechanics style of play.

For just getting into ttrpgs without any idea of how they work? Yeah this approach you did was good, in my opinion. It's improve with paper rules and there's a lot of people who need to relearn how to essentially play pretend, so giving them an example to work as a primer that's straight to the point is good.

It was a totally different designer. In fact, most of the lead designers at Paizo had changed by the time the Remaster occured. I think everyone but Adam and Jason left. Lyz Liddel wrote the OG Oracle and left Paizo shortly after the APG was published.

As to why they remastered it this way, here is the blog post that shows their reasoning.

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6v7rn?Player-Core-2-Preview-The-Or acle-Remastered

Tridus: I just want to note saying they didn't succeed at their stated goal doesn't quite track, because of this line: "Now, oracle players who want to opt into this complexity can do so, and oracles who want more straightforward benefits can keep it simple."

Keeping some curse bound feats which improve based on the state of your curse is pretty consistent with this bit. Opt in complexity is one of the biggest design philosophies of PF2. Unfortunately, they didn't succeed in the opt in complexity being nearly as satisfying as the old class.

Probably not what they meant but you can also opt into the complexity by playing the premaster oracle.

For me it reminds me of when gunslinger was first coming out. The write up for the playtest feedback posed an interesting design philosophy, that being that the class could lose its direct power of higher proficency and have that power shifted to feats, or it could keep its direct power but gain less impactful features as a cost.

It sticks with me because I can't help but feel that's exactly what happened to oracle. It gained direct forward power in becoming a 4 slot castsr, and so lost power in its quirky features which meant they needed to become less defining for the class compared to the premaster.

I like her storyline, but it seems too much for an iconic. She's a renowned mercenary who's hung out with high profile plot significant NPCs and groups, leads her own mercenary group, has "proven herself over and over" in countless battles and made untold riches for herself.

That's a lot of baggage for a character someone might start playing at level 1.

I could see an argument that level 1 Ulka is just after paragraph 7, right after fleeing her post... but that leaves a lot of predestined backstory build into her narrative.

Feels kind of awkward to me. Contrast with Grimmyr who also has a lot going on but his accomplishments and progress are a lot more vague. He has a goal, but there's no inherent sense of establishment.

... Speaking of Grimmyr. A lot has been said about her art, but I'm not a fan of Paizo deciding to make both Battlecry iconics rock the huge arms tiny head thick neck ultra short legs look. Book art has a lot of variety, but I feel like key art sometimes has a problem of centralizing body types.

I've got the opposite take tbh. Her backstory is the kind i've seen from far more level 1 characters than one that's well rounded and reasonable. Also, it's not like other iconics don't have similar deals with them.

Oscar Isaac as Valeros would be a good match imo.

Laurence Fishburne or Ewan Mcgregor as Ezran would probably be matches made in heaven honestly.

Now for an off the wall one, Steven Yeun as Korakai. I was very impressed with his voice work, and I think he matches the kind of younger sounding voice I imagine Korakai to have.

It's probably not as popular but I'd personally love something less grandiose but more stylistic for Pathfinder video games. Something like a more 2d turn based rpg or maybe something akin to FF tactics.

So guns and Gears got remastered, right? In what ways were those classes affected post remaster? Given we haven't heard much from Paizo regarding remastering the classes, just like with Gunslinger and Inventor, it is likely however much they were changed will be in line with how much the Psychic and Thaumaturge will change.

Both Inventor and Gunslinger got some very good quality of life buffs and some fundamental reworks to their class features. I wouldn't be surprised if we see similar changes to the thaumaturge and psychic.

I'm not gonna sugar coat it.

No. Just plain and simply, No. BG3 cost a ton of money and licensing to get a big studio to work on it. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that at least double Paizo's entire yearly income was spent just on the initial development of BG3.

A Pathfinder game works best in the same way pathfinder does, as a indie scene darling that isn't as big as its mainstream peers but does enough to make a good earning and good quality.

I don't know if the lore was already established for these guys or not, but I love the jouton coming from a dimension between the mortal and etheral world, and that our massive guy was basically a farmer answering a heroes call.

Some people just want to find something to complain about. She has the same proportions as the male Orc from Player Core! Her design doesn't specifically match up with trolls in this game, or several others that spring to mind, she just has more prominent tusks than in a lot of other art. And the Mignola-shoulders are actually pretty consistent across Wayne Reynolds' Orcs and Half-Orcs, look at Droven! Or 1e Oloch!

It's a unique silhouette whose inhuman proportions distinctly identify the character as the first iconic Orc, rather than just another Half-Orc, and play to Reynolds' stylistic strengths wonderfully.

I don't think there should be 1 set look for orcs tbh. I think that adds a bit for like, the heritages that the more human orcs and the less human orcs are all orcs. Like, even with me not liking the particular art piece it's literally not as important as the actual body of text said picture is attached to. So for me at least, I don't get why the art is as big a deal as it is in the discussion tbh.

Even then my complaints are mostly about clarity of themes. The story itself is good, and I like the Ulka as a orc subverts the expectations of a prime and proper commander for a grizzled veteran warrior instead.

Alchemist and Witch have been the worst for me, and they're entirely arbitrary reasons.

Alchemist I want to love, but every item list they can pick formula's from is dense. Between Bombs, Elixirs, Poisons, Foods, Normal Alchemical Items, etc, it feels like if I made a caster who can draw from all 4 spell lists at once, and it's constantly filling me with choice paralysis and 2nd guesses.

Witch is just basic, I'm not a fan of familiars. I just don't really care for the "just a little guy" kinda mechanic. Purely it is a personal preference, but familiars and familair rules just aren't really my cup of tea.

I think what they were going for is that she protects the helpless against hostile aggressors. But, she knows said aggressors are still people with friends and family of their own who will suffer from their deaths. However I agree the wording is muddled and confusing.

That'd be a cool angle to see. The curse of being aware enough to know that every person slain is a tragedy, enemy or ally.

The story feels a bit like it loses itself at the end, I'm going to fully admit. Ulka's story seems to be one where everyone around Ulka has always been controlling her. From her adoptive family to her mentor figure and death itself, all seem to meddle with her life and she seeks to buck that trend.

Her leaving life for that of a mercenary seems to be one of seeking freedom and control. That no matter how bloody or high the cost, she will strive to live her life as she wants, on her terms. Not tradition, not the expectations of other orcs, and not concepts of right and wrong, honor or dishonor, etc.

It even seems like she's doing so as a direct challenge to death, to chase it and refuse to passively wait for death to come, but instead force it to confront her in the fires and ashes of war.

Maybe the intent of her orders being more viscous was at her men to act more moral. But the way it's written it seems like she orders them to commit atrocities harder and leave more orphaned children in the world, and then wants to protect the weak and defenseless? She also seems to just hate those she's commanding or just doesn't care if they live or die, which seems weird to care about life while being so flippant about the deaths that war brings?

I'm just not sure if the intent was for her to be a glaring flawed character whose too blinded by their own pain, goals, and trauma, to see what they're actually doing, or if I'm just misunderstanding the story. Is Ulka supposed to be a flawed and tragic figure or is this a case of misreading what her story is supposed to be and coming to the wrong conclusions?

What did everyone expect in a gish class?

Im confused by all this expectation a gish class wouldnt have bounded casting.

People mad at getting exactly what they described they wanted, "A wave casting divine caster all about using weapons against enemies".

Sometimes I wonder if a +1 is really going to make any difference for casters, or if it will just end up being one of those endless shifting goalposts situations. Where like, we start with +1 to hit, then it becomes wanting +1 to DCs, then the demand for a striking equivalent, and then a greater potency version, etc etc, while casters still feel as if they were behind their non-caster brethren.

I don't know if its just fatigue for this topic or what, but I feel like at this point, the only thing that will make people feel satisfied is something massively game-changing for casters. Something crazy like removing incap from like, 1/2 the spells in the game or something like that. I don't know anyone who complains about casters are is like "a small boost to attack spell accuracy solves my complaints", it's always about just feel and vibes of not being stronger, so it feels like this only stops being a recurring issue when casters get broken again by removing their save or suck limiters.

It's annoying to see the conversation go from "We should come up with more interesting things for the wizard to do" to "Just make wizard busted again because that's the only way it'll feel good to play". This happens every time the wizard is talked about.

SuperBidi wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

since simplicity has intrinsic value

It's more complicated than that: Simplicity has a player-dependent (and also community-dependent) intrinsic value. Players with high tactical acumen will find low value in simplicity when players with low tactical acumen will find a lot of value in it. As such, there's no way to balance a simple and a complex class all across the board. The point of balance of PF2, which is on players with high tactical value, is a valid one. Even if I agree with you this is a rather elitist point of balance.

I disagree that you can't balance complexity versus reward, but I will agree that it is much harder or practically impossible to do in this system without breaking the game, simply because the basics already are pushing the balance of power as it is. It is not like being more complex means you get access to a new tier of proficiency, or that you get more proficiencies than other classes by being more complex, either.

It isn't elitist, though. The design principle of PF2 is literally "The simplest classes push the math to its limits, adding complexity does not and cannot change this." So again, if complexity is not rewarded through power, it needs to be rewarded in some other fashion, otherwise it lacks an incentive to play it.

And the thing is, the other options it can be rewarding for (flavor, efficiency, etc.) are not present or can simply be waved away, leaving the only other option (self-imposed challenge) as valid.

What's wrong with that? What makes that an issue?

Crouza wrote:

You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.

You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.

Being rewarded doesn't necessarily mean being rewarded with more power, at least not vertical power.

I personally have no problem with the Wizard being more complicated than other classes on a matter of principle. I consider myself to have a high level of system mastery, so its not a impediment to me. That said, I also don't personally feel like the Wizard is a particularly difficult class.

It's the reason that people consider the Wizard more complicated to play that is the my general issue. The Wizard is often considered harder to play right mainly because they have less than other classes. The Wizard is just a standard prepared caster really. It's casting is no more of less complex or difficult than other prepared casters. The reason the Wizard has a higher curve is that it lacks the same sort of safety-nets that other prepared casters tend to have for when preparation goes wrong, and so the classes ability to function well in its role can live and die on the value of that spell selection alone.

It's not a satisfying sort of problem.

A class can have of complicated mechanics, where its payoffs happen when you really utilise them and their timing really well. That can feel satisfying in itself because pulling off your synergies and combos is difficult to do. But that isn't the sort of thing we have here.

You bring up an interesting point that I think I can agree with. I do not have problems with Wizard in it's current iteration, but I can see what you're getting at where a reward for complexity/system mastery could be made to be easier to obtain on the wizard by giving it a few more mechanics to reward that effort.

Not so much power but perhaps in flexibility. The common idea of giving Spell Substitution and Spell Blending as class features instead of thesis's could, for example, give you those aforementioned safety nets as well as give it a horizontal increase to its power via flexibility.

Controversial as it may sound, I enjoy the school colleges. But I also love flavorful options, even if they're weak, and like working with my GM's to achieve that flavor. Perhaps a focus on further refining the schools with more spell options at the different ranks could be nice, or give each school its own version of Spell Blending where they can sacrifice a school spell slot to cast unique spells to the wizards. A kind of psudo-focus spell on top of other focus spells and pools.

Crouza wrote:

You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.

You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.

So then why have complicated classes versus uncomplicated ones if the only fundamental difference is that one just requires more effort for the same effect?

Thanks for proving what makes the Wizard an obsolete class with that post. Why play a Wizard when a Sorcerer does the same thing except better and simpler? Unless you want to actually handicap yourself as some sort of self-imposed challenge, it makes no sense to do so.

Because people want different things in order to enjoy the game? Some people enjoy really simplistic and straight forward gameplay, while others enjoy having more complexity to juggle while playing. That's not really been an unknown in TTRPGs, and as part of the whole "We're going to make the classes balanced and not have the tier system for class power" thing that everyone loves in PF 2e, that necessitates that all the classes have close to the same power levels as one another?

"Why have complicated classes" is the same question as someone asking "why have uncomplicated classes". It comes down to a purely preferential choice. Sometimes I really like playing a barbarian who attacks twice in their turn and doesn't need to think of anything beyond that. Other times I prefer to have to strategize my spell selections as a druid to try and gauge what we'll be facing that day. It's fun, and some people need that simplicity or that complexity in order to find a class fun.

And if being stronger is what makes you feel good while playing, it's literally right there for you in the more simplistic classes. PF 2e caters to a wide array of playstyles, without punishing you for choosing a playstyle the game devs decided was incorrect, IE martials vs casters from PF 1e and how the more complex you went, the objectively stronger you got.

You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.

You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.

This games visuals reminds me of Moonbreaker. And that's good, because Moonbreaker is amazing.

All I ask is to please, PLEASE, let us go into a little menu in the character customization to paint our characters like they're real minis.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I still do not understand how so many undervalue lower level slots in PF2 where DCs are not based on spell level at all.

Experience. If at the end of the day I have all my rank 1 slots sitting idle then I should have blended them away. Simple.

I never use all my Rank 1 and 2 spells past the very first levels. I must admit I even forget about reactions like Blood Vendetta but they are so unimpactful it doesn't change my point much. So blending Rank 1 and 2 spells is basically free.

Rank 3 spells are useful for longer, but exchanging 2 rank 3 slots for a rank 5 one is a net gain: The rank 5 spell has the same power level than both rank 3 spells combined but costs twice less actions to cast.

I don't understand that mentality. I can prepare a ton of useful spells in those slots even if I'm combat focused. Stuff like Command, Enfeeble, Grease, Fear, they're all spells that are useful even at higher levels. And it's better to sometimes just have those on deck instead of carrying 10 staffs and 20 scrolls and needing to constantly waste actions pulling out and dropping items on the floor constantly, at least imo.

I like the idea but yeah, it is basically lifting from other classes homework in order to solve the issue. Perhaps some of the ideas the community has given could be good. Maybe giving them a choice at first level for spell substitution or spell blending in the same way that cleric picks warpriest or cloistered, as well as keeping Arcane Thesis as a separate way to further tailor your wizard and reworking those options. That alongside expanding the amount of spells a school grants could help smooth over some of the pain points people have complained about with wizard.

Crouza wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

I've seen a lot of discussions about whether the wizard class is balanced or in need of fixing. Honestly, after checking out other systems, I've noticed that their wizards are all spectacular. Then I look at the 2e wizard and wonder: is this seriously the best we can do? We can do better than this! Fingers crossed that the new rune archetype improves things a bit, because this shouldn’t be the best the 2e wizard can ever be.

Pathfinder 2e shouldn't need to break it's system just because other systems cannot make a balanced Wizard and let it break their games. Wizards/mages break every system I've played it, from DnD to Shadowrun to World of Darkness, 13th Age, Pathfinder 1e. They always are unbalanced and force the entire game to bottleneck around them and their playstyle, and force the gameplay to center entirely around what those players want to play. I applaud 2e for not doing this and actually forcing wizard players to play as part of a team and being just another class you can pick, instead of the best option that gets to force the GM to play around their BS or have nothing matter mechanically.

You're bringing in issues from outside PF2 to colour your opinion of what is being asked for by people who want to improve the Wizard.

Literally no one is asking for whatever you think people are asking for.

PF2's Wizard has specific issues which are true for it within the context of this edition and how it interacts with the game as a whole.

It's important to read what people are saying, not what you think people are saying.

How exactly am I supposed to not jump to that conclusion, when the entire premise of the post i am replying to is "other systems wizards are better so PF 2e should be like them."

I've seen a lot of discussions about whether the wizard class is balanced or in need of fixing. Honestly, after checking out other systems, I've noticed that their wizards are all spectacular. Then I look at the 2e wizard and wonder: is this seriously the best we can do? We can do better than this! Fingers crossed that the new rune archetype improves things a bit, because this shouldn’t be the best the 2e wizard can ever be.

Pathfinder 2e shouldn't need to break it's system just because other systems cannot make a balanced Wizard and let it break their games. Wizards/mages break every system I've played it, from DnD to Shadowrun to World of Darkness, 13th Age, Pathfinder 1e. They always are unbalanced and force the entire game to bottleneck around them and their playstyle, and force the gameplay to center entirely around what those players want to play. I applaud 2e for not doing this and actually forcing wizard players to play as part of a team and being just another class you can pick, instead of the best option that gets to force the GM to play around their BS or have nothing matter mechanically.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The one thing going for it is the 4 spell slots per rank. Cutting it down to 3 makes them infinitely worse than Sorcerers, as if they weren't already. Again, it is like capping Fighters at Master in weapons.

Have you ever even considered a Spell Blending Flexible Specialist Wizard? Because stating it's "worse than a Sorcerer" is clearly missing how strong it is: More high level slots and more spell flexibility. If what you're looking for is a combat powerhouse, then this is exactly what you want. If what you're looking for is an out of combat toolbox, then Spell Substitution is what you want. It's 2 very competitive Wizard builds that I give you.

Now, I agree that not all options are made equal in the Wizard. On that, I fully agree.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

And no, you can't sacrifice school slots for it, so nice try on that.

I've never said anything like that. And anyway it's pointless as these slots are already sacrificed to Spell Blending.

Neat idea. I think I might try this out as a wizard and see how I like it. Play a war wizard focus on being a walking WMD.

You can't fix what isn't broken and wizard isn't broken. Not liking the playstyle that wizard has is fine. But that isn't enough to claim it's broken.

One has to also consider GMing style and preferences when it comes to the difficulty. As I've experienced myself being that kinda braindead GM, you can fill an encounter with enough XP to be 140 with just a horde or PL-2 enemies, and end up not really challenging the party thanks to just not playing the enemies strengths well.

However, compared to 5e, there is less guesswork involved. The less enemies there are, the stronger the enemies the players face will be. The numbers put the scales set to what they will likely be, even with the GM style. I'd say from experience rather than needing to make the Players feel like they're in danger even if they aren't, you instead put the players in danger because they have the tools to fix it.

Healing spells, battle medicine, heal for large numbers. Which means a PC can be hit for a crit that deals 2/3rds of their hp, and a casting of heal or soothe can help get them up enough to survive another hit, alongside ways to keep the enemy from just attacking 3 times in a row and garunteeing killing a PC unless they're very stupid or extremely unlucky.

And at that point, nobody is really mad that it happens. It just becomes a funny moment for the table to joke about post-fight. Versus having to fret about entering that death spiral in 5e because healing is absolutely anemic and once a pc goes down, it's going to be a never ending loop of them going down, getting revived, standing up, and getting downed again, to turn the encounter into an absolute stressful slog and war of attrition.

I can't help but wonder if what people would want is like, wave casting but with like 3 or 4 slots over just the 2. Because I can't image just having like, 15 spells in total like how Kinetcisit works, or just having cantrips and the psyhics amp feature is really satisfying to most casters.

Maybe this is my own bias with casters but I like spellslots. I like being able to punch above and bending the rules that spellslots allow. Feels like trading that for just spamming damage spell is trading the bounty of the ocean of a lagoon of cheap tricks. I've gotten tons of usage out of my lower slots being for utility options or evergreen spells vs the big heavy hitters of my higher level spellslots, and cantrips do decent enough that I don't feel outpaced by my fellow players.

I've never had more than like, 3 encounters in a game and I don't see myself wanting any more than 3. I don't see the so called value of "You can cast all the time" when that kind of game would be absolutely boring and soul crushing to play through for me. I just do not see this as a selling point and I do not get why this is the be all and end all measurement for if a caster is good or bad.

Crouza wrote:

I mean if you're going to go that route and just not have spell slots, are you prepared for all spells across to the board to receive massive nerfs to bring their power in line with cantrips?

I can't speak for everyone else here, but I personally would, yes. I don't think cantrips would necessarily have to be the benchmark, given that the Kineticist is a clear example of an at-will magic-user and their impulses are definitely stronger than cantrips, but I would personally prefer a world in which casters were no longer bound by daily attrition to one where they were, but got a handful of moments in the day where their turn was much bigger than anyone else's.

I'd also go as far as to say that a world in which casters are no longer bound by daily attrition or spell slots need not exclude those high moments either: if we keep a mechanic like focus spells where you can recharge in-between encounters, make those above-average in power, and make other effects slightly below-average in compensation, then you'd still get to have those big bursts of power that would let your class shine at their brightest, and every encounter to boot. We all assume that casters need spell slots to have that differentiation from martial classes, but I don't think that's necessarily true, and a game without that subsystem is still one that could make casters feel different from everyone else.

What's the point of being unbound by attrition? Like, realistically, how many encounters between long resting are you actually want to play in a session that casters need to lose their ability to nova or provide stronger utility in exchange for like, what? Being able to run 10 encounters in a row? Is that honestly what people even want when playing this game? More Combat?

Crouza wrote:

I mean if you're going to go that route and just not have spell slots, are you prepared for all spells across to the board to receive massive nerfs to bring their power in line with cantrips?

If cast w/ 0 FP, then yes, of course.

I think the healthiest thing to do is not only to require multiple FP to boost spells up to max potency, but for the genuinely 0 FP option to be sub-par, and certainly no more potent than current cantrips.

In pf2, as crazy as it is, cantrips like Electic Arc can genuinely do more dmg than slotted spells. That causes all kinds of player weirdness in reaction to that.

========

I think a good base spell design that could work with an "expect to burn FP to get to base spell power" would be for spell text to include:

Heighten: this is mostly unchanged, spell guidance for how they scale with increasing Rank. Note that spending FP now affects the end Rank.

Focused: this entry can keep portions of the spell's power to only activate when any # of FP is spent casting the spell.

This new idea is the main tool for all spells to have "cantrip versions" that keep their identity intact, but power limited. Something like Fireball could start as a 2x2 burst when cast at 0 FP, gaining its usual AoE, airburst mechanic, etc, in its "Focused:" entry.

Amp: not required, but it would be super great if some/most spells came with their own specific meta-magics listed that can cost FP to achieve. If all spellcasters have & use FP at baseline, this becomes a new possibility enabled by the system change.

===========

In that system, cantrips as a concept would become L 0 spells that do not hold much, if any, power behind a Focused: entry, Heighten smoothly, and therefore are comparatively friendly to being cast w/ 0 FP.

Focus spells would be more akin to "always memorized spells" that you have at your disposal every day. And if they also cost FP to cast at baseline power, then Class Feats/Features have much more power budget room to be generous...

This doesn't seem to solve anything. You're just taking the so called problem of "I have only these high level slots and then i'm worthless" and turning into "I only have 3 spells I can cast and then im worthless".

I mean if you're going to go that route and just not have spell slots, are you prepared for all spells across to the board to receive massive nerfs to bring their power in line with cantrips?

A lot of the sustainability thing makes me also curious on how people run PF 2e. Because depending on how a person runs it, you can have running out of slots be a constant problem or not a problem at all. Like for example, a lot of my game usually involves like, a singular fight that entire session, and very rarely do we do dungeons where it's fight after fight after fight. And in those, spell resources are rarely an issue because that's the style of game being run. There's no minimum "Run this many encounters a game to make a balanced experience" at least not one that i've seen, so it feels like if people are noticing players struggling with resource management no matter how much they try to optimize their castings, maybe just cut down the amount of encounters?