Dark_Schneider's page

I like Monk as base class because the lack of armor for better mobility and unarmed attacks.

But noticed that for attacking with shield needs martial weapons, so it should get first the Fighter archetype, that can benefit for taking also AoO and Reactive Shield from it (shield block as general feat), then Bastion mixing with Monk feats starting at level 8 (also the 1st level feat would be Monk) depending if want more shield or unarmed combat based.

If you allow to throw shields, someone with dwarf Returning Throw feat, Shield Block, Reflexive Shield and Adamantine Sturdy shield. Can also get other shield feats if wanted.

Notice that you can get the shield stuff with Bastion archetype, so you could use Monk as class, and Adopted Ancestry if don't want to use a dwarf.

I now wonder what is the best class to build Captain America.

If you allow to throw shields, someone with dwarf Returning Throw feat, Shield Block, Reflexive Shield and Adamantine Sturdy shield. Can also get other shield feats if wanted.

Notice that you can get the shield stuff with Bastion archetype, so you could use Monk as class, and Adopted Ancestry if don't want to use a dwarf.

The Bastard Sword feels great in versatility as you can in the same round:
release hand (free), take a potion, drink the potion, strike (d8)
Then the next round:
Grip with 2 hands, strike (d12), strike (d12).
Greatsword is much more limiting, and with longsword you are stuck with d8. So unless the foe is resistant to slashing, is a nice weapon to use.

If you feel that breaks the game maybe it could be less radical just remove the heighten for Longstrider, so you can only cast 1 hour version.

Shield block fits nicely in the fighter profile, as a class to adapt any combat situation.

Maybe we could be used to the “perfect situation” of typical playing, I wear my perfect equipment, with my perfect companions.

Think that in reality it could be forced to use anything at hand. It is already prepared to use 2-handed weapons (just strike), can also use 2 weapons (but usually requires some extra training as is more complex), but maybe you find in the situation where you have some fighting equipment around to get quickly and ready to combat, which could be some weapons and protections (like a shield), so no matter what you get you are able to fight properly.

So I think it fits perfectly in the base fighter class training.

But the fighter get both AoO and shield block! How can a fighter complain about its use of reaction! The ones to complain could be spell casters.

Just get an archetype of the tradition arcane or occult so you add its spell list to your character. Then you don't need to trick the item.

So currently with your decisions you are not able to cast that spell from an item. The character creation is an important choice on any RPG.

Anyway surprised that your GM is so restricting with some things but looks like uses the garbage magical item shopping core rules with that Amazon that has everything (but wands of longstride haha) and in any quantity (it makes me sick).

They learnt to use a shield in basic fighter training. Others must pay a feat for that.

The Bastard sword is a nice weapon, if it would have the same features than longsword and greatsword, costing the same, who then would use any other?
Is a weapon that let's you have a free hand when required (like grabbing), and change to greater damage die with a single action. There must be some tradeoff.

It could be interesting to see how the titan wrestler guy now suffocates the huge Hydra or the gargantuan Tarrasque. Seriously, don’t you think this should be revised?

Dark_Schneider wrote:

It would be more credible with the condition “if you can grab”, I think about it like the typical brute pulling a chain to avoid the big dragon to move away. But if your hand cannot grab any part of the target to make the catch…

The use of tools should be required, the abstraction sometimes is excessive.

Meh, I disagree. I'm sure you can invent something. The alternative is the "guy at the gym" fallacy where the fighter is bogged down to within human limits but the wizard goes "lol but magic", and nobody wants that.

It's like asking how Gaston (in the original Beauty and the Beast) can essentially juggle refrigerators without all of his joints snapping. He's a literal cartoon, people! You can relax.

Yes, but for me a good role-playing is not a cartoon. There are many things that ruins the experience but that’s another story. And magic is not related is something totally apart, but that’s another of another story.

Reading much about actions like grapple or trip, but both have the same requirement: “Your target isn't more than one size larger than you.”

This makes Enlarge spell much better if you use that tactic.

GMG is on of the best books, as let's you to configure your game and fix some terrible core rules.

Is something new included in the GM Core?

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

After reading through this thread as a whole, I have to ask another question. What about having your KAS starting at 16/+3 instead of 18 when you make a character? Would any of you consider such a bold move in the end? Is there any benefit to not having a 18/+4 in your KAS?

For most characters, starting with a KA mod of +3 instead of +4 effectively means taking a -1 penalty to all of my most important rolls and DCs, a penalty that can stack with all of the other status and circumstance penalties that may occur. Unless I'm playing an extremely funky and MAD build like a Mutagenist Alchemist, which doesn't rely as much on their key attribute so much as others, I would consider lowering my key attribute to be really suboptimal in a game where every +1/-1 matters.

The “every +1 matters” is because the all-or-nothing system. After playing some of them, definitely have a problem with all that maths stuff and the obsession it generates.

We need intermediate results. A table or formula for applying different damages once you have made the attack - defense and get the result, maybe with fixed damages then adding damage dice depending the the result.

Also the stats should start lower, and give more relevance to proficiency, developing both stats and skills getting the final bonus. And the level itself should be lowered a lot (if any), something like level/3 or /4.

The PWL is far superior to the core in the realism but is a half-way solution. It is good but training (defined in previous lines) should matter more.
There is no sense that if you want to push the same rock at level 1 and level 10 the DC would be much different because hey you have to use the expected DC for the characters level. A rock with X weight must have a fixed DC and is your proficiency and Str what you use to push it, the level has nothing to do but maybe some if it is class associated.

The variant stats rule does well but only half. It is good how it splits Dex, and moves Will saves to Cha, but makes Str too strong and Int is untouched while Cha is improved a lot.

The real problem with INT particularly as an attribute is that there is nothing your character can really do with it that you as a player don’t have to do with it first, beyond m possibly having it represent a database in your character’s mind.

There are classes that let you do more, but there is no generic option for letting a character try to critically think their way out of a situation. You can talk or fight or sneak, but thinking your way out always falls back on the player, not the character.

Trying to mechanize critical thinking will always be tricky, which is why it tends to get class locked with features like devise a stratagem , the mastermind racket, and prepared casting. PF2 has raised the bar on how much the player has to critically think to have a character who is good at critical thinking. I think this has lead to a fair bit of player frustration. Especially because players can critically think for characters who cannot with relative ease.

There are other things, like deciphering, or maths. This last one is a good example, as probably the players uses their own maths instead the character's, or even worse get a calculator (any GM allows that?). That is totally wrong, we all are at least trained in maths (by school), and in modern society the Int value can be high on average compared to a fantasy RPG character. So if a character wants to approximate the numbers of an army, must check with its Lore War or Society skills using Int, but I am almost sure that some GMs gives that info to the player if it asks without requiring any check, as they could see it something normal.

So remember to require a check as the characters are not the players, who have learned in academics opposed to their characters, with Int and its associated skills the ones showing who went to academics.

The player can have the ideas, but is its character who executes it. So the player could guide ahead the correct direction, but is the character who have to make the check when required, that is not always of course, but if some kind of skill is required, just when your character want to climb, that don't uses its player skill.

Yes the RAW are not good in this case.

In fact, most probably GMs can improvise a rule better.

I.e. increase difficulty only on failure, and require some kind of refocus to reset the modifier. I see no reason why if I am in the correct path of recalling the difficulty must increase.
This can even be applied to many skill checks, like lock picking and more. I.e. you want to push a rock with your Athletics, if you fail, increase difficulty, as your muscles are more tense and you can get some tired, then require a refocus (AKA some resting) for reset the modifier. In the case of RN, could require to get some kind of info, like documentation.

In my experience, general rules work better, are easier to remember so to apply. Just get your skill bonus, the DC, and then some global rules to apply no matter the skill, then there can be some exceptions, but the lesser the better.

Think the same, just a starting bad roll is not enough reason to no get any info at all, it just means that more time is required. Remember that on critical failure you get false info.

Can set a limit from which if you fail then cannot try more, but not the 1st one.

Surprised about how easily are extra trained skills underrated. You get:

1) It is better to be trained than untrained. A co-op check, if you are alone (so improves individual survivability). It is better if you can succeed with a 16 than only with a 20.

2) Saves you skill points. Use extra trained skills as starting then improve. I.e. you could be a Wizard but be interested to be able to cast Resurrect ritual, use Int to get trained in Religion then just use 1 skill point to get expert, instead using 2 SP.

3) Also, take advantage of it to get trained in skills that usually you wouldn't, i.e. get Athletics even if you are a caster to compensate your probably low Str.

Certainly I can only see advantages.

A Hell Knight is killing the downed PC if they see a cleric in the party cause they know that's the most efficient way to neutralize any attempt at bringing the PC back into the fight.

Yeah that’s the key. That’s why is also important how characters shows to others. I.e. if a Cleric has the “Cleric” neon over its head, with the holy symbol clearly visible, or it wears hidden under the clothes (so the others only can see a character in armor), and etc.

I insist to players about this and define how their characters are and shows. It can have implications beyond something merely mechanic.

Human with long-life from ancient human ancestry. In Characters Guide there are a lot of humans but are just region and/or appearance related, with no real relevance.

It would be very interesting having something like this for making characters like Aragorn, and for long campaigns (a set of adventures during a long time).

Put here as screenshot from document (using Mac Pages), in spanish but the table number is indicated as reference so it should be easy to copy.

Notice that on table 10-5 is indicated in parenthesis the original table value, for easier reference. So if playing any standard content, and a check is indicated with a DC, you then can look for that value in parenthesis and then use the value at left for PWL. I.e. in the adventure is indicated that a trap has DC25 to disarm, looking at the table we see that is a level 8-9 DC, so for PWL use 16-17.

DC tables

From my POV the revised simple DC table is wrong. After making some maths considering always a maxed stat, the results were clear that using PWL is not a "bit harder" to get a success, and with few chance to increase as not adding the level.

In the case of Legendary we have that with normal rules we need a roll of about 12 at level 15, and only 6 at level 20 when the stat is maxed at +6, while using PWL we start with the need to roll a 17 and reduced to 16 when maxing the stat to +6. The difference is huge.

So after averaging some here is my table replacing the GMG table 4-8, don't be surprised considering how proficiency bonus increases:

Proficiency - DC
Untrained - 8
Trained - 12
Expert - 16
Master - 20
Legendary - 24

I could understand the reason for the original table, but in my case I am less worried about a trained with stat +2 character having a critical success on a legendary check if rolling a 20 (2 + 2 + 20 = 24) than requiring a legendary proficient with stat +6 character a roll of 16 to succeed.

I also have computed the other DC tables (10-5 including spell part or learning a spell) but seems not easy to paste a table in the forum format.

Can play the adventure as-is with its content, but at the same time there are many ways to do it. I.e. these two ways of playing differ a lot:

1) In which you just "role-play" all those things "not adding anything to narrative" by merely chating, and no matter what is just for making some time or at most choosing a path. The events will always lead to the expected inescapable next event.

2) In which the adventure content is just an environment, including the story around and the current situation, a set of NPC with their stories and motivations, and that all the GM "guidance" is to ask "what's next?". Improvising and changing that "next" according to players actions.

Said already and Unicorn confirms it that IMHO most of the disagreements about what is good or bad depends greatly about the play style.

Few? Then count another unicorn here.

I see no much reason to play a TTRPG just for following a script, like a video game, even some video games seems to grant some more freedom.

But yes playing that scripted on rails way can just ignore many skills and features, but again please don't try to impose that for the whole system for those who like to play in the full manner. You already have plenty of options, obviously if playing in a narrower way the options set is also narrower.

This is just a note, not implies that prepared casting should not be improved or changed or anything like that.

The Int based is not for being the skilled one, well the Rogue or Investigator are those, but are non-spellcasters. The Wizard and others Int based are full casters with some extra skills training. It could be convenient to have those extra skills, each thing contributes and cannot be just ignored.

I do think that adopting a pretty intense variant rule like Proficiency without Level and starting at level 5 is something that is going to create challenges for players, especially because general strategies about the game get pretty up-ended. I mean, even just looking at casters, your summon spells just leapt forward in power and utility.

A Rank 3 summmon animal spell, for example, could summon a Boar who could spend 2 actions to boartusk charge and have a +10 to their attack roll. That is one less than the fighter mentioned in this example fight.

The meta-analysis of the game changes so hard towards bonuses and penalties to attack being mega boosts, especially with lots of minions on the board that it almost a different game, especially for casters.

Yes but at the same time the game is not so tight to level, being based on training allows (good) things like increases a lot the wide of encounter level, long-term characters (can use the same for multiple adventures), you cannot make a picnic in the battlefield against goblins just because they are not able to touch you, in general is closer to a realistic style, which is the game style I like more.

With this and some others like using skill points and stamina, a much stingier magical item loot and shopping and some touchs here and there, I think the game can be molded nicely.

Dark_Schneider wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Dark_Schneider wrote:

The question is what about if you prefer to hold your staff in your hand because as a full caster it expands your flexibility allowing to cast any of its spells on demand. What interesting action do we have? Because if you are going to be the RK guy, then better get the feat that makes it a free action.

Which feat ? Many of my PCs' builds would benefit from this.

Automatic Knowledge

If requires multiple lores, probably better for a character with an unified one like Bard or Loremaster archetype.

Thank you.

Assurance indeed kills it for my know-it-all builds that rely on Lores.

You can, in fact a nice combo for a lore character is

Well the bonus is a bit lower as is trained and maxed to expert, but you can use for anything, and with Quick Study you get the option the get trained in any specific lore skill daily, and remember that these skills grants more precise info. I.e. you know are going to face a dragon, then Quick Study for Dragon Lore that day.

If you got Arcana as skill to improve, you can get then Unified Theory so you have legendary proficiency concerning any magical tradition check.

Looking more in depth the PWL, I see it more and more interesting.

I think making a backup of a spell already learnt is not the same than learn a spell.

The cost for learning a spell is associated with experimentation included in the process. For making a copy should not have the same cost.

Some off-play rules are written vaguely indeed not only this one. As quick rule I'd say half cost just like for crafting including only materials. And maybe change hours by minutes.

And I have to suppose that spells written is a spellbook are protected against liquid, weather and etc (another thing not written in rules). If not and is just something written in paper for studying, the cost would be just mundane ink and pen.

It is supposed that you adjust encounters by budget right? Or am I mistaken on something?
Then if you want a severe encounter and put an APL+3 boss it should be alone, and if putting an APL+2 boss could be with another 4 APL-4 minions.

It's just like 5E.

Prepare your list like Vancian. Spells have levels or ranks. Heighten at will.

The only thing eliminated is the spell being forgotten after a prepared caster uses it which was only one aspect of Vancian casting, which is why I call it Spontaneous Vancian casting. It combines aspects of Vancian casting with spontaneous casting.

Some folks seem to think non-Vancian casting means spell points or something.

I think it's just easiest to keep the level or rank format of Vancian casting and the once prepared on the list it stays prepared until you can change the list, but when it comes to actually using the spells you use the spell needed.

The slots are already so limited, it makes your entire list more valuable. The number of balance limiters in place are so effective at ensuring you can't break the game, it works fine.

PF2 game designers did a really nice job of creating multiple balance points in the game. PF2 is layered with balance limiters that create this tightly balanced game. Once you understand all these layered balance points, you can remove a few without breaking the game.

PF2 is a very nicely designed game that is very modular, tightly balanced, and easy to modify all in one. I changed this one thing and all the other balance points in place ensure I can still run the game fine.

Well notice that in that case the "prepared" are just the best, as it's like a repertoire that can be changed on rest with all the spells as signature, so there would be no reason to use a pure spontaneous.

Probably for your games is a way to balance the whole considering the focus spells and other features. But if we split by pieces, taking only the slots spellcasting, using the system I mention would be more balanced, with "prepared" not having signature but can change the "repertoire" on rest, so compensates.

For balancing, maybe in games like yours where focus spells are so important could allow the Wizard to get Sorcerer focus spells and things like that, instead improving so much the prepared casting. I.e. allowing the evoker to get the Elementalist Sorcerer focus spells with their corresponding 3 feats (the same than the Sorcerer ones at the same level).
This is balancing part by part.

I see Rangers more with a bow than a crossbow. It's curious how PF wants the Ranger to use crossbows.

To me the transition from 1e to 2e made prepared casting less fun and spontaneous casting more fun.

In 1e prepared casters had enough slots to get a good selection of spells and then decide which ones should have multiple casts. In 2e since total spell slots have been halved, you have to choose between having a wide selection and having multiple casts. So that's 1 more way you can choose "wrong" in a spellcasting style that requires you to predict your day in advance.

By contrast spontaneous casters gained signature spells, which effectively doubles their selection of high rank spells. Sure the prepared caster can prepare the exact perfect spell if they plan right, but with twice as many spells to choose from the spontaneous caster doesn't need the perfect spell, they'll have something that works.

That makes me think indeed that maybe prepared should have some more slots as compensation. Maybe only one, being a 5-slot (compared to the 4-slots Sorcerer that is the spontaneous pure spellcaster), but could be enough.

It would be good if they fix some Focus spells to be worth and adding more thesis with levels instead getting only one at first.

* Can't use teleport because it is uncommon.

Here is when Lore academic takes importance. You know about academics so could know a library where the spell is, and go for it to learn. uncommon does not means non-existent.

* Familiars cannot scout because they require being commanded.

Invisibility + trained in Stealth.

* High Int is practically useless.

More skills and languages is not useless.

* Water Breathing is hyper situational.

But life saving. Notice that for all these situational the more important is to have in your list, so can use scrolls when required.

* Charm is incapacitstion, aka only really works on mooks.

And setting NPC friendly, which can be pretty handy.

* Different damage types is a thing, but many people like thei mono element casters. Also prepared cannot adjust spells on the fly to target weaknesses. Another thing, martials have plenty of ways to trigger weaknesses even without magic.

That is more about character creation (making mono element is a choice). For martials depends much about your magical item system, but with magic is easier usually.

I like the flexible spellcaster. I like it enough even at the current cost of lost spells and a feat.

Admittedly, I tend to take it on druids who have ways to compensate for the lower number of spells (good focus spells and/or wild shape)

Flexible spellcasting with an archetype to get some extra spell slots (and adding another tradition for item usage) is nice indeed.

Prepared usually cannot use all their slots, so it is mostly like if they have less, but in the other hand the top on tuning as you can spend a single spell slot instead a spell (of a repertoire or collection). You could have literally as many different spells as spell slots number.

A good friend of a prepared one is a staff, so it can recharge it an delegate to the staff some of its capabilities, as works in a power points manner, instead using slots.

I have to notice that many light spells has verbal component, so if reading was mandatory it would make those scrolls much useless as you couldn’t use it on darkness.
Also notice that material component is replaced by somatic, which you can use with the same hand holding the scroll.

With the written rules and after thinking about all this I see scrolls more like you hold it in your hand (even rolled) and using an activating word if has verbal component, then the scroll banish and it creates the effect.

In a role playing game there's a very big difference between a player with forty years of experience and a character with forty years of experience. If your table wants to ignore that, fine, but to me that's not what the game is all about.

This. What is being said here is that my meta-knowledge of the game replaces the system skills. What I do is that if I notice the players do that, I do it for the enemies too, like if they had access to the players capabilities.

Then it also could be applied to socials, if I as player am eloquent and talks convincing then no matters if my character has Charisma -2 and no skill training, right?

Another thing is using common-sense, but no one said you MUST do a RK on every combat. Which differs much about being very useful at the right situation. Just like any skill.

Crafting and Lore? Are you kidding me? Crafting is ok if you have tons of downtime or are crafting lower level scrolls or items. Even those are not necessary. Crafting is extremely clunky and requires a lot of downtime to take advantage of the coin saving for crafting.

Whereas Diplomacy or Intimidate are useful in combat and out of combat.

Crafting is not particularly useful in combat. Why do you like Lore? Nearly every major skill can make a RK knowledge check and some for often the most brutal creatures aren't even intelligence based. Even once you make the check, it not even matter. The thing may already be dead with your martials covered in guts asking, "Anything we need to know?"

Again differences between play styles. I should ask the same.

Crafting only takes 4 days and for making 4 consumables. You can equip the party much better at half cost. 4 days!! You really don't rest at some time? Then if you play the style of "saving the world in 5 minutes" right, but for a more normal adventuring pace is a nice skill.

And lore...well they are mandatory. How you know then the level of the encounter and creatures, their HP, if have regeneration, the lowest saving throw to target it, type of damage, weakness, resistances...or you know all of that? There is a feat allowing to make 6 recall knowledge with 1 action. And if you know what is, you can make them previously, i.e. you know your are going to face a Green Dragon, so can make them to get the main characteristics, and you could try to survey it (some spells are good for this) and determine its type (age) to gather the final info with more precise numbers. Then go and prepare, crafting the required consumables and etc. There is a huuuuuge difference when you face prepared.
How do you identify items, and use items of other traditions? There is a feat for that but requires the lore check.
How do you try to translate texts? They could have crucial information.

So if you have nothing of that in your games then right, in the other hands in my games usually you would get randomized items, have to gather information, and so many other things, I say absolute nothing but the introduction and then let the players play their role as if was their life in that place in a full RPG style, nothing comes to them just "because are the players".

IMO the source here is some players viewing this ttrpg through the lens of a video game raid

The main reason of disagreements, the play style. Each thing can look nice or bad depending of how you play the game.

In fact, you can make a martial with caster archetype, a caster with martial archetype, or in the other hand you can make casters with up to 6 spells of each level with 2 casters archetypes.

So make the one you like. How moldable characters are in PF2 is impressive

Exactly, is the alternative of holding a weapon but your staff or wand only instead, allowing to strike or casting with all the components (free hand for material) on demand. Currently there is no alternative.

Could also be the chance to banish another classical, the caster with the crossbow in hands for rounds not casting spells. The at-will cantrips changed this but probably many use a weapon at the same time, as you could just have only 1 action in the round for any reason or maybe you prefer to attack the AC.

Change it by a wand, i.e. Currently the wand you equip it, cast its single spell, and unequip. How about wearing it actively instead? You can use it to cast its spell, or as device for your basic spell attack, if required, instead using a hand crossbow or any other.

It can be the worst attack thing, as if you are more into spell casting, you could prefer to have a free hand for material component but having the chance to make an attack if required, but not as preference, while having access to the magical device capabilities (the spell/s into the wand or staff).

1) Because you don’t want to burn your slots that way. Specially when you don’t know how much is left ahead and rest is not an option because hostile area.

2) Because you don’t want to fill all your slots with MM, there are many other things, some utility/defense/buff is always mandatory. So more reason not spending your few prepared for MM in that way.

So unless you play with a style based only on combat with many rests, is not an option to use it as the way to regularly fill those 1 action remaining.

I repeat Magic Missile is not the answer, specially for prepared spells casters. Is for that 1 action sometimes remains with no use, or as supplement for the round, as replacement of what actually is made with weapons. Then having the Attack trait is too the appropriate, compared to an auto-hit not counting for multi-attack penalty.

You can then always use MM as required if you think is better for the case (multi-attack penalty, auto-hit) spending the slot, but not as norm.

My dad sue with a 1 action attack roll cantrip is that the damage would be so low and as a “fire and forget” third action accuracy is going to be low too, and then you’ll really have the “spell casting accuracy is terrible crowd” chomping at the bit because they are standing still and taking attacks with map or at targets with cover, with a barely noticeable damaging spell.

It is much much better to encourage either more tactical use of third actions, or getting options like force bolt/magic missile that are some what limited auto hit as that keeps the casting metagame interesting and different from martial “attack moar” options.

The psychic power is interest as their unique thing. A base d4 30ft or less attack roll cantrip would feel pretty generic and often mislead players into thinking that the only cantrips worth casting are save spells so your third action can be a negligible attack roll spell that will almost never do anything significant. I fear it would make more cantrips feel worse than it would really boost the caster game, especially because there are in class options for the blastier casters already (sorcerer, wizard, psychic).

It is not only the 3rd action, is a way to combine save with attack spell, or using 2 actions in other thing (maybe recall knowledge and move) and do something with the 3rd not burning resources in something marginal. Now you do it with weapons, but that doesn't feel good if you make a pure caster that wants to delegate completely on your magic.

A cantrip dealing d4 and in parallel with Devastating Attack (AKA strike runes) for the number of dice could be the answer.

It would be weaker because it would make an attack, which can miss.

@Unicore unless you can rest a lot you cannot use the slots that way. It is a tactical option and that’s why MM is a 1 to 3 actions spell. But again unless playing a very easy to rest game type cannot be used that way regularly at all.

If one action blasting after casting another spell ids your thing, I highly recommend trying out the evoker/battle mage wizard, and making use of magic missile as a one action spell. It is very effective for consistent damage.

That is an inefficient way to burn your spells. Probably can only use that on games which resting is very easy even at hostile areas (AKA no enemy patrols with no encounter rolls when resting).

I have to recall that this comes from the topic about attack vs saving spells being the attack ones less worth as they cannot attack weakness and don't get Potency like weapons. Then it was suggested that maybe it could have been designed that way because be able to combine one saving with attack with no penalty for compensation.
But at the end there are no 1-action attack spells, so the issue was not solved. If we have to use weapons for that, then the utility of the attack spells over or combined with saving ones is left apart.

That is like Rolemaster worked, and loved it. It used spell lists, instead individual spells, with different effects and greater versions at higher levels. So we had "Fire Law", i.e.

But, if use that, it is recommended some kind of limit for not getting all the spells in the list so easily.

In fact it was an idea to apply to D&D I already was thinking about, use thematic groups of spells at a greater cost, so if you get:
- Fire group: fire bolt, burning hands, scorching ray, fireball, fire wall, etc.
- Movement: leap, feather fall, misty step, fly, dimensional door, etc.

As noticed for characters getting repertoires like Sorcerer or Bard is easier to set a limit, but for those getting from the list like Cleric or learning unlimited like Wizard is harder.

That could be because the Devastating Attack of ABP should be a standard not depending on items, just like spells. But using the base system with a generous magical item loot and rune system allowing to move them between items is not much a problem though.

Elemental Sorcerer already adds the spell level for both Focus and Bloodline spells using slots. For the last ones if you mix with Dangerous Sorcery you add twice the spell level to damage.
Maybe some tuning to add cold and allowing to modify a bit the Bloodline spells (i.e. I miss Cone of Cold).
And also there are feats to bypass resistances.

Then, that doesn't cut the access to other resources but is specialized in one element that probably you will prefer to use.

Currently for me the system allows to get specialization while preserving the balance, which can be lost easily with deep modifications for excessive specialization.

3-action system and the character creation options. It is hard not to find something fitting your expectations.

For a PF3 probably moving the bonuses from level to training, for making it a more skill development system. So something like (lvl / 2) + (2 x training), I mean, training levels granting double bonus than currently, and level half. This would make to have to recalculate all the difficulty maths, but it is a new version instead a revision.

And as I am a skill development system lover, use the stat purchase system on GMG but for skills, getting Development Points depending the level (more at higher levels) to purchase any skill, including Perception, Magic (attack and DC), weapons, etc. Each grade of training more expensive, with each class having preferred skills, with normal cost for them, and double for the others. Can keep points for later levels.

This could make all more complex and adds bookkeeping, but you know if is for asking...