Penanggalen

Gawain Themitya's page

14 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Fair enough, apologies for the assumption of malintent. I've dealt with enough nonsense in various places that sometimes something comes off too readily as negative, despite my generally trying to avoid assuming the worst of others.

To be honest, one of the reasons I'm mainly a lurker and not a poster is because writing posts in threads over the Internet is way off to be a perfect way to communicate and misunderstandings are quite common. As Mark Seifter wrote in another post, lack of context is the prime suspect, I believe.

While I can advocate for myself and not wanting to be malicious, my past posts surely was not perfectly written so I'll try to get better - and to convene a tone more adequate for this forum.

Edge93 wrote:
As to continuing the suggestion, I'm honestly not sure. I feel like opinions on both sides have been pretty well stated and expounded on, along with some potential in-between options. I think at this point it's at more of an agree to disagree point than anything.

But we can agree that we need more spoilers!

Edge93 wrote:
One thing I will add on it though, I think comparing PF1 and PF2 Sorcerers beyond a certain point is a mistake.

True - again, I feel guilty as the one who started it by calling out 5E.

But I want to return to this topic for one second, hoping to not derail.
The first time I called out "5E spellcasters" was not a comparison made in the light of "power level" or "play level" or even "play experience" of Sorcerers per se. I was not trying to compare Sorcerer between different editions of different RPG.
The thing I tried (badly) to focus on was how the system is ingrained at the rules level: how spellcasting works in 5E is, in itself, universal, with the same rules for every one and how in my experience the simplicity of the system seems to be, again in my personal opinion, one of the best version of the Vancian spellcasting for every class in 5E - as I write this, I'm aware I don't know how spellcasting really is in PF2 and even I can't know if the new spellcasting will be a better experience for me and/or my group, but again, I created this thread to speculate and gain information, so having people with different opinions are most certainly welcomed.
When we look at what we know about PF2, my major concern how expressed in other posts is how rules for spontaneous casters seems different for various design reasons, that surely cover things like "analysis paralysis" and balance, and the things that I keep can't grasp is how, in the scales of PF2's developing, this points generated more weight then others - and all of this I find as the source of my most aggressive answers, a mix of what we know and don't know, of what will, could and won't be in the final version of the game.
Most of my anxiety surely went away by knowing that by design the game can be more adapted to different tables, helping people transitioning to one system to the other and to grant the best experience to everyone without creating a cascade effect on rules and balancing inside the game itself if a rule, like how spontaneous spellcasting works, is changed. Something that, always in my opinion, I don't find true in other TTRPGs.
I put a lot of hope and comfort in this.

Mark Seifter wrote:
[...]but it just felt to me like it was mostly that Gawain was someone who's very passionate and feels really strongly about sorcerers in a way that might have caused him not to be thinking from other viewpoints as much when he worded that post, and so I responded in kind. We're all gamers and we love Pathfinder[...].

Eheh. I pass as a very chill guy in real life and I surprise even myself for the times I get so passionate for what is, after all, a game.

Squiggit wrote:

I think there really isn't much benefit in comparing cross system after all. Perhaps even detrimental given that one of the impetuses to make PF2 was that PF1 was weighed down by 3.5 baggage and constantly worrying about how the new compared to the old. Looking back at PF1 and other systems can give us a frame of reference and an idea of what to look for in terms of progress, but I don't think direct comparisons add much.

The focus should instead be on how the class looks in its own world, wholly separate from PF1.
How good does the class feel to play? That includes everything from how varied and impactful its options feel to how difficult and complex it is to figure out and so on.
How well does it fulfill its own fantasy? Does it feel like your character is tapping into arcane secrets in their blood to unleash devastating magic?
And finally, how well does it compare to its peers, primarily the wizard, secondarily other full casters and tertiarily every other class.

Admittedly kind of hard since we only have a limited picture of what the final project, but my point is that "This is better than in PF1" or "This is worse than in PF1" don't mean a lot on their own because lots of moving parts have changed and PF1 sorcerers are never going to be competing against PF2 sorcerers anyways.

These are excellent points. I add: this post by tqomins shows all the Multiclass Archetypes feats, that we can use as a reminder and to expand on the questions rised by Squiggit, expecially in the compare part.


Mark Seifter wrote:
For me, the critical design philosophy for PF2 is modularity: We built the game in such a way that we can all make changes to make our dreams and preferences a reality, without causing weird or unexpected side effects in various other systems that throw off the rest of the game. That way, if your group wants to do something different with spontaneous casters, we want you to be empowered to make that change and we want to make instituting that change as easy for you as is possible. On Arcane Mark last night, Elfteiroh mentioned that they usually didn't feel confident making bigger houserule changes in PF1 but have already started getting excited for some in PF2 and feeling confident in being able to adjudicate and apply them based on the playtest and the reveals so far. I hope that continues to be true!

From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your post.

You wrote a lot of things that hit hard and in the right places. I understand, for what is worth it, that your job and the job of everyone at Paizo is not easy, and sometimes we fans don't support you in the right ways. I didn't want to sound ungrateful.
So, I think I'll just wait and see the final Sorcerer and, after trying it, if I still won't like it I'll make like Elfteiroh and try to overcome my fear of houserules to use the modularity at the core of this system to make the game more comfortable for my group and I.
Thank you again for your continue effort to make a great game for everyone!

Edge93 wrote:
Again, I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and hope that attitude and approach isn't your intent as that's no proper way to act on these forums, but if it isn't your intent then I figured I should probably say something so that you know that it's very much how you come across.

I'm truly sorry! Honestly I didn't want to sound like that or infer such things BUT after re-reading my post(s) I can see how I can appear/sound to people. I apologize and you made the right call in, well, calling me out.

Just to better clarify one of the most important things: I don't think my opinions are correct more than anybody else! It's true that I *don't* like the system for how I imagine it is (for lack of information and based on pure speculation) and this is my opinion that touches only myself but I would never imply that people who enjoy the same system are wrong.
To make an example: I don't like very much pure Vancian spellcasting, I love the possibility to have the Wizard/Arcanist/Sorcerer sub-systems in the same game because I can choose the one that most fit me. But I would never imply that just because I prefer one spellcasting system over the others then my choice is better in some way.
Don't know how to put this part on words better, I just hope what I wrote made sense!

And to close the circle: how do you suggest we can spur the conversation in a better direction/good discussion about the Sorcerer/Spontaneous Spellcaster Signature Spell?
(in a modest effort to claim back this thread from all the people talking about Resonance)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I mean... PF2e Sorcerers are in a strictly better situation compared to PF1e. Even if they had no spontaneous heightening AT ALL, they would still not be as far behind Wizards as PF1e Sorcerers were.

You can argue "PF2e didn't do enough", but you can't really argue "PF2e didn't address the problem at all". The devs clearly tried.

While I can thanks them for trying because they are doing what I can't, meaning creating a new tabletop rpg with the wide scope of fixing a lot of PF1 problems, I still feel let down. Expecially because personally I wanted so little, I suppose. I mean, I literally see more people trying to found explanations for how things are instead of admitting that it could been easier, nicer and better overall if they went in a different direction.

I'm probably guilty too, by the way.
In fact, I removed myself from the Playtest because I thought, wrongly, that the product would have gone in a direction I wouldn't like. While the revelations from the Banquet put me back in the game... these little discoveries are hurting.
It's like when they announced the PF2. My hype was stellar, then the Blog post about magic came and I lost every hope.
I tought that my feedback couldn't change things and... well.
We are seeing that it seems that my fear was, after all, real.
What's coming out is a mix of sweet and bitter, with things I like and things I hate.

I still need to see the finished product to understand if this is a game for me and/or my groups, but I created this thread because spellcasting, spontaneous casting and Sorcerers are, first and foremost, what I focus on in the game and in the system, so...
Yeah, I really need to know this so I can quiet my heart and decide what to do, while knowing that the 1st of august I'll read everything on AoN anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The argument "Sorcerer should be this really simple class for beginners" is just... no.

I don't even discuss it. Move on.

On other things I found something in the 100 Spoilers Thread.

Cards numbers 69-70-91:

69. Undead
Sorcerer Bloodline
The touch of undeath runs through your blood. Your family tree might contain powerful undead, like a vampire, or perhaps you died and returned a bit different.
Spell List divine (page 309)
Bloodline Skills Intimidation, Religion
Granted Spells cantrip: chill touch; 1st: harm; 2nd: false life; 3rd: bind undead; 4th: talking corpse; 5th: cloudkill; 6th: vampiric exsanguination; 7th: finger of death; 8th: horrid wilting; 9th: wail of the banshee
Bloodline Spells initial: touch of undeath; advanced: drain life; greater: grasping grave
Blood Magic Necromantic energy flows through you or one target. Either you gain temporary Hit Points equal to the spell's level for 1 round, or a target takes 1 negative damage per spell level.

70. Bloodline Magic
Sorcerer Class Feature
Whenever you cast a bloodline spell using Focus Points or a granted spell from your bloodline using a spell slot, you gain a blood magic effect. If the blood magic offers a choice, make it before resolving the spell. The blood magic effect occurs after resolving any checks for the spell’s initial effects and, against a foe, applies only if the spell is a successful attack or the foe fails its saving throw. If the spell has an area, you must designate yourself or one target in the area when you cast the spell to be the target of the blood magic effect. All references to spell level refer to the level of the spell you cast.

91. Horrific Visage
Focus 3
*Uncommon, Emotion, Fear, Illusion, Mental, Sorcerer, Visual*
Cast [>>] somatic, verbal
Area 30-foot-radius emanation centered on you
Saving Throw Will
You briefly transform your features into the horrific visage of a hag, striking fear into your enemies. Foes in the area must attempt a Will save.
Success The foe is unaffected
Failure The foe is frightened 1.
Critical Failure The foe is frightened 2.
Heightened (5th) Foes in the area are frightened 1 on a success, frightened 2 on a failure, and frightened 3 and fleeing for 1 round on a critical failure. They are still unaffected on a critical success.

Totally unimpressed by Bloodline Magic, as it works only on preselected spells and feat-gated abilities. (but I get how it is close to the Bloodline Arcana of PF, so, a terrible ability taking place of a terrible ability).

It will be really really fun, on the other hand, to explain to new and young players
"You see, this spell, Magic Missile, that you got at 1st level, you can't use the Heightened version because you need to use this limited feature to get it. But cantrips and this cool bloodline abilities instead works as intended and they are automatically heightened and you learn them too at the intended level! Fun, right?" (Sorry, too much sarcasm but I really can't tone it down.)

graystone wrote:
Not all of us get to have a single group to play with. For me it would mean having the sorcerer work differently in different groups all based on pre game posts.

This is the reason I never houserule anything in any of my groups, at least for myself (if the DM and an other player want to that, they're welcome, of course). I prefer to keep the closest to the rulebook, not bringing homebrew and try to get the vision the developers wanted. Of course, I get angry a lot of times for this.

Mellok wrote:
In my mind they choose to create a game mechanic problem for a print page count reason.

Adding "page count" to the list of reasons they didn't give full spontaneous heightening to Sorcerers.

Mellok wrote:
I keep hoping Mark will stick his head in here and throw us a slight spoiler.

The sooner I get the full rules about spontaneous casters, the sooner I can go throught the 5 stages of grief.

Denial: Oh no they didn't. There'll be an errata soon, right?

Anger: BUT WHY?!? WHY?!? THEY GOT THE FEEDBACK! WHY?!?

Bargaining: It's ok. I can houserule. Or maybe they are stronger then I can perceive, I just really need to try! Or at least they are easy to run! Yes!

Depression: What's the point? There isn't a system for me out there, even PF2 failed me...

Acceptance: Ok. I'll do the DM.


After some considerations I'm making this post to address few things.

First, I had made a spoiler at the end of this message to include my speculation about Signature Spell from what we know about it, and to how I guess (and mostly hope) will appear in the final book. I remind everyone that speculating and trying to find information about this feature is still the topic of the thread, and not comparing how spellcasting works in different rpg systems (I'll admit I was the first to cast this stone).

Second, I'll make statements about the ongoing discussion. Notice that I'm not referring to anyone in particular. If you want to imagine the tone of my words, imagine that I'm just sad.

About the analysis paralysis problem, I can only say that I've played with a lot of players in my years of table top gaming. There were good and bad (but mostly good) players, from 12 to 40+ years old, to novice first time players, to overly experts min-maxer guys, to every kind of rpg-goer in a lot of systems. If you write "I'm not giving you this choice not for a power level problem, or a balance problem, or any kind of math problem but because I think you won't be able to make the right choice when the time comes" just know that you are insulting me and every player I had played with. Your assumption that I or the people at my table won't have the mental ability to pick a spell between some choice just "because" it's really demorilizing. So know that when you are enforcing this you are just saying that the rule exist and it's how it is because I'm too dumb to have more breadth in selecting my options.

To take this on another ground, and to prove a point I found difficult to express in other posts: this is a game. A kind of "cooperative game" where even your worst enemy, the DM, is your friend and it's playing with you, all the time. I don't know everyone else in this thread (or in this forum), and I can only talk about my experience but I have always found help at my table when asked, and I had always given help too. When I or someone else didn't know what to do in any kind of situation and found itself blocked by the possibilities that a RPG comport, everyone helped. So, if you still think that a single player can't pick the right spell and found itself blocked, think about how a group of players and friends can overcome that same situation in the blink of an eye.

This was my thoughts - that said, move on to different things, let's see my Signature Spells.

Gawain's Signature Spells:

1st level feature
Spontaneous casters are more capable in the casting of some spells, called Signature Spells.
Sorcerers call all their Bloodline Spells Signature Spells, and for every level of spells they know they can pick 1 of them to be an additional Signature Spell.
They get 2 benefits:
First, they know every version of the spell at each heightnable level.
Second, each day they can cast each one of their Signature Spells once at their base level.
Everytime you level up in this class, you can change one of your Signature Spells (but you can't change Bloodline Spells).

Consideration:
We know that by feedback Sorcerers was very weak in the playtest and the Spontanous Heightening feature was not well received.
By the text of Versatile Signature, a Bard Feat, we can infer that Signature Spell refers to a spell for each level the spellcaster can cast ad minimum.
Also, it was called that some Bloodlines was weaker then others for the existence of Spontaneous Heightening.
By making the Signature Spells additional castings it doesn't matter too much if they can be heightened or not - everyone get the same extra spells. The extra known spells are extra, sure, but your not completely forced to pick heightnable spells as every spell can be a Signature Spell. Also, you get only a free cast at the base level, not one free at heightnable ones.
It grants spontaneous casters additional spell slots, making them more in par with their PF1 counterparts and differentiate them from the prepared casters.
But notice that this extra slots are not pure, free, slots: they are fixed by your choice of Bloodline and Signature Spells, making them less versatile while granting the additional firepower.
On Bards: I can see them not getting extra spells from their muses, because compositions, but with this feature they still get an extra slot each day, making them second in maximum number of slots behind the Sorcerers.

Am I too optimistic? What would you change? Can't wait to see what the real feature do - and see how much I went in the wrong direction!


I create the BG for my character starting with their birthing and uprising. As such, they are always young or in their prime as they start adventuring because I feel natural to get a 17-20 something (in human years, round up or down for race) to be a lvl 1 character. Then experience can create an hero out of a farmer boy in just a couple of weeks, and that's a really nice cliche that I want in my games.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Loreguard wrote:
Again, in my opinion, they should be consistent about if they are the same spell, or aren't the same spell. Prepared casters shouldn't get to treat them as the same spell if spontaneous ones can't. Either that or basically spontaneous casters are becoming the clumsy replacement of arcanaist casters. They have to prepare their known spells ahead of time using downtime and heightening abilities as if they are basically pseudo-prepared casters.

This. You expressed what I was trying to say perfectly.

masda_gib wrote:
If you could heighten all spells, you would be softly forced to choose only heightenable spells to get the most milage out of your choice.

But in a system where you get 1 Signature Spell for each level you can cast you are forced to

1) take at least 1 heightnable spell at each level
2) make sure that you keep retrain and focus your single choice to get the most of it.

Again, while the comparison with 5E is not helping, I'll never felt compelled to prefer a heightnable spell in 5E on an other one. It's just an option in spells that are, for their basic construction, scalable and that make sense with how spell slot works.

In PF2 I found the discrepancy between Spontaneous/Everyone else like a forced rule made just to make life hard for the first category, why not bothering everyone else.

Arachnofiend wrote:
What if the Sorcerer's Signature Spell is just better than a Wizard casting the same spell? It'd only need to be a minor boost, but picking Summon Monster as your spell that you want to be able to spam freely throughout your career and being able to wave around that choice in front of the generalist Wizard as proof of why you're better at summoning than he is would definitely help make up the gap in versatility.

It's a nice concept, but my problem with how this thing works is the discrepancy and the different ruleset behind it, not a power level thing.

If Spontaneous Casters get something from Signature Spells, it's okay I guess, but I still have trouble in explain and use a rule that I found cumbersome.

Kyrone wrote:
Sorcerers have something more that we don't yet every time that they cast something related to their bloodline.

By the spoiler so far it's the Blood Magic feature that grant you something when you cast spells (don't know the specific on how this work, but the Undead Bloodline get for example Temporary HP to you or Negative Damage to target equal to spell level.)

Sure a welcome thing, but again, not the source of my problem with the system (as speculated).


Landon Winkler wrote:
...

While I get what your point is, I cannot disagree more: by progressing I understand what my low level spells do, and what heightening them could achieve me. "3 levels ago I threw this Magic Missile thing and hit that impossible-to-hit thing; I think I'll redo that with a really high spell level, let's see". This feels natural.

Also your reasoning says "people can understand how to auto-heighten only a fixed number of spells, if you go up then boom, they collapse". I don't believe this either...

Deadmanwalking wrote:
...

While I share everything you said in your last comment let me say that comparing sheer numbers for the power of spells in 5E/PF2 doesn't work, both for the difference in foes HP and weakness. (Speculating on the PF2 rules on this, if they are the same as the Playtest.)

And you didn't sound harsh, just made me self-conscious on my tone, damned written text over the internet that don't transfert inflection!

Insight wrote:
...

Joining your analisys with Deadmanwalking one, you made an excellent point and I myself can see more in the middle at the utility of upcasting spells: I really love what they did to 6 and higher level spells in 5E so I try to cast them more, while the first 5 levels are more in the spur of the moment.

To return on the topic and keep going on the speculation about PF2 and the fact that I don't buy, not even for a second, the "choice paralisys is the problem and this is the fix", I will say this, inspired by this last post by

Kyrone wrote:


Let's shift the point of view a little... this is assuming that Signature spell works the way that we think that we are assuming.

If a lvl 8 Wizard prepare Invisibility in a 4th spell slot it means that they didn't prepare something else there, this would mean that they have something like:

4th spell slot: Invisibility, Random 4th spell x2, School Spell

While Sorcerer would have the option to have:

4th Spell slot: 3 Random Know Spells, Bloodline Spell, Invisibility (Signature 2nd level Spell), Signature Spell from the 1th and 3rd level.

Ok, now listen to this.

I'm a lvl 8 Wizard and I made the unique choice to learn only heightnable spells with a 4 level heightening. I'm a Conjurer and start with Summon Monster as a bonus spell known and 1 extra slot to prepare Conjuring spells.
I know 11 1 level spells, 4 2 level spells, 4 3 level spells and 4 4 level spells.
I prepare my spells, starting with my 4 4 level slot.
I have 23 possible spells to prepare here, and I must choose which one and which quantity between 1 and 4.
Later in the day I use my thesis (the spoiled one) to change one of the 4 level prepared with a 10 min rest.
This account only for the 4 level spells.
Repeat this exercise and change the Wizard with the Cleric and the Druid.

While I understand that "Time in combat is more precious", I cannot see the "choice paralisys" thing as the excuse to give this treatment to spontanous casters. Prepared casters will take their time to prepare, change and fixed their spells prepared, and that requires time too and choice paralisys too.

And I'm making this point only because, and I want to make clear that this is my point here, that my problem with this thing is not a balancing issue ("I want Sorcerer to be stronger 'cos my favourite class, muh!") but how this system is rigged in favor of prepared casters, create a useless complication for spontaneous ones and it's really hard to grasp. This is how I see it and I can't unseen this.

Auto-heightining is much cleaner.

I end with this: what are the chance that an errata will change the system, considering how feat and features are based on this?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


A 5th level Sorcerer in 5E has 6 spells known. Total. A 5th level Sorcerer in PF2 has 11 spells known. A 20th level Sorcerer in 5E has 15 spells known. A 20th level Sorcerer in PF2 has 37 or so. So we're talking around double the base number of spells known to start with.

Your point on the quantity of spells is something I didn't think off and surely appreciated - but I honestly was thinking about the most "choice paralyzed" class of 5E, so too speak, like a 20 level cleric with a 20 Wis can prepare 25 spells of their choice from the cleric list, everytime 25 different spells, and heighten them as they choose during the day.

Deadmanwalking wrote:


Additionally, heightening spells in 5E is very rarely a good idea, with the effects of heightening often being so weak as to be meaningless. They're much more powerful on average in PF2.

Heightening spells is always, even in the final days of the Playtest after the SpellBump Update, a suboptimal choice. Higher level spells are stronger, period. The possibility to use a low level spell in an higher slot to obtain a greater effect is a simple concept that can apply perfectly if you have a specific case and as such rarely get the explosive effect one could think off - but I understand that each experience is unique and probably devs' table and yours, maybe, got more of these situations. Most of my experience come from 5E with the self-heightnening, so I can only talk about how one never find himself paralyzed in front of which spell cast only because all of them are heightenable and how heightening them was a suboptimal choice.

Deadmanwalking wrote:


So combining more than twice as many starting choices with Heightening being a reasonably optimal choice a lot more of the time makes option paralysis a vastly more likely state of affairs.

A thing that I'm aching for in PF2 is more complexity, not less. I will be quite disappointed if 5E have parts more intricated than PF2. And I found 5E easy to run and to play, in contrast to PF1 (which admittely I play a lot of too...).

What I desired from PF2 is a child of two worlds who could carry the best of both.

And here's where thing get really confusing and, sadly, disappointing:

If you know Invisibility as a 2 level spell, and you prepare spells, preparing it in a 4 level slot get you the augmented version, no additional bookkeeping required.

A spontaneous caster that use a 4 level spell slot to cast a 2 level spell (a thing I'm speculating you could do) get you nothing if it's not one of the spell you can heighten or you have "learned", and I find this thing to be counterintuitive at its maximum level.

I found this an unnecessary complexity and while I know that this is not the intention of the developers the effect I perceive is that spontaneous casters are gimped in contrast to others.

I don't know how to explain this thing to 5E players.

It disarms me terribly and make it really hard to transport players in this edition.

Deadmanwalking wrote:


The idea of one per level is entirely speculative. I wouldn't get all outraged until we see if it's true.

Sorry! Not meaning to outrage and of course should have specify that I was speculating - but as the test of Versatile Signature imply, this is the only logical conclusion I imagine as the direction they went. Of course one of the reason I made this post is to get more information and maybe to know the final version of the heigthening so that we can speak more on point about that.

graystone wrote:


I think a lot of this had to do with a new system, with new spells that had to be relearned: when you have to read the new spell to figure out what it does now, of course it eats up time. Just as character creation goes down with practice, so should spell picks.

As I wrote above I don't find this system to help at all. Reading the entry on the spell list got me the idea I could heighten them without problem, expecially because prepared casters do the most intuitive thing and spontanous not, so I don't find this as something created with learning aid as its scope.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Kyrone wrote:

The only thing that we have is this bard feat

tqomins wrote:

Here you go:

Versatile Signature (Feat 4)
Prerequisites polymath muse
While most bards are known for certain signature performances and spells, you're always tweaking your available repertoire. When you make your daily preparations, you can change one of your signature spells to a different spell of that level from your repertoire.

My guess is that for each spell level spontaneous casters have one spell that they can heighten at will.
I'd guess one per spell level. Which makes sense- one of the concerns was that you'd want to spend a lot of spells on scaling spells.

Thanks Kyrone and QuidEst - but I must say I'm disappointed. I hoped till the last moment that they could see that the "choice paralysis" provoked by having multiple heigthnable spells at each level as a spontaneus caster was a fabrication of an unreal fear. In all my games in 5ED, all the sorcerers (well, really, all the casters...) honestly never felt this stunning condition and cast their spells without problems.

That said, moving on to accepting this new ruleset and working with what we know so far, new questions arise:

- The spoiled pages for Sorcerer's Feats don't even mention Signature Spells, this probably is the thing I can blame for keeping my hopes up. So that's mean that a feat like Versatile Signature is ingrained as a class feature, making the Bard the losing one, as only a single muse and a feat tax let you do this, or the opposite, making this thing an exclusive Bard feature and locking everyone out of this, in my opinion, really basic option for every spontaneus caster.

- While the "more than 2/3" heigthnable spells is of course an upgrade, the fact that they are 1 for each spell level is not that... well tought off? Now you are "forced" to take at least a single heigthnable spell for each level or you are missing out, and spells at higher levels are of course less palatable. And, if we can assume that Signature Spells are locked on once picked, as Versatile Signature inferred, (probably could change them as you level up or using the Learn a Spell downtime activity) then the tradeoff is still on the losing side for the Sorcerers, and something I really didn't want.

-Finally, how the hell this make sense in game?
Wizard: I studied Invisibility as a second level spell, now that I have access at four level spell slots I can prepare them here, no need to study more. (<-Impliying Wizards don't need to spend time&money to learn higher level of spells they know).
Sorcerer: I know how to cast Invisibility as a second level spell, but even with a four level spell slot I can't guess how making it work better.
Bard: Don't look at me, I learned how to cast Invisibility as a four level spell and I can't undercast it!
Cleric&Druid: Ahahah! We just ask our god/nature to fill our slot and can put every spell in our list, heightned or less. Suck, losers!


We have the name of the feature that lets Sorcerers heighten their spells. But how this will work? I really need to know this, don't think I can survive till 1 august to discover the destiny of my beloved spontaneus casters.

Somebody with pity and a spoiler can help me?

Forever grateful,
Gawain


Longshot11 wrote:
Gawain Themitya wrote:
Sorry! For some reason I read everything as it was Tooth & Hookah. Then I'm at loss because summoned boons are banished (Radillo's FAQ). Is it all meant to just meet potential threats like Sebti the Crocodile?

Here's a Hawkmoon quote, from the thread Dave linked above:

Hawkmoon269 wrote:
WotR Rulebook p15 wrote:
After evading a summoned card or resolving the encounter with it, never put it anywhere other than back in the box unless the card that caused you to summon it instructs you otherwise.
When a location says "summon and acquire" the card that instructed you to summon a card tells you to do something with it, acquire it by succeeding at the check to acquire it. And acquiring it means putting it in your hand. So you are being instructed otherwise by the summoning card.

Meh, when your eyes can't discern the difference between the normal thread black and the hypertextual link blue. This question was Longshott'd (or Hawkmoon'd, depends on the point of view) since the beginning! Forgive me for my deviant answers then.


Dave Riley wrote:
Gawain Themitya wrote:
I'm guessing that the wording of this card recalls the other "summon and defeat a random monster". It means that you choose a type of boon between weapon, armor or item, draw one at random, then try to acquire. If you succeed, the location is closed/temp closed, if you fail it is not. Both situations, the boon is returned to the box 'cause it was summoned.
In this case, it's on the "When Permanently Closed" box, not the "To Close This Location" box, hence the confusion (it's just a dexterity check to close). If it were to close, it'd all follow to me.

Sorry! For some reason I read everything as it was Tooth & Hookah. Then I'm at loss because summoned boons are banished (Radillo's FAQ). Is it all meant to just meet potential threats like Sebti the Crocodile?


Dave Riley wrote:
Warehouse's "When Permanently Closed" says "Summon and acquire a weapon, armor, or item." Is this the correct wording? Most places will say something like "draw a random armor from the box." I know, for whatever reason, the Warehouse might want you to activate whatever powers you have that relate specifically to acquiring a card. I also know that different wording for the same concept sometimes sneaks its way onto finished cards and muddies the works, so I figured I'd check.

I'm guessing that the wording of this card recalls the other "summon and defeat a random monster". It means that you choose a type of boon between weapon, armor or item, draw one at random, then try to acquire. If you succeed, the location is closed/temp closed, if you fail it is not. Both situations, the boon is returned to the box 'cause it was summoned.