Indi523's page

It’s a free action instead of an action to add a hand and go two handed grip. Nethys and the book show this, Demiplane does not.

Language in the Interact action page 408 of the SF Player Core.

On Page 235 at the bottom is a table for Changing Equipment

Description

Description
Change your grip by removing a hand
from an item
Hands 2 Action Release

Description
Change your grip by adding a hand
to an item
Hands 2 Action Interact

Interact is one action, release is a free action.

I don't see any difference on Nethys from the language in the books.
Sorry I am not following. Is there an errata on the Flexible Grip feat changing the interact to a free action?

The feat says:
Your extra thumb allows you to quickly shift control of
weapons that normally require more concentration to manage.
You Interact to change your grip on an item you’re holding
from one-handed to two-handed or vice-versa.

What does this actually do because near as I can tell adding a hand to a piece of equipment is already just an interaction feat and letting one hand go and not the other is a release which is a free action?

What am I missing?

That rule didn’t exist in SF1, either. It was suggested you make it that no one would sell you items more than level +1 or +2, depending on the size of the settlement and other circumstances, due to licensing issues that fade away as you become more competent and connected. But it was only a suggestion and nothing mechanically prevents you from using any gear the GM gives you. But a party pooling wealth to buy a way over level consumable could seriously screw up a scenario, this was a tool for GMs to prevent that.

Interesting, for my play group the DM was very strict that you could not use any item you were not high enough level for and insisted it was how the rules worked. I guess I just went along with it.

Thanks

Ok, so here is the deal.

When Starfinder 1e first came out I got the book but was put off by one thing in it which did not appeal to me for a space game and that was the level rule for every piece of equipment.

As I understood it if you were X level and you got hold of equipment be it a vehicle, armor, weapon what have you that was x+1 level you could not use it until you leveled up. I am assuming this was a balance thing to try and make the game less lethal at
lower levels, not sure but it bothered me because it did not make sense. Sure the person may be an inexperienced grunt but if you give them high level tech that is easy to use such as a blaster then it seemed to weird they could not use it.

Any rate I did play a few games with my friends but never really got into the game.

So here is my question. How does that work in 2e and are there house rules maybe that are in the material to maybe deal with that?

How do you handle this issue in game? Party takes out the level 10 boss fight and now can't use any of the weapons he had on him because they'd have to wait five levels. Is it really not an issue? Is it different in 2e?

If you are using fans as weapons, you have weapons in your hands, improvised or not. I would be very annoyed as a GM if you tried 'switching' trick with me 'now weapon-now not'. So no, Raising a Shield won't work with fans used as weapons.

Whether something not inherently a weapon counts as improvised weapon depends on your intent and GM's judgement, number of hands and wielding included.
I'd say if you use something as weapons constantly - you almost never can count them as not weapons for any rules intent. You can pretend as such for NPCs in a story though. But that's not rules intent, mostly narrative one. If you only just now named something as your improvised weapon - you can't discount them as weapons for the rest of the scene or encounter. Otherwise everything is open to discussion with your GM.

I think common sense applies. IIWRL (IF it was real life) that fan could be used as both a weapon or a fan for performance etc. I guess. If the player uses the fan as a weapon then they cannot raise the shield in that hand otherwise the fan would not be able to attack anyone. So whether the player is attacking with the fan or not if he raises his shield the fan in that hand is no longer a weapon and is not a weapon until the shield is lowered.

It would be reasonable of the DM to say OK you are switching out the weapon and tell him they have to use an interact action to fold the fan or otherwise hold it in a way that makes it not usable as a weapon because if it were fanned out in the hand then it would still interfere with the shield. This makes switching back and forth affecting the action economy. Not by much as I assume it is a one arrow action but I might be misremembering.

I think the best way to approach these questions is to ask the player to tell you what they are trying to do without involving the rules then think about how that actually fits within the rules. Just my two cents.

YMMV, but in my opinion counterspelling is one of those mechanics you don't actually want to be too good: in another tabletop game , Counterspell often devolves into pressing the "nope" button against each others' spells

Where I can agree that there's disappointment, however, is in the effectiveness of counteract checks: if you're fighting a higher-level spellcaster, your counteract check is likely to fail

The Counterspell Feat for a wizard is a React which to me I believe everyone only get's one a round. I am not as worried regarding it becoming counterspell ping pong for that reason. You get to counterspell and they can try to counter your counterspell and that's it.

You do get Clever Counterspell at 12th level that expands the type of spells you can give up which does make it more useful but many campaigns end at 12 or a little above so do you get to use it.

As for the Counteract rules I am not that upset. A wizard giving up a fist rank spell on a critical success can counter up to a 4th level spell (three more) and on a success can counter one level higher which is 2nd. It is as I read it the ranks of the spell that matter. If there is not rank you halve the level of the caster.

My problem is currently at first level the issue is it never happens expect for maybe mages countering each other's Force Barrage spell but in Pathfinder 2e I am not as certain that is a must have spell as the other game.

For me if someone has the Trick Magic Feat allowing them a role to Trick the Spell into thinking the correct spell is given up is not that abusive as another check has to be made.

The other thing might be to allow a wizard to give up a scroll for the spell as opposed to a spell slot since magic is given up. This could make mages abusive but only if the party has unlimited gold so it could be dealt with.

I am good with rare, my issues is that RAW suggests never. There is a path where it is useful at high level but only as a prerequisite to the Clever Counterspell feat.

Though allowing Dispel Magic to count as a wild card would help if you made dispel magic a heightened spell.

Not sure

I rule that having Dispel Magic prepped counts as having "the same spell" prepared. This means they can load up on Dispel Magic if they want to be counterspelling a lot, or they can research their enemies to memorize the correct spells so they have more options on hand.

That could work but I would suggest one has to make Dispel Magic a Heightened spell with the increase in rank meaning it can counterspell spells at ranks higher than just 2 using the rank it is heightened to for the counteract check.

The Wizard's Counterspell Feat states that the wizard must expend a prepared spell which is the same spell as the one they are trying to counter and then they get a counteract roll.

This seems to me to be so unlikely given the numerous spells. Especially since a wizard only has so may memorizations available.

So can we assume that a wizard with the Counterspell feat and the Trick Magic Iteam feat can make an attempt to Trick Magic Item the prepared spell slot he is expending to power the Counterspell to make it act as if it were the spell attempting to be counterspelled.

They are still expending a spell preparation. The success with the Trick Magic Item would just make it more useful an ability.

What is everyone's thoughts on this.

Hye Indi523! I can see that although this post was flagged for Hate Speech, it was made in good faith about your campaign idea. I'm going to leave it so that you can continue to get the advice that you need, but I would just want to point out that it might be best to be wary of the inherent bias associated with assuming that groups that colonize are inherently superior to the people whose lands they invade. While I'm sure you're a kind person who is genuinely invested in making a good campaign and a fun one for your community, please just keep this in mind in general as it is an opinion that has hurt people in the past. Good luck on your campaign though!

Irony is that I only labeled the Cowboy side as colonizers in order to give the sensitive types regarding this the affirmation that the land was not being ethically taken. Though to be fair in history almost all land is usually taken unethically which is more a statement of human moral conditions in general than any group of people.

For the campaign we had to have something that equaled gun powder, an advantage that would make the battles one sided and we decided this would be arcane magic which is more unnatural than divine, occult or primal. This also means arcane magic is not always good for the environment, etc.

There is no attempt here to mark one side as better or worse than another but rather to roleplay history through the fantasy Pathfinder setting. Truthfully people on either side are too complex to make any conclusions in that regard anyways. I can empathize with someone that points out the injustices of that history, but I would in return state that if we just ignore that part of history and censor it we won't learn from it either.

I appreciate your note on the matter. Thank you.

Indi523 wrote:

Any rate the question is, can I start him as a Ancestral Elf Heritage and then take a feat that allows him the ability for the Wood Elf heritage or does that not exist. I am figuring a ranges who has an alchemist's dedication works for the back story with adding a lore for civil engineering or something.

Not sure!

I'm going to assume you mean Ancient Elf and Woodland Elf. Since Ancient Elf just gives an archetype, you can 'emulate' having both by taking Woodland Elf as your heritage and then at 2nd level, taking a multiclass Archetype feat. Then you just call the archetype feat your Ancient Elf heritage. If the GM did allow you to take "Ancient Elf" heritage as a feat at L2, this would have exactly the same result.

If, OTOH, by 'ancestry heritage' you mean the elf feats ancestral longevity and ancestral linguistics, you can do that easily. Take Woodland Elf + one of those feats at L1, then take Ancestral Paragon to get the other one at L3.

Yes my mistake - Ancient Elf

I'm mostly left wondering why you don't just alter those weapons in your games to not need an Interact action after each shot. As in, why create a magic item when what it sounds like you want to do is change how the reloading rules work for those weapons? Such an item, at such a low level, would be such a no-brainer for anyone using one of those weapons to pick up that it feels a bit unnecessary over just changing how the weapons' rules work to better align with your vision.

You may want to consider downgrading the Repeating Hand Crossbow to a martial weapon, as well, as a sort of mid-point between those two bows.

Changing a barrel or loading a bolt is an interact action to reload. As I understand it, this is one interact action to reload one barrel. There are four barrels meaning that once the ammo in the weapon is expended then you have to spend four actions reloading the weapon. This makes sense to me as reloading a crossbow is a lot of work so there should be normally this delay.

The magic item allows you to preload four bolts into one magazine. Then in combat you spend one action interacting and you reload the empty device. This effectively in combat increases your number of shots with the weapon. So load four in the weapon, fire those and then you can auto-reload with one action using the magazine.

It is a simple magic item that increases utility in combat but that utility is to lighten the action economy so that the crossbow can somewhat compete with the long bow. That is what the magic is for. Without the magic I agree it should require four separate load interactions. This is also why it takes a minute to load the magazine to begin with, essentially it allows one to prepare magazines for efficiency in battle. This makes the weapon work magically quicker than the person using it normally. Essentially upgrading from four reload interact actions to replace the quarrels to one interaction to load the magazine to have four more shots.

This is a magical device that is a magazine that can be fitted with four crossbow bolts. The magazine is enchanted and will allow the user to use one interact action to load a magazine that has been fitted with four bolts into any Gauntlet Bow or Rotary Bow (Both weapons described in the Treasure Vault Page 30 further detailed in page 31. The crossbow bolt ammunition must all be of the same type for the same weapon and can only be fitted into the weapon that it is for Gauntlet or Rotary. Once fitted into the magazine each bolt can be fired as normal and they will receive the benefit of a +1 weapon Potence rune.

Note the magazine applies its magic to the ammunition fit within it. There is a special magical ritual needed that anyone who knows it can do to charge or load each bolt into the magazine that takes roughly one minute per bolt. Once for are loaded the magazine is charged and can be easily fitted into the weapon as an interact action forcing the other magazines or ammunition in each barrel that are not empty to be ejected.

I am assuming this is a level 2 item.

Does this seem realistic.

What are people's thoughts?

PS: The Gauntlet and Rotary Bow each have a capacity of 4 bolts and one has to interact to load each barrel separately. This item essentially makes using these weapons easier with the action economy.

Short answer:

No, there's no general feat for this and elves don't have a feat letting them double dip.

Long answer:
Other ancestries do have a similar feat at level 5 that lets you take the effects of a heritage you do not have, such as this one. If your GM is open to homebrew, this would be a pretty reasonable thing to allow you to pick at level 5, so you can have both heritages.

Thank you

There was a Second Edition Ravenloft adventure that was set up for this theme. They players were in a castle which had a Present, a Past and a Future. Time travel was somewhat accidental with the players possibly not realizing that the trigger was set until it was too late.

Time moved evenly from all three times so five minutes in the present and moving to the past you were five minutes forward in the past. IF you stayed there one day in the past and moved to the future you were one day and five minutes forward of the future baseline. In the arc of the character's timeline then time always moved forward for all three time locations, future, past and present.

The idea was to change things in each location to resolve an issue. Once you did then the future for instance which was an abandoned castle might suddenly turn into a fully populated castle because some event in the past or present was completed.

The module set the events and the timeline which meant traversing time was already mapped out.

Yeah, with the remaster this got a bit murkier for those with experience from PF1 and pre-remaster PF2.

Now there is only the manipulate trait, which doesn't require a completely free hand, just that you have an appendage that can move (so you can hold something in the hand). There are no longer somatic or material components. When those existed, you explicitly needed a hand to handle those, and it couldn't be occupied with other things.

I would say that this is up to DM Judgement. If you are holding tower shield with two hand, pushing against a foe or you are carrying something really heavy in both hands then you probably don't have use of a hand.

If you have an axe in one hand and a shield in the other but the shield is attached to your arm at the forearm with a strap then the hand is probably free to cast most spells.

But who knows.

I have a character concept I am trying to convert to a pathfinder game.

The game is based loosely on the Old West with a superior colonized force taking over land from people living in primitive unorganized tribes.

The hitch is that the Colonizers and native tribes are both elves. The civilized people are elves with the Ancestry Heritage. They are from the east and are encroaching on untamed lands. There are steam driven machines from steam ships to rail roads, etc. that are based on artificing so using the Guns and Gear.

The indigenous tribes are wood elves. The difference is that arcane magic takes a lot of scientific understanding which means that the primitive did not have access to magical traditions that are arcane in nature. This is what gives the colonizers the advantage. Of course, now that they are here the magic can be learned etc. which happens to members of the tribes that get civilized or smuggle in magic texts from the underground (much like the Comanche were traded guns).

My character is a half breed in the sense his father was Ancestral Elf and his mother was a Wood Elf. His father had a gambling problem and was killed by the local syndicate when he was a child for not paying debts. This syndicate is also fairly bigoted. Thus he has a grudge for the local underground.

A gnome friend of his Dad helped him and his mother out and got him a job with the railroad where became a scout who explored and mapped passages through the mountain and marked places for dynamite, etc.

Any rate the question is, can I start him as a Ancestral Elf Heritage and then take a feat that allows him the ability for the Wood Elf heritage or does that not exist. I am figuring a ranges who has an alchemist's dedication works for the back story with adding a lore for civil engineering or something.

Not sure!

By and large, no, there wasn't all that much need for any rejiggering of the planes.

A few outsiders had some lore changes to fit with the Remaster and breaking away from the OGL though.

Cool that makes things easier

Tridus wrote:

Fighting in formation properly is a skill that you have to drill. You don't just do it automatically and not everyone has that training. That's what taking the feat represents.

The game doesn't have to mirror RL to be good. But in RL, this is exactly what happened. Armies conscripted butchers, bakers, candlestickmakers and taught them how to fight in a shield wall. Heck I suspect it even happens in SCA - accountants learn how to do this on the weekends. But in Golarion, why, it's even more impossible than throwing a fireball from your fingertips!

One could argue that when you take that accountant and train him well enough in shield wall tactics to the point that he will not run the minute an enemy advances against the wall you have effectively given him a level or two of fighter dedication.

My thought process was that as one gains followers/henchmen etc. that one leads you can have them all be fighters trained in using shield and spear and thus one could use them in battle when needed.

Another question comes to my mind.

IF you are giving a free Archetype allowing the feats when the level is met. I assume that is how it works. What if instead of doubling up on a feat from the same archetype the character takes feats from another archetype.

Would that be wrong somehow.

So I am a wizard and I take the Witch feat as a free archetype getting primal magic and then a sorcerer archetype getting divine magic, etc. Just to have a character casting spells from three lists, etc.

Yeah, the actual role of shields in historical combat is not purely protection- people used them as weapons regularly. If you want to be the Viking warrior who uses their shield as a weapon as much as their axe the fighter is a fine choice (you just run into an issue with "shield" being its own weapon group.)

If we want to evoke history then the most successful fighting style should be shield and Spear but only for troops in ranks. The shield was not impenetrable because it was used to swat away sword blows, it was impenetrable because it formed a wall that protected everyone in it and repelled blows.

I am not certain but several feats that use aid another could be woven into a group of henchmen with the same armor setup as a character which allowed him to fight as a group. Three or four should be enough.

Not sure how to do it but everyone having the same feats as a cooperative element would be how you would replicate that.

Roadlocator wrote:

Yeah, I picked poorly, it was just the first example that came to mind. Point is though, there's only TWO post remaster harpies. And one of those is a troop. It could easily be that SOME harpies have sound based abilities, but not all, and the Monster Core one is simply the baseline, most common kind.

Unfortunately I think we're not going to get innate song-based powers for harpies, whether playable or not, for a very simple reason: licensing problems. I am pretty dang sure D&D is the source of harpies with magical luring song (it certainly shows up nowhere in their mythological origins!), and the only reason Paizo managed to keep harpies around through the Remaster is that they went all the way back to the Classical Greek version - swift snatching bird-women, fast enough to race the winds, and often hideous and cruel.

In ancient Greece Harpies were either the Hounds of Zeus, air spirits related to him that served to snatch his enemies and punish people or were

Given this you could make the Harpies supernatural powers Divine based with spell effects related to prophecy such as augury and Command or Quest. This would fill their role as the punishers of the gods.

2e is now a couple years old, and has been really spoiling us with Ancestry options so far - but what’s missing? Are there any obvious holes or 1e favorites you’re hurting for?

For me what is missing is a DIY Manual which for 1e the Advanced Race Guide was. This would be a set of options to tweak ancestries or to make up your own which allowed you to ensure the results were somewhat balanced.

Indi523 wrote:

Hi,

Just wandering about material that can help me understand what is out there for the planes. My focus is on the Outer Planes but I am interested in the inner planes as well.

I have the GM Core and have read the sections on the planes there. Is there other source material that has been published which could be useful either in further expanding the planes scape in its entirety or individual planes themselves.

Just wondering. IF not is there a book/books on this that will be coming out in the future.

While it covers inner planes rather than outer ones, 2e's Rage of Elements is a real good primer on the Elemental Planes, including the two new ones, Metal and Wood.

Past that you'll probably need to look back at 1e material; 2e seems more focused on fleshing out the various cultural zones of Golarion itself.
I'd suggest checking out the books Chronicle of the Righteous, Concordance of Rivals, and Book of the Damned for info on the goodly, neutral, and fiendish planes, respectively. There's also the 1e book Planar Adventures which may have some useful material in it for you, as well.

And never underestimate the power of the Pathfinder wiki, either! Lots of handy stuff there collated from across multiple products and releases.

Thanks I will give that a try. My hope was there would be something that addresses the outer planes and what differences there are regarding the fact that we no longer use alignment. Are Angels and Azatas all just part of the Heavens. What is the difference between Elysium and Heaven if it is not the Chaos / Law spectrum.

I am assuming they will eventually have to make the outer planes for Golorian work in line with edicts and anathema as opposed to Chaos / Law or Good / Evil. That might be a major project that is down the road I guess. The 1e stuff is useful but to get away from the alignment system I imagine changes will be made. Who knows?

Another possibility is to have a barbarian that takes the Cavalier dedication at second level. This gives him a mount but not control.

However at 4th level the feat Impressive Mount gives the animal one action, stride or strike even if command an animal is not used.

This is not as effective as the option you are using however it allows you to keep the concept that the barbarian is in a rage unable to control the mount but the mount is aware of the master's state and able to act independently on its own to help him.

I like the narrative of that better even though it has downsides.

Hi,

Just wandering about material that can help me understand what is out there for the planes. My focus is on the Outer Planes but I am interested in the inner planes as well.

I have the GM Core and have read the sections on the planes there. Is there other source material that has been published which could be useful either in further expanding the planes scape in its entirety or individual planes themselves.

Just wondering. IF not is there a book/books on this that will be coming out in the future.

I mean, if dhampir were undead, they'd have the Undead trait, no? All other undead do, even when they're a form of undead that has its own trait, like Ghoul or Mummy. If dhampir haven't got the Undead trait then they aren't undead; end of story.

There's also this, if your GM needs more convincing.

Dhampir wrote:

Despite being living creatures, dhampirs respond to positive and negative energy as if they were undead, making them unwelcome in many holy communities and often driving them toward necromantic arts. Dhampirs aren't immortal, but age far more slowly than most mortals, with a lifespan similar to that of an elf. Dhampirs have difficulty producing children of their own, and those few born to a dhampir are never dhampirs themselves.

Emphasis mine.

IN PF1E they were half undead. Is that still the case in remastered?

Indi523 wrote:

So someone decided they did not like alignment and convinced everyone else to leave it out of the game.

Reading through the rest of the OP, it feels like you are already answering your own questions. You just don't like the answer.

Culture matters especially in fantasy because it is about the great conflict Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos.
Well, not necessarily. The great conflict between Good and Evil is a common trope, but is hardly mandatory.

This seems contradictory. You want alignment as a shorthand for the creature's personality, but also need to mention that alignment doesn't really indicate a creature's personality.

Essentially, removing alignment is cutting out an unnecessary and confusing indicator that doesn't really indicate anything.

It also has...

Culture as defined by Schien is made of Artifacts, Espoused Values and Basic Assumptions. Artifacts are the physical aspects one notices, music, stories, sporting games, clothing, food, manner of speaking, etc.

Espoused Values are the direct morals and teachings that make up a culture.

Basic Assumptions are the deep unwritten and often unspoken shared zeitgeist members of a culture have.

When you assume it is some kind of racism to have a creature that is evil you are embracing a post modern critical deconstruction culture in academia that is not related to what I am trying to get at.

I would suggest in my humble opinion this thought process has a major flaw in that it presumes a people are not guided by the cultural norms that the share and all cultures are somehow interchangeable.

As an example I would point to the Aztec Indians. We can talk about the brutality of their sacrifice but from their perspective their culture demanded this. They felt there was a need for wide spread bloodshed through human sacrifice or the world would not continue.

From this they justified raids and forced tribute of slaves and the sacrifice of slaves as required for various things.

Now based on critical deconstruction we must accept this as their culture and somehow not judge it against other cultures. I would submit this overlooks the reality of where that culture drove them.

In gaming terms I would label this culture Lawful Evil. The people in that culture would see the precepts that justified their culture as in fact Good. Strength, dedication to the Gods, control over the populace to protect the world. etc.

Now, many in that culture could reject that (CG tendency) and others not embrace it themselves buy try to get along (more neutral). However, the overall zeitgeist, the basic assumptions of the people and what they taught themselves as to how their culture and the world works is defined by their world view.

As such each culture will be judged by the biases of others. I would say that the Aztec culture was deeply flawed which is why it was so easily toppled the minute it faced outside stress. Everyone oppressed by them turned on them. But that could just be my bias.

For all the squawking about race the reality is that in fact it is differing cultural beliefs that have driven human conflict. These beliefs are the basic assumptions of culture.

For me the alignment system was a shorthand that told me what the culture of each group might teach. It is admittedly very simplistic but it is a 30,000 foot overview.

Now I don't want to use alignment because that is not used by the Paizo team. I am not arguing with that at all.

What I am getting at is what shorthand can I use to define the basic assumptions of the culture of each group that is shown in the game.

This is because trying to write up each individual culture for every race and monster would be overwhelming

PS: Schein is the academic who is always cited in peer reviewed papers as basis of culture in research for both peoples and groups such as companies. He is also the guy that defined how to implement organization change at a cultural level.

I did enjoy the theme of the axiomites vs proteans, law vs chaos. But I can just add that back in if I want. The game system doesn't stop me from having a great conflict like that, but it's more opt-in now, the rules don't depend on it so much.

For describing creatures, alignment was always a very very short shorthand. The lawful evil of a kobold was not the same lawful evil of a devil; one of them is just describing a typical member of a culture, while the other was fundamentally made out of law and evil. It's comparing apples and perfect mathematical spheres.

The place where I find myself missing it a bit was in partitioning which gods were somewhat aligned with each other. It made for interesting tidbits when someone was out of place, too, like Gorum and Calistria having their realms in Elysium, or Arazni accepting chaotic good champions.

As it is not part of the game I do not want to use it.

One the other hand no short hand what so ever means a lot of work to classify it ahead of time. Creatures will have a cultural set of beliefs which define them. Even if they break from the norm it would define that break. Maybe the best way to handle this is have the gods each have their own philosophy tied to the religion they preach and this formulates the ideologies which then defines the enemies and allies of each god.

I may be misinterpreting this, but isn't the rule already that a scroll's rarity matches the spell's rarity?

I may be missing something. In the GM core they define scrolls by the rank of the spell.

Where is a spell's rarity defined? Forgive me still going through the remaster rules.

AS I see it the first level spell Gust of Wind would be very common. Certain guilds such as sailor's etc. might encourage knowledge of the spell to be shared among casters so that they can access the spell to provide possible wind to move by when the sea has dead air etc.

Other spells like Summon Undead might be restricted by the mage's guild because people summoning skeletons might freak out the mundane folk and the spell might be seen as unholy by some even though the spell does not have that tag. Therefore the normal guild authorities might require good reason for anyone to even know the spell and one might have to find unsavory necromancers to teach it too you and you may have to get their favor first.

Thus I could see certain spells being harder to find because of this.

I do not see anything that tells me Gust of Wind is common while Summon Undead is rare as an example.

I am thinking if someone came up with a classification on their own it might be useful as a tool for a GM.

So someone decided they did not like alignment and convinced everyone else to leave it out of the game.

I know all the various arguments posted and it is what it is.

So I am trying to work without it and I got to tell you I ma finding the lack of alignment and discussions about why a creature tended toward this or that alignment to be part of a problem.

I noticed this most squarely when reading the monster core 2 which I picked up recently and perusing the dragons as well as the monster core 1. What is a Cinder dragon, what make it tick. What is the culture of Cinder dragons? Are they selfish, kind hearted, stern but fair, reckless and passionate. Ok, I can say its a red dragon replacement and then use that but should I. Maybe it is different or works better differently. Same with a horned dragon, primal aspect I get but what drives them. Sometimes the description on monsters for whatever reason is light on these aspects meaning I guess I have to fill that in.

Culture matters especially in fantasy because it is about the great conflict Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos. Alignment was a shorthand that helped to flesh all of that out.
Cinder Dragons are CE, Ok the are cruel and selfish like a red dragon, LE ok then they are ordered and believe in discipline and conquest, N, they are balanced and react as mother nature, their personality dormant until they erupt.

Sure, I agree that alignment did not force a creature to be one way or another unless it was from the outer planes are fixed that way but it was a good way to describe the culture of the creature I was adjudicating helping me to flesh out their culture when needed.

But we are not using that so..... there is unholy and holy tags which are part of the divine but other than that I am left a little perplexed and overwhelmed to find a zeitgeist for monsters on the fly.

Is there some kind of overall meta philosophy in the world to dictate peoples culturally that we should be using in place of it.

I am finding it hard to break the mold as it were without a mold to break to begin with. Any suggestions?

Interestingly, if you learn a spell from someone else, they don't have to be the same tradition as you. A wizard could befriend a druid and learn a lot of spells from the druid, who automatically knows the whole primal spell list. The wizard can just ask about all the spells that also happen to be on the arcane list.

In this case would the wizard have to get access to primal spells somehow to learn them.

I guess to be sneaky the wizard could buy the druid archetype and thus be able to learn primal cantrips as well.

Not sure how the rules work on that.

In line with some of the discussions brought up by others regarding spells and scrolls I have had a thought.

The Treasure Vault regarding scrolls as magic items classifies them by rank.

However, part of the value of a scroll cache found for Wizards at the very least is the individual spells found in the cases themselves.

Certain spells will appear to be more useful over others and others more powerful by virtue of what spells they were even compared to lower ranked spells in some cases.

Most GMs are intuitively aware of this which is why they make make finding mages who know certain spells harder to come by either because the spell is considered too esoteric or the mages who learn them are not keen on teaching them to just anyone.

Similar to a kung fu master who only teaches the more powerful techniques to a select few students he trusts so to might there be wizards that just will not teach powerful spells such as charms, teleports, cone of cold etc. to just anyone.

That being said how would be best create a scroll rarity system for designating how hard it is to find a scroll with certain spells over others.

If someone developed such a classification system or rules for making one that might be a useful tool for GMs and Players alike.

Nor use Earn an Income with the level of the item to earn value to replace what would be raw materials cost.

You are correct, that is what I meant by downtime. As someone that has played wizards going back to 1e I can tell you the first thing that comes to mind when I find a scroll is copying it into my spell book so that I know it. If I already have the spell then I will store it in a scroll case and if I do not have a scroll but need one, usually to trade spells, I will create one for use.

To my mind the problem with casting off scrolls in combat has always been the mechanics of keeping a library of them and finding the short hand to tell me where they are so I can pull it out. One to five scrolls, no bid deal. At ten you probably lose an action or more. If you have a kind dm that overlooks this OK but if not you probably need some kind of magical device, maybe a book that holds scrolls such that it will produce the scroll you want at a word command, etc.

Tt does not need to be a wand. Ownership of the book or more creatively pulling the scroll from the book will give you a +1 magical enhancement to cast the spell on the scroll within a reasonable time period. The book could do this X number of times per day or could have Y charges that allow you to activate the effect that recharge at X times per long rest, or just always works every time activated
rest, etc. Depends on how powerful you want the item to be.

Note: When I play a wizard I usually expect the party to have at least a month and maybe more downtime from time to time in a long campaign but that might be my old Grognard ways so not sure how the kids do it today.

Cheers - Indy

So the Wizard starts off with 10 cantrips which is a lot while other traditions have access to fewer.

Traditionally Wizards and Witches can use the Learn a Spell ability associated with their tradition skill to add spells to their list.

Normally they do this by gaining access to scrolls.

However, one cannot create a scroll from a cantrip. Thus, there are no scrolls with cantrips that one can learn from.

So, does this mean you cannot learn cantrips or are there other ways you can learn this ability such as being taught by a wizard that knows it, etc.

or are you set to the number shown in your class abilities for spells?

If you can learn a cantrip what would be the cost of it.

If you found another wizard's spell book for instance and got access to it could you use it to learn cantrips.

I sort of feel like the cost of scrolls is a lot for low level characters, making them too expensive, but then the cost goes down significantly as the character levels up.

What if to help make scrolls of on-rank spells be more worth the 'relative' wealth they cost for spellcasters, do the following.

I am thinking that what you are talking about should be better describe as a kind of wand rather than a scroll or part of the scroll. Maybe a Wand that is one use that gives the effect or a wand or other item that can be used as a focus for the spell casting that gives the bonus which expends a charge from the wand/etc.

I am thinking that depending on the level a +1 bonus is much more powerful for spells than say a weapon attack such as an arrow.

As to the cost I am not so sure it is prohibitive. A first rank spell on a scroll costs 4gp. Even so a caster with the magical crafting feat can produce a scroll will only have to pay halve that or 2pg. Per attempt they can craft up to four versions of the scroll. Thinking about this a wizard with a useful utility spell such as air bubble could make money by crafting scrolls in batches of four, saving one for himself for the party and selling the other three at docks. Thus spending 8gp for four scrolls and getting 12gp back for selling three and pocketing 4pg.

Given enough downtime this can be turned to a profitable business thus allowing the wizard to make the money for the scrolls he heeds.

I like most of Teridax's suggestions for the most part.

Star Sign sounds confusing to me, I'm not entirely certain what it is supposed to do, and as was mentioned, probably being a focus spell shouldn't have a specific number of activations, and needs to be more clear. The stealing spells also sounds confusing, but if it needs to stay, might be something to enable via a heightened version.

Thank you for your response

I hear you reading through it it needs more wok. Essentially you get a rune on your bonded weapon. You can empower that rune three times to counter another spell as it is being cast without expending a spell on your own and potentially avoiding the need to have that spell active but that might be too powerful the way counter spell works.

AS a bonus if you critically succeed at countering the spell you get to steal the magic, maybe even loading that spell into your bonded weapon.

I admit I am not explaining that well and as written it might not work at all. I will try and see if I can be less obtuse in the language.

Thank you,

I will see about making those changes you state. I agree that adding the spell rune could be overpowering but I wanted to follow the process the book uses. Maybe there is something else I can do there.

I guess part of the issue is I need to understand better how counter spell affects work. My initial worry regarding this was that one could really only counter one spell early on and Since clever counter spell was a higher level feat I did not think it justified to mirror that effect.

The idea is this is a high sorcery feudal world so while the fighters and champions take caviler archetypes and fill out the roll of knights on the battlefield, the wizards would take to dueling and thus learn to counter each others spell in battle.

This is my idea to fit a homebrew world first adapted to Pathfinder 1.0 to the 2.0 setting. At issue are the fact that the eight schools are no more. The area these mages reside are the horselords, with five kingdoms merging from hundreds over the last few years in response to a organized threat of hobgoblin witchs and hags who destroyed the elven and hill dwarf homelands and now threaten the kingdoms. The Horselords rely on mounted warriors and centaurs for calvary, traditional human armies with several orc tribes civilizing themselves and joining the Kingdoms to avoid the Winter Witches as well as Mountain Dwarves and gnomes with clockwork vehicles and mechanical monstrosities fueled by arcane pitch (oil and tar that burns) and guncotton (gun powder). In this world in order to activate the power of the burning pitch or fire a weapon based on guncotton one must be a stonekin, blessed by elemental earth. This is for the most part dwarves, gnomes and a few other creatures only.

The Humans had mages which specialized in each school who were trained in arcane dueling. With the changes in Pathfinder wizards I was forced to rework this. Here is my shot at dueling magic schools and arcane thesis which tend to go together and would be what a traditional mage of the Octinity (This eight gods who are avatars of one God that make up the most prevalent church.

My original description was much more powerful. This is me toning it down. Hopefully it is balanced. The idea is a school of magic and a thesis that is taught specifically to train mages for spell duels, fighting with weapons and suing weapons as focus for spells while excelling in countering spells. Please let me know if this works, doesn't work, needs nerfing, buffing, etc.

Wizard (Disparen Arcane Thesis)

The Disparen tradition focuses on wizard dueling which focuses on the Hexenklinger also know as the Arcane Blade or MageKnife. This is a weapon designed to be magical tool bonded to the wizard to prepare them for dueling. There are various types of weapons that the wizard can bond with which the wizard will train in both martial and magical combat. These weapons included in the training for this thesis are the Dancing Spear, Main Gauche. Short Sword, Staff, Sword Cane and Rapier. If selected, the weapon will count as a simple weapon for the wizard with this thesis. If they select a staff it will count as a finesse weapon. At 11th level, the Disparen Wizard may add a second type of weapon. Either of these weapons may be bonded to the Wizard at the beginning of the day. The second weapon will also
gain the benefit of weapon runes.

Each weapon chosen that may be bonded will benefit from the following two runes, A Weapon Potency Rune at +1 and a Spell Reservoir Rune which allows the wizard to cast a spell of a rank they can cast, but no more than 3rd rank. See the Active Channel Release, Safe Channel Release and description of the Spell Reservoir Rune. In addition to the spell that may be added into the Spell Reservoir Rune attained the Mage with this thesis may choose one cantrip which they add to the arcane weapon they bond with. This cantrip is a bonus which is added to the wizard's repertoire every day in addition to other cantrips he knows. Each day when spells are prepared that cantrip can be replaced by one the Wizard knows. The cantrip is considered part of the the spells known.

At 11th level the caster has a choice. Either bond a second weapon that can be used with the original or craft an alteration to the original weapon such that it can be transformed into another weapon. IF two weapons are chosen then both combine to form the Arcane Bond and thus the caster needs both weapons in hand to use the bonded effects.

Traditionally Disparen Mages are taught to either choose a rapier that can be changed into a staff or a dancing spear or to choose a combo of a rapier and a main gauche. If a second weapon is chosen then it will also have a +1 weapon potency rune and another spell reservoir rune however the Spell Counter bonded with the weapon requires both weapons. If a choice is made for a weapon that transforms then the weapon will have a +2 Potency rune and two Spell reservoir runes.

Note the weapon potency can by added to attempts to counterspell while the wizard holds this weapon. The weapon may be used as a focus to cast spells and if so the weapon potency can be added to the spellcasting to hit roll as well.

Arcane Bond

Note: a Wizard that takes the Disparen Arcane Thesis will ususally learn the Disparen Dueling Arcane School. When the wizard takes both the Disparen Arcane Thesis and Disparen Arcane School then the Arcane Bond ability is altered in this way. The bonded item of the wizard must be the weapon or weapons which are dedicated to the Wizard in their thesis. The wizard does not gain the drain bonded item free action but instead gains the free action Select Spell Counter. The wizard may at the time that they prepare spells choose one spell to be loaded into their Bonded item as the Spell Counter. These are the spell or spells loaded into the Spell Reservoir runes. Once per day you may use the spell loaded as the spell counter to fuel a counterspell feat attempt of a spell another wizard has cast. The first time that this is done the Spell Counter is not expended. The second time however the Bonded item drains the spell loaded into Reservoir Rune.

The Spell Counter must be a spell that can be utilized to counter the spell being cast. IF the wizard takes the clever counterspell feat then the number of spells that can be countered is increased.

Disparen Dueling Arcane School

Those who learn to use Mage Blades to fight in the wizard duels make the most of martial skill with weapons and the ability to use those weapons as arcane focuses for their magic. Each student of this school gains the Counterspell feat at first level if they do not know it. A student may also use the weapon as an arcane focus for their spells and can cast spells with an attack roll using the weapon,
gaining the ability to add the weapon potency bonus to their spell casting attack roil.

Spells: Shield, Telekinetic Projectile (Cantrip) Hydraulic Push, Mystic Armor, Runic Weapon, Sure Strike (1st) Blazing Bolt, Telekinetic Maneuver (2nd) Ghostly Weapon, Gravity Well, (3rd) Flicker, Weapon Storm (4th) Blink Charge (Secrets of Magic pg 98) Forceful Hand (SoM pg 106) (5th) Wall of Force, True Sight (6th) Project Image, True Target (7th) Disappearance, Summon Archmage (SoM pg 131 ) (8th) Falling Stars (9th)

School Spells: Initial Warding Sign Advanced Star Sign

Disparen Dueling Magic School

Warding Sign
Focus 1 - 2 Actions
Range 30' Target One Creature
Duration: One Minute
You place a sigil on your self or a willing creature and it glows with a dark violet magic. The sigil must be placed on armor if the character is wearing it or clothing if not wearing armor. If may be placed on a shield as well but will only be active when the character has a shield raised so this might not be an optimum choice. This sigil glows on the creature protected and is activated whenever they are targeted by as spell. The character will gain a +1 circumstance bonus to all saving throws from spells while the rune is in effect.

While the spell is active the person wearing the rune benefits as if his armor, clothing or armor has the spell watch rune. This means once per turn the receiver of the benefits of the rune gains a new save to a spell that was failed. If this spell is successful the spell will end with no effect.

Focus 4 Spell Sign

Focus - 2 Actions
Range: Self
Duration: Ten Minutes or until triggered three times.
Like the Warding Sign spell this creates a rune in the shape of a star sign on the Arcane Bond (weapon) of the wizard casting this spell. For the duration of this spell the Spell Counter used is altered by the magic of this spell. Whenever an attempt is made to counter a spell using the counterspell action the magic of this spell will form a temporary matrix which will other match and empower the countering of the spell as a reaction to a spell being cast at the desire of the holder of the star sign. The rune will flash a brilliant green color and after the third counter spell attempt this spell will end. This will not use up or alter the spell counter already loaded into the wizard's bonded dueling weapon.

If the attempt to counter a spell suing star sign was successful and the was spell countered was five ranks or more below the roll required to counter the spell or if the counteract\ result was a critical success and the rank of the spell was two or more below the level that can be countered then the wizard steals that spell. They regain a spell slot which has been already cast and they can either roll randomly among the spells of that level that they know and gain a spell slot with that spell cast or withing ten minutes take a minute to relearn any spell of the rank or less that they already know. IF the counteract attempt was a critical success they may roll twice among the spells they know and choose the one they like.

[QUOTE=" I got to thinking about how they might function within parties and the wider setting.

I think it goes without saying that the "ethical necromancer" is a popular anti-hero kind of character throughout fantasy media, making agreements with living people to gain permission to use their remains after death, returning their reanimated servants to death when they're no longer needed, using their dark powers to stop truly evil villains, etc.

T

The way I see it the reason that undeath is unnatural and frowned upon as sinister by most of the gods is that it keeps a soul from crossing over into the outer realms where they belong once they have died. The spirit either stays on the mortal plane a ghost or specter or becomes an intelligent undead of some point clinging to unlife in the plane of the material. This is anathema to most gods as it strips them of power. One or two souls lost this way might not be a big deal but an army of undead would be significant for various reasons.

So what would a God who instructed his followers to seek unlife in the mortal plane be like. What would his doctrine and church teach and why? I have created such a God I call Oath Breaker and he is the patron God of Vampirism. He started out as a scribe in the celestial court of the gods and through betrayals he ended up cursing other deities in retaliation and was kicked out of heaven.

He rejected the Celestial Court as a whole including those in the underworld who from his point of view were just another sector of that court. He developed the idea that one should seek to be free of the outer realms by finding immortality on earth. While any form of intelligent undead could be find, he supported vampires. Most of his followers are Dhampyres trying to attain this form of enlightenment. His church teaches that one should seek immortality on the mortal plane and that only the worthy will be given this gift.

Mindless undead would be akin to slaves among the living. While LE he accepts any Lawful follower.

The Good followers seek a from of immortality through unlife that minimizes the need to feed and so this followers seek ethical lichdom or other forms of unlife.

The lands where this god holds sway are a form of Dhampyres who control the kingdom. In this land undead are allowed but are controlled by the law. So one can create skeletons but not ghouls as they are not controllable.

For the Dhampyres in this world there is one caveat. While a Dhampyre can impregnate a woman or become pregnant the child suffers from being half dead and without any assistance the child will eventually be the victim of a miscarriage and be stillborn late into the pregnancy. They only way to counteract this is at the right time a ritual is performed where a sentient creature is forced to give up their life. This sacrifice will allow the new Dhampyre child to be born alive.

The ruling class handles this by using slaves or condemned criminals who are sentenced to die. This leads to a major debate between the right hand and left hand Dhampyres as to morality of it. Those on the right hand path reject sacrificing others and one parent, usually the father, will agree to sacrifice their life so that their children can be reborn. Those on the left worry more about power and will use slaves if evil or condemned criminals if neutral.

The right hand path or LG Dhampyres then become weaker as they cannot increase their numbers and at best can remain the same.

In this society, being undead can be ethical in its own way while still being in conflict with other living kingdoms around it.

You can't normally act as a mount for a fellow PC unless they're two sizes smaller than you (Most Dragonkin are large). There is a 5th level feat that lets them have a rider one size smaller than them, but unless you take a specific heritage you can only do that for a single PFS character you designated at character creation. Outside of combat, It's up to the GM whether you can carry someone in a non-mounted fashion, but there's no rule against Dragonkin and Contemplatives flying while encumbered, so I can see some players arguing that if they can carry a dead body of a PC, they should be able to carry a living one as well

The chapter on system compatibility in the SF2 GM Core does say GMs can mkve ancestral flight and climb speeds to feats in home games, though, as well as potentially making feats tied to special senses higher level.

So ultimately it's down to GM discretion outside of PFS.

Why am I getting sparrows carrying a coconut type vibe reading your comment =(*

Honestly the weapon would be pretty close to a Glaive.

Or better yet the Monk's Spade!

Classes sell books. I'm pretty sure that as long as Second Edition is still in active development, we can expect about two classes each year. That's been their business model so far, at least.

For me it is not so much about classes but new archetypes that I am looking for especially if they recreate some of the flavor from fist edition Pathfinder which can be added back.

For instance there was an archetype modification of the bard that was an archeologist ala Indiana Jones. It would be great to see that as an archetype one could multiclass into with the second edition rules.

I don't think they need more than 25 classes. They can achieve what they want and more with more archetypes.

Spell resistance was r

Yep, that "+1 status to all saves vs. magic" makes them more resistent to magic than against other effects that target saves (like Alchemy or Athletics). That's the new "spell resistence".

So there's some ideas to play with. You can create a pseudo-globe of invulnerability effect by giving it an aura that automatically counters all spells below rank X, for example. Or make it a reaction so it can't do it an infinite number of times.

Quote:

I would like to see some mechanic that makes devils/demons etc. harder to affect with magic.

I guess I could make a diabolic item that works like a dispelling globe the other poser was kind enough to share.

You can use premaster stuff like Globe of Invulnerability if you want, too. It's still legal.

Cool, I knew that they would do something on paper that made up for spell resistance. I missed that glazing over the monster text. Thanks.

Spell resistance was removed because its just not necessary anymore. With 4 degrees of success and the worst results now being critical failures, and with save DCs keeping up better than in PF1, there's no real need for it. Having it would make too many spells have multiple rolls of failure where they don't do anything, and that's not very fun.

It was there in 3.x/PF1 because so many spells were "this ends the fight if it lands" and enemies needed a defense against that.

Interesting,

So a powerful creature such the Nyssari Tyrant Devil from the Monster Core.

They no longer have spell resistance and instead just have high save DC's, is that right. By that I mean a save artificially greater than a similar creature that would not have one of the same power. Or do they just not worry about it.

I would like to see some mechanic that makes devils/demons etc. harder to affect with magic.

I guess I could make a diabolic item that works like a dispelling globe the other poser was kind enough to share.

Hmmm.... just musing aloud.

Recently got the itch to play a martial character whose weapon of choice is some kind of reinforced metal-handled shovel, and I figure I'd need to homebrew it considering the alternative would be the Weapon Improviser archetype, which would be more along the lines of having a golf bag of normal shovels so I never run out of them when they break, which while a funny mental image isn't quite what I'm looking for.

So, what kinda weapons should I be looking for as "bases" to extrapolate from? What traits should it have? Should it be versatile S to simulate making swings with the edge or solely bludgeoning? Should it be a standard-length shovel as a two-handed weapon, or more like e-tool length and wielded with a pick in the other hand?

Honestly the weapon would be pretty close to a Glaive.

I mean, considering that both spells involve evoking a fear of death... with an undead has already experienced, can't say it's surprising that they wouldn't be spooked in the slightest.

Although... how does this apply to intelligent constructs and other "not actually living, but not undead" beings?

I think that in the past Phantasmal Killer was an illusion spell and it only worked on a creature with a mind.

So I would say depends on the undead. Possibly this could kill a specter or ghost especially if they do not know they are dead because it overloads the mind thus destroying the void energies keeping it sentient.

But maybe not a vampire which would not normally be subject to death from damage i.e. you need a stake through the heart, etc. Perhaps it would force the vampire into its mist like state requiring it to regenerate.

Not sure but that is how I would rule it.

So I am going through the spell rules and spells for the remaster Player's Core and I see certain spells such as Globe of invulnerability or Anti Magic Cone seem to be no more and have not been renamed or changed.

Add to that Spell resistance is no longer part of the rules.

What abilities other than countermagic will protect from a spell being cast exist.

Why was this change made?

{Scratching my Head}

Bluemagetim wrote:

consider the wizard at level 13 can casting group haste and eclipse burst in 3 encounters straight, a sorcerer is making choices with the 3 rank 7 casts they have the wizard is choosing to do both every encounter.

It's not the first time you said something like this, you also mentioned it earlier:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Th

In comparison to a sorcerer having 4 spells everywhere and 3 level 7. So the difference is not as big as you make it out to be. I did tout that in my guide, but the remaster changed everything.

Here is the difference, if I have played a wizard from 1st level to 10th level I will have a number of starting spells and add two per level to my spell book. Because I am paranoid I will take the down time needed to have three copies of my books, one hidden in a space I only know, one in my lab which includes notes and a traveling version for memorizing on adventures, at higher level stored in an extradimensional place for hiding.

I am going to bother every wizard I meet for spells, trading when I can. For those I don't I will bargain especially if I want that spell and don't want to wait a level for it. I will also hoard ever scroll found and learn the spell on the scroll then make two copies of it, one for me and the other for the party. I will do favors for wizards we meet including side quests if it is on the way including obtaining rare ingredients, etc. in exchange for spells.

I will also start making as many scrolls of spells I know in the down time with several scrolls for spells like force barrage (old magic missile) or fireball. Where I can I might start crafting wands with spells I know for extra ammo.

The Sorcerer could do this but their spell list is limited and they don't get craft related feats the way a wizard does for scrolls. There list of scrolls or magic items will be more limited in range.

Sure the DM may step in and place limits but over time the wizard players will end up developing this anyways.

A lot of people are downplaying the ability of wizards to learn spells but I do not think they are experienced wizard players. The ability to learn spells is very important.

Now the cheese factor here is a wizard that takes the cleric dedication or sorcerer or witch dedication to gain access to other spell lists. More scrolls and more spells learned by wizards. Swap out sorcerer spells at every level but copy them to scrolls and learn them as wizards first. They just have to also be on the wizard list.

I don't know about the rest of you but I could build a powerful wizard if I roleplay it from level one on.

You all getting in the weeds with poor excuses for this game mechanic. I will leave you with a solution and I will start dismounting when I get next to a bad guy so Im not nerfed compared to other animal companion users.

If your companion moved on it current turn it shares map. If it did not move on its current turn it does not share map

Also a mount still can count as cover even if you are not riding it and it can be a flank buddy if you are not mounted on it. So these things go both ways...give and take

Read all my replys before you comment anymore please and thank you

First off, if we look at the totality of history the primary use for calvary was to get into position and then dismount to fight. So there is that.

It was not until the invention of the saddle and stirrups allowing a man to direct a horse that calvary became mounted while attacking.

What you seem to be missing is all the great benefits of the Cavalier Dedicated subclass from commanding mounts easier, to protecting mounts from being hit, to Striding twice and attacking at any point in the movement to setting up for a trampling charge.

Add to that Nature skill feats like Train Animal, Bonded Animal or Express Rider buffing the mount and the Ride feat giving you the advantage of treating him as a minion 2 action for that one verbal command with no check to control.

You have to factor these feats and training in because it makes the difference between a professional rider to a yahoo that decided to just jump on the back of a horse.

I see no real advantage with the arcane list. To me it is the least interesting spell list even if the longest. You have only so many slots a day to use and only so many actions a round for combat, so you have to use spells that will impact with the actions used.

The Power of the Wizard going back to when it was the Magic User class in AD&D has always been access to spells and the ability to create scrolls.

Every time a wizard finds a scroll, if it is on their list, they can learn the spell adding it to their spell books. This gives the wizard access to a great much more variety of power than any of the sorcerer or the Warlock that can spontaneously cast. Sure they access anything on their list of spells known but their knowledge is limited by level.

A wizard through experience, adventuring, finding scrolls, sharing with other casters, buying spells for other guild mages could have every spell on a list known if they can find it and pay for it.

The wizard would make up for their limited spell slots and the fact that they can create scrolls meaning that if they have preparation they are the strongest caster in the party but once they have used up resources they are the weakest.

Too often DM's overlook this in game because it is book keeping but it has always been why a wizard is powerful.

Know here is where a wizard really shines. They class as wizard but pick up say the sorcerer dedication and then pick a Primal or Divine or Occult list from the choices of patron, type etc. They choose the Basic Spellcasting, Advanced and Master getting spells of first to eighth level in the other list meaning they can create scrolls or cast from those scrolls, etc.

This is what truly makes a wizard powerful, versatility of magic.

I am not sure how well of an advantage that is in second edition yet. Dynamic has changed but Wizard does have the ability to learn spells.