JRutterbush's page

Organized Play Member. 556 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 556 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:
Also, Stand Still (4th) could give you a good Reaction that takes advantage of reach. (It doesn't seem to ignore MAP though...)

All off-turn attacks ignore the MAP.

"The multiple attack penalty applies only during your turn, so you don’t have to keep track of it if you can perform an Attack of Opportunity or a similar reaction that lets you make a Strike on someone else’s turn."

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

There is a strange phenomenon wherein upgrading steel is so trivial that it is cost-free as part of scribing runes, but upgrading any other material becomes exorbitantly expensive, raising the total price to double or more.

Do weaknesses really double on a critical hit? I am looking at page 453, and I can find no such rule.

I'm working off the SRD, so I don't know page numbers, but under "Doubling and Halving Damage" in the "Playing the Game" section, it states:

"Sometimes you’ll need to halve or double an amount of damage, such as when the outcome of your Strike is a critical hit, or when you succeed at a basic Reflex save against a spell. When this happens, you roll the damage normally, adding all the normal modifiers, bonuses, and penalties. Then you double or halve the amount as appropriate (rounding down if you halved it). "

Basically, the only damage that doesn't get doubled on a crit is damage that only applies on a crit.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Appletree wrote:
While some advantages of the undead have been mentioned, I do actually kind of like the idea of a makeshift army of pots and pans, brooms and chairs, knives, swords, shields and buckets. So I think I might nab it, thanks.

I'm definitely gonna run at least one adventure involving a kindly old grandma who conquered a city with an army of animated cutlery.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes. Basically, you just get a special Monk shield because your just that damn tough. But remember that you only have to use one action to enter Mountain Stance, so once you've done that, it's just one action per round afterward.

Liberty's Edge

Basically, invisibility is less "you succeed at Stealth now", and more "you will always at least be hidden from people relying on visual senses". It's not a bonus, but a base level of success.

And let's not scoff at hidden, which is both an action economy boost (you no longer have to Hide, you can go straight to Sneaking) and a defensive boost (a flat 50% chance for effects to miss you).

Invisibility is still a very strong option.

Liberty's Edge

citricking wrote:
I was looking at a bunch paintings of an invading army from like 1500, and everyone was dual wielding swords. Thought that was cool.

And "looking cool" is exactly why they painted it that way. Just like in modern times, artists are not generally known for knowing how actual warfare is done, and they take a lot of artistic license with their subject matter. Whoever painted that just thought dual-wielding soldiers looked cool, since a battlefield is the worst possible place to try to fight with two weapons instead of a weapon and shield, polearm, or full plate and a two-handed weapon.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not because they were too effective, it's because of the lack of required training. The idea that anybody can just pick up a crossbow and have a dangerous weapon that poses a threat to even armored foes is terrifying to people who rely on a monopoly on violence as a means of controlling the masses.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The main reason crossbows started to see use in the real world is because they didn't really need much in the way of training to use. They were slower than bows and worse at long ranges*, but any peasant could pick one up and have a reasonable chance of shooting somebody with it, whereas archery required quite a bit more training.

This fits perfectly with them being simple weapons.

(* They could be fired with more force, but the smaller size of the crossbow bolts meant they'd lose power much more quickly than an arrow the farther they traveled.)

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I realize that there are limited options in the playtest, but I really hope there are plans for more non-bomb related Alchemist feats in the full book. I love playing poison or elixer oriented Alchemists, but as it stands, there really isn't a way to focus on either of those as an Alchemist, since almost all of your feats are based on using or modifying bombs and nothing else.

Just as an example, the first feat you'll want if you're an Alchemist that wants to poison people isn't available until level 10. This is... disappointing.

Liberty's Edge

Vlorax wrote:
The Deadly Simplicity feat increases the damage die of our favored wep (crossbows) from 1d8 -> 1d10. Then using Crossbow Ace and hunting our target the damage die is once again increased since we're using a Simple Crossbow. So 1d10 -> 1d12 and we get 1/2 our wisdom.

A weapon's damage die can never be increased by more than one step.

Liberty's Edge

Death_Blinder wrote:
This isn't great for the rogue if she rolls poorly on initiative checks though.

The thing is, you'll be rolling Stealth for Initiative, while the guard will almost certainly be rolling Perception for Initiative. So basically, it just takes one last Stealth check (in the form of skill-based Initiative checks) to see if you can actually get off an attack before your target notices you.

Liberty's Edge

Meophist wrote:
"Sling staves" isn't quite a weapon, although there is a weapon called "Halfling Sling Staff". It's unclear where you get training in this weapon or if you just gain access to them. It feels like there meant to be a non-Halfling "Sling Staff" weapon that was left out.

"Staves" is actually one accepted form of plural for "staff".

Liberty's Edge

Patrick McGrath wrote:

It states that when you are using a weapon of ancestry, you do critical effects when roll a critical.

Wouldn't that happen anyway? I am confused. What is the point of this feat?

Each weapon group has its own special bonus critical effect that you only get if you have an ability that says so. For example, swords make the target flat-footed on a crit, but only if you have a feature or feat that lets you use that bonus. This is in addition to the normal critical effect of dealing double damage.

These effects are listed after the weapon traits section in the equipment chapter.

Liberty's Edge

MildlyIncandescent wrote:
From what I can tell after my read-through of the rules, items no longer have HP. In lieu of HP, taking damage over their hardness will cause them to gain a dent, and taking more than twice their hardness in damage causes them to instead gain two dents. For most items, this causes them to be "broken" meaning that, with the exception of armor, they stop providing any benefits until repaired. If a broken item gains any additional dents, it is instead destroyed.

It actually takes twice the object's hardness to dent it, since hardness still reduces the damage the object takes before determining if it gets dented or not.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Phantasmist wrote:
I'd rather the option to do both be baked into both of those classes, I'd rather not be forced to multi-class just to play my 1e character who doesn't multi-class.

This is a pointless distinction, since it's all done using class feats anyway. Basically, the Paladin can use class feats to gain some divine spellcasting, who cares if they call it multiclassing or not?

Liberty's Edge

Threeshades wrote:
After reading about the barbarian's sudden leap feat

Based on the wording of Sudden Leap ("Even if you’re Leaping vertically, you determine the DC for the height you’re jumping using the DC of a Long Jump."), I think it's meant to allow you to jump a long-jump's distance vertically, so you can jump your Athletics check result -5 feet straight up to, for example, hit a flying enemy. If that's the case, then the language needs to be cleared up there.

If that's not the case, then it does at least drastically reduce the DC for the high jump (to 5 plus the height of the jump, instead of DC 30).

Liberty's Edge

Voss wrote:
Paladins have a class ability that increases the damage die of a simple weapon by one step, if it is the favored weapon of their deity.

That's not a proficiency, so it wouldn't apply to the dogslicer.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Dwarves dislike goblinoids"
Why do you need a bonus to hit goblinoids to dislike goblinoids?

"Goblins are fond of fire"
Why do you need a bonus to using fire to like fire?

"Elves are nimble"
Elves already start with a 30 foot speed (sounds pretty nimble to me), this is just getting even more nimble.

You can have a like or dislike (or in the case of an elf, a certain trait) without getting a mechanical bonus for it. Getting the feat at higher levels just means that you're focusing on that like or dislike over the course of your career.

Liberty's Edge

Raizanshi wrote:

Probably a silly question but... are the strikes activated by the different stances compatible with Flurry of Blows? ie can you make two Dragon Tail\Tiger Claw etc attacks as part of a Flurry?

As written, I would think so as the stance attacks have the unarmed trait and Flurry only specifies that you make two unarmed strikes.

But unable to find anything to clarify and seeing that this may cause some contention at the table, I thought I'd ask the experts :)

Basically, what these stance feats do is give you an alternate unarmed strike as a new "weapon" you can use. Any time you make an unarmed strike while in a stance, you can do so using the stats listed (though you're not required to, you can still make a basic unarmed strike: I know some people are, for example, using Dragon Stance but still using normal unarmed strikes for the Finesse trait).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryuujin-sama wrote:
With how some view Cantrip damage, I have to wonder if they even looked at the Alchemist's bombs?

You're underestimating the power of persistent damage, I think. That's #d4 per round, with a very difficult check required to stop the damage: even if they sacrifice an action to lower the DC, it's still only a 30% chance per round to end the effect, and they're effectively Slowed 1 while doing so.

I'd say that's a great step up from a cantrip, myself. You apply that damage to one enemy, concentrate on ending another, and then you can go back and finish the (now heavily damaged) first enemy fairly quickly.

Acid flasks are amazing.

Liberty's Edge

They're trying to give each combat class their own identity in combat feats, rather than having all physical combatants basically wanting the same types of physical combat feats. I think it works better this way, and helps make the two more distinct. Cleave means the Barbarian wants to dig in and finish one foe to get a head-start on the next one, while Sweep means the Fighter wants to spread damage around a bit more, which gives each of their "hit two guys" type feats their own distinct feel.

Liberty's Edge

Spell rolls are the new mechanic for caster level checks, which were also not used very commonly in PF1 either, but they were still necessary. Also, Spell Rolls will be used when attempting to counteract effects (page 319) where your spell's level isn't higher than the targeted effect's level, which includes things like counterspelling and remove X spells.

Liberty's Edge

Lyee wrote:

Thing is, that warrior survived to level 20.

He's probably fought dragons, battled through armies of skeletal mages, broken major artefacts, and sought advice from the highest sages of all the lands for his quests.

"Oh s&@#! The last time a guy wiggled his fingers at me like that, the whole town burned down... run!"

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, I think the "Success" part of Disarm should instead read "Until the start of that creature's turn, treat any successful Disarm against that item as a critical success instead."

Liberty's Edge

Actually, are the only pregens we have the ones that ENWorld previewed? Because if they have a pregen feat for Amiri, we could just look at the damage listed for her weapon and see if it's different than expected.

Liberty's Edge

Draco18s wrote:
Colette Brunel wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Page 91, "INCREASING WEAPON DAMAGE DICE"
That does not say anything about larger weapons dealing more damage
Voss wrote:
zeonsghost wrote:
I'm having trouble finding the damage for Large Weapons, as described in the Titan Mauler ability on Page 56. Any ideas where it's hiding at?

It's probably the fighter sidebar on page 91. Increasing Weapon Damage Dice.

1d4->1d6->1d8->1d10->1d12-> +2 bonus.

You can never increase weapon damage dice more than once.

So a large greatsword would be 1d12+2.

If it _isn't_ that, its basically a 404 error, rules reference not found. The playtest rules basically ignore size except for moving through, hiding behind and screening.

It really ought to be explicit though, because this feels like an educated guess.

Is "zeonsghost" a dev? Because none of that points to larger weapons increasing the damage die, it just says what happens when damage dice are increased. As is, there are no listed rules about how larger or smaller weapons are treated.

Liberty's Edge

Xenocrat wrote:
Voss wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Persona Mask.

Sigh.

Is that a reference to something else, or are you citing a rule somewhere?

It’s a magic item for these performances. You can use them when appropriate.

It gives you a bonus to Performance checks, it doesn't let you use song, dance, or oratory as "instruments" for the purposes of Bard class features and feats.

Also, even if it did, a Bard shouldn't have to rely on a magic item to be able to be a Bardic singer, dancer, or orator.

Liberty's Edge

JDLPF wrote:
Axelwarrior wrote:
JDLPF wrote:
On the other hand, I provisionally see this as a possible welcome change since this means no enemies can ambush the party. They can't use Stealth to attack since "if you attack a creature you’re unseen by, that creature is not flatfooted against that attack."

Why do you think that's the case? The Unseen condition states:

"If a creature is unseen, you have no idea where it is. You
don’t know what space it occupies, you’re flat-footed to
it, and you can’t easily target it with attacks or targeted
spells and affects. "

Enemies can still ambush the party by attacking from behind cover or concealment, such as in a dense forest or a dark dungeon (assuming there's no light on them and the PCs don't have darkvision).

The only difference it makes is that a melee rogue can't effectively use Sneak in combat to get Sneak Attacks, unless under very specific circumstances.

No, they can't. The instant before the enemy tries to attack, they are revealed and no longer unseen, per the Stealth rules, and the player is no longer flat-footed.

Unless they're using ranged attacks from concealment, or the players don't have access to light (maybe the enemies snuffed their torch somehow).

Liberty's Edge

I think they just need to put in a line about inattentive watchers. "You automatically become seen if you don’t have cover or
aren’t concealed from them at any time during your movement, unless a creature that might see you is otherwise distracted and not looking in that direction, as determined by the GM."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You guys are all wrong, it's a carbon copy of Dungeon World. You roll dice and go on adventures! It's exactly the same, it's really super disappointing...

Liberty's Edge

So far, all I've seen from the Bard is instruments, and not only does it not mention non-instrumental performances for a Bard, the Performance skill specifically separates singing and oratory, as well as dancing, from playing an instrument.

Can we really no longer make Bards that focus on song or dance or (my personal favorite) oration anymore?

Liberty's Edge

willuwontu wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Empower Bombs currently does nothing for bombs that the alchemist creates that aren't 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, or 19th level bombs.
I think you might be misunderstanding how the ability works. As written, you can't empower any bombs that aren't 1st level. It's not that you can empower a 3rd level bomb to make it deal double damage, it's that you empower a 1st level bomb, which turns it into a 3rd level bomb that has a damage equal to twice what it was at first level.
So it's even worse than I thought, just wow.
So... you haven't actually looked at the alchemical items list, have you? All the bombs are first level. This is only there to make all the bombs viable at higher levels.
And like I said earlier, that leads to issues when supplements put out bombs that aren't available at 1st level due to their effects.

A problem easily solved by adding rules in that supplement, if necessary.

Liberty's Edge

Texas Snyper wrote:
The Basic X and Advanced X are so that you don't just get the multiclass feat at later levels and just jump right into the good stuff. Basic+Advanced gives your character a form of progression through the multiclass.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. If that's an issue then, this could just modify the Advanced X feat, instead of replacing both.

Liberty's Edge

Malckuss76 wrote:
I like this idea, but shouldn't the dedication feat stay level 2?

This doesn't modify the dedication feat at all, it just has it as a prerequisite, so I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Just to be clear, this doesn't alter the level at which you can take the archetype feats, it only alters the level at which you can take the actual class feats of the class you're multiclassed into.

Liberty's Edge

Quandary wrote:

This reminds me, I don't see the value in having explicit "Versatile" quality.

Just list damage type S/P.
Fine, this can be 'costed' as quality in terms of weapon design guideline...
But that doesn't need to be exposed to every single player who simply wants to use one.
If there isn't any substantial 'rule' that needs to be referenced, beyond what can be expressed as "S/P" damage type, it's a waste to format it like this.

There may eventually be abilities that require a weapon of a specific damage type ("requires a bludgeoning weapon"). The issue with something like S/P is that it gives all multitype weapons a secret advantage for each such ability that comes out.

This way, you can say that, for example, a longsword still only counts as a slashing weapon for the purposes of such abilities, even though it technically has the ability to deal piercing damage.

Liberty's Edge

willuwontu wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Empower Bombs currently does nothing for bombs that the alchemist creates that aren't 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, or 19th level bombs.
I think you might be misunderstanding how the ability works. As written, you can't empower any bombs that aren't 1st level. It's not that you can empower a 3rd level bomb to make it deal double damage, it's that you empower a 1st level bomb, which turns it into a 3rd level bomb that has a damage equal to twice what it was at first level.
So it's even worse than I thought, just wow.

So... you haven't actually looked at the alchemical items list, have you? All the bombs are first level. This is only there to make all the bombs viable at higher levels.

Liberty's Edge

willuwontu wrote:
Empower Bombs currently does nothing for bombs that the alchemist creates that aren't 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, or 19th level bombs.

I think you might be misunderstanding how the ability works. As written, you can't empower any bombs that aren't 1st level. It's not that you can empower a 3rd level bomb to make it deal double damage, it's that you empower a 1st level bomb, which turns it into a 3rd level bomb that has a damage equal to twice what it was at first level.

Liberty's Edge

Actually, now that I think of it, I'd also like to see Cantrips get their own section. Just to make it even easier to find exactly what I'm looking for.

Liberty's Edge

So, a major problem I have with archetypes is the ability score requirements (I can be a full-power Wizard with 10 Intelligence, but I can't dabble in wizardry unless I'm a genius?), and a major problem I've seen other people mention is that you can only take class feats of half your level. I think we can solve both issues by removing the ability score requirements, and replacing the "Basic X" and "Advanced X" feats with the following:

Multiclass Feat (Archetype)
Feat 4
Prerequisites: [Class] Dedication
Gain a [Class] feat. For the purposes of qualifying for the feat taken this way, your effective [Class] level is equal to half your level plus your [Ability] modifier, to a maximum of your level -2.
Special: You can select this feat multiple times. Each time you select it, you gain a new [Class] feat.

This way, if you really want to dig into your multiclass's high level feats, you'll need to shore up your multiclass's primary ability score... but if you just want to dabble a bit, you don't have to worry about it too much.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So one thing I'm having an issue with is the way certain things in the Playtest book are organized, namely powers and skill feats.

Generally speaking, if I'm going looking for a spell or a power, that's all I'm looking for: I'm either looking for the mechanics of a power that my class is giving me, or I'm looking through my available spells in order to see what I can prepare or learn. There is no reason for spells and powers to share the same section of the book. Ideally, I'd rather see each class have its own powers section to make it easy to find the power I'm looking for (with a line referencing the spells section for the rules on how they work, since they work like spells), but I'd at least settle for powers and spells having their own unique sections, then having powers be divided by class in their own section. As far as I can tell, powers are unique to each class, so there's no reason they should be all mixed together, and especially not mixed together with the spells as well.

As for skill feats, it's the same thing: when I go looking for a skill feat, I don't want to have to go look through the entire list of skill feats. If I'm looking to take a new skill feat, for example, I'm far more likely to want to choose a skill to be awesome at, and then pick a skill feat from that skill's list. And if, for example, I remember that there's a skill feat that does something cool, but I don't remember the name of it, it would be much easier to just go to the appropriate skill's section and find the skill feat there, rather than having to read through the whole list again finding the one I want. Skill feats that require a skill should each be listed at the end of their respective skill's description, and skill feats that don't should have their own section before the general feats section (again, with a line reminding players that they can still be chosen as general feats).

Also, one final little nitpick that doesn't really deserve its own thread, but it's a general feat and I just mentioned general feats, so I'll put it here: Ancestral Paragon allows you to choose an ancestry feat of your level -1, but that limitation doesn't matter, and it specifically messes things up for humans. There are no ancestry feats with a level requirement that's equal to that of a general feat, since they're awarded at different levels, so you're always going to be forced to choose an ancestry feat of a lower level anyway, since those are the only ones you'd qualify for. Unless, of course, you're a human, who has the ability to choose a general feat at 1st level... which means that if you choose Ancestral Paragon, you gain the ability to choose a level 0 ancestry feat. That obviously doesn't work. Of course, experienced players will just say "Don't pick that feat at first level.", but since the limitation doesn't matter anyway (as mentioned above), it would make far more sense to just have it be a level 3 general feat and let you take any ancestry feat that you qualify for.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I gotta say, I find it a little off-putting that I can start out as a Wizard with a 10 Intelligence and have full access to all class features, but if I want to dabble just the tiniest bit without having started out as a Wizard, suddenly I have to have a 16 Intelligence.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
Voss wrote:
Right... so. They can either attack him, and he can use shield things, or they can move away and take an AoO. That actually works together. Seelah doesn't have those pieces to work together.
Alternatively: They guarded step >stride away from Valeros and go after another target.

So instead of making three attacks, you just got an enemy to waste two actions to get away from you, and only have one left to make an attack? And they can't even use any multi-action abilities?

Sounds like a win to me.

Quote:
And unlike Seelah, Valeros has nothing specific to offer once the enemy's closed on an ally.

Sure he does: he has Sudden Charge so he can move in, flank with the ally the enemy went after, and still be able to make two attacks (twice as many as the enemy was able to make, if you'll recall).

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
I feel a bit confused as how that d20 icon next to the skills, saves, etc. works. It seems to indicate proficiency but it feels a bit weird, sometimes it's just the top dot, sometimes just the bottom one, and sometimes multiples. I wonder how that is supposed to be read.

I'm pretty sure it's just a filler symbol, representing "This is your bonus to d20 rolls using this Skill/Save/Whatever." The "dots" aren't actually dots, just artifacts from the low quality of the image.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
None of those are as clear and distinct as "When you take a Stride action".

It actually goes even further than that. The devs have specifically said that they chose the terms they chose so that the language of abilities can flow smoothly, but still be solidly defined so as to avoid the "natural language" issues that 5e ran into, with ambiguities in the rules. It's a great balance between natural language and unambiguous rules.

So it's not "When you take a Stride action.", it's very specifically designed so they can say "When you Stride." That's why all the action types we've seen so far have been verbs.

I, for one, am actually a big fan of this method.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As has already been shown in the preview material, being at positive hit points doesn't wake you up anymore, you still have to make checks to regain consciousness. In addition, as Malk said, your dying levels also stay active even once you do wake up, so if you do down again, you're that much closer to dying.

Liberty's Edge

ChibiNyan wrote:
By the way, the text for this says "move action", huh...

I'm guessing that all of the "Stride, Fly, Burrow" and so on actions are classified as "move actions". Just as a simple way to group them all together.

Liberty's Edge

TheFinish wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
Paladinosaur wrote:
So, does the shield take the full damage and you take none, the shield takes full damage and you take damage - shield hardness, or something else?

You know, until you asked that I thought it was clear that it prevented all the damage (based on the extra dent from taking 2x hardness), but a literal read makes it sound like the shield takes full damage and you take damage-shield hardness, which is weird.

I'm trying to remember how it was in the Glass Cannon podcast. I'm sure someone else will chime in with that answer.

Yeah, I editted an earlier post about this. Shield Block states the shield can only block up to it's Hardness, which would mean it can only take 5 damage.

But then the rules go into explaining Dents and mention a shield can take 10 damage for 2 dents....but how does that work if the shield can only block up to 5?

If I get hit for 12 Damage and shield block:

- Does the shield take 5 Damage, and I take 7?
- Does the shield take 12 Damage, and I take 7?

It's pretty confusing.

I'm pretty sure the shield only takes 5 damage, and the rules for taking double hardness in damage are just the general rules for damaging objects. It's a little confusing, but that seems to make the most sense.

Liberty's Edge

I did my pre-order through Amazon directly, and I haven't received anything about the order being charged, and no charges have been made to my card. Will my delivery be delayed since I went through Amazon instead of the Paizo website?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gyor wrote:

I don't like the changes to the Iconic Sorcereress, another victory for neovictorianism is disappointing to me.

There is nothing wrong with some sex appeal.

Sure, when it makes sense. For Seoni, it doesn't make sense. As Wayne Reynolds said, he didn't know where she came from when he first drew her. Now that he knows she comes from a cooler region, he's drawing her as being dressed appropriately for her climate.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

My issue with the "option paralysis" reason is twofold:

1) Why isn't this a problem with the Wizard? A wizard knows more spells and can have more slots as well, depending on specialisation. And they can heighten their spells to any level. But they also have to choose that heightening at the start of the day. I can see a lot more option paralysis there as they hem and haw about what to prepare in which slot at the start of the day than a Sorcerer during a fight. Especially since I've seen it happen in PF1 (but with a Cleric, not a wizard).

Because a wizard doesn't prepare/choose their spells in the middle if combat for casting.

And? If anything, having to lock your choices at the start of the day would generate more option paralysis, not less.

"Man, should I prepare dispel magic as 5th level? Or 4th? Well the bad guy is supposed to be a wizard. But I got no idea what level. Oh man."

The difference is that this decision-making process is done at the start of the day, when everybody's just puttering around and doing whatever. It doesn't come in the middle of combat, where one person is taking forever deciding what to do with their turn when combat is supposed to be fast-paced and fun.

To be clear, I'm not convinced that free heightening for the Sorcerer would create this decision paralysis problem, I'm just trying to clarify why it happening during combat as opposed to during prep time would be a problem.

1 to 50 of 556 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>