Martialmasters's page

I'm kinda hopeful on the changes

I like a lot of barbarian. But the fact that when you can't rage you can't use majority of your class feats and features.

It's not fun when a rogue can't use it's sneak attack but that's monster design, not being knocked out by a lucky crit the round before

My only hope is they do not get Master strikes without a heavy cost to their versatility

I just wanted to say. Today I learned paizo created infinite.

I honestly thought it was a place for people to vent their grievances with the system by fixing what isn't broken or breaking what wasn't good enough for them.

As you can see, the few infinite pieces I purchased I was not incredibly impressed with. But I get I'm probably not their target audience.

Still, cool to finally learn it was paizo itself that created it.

As for the orc stuff. What I've gathered from reading it

Infinite is infinite

Orc is orc

Is there a reason why infinites license cannot be just... Done away with and have it be under soley the orc? I am sure there is, but I am not smart enough for it

Some people play pf2e, others play heavily home brewed amalgamations then think their play state is relevant to feedback.

Martialmasters wrote:

The more I read of my remaster book, the more I think wizard will be more than fine.

Sure, some people might not like it mechanically, some might find it boring. But objectively I can't think of them as weak at all.

Between being and to cast 4 spells a day at level 1, and a once a fight focus spell. It's a strong beginning chassis of spell use only really rivaled by cleric, who has more slots but less options with them

Both conceal and energy ablation are great general picks

Bespell strikes is still there for those that want that decent third action no map strike

Linked focus is there and is great, even moreso for unified theory

Spell protection array is useful one action for any magical oriented encounter

Convincing illusion no longer has a feat tax

Explosive arrival for general summons is honestly really good.

Summon a creature that can cast heal... It blows up on arrival and heals you.. I'll take that

Knowledge is power might require a critical rk but giving that kind of -1 swing for a minute at no other cost is great.

They might be general "spell guy" but they are good at it

Why do you consider Conceal and Energy Ablation great general picks? Or Convincing Illusion?

You have one reaction for Convincing Illusion. An opponent can use multiple seek actions to see through your illusion. The chance to counter saves or Perception is only for a save to disbelieve your illusion and not for a damaging effect. It's a very narrow ability.

I don't consider those feats having much value because the would be dead feats most of the time.

Energy ablation possibly

Other two, you are having a creativity problem in my opinion. If the opponent is making multiple seek actions a round your GM is meta gaming or you made a very clunky illusion.

Don't get me wrong they could have done more with the schools. But what you describe is boring/bland. Wich is subjective. It's like when people tell me fighter is bland because no subclass, even though that's probably my favorite thing about them. They are the premier striker. Wizard is the premier spells guy.

The more I read of my remaster book, the more I think wizard will be more than fine.

Sure, some people might not like it mechanically, some might find it boring. But objectively I can't think of them as weak at all.

Between being and to cast 4 spells a day at level 1, and a once a fight focus spell. It's a strong beginning chassis of spell use only really rivaled by cleric, who has more slots but less options with them

Both conceal and energy ablation are great general picks

Bespell strikes is still there for those that want that decent third action no map strike

Linked focus is there and is great, even moreso for unified theory

Spell protection array is useful one action for any magical oriented encounter

Convincing illusion no longer has a feat tax

Explosive arrival for general summons is honestly really good.

Summon a creature that can cast heal... It blows up on arrival and heals you.. I'll take that

Knowledge is power might require a critical rk but giving that kind of -1 swing for a minute at no other cost is great.

They might be general "spell guy" but they are good at it

I hope the domain spell archetype is good. I've lost a fair bit of interest in the class without them. Every build I tried ended up using them. And I found the high highs and low lows too detract from my enjoyment.

Martialmasters wrote:

Yes you should design your encounters to highlight different players and classes strengths and weaknesses.

That's the Hallmark of a good GM

Not needing to do that is the Hallmark of a balanced RPG.

This game is very balanced but it isn't perfect. Part of moving the power back to the GM means you as the GM take more responsibility as well.

Yes you should design your encounters to highlight different players and classes strengths and weaknesses.

That's the Hallmark of a good GM

Tbh this sounds like a your table problem/preference firelion.

And I already know you've applied 5e style casting to your tables Wich extremely warps your feedback

A martial can indeed invest skill points and multiple feats to do what a single spell/scroll can

Sounds about right. But that's not versatility. That's specialization. The wizard can just pick a different spell.

Hey players, Happy Equinox.

As you’re discussing the remaster changes, kindly be aware that the remaster reflects the rules we are using going forward, but that no content is being banned at your tables. We need to publish what we need to publish for the legal health and safety of our company—and we’re adding improvements to the game along the way. But nothing we’re printing should be considered a subtraction from the game you love. All the options will still be in the System Reference Document at Archives of Nethys.

The Remaster Project is a process. We’re going to be remastering Pathfinder at least into Gen Con 2024 with Player Core 2. And that doesn’t even address the errata that our design team may consider for every rule published after the Advanced Player’s Guide.

In short, a blended OGL/ORC experience should be expected for many months. And we’re never, we can’t, put an end date on what you play at your tables. We’re not coming to your home and taking away your older books. We want you to keep using everything you’ve purchased. As always, we’re trying to deliver to you the best deep character customization options in the industry.

Adventures Ahead!

This is fair. Potentially means I'll ask my GM if when playing a wizard, if I can just use old spell traditions instead of schools so i don't have to constantly bug stuff with debates on what spell should be included in x school because I don't have enough options.

1 action to either do more damage or force enemy movement is tactically interesting and good

Just wish it was level 8

I don't agree with the idea they spontaneous is the one with more versatility. It has more spell slot versatility, not more spell versatility.

Dark_Schneider wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

For some reason wizard players seem to forget how good skills are in PF2, which also obviates the need to use spells for these other things.

Given this is a group game, there is little need for the wizard to switch to something else. Why would the party wait? Why? If they can just go in and don't need the wizard to change his spell load, why wait?

There is zero reason why my group would need the wizard to be a super spy, a sniper, or change their role. They would just be trying to step on the toes of another class that does what they're trying to do better rather than working within the group to make the whole group operate better.

This idea of a wizard switching spells and suddenly being better than some class with a focused stat and specific skills built up is a false theory. That was true in PF1. It isn't true in PF2. It's better to work with your group and make them better by building a character that synergizes with the group rather than tries to be everything while you expect the other group members to stand around twiddling their thumbs.

Does your group really stand there and wait for you to change out spells to accomplish some task someone in the group should be able to do better than you? Is the group built badly? Are they all fighters with a cleric and you're the only versatile caster who can do anything with skills or a ranged weapon?

For that the Wizard has some options, like Flexible spellcasting, Staff Nexus thesis if using one, the change spell thesis, or scroll savant. Some of them delegates on items some spells that you could or not require eventually so don't want to prepare or add to your Collection.

In addition as Int based it reinforces the "how good skills are in PF2", as it gets extra skills and languages compared to others like Charisma casters.

They don't get extra skills because all of those Cha based classes get a ton of free skills. If not outright "you get all lores at Expert for just a feat"....

Just wanted to say, flexible casting is amazing unless your GM hands you the encounter lists every day

shocking grasp thunderstrike being a save spell really gonna peeve the magi.

Oh dang, that's a good point actually

I overall like the wizard

It was never the strongest option

Now with other classes getting buffs and, so far my the looks the wizard getting a nerf. That sucks. They will still be playable.

The issue with the wizard was both , vague theme and some options just being a lot better

Blending and substitution are better then meta magic, familiar and staff almost every time.

Low level feats were meh.

Until remaster, there was strong argument for non universalist wizards because they had a large number of spells to choose from, some had decent focus spells though not great.

Even if the focus spells are better in the remaster, if I have to sit through dead bonus slots that don't scale well, I'm just going to play the universalist, or another class.

Overall I'm disheartened. The class will remain playable, but I liked the wider selection of spells. I love paizo but they've repeatedly shown they prioritize narrative over balance when it comes to something being mechanically weak. So I'm fully expecting the school spell options to be, for the most part, narrative instead of good in the long run.

Personally I don't want to be level 10 with 3 dead slots I'll never use.

This also limits the usefulness of flexible caster archetype, one of my favorites, because I could select good spells for those bonus slots to bolster me.

Maybe paizo will prove me wrong, but my hopes in this specific subtext of their design habits, I'm not hopeful

Martialmasters wrote:

But if that extra spell slot isn't of much value anymore due to lack of good options I'm honestly not sure what I'd do

It seems that Generalist won't be changed much and so remains a viable option. Free re-cast from 3 free options is still better then one additional niche slot.

I never liked it much as I liked having those extra slots

But it might become the default play by most...

Martialmasters wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Narrow schools could also mean that it's more easy for a low level feat that reads something along the lines of "pick a second school" siilar to Order explorer or multimuse bards and etc.

Not sure if this exists or not, but I think that it's still early to say if the class as a whole is nerfed.

It probably is, but I've been holding it in for well over a month now and I was going to explode after reading the preview if I didn't uncork a bit

A feat like that would be nice, though still results to me in a nerfed feeling since I have to spend a feat to hopefully gain similar results to current wizard

We've seen the complete list of wizard fears by name already. Only two if them are unknown at this pointamd neither of them spends like it'll add a second curriculum.

It's still possible they added something loke that to one of the old feats, of course. Or they might have made it a class feature at level 9-ish maybe? Universalist could get something else instead.

But honestly, I'm not holding my breath. Wizard focus spells have always been more filler than something you spend your turn on and of all the focus spell using classes, the wizard has by far the worst focus progression.

I'm frankly not sure if I'd play a wizard over an arcane Witch. The new rune patron is also as well, but the new witch feats shown so far might make up for it.

Overall I have negative interest in familiars and positive interest in a 4th spell slot per level

But if that extra spell slot isn't of much value anymore due to lack of good options I'm honestly not sure what I'd do

Probably just make a 4th cleric I guess

Easl wrote:

That last part is important. Balance is as much about GMing as rules. GMs should be considering the types of PCs in their game when designing scenes, adventures, campaigns, and balancing by ensuring the scenes you incorporate take into account the PC's capabilities. Got an investigator? Include investigation. Got a swashbuckler? Include scenery they can swing on, slide under, etc. Well okay, those are easy peasy, everyone knows that, right? But then why is this one so hard for some folks to grok: Got a wizard? Include tomes, puzzles that require lore and INT checks, spells as loot. Mobs that can be really hard to kill with single attacks but much easier with AoE's

The pressure to build a one-dimensional combat cannon comes from playing lots of scenes where one-dimensional combat cannons are important. And where do those scenes come from? From us. Not the game rules. Some APs excepted - but even with those, it is kinda understood by the player base and the industry that the GM is going to modify scenes in response to different play group capabilities and interests.

So Calliope and others, I agree with y'all about wizard being cool mostly as is. I'm looking forward to the remaster tweaks, but won't be at all upset if they don't get some bonus blaster treatment.

As for the single target magic action, there's always witch hexes for casters to take the archetype. 1a's from other archetypes your wizard takes. At higher levels when you can burn [top-1] spell slots as support, there's single action magic missile. Scrolls of 1-action spells. Though I'd have little problem with a 'Wand of...

Any class that relies on the GM making changes to support them is a bad design unless they are compensated in baseline power with the expectation that many tables won't support them well.

Then, that is every class. Every single one is heavily item/gear dependant and if not given those options by the GM you will have a bad time

Varthanna wrote:

How on earth is this worth a level 14 feat. Not exactly building hype with this.

1 action for a rank level x d6 damage that can be done at range an unlimited amount of times. I think 14 is about right. At least they didn't make it level 16 competing against the obvious effortless concentration choice.

I think the feat looks interesting myself. This is also not bad if you combine it with Trip. Let's say your martial trips the target in the burst area, then it has multiple choices to make with actions. Get up and move out of the area using 2 actions to move or use one action to stand up and attack or get blown up.

It's situationally useful. Not bad for a 1 action feat. I'd prefer it be a free feat for some battle magic type of school, but we'll see what it all looks like.

I think they could have started it at level y6 or 8 with 1d6 and have it scale up to 3d6 by level 14, personally

Aside from this reply, on the topic of the wizard overall. This preview doesn't do much for me. The new feat is cool. I like the concept of schools.

But so far this still reads as a nerf to the wizard overall from pre remaster, with casters getting buffs to their kits (cleric being the obvious one right now, and they were already considered great classes) this makes it feel potentially even worse when compared to other classes.

I'm still hopeful, just worried. Not for wizard being unplayable, just for them to be worse and feel less rewarding (the wider breadth of options for the bonus slot, it felt rewarding to pick good spells for that, with the remaster I'm worried about having nothing but bad options at certain levels that won't scale well

Honestly, I don't see how they'll get any weaker by these changes. Wizard has always been the caster class that gets a lot of cool spell feats.

While I'm no where near as hyperbolic as problem... It's about a loss of versatility we no gain in power that we've really seen.

Paizo very clearly views versatility as power, so to reduce that versatility and not, from current perspective, give them more power, just comes off as them being overall worse.

I've been holding in this feeling/worry that wizard is going to be essentially nerfed from it's current state.

I keep telling myself, wait for remaster to come out.

Then the preview happened and I'm really struggling to contain myself so I thought I'd let out my worries here and you all can either salve them or irritate them lol.

I like schools, but they are so limited I feel like that extra spell slot has become... disappointing. Those slots you'd often choose spells that remain useful even at low spell slots

With the much more narrow scope of options with the schools changes, I fear we can no longer do this, resulting in spell slots that become very nearly dead weight as I level.

Combine this with what seems to be like next to no mechanical changes to the class. I worry they will... Just be worse.

We haven't seen focus spell changes or possibly any good new low level feats.

I'm not knocking play at high level but the feat shown is for level 14. While interesting I'm in agreement with others that is could have been much lower.

I don't think they will be unplayable, and maybe I'm biased, but wizard seemed good but not particularly strong already unless your DM is very very generous to knowledge of what you will be facing regularly.

I'll still play them, just very sad the preview actually made me more worried about the class, instead of hyped.

YuriP wrote:

For some reason the class gives me a image of a Fate's hero (from Fate's games/animes) too (probably because they are based on legends) and there's some sort of heroic figures that are based on high dexterity.

It's because fate as a similar view of hero's where their power comes from feats and legendary objects associated with them. The naming convention is also very similar for the abilities and they reference allot of the same heroes.I wonder if we will get any of the fate memes with exemplar such as archers rarely actually using bows, every swordsmen inexplicably being a blonde haired women and having a guy with a spear every adventure who gets betrayed and dies.

Any way on the topic of dex and strength. Exemplar is maybe the class to really mix up weapons and do things like allowing dex to add to damage or do things like wield two handed weapons in one hand or one handed weapons in two hands for extra damage. Part of the class is about making unique legendary ikons so maybe they should also have unique fighting style with unique properties like chuchulain throwing a spear with his foot. The humble strikes ability could also maybe use the ability to add a weapon trait to simple weapon in addition to increasing the damage dice because simple weapons are also often behind in traits as well as damage.

A feat that does something like let you add dex as precision damage instead of strength on a finesse weapon seems like a solid idea. It's also possibly a good idea for the gaze as sharp as steel which needs something to replace it's reactive strike feature that is both redundant and incompatible with the ranged weapons many people will want to use with it.

I was against thief getting Dex to damage

I'm still not a fan of it

So I'm very much not for more classes getting it.

Martialmasters wrote:

I dunno the martial created here looks like it will be pretty bad at several things

Then improve it or make another suggestion.

My suggestion is the notion that they can't do everything

They can barely go 3 things at a remotely optimal level

Martialmasters wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

Crouza wrote:

Why not just implement it in the same way as the Elementalist archetype, where it narrows the pool of spells you can cast in exchange for giving you more feats directly tailored to your thematic caster idea? Making a class with its own spell list just seems like the same thing, but with more paperwork.

The Elementalist archetype just doesn't get the job done. It's too narrow for too little reward and doesn't feel well-designed.

It's very well designed and delivers on the flavor

Issue is it's not more powerful and that shows what people really want

It seems you're in the minority on this one. Most people seem to feel that restricting themselves and getting little but flavor back means the design has failed.

I don't really subscribe to Reddit

I honestly have little opinion on this

If in pf3 it was less balance forward or less customizable I'd probably not pick it up

Captain Morgan wrote:

JiCi wrote:

The fighter may be balanced, but I feel like it's missing unique class features to differenciate it from other martial classes.

Some will be quick to defend the Legendary proficiencies, but... what else?

Part of the point of the fighter is to not have unique class features. It is a Tabula Rasa that is mechanically flexible enough to focus on almost any style of martial combat, and lacks any flavor which might clash with your own vision. It is the vanilla ice cream of classes. Some people like it on its own, but it also the best base to build a Sunday off of... where things like the barbarian are more like Chocolate Cookie Dough you eat straight out of the pint container.

This has always sounded like Fighter should be an NPC class to me.

At this point my primary gripe with all four of the classes--fighter and monk in particular--is how tired their designs look when compared to fresher class packages being tested for both Pathfinder and Starfinder. Fortunately (and as always), this is a pain point that experience GMs can ameliorate through the application of house rules.

Very curious as to which classes you view as the fresher package

Because pretty much every martial after core I have disliked mechanically because of those packages

Crouza wrote:

Why not just implement it in the same way as the Elementalist archetype, where it narrows the pool of spells you can cast in exchange for giving you more feats directly tailored to your thematic caster idea? Making a class with its own spell list just seems like the same thing, but with more paperwork.

The Elementalist archetype just doesn't get the job done. It's too narrow for too little reward and doesn't feel well-designed.

It's very well designed and delivers on the flavor

Issue is it's not more powerful and that shows what people really want

Faemeister wrote:

That's where I believe a considerable part of their class identity lies besides simply being the best at hitting things: feat selection and customization.

If a fighter's identiy is "having none", I don't call this an improvement...

What's the fighter's equivalent of a barbarian's rage, a monk's ki powers, a magus's spell, a ranger's edge, a rogue's sneak attack and rackets, a gunslinger's way, a swashbuckler's style or a champion's cause?

Let the game have options that can appeal to everyone

Fighters and monks are my favorite martials in this game because I'm not forced into a subclass or archetype and their action economy is lean without forced action taxes like reload, gaining panache, recharging spell strike, etc

You can take feats to give yourself such effects but they are not forced upon me

Don't make the classes less fun for others just because you don't like what many currently enjoy about it please

Karneios wrote:

It just needs a fix up errata pass which I was hoping wouldn't wait until next year for the twice yearly errata periods to begin but it's sure feeling like it will

is this a normal thing? New class has to get an errata?

This is normal for DND as well, and they have much less class features and feats to juggle

But yes they do need some errata

In paizos words

"No need to mess with perfection"

Fighter is fine and is not being changed in pf2e

Martialmasters wrote:

This is odd because I feel the exact opposite. That they are more supported than strength.

You can easily cap your AC, while yes you can take a feat for this, that goes for every class in the game so I don't see it as a good argument

They get static damage bumps in weapon ikon and many of their transcendant abilities are just better versions of existing abilities

Plus has some decent options for ranged/thrown builds

I do not think that being supported means best damage. Nor should it.

I don't expect the best damage either, just noting that the damage difference being about five feels really severe at the levels I can build in the PFS playtest (1, 3, and 5).

Fair, I don't play pfs admittedly

But this is on par with pretty much every martial as well outside of thief rogue.

You sacrafice strength you sacrafice damage. You can boost strength and Dex buy you sacrafice your class DC.

It seems people want capped AC, high strength and charisma without any sacrafice or decision making despite being able to shore up that pet desire with a single feat.

i also disagree.

the way it is now it makes it that much more tactical, you have to think basically what you want to be using next round to be optimal and keep switching to that.

ofc, wihtout having playtested it actually, i can't know how restricting it would be, but it at least it seems much more engaging the way it is now.

From me playing it, what I found was, it's not actually very tactical, just taxing

You just end up using shift a lot. Essentially imposing slowed 1 on yourself.

This is odd because I feel the exact opposite. That they are more supported than strength.

You can easily cap your AC, while yes you can take a feat for this, that goes for every class in the game so I don't see it as a good argument

They get static damage bumps in weapon ikon and many of their transcendant abilities are just better versions of existing abilities

Plus has some decent options for ranged/thrown builds

I do not think that being supported means best damage. Nor should it.

initially i thought the same:

shifting feeling like a tax.

but then i changed my mind:

shifting SHOULD feel like a tax.

---

to clarify my position on "why" that is:

i think the intended purpose is cycling transcends.

transcend fills that niche that "adding something to reload" gives.

it basically an effect that's added to you shifting around your spark.

---

so, my solution would be to better spread out the transcend abilities to make transcending from one ikon to another better, rather than having some transcends being clearly superior to others and having to continusly shift around and repeating the same transcend over and over again.

This will create a much more fluid gameplay, and imo more rewarding gameplay as well as oppossed to "keep using the same transcend over and over".

Shift should be the "ah crap i messed up" button or the "oh s+%$ i need to use THIS right now!", and that should come at a cost.

---

tldr:

if you add stuff to Shift, you promote the playstyle of spamming the same transcend over and over again instead of cycling through different (but useful) abilities from round to round.

currently abilities are too niche for this gameplay idea to pan out

getting reactive strike, drawing someone in, rerolling a save, etc, etc. none of these are anything MORE than *ah crap i need this now* things.

so they'd need to drastically change

id also counter that this isnt fun, because currently the option is still to just shift back and try to use weapon trascend until you need something else then just shift and use that trascend

if imanence were constant effects this would feel less bad

there is no point where im switching to vast majority of body/worn for any reason other than a oh s~$+ button. leaving shift to just feel like a tax

taxes are not very fun on their own, so maybe something needs to be done to make shift feel less of a tax, even if its just shuffling things around

I did 3 separate playtests with the exemplar, mainly to test out ways to utilize their shift/transcendence abilities and how they seemed to interact with the action economy, as I love this games action economy, but loathe action restricted classes (so, love monk, loathe magus, as example).

my exemplar hope-being rewarded for juggling transcendence and creating synergies

realization- the actual play felt much better when I used shift sometimes more than transcend.

my issue with this- shift is a nothing burger, an action tax to justify power, nothing seems to synergize with it, there is nothing I can take to make that opportunity cost easier. While using it made my experience far better, using it also made me feel like I enjoyed the class less.

lot of the transcend abilities are not abilities you want to wait around for, they are not abilities where you transcend your weapon so next round you can transcend your worn and help your party members reroll saves.

now many of them are quite good, but they essentially become 2-3 action routines.

my feedback: id like more ways to interact or action suppress with shift, as it seems much more important to the flow of the class than i first though, while also feeling fairly isolated, making it feel like, at least, to me, an action tax akin to reload or recharge.

gunslingers get ways to interact with reload, id like more ways to interact with shift

i think this is a case of them tying classes to story and lore of the happenings of golarion

they could have made the flavor of exemplar different and thus not rare

but they are tying it to a theme, the rare tag is just to show its a very specific theme.

i think its an easy thing to change at your table. with minimal impact.

sounds like a good option to home brew it at your table

id like unarmed/unarmored to be supported

i dont want a entire revision to the class though

CorvusMask wrote:

I'm kinda confused on why page 3's sidebar doesn't specify they are trained in divine tradition, is that new format change or typo? Took me while to read what tradition they could cast

I really hope this isn't a typo, because it would mean that spell attack and DC are no longer tied to tradition at all, they're just your general spellcasting ability like weapon proficiency is your general fighting ability.

This makes multiclass archetype spellcasting, for example, so much easier to deal with.

thats a good point, i sincerely hope thats not the case though.

we have good blaster casters currently

None of this really touches on early levels (1-2 especially) other than picking up a actual weapon and hitting things

The players should get 175 total gold by level 2. 40 of that should be in straight gold. The rest in items. If you are giving players consumables they are not likely to use themselves, your direction is to only count them as half for treasure.

But even if it was all in items that had to be sold for half value, every player should get more than 20 gp by level 2 and even then, you’ve under treasured them.

There is zero way your reading that right

This is what happens if I'm given a bunch of scrolls

I pick one

I walk around with it in my hand

Fight starts, I cast it

I go back to using either my spell slots or cantrips+striking with a weapon

If I have a staff it's for ooc options

This has resulted in me feeling like I contribute more to a given encounter as a caster, not less.

I'm not going to use that meta magic *draw scroll* in combat unless it's the difference between life and death

I think if your willing to give up all your utility and versatility at a class chassis level (meaning, you can use skill feats and general feats to accrue some)

Then by all means get better blasting!

Sounds like fire kineticist

Martialmasters wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I feel sorry for all the caster PCs whose GM forbids buying scrolls to supplement the few slots they have.

Casters can use scrolls, right ? Or is it only a martial thing ?

It's not as great as you think it is in early levels

Unless your DM ignores wealth tables

GM actually has a pretty good way around this if you want. When you put consumables in loot piles and make it understood that "nobody's going to want to buy these from you" then you can provide people with ample scrolls, potions, etc. without blowing the wealth curve.

I flavor this with "consumables all come with a wax seal with a mark" and nobody sensible will buy a potion without the mark that indicates that "this is not poison" or a scroll without the mark that indicates "this is not exploding runes."

Your answer is to home brew?

Martialmasters wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I feel sorry for all the caster PCs whose GM forbids buying scrolls to supplement the few slots they have.

Casters can use scrolls, right ? Or is it only a martial thing ?

It's not as great as you think it is in early levels

Unless your DM ignores wealth tables

Hard disagree, my low level casters use a ton of scrolls. More than my high level casters actually as with bigger spell lists I rarely need supplemental casting. Also I have less free hands at high level.

Then your table isn't paying attention to wealth tables tbh

At least for level 1