Spell Sovereign

NemoNoName's page

Organized Play Member. 589 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 589 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I read the title as meaning the hypetrain is dead :D


4 people marked this as a favorite.

As Gisher noted, Chakram is ranged so you can't use it in melee. However, you can use it with Investigator because it is ranged - and thus doesn't need Agile or Finesse. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wizard: make you wish you played any other spellcasting class.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It really is absolutely required to max out your saves. Remember, it's not just frequency of being hit, but also frequency of being crit that is affected, and this is absolutely critical.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I was going to make a few minor points such as permanent items can also be sold for 1/2 value, consumeables fall under "should I use it now or save for next time" whereas permanent items will recharge to be ready if needed multiple times, etc.

However. None of that matters. What matters for me personally is that consumeables feel exceedingly consumerist and plain irresponsible. Why the hell would I use the equivalent of someones year of work as a one-off maybe-works-maybe-doesn't item such as a medium level scroll of offensive spell? It doesn't matter if I can afford it, but immorality of such an act is humongous.

No. I hate consumeables in general; they are far too expensive, often action hungry, and the worst part is, they just feel super-bad to use from so many angles.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Same issue(s), haven't so far tried any fixes.

Also, a lot of consumeable have a high action cost for dubious or even low-chance benefits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Since Witch can cast any tradition, that means having to be less powerful mechanically than any of the other spellcasting classes.

Witches can only cast spells from one Tradition, they don't have cross-Tradition spell access.


WatersLethe wrote:
NemoNoName wrote:

There seems a lot of projecting and bad faith arguments here.

Where? I just see people disagreeing with you, which isn't the same thing.
Castilliano wrote:
It's nice of you to look out for the new players, but also think of the tables that play a different style of PF2 than you.
Castilliano wrote:

One of the most recent threads has a player looking for housekeeping spells to help them fulfill a character concept they want to play. And I've seen others wonder what kind of everyday spells Golarion might have.

So there's at least some desire to see these odd spells.
Ruzza wrote:
Not every game plays the same and it's not my place to call out "Wrong Bad Fun," and a spell that makes someone feel like a magical man without hurling fire or lightning is absolutely fine.
WatersLethe wrote:
Not only are they more useful than a fourth combat-only spell you probably wouldn't even have memorized during your downtime at, say, a magical school, but their presence in the game gets players thinking. Maaaybe there is more to the system than combat? Maaaaybe it'd be useful to be able to quickly sort through letters, books, or coins?

I never said I wanted combat only, or remove the "common utility" spells. But the spamming of single super-niche thing that a spell does is inane, tiring, and counterproductive. Give us Prestidigitation type spells that cover a topic/series of tasks. Penny pinching the itty bitty tiny tasks per spell just makes magic look limited and ridiculous, and plays into a very common complaint about Paizo systems that they tend to overload with these kinds of tiny, specialized segments which make no sense and just complicate play rather than expand it.

This type of spell should be something that GM allows you to research/learn if it would be useful, not something that needs to take up space in documents showing you how to play the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The main problem with these kinds of spells is, where do you draw the line? These kinds of spells are so specialized they should either be covered by one very generic spell, or GM should allow it on the fly. They do not need to be defined for a game.

Why can't we have a single house-keeping spell that covers all cleaning needs for your home or dungeon instead of having "Wash bathtub", "Clean shower stall", and "Scrub jacuzzi" spells?


There seems a lot of projecting and bad faith arguments here.

I never asked for more combat spells, or to only have combat spells. I love a lot of non-combat spells, and a lot of niche spells, and there is a place for them. But this one is so far beyond the line of "niche" utility it is just clogging the spell lists.

QuidEst wrote:
New players should have a fine time selecting spells from the CRB and maybe APG. The book is called "Secrets of Magic"; it seems like a good point to start including spells to support a broader range of playstyles.

Why are spells from "Advanced Players Guide" okay for new player but not "Secrets of Magic"?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Secrets of Magic brought us a new, fancy, and very useful spell called Quick Sort.

It seems like a critical spell that should be in every spellcaster repertoire. I vote we need more spells like these! We need Heapsort, Bubble Sort, and Radix sort. This is URGENT!

=========================

On a slightly more serious note, can we please stop having these spells? I'm not even complaining that a better spell could've been added in its place, but just simply NOT having this spell would be improvement, since it just clogs the spell lists for no reason. Especially if you're trying to introduce new people, this type of spells are actually a detriment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF2 writers don't seem to like Transmutation, and so they keep taking out spells from that school, or nerfing into ground any that are left (ex. Animate Rope, or compare Expeditious Excavation to Telekinetic Maneuver).

And in general, the rule seems to be to move spells into Evocation.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a running theme in Pathfinder 2. For everything I like about the game, the overzealous attitudes to nerfing any chance of using things like shape changes is a serious problem. Check the Hybrid form of Beastkin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
I think Dragon claws are better than the wildmorph focus spell given to wild order druids as their default focus spell by a wide margin. Wild shape is more fun, but really only in a utility sense at both low levels and high levels, unless you sink feats into it.

I disagree strongly on this point. For several reasons; it is much easier to build a Druid that can stand in melee (without being better than a proper martial) since they start with Armour proficiency and higher hit points.

And while yes, you want to get those extra feats to upgrade Wild Claws feature, those extra feats bring you more than upgrade to Wild Claws and thus are much more worthwhile investment.

Unicore wrote:
If you love lay on hands,

I hate it, I think it makes the game worse and less interesting.

Unicore wrote:
you can pick it up as a sorcerer at level 2 with the Blessed One archetype AND get an extra focus point to boot. Continuing to get more new add on options takes care of the "Now I am stuck with this" aspect of this debate instantly.

Again, this doesn't resolve the problem of having Dragon Claws. This is just a forced fix for a problem that shouldn't exist.


Temperans wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
All the caster in melee talk is making me want to make a divine sorc with champ dedication.

This one is not so bad because it has you do what the game already wants you do as a Fivine Sorcerer: Heal and cast buffs, while just being around. Probably works best with reach weapon to help a bit with the whole "getting attacked" thing. While letting you use reactions.

Buts lets be real. Champion MC caster does the same thing better. Even if they don't get the highest level spells. The fact that you can hit and take some damage makes it much more tolerable.

Not to mention its the closest thing to a PF1 Warpriest in PF2.

Let's not forget just how ridiculously good Lay-on-Hands is. Guaranteed 6hp/spell level heal for 1 action (and a small AC buff!) repeatable near-infinite times per day is super value.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:

You're not getting consensus. You're getting people on one side (those thinking there isn't a significant issue) getting tired and deciding to not post, just leaving the people on the other side posting.

Please don't mistake people being silent as agreeing.

That cuts both ways. And in fact, it seems from overview that number of people who think there IS an issue that stopped posting is higher than other way around.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Riddlyn wrote:
Dragon claws are very thematic for their bloodline. Doesn't mean it was meant to be built around on the chassis it's on.

An thematic option that cannot be used well is THE example of "how to create a Negative Player Experience".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Old_Man_Robot wrote:

This is just a baldly bad faith argument that I actually laughed out loud as I read it. But to address your semblance of a point;

No. We want the options to be BETTER so that people aren't PUNISHED for attempting to make those "creative sorcerer builds" you are touting. We want them to exist, we like that they do exist, we do not want players to be pigeoned holed mechanically OR forced into a position where they have traded their ability to be mechanically effective for their character concept.

Just wanted to boost, this is a very nice summation! :)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
On-level encounters are intended to be difficult challenges. They are not intended to be pubstomps. Stop acting like "on-level" means "trivial" in this system.

Errr... What? This is such a non-sequitur from what I said that it's impressive.

For starters and according to rules, a single on-level monster is 40XP, which in turn is classified as "Trivial encounter".

However, that is neither here nor there. I did not talk about whole encounters, mere probability of hitting an on-level threat. Martials are about 50-50 to hit it and to be hit back, which is fine. But it means spellcasters are going to be hit more frequently, with less HP to absorb the hits. Their primary defence is not being next to it. Thus, a spell that requires them to be next to the monster isn't going to be good even if hitting is on par with martials, and it will be unusable if it's weaker than martials.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who said anything about hitting reliably? Martials (outside of Fighter) don't really hit reliably, they're hit-and-miss situation against on-level enemies. And as a caster, you'd still be hit way more often than a martial presumably - or if you could get comparable AC, you'd have way less HP. And provoke AoO way more often if you're going into CC.

But, note that people aren't asking for master proficiency, but instead to hit with spell attack mods. Meaning no runes, but eventually increased proficiency over martial (eventually is important here).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Again, people here seem to assume that proficiency, in form of the to-hit numbers, are what makes martials distinct from spellcasters. That misunderstands the game engine *so much*.

In fact, the to-hit numbers are the least part of it. The whole system is so skewed that if you don't have the on-level to-hit, you're not merely weaker, you are completely out. Having appropriate to-hit is a prerequisite for making ANYTHING work.

Furthermore, even if say sorcerer gets to-hit with their dragon claws equal to martials, this still leaves them extremely exposed because they have to get into close combat, somewhere where their low HP and questionable armour saves don't want them to be.

Even martials don't hit reliably with their to-hit numbers. Thus a sorcerer with similar to-hit number is being in melee trying to hit with an average weapon and overall subpar defences is not going to suddenly take martials special space.

What makes Martials truly distinct are their special abilities and feats, not pure numbers. Giving spellcasters a way to attack in melee with semi-decent weapons with similar to-hit values to martials won't make martials suddenly superflous. It will just make those spells useable (not even good, merely useable).


7 people marked this as a favorite.

On the note of "you can't give casters numbers equal to martials because then what do martials have" - well they have their specialised feats and abilities.

If it's true that giving casters same numbers as martials would make them equal, then Fighter would make all other martials irrelevant.

Martials get feats and abilities besides the "pure" proficiency numbers. This is what makes them great, not the mere number. Numbers are NECESSARY for a martial, but they are not the entirety of martial experience. Martials would still be able to be martially. And no, caster MC'ing to get Power Attack wouldn't break the bank either - by that time, martials should have way larger access to other feats that make them special than pure numbers.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't buy this "spell that scales would be too strong". There's already plenty of spells that scale. Most Cantrips scale - shield is super useful from 1 to 20 no issue. So having a few more spells that scale wouldn't really break the bank.
Not to mention that despite scaling in attack/damage/AC, Polymorph spells would still fall behind in other aspects and thus wouldn't really even dominate the base-higher level Polymorph spells. If you use Animal Form, you never get flying, or resistances to energy damage.


The Raven Black wrote:
Hmm? Don't Wizards get Skill Feats too?

They do, I badly wrote the sentence. I meant to say that many skill feats work just as good as many of the various utility spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
They don't get to out-wizard you do they?

They don't? Skill Feats are way better than any built-in Wizard abilities and there's so many items that provide the exact same spells Wizard can cast.

In fact, a 1 min spell that gave you same attack modifier would allow you to mimic a Martial for 1/1440 of a day (since martials can just keep going). And the real strength of Martials is not merely in their main number, but in the abilities their feats give them.

Since spellcasters generally have 3 or 4 spell slots per spell level a day, that means that casting a spell allows you to mimic about 2/3*character level of their ability (2 because it's 3 spell slots for every 2 character levels, roughly speaking).
Or at 6th level, casting a spell gives you about 10-15% of spell ability a spellcaster will have.

P.S. And before the nay-sayers jump up, I don't actually want a Transformation spell. I'm just demolishing this particular argument against it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
Do you recall the stream in question, I can't remember anything recently.

Wasn't recently, this was a year or so ago. I remember the stream wasn't specifically about the Wizards but he referenced them on "good design example" and I think it must've been Focus Spells because it was one of the big pain points of the Wizards, one no-one is claiming is well done.

Although that's not the only time I found his reasoning questionable.
I eventually stopped watching Arcane Mark since it was never useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
Honestly, rereading them, they're not amazing. All 3 are also for hair only. Interact with objects, up the die and get grapple, and hexed hair like the hex nails feat.

I mean, getting to d6 and having Grapple IS useful. But yeah.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I think it was Mark Seifter that outlined the math for a 1E problem and got it fixed, even before he got hired onto the Paizo team.

After hearing him talk on Arcane Mark on Wizards, I have serious reservations about anything he designs.


WatersLethe wrote:
I think "pick-a-list" casters should get more spell list mixing to justify the class budget it seems to fill.
Core Rulebook pg.202 wrote:


You treat magic like a science, cross-referencing the latest texts on practical spellcraft with ancient esoteric tomes to discover and understand how magic works.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Old_Man_Robot wrote:

I have little faith in any form of adhered to power-budget in class design. It's clear that some sort of internal rationing happens, but the fact that the Bard and Witch reside in the same nominal space implies that the ability to pick traditions is costed too high.

I would love to see some form of official dev-kit for PF2e. So many class issues might become clearer if we actually understood what the game was trying for under the hood.

I fully agree, and I'm not saying it's costed properly in the power budget. Just that it takes up some space, and if the animal is limited to RP opportunities only, well... It explains part of the imbalance.

We know from Wizard that devs see access to Familiar roughly in the same terms as other Wizard thesis.

And we can see in Sorcerer that devs see access to different traditions as a big power budget item.

Therefore it makes sense that Witch suffers in power budget terms, since it pays power budget for both a Familiar (much like a Wizard, potentially even stronger) and for access to different traditions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Problem with this "familiar is for RP only anyway" approach is that it consumes part of the Witch power budget. And people like their familiars having actual gameplay mechanics rather than being something that is just RP.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Have you considered that players never want to put their familiars in harms way because of RP reasons, and that they are useless for gameplay reasons?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's no reason for monsters to use their highest attacks on summons. They can just swipe them with second or third attack due to how comparatively weak in level they are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's best to ignore examples unless the rule is unclear.

And the rule for Wizards gaining spells is quite clear.


It's perfect stat block as far as I'm concerned! :D Gnoll power! :D


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
And what's the point of complaining about any of that when there's a new book that will have a number of new feats/options specifically for magic on the horizon? I doubt at this point they're going to stop anything to go "Oh, they made the 1111th post on casters. I guess we should add more". They're going to wait until they see what the reaction is to the new book and options, then maybe revisit the conversation.
dirtypool wrote:

So you’re saying that you believe that the issues with casters that most people can agree on could by solved by the creation of a - let’s call it a supplement - that introduces new archetypes, feats, spells and items that is entirely focused on magic.

Something to help casters discover the secret to empowering themselves with more options?

Because we've been told to shut up and wait for Lost Omens: World Guide, which will provide interesting Archetypes and new feat options for classes. It brought a lot, but very little for Wizards.

Then it was clear why - there was Gods and Magic coming. There Wizards will get what they need, after all, it has "Magic" in the name. Wizards got essentially 0 from that book.

Then it was Advanced Players Guide. I mean, they promised all classes will get upgrades!

Wizards got one nice but limited Thesis and one feat worth mentioning (for Illusionists, which were already the best). 0 new Focus spells. Transmuters literally still didn't get a cantrip worth mentioning. They did get a feat though, one which is a) literally unusuable for 3 levels and b) in effect nerfs what you are doing instead of making it better.
And they got a grand total of 0 archetypes that lean into Wizardy things or interact well with Wizardy.

And those are just the highlights. Whenever people bring up their problems, it's always something next coming that fill fix the Wizard, shut up, you're just a power hungry munchkin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Old_Man_Robot wrote:

After 2 years we're finally getting to the state where we admitting there is a problem.

In another 2 years we might agree on a solution.
We'll hopefully get it in print in just under another 2 years.

Then we'll all get to enjoy it for a few weeks until the play test for 3e hits, and the cycle starts again.

Sounds about right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
Unicore wrote:
What thematic caster is not a playable character in PF2 right now

There's lots of thematic concepts that aren't playable.

I have a couple of characters from stories I wrote that can transform creatures to buff or hinder them. Despite this being a common trope in fantasy, there's almost no options for transforming or altering other creatures aside from bestial curse and baleful polymorph, both of which are too high level to build a character concept around. Most polymorph spells only affect the caster.

Transmuter concepts in general don't work well. There is extremely limited damage or battlefield control options in Transmutation school. Many spells have been nerfed into oblivion (see Animate Rope).

Polymorph spells kinda work at level (kinda), but are weak, limited in application, and you can't really specialise in polymorphing into a specific form as it will quickly fall useless as you level up.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just checking caster NPCs from Gamemaster Guide shows that almost all of them are have DCs 2 points higher than equal level PCs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Investigator pales in comparison to the wizard. They one of the least effective classes in the game.

Playing investigator would be like playing a "wizard" version of a martial. I played an investigator for a few levels. That class was mostly made for role-playing and group support games with some mystery.

I'm sorry? I played both Wizard (7, almost 8 levels) and Investigator (level 4 I think? haven't been playing PFS for some months now) in PFS and Investigator blows the Wizard out of the water in usefulness and fun. Investigator is effective in combat, and absolutely rocks out of combat. Wizard is... Meh? Does well with stuff any other class would do well?

Deriven Firelion wrote:
Having a free metamagic feat and an extra flexible one is being best at metamagic.

That's a very low bar, especially given that now, Wizards don't even get access to the best metamagic feats.

Regarding notes on Mastermind Rogue, you don't need to max-out Int to beat Wizard at Int stuff. You can do 14 or 16 in Int and still equal or beat them due to all the extra skill increases, skill feats, and just plain better class.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
2. Most ability to change out spells when given sufficient time.

Only if you take that one thesis.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

3. Best at intel-based skills.

4. Most languages due to intel.

Neither of this is true, since Investigator and Int-based Rogue can easily outclass wizards on both these accounts. And by a wide margin, by the virtue of having extra Skill feats and a bunch of other skill-related features.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
8. Best at metamagic, which will likely be pretty powerful once more books are released.

First of all, this is not something they're good at, this is something they might be good at if any half-decent metamagic feats come out AND they give Wizards access to them.

And there hasn't been any clues that they are looking into doing this.

Also, not really. I guess they can lean into changing one metamagic feat every day? Yay?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Investigator. While you do miss the spells (though you can always multiclass), the sheer number of skills and other useful abilities is dazzling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no niche for Wizard. They're just a spell dispensary, except other classes do it all better.


There's awesome feats if you are an illusionists.

And there's a feat for Transmuter too, only they don't work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:

The problem is that this argument is like Schrödingers cat, i.e. it is both wrong and right at the same time.

If I am not entirely mistaken the prepared Wizard is supposed to be (at least somewhat) better than other casters and the unprepared Wizard is supposed to be (at least somewhat) worse than other casters by game design.

So by design the Wizard is very dependent on scouting (magical or mundane), on GM foreshadowing and/or his ability to make the correct informed decisions while being allowed sufficient preparation time. The Wizard is a lot better when he is the active, planning part than he is when he has to deal with rapid changes.

It is therefore not astonishing that many a Wizard is faring badly if he is constantly thrown into entirely surprising situations, something however many GM's and AP's like to do.

I will also point out that these comparisons also use Wizard prepared for the situation vs others with their generic loadouts. Whereas others can prepare too when they know a situation is coming up, and improve even more on their loadouts.

Sure, maybe they can't improve their performance by same amount as Wizard can, but they already start from higher baseline and will end up higher than Wizard performance again.


Exocist wrote:

Level 1-4 rogue hit bonus should be +7/+9/+10/+11

Level 1-4 caster spatk should be +7/+8/+9/+10

Level 1-4 caster DC should be 17/18/19/20

I don’t think any enemy in plaguestone has that high of a save bonus.

Caustic Wolf (pg.5), an enemy creature in very first combat of Fall of Plaguestone, has Fort+8, Ref+10, Will+6

Boss of first segment has Fort+8, Ref+10, Will+7.

Skipping to the very end, boss enemy has Fort+11, Ref+13, Will+8.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
The Defender's theme seems to be a Champion but not have to respect any anathema. Since it is a negative theme, I think most people will not identify it with a Class theme.

It's only a negative theme if you start with the Champion as it is currently. It's in fact a complete mismatch of class and mechanics.


Champion is a complete mess. It's OP, comes with unenforceable requirements, and overall just hurts the game.

They should've given Fighters an option to pick whether to go Legendary in armour or weapons (other stays Master).

And simply make Champions a variant of Barbarians that get Heavy Armour proficiency, do alignment Rage damage, and Rage against chosen faith enemies. Much more appropriate, too.


NECR0G1ANT wrote:
NemoNoName wrote:
I don't understand why are you people arguing still. It's a Wizard feat, so the meta-reading of the books defintiively supports going for a narrow and weaker reading
...Unified Theory is a skill feat.

My apologies, I mixed it up. Nevermind.


I don't understand why are you people arguing still. It's a Wizard feat, so the meta-reading of the books defintiively supports going for a narrow and weaker reading.

And given all the Wizard content and erratas so far, this definitively reads as intended.

Case closed.


Ravingdork wrote:
Personally, I thing Weapon Specialization would work too. The spells wouldn't be terribly useful otherwise, almost like a debuff even.

This is a bad argument, as this power level seems to be in line with what Polymorph spells give in general.

1 to 50 of 589 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>