D&D 5e Spell Preperation

Does anyone else think that Pathfinder second edition should have gone with the D&D 5e method of spell preparation?

For those of you that don't know, prepared spell casters get to prepare a number of spells, and then can spend a spell slot to cast any appropriately leveled spell. So instead of preparing three magic missiles, you just need to have magic missile prepared today to be able to spend spell slots to cast it.

I think this would have helped people who are coming over from 5e, as well as give prepared casters a little utility after the decrease in spell slots. What does everyone else think?

That wouldn't work very well, as d&d 5e also allows all spells to be spontaneously heightened, which also isn't available in Pathfinder 2e.

You could theoretically houserule those things, but be mindful that it will significantly boost spellcaster flexibility in general. PF2e had balancing casters and martials as a stated goal, since that disparity is a frequent complaint in 1e.

So if you do that, consider adding some drawbacks as well.

The main problem becomes the spontaneous versus prepared casting, in 5e Sorcerer is just a inferior to Wizard with less spells know and fixed list.

I think that in the internal playtesting of PF2 they tried that method and if it had gone forward Sorcerer would not have been a class.

There was a survey. Sadly the majority of answers was in favor of keeping the vancian system.

As someone currently playing a Cleric for almost a year (regularly) and reading the spell list all the time to find new tools and answers to help my party, I can say: The vancian system should've been gone.

There's already a good precedent with Arcanists, PF2e should've kept the change and they could easily find ways to change the sorcerers while they're at it, after all Sorcerers now can be divine, occult, arcane or primal and that's a huge change nobody was expecting... I'm pretty sure nobody would complain if there was only Arcanist casting (almost like 5e, without heightening) in the game but spontaneus casters were similarly overhauled to compensate.

There was a survey. Sadly the majority of answers was in favor of keeping the vancian system.

As someone currently playing a Cleric for almost a year (regularly) and reading the spell list all the time to find new tools and answers to help my party, I can say: The vancian system should've been gone.

There's already a good precedent with Arcanists, PF2e should've kept the change and they could easily find ways to change the sorcerers while they're at it, after all Sorcerers now can be divine, occult, arcane or primal and that's a huge change nobody was expecting... I'm pretty sure nobody would complain if there was only Arcanist casting (almost like 5e, without heightening) in the game but spontaneus casters were similarly overhauled to compensate.

All you have to do is give spontaneous casters free heightening (because really, their list is so limited they could get that and still not be overpowered) and BAM. Now balanced.

prepared spell casters get to prepare a number of spells, and then can spend a spell slot to cast any appropriately leveled spell.

So, Starfinder's method of spell preparation.

Which as other people have pointed out, would likely make the sorcerer redundant. In Starfinder there is is only one method of spell preparation, and only two casting classes - one for each spell list.

Which as other people have pointed out, would likely make the sorcerer redundant. In Starfinder there is is only one method of spell preparation, and only two casting classes - one for each spell list.

I disagree, the sorcerer doesn't have to prepare any spells at all, and can choose from any of the spell lists. If you changed the game up so that sorcerers could heighten spells for free, while others had to prepare it at the level they wanted it, I think that would be enough of a difference, just as it is in 5e.

Yes 5e where sorcerers are better for a dip as a paladin or warlock than as an actual class and wild sorc is especially bad.

Isn't that a consequence of their class features and not of their method of spell preparation though?

breithauptclan wrote:

Which as other people have pointed out, would likely make the sorcerer redundant. In Starfinder there is is only one method of spell preparation, and only two casting classes - one for each spell list.

I disagree, the sorcerer doesn't have to prepare any spells at all, and can choose from any of the spell lists. If you changed the game up so that sorcerers could heighten spells for free, while others had to prepare it at the level they wanted it, I think that would be enough of a difference, just as it is in 5e.

Yes 5e where sorcerers are better for a dip as a paladin or warlock than as an actual class and wild sorc is especially bad.

If we actually look at fantasy fiction and video games, Vancian casting and even spell slots would look strange at best and utterly outdated at worst. Mana point systems make a lot more sense in representing what people usually imagine when they think of mages. Even with mana pools, prepared and spontaneous casters can still be made distinct enough with unique class features and unique spells not on tradition lists (eg. bard compositions and sorcerer bloodline spells).

But that would require an entire change in paradigm. Paizo wants Pathfinder 2e to look like it's still Pathfinder. 3e style casting is kind of an identity of Pathfinder at this point.

I personally want to test out someday if 5E prepared casters may only prepare "half level + casting mod (minimum 1)" spells, while greatly boosting # of spells known for Sorcerers and similar classes and see if that evens things out...

There is also the fact that a lot of Pathfinder fans come from D&D roots leaving after 3rd and actually have Vancian casting a thing in there world and settings. The mythology that magic is far more complex then a handful of seconds of gestures and words and each individual spell take a long time to cast and store for later. Usually from players that started in first or second edition were each prepared spell takes 15/10 minutes (1st/2nd) per spell level to prepare and store (memorize, which was never the best word for what was happening).

I have played a few 3rd edition games (and pathfinder 1e) were it took old school times to prepare a spell as the preferred method. (or even 1 hour per spell level, with spells being 100 pages long per level, really doubling down on wizard towers/libraries).

From a world building view it changes a lot, makes spell slots closer to an adventure long resources as opposed to a daily one, reinforced why few wizards would adventure, few clerics leave there temple, why magic is rare and has not overrun society.

Don't get me wrong, it's not the best system for everyone. I love many different systems (D&D 4e as well as that retro style above, and even non-d20 things), I also enjoy settings from Eberron to Conan-esque in there magical approach.

The point being 5e already has the ease of use and simplicity as well as mass appeal (Simply by being D&D). So ultimately I don't think they should have gone the route of copying them and instead think the style of casting we got fits the setting style they were aiming for. Casting spells is inherently more complex and suffers many disadvantages from ease of play point of view that gives it just the right feel IMO.

If we actually look at fantasy fiction and video games, Vancian casting and even spell slots would look strange at best and utterly outdated at worst. Mana point systems make a lot more sense in representing what people usually imagine when they think of mages. Even with mana pools, prepared and spontaneous casters can still be made distinct enough with unique class features and unique spells not on tradition lists (eg. bard compositions and sorcerer bloodline spells).

But that would require an entire change in paradigm, though. Paizo wants Pathfinder 2e to look like it's still Pathfinder. 3e style casting is kind of an identity of Pathfinder at this point.

Perhaps if PF2 is successful, PF3 will see focus points become a core part of each class (and no feat tax to regain multiple focus points at once), expanded to allow for about 5 focus points by level 9 and spell slots be reduced to only having about 5 per day (but they grow more powerful as you level up).

:P

I am a fan of having both options.

Though I could see both in the same class. Prepare a spell, and get +1 to the DC (1 less action?), or leave the slot open for spontaneous casting.

Also, I don't see casters being overpowered if they had a little more flexibility. At least at low levels.

Perhaps if PF2 is successful, PF3 will see focus points become a core part of each class (and no feat tax to regain multiple focus points at once), expanded to allow for about 5 focus points by level 9 and spell slots be reduced to only having about 5 per day (but they grow more powerful as you level up).

:P

Considering how well Dreamscarred Press psionics works in 1e, and how 2e's magic no longer has caster level scaling without expending more resources (heightening in a slot-based system is very similar to boosting spellpower by expending more points in a mana pool system), I can see spell points being homebrewed into PF2e without too much effort.

5e also has a spell point variant that I enjoy far more than the default.

The main issue is like everyone already said about removing Vancian preparation -- how to differentiate prepared and spontaneous casters. Clerics and druids already have enough class features outside of their spell lists to be distinct from sorcerers. The issue would mostly be to differentiate between imperial sorcerers and wizards -- although one could argue that an imperial sorcerer with arcane evolution is basically the arcanist of this edition.

Giving casters a lot more flexibility is actually less of an issue this edition than before. The 3-action system plus legendary skills makes martials more flexible than ever. Still, it's worth being wary of reintroducing caster-martial disparity.

Does anyone else think that Pathfinder second edition should have gone with the D&D 5e method of spell preparation?

For those of you that don't know, prepared spell casters get to prepare a number of spells, and then can spend a spell slot to cast any appropriately leveled spell. So instead of preparing three magic missiles, you just need to have magic missile prepared today to be able to spend spell slots to cast it.

I think this would have helped people who are coming over from 5e, as well as give prepared casters a little utility after the decrease in spell slots. What does everyone else think?

I've always found the whole concept of "I prepare two castings of cure light wounds and one of sanctuary" a weird thing anyhow, so yes. It's pretty deeply ingrained though.

When it comes to contentious issues, inertia tends to win out in my experience (it's generally more distressing to lose something you've got than to not get something you want). I think there's strong feelings on either side, so if I were Paizo I would have left it unchanged.

I've always found the whole concept of "I prepare two castings of cure light wounds and one of sanctuary" a weird thing anyhow, so yes. It's pretty deeply ingrained though.

I agree that "I memories the same spells twice, and forget it after I cast" has always seem really odd to me.

But, "I prepare 2 scrolls/potions/wands/runes of healing" works just fine for me. And it keeps the things I like about Vancian. Mainly you need forethought, and you don't spam the same ability repeatedly.

Mana systems tend to end up with 1 or 2 spells being cast repeatedly. Unless you add some kind of cool down or something like that, which can be a lot to keep track of.

See I find the opposite. If I'm allowed to prepare a batch of spells then I'll try and slip in the odd cool-but-often-useless spell. If I have to nominate exactly (including number of instances) ahead of time, it's very hard to go past Cure Light Wounds or similar, just because you know that'll help, whereas Purify Food and Water or Sanctuary or something are just too situational.

Isn't this just arcanist casting from PF1? If so, I presume the Arcanist will have something like it if/when they bring it back.

Steve Geddes wrote:

I've always found the whole concept of "I prepare two castings of cure light wounds and one of sanctuary" a weird thing anyhow, so yes. It's pretty deeply ingrained though.

I agree that "I memories the same spells twice, and forget it after I cast" has always seem really odd to me.

But, "I prepare 2 scrolls/potions/wands/runes of healing" works just fine for me. And it keeps the things I like about Vancian. Mainly you need forethought, and you don't spam the same ability repeatedly.

Mana systems tend to end up with 1 or 2 spells being cast repeatedly. Unless you add some kind of cool down or something like that, which can be a lot to keep track of.

That's how I rule Vancian as well. Wizards write temporary scrolls, witches make one-use fetishes, druids asks spirits to imbue power into berries and branches and bits of fur. It's not about casting and forgetting, it's about expending the power held by objects that takes a 10-minute ritual each to charge.

It's also why sorcerers don't need any material components to cast. Materials are expended as part of the ritual, whether because it's a scientific procedure or because gods and spirits demand it as a token offering. The magic of prepared casters ultimately comes from the ambient energies of the world, or divine/spiritual/eldritch entities. Sorcerers are magical by nature.

Mellored wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I've always found the whole concept of "I prepare two castings of cure light wounds and one of sanctuary" a weird thing anyhow, so yes. It's pretty deeply ingrained though.

I agree that "I memories the same spells twice, and forget it after I cast" has always seem really odd to me.

But, "I prepare 2 scrolls/potions/wands/runes of healing" works just fine for me. And it keeps the things I like about Vancian. Mainly you need forethought, and you don't spam the same ability repeatedly.

Mana systems tend to end up with 1 or 2 spells being cast repeatedly. Unless you add some kind of cool down or something like that, which can be a lot to keep track of.

That's how I rule Vancian as well. Wizards write temporary scrolls, witches make one-use fetishes, druids asks spirits to imbue power into berries and branches and bits of fur. It's not about casting and forgetting, it's about expending the power held by objects that takes a 10-minute ritual each to charge.

It has never been about memorizing as in the idea of learning and forgetting, that is the lingo (often in setting) that is used wizards to mean casting a spell and storing it's pattern in your mind, and magic in your very essence, to be released later.

Spells are long and complex, they take more then 6 seconds to perform, so you cast these minute long endeavor at the start of the day and store that magic inside of you "Memorizing" all the different spells you have prepared. You don't forget the spell, you expend it. (Which been the in world setting explanation for over 3 years of D&D) I think the original source "Vance" novels literally had the spells ripped form you mind and forgotten making magic a terrible experience, but that is a whole different setting (and they certainly didn't case dozens of spells a day).

I see casting in PF to be the practical application of "magic as rituals". Preparing the spells is setting up the dominoes and casting is knocking them down.

It actually makes me think of Full Metal Alchemist, where the alchemists often prepare their transmutation circles ahead of time or attach them to objects.

If we want to go for magic as classically presented, we tend to fall into two categories, the "Exertion of One's Will" and "Execution of Rituals". The former seems better represented by a system like Shadowrun. The latter, however, has overlap but is not completely covered by Vancian or Mana Points. Mana Points are just as gamey as anything else, so I don't think that is a good point to appeal on.

5e system is still vancian magic, just a slight spin on it that destroys flavour of prepared spellcasters.

If you don't like planning and thinking through your spells, play a spontaneous caster.

Do I like vancian system? No.
Do I think Pathfinder should have moved away from it? Yes.
Do I think it should have gone with 5E system? Hell NO.

I see casting in PF to be the practical application of "magic as rituals". Preparing the spells is setting up the dominoes and casting is knocking them down.

It actually makes me think of Full Metal Alchemist, where the alchemists often prepare their transmutation circles ahead of time or attach them to objects.

If we want to go for magic as classically presented, we tend to fall into two categories, the "Exertion of One's Will" and "Execution of Rituals". The former seems better represented by a system like Shadowrun. The latter, however, has overlap but is not completely covered by Vancian or Mana Points. Mana Points are just as gamey as anything else, so I don't think that is a good point to appeal on.

A mana point system is gamey in that it fully decouples lore from the mechanics of spellcasting. The only assumption it makes is that casters can "run out of juice" by using too much magic. Plenty of fiction depict spellcasters as being exhausted after casting a powerful spell and not being able to use magic for a while, though, so it's not unusual.

Preparing spells ahead of time is pretty much unseen outside of D&D and fiction inspired by D&D. The only exceptions I can think of are Jack Vance's writings, which is the source of the term "Vancian", and the first two Dark Souls games.

See I find the opposite. If I'm allowed to prepare a batch of spells then I'll try and slip in the odd cool-but-often-useless spell. If I have to nominate exactly (including number of instances) ahead of time, it's very hard to go past Cure Light Wounds or similar, just because you know that'll help, whereas Purify Food and Water or Sanctuary or something are just too situational.

true.

Really, I think a "you can only prepare a spell once" / "you can only cast the same spell once every 10 minutes" or some other anti-spam mechanic should be included in every class, for every style of casting.

MAP actually works kinda-well for anti-spam on fighters. So maybe some kind of muli-cast penalty. You can cast fireball all you want, but take a -5 to the DC each time.

For my current games, I've been houseruling that Wizards have sort of Arcanist-style casting (they prepare the number of spells they normally would but then can cast spontaneously from them instead of having to pick exactly how many uses of each spell) and also allowing not spontaneous Heightening but rather Undercasting. So say they prepare Lightning Bolt at level 6, they can cast it from any slot down to 3 but can't go the other way.

To balance it spontaneous casters have been given full spontaneous Heightening. So it results in Sorcerers have by far the most options for their best spell slots while prepared casters also have pumped versatility.

And it's worked quite well in my games. Casters haven't felt like they are overshadowing Martials and the prepared caster and spontaneous casters have seemed balanced against each other.

That said, I don't know if I'll use this houserule in future games. The base system is simpler and my houserules sometimes cause things to take a little longer in combat than they need to.

This is my first game with the full vancian casting (started with 4e, went to 5e) and I'm actually kind of excited for it, it makes different kinds of casters feel more unique (the sorcerer vs. the wizard for instance) in a way 5e never accomplished and creates more room for different play style preferences (some players are going to doubtlessly prefer the advantages prepared casters get, without minding the actual preparation, others are going to lean towards spontaneous casters for this reason.)

It also helps to limit casters a bit, since prepared casters have to have foresight to be able to capitalize on their versatility.

I also like the way heightening is handled- it makes leveled versions of spells, feel like different spells, which itself feels like deepening the game.

If we actually look at fantasy fiction and video games, Vancian casting and even spell slots would look strange at best and utterly outdated at worst.

Chrono Cross. That is the only video game that I have ever encountered that had the same style of spell preparation.

And yes, it is rather strange to have that in a video game.

And since it is for the original PlayStation, it is also a very old game at this point.

There is also the fact that a lot of Pathfinder fans come from D&D roots leaving after 3rd and actually have Vancian casting a thing in there world and settings.

One of the main problems with Vancian casting is that it usually isn't reflected in the world and setting. You'll rarely see characters in FR or Golarion fiction talk about spell slots or preparing specific spells. Magic is usually described in much more nebulous terms like energy or fatigue that map better to systems like spell points than actual Vancian casting.

Does anyone else think that Pathfinder second edition should have gone with the D&D 5e method of spell preparation?

For those of you that don't know, prepared spell casters get to prepare a number of spells, and then can spend a spell slot to cast any appropriately leveled spell. So instead of preparing three magic missiles, you just need to have magic missile prepared today to be able to spend spell slots to cast it.

I think this would have helped people who are coming over from 5e, as well as give prepared casters a little utility after the decrease in spell slots. What does everyone else think?

Agreed on all counts. With quite of experience both ways, I'm not sure I'd get the guy who played 5e casters for two years to play a P2 caster without house-ruling it. Literally the first day of the playtest for P2, he said something to the effect, "Ugg, casting is so annoying, why didn't they just use 5e casting, it's better?" We chucked that rule after about six hours of play and house-ruled it. It's kind of funny, when I met the guy he was a P1 guy, then swung completely to 5e. P2 is yet to be determined, but requires house-rules such as casting.

Let them just prepare spells and cast them as many times as slots allow. Let the spontaneous casters spontaneously heighten for free and make the prepared casters prepare any heightened spells they want. We playtested about five to six months like that.

IMO, good old Vancian Casting is just terribly frustrating, cumbersome, and annoying to play with.

Prepared spellcasters are super fun for Know-it-Alls, because they represent the Ultimate Challenge!

Forget the lore.

Can you predict how the adventure will unfold, and prepare your spells correspondingly, in such a way that the sum total of your plans, contingency plans, and contingency-contingency plans result in you using up exactly all of your spell slots to maximal effect?

Can't do that with 5e because their magic system incentivizes disengagement and laziness...

Can't do that with 5e because their magic system incentivizes disengagement and laziness.

I think it does the opposite. I think it let's prepared casters to focus a little more on playing the game and a little less on metagaming and bookkeeping.

Isn't this just arcanist casting from PF1? If so, I presume the Arcanist will have something like it if/when they bring it back.

If they bring the Arcanist back as a separate class, then that style of spell casting won't be made available to any other class.

I think I would rather see it as an option in the Gamemastery Guide for handling prepared spell casters in general.

rainzax wrote:

Can't do that with 5e because their magic system incentivizes disengagement and laziness.

I think it does the opposite. I think it let's prepared casters to focus a little more on playing the game and a little less on metagaming and bookkeeping.

"Meta" means above or beyond.

If a person, in their own world, decides to become an adventurer, there is certainly no time for disengagement and laziness, because the danger is real, meaning preparation is the key to survival.

Prepared spellcasters are super fun for Know-it-Alls, because they represent the Ultimate Challenge!

Forget the lore.

Can you predict how the adventure will unfold, and prepare your spells correspondingly, in such a way that the sum total of your plans, contingency plans, and contingency-contingency plans result in you using up exactly all of your spell slots to maximal effect?

Can't do that with 5e because their magic system incentivizes disengagement and laziness...

This hardly ever happen. Which the majority of the time will mean this: "This spell can be broadly used enough to warrant a slot?" If the answer is yes, then you're going to prepare it. If it's mildly situational (specific for undead, water environments or similar) then it's either gong to be a scroll or prepared when you have low-level slots to spare. If it's single purpose spell then it will either be a scroll or it will be prepare the next day to solve the issue(most remove X).

People can prefer the old-style casting as much as they want, there's no wrong with that, but I find it very hard to deny that the vancian system doesn't actually accomplish what's supposed to do. Most players just pick a subset of all-round spells and the narrow utility ones become scroll-only. That of course, assuming the newer players (or even veterans) don't actively dodge the system by picking spontaneous.

Before any opinions may rise claiming that's because it's the way I play, let me assure you it definitely is not. As I mentioned in my another post, I've been playing Cleric for a long time now and my previous character was a Wizard and I always read the spell list and search online looking for new spells. I know the importance of having a good Cleric in the party and so far, there hasn't been any casualties on my watch (now the chances are even less with my Breath Of Life coming online).

Arcanist-casting is straight up better, because its the best of both styles, you can prepare your stuff and you have space for B-tier spells that would never be prepared because if the specific situation didn't arise it would become a dead slot (which doesn't happen when you can pick and choose how many of X prepared spell you want to cast).

Lightning Raven,
Which is "better" is besides the point. Full prepared, Full spontaneous, or Hybrid prepared-spontaneous. They each have their own associated preferred playstyle.

Speaking of preferences, playtesters preferred to keep Vance. That's why PF2 rolls with it.

Turns out folks like the additional payoff of accurately guessing which and exactly how many spell slots to prepare, based on information they can collect in-world. It's like playing on hard mode.

And you are probably in luck. Pretty sure Paizo will eventually break back out the Arcanist, which if you are unfamiliar, has exactly the magic system you like: Hybrid.

When Prepared looks at Hybrid, he/she sees laziness. When Hybrid looks at Prepared, he/she sees obsessive-compulsion? (Not sure how I look in your eyes. The only words you have used are "doesn't actually accomplish what's supposed to do" which is an opinion you tote).

I remember having a few of these discussions before.

In regards to "this would make the Sorcerer redundant" it's a totally valid option to just roll Sorcerer back into Wizard, just as Half-Orcs are rolled into Humans. Alternatively, we keep Sorcerers as a class, because their bloodlines are enough of distinguishing characteristic that they don't need to have a monopoly on a superior game mechanic. 5e's sorcerers aren't bad because the whole system is spontaneous casters, they're bad because they're not given enough to compensate for fewer spells known.

A lot of 5e's troubles with sorcerers comes from the fact that their magic is innate, and so they naturally should be fairly frontloaded. But because 5e has an inferior MC'ing system, frontloading is a balance issue, so classes can't get their really cool stuff until much later where dippers can't reach them. That's not a problem in PF2, dipping isn't even a thing anymore.

A PF2 with universal Arcanist casting would have sorcerers with a lot more of their power placed in their choice of bloodline, which to me sounds way the hell cooler.

As for "we can just have both" the issue is that the old Vancian casting is really, really bad. It slows down play considerably as players need to spend a lot more time outside of combat or RP agonizing over how many spells to prep. It encourages more boring playstyles where players are more unwilling to prepare fun spells because they want multiple castings of spells they know they'll use.

Moreover, because you can only cast a spell as many times as you prepared them, the power of a caster becomes extremely variable to an undesirable degree, as first level wizards can frequently find themselves not using their spell slots at all for lack of an opportunity. It makes "mistakes" (ie not being psychic) much more punishing.

It also bloats the system as a whole and adds unnecessary complexity. Nearly all the classes have at least some class feature that makes them sorta spontaneous, which just means more text and complexity. It makes the system overall harder to learn for what's ultimately less satisfying gameplay.

Just leaving it as-is creates a slower, more bloated, less fun by default system that confuses the everliving shit out of new players unnecessarily. Not even old, returning players necessarily like it - a lot of people who came back for 5e didn't even notice that the neo-Vancian system wasn't how it always worked, I noticed a lot of players just assumed that Arcanist-style casting was how it always worked.

Meanwhile, with Arcanist casting you have a unified casting system that doesn't require a primer on how this particular class's magic works. All the variation can either be more fundamental/interesting or just a matter of changing spells known to equal your spell prepared. A lot of the problems that plague low-level prepared casters melt away as they're more able to reliably actually do relevant magic. It's easier to track on paper sheets, there's less room for mistakes during play, 5e players can transition easier, it's just nicer.

I honestly think that if the poll didn't come out when it came out, we would have gotten a different answer. I bet a considerable portion that wanted "Vancian" casting were more fearful of change as a whole and were apprehensive about having a second edition at all. But now it's the default of the new system, so it's not like there's gonna be a lot of support to redo the whole magic system again. There's still a pretty severe lack of actual "old Vancian is more fun" and a lot more "that's how things were, therefore it should stay that way" which just seems silly when PF2 made so many other big fundamental changes. Even if not Arcanist casting, doing something to improve Vancian casting would have been called for in a new edition.

I'm hoping the GMG or some future optional rules have something in place to convert the system into just Arcanist casting, for the sake of at least my own sanity as a GM.

Arcanist was my first character ever. I know a lot about how cool they are (I played it from 1st to 7th level).

But I know full well that the majority of people chose Vancian casting for some reason, very likely just to avoid changes. Regardless, I think that a good chunk of the players that venture into playing prepared casters don't actually change their spells often, in fact, I've seen several prepared casters in my groups basically just using the same things over and over. Specially with a new player at our table that chose Wizard and Magus.

You may think "but this is on them!" and it's not entirely untrue, but it also can be said that the system doesn't actually fosters what its defenders claim it does. It's just an archaic system that makes an environment that creates a bottleneck for spells that otherwise would be significantly larger if a unused prepared spell wasn't a waste of resources.

Also, I don't know why you equal hybrid/spontaneous with laziness, because I've already tried making several spontaneous casters and I always thought that even though you don't need to be making choices every day, the few you make are far more important than what a wizard must make, which means that having knowledge of all of your options and weighting the pros and cons of spending one of your repertoire slots in a situational spell that while will not be used every day but can often come in handy (remove paralysis or dispel magic), thus these few choices require a lot more effort in forethought than simply having a dead slot for the day.

My concise opinion on vancian casting is as such: I can use the system quite well and I'm willing to put in the effort. But I don't think the "benefits" of the system outweighs its noticeable weaknesses, clunky requirements and demanded bookkeeping. It also more often than not don't foster what's supposed to for the player, because either players just stay clear from prepared casters or just pick the bread and butter while sometimes prepare situational stuff after the fact to remedy a situation.

Arcanist-style rewards forward thinking (which all prepared players like to have) while also allowing for flexible playstyle throughout the day. It also have the side benefit of opening up the landscape for spells, because since you don't have to prepare quantities, you can save one or two slots for highly situational stuff and still contribute with everything you have available (albeit with less variation) if required.

Also, I don't know why you equal hybrid/spontaneous with laziness

Because on the internet, when you disagree with someone you have to make sure everyone knows they're not only wrong, but also bad people.

Does anyone else think that Pathfinder second edition should have gone with the D&D 5e method of spell preparation?

For those of you that don't know, prepared spell casters get to prepare a number of spells, and then can spend a spell slot to cast any appropriately leveled spell. So instead of preparing three magic missiles, you just need to have magic missile prepared today to be able to spend spell slots to cast it.

I think this would have helped people who are coming over from 5e, as well as give prepared casters a little utility after the decrease in spell slots. What does everyone else think?

I've made changes to P2 spellcasting bringing it closer to 5e and P1 I think.

Prepared Spell-casters vs Spontaneous Spell-caster: Spontaneous casters have a Spell Repertoire and those are the only spells they know. However, they can Heighten them freely, casting them using any spell slot that they have available, raising them to the highest level they can cast or lowering them to the base level of the spell. In effect, every one of their spells acts as a Signature Spell by the book’s definition.

In contrast, Prepared casters must prepare the spell in the higher slot if they wish to Heighten it. However, they do not need to learn it multiple times. If they have the spell in their spellbook or from their deity, they have access to prepare it at any spell level they have slots for. If a high level Wizard has only prepared Magic Missile in a 1st level spell slot, he can only cast it as a 1st level spell. The benefit of Prepared casters is that they can change their spells prepared each day.

In effect, when a Spontaneous caster casts a spell, mark off the slot used, but they retain the spell to use again as long as they have slots to spend. When a Prepared caster casts a spell, mark off the spell. It can't be cast again until it is prepared again (unless they prepared multiple versions or copies of the same spell).

Bard and Sorcerer: Signature Spell: Since Spontaneous casters effectively count all their spells as Signature Spells, replace this ability with an additional Class feat of 1st or 2nd level

I remember having a few of these discussions before.

In regards to "this would make the Sorcerer redundant" it's a totally valid option to just roll Sorcerer back into Wizard, just as Half-Orcs are rolled into Humans. Alternatively, we keep Sorcerers as a class, because their bloodlines are enough of distinguishing characteristic that they don't need to have a monopoly on a superior game mechanic. 5e's sorcerers aren't bad because the whole system is spontaneous casters, they're bad because they're not given enough to compensate for fewer spells known.

A lot of 5e's troubles with sorcerers comes from the fact that their magic is innate, and so they naturally should be fairly frontloaded. But because 5e has an inferior MC'ing system, frontloading is a balance issue, so classes can't get their really cool stuff until much later where dippers can't reach them. That's not a problem in PF2, dipping isn't even a thing anymore.

A PF2 with universal Arcanist casting would have sorcerers with a lot more of their power placed in their choice of bloodline, which to me sounds way the hell cooler.

As for "we can just have both" the issue is that the old Vancian casting is really, really bad. It slows down play considerably as players need to spend a lot more time outside of combat or RP agonizing over how many spells to prep. It encourages more boring playstyles where players are more unwilling to prepare fun spells because they want multiple castings of spells they know they'll use.

Moreover, because you can only cast a spell as many times as you prepared them, the power of a caster becomes extremely variable to an undesirable degree, as first level wizards can frequently find themselves not using their spell slots at all for lack of an opportunity. It makes "mistakes" (ie not being psychic) much more punishing.

It also bloats the system as a whole and adds unnecessary complexity. Nearly all the classes have at least some class feature that makes them sorta spontaneous, which just means...

I'd like to thank you for being to eloquent, this is exactly how I feel.

I just played the quest as my lv2 Wiz and only cast two cantrips. I'm afraid of wasting spells because they are so finite and I might need them later. I'm tempted to fill all of my slots with one spell so that I know I will have it for every fight.

Lightning Raven,

Which is "better" is besides the point. Full prepared, Full spontaneous, or Hybrid prepared-spontaneous. They each have their own associated preferred playstyle.

Agreed.

We should have a class for each style. Then all different styles can play together.

A sub-class for each style could of also worked. Wizard class, with Arcanist, Mage, and Sorcerer as sub-classes. But probably a bit late for that.

You all make solid points, except to claim "more better" or "more popular".

"Better" is a matter of taste. "Popular" is a matter of numbers, which Paizo has. Speculating on the conditions of the data is exactly that: Speculation. Perhaps they would have borne out differently if the surveys were conducted today instead of a year ago. Perhaps not. I personally don't think they would be radically different - that is my opinion.

The way I see it, and why I use terms such as "lazy" and "disengaged" (and to characterize my own preferred playstyle: "obsessive-compulsive"), is that the Prepared-Hybrid-Spontaneous spectrum parallels a corresponding spectrum where those words ("lazy-disengaged" vs "obsessive-compulsive") could be used to characterize the playstyles of the extreme ends of that sister-spectrum. We could use other words as well:

When I DM, I steer my new "I wanna play a caster!" players towards Sorcerer with a caveat: I tell them about Wizard, but then say "It's the most complex casting class in the game" and go on to explain why. Most often they eventually cut me off to say "Ok that's too much I'll just stick with simple" but if they instead say "That sounds cool - tell me more" and ask follow-up questions then that's the direction we head.

...

To wrap, you might be critical of the entire hobby for not eliminating this spectrum altogether with it's latest iteration of the game. I would say that I'm glad there are currently two - and eventually I'm guessing three - systems of (playstyle) magic, because it makes for not only a more interesting game, but allows people accustomed to different levels of engagement and temperaments to sit down and enjoy the hobby together.

And at the end of the day, there is always 5e...

The way I see it, and why I use terms such as "lazy" and "disengaged" (and to characterize my own preferred playstyle: "obsessive-compulsive"), is that the Prepared-Hybrid-Spontaneous spectrum parallels a corresponding spectrum where those words ("lazy-disengaged" vs "obsessive-compulsive") could be used to characterize the playstyles of the extreme ends of that sister-spectrum. We could use other words as well...

I'd suggest different words - any time you label "one side" negatively, it doesn't help (and it doesn't help to then go back and try and find a negative label for your own preference). It's hard not to read "lazy" as a pejorative.

I disagree on the lazy-engagement distinction anyhow though. A spellcaster with access to a wider range of spells during the adventuring day is working harder and probably more engaged than one who has already whittled down their choices, imo.

They're different, in my view. I think I could be equally "engaged" or equally "lazy" using either method.

And at the end of the day, there is always 5e...

I don't think it's healthy for the community to tell people "You could always just not play."

Beyond that though, your idea of there being a system to match everyone's tastes is good in theory until you realize that the casting styles are coupled to class mechanics. I have to play a wizard if I want to use Hand of the Apprentice. There is no way around that.

Frogliacci wrote:

If we actually look at fantasy fiction and video games, Vancian casting and even spell slots would look strange at best and utterly outdated at worst.

Chrono Cross. That is the only video game that I have ever encountered that had the same style of spell preparation.

And yes, it is rather strange to have that in a video game.

And since it is for the original PlayStation, it is also a very old game at this point.

Final Fantasy 3 also used spell slots. Many the games based on D&D have as well, and Pathfinder Kingmaker of course. Dark Souls 1 and 2 both used prepared limited spells. Not Vancian per se, but the same basic idea. PoE too for some classes.

As for "we can just have both" the issue is that the old Vancian casting is really, really bad. It slows down play considerably as players need to spend a lot more time outside of combat or RP agonizing over how many spells to prep. It encourages more boring playstyles where players are more unwilling to prepare fun spells because they want multiple castings of spells they know they'll use.

I would of been fine if it was moved to an "Advanced" class guide or something. And start with the simpler classes in the core rules. But no reason not to have a play style that lots of people enjoy.

And you want to remove a class because you find it boring doing the same thing over and over again, ban the fighter.

The point I agree upon with you all the most is this: RPGs tend not to explain these playstyle differences very well.

I completely agree with this.

It would be nice if there was a "relaxed" / "average" / "advanced" options. Not just for casters.

Simple fighter (Warrior?) ignores damage types, can't be flanked, shield is always raise, ignores OA's, and other features that remove any nuance in the way of just hitting stuff and being hit.

Average fighter has maneuvers, shield block, and damage types. The current fighter.

Advanced fighter (warlord?) has stances, maneuvers, damage types, battle tactics, and called shots.

Then you can have Magician, Wizard, and Mage. Or some such.

Sorry to pejor.

Chalk it up to my strong preference for Prepared casters, and my excitement that they remain in the game, alongside Spontaneous casters.

I'll leave with this. If you are nerdy enough to frequent these sites and post your opinions and argue, consider stepping off from your own moralistic arguments when you introduce new players into the game. Paizo took the high road here: They held an open playtest, presented creative alternatives to established precedents, wrote feedback surveys, analyzed those feedback surveys, and steered their design in that direction. This means they probably know what they are doing, and as a result, created a game that many (different) people can enjoy.

And never underestimate the intelligence of new players. Even if they are just "coming over from 5e" (indeed, many of them are), or, if this is their first RPG ever (indeed, the hobby is expanding it's audience). Some of them, even without having yet learned the rules, are ready to jump full-straight into Wizard. Others can play Sorcerer.

Cheers!

rainzax wrote:

The point I agree upon with you all the most is this: RPGs tend not to explain these playstyle differences very well.

I completely agree with this.

It would be nice if there was a "relaxed" / "average" / "advanced" options. Not just for casters.

Simple fighter (Warrior?) ignores damage types, can't be flanked, shield is always raise, ignores OA's, and other features that remove any nuance in the way of just hitting stuff and being hit.

Average fighter has maneuvers, shield block, and damage types. The current fighter.

Advanced fighter (warlord?) has stances, maneuvers, damage types, battle tactics, and called shots.

Then you can have Magician, Wizard, and Mage. Or some such.

It would be interesting to have entry-level archetypes or even some simplified version of the rules such as what they did with Starfinder's Beginner Box...

But honestly, I think people also must realize that in order to play RPGs you need to read the material, there's no running away from that. Realizing that your effort will pay off in a character that you will want to make and it will be satisfying to have your vision fully realized in the character you created from scratch. It's way different than being a new player and relying only on what the GM and other players tell you about and you make some watered down choices and go with the motions. I'm not saying that it isn't fine to get some help building a character initially, but I also think it's fair to expect at least interest enough from someone to at least learn how to play the class properly and even that the person reads enough to know their options.

This is the basic of the basic and I think if one wants to play an RPG, they need to know that a little bit of effort comes with it. It may seem like what I'm saying is obvious, but we had a guy in our party early this year that was removed because he made absolutely no effort to learn the very basic stuff reaching the point of actually playing more than 10 sessions without even knowing where to look in his character sheet. The guy burned through 3 characters during these roughly 10 sessions, with one of them lasting exactly a single session (his poor choice and lack of knowledge of what the character could do got the whole party killed).