I have another suggestion:
Introduce speed factor in casting of a spell where Speed Factor = the number of rounds it takes to cast = the level of the spell. eg., magic missile has a speed factor of 1 while fireball has a speed factor of 3.
This assumes that wizards have unlimited usage of all spells in their spell book. ie., they do not need to memorize their spells per day (good bye Vancian system at last), and they can cast any spell any number of times (this may need some restriction like magic usage may attract unwanted attentions, as in those of Cowl Wizards in Balder's Gate II).
Analysis:
1. If there are feats to reduce speed factor, low level spells can become "at will" as in 4th edition D&D.
2. Because wizards have at will spells, they are not wimps at low levels, and they are easier to play.
3. Because high level spells have long casting time,
- they effectively become short "rituals" as in 4th edition D&D.
- there is higher chance of disruption.
- wizards need fighters to help prevent disruption.
- wizards have lower rate of spell casting.
- high level wizards are nerfed.
4. Spell effects are not nerfed.
5. Wizards don't lose their spells repertoire, as is the case in 4th edition D&D.
6. This rule can be applied with little change to the D20 rule.
7. This rule will help make D&D 4e redundant.
|
I have another suggestion:
Introduce speed factor in casting of a spell where Speed Factor = the number of rounds it takes to cast = the level of the spell. eg., magic missile has a speed factor of 1 while fireball has a speed factor of 3.
I like this. I'd still have wizards prepare spells for the day (so they can't use magic to solve EVERYTHING given enough time).
I can see the Quicken Spell feat suddenly becoming very popular.
Sorcerers, if left RAW, would differentiate themselves even moreso from wizards.
Introduce speed factor in casting of a spell where Speed Factor = the number of rounds it takes to cast = the level of the spell. eg., magic missile has a speed factor of 1 while fireball has a speed factor of 3. This assumes that wizards have unlimited usage of all spells in their spell book.
So, I can take Extended Spell and Persistent Spell, and then start the day by casting every buff spell I have on every member of the party? And they'll last all day? And I have unlimited high-level slots to do it with? I don't think I like that.
Let me chime in with support for both of the OP's initial suggestions.
1. Full-round casting for wail of the banshee = great idea.
2. I'd expand the bonded object = arcane focus to include familiar = arcane focus, if you have one. That way your familiar has some tie to your spellcasting ability, instead of being a totally random, inexplicable, unrelated perk.
Nice. "It's a mage! Quickly, kill any familiar you see on him/her!"
Didn't everyone do that in 3e anyway, to force the XP loss?
But, yeah, it sucked then, and it would still suck.Still, I'd like it if a familiar had anything at all to do with the practice of wizardry. It's like having a barbarian class feature that lets you levitate 1/day; thematically, it has no relation with the class.
There are 3PP who've published expansions on familiars. Personally, I do a lot of hand-waving on them in my campaign; e.g., using familiars as scouts where the wizard can see through its eyes, etc.
Yeah, all unofficial stuff, tacked on. I'd like to see some fundamentals; maybe that's just me. (RAR, the "empathy" ability doesn't let you see through its eyes, and even scrying on it at higher levels doesn't cut the bill.)
Introduce speed factor in casting of a spell where Speed Factor = the number of rounds it takes to cast = the level of the spell. eg., magic missile has a speed factor of 1 while fireball has a speed factor of 3. This assumes that wizards have unlimited usage of all spells in their spell book.So, I can take Extended Spell and Persistent Spell, and then start the day by casting every buff spell I have on every member of the party? And they'll last all day? And I have unlimited high-level slots to do it with? I don't think I like that.
I did say in my original post that "this may need some restriction". So you don't like unlimited buffs? No problem. There are many ways to fix this:
1. Introduce the rule that spells usage may attract unwanted attentions as I mentioned originally.
2. Instead of having slots of spells memorized as per day, have slots of buffs per day per person.
3. Caster fatigue. ie., Caster may cast only X lvls worth of spells per day before needing rest.
And that's just off the top of my head at the moment. What's important is that with my suggestion, wizards are not wimps and low levels but they are nerfed at high levels and everything else remain the same.
Speed Factor = the number of rounds it takes to cast = the level of the spell.
This would obviously not apply to all spells, either; otherwise, feather fall becomes totally useless, and wall of force fails to offer any defense against a cave-in. And if sorcerer villains needed 5 rounds to teleport away from a combat, none of them would ever escape alive. Etc.
I can sympathize with the large segment of gamers who intensely dislike Vancian magic, but in this case, rather than most things remaining the same, the proposal unfortunately creates a fair number of trickle-down effects that all need to be fixed in turn.
I have absolutely no doubt at all that they can be fixed, and that your proposal could be turned into a workable, fun alternative. In the end, though, it might be too far from 3.5 for Paizo's tastes, and too involved to be designed, playetested, and implemented before the Pathfinder hardcover is released.
|
|
I can sympathize with the large segment of gamers who intensely dislike Vancian magic, but in this case, rather than most things remaining the same, the proposal unfortunately creates a fair number of trickle-down effects that all need to be fixed in turn.
OR divide 1st and 2nd level spells as "at-will"; 3rd through 5th level spells as "encounter" and higher ones as dailies :)
OR divide 1st and 2nd level spells as "at-will"; 3rd through 5th level spells as "encounter" and higher ones as dailies :)
Actually I like this suggestion more than I like my own. Obviously the two converge, but this is more neatly stated.
If I was on the D&D 4e design team, I would recommend this idea without hesitation. The simplicity and functionality would definitely fit with the goal of the project. However, with 4e already out there, I'm guessing that lawyers at WOTC would have something to say if Paizo ends up using this idea.
This would obviously not apply to all spells, either; otherwise, feather fall becomes totally useless, and wall of force fails to offer any defense against a cave-in. And if sorcerer villains needed 5 rounds to teleport away from a combat, none of them would ever escape alive. Etc.
What can I say. I admit to being fallible. Nowhere near as fallible as the average bloke to be sure, but fallible nevertheless. I also admit that there can be some exceptions to the rule I proposed, but isn't there a saying "there's always at least one exception to every rule". Even Magic the Gathering, a very popular game that is the flagship of WOTC, has a rule that allows for exceptions to overide the general rule.
In the end, though, it might be too far from 3.5 for Paizo's tastes
I believe this thread is categorized under "New Rules Suggestions". Whether or not my suggestion is too far from 3.5 is irrelevant. Despite that, I hope that Paizo's Pathfinder would deviate significantly from 3.5 or what's the point of all of this.
Charles,
No need to get so touchy; I'm not posting these points just to piss you off. If you're as "nowehere near as fallible" as you claim, you'll have thought of most of the bugs, and have fixes for them. Patch up what you've got, and the community can look at them and maybe spot some others. This will save you time in playtesting, if you're serious about this new rules system. If you save enough time, and the system is as good as you seem to think it will be, maybe there's time to get it into the hardback.
P.S. Here's another one, if you're interested. Say I'm in combat, and I want to cast meteor swarmp. Most battles are over in like 5-6 rounds, so a 9-round casting time in combat is stretching it. Can I start casting it in the hallway, then walk into the room and finish it?
P.P.S. And another one: how does Quicken Spell work? What about increasing casting time for sorcerers using metamagic? Or does the sorcerer go away, because they'd be no different from wizards?
I can sympathize with the large segment of gamers who intensely dislike Vancian magic, but in this case, rather than most things remaining the same, the proposal unfortunately creates a fair number of trickle-down effects that all need to be fixed in turn.
The reason vancian magic has stuck around for so long is because it works and it's fairly simple. Sure there are other systems that are more accurate, for example the spell point system is a better model but it's also a little more complicated. Vancian magic is simple and it works. There are people who complain loudly and bitterly about it but in general they are a minority, if it were a more prevalent attitude then the UA spell point system would be more commonly used.
The biggest flaw isn't with the vancian system, it's with the power of the spells themselves. Spells that take even 4 rounds to cast? No one would play casters. People already complain about casters running out of spells and doing nothing. They would be stuck standing around doing nothing every time they cast a spell higher than 1st level... even more frustrating. Kirth pointed out some other problems with multi round spellcasting.
Ultimately if spell casters and martial characters are going to be brought into 'balance' it's going to come from either reducing the impact of higher level spells, reducing the number of higher level spells available, or possible increasing the level which they become available (9th level spells at CL 19?) or some combination of those things. The other big issue is quicken spells and swift spells which gives casters 2 actions per round (or 3 with time stop).
I believe this thread is categorized under "New Rules Suggestions". Whether or not my suggestion is too far from 3.5 is irrelevant. Despite that, I hope that Paizo's Pathfinder would deviate significantly from 3.5 or what's the point of all of this.
The point of all this is to improve the 3.5 SRD, fixing as many holes as possible while retaining compatibility with as much 3.5 material as possible. So yes, whether your suggestion is too far from 3.5 is indeed relevant. If it completely breaks backwards compatibility then it is probably not going to fly.
There are longer winded better mission statements on the PathfinderRPG page if you are interested in getting it from the horses mouth so to speak.
I can sympathize with the large segment of gamers who intensely dislike Vancian magic, but in this case, rather than most things remaining the same, the proposal unfortunately creates a fair number of trickle-down effects that all need to be fixed in turn.
The reason vancian magic has stuck around for so long is because it works and it's fairly simple. Sure there are other systems that are more accurate, for example the spell point system is a better model but it's also a little more complicated. Vancian magic is simple and it works. There are people who complain loudly and bitterly about it but in general they are a minority, if it were a more prevalent attitude then the UA spell point system would be more commonly used.
The biggest flaw isn't with the vancian system, it's with the power of the spells themselves. Spells that take even 4 rounds to cast? No one would play casters. People already complain about casters running out of spells and doing nothing. They would be stuck standing around doing nothing every time they cast a spell higher than 1st level... even more frustrating. Kirth pointed out some other problems with multi round spellcasting.
Ultimately if spell casters and martial characters are going to be brought into 'balance' it's going to come from either reducing the impact of higher level spells, reducing the number of higher level spells available, or possible increasing the level which they become available (9th level spells at CL 19?) or some combination of those things. The other big issue is quicken spells and swift spells which gives casters 2 actions per round (or 3 with time stop).
I agree that toning down the effects of the spells is another solution to nerfing casters. I am for this, especially with invisibility, raise dead, and ressurection. Those are powerful spells, and they are not even 9th level. However, changing the way spells work and changing the accessibility to spells would constitute a major change, considering that spells take up a large part of the printed text. I'm not even convinced that such changes could keep Pathfinder consistent with 3.5, as some of these spells have been around since 1e. We are talking about a new edition here.
Change a boatload of spells (nerf and/or change level), or change the entire magic system, from the ground up, and eliminate at least one class? Paizo has already started nerfing spells; the Alpha 3 is full of them. A few more -- or even most of the rest of the SRD ones -- probably wouldn't hurt anything (except maybe our backs, trying to pick up the unabridged dictionary-sized hardcover).
Changing a spell so that it requires 2 or more full rounds of casting effectively means that spell will never be used in combat given the length and variably of the average combat as well as the increased chance of disruption. One full round, however, is still quite usable...if sometimes risky.
IIRC, 1 round is only 6 seconds right? So the longest casting time according to my proposal is 54 seconds or about a minute. With haste and quicken casting, a level 9 spell can be casted in well under a 30 seconds. Considering what some of those level 9 spells can do, the cost in time is not that considerable.
I'm all in favor of rewriting and toning down all spells though, its long over due IMO, and its just fine that Paizo prefers to do it. The only concern is that the amount of work is huge, and if the nerfing is not just right, that's a lot of work for little benefit. My guess is the process will be iterative before the final product. Well it remains to be seen what Paizo will produce.
IIRC, 1 round is only 6 seconds right? So the longest casting time according to my proposal is 54 seconds or about a minute. With haste and quicken casting, a level 9 spell can be casted in well under a 30 seconds. Considering what some of those level 9 spells can do, the cost in time is not that considerable.
If a spell cast 30 seconds to cast, about 80% of combats would be done by the time the spell was finished. Not to mention the fact that no one would play casters because they would say "Ok, I start casting fireball", then the player can walk out of the room for 5 minutes, come back and 3 rounds later when he's ready to trigger the spell half of the enemy is dead and the party is completely entangled with the remnants, the spell is worthless. For enemy casters it's even worse.
I tend to be of the opinion that a few sweeping changes would be MORE backward compatible than the current method of altering spells on a case by case basis. Which is likely to result in players having to look up the listings frequently if too many spells diverge from 3.x. It is, however, by intent that neither of my proposals involve (IMO) excessive alteration of the system.
Well you are assuming that all players have the 3.x spells memorized which is not the case for my group. Occasionally new people start playing D&D :) and having simpler mechanics for the spells makes learning the game much easier. Even existing players only have to relearn the spells once, maybe you look at the book a handful of times but the benefit is forever.
Sweeping changes are fine with me but they should be changes that are transparent to existing material. "All save or die spells reduce the character to -9 HP" Is a sweeping change but you can still use all the material out there. Nerfing individual spells generally works the same way. The changes to grease allow all existing material which references that spell to work the same but the effect is slightly different.
Here is a thought. Have spell casting take a number of initiative counts equal to their caster level would be fine with me. A caster rolls a 20 on his initiative and casts a third level spell. He is casting that spell until initiative count 17 when it fires off. You could even have it change his initiative. Next round the caster acts on initiative 17 and casts another 3rd level spell which fires on initiative count 14... If the casters initiative goes down to negative he loses his action for a round and rerolls initiative for next round (suddenly Imp Init becomes an essential caster feat).
Here is a thought. Have spell casting take a number of initiative counts equal to their caster level would be fine with me. A caster rolls a 20 on his initiative and casts a third level spell. He is casting that spell until initiative count 17 when it fires off. You could even have it change his initiative. Next round the caster acts on initiative 17 and casts another 3rd level spell which fires on initiative count 14... If the casters initiative goes down to negative he loses his action for a round and rerolls initiative for next round (suddenly Imp Init becomes an essential caster feat).
Good lord, no. I've talked with some old 2e gamers from when spells had speed factors and casting times that made initiative work the way you described. It's one of the things they were very happen to see gone in 3e.
Good lord, no. I've talked with some old 2e gamers from when spells had speed factors and casting times that made initiative work the way you described. It's one of the things they were very happen to see gone in 3e.
:)
Yeah, probably not a stellar idea. Dealing with revolving initiative sounds like a PITA. I don't know. I can't really think of any "sweeping changes" that would work without really seriously screwing up the game. Which means we're back to pounding down the proud nails one at a time.
I'm with you. Make an NPC class (but name it "Guard" or something, not "Minion").
HD: d4
BAB: Full
SAVES: All poor
PROFICIENCIES: Light armor, medium armor, heavy armor, shield, all martial weapons.
I'm not sure if I like this one or the proposal from Black Bart better.
If a spell cast 30 seconds to cast, about 80% of combats would be done by the time the spell was finished. Not to mention the fact that no one would play casters because they would say "Ok, I start casting fireball", then the player can walk out of the room for 5 minutes, come back and 3 rounds later when he's ready to trigger the spell half of the enemy is dead and the party is completely entangled with the remnants, the spell is worthless. For enemy casters it's even worse.
30 sec to cast a 9th level spell. That's 9th level spell. If you have to cast a 9th level spell to take down a group of goblins, or if it takes you 3 rounds to cast a fireball then may be 3.5e is too challenging for you. Perhaps a dumbed down version like 4e is more proper for you.
30 sec is probably the longest casting time for a competent player. It may be long in combat but with proper planning it can be executed. Ever heard of invisibility? I would not recommend that you cast a 9th level spell when being ambushed for example. And not every situation require you to cast a 9th level spell. In most situations, a few "at will" spells would be all that you need. Sheesh.
30 sec to cast a 9th level spell. That's 9th level spell. If you have to cast a 9th level spell to take down a group of goblins, or if it takes you 3 rounds to cast a fireball then may be 3.5e is too challenging for you. Perhaps a dumbed down version like 4e is more proper for you.
Maybe instead of getting all bent out of shape and making personal attacks on people you should really read and think about what people are saying.
30 sec is probably the longest casting time for a competent player. It may be long in combat but with proper planning it can be executed. Ever heard of invisibility? I would not recommend that you cast a 9th level spell when being ambushed for example. And not every situation require you to cast a 9th level spell. In most situations, a few "at will" spells would be all that you need. Sheesh.
Every single area effect spell in the game is almost completely worthless if you use multi round casting times. Casting 3 rounds of magic missile is far more effective use of spellcasting than spending 3 rounds casting fireball. Heck, using your 3rd level slot to cast 1 magic missile spell is more effective than using 3 rounds to cast fireball. The tactical situation changes too fast for area effect spells to be of any use if you use multi round casting, by the time the spell triggers the battlefield will be so different the spell is pointless. If you doubt me then playtest it some time.
As for high level combat, spending 30 seconds to cast a spell will kill you. How many consecutive concentration checks can you make when a CR appropriate dragon can use his breath weapon 2-3 times for 40-60d8 and make 18-24 melee attacks dealing 11-27 HP each? More likely the dragon will strafe with his breath weapon, hover to full attack the wizard then if the caster makes his spellcraft check he will roll out of spell range for a minute. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Creatures of an appropriate CR for a 17th level wizard can generally see through invisibility, often can make spellcraft checks to figure out what the wizard is doing, and given 6 rounds to react will be able to counter it.
I must admit that I'm a little curious as to how you think the two mechanisms I proposed in the original post result in "seriously screwing up the game." Or do you not count those as "sweeping changes"?
Changing the casting times would be a big issue. Besides being a huge change to the way combat works, but NPC wizards have a hard enough time challenging the party as-is.
Arcane Foci, on the other hand, might be an interesting idea.
I must admit that I'm a little curious as to how you think the two mechanisms I proposed in the original post result in "seriously screwing up the game." Or do you not count those as "sweeping changes"?Changing the casting times would be a big issue. Besides being a huge change to the way combat works, but NPC wizards have a hard enough time challenging the party as-is.
Arcane Foci, on the other hand, might be an interesting idea.
Well the arcane foci would play well with the arcane bond class feature. I'm ambivalent about the whole idea but a lot of people are screaming about Harry Potter with just the arcane bond thing. Making casters more reliant on some sort of arcane focus will be an uphill battle.
My only concern/ comment is that it's unclear how much impact it would have. It is nearly impossible to sunder an item from across the room. You would also find that most casters would find items which are very hard to sunder or disarm.
My only concern/ comment is that it's unclear how much impact it would have. It is nearly impossible to sunder an item from across the room. You would also find that most casters would find items which are very hard to sunder or disarm.
It would have about the same impact as requiring clerical holy symbols, that is, nearly none. But it does answer 'how do you disarm spellcasters', and it makes familiars more than shoulder-pets.
Plus, it's very flavorful.
|
|
Hmm I really think this falls into the affects backward compatability camp. Also casters right now are generally very hit or miss (in that if they get spells off there good but if someone reaches them they are toast) So increasing how long it takes them to cast a spell to full round will just put them even more on the miss side of the scale.
You do realize that I'm talking about converting standard action to full round casting times, correct?
Well full round casting time has similar issues to Charles' multi round casting times. If a spell doesn't trigger until a round is completed then by the time it's effect is activated it is very likely it will be irrelevant.
I wouldn't mind seeing some spells have full round casting times but having all spells over a certain level just impacts the usefulness of area effect spells too much.
Agreed, and not what I'm proposing. Was personally thinking more along the lines of converting the sorts of spells that had a hefty casting time penalty in 1e/2e. Meaning that blast evocations, for instance, would be left alone.
Indeed... I just reread your post and it's not. I got tangled up in thinking about CBs ideas. What it really boils down to is going through spell by spell and trying to make them balanced. I don't see a boilerplate change fixing everything. Full round casting times is one thing that might help but I think more important is some sort of guidelines for how powerful a spell of a given level can be.
If a spell has no save it should have a max of XXX effect at a given level. A save-or-die (Including Hold Person, Glitterdust, etc) should be limited at each given level. Spells like glitterdust having a save each subsequent round is a great start.
I wouldn't mind a 1-round casting time, so long as I still got my move action. Another problem with full round spells is you have to give that up.
Imagine the consequences if spells like Heal took a full round to cast. Ranger: Heal me Brother Jordan!
Cleric: I'm on my way. Ok. Now I'm standing next to you. Hold on.
Monster: Raaargh!
Ranger: No, I need that to live! Erk? Bleahh....
Cleric: Heal!
Ranger: ...
Cleric: damn you full round casting time!!
How much worse would that situation be if Heal took 6 rounds to cast? It would be just terrible.
More on multi-round casting: So a wizard 20 wants to do some damage. He can cast his Delayed Blast Fireball in 8 rounds, for 20d6, or get nearly 3 regular fireballs off (30 d6) or cast 8 Shocking grasps (40d6) or 4 Scorching Rays (48 d6) in the same time period. you'd have to completely redesign all spells as we know it. Not a good idea my friend... sorry.
Here's the fundamental problem as I see it:
Magic is supposed to be more powerful than 'mundane' powers like swordplay. Otherwise it's not magic.
To make magic balanced, it is finite. A mage might have more raw power than a swordsman, but if the mage runs out of magic, he's far, far weaker than said swordsman (assuming similar levels.) If magic and mundane powers are equal, then why be a mage? What makes it magic? (This is one of the issues many people cite with 4e, for example.)
The problem comes in when you realize that a party will rest when the mage has exhausted his spells, even if the warrior is ready to go again, because that warrior is still dependant on the mage for fire support and on the healer for, well, healing. If the spellcasters are running on empty, the fighter calls it a day.
Even with the new class power pools, this problem exists (a barbarian out of rage points still fights better than a wizard with no spells).
It makes sense that there should be nothing more powerful than a high-level wizard with all his spells. However, that 20th level wizard can blow his load in less than a minute. The 20th level fighter, on the other hand, can go all day unless something kills him.
However, if spellcasters would PACE THEMSELVES, the classes are balanced. A spellcaster can do more in a short period of time than anyone else, but they burn resources to do so. If a spellcaster actually had to last all day, their highs and their lows would average to the power of a 'mundane' character.
In conclusion, I think the problem is in convincing people not to stop and rest after expending their highest level spells.
Ironically, I think the best way to balance out a spellcaster's power is to make low-level spells more useful. That way they still have things to do besides using their highest level spells. A 20th level wizard casting a third level spell shouldn't exactly be impressing anyone (it should be worse than the 20th level fighter's performance), but it should be good enough that the wizard doesn't feel it a waste of effort (i.e. worth resting to avoid).
In conclusion, I think the problem is in convincing people not to stop and rest after expending their highest level spells.
That can be done by writing adventures conducive to that. A simple example is a cliff with monsters (and the party) at the bottom, and the BBEG at the top:
Scenario 1: Party holds off mooks, giving wizard a chance to fly the party to the top of the cliff. BBEG caught off-guard; fight ensues; wizard uses high-level spells to good effect.
Scenario 2: Wizard uses high-level spells at the cliff bottom to kill mooks. Party rests, planning to fly to the top the next morning to challenge the BBEG. BBEG, seeing party camping for the night, rides into town and burns it to the ground, and is nowhere to be found in the morning.
A few examples like this will make the wizard learn to save his big spells for when it really counts, and use the minor ones more often.
!@#$%, no. Adding limitations or vulnerabilities is one thing, but these are precisely the sort of change I'm trying to avoid in proposing these mechanics. Allowing two or more saves in particular kills the chance of a spell having any effect (let alone when spell resistance factored into the equation).
I think you are misunderstanding what I was thinking... or maybe I mis-spoke, happens a lot with me.
I'm not suggesting putting in blanket rules and not those rules in particular. Just that there should be some guidelines for spell effect versus level. I don't want to get into the specifics of what those effects should be.
My example of glitterdust. It's essentially a save or be completely nerfed. It's a level 2 spell that has an effect almost as powerful as hold person but affects multiple people in an area effect. As written in core it's more powerful than many 3rd level spells for a lot of situations and much more powerful than the typical second level spell.
There should be some underlying guidelines for powerlevels of spells. Right now it's pretty arbitrary.
Despite being an outspoken proponent of alternatives to Vancian magic, I'd rather not see the central magic system altered too much.
Paizo should go ahead and nerf the most troublesome spells, especially if this is done to make the Pathfinder RPG play nice with the Adventure Path format and the Campaign Setting.
Spells in general should be fixed by clarification and organization. If players and GMs can more easily understand the classic spells, schools, and effects, and everything fits where it should allowing us to make inferences on the fly, the whole system gets a lot more usable.
This means clear boundaries between schools of magic, school definitions functional beyond specialist wizardry, sub-schools that govern a number of different spells via the same mechanic, and spells that do the same thing with different magnitude over multiple levels get the same entry. A number of these concepts are already there, they just need to be compiled together in the rulebook. This does NOT mean changing how these spells work, unless they cause a problem by Paizo's definition.
The wisest move would be to drastically decrease the number of spells in the core rules, and introduce stringent guidelines for converting any old 3.5 spells to Pathfinder RPG. This gives GMs a balanced resource of classic spells and the means to introduce whatever other spells they need on their own terms.
Give us Sleep, Fireball, Dispel Magic, Wish, Charm, Cure, Scry, etc, the real iconic fantasy spells. Fix the ones you absolutely must. Then let us convert the rest for ourselves, with a solid set of guidelines. That's the best way for us to get a newly balanced take on a classic gaming experience.