The Inquisitor, Alchemist and Summoner gets spells like a Bard. A Witch gets new spells like a Wizard (minus the specialization spells) and an Oracle like a Sorcerer.
Pathfinder broke the mold in a lot of ways, why doesn't it keep doing so and get creative with spell progressions (or saves or BAB)? For instance the Oracle, since it only gets divine spells, which are generally less flashy than arcane, maybe it could get new spell levels at 3,5,7..., like a Cleric.
I think the Summoner would be better of having 9 levels of spells, but with a very limited spell list. It would get new summoner monster spells at the same rate as a Wizard, and if it made scrolls they'd cost the same as a Wizard. Summoners can craft certain spells cheaper because they are of a lower spell level.
Inquisitors and Alchemists may be fine with maximum 6th level spells, but would they be better (better being more fun but not overpowered) if they had 7th or 8th level spells, or even just 5th level (less book-keeping). Maybe an Alchemist should be able to keep an unlimited number of concoctions in his recipe book like a Wizard. Maybe an Inquisitor should get more spells known then a Bard because it lacks the versatility.
The point is why be married to the 4 basic spell progressions Pathfinder inherited from 3.5? Surely it wouldn't ruin the game if Pathfinder charted its own course and tailor made spell progressions exactly for each casting class.
Well, I have idea about how it would equal out with everything, but puting certan spells on lower level than in core or on higher level instead would probably shuffle magic item costs and caster levels.
Why fix what isn't broken?
Said a different way, change for the sake of change is bad.
|
Let me first say, that I really like seeing new, original classes that really do something different. I can't stand the myriad of "it's like a druid but better than a druid" prestige classes, and prefer to stray away from the 'multiclass without having to multiclass' ones even.
One thing I do think that they've got down are the basic progressions, though. These have been around for years, and in my opinion, if you start adding classes with access to five levels of spells, or seven or eight, you'll add an unnecessary level of confusion as well as introduce entirely avoidable balance issues.
How, exactly, would an Inquisitor really stand to benefit from 5, 7, or 8 levels of spells? What spells would be gained, and which ones lost? How would you justify them having access to fewer (or more) spells than a bard, in spite of having a similar BAB, HD, and other similar qualities?
Like others have mentioned, change just for the sake of change isn't really worth it. I'm open to your reasoning, though, and I'd like to hear them.
Why fix what isn't broken?
Said a different way, change for the sake of change is bad.
Change for the better is good, even if the status quo wasn't broken to the point of unusability. I've played a lot of casters in 3e, spontaneous and prepared, and the ease of play and extra couple spells per day is more then compensated for by the extremely limited number of spells known, to the point that even slower metamagic time is probably unwaranted. There is no reason for spontaneous full casters to gain access to higher spell levels slower then their prepared counterparts.
So yeah, I'd like to see some spontaneous full casters in future products that don't suffer delayed access to higher level spells. I also wouldn't mind seeing some original spell progressions, if only to shake things up.
Change for the better is good
Sure... as long as it has an actual, mechanical reason. That's not what the OP described. The OP boils down to, "I'm bored with the same 4 casting progressions, let's make a whole new one just because!". Now, he may have an actual mechanical reason for it, but he hasn't presented one.
I think changing up the 4/6/9 levels of spellcasting would just be silly. You cover the 'rather crappy but situational/circumstantial/utilitarian/small-self-buffs/occasional class ability disguised as a spell' with tertiary casters, the 'I-am-a-jack-of-all-trades' demi-casters with 'secondary' (6 level) casters, and the dedicated masters of reality / callers of deific wrath at the 'normal' level 9.
Limiting to 1st/2nd/3rd/5th/7th/8th level spells only has one niche I can see - the 'get a single spell trick (or two)', like the rogue's minor magic, which coincidentally is covered by the rogue's minor magic. (Or magic items, for that matter). You can also pretty well mimic these with a normal spell progression and fiddling with the levels of spells for different classes (e.g. early or late entry). This does lead to some funky pricing for various magic items, but I think that's something I can live with.
Now, changing ye nine-level spontaneous caster such that he matches the other masters of reality is a choice I can get on board with, as it adds a wacky 'fourth wheel' to our nice little progression of 4/6/9 which I've been advocating avoiding! If I recall the heady days of the past summer correctly, this was a fan favorite. (Particularly by giving the Bloodline spell and a couple of casts a level early). I also imagine this is a popular house rule. Alas, the legacy lives on and will probably be passed down to the Oracle.
'Course, my head could be in the sand - but I already fine the 'sorcerer deviation' to be most irksome, and some class waltzing in with 5 levels of spell progression would probably make my head explode.
Before the playtest, I made a version of the alchemist that got 7 levels of elixirs AND formulas because 7 was an important number thematically with alchemy. There are 7 alchemical metals, 7 alchemical celelstial bodies (sun, moon, 5 visible planets that the days of the week are named after), etc.
7 alchemical celelstial bodies (sun, moon, 5 visible planets that the days of the week are named after)
Not trying to pick on you, SmiloDan, so please don't take this personally. I'm using it to illustrate a point, not to crash on the idea.
Anyway, this is an example of bad game design for a system-wide base class. The number of celestial bodies, the calendar, and all that are completely 100% setting-dependent, and further do not match up with the default setting. The Alchemist (as all the core classes) need to be setting-neutral, and including setting-specific numerology as a reason for a change from a proven mechanic is Not A Good Thing.
Now, if you were making a class specifically for a single setting (such as Dragonlance's Mystics, or Seventh Sea's Witches), your design there wouldn't have that flaw.
Change for the better is goodSure... as long as it has an actual, mechanical reason. That's not what the OP described. The OP boils down to, "I'm bored with the same 4 casting progressions, let's make a whole new one just because!". Now, he may have an actual mechanical reason for it, but he hasn't presented one.
No, I wouldn't say that.
Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Summoner these have the same basic skeleton. That being 3/4 BAB, 2 good saves, mostly better skill points and 6th level spontaneous spells. Their spells available and class abilities will make a difference how each class plays. I just don't think the standard Bard progression 'fits' every class.
I think the Summoner's spells should be cast at the same level as a Wizard or a Sorcerer, but to make up for its Eidolon it should have drastically fewer spells per day and maybe spells known. No cheaper crafting and latter if classes or feats come along that let you learn spells from different spell lists then we won't have to worry about Gate being a 6th level spell.
The Alchemist already plays different then either a standard spontaneous caster or prepared caster. Why stick it with a default progression? You could leave it with a recipe book, like a Wizard's spell book but give it less or different spells to balance out the fact that an Alchemist's concoctions can be cast by other people.
Lastly with the Oracle, really it's time to give spontaneous casters new spells at the same time as prepared ones. I've played with this as a house rule and it never caused a problem once.
Change for the sake of change is bad, sure. But Pathfinder's new classes have changed what spell casters can do, so isn't better they get casting that is tailored to their new abilities, not just off the rack Bard/Sorcerer casting?
7 alchemical celelstial bodies (sun, moon, 5 visible planets that the days of the week are named after)Not trying to pick on you, SmiloDan, so please don't take this personally. I'm using it to illustrate a point, not to crash on the idea.
Anyway, this is an example of bad game design for a system-wide base class. The number of celestial bodies, the calendar, and all that are completely 100% setting-dependent, and further do not match up with the default setting. The Alchemist (as all the core classes) need to be setting-neutral, and including setting-specific numerology as a reason for a change from a proven mechanic is Not A Good Thing.
Now, if you were making a class specifically for a single setting (such as Dragonlance's Mystics, or Seventh Sea's Witches), your design there wouldn't have that flaw.
Good points. But I was really hoping for some new systems of magic, not just a different spell list.
One thing I forgot to mention, is that my alchemist's formulas were based on the 4 elements, so level 1 and 2 were single element "spells," level 3 and 4 formulas were two element "spells," level 5 and 6 formulas were three element spells, and the final 7th level was for formulas using all 4 elements. So there was a mechanical reason also for the 7 levels.
Why fix what isn't broken?
You mean like "fixing" Summon Monster IX and Maze by making them level 6 spells?
|
The spell progressions that currently exist work really, really well for the classes they were designed for. I agree that the sorcerer could stand to get spells at the same rate as wizards, druids, and clerics, because sorcerers are under-powered in comparison to those classes, but that's not an argument for more standardization, it's an argument for less. Remember that sorcerers get more spells-per-day than a wizard, even though their spell levels are stunted by a level. I think those extra castings are incredibly important for keeping the sorcerer class competitive, and I don't think a direct switch to the wizard spell progression (including spells-per-day quantities) would be a wise choice at all.
I'll agree that change just for change's sake doesn't make any sense, but drawing a staunch line in the sand about spell progressions makes even less sense. Different classes have different spell-casting needs, and ignoring those needs in the name of standardization is foolish. The summoner, for instance, should probably have way more spells-per-day than it does. I think the six levels of spells makes plenty of sense for the class, but realistically the summoner is going to be used as a combat-caster with a pet or as a hide-and-summoner, and both of those uses could stand more spells-per-day. Believe me, I've played a summoner, and running out of spells is a frequent issue just attempting to stay relevant, especially with the spell-like ability gimps.
It sounds like you all would rather meet a standard than see each class reach its potential. I think the standardization of spell progressions is actually the weakest change introduced in Pathfinder (and, yes, it is a change... 3.5 deviated from the four types of spell lists occasionally, when it made sense to do so). For instance, if and when Pathfinder introduces a proper full-blown combat-caster class, it will likely need a lot of spells-per-day. It will probably need way more than any other class, and it'll need them from level 1. On the other hand, it probably won't need 6th-level spells and it won't need a whole lot of spells known either. None of the existing spell progressions make much sense for this archetype.
Personally i'd like to see more original classes WITHOUT spellcasting at all. Take a look at all the "new" core classes they kept introducing in 3.5. 70% of them had some sort of spellcasting progression. I don't want to see pathfinder go down that same path.
...and let's not even get into prc's (in which the spellcasting ratio jumps to 85+%).
Summoners do NOT need 9 levels of spell casting (even if the lists are tailored to keep the spell availability to the summoner at the current level of power). They're not primarily casters, they're primarily summoners (which they accomplish quite well through their Eidolon and SLAs)! While I realize their list is in such a way that a lot of their 6th level spells are actually 9th level spells, their spells are still "weaker" as they'll have lower DCs. This keeps the best spell casters...the primary spell casters...
Personally i'd like to see more original classes WITHOUT spellcasting at all. Take a look at all the "new" core classes they kept introducing in 3.5. 70% of them had some sort of spellcasting progression. I don't want to see pathfinder go down that same path.
...and let's not even get into prc's (in which the spellcasting ratio jumps to 85+%).
Other people have mentioned this, and I think from a designers that going to be pretty difficult. You can only do so many things that dont resemble spell casting...and I think thats pretty much covered by the main spell classes.
Although I have issues with the classes, I feel like Paizo did a good job with the round three characters as far as coming up with unique ways to handle the inflation of spell casters. Alchemists, for example--although they have "spells" look at the list, I'd hardly call them a caster, they can just buff themself and then go do melee things (if you chose). Same goes for Inquisitor, who really doesn't play like a caster, either.Not to be antagonistic, but I'd be interested to hear ideas for non spell casters that aren't imitating things you can currently do with Pathfinder's present classes and aren't over powered.
|
The alchemist suffers from being tied to a daily casting schedule. It makes little sense for an alchemist to have to rebrew his elixirs every day, they should last until used. Furthermore, an alchemist's formulae should be researchable, like a wizard's. Drawing mostly from Transmutation, conjuration (Creation), enchantment (charm) and some necromancy. Filling the true flavour of the class.
There is one reason that I think is the most valid to have 7 levels of spells versus 6 for these classes. (And note that I played a lot of Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved where those core classes that were "secondary" casters, like the mageblade or witch, had 7 levels.) You get a higher spell DC to affect opponents in combat. If your spell DCs are lagging 3 behind for your best spells, that's a little tough the higher level you go. It also allows a little more granularity for fitting spells in instead of jamming a few all the way down to L6.
The alchemist suffers from being tied to a daily casting schedule. It makes little sense for an alchemist to have to rebrew his elixirs every day, they should last until used. Furthermore, an alchemist's formulae should be researchable, like a wizard's. Drawing mostly from Transmutation, conjuration (Creation), enchantment (charm) and some necromancy. Filling the true flavour of the class.
That's fine from a simulationist perspective, but horrible from a gamist one. That would mean alchemists have an (effectively) number of casts of all of their spells.
That in and of itself isn't horrible (see Warlocks for an example of a class based around at-will powers that isn't broken), but combined with a full 6 level spell list and infinite spells known? No, sorry, that'd be supremely overpowered. The Warlock worked because it had an insanely limited spell list and had a very very low number of spells known.
There is one reason that I think is the most valid to have 7 levels of spells versus 6 for these classes. (And note that I played a lot of Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved where those core classes that were "secondary" casters, like the mageblade or witch, had 7 levels.) You get a higher spell DC to affect opponents in combat. If your spell DCs are lagging 3 behind for your best spells, that's a little tough the higher level you go. It also allows a little more granularity for fitting spells in instead of jamming a few all the way down to L6.
None of the 6-level casters have a spell list that relies on or even encourages casting spells that have DCs. Alchemists cannot cast spells on anyone else, so DCs are irrelevant, while Summoners and Inquisitors are focused on buffing and utility spells rather than offensive ones (Inquisitor less so than Summoner).
None of the 6-level casters have a spell list that relies on or even encourages casting spells that have DCs. Alchemists cannot cast spells on anyone else, so DCs are irrelevant, while Summoners and Inquisitors are focused on buffing and utility spells rather than offensive ones (Inquisitor less so than Summoner).
Not entirely irrelevant. The higher level the spell, the lesser the chance of being affected by dispel magic, although you are correct that at the moment those lists are all personal/defensive. (I fully anticipate players will start demanding offensive spells and in time some will be added.)
Not entirely irrelevant. The higher level the spell, the lesser the chance of being affected by dispel magic
DCs have nothing to do with dispel magic. As a matter of fact, spell level has nothing to do with dispel magic (confusing example aside). Dispel magic is a 1d20+caster level check against a DC of 11+caster level.
Oh yeah. Right. I knew that too. I will cease commenting about this topic for the day since my brain is clearly swapping the headers on the wrong files!
Alchemists cannot cast spells on anyone else, so DCs are irrelevant[..]
Amusingly, they can cast Nightmare and Eyebite on themselves, though. :-)
Oh yeah. Right. I knew that too. I will cease commenting about this topic for the day since my brain is clearly swapping the headers on the wrong files!
To be fair, the example and the rules do not really sync up too well. The example for dispel magic follows the rules, but either implies things that are not in the rules (that the DC is 11+minimum caster level for the spell) or does not give all the needed details (that the two spells had different origins and thus have different caster levels).
Oh yeah. Right. I knew that too. I will cease commenting about this topic for the day since my brain is clearly swapping the headers on the wrong files!To be fair, the example and the rules do not really sync up too well. The example for dispel magic follows the rules, but either implies things that are not in the rules (that the DC is 11+minimum caster level for the spell) or does not give all the needed details (that the two spells had different origins and thus have different caster levels).
Don't forget that if you identify the spell you are trying to dispel you can dispel against it's save throw DC instead of its caster level.
I'm still puzzled by Magic Jar being on their spell list. Oh well, loves me some Magic Jar abuse.
Anyone know if you recover ability score damage while trapped in a Magic Jar spell?
You could capture a stone giant, nuke it's brains out with Madness Bombs, then just go for joy rides with it refreshing magic jar without fear of failure when it expires every 12 hours.