It is not iconic, it is a relic of how magic was handled in a work of fiction that is outdated by today's standard. (Ever read Harry Potter? Imagine Vancian magic there. It wouldn't work)The hilarious thing? Even some D&D and Pathfinder fiction handwaves most of the Vancian magic crap (as it should).
Harry Potter and other fictional magicians could work with a combination of Vancian spell slots AND reserve feats.
For example, the "disarm wand spell" might be a reserve feat of telekinesis or spiritual weapon or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WOTC is trying to sell people on the idea that they can produce Forgotten Realms supplements that'll support any era of play... whether it be pre-4e, 4e, or post-4e verions of the Realms. I don't believe for a second they can produce books that are useful for 3 different eras separated by 120something years but we'll see.
FWIW, I thought Menzoberranzan was pretty good in that regard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not iconic, it is a relic of how magic was handled in a work of fiction that is outdated by today's standard. (Ever read Harry Potter? Imagine Vancian magic there. It wouldn't work)You can still have a spellbook, have a fixed number of spells to use in a day, even memorize (Prepare?) a set list. My main problem is that a Wizard forgets everything. It is amazing the guy can find his own nose in front of his face.
Remove the need to memorize more than one copy of a spell in a day, have some way to be able to access spells from the spellbook in less time than a day.
I, myself, want a different system that does not use Spell points (Mana) per sey. I am all for a spell pool, but for stunts and spell use, not for a tracker of spells used....
Well, the last Dying Earth story was written in 2010. Not outdated.
Vancian magic has been included stories/books by: Zelazny's Amber, Pratchett's Discworld, Joel Rosenberg, Lawrence Watt-Evans, Diane Duane, Mercedes Lackey, James mallory, Glen cook, Patricia Wrede, Margaret Weiss, Michael Shea, Jeff VanderMeer, Lucius Shepard, George RR Martin, Mike Resnick, Kage Baker, Tanith Lee, Neil Gaiman, Elizabeth Moon....practically a "who's who" of High Fantasy.
Nor do PF spellcasters 'forget" their spells, they just
"Once you've cast a prepared spell, you can't cast it again until you prepare it again. " In other words, you can also say the energy is used up.
And of course Sorc?oracle, etc don't have to "memorize more than one copy of a spell in a day", just play one of those.
I'd much rather see an evolution over time where outdated books (those that have been far too long out of print and need many changes to bring them in line with newer releases) were selectively updated/replaced in a modular fashion than doing a full edition reboot that just means everything you ever bought is suddenly out of date and needs replacing.See that's the thing right, if there's no progression in the setting, only the stat blocks are out of date. And if they're reprinting books to replace stat blocks for a new edition, it's just useless and a waste of money to me.
Ah, I didn't explain myself very well.
For the campaign setting books, I was talking more a case of information on country X being out of print and having had extra (or corrected) setting information published since in another product (such as detail on additional cities, etc.) and therefore warranting republishing for those who hadn't been able to pick it up the first time, or possibly reprinting unavailable Player Companions in compilations. No need at all for those who already had it to buy it again unless they wanted the newer version, and only done on a very selective basis (say, no more than a book or two a year.) Also the situations such as when Seekers of Secrets was technically replaced by Pathfinder Society Field Guide.
For the rulebooks, a similar thing - if after a few years there's been enough thought that, say, Ultimate Campaign (or even the core rulebook) really needed to be done differently, then just redo that book.
I'd much rather see that than drawing a line under the entire of Pathfinder and starting over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first thing I think about when someone asks what are staples of Pathfinder and D&D is alignment. The second is Vancian casting. It's iconic to the game, sorry.
My biggest gripe between sorcerer and wizard is the delay in spell levels. Sorcerers already pay a stiff price for their flexible casting (limited spells known), adding insult to injury by delaying max spell level is unnecessary. I wish wizards would be forced to specialize like sorcerers need to pick a bloodline, or have the generalist wizards pay a hefty price for that versatility (such as a delay in spell level!)
My group houseruled spont full casters to be treated as a level ahead in spells known/spells per day, putting them on par with the prepared casters. It's not harmed the gameplay at all.
It is not iconic, it is a relic of how magic was handled in a work of fiction that is outdated by today's standard. (Ever read Harry Potter? Imagine Vancian magic there. It wouldn't work)
You can still have a spellbook, have a fixed number of spells to use in a day, even memorize (Prepare?) a set list. My main problem is that a Wizard forgets everything. It is amazing the guy can find his own nose in front of his face.
Remove the need to memorize more than one copy of a spell in a day, have some way to be able to access spells from the spellbook in less time than a day.
Firstly, it is iconic.
Secondly, it is not a model of "outdated" fiction, whatever that means. You just heavily implied that the writings of J.K. Rowling were somehow more relevant to fantasy roleplaying than those of Jack Vance.
Magic is not real. It's not like all fantasy authors are describing the same thing, with each getting progressively more accurate over time. It's not science.
If one book describes magic as a blashphemous taint which has no mitigating factor other than the denigration of the sorcerer's soul (Prince of Nothing) and another describes it as knowing and speaking the True Names of all things in creation (Earthsea) and I am playing a game that uses spell points, I am not going to expect the game to work according to the principles of those fine novels. Spell points imply that magic is tiring, or in some way limited. Neither of those settings include any such limitation.
Nor am I going to look at a totally cool and valid system of arcane lore that happens to require the preparation of discrete spells and say "this should work like Harry Potter because."
There was a time when I hated D&D magic, too. Now I realize the problem is one of pre-conceived notions, and possibly bad PR.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the whole 'memorization' meme is very tiring.
The Wizard doesn't memorize his spells. He prepares them. he Pre-casts them. he pre-loads the magical ammunition and has his little finger on the button to unleash it. When he presses that button by using the appropriate V S or M components, the spell discharges.
Now, he's out of ammunition, and has to go stock up. He then has to stick the bullets in the clip, disassemble the barrel, clean the assembly, check the firing pin, readjust the sights, reassemble it, and now the spell is prepared and ready for him to pull the trigger again.
At higher levels, he's got dozens of different guns he can prepare, just ready to go. But when they are out of ammo, so is he, and he has to start the process over.
The sorceror doesn't have as many guns as the wizard, but the advantage to his is he has the same ammunition types for all of them, .111 Caliber Prestidigitai Classic to .999 Archmage Magnums. All his guns of the same caliber use the same ammo, so he can swap between them.
But like the wizard, when he's out of ammo, his guns go silent.
Does that really sound like memorization to you?
==+Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sorceror doesn't have as many guns as the wizard, but the advantage to his is he has the same ammunition types for all of them, .111 Caliber Prestidigitai Classic to .999 Archmage Magnums. All his guns of the same caliber use the same ammo, so he can swap between them.
I love this. Well played.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Harry Potter...
What I think we need to do is better define what each class "is" and make things match that. Then once we do so, STOP REMOVING THE MINUSES and change things so the fluff matches.
This is what I think it "should" be, and we can discuss if it is or isn't this and if you agree or disagree with me.
Arcane Magic just "is". You don't ask for it, it can't be denied, but it also requires a connection to the arcane world that armor/etc...messes with.
Arcane Casters:
Wizard - You learn the mechanics of how to cast spells. Each morning you study your spell book to prepare the components and do any pre-casting you need to cast your spells for the day.
Plus - You can memorize any spell on a given day
Minus - You have to prepare spells in advance since you aren't inherently magical.
Sorcerer - You are inherently magical. You can cast spells thanks to this inherent magical-ness. You know a set number of spells a set number of times which reflects how much magical-ness you have.
Plus - You can cast spells without study, and you can cast them over and over up to how magic you are.
Minus - You are only able to cast the spells you have, and you don't have that many.
Bard - You are able to call upon arcane powers through song/speech/etc...much like the pied piper or a rock god, you're magic comes from your awesome. Your methodology allows you to ignore armor restrictions, and your open-minded nature allows you to learn skills and ability quickly.
Plus - You can wear armor, hit better, do Bard stuff
Minus - Less spells, specific spell list.
Magus - You cross train studying magic book and combat.
Plus - You can wear armor, hit better.
Minus - Less spells, specific spell list.
Divine magic is given to you (and can therefore be denied or taken away) so armor doesn't interfere. On the other hand, it tends to be less powerful in general.
Cleric - You pray that today you will be able to do a set list of things, your god lets you do that set list of things.
Plus - You pick any spell
Minus - You have to do so in advance of the day (except heal/harm)
Oracle - The gods give you power, like it or not.
Plus - You can cast spells without memorization.
Minus - You only know so many spells.
Inquisitor - Your god empowers you to defend the faith.
Plus - Inquisitor stuff
Minus - Less spells
Druid - You meditate that today you will be able to do a set list of things, spirits and nature let you do that set list of things.
Plus - You pick any spell
Minus - You have to do so in advance of the day (except summons)
Alchemists and Summoners...I think both need a major re-working for very different reasons.
Witch is basically a hybrid that I'm mostly fine with (maybe some work cleaning up the hexes and making the familiar spell learning logic less silly...)
|
|
The main thing I have a problem with seems to be skipped in favor of propping/denouncing the whole Wizard class as a whole.
The wizard pulling spells from the spellbook is the iconic, not the overall mechanics behind it. The fact that a wizard can't keep his concentration enough to remember his spells after he cast them is a reason I see more Sorcerer's, Oracles and Magus (With spell recall) than the two Wizards I have seen in the whole of my PFS career. One has spent most of his moneys on Scrolls and wands.
If spell slots are used, they need to be treated as Known Spells, not some sort of placement for a single use item. If there is an energy drain, use cool downs, not amnesia. Monsters already use this for stench, breath weapons and other abilities. Feats can be added to shorten the cool downs, lengthen them for other effects or power, or eliminate them for lower level spells.
Another problem I have with the current system is that all the spontaneous casters (except the Inquisitor) use Cha as the caster stat. I want to play a caster that is more than a pretty face and a nice voice. It isn't worth it currently.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What source is that? I might make a character that uses that build.
You keep talking about being frustrated with wizards that can't remember their spells, despite everyone in the thread telling you they still remember them, they just can't cast them without preparation again. It's a little frustrating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What source is that? I might make a character that uses that build.You keep talking about being frustrated with wizards that can't remember their spells, despite everyone in the thread telling you they still remember them, they just can't cast them without preparation again. It's a little frustrating.
Yup, if it helps to imagine spell prep as creating a bunch of little glowing icons that float around the top of the wizard's head until they are fired off, do that :)
Yup, if it helps to imagine spell prep as creating a bunch of little glowing icons that float around the top of the wizard's head until they are fired off, do that :)What source is that? I might make a character that uses that build.You keep talking about being frustrated with wizards that can't remember their spells, despite everyone in the thread telling you they still remember them, they just can't cast them without preparation again. It's a little frustrating.
TIL all Wizards are Illumians
|
|
If you can't cast it again for the whole day, it is forgetting it... momentarily... for a bit.
The next iteration of PF doesn't need that. There is a better way to represent the Wizard, the learned mage that pours through dusty tomes and keeps a spellbook, without making him forgetful and unable to cast more than a couple of spells in a day. It is a good start making cantrips at will, but having several different ways mechanically to do the same thing is not class variety.
Say it again.
Why have both the Sorcerer and the Wizard as they were in the 3.0 book?
They are the same class!!!
Why have both the Sorcerer and the Wizard as they were in the 3.0 book?They are the same class!!!
Given the importance of backwards compatibility, why not just add a brand new class that casts differently?
Basically i think that wizards should be allowed to sleep, and then be refreshed mentally. Then they can prepare their spells again if they want to. Tying spells per day to a 24 hour cycle is nonsensical.
I seem to remember at least once source (I want to say the 3.5 PHB, but I can't remember for sure) saying just that (I want to say the rule was 8 hours of sleep allow a Wizard to recharge enough to prepare new spells). If that's what you want in your game just discuss it with your group and get the GM to agree to it.
|
|
Given the importance of backwards compatibility, why not just add a brand new class that casts differently?
Why have both the Sorcerer and the Wizard as they were in the 3.0 book?They are the same class!!!
That is what I want to avoid. The horrible Shadowcasters, the named casters and other horrible magic mechanics that became horrible. PF has something like that with the Summoner. There is also Psionics to consider, which is a can of worms in itself, as well as the spell points variant in the UA.
My point? I don't want to radically change to a Mana system like in a video game, or some "great" system used in another game, but to update the game we have to a unified magic system that can be altered slightly to fit class tropes.
Have the wizard be the tome reader that can know infinite spells and prepare a few for a bit, using cool downs instead of forgetting everything all the time. (You can use this spell again in 1d4 rnds) Have the Sorcerer excel in the Elements.
Heck, combine the Monk and the Oracle into a class of their own.
What I don't want is that awful book that had different formatting for each section (Three classes, I believe) and unfinished mechanics that were never quite done right. I know Paizo has been good with their products thus far, not going into Nine Swords like broken badness, but when the time comes for a new direction and to move on to a new iteration of the game, I hope it is more than 3.95, or worse, simply a rules clean up and editorial fix.
If you can't cast it again for the whole day, it is forgetting it... momentarily... for a bit.
Not really. If that were true, they'd be able to refresh their memory without having to sleep first (do you consider a sorceror to have 'forgotten' all their spells once they've used up their daily complement?)
.It's magic - it has its own rules (you may not like them but that doesnt mean you should stick to your 'forgetting' conception - it can be whatever you like and if you re-envision it you may find it more palatable, since it seems to be the flavour you're principally objecting to).
|
|
It's more the recharge time being set in stone that thaX seems to hate, and that's not an uncommon sentiment. I've run games where casters only had to sleep to regain spells instead of wait for the next day. It really exacerbated the 15-minute adventuring day. But at the same time, tracking in-game time to restore spell slots/points/whatever gets pretty tedious. I'm not sure what the solution is.
In the Kingmaker game I play in, we get 3 Hero Points per session. Maybe let casters rest an hour and spend a Hero Point to regain their spells?
What I'd most want to see in Pathfinder 2.0 is further bridging the gap between casters and noncasters (and non-primary casters). Perhaps granting more versatile abilities and ways to counter magic. A Ranger could effectively gain super-hearing through blindsight (legendary elf hunter ears); a Fighter could perform such a grievous blow that the target must make a Fortitude Save or die immediately; a Rogue is so blessed with luck that if his death is unobserved he can come back later in the unlikeliest of places.
Stuff like that.
|
Basically i think that wizards should be allowed to sleep, and then be refreshed mentally. Then they can prepare their spells again if they want to. Tying spells per day to a 24 hour cycle is nonsensical.
God no. Wizurd players would become even more annoying. They would blow their load on the first encounter, and then insist on taking a nap before proceeding to the next encounter. The five room dungeon would take two days to clear.
Rope Trick, while not foolproof, can effectively allow adventuring parties to rest and camp out in dungeons. A 5th level Wizard with Extended Rope Trick has a 10 hour duration. More than enough time to rest and prepare spells.
Now it's just one spell, but unless the DM restricts or alters it it's common sense for PCs to make use of this if they can't easily retreat back to civilization.
To the OP:
Here is what i would like to see in Pathfinder 2.
Beware: unsubstantiated opinions/requests follow. Some are real, others just wishes of a feverdream.
* Pathfinder 2e not Pathfinder 2.0. PF implies a 2.5 and ain't nobody got time for that.
* A 2134 AD release date.
* Remove spell components. Boring as bats$&t and unnecessary to track.
* Remove the spontaneous/prepared and divine/arcane divides. Fun for mechanics and archetypes I do agree, but (as mouthed by the FBI agent in the Harrison Ford/Tommy Lee Jones Fugitive movie) completely hinky.
* Remove dwarves, halflings and gnomes. Too short.
* A much better organised Core Rulebook. I do like many of the rules, but trying to work out where they all are is difficult at times - it is anything but intuitive.
* Remove Arcane Spell Failure. Find a better way to "balance" the "martial/caster disparity".
* Raise WAR from the dead (it's likely 2130 AD when you guys start development cycle after all) and get him to do the new iconics - Selovar, Zombiekin Archomancer; Ary, Vegefolk Mindcloud; Krash, Multi-Genomic Bioneticist; Mel, Silical Akashite/Transforcer; Isone, Emergite Dancer/Memewar and Nerez, Emergite Acquisitor.
* Reinstate THAC20.
So why not take the approach of making it that the act of casting the spell is really the act of completing the spell. In the case of divine, you prayed in the morning for the ability to do specific things later that day, and now those prayers are granted to you. Hence it not having spell failure. In the case of arcane, you are actually completing the spell, going through all of the motions and combinations which can be impaired by armor and such.
Er, this is already explicitly the approach taken by Pathfinder.
"Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in his mind as a nearly cast spell until he uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until he abandons it. Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character's mind."
Count me as frustrated ThaX. It seems* like you're not listening.
You don't have to agree, but it would be nice if there was some sign that you actually read the posts.
*you might be listening! But the impression given is not that.
Basically i think that wizards should be allowed to sleep, and then be refreshed mentally. Then they can prepare their spells again if they want to. Tying spells per day to a 24 hour cycle is nonsensical.I seem to remember at least once source (I want to say the 3.5 PHB, but I can't remember for sure) saying just that (I want to say the rule was 8 hours of sleep allow a Wizard to recharge enough to prepare new spells). If that's what you want in your game just discuss it with your group and get the GM to agree to it.couldn't find it in the 3.5 phb. looked up every instance of the word 'sleep'.
must be in a different book.
Found it - 3.5 PHB, page 178.
The text refers to "preparing daily spells" as well as "8 hours of rest" being required.
Given this discussion:
http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2802186 it seems people have differing interpretations.
I certainly wouldn't argue with a GM that wanted to allow a refresh after 8 hours of sleep, as it isn't really going to break anything (well, nothing more than waiting 24 hours between dungeon rooms will.)
Of course, I'd also not argue with a GM that decided to repopulate the dungeon behind you during all that sleeping, or have the monsters send a messenger to go get more and more powerful friends to discourage it from becoming a tactic.
So, table variation, etc, etc.
Given that this is getting off-topic, I'd suggest starting a new thread for any further discussion on the possibility though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stepping away from the 'Vancian or no vancian' argument; If Monk makes it to a new edition of Pathfinder I'd like Style feats to be the Monk's 'thing'. Most classes got some sort of kit in their vanilla class features that allowed for variation, such as bloodlines, arcane schools, or rogue talents. meanwhile the Monk is mostly limited to a few bonus feats. I think that if bonus feats, Stunning Fist or Flurry of Blows was replaced with free style feats (which come in 5 feat trees instead of 3 if you have monk levels) then monk would be much more flavorful.
Given the importance of backwards compatibility, why not just add a brand new class that casts differently?
Why have both the Sorcerer and the Wizard as they were in the 3.0 book?They are the same class!!!
That is what I want to avoid. The horrible Shadowcasters, the named casters and other horrible magic mechanics that became horrible. PF has something like that with the Summoner. There is also Psionics to consider, which is a can of worms in itself, as well as the spell points variant in the UA.
My point? I don't want to radically change to a Mana system like in a video game, or some "great" system used in another game, but to update the game we have to a unified magic system that can be altered slightly to fit class tropes.
Have the wizard be the tome reader that can know infinite spells and prepare a few for a bit, using cool downs instead of forgetting everything all the time. (You can use this spell again in 1d4 rnds) Have the Sorcerer excel in the Elements.
Heck, combine the Monk and the Oracle into a class of their own.
What I don't want is that awful book that had different formatting for each section (Three classes, I believe) and unfinished mechanics that were never quite done right. I know Paizo has been good with their products thus far, not going into Nine Swords like broken badness, but when the time comes for a new direction and to move on to a new iteration of the game, I hope it is more than 3.95, or worse, simply a rules clean up and editorial fix.
Part of the thing is that the "lengthy rest" needed for wizards to recast their spells helps to balance them. If you are storming the bad guys castle, the wizard has to be careful with what he prepares and when he uses it. If a wizard can fireball every 1d4 rounds, than he is going to be even more powerful, and at higher levels there already is enough of a caster-martial discrepancy as is.
|
|
Count me as frustrated ThaX. It seems* like you're not listening.
You don't have to agree, but it would be nice if there was some sign that you actually read the posts.
*you might be listening! But the impression given is not that.
I read the posts. I know some think that "fire and forget" is akin to the Holy Grail. I just never saw it as a second coming or a perfected piece of rules smithing. It was awkward in it's implementation when the first books of D&D was made, was not improved in the expanded game where the Elf was a race, not a class, and steadily has been moved away from ever since, or I should say slightly changed as each iteration of the game has been introduced.
To the bird above (reference to the avatar), the strategy involved in the Wizard's spell selection is strained because of the need to "prepare" the same spell more than once to be able to cast it multiple times. You have more to choose from than the sorcerer, true, but it does the Wizard no good if he can't remember anything after the first casting.
To put it another way, the Sorcerer can spam fireballs until his spell allotment runs out. The Wizard has to prepare it ahead of time instead, so if he want to spam it, he has to leave out the other spells to do so.
Sure, there are Archtypes that can do things to medicate the useless restrictions put upon the poor man, like having spells well known that can be recalled in place of a prepared spell for a full round action, or having a bonded object (In place of another icon, the Familiar) recall a cast spell, but getting around an inferior mechanic shouldn't be a replacement for a better magic system that is already there.
Use cool downs, have casters use a pool to do stunts, treat Prepared spells as Known Spells (with the cool downs) and leave behind the need to prepare more than one copy of a given spell.
I know, it wouldn't be the same. Isn't that the point? The game needs to move forward. Make the monk viable, have the Fighter do more than swing swords, let the Rogue bluff his way through and so on. Remove alignment restrictions on base classes, have a unified magic system, have craft/profession be a part of backgrounds instead of a skill, Tone down feats, having some be chosen class abilities, others into traits and backgrounds and so on...
When the next iteration of PF is upon us, let us make it a game that deserves our time, not a rehash and clean up of the same ol' rules.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When the next iteration of PF is upon us, let us make it a game that deserves our time, not a rehash and clean up of the same ol' rules.
It is already a game deserving of our time. Maybe not of your time, of course. And of course the next version should move forward. No one can agree on which way forward is however.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Use cool downs, have casters use a pool to do stunts, treat Prepared spells as Known Spells (with the cool downs) and leave behind the need to prepare more than one copy of a given spell.
I know, it wouldn't be the same. Isn't that the point? The game needs to move forward. Make the monk viable, have the Fighter do more than swing swords, let the Rogue bluff his way through and so on. Remove alignment restrictions on base classes, have a unified magic system, have craft/profession be a part of backgrounds instead of a skill, Tone down feats, having some be chosen class abilities, others into traits and backgrounds and so on...
Hey, didn't 4E do most of that?
Hey, didn't 4E do most of that?
I play both PF and 4e. 4e including a ton of innovative ideas, and while its reception was highly mixed, and ultimately a major contributor to the creation of Pathfinder. IMO, it also fixed a lot of the balance issues between martials and casters. As others have stated, the 3.x/OGL chassis has some inherent balance flaws, but could be fixable if Paizo ever decided to address the overly-complicated rules, such as mounted combat...
Count me as frustrated ThaX. It seems* like you're not listening.
You don't have to agree, but it would be nice if there was some sign that you actually read the posts.
*you might be listening! But the impression given is not that.
I read the posts.
"""You have more to choose from than the sorcerer, true, but it does the Wizard no good if he can't remember anything after the first casting. """
No, pretty sure you're just skimming and repeating the stuff you don't like.
The sorceror gets to spam. That's his shtick. IF he wants the perfect spell, he has to resort to scrolls or wands.
The wizard gets to pick the perfect spell, and change his spells. That's his shtick. He gets versatility. If he wants to spam, he invests in pearls, scrolls, or wands.
The whole idea is that they get limited amounts of power...but they can instantly solve problems with that power when they call on it.
If you want to give them constant, all day power, then you have to give the melee classes burst and nova 'daily', 'hourly', and 'encounter' powers, and that was one of the things people hated most about 4E.
==Aelryinth
|
|
In comparison to that other edition others have mentioned, I do not want "Dailies." That is the point. Something that is one shot and that is it, it is what the Wizard does. Some look at that as a good thing, I see it as frustration. (Uh, you didn't get past the SR, sorry)
Sure, in the current game, the Sorcerer spams, the Wizard chooses. Looking at it from a new player's perspective, the first level Wizard gets three spells, and a recall if you forgo a Familiar. Sucks if you use your only MM and roll min dmg (2). The PF improvement lets the wizard spam cantrips at will as well as all the other casters, a marked improvement over 3.5, but it is still just cantrips.
I know there is a lot of sentiment for the old man, for how the old game introduced the magic into the RPG as it created the genre, but time goes by, the Fire and Forget is so long in the tooth that the canines are dragging the ground.
I still see the Sorcerer mechanics being used slightly differently in 3.0, the Wizard preparing his spells and casting his slots without forgetting everything. Cast that MM three times, or cast mm once and Mage Armor, then Identify, or another combination as needed. No.. no. Make another half class with lower spell progression and fewer spells, but have them able to cast any of their spells with their slots, which is slightly more than the spells they have...
Why?
Sigh.
I just see PF heading into a more modern gaming experience, not holding on to sacred cows that needed to be gone in previous incarnations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just see PF heading into a more modern gaming experience, not holding on to sacred cows that needed to be gone in previous incarnations.
It's still worth bearing in mind that a lot of people moved to Pathfinder because of those sacred cows being removed elsewhere. Any future change would really have to list an extra optional system rather than replacing such a core mechanic.
I would have liked to see an "Un-Vancianing The Magic System" option in Ultimate Magic, similar to how Ultimate Combat gives us a less abstract alternative to the Hit Point system.