I don't mind wizards doing a bit of circumvention of the fixed spell list via consumables. The real offenders are things like Amulets of Magecraft and metamagic feat rods. Those things need to go.
Metamagic feat rods are the spell casters equivalent of +X Weapons and Armor. .. they are the most effective non consumable items you can gain.
And they don't circumvent the spell memorization system at all-- sure you can add a few free empowers, quickens, ect per day-- but you CANNOT use a metamagic feat rod to cast a spell you do not know or have not prepared.
I sidestep most of the consumables issue myself by making them come out of the Party Fund (within reason).
When I run an AP that's where the extra 25% wealth goes (divide wealth by the party+1, the +1 being party fund).
Same with most other games I run but I'm a bit more loose with treasure there.
|
@Snorter I really dislike abilities that "drain" or otherwise use up magic items for just that reason-- the 3.5/Eberron Artificier and the BoED Ancestral Relic were two really bad examples of that which divided parties and took the amount of treasure and wealth you gave out sideways in odd ways.
The pressure to "top up" parties is mostly a social construct, and I don't agree with the principles behind it-- I give the players what they earn regardless of the WBL.
It's an admirable aim, to set a precedent that you'll give out what is required by the CR and Bestiary guidelines, and let the players sink or swim by their own choices. Wise choices pay off, poor choices don't.
However, there's a great deal of variety in the treasure given out, even between opponents of the same CR. Any NPC is disproportionally loaded with gear; animals, vermin, and some low-Int monsters have only incidental treasure from a passing adventurer who became last month's meal.
The guidance in the Core Rules points this out, and suggests that the encounter types should be mixed up to average out the loot. Where this isn't appropriate or possible, a tweak to the future treasure may be in order (up or down).
Because GMs are checking and tweaking, the outcome effectively negates the consequences of profligate consumables-use (as above). Really, the GMs should probably restrict themselves to tweaking only where there has been an over-abundance of high-yield NPCs, or low-yield vermin.
How so? If a Player is undergeared for his level, you allow him to regear no? Do you just let him perform less effectively than the other players forever if he uses consumables?See now the bolded part paints a disturbing picture about expectations IMO.
You are going to have to explain to me how Player B is leeching. No one forced player A to expend his wealth on consumables or to get carried away in his use of them either.
Player under geared? As a fellow player that is not my problem it is the "under geared" players problem.
As a GM? The Player in question has free will yes? Then his "under geared" nature is his own issue not mine. It is his responsibility (not mine) to correct the perceived problem.Player B is leeching because he let Player A purchase the item and then effectively gets said item for free.
Not if player B never requested player A get and use said consumable.
And honestly if a player did in fact burn through his consumables and then expect me a fellow player to compensate him out of my share of the treasure then he can expect me to treat him just as I would any other hireling. IE: he will follow orders, present me with a detailed list of expenses (and expect any outrageous unapproved ones to be rejected) and most likely not get a full share of any treasures as we will have to negotiate a contract on his expected duties and pay.
I think what I hope to see in PF 2e is Kirth Gersen featured prominently in the credits.I'm not going to talk about specifics; most of what I'd want to see has been covered. But more than any of that, I'd like PF2 to feature a total change in the development mind set.
Instead of coming up with fluff and then grudgingly assigning crunch to it haphazardly, I'd like to see a system in which the mechanical stuff all works like a swiss watch, and then the cool flavor laid over it so that you can't see the gears beneath.
That means no more trap options or Timmy Cards. It means no more spending a feat on stuff that's worse than the stuff you get without a feat. It means no more of this "balance is for evil people with agendas" stuff. It means no more Martials Can't Have Nice Things. It means no more heavy reliance on Rule Zero to fix everything.
Contrary to the usual canard, this will NOT turn PF into 4e. It would simply make it a game that's simultaneously playable as a game AND as a storytime, because the rules would directly lead to the type of game people play, instead of working at odds to it.
That would be too good to be true and I may believe I'm in some sort of hypno stasis where aliens are trying to make everything perfect.
@Snoter I agree with that as well-- if I've used a ton of Dragons its reasonable to give out less than listed treasure since I keep using "high output" enemies and if I have used a lot of "Treasure none" enemies I may add in rewards in other ways (bounties for slaying the undead, ect) but I do not agree with whole scale wealth redistribution.
@Damian-- I agree with what you are saying. If I toss you my Potion of Cure Light its reasonable for me to expect to be paid for it. It is not reasonable that if I use Scroll of Fireball I get a replacement or that this cost is paid by the party.
@LoneKnave-- treating consumables like that is exactly the reason that people think the entire Vancian casting system is flawed. If using a Scroll of Fireball has no cost to me then it is a free extra, essentially permanent spell slot and that causes the entire system to be unbalanced and wobbly because it is not intended to be such. A scroll of fireball once used is gone forever and that cost should be effectively permanently subtracted from your total accumulated wealth the same way the cost of my cheeseburger is permanently expended from my total accumulated wealth-- I don't get an extra $5 in my work check next week because I ate that cheese burger, its just gone.
How so? If a Player is undergeared for his level, you allow him to regear no? Do you just let him perform less effectively than the other players forever if he uses consumables?See now the bolded part paints a disturbing picture about expectations IMO.
You are going to have to explain to me how Player B is leeching. No one forced player A to expend his wealth on consumables or to get carried away in his use of them either.
Player under geared? As a fellow player that is not my problem it is the "under geared" players problem.
As a GM? The Player in question has free will yes? Then his "under geared" nature is his own issue not mine. It is his responsibility (not mine) to correct the perceived problem.Player B is leeching because he let Player A purchase the item and then effectively gets said item for free.Not if player B never requested player A get and use said consumable.
And honestly if a player did in fact burn through his consumables and then expect me a fellow player to compensate him out of my share of the treasure then he can expect me to treat him just as I would any other hireling. IE: he will follow orders, present me with a detailed list of expenses (and expect any outrageous unapproved ones to be rejected) and most likely not get a full share of any treasures as we will have to negotiate a contract on his expected duties and pay.
Wow.
As the GM, the Player has no ability to correct "his own issue" outside of what you allow him to correct. He can't make the next treasure trove conveniently have a new sword for him. He can't go quest for a new sword(which leaves him a whole adventure to do without one) unless there IS a quest placed by the GM.
And nowhere did I mention that any player is compensating another player.
How so? If a Player is undergeared for his level, you allow him to regear no? Do you just let him perform less effectively than the other players forever if he uses consumables?See now the bolded part paints a disturbing picture about expectations IMO.
You are going to have to explain to me how Player B is leeching. No one forced player A to expend his wealth on consumables or to get carried away in his use of them either.
Player under geared? As a fellow player that is not my problem it is the "under geared" players problem.
As a GM? The Player in question has free will yes? Then his "under geared" nature is his own issue not mine. It is his responsibility (not mine) to correct the perceived problem.Player B is leeching because he let Player A purchase the item and then effectively gets said item for free.Not if player B never requested player A get and use said consumable.
And honestly if a player did in fact burn through his consumables and then expect me a fellow player to compensate him out of my share of the treasure then he can expect me to treat him just as I would any other hireling. IE: he will follow orders, present me with a detailed list of expenses (and expect any outrageous unapproved ones to be rejected) and most likely not get a full share of any treasures as we will have to negotiate a contract on his expected duties and pay.Wow.
As the GM, the Player has no ability to correct "his own issue" outside of what you allow him to correct. He can't make the next treasure trove conveniently have a new sword for him. He can't go quest for a new sword(which leaves him a whole adventure to do without one) unless there IS a quest placed by the GM.
if he wants to correct his "problem" (I really do not see it as such but YMMV) then yes he has to actively take steps in game to correct it. At which point I will indeed facilitate those steps. But no i am not just going to hand it over just because the Player burned his wealth on something else. That creates an unreasonable expectation on the players part. And says that as a GM I cannot trust the players to function without handouts.
And nowhere did I mention that any player is compensating another player.
Ahem: Leaching... strongly implies that I the player am expected to compensate other players for their choices.
if he wants to correct his "problem" (I really do not see it as such but YMMV) then yes he has to actively take steps in game to correct it. At which point I will indeed facilitate those steps. But no i am not just going to hand it over just because the Player burned his wealth on something else. That creates an unreasonable expectation on the players part. And says that as a GM I cannot trust the players to function without handouts.Ahem: Leaching... strongly implies that I the player am expected to compensate other players for their choices.
Uh. Having a player who is demonstratively of less worth than other players since he made a play choice to buy a consumable instead of saving for a permanent item is a problem. Punishing that player because he wanted to play differently than what you want is a terrible issue.
And apparently you missed Nathanel Love's example. Player B(The player leaching) was the one who didn't purchase consumables, extra scrolls and so forth. He was copying spells from Player A who did.
Again, I beg the question.
If I spent 10,000 gold on stuff that eventually goes away(Resurrections, Potions, Scrolls, and so forth), am I considered to have the same amount of wealth as someone who doesn't spend that gold when I am clearly not benefiting from those effects anymore?
if he wants to correct his "problem" (I really do not see it as such but YMMV) then yes he has to actively take steps in game to correct it. At which point I will indeed facilitate those steps. But no i am not just going to hand it over just because the Player burned his wealth on something else. That creates an unreasonable expectation on the players part. And says that as a GM I cannot trust the players to function without handouts.Ahem: Leaching... strongly implies that I the player am expected to compensate other players for their choices.
Uh. Having a player who is demonstratively of less worth than other players since he made a play choice to buy a consumable instead of saving for a permanent item is a problem. Punishing that player because he wanted to play differently than what you want is a terrible issue.
And apparently you missed Nathanel Love's example. Player B(The player leaching) was the one who didn't purchase consumables, extra scrolls and so forth. He was copying spells from Player A who did.
Again, I beg the question.
If I spent 10,000 gold on stuff that eventually goes away(Resurrections, Potions, Scrolls, and so forth), am I considered to have the same amount of wealth as someone who doesn't spend that gold when I am clearly not benefiting from those effects anymore?
Yes. Those things are costed with the assumption that they are limited or single use. You use you lose.
You have made the choice to trade short term gain for long term wealth.
These items are called consumables because they are CONSUMED; not because they recharge or are "recompensated".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An Obamacare Dwarf or something who comes around and uses Wealth Redistribution when you gain a level to make sure you spent exactly the proscribed amount on consumables? He comes in and takes the extra wealth that sneaky players tried to not spend on consumables and refills up the players who wasted too much. . . right? That happens? (this is a joke, sorry if its over anyone's head or wasn't clear initially)
How about we just leave the politics for the political threads?
Yes. Those things are costed with the assumption that they are limited or single use. You use you lose.You have made the choice to trade short term gain for long term wealth.
These items are called consumables because they are CONSUMED; not because they recharge or are "recompensated".
It's interesting because you have created a win or lose condition with money.
I've yet to see statblocks from Paizo that say "This character has less wealth because he spent gold when he was level 6 on a resurrection and restorations for negative level removal."
And I have yet to see a stat block that says "This character casts all his scrolls first because he will get them all back by next level for free and still be able to buy the next thing".
You seriously don't see at all how this practice affects the issues you have with the magic casting system?
And I have yet to see a stat block that says "This character casts all his scrolls first because he will get them all back by next level for free and still be able to buy the next thing".
You seriously don't see at all how this practice affects the issues you have with the magic casting system?
Oh no I definitely see your point. Even running it your way(Which isn't supported by the WBL Guidelines), a Wizard can still chuck out 100 fireballs with 2 wands. A Sorcerer at 20th level has a few hundred spells. Vancian casting indeed.
A 10th level Character has 62,000 gold. 15% of your gold at all times should be in consumables. If you spent 15% of your gold as the game recommends in consumables by 10th level you have spent...
30,150 gold. So I'm fairly certain you're wrong and consumables don't permanently reduce your WBL.
I think you are doing the math wrong. . .
2nd level WBL is 1000 so 15% would be 150
3rd level WBL is 3000 so 15% is 450--
you don't add those two together and say that by 3rd level the character has spent 700 on consumables-- only a total of 450, or 300 more from his new added wealth.
So at 10th level if you are following this 15% rule then 9,300 not 30,150
Unless you really truly that every character should be using 15% of their WBL every single level and using them all up. . .
I think you are doing the math wrong. . .
2nd level WBL is 1000 so 15% would be 150
3rd level WBL is 3000 so 15% is 450--
you don't add those two together and say that by 3rd level the character has spent 700 on consumables-- only a total of 450, or 300 more from his new added wealth.
So at 10th level if you are following this 15% rule then 9,300 not 30,150
Unless you really truly that every character should be using 15% of their WBL every single level and using them all up. . .
Am I? 9,300 is a very small number to include the cost of resurrections, potions, scrolls, wands, and restorations. Especially since 1 raise dead costs 6,000 gold if you want to get rid of the negative levels that come with it.
So 9,300 may seem a bit low, but 30,150 is clearly not right?
Maybe a DM can distinguish between buying a raise dead to keep a beloved character from death and burning through 3,000 gold worth of scrolls per session just because you know the DM is going to give them back to you?
While I know its not the same and is governed by its own seperate, I am pretty sure it works closer to how I suggest than you in PFS. . .
So 9,300 may seem a bit low, but 30,150 is clearly not right?
Maybe a DM can distinguish between buying a raise dead to keep a beloved character from death and burning through 3,000 gold worth of scrolls per session just because you know the DM is going to give them back to you?
While I know its not the same and is governed by its own seperate, I am pretty sure it works closer to how I suggest than you in PFS. . .
PFS is pretty wacko on how wealth works.
Edit: But atleast it's well defined.
And I'm pretty sure its not that if you buy a potion you get to use it once per session and it recharges for the next . . .
And I'm pretty sure its not that if you buy a potion you get to use it once per session and it recharges for the next . . .
I consider consumables a once per adventure/dungeon thing. I don't consider them permanent reductions in wealth because your correction of my number is only true if one doesn't use his consumable wealth.
Regardless, this conversation alone says the PF2.0 could totes use a helluva lot of streamlining on wealth.
And I'll add that the game is Vancian in concept but not implementation. Spell per day isn't all that Vancian means and it is far too easy to circumvent it through a number of means other than Consumables though wands and pearls of power are most egregious.
And I'm pretty sure its not that if you buy a potion you get to use it once per session and it recharges for the next . . .I consider consumables a once per adventure/dungeon thing. I don't consider them permanent reductions in wealth because your correction of my number is only true if one doesn't use his consumable wealth.
Yours assumes all consumables are expended. I believe the reality is somewere in the middle.
Regardless, this conversation alone says the PF2.0 could totes use a helluva lot of streamlining on wealth.
And I'll add that the game is Vancian in concept but not implementation. Spell per day isn't all that Vancian means and it is far too easy to circumvent it through a number of means other than Consumables though wands and pearls of power are most egregious.
agreed... on these other points however.
|
I'd like to see Pathfinder revised like most other RPGs and NOT like D&D, in that the game is tweaked and revised but not overhauled.
There are a lot of tweaks that could be made to the game system. Most are pretty obvious, and exist solely because Paizo wanted PF to be backwards compatible. I think Pathfinder Revised should drop that idea and also reluctantly not be compatible with original Pathfinder.
Things like swift actions can go bye-bye. Cantrips can get a little sexier. Fighters will have their own class features instead of just feats. Commanding animal companions or summons takes an action.
Really, I want the game to stay mostly the same. There's no shortage of other fantasy games, and D&D 4e and D&D5 overlap with Pathfinder. So it makes sense for Pathfinder to try and remain the complex heavier game it is rather than try and compete with D&D5 in terms of simplicity or modularity.
Instead, what they should do is keep as much of the design and structure of the game as possible and revise the crap out of the numbers. So classes might look functionally the same, often getting the same abilities at roughly the same levels, but the effect is better/worse. Rebalance everything across the board.
I like that in back to back posts we have one person say more magic items and feats to make the more powerful and the next guy says nerf magic items.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've yet to see statblocks from Paizo that say "This character has less wealth because he spent gold when he was level 6 on a resurrection and restorations for negative level removal."
Isn't that one of several valid justifications, for NPCs tending to have less wealth than an equivalent-level PC?
Even more so, when NPCs tend to be of a greater age than PCs of their level.
Unless you're playing a campaign with copious assumed downtime, like Kingmaker, PCs can reach level 20 by their early-20s.
Most of the art for NPCs above level 5 shows them as middle-aged to geriatric.
They've had decades longer than the PCs, to establish a career, build a business, enter politics. What have they got to show for it? What have they been doing with their money?
-------
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I care about one thing and one thing only as a "must have" rule development in Pathfinder 2E:
Current 3.5 mechanic for "Full attack" and OP attacks leads to static play. Most melee characters rush to the middle and by 6th level, there is VERY little movement at the table. This leads to boring mid and high-level play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has this thread been derailed so much that it degraded into a petty WBL argument?
I'm not going to talk about specifics; most of what I'd want to see has been covered. But more than any of that, I'd like PF2 to feature a total change in the development mind set.
Instead of coming up with fluff and then grudgingly assigning crunch to it haphazardly, I'd like to see a system in which the mechanical stuff all works like a swiss watch, and then the cool flavor laid over it so that you can't see the gears beneath.
That means no more trap options or Timmy Cards. It means no more spending a feat on stuff that's worse than the stuff you get without a feat. It means no more of this "balance is for evil people with agendas" stuff. It means no more Martials Can't Have Nice Things. It means no more heavy reliance on Rule Zero to fix everything.
Contrary to the usual canard, this will NOT turn PF into 4e. It would simply make it a game that's simultaneously playable as a game AND as a storytime, because the rules would directly lead to the type of game people play, instead of working at odds to it.
You really hit the nail on the head. This mentality and ivory tower design was inherited from 3.5e. I'm tired of lazily made feats that serve no purpose other than pad out books and serve as flavor. A good feat can be both mechanically beneficial and have awesome flavor (see Deadly Dealer). I'm glad Pathfinder has traits to provide the fluff to not muddy up feats.
And I agree we're not asking Pathfinder to be "4th Editioned." 4th Edition divorced his mechanics from its fluff rather than marry the fluff to the mechanics. When narrative was tied to mechanics, it was done rather lazily.
I care about one thing and one thing only as a "must have" rule development in Pathfinder 2E:
Current 3.5 mechanic for "Full attack" and OP attacks leads to static play. Most melee characters rush to the middle and by 6th level, there is VERY little movement at the table. This leads to boring mid and high-level play.
I think full attacks should be simplified a bit more, in general. New players I encounter still find it unintuitive. To solve the mobility problem, I'd love to see classes like the rogue and monk gain full attack mobility options, like getting a pseudo-pounce or the ability to get multiple 5-foot steps. This would not only make combat more dynamic, but also give a niche in classes largely considered underwhelming.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With regard to movement in combat, one of the things my groups found incredibly frustrating, was the fact that a PC could move right up into a caster's face, and the caster 5' step back to cast, even though the PC had not used up their whole move.
The game uses an 'I go, You go' initiative order, but in real life, these actions are occurring virtually simultaneously. That caster would not be stood still while the attacker moved to close, but would have started retreating, as the attacker made their advance. Therefore, the attacker should have been able to carry on going, using their as-yet-unspent movement allowance.
We grudgingly accepted this, as a compromise required to not bog the game down in interruptions, but there have since been numerous abilities added to the game, which allow certain classes to interrupt someone else's turn, so that design rule doesn't seem as inviolate as it was claimed.
I know the Step Up feat exists, but it is one more of those feats that should not need to exist. By its existence, it prevents everyone from doing something that should be intuitive.
I would also like rogues and monks to get full BAB progression. I have the belief that 3/4 BAB should be left to gish classes like the cleric, magus, and inquisitor. Paizo overvalued the strengths of the rogue and monk when determining when determining their BAB -- being able to cast spells is a large boon. Making the monk a full BAB also simplifies the math on the monk's attacks.
|
|
As far as Vancian Casting goes...
Let me quantify my overall problem and what I would propose to go to.
My problem with the current "system" is the fact that a Wizard would need to "Prepare" a single spell multiple times if he wanted to cast it more than once. This limits the poor Wizard even more than the other casters, as the character has no recourse like the Cleric "Spontanious" switch to Cure spells or the Druid's getting Nature's Ally.
The Wizard gets, as he gives up the staple of the having a Familar, one shot to get a spell from his spellbook to cast.
In going forward, I would think the Bonded Object would be a Wizard ability in addition to the familiar and not be restricted to being a ring/amulet/wand/etc. I would go as far as having a lucky coin.
I would have the wizard prepare spells, but cast any prepared spell as a "known" spell like the current Sorcerer, keeping the spells per day to how many slots he has prepared. (including bonus slots from INT and and feated addition slots gained)
The Wizard would still have the spellbook, preperation and choices, just not the amnisia.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This limits the poor Wizard even more
I think I can safely ignore the rest of the post.
As far as Vancian Casting goes...
Let me quantify my overall problem and what I would propose to go to.
...
The Wizard would still have the spellbook, preperation and choices, just not the amnisia.
I already explained three times that the wizard isn't "forgetting" his spells when he uses them.
That aside, I agree that having to use multiple slots on the same spell is kind of annoying. However, your suggestion removes the greatest (and one of the only) advantages spontaenous casters have over prepared casters. As Kirth pointed out, the wizard is already the best spellcaster in the game by a large margin. Compared to the sorcerer, the wizard has more spell slots, the ability to learn more spells, better class features, better class skills, a better casting modifier, and school powers are usually better than most bloodlines.
I would love to see more options with the bonded item. I would love to have my spellbook as my bonded item, enchant it as a bag of holding, and have an extra dimensional space on page 42.
@LoneKnave-- treating consumables like that is exactly the reason that people think the entire Vancian casting system is flawed. If using a Scroll of Fireball has no cost to me then it is a free extra, essentially permanent spell slot and that causes the entire system to be unbalanced and wobbly because it is not intended to be such. A scroll of fireball once used is gone forever and that cost should be effectively permanently subtracted from your total accumulated wealth the same way the cost of my cheeseburger is permanently expended from my total accumulated wealth-- I don't get an extra $5 in my work check next week because I ate that cheese burger, its just gone.No, Vancian casting is imbalanced for at least 3 other reasons, consumables (which BTW can be used by anyone in PF, at worst at the cost of a dip into some class that has a spell list) being a permanent drain on your resources or not won't make them any more balanced.
You may also note that IRL you get paid every month, while in game you accumulate wealth by WBL. There's alo no non-consumable alternative to food (aside from maybe some kind of ticket system), so it's a bad comparision on multiple levels.
Also @ all consumable talk:
I think the game Spellbound Kingdoms has a really interesting way of handling wealth and consumables. Essentially, the system allows characters to convert raw gold into "wealth levels" and for each wealth level, a character gets 5 items of that kind. These wealth levels represent investments and constant flows of income that the player uses their wealth for.The character can fill these slots with permanent items (such as armor, weapons, or special pieces of equipment) or with consumable items (such as poisons or bombs or what-have-you). In that game, characters are assumed to be able to replace their consumables once a week given that they have a reasonable means of replacing the item. In pathfinder, maybe 5 slots is too many, but I have been thinking about making a similar house rule for my games.
As far as Vancian Casting goes...
Let me quantify my overall problem and what I would propose to go to.
...
The Wizard would still have the spellbook, preperation and choices, just not the amnisia.
I already explained three times that the wizard isn't "forgetting" his spells when he uses them.
That aside, I agree that having to use multiple slots on the same spell is kind of annoying. However, your suggestion removes the greatest (and one of the only) advantages spontaenous casters have over prepared casters. As Kirth pointed out, the wizard is already the best spellcaster in the game by a large margin. Compared to the sorcerer, the wizard has more spell slots, the ability to learn more spells, better class features, better class skills, a better casting modifier, and school powers are usually better than most bloodlines.
I would love to see more options with the bonded item. I would love to have my spellbook as my bonded item, enchant it as a bag of holding, and have an extra dimensional space on page 42.
It doesnt matter what the fluff calls it. Mechanically it is still the same. And it is the mechanics of it to which many have an objection; not the fluff. Stop trying to dismiss objections based on what the person objecting to it chooses to call it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have the wizard prepare spells, but cast any prepared spell as a "known" spell like the current Sorcerer, keeping the spells per day to how many slots he has prepared. (including bonus slots from INT and and feated addition slots gained)
Is there a place left for the Sorcerer in this game, now that you have given the Wizard the one unique power the Sorcerer had over him?
|
|
As far as Vancian Casting goes...
Let me quantify my overall problem and what I would propose to go to.
...
The Wizard would still have the spellbook, preperation and choices, just not the amnisia.
I already explained three times that the wizard isn't "forgetting" his spells when he uses them.
That aside, I agree that having to use multiple slots on the same spell is kind of annoying. However, your suggestion removes the greatest (and one of the only) advantages spontaenous casters have over prepared casters. As Kirth pointed out, the wizard is already the best spellcaster in the game by a large margin. Compared to the sorcerer, the wizard has more spell slots, the ability to learn more spells, better class features, better class skills, a better casting modifier, and school powers are usually better than most bloodlines.
I would love to see more options with the bonded item. I would love to have my spellbook as my bonded item, enchant it as a bag of holding, and have an extra dimensional space on page 42.
Your still looking at it through the lens of the current ruleset. The advantage one class has over the other should not be something from a mechanical ruleset difference as it is now. As the Wizard is altered, so then would the Sorcerer and other "Spontainious" casters also be altered. Spells would be changed to reflect this new overall magic system.
So, looking at it from a new version of PF (Say, PF ver 2, like the title of the thread). Perhaps the Sorcerer would take over the elemental energys aspect of the magic world, going past immunities and ignoring Damage Resistance for thier energy type at higher levels. Bloodlines would go into making different make ups for the sorcerer, having one bloodline be physical with an energy channeling effect.
The wizards would specialize in schools, getting powers reflected in addition to their spells, augmenting their school spells in ways other then upping their caster level.
There are other ways to have the classes work other then cut and pasting from the OGL. My overall expetation is that PF ver2 would not use OGL material and have their own open license for third party support.
The 3.0 rules had the mechanics to use for the wizard, but they instead made the half class whose only major difference from the Wizard was mechanics. The Sorcerer and the Wizard should have been the same class from the get go.
Player A and Player B walk into a dungeon. Player A expends 5,000 gold worth of consumables to get through the dungeon. Player B spent 5,000 on permanent power. Player A should be re-compensated 5,000 gold at the end of the dungeon. They both get rewards as normal.So in this situation there are 4 players, and at the end of the dungeon they get 20,000 gold.
Player C does the math and says "Score! We each get 5,000 gold!"
Player D nods in agreement. Player B, checks his math and realizes he can use this to add an extra +1 to one of his items to help out. . .
then Player A speaks up . .. "Not so fast! I spent 5,000 gold worth of scrolls in there-- so I need that 5,000 then that leave 15,000 to divide four ways, so you all get only 3750 and I will take my total of 8750"
This is how you think it should go?
You can make an argument that player B is leaching, or you can make as convincing an argument that player A is burning through stuff to gain an unfair advantage and being greedy.
Either way player B, C, and D aren't letting that happen and enforcing it would be the death knell of plenty of games.
Another common misconception. An intelligent DM who knows his player likes consumables may just so happen to leave a bunch of nice looking potions in the treasure trove to recompensate the player.
A DM who forces the restock out of other player's pockets isn't using the WBL properly.
Player A and B have different playstyles, but Player B is definitely leeching. Player A has more burst capability, Player B has more effective abilities over the long run.
*raises hand*
Shouldn't player B, the false priest sorcerer, tell player A, the UMD Rogue, that he's Doing It Wrong?
But really, I guess my groups have always done the WBL wrong then. We've treated it kind of like real life (which is probably the first mistake) where a spent money is still spent even if you have more money coming in later.
I would have the wizard prepare spells, but cast any prepared spell as a "known" spell like the current Sorcerer, keeping the spells per day to how many slots he has prepared. (including bonus slots from INT and and feated addition slots gained)Is there a place left for the Sorcerer in this game, now that you have given the Wizard the one unique power the Sorcerer had over him?
Bloodlines, Intuitively gains their spells, etc...
there is enough unique to the class that sharing spontaneous casting with all casters will not detract from it.
*raises hand*Shouldn't player B, the false priest sorcerer, tell player A, the UMD Rogue, that he's Doing It Wrong?
But really, I guess my groups have always done the WBL wrong then. We've treated it kind of like real life (which is probably the first mistake) where a spent money is still spent even if you have more money coming in later.
The problem with permanent wealth loss is that it essentially causes the player group to become weaker as you get further in the game which causes you to die more which causes you to get weaker and so forth.
It also causes newly created characters to be of higher value than say resurrecting existing ones. The new character hasn't had his wealth nickel and dimed at up to that point and doesn't require the resurrection which will put them 6,000 gold further down.
I still hold the belief that without recompensating expenditures at a later time not even immediately, you can hardly say a 6th level character is functioning full power when he's short 6,000 gold or more.
I really like your example. The Rogue in this instance benefits heavily when WBL(in my opinion) is done properly. He'll have the buffs he needs and options when his sub par class features fail him.
I do it this way:
If you find/craft a potion, use it for one thing, and don't replace it, it doesn't count against your wealth.
If you always keep a stock of X number of potions of Y, or a wand of Z, on hand, I tally that total against your WBL.