| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm glad to see this spell nerfed (It was broken as hell!), this FAQ is the last nail on the Sorcerer's coffin. I doubt I'll ever see one being played again.
Yeah, 'cause the Sorcerer was never played before that book came out.
@ Anzyr: You are missing my point. Nerfing Paragon Surge in this way is taking away a multitude of fun, non broken options to fix one broken option. A floating spell a day is, indeed, nifty and useful. I'd say that's just about right, but not at the expense of how it impacts who might have used the spell, not just oracles and sorcerers.
Feats are generally weak. A bard, paladin, or magus borrowing combat feats on a whim is fun and possibly useful. So could an inquisitor who had invested three feats to perform that trick at level 11. A spellcaster borrowing skill feats could really be flavorful.
Or am I missing something?
You seem to wholly discount quicken spell as a feat and rod. You also presume that in no scenario would that round spent grabbing another spell be genuinely good tactically. You also assume no out of combat utility in a scenario that is still time sensitive (so no using spellcasting services, buying a page of spell knowledge, etc.). Too many assumptions...
Not wholly... just mostly.
I usually play at lower levels. In the last twenty years of gaming I've never played a game that lasted into level 12 and up. Any game where we started at a higher level than that might as well have been a one shot. A +4 metamagic was something you always wanted to have, but never could work in. Rods on the other hand... well, unless the storyteller was generous (i.e. not trying to follow wealth by level), getting a lesser rod of quicken costs 35,000 gp and you couldn't have one item that costs more than 50% of your wealth, so is/was not available until 10th level or higher.
I assume if they have to spend a round grabbing a spell to use next round because they currently have no spell that will have an impact on battle, they are bad at their job. Spontaneous casters who have limited spells known will be trying to pick spells known that have a variety of uses to make the most of their list. If they run into a situation where none of their spells are appropriate, it's possible they did a poor job choosing and something needs to be swapped out with retraining or when a swap becomes eligible in the class. I assume if you have a utility spell on your list, it is multipurpose or you are fine with that sacrifice if it is not multipurpose.
I assume that, being a story, you always show up when dramatically appropriate. If you're running a living world and you did not get some where in time, I assume you need to figure out some other way to handle it. Time crunch is foreign to me. I understand trying to apply story pressures to PCs in an attempt to force them to do something, but that smacks of railroading. Then again, I dm a bunch of neutral to chaotic jerks most of the time, so while they may try to save the villagers, they don't sweat it if they don't. I also assume the fictional time crunch also goes away once casters have teleport, but much sooner if you have some other way to travel, like a flying mount(s).
A second FAQ has been posted that if a non class effect allows you to add a spell to your spells known but not to your spell list then it cannot grab off list spells. So Oracles can no longer use surge into Improved Eldritch Heritage for the New Arcana bloodline power for complete access to the wizard spell list.
So that means even with spending feats on focus, eldritch heritage, and improved eldritch heritage you can't have three spells of somebody else's list. Paladins get a feat that allows four. Hmm.
Granted, the bloodline would allow for higher level spells, and the paladin is getting four lower level spells at higher levels where they tend to matter less, but it's still wonky.
They have to wait for a previous print run to sell out before they can issue errata for the new printingOr they could just.. have an errata section.
They do, it's called "FAQ".
The FAQ can't be wrong. It's their game, they made a change to their game.I hate the idea of Paragon Surge sorcerers, but the FAQ is wrong on this. The spell clearly states that the feat is chosen when you cast the spell and the effect lasts until the end of the spell. There is nothing in the spell description that says anything about daily limits on your choosing.
The spell clearly would allow you to cast it, pick up Stealthy, cast it later, and get Toughness, cast it later, for Great Fortitude, etc. The FAQ is just wrong here.
The point is a FAQ is meant to clarify, not to change.
Errata changes.
This company has a policy about When they will issue errata.
This change is in the wrong place.
The point Ashiel made is that this oversteps the role of a FAQ. I agree with Ashiel.
The FAQ can't be wrong. It's their game, they made a change to their game.I hate the idea of Paragon Surge sorcerers, but the FAQ is wrong on this. The spell clearly states that the feat is chosen when you cast the spell and the effect lasts until the end of the spell. There is nothing in the spell description that says anything about daily limits on your choosing.
The spell clearly would allow you to cast it, pick up Stealthy, cast it later, and get Toughness, cast it later, for Great Fortitude, etc. The FAQ is just wrong here.
The point is a FAQ is meant to clarify, not to change.
Errata changes.
This company has a policy about When they will issue errata.
This change is in the wrong place.
The point Ashiel made is that this oversteps the role of a FAQ. I agree with Ashiel.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r8xa&page=2?Paragon-Surge-FAQ#73
"Guys, as you can see from where Joe quoted me above, the point of the FAQ is not only to clarify but also in some cases to sort "ready an action for errata" if you will. Official errata can't appear unless there is a reprint. That's a rule that comes from higher than us. But sometimes, a book takes 3 years to sell out or never sells out. And so it can be helpful to have an FAQ in the meantime. FAQs absolutely are allowed to contradict the original text. A FAQ can be good or bad, but it can't be "wrong"."
It's their company, their rules, and their MB, and they have defined what a FAQ is.
While I'm glad to see this spell nerfed (It was broken as hell!), this FAQ is the last nail on the Sorcerer's coffin. I doubt I'll ever see one being played again.Yeah, 'cause the Sorcerer was never played before that book came out.
We have had tons of Sorcerer players at our table and a grand total of one Wizard character in three+ years with this group. And just one Cleric. No one around here cares much for prepared casters.
Recently we made some changes to our 'official' home rules, and while the Wizard arguably got the coolest addition, the change we made to Sorcerers was to say that whenever a spell was cast in a higher level slot, it counted as a spell of that level automatically (essentially granting the Heighten Spell feat for free without the added benefit of having it serve as a pre-requisite for other feats).
And FWIW, we've banned that particular use of Paragon Surge ever since it came out, so no one has ever used it for its commonly accepted purpose/abuse and our game hasn't missed it in the slightest.
We have had tons of Sorcerer players at our table and a grand total of one Wizard character in three+ years with this group. And just one Cleric. No one around here cares much for prepared casters.
I understand the appeal of spontaneous casters. Having less to track lets you focus more of your attention elsewhere.
Recently we made some changes to our 'official' home rules, and while the Wizard arguably got the coolest addition, the change we made to Sorcerers was to say that whenever a spell was cast in a higher level slot, it counted as a spell of that level automatically (essentially granting the Heighten Spell feat for free without the added benefit of having it serve as a pre-requisite for other feats).
I like that idea, and have used it once, but my players didn't really notice a difference. Maybe that's the best argument for it being a fair change. :)
And FWIW, we've banned that particular use of Paragon Surge ever since it came out, so no one has ever used it for its commonly accepted purpose/abuse and our game hasn't missed it in the slightest.
How did you go about it? Did you just disallow expanded arcana and/or improved eldritch heritage, or did you take a different tack?
While I'm glad to see this spell nerfed (It was broken as hell!), this FAQ is the last nail on the Sorcerer's coffin. I doubt I'll ever see one being played again.Yeah, 'cause the Sorcerer was never played before that book came out.
You missed the point entirely...
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You missed the point entirely...While I'm glad to see this spell nerfed (It was broken as hell!), this FAQ is the last nail on the Sorcerer's coffin. I doubt I'll ever see one being played again.Yeah, 'cause the Sorcerer was never played before that book came out.
Lemmy, if your point was not in fact "I doubt I'll ever see one being played again", then when DrDeth and others take that to *be* your point, it might be more helpful to say what you actually *meant* to say rather than telling these folks that they "missed the point entirely" by taking your point to be what you actually said. Just a thought! :-)
I still like sorcerers for their cha casting. Makes things like planar binding SO much easier.
Aside from that though it is hard to make a favorable comparision to the arcanist. Significantly more spell slots are nice, but I suspect that an arcanist will need less spell slots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe this FAQ has more problems associated with it than the PDT thinks.
Things like the Brawler's ability to temporarily gain feats, would I now be stuck taking those same feats every time I use it in a 24 hour period?
I feel like this was excessive if the sole purpose was to nerf Paragon Surge when they could have just nerfed Paragon Surge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lemmy, if your point was not in fact "I doubt I'll ever see one being played again", then when DrDeth and others take that to *be* your point, it might be more helpful to say what you actually *meant* to say rather than telling these folks that they "missed the point entirely" by taking your point to be what you actually said. Just a thought! :-)
My point is not that Sorcerer weren't played. My point is that there is no real reason to play one now that the Arcanist is available. The Paragon Surge exploit gave a few Sorcerers a competitive edge, but now that it has been (rightfully) fixed, Sorcerers are made completely obsolete by Arcanists.
Unless your whole character concept starts and ends with "I don't have a spellbook", there is nothing a Sorcerer can do that an Arcanist can't. The difference in spells per day is pretty much insignificant.
I don't let mechanical constructs tell me what kind of character I should play, so if I want to play a sorcerer (character concept), I'll just play an Arcanist (class) and role play it as a sorcerer (character concept) and I'm pretty sure the guys I play with will do the same, therefore, I'll never again see a Sorcerer (class) in play ever again (at least not without house rules going for them, that is).
Brawlers likely have a specific text in the ability that trumps the general ruling.
Even better, the ruling on paragon surge is indeed only a ruling on paragon surge. That's why it lives in the Advanced Race Guide FAQ and not in the Core Rulebook FAQ like the three general ruling. So no exception necessary, as I posted before (maybe in one ofthe other threads though) you Forgotten Trick rogue or ninja is still working just as before!
|
Paragon Surge is still a great spell. It has literally saved our party from a TPK when my Witch/Ninja/Arcane Trickster used it to pick up Extra Hex (Frostfoot) -- letting her engage an otherwise unengageable opponent.
It's my goto Boss Battle spell -- especially since we *don't* have any ability enhancing gear. There's always some fantastically situational feat you can come up with for the encounter. (Like Dragonheart or Demon Slayer. You should have seen the look on my GMs face when I pulled those out.)
Brawlers likely have a specific text in the ability that trumps the general ruling.Even better, the ruling on paragon surge is indeed only a ruling on paragon surge. That's why it lives in the Advanced Race Guide FAQ and not in the Core Rulebook FAQ like the three general ruling. So no exception necessary, as I posted before (maybe in one ofthe other threads though) you Forgotten Trick rogue or ninja is still working just as before!
Mark, it's nice to see one of the staff being so active and giving answers/clarifications. Thanks for the effort! :)
Mark, it's nice to see one of the staff being so active and giving answers/clarifications. Thanks for the effort! :)Brawlers likely have a specific text in the ability that trumps the general ruling.Even better, the ruling on paragon surge is indeed only a ruling on paragon surge. That's why it lives in the Advanced Race Guide FAQ and not in the Core Rulebook FAQ like the three general ruling. So no exception necessary, as I posted before (maybe in one ofthe other threads though) you Forgotten Trick rogue or ninja is still working just as before!
Just remember, my answers are just my personal take on the matter. That take is sometimes augmented with wisdom from the rest of the design team, but as the newbie I could easily say something here that turns out to be wrong. The tradeoff for the speed of these responses is that of course that means I didn't vet each one with the whole design team first.
Just remember, my answers are just my personal take on the matter. That take is sometimes augmented with wisdom from the rest of the design team, but as the newbie I could easily say something here that turns out to be wrong. The tradeoff for the speed of these responses is that of course that means I didn't vet each one with the whole design team first.
I understand. That's why there was that ruling that non-FAQ posts from staff weren't official. It's still awesome to see staff posts, even if they are your personal take. It also lets us know you're keeping up with the threads and just that is cool. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference in spells per day is pretty much insignificant.
That is a matter of opinion. Likewise, you're discounting the value of bloodline spells. Both in terms of getting access to spells not normally on the Wiz/Sor list, and in terms of adding spells known.
I'm not even going to mention the arcanist until the arcanist is actually published.
...wait, argh!
The difference in spells per day is pretty much insignificant.That is a matter of opinion. Likewise, you're discounting the value of bloodline spells. Both in terms of getting access to spells not normally on the Wiz/Sor list, and in terms of adding spells known.
1 (maybe 2) fewer spell of your highest level is a insignificant difference 90% of the time, and any caster is likely to have far too many spell slots of the lower level spells anyway. Then, we consider increasing spell slots is a lot easier than increasing spells known (just raising your main casting attribute, something every caster does anyway, will give you extra spell slots per day), not to mention, Arcanists have a much easier time creating scrolls.
And bloodline spells, even the ones that are actually good, pale in comparison to the ability to change your spell list every day (or on the fly, by spending a resource pool that allows Arcanists to do all sorts of incredibly powerful stuff).
So, yeah... 90% of the time, Arcanists are Sorcerer+++.
The difference in spells per day is pretty much insignificant.That is a matter of opinion. Likewise, you're discounting the value of bloodline spells. Both in terms of getting access to spells not normally on the Wiz/Sor list, and in terms of adding spells known.1 (maybe 2) fewer spell of your highest level is a insignificant difference 90% of the time, and any caster is likely to have far too many spell slots of the lower level spells anyway. Then, we consider increasing spell slots is a lot easier than increasing spells known (just raising your main casting attribute, something every caster does anyway, will give you extra spell slots per day), not to mention, Arcanists have a much easier time creating scrolls.
And bloodline spells, even the ones that are actually good, pale in comparison to the ability to change your spell list every day (or on the fly, by spending a resource pool that allows Arcanists to do all sorts of incredibly powerful stuff).
So, yeah... 90% of the time, Arcanists are Sorcerer+++.
In the interest of not derailing this thread any further, we'll have to agree to disagree. You and I have debated this before.
Fair enough.
My point is not that Sorcerer weren't played. My point is that there is no real reason to play one now that the Arcanist is available.
Sorcerers make vastly superior Wordcasters than either Wizards or Arcanists (admittedly I haven't read the final version of the class, just the playtest, but I doubt this will have changed.)
And "I want to be able to cast fire spells that do sonic damage whenever it might be convenient to do so" or "I want to be able to cast a wall of terror","I want to cast summoning spells as standard actions", "I want to be able to increase save DCs on my necromancy spells with Spell Focus(Conjuration)", or "I want my AoE damage spells to oppose a will save instead of a reflex save", are reasons that go beyond "I don't have a spellbook."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is not that Sorcerer weren't played. My point is that there is no real reason to play one now that the Arcanist is available.Sorcerers make vastly superior Wordcasters than either Wizards or Arcanists (admittedly I haven't read the final version of the class, just the playtest, but I doubt this will have changed.)
And "I want to be able to cast fire spells that do sonic damage whenever it might be convenient to do so" or "I want to be able to cast a wall of terror","I want to cast summoning spells as standard actions", "I want to be able to increase save DCs on my necromancy spells with Spell Focus(Conjuration)", or "I want my AoE damage spells to oppose a will save instead of a reflex save", are reasons that go beyond "I don't have a spellbook."
If words of power wasn't rather half-assed and subsequently ignored, then that might be worth something.
If words of power wasn't rather half-assed and subsequently ignored, then that might be worth something.My point is not that Sorcerer weren't played. My point is that there is no real reason to play one now that the Arcanist is available.Sorcerers make vastly superior Wordcasters than either Wizards or Arcanists (admittedly I haven't read the final version of the class, just the playtest, but I doubt this will have changed.)
And "I want to be able to cast fire spells that do sonic damage whenever it might be convenient to do so" or "I want to be able to cast a wall of terror","I want to cast summoning spells as standard actions", "I want to be able to increase save DCs on my necromancy spells with Spell Focus(Conjuration)", or "I want my AoE damage spells to oppose a will save instead of a reflex save", are reasons that go beyond "I don't have a spellbook."
The system is very interesting, but horridly incomplete.
Deep Magic expands on WoP considerably...
a big part of the 'expansion' is rewriting the original WoP system just because the editing in UM is so bad. The Deep Magic rewrite/expansion is actually really well done.
Qft
Deep Magic expands on WoP considerably...
a big part of the 'expansion' is rewriting the original WoP system just because the editing in UM is so bad. The Deep Magic rewrite/expansion is actually really well done.
Not nearly enough though. The main problems with WOP was the lack of words and the amount of words with severely limited target words.
Sorcerers really need a major power boost. I'd personally use the 3.5 Favored Soul Spells Known table (level 20: 9/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/5/4) and something like a final total of 7 or 8 spells per day of each level as a baseline.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really vibing the Arcanist (at least the playtest version) and have leveled one up from 1st to 7th.
I can say having less spells per day than the sorcerer does come up, but in terms of a mechanic, especially in organized play, it's been great to update my spontaneous spell selection when I sit down to play with another caster and we would've had major overlap.
Interestingly, that other game being released that I shall not name has essentially decided that the stock vanilla cleric and wizard both operate like the arcanist does. I think because of playing through the arcanist, I'm actually okay with that. The whole new mechanic for figuring out the spells prepared is very slick too (it's a flat number of spells regardless of the spell level). Perhaps some food for thought for Pathfinder Unchained. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers really need a major power boost. I'd personally use the 3.5 Favored Soul Spells Known table (level 20: 9/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/5/4) and something like a final total of 7 or 8 spells per day of each level as a baseline.
I don't know if sorcerers need a buff.
Let's not even talk about fighter, rogue, monk, but are sorcerers underpowered compared to magi, summoners, inquisitors, slayers, brawlers, druids, clerics, oracles, wizards, gunslingers, paladins, shamans, bloodragers, skaalds, hunters, cavaliers, and rangers?
If sorcerers are so underpowered compared to arcanist that they need a buff, sorcerer might not be the problem.