Let's talk secondary spellcasting...


Prerelease Discussion


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So, we know the Bard, Paladin, and Ranger are coming back.

I really, really hope we get a way to run non-spellcasting versions of these. In PF1, the Skrimisher (and a couple of other archetypes whose names elude me at 10 PM on Sunday night) gave us spell-free rangers, and there was much rejoicing.

But if you ran a Bard, a Paladin, etc., you were stuck casting spells, even if it made little thematic sense.

I genuinely hope we get a way to swap out the current 4 or 6 level casters (not all of them... spells are pretty central to the concept of a Magus, for example, and a spell-less Bloodrager feels like a Barbarian archetype more than a class) to allow for a more... focused feel if a player so desires.

I mean, sure, you can run one of these and just not use the spells you get, but...


I'd like if these classes got the choice of several "paths." So for Rangers, for instance, one "path" would be the low level Druid spellcasting and the other "path" would be something evolved from the Skirmisher. I'd like this better than just hiding the non-spellcasting variant behind a single archetype, because archetypes always seem to mess with /other stuff/ too, and I don't necessarily want to give up any of the /other/ class abilities, just spellcasting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Warrior of the Holy Light Paladin got rid of his spellcasting.

The 2 classes that can do it are lv4 casters that don't even get full caster level. Classes with lv6 casting are built to be more reliant on spellcasting. So it's gonna be difficult to somehow balance Bard without spells.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:

Warrior of the Holy Light Paladin got rid of his spellcasting.

The 2 classes that can do it are lv4 casters that don't even get full caster level. Classes with lv6 casting are built to be more reliant on spellcasting. So it's gonna be difficult to somehow balance Bard without spells.

Not if you start at the foundation and work your way up...

Bardic Performance could become far more mystical without requiring spells, assuming you're not forcing it to be backwards compatible.


I expect Paladins and Rangers will be "full" spellcasters with a spellcaster level equal to Class Level-6. So that will give them 7th level spellcasting (which gives them 5 levels worth of non-spellcasting to get their signature class features). Bards on the other hand I expect will start with spellcasting at level 1 but will only get a new spell level every 4 levels (so they get 2nd level spells at 5th level, 3rd level spells at 9th level, etc) which will let them get a steady stream of non-spellcasting class features across the entire class.

If I'm right it means bards will only get 5th level spells (as opposed to 6th level spells) while paladins and rangers will get 7th level spells (as opposed to 4th level spells).


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I am guessing that Bards will become full spellcasters (assuming that they have their own spell list).


I predict Bards will be full casters with their own list, while Paladins and Rangers will be able to take class feats to gain limited spell selection from the Cleric and Druid spell lists respectively.


Per second edition announcement, only 4 spell lists.

They could be:
Arcane
Divine
Nature/Wild
?

So Bards, Rangers, Paladins and etcetera getting their own spell lists is not really an option I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
scary harpy wrote:

Per second edition announcement, only 4 spell lists.

They could be:
Arcane
Divine
Nature/Wild
?

So Bards, Rangers, Paladins and etcetera getting their own spell lists is not really an option I think.

The full casters among the core classes are the Cleric, the Druid, the Sorcerer, and the Wizard. Since the Sorcerer and the Wizard have traditionally shared a spell list, that enumeration accounts for three of the four spell lists. Alchemist and Bards are on the next spellcasting tier down, so the 4th list should be one of theirs -- and from the Garycon playtest reports, it appears that we can rule out the Alchemist. So that would leave the Bard as having the 4th spell list, with the Paladin and the Ranger gaining partial access to the Cleric and Druid lists, respectively.


I really wanted to believe that the changes to this game were going to be progressive moves aimed at making a more logical system, not just something simpler. With this "streamlining" of spell lists and the revised action economy I'm getting the feeling that this is going to be a dumbed down game for the MMO/Smartphone/ADHD generation. If my fears are correct this might not go well for Paizo in the long run, as this crowd is great at impulse buying and loves fantasy settings but is terrible at focusing attention and energy on anything for prolonged periods.

The niche of PF1E is that it appeals to more driven players who love crunch and reading through dense tomes for esoteric rules and options. The gulf between veteran players and newbies is huge, and more dedicated readers and players see a return on their intellectual investment. Like it or not, Paizo's current system is the one for the die hards, the elite of the RPG world. It's a system with a steep learning curve where ignorance is punished and system mastery is rewarded.

A removal of class specific spell lists will make this game simpler for sure. But moves like this will force Paizo's die hard fanbase to reflect back on a time when the rulebooks of the game felt like a blank canvass and not a chaperone.


I think the crunch lovers are a dying breed. The only stable market now is casuals. So casual and easy to use design reigns supreme. Who knows maybe in ten-20 years the pendulum will swing back to complexity.

As to secondary casting, I cant imagine a no spell Bard. I'm cool with it as an option, but certainly don't need it. YMMV.


Zolanoteph wrote:

I really wanted to believe that the changes to this game were going to be progressive moves aimed at making a more logical system, not just something simpler. With this "streamlining" of spell lists and the revised action economy I'm getting the feeling that this is going to be a dumbed down game for the MMO/Smartphone/ADHD generation. If my fears are correct this might not go well for Paizo in the long run, as this crowd is great at impulse buying and loves fantasy settings but is terrible at focusing attention and energy on anything for prolonged periods.

The niche of PF1E is that it appeals to more driven players who love crunch and reading through dense tomes for esoteric rules and options. The gulf between veteran players and newbies is huge, and more dedicated readers and players see a return on their intellectual investment. Like it or not, Paizo's current system is the one for the die hards, the elite of the RPG world. It's a system with a steep learning curve where ignorance is punished and system mastery is rewarded.

A removal of class specific spell lists will make this game simpler for sure. But moves like this will force Paizo's die hard fanbase to reflect back on a time when the rulebooks of the game felt like a blank canvass and not a chaperone.

So... giving Paladin more options for spells is hand-holding and taking away the canvas? If you switched the Paladin list to “Cleric 1-4” right now, Paladin would gain almost 200 spells as options. Pathfinder was doing more work to give Paladin fewer options. Same for Ranger, although that’s only a difference of 100 spells.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd personally like sorcerer spell list to depend on bloodline. Basically rolling favored soul into the base class:

Arcane Spell List: Wizard, Sorcerer (Aberant, Arcane, Draconic)
Inspired Spell List: Bard, Sorcerer (Destined)
Divine Spell List: Cleric, Paladin, Sorcerer (Abyssal, Celestial, Infernal, Undead)
Nature Spell List: Druid, Ranger, Sorcerer (Elemenal, Fey)

Or something like that.


I would be a huge fan of that change Bardarok, but I can't see it happening.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

That is a really neat idea to mix up the Sorcerer class.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

For some reason, I'm worried the 4 lists are going to be Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric, Bard, with Rangers and Paladin both being spelless. Don't know why, just a funny feeling.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zolanoteph wrote:
I really wanted to believe that the changes to this game were going to be progressive moves aimed at making a more logical system, not just something simpler. With this "streamlining" of spell lists and the revised action economy I'm getting the feeling that this is going to be a dumbed down game for the MMO/Smartphone/ADHD generation. If my fears are correct this might not go well for Paizo in the long run, as this crowd is great at impulse buying and loves fantasy settings but is terrible at focusing attention and energy on anything for prolonged periods.

Hey, buddy, I'd appreciate it if you don't bady about about "ADHD" like a punch-line orbtremdy nonsense. It's really not fun to have.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Planpanther wrote:
As to secondary casting, I cant imagine a no spell Bard.

I mostly want it an an option, because while bards have been spellcasters for just about their entire history in RPGs, the inspirations from the class aren't exactly known for using magic in a spellcasting sense...

Orpheus?
Fflewddur Fflam?
Snorri Sturluson?
Gabrielle?
Demodocus?
Alan-a-Dale?
Okudo? ("Okudo sang a war song in a way that no other man could. He was not a fighter, but his voice turned every man into a lion.")
Erich Zann?
Marceline the Vampire Queen?

Not really part of their schtick.

Quote:
I'm cool with it as an option, but certainly don't need it. YMMV.

Clearly, my mileage does. ;)


Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
For some reason, I'm worried the 4 lists are going to be Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric, Bard, with Rangers and Paladin both being spelless. Don't know why, just a funny feeling.

Worse, they might use Cleric and Druid spell lists and the game won't have the design space for the interesting tailored Paladin or Ranger exclusive spells anymore.

This also means no more 'early access' to cleric/Druid spells at a lower spell level.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
For some reason, I'm worried the 4 lists are going to be Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric, Bard, with Rangers and Paladin both being spelless. Don't know why, just a funny feeling.

Worse, they might use Cleric and Druid spell lists and the game won't have the design dpace for the interesting tailored Paladin or Ranger exclusive spells anymore.

This also means no more 'early access' to cleric/Druid spells at a lower spell level.

also what is good for a half caster is not what is always good for a full caster.

If both have the same list though, you have guaranteed trap options, which only makes a game less noob friendly.

But hey, got to make space for all that Golarion lore right?


Albatoonoe wrote:
Zolanoteph wrote:
I really wanted to believe that the changes to this game were going to be progressive moves aimed at making a more logical system, not just something simpler. With this "streamlining" of spell lists and the revised action economy I'm getting the feeling that this is going to be a dumbed down game for the MMO/Smartphone/ADHD generation. If my fears are correct this might not go well for Paizo in the long run, as this crowd is great at impulse buying and loves fantasy settings but is terrible at focusing attention and energy on anything for prolonged periods.
Hey, buddy, I'd appreciate it if you don't bady about about "ADHD" like a punch-line orbtremdy nonsense. It's really not fun to have.

I struggle with attention and hyperactivity issues too, life goes on.

I respect that people don't want to hear incindiary racial remarks, gay bashing or jokes about diseases that killed loved ones. This is quite different.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
For some reason, I'm worried the 4 lists are going to be Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric, Bard, with Rangers and Paladin both being spelless. Don't know why, just a funny feeling.

Worse, they might use Cleric and Druid spell lists and the game won't have the design space for the interesting tailored Paladin or Ranger exclusive spells anymore.

This also means no more 'early access' to cleric/Druid spells at a lower spell level.

I'm not sure I'd call that worse or not. Although that is also something I'd rather not lose, as I'm pretty fond of those lists


Cole Deschain wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
As to secondary casting, I cant imagine a no spell Bard.

I mostly want it an an option, because while bards have been spellcasters for just about their entire history in RPGs, the inspirations from the class aren't exactly known for using magic in a spellcasting sense...

Orpheus?
Fflewddur Fflam?
Snorri Sturluson?
Gabrielle?
Demodocus?
Alan-a-Dale?
Okudo? ("Okudo sang a war song in a way that no other man could. He was not a fighter, but his voice turned every man into a lion.")
Erich Zann?
Marceline the Vampire Queen?

Not really part of their schtick.

[Checks publication date...yep.]

But the true source of D&D bard, Riddlemaster of Hed, does.


Scias Starset wrote:
I would be a huge fan of that change Bardarok, but I can't see it happening.

Oh I have no delusions that it will shake out that way but a man can dream.


After seeing speculation in this and another thread, I'd actually love for Sorcerer to be merged with the Psychic, be the core caster for a fifth Psychic spell list, and not appear until Advanced Players Guide. Let the Magus take the Sorcerer's place in the core book, with the four main lists of the CRB being Arcane, Divine, Nature and Bardic.


Bardarok wrote:

I'd personally like sorcerer spell list to depend on bloodline. Basically rolling favored soul into the base class:

Arcane Spell List: Wizard, Sorcerer (Aberant, Arcane, Draconic)
Inspired Spell List: Bard, Sorcerer (Destined)
Divine Spell List: Cleric, Paladin, Sorcerer (Abyssal, Celestial, Infernal, Undead)
Nature Spell List: Druid, Ranger, Sorcerer (Elemenal, Fey)

Or something like that.

This would also be a really viable and flavorful way of doing the Sorcerer, would still let the Sorcerer access a Psychic spell list with Aberrant and certain other bloodlines, and would still be an argument for kicking the Sorcerer out to APG and letting the Magus take its place in Core.


the issue isn't with the class having spells.
the issue is the class having spells and treating them like castings.

so if a paladin has spells use a focus to channel them. holy weapon/symbol etc. I'd say this also is appropriate for clerics with a heavy dose of ritual requirements or holy symbol or prayer for quick stuff.

if a bard has spells use the perform skill as the verbal and somatic component.

You don't have to kill spells to restore flavor and theme, you just have to houserule something properly or make some good suggestions here.


Zolanoteph wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
Zolanoteph wrote:
I really wanted to believe that the changes to this game were going to be progressive moves aimed at making a more logical system, not just something simpler. With this "streamlining" of spell lists and the revised action economy I'm getting the feeling that this is going to be a dumbed down game for the MMO/Smartphone/ADHD generation. If my fears are correct this might not go well for Paizo in the long run, as this crowd is great at impulse buying and loves fantasy settings but is terrible at focusing attention and energy on anything for prolonged periods.
Hey, buddy, I'd appreciate it if you don't bady about about "ADHD" like a punch-line orbtremdy nonsense. It's really not fun to have.

I struggle with attention and hyperactivity issues too, life goes on.

I respect that people don't want to hear incindiary racial remarks, gay bashing or jokes about diseases that killed loved ones. This is quite different.

Man, ADHD is a lot more than just hyperactivity and attention problems. It actually affects the way you process chemicals. It made childhood (especially school) a lot more difficult for me than most. So seriously, knock it off.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Let's talk secondary spellcasting... All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion