I understand spell DCs won't depend on spell level anymore, it will be univeral based on that caster's stats etc. Which makes me wonder what then is point of 4 and 6 level casting? Their lower DCs were in fact kind of problematic in 3.x/P1E when using them for DC spells, in that especially for 4 level casting the DC spells were nigh on useless for all but mooks. So essentially one tended to avoid using any such spells to begin with, compounded by stat build dynamics.
So I figure, with DC distinction gone, why do we need 4/6 level casting? Give everybody full casting with same spell level progression (with new name for 'spell level' please). If they aren't supposed to have effective Save or Suck spells, don't give them to them (spell list). Or make the effect much weaker for the given spell level (compared to 'full casters'), impose target HD limits, etc. If their total spells known/ slots are lower, fine, but I don't see why that needs to require fewer spell levels.
More spell levels means more granularity, less breadth in power amongst spells of a given level, more range of spell concepts that are viable while not worrying about comparing to stronger spells of same (old) spell level. If (old) "4 level casters" don't end up having tons of spells on their list at each level, that isn't worst thing in the world, it means they can get weaker ones earlier than strong ones, and use Metamagic and other mechanics more easily with lower level ones. (FYI my houserule has always been to allow "Heighten Metamagic" for free, this wouldn't affect DC anymore but could be relevant for other things, so IMHO the case for being free/built into vanilla is even stronger)
This also has side benefit in reducing issues like discrepancy in spell level for the same spell, which impacts stuff like item pricing etc. IMHO the general concept of 'early access' seems dubious, especially as generalized practice... Having all casters on same spell level track helps maintain the norm alot more consistently, and any actual 'early access' cases can be more clearly dealt with, rather than on top of shifting metric of differing spell level progression. Just consider the counterintuitive problems gained via the "benefit" of early access: besides DC issue which is no longer the case, it meant your spell was more easily countered by Globes of Invulerability (blocking spells of less than X spell level), which is crazy, blocking a Fireball is blocking a Fireball, if somebody's spell is especially resilient that should be explicitly expressed. If (old) "4 level casters" are supposed to be good at casting in combat give them a bonus to it (which then exists as discrete ability which can be altered/removed/etc), helping their concentration checks by using lower spell levels for a given spell just obscures the issue. 4/6 spell level casters ability to "game" metamagic items was just weird, and not of consistent benefit to most of them over-all, really more something specific spells/builds benefitted from but not a core element for all 4/6 casters.
IMHO instead of 'early access' for same spell, classes should get more focused/limited version at earlier level that lets them shine early on, the fact it's limited is not a problem because you are still doing something you otherwise could not... and if you want to use the normal full version later, go ahead and use the same spell at normal spell level. If fully adhered to, that even gets rid of the need to list individual class spell levels for each spell, they will just have their spell level and that's it, although I can see exceptional cases still existing, those may not be in realm of 'vanilla (un-archetyped) classes' so the standard spell blocks wouldn't account for them anyways.
Well what it's looking like is that there won't actually be a separate track of Paladin spells or Ranger spells or the like, if that's what you're worried about. Instead there will be a single Divine list, and Paladins just don't advance as far down it as Clerics; a single Nature list, and Rangers just don't advance as far down it as Druids; and so on. Save DC would still be based on your level in PF2 even if you're a "lesser" caster, rather than the spell circle.
However, I'm still hoping there is a robust alternative for Paladins and Rangers to not have to have spellcasting at all. Without having to take an archetype. Say, Cavalier is no longer a class, but all the core stuff that makes you a Cavalier is now selectable by a Paladin who foregoes spellcasting: the two classes even share smiting and oaths. Or say the Shifter doesn't exist and is instead an alternate track for Rangers who forego spellcasting.
OK, if they are going that route re: unified spell list but truncated spell progression, I guess they can address some of the issues I raised by shifting how mechanics referring to spell level work, instead targetting class-neutral aspect, like caster level (does that have more distinct term vs. '[caster] class level' now?). I guess that mostly applies to Globe of Invulnerabilty and maybe item pricing? ...Really the main rationale I see to go with their approach is time/cost of developing unique spells, which the unified arcane/divine/nature lists really seems to be doubling down on. I get it, but hopefully they do try to address the related issues as best as possible.
Sounds like they may go down road of stuff saying "Pre-Req: Nature Casting" and not care about distinction beyond that. Abities keying into that might be more/less useful depending what chassis/other abilities you have, but that's generally pretty common in 3.x/P1E too. Incidentally more consolidation like you describe seemingly makes it easier to hit more major tropes quickly compared to P1E publication schedule and with mutual compatability (instead of "the Fighter gets his Talk With Animals archetype, why didn't my Barbarian get his Talks With Animals archetype yet?" etc)
BTW (not picking on you) I honestly wish everybody who wishes for X feature in Core would make clear what feature they are happy being pulled from Core to enable their pet feature to fit into it. I'm all for spell-less Rangers/Paladins, but don't see why that is inherent "Core concern". If they do it, OK, but we obviously have decent model for them doing via expansion products. The idea we remove major driver of expansion products by fitting them in Core seems silly, they are part of Paizo's business model and will be in design process by the time Core is released. Not saying it's impossible/horrible, and it's clear P1E Core was unbalanced, but I don't get the belief that any and every non-core trope/archetype must now become Core. Most RPG systems are relatively restrained in their core rules. Nobody died from that. ;-)
It's hard to say what we would pull from core because we don't know how beefy each class's chapter is going to be in PF2 as it is. We know archetypes will be in the core book, and we know each class is now getting a bunch of modular abilities like the old rogue talents in the form of class feats. So each class is /already/ taking up much more space than before, and I really have no idea how much room they've allotted for stuff like wizard school specialization, cleric domains, spell-less paladins and other such alternate paths.
But if I had to choose, I'd drop Paladins and Gnomes from Core entirely in a heartbeat :3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ha! well at least you're honest! sorry any Gnomadin fans... ;-)
Have they said anything re: targetted page count relaive to P1E? Already new race/base class and associated spells/feats/etc cover some of that, but if they are aiming for beyond what's needed for that, seems relevant.
OK, and if I berate somebody for off-topic posting, remind of this thread :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really though I'd like to see every class get the depth of path options of the casters. It's always the casters that get interesting involved subclass paths, like Sorcerer bloodlines, the aforementioned domains and wizard schools, and so on. I want bards, barbarians, paladins and ALL the rest to also make interesting choices at 1st or 2nd level as to what kind of bard, barbarian, paladin or the like they will be, without having to take an archetype to do it. I want fighters to get paths like the Soldier paths in Starfinder, I want rogues to get (a beefier version of) the Operative specializations from Starfinder. Every class should have stuff to choose besides just feats.
As for page count: the playtest book will be in the low 400 pages. I can only presume the actual final book will be in the upper 500 to low 600 range like the PF1 CRB, but no one has actually come out and said that yet... except indirectly, with a Paizo staffer saying the CRB-sized Bestiary they are contemplating would be around 600 pages.
It's also worth mentioning that they have mentioned that, between streamlining of rules as well as updating the presentation, they should probably have a bit more space than they did. So the book could be the same size as the current core book and still have more content.
Personally I am hoping that Paladins and to a lesser degree Rangers don't have real spellcasting, but I suspect I am a minority. Although I do like the idea of having 4th and 6th level casters. Hell...maybe with 10 levels, 8 level casters can be a thing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the propensity for numbers divisible by five in PF2, I suspect there will just be 10 level casters and 5 level casters (instead of 4, 6 and 9 level casters).
Has anyone seen any indication that “caster level” is a relevant mechanic in the new system? It seems like the spells are removing “x per caster level” as a thing and having more static durations and damages. So that might already be a nonissue.
Are we sure that rangers or paladins have any spell casting ability at all? I haven’t heard one way or another about this.
It is the bard’s spell list/progression that seems the most up in the air with all of this, because without a caster level, loosing access to higher level spells is a much bigger deal.
I am very curious to see how/wether low level spells hold up at higher level play.
Are we sure that rangers or paladins have any spell casting ability at all? I haven’t heard one way or another about this.
We don't have any confirmation on this, so far as I've heard. We do know that Paladin doesn't seem to have had casting at first level, so they didn't bump them up a notch. We also know that Paladin and Ranger don't have dedicated spell lists, but it would be very easy for them to be using Cleric and Druid's respectively.
It is the bard’s spell list/progression that seems the most up in the air with all of this, because without a caster level, loosing access to higher level spells is a much bigger deal.
Well, losing access to higher level spells hurts scaling, but the flat DC structure means that those lower-level DC-based spells will be more valuable.
I am very curious to see how/wether low level spells hold up at higher level play.
Hold Person was mentioned as being a good spell later on without spending higher-level slots on it.
