| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the total limit of 3 spells per level per day, I would consider that to be more a balancing factor on resource management than deciding if a 5th level spell of similar function would be a superior choice to the 3rd level spell, etc.
I agree that seeing the final versions of the spells is important to really being able to say this conclusively.
Well, Mark was saying earlier that allowing heightened casting (or undercasting) lead to some potentially unsatisfying spell selection experience. I think that the "heighten" system is less of an issue in 5e because it will rarely be in your best interest to cast a heightened spell anyways.
Also, I am unsure if Sorceror is going to be limited to 3 spells per level per day. At the bare minimum, I bet they are going to have a spell point casting resource (which I am guessing is going to buy them more uses of their highest level spells each day).
I fear I am not being clear with my thesis, I agree with the analysis of 5e's respective casters, but that doesn't mean that in practice the concept of "auto-heighten" is worse in practice. Since I know the 3.x system, I'm sure I personally will adjust fine, but in having to teach this new system to my players and to potentially new players it seems daunting to have the structure there for spells to function similarly to 5e, but to have the execution of such casting become more restrictive based on what seems to be at this point arbitrary restrictions.
I'll elaborate: I would prefer to see an arcanist style approach to the wizard, which gives you your 3 slots/level, which would be individual spells to be cast as you see fit, to be varied on the daily, thanks to the access to the spellbook. In contrast, a sorcerer would have a much larger repertoire to draw from, beyond the 3/day limit, to be somewhat static on an in-game day-to-day basis. I'm all for giving them more slots per day, but with the relevant information on one level up chart to rule them all I would doubt that is going to be possible.
If sorcerers had say, 6 spells per level in their repertoire but could still only cast 3/level/day, they would have superficially more options than the wizard, making for simpler characters to execute, where the wizard would have less daily variance he would get a larger pool of options overall. (Obviously I would still want a spell rotation/retraining mechanic for the sorcerer in it's own way).
The only thing I like from 5e for this specifically is the fact that you have a lot more freedom and less rules while still retaining the complexity of the system, and the best part is you don;t even have to re-write the new spell lists or descriptions.
Given the total limit of 3 spells per level per day, I would consider that to be more a balancing factor on resource management than deciding if a 5th level spell of similar function would be a superior choice to the 3rd level spell, etc.
I agree that seeing the final versions of the spells is important to really being able to say this conclusively.
Well, Mark was saying earlier that allowing heightened casting (or undercasting) lead to some potentially unsatisfying spell selection experience. I think that the "heighten" system is less of an issue in 5e because it will rarely be in your best interest to cast a heightened spell anyways.
Also, I am unsure if Sorceror is going to be limited to 3 spells per level per day. At the bare minimum, I bet they are going to have a spell point casting resource (which I am guessing is going to buy them more uses of their highest level spells each day).
I fear I am not being clear with my thesis, I agree with the analysis of 5e's respective casters, but that doesn't mean that in practice the concept of "auto-heighten" is worse in practice. Since I know the 3.x system, I'm sure I personally will adjust fine, but in having to teach this new system to my players and to potentially new players it seems daunting to have the structure there for spells to function similarly to 5e, but to have the execution of such casting become more restrictive based on what seems to be at this point arbitrary restrictions.
I'll elaborate: I would prefer to see an arcanist style approach to the wizard, which gives you your 3 slots/level, which would be individual spells to be cast as you see fit, to be varied on the daily, thanks to the access to the spellbook. In contrast, a sorcerer would have a much larger repertoire to draw from, beyond the 3/day limit, to be somewhat static on an in-game day-to-day basis. I'm all for giving them more slots per day, but with the relevant information on one level up chart to...
Ah, I see! Our thinking is closer than I understood. I actually just finished typing up a similar idea to explore in the arcanist thread.
Edit: I'm assuming you meant to quote me for this post.
|
In terms of the power balance between wizard and Sorcerer it seems worth noting the following:
-If you get two spell lineages, and two spells known per level (a conservative estimate in the long term) that's still 4 choices per level for any individual slot. that's actually more options for that level than a Cleric (or Wizard using the same progression as Cleric) gets on any individual day.
-Due to the way Class Features and Class Feats work, it seems basically certain that Sorcerers get new spell levels at the same level Wizards do, which is a notable bump from PF1.
...Given the total limit of 3 spells per level per day, I would consider that to be more a balancing factor on resource management than deciding if a 5th level spell of similar function would be a superior choice to the 3rd level spell, etc.
I agree that seeing the final versions of the spells is important to really being able to say this conclusively.
Well, Mark was saying earlier that allowing heightened casting (or undercasting) lead to some potentially unsatisfying spell selection experience. I think that the "heighten" system is less of an issue in 5e because it will rarely be in your best interest to cast a heightened spell anyways.
Also, I am unsure if Sorceror is going to be limited to 3 spells per level per day. At the bare minimum, I bet they are going to have a spell point casting resource (which I am guessing is going to buy them more uses of their highest level spells each day).
I fear I am not being clear with my thesis, I agree with the analysis of 5e's respective casters, but that doesn't mean that in practice the concept of "auto-heighten" is worse in practice. Since I know the 3.x system, I'm sure I personally will adjust fine, but in having to teach this new system to my players and to potentially new players it seems daunting to have the structure there for spells to function similarly to 5e, but to have the execution of such casting become more restrictive based on what seems to be at this point arbitrary restrictions.
I'll elaborate: I would prefer to see an arcanist style approach to the wizard, which gives you your 3 slots/level, which would be individual spells to be cast as you see fit, to be varied on the daily, thanks to the access to the spellbook. In contrast, a sorcerer would have a much larger repertoire to draw from, beyond the 3/day limit, to be somewhat static on an in-game day-to-day basis. I'm all for giving them more slots per day, but with the relevant
Meant to respond to both.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
What if sorcerers automatically get every heightened version of spells they learn, and wizards don't have to prepare a spell at a specific level? Instead, if wizards prepare a spell at a certain level let them spontaneously cast any lower level version as well, expending any prepared spell of the level they use?
|
-Due to the way Class Features and Class Feats work, it seems basically certain that Sorcerers get new spell levels at the same level Wizards do, which is a notable bump from PF1.
Interesting I did not think about that. Not sure if I like that or not. Makes it that the only thing wizards will have over the sorcerer is access to more spells.
|
|
Interesting I did not think about that. Not sure if I like that or not. Makes it that the only thing wizards will have over the sorcerer is access to more spells.
-Due to the way Class Features and Class Feats work, it seems basically certain that Sorcerers get new spell levels at the same level Wizards do, which is a notable bump from PF1.
Just checking here... Do you want to perpetuate Wizard dominance?
Sorcerers and Oracles never should have had delayed spell progression to begin with.
I do not see a dominance with wizards. I think both classes need to be balanced around each other and other casters (Arcanist is my favorite because it mixes the 2 classes). The delayed spell progression was a part of that balance. I have played both classes and like both classes. A sorcerer has a lot going for it more spells per day and more abilities.
There was a way to make the wizard better but that was more from the economy of magic item creation. I could spend downtime to make scrolls to cover the different spells I normally do not prepare. But that is more a problem of magic item creation. Which is being taken out of the game with resonance.
Also if the spell progression gets changed would you be ok if the sorcerer got limited to 3 spells/ day/ spell level because if they are given more that makes them very much better then the wizard with only 3 spells/ day/ spell level. Having access to more spells but having to prepare them at the beginning of the day limits the class at times unless you know what is coming. Just like if Sorcerers being able to spontaneously heighten all spells known would make the sorcerer way over powered. It would make it so there magic versatility was unprecedented.
|
|
There was a way to make the wizard better but that was more from the economy of magic item creation. I could spend downtime to make scrolls to cover the different spells I normally do not prepare. But that is more a problem of magic item creation. Which is being taken out of the game with resonance.
Huh? Magic Item Creation is still very much in the game. And carrying around Scrolls for spells you might need is not something Resonance actually puts too much of a restriction on. You only need to spend a Resonance when you actually use the Scroll after all.
|
|
There was a way to make the wizard better but that was more from the economy of magic item creation. I could spend downtime to make scrolls to cover the different spells I normally do not prepare. But that is more a problem of magic item creation. Which is being taken out of the game with resonance.Huh? Magic Item Creation is still very much in the game. And carrying around Scrolls for spells you might need is not something Resonance actually puts too much of a restriction on. You only need to spend a Resonance when you actually use the Scroll after all.
Yes but resonance limits how many you can use where before you are only limited to how many scrolls you could carry. Wands have the same issue in the new system.
Given the total limit of 3 spells per level per day, I would consider that to be more a balancing factor on resource management than deciding if a 5th level spell of similar function would be a superior choice to the 3rd level spell, etc.
I agree that seeing the final versions of the spells is important to really being able to say this conclusively.
Well, Mark was saying earlier that allowing heightened casting (or undercasting) lead to some potentially unsatisfying spell selection experience. I think that the "heighten" system is less of an issue in 5e because it will rarely be in your best interest to cast a heightened spell anyways.
Also, I am unsure if Sorceror is going to be limited to 3 spells per level per day. At the bare minimum, I bet they are going to have a spell point casting resource (which I am guessing is going to buy them more uses of their highest level spells each day).
I fear I am not being clear with my thesis, I agree with the analysis of 5e's respective casters, but that doesn't mean that in practice the concept of "auto-heighten" is worse in practice. Since I know the 3.x system, I'm sure I personally will adjust fine, but in having to teach this new system to my players and to potentially new players it seems daunting to have the structure there for spells to function similarly to 5e, but to have the execution of such casting become more restrictive based on what seems to be at this point arbitrary restrictions.
I'll elaborate: I would prefer to see an arcanist style approach to the wizard, which gives you your 3 slots/level, which would be individual spells to be cast as you see fit, to be varied on the daily, thanks to the access to the spellbook. In contrast, a sorcerer would have a much larger repertoire to draw from, beyond the 3/day limit, to be somewhat static on an in-game day-to-day basis. I'm all for giving them more slots per day, but with the relevant information on one level up chart to...
I fully see where you are coming from, but I think that universally allowing overcasting ala 5e DND might make for a lot of forced decisions for characters that want to be near the optimal level of play; specifically, many players will feel “forced” to choose only or most spells that have higher and lower level versions available. I think that selection of certain “lineage” spells exists to put a cap on how many spells “need” to be spells with heighten spell options.
More spells should have higher and lower versions available (even if not necessarily at every level -- some could go in increments of 2 levels or even 3 levels).
I've got to say, I'm a bit confused by all of this. I had honestly just assumed that spontaneous casters would behave similar to the way they do in 5e. You know a limited number of spells, and funnel a certain amount of power into them when you cast them (ie, choose what slot to use, normal, or heightened).
'Lineage' spells, I had just assumed would be powers, fueled by spell points, so they would auto-heighten, and use spell points.
This kind of wild speculation seems just bizarre to me. Conspiracy theories doth abound. It's really not strange to think that individual Paizo employees might not know everything about every RPG or fantasy franchise out there. Why assume bad faith? That doesn't help anyone or anything.
(And unless you're a practicing IP lawyer, nobody should take your baseless speculation about legal liability at all seriously. C'mon.)
Also, note that Mark already talked about this upthread. Since it's 60ish posts back, I'll repost here for anyone who sees your post without that context.
With PF1 (and 3.X), Starfinder, and PF2 all being things I've needed to have deeply enough committed to mind to do deep design work during the period before and since 5e's release, it seemed like that would be more systems to juggle in my designspace than it was worth (when I go deep on a system, I go really rules-guru level deep), especially since it helps my design be clearly my own when there is inevitable claims that everything is based on 5e. I've found that having me as the team's deep PF1 rules guru with less 4e and 5e knowledge, whereas Stephen and Logan worked on 4e and Stephen plays 5e regularly, leads to a really effective blend of ideas.
In any case, my knowledge of 5e is not really the topic of this thread. Let's keep it more about spontaneous casters.
Mark's approach to it was very scientific in that he wanted to create his own new version of spellcasting in a vacuum to see how we respond to it.
It just happened that it's really effing close to how 5e does it, but more restrictive which seems off, and seems to bear some complexity to maintain 'balance' that we might not actually need given the lower number of spell slots available.
I think 3 spells of each level per day, with wizards only having access to 3 off the list, daily, is a good middle ground. Not too much analysis paralysis when you're say, level 5 and have a total of 8 spell slots to do something with, especially when it seems we're trying to give them spammable abilities in cantrips and the powers associated with spell points.
This kind of wild speculation seems just bizarre to me. Conspiracy theories doth abound. It's really not strange to think that individual Paizo employees might not know everything about every RPG or fantasy franchise out there. Why assume bad faith? That doesn't help anyone or anything.
(And unless you're a practicing IP lawyer, nobody should take your baseless speculation about legal liability at all seriously. C'mon.)
Also, note that Mark already talked about this upthread. Since it's 60ish posts back, I'll repost here for anyone who sees your post without that context.
With PF1 (and 3.X), Starfinder, and PF2 all being things I've needed to have deeply enough committed to mind to do deep design work during the period before and since 5e's release, it seemed like that would be more systems to juggle in my designspace than it was worth (when I go deep on a system, I go really rules-guru level deep), especially since it helps my design be clearly my own when there is inevitable claims that everything is based on 5e. I've found that having me as the team's deep PF1 rules guru with less 4e and 5e knowledge, whereas Stephen and Logan worked on 4e and Stephen plays 5e regularly, leads to a really effective blend of ideas.
In any case, my knowledge of 5e is not really the topic of this thread. Let's keep it more about spontaneous casters.
Mark's approach to it was very scientific in that he wanted to create his own new version of spellcasting in a vacuum to see how we respond to it.
It just happened that it's really effing close to how 5e does it, but more restrictive which seems off, and seems to bear some complexity to maintain 'balance' that we might not actually need given the lower number of spell slots available.
I think 3 spells of each level per day, with wizards only having access to 3 off the list, daily, is a good...
I think you might be missing what I was getting at a little bit: with fewer spells known, that puts all the more pressure on a caster to choose only scaling spells to maximize their own efficacy. Putting in lineage spells rather than free overcasting is a check on the max power of casting in general to be sure, but it creates greater variety in what are the "best" and "close to best" spell selections.
I will also point out that lineage casting as opposed to undercasting actually might be a buff to a sorceror's overall power since it likely gives them more of a spell selection for their best spell slots.