| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I mentioned here, I would like to see spellcasters a little more tied to using magical implements or spellcasting foci in PF2. This would give wizards, clerics and the like a kind of "weapon" to buy and upgrade to modify and improve their spellcasting, with an eventual +1 focus and +2 focus and so on; this would help counter the preponderance of enemy save boosters (or player save boosters when the implement is in an enemy's hands). It was one of the best ideas from the Brand's 4th and 5th editions, but they didn't take it as far as it could go, and there was mostly no difference from one kind of focus to the next. That can be fixed. :)
SO, say that a spellcasting focus has traits that modify your spellcasting, and have the foci correspond to weapon size categories. A "light" focus like a holy symbol or medicine bag, that you just wear like an amulet or set into a shield, has maybe 1 trait / trait point. A "one-handed" focus like a rod or orb, that you have to hold in hand to use it (and can of course perform your Somatic component with that hand), has 2 traits. A "two-handed" focus like a staff or tome, which excludes you from also wielding a shield or carrying another magic item in your other hand, has 3 traits.
You can then pick your focus for the traits it offers, and how you envision your caster working his or her magic. Some can be basic elemental traits, like a wand boiled in exotic oils and set with a ruby enhancing fire magic; some can be tied to other descriptors, like a runic skull (a variant "orb" or "medicine bag") enhancing curses and negative energy; some can modify traits like range and duration, like a crystal orb acting as a "metaphysical lens" and projecting your spells out further; one trait might just bluntly add +1 point of damage per die; and so on. It would offer a lot of customization, and help further set one caster of the same class and school / domain / bloodline / etc apart from each other.
Magic implements would of course increase save DCs, but should also have other effects available, much as I really hope there are no "generic" +1 weapons in PF2. These can be everything from absorbing the old Pearl of Power, to acting as a metamagic rod for you to funnel spell points or resonance through, to a magic tome with spells in it allowing you to prepare or spontaneously cast from the tome in addition to the spells you actually know, to every so often allowing you to force an enemy to reroll a save, and so on.
And of course, this would allow "weapliments" too - weapons that serve as a focus. Particularly useful to a magus, paladin or the like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like this idea, but im not sure about the traits mechanic. I think dividing implements into light and heavy might be more complicated then this needs to be. Having equipment to upgrade/find/loot for casters on par with weaponry and armor is a good thing. I can picture sunder/disarming an enemy caster to try and thwart their power.
I created a half-elf witch in PF1 who took the arcane bond option. She had a glass eye that was her item (GM allowance for either ring or neck slot) and was very flavorful and fun. So this idea has a lot of potential to make casters more unique and fun flavourwise.
/tentatively signed
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a great idea. It subsumes a lot of things that all had special, inconsistent rules in PF1: holy symbols, bonded items, special foci for certain spells, beads of karma, pearls of power, some ioun stones, certainly other things I forgot.
I like this idea, but im not sure about the traits mechanic. I think dividing implements into light and heavy might be more complicated then this needs to be. Having equipment to upgrade/find/loot for casters on par with weaponry and armor is a good thing. I can picture sunder/disarming an enemy caster to try and thwart their power.
I agree it probably doesn't need a layer of complication to mimic weapon types. Weapon types are meant to create a hierarchy of weapon competency among classes, that's not needed for spellcasting.
I created a half-elf witch in PF1 who took the arcane bond option. She had a glass eye that was her item (GM allowance for either ring or neck slot) and was very flavorful and fun. So this idea has a lot of potential to make casters more unique and fun flavourwise.
Such a cool idea! I hope you don't mind me stealing it for one of my NPCs :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for the ability of all casters to sub in fixed implements for their material component needs, if only because I want to be able to have a Wizard cast a fireball without feeling like he should be washing his hands afterwards because of the obligatory bat poo. Divine casters in P1E already do this with holy symbols and/or mistletoe sprigs in place of nonexpensive material components; we just need this expanded to all casters.
I mostly like this idea for the purpose of spells who have an attack as part of their casting (since the math for AC and touch AC will probs already be built around the assumption that characters have accuracy enhancing equipment). I am hoping that there will not be a preponderance of enemies with super high saves, and that would make save-boosters unnecessary.
I don't think this kind of thing needs to be a wand or whatever, though. I'd be happier if it were a ring or something that didn't take up your hands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think for balance more powerful effects should require hands, though with the caveat that you can always use a hand holding a focus to take the somatic action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The size division might not be necessary, yeah. I was just concerned about balance between a focus you just wear like a ring or holy symbol, vs an implement you wield in hand in place of other items you could be holding. But maybe that is as simple as saying the worn implement costs 1 resonance to attune and carried implements don't need this? Or failing resonance, just have one power division between weaker worn foci and stronger wielded foci, with "weapliments" falling in the weaker category due to their greater versatility / lack of opportunity cost. :)
The size division might not be necessary, yeah. I was just concerned about balance between a focus you just wear like a ring or holy symbol, vs an implement you wield in hand in place of other items you could be holding. But maybe that is as simple as saying the worn implement costs 1 resonance to attune and carried implements don't need this? Or failing resonance, just have one power division between weaker worn foci and stronger wielded foci, with "weapliments" falling in the weaker category due to their greater versatility / lack of opportunity cost. :)
Maybe you have to hold implements when they are used as a stand-in for material components? Isn't that pretty much the cast as it stands?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of a caster having to hold the foci so I can slap it out of their hands. The caster wouldnt be useless without it, but you could sunder their spell power by doing it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a good idea, and I suspect that Paizo has similar ideas.
I definitely like the weapon trait idea. Giving you the ability to boost a variety of things allows for very interesting choices. I do not want to see one ability (save boosting) being the must have and excluding other abilities.
I think it would be interesting to see magic weapons become implements/foci, albeit limited ones. Like a magic sword has a trait that helps Paladins with some of their divine magic. However, not as much as a wand would.
If there are anti-casting reactions (seems likely), it would be good to see staffs provide some defense against these in addition to casting trait. Whereas orbs and wands a more focused on the casting traits.
Seems like there are many ways you could slice it. Options that provide choice are very important to this game and it definitely seems like Paizo understand this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If concentration checks are still a thing, Foci/Implements could give you a bonus. Such things are often treated as a way to help you direct and focus your inherent abilities in fiction.
Allow me to clarify my position earlier; I like that spellcasters don't need a want or other implement to cast spells. I know there are a lot of fantasy series where spellcasters use wands or staves or what-have-you to focus their spells but I like that Pathfinder lets you just wave your hands around and say the right magic words or whatever. It drives home that the spell is embodied in the caster rather than the implement itself.
Also, I am a huge fan of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell and that is how those fools cast magic.
Not a fan of the idea at all. The system is moving away from obligatory items that are necessary to hit numerical thresholds, and I don't want to see spellcasters be the exception that goes the other way. I have no problems with wands, scrolls, rods, and staffs being equipment options for casters, but they shouldn't give numerical bonuses to your standard spellcasting abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Allow me to clarify my position earlier; I like that spellcasters don't need a want or other implement to cast spells. I know there are a lot of fantasy series where spellcasters use wands or staves or what-have-you to focus their spells but I like that Pathfinder lets you just wave your hands around and say the right magic words or whatever. It drives home that the spell is embodied in the caster rather than the implement itself.
Also, I am a huge fan of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell and that is how those fools cast magic.
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell was pretty great.
While I think this idea is great, it doesn't follow that the implements should be mandatory for casting. They could replace material components; or they could come in addition to material components, providing some sort of bonus, much like a metamagic rod does in PF1 (not saying the bonus should be metamagic stuff, though). I'm for expanding options, not adding new barriers to spellcasters.
Not a fan of the idea at all. The system is moving away from obligatory items that are necessary to hit numerical thresholds, and I don't want to see spellcasters be the exception that goes the other way. I have no problems with wands, scrolls, rods, and staffs being equipment options for casters, but they shouldn't give numerical bonuses to your standard spellcasting abilities.
Yeah...you probably dont want to look into +x weapons.
Yeah...you probably dont want to look into +x weapons.
I'm willing to give a pass to convention weapons. After all, if you're building a swordsman then you're going to need a sword. Wizards, though, could go either way on implements. So I definitely wouldn't want to see them become obligatory items in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards, though, could go either way on implements. So I definitely wouldn't want to see them become obligatory items in PF2.
What is the reason behind your objection? Is it a conceptual issue, where you think that spells should be a raw things purely from the caster?
Or is it more a game balance/mechanic thing where you do not feel that caster should have to acquire casting items?
What is the reason behind your objection?
I like that PF2 is going in the direction that specific types of gear aren't necessary. No one is obliged to pick a cloak of resistance, or a belt of physical stats, or a headband of mental stats. This both took up a lot of your cash, but was also mutually exclusive with other items. Most cloaks were simply unusuable because it meant not using a cloak of resistance, and once you'd paid for all these staples little was left over for other options.
I'm willing to grant an exception for weapons, since any martial who isn't a monk will be using a weapon as a matter of due course (swordsman is gunna use a sword, archer is gunna use a bow). But there's no particular reason that spellcaster should require an implement. I object to equipment choices being limited by the needs to give spellcasting the requisite number of pluses with a specific type of item. The system is going in the opposite direction of that, and I find that a good thing.
By all means, keep wands and staffs and rods as cool and interesting items for those who want to use them, but don't make the obligatory must-have equipment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the reason behind your objection?By all means, keep wands and staffs and rods as cool and interesting items for those who want to use them, but don't make the obligatory must-have equipment.
That makes sense.
I think it would be good to have caster items to customise your character. But I think that there should be an option of having no implements, which would be balanced against the advantage over implement casting.
So, having an implement impedes some elements of casting, but enhances other elements.
Saying that all casters should have implements, is like saying all monks should have weapons. No, that's just silly.
Casters should have welled balanced choices to make to add mechanical depth and flavour. Implements are a good way of doing this, provided it is done well.