Prepared Spellcasting

[Aryx]

Hi All,

I admittedly haven't gotten super far into the book, but my interest dropped off rapidly when I realized that prepared spellcasting is handled the same. I was hoping that Pathfinder 2e would take notes from 5e and divorce spell slots from prepared spells OR go to a magic point/mana system. Preparing spells the way Pathfinder 1e or 3.5 did was one of the reasons I jumped ship years ago. I've recently been drawn back to Pathfinder 1e but have had to completely homebrew a magic system to make it playable. Please at least concider divorcing prepared spells from spell slots.

[Skullkeeper]

Aryx wrote:

Hi All,

I admittedly haven't gotten super far into the book, but my interest dropped off rapidly when I realized that prepared spellcasting is handled the same. I was hoping that Pathfinder 2e would take notes from 5e and divorce spell slots from prepared spells OR go to a magic point/mana system. Preparing spells the way Pathfinder 1e or 3.5 did was one of the reasons I jumped ship years ago. I've recently been drawn back to Pathfinder 1e but have had to completely homebrew a magic system to make it playable. Please at least concider divorcing prepared spells from spell slots.

I agree. Asking players to choose which slots to prepare at what levels is silly. And then losing the spell once you cast it is even worse. This is a deal breaker for me. Once you get a taste of that freedom to cast any spell you have prepared at any level slot you have, its so much better.

[Witch of Miracles]

Arcanist casting on Wizard just says, "I'm better than the Sorc at being a Sorc, because I can just change my spells known every day."

I am very glad Paizo is not making this error.

[AshVandal]

The basic Wizard and Sorcerer should both be dumped in favor of the Arcanist. It is what casters should have always been with Vancian casting.

Never had a problem with preparing spells in spell slots. Not sure I understand exactly what the complaint is. Although if it helps, I've had a house rule for a long time with my casters that Heighten spell can be applied to any spell that has been metamagiced, as long as you have the heighten spell feat. So it's a bit of a feat tax but makes spell-casting much more enjoyable. Is that similar to what you mean by freedom to prepare any spell in any slot? It only really matters for combat spells.

[Skullkeeper]

AshVandal wrote:

The basic Wizard and Sorcerer should both be dumped in favor of the Arcanist. It is what casters should have always been with Vancian casting.

Never had a problem with preparing spells in spell slots. Not sure I understand exactly what the complaint is. Although if it helps, I've had a house rule for a long time with my casters that Heighten spell can be applied to any spell that has been metamagiced, as long as you have the heighten spell feat. So it's a bit of a feat tax but makes spell-casting much more enjoyable. Is that similar to what you mean by freedom to prepare any spell in any slot? It only really matters for combat spells.

I'm good with preparing spells, but having to assign specific spell level slots is unnecessary IMO. The real crime is losing the spell once you cast it. This is a throw back to old school Vancian spell casting from the Elric novels (I think). Cleric, Druid, and Wizard lose a prepared spell after they cast it. Bard and Sorcerer appear to be spontaneous casters.

[Alsolomir]

Skullkeeper wrote:

AshVandal wrote:

The basic Wizard and Sorcerer should both be dumped in favor of the Arcanist. It is what casters should have always been with Vancian casting.

Never had a problem with preparing spells in spell slots. Not sure I understand exactly what the complaint is. Although if it helps, I've had a house rule for a long time with my casters that Heighten spell can be applied to any spell that has been metamagiced, as long as you have the heighten spell feat. So it's a bit of a feat tax but makes spell-casting much more enjoyable. Is that similar to what you mean by freedom to prepare any spell in any slot? It only really matters for combat spells.

I'm good with preparing spells, but having to assign specific spell level slots is unnecessary IMO. The real crime is losing the spell once you cast it. This is a throw back to old school Vancian spell casting from the Elric novels (I think). Cleric, Druid, and Wizard lose a prepared spell after they cast it. Bard and Sorcerer appear to be spontaneous casters.

No, I believe the memorized spell concept came from Jack Vance's Dying Earth.

[chillblame]

Yes it did. And that has been a part of D&d since the beginning, aside from recent editions.

[Pawn of Fate]

I agree sticking with the old system feels restrictive after playing 5e. The biggest benefit to not losing a spell after casting is that you can keep a few damage spells prepared to use repeatedly. That opens up options for preparing utility/situational spells that otherwise don't get much playtime.

[houser2112]

I agree that paleovancian casting should be sacred hamburger at this point in favor of neovancian (5E/Arcanist) casting. Though I'm resigned to the likely fact that ship has sailed, I'm glad to see yet another thread bringing this up because it gives me hope that Paizo will get out the wood chipper and put poor Bessie out of her (our) misery.

[Janos1]

Bit of a resurrection on a older post, but I wanted to add.. this whole thing is made worse by the fairly hefty (in my opinion) decrease in number of spell slots per level. If they were separated from each other (Prepared list and Slots available), then that huge cut in slots wouldn't hurt so bad, but as it is... it makes being a caster less useful, especially a blaster (or Wild Shape Druid, since their wild shape is pretty badly done in 2E.. like VERY badly done and at higher levels, spells will be their only real recourse). Please look into either handing out more slots (like the original numbers at least) or switching to the 5E standard (Not advocating this as I feel it weakens the Sorc a little, but it would still be better than what is there already).