So one of my favorite types of campaigns to run are Survival campaigns.
I also like to create scenarios where resources are limited, like wartorn countrysides or perilous forays into Underdark-like locations.
But Create Water & Create Food (and Goodberry of course) are the type of element that completely shut down a whole campaign-style from a low level. Furthermore, they devalue Survival as a skill.
For this reason, I would be very grateful if, baseline, they had an expendable reagent cost.
Otherwise, it's back to an edition full with houserules to make adventures work.
At low levels devoting 1/3 or 1/4 of your spell slots at those levels just to survival is a pretty big hit to player resources, and it's not clear to me that a single Create Water is enough for a party in a desert.
Goodberry does technically, since you have to have an actual berry of some sort to enhance. No berry, no goodberry.
As for the Spells create water is no longer a cantrip, so they would need to know two different spells, one a 1st level, the other a 2nd level, and having to spend two spells a day is a lot of resources for Casters starting out.
I disagree. Not having enough food and water to survive as an adventurer is an obnoxious mechanic. Its like counting gold/money weight (bulk) or counting arrows. These things get hand-waived in all but the lowest level, low power level 'start on a desolate island' campaigns.
Good Berry only provided 1 meal per spell level you heighten it. So a party of 4-6 means he'd have to spend 3x spells of that spell slot to keep the whole party fed for a day. That just hurts as a caster.
Create Water only makes 2 gallons of water. That is probably baseline minimum water for a party of 4-6 people for 1 day to survive, but not to thrive. That also uses a L1 spell slot. At lower levels that is a super nerf because they've already taken away spell slots from casters, made spells mechanically weaker, and nerfed the duration of most spells.
Create Food is a 2nd level spell to make food for a day for a party (clearly a MUCH better spell than goodberry).
As it stands a group of L3 adventurers stuck on an island have to spend 2/5 of one caster's available spells to survive each day. You want to increase that so one entire PC is even more handicapped? I think it should be reversed. Those should go back to being cantrips that can be prepared as required in a day.
If you're into a survivalist campaign there are still many threats to overcome with survival. Getting appropriate shelter, enduring elements (another 2nd level spell per person BTW), avoiding or noticing terrain hazards, following/identifying tracks. The forager skill feat already removes 1 PC from the need to make self survival checks.
They could just make those spells Rare. That should fix your problem, right?
Y'know, maybe they should make all utility spells rare, so that casters can never use magic for other things than killing or killing. :-/
First of all, I find that argument very disingenuous of you. We all know that spells that make food are not the only utility spells.
But what I should have posted was that the OP capitalize on the agency the CRB places on the DM to make certain options rarer than others for their specific campaign. If a specific spell or a subset of spells would trivialize what is intended to be a major theme of a campaign, should the DM not have the right to remove them? To say otherwise is to say that the DM shouldn't run the kind of game they want to.
If you enjoy running survival games, then just change the rules for your game rather than requesting a change that would alter the game for everyone, including those that don't like survival-esque campaigns. It's that easy.
They could just make those spells Rare. That should fix your problem, right?
Y'know, maybe they should make all utility spells rare, so that casters can never use magic for other things than killing or killing. :-/
It might be nice to have abilities that allow you to kill one day, or utility the next. Would be great if the Ranger could swap out their skills for killing or utility. But I suppose only casters get to have supreme versatility and flexibility.
At low levels devoting 1/3 or 1/4 of your spell slots at those levels just to survival is a pretty big hit to player resources, and it's not clear to me that a single Create Water is enough for a party in a desert.
The problem is you have a level 1 spell that completely and totally invalidates the Forager background. That doesn't make sense. You're giving caster the ability to buy a scroll/wand or choose spell to completely invalidate and outperform someone's entire background? How is that fair or balanced?
This is the exact problem we had in P1: Caster have too much agency.
Red Griffyn wrote:
I disagree. Not having enough food and water to survive as an adventurer is an obnoxious mechanic. Its like counting gold/money weight (bulk) or counting arrows. These things get hand-waived in all but the lowest level, low power level 'start on a desolate island' campaigns.
Okay, then don't make it a background that someone playing a Ranger is likely to take, only to find out there's a 1st level spell that feeds six people (at level 1) when you can only feed four if you're Legendary. I just don't get why Paizo does this.
Sorry, I'm just still salty that so many utility spells (like Tongues, for example) have been made uncommon for no good reason.
Okay, but once you do get that spell, you're able to totally invalidate what someone might have had to dedicate feats for or given up a Background for. What's more, you aren't even stuck with that spell. When your campaign gets to town, you swap out the spell for something else.
Paizo may have made some of these slightly harder to get, but eventually you'll get them and we're back at P1.
So one of my favorite types of campaigns to run are Survival campaigns.
Combining a full-up survival game with food conjuration does tend to be a problem and it probably does require some house ruling from a more general set of rules. One thing I used in Skull & Shackles to explain why sailors would put into islands to get water was the belief that too much "faerie water" would leave you vulnerable to magic¹. Adding some penalty for relying on constantly conjuring food leaves it as an option for emergencies while making the finding of 'real food' still vital.
1: The truth was that you would build up a saving throw penalty against most fay magic if most of your food/water was conjured. IIRC, it was something like -1/week and you needed to go 100% 'real' to recover at about the same rate.
I'd rather see the Forager feat buffed than the corresponding spells nerfed.
So boost Forager? Let's do that. At 15th level, a Wizard can feed 200 people with Create Food heightened to 8th level. It makes sense to have a Forager at 15th level feed 200 people? With 10 minutes of effort? Can't we agree that its ridiculous for a spells to be this powerful compared to an entire Background?
The problem for me is that too many of the Survival/Nature based things that are given out as feats, are made to address things that are not actually fun or useful. I tend to agree with Red Griffyn, finding food is not exactly a sweet spot for a Pathfinder campaign. Sure it might be cool to have a little run where the party is looking for food, but that's like a once in an adventurer's life occurrence. How many times in a character's life do you think he's actually going to be foraging for food? It isn't a cornerstone of PF gameplay. I get why it's in a spell and feeds six people, so the that it can be a minor nuisance, and the adventure can move on. But then why force it on players as an entire feat? Survey Wildlife is another. Why? Who does this in an adventure more than maybe once between levels 1-20?
Spells should not be able to duplicate feats. Altneratively, feats should not duplicate spells. It feels like this paradigm has been carried over from P1 and is one of the underlying problems with M/C disparity.
(also, Create Food is level 2, not 1, my mistake).
Literally LOL at the idea that spells should not be able to do anything that a 1st level skill feat does.
Spells that need to be deleted: Create Water, Feather Fall, Lorekeeper's Fortune, Loremaster's Recall, Charm, Fear, Heal, Guidance, Jump, Illusory Disguise...
I know, it's a crazy idea that all these full caster classes shouldn't be able to duplicate an entire book's worth of feats and utility skills when martials don't have anything close to that flexibility. God forbid casters had to choose a spell and be stuck with it, unable to swap it out at whim.
At low levels devoting 1/3 or 1/4 of your spell slots at those levels just to survival is a pretty big hit to player resources, and it's not clear to me that a single Create Water is enough for a party in a desert.
The problem is you have a level 1 spell that completely and totally invalidates the Forager background. That doesn't make sense. You're giving caster the ability to buy a scroll/wand or choose spell to completely invalidate and outperform someone's entire background? How is that fair or balanced?
This is the exact problem we had in P1: Caster have too much agency.
Red Griffyn wrote:
I disagree. Not having enough food and water to survive as an adventurer is an obnoxious mechanic. Its like counting gold/money weight (bulk) or counting arrows. These things get hand-waived in all but the lowest level, low power level 'start on a desolate island' campaigns.
Okay, then don't make it a background that someone playing a Ranger is likely to take, only to find out there's a 1st level spell that feeds six people (at level 1) when you can only feed four if you're Legendary. I just don't get why Paizo does this.
A level 1 AND level 2 spell being equivalent to a level 1 skill feat seems under-powered... for the spells. Skill feats are flavour feats, especially level 1 skill feats. There are only a handful of possible skill feats that aren't described like that (fascinating performance comes to mind). Re-review L1 skill feats and tell me which ones can't be achieved with a spell? Should we nerf enchantment spells like charm because they can help you befriend people or should we accept that spells can achieve things that feats (especially skill feats) can do? The last thing 2e needs is more nerfs to mediocre utility spells.
If some ranger wants to be a super survivalist and the group is okay with him getting all the food (or not because skill check bonuses are so flat that even a legendary survivalist only has a 10% extra chance of succeeding vs. a trained check) then they need not waste two spell slots on these boring utility spells. That is a home campaign/group decision. However, if your players don't want to be bothered, they'll make survival checks, then prep/cast these spells and move on without the annoyance.
Most people don't what a real life simulator when they play a fantasy RPG. They want to have their 'heroic' characters go above and beyond basic life problems to defeat epic evils or square off against fate itself! These aren't commoners who can't feed themselves, these are epic adventurers wielding incredible magics, saving cities/kingdoms, rescuing innocents from the cruel world they live in.
Sorry, I'm just still salty that so many utility spells (like Tongues, for example) have been made uncommon for no good reason.
Tongues specifically has a counterpoint that is common. Comprehend Languages (3rd) gives you the ability to speak a language for an hour. I know, 1 language is a nerf from all languages (like it was before) but it still solves a lot of language barrier problems with a single spell, because there aren't too many cases where 1 language isn't enough. In fact, in most cases Comprehend Languages (3rd) seems straight-up better than Tongues. 2 levels lower, lasts longer, has a longer range (for the 1 in 100 cases this matters), and is more common. Oh, and 4th level version lets you get the whole party in on the discussion, as well as a few friendly NPCs.
They already heavily nerfed those spells. Like someone said just make them uncommon or rare. There's some story potential for that in a survival game anyway. As has been pointed out, they are essentially an anti frustration feature. It makes more sense to make them rare in survival games than to make them useless in all games.
Most people don't what a real life simulator when they play a fantasy RPG. They want to have their 'heroic' characters go above and beyond basic life problems to defeat epic evils or square off against fate itself! These aren't commoners who can't feed themselves, these are epic adventurers wielding incredible magics, saving cities/kingdoms, rescuing innocents from the cruel world they live in.
Gee, I couldn't agree with you more. Kindly explain how a Legendary Forager can only feed 4 but a 1st level spell can feed six?
Quote:
Should we nerf enchantment spells like charm because they can help you befriend people or should we accept that spells can achieve things that feats (especially skill feats) can do? The last thing 2e needs is more nerfs to mediocre utility spells.
How about we level the playing field. You can keep the spells at the level they are, but you're stuck with that spell and you can't swap it out from day to day, you know, how skill swork? Or, let martials swap out their Skill from day to day, at Legendary levels. What's unfair/unfun about that?
Let's be honest. 3.5 screwed it up. Caster were waaaay over the top. Paizo admitted it. Now ask yourself if you honestly think they got things back to 100% fair on the first go around?
Most people don't what a real life simulator when they play a fantasy RPG. They want to have their 'heroic' characters go above and beyond basic life problems to defeat epic evils or square off against fate itself! These aren't commoners who can't feed themselves, these are epic adventurers wielding incredible magics, saving cities/kingdoms, rescuing innocents from the cruel world they live in.
Gee, I couldn't agree with you more. Kindly explain how a Legendary Forager can only feed 4 but a 1st level spell can feed six?
Quote:
Should we nerf enchantment spells like charm because they can help you befriend people or should we accept that spells can achieve things that feats (especially skill feats) can do? The last thing 2e needs is more nerfs to mediocre utility spells.
How about we level the playing field. You can keep the spells at the level they are, but you're stuck with that spell and you can't swap it out from day to day, you know, how skill swork? Or, let martials swap out their Skill from day to day, at Legendary levels. What's unfair/unfun about that?
Let's be honest. 3.5 screwed it up. Caster were waaaay over the top. Paizo admitted it. Now ask yourself if you honestly think they got things back to 100% fair on the first go around?
If all casters work like sorcerers, what separates wizards and sorcerers? Also how would it even make sense that divine casters can't pray for different spells?
Most people don't what a real life simulator when they play a fantasy RPG. They want to have their 'heroic' characters go above and beyond basic life problems to defeat epic evils or square off against fate itself! These aren't commoners who can't feed themselves, these are epic adventurers wielding incredible magics, saving cities/kingdoms, rescuing innocents from the cruel world they live in.
Gee, I couldn't agree with you more. Kindly explain how a Legendary Forager can only feed 4 but a 1st level spell can feed six?
Quote:
Should we nerf enchantment spells like charm because they can help you befriend people or should we accept that spells can achieve things that feats (especially skill feats) can do? The last thing 2e needs is more nerfs to mediocre utility spells.
How about we level the playing field. You can keep the spells at the level they are, but you're stuck with that spell and you can't swap it out from day to day, you know, how skill swork? Or, let martials swap out their Skill from day to day, at Legendary levels. What's unfair/unfun about that?
Let's be honest. 3.5 screwed it up. Caster were waaaay over the top. Paizo admitted it. Now ask yourself if you honestly think they got things back to 100% fair on the first go around?
If all casters are limited to the spells they choose, what separates wizards and sorcerers?
Sorcerers can choose their spell list, they aren't just arcane.
A level 1 AND level 2 spell being equivalent to a level 1 skill feat seems under-powered... for the spells.
Uh...no. Create Food feds six at level 1. Forager feds 1....until level 6. And let's not pretend a GM is going to make someone cast Create Food and Create Water.
My favorite is the Quick Climb skill. A level 7 feet, requiring a master in Athletics. On "Success" you can move at half your speed. Yeah, that measures up real well to Spider Climb which gives you 25 climb without having to make a single roll. Sure, Spider Climb only lasts 10 minutes, don't remember anyone needing to climb longer or more than once an adventuring day. But if you know you have to climb a cliff, wouldn't be problem to prepare it more than once or metamagic the duration. What's more, the caster can bestow it on someone else. Can't really do that with skills can you?
But hey, Casters dominating the game isn't a thing is it?
Most people don't what a real life simulator when they play a fantasy RPG. They want to have their 'heroic' characters go above and beyond basic life problems to defeat epic evils or square off against fate itself! These aren't commoners who can't feed themselves, these are epic adventurers wielding incredible magics, saving cities/kingdoms, rescuing innocents from the cruel world they live in.
Gee, I couldn't agree with you more. Kindly explain how a Legendary Forager can only feed 4 but a 1st level spell can feed six?
Quote:
Should we nerf enchantment spells like charm because they can help you befriend people or should we accept that spells can achieve things that feats (especially skill feats) can do? The last thing 2e needs is more nerfs to mediocre utility spells.
How about we level the playing field. You can keep the spells at the level they are, but you're stuck with that spell and you can't swap it out from day to day, you know, how skill swork? Or, let martials swap out their Skill from day to day, at Legendary levels. What's unfair/unfun about that?
Let's be honest. 3.5 screwed it up. Caster were waaaay over the top. Paizo admitted it. Now ask yourself if you honestly think they got things back to 100% fair on the first go around?
If all casters are limited to the spells they choose, what separates wizards and sorcerers?
Sorcerers can choose their spell list, they aren't just arcane.
So, my point being if all casters are spontaneous there's not enough difference to even justify them being different classes. You might as well merge them all. A cleric would essentially be a sorcerer that worships a god, and a wizard would essentially be an arcane sorcerer without a bloodline.
Also, I'm not sure I'm completely against this idea, but anathema and a lot of other things make no sense at all with it, So it would require a lot of reworking.
So, my point being if all casters are spontaneous there's not enough difference to even justify them being different classes.
Wizards don't need to be spontaneous. They are limited to a primary school and a secondary school. All other schools are off limits. Magic is hard. Takes focus and dedication to make it useful.
Most people don't what a real life simulator when they play a fantasy RPG. They want to have their 'heroic' characters go above and beyond basic life problems to defeat epic evils or square off against fate itself! These aren't commoners who can't feed themselves, these are epic adventurers wielding incredible magics, saving cities/kingdoms, rescuing innocents from the cruel world they live in.
Gee, I couldn't agree with you more. Kindly explain how a Legendary Forager can only feed 4 but a 1st level spell can feed six?
Quote:
Should we nerf enchantment spells like charm because they can help you befriend people or should we accept that spells can achieve things that feats (especially skill feats) can do? The last thing 2e needs is more nerfs to mediocre utility spells.
How about we level the playing field. You can keep the spells at the level they are, but you're stuck with that spell and you can't swap it out from day to day, you know, how skill swork? Or, let martials swap out their Skill from day to day, at Legendary levels. What's unfair/unfun about that?
Let's be honest. 3.5 screwed it up. Caster were waaaay over the top. Paizo admitted it. Now ask yourself if you honestly think they got things back to 100% fair on the first go around?
Easy.
One activity involves normal average people doing mundane things (i.e., foraging). As a mundane forager you are bound by the real life physics we experience today. Any average IQ commoner with a little luck can forage for themselves. I could forage with a local area picture field guide and keep myself alive for a few days while travelling (I've got 3 weeks before I starve to death). I could also, with some pills or a filtering device, get enough water to remain non-dehydrated. I am a commoner and I can do these things. Now lets extend those mundane activities to their extreme levels of success (i.e., a legendary survivalist). This is someone who can set multiple traps, find water/food for multiple people. Perhaps they can hunt a deer to feed a whole celebration. A complaint I could agree with is that the skill feats are too weak, not that magic is too powerful. So we should make the skill feats better, because as I said above they are almost all exclusively 'FLAVOUR' feats. They are not 'MECHANICAL' feats.
The other activity (i.e., spell casting) involves the control and shaping of our physical/metaphysical world to generate effects that are beyond the explanation of science/logic. By definition they will be able to create effects equivalent to or more powerful than what a mundane application of skill can achieve. This includes the creation of matter/energy (generating fire, generating water, or perhaps generating mundane items like food). If magic can't achieve these super simple goals, then what do you think it can do? What is 'magic' by your definition? To compare the mundane and the magical a false equivalence.
This isn't about martial vs. magic (that is a red herring). What YOU want is a 'low-magic' game. This makes the power floor and power ceiling even LOWER then what 2e already did. You should be honest with yourself about what YOU want. A low-magic game is not what I want and I don't know of other people who also want that. It certainly doesn't describe 1e or 2e as far as I am concerned. This is evident from the fact that there are entire classes who are defined by their ability to spell cast and this wouldn't be true if their spells didn't have a meaningful effect (i.e., if the spells being cast are just glorified parlour tricks). It is also evident from the Golarion setting, the adventures being written for it, and the problems our 'epic heroes' are asked to resolve.
I would recommend you find a group who does want a low-magic environment and play a home brew version of pathfinder with that in mind (perhaps ban full casters and only allow multi-classing into them). If that is too difficult, then I would recommend finding a different RPG system where a low-magic system is used as a base assumption to generate the core rules.
By definition they will be able to create effects equivalent to or more powerful than what a mundane application of skill can achieve.
There's no "definition" that says this is true. PF is a game. The rules are entirely contrived.
Quote:
What YOU want is a 'low-magic' game.
Incorrect. What I want is a game where casters don't dominate all aspects of it, you now...iike P1? Paizo admitted the M/C disparity was a problem. Have you admitted it?
The problem with spells is not their effectiveness, it's that casters get access to spells that cover the gamut of nearly everything you can do in the game. I'm fine with casters being powerful at what they can do. The problem is they can do it all. Martials have to pick a fighting style. They have to go two-handed, or two-weapon, or sword and board. Then they have to pick feats and are stuck with that choice. Is a wizard stuck with just blasting? With just utility? With just transfiguration? Why isn't a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian a master of all combat styles?
This version of Pathfinder has nerfed combat bonuses so now, Figters are have must marginally higher to hit bonuses. Did Fighters get spells that are just marginally worse than a Wizards? No. Did we get feats that cover all the bases of spells? No.
Look, you can deny the reality of it all you want. The question is whether the game suffers because of the lack of balance. Time will tell.
To be honest, if you just want to fix CMD, easiest way to do that would be to ban martials entirely. Makes sense too-in a world where some people are capable of bending the laws of reality, why would you expect someone who swings a stick around and can't bend the laws of physics to keep up? Just because they are the same level, i.e. spent the same amount of time adventuring? It'd be like arguing that if two people with 20 years of job experience were sent to an isolated island to survive, guy who flipped burgers at Mc Donalds can "keep up" with a NASA rocket scientist who hunted bears with a knife for fun and advised Navy Seals on survivalist training, just because they both spent 20 years getting that experience. One guy can just do more stuff, obviously he will be better and more useful.
On the other hand, making casters keep up with casters is the easiest thing in the world. Just make sure each of them has a nieche they can fall into (wizards-versatility, clerics-holy magics, sorcerers-sheer amount of spell slots, druids-various animal summoning and weather control, etc), and you are done. You might end up with casters that stab people with swords (and channel spells through them), because their magic helps them do it better, or because in the scenarios they find themselves in swords would be particularily useful, but those casters won't have trouble keeping up with what the other people in the party do. Because they too have magic. And thus you won't get a situation where one person can easilly do a thing (e.g. summon food and water) that is the entire core concept of another character (e.g. forager type ranger), because everyone has fairly versatile magic to begin with.
A level 1 AND level 2 spell being equivalent to a level 1 skill feat seems under-powered... for the spells.
Uh...no. Create Food feds six at level 1. Forager feds 1....until level 6. And let's not pretend a GM is going to make someone cast Create Food and Create Water.
But hey, Casters dominating the game isn't a thing is it?
Create Food is a second level spell, so it feeds 6 people at level 3. Forager is very different. You need to reference the survival skill, wilderness survival, then downtime activities and so on. The end result of that search leads you to Forager giving you free comfortable living in the wilderness meaning that you can take long term rest without finding civilization. You are also protected from the elements. Create Food doesn't do that. You want something more like the now removed tiny hut spell to emulate this feat.
Forager could certainly be better, but it isn't just a food provider either. Forager may be more useful than that, but currently the comfortable living description is pretty limited.
By definition they will be able to create effects equivalent to or more powerful than what a mundane application of skill can achieve.
There's no "definition" that says this is true. PF is a game. The rules are entirely contrived.
Quote:
What YOU want is a 'low-magic' game.
Incorrect. What I want is a game where casters don't dominate all aspects of it, you now...iike P1? Paizo admitted the M/C disparity was a problem. Have you admitted it?
The problem with spells is not their effectiveness, it's that casters get access to spells that cover the gamut of nearly everything you can do in the game. I'm fine with casters being powerful at what they can do. The problem is they can do it all. Martials have to pick a fighting style. They have to go two-handed, or two-weapon, or sword and board. Then they have to pick feats and are stuck with that choice. Is a wizard stuck with just blasting? With just utility? With just transfiguration? Why isn't a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian a master of all combat styles?
This version of Pathfinder has nerfed combat bonuses so now, Figters are have must marginally higher to hit bonuses. Did Fighters get spells that are just marginally worse than a Wizards? No. Did we get feats that cover all the bases of spells? No.
Look, you can deny the reality of it all you want. The question is whether the game suffers because of the lack of balance. Time will tell.
Have you read the spell section of the 2e play-test core rules book? You are wrong on what the writers think magic can achieve.
Here are the literal 2e definitions for each magic school on Page 192:
SPELL SCHOOLS
...
ABJURATIONS
Abjurations protect and ward. They create barriers that keep out attacks, effects, or even certain types of creatures. They also create effects that harm trespassers or banish interlopers.
CONJURATIONS
Conjuration spells bring a creature or object from somewhere else (typically from another plane) to follow your commands or transport creatures via teleportation.
DIVINATION
Divinations allow you to learn the secrets of the present, past, and future. They bestow fortune, grant you the ability to perceive remote locations, and reveal secret knowledge.
ENCHANTMENT
Enchantments affect the minds and emotions of other creatures, sometimes to influence and control behavior, and other times to bolster them to greater heights of courage.
EVOCATION
Evocations capture magical forces and then shape them to harm your foes or protect you allies.
ILLUSION
Illusions create the semblance of something real, fooling the eyes, ears, and other senses.
NECROMANCY
These spells harness the power of life and death. They can sap life essence or sustain creatures with lifesaving healing.
TRANSMUTATION
These spells make alterations to or transform the physical form of a creature or object.
Here is the definitions from the 2e glossary (in the back of the book) for different magic traditions vs. the definition for 'skill':
Arcane: Arcane magic is the tradition that blends material and mental essences, understanding the magic of the universe based on experimentation and measurable effects.
...
Divine: Divine magic is the tradition that blends spiritual and vital essences, steeped in faith, the unseen, and belief in power from beyond the Material Plane.
...
Occult: Occult magic is the tradition that blends spiritual and mental essences, understanding the unexplainable, categorizing the bizarre, and otherwise accounting the ephemeral in a systematic way.
...
Primal: Primal magic is the tradition that blends material and vital essences, rooted in an instinctual connection to and faith in the natural world.
...
Skill: A skill represents a creature’s ability to perform certain tasks that require experience or training. Skills typically have a list of uses you can perform even if you’re untrained with the skill, followed by ones that require you to be trained with the skill. Your skill bonus is equal to your proficiency modifier plus the skill’s associated ability modifier, along with any other bonuses and penalties.
---------------------------------------
It is evident to me that a skill is something 'mundane'. Whereas magic is something 'beyond the mundane' based on what magic is described as achieving. A skill and it's effects follow our real world expectations. Whereas a spell goes beyond these expectations. The little blurb at the beginning of the spell section says it best:
"Whether from mystic artifacts, mysterious creatures, or wizards weaving strange spells, magic brings fantasy and wonder to the world of Pathfinder."
When I say the martial vs. caster disparity is a red herring. It is because you are using a logical fallacy in trying to make your arguments. Throwing that statement out there when we are talking quality of life mediocre utility spells is straying off topic and away from the actual discussion. This is something you just freely admitted by saying that you don't have a problem with spells 'effectiveness' but instead think that casters can do everything equal to or better than martials. Now that the real reason for your critique on these spells has been identified we can address that separate topic.
MARTIAL/CASTER (M/C) DISPARITY
You don't like that casters get access to spells that can provide a solution to every problem. I disagree with this statement. I think all classes should be empowered to handle most if not all possible threats you might face in a RPG. If they can't then you end up with REQUIRED standardized party compositions which prevents true creative party/PC generation. This disparity is evident in 2e where party endurance is clearly worse for groups that do not include a cleric (due to a lack of diverse healing options of parties, and out of combat CLW spam being removed as an alternate). This was not true for 1e where multiple classes/builds could effectively fill a the role of healer (generally a role people don't enjoy playing), even if that was 'I can use a CLW wand'.
Already in my mind, the issue isn't with casters being too powerful, but martials being too weak if there are things that martials cannot prepare for anymore. Thus, the ability for casters to address problems doesn't make them over powered. This 'power' is effectively mitigated by severely limiting the available resources of casters to actually prepare for all eventualities. This includes reduced spell slots, movement of spells to higher spell levels, the slow obtainment of new spells/levels, increased number of actions to use spells in combat, increase in casting time for some spells out of combat (detect magic, read aura, or rituals are prime examples of this in 2e), a decrease in mechanical benefit for spells, a decrease in spell duration, and a requirement to invest in a non-physical stat to bump DCs or have more spell points.
A further change in 2e to level the playing field is to use resonance points as a means for obtaining magical powers as a class neutral/independent capability. It isn't a change I enjoy, but even in 1e magic was readily available to martials via magic items. In the case of survival checks (in 2e), there is a relatively low level 'coyote cloak' that helps you feed 3 more people per survival check (at the cost of one resonance point). Anyone claiming to be a survival specialist would pick up this item, just like how any martial would pick up a +X weapon.
YOUR SPECIFIC M/C COMPLAINTS/CRITIQUE
As to the 'M/C' disparity, your main complaints from your post are:
1. Martials picking a singular fight style vs. casters picking a casting style/school and changing those abilities the next day. There aren't feats that can compete with spells.
- In 2e, martials get more feats than casters at this point 11 vs. 8. That means they have 3 more feats to pick up an archetype/multi-class/a secondary style to increase versatility. These 'styles' as you call them are not locked into 'style slots' and can be used endlessly in the day. There are also a variety of feats that solve the same problems as spells (e.g., some new feats to just detect invisible creatures). Many of the feats available now just outright give spell equivalents called 'power's (e.g., look at Paladins/monks). Some of these base style feats are also more powerful than spells. For example the "1st" level fighter feat (sudden charge) is equivalent to the L3 spell haste for 1 round. But the fighter can use it all day without expending any resources. A caster can only afford 1-2 slots at most per day and it isn't even particularly useful for them vs. putting it on a martial. Even using 1-2 of your 3-4 slots per day is done at the expense of something they might need like fireball to cause damage or dispel magic to remove a condition from an ally. Whereas a fighter can outpace a 6d6 fireball easily with slice or double slice (again doing this all day) and a rogue could use dispelling slice to literally cast dispel magic all day. It isn't evident to me that there is an imbalance. As long as your group avoids 1 encounter days, spell casters have to devout slots to utility, buffing, healing, damage, etc. They simply can't last endlessly like a martial can and can't afford to nova every encounter all the time. For some of these casters (like a bard/sorcerer) they can't even change their spells day by day. For prepared casters they often lose 1-4 slots per day, having prepared spells that simply aren't useful (a further nerf due to trying to 'prepare for everything').
2. Combat bonuses are nerfed, so martials are worse off.
- Martials have a +1 to +2 in attack bonuses (a much bigger deal based on 2e's math), 2 good saves vs. 1 save for casters, 2-6 hp more per level (making them more durable), multiple ways to decrease or remove multi-attack penalties not available to casters (e.g.., slice, double slice, ranger hunt target, etc.), and class abilities to weaken other class abilities (i.e., evasion/uncanny dodge). They also get to use better weapons (martial vs. simple) and get free critical specialization access for these items without the need to waste ancestry feats. Martials can also divert their attribute bumps from INT/WIS/CON to STR/DEX/CON to make them more durable, deal more damage, be harder to hit, and be more accurate. This helps balance out the 'M/C' disparity and 2e has taken huge steps in addressing it. I would be the first one to tell you that I think the flat bonus structure is too flat. I'd rather have the proficiency ranks as Untrained (-2), Trained(+1), Expert(+3), Master(+5), Legendary(+7). But that is a class neutral/independent discussion that doesn't need to be about 'M/C' as it effects everyone (including differences between skill specialized builds).
BEYOND YOUR STATED CONCERNS - INEQUITY IS REQUIRED IN THE GAME:
Inherent inequity is required to increase accessibility to people who are new. Simple to build/simple to play classes need to exist to entice new players. Often times these are martials because the idea of 'whack it until it is dead' is conceptually quite simple to explain. Whereas reading/digesting 100s of spells and picking optimal spells is not something a newbie can do. The more mechanics you add to a class (often adding more options to open up versatility), the more complex and less ideal it is for a new player. However, you as an experienced player could run a fighter multi-classed into a wizard and have all of that 'versatility' you say they can't achieve right at the tips of your fingers. You can't have it both ways, but I think 2e has really effectively nerfed casters and raised up martials. I certainly don't think the spells you identified above are prime examples of a 'M/C' disparity.
Extreme survival mode should not be the default campaign mode. If that is the style of game you want to play change the rarity of the spells and equipment that interferes with that style of game.
Create Food is a second level spell, so it feeds 6 people at level 3. Forager is very different. You need to reference the survival skill, wilderness survival, then downtime activities and so on
You're right. Foraging is restricted to one mode, where as Create Food can be cast in two.
Quote:
The end result of that search leads you to Forager giving you free comfortable living in the wilderness
It would help the discussion if you didn't completely misrepresent the facts.:
Forager p.166 wrote:
While Surviving in the Wilderness during downtime, you can always find enough food and water to provide yourself a subsistence living (provided you aren’t in an area that’s completely lacking in appropriate resources)
Do you know what a "substance" living is? And that's provided the area isn't completely without resources. So you aren't Foraging in the middle of the desert. Does that stop Create Food? No.
In fact, it takes a Critical Success for a Ranger to be able to feed herself and her companion. It's not until you reach expert that a Ranger can survive on their own comfortably and a substance living for herself and her Companion. Meanwhile, the spellcaster can feed six people every day at level 3. Desert? No problem. Middle of an ice field? No problem. On a burned out asteroid? No problem. Even better, as soon as a the caster is picked up by a passing Starfinder, they just quit memorizing the spell. Man that was easy.
Quote:
You are also protected from the elements. Create Food doesn't do that.
Dude, did you even read Forager? You are not protected from elements. There is nothing in the skill feat that says that. Getting "basic" protection from elements is part of the Survival skill, which you have to roll and can critically fail, meaning you're in danger of starving to death as your future attempts are penalized.
Quote:
Forager could certainly be better, but it isn't just a food provider either.
Yes, that's all Forager is, a food provider. It allows you to avoid rolling Survival checks to find food and that's it. ALL it does is provide food, something trumped by 2nd level spell. An entire background, trumped by 2nd level spell.
At low levels devoting 1/3 or 1/4 of your spell slots at those levels just to survival is a pretty big hit to player resources, and it's not clear to me that a single Create Water is enough for a party in a desert.
It just creates 2 gallons of water. I can't find any mention of water requirements in the playtest rules. But going by this page which has text from the US Army field manual for desert operations shows that 2 gallons isn't even enough for one person for a day in the desert. The second example: A group "doing a variety of work over an entire day," (which sounds like adventuring) has 4 gallons per person per day as the recommended. So that's two castings just for the caster. Each of their friends is going to need that many castings too. The example of heavy work requires much more water.
I'm not sure where the PF1 rules are, but D20pfsrd has 1 gallon a day per person in normal situations and two to three times that in extreme heat. Small characters use half. So even outside of a desert, you'd only get two people per casting of create water.
Small characters use half. So even outside of a desert, you'd only get two people per casting of create water.
The first time I see a PFS scenario hassle the party about having water to drink, it'll be the first. What's more, most scenarios let you know ahead of time where you're going, specifically so the party casters can prepare these spells or buy the appropriate scrolls.
What's kind of nonsensical about this whole thing is that Paizo has put these things in P2 because they were in P1. But historically, campaigns where the party is struggling to survive are not a staple of Paizo's content. So I can see why it's nice to have the wizard just prep spell to dispose of it. But then why make an entire background that's made irrelevant by a spell? I get that it seems thematically appropriate but again:
1) It's not really a part of nominal adventures;
2) You've given full casters a 2nd level spell that makes it totally moot.
I'm sure there a bunch of things like this and I don't get it.
So your argument is that Forager, which specifically references the survive in the wild outcomes doesn't provide the benefit of the survive in the wild outcomes? That's an interpretation I hadn't considered.
On the topic of adding an animal companion to that scenario, create food wouldn't produce enough for a horse till it can be heightened to 4th level, or 7th level caster. The same level you could take master survival and provide the comfortable level effect for you and your companion. Admittedly only a problem for horses though, as for some reason they are the only large companion available.
I'll agree though, if the feat really is only granting food and water for the survive in the wild action, then it doesn't do anything and is completely useless as food and water isn't enough for subsistence living. That said, your background gives you stats and a skill as well. Forager is in competition with other level 1 skill feats granted by backgrounds, not second level spells. They all more or less suck except for Acrobat, Entertainer/Gladiator, Laborer, Sailor, and Street Urchin.
So your argument is that Forager, which specifically references the survive in the wild outcomes doesn't provide the benefit of the survive in the wild outcomes? That's an interpretation I hadn't considered.
Forager skill feat requires that you are Trained in Survival. However, if you take Scout as a background, you get Forager, and I assume without having to be Trained in Survival. But let's assume someone has to doubly commit and chooses a class or chooses Survival as a Trained sill.
The Survival skill says this
Quote:
You build or maintain a shelter and forage enough food for yourself and maybe for other creatures as well. ***Success You forage enough food for yourself, and your shelter gives you basic protection from the elements, providing a subsistence living.
The Forager skill feat does not say you can maintain or build a shelter. So all that Forager allows yo to do is avoid having to roll for the food and water part. "basic protection from the elements" is not part of Forager. Foraging is a search for food or provisions, not shelter. So Paizo is at least named the skill feat appropriately for what it does, find food and food alone.
Sure, most PCs who have the Forager skill will most likely have Survival as a skill, so they will most likely need to roll a check to create shelter. Forager obviates the need to find food and improves as you level. So if you had an entire campaign where finding food was necessary, it would help...unless you had a caster with Create Food and then it would be pointless.
Quote:
Forager is in competition with other level 1 skill feats granted by backgrounds, not second level spells
That's not entirely accurate. When building a PC, you're going to look at how you'll solve problems. If your class has access to Create Food, there'd be no reason to take the Scout Background (except for the stat boosts) or the Forager feat. Or, if your home campaign includes a class with that spell, you'd also be discouraged from taking it.
The real issue here, is not that Create Food exist, the issue is that Forage Skill exists and that it's attached to the Scout Background. Why create a whole background or Feat to do something that you're going to obviate with a 2nd level spell, especially when foraging for food is so rare in a campaign?
Alternatively, make Create Food simply provide a +2 bonus to using Survival to find food. This would stop a caster from obviating the need for Skill, as was so common in P1.
I don't think +2 is enough of a benefit, but I do like tying the benefit of the spell to the skill level of other players. Making create food a "mana from heaven" type effect that ensure that there are always resources to be found, and increasing the amount of people supportable by survive in the wild, would be a more fitting benefit. It makes the skill investment and the spell feel better overall.
PF2 is plagued by things easily replaced by better versions of themselves. However, having a feat locked in due to it being in background is a big problem if you'd normally want to replace it, I get that.
I'm still uncertain that Forager would do anything if it only provided half of the life style needs. I was hoping there was a mention of starvation effects outside of skill checks, but I can't find any and the skill failure effect mentions "food and shelter".
I don't think +2 is enough of a benefit, but I do like tying the benefit of the spell to the skill level of other players
Okay, how about letting them roll an extra d20 when Foraging and taking the best result? Mark responded to one of my critics in a blog and said that things like Knock simply convey a bonus (+4) to the appropriate skill check. I'm 100% fine with this approach. It just appears they didn't get all the spells and need to do another pass through. No spell should obviate a skill, only boost the success of that skill.
By definition they will be able to create effects equivalent to or more powerful than what a mundane application of skill can achieve.
There's no "definition" that says this is true. PF is a game. The rules are entirely contrived.
Quote:
What YOU want is a 'low-magic' game.
Incorrect. What I want is a game where casters don't dominate all aspects of it, you now...iike P1? Paizo admitted the M/C disparity was a problem. Have you admitted it?
The problem with spells is not their effectiveness, it's that casters get access to spells that cover the gamut of nearly everything you can do in the game. I'm fine with casters being powerful at what they can do. The problem is they can do it all. Martials have to pick a fighting style. They have to go two-handed, or two-weapon, or sword and board. Then they have to pick feats and are stuck with that choice. Is a wizard stuck with just blasting? With just utility? With just transfiguration? Why isn't a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian a master of all combat styles?
This version of Pathfinder has nerfed combat bonuses so now, Figters are have must marginally higher to hit bonuses. Did Fighters get spells that are just marginally worse than a Wizards? No. Did we get feats that cover all the bases of spells? No.
Look, you can deny the reality of it all you want. The question is whether the game suffers because of the lack of balance. Time will tell.
Have you read the spell section of the 2e play-test core rules book? You are wrong on what the writers think magic can achieve. ** spoiler omitted **...
While I agree with your comments, and even more with your tone, I think there is one thing you are partially wrong:
Casters have been nerfed: This is partially incorrect, due to two reasons:
First nerf is when something needs fixing, and this was not the case.
Second is that casters have their power reduce, this is true, but only on magic: Casters have received better attack, AC and Hitpoints, something that most caster players like me don't want at all!!!!
What I am really worried is the general attitude of this forum:
NERF THE CASTERS!
NERF THE CASTERS!
There is nothing appealing on the casters from 1 to 2. Less spells, everyone gets skills save wizards, some saves are improved, not wizards, spell list has been reduced. It is a nightmare!!!
And a lot of people are clapping and cheerin, sincerely I don't know if I want to play if this is the general attitude of the players.
By definition they will be able to create effects equivalent to or more powerful than what a mundane application of skill can achieve.
There's no "definition" that says this is true. PF is a game. The rules are entirely contrived.
Quote:
What YOU want is a 'low-magic' game.
Incorrect. What I want is a game where casters don't dominate all aspects of it, you now...iike P1? Paizo admitted the M/C disparity was a problem. Have you admitted it?
The problem with spells is not their effectiveness, it's that casters get access to spells that cover the gamut of nearly everything you can do in the game. I'm fine with casters being powerful at what they can do. The problem is they can do it all. Martials have to pick a fighting style. They have to go two-handed, or two-weapon, or sword and board. Then they have to pick feats and are stuck with that choice. Is a wizard stuck with just blasting? With just utility? With just transfiguration? Why isn't a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian a master of all combat styles?
This version of Pathfinder has nerfed combat bonuses so now, Figters are have must marginally higher to hit bonuses. Did Fighters get spells that are just marginally worse than a Wizards? No. Did we get feats that cover all the bases of spells? No.
Look, you can deny the reality of it all you want. The question is whether the game suffers because of the lack of balance. Time will tell.
Have you read the spell section of the 2e play-test core rules book? You are wrong on what the writers think magic can achieve. ** spoiler omitted **...
While I agree with your comments, and even more with your tone, I think there is one thing you are partially wrong:
Casters have been nerfed: This is partially incorrect, due to two reasons:
First nerf is when something needs fixing, and this was not the case.
Second is that casters have their power reduce, this is true, but only on magic:...
Then let me restate some things. I think it is quite evident that ALL classes between 2e and 1e have had their overall power floor and power ceiling reduced. This is most evident in how many iconic 1e class abilities have been delayed from 1e by 5-10 levels. That being said there are multiple aspects between editions where some power gains are made, but I don't think that on the whole they negate the general sentiment that a 2e character will be weaker. Some of the improvements are also equal for all classes like everyone getting full HD hit points, the same 'BAB'/AC/skill bonus based of level scaling. As such these improvements are class neutral and aren't real 'buffs'.
Beyond the systemic decrease in power, there are also relative power changes between classes when you compare 1e to 2e. In 1e the power curve via leveling is exponential for casters and linear for martials/partial casters. The break even point between the two is at L5-L6 when casters get level 3 spells (e.g., fireball, haste, stinking cloud, etc.). The power level gap is bigger by L10 where casters are required for party composition to address many of the most prevalent threats (flight, other casters, invisibility, condition removal, etc.). In some respects, casters suffer significantly in L1-L5 so a over-correct at higher level play is fair game. But once you are past L10, caster power just becomes silly. There are many battle field control spells that are encounter enders. If you do that with 1-2 slots per encounter you can go 10+ encounters in a day in some campaigns without really taxing parties.
So I think you'll find that the sentiment to systemically and relatively reduce power level of casters will have lots of support. Many will agree that a 'correction to a problem' nerf IS required. However, one thing that Paizo is quite well known for is heavy handed corrections. There are a ton of 1e items/feats/archetypes that were nerfed into the ground because people liked them too much (no middle ground).
I agree with you that casters are not enticing as PC options in 2e when you compare it to 1e. Casters have fewer spells (33% for prepared casters or 50% for spontaneous casters), their spells are mechanically weaker, their duration are shorter (usually 100%/level), and available magic items/expendables are severely reduced. They could have only picked a few of those items or reduced the % difference between 1e and 2e, but taken together as a collective it represents quite a powerful 'nerf' on casters. I think the key characteristic of 'spell casters' are the spells that they cast. So a heavy nerf on their main feature is disheartening. I am sure I am not alone in reading the spell list and feeling very little excitement.
Hence why the topic of this thread to nerf some of the already mediocre spells is something I will critique. I HOPE Paizo will re-correct and give casters something more exciting to work with in their spell lists, but I am doing my part by making various play-test suggestions to help provide them feedback.
I don't think +2 is enough of a benefit, but I do like tying the benefit of the spell to the skill level of other players
Okay, how about letting them roll an extra d20 when Foraging and taking the best result? Mark responded to one of my critics in a blog and said that things like Knock simply convey a bonus (+4) to the appropriate skill check. I'm 100% fine with this approach. It just appears they didn't get all the spells and need to do another pass through. No spell should obviate a skill, only boost the success of that skill.
Your advocating for a spell that is so mechanically weak that no one would want to take it? If I can generate a massive fireball, why can't I generate water? If I can transmute a one object into another, why can't I make soggy porridge that is edible/life sustaining but miserable to eat? Perhaps the limitation on create food is that the level you cast it at can dictate the food quality (in the event you're going to have a feast to impress someone).
Having a level scaling bonus skill system with a very flat bonus structure means that untrained classes can easily make a much better check than the legendary expert class. This creates the 'comedy of failure' issue prevalent in similair systems in other RPGs. Even adding a +4 to a check doesn't guarantee anything. You're trying to take quality of life spells that would only ever be prepared in a handful of scenarios and making so bad that they wouldn't even be used in the scenarios they are designed to handle.
The survival skill has 4 purposes per the 2e rule book:
1. Sense Direction
2. Survive in the Wild (foraging for food/water and making shelter)
3. Cover Tracks
4. Track used for
I fail to see how these spells obviate the skill. A L1 AND a L2 spell slot can cover 1/8 of the skill's total usage in the game. That makes these spells weak options for anyone to use.
Great post. Great in the sense that I'm glad you have a clear understanding of the problem as I see it, and I'm glad we are seeing the same thing.
Quote:
But once you are past L10, caster power just becomes silly.*** So a heavy nerf on their main feature is disheartening. I am sure I am not alone in reading the spell list and feeling very little excitement.
This illustrates the impossible problem Paizo faces. In P1, casters enjoy a power level that you admit is "silly." As you astutely point out, it starts by level 5 and the gap just keeps growing. I play only PFS, where casters cannot even craft magic items and the disparity is prominent. If Paizo is going to bring casters in-line with martials, the changes will have to be drastic compared with P1. There's no getting around that. It also stands to reason that the vast majority of people who played casters, and enjoyed that immense power imbalance, aren't going to be happy.
My solution is to create more specialization. Give each class a box or two they want to play in and limit the effectiveness of that PC to the box. This has already done to martial classes, but it's not been done to casters. Casters can be powerful, but only in that narrow range/category of magic. So if you want Create Food, then you don't get Fireball. You want Conjuration? Then you don't get Evocation. The idea is casters pick a specialty. Don't nerf the spells, just force casters to pick a lane and don't let them drive out of it....like everyone else who isn't a caster.
The other solution is to let everyone do everything. I thought Paizo was going to do that more with P2. All the talk of Rituals and Trinkets and expanded skills. But I don't see it. I see casters still have all the agency they had (albeit less potent) but martials don't have anything remotely as close to the versatility of spells.
So Paizo has to decide what's best for the game. But no class should be able to trivialize the agency of another. Create Food completely trivializes the Forager skill feat and guts the Scout Background. So get rid of Forager if you want Create Food, to do the same thing, because is sure isn't fair to stick a PC with a Background they can't swap out that does less than a 2nd level spell.
This illustrates the impossible problem Paizo faces. In P1, casters enjoy a power level that you admit is "silly." As you astutely point out, it starts by level 5 and the gap just keeps growing. I play only PFS, where casters cannot even craft magic items and the disparity is prominent. If Paizo is going to bring casters in-line with martials, the changes will have to be drastic compared with P1.
I don't think anyone (well, anyone reasonable) is arguing that drastic changes are not needed. The question is, how drastic do they need to be? I believe Red Griffyn is merely suggesting that the (at least) 6 different nerfs to spells and casters is, perhaps, excessive.
In exchange for that, casters were given tools to make them more effective in direct combat (e.g. auto-scaling cantrips, easier access to weapons and armor). Which is kind of depressing, since utility wizards didn't want that anyway, and battlefield control is now harder and less fun. And that is ironic, since that was the primary way a caster with "silly" power levels could intentionally dial themselves back, still have fun, and ensure everyone at the table is having fun, too.
This illustrates the impossible problem Paizo faces. In P1, casters enjoy a power level that you admit is "silly." As you astutely point out, it starts by level 5 and the gap just keeps growing. I play only PFS, where casters cannot even craft magic items and the disparity is prominent. If Paizo is going to bring casters in-line with martials, the changes will have to be drastic compared with P1.
I don't think anyone (well, anyone reasonable) is arguing that drastic changes are not needed. The question is, how drastic do they need to be? I believe Red Griffyn is merely suggesting that the (at least) 6 different nerfs to spells and casters is, perhaps, excessive.
In exchange for that, casters were given tools to make them more effective in direct combat (e.g. auto-scaling cantrips, easier access to weapons and armor). Which is kind of depressing, since utility wizards didn't want that anyway, and battlefield control is now harder and less fun. And that is ironic, since that was the primary way a caster with "silly" power levels could intentionally dial themselves back, still have fun, and ensure everyone at the table is having fun, too.
Oh yeah, the weakening certainly seems excessive. I don't even play casters and it's painful to see all the dramatic reductions from multiple angles: Spells per day, power level of spells, short durations, few targets, punishing concentration with it's action tax and ease of losing the spell, etc. Even Unseen Servant and Rope Trick have been dramatically weakened to the point that I can't see anyone ever using the spells. I did start another thread with a proposed fix for unseen servant, turn it into a ritual and tie it to a location.
By far, this is the biggest complaint my group has had with the playtest, along with resonance. It's caused a lot of disappointment and anger. I've tried to explain to them that power reductions for casters is widely popular, and it just boggles their minds. Most of them recognize that some reduction was likely needed, but what happened is very excessive.
While I agree with your comments, and even more with your tone, I think there is one thing you are partially wrong:
Casters have been nerfed: This is partially incorrect, due to two reasons:
First nerf is when something needs fixing, and this was not the case.
Second is that casters have their power reduce, this is true, but only on magic: Casters have received better attack, AC and Hitpoints, something that most caster players like me don't want at all!!!!
What I am really worried is the general attitude of this forum:
NERF THE CASTERS!
NERF THE CASTERS!
There is nothing appealing on the casters from 1 to 2. Less spells, everyone gets skills save wizards, some saves are improved, not wizards, spell list has been reduced. It is a nightmare!!!
And a lot of people are clapping and cheerin, sincerely I don't know if I want to play if this is the general attitude of the players.
