Arcane Spellcasters in PF2E – quo vadis?

[Dire Ursus]

I'm happy with spell caster nerfs. I'd like to go back to one of the main points of the thread where you stated that Sorcerers were "nerfed". Compare a 1e wizard to a 1e sorcerer and then compare a 2e wizard to a 2e sorcerer. Sorcerer's were mega buffed in comparison with other casters in 2e.

Like the 1e sorcerer was utter trash. They had so many unnecessary downsides to them it made me want to puke.

[magnuskn]

Ranishe wrote:

Well, in fairness, what actually happens is you throw our your acid arrow, and the fighter spends a full round moving 60 feet. Then you through out another acid arrow, and the fighter spends another full round moving 60 feet. Then you throw out a 3rd acid arrow and the greatsword fighter can finally start hitting things.

Yeah, okay. Show me the adventure path where combat regularly happens at those ranges. 60 feet is a much more reasonable distance for how a fight in most AP's happens and then it is a single charge (or a double move and next round a charge for characters with a movement under 30 feet) until the martials are in melee range.

ChibiNyan wrote:

I agree on nerfing the cast time of Teleport. Getting out of jail free on the blink of an eye wasn't really what the spell was meant to do (That would be why Dimension Door Exists).

I... presume you haven't looked at the PF2E version of DimDoor, then? You can't transport people anymore with it. Teleport is just a more advanced version of it in PF1E (and I would have used DimDoor if I didn't have Teleport to travel in one jump to a secure place).

Kringress wrote:

Second, please re-read uncommon and rare spells, the actual wording is “you can’t choose an uncommon or rare spell unless your class OR the GM gives you access to it.” That is an OR not an AND, so if I want an Uncommon or a Rare spell I pick those spells for my free spells.

This is actually a distinct possibility, now that I've re-read all relevant sections. Well, if that is the case (and we haven't overlooked something), this would actually alleviate this part of the caster problem. Although I'm not sure how this would apply to divine and primal casters, who receive all their spells at once, so I remain a bit skeptical.

Dire Ursus wrote:

I'm happy with spell caster nerfs. I'd like to go back to one of the main points of the thread where you stated that Sorcerers were "nerfed". Compare a 1e wizard to a 1e sorcerer and then compare a 2e wizard to a 2e sorcerer. Sorcerer's were mega buffed in comparison with other casters in 2e.

Like the 1e sorcerer was utter trash. They had so many unnecessary downsides to them it made me want to puke.

Yeah, I disagree completely. Sure, they had downsides compared to a Wizard, but they made that up with their great flexibility for situations which required multiple spells of the same kind. I think I don't need to go into details about that, every guide to Sorcerers explains that extensively.

The Wizard in PF1E was not very flexible in comparison. However, the heighten spell rules overall and for the Wizard the Quick Preparation class feat make Wizards now way more flexible in PF2E than Sorcerers.

[Siro]

Siro wrote:
Hey, we are all passionate about the game, it’s one of Pathfinders greatest strengths, the player base and how much they care about the game {and I did not get a chance to read you comment about Teleport, internet problems leaded to my post being posted much later than written.} The main point I had mentioned was not how DM’s had trouble preventing Teleport, but how Teleport could become such a large problem if left unchecked that DM’s often had to limit it through world mechanics. This water downs the actual usefulness of the spell, while also making the world have to accommodate.

Magnuskn reply:
Sure, but as I said, the developers addressed the vast majority of those problems just in the write-up for the new version. The thing I object to is how they then nerfed every other aspect of the spell as well.
I think it is difficult to correlate your Magic Missile example, since the spell is so common and not particularly powerful in the first place.

Siro Reply to reply:

Has many people, including yourself have said, if a spell {such as Teleport} becomes problematic, there are in universe ways to counter it, so it no longer a problem. I was using Magic Missiles {a non-hot topic spell, that while your groups have not found a way to break it, does not mean other have not} with an in universe counter {Brooch of Shielding} and showing how much the spell can get nerfed by making the counter commonplace, without every changing how the actual spell works. If you want me to use another example, {note this is just an example} I find ‘Teleport’ to be a game breaking spell, which needs to have a constant in game counter to make sure it is not. Therefore, in my next game, I say the entirety of creation and beyond is covered by an unbreakable, undispellable force that automatically makes ‘Teleport’ spells fail. Now, I have not changed 1 word of the spell, not powered down one line, not nerfed one word. But, simply because the forces that be deem it so, it is the most useless spell, as you waste a higher level to do nothing, a very huge nerf, compared to how it is written. Now, this is what happens whenever you set your adventure in a no-Teleport zone, or say you can’t Teleport into a place because its blocked. You are coming up with in verse reasons way the spell is nerfed.

Siro wrote:
I agree with you, it is a big nerf that you can’t go to any unknown place, and not having to roll a percentile dice is a big benefit. The one exception is, while you cannot use the Scrying spell as a way of seeing into an unknown place to Teleport into, you can still use spells such as Prying Eyes and Clairvoyance to do those jobs. Ture, it is at a much smaller range, meaning more research and set up, possibly with the use of other skills, but you also get the new benefit of being able to Teleport straight in without rolling to see if there will be a mishap or be off target.}

Magnuskn=
Prying Eyes and Clairvoyance both need you to be very much nearer to the target and have their own drawbacks. They are a far cry from the Scry and Die tactic so popular with optimizer groups (funnily enough, my guys have never once tried to do that in 17 years, despite some bags false assertion that they are powergamers). Those options have huge drawbacks and can easily be countered by the GM.

Siro reply to the Reply=
Yes and I made mention to that fact you need to get closer for it to work, and that you may have to do additional work for it. I don’t see a problem to this, it means you can’t Scry from the safety of your own Wizards tower to the bed chamber of your most hated enemy, and kill them in their sleep {assuming the powers that be haven’t Nerfed your Teleport spell, has he is in a no teleport zone or whatnot.). It means your other party memebers may have to get involved in this {give that Rouge who have spent 20 years perfecting his Stealth, and could safely make distractions while hiding something to do, while you do your spell craft closer to the enemies stronghold.). And if the Scry and Die tactic is going to get countered by the GM anyways, then is it really a nerf to let the players know up front it’s not going to work anyways?

Siro wrote:
Again, in large agreement, teleporting larger groups will be harder in this edition, if it stands as is. But larger groups tend to have a bit more of a benefit then smaller ones. I did not forget with larger groups there should be larger challenges, but they have more of an advantage to meet these challenges. During battle, they will have a greater action economy then the smaller group, while also having greater resources available to them. Both in and out of battle, it will be easier to specialize in areas and combining those specializations, then a smaller group which needs to take into account areas which they lack. While they larger groups will have a bit more trouble Teleporting there whole party---assuming only one person in the group can do it----I don’t believe this problem is enough to dissuade people from forming larger parties, given the benefits it has.}

Magnuskn Reply=
Larger parties are mostly a result of having friends join your group, often on the invite of another friend, despite the obvious problems that brings to balancing a pre-written adventure, i.e. it's not a concious choice by players to "get more power". Hence the additional penalty by limiting the number of people who can be teleported and the smaller number of spells per day should not be there.

Siro Reply to the Reply=
You were pointing out how it punishes groups with larger player’s sizes, as not everyone would be able to Teleport on one go. I was pointing out that larger parties will have advantages just for being larger parties, nothing to say about “Power Gaming”, or that people do it to power game. The limits on Teleporting is just something they will have to overcome, and a smaller group my not, but they will have the advantage of more people to handle it. {ie, their more likely to have two Spellcasters that can cast Teleport, or be able to cover a spell drained Spellcaster with more people than a lower party group ect) There will be different challenges a larger party group will have compared to a smaller one {cost for inn rooms, Stealth, and now Teleport, ect) but not an unfair one, as the past ones weren’t considered unfair either. It’s just one of the prices of playing in a bigger group, as is the advantages. They may need to find a different solution than a smaller group would have, but they would also have more resources and abilities to do it.

Siro wrote:
Yes the range has become much more limited than before. You need to cast it at a 7th level in PF2 to match the range of 10th level Wizard casting it at 5th level in PF1. At casting it at 8th level in PF2 you can go anywhere on the planet, much more than any CL in PF1, but needing to have seen it without the use of Scrying still limits it. The question I purpose is, given this new range limitations, is the spell to nerfed to be useful? Well, an average land speed of 20-25feet gives you 16-20 miles of travel per day. Casting it at level 6 allows you to teleport 100 miles, that is 5 day’s worth of travel as the crow flies, without twisting roads, climbing mountains, getting bogged down in marshes, ect. It’s also 5 days saved from encounters on the road, which could make you use limited resources, slow you down, or even get you killed. At 7th level, the range goes up to 1000 miles, saving you 50 days of road travel, and all the problems contained within. In comparison to its PF1 counter, there is no denying it is a big nerf, but comparing to what it can still do, it is still a very powerful spell.)

Magnuskn Reply=
Yes, the range reduction is probably the most inconsequential of the nerfs. Still, unnecessary, IMO.

Siro Reply to Reply=
Don’t have anything to comment on this one. Agreement of facts, with a difference of opinions that’s all.

Siro wrote:
I’ll admit I do not have the greatest grasp on the subject, so I’m not be the best to comment. But I do believe Piazo stated from the outset this will be a bit different system, so conversion was always going to have problems. But this is less than a problem with the spell getting nerfed within its system, and more of an issue of conversion between the two. As for the spell being placed in a higher spell level, still a nerf, but still powerful. As mentioned above, still a good travel spell that can avoid random encounters, still can be used to get into places with a bit of prep ----perhaps in certain cases even easier than before--- and there are more benefits of the spell still to be discussed below. I should also note, if you do need a spell for fast travel at a level 5 slot, Shadow Walk has been lowered to that-----still has the Uncommon tag like Teleport, but we will get to that.}

Magnuskn Reply=
As James Jacobs stated multiple times over the last months, Golarion doesn't get a big event like the Spell Plague or Time of Troubles to explain the change in magic. This is actively problematic to me now, because due to the almost all-encompassing nerfs to magic spells, magic users are now vastly less powerful than they were before. A single high-level Wizard fight now doesn't work anymore, since the usual tactic of pre-buffing a lot of defensive spells just isn't possible with one-minute durations almost all around. Hence, converting old AP's to PF2E just became that much harder for a GM to do. And it works the other way around as well, now suddenly new adventure paths will have to be built with the nerfed spell repertoire (and nerfed casting capabilities) in mind as well. Where a writer could reasonably assert that certain geographical features would be easy to circumvent by a party due to certain spells being available (Fly, Teleport, etc.), now that only happen at a later level and in much reduced capacity.
It's still possible to convert adventures of that kind back to PF1E, but it will require rewrites which would have not been necessary if shuffling around spell levels wouldn't have happened.

Siro’s Reply to Reply=
Again, not an expert on the subject. And yes, I agree with you, conversion is certain areas are going to difficult {as I said before}, both due to being a different system, which for magic, as changed some of the levels. I do agree certain Buff spells have been overnerfed, especially casting those at higher levels. {Personally, I would like to see them implement a heighten mechanics on some buff spells similar to that seen on the Hallucination, giving you a choice between longer lasting or more targets, and perhaps another option for higher effects.} And yes, there may be some work that needs to be done in lore to explain the changing in magic. All these points, however, are not a ‘Nerf’ to ‘Teleport’. {the closest you get to making that point, is Teleport is a level higher. I point out the spell, even at a higher level, is still very useful, and that another transportation spell ‘Shadow Walk’ has been lowered to Level 5.)

[Xenocrat]

Kringress wrote:

Second, please re-read uncommon and rare spells, the actual wording is “you can’t choose an uncommon or rare spell unless your class OR the GM gives you access to it.” That is an OR not an AND, so if I want an Uncommon or a Rare spell I pick those spells for my free spells.

Your class only gives you access to an uncommon spell if it's a bonus spell (Sorcerer bloodlines give some uncommon spells) or a spell power from domain/arcane school/etc. (all of which are uncommon). Your class doesn't otherwise "giv[e] you access" to an uncommon spell just because it gives you spell slots and uncommon spells are put into spell slots.

[Siro]

Siro wrote:
I did not forget about how Teleport can be used to get out of danger and prevent TPK’s and how this is harder to do with a 10 min casting time, even when I was doing my original comment on this thread. Its another example of how Teleport can be used as a solve all problem, in this case, the problem of a TPK. Now, I don’t think TPK’s are a bad thing, it’s sad when it happens, and a GM should not start a secession with the goal of killing everyone, but it should always be at least a slight possibility---from bad luck, to poor decisions, ect. Of course, I also do believe that with good decisions, a group should be able to get themselves out of a TPK position. However another reason why Teleport is so powerful is how often it can be used to get out of a TPK position, that it becomes a safety net when things go wrong. You got into a fight that you misjudged the power of your foes, no need to try and find a place to hide, or to push down a foe or make a distraction to create an opening for escape, or jump down the cliff, just hug your friendly neighbourhood Teleporting Wizard, and they make everything better, and this is just one example. In PF2, you can’t readily use it to get out of TPK position, making you rely on other skills, but it doesn’t mean you can’t use it all together to get out of those situations, you just need to have some forewarning to the danger. For example, if your stuck in the heart of a mine with no food and diminishing air, Teleport is still an answer. I do not mind the change, as it can still be used as a way to un-TPK the party if used smartly, but prevents it from being the absolute safety net it was in PF1.

Magnuskn Reply=
I couldn't disagree more and I think you are strawmanning like crazy. TPK's are a tragedy if they happen and should be avoided at all costs. I'm proud to say that I never had one happen in almost two decades of GM'ing. Unless you are a GM of the style of Turin the Mad, where neither the GM nor the players have a problem of rolling out clones of their characters, most TPK's will end a campaign and that is, for me, months of preparation and lots of Euros washed down the drain.
Having a spell which can prevent the end of an entire campaign is a godsent and the developers unwisely chose to take that away. With the swingy nature of combat in PF2E, I expect TPK's to become much much more commonplace, and that is a bad, bad idea.

Siro Reply to the Reply=

How is it Strawmanning when you stated in a pervious reply to me quote “Just pointing out, just two months ago I had a situation where Teleport with a casting time would have meant a TPK for the party my character was in. Changes like this have unintended consequences, one of which is that it is not almost impossible to rapidly escape faster enemies if a fight goes wrong.”, and me pointing in the section dealing with the increased casting time, that I had considered that consequence in my original postings, lumping that into “Teleport’ to solve most problems, and that the change made it more difficult to do {I consider it a plus for a greater variety of tactics/players and monsters needing to be more cautious.). Or was the Strawman me stating a brief that TPKs {while not something that a DM should try to aim for, and that good decisions from players should get them} should always have a slight possibility to happen, (something which seems to be backed up with the concept of Hit Points and dying rules). Or was the Strawman stating “Unless you are a GM of the style of Turin the Mad, where neither the GM nor the players have a problem of rolling out clones of their characters, most TPK's will end a campaign and that is, for me, months of preparation and lots of Euros washed down the drain. Having a spell which can prevent the end of an entire campaign is a godsent and the developers unwisely chose to take that away.” {Wait I don’t remember saying that, well I’m pretty sure someone said it during this conversation.)

Has for the concept of TPK’s and how you are forced to create clones to continue on the adventure, who said you had to do that. There are many different ways you can build a character, you can even have the same character statically but with a different backstory and personality, and they will play differently {assuming some roleplay in the mix}. Its up to the players to make their new characters, concepts and all, if they want to make a clone that follows the same storyline {you know that guy name Ed, the Fighter that went into the Tomb in the west in hopes of finding riches to bring back to his family. Well I’m Ned, his twin Fighter brother, whom is also going into that tomb to find riches for his family, and possibly to find out what happened to Ed.) to a totally different character with their own abilities and backstory { Hi I’m Ted, not to be confused Ed, which I have no relation. I’m actually a Bard, sent out by the state to help clear out said tomb in the west. Yeah, apparently the towns solution of sending random passersby into the Tomb without knowing there experience or capabilities as not been working out has well has they hoped, so the state is now sending out a qualified person in hopes for better results.} Just because a party TPK’s, does not mean they have to comeback as clones, nor does it mean you have to throw out the story line of the pervious charater.

Has for the adventure must end, and months of planning and money going down the drain because the party TPK’s, that not true, the DM just needs to be creative. As mentioned above, the adventure can continue even without making clones. But let’s flip this on its head, say you don’t continue the adventure, then what do you do? You ask yourself what were the consequences of their TPK to the world at large, and to the story elements you have placed for it. Say one of the people killed was a Princesses whom was the only direct line to the throne. Now the world your new characters are in has a political war over the throne. Our let’s take poor Ed, trying to gather wealth for his family. Somewhere down the line, the new characters may run into Ed’s family, on the streets, wondering where Ed is and if he abandoned him, or living the high life because his twin brother Sed came back with a Dragon’s Horde of treasure, and poor Ed is just a sad after note, made mention only as the brother that failed to save his family. Or perhaps the tomb they were sent in had sealed demon, which they broke free and were killed by, and the new characters keeps hearing stories of a demon in the west wreaking havoc on the land. Maybe they eventually get a mission to destroy this demon, and run into past NPC’s from the prior adventure, slightly changed due to what they have been experiencing. And this does not just mean consequences of their death, but the lasting consequences of their life {ie the past character accidently burned down an inn in a little village when playing with his ‘Burning Hands’ spell, so now when the new character visits that village, there is a ban on Fire magic.) Just because the party TPK’s doesn’t mean that you have to throw away everything you have worked on, nor does it mean their life and death does did not have an impact on the world at large, it’s just a matter of incorporating it into the new adventure.

Now getting to the crux of the issue, are TPK’s harmful to the game? Well to say the least, there impactful. But as shown, they need not become meaningless with an endless parade of clones, nor do they destroy the work of a DM {or for that matter the players} if the lives and consequences of said characters leave an impact in some way to the characters to come, both from what thye did in life, and the manner of thier death. The possibilities of TPK’s however, add consequences and meaning to character actions. If the world I enter into does not have the possibility of a TPK {wither by design, or by safeguards on safeguards against it.} then my characters choices have lesser meaning because of it. My character may die, other members may go as well, but I know at the end the group, in some way or from, we will succeed at our goal. {ie we may fail stopping the Red Dragon this time, and the next, and by the time we do stop it, I’m on my third character and half the kingdom has burned down, but eventually it will get done. It is something that not a ‘can happen’ but a ‘Will happen’.) The fact that the whole party can die, and the story changes because of it, adds a whole new experience and flavour to the characters at large, in how they overcome and deal with challenges {we might just be a group of jerks, in a long line of jerks trying to kill the dragon, before the heroes show up, but our group may just be the only ones that can stop that monster.). The fact that ‘Teleport’ was just way to avoid TPK’s in a lot situations {see Teleport is the solution} to a point where Teleport became the Turnkey solution to it {lowering what the dangers and risk of the are, and by extension player choice, both in preparing for problems such as avoiding TPKs, and alternative solutions, because Teleport works so well.) The PF2 version of the spell merely makes it a solution to TPK’s that takes additional prep and forethought, the one wizard whom prepared it is not the end all solution, but a cog in the machine that needs to work together with the strengths of there other party members to make it work. {and it does not mean it’s not a solution to all TPK’s. As mentioned before, if your trapped in a mine, with the air running out, Teleport is a good solution to that. A slow TPK is still a TPK after all.)

[Dire Ursus]

magnuskn wrote:

Yeah, I disagree completely. Sure, they had downsides compared to a Wizard, but they made that up with their great flexibility for situations which required multiple spells of the same kind. I think I don't need to go into details about that, every guide to Sorcerers explains that extensively.

The Wizard in PF1E was not very flexible in comparison. However, the heighten spell rules overall and for the Wizard the Quick Preparation class feat make Wizards now way more flexible in PF2E than Sorcerers.

How about the fact that Sorcerer's gained new spell levels a hell of a lot slower than Wizards. That was the main thing that killed Sorcerer's in 1e. In addition, you might say that "Oh but Sorcerer's got more spells per day". Here's the kicker. Most levels, they actually did not have more overall spells per day. Think about that. They had worse spell progression, and they didn't even have more spells per day. And icing on the cake Wizards gained new spells like crazy, and could even learn them from Scrolls and other spell books.

That's another thing I like in 2e. Sorcerers can actually learn spells from outside sources.

[Xenocrat]

Dire Ursus wrote:

That's another thing I like in 2e. Sorcerers can actually learn spells from outside sources.

This is a pure limitation and nerf. You can't learn extra spells and increase your spells known - you instead have to first actively learn uncommon/rare spells just to be able to include them in your (capped) spells known. In 1e you could just automatically know them at level up.

[Dire Ursus]

Xenocrat wrote:

Dire Ursus wrote:

That's another thing I like in 2e. Sorcerers can actually learn spells from outside sources.

This is a pure limitation and nerf. You can't learn extra spells and increase your spells known - you instead have to first actively learn uncommon/rare spells just to be able to include them in your (capped) spells known. In 1e you could just automatically know them at level up.

you are correct. I still like the concept of uncommon and rare spells though. And I expect a lot of cool ones to come from upcoming 2e APs.

The rest of my comments stand. And that's not to mention the fact that Sorcerers don't have to be arcane and can be ANY type of spellcaster. Nature Sorcerers are a cool af concept.

[Siro]

Dire Ursus wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Dire Ursus wrote:

That's another thing I like in 2e. Sorcerers can actually learn spells from outside sources.

This is a pure limitation and nerf. You can't learn extra spells and increase your spells known - you instead have to first actively learn uncommon/rare spells just to be able to include them in your (capped) spells known. In 1e you could just automatically know them at level up.

you are correct. I still like the concept of uncommon and rare spells though. And I expect a lot of cool ones to come from upcoming 2e APs.

The rest of my comments stand. And that's not to mention the fact that Sorcerers don't have to be arcane and can be ANY type of spellcaster. Nature Sorcerers are a cool af concept.

I agree they are very cool in concept {even more so than in PF1}. They just need a bit of love before the final printing of the class.

[StratoNexus]

Dire Ursus wrote:

How about the fact that Sorcerer's gained new spell levels a hell of a lot slower than Wizards.

One level slower. I don't think that is a hell of a lot. YMMV.

I generally prefer Wizards and only ever played 1 sorcerer for long. The one level delay was certainly noticeable, but in the long run not terrible.

[Siro]

Siro wrote:

Siro wrote:

Or was the Strawman me stating a brief that TPKs {while not something that a DM should try to aim for, and that good decisions from players should get them}…..

Sorry forgot a word in there that is important {Or was the Strawman me stating a brief that TPKs {while not something that a DM should try to aim for, and that good decisions from players should get OUT OF them.)

[John Mechalas]

I am largely in agreement with magnuskn. To me, the issues with the Playtest's treatment of caster classes boil down to:

Spells have been nerfed six ways from Sunday.

It is nerf piled on top of nerf piled on top of nerf, served on a nerf plate. With just a handful of exceptions, spells have been nerfed in all possible areas all at the same time. Casting time, level scaling, targets, areas, durations, effects, saves, and even basic utility (I am looking at you, Prestigiditation).

Some of the nerfs have compounding effects

The heightened spells are a good example here. Replacing level scaling with heightening creates contention for higher-level spell slots, and because all spell slots have been cut roughly in half. That makes the higher slots less available. And because spell effects don't scale, you have an abundance of lower level slots that are increasingly underpowered as you level up.

Paizo has not merely lowered the ceiling, they have drastically lowered the floor.

Magic is as reliable as mundane skills, and problems that can't be solved easily using skills also can't be solved easily using magic. The status removal spells, specifically, have suffered the most: they are really just status counteraction spells in these new rules.

Instead of problem solvers, casters are skill monkeys.

Magic is tactical, not strategic

The 1-minute durations are the best example of this. Remember those sessions where the party had a good idea what they were going up against, and could sit down and plan out what spells they'd need based on the enemy's capabilities? Gone. You can plan out the spells, of course, but unless you can time the game to within 10 rounds, the most you'll get is one buff or debuff.

What bugs me the most here is that this sort of planning is a large part of the fun in our group. Watching that plan unfold is a close second.

The changes are tailored specifically for combat rules with little regard for the larger world

Again, Prestidigitation is an obvious example. Magic can't even clean your house because it can only work on one object at a time, and requires concentration every round. Want to fix a tear in your clothing? Sorry! Mending only removes dents or the broken condition now, and it takes 1 hour to do that. The tailors and chambermaids of Golarion are finally free from the tyranny of magic.

Long distance communication is no longer a thing outside of Sending (25 words, each way) because you can't use spells like Message through Scrying. Long distance travel is still possible at least, but effectively requires a 13th level caster unless "long distance" means 100 miles.

The surgeons used a cudgel instead of a knife

Yes, Scry & Die was technically a problem. This could be solved by limiting Teleport to 1) places you can see, 2) places you have been, 3) well-known public places like cities (but without precision), and possibly 4) something or someone with a personal connection to the caster to serve as a beacon. But I guess it's just easier to beat both Scrying and Teleport into submission with a nerf bat.

The whole thing screams "built for Society play"

Not just magic, but the whole game. But especially magic.

That's not necessarily bad, but it feels like the game is being hamstrung specifically to solve problems that are most commonly found in organized play.

How about making PFS its own game instead of killing everyone else's fun?

[DataLoreRPG]

I always go spontaneous when I play a caster. Vancian casting is just no fun - especially strict Vancian casting like you have in this edition. I still have fond memories of my 3.5 Dragonborn Gnome Sorcerer in Age of Worms.

Reading through the rulebook, I am excited by that Imperial Bloodline Sorcerer. I would play that bloodline as is. Though that Draconic Bloodline gives me the Dragonborn feels.

I would advocate spicing those up a bit with some armor proficiencies for sorcerers who go primal or divine. Like, if you take primal or divine (which normally get medium armor as druids or clerics), maybe you get light armor (so, one step down). This is similar to how some 5e cleric domains would grant heavy armor and others would not.

As an aside, do you folks think the Gnome familiar you can get from an ancestry feat meets the requirement for Enhanced Familiar?

[Ronnam]

John Mechalas wrote:

Magic is tactical, not strategic

The 1-minute durations are the best example of this. Remember those sessions where the party had a good idea what they were going up against, and could sit down and plan out what spells they'd need based on the enemy's capabilities? Gone. You can plan out the spells, of course, but unless you can time the game to within 10 rounds, the most you'll get is one buff or debuff.

What bugs me the most here is that this sort of planning is a large part of the fun in our group. Watching that plan unfold is a close second.

QFT

[John Mechalas]

Ronnam wrote:

John Mechalas wrote:

Magic is tactical, not strategic

The 1-minute durations are the best example of this. Remember those sessions where the party had a good idea what they were going up against, and could sit down and plan out what spells they'd need based on the enemy's capabilities? Gone. You can plan out the spells, of course, but unless you can time the game to within 10 rounds, the most you'll get is one buff or debuff.

What bugs me the most here is that this sort of planning is a large part of the fun in our group. Watching that plan unfold is a close second.

QFT

And in case there was any doubt about that, here are notes from one of our game sessions a year or so ago:

Spoilers for the Jade Regent AP:

Planning notes wrote:

White Dragon--Resources

Things we can use or do if it comes down to a fight. The long-duration stuff can be done in advance. None of the items below give the dragon saving throws, and they won't be subject to its spell resistance if it has any.

>= 1 hour

• Darkvision. A no-brainer since we might end up in its lair. From the wand it will last 3 hours.
  
• Draconic Resevoir. Functions like Protection from Energy, but you can discharge 1d6 points of energy absorbed/round into a melee attack of type acid, fire, cold or shock. No save, no SR on the discharges. Will last 1 hour, and provide 36 hp of protection. 1d6/round is not much, and if combat lasts long enough to discharge all 36 hp we have a big problem, but it's an option for a front-line fighter that doesn't have a fire weapon.
  
• Protection from Energy. Qatana can cast three of these, each of which will absorb up to 84 points of cold damage for 70 minutes.
  
• Stone Salve. Have one use of this. Applied to flesh it gives the subject Stoneskin per the spell. It's a CL13 item, so it will last for 130 minutes. Gain DR 10/adamantine. Put this on a front-line fighter to help protect them from the dragon's full attack so they can go toe-to-toe. This is also our only way to reverse the effects of someone getting turned into stone.
  

10's of Minutes

• Wand of Flame Arrow. Lasts 50 minutes, affects up to 50 arrows. Adds 1d6 fire damage to any target it hits which isn't great, but there's no save and no SR. Overall a small boost for archers that's "free" since it comes from the wand. Cast this well in advance on all the arrows you plan on using, then stick your arrows in your efficient quiver for easy access.
  
• Water Walk. Ivan picked up water walk at 7th level. This will cover everyone. No need to slip on the ice. This is a good backup if we lose Fly.
  

Minutes

• Enlarge Person. Probably best for the person with Stoneskin, since you are easier to hit. Only 1 min/level though so hard to prep far in advance. This might be a "when we get there" buff, or an in-combat one.
  
• Fly. The short duration is the bummer, but 5 min from the wand is nothing to shake a stick at. Timing is critical. Fly will prevent things like being bull rushed off a cliff, and worrying about "walking" on snow/ice. It's also easier to move silently when you aren't stepping on things. I don't need to sell people on this, right?
  

Rounds

• Blessing of Fervor. Each casting grants the entire party with a list of benefits from which they can choose one at the beginning of their round for 7 rounds (none of these stack with haste): Increase its speed by 30 feet, Stand up as a swift action without provoking an attack of opportunity, Make one extra attack as part of a full attack action (using its highest base attack bonus), Gain a +2 bonus on attack rolls and a +2 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves, Cast a single spell of 2nd level or lower as if it were an enlarged, extended, silent, or still spell.
  
• Haste. The gift that keeps on giving. Will cover everyone but Kali if cast from the wand, and include Kali if done as a spell. I say use the wand. Only 5 rounds so an in-combat buff if it comes to it.
  

Blast

• Acid Arrow. The damage isn't great (2d4 + 1 additional round of 2d4 = 4d4) but there's no save, no SR, the range is fantastic (640 ft at her CL) and it's a ranged touch attack which is as close to a guaranteed hit as we can have. This is the quintessential "it's getting away" spell that lets you get in one or two parting shots. As a 2nd level she can memorize one, and use her Pearl of Power, 2nd Level Spell to send it again.
  
• Skyrockets. We have 4 of these. One round after being lit, launches and moves 90' in a straight line for 1d6 rounds before detonating. If it hits a solid object it detonates early. 2d6 fire damage in 10' burst, DC 15 Reflex save for half. The bummer here is the 1 round lag. But, burns like a torch when it's lit and may not be obvious what we are doing. A circumstantial option for an opening salvo if negotiations are turning sour and we're not outdoors. Kali and Qatana can memorize Spark to light two fuses remotely.
  

[Kringress]

Bad Paizo editing strikes again.

Sample Spell Book on page 136 states "You can choose whichever spells you like, but this list covers a good selection of starter spells for a 1st-level wizard."

Spellbook
You start with a spellbook worth 10 sp or less (as detailed
on page 187), which you receive for free. The spellbook
contains your choice of 10 arcane cantrips and eight 1stlevel
arcane spells. You choose these from the common
spells on the arcane spell list from this book (see page 199)
or from other arcane spells you gain access to.

Each time you gain a level, you automatically add two
more arcane spells to your spellbook. These can be of any
level of spell you can cast. You can also use the Arcana skill
to add other spells that you find, as described on page 146.

If you’re creating a higher-level character, it’s usually
easiest to assume you always picked new spells of the
highest level possible. At an odd-numbered level, this
means that in addition to your total of 10 cantrips, your
spellbook holds two spells of your highest level and four
spells of all lower levels. At an even-numbered level, it
means you’d have 10 cantrips and four spells of every level.

So as you see the paragraphs conflict with each other, so I would state that the initial spells must be common spells, but your additional spells would be what you want.

[magnuskn]

Alright. Siro, my man, it's really, really hard to parse your posts. The combination of you not using the quote function in the way it is intended with paragraphs upon paragraphs of densely written posts really does a number on my cognition skills. I'll try to answer as best as I can, though. Although if you can, please try to learn to use the quote function.

Siro wrote:

Has many people, including yourself have said, if a spell {such as Teleport} becomes problematic, there are in universe ways to counter it, so it no longer a problem. I was using Magic Missiles {a non-hot topic spell, that while your groups have not found a way to break it, does not mean other have not} with an in universe counter {Brooch of Shielding} and showing how much the spell can get nerfed by making the counter commonplace, without every changing how the actual spell works. If you want me to use another example, {note this is just an example} I find ‘Teleport’ to be a game breaking spell, which needs to have a constant in game counter to make sure it is not. Therefore, in my next game, I say the entirety of creation and beyond is covered by an unbreakable, undispellable force that automatically makes ‘Teleport’ spells fail. Now, I have not changed 1 word of the spell, not powered down one line, not nerfed one word. But, simply because the forces that be deem it so, it is the most useless spell, as you waste a higher level to do nothing, a very huge nerf, compared to how it is written. Now, this is what happens whenever you set your adventure in a no-Teleport zone, or say you can’t Teleport into a place because its blocked. You are coming up with in verse reasons way the spell is nerfed.

Yep. But the effect from Teleport ist much greater than from Magic Missile. I get your comparison, but it is a pretty poor example, because of the power differential. Also, in general you are not making Teleport unusable, but try to deny its offensive combat applications and that mostly for boss characters. Who cares if some minions gets splatted in that way? In fact, since the opportunity cost is pretty big to cast many level 5+ spells, this would probably lead to the big boss getting prepared for it. Anyway, I think the Teleport/Magic Missile comparison is not really going anywhere meaningful.

Siro wrote:

Yes and I made mention to that fact you need to get closer for it to work, and that you may have to do additional work for it. I don’t see a problem to this, it means you can’t Scry from the safety of your own Wizards tower to the bed chamber of your most hated enemy, and kill them in their sleep {assuming the powers that be haven’t Nerfed your Teleport spell, has he is in a no teleport zone or whatnot.). It means your other party memebers may have to get involved in this {give that Rouge who have spent 20 years perfecting his Stealth, and could safely make distractions while hiding something to do, while you do your spell craft closer to the enemies stronghold.). And if the Scry and Die tactic is going to get countered by the GM anyways, then is it really a nerf to let the players know up front it’s not going to work anyways?

Since I already said that I agreed that the nerfs from the spell description were justified, not much to discuss here.

Siro wrote:

You were pointing out how it punishes groups with larger player’s sizes, as not everyone would be able to Teleport on one go. I was pointing out that larger parties will have advantages just for being larger parties, nothing to say about “Power Gaming”, or that people do it to power game. The limits on Teleporting is just something they will have to overcome, and a smaller group my not, but they will have the advantage of more people to handle it. {ie, their more likely to have two Spellcasters that can cast Teleport, or be able to cover a spell drained Spellcaster with more people than a lower party group ect) There will be different challenges a larger party group will have compared to a smaller one {cost for inn rooms, Stealth, and now Teleport, ect) but not an unfair one, as the past ones weren’t considered unfair either. It’s just one of the prices of playing in a bigger group, as is the advantages. They may need to find a different solution than a smaller group would have, but they would also have more resources and abilities to do it.

My point was that large groups normally don't happen because you want them to as a GM.

Siro wrote:

Again, not an expert on the subject. And yes, I agree with you, conversion is certain areas are going to difficult {as I said before}, both due to being a different system, which for magic, as changed some of the levels. I do agree certain Buff spells have been overnerfed, especially casting those at higher levels. {Personally, I would like to see them implement a heighten mechanics on some buff spells similar to that seen on the Hallucination, giving you a choice between longer lasting or more targets, and perhaps another option for higher effects.} And yes, there may be some work that needs to be done in lore to explain the changing in magic. All these points, however, are not a ‘Nerf’ to ‘Teleport’. {the closest you get to making that point, is Teleport is a level higher. I point out the spell, even at a higher level, is still very useful, and that another transportation spell ‘Shadow Walk’ has been lowered to Level 5.)

Yep, Teleport being a level higher is a nerf. Sorry, that's just math.

I'm not quoting four giant paragraphs about TPK's, sorry. They are harmful to a campaign and avoiding them is a laudable goal for GM's. An escape tool for emergency situations for players is laudable. I stand by those assertions.

Dire Ursus wrote:

How about the fact that Sorcerer's gained new spell levels a hell of a lot slower than Wizards. That was the main thing that killed Sorcerer's in 1e. In addition, you might say that "Oh but Sorcerer's got more spells per day". Here's the kicker. Most levels, they actually did not have more overall spells per day. Think about that. They had worse spell progression, and they didn't even have more spells per day. And icing on the cake Wizards gained new spells like crazy, and could even learn them from Scrolls and other spell books.

That's another thing I like in 2e. Sorcerers can actually learn spells from outside sources.

Sorcerers were my favorite class since 3.0, so you are not going to be very successful in telling me how bad they were. :) Yep, you gain spells a level slower. But, believe me, the feeling of flexibility in PF1E you have when going adventuring (compared to the Wizard, whose daily preparations always felt very rigid to me) is really good. Also, you can pre-plan your character progression levels in advance. Having to decide every day which spells you'd memorize for the Wizard was always a chore.

Now, compare that to PF2E, where Wizards now have Quick Study, which gives you much more freedom to fill your spell slots with less applied foresight. Sorcerers now have to deal with spells not advancing anymore without being heightened, which takes away a lot of their flexibility.

Yep, Sorcerers got 5 skillpoints per level and faster spell progression. Both were long overdue. But you have to like the Sorcerer playstyle to get the class, which is why it worked so well for me in PF1E.

John Mechalas wrote:

I am largely in agreement with magnuskn. To me, the issues with the Playtest's treatment of caster classes boil down to:

Thanks. I'm also in agreement with your points.

Kringress wrote:

So as you see the paragraphs conflict with each other, so I would state that the initial spells must be common spells, but your additional spells would be what you want.

Yep, RAW it mostly sounds like it. Although, as I pointed out, that divine spellcasters get access to their whole spell list but there are uncommon spells on it as well makes me doubt that this was the intent by Paizo.

[Siro]

magnuskn wrote:

Alright. Siro, my man, it's really, really hard to parse your posts. The combination of you not using the quote function in the way it is intended with paragraphs upon paragraphs of densely written posts really does a number on my cognition skills. I'll try to answer as best as I can, though. Although if you can, please try to learn to use the quote function....

Hey listen, I'm willing to leave it off as an agree to disagree, on 'Teleport' at the very least. {I think what got me a bit was the whole "Strawman" thing, because I do try to represent my side fairly, especially if its something I'm passionate about. Which is one of the reasons why I write a lot.) And yes, I do need to learn how to use the quotes, and I'm trying to learn. (mostly because of this situation)

Also, I don't disagree with you entirely with spells on a whole, while I don't think Teleport is on of them, other spells are certainly. I just think we have two different view points on certain topics, but in the end were both trying to be ensure the game we are passionate enough to write about is going to be a good one.

[magnuskn]

Siro wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Alright. Siro, my man, it's really, really hard to parse your posts. The combination of you not using the quote function in the way it is intended with paragraphs upon paragraphs of densely written posts really does a number on my cognition skills. I'll try to answer as best as I can, though. Although if you can, please try to learn to use the quote function....

Hey listen, I'm willing to leave it off as an agree to disagree, on 'Teleport' at the very least. {I think what got me a bit was the whole "Strawman" thing, because I do try to represent my side fairly, especially if its something I'm passionate about. Which is one of the reasons why I write a lot.) And yes, I do need to learn how to use the quotes, and I'm trying to learn. (mostly because of this situation)

Also, I don't disagree with you entirely with spells on a whole, while I don't think Teleport is on of them, other spells are certainly. I just think we have two different view points on certain topics, but in the end were both trying to be ensure the game we are passionate enough to write about is going to be a good one.

I can happily leave this as a closing statement on our particular conversation. I wholeheartedly agree! :)

[Dire Ursus]

StratoNexus wrote:

Dire Ursus wrote:

How about the fact that Sorcerer's gained new spell levels a hell of a lot slower than Wizards.

One level slower. I don't think that is a hell of a lot. YMMV.

I generally prefer Wizards and only ever played 1 sorcerer for long. The one level delay was certainly noticeable, but in the long run not terrible.

I've played a game with both a Wizard and a Sorcerer. Believe me those levels where the Wizard is ahead is absolutely disheartening. There was absolutely no reason for them to be behind, and it had a huge effect on balance when comparing two VERY similar classes. (they had the same damn spell list)

[magnuskn]

Dire Ursus wrote:

I've played a game with both a Wizard and a Sorcerer. Believe me those levels where the Wizard is ahead is absolutely disheartening. There was absolutely no reason for them to be behind, and it had a huge effect on balance when comparing two VERY similar classes. (they had the same damn spell list)

I've GM'ed two of those campaigns (and both from start to finish). The players who played Sorcerers did not have, to the best of my recollection, any problems with the spell delay. I think it's more of a personal thing on your part (and on their part as well, of course).

[shroudb]

A full spell level delay was quite major.

I mean, you avoid multiclass that doesn't add spell level like the plague as a pure caster (as much as your build allows) for a reason.

There was no reason for that drawback to exist, but thankfully it's now gone, so everyone is happy!

(now to address the rest numerous sorc problems of pf2...)

[magnuskn]

shroudb wrote:

A full spell level delay was quite major.

I mean, you avoid multiclass that doesn't add spell level like the plague as a pure caster (as much as your build allows) for a reason.

There was no reason for that drawback to exist, but thankfully it's now gone, so everyone is happy!

(now to address the rest numerous sorc problems of pf2...)

I'm not saying it wasn't a drawback (there were enough times where I wanted a spell one level higher for the Sorcerer I am currently playing), but overall it doesn't feel as onerous as one would expect. IMHO, of course.

[Vic Ferrari]

magnuskn wrote:

Dire Ursus wrote:

I've played a game with both a Wizard and a Sorcerer. Believe me those levels where the Wizard is ahead is absolutely disheartening. There was absolutely no reason for them to be behind, and it had a huge effect on balance when comparing two VERY similar classes. (they had the same damn spell list)

I've GM'ed two of those campaigns (and both from start to finish). The players who played Sorcerers did not have, to the best of my recollection, any problems with the spell delay. I think it's more of a personal thing on your part (and on their part as well, of course).

I agree, I never heard such bemoaning of waiting an extra level for spells, until the Internet. The instant gratification thing has got a bit out of hand since 3rd Ed, to me.

[Rikkan]

Dire Ursus wrote:

That's another thing I like in 2e. Sorcerers can actually learn spells from outside sources.

They could do that in 1e too (though the FAQ ruling that you can't cast spells not on your spell list contradicted these rules, thus made it a bit wonky)

PRD:CRB:Magic wrote:

With permission from the GM, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they come across while adventuring.

[Zaister]

Ronnam wrote:

John Mechalas wrote:

Magic is tactical, not strategic

The 1-minute durations are the best example of this. Remember those sessions where the party had a good idea what they were going up against, and could sit down and plan out what spells they'd need based on the enemy's capabilities? Gone. You can plan out the spells, of course, but unless you can time the game to within 10 rounds, the most you'll get is one buff or debuff.

What bugs me the most here is that this sort of planning is a large part of the fun in our group. Watching that plan unfold is a close second.

QFT

YMMV, but to me, this is an improvement.

[Almarane]

The thing with learning from outside sources (thanks to Arcana for exemple) when you are a Spontaneous caster is that you only replace one of your spells when you level up, and you are still limited to your spell category. So it's like swapping a spell every 4 levels in PF1 (since there weren't uncommon and rare spells) or swapping your spells every level in PF2 (which is already a thing in the spontaneous spellcasters' class description).

[Arrow17]

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Thank you for your post.

One thing that is quite critical for me this new edtion is the magic nerfs. Honestly in its current form there is no way i would sit to play PF2 outside the playtest.

I hope feedback during the it makes paizo see the light regarding this subject.

I agree with your post 100%. The magic nerfs are just outright cruel and in most cases unnecessary. To completely make blast spells inferior in both damage and utility is just wrong. ( check out the first map for the scenario. There are only a few rooms that make blast spells even viable. In most of those rooms you have to put your wizard in harms way to even get a chance of them working as intended.)

Main issues I have with magic nerfs in game.

1) Weak damage giving few if any reason to take a first level spell over a cantrip.

2) Very limited range for casting. Most spells have ranges of 60 or 120 feet. Most monsters will be on a caster in one round since the VAST MAJORITY of spells require two actions, your third action will be to get within 60 to 120 feet of a monster. That means you will be attacked very easily in this edition. It also means that certain monsters like the manticore from the second adventure have a distinct advantage over a caster since they can plink them with spikes while out of range of most spells that matter.

3) The reliance of action casting : There is no way that cantrips and the majority of first level spells outside of sleep and color spray should be two action casting. The spells do not do enough damage or have a great enough effect to warrant the two action restriction. Maybe the higher level spells should require this but I would prefer an action economy to the lame upcasting. For example, fireball cast with one action is 6D6, two actions is 7D6 & 3 actions is 8D6. The caster should choose how much effort to pump into a spell. Every spell level used to upcast it would bump each choice by 2D6.

4) Saving throws really need to be reworked. Especially reflex saves. If monster defenses work so that they make their save 50% of the time there is little room for a critical failure. This is very important for blasting spells as critical failures were given as a reason for nerfing spells auto leveling to keep up with monster threats. Again I point to the Manticore in the second adventure. It is two levels higher than the PC's so it was unlikely to fail a critical threat unless it rolled a 1 on reflex saves. That really should not be the intention of monster design, especially for hit point bloat in PF2.

5) The fun and wonderment is gone from magic in the game : I completely understand the OP's distate for the harm done to simnple spells like Prestidigitation and Unseen Servant. To the poster on the other thread complaining that wizards were putting scullery maids out of business, I can only say get a life. I mean seriously, are you really at home washing your clothes by the river scrubbing them on rocks for hours on end? Or are you most likely putting them in the washer with soap and then a dryer with fabric softener? Magic is designed to make people's lives easier and more enjoyable. Stop trying to strip FUN out of the game.

6) Magic items and magic item creation: Magic item creation is just dumb in PF2. Not only can everyone except the barbiarian become a legendary crafter. It takes no time at all to design and craft magic items with the right feats. Why institute a rule like resonance when you make potions & scrolls (4 crafted per batch success) and wands so easy to make? It seems like alot of doublespeak to me. Also, totally nerfing unique and fun magic items like the Holy Avenger, Flame Tongue and Frost Brand swords is not the way to make magic items more unique and enjoyable. Very bad job there Paizo

[ENHenry]

StratoNexus wrote:

Dire Ursus wrote:

How about the fact that Sorcerer's gained new spell levels a hell of a lot slower than Wizards.

One level slower. I don't think that is a hell of a lot. YMMV.

I generally prefer Wizards and only ever played 1 sorcerer for long. The one level delay was certainly noticeable, but in the long run not terrible.

The biggest problem I had with the Sorcerer/Wizard one level later disparity was that often, Adventure Paths were written expecting the PCs to have access to a given spell level at the minimum level available. So, for instance, creatures who can enact blindness were at the encounter site of an adventure path written for 5th level characters; large masses of enemies started coming around at about the same time; curse-throwing creatures starting coming into the picture at 7th level, etc. So if you were playing a single-classed wizard or cleric, this was not a problem; however, it was a major annoyance for the sorcerers, oracles, etc. who received things one level higher. This is one thing I'm happy they changed for PF2, and hope this doesn't get reverted.

[magnuskn]

ENHenry wrote:

The biggest problem I had with the Sorcerer/Wizard one level later disparity was that often, Adventure Paths were written expecting the PCs to have access to a given spell level at the minimum level available. So, for instance, creatures who can enact blindness were at the encounter site of an adventure path written for 5th level characters; large masses of enemies started coming around at about the same time; curse-throwing creatures starting coming into the picture at 7th level, etc. So if you were playing a single-classed wizard or cleric, this was not a problem; however, it was a major annoyance for the sorcerers, oracles, etc. who received things one level higher. This is one thing I'm happy they changed for PF2, and hope this doesn't get reverted.

Oh, don't get me wrong, this is one of the few changes I am quite happy with. My point was not "revert this, please", but rather "it wasn't so terrible as some people make it out to be". :)

[shroudb]

magnuskn wrote:

ENHenry wrote:

The biggest problem I had with the Sorcerer/Wizard one level later disparity was that often, Adventure Paths were written expecting the PCs to have access to a given spell level at the minimum level available. So, for instance, creatures who can enact blindness were at the encounter site of an adventure path written for 5th level characters; large masses of enemies started coming around at about the same time; curse-throwing creatures starting coming into the picture at 7th level, etc. So if you were playing a single-classed wizard or cleric, this was not a problem; however, it was a major annoyance for the sorcerers, oracles, etc. who received things one level higher. This is one thing I'm happy they changed for PF2, and hope this doesn't get reverted.

Oh, don't get me wrong, this is one of the few changes I am quite happy with. My point was not "revert this, please", but rather "it wasn't so terrible as some people make it out to be". :)

it wasn't that it was SO terrible (it was quite bad) but it was more of a feelsbadman situation.

just imagine if, as an example, Barbarian started at Bab +0. Would it be so terrible to have 1 less attack than the rest martials? nah. But it would be hella aggravating to have to pick every feat 1 level after everyone else, get your extra attacks 1 level later than the rest, and have just that 1 bab less than the rest of them.

[magnuskn]

shroudb wrote:

it wasn't that it was SO terrible (it was quite bad) but it was more of a feelsbadman situation.

just imagine if, as an example, Barbarian started at Bab +0. Would it be so terrible to have 1 less attack than the rest martials? nah. But it would be hella aggravating to have to pick every feat 1 level after everyone else, get your extra attacks 1 level later than the rest, and have just that 1 bab less than the rest of them.

I think we are going a bit in circles here, since my next response would be "But the advantage in flexibility makes it okay", which I think I've already given upthread. ;)

[Lord_Malkov]

I fully agree with the OP.

PF2 has down-powered absolutely everything to keep all classes and characters in a rather thin area of power distribution. Everything feels incredibly safe and rigid, to the point where it is hard to see where the fun comes from. Pathfinder has not traditionally been a gritty game of wild swings and unpredictability... but the new systems make almost everything a coin flip at every level.

For those of us used to PF!, we can look at the system and ask the simple question: How can I get ahead of this treadmill of coin-flips? And unlike before, the answer is: you can't.

That said, I think a heavy balance pass was warranted for spellcasters if we were ever going to make a game that didn't become a overly dependent on proper use of spellcasting at the higher levels. This means some nerfs were probably required to keep the non-casters relevant.

HOWEVER, with the current state of spellcasting, they really should have doubled the spells-per-day at every step for all casters. You are going from a 70-90% success rate down to 50% and the effects are completely neutered. I could live with more spells that are less impactful to some extent.

But really, this is all down to the main thrust of PF2, which is: Keep everyone in line to make everything easier to control.
You will always be a slave to the coin-flip.

[Seannoss]

For this conversation I'll just add that all of my gaming group prefers sorcerers over wizards as well. Maybe its the super hero feel or who knows. Just saying Magnus isn't on his own here.

[The Systems Agnostic]

Lord_Malkov wrote:

But really, this is all down to the main thrust of PF2, which is: Keep everyone in line to make everything easier to control.

This has a name. It is called balance.

I am not certain at all whether you, Malkov, are for or against it, but I will say that the people against it are almost always the ones benefitted by the imbalance.

When children complain that something is "unfair" what they often mean is that it is not unfair in their favor. I think the folks at Paizo understand this and are accounting for it.

[Lord_Malkov]

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

Lord_Malkov wrote:

But really, this is all down to the main thrust of PF2, which is: Keep everyone in line to make everything easier to control.

This has a name. It is called balance.

I am not certain at all whether you, Malkov, are for or against it, but I will say that the people against it are almost always the ones benefitted by the imbalance.

When children complain that something is "unfair" what they often mean is that it is not unfair in their favor. I think the folks at Paizo understand this and are accounting for it.

I am for it, that is why I spoke to it in the part of my post you did not quote.

Balance, however does not need to be achieved through homogenization. Its harder to do balance this way, I will grant you, but its not impossible, and I find it more engaging. Powerful things are not bad inherently, as long as everyone else has different, equivalently powerful things to do.

PF2 seems to be trying very hard to push everything into a thin band of acceptable math. That is NOT to say that it is attempting to balance across archetypes or classes, but to say that it seems very opposed to the idea that one character, through heavy investment, can be far better than another in that very area of heavy investment.

Previously, balance was achieved through an equal distribution of character building resources. Cutting out or elevating bad choices, trap feats and weak options as well as, yes, nerfing the overpowered ones is great. It means everyone gets the same bang for their buck and it fixes the 'economy of character building'.

It feels (to me) like PF2 is attempting to severely reduce the impact of all of these choices in order to enforce homogeneity regardless of choice. If you invest heavily in something, it will be a coin-flip. If you don't.. it will be a slightly worse coin-flip.

I hope that clarifies things, and I will add that this is just my opinion. There is nothing fundamentally flawed with this sort of balancing or this kind of system... It's just not for me.

[magnuskn]

Seannoss wrote:

For this conversation I'll just add that all of my gaming group prefers sorcerers over wizards as well. Maybe its the super hero feel or who knows. Just saying Magnus isn't on his own here.

Thanks, much appreciated!

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

This has a name. It is called balance.

I am not certain at all whether you, Malkov, are for or against it, but I will say that the people against it are almost always the ones benefitted by the imbalance.

When children complain that something is "unfair" what they often mean is that it is not unfair in their favor. I think the folks at Paizo understand this and are accounting for it.

Yeah, what was that system which had totally balanced and homogenized classes? Fourth something-something. I wonder what the consequence of that systems release were...? Oh, well. So happy that Paizo still exists, because they could keep all the fans which were unhappy with fourth something-something. It would be really strange if suddenly they decided that the system whose failure enabled them to have their current day jobs was right along, y'know.

[Dire Ursus]

Hey Magnus. How much 2e have you played so far? I see you post like crazy but I don't really see any of your actual game experience. I'm almost to chapter 3 of the playtest and me and my group basically disagree with almost all of your posts. Just wondering why we have had such different experience with the game.

[magnuskn]

Dire Ursus wrote:

Hey Magnus. How much 2e have you played so far? I see you post like crazy but I don't really see any of your actual game experience. I'm almost to chapter 3 of the playtest and me and my group basically disagree with almost all of your posts. Just wondering why we have had such different experience with the game.

Only the first adventure so far, since my playtest group keeps having people get sick or have personal commitments. The plan was to do the second adventure this weekend, but one guy got a visit from his long-distance relationship and the other is out of town. I am not willing to GMPC two characters while GM'ing a new system, so that was it for the plans for Saturday. I will probably skip the second adventure altogether and go directly to the third one in two weeks, when the next spot on my timetable opens up, because I want to keep a pace with the playtest reports on the forum.

I hope you are not trying to go the "you must jump this high to participate!" route and try to deligitimize my comments because I haven't been able to playtest more than one part yet. We had this in the first week when the books released already before people started playtesting and it was really annoying even back then.

My initial two posts are made with the help of statistical analysis, game experience of almost 20 years and common sense, anyway.

[Dire Ursus]

I definitely value actual game experience over extrapolations and opinions on just reading the rules. But that's just me. You're feedback isn't "delegitimized" but it's definitely an important statistic to keep in mind is it not?

I'm just trying to take note of the more negative feedback posters and how much of the game they have actually played.

You would agree that if there's a correlation there that probably is important yes?

[magnuskn]

Dire Ursus wrote:

I definitely value actual game experience over extrapolations and opinions on just reading the rules. But that's just me. You're feedback isn't "delegitimized" but it's definitely an important statistic to keep in mind is it not?

I'm just trying to take note of the more negative feedback posters and how much of the game they have actually played.

You would agree that if there's a correlation there that probably is important yes?

While playtesting helps with getting practical experience with how the game works, I strenuously disagree that statistical analysis gives worse results for making informed statements. That's how we've gotten through multiple people that PF2E uses a 50% success chance model for basically all levels of play. Knowing that alone leads to much more informed analysis, IMO, than the randomness of a playtest session.

So, nope. I don't agree with your opinion.

[Dire Ursus]

So what if the vast majority of players played through say the full playtest were happy with the game. You would say that isn't an important detail? What if it came out somehow that the vast majority of negative feedback was from players who have played less than 3 sessions of the game. Wouldn't that mean statistically the game is just fun to play?

You really can't just read through a book and crunch some numbers and get an accurate estimate of how "fun" it is. At least that's my opinion. You can disagree with it but in my 15 yrs of experience, The numbers weren't the main component of our fun. It was the roleplaying and tactical teamwork that made it fun for us. And for my group 2e has improved tactical teamwork in combat for sure.

This is of course not to say that the game can't be tweaked and balanced better. But just running statistics isn't a good indication that you have a grasp on how the system plays.

[Cyouni]

magnuskn wrote:

Dire Ursus wrote:

I definitely value actual game experience over extrapolations and opinions on just reading the rules. But that's just me. You're feedback isn't "delegitimized" but it's definitely an important statistic to keep in mind is it not?

I'm just trying to take note of the more negative feedback posters and how much of the game they have actually played.

You would agree that if there's a correlation there that probably is important yes?

While playtesting helps with getting practical experience with how the game works, I strenuously disagree that statistical analysis gives worse results for making informed statements. That's how we've gotten through multiple people that PF2E uses a 50% success chance model for basically all levels of play. Knowing that alone leads to much more informed analysis, IMO, than the randomness of a playtest session.

So, nope. I don't agree with your opinion.

Not having information tested in the appropriate environment means that you can easily draw inaccurate conclusions from it. For example, the constant assumptions that you'll be fighting only things of your level or above, because CR=APL monsters were rarely ever a threat.

[Lord_Malkov]

Dire Ursus wrote:

So what if the vast majority of players played through say the full playtest were happy with the game. You would say that isn't an important detail? What if it came out somehow that the vast majority of negative feedback was from players who have played less than 3 sessions of the game. Wouldn't that mean statistically the game is just fun to play?

You really can't just read through a book and crunch some numbers and get an accurate estimate of how "fun" it is. At least that's my opinion. You can disagree with it but in my 15 yrs of experience, The numbers weren't the main component of our fun. It was the roleplaying and tactical teamwork that made it fun for us. And for my group 2e has improved tactical teamwork in combat for sure.

This is of course not to say that the game can't be tweaked and balanced better. But just running statistics isn't a good indication that you have a grasp on how the system plays.

Every playtest man.. there is always this guy with the 400 hours of playtime invested who hates rhetorical arguments and adamantly believes that complete system mastery of dozens of other games and decades of experience pales in comparison to his or her personal subjective experience.

You can see the arguments here right? You can read the posts and discuss the reasoning behind them, or lack thereof. You do not get to tell people that their opinion is disqualified because they have not met some arbitrary requirement that you set. Don't ask for proof of their doctorate, or their bonafide gamer card. Don't try to define other people's fun. If you can't speak to the argument as it reads, using rhetoric and logic, then don't participate at all.

Furthermore, if the vast majority of negative feedback comes from people who have played less than three sessions, you might actually want to ask yourself why they stopped playing your game.

[graystone]

Dire Ursus wrote:

So what if the vast majority of players played through say the full playtest were happy with the game. You would say that isn't an important detail? What if it came out somehow that the vast majority of negative feedback was from players who have played less than 3 sessions of the game. Wouldn't that mean statistically the game is just fun to play?

No. It means that people that REALLY invest their time in it like it but the casual player is being turned off. If the first 1-3 experiences with the game are just awful, how many people are getting to the 'fun' part? And how affecting will it be in the long run?

For me, those first 1-3 sessions are far and away more important than how fun the game theoretically might be for a 20th level 15th playtest session.

[Lord_Malkov]

Cyouni wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Dire Ursus wrote:

I definitely value actual game experience over extrapolations and opinions on just reading the rules. But that's just me. You're feedback isn't "delegitimized" but it's definitely an important statistic to keep in mind is it not?

I'm just trying to take note of the more negative feedback posters and how much of the game they have actually played.

You would agree that if there's a correlation there that probably is important yes?

While playtesting helps with getting practical experience with how the game works, I strenuously disagree that statistical analysis gives worse results for making informed statements. That's how we've gotten through multiple people that PF2E uses a 50% success chance model for basically all levels of play. Knowing that alone leads to much more informed analysis, IMO, than the randomness of a playtest session.

So, nope. I don't agree with your opinion.

Not having information tested in the appropriate environment means that you can easily draw inaccurate conclusions from it. For example, the constant assumptions that you'll be fighting only things of your level or above, because CR=APL monsters were rarely ever a threat.

That isn't a failure to simulate on the table... its actually a failure to read through the rules for encounter design.

Soooo....

[Tridus]

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

Lord_Malkov wrote:

But really, this is all down to the main thrust of PF2, which is: Keep everyone in line to make everything easier to control.

This has a name. It is called balance.

I am not certain at all whether you, Malkov, are for or against it, but I will say that the people against it are almost always the ones benefitted by the imbalance.

When children complain that something is "unfair" what they often mean is that it is not unfair in their favor. I think the folks at Paizo understand this and are accounting for it.

And some people hold up balance as a holy grail to be achieved at all costs... despite the history of this genre and many others being full of examples where grossly imbalanced games were more fun than balanced ones. You know what sells? Fun. D&D 4e was far more balanced than PF 1e was. How did that work out?

When you get everyone perfectly balanced so that everything is basically same and you have a bunch of choices but they don't really matter and you never get ahead of the difficulty curve... is that fun? If you use abilities and they feel weak, is that fun?

Firing off my cantrips was in no way fun. It was tedious and felt barely effective. That's not heroic or exciting. It doesn't matter if it's balanced if it's not interesting to play. A coin flip for if my spells will actually work or not, with how limited they are, is not fun to play.

Channel Heal is imbalanced as hell, and it's awesome to use. My experience was that the target didn't mind either, because they didn't want to play a healer and were perfectly happy to suddenly be in fighting form again, balance be damned.

Balancing that would mean nerfing it, and nobody in the game I was in was excited about making things even more lethal and needing even more full rests (and 1 encounter days) than we were already doing. If anything, they need to crank up the healing options on a couple more classes.

[Requielle]

Dire Ursus wrote:

Hey Magnus. How much 2e have you played so far? I see you post like crazy but I don't really see any of your actual game experience. I'm almost to chapter 3 of the playtest and me and my group basically disagree with almost all of your posts. Just wondering why we have had such different experience with the game.

Hey, Dire Ursus! I'm running this playtest for my group, and we're almost to chapter 3, and we all basically agree with almost all of Magnuskn's posts. Just wondering why we have had such different experience with the game.

Does his opinion have validity now that someone running the playtest sees the same things?

[Vic Ferrari]

Yeah, this infantile attitude of you must log X amount of flight-time to comment on the game with any sort of credibility/validity, is a nonsense trip.
At this point, many of us can peruse a RPG (certainly d20 ones) and get a really good gist (the maths, etc, strip it down, right away, I always do); playing is obviously essential to get really into certain aspects. I went in loving 4th Ed, the first 2 or 3 sessions were a blast, by the 7th session, I was like "Dude, where's my game?".

[Almarane]

The fact that they combined the heigthened spells, the nerf of spell slots, and the nerf of spells is what makes me think Spellcasters in general are bad now. You have less spell slots - it could be okay by its own. But now, the spells have been nerfed, making a bunch of spells useless at their PF1 level (Mage Armor being +1 to AC only for exemple). And, now you have to heighten your spells to make them usefull : you need a 6th level Mage Armor (if I remember correctly, don't have the Rulebook on me at the time) to get back this +4 to AC, and you have to heighten Phantom Steed to get what it did in PF1, while this is a purely utilitary skill for a Wizard.

Back in PF1, where I play a bunch of spellcasters and semi-spellcasters, what happens as you unlock spell slots when you play an offensive spellcaster is that you end up using your higher spell slots to cast debuffs and blasting spells, and lower level slots to cast utilitary and buff spells (Mage Armor, Heal, Barkskin, Blink...), and some blast spells (which scaled a bit with levels) with enough side effects to be interesting whatever the level, like Magic Missile to be sure to hit your target (an excellent panic button by the way) or Burning Hands to take care of swarms. Even if you ended the day with some spare spell slots, in the end you regularly used a bit of all your spell levels.

Now, in PF2, you only use your higher spells for everything, since you need to heighten your spells for them to be relevant. Even like that, your heightened spells are less effective that normal spells for the same level, so you're better not heightening your spells. And even so, you're better not casting your spells not heightened because your lower level spells are to weak to make a difference. This ends up with using your higher level spell slots, and your low- to mid-level spell slots not being touched (or not mattering if you touched them). In theory, when you use all your higher level spells slots, you still have your other spells slots. In practice, you have to call the adventuring day off, because you can't do anything worthwile. Remember : the adventuring day ends when the spellcasters become useless.

This is a huge hit to spellcasters' usefulness. They wanted to balance spellcasters and martial, but in the end, they did it by making spellcasting useless and nerfing martials, since martials' cool options are now class-gated.

This is just another instance of how problems in the rules were created : the devs had a bunch of good ideas in theory, but mixed them badly and tryed to do to much with them in practice :

• Heightening is cool. It's like PF1 occult spellcasting : you learn one spell, you learn all of its variants. So you learn Heal, and BAM ! You have all versions of Heal. But Heightening should have stayed for spells which truly needed it. Heightening on blast spells, healing and some specific buffs is okay. Heightening on Phantom Steed and Mage Armor is useless. And the current Heightening doesn't work with the lower number of spell slots.
  
• Spontaneous heightening is the worse. It totally contradicts the main interest of Heightening : that you only have to learn the spell at its first level, and you're done. Sorcerers have to learn every level of the heightened spell they want to use : why ?
  
• 4 degrees of success on spells is a very cool thing. It allows spells to still do things even on a successful save roll, and could allow them to do incredible things on a critical failure. But now most of the spells are not that great even on a failure, and require the ennemy to make a critical failure to do what they used to do. And combined with the new monsters' stats, you can't even dream of the monsters making critical failures when you only have 50% to make them fail their saves.
  
• Lower number of spell slots is okay, I guess. It eases play, it's easier now to know when you get new spell levels. Not really my jam, but I can go with it. But mixed with nerfed spells and heigtening, you really feel like going from being a marathonian to an old senile man with arthritis.

Really, I liked Heightening and degrees of success when they were announced. I still want to like them. But the announcement of Spontaneous Heightening was a cold shower to me. And now that I have the whole Rulebook, I can't like them anymore.