| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple request:
Please allow Spontaneous Casters to heighten their spells into higher level slots without needing to use weird heightening abilities or, even worse, having to add higher level versions of said spells to their repertoire.
Just let them heighten away into a higher level slot - not just 2 or 4 spells like it is now but all spells they know. Analysis paralysis is not a thing that you need to worry over - as players get the ability to heighten they will already have gained technical fluency in playing the class.
Speaking as a 3.5e player, my sorcerer had heighten spell, versatile spellcaster and all kinds of feats to let him manipulate his spell slots as he saw fit. Having played the guy from first level, I did not slow the game down since I knew how to play my class by the time heightening became a thing I cared about.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not just a analysis paralysis issue. It's also about stuff like spontaneous casters always having the exact level of dispel magic to dispel an effect wihout overspending.
It's not just a analysis paralysis issue. It's also about stuff like spontaneous casters always having the exact level of dispel magic to dispel an effect wihout overspending.
originally when the playtest first came out and people had issues with limited heightening Mark Seifter mentioned that in their internal play testing total heightening led to decision paralysis. Mind you, I am sure there are other balance reasons too, but that was the reason they had mentioned for doing away with it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not just a analysis paralysis issue. It's also about stuff like spontaneous casters always having the exact level of dispel magic to dispel an effect wihout overspending.
Dispel should be a level 1 scaling at will cantrip anyway. In pretty much all other fantasy, dispelling is just something spellcasters do, part of the job description.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not just a analysis paralysis issue. It's also about stuff like spontaneous casters always having the exact level of dispel magic to dispel an effect wihout overspending.originally when the playtest first came out and people had issues with limited heightening Mark Seifter mentioned that in their internal play testing total heightening led to decision paralysis. Mind you, I am sure there are other balance reasons too, but that was the reason they had mentioned for doing away with it.
I continue to find the analysis paralysis excuse completely unconvincing. If MY derp-ass player group can run 3.x / DS Psionics just fine with no holdups or problems, then 99% of players could handle unlimited heightening without a problem. It's not worth designing around the 1%.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I continue to find the analysis paralysis excuse completely unconvincing. If MY derp-ass player group can run 3.x / DS Psionics just fine with no holdups or problems, then 99% of players could handle unlimited heightening without a problem. It's not worth designing around the 1%.It's not just a analysis paralysis issue. It's also about stuff like spontaneous casters always having the exact level of dispel magic to dispel an effect wihout overspending.originally when the playtest first came out and people had issues with limited heightening Mark Seifter mentioned that in their internal play testing total heightening led to decision paralysis. Mind you, I am sure there are other balance reasons too, but that was the reason they had mentioned for doing away with it.
I fully agree, but I was just clarifying to Blave why Data originally dedicated his argument to opposing decision paralysis instead of other balances.
As for dispelling, I think it is fine as is? I mean if dispel magic was a cantrip that scaled then anyone within 6 character levels (3 spell levels) could spam it until they succeeded at a counteract check. I feel like lvl 14 characters should not be able to auto-dispel epic level spells if given an half an hour. That being said, it being feasible through days/weeks of hard work (i.e. repeated castings from high level slots) seems decently fair.
On the dispelling note, I don't think sorcerers being able to always have the right level dispel magic is really that huge a benefit. Thanks to counteract levels you take a -5/lvl that the spell is lower than the thing is is trying to counter act. If sorcerers had a feat that gave them a +5 but only when trying to dispel an existing magical effect I am not sure how frequently that feat would be taken. Is it good? sure. Is it so good that you need to completely redesign sorcerer hightens to avoid it? not really.
Well I don't think you should be able to spam it to eventually auto succeed either. But that's simple. If you fail the specific effect in question is bolstered (ugh) against your dispelling for 1 day, if you crit fail you can't try again until you gain a level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fully agree, but I was just clarifying to Blave why Data originally dedicated his argument to opposing decision paralysis instead of other balances.
No need for that, friend. I'm well aware of the paralysis problem mentioned by the devs to explain the need for limited heightening :) That's why I wrote it was not "just" the paralysis problem, but also a balancing factor.
I think it was Mark who said having he right spell level for your spells at all times would be s significant advantage for spontaneous casters. And it's not just dispel magic, though it is the most prominent example. Sorcerers get access to all spell lists so they could also cherry pick their level for neutralize poison, remove fear, shadow siphon and a number of other spells that greatly rely on their spell level.
Note that I'm just starting facts and repeating the devs' arguments. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just explaining their reasoning. I haven't seen a spontaneous caster in the playtest yet, so I reserve my judgment.
EDIT: I also just remembered that Mark said having all spells available for heightening would screw up the spell selection as players would (naturally) tend to pick spells that can be heightened in the first place. Same goes for bloodlines with bloodlines that grant more spells that can be heightened becoming much more attractive.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I also just remembered that Mark said having all spells available for heightening would screw up the spell selection as players would (naturally) tend to pick spells that can be heightened in the first place. Same goes for bloodlines with bloodlines that grant more spells that can be heightened becoming much more attractive.
Then that's just bad game design and they should fix it.
EVERY spell should be able to be heightened for reasonable benefits. If it seems useful to make a spell that cannot be heightened, then that spell should have a strong enough effect that it is worth taking on its own merit and, if that's the case, then nobody will ignore this spell ONLY because it cannot be heightened.
In other words, if a spell is ignored and never selected by spellcasters, then that spell is poorly designed.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having spontaneous casters naturally gravitate towards certain spells seems more like a feature than a bug.
It makes Sorcerers/Bards that much more different than other casters. Different is good in my book.
Sure, they may need to rebalance bloodline spells a bit to make them all attractive but thats a minor thing.
I agree, allowing universal Undercasting alongside limited Overcasting seems like good balance.
It also has better dynamic when you choose to use daily SpontHeighten change to designate different spell,
currently knowing it's lowest level gets most bang for least buck (spell level) when you designate it for SpontHeighten,
but you then are stuck with least useful version when you don't designate it (incentivizing to not swap SpontHeighten designations)
And the whole design is consciously based around idea of maximizing potential spells known gained in first place,
so idea that players would not prioritize Heighten spells for low level slots runs counter to their own logic.
(they dropped Undercasting because it pressured top spell level choices too much, but it now just pressures low spell levels)
IMHO the minimum needed change is to allow SpontHeighten to ALSO Undercast it's designated spells,
but I think it's reasonable to allow universal Undercasting alongside too, because after all
you are still limited by spell slots, and if you can designate a low level Dispel/SNA for SpontHeighten,
then you're probably not going to obsess as much about having top level spells be Undercast friendly,
once you have the low hanging fruit of Undercast/Heighten, solid spells regardless of UC/H should be normally attractive.