| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An Earthsea inspired Namer archetype for the Bard class.
Yes, please. I already made Kvothe as my Bard for PF2e.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
* The following spells and powers should have their critical failure effect on a regular failure instead:
-Charm
-Cloak of Colors
-Command
-Crushing Despair
-Daze
-Earthbind
-Echoing Nightmare
-Fear
-Ghoulish Cravings
-Hideous Laughter
-Litany against Sloth
-Mariner's Curse
-Nightmare
-Overwhelming Presence
-Phantasmal Killer
-Possession
-Spellwrack
-Spiritual Epidemic
-Synpatic Pulse
-Unfathomable Song
-Weird
*Barkskin should receive a serious buff, the DR it gives is pitiful and you gain weakness to the most common energy type on top of that?
For a 1 minute duration?!
*Buff spells in general (target "you" or other "creatures", no harmful effects) should have a duration of 1 minute per spell level, at the very least.
All of them should come with the possibility to be heightened to the next level for a 2 minutes duration or the level after that for a 3 minutes duration and so on.
In an ideal world, I'd be a 1 minute per caster level duration but it's pretty clear that's not Paizo's stance on "bringing magic to a balance point" so it's never happening.
*Mirror Image requires a small nerf: bring back the part where it says "If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss."
*Rope Trick should be a 2nd level spell, no reason why it should be a 4th level spell, especially with the rarer tag.
*Uncommon spells should not be a thing at all. All of the potentially game-breaking options have been nerfed in several ways, no reason to arbitrarily keep players from accessing them as well.
*Nerfs on utility spells should be rolled back (Prestidigitation, Feather Fall, etc.).
These do not make a player or a party overpowered by any means but not having the options we used to for these spells is a roleplaying and quality of life loss.
And the big three, for me and my players, which are required ASAP:
*Casters should gain increased proficiency in their spells at a different rate: make it expert at level 8, master at level 12 and legendary at level 16.
*Casters need to be able to boost their save DCs but I'm advocating for something more permanent than has been previously offered in this thread: bring back Spell Focus (as a feat level 4) and Greater Spell Focus (as a feat level 10) for all spellcasting classes.
*Monsters' saves are way too high at the moment, 60% to 80% chance that they will save against spells is not balanced.
They need to be brought down.
Italics here because I cannot stress that enough.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attack cantrips should scale to be better than making two attacks with a sling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Phantasmal Killer
I heavily disagree with this one, but several of the others are a bit much as well.
I am fine with PK as is, and in general I find spells to be over-nerfed (this being an exception to the general).
Now Command, I think you make a good argument for, possibly moving the Critical Failure to "and continues to do so each turn until it succeeds on its saving throw or completes the action" getting a new save on each turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attack cantrips should scale to be better than making two attacks with a sling.they already are better than a sling (and xbow), and they are about equal to a shortbow.
Yup you are right I forgot about the slow reload on slings and was actually comparing it to the short bows stats where the second attack makes a huge difference. Still cantrips fall behind short bows from the time that the first potency rune becomes available (4 or 5 depending on how the GM gives out loot) until lvl 12 when the caster gets expert proficiency in spells. Not as bad as I first thought though.
Yup you are right I forgot about the slow reload on slings and was actually comparing it to the short bows stats where the second attack makes a huge difference. Still cantrips fall behind short bows from the time that the first potency rune becomes available (4 or 5 depending on how the GM gives out loot) until lvl 12 when the caster gets expert proficiency in spells. Not as bad as I first thought though.Attack cantrips should scale to be better than making two attacks with a sling.they already are better than a sling (and xbow), and they are about equal to a shortbow.
only marginally, cantrips still attack at +1 compared to a +1 weapon due to targetting touch, and deal (for single target) around d8+stat vs d6.
at +1 potency, you're comparing a 2d6 (7) at +0/-5 vs a 1d8+4 (8.5) at +1
which isn't that far off and doesn't cost you either your 1 level 4 item, or a martial weapon proficiency.at +2 potency (9th level) you already have around 26+ daily spells, so cantrips are used only as rare fillers at that point.
Depending on your definition of marginally sure. Here is my math Link
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup you are right I forgot about the slow reload on slings and was actually comparing it to the short bows stats where the second attack makes a huge difference. Still cantrips fall behind short bows from the time that the first potency rune becomes available (4 or 5 depending on how the GM gives out loot) until lvl 12 when the caster gets expert proficiency in spells. Not as bad as I first thought though.Attack cantrips should scale to be better than making two attacks with a sling.they already are better than a sling (and xbow), and they are about equal to a shortbow.
only marginally, cantrips still attack at +1 compared to a +1 weapon due to targetting touch, and deal (for single target) around d8+stat vs d6.
at +1 potency, you're comparing a 2d6 (7) at +0/-5 vs a 1d8+4 (8.5) at +1
which isn't that far off and doesn't cost you either your 1 level 4 item, or a martial weapon proficiency.at +2 potency (9th level) you already have around 26+ daily spells, so cantrips are used only as rare fillers at that point.
Depending on your definition of marginally sure. Here is my math Link
nice spreadsheet^^
i usually do my math on paper, and i had as well 6.65 vs 5.95
which is about 10% difference, and what i value as marginal (or, as "saves me the 1 4th level item + martial weapon proficiency" required)
Yah my original complaint was based on the sling because I overlooked the reload 1 property so as I said upthread I am less worried about it now.
EDIT: also thanks, I love a good spreadsheet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More spells designed specifically for use in exploration or downtime modes
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
* The following spells and powers should have their critical failure effect on a regular failure instead:
I think what you've listed is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire spell list needs a serious second look, because a lot of spells are simply never worth using (never mind where you think magic should be, these spells simply are not worth your actions to cast). I don't think spells like mirror image would be quite so problematic if other spells were up to shape.
*Rope Trick should be a 2nd level spell, no reason why it should be a 4th level spell, especially with the rarer tag.
I hate Rope Trick with a passion; most of the time it's a safe and reliable means of resting, which makes players get complacent. When it doesn't work, however, you've just backed yourself into a corner with no avenue of escape. It's the kind of spell that only really works because of PC plot armor.
*Uncommon spells should not be a thing at all. All of the potentially game-breaking options have been nerfed in several ways, no reason to arbitrarily keep players from accessing them as well.
I'm actually coming around to the idea of uncommon spells. Don't get me wrong, I'll be completely ignoring them at my table, but I get that this is my preference of game style. The uncommon spell designation could well be the price we pay to get a teleport spell that isn't completely hobbled by restrictions that require liberal interpretations just to function at all (last I checked "GPS" wasn't on the list of available equipment. How exactly am I supposed to know the exact distance and direction to my destination that's hundreds of miles away?)
With that said, the difficulty of learning uncommon spells needs to be brought down, especially for the charisma-based casters. They shouldn't have any additional requirements to learn if your GM is allowing them.
*Casters should gain increased proficiency in their spells at a different rate: make it expert at level 8, master at level 12 and legendary at level 16.
*Casters need to be able to boost their save DCs but I'm advocating for something more permanent than has been previously offered in this thread: bring back Spell Focus (as a feat level 4) and Greater Spell Focus (as a feat level 10) for all spellcasting classes.
It's already bad enough that the caster proficiency bumps cost you class feats at those levels, it'd be even worse if there were additional spell DC feat taxes.
*Monsters' saves are way too high at the moment, 60% to 80% chance that they will save against spells is not balanced.
They need to be brought down.
Agreed; with the way things are currently set up, what you're looking for are spells with good effects on a successful save, because that's the most common outcome. Or better yet, spells that don't trigger saves at all.
Yah my original complaint was based on the sling because I overlooked the reload 1 property so as I said upthread I am less worried about it now.
The problem cantrips have in comparison to strikes isn't one of damage, it's one of action economy. Any time you have one action left at the end of your turn you can fill it with a shortbow attack, which is something a cantrip cannot do. And when you do decide to cast a 2-action cantrip, you still have 1 action left over to make a strike with it (obviously you want to go with electric arc if you're doing this, to avoid MAP). Cantrips simply aren't capable of filling the niche that strikes do, which is to give you an effective way to spend one extra action at the end of your turn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's already bad enough that the caster proficiency bumps cost you class feats at those levels, it'd be even worse if there were additional spell DC feat taxes.
I should probably have mentioned that, for me, increased proficiency in spells should not come at the cost of a feat.
Martial classes increase their weapon proficiencies for free at odd levels (3rd, 13th), and it never costs them anything.Why should casters pay with the loss of a feat just to be able to use their spells effectively at appropriate levels?!
Assuming increased spell proficiency no longer comes at the cost of a feat, then picking Spell Focus and its greater variant to boost one school of your choice becomes less of an issue for me. :)
I think what you've listed is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire spell list needs a serious second look, because a lot of spells are simply never worth using (never mind where you think magic should be, these spells simply are not worth your actions to cast). I don't think spells like mirror image would be quite so problematic if other spells were up to shape.
I know.
Unfortunately, I'm just trying to keep my expectations in check with what has a realistic chance to come to pass.Changing some spells' effects from critical failure to failure is something that can be done easily, quickly and, hopefully, does not threaten what is apparently the new "balance point for magic".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Uncommon spells should not be a thing at all. All of the potentially game-breaking options have been nerfed in several ways, no reason to arbitrarily keep players from accessing them as well.I'm actually coming around to the idea of uncommon spells. Don't get me wrong, I'll be completely ignoring them at my table, but I get that this is my preference of game style. The uncommon spell designation could well be the price we pay to get a teleport spell that isn't completely hobbled by restrictions that require liberal interpretations just to function at all (last I checked "GPS" wasn't on the list of available equipment. How exactly am I supposed to know the exact distance and direction to my destination that's hundreds of miles away?)
Personally I think I'm gonna end up giving my players easy access to uncommon spells (e.g. if they can give me a fun excuse for knowing it), but keep the rarity in place for NPCs. I want to keep some bits of it in play, simply because I want collecting e.g. Shadow Walk from a forgotten tome to feel like awesome loot.
Because rarity gives players an automatic expectation as to what is and isn't common, I very much like it. PCs are a minority by definition so I am cool with them being awesome, but I like not having to run through a bunch of hoops to invalidate stuff like "and all the armies have teleport", esp if magic in general is insanely common (as my setting is shaping up for).
Like. If the question is "why didn't they just shadow walk in?" the answer becomes "why would they know shadow walk?", whereas "why didn't they just fireball us?" is a question I'm more happy to work into my setting, because it doesn't have as disruptive a large-scale effect.
As for what I'd personally want:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a revolutionary idea.
Stop Taxing Spellcasters through a Feat to earn Spell Points. Just give ALL Spellcasters Spell Points out the gate, and let them use them to Recover Spells = 1 level/point spent.
You know what...I'd actually love that!
However, in that case, would you keep school/composition/bloodline powers using the same number of spells points they do now?
I can easily imagine every spellcaster saving their spellpoints for extra spell slots and powers falling on the side as a result. :o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually coming around to the idea of uncommon spells. Don't get me wrong, I'll be completely ignoring them at my table, but I get that this is my preference of game style. The uncommon spell designation could well be the price we pay to get a teleport spell that isn't completely hobbled by restrictions that require liberal interpretations just to function at all (last I checked "GPS" wasn't on the list of available equipment. How exactly am I supposed to know the exact distance and direction to my destination that's hundreds of miles away?)With that said, the difficulty of learning uncommon spells needs to be brought down, especially for the charisma-based casters. They shouldn't have any additional requirements to learn if your GM is allowing them.
I, on the other hand, am not a big rarity fan. I know that teleport is the poster boy of uncommon spells, and I understand that there are many DMs out there who don’t want it at there table. However, teleport is by no means the only uncommon spell. Other past-edition classics appear on the list including the likes of contingency, dominate, and all the power word spells.
While many DMs will be happy to allow such material at their tables, others, I believe will not. Just as many DMs have, in the past, disallowed 3pp material simply because it is 3pp, so to will many DMs disallow rare spells simply because they are rare.
The default assumption in pf2e is as much that no PC cleric will have access to protection from evil as it is that no PC fighter will have access to control weather. Personally, I find this irritating.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make spells like Resist Energy worth casting. That one is the standout that really sticks in my mind as to what is wrong with spellcasting in the playtest.
It does almost nothing. It lasts for so little time that you can't really do it preventatively. Getting it onto the entire group requires heightening it to an absurdly high level. There doesn't seem to be a reason for it to even exist in it's current state.
There are a lot of spells like that. Going through the list, I'm continually amazed at how underwhelming so many spells are.
A lot of my other things have already been mentioned, but the other thing I want to highlight is that there needs to be some other ways to use the three action economy for casters. Heal and Magic Missle do it well. Otherwise, the overwhelmingly common scenario is a 2 action spell/cantrip, at which point maybe you can hit something with a weapon or raise a shield if you don't have to move. It feels like an underutilized option whereas martials get to play around with it a lot more. (And as a caster, Slow just destroys your ability to do stuff.)
With how weak most of the spells are, I find having a bunch of them them also gated as uncommon/rare to simply be annoying rule bloat. It doesn't even make sense in some cases. Like, Sarenrae doesn't want to tell her Clerics how to cast Protection from Evil?
Seriously?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can easily imagine every spellcaster saving their spellpoints for extra spell slots and powers falling on the side as a result. :o
This is already happening. Most characters will only have one SP power they actually intend on using; it's very rare that a character will actually have two spell point powers that are both strong enough to see use without overshadowing the other.
This is further complicated by the fact that SP powers almost exclusively cost feats to obtain. There are only two reasons you'd spend a feat on a SP power: because it's a substantial upgrade on your current SP power, or because your current SP power is amazingly good and you want more SP to fuel it. Either way you end up with one power completely overshadowing the others.
Then you have the fact that the current balance of SP powers is essentially all over the map; many are so circumstantial that they'd rarely see use (or aren't worth actions to use mid-combat), some are only marginally better than cantrips, others are on par with low-to-mid level spells, and a few track closely to your highest-level spell slots.
Paizo probably needs to do a second pass over SP powers in general. The system has some rather huge problems that need addressing before the final version.
However, teleport is by no means the only uncommon spell. Other past-edition classics appear on the list including the likes of contingency, dominate, and all the power word spells.
Right now we have the worst of both worlds. These spells are labelled uncommon, and have been nerfed into non-functionality. If a little "U" superscript that goes completely ignored at my table is the price I pay to have those spells without crippling nerfs, I'm fine with that.
With how weak most of the spells are, I find having a bunch of them them also gated as uncommon/rare to simply be annoying rule bloat.
This is true of all spells, not just the uncommon spells.
Now I'm wondering what the opt out rate is for sorcerer bloodline advancement.
it depends on the bloodline i think.
I'd concur. The wings are definitely worth picking up, and the metamagician's effect is decent. Everything else, though, is probably not worth it it and you should just multiclass for SP powers from a different class instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about not nerfing the hell out of every good spell and give back bonus spell slots?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More spells that use the three action system.
A non class specific or spell list specific feat that let you use a melee strike as a somatic casting action.
More spells useful both in and out of combat.
|
Question because I don't read every post of every thread: has there been any developer input on the state of magic in 2e? Casting is just blatantly bad right now (and has been since the playtest began), and it's frustrating that it hasn't been addressed even a little in the updates.
It's beginning to feel like a lost cause, and I'll be treating it as such.
Barring any awesome updates, I'll be playing exclusively martials as my group goes through the rest of the playtest (and, eventually, Return).
In the meantime, I'll keep hoping for the option to place the class-given ability boost in something other than a class's primary stat. Allowing a wizard to put that boost in strength or dexterity, say, can allow him to at least participate more effectively in the martial meta.
Question because I don't read every post of every thread: has there been any developer input on the state of magic in 2e? Casting is just blatantly bad right now (and has been since the playtest began), and it's frustrating that it hasn't been addressed even a little in the updates.
It's beginning to feel like a lost cause, and I'll be treating it as such.
Barring any awesome updates, I'll be playing exclusively martials as my group goes through the rest of the playtest (and, eventually, Return).In the meantime, I'll keep hoping for the option to place the class-given ability boost in something other than a class's primary stat. Allowing a wizard to put that boost in strength or dexterity, say, can allow him to at least participate more effectively in the martial meta.
Basically, no. I believe one of them mentioned off-hand in a stream that they were getting some feedback that people were dissatisfied with magic. The big magic thread and the unofficial magic survey thread were closed with a "we'll have a magic survey eventually guys!" And of course there was the whole: "we're nerfing fighter dedication because its too good for wizards."
It really sucks that today's dev posting regarding focus and people's concerns about it being Cha-based for Wiz/Monk/Druid/Alch is the closest we've come to anything at all being said.