| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This idea came to me out of a discussion in another thread.
Theorem: Casters continually getting more and more spell slots as they level is bad for the system in couple ways: It creates choice paralysis by giving high level casters a massive number of potential options, and it creates a false expectation that low level spells should stay relevant the entire game.
Idea: Starting when they gain 3rd level spells, casters get a flat number of spell slots. Let's say hypothetically, 3 slots of their highest level, and 4 slots each of their 2nd and 3rd highest level.
As an example, an 11th level wizard would have three 6th level slots, four 5th level slots, and four 4th level slots, plus cantrips. They could put lower level spells in those slots if they chose. Like an arcanist, the wizard could cast any combination of 6th level spells 3 (or however many) times per day.
Corollaries:
-This is not meant to reduce the overall power of casters. The idea is that spells per day and individual spell power would be tweaked to keep casters in a good place while reducing the sheer number of spells they have to keep track of at higher levels.
-Most likely this puts sorcerers in a slightly weird place where they forget lower level spells as they level up, since they would only know the spells that fit in their slots. That's a little unusual, but not unheard of in the genre. Still, probably rubs at least one person the wrong way.
Thoughts?
Low level utility spells do stay relevant, but there should probably be an advice section that says that only your top 3 spell levels remain relevant for combat (generally).
And the massive number of potential options isn't really reduced, as you still have the whole spell list to try to choose from initially (and the spell list is small(er) now, but will grow).
I don't personally think you suggestion would solve the problems you seek to reduce.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather they just do away with Vancian casting. It's one of, if not they, biggest bugbears with the system. The Words of Power system had a lot of potential, shame it was left to rot.
The game is currently balanced around casters amassing a large number of spell slots, for better or for worse. Reducing the number of slots available would require a system-wide overhaul, which I think is a bit out of scope at the moment.
Not saying I disagree though. I do think that limiting the number of spell slots would make it easier to judge a caster's approximate power level next to a non-caster, while flattening both the learning curve and power curve. To me, personally, that might be preferable.
In any case, Pathfinder is not really the game where such a low number of spell slots makes sense under the current rules. Now, bring in 4e per-encounter abilities or a 5e Warlock, and things change a bit. I believe a caster with fewer slots, constantly regenerating throughout a standard work day, could be successful in the system. I think it might make for a healthier system. But not strictly to the exclusion of the traditional Wizard.
In all seriousness, I don't think it would actually do all that much.
In PF2, ignoring cantrips, the maximum number of spell slots that you can have is 37 at level 20 as a school wizard or a sorcerer. As a cleric, druid or bard, you only have 28 maximum come level 20. If you decide to include cantrips, the numbers go up to 42 and 32 respectively.
In comparison, PF1 has a Sorcerer getting 54 base spell slots by 20th level, and the Wizard getting 45. Add in cantrips to the mix and that's 63 and 49. And we're not even getting to bonus spell slots yet.
The burden is already greatly reduced compared to PF1. Even just looking at base slots that's a ~16% and 50% reduction. Add in the fact that spells, with some exceptions, don't do all that much if they're not close to your highest level and that burden reduces it further.
it creates a false expectation that low level spells should stay relevant the entire game.
No, I believe you can attribute that to the game being called Pathfinder 2 more than anything.
Notably: Paizo already has a version of this, and it's a better version at that. And this better system already gimps casters.
This idea came to me out of a discussion in another thread.
Theorem: Casters continually getting more and more spell slots as they level is bad for the system in couple ways: It creates choice paralysis by giving high level casters a massive number of potential options, and it creates a false expectation that low level spells should stay relevant the entire game.
Idea: Starting when they gain 3rd level spells, casters get a flat number of spell slots. Let's say hypothetically, 3 slots of their highest level, and 4 slots each of their 2nd and 3rd highest level.
As an example, an 11th level wizard would have three 6th level slots, four 5th level slots, and four 4th level slots, plus cantrips. They could put lower level spells in those slots if they chose. Like an arcanist, the wizard could cast any combination of 6th level spells 3 (or however many) times per day.
Corollaries:
-This is not meant to reduce the overall power of casters. The idea is that spells per day and individual spell power would be tweaked to keep casters in a good place while reducing the sheer number of spells they have to keep track of at higher levels.-Most likely this puts sorcerers in a slightly weird place where they forget lower level spells as they level up, since they would only know the spells that fit in their slots. That's a little unusual, but not unheard of in the genre. Still, probably rubs at least one person the wrong way.
Thoughts?
Great alternative rule don't seem like core material to me. But i do like the idea of getting a fewer strong slots instead of keeping low level ones.
@Claxon: The amount of time people spend choosing spells at level up or during spell preparation is relatively minor compared to the amount of time people spend deciding what spell to cast each round of combat, which is the main thing I feel would be reduced by limiting the number of spells available.
@Corrick: Completely agree, but I suspect that's even more out-of-scope than this suggestion.
@bro1017: I agree that it would require rebalancing spells in general. I don't think it would heavily affect the rest of the system, though. I also think now is the ideal time for ideas like this, because Paizo has already admitted they are looking at rebalancing spells in general.
@The Archive: Good points. On the PF1e thing, though, I will mention that only a very, very few low level spells stayed useful into high levels in PF1e, and that was usually either a) spells with niche roles that no higher level spell addressed (mage armor, for example) or b) spells that were outperforming their level in any case (color spray, glitterdust, etc.).
Point A should be addressed with heighten options, and point B should just be removed from the system; a level 1 spell shouldn't be on par with much higher level spells.
I like MaxAstro's idea though it's a bit extreme. But limiting the ever increasing slot number is nice.
I would maybe let casters have one slot of each spell level they know plus some extra slots for the highest 3 spell levels. That way also sorcerers don't completely loose access to lower spells.
Edit:
@TheArchive, wow I didn't know this somplified spellcasting existed. It looks just like what I like. :D