Some general, unsorted concerns about update 1.6 (especially Quick Preparation)


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

• Why does the splash damage of alchemical items not scale? I do not understand the logic. If the logic is that the bombs would be overpowered if the splash damage scaled automatically, then supposedly, the bombs would be overpowered at 1st level with their 1 splash damage. So why not simply have the splash damage scale automatically?

• The Chirurgeon seems to have an underpowered base benefit; it is not that hard to raise Wisdom and invest in Medicine given the way ability score boosts and trained skills work, so the benefit of using Crafting in place of Medicine is marginal.

• I do not like this direction for the barbarian's Rage. It is very fiddly to track and can easily be forgotten.

• Why does the monk's Ki Strike damage not scale? 1d6 damage is a fairly strong whallop at 1st level, far less so at the high levels.

• Should the extra +1d6 damage from Hunter's Edge (Precision) not scale? Again, it is strong at 1st level, much less so at 16th level.

• Why are they giving wizards Quick Preparation at 1st level automatically? The commentary was that it was an incredibly strong feat with the potentially to greatly warp the playstyles of wizards (well, outside of the usual Paizo-written premade adventure fare, anyway), thus warranting a downgrade. It definitely did not deserve to be handed out for free to all wizards. This is the single biggest mistake I have seen in update 1.6 so far.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I have to agree that "more flexibility" is an odd thing to give wizards when flexibility is supposed to be the advantage sorcerers have.

That said, I'd much prefer them to go a slightly different direction with sorcs at this point. For example, if sorcerers had a limited ability to pick spells from other spell lists - thus giving them a sort of "build your own spell list" feature - that would make up for a lot.

I feel like the question Paizo really needs to answer is "what IS a sorcerer?"* How is a divine sorc different from a cleric? How is a primal sorc different from a druid? And more importantly, why are those two sorcs the same class?

*A miserable pile of secrets, obviously

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Here's the thing: I like wizards with Quick Preparation (it's a decent compromise between full prepared casting and Arcanist style casting). It also gives the Wizard something else to do during the 10-minute cool-down if you didn't pick up any magic items to ID.

But I agree that Sorcerers are not given enough to forge an identity. Also their spellcasting is basically as good as a Bard (especially if you choose an Occult bloodline). Sorcerers need more to be competitive. I'd like them to be able to swap their spontaneous heightened spells during 10-minute cool down, combine lower-level slots for clutch higher level slots, and maybe cast some utility spells without needing to spend slots. An Unseen Servant spell from a Sorcerer shouldn't take a slot (or even a spell known).

Exo-Guardians

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like Sorcerers to actually steer away from just being a caster with some nifty but unused feats toward being the power class with some spells, I'd like for them to be able to pick up powers left and right to represent their informal likely totally untrained spell casting, I also think having a Sorc go nova in a different way than Wizards would be refreshing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If all slot-based casters have the same amount of slots, I'd like Sorcerers to have double the current number of spells as known to show off their "flexibility". They should have done something like such in 5E, and look what emotional abuses it's suffering in 5E proper due to being the weakest full caster there...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Here's the thing: I like wizards with Quick Preparation (it's a decent compromise between full prepared casting and Arcanist style casting). It also gives the Wizard something else to do during the 10-minute cool-down if you didn't pick up any magic items to ID.

But I agree that Sorcerers are not given enough to forge an identity. Also their spellcasting is basically as good as a Bard (especially if you choose an Occult bloodline). Sorcerers need more to be competitive. I'd like them to be able to swap their spontaneous heightened spells during 10-minute cool down, combine lower-level slots for clutch higher level slots, and maybe cast some utility spells without needing to spend slots. An Unseen Servant spell from a Sorcerer shouldn't take a slot (or even a spell known).

I agree that Quick Preparation makes sense with respect to making Wizards be prepared casters, but allow them some flexibility that makes sense.

I however agree that it does seem to step on the sorcerer's toes a little bit. But in the end a sorcerer's biggest thing seems to be having the ability to recast a smaller set of spells several times as needed with no pre-preparation for that specific spell or quantity.

I certainly like the idea of a sorcerer being able to swap out their spontaneously heightened spells in a short rest... that makes perfect sense and fits in with their theme. It seems more spontaneous/instinctual than trained as the longer retraining time seems to give the feeling for.

I'm also thinking, a sorcerer should continue to learn more cantrips as they advance, past and beyond what a wizard can/will be able to have memorized. That would give them some extra flexibility, without being overpowering, and staying with the theme of it being innate (often repeatable) powers they gain.

You might even be able to have some cantrips that have level prerequisites. Sorry, 1st level wizard/sorcerer you can't master this one just yet. Or maybe allow certain low level spells become cantrips at a high enough level?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I like this change, it makes wizards less daunting to play because of the whole analysis-paralysis of trying to prep all your spells at the start of the day. It also invokes a little bit of the "ritual casting" style spells in 5e that I think are a great innovation.

The sorcerer can then be updated to reflect a new or different advantage of being a sorcerer than a wizard. Maybe they could cast using spell slots they don't have at some risk, or have way more meta magic options from the start, or something totally wacky I haven't thought of yet.

Personally I'd like to see a path where wizards are "by the book" casters, and sorcerers are the wild, untrained casters that can customize their spells a lot more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
kpulv wrote:

I like this change, it makes wizards less daunting to play because of the whole analysis-paralysis of trying to prep all your spells at the start of the day. It also invokes a little bit of the "ritual casting" style spells in 5e that I think are a great innovation.

The sorcerer can then be updated to reflect a new or different advantage of being a sorcerer than a wizard. Maybe they could cast using spell slots they don't have at some risk, or have way more meta magic options from the start, or something totally wacky I haven't thought of yet.

Personally I'd like to see a path where wizards are "by the book" casters, and sorcerers are the wild, untrained casters that can customize their spells a lot more.

As far as casing spells from slots they don't have, I'd not be overly generous with that, but would not be against the concept with significant cost. (I'm thinking like 1d6 non-lethal damage per spell level, for instance, as it would certainly give the flavor of the magic being pulled out of their own bodies doing so.) It wouldn't be something most would be willing to do frequently, but might make for a heroic action every once in a while.

Another option, that might be a future archetype of the old format, as the current sorcerer has the ability to retrain spells via study, but significant time, might be to have a pure instinct sorcerer. One whom can't learn/retrain spells outside of their level advances, but might gain some extra spell's known over time (perhaps when learning a new level's spells you might gain a new spell known of 2 less than your new max spell level. (might even give them a bonus extra spell known of their highest level on levels they normally gain extra's of the same level) Not being able to retrain outside of established level granted times would be a significant hindrance, so might merit such an increase.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I have grave concerns if Paizo thinks Quick Prep is balanced, let alone should be for free. I laughed when prior to the playtest releasing it was said some of the designers thought the Sorcerer was more powerful than the Wizard. The Sorcerer's history has been to red-headed step child to the Wizard since it debuted as its own class in 3e. Nothing has changed save the fact the class now gets to be the red-head step child to the Bard, Cleric, and Druid now as well.

I love the class and its always been the type of caster I want to play but its been the test bed for new ideas that have always error on the side of overcaution and left the class as definitively weaker than its peers. The only saving grace as been being a full caster meant you were strong anyway in previous editions.

Frankly I think they should just roll the arcane Sorcerer into the Wizard and have bloodlines as another option instead of schools then change every caster to arcanist style.

After this I have zero confidence that there will be balance among the Wizard and Sorcerer let alone the other 3 primary casters of Occult, Primal, and Divine. Trying to balance 1 class against 4 others are going to require a lot more TLC than I think Paizo has the time/ability to give.

I hate to say this because I love the idea of the Sorcerer, I love how in 2e it can have different spell lists. Still I just don't see how Paizo can pull this off without major work into the class.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I feel like the question Paizo really needs to answer is "what IS a sorcerer?"* How is a divine sorc different from a cleric? How is a primal sorc different from a druid? And more importantly, why are those two sorcs the same class?

I feel like the answer to this should be Bloodlines. Sorcerers really need to double down on the bloodline mechanic and make their powers really exciting and distinct. I don't think there'd be as much of a big issue of overlap with other classes if they had a real class feature beyond spellcasting.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I feel like the question Paizo really needs to answer is "what IS a sorcerer?"* How is a divine sorc different from a cleric? How is a primal sorc different from a druid? And more importantly, why are those two sorcs the same class?
I feel like the answer to this should be Bloodlines. Sorcerers really need to double down on the bloodline mechanic and make their powers really exciting and distinct. I don't think there'd be as much of a big issue of overlap with other classes if they had a real class feature beyond spellcasting.

Too bad the current bloodline abilities pale in comparison to feats and the big hurdle is always going to be

“Why don’t I just play the other class with the spell list I want instead?”
Either they need more stuff to make them better casters or bloodline powers need to be super appealing, I imagine that one way or anothey they’ll end up either weak or overpowered depending on who you ask, the class has to actively compete with all other casters now which is a tall order.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I feel like the question Paizo really needs to answer is "what IS a sorcerer?"* How is a divine sorc different from a cleric? How is a primal sorc different from a druid? And more importantly, why are those two sorcs the same class?
I feel like the answer to this should be Bloodlines. Sorcerers really need to double down on the bloodline mechanic and make their powers really exciting and distinct. I don't think there'd be as much of a big issue of overlap with other classes if they had a real class feature beyond spellcasting.

I think I'd like it if sorcerers dropped spells slots entirely and only kept spell points. Then any spell cast by sorcerers would be automatically cast at the highest they can.

If they had Cha +(1/2 lvl) points they would start with a few more spells than their peers, at the cost of only having one pool for spells and powers, and overall about a third of the final spell casts. But, they would always be casting at full power. That would really separate sorcerer's from other casters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Power and flexibility tend to be two sides of the same coin for a wizard. Quick Preparation means great flexibility outside of combat, which means great noncombat power, and great power with which to quickly prepare for an upcoming battle.

I would much rather see a little more flexibility with arcane bonds rather than Quick Preparation.

Also, the complete and utter radio silence on the janky exploration mode and the nonexistent rules on line of sight and blocking terrain are greatly bothering me. These are important core rules, so why is more not being done to rectify them?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krysgg wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I feel like the question Paizo really needs to answer is "what IS a sorcerer?"* How is a divine sorc different from a cleric? How is a primal sorc different from a druid? And more importantly, why are those two sorcs the same class?
I feel like the answer to this should be Bloodlines. Sorcerers really need to double down on the bloodline mechanic and make their powers really exciting and distinct. I don't think there'd be as much of a big issue of overlap with other classes if they had a real class feature beyond spellcasting.

I think I'd like it if sorcerers dropped spells slots entirely and only kept spell points. Then any spell cast by sorcerers would be automatically cast at the highest they can.

If they had Cha +(1/2 lvl) points they would start with a few more spells than their peers, at the cost of only having one pool for spells and powers, and overall about a third of the final spell casts. But, they would always be casting at full power. That would really separate sorcerer's from other casters.

Since sorcerers seem to be the more diverse casters, being able to pick any list at 1st level, how about doubling down on that and let them pick a few spells off of 1) a secondary list or 2) any list.

Something like; On even levels, when a sorcerer adds to his/her spell repertoire, he/she may add that spell from another list.

They'd have one spell of each level from a list other than their own, excluding tenth level spells.


Colette Brunel wrote:


• I do not like this direction for the barbarian's Rage. It is very fiddly to track and can easily be forgotten.

If I did my math correctly, it actually results in an average loss of 0.62 rounds of rage. 2.38 total.

Quote:
• Why does the monk's Ki Strike damage not scale? 1d6 damage is a fairly strong whallop at 1st level, far less so at the high levels.

Power attack has a similar problem, where it's strictly inferior if you have a magic weapon.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah, the more I roll this over in my head the more I think giving sorcs the ability to cherry pick from multiple spell lists is a great way to carve out a unique class identity for them.

"The only class that can cast both magic missile and heal" is a solid selling point, and really reinforces the theme of your magic coming from your blood and being unique to you.


The occult list can both heal (via soothe) and magic missile.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RazarTuk wrote:
Colette Brunel wrote:


• I do not like this direction for the barbarian's Rage. It is very fiddly to track and can easily be forgotten.
If I did my math correctly, it actually results in an average loss of 0.62 rounds of rage. 2.38 total.

No, it's 3.38. Math reproduced here:

1000 barbarians rage on round 1.

20% fail on round 2 (200 barbarians had two rounds; 800 left).

45% of those left fail on round 3 (360 barbarians had three rounds; 440 left)

70% of those left fail on round 4 (308 barbarians had four rounds; 132 left)

95% of those left fail on round 5 (125.4 barbarians had five rounds; 6.6 left)

The remaining 6.6 barbarians can be assumed to have six rounds without affecting the math much.

200*2 + 360*3 + 308*4 + 125.4*5 + 6.6*6 = 3,378.6 barbarian-rounds of rage. Divided by 1000 barbarians = 3.38 rounds per barbarian.

Xenocrat wrote:
The occult list can both heal (via soothe) and magic missile.

Your pedantry is noted, and I italicized the spell names to make my point clear. :P


5 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, Sorcerer's feats are mostly aimed towards Arcane spells, making Sorcerer almost alright when compared to Wizard and simply weak when compared to Cleric, Druid, and Bard.
Now that Wizards have Quick Preparation, Sorcerer is equally weak in all forms.

(at the time, I suggested to limit quick preparation. I guess that is one thing that went the opposite way)


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess Paizo is still overestimating the Sorcerer's ability of heightening everything. Just let the class do that already, if it's too powerful just slap an extra action on it or whatever, there's ways to balance if it gets out of control. "Choice Paralysis" seriously? Is this even an issue. I don't even play sorcerers, never even bothered trying one and I'm seriously annoyed by how they're being treated.

Also, why they're not exploring the unique metamagic angle? I mean, sorcerers cast their s+*! based on instinct, let them do crazy s@@* like bending line spells, casting two spells at the same time, making AOE spells smaller with increased damage, plenty more options that could set them apart from other casters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think if any caster should get some kind of Quick Preparation, it should be Clerics, to convert spells into "Heal".

I really don't like this change for three reasons.

First, as others have said, being more flexible steps on the toes of the Sorcerer. The Sorcerer is supposed to be the flexible one, but if you make the Wizard more flexible, what does the Sorcerer have?

Second, it takes away the flavour of the Vancian caster. If people don't like the PF2 Wizard despite its power, maybe it's more of a referendum that people don't like Vancian casting anymore, despite how iconic it is.

Third (and I don't agree that balanced classes should be powered up to "bribe" people into playing it, that's how we got the CodZilla in 3ed), if Paizo wanted to boost the Wizard class' power-level, why not do it from within the spell school list? Let Diviners learn Divination spells from any spell list, and Evokers learn any Evocation from any spell list. That, at least, would be flavourful, and would boost a weak aspect of the Wizard class, as opposed to boosting an already good part of it (Spellbook).


EberronHoward wrote:

I think if any caster should get some kind of Quick Preparation, it should be Clerics, to convert spells into "Heal".

I really don't like this change for three reasons.

First, as others have said, being more flexible steps on the toes of the Sorcerer. The Sorcerer is supposed to be the flexible one, but if you make the Wizard more flexible, what does the Sorcerer have?

Second, it takes away the flavour of the Vancian caster. If people don't like the PF2 Wizard despite its power, maybe it's more of a referendum that people don't like Vancian casting anymore, despite how iconic it is.

Third (and I don't agree that balanced classes should be powered up to "bribe" people into playing it, that's how we got the CodZilla in 3ed), if Paizo wanted to boost the Wizard class' power-level, why not do it from within the spell school list? Let Diviners learn Divination spells from any spell list, and Evokers learn any Evocation from any spell list. That, at least, would be flavourful, and would boost a weak aspect of the Wizard class, as opposed to boosting an already good part of it (Spellbook).

Or at least a selection of them. This would partially solve the "wizard greed" issue that the devs were talking about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BeatenPinata wrote:
Krysgg wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I feel like the question Paizo really needs to answer is "what IS a sorcerer?"* How is a divine sorc different from a cleric? How is a primal sorc different from a druid? And more importantly, why are those two sorcs the same class?
I feel like the answer to this should be Bloodlines. Sorcerers really need to double down on the bloodline mechanic and make their powers really exciting and distinct. I don't think there'd be as much of a big issue of overlap with other classes if they had a real class feature beyond spellcasting.

I think I'd like it if sorcerers dropped spells slots entirely and only kept spell points. Then any spell cast by sorcerers would be automatically cast at the highest they can.

If they had Cha +(1/2 lvl) points they would start with a few more spells than their peers, at the cost of only having one pool for spells and powers, and overall about a third of the final spell casts. But, they would always be casting at full power. That would really separate sorcerer's from other casters.

Since sorcerers seem to be the more diverse casters, being able to pick any list at 1st level, how about doubling down on that and let them pick a few spells off of 1) a secondary list or 2) any list.

Something like; On even levels, when a sorcerer adds to his/her spell repertoire, he/she may add that spell from another list.

They'd have one spell of each level from a list other than their own, excluding tenth level spells.

The other though I had was letting them choose another bloodline at 5/10/15. The only problem was that choosing a new bloodline and getting its list would be way too powerful for a feat and be a non option. And if it was a base class feature it would be weird that all sorcerers happen to be a muddle of bloodlines.

Maybe a compromise on your 2 lists idea and have each bloodline grant 2 spell lists, a primary and secondary, and then you get spells from your primary on odd levels and secondary on even.

That would allow for a bit more variation in how a bloodline is defined too, like fey is primary primal, secondary arcane.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, they should dump vancian casting entirely, but if they stick with it anyway, they could consider doing something similar to Savage Worlds, and develop a set of generic spells, or at least separate out the effects from the universal traits (like duration, cost, casting time, range, etc) and then, different casters can have their casting style impact that stuff.

I.E. a sorcerer can cast spells that last longer and reach farther and cast faster, while the wizard can be more efficient, casting shorter versions to conserve their power and can exert greater control by doing things like altering the elemental type at need.

Of course, if they went with real vancian instead of the dnd mockery of it, they could make sorcerers more reliable than wizards by losing slots more slowly.

And if they made casting a spell require a skill check (like how a fighter requires a check for anything they do), they could easily use that to implement a variety of differences.


Lucas Yew wrote:
If all slot-based casters have the same amount of slots, I'd like Sorcerers to have double the current number of spells as known to show off their "flexibility". They should have done something like such in 5E, and look what emotional abuses it's suffering in 5E proper due to being the weakest full caster there...

Yeah, something, I only like the Wild Mage, and that's because I loved the original 2nd Ed AD&D Wild Mage and wild surges. I would cast Nahal's reckless dweomer, as much as possible. The Sorcerer is the one class that really got lost in translation to 5th Ed, for me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The addition of Quick Preparation as a feat which all wizards have feels to me like more flailing, similar to the Resonance Test. From my POV, the system isn't working, but rather than acknowledge that, the design team tries to find bandaids that will make it less bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since I'm mainly GM, not a player, I care about the balance between the characters, so that everyone has something to say. Of course, a lot depends on the players themselves but to the point: quick preparation for the wizard is necessary for the wizard to be competent in the game . As the only character he must gain spells, pay for them and therefore must be able to actively react to the changing situation. This is understandable and makes sense, and gives the player the motivation to look for rare spells. I am aware of the cry that this change will cause in players who play sorcerers, but let's face it, the sorcerer is now more popular and stronger. Charisma is a better trait than intelligence (better skills and resonance) That a wizard can replace one spell for 10 minutes does not make the sorcerer worse. Sorcerer can always carry several scrolls and it will be easier to use them because of the resonance points.
Have you watched spoilers of playtests? See how many people played sorceres and how many wizards. There are definitely more sorcerers.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Why not just let Sorcerers undercast and overcast as they wish?


They strive to get as far away from D&D 5E, even from all iteration of spell preparations via spell slots with different spell levels, 5E did it best.

They should emulate something similar to that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:
They strive to get as far away from D&D 5E,

I think that is intentional, and smart in some ways, but trying too hard not to be like it, could be a detriment. I find 5th Ed closer to PF, than the Playtest, so far.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
scoutmaster wrote:

I am aware of the cry that this change will cause in players who play sorcerers, but let's face it, the sorcerer is now more popular and stronger.

Have you watched spoilers of playtests? See how many people played sorceres and how many wizards. There are definitely more sorcerers.

I mentioned this earlier, but I really, really, really don't want to have classes balanced around how popular they are. Giving Wizards extra power won't influence people who like or dislike Wizards based on their flavour. People who want to play Wizards will just get extra toys, and people who are influenced by power are just making a mercenary choice of picking "the best class".

A similar problem happened in D&D 3.0 development, when Clerics were widely considered to be a necessary evil, so the design spiced up the Cleric options. Most people still didn't want to play a Cleric, but those who did play it had so many options to powergame, the few Clerics were incredible powerhouses in whatever they want to be. Giving Clerics better options didn't make them more popular, they just made the few Clerics OP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

EberronHoward is correct. Paizo seems to be going about this in the wrong way. It is perfectly fine for a class to be a niche option, so long as it is reasonably balanced alongside other classes. There are many players who avoid druids for thematic reasons, but that is no reason to supercharge the druid's mechanics.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Quick Prep being free was one of my favourite changes in the whole playtest (second probably to the Ranger changes that made them actually viable.) It allows wizards to not be punished for learning very situational spells and preparing them each day only for the situation to never come up. That's huge and makes playing a wizard so much more rewarding. As for Sorcerers I do agree they need something to bring them up to speed with the wizard.

Although FWIW they are like 1000x closer to the wizard then they were in 1e. Like seriously Sorcerer's got new spell levels slower AND technically had less total spells per day than the wizard. It was so uneven it seemed like an absolute joke.

I'd like the Sorcerer powers to be more useful and more readily available. In fact I think they should give every Sorcerer Bloodline a one action cantrip power (like the bard) that doesn't cost any spell points and will help with their identity. These cantrip powers should be more powerful than normal cantrips since they are only available to that bloodline. Some examples may be: Dragon Claws should be one action, not cost a spell point, and should allow you to make a strike as part of the spell. I really like the imperial bloodline power but again I think it should just be 1 action and cost no spell points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:
scoutmaster wrote:

I am aware of the cry that this change will cause in players who play sorcerers, but let's face it, the sorcerer is now more popular and stronger.

Have you watched spoilers of playtests? See how many people played sorceres and how many wizards. There are definitely more sorcerers.

I mentioned this earlier, but I really, really, really don't want to have classes balanced around how popular they are. Giving Wizards extra power won't influence people who like or dislike Wizards based on their flavour. People who want to play Wizards will just get extra toys, and people who are influenced by power are just making a mercenary choice of picking "the best class".

A similar problem happened in D&D 3.0 development, when Clerics were widely considered to be a necessary evil, so the design spiced up the Cleric options. Most people still didn't want to play a Cleric, but those who did play it had so many options to powergame, the few Clerics were incredible powerhouses in whatever they want to be. Giving Clerics better options didn't make them more popular, they just made the few Clerics OP.

actually a lot of us loved playing clerics. they tried to spruce the class up for people who didn't like clerics, and ruined the class. the same thing is happening again. channel was the fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'd be fine with quick preparation being the standard for all prepared casters, personally. But having it tied to it being book-learned spells also is certainly reasonable.

Actually, I would see the option of a sacrificing a pair of lower level slots to get another higher level slot being more of a sorcerer thing than a wizard thing, if you ask me.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, I'd like so see some DRAMATIC changes for Sorcerer.

How about once they get to 5th Level, allow them to use their 1st Level Bloodline Spells and Powers at will like Cantrips? Let them bump this up to 2nd Level Spells/Powers at 13, and 3rd at 19th Level.

This way they can STAY they masters of their niche, and they have some unique mechanical considerations to help they with more sustaining power.


I do not see how the Barbarian rage mechanic is any more bookkeeping than "this is the {1st, 2nd, 3rd} turn of rage" was in the original playtest since the DC progression is just 5(n-1) and you can track n with a d6 since you never get more than 6 turns of rage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I do not see how the Barbarian rage mechanic is any more bookkeeping than "this is the {1st, 2nd, 3rd} turn of rage" was in the original playtest since the DC progression is just 5(n-1) and you can track n with a d6 since you never get more than 6 turns of rage.

I don't see how Bulk is less bookkeeping than actual weights either, but some people think it is... :P

Exo-Guardians

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I suggested it earlier, but what if Sorcerers instead of being 'Tradition' casters (i.e. they use spell slots and a spell list) became Power Casters, such that they can use Spell Points (Or Focus) to fuel their magic, Powers feel more like an innate sort of thing anyway and I've never understood why the casters who literally don't train to cast spells, still make the same arcane motions and wave the same bat guano around that a wizard does because he had to study to figure out magic.

I'd just expand their list of powers dramatically and let them get more Spell points/focus than other classes to balance out that they rely entirely on their spell points,.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I'd rather not introduce another casting mechanic to the game. Yeah Vancian casting has it's problems, but having to try and balance it with another completely disparate structure is far more than what I think is needed.

When it comes to Sorcerers, I really want the bloodlines to play by and far the largest role in how a sorcerer works. They are granted their magic by their ties to a specific magical creature or substance or whatever, and all of their abilities should demonstrate that connection in some significant fashion. In that regard I think Paizo has done okay but would need some fine tuning.

Comparing to a wizard, I feel like there should be a difference in how their spells work but on different scales. Wizards study and understand how and why their spells do what they do, but they have to prepare the ones they want. I feel like having a lot of choice to manipulate the individual spells they cast as they do so should be a big thing because of that very understanding. Sorcerers on the other hand, only know a few spells and understand them more on instinct then by actual knowledge of how they function. Metamagics should be available but fairly limited for a sorcerer, though in exchange I feel it would be far more appropriate for them to be able to adjust the power behind any spell far more flexibly. Spontaneous heightening for all spells basically.

TL;DR: Wizards understand their magic and can quickly make fine-tuned adjustments (metamagic) while sorcerers are more intimately familiar with their own power and how that can affect their spells (spontaneous heightening).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I do not see how the Barbarian rage mechanic is any more bookkeeping than "this is the {1st, 2nd, 3rd} turn of rage" was in the original playtest since the DC progression is just 5(n-1) and you can track n with a d6 since you never get more than 6 turns of rage.
I don't see how Bulk is less bookkeeping than actual weights either, but some people think it is... :P

I don't think it's less bookkeeping, I just think it's smaller, more easily digestible numbers that people are more likely to actually bother keeping track of.

Although, "I have 8 light items" is definitely less bookkeeping than "1lb item + 3lb item + 2lb item + 1lb item + 4lb item + 0.5lb item + 2lb item + 1lb item".


Indeed, bulk is basically binning things into 2 piles, then counting them, items in the second pile might count twice or more.

For the Barbarian rage DC it's just "counting followed by simple arithmetic" as opposed to the prior version which is "counting".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
For the Barbarian rage DC it's just "counting followed by simple arithmetic" as opposed to the prior version which is "counting".

Addition vs addition AND a check: it clear which is more complicated.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Indeed, bulk is basically binning things into 2 piles, then counting them, items in the second pile might count twice or more.

3 piles vs 1 pile and simple addition of each... 1 pile is much easier/simple than 3.

MaxAstro wrote:
Although, "I have 8 light items" is definitely less bookkeeping than "1lb item + 3lb item + 2lb item + 1lb item + 4lb item + 0.5lb item + 2lb item + 1lb item".

It's not really "8 light items" but an unknowable number of negligible = L, 10 L = bulk though you ignore decimals... so you end up with 9 shortswords not affecting bulk but a single longsword, a longbow is more cumbersome than a 10' pole and a potion is as hard to wield as a shield. So simple math [weight] vs using imaginary numbers using an nebulous and contrary unit of measure [bulk].

MaxAstro wrote:
I just think it's smaller, more easily digestible numbers that people are more likely to actually bother keeping track of.

I think whatever boon is 'gained' with those smaller numbers is lost when you then convert piles and ignore decimals. For me, I'm not ever going to use bulk as it produces confusing and silly results as very disparate items fall under the same 'pile' while I had no issue with addition with weight: so I think assuming bulk is making it easier to get people to use encumbrance is iffy. You have to balance ease of use with the system making no sense when looked at critically and in my estimation, it's a pretty lateral move in ease of use that results in a complete breakdown of usability/sensibility and the ability to estimate unknown objects in the system.

The system tells us that it's as easy to carry 10 unsheathed shortswords in your hands as it is to carry a single sheathed lonsword as it is to carry a single heavy shield in your belt pouch, as it is to balance 100 Shuriken on your head or 100 carefully packed arrows or 100 loose sling bullets. These farcical results makes the questionable 'gain' in ease of use seem like it's very much not worth the effort.

PS: as this isn't really a 1.6 debate so I'll leave it at this.


Power Attack also doesn't scale. +1dX is fine for non-magic weapons, less so when you're doing 3dX per hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
They strive to get as far away from D&D 5E,
I think that is intentional, and smart in some ways, but trying too hard not to be like it, could be a detriment. I find 5th Ed closer to PF, than the Playtest, so far.

Problem is that PF2 playtest does not know what it want's to be, that is devs, do not know how to proceed?

Little like PF1?

Little like 5E?

Something new?

They took spell scaling from 5E but kept PF1/3.5e slot preparation,

They took 4E "level gives bonus to everything" and then tackled on pretty badly 5E proficiency progress -4 to +3 in comparison to 0 to +6(+12 in some cases).

They took multiclassing via feats, atleast they did it better than 4E tried that subject, so one plus there.

They don't want to be 5.5e but 5E mechanics creep in the back door.

Either do PF2 like PF1 and do a nice upgrade and pay respect to the source or do your own thing right.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
They strive to get as far away from D&D 5E,
I think that is intentional, and smart in some ways, but trying too hard not to be like it, could be a detriment. I find 5th Ed closer to PF, than the Playtest, so far.

Problem is that PF2 playtest does not know what it want's to be, that is devs, do not know how to proceed?

Little like PF1?

Little like 5E?

Something new?

They took spell scaling from 5E but kept PF1/3.5e slot preparation,

They took 4E "level gives bonus to everything" and then tackled on pretty badly 5E proficiency progress -4 to +3 in comparison to 0 to +6(+12 in some cases).

They took multiclassing via feats, atleast they did it better than 4E tried that subject, so one plus there.

They don't want to be 5.5e but 5E mechanics creep in the back door.

Either do PF2 like PF1 and do a nice upgrade and pay respect to the source or do your own thing right.

I agree, I would prefer a proper evolution, maybe something between 3rd and 5th Ed in complexity; the playtest seems busier and more complicated than any edition, so far.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

While I think the playtest is probably busier and more complicated than most editions so far, I also thing it's not nearly as complicated as some playtests have been.

*cough5ecough*


Igor Horvat wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
They strive to get as far away from D&D 5E,
I think that is intentional, and smart in some ways, but trying too hard not to be like it, could be a detriment. I find 5th Ed closer to PF, than the Playtest, so far.

Problem is that PF2 playtest does not know what it want's to be, that is devs, do not know how to proceed?

Little like PF1?

Little like 5E?

Something new?

They took spell scaling from 5E but kept PF1/3.5e slot preparation,

They took 4E "level gives bonus to everything" and then tackled on pretty badly 5E proficiency progress -4 to +3 in comparison to 0 to +6(+12 in some cases).

They took multiclassing via feats, atleast they did it better than 4E tried that subject, so one plus there.

They don't want to be 5.5e but 5E mechanics creep in the back door.

Either do PF2 like PF1 and do a nice upgrade and pay respect to the source or do your own thing right.

Err..yeah. They are trying to make a new game, not just update an existing system. So yeah I am not surprised there are elements/similarities to all of these different systems.


MMCJawa wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
They strive to get as far away from D&D 5E,
I think that is intentional, and smart in some ways, but trying too hard not to be like it, could be a detriment. I find 5th Ed closer to PF, than the Playtest, so far.

Problem is that PF2 playtest does not know what it want's to be, that is devs, do not know how to proceed?

Little like PF1?

Little like 5E?

Something new?

They took spell scaling from 5E but kept PF1/3.5e slot preparation,

They took 4E "level gives bonus to everything" and then tackled on pretty badly 5E proficiency progress -4 to +3 in comparison to 0 to +6(+12 in some cases).

They took multiclassing via feats, atleast they did it better than 4E tried that subject, so one plus there.

They don't want to be 5.5e but 5E mechanics creep in the back door.

Either do PF2 like PF1 and do a nice upgrade and pay respect to the source or do your own thing right.

Err..yeah. They are trying to make a new game, not just update an existing system. So yeah I am not surprised there are elements/similarities to all of these different systems.

No, they think that they are making a new game, but unfortunately what they did is the took PF1/3.5e, 4E, 5E mixed all together, threw it at a wall and observe what has stick.

Now, this might not be a bad approach, and this is still playtest(beta) so end product might be great(like PF1), but they seem unfocused about their design goal, while in PF1 they were on point, with clear objective.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" is a great way to run a playtest. Since "what stuck" is useful information when it comes to actually putting the initial game together.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Some general, unsorted concerns about update 1.6 (especially Quick Preparation) All Messageboards