Jason on Know Direction (Jan 16th)

[Mathmuse]

Joe M. wrote:

@NN: That's an interesting analysis regarding your view of the theme or idea of the Ranger class. But please do keep in mind that others may view the class differently, or not share your evaluation of the Playtest Ranger.

You make your statements and claims in absolute and universal terms that don't acknowledge the possibility of differing views and frankly don't make sense in this context. For example, you assert that a PF2 Ranger that doesn't fully adhere to your specific vision would be "inaccurate" and on the "wrong path"—as if there's some Platonic ideal of The Ranger that any RGP class named "Ranger" must imitate (that's what a Ranger is," you insist), or be fundamentally, metaphysically flawed and a "failure" and "not a Ranger." But of course that's absurd! There's no Platonic ideal out there.

N N 959 has a vision of the Ranger. It is a colorful, flavorful, and impressive vision. As Joe M. points out, it is not the exclusive definition of a Ranger. Rangers have gathered more lore than J. R. R. Tolkien's Dúnedain of the North.

But the Dúnedain of the North are part of the Ranger. Some players will want to play a character based on Aragorn. Can the Pathfinder 2nd Edition include that character? Or will they have to play Aragon Junior as a rogue, because during the playtest the Rogue seemed to fit the D&D definition of a Ranger better than the Ranger did. During my playtest of The Lost Star, one player's character concept was a woodland scout. She made a halfling scout rogue.

In Pathfinder 1st Edition, the effectiveness of a class was not the most important aspect of the class. Many people played core monks and rogues because they loved the flavor. What is the flavor of the PF2 ranger?

I don't know from where N N 959 found the quote, "The ranger is first and foremost a hunter." It is not in the Playtest Rulebook nor in Rules Update 1.6. That is a pretty narrow vision in and of itself. The Playtest Rulebook instead says, "You might be a scout, tracker, or hunter of fugitives or beasts, haunting the edge of civilization or exploring the wilds. Living off the land, you are skilled at spotting and taking down both opportune prey and hated enemies." I mentioned my two Pathfinder rangers above: a tracker and rescuer of a lost party and a wanderer who wanted to explore the world. The definition in the introduction to the playtest ranger fits both.

Paizo admitted that they made the playtest ranger too focussed on attacks,

Rules Update 1.6, Ranger, page 19 wrote:

For Update 1.6, we’re adjusting Hunt Target for ranger concepts

that aren’t based around making lots of attacks, and to make
the requirements more flexible for when you’re not in combat.

They expanded Hunt Target so that the ranger can hunt a target that he or she is tracking. They added Hunter's Edge with a Stalker specialty that emphasizes skills such as Stealth.

By the way, to us modern Americans, ranger mostly means park ranger, someone who safeguards natural lands. While looking that up, I saw that Wikipedia provided a definition of rangers from the 17th through 19th centuries that also seems to fit the Pathfinder ranger:

Rangers in North America, 17th century – 19th century
In North America rangers served in the 17th through 18th-century wars between colonists and Native American Indian tribes. Rangers were full-time soldiers employed by colonial governments to patrol between fixed frontier fortifications in reconnaissance providing early warning of raids. During offensive operations, they acted as scouts and guides, locating villages and other targets for task forces drawn from the militia or other colonial troops. During the Revolutionary War, General George Washington ordered Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Knowlton to select an elite group of men for reconnaissance missions. This unit was known as Knowlton's Rangers, and was the first official Ranger unit for the United States, considered the historical parent of the modern day Army Rangers.

[Nettah]

Doktor Weasel wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Both Alchemists I saw played were actually really effective. The first, at 4th level in Chapter 2, was a pure bomber and very nasty with it, almost single-handedly dealing with the manticore, while the second was a Mutagen focused build in Chapter 6, who was extremely good at punching things to death, and could dabble in any needed role via his Mutagens.

My mind boggles. This is so far from my experience. Some of that might be that I am notorious for bad rolls, but I think that's mostly confirmation bias really. It was hard to hit at all.

I played an alchemist in part 2 as well. I think it was 1.3 and I honestly felt like one of the strongest in the party. I think some of it is down to certain level spikes being good for some classes and not for others. I was using 2d6 bombs and the rest still had only expert weapons. And Calculated Splash was also a clear MVP often ensuring I did at least 8 points of dmg/turn.

And throwing 2 bombs each "missing" but still burning the mummies for a lot of damage was also a cool moment for my alchemist.
Overall my group might have been rolling quite well, because one of the things I actually didn't get that big a benefit from was the persistent damage (often hitting with an acid bomb on the first turn of combat on the biggest target) but then seeing the target get downed so fast that I would have been better off just throwing bottled lightning or alchemist fire on the problem instead.

As far as I remember my biggest concern was the resonance limit of the potions (since removed) and bulk being quite the issue. I ended up boosting my str to 12 and getting hefty hauler just to avoid being encumbered at all times.

[Elfteiroh]

N N 959 wrote:

[...] The Ranger is not "first and foremost a hunter." I can say that with absolutism because there is nothing in the history of the class that supports this supposition. Paizo is clearly attempting to reshape the class in an effort to justify the Hunt Target mechanic. There is a class that is first and foremost a hunter, and it's called ...wait for it....the Hunter. Paizo made that class in PF1.

[...]

Pathfinder Core Book wrote:

Master Hunter (Ex)

A ranger of 20th level becomes a master hunter.

Nothing the the history of the class that point to them being hunters?

AD&D 2e edition Ranger Handbook Opening wrote:

[...] He's a hunter, a tracker, and a survivalist. By temperament and by choice, he's a loner, often preferring [...]

I could probably find more. :O

That's one of the problem by using absolutes in a debate. They are easily disproved.
Ranger is probably my most played class ever. I'm happy that they made the spells optional (they already mentioned they were thinking of a way to put them back as optional), as they always clashed with my characters (Elfteiroh, my favorite of my characters, feels really weird with spells).
I understand your vision of Rangers... But going as far as saying that the "community" don't know what the class is... Well... These are the kind of thing that are more "opinions" than facts, and with opinions, the community is usually more right than one individual.
I'll wait for the final rules to judge, but I'm pretty sure it will be much more flexible than now.

[Raylyeh]

+1 to Mathmuse’s ranger definition. That is what I think of when I think of ranger. I just couldn’t think of a way to articulate it that well. (I use my phone to post on here and have trouble quoting things).

[N N 959]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

To claim some sort of dishonesty here is a bit far.

When looking at a class and its design, we not only looked at all of our sources (in the case of the ranger, going all the way back to Strategic Review, Vol 1, No 2) but also looking at how ideas around the class have changed over the years.

There were a lot of folks who had no love for the spellcasting. The favored enemy, which has been a part of the class since its earliest days evolved into hunting a target to make it a little more usable, and a little less like racial hatred, which was sometimes very hard to justify and uneven in the play space.

You may not agree with our decisions, but that was the process.

** spoiler omitted **...

First off, thank you for weighing in on this topic. While Paizo has acknowledged issues with the Ranger mechanically, I've haven't come across any discussion on it thematically.

1. I am not accusing Paizo of dishonesty. My underlying point is when I gave/give feedback on the PF2 Ranger it is done under the assumption that Paizo created the class to be enjoyable for people who played Rangers in PF1. That Paizo was not secretly trying to promote their Hunter and simply rebranding it for benefit. It is on that basis that I am critical of the P2 Ranger in the context of the P1 Ranger, because otherwise it's just some random class that happens to share the same name as a class from another game.

2.

Quote:

There were a lot of folks who had no love for the spellcasting

What is a "lot" of folks? And where did these folks say this? What did the survey say?

I don't have any "love" for the spell casting system either. The spell casting system in PF1 was broken for Rangers. You're getting this fantastic list of cool spells, which are incredibly situational, and you're forcing the player to pick one....in advance. Why not fix that instead of dumping spells entirely? Spells are a huge axis of agency for the class in PF1. Spells create a distinct and separate feeling from the Rogue/Stalker/Hunter classes. Sure, let people opt out, but did you consider that fixing spells might have more people opting in?

Spell mechanics are a place to improve the Ranger for PF2, so it was disappointing and deflating to see you guys just dump it.

Look, I can see that spells are problematic, especially if you don't want to create separate spell lists for the Ranger, but the class has to have something along these lines.

3. I never saw Favored Enemy as "race hatred." I viewed it as familiarity, study, perhaps even appreciation. Favored Enemy conveyed non-combat bonuses so it was more than just how to efficiently kill, it conveyed that the Ranger was intimately familiar with some creatures.

Corerule book wrote:

He gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of his selected type

The math aside, just the concept of this ability has an impact on how people perceive/approach/feel about the class.

JB wrote:

evolved into hunting a target to make it a little more usable

But it's not always about the math. I get that this was a playtest and mechanics are what you really want to test, it feels like you're not even considering the narrative impact these changes have. I'm not in love with Favored Enemy/Terrain, but from where I sit, you're losing a lot in translation/transformation. It's easy to say you'll get all that stuff back in there, but not if no one is thinking about it.

Quote:

You may not agree with our decisions, but that was the process.

I don't agree with the decision and I'm under the impression you wanted us to talk about that. But I do appreciate hearing more about the process. Thank you.

[N N 959]

Elfteiroh wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

[...] The Ranger is not "first and foremost a hunter."

Nothing the the history of the class that point to them being hunters?

I said "first and foremost." You even quoted that!!!!!?????? There's a substantive difference between being able to do something and that being what you do, "first and foremost."

Yes, the Ranger can hunt, that doesn't make them "first and foremost" a hunter.

[Kalindlara]

MaxAstro wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Whai sword 'n' bord when u can has smash face 2h (or maybe twf)? The discrepancy in rise of attack and AC in PF1 made sacrificing offense for defense only really worth it with some cookie cutter specialised defensive builds. And we're back in the "this could work, but you'll need book A, B, X, Y and Z in order for this, pretty much iconic and straightforward build to compare to an effortlessly made greatsword user".

I dunno. I just wasn't worried that much about whether it was "worth it" or "as good as X". I contributed my fair share, did adequate damage, and I didn't feel like a failure, nor did anyone else in the party think I was.

Plus 1,000 to this post.

My dream for PF2e is that the people who don't worry about whether their build is any good or not and the people who optimize their murder machines to the maximum will both be able to play at the same table without anyone feeling unable to contribute.

I'm hoping this can be accomplished without the feeling of mandatory optimization I experienced in the Playtest. Given what we've since learned about the design parameters of Doomsday Dawn and some of the announced plans for PF2's final design, I very much look forward to giving the final version a try.

[N N 959]

Mathmuse wrote:

I don't know from where N N 959 found the quote, "The ranger is first and foremost a hunter." It is not in the Playtest Rulebook nor in Rules Update 1.6. That is a pretty narrow vision in and of itself. The Playtest Rulebook instead says, "You might be a scout,...

Quote:

Ranger Features

First and foremost, the ranger is a hunter. In Pathfinder First Edition, you picked creature types or subtypes that you were skilled at hunting. There are few things more frustrating than playing a ranger who rarely—or worst of all, never—encounters their favored enemies. It also led to some players who tended to play in more human-centric campaigns picking the human subtype, even if their backgrounds may have pointed to better choices for favored enemies.

Emphasis mine.

It's from the playtest blog. For me, it feels like this statement sets the class off-axis and it never gets back on.

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkw1&page=14?Ranger-Class-Pre view#694

If Jason Bulmahn is telling us that this isn't the guiding force behind the PF2 Ranger, than my bringing it up is moot. But since the primary ability is called Hunt Target, it came across that Paizo wanted the class to be a hunter focus.

I was hoping the Know your Direction blog would address the class. But Jason Bullmahn weighed in, so that was helpful. Of course he didn't say what is going to happen moving forward, so hope springs eternal, if at an extremely low candle-watt.

[Jason Bulmahn]

Themetricsystem wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

You monster!

And if I did not make it clear, that bit in the hidden text in my original post was the text for the very original ranger. If folks are interested. Some strange stuff in there...

[Deadmanwalking]

Doktor Weasel wrote:

That makes sense. We only had a bard in part 2 while the alchemist was in 1, 4 and 7. The bard bonuses were pretty nice to have. I did have dex 16 at the start, but I was mostly relying on self-buffing with Quicksilver Mutagen. The percentages were really rough. I think I generally needed low to mid teens on the D20 just to hit. I'm really looking forward to seeing more of the new math. That was probably the single biggest problem with the playtest (with resonance as second). Fixing that will go quite a ways to making it a more fun game to play. As it was, we only ever felt heroic while fighting creatures several levels below us.

Yeah, the math had...issues. And with the math as it was, having less than a 16 attack stat was pretty flatly always gonna make you feel bad.

But the new math sounds much better, so I'm very hopeful.

Doktor Weasel wrote:

I agree that the mutagen loss was probably unintended. Unfortunately there was no clarification on this from the devs. I suspect they just decided to run with it and see what data they could get from the lack of mutagens.

Either way I suspect it'll get fixed, which strikes me as the important part.

Doktor Weasel wrote:

I'm still not seeing the splash damage for Alchemist Fire. Am I missing something? It says "Alchemist’s fire deals the listed fire damage and persistent fire damage, as well as 1 fire splash damage." The persistent damage is equal to the number of dice, is that what you're thinking of? Or do you interpret that to mean that there is 1 splash damage per die as well? It does seem a bit ambiguous, but I read that as the splash damage being fixed at 1, while the fire and persistent damage were as given in the chart.

Huh. You're right. I'm apparently just misremembering or hallucinating or something. Weird. I could've sworn...

Doktor Weasel wrote:

Smite Evil taking the place of Retributive Strike would help a lot. And your setup sound like a reasonable implementation of it. Retributive strike should stick around as a nice (potentially optional) extra, but the focus should be on smite. The features that add on to retributive strike should go to enhancing smite instead. That would make paladins feel much more like paladins again.

I'm fine with some Feats enhancing Retributive Strike, it's a decently on-theme Paladin ability and does some cool stuff, especially vs. mobs of enemies, but the Paladin should also have a path focusing on picking out one main enemy and going to town. For setting continuity as much as anything. And that's something they're currently just not great at.

Doktor Weasel wrote:

And yeah, archer paladins are certainly a thing (the Erastil Bow Paladin in our Wrath of the Righteous game was disgusting. Although a lot of that was from mythic as well as the fact that mostly we were against demons). Also with the opening of alignments, a Caden Calien swashbuckling Liberator in light armor with a rapier is a very valid concept. But I could see the concept of a lightly armored lawful paly still working too. Knight in Shining Armor isn't the only way to do a righteous avenger.

Definitely. The restrictions forcing Fighters and Paladins into heavy armor are unpleasant and should be removed, and some support for a Paladin Archer should be provided.

.
.
.
In terms of Ranger stuff:

I think the takeaway from this whole conversation should be that the Ranger needs a stronger identity and mechanical niche as a Class in PF2, and that enough people want spells that a spell option should be available at the very least (making it one of the 'paths' of the Class, and thus available from 1st level, seems particularly reasonable).

[Jhaeman]

My thought about classes is that if a game system is going to have them, it should provide moments in the system where they get the spotlight. A group trekking through the wilderness should say "we're really lucky we have a ranger with us, or this would take forever", a Paladin should be able to shine while fighting devils in Hell, a Rogue should legitimately be the best choice when disguise or infiltration is needed, etc. This doesn't mean that other groups in these situations are doomed, but just that certain classes are naturally pretty good in certain roles. If not, there's not really any point in having a class system to begin with.

One of the subtle ways that RPGs can support a class system is through good adventure design. A ranger's ability to track foes (and not be tracked in turn) can seem like a very niche ability if published scenarios never give it an opportunity to be useful, for example. A monk's ability to fight well without weapons can be highlighted once in a while with encounters that make using weapons impossible or illegal. Etc.

[gwynfrid]

N N 959 wrote:

It's from the playtest blog. For me, it feels like this statement sets the class off-axis and it never gets back on.

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkw1&page=14?Ranger-Class-Pre view#694

I guess one shouldn't get overly hung up on the blog, it was just a preview of the playtest. It's superseded by the playtest book, which in turn will be superseded by the CRB, where we can expect more flavor content.

That said, the ranger in PF1 is a hunter, I wouldn't want to say "first and foremost", but a hunter primarily:

Ranger flavor text from PF1 CRB wrote:

For those who relish the thrill of the hunt, there are only predators and prey. Be they scouts, trackers, or bounty hunters, rangers share much in common: unique mastery of specialized weapons, skill at stalking even the most elusive game, and the expertise to defeat a wide range of quarries. Knowledgeable, patient, and skilled hunters, these rangers hound man, beast, and monster alike, gaining insight into the way of the predator, skill in varied environments, and ever more lethal martial prowess. While some track man-eating creatures to protect the frontier, others pursue more cunning game—even fugitives among their own people.

If you look at the list of the PF1 ranger's class features, more than half directly refer to hunting or hunt-related activities: Track, Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Quarry, Hunter's Bond, Camouflage, and to top it off, the 20th level capstone is called Master Hunter. That's enough legacy, I should think.

Your more salient point is that the PF2 ranger plays in a way that feels too different from PF1. This is something I think I can agree too, although I wouldn't necessarily see it as a bad thing. The PF1 ranger had a number of flavor issues and mechanical constraints, some of which Jason mentioned. Fans of the class who have played it over a decade of PF1 may of course see it differently.

But even as you have a right to think that the PF2 ranger is too much of a departure, you come across as telling us what The True Ranger is, and whether intentional or not, that just doesn't fly. Especially, this claim :

N N 959 wrote:

A fact is that Ranger's have spells. That's what the class is. There's no opinion involved in that.

That one sounds really strange, considering how few spells the ranger gets to cast in PF1. Unless you spend considerable time playing at level 10+, your ranger won't ever cast more than 3 or 4 spells of level 1 or 2 in a given day. That's hardly a key characteristic of the class, in the experience of most players. You may disagree, but that is very much an opinion.

[Captain Morgan]

The thing about the alchemist is it's not a straight powerhouse. It's Batman. It's Kurama. It's having the right option in their utility belt at any given that's exactly what you need. Quick Alchemy allows you to spontaneously access any item in your book. Every prepared casters is limited by what they actually prepared that day. Even the wizard needs 10 minutes for Quick Preparation.

That means that the alchemist has the what might be the highest problem solving potential out of any class in the long term, because every new alchemical item that is released becomes something the alchemist could spontaneously pull out. This is probably part of why the items we have seen so far have been so tame. Unfortunately, I think they've been a little too tame. I'd like it if we got some more freaky mutations out of them-- growing gills or wings seems like a pretty reasonable thing in relation to what the PF1 alchemist could do and that's the sort of tool that really makes you shine.

They've also got some issues, don't get me wrong. Mutagen onset times are wonky and confusing af, bulk can be an issue, and poisons feel pretty bad as written. But I think if there was one class I'd really want to play right now, it would be the alchemist. The possibility of always having an answer in my formula book sounds really engaging to me.

[Mark Seifter]

Hey guys,

I feel like we've gotten a bit off track of the original topic of Jason's interview with the ranger and that talking about ranger theme and history might deserve it's own thread where those who are passionate can discuss it as the only topic. That said, since we don't have that yet (could someone interested in rangers start one up?) in terms of the question about survey results on spells and rangers, basically the results were the "Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in), followed by the "Ranger never get spells" option with a sizeable chunk but nowhere near enough to challenge the leader, and in last place was the "Ranger has mandatory spells like in PF1" option.

[Excaliburproxy]

Captain Morgan wrote:

The thing about the alchemist is it's not a straight powerhouse. It's Batman. It's Kurama. It's having the right option in their utility belt at any given that's exactly what you need. Quick Alchemy allows you to spontaneously access any item in your book. Every prepared casters is limited by what they actually prepared that day. Even the wizard needs 10 minutes for Quick Preparation.

That means that the alchemist has the what might be the highest problem solving potential out of any class in the long term, because every new alchemical item that is released becomes something the alchemist could spontaneously pull out. This is probably part of why the items we have seen so far have been so tame. Unfortunately, I think they've been a little too tame. I'd like it if we got some more freaky mutations out of them-- growing gills or wings seems like a pretty reasonable thing in relation to what the PF1 alchemist could do and that's the sort of tool that really makes you shine.

They've also got some issues, don't get me wrong. Mutagen onset times are wonky and confusing af, bulk can be an issue, and poisons feel pretty bad as written. But I think if there was one class I'd really want to play right now, it would be the alchemist. The possibility of always having an answer in my formula book sounds really engaging to me.

I also worry about that power creep to some extent but I think that careful use of rarities might be the magic bullet for that. I also suspect that the playtest iteration of alchemical items are tuned a bit too weak/situational exactly because of the ambiguously large size of the alchemist's bag of tricks.

I am interested to see how the Alchemist is going to change with the removal of resonance (if at all). I especially wonder if there is going to be anything to take resonance's place in balancing consumables and multiuse magic items and if the alchemist is going to change form at all because of that.

[Dante Doom]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey guys,

I feel like we've gotten a bit off track of the original topic of Jason's interview with the ranger and that talking about ranger theme and history might deserve it's own thread where those who are passionate can discuss it as the only topic. That said, since we don't have that yet (could someone interested in rangers start one up?) in terms of the question about survey results on spells and rangers, basically the results were the "Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in), followed by the "Ranger never get spells" option with a sizeable chunk but nowhere near enough to challenge the leader, and in last place was the "Ranger has mandatory spells like in PF1" option.

Hey Mark!

It's always nice to see you explaining the surveys to us like we were 5 years old!

[Doktor Weasel]

Nettah wrote:

As far as I remember my biggest concern was the resonance limit of the potions (since removed) and bulk being quite the issue. I ended up boosting my str to 12 and getting hefty hauler just to avoid being encumbered at all times.

At low level that resonance limit was pretty nasty. And yeah, the bulk requirements for an alchemist are pretty rough. Hopefully the bulk of the formula book and alchemist's tools will be dramatically lowered, or bulk altered to be able to more easily carry normal gear. That's 3 bulk right off the bat that is required to function as an alchemist. Add a suit of light armor and you're already at 4 out of 5 allowable at STR 10 to avoid penalties. And requiring alchemists to be muscular to be able to operate really doesn't make sense, and feels bad regardless.

[Joe M.]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey guys,

I feel like we've gotten a bit off track of the original topic of Jason's interview with the ranger and that talking about ranger theme and history might deserve it's own thread where those who are passionate can discuss it as the only topic. That said, since we don't have that yet (could someone interested in rangers start one up?) in terms of the question about survey results on spells and rangers, basically the results were the "Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in), followed by the "Ranger never get spells" option with a sizeable chunk but nowhere near enough to challenge the leader, and in last place was the "Ranger has mandatory spells like in PF1" option.

Interesting. Thanks!

[Mark Seifter]

Joe M. wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey guys,

I feel like we've gotten a bit off track of the original topic of Jason's interview with the ranger and that talking about ranger theme and history might deserve it's own thread where those who are passionate can discuss it as the only topic. That said, since we don't have that yet (could someone interested in rangers start one up?) in terms of the question about survey results on spells and rangers, basically the results were the "Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in), followed by the "Ranger never get spells" option with a sizeable chunk but nowhere near enough to challenge the leader, and in last place was the "Ranger has mandatory spells like in PF1" option.

Interesting. Thanks!

The class surveys were very interesting. It was definitely a wide range of playtesters, including very differing opinions on relative power level and interest level of various classes, feats, and so on, but the one thing that surprised me, which I think I mentioned before on Paizo Friday with Dan, was that the overall class changes from PF1 (bard as occult 9 level, sorcerer with all four traditions, and so on) had incredibly good ratings of people choosing them as their favorite over options lists that included reverting to PF1, better ratings than I ever would have imagined. And these weren't just from people who really liked everything about classes in the playtest, it was across all categories of playtesters except one, as I mentioned on Paizo Friday: If you took a change that was super popular (let's say druids getting their own primal list vs being divine, at over 90% favorability) and select for the people who were in that <10%, they consistently were much more likely not to like any of the other changes and to keep picking the "keep it like PF1" option for all classes. Put another way, being conservative once meant you were more likely to be conservative elsewhere and that was the only indicator, not experience, not how much they liked the playtest classes overall.

[Doktor Weasel]

I've always been a ranger fan, but was never really big on the spellcasting. Part of that was that Vancian, prepared spellcasting is terrible. Part was the spell selection and bad save DCs of any offensive spell. But probably the biggest issue was the action economy. In combat you could either cast a spell, or attack. And with the ranger spell list, attacking was pretty much always the best option. Moving to three actions opens up the possibility of rangers being able to use spells more effectively, especially if they're one action powers. So spellcasting rangers might actually be more popular in the new system.

[Geminus]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey guys,

I feel like we've gotten a bit off track of the original topic of Jason's interview with the ranger and that talking about ranger theme and history might deserve it's own thread where those who are passionate can discuss it as the only topic. That said, since we don't have that yet (could someone interested in rangers start one up?) in terms of the question about survey results on spells and rangers, basically the results were the "Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in), followed by the "Ranger never get spells" option with a sizeable chunk but nowhere near enough to challenge the leader, and in last place was the "Ranger has mandatory spells like in PF1" option.

Thank you!

I don't want to seem greedy, but could we get some tidbits about changes to the Sorcerer?

[Mathmuse]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey guys,

I feel like we've gotten a bit off track of the original topic of Jason's interview with the ranger and that talking about ranger theme and history might deserve it's own thread where those who are passionate can discuss it as the only topic. That said, since we don't have that yet (could someone interested in rangers start one up?) in terms of the question about survey results on spells and rangers, basically the results were the "Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in), followed by the "Ranger never get spells" option with a sizeable chunk but nowhere near enough to challenge the leader, and in last place was the "Ranger has mandatory spells like in PF1" option.

A quick search revealed the following threads in the Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes subforum:

1. Unicorn Thoughts: The Ranger August 5, 3 entries.
2. Pigeonholing Rangers August 6 to August 7, 18 entries.
3. Apathy towards the Ranger August 10 to August 17, 24 entries.
4. Rangers August 25 to September 25, 43 entries.
5. 'Monster Hunter' Ranger September 1, 1 entry.
6. I Like Rangers and Why September 18 to October 9, 71 entries.
7. Pathfinder 2nd Ranger October 8 to October 11, 15 entries.

We don't need another one. The October 8 one has similar arguments by N N 959, so let us continue there. I will add one more entry.

EDIT: Here's the link: Pathfinder 2nd Ranger comment #16. I posted two questions to seed the discussion.

[Mark Seifter]

Mathmuse wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey guys,

I feel like we've gotten a bit off track of the original topic of Jason's interview with the ranger and that talking about ranger theme and history might deserve it's own thread where those who are passionate can discuss it as the only topic. That said, since we don't have that yet (could someone interested in rangers start one up?) in terms of the question about survey results on spells and rangers, basically the results were the "Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in), followed by the "Ranger never get spells" option with a sizeable chunk but nowhere near enough to challenge the leader, and in last place was the "Ranger has mandatory spells like in PF1" option.

A quick search revealed the following threads in the Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes subforum:

1. Unicorn Thoughts: The Ranger August 5, 3 entries.
2. Pigeonholing Rangers August 6 to August 7, 18 entries.
3. Apathy towards the Ranger August 10 to August 17, 24 entries.
4. Rangers August 25 to September 25, 43 entries.
5. 'Monster Hunter' Ranger September 1, 1 entry.
6. I Like Rangers and Why September 18 to October 9, 71 entries.
7. Pathfinder 2nd Ranger October 8 to October 11, 15 entries.

We don't need another one. The October 8 one has similar arguments by N N 959, so let us continue there. I will add one more...

Good show! Can we move ranger stuff over there then? It's not in blue, so it's just a request, not a moderator post for now. But it seems like it would help both conversations to do so.

[Mark Seifter]

Geminus wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey guys,

I feel like we've gotten a bit off track of the original topic of Jason's interview with the ranger and that talking about ranger theme and history might deserve it's own thread where those who are passionate can discuss it as the only topic. That said, since we don't have that yet (could someone interested in rangers start one up?) in terms of the question about survey results on spells and rangers, basically the results were the "Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in), followed by the "Ranger never get spells" option with a sizeable chunk but nowhere near enough to challenge the leader, and in last place was the "Ranger has mandatory spells like in PF1" option.

Thank you!

I don't want to seem greedy, but could we get some tidbits about changes to the Sorcerer?

We're still deep in the final stages so now's not quite the time yet to reveal details. That said, I came up with what I thought was a clever two word cryptic phrase to say that could engage speculation without promising anything, then remembered it used to be the name of a sorcerer feat so it would probably mislead everybody if I said it into thinking "What's so big, are they just changing that feat?"...so now you can speculate on that ;)

[Ediwir]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Geminus wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey guys,

I feel like we've gotten a bit off track of the original topic of Jason's interview with the ranger and that talking about ranger theme and history might deserve it's own thread where those who are passionate can discuss it as the only topic. That said, since we don't have that yet (could someone interested in rangers start one up?) in terms of the question about survey results on spells and rangers, basically the results were the "Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in), followed by the "Ranger never get spells" option with a sizeable chunk but nowhere near enough to challenge the leader, and in last place was the "Ranger has mandatory spells like in PF1" option.

Thank you!

I don't want to seem greedy, but could we get some tidbits about changes to the Sorcerer?

We're still deep in the final stages so now's not quite the time yet to reveal details. That said, I came up with what I thought was a clever two word cryptic phrase to say that could engage speculation without promising anything, then remembered it used to be the name of a sorcerer feat so it would probably mislead everybody if I said it into thinking "What's so big, are they just changing that feat?"...so now you can speculate on that ;)

Two-word feats that are not too specific so they could fit this are:

-Blood Magic <-
-Dangerous Sorcery <-
-Magic Sense
-Magical Striker <-
-Metamagic Mastery <-
-Quickened Casting
-Steady Spellcasting

Not asking for which one, but... you could always confirm if it's one of them. One out of seven. Still plenty of plausible deniability when asked whether you confirmed the cryptic change.
(of course NOT confirming could be a very clever ploy on my part, as I left out one candidate which I believe has good chances... Or maybe I'm trying to trick you... Or maybe I got it wrong)

Top 4 highlighted.

[Cyouni]

Hmm, Blood Magic (alt. Bloodline Heightening) or Dangerous Sorcery seem to be the most likely candidates for that. I'd lean towards the first.

Most of the other two-word candidates are tradition-specific, or have a specific name in it (Spell, Concentration)

[Doktor Weasel]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Geminus wrote:

I don't want to seem greedy, but could we get some tidbits about changes to the Sorcerer?

We're still deep in the final stages so now's not quite the time yet to reveal details. That said, I came up with what I thought was a clever two word cryptic phrase to say that could engage speculation without promising anything, then remembered it used to be the name of a sorcerer feat so it would probably mislead everybody if I said it into thinking "What's so big, are they just changing that feat?"...so now you can speculate on that ;)

If that isn't an invitation to go searching feat names for potential candidates and then wildly speculating on what that could mean for the final game, I don't know what is. Blood Magic seems like a possible cryptic two words that is also a Sorcerer feat. Dangerous Sorcery might be another, could be some kind of mechanic like Burn for the Kineticist.

[dmerceless]

The more I see Mark and Jason talking about the final version of the game, the more hyped I get. Probably the only way I could get more excited was if they said Vancian Casting is going away in favor of Arcanist but I don't really see that happening, unfortunately.

Also, I can't help but notice that you two have been a LOT more active in the boards lately. Does that mean the time is coming...? The time for... drum sounds... revealing stuff?

[Mark Seifter]

Dante Doom wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey guys,

I feel like we've gotten a bit off track of the original topic of Jason's interview with the ranger and that talking about ranger theme and history might deserve it's own thread where those who are passionate can discuss it as the only topic. That said, since we don't have that yet (could someone interested in rangers start one up?) in terms of the question about survey results on spells and rangers, basically the results were the "Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in), followed by the "Ranger never get spells" option with a sizeable chunk but nowhere near enough to challenge the leader, and in last place was the "Ranger has mandatory spells like in PF1" option.

Hey Mark!

It's always nice to see you explaining the surveys to us like we were 5 years old!

Hey guys, I probably have to explain the joke on the post I'm quoting: it's based on a meme from Pathfinder Friday where in a Q&A one watcher asked me to explain dispel magic like he was 5 years old and then another watcher watching with his five year old confirmed that the five year old understood it, so Dan made it into a special bot command on our Twitch channel.

I do want to thank the people who flagged this post for looking out for me (I actually wondered if I should pre-explain it in case people got the wrong idea), but in this case, I'm going to clear the flags.

[Ediwir]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey guys, I probably have to explain the joke on the post I'm quoting: it's based on a meme from Pathfinder Friday where in a Q&A one watcher asked me to explain dispel magic like he was 5 years old and then another watcher watching with his five year old confirmed that the five year old understood it, so Dan made it into a special bot command on our Twitch channel.

I do want to thank the people who flagged this post for looking out for me (I actually wondered if I should pre-explain it in case people got the wrong idea), but in this case, I'm going to clear the flags.

I remember that one. It was very helpful for knowing what to do when the bad people do the bad magic on my friends.

[Geminus]

Mark Seifter wrote:

We're still deep in the final stages so now's not quite the time yet to reveal details. That said, I came up with what I thought was a clever two word cryptic phrase to say that could engage speculation without promising anything, then remembered it used to be the name of a sorcerer feat so it would probably mislead everybody if I said it into thinking "What's so big, are they just changing that feat?"...so now you can speculate on that ;)

If I were a betting man, I would place money on Bloodline Heightening no longer costing a feat and being a default part of the class. Similarly, I could see bloodline powers no longer costing feats.

I also see great potential for Blood Sorcery. The feat could be changed to something that increases the versatility of the Sorcerer. Maybe they can trade HP to adjust their spontaneous Heightening selections on the fly, like Wizards can change their prepared spells with Quick Study. Or maybe by endangering themselves, Sorcerers temporarily gain access to additional forms of magic.

[Mark Seifter]

dmerceless wrote:

Also, I can't help but notice that you two have been a LOT more active in the boards lately. Does that mean the time is coming...? The time for... drum sounds... revealing stuff?

Mostly that we have gone from crazy work-all-day-and-night mode to slightly less crazy but still grueling mode. That plus there's some things I'm more likely to respond to than others especially when I'm low on time, so depending on what posts I see, that'll influence my response rate.

[Rob Godfrey]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

You monster!

And if I did not make it clear, that bit in the hidden text in my original post was the text for the very original ranger. If folks are interested. Some strange stuff in there...

they were far more focused on being Tolkien rangers back then, and I shed a nostalgia tear for fighting men classes getting armies at mid levels, but the class identity was more focued than PF Playtest, for good or ill, and the spells really played a massive part in that, the decision to remove spells from the 4th level casters really, for me, damaged the identity of Rangers and Paladins, the Versatility casting bought, and just as importantly, the link to a Power, be it Divine, Ideological or something else, that those few spells made manifest in the rules of the game showed as strongly as Favoured Enemy or Divine Grace/Smite that this was a champion, blessed and anointed, not just a person with funny skills.

Also locking all combat feats into specific classes and the near elimination of fixed features damaged class identity, almost to the point of making classes pointless (a classless system can be great, no problem with that, WFRP is amazing, as is Shadowrun).

You cannot be a Ranger (or even worse a barbarian) who takes huge risky, near frenzied swings at the target, only fighters get that feat now, and it does not work for that idea anymore anyway, (to the extent of being unrecognisable as Power Attack, its Vital Strike, and really should be called that). If you want to be good at two weapons, again, fighter has the only decent feats for it, archery? Again, fighter, most feats worth having for physical combat are gated behind multiclassing as a fighter, this has removed the Versatility that made DnD 3.0 and PF1e great, and replaced it with tight, yet bizarrely bland, character lanes, that to me is a great loss.

Sorry for meandering a little, haven't posted in a while, and all the concepts are linked at the base anyway.

[N N 959]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Mathmuse wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey guys,

I feel like we've gotten a bit off track of the original topic of Jason's interview with the ranger and that talking about ranger theme and history might deserve it's own thread where those who are passionate can discuss it as the only topic. That said, since we don't have that yet (could someone interested in rangers start one up?) in terms of the question about survey results on spells and rangers, basically the results were the "Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in), followed by the "Ranger never get spells" option with a sizeable chunk but nowhere near enough to challenge the leader, and in last place was the "Ranger has mandatory spells like in PF1" option.

A quick search revealed the following threads in the Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes subforum:

1. Unicorn Thoughts: The Ranger August 5, 3 entries.
2. Pigeonholing Rangers August 6 to August 7, 18 entries.
3. Apathy towards the Ranger August 10 to August 17, 24 entries.
4. Rangers August 25 to September 25, 43 entries.
5. 'Monster Hunter' Ranger September 1, 1 entry.
6. I Like Rangers and Why September 18 to October 9, 71 entries.
7. Pathfinder 2nd Ranger October 8 to October 11, 15 entries.

We don't need another one. The October 8 one has similar arguments by N N 959, so let us continue

...

While I'm not sure how talk about Alchemists or Sorcerers is any more on topic in a 14 day old thread, I'll comply. However, with apologies to Mathmuse, I will respond in a separate thread. I don't want to co-op a six month old thread with discussion from a different thread, even if it is on a related subject.

[Ninja in the Rye]

Mark Seifter wrote:

"Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in),

I mean, I picked this option because I assumed that what I was saying is, "It's very important to me that Rangers have the option to cast spells, but it doesn't have to be mandatory for all Rangers."

I didn't pick it because I wanted spell-less Rangers in core and to just get some spell options tacked on in some future splat book.

[N N 959]

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

"Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in),

I mean, I picked this option because I assumed that what I was saying is, "It's very important to me that Rangers have the option to cast spells, but it doesn't have to be mandatory for all Rangers."

I didn't pick it because I wanted spell-less Rangers in core and to just get some spell options tacked on in some future splat book.

I was very unhappy with how this part of the survey was written.

[oholoko]

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

"Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in),

I mean, I picked this option because I assumed that what I was saying is, "It's very important to me that Rangers have the option to cast spells, but it doesn't have to be mandatory for all Rangers."

I didn't pick it because I wanted spell-less Rangers in core and to just get some spell options tacked on in some future splat book.

Kinda of the same for me... But i am a bit unhappy with powers overall, i mean they are a great idea and most of them are really cool. But when you think that you only get one with each feat when with multiclass spellcaster you can get like 3 spells for one feat instead(even if they don't scale as well as the power) i wanted to see power *packages* instead of feat for power.

[Doktor Weasel]

oholoko wrote:

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

"Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in),

I mean, I picked this option because I assumed that what I was saying is, "It's very important to me that Rangers have the option to cast spells, but it doesn't have to be mandatory for all Rangers."

I didn't pick it because I wanted spell-less Rangers in core and to just get some spell options tacked on in some future splat book.

Kinda of the same for me... But i am a bit unhappy with powers overall, i mean they are a great idea and most of them are really cool. But when you think that you only get one with each feat when with multiclass spellcaster you can get like 3 spells for one feat instead(even if they don't scale as well as the power) i wanted to see power *packages* instead of feat for power.

That's a good idea. It did seem like power selection was a bit thin, with each one requiring a feat. Getting several per feat would make it feel more like you had options and weren't just a one trick pony. Possibly scaling feats, where it unlocks certain powers at given levels instead of just dumping all on you when you take the feat. This would also be better able to replicate the feel of a PF1 character who could have a dozen spells or so instead of only a handful, and then only if they really focus on them at the expense of other abilities.

[Arssanguinus]

dmerceless wrote:

The more I see Mark and Jason talking about the final version of the game, the more hyped I get. Probably the only way I could get more excited was if they said Vancian Casting is going away in favor of Arcanist but I don't really see that happening, unfortunately.

Also, I can't help but notice that you two have been a LOT more active in the boards lately. Does that mean the time is coming...? The time for... drum sounds... revealing stuff?

I really don’t get the “"Ceterum censeo", "Carthago delenda est”

Level of disdain for prepared casting I see out there. It’s not a disparagement of you I just literally don’t get what causes that level of engagement over the issue.

[Doktor Weasel]

Arssanguinus wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

The more I see Mark and Jason talking about the final version of the game, the more hyped I get. Probably the only way I could get more excited was if they said Vancian Casting is going away in favor of Arcanist but I don't really see that happening, unfortunately.

Also, I can't help but notice that you two have been a LOT more active in the boards lately. Does that mean the time is coming...? The time for... drum sounds... revealing stuff?

I really don’t get the “"Ceterum censeo", "Carthago delenda est”

Level of disdain for prepared casting I see out there. It’s not a disparagement of you I just literally don’t get what causes that level of engagement over the issue.

Prepared casting really kills the interest in spellcasting for a lot of us. It's nonsensical and breaks verisimilitude. It also requires you to predict not just what exact spells you are going to need that day, but how many and increases book-keeping. The vastly reduced number of spell slots and the need to heighten exacerbates all the problems with it as well. And it's being brought up a lot because this edition change is the perfect time to ditch it. D&D 5 already has, why is Pathfinder keeping it? Pathfinder is changing just about everything else.

[dmerceless]

Arssanguinus wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

The more I see Mark and Jason talking about the final version of the game, the more hyped I get. Probably the only way I could get more excited was if they said Vancian Casting is going away in favor of Arcanist but I don't really see that happening, unfortunately.

Also, I can't help but notice that you two have been a LOT more active in the boards lately. Does that mean the time is coming...? The time for... drum sounds... revealing stuff?

I really don’t get the “"Ceterum censeo", "Carthago delenda est”

Level of disdain for prepared casting I see out there. It’s not a disparagement of you I just literally don’t get what causes that level of engagement over the issue.

Weasel's response sums up my reasons really well, but I have a pretty extensive thread explaining everything in detail if you want to take a look at it, I don't really want to derail this one talking about that. But yeah, currently this is my biggest issue with PF2 by a cross-galaxy travel away.

[Arssanguinus]

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how it’s nonsensical. There are plenty of perfectly cogent explainations on how a prepared spell system would work in ‘reality’. Just because you don’t like their flavor doesn’t make them nonsensical.

[necromental]

Doktor Weasel wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

The more I see Mark and Jason talking about the final version of the game, the more hyped I get. Probably the only way I could get more excited was if they said Vancian Casting is going away in favor of Arcanist but I don't really see that happening, unfortunately.

Also, I can't help but notice that you two have been a LOT more active in the boards lately. Does that mean the time is coming...? The time for... drum sounds... revealing stuff?

I really don’t get the “"Ceterum censeo", "Carthago delenda est”

Level of disdain for prepared casting I see out there. It’s not a disparagement of you I just literally don’t get what causes that level of engagement over the issue.

Prepared casting really kills the interest in spellcasting for a lot of us. It's nonsensical and breaks verisimilitude. It also requires you to predict not just what exact spells you are going to need that day, but how many and increases book-keeping. The vastly reduced number of spell slots and the need to heighten exacerbates all the problems with it as well. And it's being brought up a lot because this edition change is the perfect time to ditch it. D&D 5 already has, why is Pathfinder keeping it? Pathfinder is changing just about everything else.

This.

[Arssanguinus]

I suspect that the average person does something like what I do and has a couple premade spell lists already written up and then just adjust those slightly based on whatever they think they’re going to be encountering that day. Probably 80 or 90% of your spell slots aren’t going to change day to day, so that’s really kind of false.

[MaxAstro]

Most people I know do that. Which is the other side of the issue - if 90% of your spell slots aren't going to change day to day, why have such a complicated system just for the other 10%?

If you gave the current Vancian casters sorcerer-style casting plus the ability to cast one spell per level from their list without knowing it each day, I would argue that the vast majority of Wizards would not notice the difference.

[Lightning Raven]

Prepared Casting is unnecessarily complicated, it's bad in terms of world-building specially because it doesn't mirror the power of the spells that were featured in Jack Vance's novels (things I've learned from the thread).

But I think another aspect that is also very relevant is that it doesn't actually do what the defenders claims that it do. It's supposed to reward forethought, but in reality it just creates a tier of "spells you should always have prepared" and "spells that should be made into scrolls".

Just for the sake of information, I played a high level Wizard for a long time last year and I made the effort of changing my spells quite often and I still cut A LOT of spells due to them being very good on very specific scenarios. So, basically, what PF1e Vancian casting accomplishes is making Wizards increasingly powerful mid-late levels without any actual cost because they'll have a lot of slots to spend later-on and will mostly pick the same old spells that warrant being prepared instead of picking some "subpar" spells that could work well but you'll be crazy to pass up an extra use of black tentacles or other stronger spells (Summoning comes to mind).

I don't even particularly dislike the system, but it should be better and it can be better and now that Paizo is even bending over backwards to allow Goblins as core ancestry, why not delve deep into the magic system and create something consistent and fun? Rather than a gatekeeping mechanism for those that don't want to take the (unnecessary)challenge.

[necromental]

Arssanguinus wrote:

I suspect that the average person does something like what I do and has a couple premade spell lists already written up and then just adjust those slightly based on whatever they think they’re going to be encountering that day. Probably 80 or 90% of your spell slots aren’t going to change day to day, so that’s really kind of false.

It really would be nice if you don't say other people experiences are false. We don't like it, we've given our reasons why, there's no way you telling me something I don't like is false is gonna make me change my mind.

[Mathmuse]

My habit with prepared casters is to write three lists of spells: one for dungeon delving, one for traveling on the road, and one for in town. For example, the delve list would be heavy in combat spells, the travel list would have more spells for getting past terrain obstacles, and the town list would have more spells for charms and deception. Those lists varied by about 40%.

As for specialized spells, when I played a D&D 3.5 cleric, I would guess how many spells I would spontaneously change to Cure Wounds spells. Since those prepared spells would be changed, it did not matter what they started as, so I filled the slots with specialized spells that would be very useful under unlikely circcumstances or with new spells that I wanted to try out if the circumstances were right. The right spell at the right time prevented more damage than the Cure Wounds spell would heal.

My D&D 3.5 13th-level elf cleric/wizard/arcane-archer made scrolls for emergency healing: 1st-level Cure Light Wounds since those cost the least xp and 5th-level Revivify for the most dire emergencies. He had few other scrolls due to the xp cost and a lack of magic shops that sold scrolls in that campaign setting.

[Kaboogy]

Mark Seifter wrote:

*no sorc details for good reasons*

Could we maybe get some sorcerer survey goodness? I have some Opinions on the sorcerer, and knowing which ones are in the minority will allow me to let go of them and mourn them earlier, which will help me enjoy the final version more.

[dmerceless]

Guys, if you want to discuss Vancian Casting, please use this thread I made a while ago or create a new one. That was just a random comment on my part, let's not derail this thread again, please.