|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Dante Doom wrote:Mark Seifter wrote:
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.
Sorry if sounded as an insult to Mark! I love Mark, love the way he GM (punch the math =P!).
It was just a reference from a stream from Paizo Friday
|N N 959|
|2 people marked this as a favorite.|
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.
While I don't dislike Vancian spell casting in all circumstances, it is absolutely nonsensical from a design perspective when you're giving a class a very, very small allotment of daily spells and those spells are predominantly situational. It's a double whammy and i don't think the Survey accounts for how that has affected the decision on whether spells should be a part of the class.
I think the half casters are under this yoke because at the time the classes were created, WotC wasn't of the mindset to invent a new systems for each class. I contrast that with Paizo which, imo, has done a fantastic job of coming up with variants on casting with the Occult classes and the alchemical classes. But that adds to complexity, so something has to give if Paizo is trying to simplify the game.