Spell Strength


Second Edition

51 to 100 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
Wait, don't they also have healing magic? Their essences are material and vital, aren't they?

Yes? I specifically noted healing, along with evocation, as the strengths of the list. Buffs, debuffs, and save-or-suck effects? Not so much.

Roswynn wrote:
Although if this time Paizo managed to balance them I must say I'd be very impressed, that's no easy feat.

I don't know if they're perfectly balanced, but they're certainly a lot closer to it.

Roswynn wrote:
I'm also interested in your assertion that save-or-suck spells are flat-out better than evocation... I know that was very much the case in the past, sure, but with the 4 levels of success/failure do you think that's still the case?

Yes. The difference has narrowed, but save-or-such effects are still better. For a few reasons.

Firstly, with Evocation, only your top few levels of spells are really good against anything but very low level minions. Save or suck effects maintain their usefulness in low level slots a lot better. 2d6 damage from a 1st level spell is meaningless at 10th, but imposing a -1 penalty to hit is still as useful as it ever was.

Secondly, depending on the save-or-suck, they can indirectly do equal or better damage, or prevent even more damage coming the PCs way. Mind control often provides at least one turn of the enemy attacking their comrades rather than you, which is a huge damage swing, and action economy advantage and numerical penalties are both actually really effective in PF2.

Now, 'save-or-die' effects are almost gone, and evocation damage is a lot more respectable, which means Evocation is a lot better comparatively in PF2 than it was without boatloads of specific options in PF1...but I'd still generally rather have a 6th level save-or-suck than a 6th level evocation spell, at least on average. Going whole hog on Evocation so you can target Weaknesses also makes it a lot better than it is if you just dabble, while dabbling in save-or-suck effects is much more viable.

Roswynn wrote:
That they have fewer spells than sorcerers or wizards is very interesting, that escaped me, and I think that's a very good way to nerf them without making them suck.

Yep. The lower spell counts of Bards, Clerics, and Druids are an important balancing factor. All make up for it in different ways, too. It's an interesting design feature that I quite like.

Roswynn wrote:
Well, you're right, combat is indeed a huge part of the game, practically always. Which is not necessarily something I feel shouldn't have any alternatives... I hope we can focus at least partially on other narratives if we want to. Still, yes, it needs to be a combat function, so - dps, tank, healer, buffer, mezzer, cc, the usual. Agreed.

I'm all for non-combat options. Indeed, I often invest heavily in them on my characters...but yeah, everyone needs to also be good in combat given the nature of the game.

Roswynn wrote:
True. I do hope divine gets some cool spiritual effects bent on emulating outsiders, something like becoming a warrior angel and stuff like that for instance (other than calling down the gods' wrath on infidels of course).

There are a couple of those in the playtest. I'd definitely be very pleased with more of them getting included in the final version. Really, more buffing effects in general seem like the big necessary addition to the Divine list.


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

Quite the opposite, actually - I mostly run games and rarely get a chance to play. I get to see a wide range of "typical" characters through the lens of my players, so when I do have the opportunity to play, it's usually something out there that I know my regular players aren't likely to ever try.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding ‘default’ assumptions. Wizards have always had some melee options. Spells like Transformation or effects like the natural attack from the shapechange subschool of transmutation (or transmutation’s physical buffing school powers in general).

Generally they default assumption is not using them only because they interact poorly with the 3.X model for physical combat. Pathfinder 2e is a chance to not have that problem and make them real choices a wizard could opt for.


I get it. I can read the room on occasion. This seems as good a place as any to say my goodbyes. I’m going to do what I should have done back in January when the playtest ended and leave. Due to my background I lack the eloquence and debating skills that some of the people that thrive here have. I’d say I’m sorry for my bluntness but I’m not. It’s who I am and if that’s not welcome here then whatever. To those few that I’ve gotten along with thank you for your time.

Edit: RL events have also drastically increased my agitation levels the last few months and that has probably also not been helping.

On the off chance that anyone has anything to say to me I will check this thread for about the next 24 hours and my PMs for about 48. Otherwise farewell.


I am under the impression that the Arcane/Wizard list is still balanced around them sucking at anything physical. I doubt the spell lists are gonna be "interchangeable" this edition like some seem to believe, not because they can't/won't do it, but because it'd be pretty boring if they were so same-y and make Wizards seem dumb in-universe for choosing that profession, probably not what the game needs.

Paizo Employee Designer

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Raylyeh wrote:

I get it. I can read the room on occasion. This seems as good a place as any to say my goodbyes. I’m going to do what I should have done back in January when the playtest ended and leave. Due to my background I lack the eloquence and debating skills that some of the people that thrive here have. I’d say I’m sorry for my bluntness but I’m not. It’s who I am and if that’s not welcome here then whatever. To those few that I’ve gotten along with thank you for your time.

Edit: RL events have also drastically increased my agitation levels the last few months and that has probably also not been helping.

On the off chance that anyone has anything to say to me I will check this thread for about the next 24 hours and my PMs for about 48. Otherwise farewell.

I, for one, have thought that you made a lot of good points in many of your posts, even if it's true you've been a bit acerbic in others. But knowing when to back out and cool down is a sign of great wisdom, especially in an online community. Safe travels, and hope to see you again when things are doing better IRL!


Raylyeh wrote:
So you wait 2 days

Yes, I went a few days without checking the site and posted once I checked back... Sorry?

Raylyeh wrote:
If you think that using your 3rd action for weapon attacks is the best option

When did I ever say that? I said I saw casters making weapon attack, not that they did it to the exclusion of any other tactic. I don't think it's heresy to say that a weapon attack is something viable to put in the bag of options to use your 3rd action on. IMO, it seems odd to discount it out of hand...

RELOAD:

Raylyeh wrote:
The other ranged options have reload actions so cantrips work just as well or better

The reason I mentioned them again was because of reload doesn't have to come RIGHT before the shot unlike the multiple actions a cantrip needs. So a caster can reload before a fight and fire off a shot as a single action and that's just something the cantrip can't do and is a reason you might have to to shot and not cast when only a single action is left.

PS: there is also the chance that that your cantrips target resistances or good saves and/or the AC is low.

Roswynn wrote:
, there's no need to act so resentful about it. The conversation was civil and polite, snide remarks seem uncalled for. As much as I agree with your points, graystone hasn't personally attacked you. Don't be angry.

Thanks! ;) I know I can be snarky at times but for the life of me I don't recall what I did that would have triggered him. *shrug*


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One thing I will note on the limited number of spell slots, as maddy as I prefer the lower amount, it would be nice if classes had class feats to improve their slots a bit.

Mostly because you already can spend class feats on picking up more casting via multiclassing and that also gives you side benefits. It seems odd for a wizard to multiclass sorc to get more spells but they can't do so in a wizardly way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Raylyeh wrote:

I get it. I can read the room on occasion. This seems as good a place as any to say my goodbyes. I’m going to do what I should have done back in January when the playtest ended and leave. Due to my background I lack the eloquence and debating skills that some of the people that thrive here have. I’d say I’m sorry for my bluntness but I’m not. It’s who I am and if that’s not welcome here then whatever. To those few that I’ve gotten along with thank you for your time.

Edit: RL events have also drastically increased my agitation levels the last few months and that has probably also not been helping.

On the off chance that anyone has anything to say to me I will check this thread for about the next 24 hours and my PMs for about 48. Otherwise farewell.

Raylyeh, I already wrote this to you in private, but I want to publicly encourage you to stay, because as Mark says you've always brought interesting points to the table and I don't think just because you went a little overboard once you should abstain from debating on the forums.

If you feel that lately you're getting too easily upset and you don't want to risk offending anyone... well, okay I guess, and see you soon? But I really hope you think about it. Or at worst, that you come back soon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:

One thing I will note on the limited number of spell slots, as maddy as I prefer the lower amount, it would be nice if classes had class feats to improve their slots a bit.

Mostly because you already can spend class feats on picking up more casting via multiclassing and that also gives you side benefits. It seems odd for a wizard to multiclass sorc to get more spells but they can't do so in a wizardly way.

If you're saying you like the more limited number of spell slots I totally agree - it makes playing a caster much more feasible in my opinion, and limits the power of the character with an acceptable nerf. It's one of the ways the balance of power between casters and non-casters gets successfully addressed in this edition, I think.

I also agree that wizards should have other ways to get more slots other than multiclassing. Wizards should in theory be the most powerful spellcasters around, at the cost of focusing almost only on that, imho. So if they had ways to enhance their spellcasting without needing another class' dedication I think it would be very fitting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I can only imagine Ron Paul flailing his arms in Enora's robes screaming "IT'S HAPPENING!"

I still feel it odd that Paizo opted for all these complex additions and options to patch classical Vancian casting to sort of be like Arcanist casting to some limited degree, but without the benefit of ditching most of the bookkeeping and having a consistent magic system throughout like if they had just embraced Arcanist casting fully. Running out of relevant slots because you deigned to prepare something that was potentially interesting kind of sucks.

All that said, I'm kind of glad they're tamping down the damage a bit, as the problem I feel was much more the consistency than the raw average value. When you only have so many spell slots and only maybe 1 casting of this spell you really want to show off this session, rolling and accomplishing nothing sucks. When we played, it seemed like wizards in particular had a hard time both having a spell that was relevant and a spell that would actually accomplish something - a level 1 wizard seeing an opportunity to cast their one slot of Grease only to fail to do much other than hinder their own team when they then need to navigate around it is a pretty unhappy wizard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

One thing I will note on the limited number of spell slots, as maddy as I prefer the lower amount, it would be nice if classes had class feats to improve their slots a bit.

Mostly because you already can spend class feats on picking up more casting via multiclassing and that also gives you side benefits. It seems odd for a wizard to multiclass sorc to get more spells but they can't do so in a wizardly way.

I also agree that wizards should have other ways to get more slots other than multiclassing. Wizards should in theory be the most powerful spellcasters around, at the cost of focusing almost only on that, imho. So if they had ways to enhance their spellcasting without needing another class' dedication I think it would be very fitting.

To be clear I want those options for all casters, as all of them have the sorc dedication option. I'd also like them to work in slightly different ways to enhance the class flavour. Ill try and think of some examples when I don't have a grumpy baby on my lqp


Malk_Content wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

One thing I will note on the limited number of spell slots, as maddy as I prefer the lower amount, it would be nice if classes had class feats to improve their slots a bit.

Mostly because you already can spend class feats on picking up more casting via multiclassing and that also gives you side benefits. It seems odd for a wizard to multiclass sorc to get more spells but they can't do so in a wizardly way.

I also agree that wizards should have other ways to get more slots other than multiclassing. Wizards should in theory be the most powerful spellcasters around, at the cost of focusing almost only on that, imho. So if they had ways to enhance their spellcasting without needing another class' dedication I think it would be very fitting.
To be clear I want those options for all casters, as all of them have the sorc dedication option. I'd also like them to work in slightly different ways to enhance the class flavour. Ill try and think of some examples when I don't have a grumpy baby on my lqp

I remember them saying something about recognizing the player base concern about too few of spell slots; maybe they’ll bump it up to 4 max per spell level?

Though with the overall decreased spell slots and taking away increasing them with a higher key stat, i feel this gives them more room to play with ideas via items and abilities that can give access to more slots. Borrowing your idea, with a Wizard feat that allows two bonus School related spells per spell level rather than just one. Maybe a Prestige Archetype that focuses on casting abilities.

Overall i can’t say this is the actual reasoning behind the decision, but it’s the direction i feel they’re trying to go for.


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

Items could be an interesting tack. Wizards have always had less semi-mandatory item expenses than martial characters, since they don't typically need magic weapons or armor. The existence of a slot-boosting item that wizards want as much as fighters want a magic sword would be neat.

Of course, assuming staves continue to work like they did in the focus test (please please please), basically all casters are going to want a decent staff, so there is that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


I remember them saying something about recognizing the player base concern about too few of spell slots; maybe they’ll bump it up to 4 max per spell level?

Did they? The only thing I remember being said about spell slots went the other way, saying the surveys said people wanted somewhat stronger spells, but weren't asking for more of them. I do hope you're right though, this whole 3+1 per level thing is low, when they took out any way to get more slots and require everything to be heightened. Allowing other ways to get more slots, like items would also be helpful.

MaxAstro wrote:

Items could be an interesting tack. Wizards have always had less semi-mandatory item expenses than martial characters, since they don't typically need magic weapons or armor. The existence of a slot-boosting item that wizards want as much as fighters want a magic sword would be neat.

Of course, assuming staves continue to work like they did in the focus test (please please please), basically all casters are going to want a decent staff, so there is that.

Sure, they need less to do their basic job than martials. But in practice though, I'm not sure wizards are all that much less treasure dependent. For one there is the spell scribing cost, plus scrolls and wands to make up for spells they don't have prepared (a demand which will be greater with the smaller number of slots). Those can get rather pricey. But having staves be a must have isn't a bad thing, as would slot boosting items. If Pearls of Power make a return, those will be in high demand, although being limited to recasting does limit their flexibility.

Hopefully staves work more like the focus test version than the main playtest. The requirement of 1 charge per spell level was over-the top, it limited their use to like 2 or maybe 3 spells a day unless you used only low level spells, but once again heightening bites you. And being able to power staves with focus would help with the low-slot issue due to the way focus can be regained with a 10 minute rest. This 10 minute rest cycle does have the potential to solve a lot of problems, being able to use it for spells would just cement it as one of the best innovations of PF2, right behind the three action system. It can limit nova capability, while also reducing the 15 minute work day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


I remember them saying something about recognizing the player base concern about too few of spell slots; maybe they’ll bump it up to 4 max per spell level?

Direquire everything to be heightened.

We went over this half a thread a go. Not everything needs to be heightened. In fact all debuff spells are just as good in their level 1 slot all the way through the game, a vast improvement over the PF1 model. Damage and some self buffs need to be heightened (and not all the way all the time.) Lets not let inaccuracy colour the debate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
I remember them saying something about recognizing the player base concern about too few of spell slots; maybe they’ll bump it up to 4 max per spell level?
Allowing other ways to get more slots, like items would also be helpful.

Take a look at the ‘Ring of Wizardry’ in the PT. Also in the section for Familiars under ‘Master’ abilities; and in 1.6 Wizards at later levels were allowed to combine two lower spell slots for a higher slot. That last one isn’t exactly what you were asking about, but it’s close.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


I remember them saying something about recognizing the player base concern about too few of spell slots; maybe they’ll bump it up to 4 max per spell level?

Direquire everything to be heightened.

We went over this half a thread a go. Not everything needs to be heightened. In fact all debuff spells are just as good in their level 1 slot all the way through the game, a vast improvement over the PF1 model. Damage and some self buffs need to be heightened (and not all the way all the time.) Lets not let inaccuracy colour the debate.

Ok, I'll correct that. A lot of spells need to be heightened, not everything. I think the point still stands though, that the heightening mechanic does exasperate the lack of spell slots. Many spells will be competing for the highest level slots, which are now in shorter supply. I do think that items could have a role in helping to make this work, like the Ring of Wizardry as pointed out by Pumpkinhead11. I can see that becoming a 'must have' wizard item, but it does top out at 4th level spells. And some way to recover spell slots with the 10 minute rest cycle would probably remove this as a problem entirely. You can have limited spell slots so someone can't just tear through encounters with every spell, but with recovery, you'll not have casters running dry and ending the day so easily. There will need to be some limits though, so you don't encourage casters to just blow every high level spell every encounter.

Something like the Spell Duelist Gloves and Spell Duelist Wand also serve the role of items casters will be always wanting, the way martials want magic weapons and armor. Touch attacks are different with touch ac gone and casters using their casting proficiency instead of a dex based attack, so maybe they won't be brought over, but I think there's still room for item bonuses for touch attacks. PF1 had the Mage's Crossbow, but a wand or gloves are much more thematic for this purpose than a crossbow.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like for magic items to be less central than in the past. Fighters need their bonuses to ac, to hit and damage, it's okay (even better if as they said magic weapons will only help and a part of those will come directly from the character), but what I hope they'll avoid is the MMO modus operandi in which your items dictate how powerful you are, or the case in which a character has one or more magic items they continuously use to manifest magical effects they otherwise wouldn't have access to.

I want characters to do things they can do because of their class, ancestry, skill and general feats most of all. Because of their innate or learned capabilities. Magic items can help, and sometimes they can also have interesting and powerful uses, but they shouldn't substitute for them.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Powers will help with the lack of spell slots as well. Though by how much i’m not certain. A Wizard using Force Bolt or a Druid using Tempest Surge will give them a lot more damaging spells at first level then in 1e. With getting a better return for investing into more Spell Points as you gain in levels, since the Powers are auto heightened. I think this may be one reason people report not needing to use up all their spells, even for technically having less slots. A quick look at the Order of the Storm Druid shows they can have between 4(with a Wis of 18) and 11 spell points, and gaining additional spell like powers along the way. So a pure caster Druid can theoretically cast Tempest Surge as a 9th/10th level spell for up to 11 d12 in damage 11 times before casting anything from their spell list. This is at level 20 and grabbing every Storm Order feat along the way, but even with no other investment it is still 4 additional max level damage spells. I feel that if old spell slots stayed the same then there would be absolutely no way to have powers work the way they do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


I remember them saying something about recognizing the player base concern about too few of spell slots; maybe they’ll bump it up to 4 max per spell level?

Direquire everything to be heightened.

We went over this half a thread a go. Not everything needs to be heightened. In fact all debuff spells are just as good in their level 1 slot all the way through the game, a vast improvement over the PF1 model. Damage and some self buffs need to be heightened (and not all the way all the time.) Lets not let inaccuracy colour the debate.

Ok, I'll correct that. A lot of spells need to be heightened, not everything. I think the point still stands though, that the heightening mechanic does exasperate the lack of spell slots. Many spells will be competing for the highest level slots, which are now in shorter supply. I do think that items could have a role in helping to make this work, like the Ring of Wizardry as pointed out by Pumpkinhead11. I can see that becoming a 'must have' wizard item, but it does top out at 4th level spells. And some way to recover spell slots with the 10 minute rest cycle would probably remove this as a problem entirely. You can have limited spell slots so someone can't just tear through encounters with every spell, but with recovery, you'll not have casters running dry and ending the day so easily. There will need to be some limits though, so you don't encourage casters to just blow every high level spell every encounter.

Something like the Spell Duelist Gloves and Spell Duelist Wand also serve the role of items casters will be always wanting, the way martials want magic weapons and armor. Touch attacks are different with touch ac gone and casters using their casting proficiency instead of a dex based attack, so maybe they won't be brought over, but I think there's still room for item bonuses for touch attacks. PF1 had the Mage's Crossbow, but a wand or gloves are much more thematic for...

If you play an Evoker this will for sure be a concern! Worst is you HAVE to put evocation spells on the low level slots and they're practically worthless there. Could be fixed with some evoker-only feat, however.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Damage spells do suffer. That and a few staple self buffs (those that replace item bonuses basically like Mage Armour, which I think is fair as it saves you several thousand gold if you decide to dedicate a slot to it each day) NEED heightening (or just you know using a natural level spell.) This is basically the opposite way round to how PF1 worked, where damage spells scaled naturally but debuffs quickly became unusable. Although any save related damage spell in PF1 also suffered from lack of auto scaling save DCs.

I sincerely hope that damage spells get some natural scaling like non damage spells (simply changing + casting stat to + proficiency mod would go a long way.)


As for slotting Evocation spells, there are some Crowd Control/Utility spells that don’t need heightening that can be put in the low slots. I wouldn’t say Evokers need special feats around this, but rather a reasonable list of utility options for that one specialization slot so that it doesn’t end up getting a low damage spell shoved in there cause nothing else will fit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If any other option is exhausted, you could always slot in Magic Missile for that 1-action perfect aim goodness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Something like the Spell Duelist Gloves and Spell Duelist Wand also serve the role of items casters will be always wanting, the way martials want magic weapons and armor. Touch attacks are different with touch ac gone and casters using their casting proficiency instead of a dex based attack, so maybe they won't be brought over, but I think there's still room for item bonuses for touch attacks. PF1 had the Mage's Crossbow, but a wand or gloves are much more thematic for this purpose than a crossbow.

I think they said that Staves will add item bonuses to attack/DC things. I could be wrong, but if that's the case, Staves will be the only caster item they really need, which would make a lot of sense, since they said that they wanted wands/staves to be THE caster item (that sticks around and doesn't turn to dust after so many usages).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I sincerely hope that damage spells get some natural scaling like non damage spells (simply changing + casting stat to + proficiency mod would go a long way.)

That doesn't sound bad. And they also wanted some weapon damage scaling come from caracter advancement, too.

If they make it clever, both the weapon damage and spell damage scaling from character advancement could use the same rule which makes it easier to learn.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:

I'd like for magic items to be less central than in the past. Fighters need their bonuses to ac, to hit and damage, it's okay (even better if as they said magic weapons will only help and a part of those will come directly from the character), but what I hope they'll avoid is the MMO modus operandi in which your items dictate how powerful you are, or the case in which a character has one or more magic items they continuously use to manifest magical effects they otherwise wouldn't have access to.

I want characters to do things they can do because of their class, ancestry, skill and general feats most of all. Because of their innate or learned capabilities. Magic items can help, and sometimes they can also have interesting and powerful uses, but they shouldn't substitute for them.

I agree to an extent, but it's a tricky thing to balance. I certainly applaud the reduction of the Big Six must-have items. And there was talk of making some damage come from the character instead of their weapon, so a high-level character can still be useful with a mundane weapon. But there is a risk of going too far and making magic items all too weak. I want magic items to be cool, and for characters to want them, and want to use them. As it is, many items are highly situational, they're likely to be ignored until the exact situation comes up, and in that case the player might have forgotten they have it. "Oh yeah, I had that thing that when activated gives me a +2 to climb checks in the snow. Forgot about that one while climbing the cliff to the Ice Giant's lair. Oops." Others are just not very good. Trinkets in general are pretty bad, but my 'favorite' to pick on are the Bracers of Missile Deflection. They're just plain awful: Use your sole reaction (and resonance when it existed) for just +2 AC vs a single missile attack. And you can only do it once every 10 minutes. That's something that'll get tossed right into the 'sell' pile every time it's encountered. It sounds like they're supposed to be Wonder Woman's bracers, but in practice they fall very, very short.

Of course cool items don't always have to be powerful. Hands down, the coolest item in the Playtest book was the Knapsack of Halflingkind (at least it is without the Resonance requirement, resonance ruins it). The Bag of Holding Type II built in is very useful, and the pastries that give minor healing are neat. But it's the cookware that seals the deal. The most useless aspect, but also the most flavorful. Have any utensils, cookware and serving dishes on hand whenever needed. That's great for anyone who wants some comfort on the go. Traveler's Any-tools are also great (again, as long as they don't have a cost like Resonance). So I'm not just asking for Item of Ultimate Asskicking +7, I just don't want magic items to become boring or useless in the name of balance, or not wanting 'must have' items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:

I'd like for magic items to be less central than in the past. Fighters need their bonuses to ac, to hit and damage, it's okay (even better if as they said magic weapons will only help and a part of those will come directly from the character), but what I hope they'll avoid is the MMO modus operandi in which your items dictate how powerful you are, or the case in which a character has one or more magic items they continuously use to manifest magical effects they otherwise wouldn't have access to.

I want characters to do things they can do because of their class, ancestry, skill and general feats most of all. Because of their innate or learned capabilities. Magic items can help, and sometimes they can also have interesting and powerful uses, but they shouldn't substitute for them.

So, Automatic Bonus Progression or feat-based equivalent? I'd like that, but it has the problem that it's a lot harder to build the game around ABP and have optional rules for replacing it with magic items than to build around magic items and have optional rules for replacing them with ABP. Seems that way to me, at least, I admit I haven't tried it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Roswynn wrote:

I'd like for magic items to be less central than in the past. Fighters need their bonuses to ac, to hit and damage, it's okay (even better if as they said magic weapons will only help and a part of those will come directly from the character), but what I hope they'll avoid is the MMO modus operandi in which your items dictate how powerful you are, or the case in which a character has one or more magic items they continuously use to manifest magical effects they otherwise wouldn't have access to.

I want characters to do things they can do because of their class, ancestry, skill and general feats most of all. Because of their innate or learned capabilities. Magic items can help, and sometimes they can also have interesting and powerful uses, but they shouldn't substitute for them.

So, Automatic Bonus Progression or feat-based equivalent? I'd like that, but it has the problem that it's a lot harder to build the game around ABP and have optional rules for replacing it with magic items than to build around magic items and have optional rules for replacing them with ABP. Seems that way to me, at least, I admit I haven't tried it.

My guess here is that you'll have both, not replacing one with the other. My guess is their going the Starfinder way, where at given levels (let's say for the sake of simplicity, it's level 10 & 20) you get an extra damage die on every damage roll you would make. That way, you can play "Knight of Owner" Lancelot who picks up a bar stool and kills a dragon with it (over the course of 20 rounds), and also need the magic arm bands to play Saitama. And then if you were to rid yourself of magic items, you'd just bump it to increments of 5 instead of 10.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


I remember them saying something about recognizing the player base concern about too few of spell slots; maybe they’ll bump it up to 4 max per spell level?

Direquire everything to be heightened.

We went over this half a thread a go. Not everything needs to be heightened. In fact all debuff spells are just as good in their level 1 slot all the way through the game, a vast improvement over the PF1 model. Damage and some self buffs need to be heightened (and not all the way all the time.) Lets not let inaccuracy colour the debate.

Ok, I'll correct that. A lot of spells need to be heightened, not everything. I think the point still stands though, that the heightening mechanic does exasperate the lack of spell slots. Many spells will be competing for the highest level slots, which are now in shorter supply. I do think that items could have a role in helping to make this work, like the Ring of Wizardry as pointed out by Pumpkinhead11. I can see that becoming a 'must have' wizard item, but it does top out at 4th level spells. And some way to recover spell slots with the 10 minute rest cycle would probably remove this as a problem entirely. You can have limited spell slots so someone can't just tear through encounters with every spell, but with recovery, you'll not have casters running dry and ending the day so easily. There will need to be some limits though, so you don't encourage casters to just blow every high level spell every encounter.

Something like the Spell Duelist Gloves and Spell Duelist Wand also serve the role of items casters will be always wanting, the way martials want magic weapons and armor. Touch attacks are different with touch ac gone and casters using their casting proficiency instead of a dex based attack, so maybe they won't be brought over, but I think there's still room for item bonuses for touch attacks. PF1 had the Mage's Crossbow, but a wand or gloves are much more thematic for...

To be fair, higher level spell slots aren't really in shorter supply on the whole. Having a higher ability score only got you 1 highest level slot at best with a reasonable investment. Most casters actually seem to break even or come out ahead when you only look at highest level slots.

Sorcerers come out ahead because of their improved spell progression. A 4th level sorcerer can cast four 2nd level spells in either version of the game, but a 3rd level first edition sorcerer can't cast them at all while the PF2 version gets 3.

Bards got it even better than sorcerers with their improved spell progression.

Clerics wind up losing one top level slot if they had a high wisdom, but their new channel energy is effectively more top level slots, so they come out ahead.

Druids actually break even unless they pick a domain.

Specialist wizards fall behind by a whopping single spell slot, and that is before you factor in arcane bond. A PF1 wizard with a familiar instead winds up breaking even.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, a mitigating factor to consider on how blast spells scale. In PF1 your 3rd level fireball continues to get more d6s until you hit 10th level, at which point it plateaus. But the DC for said spell does not scale, where the PF2 version does. That means the odds of an enemy failing improves, and there's the possibility of critical failures as well. Both of those improve the expected damage of the spell slot.

Similarly, the reduction in fire resistance and immunity will mean more enemies are susceptible to that fireball.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nick1wasd wrote:
I think they said that Staves will add item bonuses to attack/DC things. I could be wrong, but if that's the case, Staves will be the only caster item they really need, which would make a lot of sense, since they said that they wanted wands/staves to be THE caster item (that sticks around and doesn't turn to dust after so many usages).

Oh, I hope they didn't go that route. I'd much rather wands take up the mantle as bonus to attack/DC; I really like how staves worked in the focus test where having one basically gave you extra spells prepared (just not extra slots).

I really like the idea of a high level wizard having several different staves that he switched between depending on what he's planning to do for the day. :)


MaxAstro wrote:
nick1wasd wrote:
I think they said that Staves will add item bonuses to attack/DC things. I could be wrong, but if that's the case, Staves will be the only caster item they really need, which would make a lot of sense, since they said that they wanted wands/staves to be THE caster item (that sticks around and doesn't turn to dust after so many usages).

Oh, I hope they didn't go that route. I'd much rather wands take up the mantle as bonus to attack/DC; I really like how staves worked in the focus test where having one basically gave you extra spells prepared (just not extra slots).

I really like the idea of a high level wizard having several different staves that he switched between depending on what he's planning to do for the day. :)

Yeah, I can see that, some random old dude a metric craptonne of magical sticks on his back that he wields to thrown different types of spells at people, while this little stick in his hand is used for focusing the spells like the barrel of a rifle. I just think it'd get messy if you tried to cast a spell out of a staff, while also using a wand as a focus, but that's just me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, why? If the dude is holding a staff in his left to tap into its energies and the wand in his right to focus and aim it doesn't seem too out there. Not exactly archetypal, but feasible.

I think the way staves worked in the focus test is one way to do it. Personally, I'd prefer both staves and wands to do the same thing, i.e. make your magic stronger, but if staves instead give you more spells to choose from, hey, it's interesting. What I don't want is using a staff instead of your magic to cast its own repertoire of spells from its charges - cool and all, but then why did I study magic in the first place if it does everything for me?

I do agree that the items we get must be flavorful and fun. A magic item that fails to be both honestly has no reason to exist in my opinion. It's MAGIC - don't give too much of it away perhaps, but what you give better be quite spectacular. And it can certainly be little useful things like the Knapsack of Halflingkind, but also a Holy Avenger is great, for instance, or a magic mirror letting you communicate with someone having the other terminus or letting you interrogate a trapped entity... even stuff that does manifest its own powers can be a lot of fun of course, like a horse skull from which you summon a spectral steed, but you shouldn't be able to do it all the friggin' time.

And then there are protective items, like a pendant giving you resistance to fire, or to fire and cold together, etc. As long as you're not wearing every possible combination defending you from all damage it can totally work.

A "paranoid" king could also have a ring that changes color when close to poison for instance, but it could be a rare enchantment, so not everyone can buy something like that. Another could have silken robes as hard and tough as mail. Or mail glamered to look like kingly robes. There's a whole universe of possibilities without getting to helm of brilliance levels...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Personally one of the reasons I want wands and staves to do different things is exactly because I like the image of a wizard with a staff in one hand and a wand in the other. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Personally one of the reasons I want wands and staves to do different things is exactly because I like the image of a wizard with a staff in one hand and a blasting rod in the other. :)

Harry Dresden FTW


necromental wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Personally one of the reasons I want wands and staves to do different things is exactly because I like the image of a wizard with a staff in one hand and a blasting rod in the other. :)
Harry Dresden FTW

Too bad he doesn't have a Stetson to go with the duster...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
If any other option is exhausted, you could always slot in Magic Missile for that 1-action perfect aim goodness.

Magic Missile is a waste at 1 action. Sure, you CAN, and each additional action does exactly the same as the first action, but there's more to it than damage-per-action (which is pretty good).

What's the missing factor?

Spell slots.

You cast Magic Missile as a single action and you get 1/3rd of the spell slot's potential. A THIRD. That's not a very good investment of a resource more limited to you than number of actions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Situationally it could be worth it, like if you know one missile will kill a creature that is acting right after you.

But it's definitely not the optimal choice most of the time.

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Situationally it could be worth it, like if you know one missile will kill a creature that is acting right after you.

But it's definitely not the optimal choice most of the time.

To give one situation: Even at mid to high levels, single action level 1 magic missile is possibly the best third action you can pick after a monster uses Ferocity in response to your first spell, since you know it has 1 HP at that point. Especially if it goes next.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

*Points wand*

Ferocity this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
To give one situation: Even at mid to high levels, single action level 1 magic missile is possibly the best third action you can pick after a monster uses Ferocity in response to your first spell, since you know it has 1 HP at that point. Especially if it goes next.

You're not wrong, but I assume that coincidences like that are abnormal and not to be relied upon. Its not why I would choose to take Magic Missile.

It falls under the same general heading of why I never took weapon enhancements like Flaming Burst. Most characters I built didn't build towards automatic critical hits, so 1d10 extra damage 1/20th of the time (0.275 extra dpr) was not worth a +2 equivalent cost.

And that's ignoring the fact that I have abysmal luck when it comes to actually rolling crits. I played a two year long campaign in the World's Largest Dungeon and rolled a nat-20 on an attack roll twice. Once against a thing that was immune to crits and once against a minion that died to my minimum non-crit damage.

Can it be useful in situations like those?

Sure, but so can Water Breathing come up once in a blue moon in a desert campaign when that one time you run across a water elemental that inhabits an oasis and drags someone under.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
To give one situation: Even at mid to high levels, single action level 1 magic missile is possibly the best third action you can pick after a monster uses Ferocity in response to your first spell, since you know it has 1 HP at that point. Especially if it goes next.

You're not wrong, but I assume that coincidences like that are abnormal and not to be relied upon. Its not why I would choose to take Magic Missile.

It falls under the same general heading of why I never took weapon enhancements like Flaming Burst. Most characters I built didn't build towards automatic critical hits, so 1d10 extra damage 1/20th of the time (0.275 extra dpr) was not worth a +2 equivalent cost.

And that's ignoring the fact that I have abysmal luck when it comes to actually rolling crits. I played a two year long campaign in the World's Largest Dungeon and rolled a nat-20 on an attack roll twice. Once against a thing that was immune to crits and once against a minion that died to my minimum non-crit damage.

Can it be useful in situations like those?

Sure, but so can Water Breathing come up once in a blue moon in a desert campaign when that one time you run across a water elemental that inhabits an oasis and drags someone under.

Oh for sure, the burst weapons were a pretty bad deal even if you were crit-fishing. The best part of magic missile is you don't have to prepare the number of actions so you always have the missiles you need for the situation you're in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exactly, prepare a handful of Magic Missiles and if you find yourself needing just a tiny bit more burst you can blast it out.
Otherwise go full spell and get the most dart for your slot, sure. But it's not a versatile spell for nothing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think I've ever taken magic missile on any character I've ever played, and I ALWAYS play at least partial spellcasters.

Seriously, I played a Barbarian once. Every other character I've ever played has been Sorcerer/Wizard/ Paladin/Magus/ Warlock/Witch/ Druid/Arcane Trickster.

And yet never once took Magic Missile. Don't get me wrong, depending on the edition of D&D/Pathfinder, it can often be a great choice. Guaranteed damage is cool. It just seems like a really boring spell...there have always been more interesting options to pick, even if they weren't always optimal.

PF2 might be the first time I'm considering it, as the multiple action options adds a pizazz and flare to the spell that appeals to me. I may not give it to my Sorc, as I tend to like more thematically appropriate choices for my bloodline (and I have no interest in the ancient magic users bloodline), but I'd definitely give it to a Wizard.

All that said, based on the #MyPathfinderSpoilers cards, I am definitely interested in seeing what other fun and thematic options we get. All those spells seem powerful (sometimes situationally so, but that's fine) and interesting. I wanna see what more options we have for Primal and Occult spells, and how much the Arcane spells have been altered and improved.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Never did the magic missile metamagic stacking eh? I forget what the latest min maxed magic missile build was...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
I may not give it to my Sorc, as I tend to like more thematically appropriate choices for my bloodline (and I have no interest in the ancient magic users bloodline), but I'd definitely give it to a Wizard.

I think you're referring to the imperial bloodline, unless the name changed (I think angelic bloodline was celestial... btw, why is it angelic now? Celestial left a good deal more latitude in choosing what exactly...).

I like magic missile b/c it's a very basic 1st level spell, very archetypal. I plan on giving it to my imperial bloodline Varisian tattooed sorceress, although if I'll need to choose only 1 spell at level 1 I might want to give her something from transmutation...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In my Kingmaker game the player of the kobold wizard specialized in force-based spells, so magic missile was a go-to.

That (and a healthy love of Neverwinter Nights) is also why Rishak's Greater Missile Storm is a canonical spell in my campaigns. XD I'm gonna have to figure out how to transition that to 2nd edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I'm thinking: there are a few level 1 damage spells that start strong but scale badly (magic missile, shocking grasp, hydrologic push). Normal damage spells scale about linearly (damage = X * spell level). Spell casters are weaker than martials at very low levels (1 and 2 at least) but get powerful more quickly because most of their power comes from spells (which increase a lot in power).

So those strong level 1 damage spells are supposed help spell casters be closer in power to martials at low levels, but not help as they get higher in level when casters don't need any more help because the spells scale so badly.

Does this seem likely to anyone else?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think that logic is there, but remember that in PF2e spells don't scale with caster level, only with spell level.

But that probably does explain why, for example, Shocking Grasp does 2d12 damage at 1st level, but a 5th level spell (thus caster level 9) that did 18d12 damage would never happen.

51 to 100 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Spell Strength All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.