[PaizoCon] "Moving on from the Playtest"


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Hi everyone. I've been lurking for a while but figure PaizoCon is as good a time as any to start posting.

Just watched the "Moving on from the Playtest" panel streamed on twitch. A few interesting details in the Q&A:

Rage. Flat 1 minute; when you're done you aren't fatigued but can't rage again for a while.

Wands. Cast a spell once/day. No level cap. Can try to cast additional times/day but risk destroying the wand. This also opens up design space for special wands. (Factoid: around 75% of survey respondents didn't care about keeping stick-of-spells style wands.)

"Basic Saves." I believe this one has been discussed before, but confirming "basic saves" for the standard fireball type lineup: double damage/full damage/half damage/no damage. Just a space-saving efficiency term.

Heritages. With this structure, it opens up the possibility of heritages that are open to more than one ancestry. Mark: "Like, you know how in Golarion Aasimar and Tieflings come from more than just humans?" So big hint-hint there.

I'll try to catch some of the other streams through the weekend and see what else comes up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They said the “Basic” version of the wands is one a day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
IAmPageicus wrote:
They said the “Basic” version of the wands is one a day.

Also hinted to rider effects on spells, or the use of wands as "spell-channeling" tools for certain spells.

As long as it's not an every-spell general caster buff, I like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
IAmPageicus wrote:
They said the “Basic” version of the wands is one a day.

Also hinted to rider effects on spells, or the use of wands as "spell-channeling" tools for certain spells.

As long as it's not an every-spell general caster buff, I like.

This made me think, a PF2 version of Metamagic Rods would probably be way less broken since Metamagic is an extra-action cost only rather than spell level increase, so by extension a rod giving it free x times per day is just giving an extra action a couple times instead of essentially a direct spell level boost.


Yes and no, a Wand of Quickening would be much more welcome since Quickened Spells can only be used once per day.
I guess we'll have to see.


Ah, forgot about that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, thanks for putting this together OP!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

The video is now available. It's the full day of panels, so 9.5 hours long, but this panel starts right here.

The last part before the Q&A, about where they expected controversy and where they were surprised, was interesting but nothing really new if you've been following. That starts here.

Then the Q&A, where we get new information, starts here.


i hope they tweaked Quickened Casting. 1/day seems far too little; 1/min or hour would be plenty i imagine.


Ooh, I'd be down for 1/hr. Still need to pick your moment but not quite so carefully.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

YES! TIEFLING AND AASIMAR HERITAGES! PROBABLY GANZI AND APHORITE TOO! I'M GETTING MY ELF-GANZI READY BABY!


tqomins wrote:

Hi everyone. I've been lurking for a while but figure PaizoCon is as good a time as any to start posting.

Just watched the "Moving on from the Playtest" panel streamed on twitch. A few interesting details in the Q&A:

Rage. Flat 1 minute; when you're done you aren't fatigued but can't rage again for a while.

What is 'a while?'

10 minutes? An hour? Multiple hours?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Voss wrote:
tqomins wrote:

Hi everyone. I've been lurking for a while but figure PaizoCon is as good a time as any to start posting.

Just watched the "Moving on from the Playtest" panel streamed on twitch. A few interesting details in the Q&A:

Rage. Flat 1 minute; when you're done you aren't fatigued but can't rage again for a while.

What is 'a while?'

10 minutes? An hour? Multiple hours?

It's the first question so you can listen at the link to the Q&A in my previous post. There's a little cross talk right there and I can't tell what Logan is saying. Mark talks over him and says "you can't rage again for a while." So that's the best I've got.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
tqomins wrote:

Hi everyone. I've been lurking for a while but figure PaizoCon is as good a time as any to start posting.

Just watched the "Moving on from the Playtest" panel streamed on twitch. A few interesting details in the Q&A:

Rage. Flat 1 minute; when you're done you aren't fatigued but can't rage again for a while.

What is 'a while?'

10 minutes? An hour? Multiple hours?

Watch the optimism there, Voss! It's actually "ever" not "a while." Each barbarian gets to rage once in their existence, for one minute, and that's it. Simplicity itself.


Vali Nepjarson wrote:
YES! TIEFLING AND AASIMAR HERITAGES! PROBABLY GANZI AND APHORITE TOO! I'M GETTING MY ELF-GANZI READY BABY!

Yeah, but question is what that means exactly. Elf taking Ganzi Heritage or Ganzi taking Elf Heritage?

I'd prefer to have the choice of being "Extra Elf-y" (/Human-y/etc) OR be less mechanically tied to mortal parentage but instead choose a specific Outsider Heritage like Angelkin/Plumekith etc... Freeing each Heritage to shine without worrying about balancing it for minmax cherrypicking from both mortal and planar sides... And maintaining setting continuity with previously expressed existence of some Planetouched who "passed as" (and mechanically counted as) their mortal parentage, while other Planetouched did not and whose appearance was specific to particular Outsider sub-species. That wouldn't mean those don't have "Elf parentage" (or Human, etc), it just isn't as mechanically impactful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:
Rage. Flat 1 minute; when you're done you aren't fatigued but can't rage again for a while.

Oh, thank god. It seems like every time news comes out for the new edition something that made me give up on the playtest entirely has been removed. Next you're gonna tell me that Barbarian anathemas have become less hardline and more like the general roleplay suggestions originally advertised.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope I can get the "random amount of rage" thing from the end of the playtest back via some feats or a totem or something.

I know it's not for everyone but I adore abilities that have me rolling to see if they turn up, turn down, become something totally different, or turn off entirely and always kind of lamented PF1 never had anything like that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is the "rage for 3 rounds, rest for 1" part gone? Tharry was my favorite part about the barbarian...

Liberty's Edge

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Is the "rage for 3 rounds, rest for 1" part gone? Tharry was my favorite part about the barbarian...

Sounds like it is, yeah.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

That part sounded fun in theory but was not so fun in practice, in my experience.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I liked the on-off Rage too, but it might say something that my immediate first thought on reading the initial version of rage was to make a boss that was too strong for the party to fight directly (or at least too strong to do much harm to), instead they have to hold out until his Rage drops and hit him hard during the turn when he's dropped his AC and saves by 4 by fully taxing himself in Fatigue.

I actually kinda got to try that in the campaign I'm running now and it was pretty cool. Might still keep it to pull out occasionally for certain foes to use that burnout Berserker kind of fighting.


Something that i liked about the 3 round rage cycle was the temp hit points that would refresh each time. I guess Renewed Vigor will be a much more popular feat choice now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I liked the rage bursts too but the 1-minute rage might be far less comical with rage powers like dragon wings. 1 minute flight is more practical.

change to wands sounds good. Everything that changes them from the current design does. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
tqomins wrote:
Rage. Flat 1 minute; when you're done you aren't fatigued but can't rage again for a while.
Oh, thank god. It seems like every time news comes out for the new edition something that made me give up on the playtest entirely has been removed. Next you're gonna tell me that Barbarian anathemas have become less hardline and more like the general roleplay suggestions originally advertised.

Word. Here's to hoping.

Edit: wand stuff doens't sound bad, but I hoped that wands will be weapons for casters (raising attack/DC for spells).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
YES! TIEFLING AND AASIMAR HERITAGES! PROBABLY GANZI AND APHORITE TOO! I'M GETTING MY ELF-GANZI READY BABY!

Yeah, but question is what that means exactly. Elf taking Ganzi Heritage or Ganzi taking Elf Heritage?

I'd prefer to have the choice of being "Extra Elf-y" (/Human-y/etc) OR be less mechanically tied to mortal parentage but instead choose a specific Outsider Heritage like Angelkin/Plumekith etc... Freeing each Heritage to shine without worrying about balancing it for minmax cherrypicking from both mortal and planar sides... And maintaining setting continuity with previously expressed existence of some Planetouched who "passed as" (and mechanically counted as) their mortal parentage, while other Planetouched did not and whose appearance was specific to particular Outsider sub-species. That wouldn't mean those don't have "Elf parentage" (or Human, etc), it just isn't as mechanically impactful.

The way I get it, as in "Everyone Can Take Heritages" is that planar scions are going to be heritages not linked to an specific ancestry. We can have Human (Aasimar) or Dwarf (Tiefling) or Elf (Undine) and so on. That's ok. Not how I would have liked it, but I hope they can handle it well.

Now I'm more intrigued with how the "subheritages" are going to be covered. How will the oni born tieflings or the musetouched aasimars going to be covered? My guess was for us to get Tiefling as ancestry and Oni Born as heritage, but now we know that's not how it's going to work...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Gold Sovereign wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
YES! TIEFLING AND AASIMAR HERITAGES! PROBABLY GANZI AND APHORITE TOO! I'M GETTING MY ELF-GANZI READY BABY!

Yeah, but question is what that means exactly. Elf taking Ganzi Heritage or Ganzi taking Elf Heritage?

I'd prefer to have the choice of being "Extra Elf-y" (/Human-y/etc) OR be less mechanically tied to mortal parentage but instead choose a specific Outsider Heritage like Angelkin/Plumekith etc... Freeing each Heritage to shine without worrying about balancing it for minmax cherrypicking from both mortal and planar sides... And maintaining setting continuity with previously expressed existence of some Planetouched who "passed as" (and mechanically counted as) their mortal parentage, while other Planetouched did not and whose appearance was specific to particular Outsider sub-species. That wouldn't mean those don't have "Elf parentage" (or Human, etc), it just isn't as mechanically impactful.

The way I get it, as in "Everyone Can Take Heritages" is that planar scions are going to be heritages not linked to an specific ancestry. We can have Human (Aasimar) or Dwarf (Tiefling) or Elf (Undine) and so on. That's ok. Not how I would have liked it, but I hope they can handle it well.

Now I'm more intrigued with how the "subheritages" are going to be covered. How will the oni born tieflings or the musetouched aasimars going to be covered? My guess was for us to get Tiefling as ancestry and Oni Born as heritage, but now we know that's not how it's going to work...

They could have ancestry feats that lean into those ideas (as the heritages could easily say "you may also take x ancestry feats." Then give those feats a tag that makes them exclusive from one another. These feats shouldn't be level locked to 1 as we have examples in cannon of characters becoming more linked to their supernatural ancestry over time

Spoiler:
Radovan
Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Edge93 wrote:

I liked the on-off Rage too, but it might say something that my immediate first thought on reading the initial version of rage was to make a boss that was too strong for the party to fight directly (or at least too strong to do much harm to), instead they have to hold out until his Rage drops and hit him hard during the turn when he's dropped his AC and saves by 4 by fully taxing himself in Fatigue.

I actually kinda got to try that in the campaign I'm running now and it was pretty cool. Might still keep it to pull out occasionally for certain foes to use that burnout Berserker kind of fighting.

Heh, that’s also why I liked that Rage, it made me feel like a boss monster. Attack, attack, attack, opening.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Gold Sovereign wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
YES! TIEFLING AND AASIMAR HERITAGES! PROBABLY GANZI AND APHORITE TOO! I'M GETTING MY ELF-GANZI READY BABY!

Yeah, but question is what that means exactly. Elf taking Ganzi Heritage or Ganzi taking Elf Heritage?

I'd prefer to have the choice of being "Extra Elf-y" (/Human-y/etc) OR be less mechanically tied to mortal parentage but instead choose a specific Outsider Heritage like Angelkin/Plumekith etc... Freeing each Heritage to shine without worrying about balancing it for minmax cherrypicking from both mortal and planar sides... And maintaining setting continuity with previously expressed existence of some Planetouched who "passed as" (and mechanically counted as) their mortal parentage, while other Planetouched did not and whose appearance was specific to particular Outsider sub-species. That wouldn't mean those don't have "Elf parentage" (or Human, etc), it just isn't as mechanically impactful.

The way I get it, as in "Everyone Can Take Heritages" is that planar scions are going to be heritages not linked to an specific ancestry. We can have Human (Aasimar) or Dwarf (Tiefling) or Elf (Undine) and so on. That's ok. Not how I would have liked it, but I hope they can handle it well.

Now I'm more intrigued with how the "subheritages" are going to be covered. How will the oni born tieflings or the musetouched aasimars going to be covered? My guess was for us to get Tiefling as ancestry and Oni Born as heritage, but now we know that's not how it's going to work...

I thought people would be upset that taking Planetouched heritage might prevent you from taking Jungle Elf heritage or Half-orc heritage.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
The Gold Sovereign wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
YES! TIEFLING AND AASIMAR HERITAGES! PROBABLY GANZI AND APHORITE TOO! I'M GETTING MY ELF-GANZI READY BABY!

Yeah, but question is what that means exactly. Elf taking Ganzi Heritage or Ganzi taking Elf Heritage?

I'd prefer to have the choice of being "Extra Elf-y" (/Human-y/etc) OR be less mechanically tied to mortal parentage but instead choose a specific Outsider Heritage like Angelkin/Plumekith etc... Freeing each Heritage to shine without worrying about balancing it for minmax cherrypicking from both mortal and planar sides... And maintaining setting continuity with previously expressed existence of some Planetouched who "passed as" (and mechanically counted as) their mortal parentage, while other Planetouched did not and whose appearance was specific to particular Outsider sub-species. That wouldn't mean those don't have "Elf parentage" (or Human, etc), it just isn't as mechanically impactful.

The way I get it, as in "Everyone Can Take Heritages" is that planar scions are going to be heritages not linked to an specific ancestry. We can have Human (Aasimar) or Dwarf (Tiefling) or Elf (Undine) and so on. That's ok. Not how I would have liked it, but I hope they can handle it well.

Now I'm more intrigued with how the "subheritages" are going to be covered. How will the oni born tieflings or the musetouched aasimars going to be covered? My guess was for us to get Tiefling as ancestry and Oni Born as heritage, but now we know that's not how it's going to work...

I thought people would be upset that taking Planetouched heritage might prevent you from taking Jungle Elf heritage or Half-orc heritage.

For me its the same as backgrounds. I could have been a dozen things before becoming a Wizard, but the most formative of those was Blacksmith. I may well be a Planetouched Jungle Elf, but my Planetouchedness is what defined me most. This isn't all that different from PF1, just PF1's assumed answer was "the fact your parents are elves made no difference to you as an Aasimar"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An interesting tidbit about rage powers. Mark pointed out that they asked in a survey if we would rather have powerful rage powers and a rage that didn't last very long or always be raging and have weaker powers. Instead, they snowbound up keeping the rage powers strong and almost guaranteed they will last the whole combat. So best of both worlds.

necromental wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
tqomins wrote:
Rage. Flat 1 minute; when you're done you aren't fatigued but can't rage again for a while.
Oh, thank god. It seems like every time news comes out for the new edition something that made me give up on the playtest entirely has been removed. Next you're gonna tell me that Barbarian anathemas have become less hardline and more like the general roleplay suggestions originally advertised.

Word. Here's to hoping.

Edit: wand stuff doens't sound bad, but I hoped that wands will be weapons for casters (raising attack/DC for spells).

I think I'd expect to get them for attack rolls like we had in the playtest, especially since hit probability seems to be equalized with martials (casting stat to attack rolls, no touch AC) so getting equivalent item bonuses seems logical.

I wouldn't bank on DC Boosters. We didn't have them in the playtest and Mark explained why at some point. (I don't quite remember his explanation.) In the final version, I expect the gap between saving throws to widen. A creature that's a master in reflex but only trained in will is going to provide casters with good odds if they split their spells between will, fortitude, and reflex for example.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What if they cut out the middleman completly. it isn't Aasimar or tiefling, its onispawn heritage, or agathonian heritage or angelkin.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
pixierose wrote:
What if they cut out the middleman completly. it isn't Aasimar or tiefling, its onispawn heritage, or agathonian heritage or angelkin.

That would be one way to do it, for sure. Might even be the best option now that I think about it. Publish those as heritages along with a smattering of aasimar feats & tiefling feats that any of those heritages can select. (Can also do heritage prereq feats of course but easier to do most of them as general.)


pixierose wrote:
What if they cut out the middleman completly. it isn't Aasimar or tiefling, its onispawn heritage, or agathonian heritage or angelkin.

I absolutely agree. Sure, various tiefling heritages would have some things in common, but it would allow for some great customization, and it would be quite simple to use.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:

Wands. Cast a spell once/day. No level cap. Can try to cast additional times/day but risk destroying the wand. This also opens up design space for special wands. (Factoid: around 75% of survey respondents didn't care about keeping stick-of-spells style wands.)

Honestly, that'd still feel like a spell-on-a-stick to me. It's just less spammable unless you risk breaking it, which doesn't seem particularly interesting. Not to mention it basically kills scrolls, since why would you want a consumable spell item when you can get a 1/day spell item that functions the same way? (& considering I already hate tracking various 1/day abilities, having multiple wands will just be incredibly annoying.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I went back to double-check what was said about "special" wands that go beyond the basic "cast a spell once per day" model. It's a little less detail than I'd hoped, but you can catch it here. Here's what Jason says:

Jason wrote:

So one of the things that I love about it is that it opens up a lot of design space for us. The most basic wand is just that: you cast it once per day out of the stick, that’s it—you get it once per day. You can try and overcast it, you might break it, you might get more, that’s it.

But it opens up design space for us to treat these like interesting magic items. So there are wands out there that do their thing but then do something special on top of the spell, right? And in the future we could do even crazier things that are, like, every time you cast this spell period if you have this wand in your hand ...

The discussion then moves on to emphasize that most people didn't care about the "cast a spell 50 times" model, and we don't get any more detail.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:

I went back to double-check what was said about "special" wands that go beyond the basic "cast a spell once per day" model. It's a little less detail than I'd hoped, but you can catch it here. Here's what Jason says:

Jason wrote:

So one of the things that I love about it is that it opens up a lot of design space for us. The most basic wand is just that: you cast it once per day out of the stick, that’s it—you get it once per day. You can try and overcast it, you might break it, you might get more, that’s it.

But it opens up design space for us to treat these like interesting magic items. So there are wands out there that do their thing but then do something special on top of the spell, right? And in the future we could do even crazier things that are, like, every time you cast this spell period if you have this wand in your hand ...

The discussion then moves on to emphasize that most people didn't care about the "cast a spell 50 times" model, and we don't get any more detail.

Important detail here, it was stated initially by the OP that overusing wands could destroy them, but in the quote here it says you risk breaking them. This is not a slight towards the OP as this sounds like the same thing but it may be very different functionally.

Destroyed implies risk losing it forever.

Break may just mean it takes the Broken condition, becoming useless until repaired. I like this better because risk of permanently losing a permanent item isn't something I typically favor.

This can also lead to an interesting dynamic with wands that do more than cast, as you weigh maybe getting another spell versus losing the other abilities for a bit.

As to a comment about how this type of wand would kill scrolls, I disagree as wands will likely be priced as permanent items where scrolls are priced as consumables so you can cover much more ground with them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Edge93 wrote:

Important detail here, it was stated initially by the OP that overusing wands could destroy them, but in the quote here it says you risk breaking them. This is not a slight towards the OP as this sounds like the same thing but it may be very different functionally.

Destroyed implies risk losing it forever.

Break may just mean it takes the Broken condition, becoming useless until repaired. I like this better because risk of permanently losing a permanent item isn't something I typically favor.

As both the OP and the author of the post you're responding to here, I assure you there's no contradiction. I was just summarizing one part and then quoting another.

While Jason just says "break" here, that's after Logan has already explained the basic wand model. And in that explanation, Logan says: "you can try again, but you might break your wand forever."

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty happy about the rage change personally, that was just a bit too ridiculous for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

Important detail here, it was stated initially by the OP that overusing wands could destroy them, but in the quote here it says you risk breaking them. This is not a slight towards the OP as this sounds like the same thing but it may be very different functionally.

Destroyed implies risk losing it forever.

Break may just mean it takes the Broken condition, becoming useless until repaired. I like this better because risk of permanently losing a permanent item isn't something I typically favor.

As both the OP and the author of the post you're responding to here, I assure you there's no contradiction. I was just summarizing one part and then quoting another.

While Jason just says "break" here, that's after Logan has already explained the basic wand model. And in that explanation, Logan says: "you can try again, but you might break your wand forever."

Ohhh, I didn't process that there were two different part to the descriptuon, my bad.

Hmm, a little less excited about that. Could lead to some climactic moments though, especially if an attempt that destroys the wand still casts the spell, I feel thats important. Like a climactic "shatter my item to get off one last crucial spell" moment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pixierose wrote:
What if they cut out the middleman completly. it isn't Aasimar or tiefling, its onispawn heritage, or agathonian heritage or angelkin.

That I wouldn't like at all. I would rather get the sub heritage as a level 1 ancestry feat that you can take to modify/complement your ancestry.

This take on half-breeds hopefully will make it easy to create races like half-dragons and half-undeads, or even half-fey.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure wands will be more expensive, but if they basically give you an extra spell a day compared to a single use scroll, I know my players will almost always save up for the wand version and pretend that scrolls don't exist. After all, potentially infinite-use is always more cost-effective in the long run.

My point is that there is still too much overlap with scrolls in this variation, except wands seem to just be better (& likely more expensive). If PF1 wands were basically 50-use scrolls, then the basic PF2 wands are 1/day scrolls with the possibility of extra features. At which point I question what the point of scrolls are.

I'd rather just throw out basic wands being daily scrolls and only make wands with other more advanced features.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:

I'm sure wands will be more expensive, but if they basically give you an extra spell a day compared to a single use scroll, I know my players will almost always save up for the wand version and pretend that scrolls don't exist. After all, potentially infinite-use is always more cost-effective in the long run.

My point is that there is still too much overlap with scrolls in this variation, except wands seem to just be better (& likely more expensive). If PF1 wands were basically 50-use scrolls, then the basic PF2 wands are 1/day scrolls with the possibility of extra features. At which point I question what the point of scrolls are.

I'd rather just throw out basic wands being daily scrolls and only make wands with other more advanced features.

I find my players almost never buying consumables, so having trinkets and wands that can be used 1/day might make the idea more apealable to them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, if we keep WBL guidelines to be like they are in the playtest where we track "how many permanent magic items you have of which levels" instead of tracking "cash" then people are going to be carrying around a limited number of wands.

I feel like scrolls have a place for "I am going to find myself in a position where I will need this spell sooner or later, but certainly not every day." Like no one is going to buy a wand of plane shift in a campaign that isn't about plane hopping, but you might keep a scroll of such around.

A lot of people, myself included, hate carrying around consumable items they expect to use, and instead prefer consumables for emergencies.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, thats about my take on it. You could have 1/day use of a single spell permanently (presumably one you know you'll want to use regularly) or once-only use of 8 different situational spells. Both definitely have theur place and fill very different roles. The fact that some players will prefer one over the other doesn't change that.

The new incarnation of wands doesn't invalidate scrolls because they fill very different roles. Wands are something you get for extra use of a spell you commonly use. Scrolls are mostly to have the ability to use a variety of spells that aren't common enough to learn if spontaneous or prepare daily if prepared but that are quite important when they come up. Even without the new wands you typically wouldn't get scrolls of commonly-used spells often as you'd likely be burning consumables more regularly than is healthy. You'd try to keep the use of your more common spells to your renewable spell slots.

The two actually don't really step on each other's toes very much at all, they have very different uses that dont conflict much if at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who wants to guess whether a heightened wand of mage armor will be the same price as bracers with the same effect?


If you have to invest into the new wands then they don't invalidate scrolls. You can only have 10 wands max that way but can cast any number of scrolls per day.
I see scrolls as something for very specialised spells. The type you don't even need once per day.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It will be very interesting to see how they price things.

Currently (PF1) low level pearls of power are very common but higher than level 3 really rare. I hope Paizo thought through the pricing of "staple" magic items very carefully


Captain Morgan wrote:
Who wants to guess whether a heightened wand of mage armor will be the same price as bracers with the same effect?

Ugh. I hate this because it’s true.

...then again, constant Mage Armour vs 1 day per day... I had arguments with people who complained 1 day per day shouldn’t be priced the same as permanent before. So actually I don’t hate it as much.


With scrolls being consumables it also means you can craft them in batches, so 4 for the price of one. Also most magical crafting seems to be less based on if you’re a caster and more if you have access to the spell required. From the perspective of multiclassing into a caster i’d rather have 20 scrolls(with some duplicates) than a bag full of wands. Though as been pointed out, wands of spells that last a whole day sound worth the investment as oppose to wasting resources on constant scrolls or a spell slot regularly.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

Ugh. I hate this because it’s true.

...then again, constant Mage Armour vs 1 day per day... I had arguments with people who complained 1 day per day shouldn’t be priced the same as permanent before. So actually I don’t hate it as much.

I'd actually argue the Wand should be slightly cheaper, simply because it necessitates a spellcaster with Mage Armor on their list and fares poorly against Dispel Magic (while the Bracers require no effort and do much better vs. Dispel Magic).

Not, like, half the cost or less or anything, but 80-90% as expensive seems pretty reasonable to me.

1 to 50 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / [PaizoCon] "Moving on from the Playtest" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.