Sorcerer's Signature Spell


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
That's a huge gain from where they were in PF1.

"From where they were in PF1" is irrelevant though. You're never going to be in a situation where the PF1 and PF2 sorcerers are competing with each other, they're wholly different systems. You might as well be comparing them to 4e sorcerers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
That's a huge gain from where they were in PF1.
"From where they were in PF1" is irrelevant though. You're never going to be in a situation where the PF1 and PF2 sorcerers are competing with each other, they're wholly different systems. You might as well be comparing them to 4e sorcerers.

OK, let me rephrase. The PF2 sorcerer is much closer to the PF2 wizard than the PF1 sorcerer was to the PF1 wizard. And the Spontaneous Heightening (or Signature Spells) is a big part of that. Framing this as somehow a kick in the sorcerer's teeth feels very bizarre to me. Especially when the sorcerer can heighten those spells in the moment without sacrificing access to higher level spells known. A wizard preparing a 4th level invisibility is losing one other option they could have prepared. They've got 3 options left. A sorcerer that uses spontaneous heightening/signature spell retains their full 4 spells known.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The wizard still "knows" those higher level spells. He just didn't prepare them. This has been how Spontaneous vs Prepared has ALWAYS worked (except 5e).

It's not really a boost for the sorcerer to have access to ALL of his spells when that has ALWAYS been the case.

This is even LESS useful compared to the wizard since they can swap out spell with 10 minutes of downtime, effectively making them spontaneous. Wizards will just prepare spells they expect to need on short notice and swap them out for utility spells when circumstances call for it.

Then there is the issue that learning Fireball in PF1 means you have a decent damaging spell throughout your career. Learning Fireball as a Sorcerer in PF2 means you are going to be okay for a couple levels, then you are going to have a subpar spell.

Yes, the sorcerer can swap out this spell for (or just learn) the higher level spell, but you only get so many swaps and new spells known.

The addition of signature spells helps a bit, but still not nearly as much as the wizard just flat knowing all the spells at all the levels.

The wizard never forgets his old spells and never has to "relearn" a new spell at later levels.

There is also the whole bit where the devs have stated the explicit reason for this design choice, and that was "analysis paralysis", therefore, arguing whether or not it is too strong or weak is irrelevant, as the devs didn't seem to think that was the issue.

As far as that goes, 5e is proof that analysis paralysis isn't a good argument. (Especially since wizards didn't seem to suffer from it when preparing their spells during playtesting.)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
As far as that goes, 5e is proof that analysis paralysis isn't a good argument. (Especially since wizards didn't seem to suffer from it when preparing their spells during playtesting.)

Again, this simply isn't true because 5E casters have fewer spells per day than PF2 ones by a fair bit, and Heightening is less common and less good in 5E than in PF2.

The two are not equivalent and 5E thus proves nothing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

The wizard still "knows" those higher level spells. He just didn't prepare them. This has been how Spontaneous vs Prepared has ALWAYS worked (except 5e).

It's not really a boost for the sorcerer to have access to ALL of his spells when that has ALWAYS been the case.

This is even LESS useful compared to the wizard since they can swap out spell with 10 minutes of downtime, effectively making them spontaneous. Wizards will just prepare spells they expect to need on short notice and swap them out for utility spells when circumstances call for it.

Then there is the issue that learning Fireball in PF1 means you have a decent damaging spell throughout your career. Learning Fireball as a Sorcerer in PF2 means you are going to be okay for a couple levels, then you are going to have a subpar spell.

Yes, the sorcerer can swap out this spell for (or just learn) the higher level spell, but you only get so many swaps and new spells known.

The addition of signature spells helps a bit, but still not nearly as much as the wizard just flat knowing all the spells at all the levels.

The wizard never forgets his old spells and never has to "relearn" a new spell at later levels.

There is also the whole bit where the devs have stated the explicit reason for this design choice, and that was "analysis paralysis", therefore, arguing whether or not it is too strong or weak is irrelevant, as the devs didn't seem to think that was the issue.

As far as that goes, 5e is proof that analysis paralysis isn't a good argument. (Especially since wizards didn't seem to suffer from it when preparing their spells during playtesting.)

This isn't quite getting Captain Morgan's argument.

The two main points are that at any given moment a Sorcerer has both more spell options total and especially more options for their highest slots. They may not be able to change them as readily but their moment-by-moment versatility shines.

Take a 12th level caster. Wizard, total of 48 spell options (less if he prepared duplicates). Sorcerer, assuming the way we thing spontaneous Heightening works is so, as much as 63 (their 4 per spell level plus their level 1 signature has up to 5 more options, their level 2 has up to 4 more, etc.)

Now this IS rose-coloring it a little since not all their signature spells will necessarily heighten every level and those that do aren't worthwhile at the lowest levels. But it's still an expansion in options in any given moment.

Add to that the main perk of Spontaneous over Prepared, that being that they can use their spell slots on any combination of applicable spells known, whereas a Wizard must choose exactly how many times they want to use each spell ahead of time. So either you're only getting one casting of each soell you pick or you're reducing your number of options by preparing multiples of a spell that you guess you will want multiple times.

Yes there's Quick Preparation, but that's not going to help you in battle or on a time crunch. I think most people over-value Quick Preparation a bit (also it's tied to a Thesis now which means not all Wizards will have it anyway) and heavily undervalue the ability to use your slots more flexibly rather than pre-choosing the exact spell (and level) for each spell slot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

After what has been written here, I think NOT having all spells freely able to be heightened for the sorcerer is good.
Not because of choice paralysis when casting but because of less competition when choosing known spells. If you could heighten all spells, you would be softly forced to choose only heightenable spells to get the most milage out of your choice.
With only part of your spells heightenable anyway, you have two silos. Choose some good spells for heightening and some that are good for their level.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What if the Sorcerer's Signature Spell is just better than a Wizard casting the same spell? It'd only need to be a minor boost, but picking Summon Monster as your spell that you want to be able to spam freely throughout your career and being able to wave around that choice in front of the generalist Wizard as proof of why you're better at summoning than he is would definitely help make up the gap in versatility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorcerers have something more that we don't yet every time that they cast something related to their bloodline.

"Sorcerers have been changed a fair amount. We added a lot to Sorcerers overall. Feedback was: Wizard was very powerful but very boring; Sorcerer was very interesting but very weak. So Sorcerers have added a number of very useful features. Their bloodline focus spells are more powerful, more cool; new bloodlines that are cool. Whenever they cast any bloodline focus spell or other spell granted by bloodline, something else happens, that’s different by bloodline."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Loreguard wrote:
Again, in my opinion, they should be consistent about if they are the same spell, or aren't the same spell. Prepared casters shouldn't get to treat them as the same spell if spontaneous ones can't. Either that or basically spontaneous casters are becoming the clumsy replacement of arcanaist casters. They have to prepare their known spells ahead of time using downtime and heightening abilities as if they are basically pseudo-prepared casters.

This. You expressed what I was trying to say perfectly.

masda_gib wrote:
If you could heighten all spells, you would be softly forced to choose only heightenable spells to get the most milage out of your choice.

But in a system where you get 1 Signature Spell for each level you can cast you are forced to

1) take at least 1 heightnable spell at each level
2) make sure that you keep retrain and focus your single choice to get the most of it.

Again, while the comparison with 5E is not helping, I'll never felt compelled to prefer a heightnable spell in 5E on an other one. It's just an option in spells that are, for their basic construction, scalable and that make sense with how spell slot works.

In PF2 I found the discrepancy between Spontaneous/Everyone else like a forced rule made just to make life hard for the first category, why not bothering everyone else.

Arachnofiend wrote:
What if the Sorcerer's Signature Spell is just better than a Wizard casting the same spell? It'd only need to be a minor boost, but picking Summon Monster as your spell that you want to be able to spam freely throughout your career and being able to wave around that choice in front of the generalist Wizard as proof of why you're better at summoning than he is would definitely help make up the gap in versatility.

It's a nice concept, but my problem with how this thing works is the discrepancy and the different ruleset behind it, not a power level thing.

If Spontaneous Casters get something from Signature Spells, it's okay I guess, but I still have trouble in explain and use a rule that I found cumbersome.

Kyrone wrote:
Sorcerers have something more that we don't yet every time that they cast something related to their bloodline.

By the spoiler so far it's the Blood Magic feature that grant you something when you cast spells (don't know the specific on how this work, but the Undead Bloodline get for example Temporary HP to you or Negative Damage to target equal to spell level.)

Sure a welcome thing, but again, not the source of my problem with the system (as speculated).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just hoping that this time around, Sorcerers are better casters than Bards.


Ediwir wrote:
I'm just hoping that this time around, Sorcerers are better casters than Bards.

In my group the sorcerer felt like a better caster. The bard felt like a better class.


More referring to how bards had feats to improve their casting that were in large part denied to sorcerers. Like Improved Spont Heighten.


Ediwir wrote:
More referring to how bards had feats to improve their casting that were in large part denied to sorcerers. Like Improved Spont Heighten.

I guess it was a bit weird. But having an extra spell slot just made them so much better at casting IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also please tell me that I'm not the only one who's found spontaneous casters every bit as useful and often more useful than prepared at the actual table? Like the situations where the perks of being a prepared caster (namely more malleable spell selection over time) come up just don't come up that often while the perks of spontaneous casting (more malleable use of existing spell selection) comes into play much more often.

Like maybe I'm I'm a minority but I've ALWAYS preferred spontaneous casting in both PF1 and the Playtest, (and PF2 looks even more so) and it's been more useful at my table in general as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:

Also please tell me that I'm not the only one who's found spontaneous casters every bit as useful and often more useful than prepared at the actual table? Like the situations where the perks of being a prepared caster (namely more malleable spell selection over time) come up just don't come up that often while the perks of spontaneous casting (more malleable use of existing spell selection) comes into play much more often.

Like maybe I'm I'm a minority but I've ALWAYS preferred spontaneous casting in both PF1 and the Playtest, (and PF2 looks even more so) and it's been more useful at my table in general as well.

That normally depends on how much your group/questline actually allows scouting/planning. A likeminded group that sinks money into a wizard can just waltz through otherwise impassable obstacles - but if you just walk into things or don't have the one day to prep, prepared casters are definitely worse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

Also please tell me that I'm not the only one who's found spontaneous casters every bit as useful and often more useful than prepared at the actual table? Like the situations where the perks of being a prepared caster (namely more malleable spell selection over time) come up just don't come up that often while the perks of spontaneous casting (more malleable use of existing spell selection) comes into play much more often.

Like maybe I'm I'm a minority but I've ALWAYS preferred spontaneous casting in both PF1 and the Playtest, (and PF2 looks even more so) and it's been more useful at my table in general as well.

That normally depends on how much your group/questline actually allows scouting/planning. A likeminded group that sinks money into a wizard can just waltz through otherwise impassable obstacles - but if you just walk into things or don't have the one day to prep, prepared casters are definitely worse.

That makes sense. My campaigns usually send the party through story beats and missions fairly quickly, and advance scouting is something they usually don't do, their only advance Intel is typically just what they can glean from relevant individuals beforehand.

My parties are more typically a "examine the outside of destination from a safe distance then proceed while examining thoroughly" type than a try to map the place ahead of time type.

Of course that may be partly because a lot of places they go are inhabited with things that want to kill them.

So prepared casters usually just change a few spells situationally based on what they expect to come (like not preparing Harm if we're after a Necromancer XD) rather than having really specific info to tailor a bunch of spell picks to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
thflame wrote:
As far as that goes, 5e is proof that analysis paralysis isn't a good argument. (Especially since wizards didn't seem to suffer from it when preparing their spells during playtesting.)
Again, this simply isn't true because 5E casters have fewer spells per day than PF2 ones by a fair bit,

Again, then why isn't it "analysis paralysis" for prepared casters when they prepare their spells?

When it comes down to it, 99% of the time, prepared casters are going to prepare the exact same list and sorcerers will likely cast the same go-to spells at the same go-to levels.

Quote:
and Heightening is less common and less good in 5E than in PF2.

Numerous people in this thread have said just the opposite, and my personal experience shows just the opposite as well.

Most spells ARE approximately balanced at all spell levels with all other spells of other levels in 5e. This situation where a 3rd level spell up-cast to a 6th level is weaker than a 6th level spell just doesn't come up 99% of the time.

Sure, you'd rather cast Meteor Swarm than Fireball at level 9, but Meteor Swarm is one of a handful of spells that "breaks the rules" as far as spell design goes. (Not to mention that is is competing with Wish and still rarely sees play.)

Most of the utility/buff/debuff spells are cast at the particular level that targets the optimal number of creatures/has the optimal duration/etc. for the given situation.

Damaging spells are usually cast at the highest level slot that the caster is okay with burning.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
thflame wrote:
As far as that goes, 5e is proof that analysis paralysis isn't a good argument. (Especially since wizards didn't seem to suffer from it when preparing their spells during playtesting.)
Again, this simply isn't true because 5E casters have fewer spells per day than PF2 ones by a fair bit,

Again, then why isn't it "analysis paralysis" for prepared casters when they prepare their spells?

When it comes down to it, 99% of the time, prepared casters are going to prepare the exact same list and sorcerers will likely cast the same go-to spells at the same go-to levels.

It's different for prepared casters because they choose from their breadth of options at the start of the day. Once per day. Sorcerers with free full spontaneous Heightening have that massive expansions of the options that are available to them at any moment.

Prepared casters make their wide-pool decision at the start of the day.
Spontaneous casters would be making their wide-pool choices much more frequently.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
thflame wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
thflame wrote:
As far as that goes, 5e is proof that analysis paralysis isn't a good argument. (Especially since wizards didn't seem to suffer from it when preparing their spells during playtesting.)
Again, this simply isn't true because 5E casters have fewer spells per day than PF2 ones by a fair bit,

Again, then why isn't it "analysis paralysis" for prepared casters when they prepare their spells?

When it comes down to it, 99% of the time, prepared casters are going to prepare the exact same list and sorcerers will likely cast the same go-to spells at the same go-to levels.

It's different for prepared casters because they choose from their breadth of options at the start of the day. Once per day. Sorcerers with free full spontaneous Heightening have that massive expansions of the options that are available to them at any moment.

Prepared casters make their wide-pool decision at the start of the day.
Spontaneous casters would be making their wide-pool choices much more frequently.

You know, this SHOULD be true, but they gave Wizards the ability to pick whatever the hell spell they want at any point as long as they're out of combat. So.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
thflame wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
thflame wrote:
As far as that goes, 5e is proof that analysis paralysis isn't a good argument. (Especially since wizards didn't seem to suffer from it when preparing their spells during playtesting.)
Again, this simply isn't true because 5E casters have fewer spells per day than PF2 ones by a fair bit,

Again, then why isn't it "analysis paralysis" for prepared casters when they prepare their spells?

When it comes down to it, 99% of the time, prepared casters are going to prepare the exact same list and sorcerers will likely cast the same go-to spells at the same go-to levels.

It's different for prepared casters because they choose from their breadth of options at the start of the day. Once per day. Sorcerers with free full spontaneous Heightening have that massive expansions of the options that are available to them at any moment.

Prepared casters make their wide-pool decision at the start of the day.
Spontaneous casters would be making their wide-pool choices much more frequently.

You know, this SHOULD be true, but they gave Wizards the ability to pick whatever the hell spell they want at any point as long as they're out of combat. So.

IF they get the Thesis for that and then they take 10 minutes to change only a single spell, so they are never in pressure to choose the spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
thflame wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
thflame wrote:
As far as that goes, 5e is proof that analysis paralysis isn't a good argument. (Especially since wizards didn't seem to suffer from it when preparing their spells during playtesting.)
Again, this simply isn't true because 5E casters have fewer spells per day than PF2 ones by a fair bit,

Again, then why isn't it "analysis paralysis" for prepared casters when they prepare their spells?

When it comes down to it, 99% of the time, prepared casters are going to prepare the exact same list and sorcerers will likely cast the same go-to spells at the same go-to levels.

It's different for prepared casters because they choose from their breadth of options at the start of the day. Once per day. Sorcerers with free full spontaneous Heightening have that massive expansions of the options that are available to them at any moment.

Prepared casters make their wide-pool decision at the start of the day.
Spontaneous casters would be making their wide-pool choices much more frequently.

Except that the sorcerer is picking ONE spell whenever they cast, as opposed to ALL of their spells at once. By all logic, if sorcerers are going to slow down the game significantly with analysis paralysis when it comes to casting their spells, then wizards should need to prepare their lists between sessions, for fear that the entire session will be spent waiting for the wizard to pick all of his spells.

Again, 99% of the time, casters have a pretty good idea of what needs to happen. A sorcerer isn't going to be choosing between ALL of his spells at ALL possible spell levels, because MOST of his spells are not going to be applicable to the given situation. Most of his spell LEVELS won't even be appropriate. At most, they will likely have 2-3 spells that are currently viable at 2-3 spell levels, with the optimal choice likely being entirely irrelevant.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thflame wrote:

Except that the sorcerer is picking ONE spell whenever they cast, as opposed to ALL of their spells at once. By all logic, if sorcerers are going to slow down the game significantly with analysis paralysis when it comes to casting their spells, then wizards should need to prepare their lists between sessions, for fear that the entire session will be spent waiting for the wizard to pick all of his spells.

Again, 99% of the time, casters have a pretty good idea of what needs to happen. A sorcerer isn't going to be choosing between ALL of his spells at ALL possible spell levels, because MOST of his spells are not going to be applicable to the given situation. Most of his spell LEVELS won't even be appropriate. At most, they will likely have 2-3 spells that are currently viable at 2-3 spell levels, with the optimal choice likely being entirely irrelevant.

You can make that argument, but it's not what they found to be the case. They weren't expecting it to be a problem either, but it was. I'll take "we ran this exact setup for people and found it was surprisingly less fun" over a theoretical argument.

I mean, freeform heightening certainly sounds better! I imagine their design goal after those findings was getting as close to freeform heightening as they could without the fun-dampening side-effects.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
Again, then why isn't it "analysis paralysis" for prepared casters when they prepare their spells?

Well, to some extent it is. Prepared casters often take quite a while to pick out their spells for the day if they don't have a pre-set list planned. The difference is that taking a while to do stuff when you prepare for the day is vastly less disruptive to game play than doing the same in the middle of combat.

thflame wrote:
When it comes down to it, 99% of the time, prepared casters are going to prepare the exact same list and sorcerers will likely cast the same go-to spells at the same go-to levels.

This is mostly true for prepared casters, or at least is fairly often. Sorcerers can also have go-to spells, but simply having them all available to solve problem X right at the moment really encourages taking a moment to examine your options rather than always using the same couple of spells. And once you're examining more than a couple of spells the time your turn takes goes up pretty quick the more options you have.

thflame wrote:
Numerous people in this thread have said just the opposite, and my personal experience shows just the opposite as well.

I strongly disagree.

thflame wrote:

Most spells ARE approximately balanced at all spell levels with all other spells of other levels in 5e. This situation where a 3rd level spell up-cast to a 6th level is weaker than a 6th level spell just doesn't come up 99% of the time.

Sure, you'd rather cast Meteor Swarm than Fireball at level 9, but Meteor Swarm is one of a handful of spells that "breaks the rules" as far as spell design goes. (Not to mention that is is competing with Wish and still rarely sees play.)

Most of the utility/buff/debuff spells are cast at the particular level that targets the optimal number of creatures/has the optimal duration/etc. for the given situation.

Damaging spells are usually cast at the highest level slot that the caster is okay with burning.

Almost all the research I've done disagrees with this, as does my own experience with 5E (though I've admittedly not played too many games of 5E). Some spells certainly get upcast, but many it's not even possible and many more it's certainly not advisable.

Buffs are a bit of an exception, as many of them can technically be upcast for more targets, but in practice you always cast them at precisely the level to effect all PCs, making upcasting them more or less than that a non-choice in most situations (and analysis paralysis is about number of choices, remember).

But really, all this is a side issue. Regardless of it not showing up in 5E and the reasons for that, it did show up in the in-house playtests of PF2 that allowed free upcasting, so it's apparently an issue in PF2's situation even if I've got the reasons that's the case wrong (which I don't think I do, but it's possible).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thflame wrote:
Except that the sorcerer is picking ONE spell whenever they cast, as opposed to ALL of their spells at once. By all logic, if sorcerers are going to slow down the game significantly with analysis paralysis when it comes to casting their spells, then wizards should need to prepare their lists between sessions, for fear that the entire session will be spent waiting for the wizard to pick all of his spells.

Analysis paralysis can be comparably bad for both, but there's a key difference in why one version slows the game more that you seem to be overlooking:

Wizard spell preparation is done out of combat.

Sorcerers make their selections from their entire pool of available options during combat, and the rest of the table is sitting there waiting for their turn.

That alone makes a huge difference, because picking from even a limited list of prepared spell options during combat can be time intensive. Even if you're diligent and think through your turn in advance, the nature of combat means the circumstances will likely change on the turn before yours and you need to think through your options again.

You don't have to make a group rule that "Wizards can only prepare between sessions" (although I generally ask them to have a "default" prepared list brought, and they can tweak it during the game as appropriate). If they're tweaking spell lists during downtime, or while the healer is spending ten minutes on Treat Wounds, that's not as much of a slowdown because no one is waiting on their turn to end.

Edit: Ninja'd on the main point by DMW, as is tradition for this board.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:

Edit: Ninja'd on the main point by DMW, as is tradition for this board.

I think DMW has many levels in PF1 Ninja (Or PF2 Rogue with Monk MC) that he isn't telling us about. XD


3 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
You can make that argument, but it's not what they found to be the case. They weren't expecting it to be a problem either, but it was. I'll take "we ran this exact setup for people and found it was surprisingly less fun" over a theoretical argument.

I'd be curious to see if "analysis paralysis" was mapped out from brand new people to the game vs people that played with the rules for a while. If they didn't, a lot of people that "found it was surprisingly less fun" might be from just not knowing ANY spells [or the rules attached to them] very well and having to look them up, with spontaneous just multiplying the existing issue. With as badly organized as the playtest was, just finding a single spell and then tracking down the condition[s] it conferred could be an problem.

Now take this vs someone that before hand put all their spells on note cards, including heightened, along with relevant rules: I'm wondering if THAT person suffered "analysis paralysis". Myself, I do this with a notepad file so I can quickly glance over my spells [name, quick description, mechanics, rules].


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Put me in the "Sorcerers should be able to spontaneously heighten all their spells" camp.

I approach it from a few different angles. Narratively, Sorcerers are inherently magical. They literally cast by feeling. As a result, they can fine tune the amount of power they put into a spell, because it's as natural as moving a muscle. It makes sense that when they get a spell, they are better suited to manipulating it on the fly than say a wizard, who needs to formulate their spells. So the fact that wizards are able to extrapolate all levels of a spell while sorcerers cannot seems like a reversal of their narrative roles, and imo a favoritism for wizards, but I digress.

As for choice paralysis, it really comes down to if you want to cast a spell at its highest level possible or not. The extra choices brought by free heightening are less of a choice then the choice between the actual spells. The people who suffer from choice paralysis in spell casters will be exactly as bad with or with out the heightening in my experience, because the heightening is a matter of magnitude, not action.


After some considerations I'm making this post to address few things.

First, I had made a spoiler at the end of this message to include my speculation about Signature Spell from what we know about it, and to how I guess (and mostly hope) will appear in the final book. I remind everyone that speculating and trying to find information about this feature is still the topic of the thread, and not comparing how spellcasting works in different rpg systems (I'll admit I was the first to cast this stone).

Second, I'll make statements about the ongoing discussion. Notice that I'm not referring to anyone in particular. If you want to imagine the tone of my words, imagine that I'm just sad.

About the analysis paralysis problem, I can only say that I've played with a lot of players in my years of table top gaming. There were good and bad (but mostly good) players, from 12 to 40+ years old, to novice first time players, to overly experts min-maxer guys, to every kind of rpg-goer in a lot of systems. If you write "I'm not giving you this choice not for a power level problem, or a balance problem, or any kind of math problem but because I think you won't be able to make the right choice when the time comes" just know that you are insulting me and every player I had played with. Your assumption that I or the people at my table won't have the mental ability to pick a spell between some choice just "because" it's really demorilizing. So know that when you are enforcing this you are just saying that the rule exist and it's how it is because I'm too dumb to have more breadth in selecting my options.

To take this on another ground, and to prove a point I found difficult to express in other posts: this is a game. A kind of "cooperative game" where even your worst enemy, the DM, is your friend and it's playing with you, all the time. I don't know everyone else in this thread (or in this forum), and I can only talk about my experience but I have always found help at my table when asked, and I had always given help too. When I or someone else didn't know what to do in any kind of situation and found itself blocked by the possibilities that a RPG comport, everyone helped. So, if you still think that a single player can't pick the right spell and found itself blocked, think about how a group of players and friends can overcome that same situation in the blink of an eye.

This was my thoughts - that said, move on to different things, let's see my Signature Spells.

Gawain's Signature Spells:

1st level feature
Spontaneous casters are more capable in the casting of some spells, called Signature Spells.
Sorcerers call all their Bloodline Spells Signature Spells, and for every level of spells they know they can pick 1 of them to be an additional Signature Spell.
They get 2 benefits:
First, they know every version of the spell at each heightnable level.
Second, each day they can cast each one of their Signature Spells once at their base level.
Everytime you level up in this class, you can change one of your Signature Spells (but you can't change Bloodline Spells).

Consideration:
We know that by feedback Sorcerers was very weak in the playtest and the Spontanous Heightening feature was not well received.
By the text of Versatile Signature, a Bard Feat, we can infer that Signature Spell refers to a spell for each level the spellcaster can cast ad minimum.
Also, it was called that some Bloodlines was weaker then others for the existence of Spontaneous Heightening.
By making the Signature Spells additional castings it doesn't matter too much if they can be heightened or not - everyone get the same extra spells. The extra known spells are extra, sure, but your not completely forced to pick heightnable spells as every spell can be a Signature Spell. Also, you get only a free cast at the base level, not one free at heightnable ones.
It grants spontaneous casters additional spell slots, making them more in par with their PF1 counterparts and differentiate them from the prepared casters.
But notice that this extra slots are not pure, free, slots: they are fixed by your choice of Bloodline and Signature Spells, making them less versatile while granting the additional firepower.
On Bards: I can see them not getting extra spells from their muses, because compositions, but with this feature they still get an extra slot each day, making them second in maximum number of slots behind the Sorcerers.

Am I too optimistic? What would you change? Can't wait to see what the real feature do - and see how much I went in the wrong direction!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gawain Themitya wrote:
because I think you won't be able to make the right choice when the time comes

While I don't really agree with the "analysis paralysis problem", I don't think they are saying people aren't able to pick the right spells but that they take too long to do so and they slow down game play as a result of that.

Gawain's Signature Spells: Looks fine to me. I like it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

- Keep in mind, slow selection time wasn't the only problem. That feeling of wanting to grab three first-level heightenable spells is the other part of the problem. People wouldn't feel free to select things like Unseen Servant (which may not impact your enjoyment, but it does impact others').

- New players' experiences are also valid to improve. I know I gave new players Sorcerer and Oracle over Wizard and Cleric in PF1. And certainly, experienced players can help out, but striking a balance there is good.

- Sure, this might not be balanced on its own. Feedback on Sorcerer was that it was fun but weaker. Signature spells are only one of the changes. Their focus spells were buffed, they've got options to recover more focus than other classes, and they now get a bonus rider on their bloodline and focus spells.

Anyway, I know "just houserule it" is not a useful response, but a rule that partially exists for reasons that you don't feel apply to your group is really some of the best stuff to houserule.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:

- Keep in mind, slow selection time wasn't the only problem. That feeling of wanting to grab three first-level heightenable spells is the other part of the problem. People wouldn't feel free to select things like Unseen Servant (which may not impact your enjoyment, but it does impact others').

- New players' experiences are also valid to improve. I know I gave new players Sorcerer and Oracle over Wizard and Cleric in PF1. And certainly, experienced players can help out, but striking a balance there is good.

- Sure, this might not be balanced on its own. Feedback on Sorcerer was that it was fun but weaker. Signature spells are only one of the changes. Their focus spells were buffed, they've got options to recover more focus than other classes, and they now get a bonus rider on their bloodline and focus spells.

Anyway, I know "just houserule it" is not a useful response, but a rule that partially exists for reasons that you don't feel apply to your group is really some of the best stuff to houserule.

I mean, as you pointed out, it IS an incredibly easy houserule. Yeah, that doesn't help at PFS, but PFS is where you really, really don't want to risk slowing the game down anyway.


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

QuidEst nails it, IMO.

Plus, having seen the math above, it would seem weird to me if Sorcerer totally outclasses Wizard in "number of different spells ready at once".

If anything, I would expect Wizard to be able to have more different spells prepared at once and Sorcerer to have more spells per day.


For my I always dealt with "analysis paralysis" by making spell cards and a casting app to keep track of my spell levels. Most of the time they were not needed as I knew all my spells by heart. "analysis paralysis" is really only an issue the first couple of sessions with a new character or a very long time between play sessions.

Whether only 2 spells I know or all spells I know can be spontaneously heightened I will need to make cards with all of their options and which ones I have in hand at the start of the day will change. A cheat sheet with the sudo spells known broken down by spell level with one line of relevant level dependant information would also greatly cut down on confusion.

I actually think Paizo missed the boat a little on the heighten mechanic. Some spells just increase in power but do not really change in function (mostly the damage spells) but other spells vastly change in function and truly are different spells. A sorcerer totally should be able to power up any spell that doesn't change function with a higher spell slot but needs to have the spell as a bloodline or signature spell to heighten it if it changes form with levels. I would have also locked changing signature spells into a level up or rebuild mechanic rather than a once per day.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mellok wrote:


I actually think Paizo missed the boat a little on the heighten mechanic. Some spells just increase in power but do not really change in function (mostly the damage spells) but other spells vastly change in function and truly are different spells. A sorcerer totally should be able to power up any spell that doesn't change function with a higher spell slot but needs to have the spell as a bloodline or signature spell to heighten it if it changes form with levels. I would have also locked changing signature spells into a level up or rebuild mechanic rather than a once per day.

That first bit sounds fitting on paper but would probably just be unnecessary complication, the avoidance of which is probably part of why they did things like making Invisibility, Greater Invisibility, and Mass Invisibility heightenings of 1 spell instead of 3 separate spells in the first place.

As to locking it into level up or rebuild instead of daily, that's probably what they HAVE done generally speaking. Changing them daily is only via a feat Bards can take.

Also, on the topic in general, something that the earlier (unquoted) part of your post brought up.

First off, I think it's great you go to the trouble of making spell cards and such and generally having your crap together. That is great.

However, speaking from the GM side for a moment instead of the usual player-side arguments, not all of us GMs are lucky enough to have players that put in that effort and have that efficiency and are willing to make that effort to not slow down the game. Many of my players have been great, I'd say I've only had a couple really bad players, but I have had players that are certainly not the quickest with getting to grips with different abilities and that don't really put in the work to get quicker at it. Occasionally to the point where if we're going to get anywhere anytime soon I have to practically spell out what they should do with their turn, and I hate doing that because I feel like I'm hitting in too much. Combining that kind of player with free spontaneous Heightening probably wouldn't go well, but Signature Spells as we expect them to be is notably less of an issue.

Now I don't think the rules should have to account for BAD players or GMs, because you really just CAN'T account for those with written rules IMO, and trying usually just makes it harder for the ones who aren't a problem. But it's not just bad players that would have this issue, and I think it's great when the rules aim to work well for newer or slower players, I think that's something that maybe even SHOULD be the case, as long as there's room for easy houseruling for more experienced players (who are the ones that would notice these things and know how to Houserule them) and as long as things aren't being dumbed down or anything to where it's condescending or doesn't work enjoyably for experienced players (which frankly is not the case with Signature Spells).

Sorry if this doesn't come across right, in short I'm trying to say that as a GM who has experienced a LOT of table slowdown on plenty of occasions I appreciate when the rules make things flow more smoothly for less experienced or quick players without ruining things for the more experienced because that helps the whole table.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

I mean, as you pointed out, it IS an incredibly easy houserule. Yeah, that doesn't help at PFS, but PFS is where you really, really don't want to risk slowing the game down anyway.

Not just PFS... And PFS has it's own houserules, so if that environment is one that you "really, really don't want to risk slowing the game down anyway" they could houserule it.

QuidEst wrote:
you don't feel apply to your group

Not all of us get to have a single group to play with. For me it would mean having the sorcerer work differently in different groups all based on pre game posts.

MaxAstro wrote:
If anything, I would expect Wizard to be able to have more different spells prepared at once and Sorcerer to have more spells per day.

Makes sense to me. Sorcerers would be better at spell trees/line while wizards would are free to pick whatever unique spell they want for each slot.

QuidEst wrote:
That feeling of wanting to grab three first-level heightenable spells is the other part of the problem. People wouldn't feel free to select things like Unseen Servant (which may not impact your enjoyment, but it does impact others').

This can happen now for wizards: you fill out your free slots with ones you can heighten and you're ensured more options at higher levels as you get the higher versions for free. It's basically increasing your free spells you get per level while you find/buy ones you can't heighten.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel you on the GM side of things. The longer a single players turn takes the more likely the other players will wonder off either physically or mentally into one device or another. I have both discouraged new and or disorganized players from playing casters and helped make cards for well meaning if forgetful players that I keep between sessions because said players are also likely to lose them.

For one group we actually introduced a shot clock. If your player doesn't come up with an action in 2 minutes after passing the turn then their character is skipped. Once we instituted the rule we never had to enforce it because the problem people got organized.

The real issue comes in in PFS where whatever rules are written is law with no house ruling and you cannot audit a player to play a class that they are actually competent at playing. Play test Sorcerers needed either more spells known so that you could afford to slot higher level spells or more than just two spell that can be spontaneously heightened. Even tying spontaneous heightening to bloodlines isn't great because most of the blood lines contain many single level spells and more than a few stinkers.

In my mind they choose to create a game mechanic problem for a print page count reason. They condensed spells under the same name that had vastly different effect that should have stayed unique spells to save print space then nerfed the damage on spells for all levels after the first level you gained access to it compared to PF1. If the damage was intentionally being balanced then those should have the only spells that could have been heightened.

Another option could have been that each spell has a level 0-10 version and reasonable modifications could have been made to classic spells to get them to join together into a single spell line. Then wizards only need to find one record to be able to add the line to their spell book and Sorcerers could only learn 3 spells at level 1 and one additional spell ever other level starting at level 3. A few of the spells would have been left as odd men out but those are usually the underpowered or over powered spells anyway.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Now I don't think the rules should have to account for BAD players or GMs, because you really just CAN'T account for those with written rules IMO, and trying usually just makes it harder for the ones who aren't a problem. But it's not just bad players that would have this issue, and I think it's great when the rules aim to work well for newer or slower players, I think that's something that maybe even SHOULD be the case, as long as there's room for easy houseruling for more experienced players (who are the ones that would notice these things and know how to Houserule them) and as long as things aren't being dumbed down or anything to where it's condescending or doesn't work enjoyably for experienced players (which frankly is not the case with Signature Spells).

I think there's an important point you touch on here that's getting skirted in a lot of this conversation. Sorcerer has been the simplest core caster and a great introduction to spellcasting for twenty years now.

I'm sure that everyone on this thread has enough experience and understanding to play something more complicated than a bare-bones sorcerer. But making the simplest caster more complex means less and less players will play spellcasters. Which not only locks them out of several key fantasy archetypes but also means they're not getting the experience they could use to play even more complicated classes.

And that's not even getting in to preferred complexity levels. Even an experienced player, after a campaign with a real brain-burner of a character, might want to play something a little more straight forward. Having a simple spellcaster in the system has a lot of value.

I love the medium class, but the game doesn't just need a bunch of mediums. It needs classes fulfilling various roles across the complexity scale. And, in the core book, where the simplest classes are best placed, the P2 sorcerer carries the weight of being the simplest blaster, simplest healer, and basically every other non-martial concept.

All of which is to say, making wizards (and now clerics, druids, and theoretically psychics) complicated isn't as big a deal because the sorcerer is there to fall back on. But making sorcerers more complicated is a much greater cost.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
- Keep in mind, slow selection time wasn't the only problem. That feeling of wanting to grab three first-level heightenable spells is the other part of the problem. People wouldn't feel free to select things like Unseen Servant (which may not impact your enjoyment, but it does impact others').

I'm not sure I really buy that. Good spells are good spells. If you've got some great idea you can leverage out of Unseen servant, it's still worth the pickup. Plus if all your spells rely on heightening you're gonna be kinda SoL when you burn through those higher level slots.

Besides, doesn't this have the opposite problem and devalue taking spells that rely on heightening to stay relevant? Just take spells that scale automatically or have utility that never stops being relevant in those lower level spells known.

Which basically means we're back where we were before heightening was even a thing and recreated the problems that heighten was supposed to solve.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
- Keep in mind, slow selection time wasn't the only problem. That feeling of wanting to grab three first-level heightenable spells is the other part of the problem. People wouldn't feel free to select things like Unseen Servant (which may not impact your enjoyment, but it does impact others').

I'm not sure I really buy that. Good spells are good spells. If you've got some great idea you can leverage out of Unseen servant, it's still worth the pickup. Plus if all your spells rely on heightening you're gonna be kinda SoL when you burn through those higher level slots.

Besides, doesn't this have the opposite problem and devalue taking spells that rely on heightening to stay relevant? Just take spells that scale automatically or have utility that never stops being relevant in those lower level spells known.

Which basically means we're back where we were before heightening was even a thing and recreated the problems that heighten was supposed to solve.

The goal is that you'll want a mix of both, which I think it's reasonably succeeding at. You'll probably want at least one spell that you can use once you unlock level 2 slots because you don't get many opportunities to learn new spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I keep hoping Mark will stick his head in here and throw us a slight spoiler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The argument "Sorcerer should be this really simple class for beginners" is just... no.

I don't even discuss it. Move on.

On other things I found something in the 100 Spoilers Thread.

Cards numbers 69-70-91:

69. Undead
Sorcerer Bloodline
The touch of undeath runs through your blood. Your family tree might contain powerful undead, like a vampire, or perhaps you died and returned a bit different.
Spell List divine (page 309)
Bloodline Skills Intimidation, Religion
Granted Spells cantrip: chill touch; 1st: harm; 2nd: false life; 3rd: bind undead; 4th: talking corpse; 5th: cloudkill; 6th: vampiric exsanguination; 7th: finger of death; 8th: horrid wilting; 9th: wail of the banshee
Bloodline Spells initial: touch of undeath; advanced: drain life; greater: grasping grave
Blood Magic Necromantic energy flows through you or one target. Either you gain temporary Hit Points equal to the spell's level for 1 round, or a target takes 1 negative damage per spell level.

70. Bloodline Magic
Sorcerer Class Feature
Whenever you cast a bloodline spell using Focus Points or a granted spell from your bloodline using a spell slot, you gain a blood magic effect. If the blood magic offers a choice, make it before resolving the spell. The blood magic effect occurs after resolving any checks for the spell’s initial effects and, against a foe, applies only if the spell is a successful attack or the foe fails its saving throw. If the spell has an area, you must designate yourself or one target in the area when you cast the spell to be the target of the blood magic effect. All references to spell level refer to the level of the spell you cast.

91. Horrific Visage
Focus 3
*Uncommon, Emotion, Fear, Illusion, Mental, Sorcerer, Visual*
Cast [>>] somatic, verbal
Area 30-foot-radius emanation centered on you
Saving Throw Will
You briefly transform your features into the horrific visage of a hag, striking fear into your enemies. Foes in the area must attempt a Will save.
Success The foe is unaffected
Failure The foe is frightened 1.
Critical Failure The foe is frightened 2.
Heightened (5th) Foes in the area are frightened 1 on a success, frightened 2 on a failure, and frightened 3 and fleeing for 1 round on a critical failure. They are still unaffected on a critical success.

Totally unimpressed by Bloodline Magic, as it works only on preselected spells and feat-gated abilities. (but I get how it is close to the Bloodline Arcana of PF, so, a terrible ability taking place of a terrible ability).

It will be really really fun, on the other hand, to explain to new and young players
"You see, this spell, Magic Missile, that you got at 1st level, you can't use the Heightened version because you need to use this limited feature to get it. But cantrips and this cool bloodline abilities instead works as intended and they are automatically heightened and you learn them too at the intended level! Fun, right?" (Sorry, too much sarcasm but I really can't tone it down.)

graystone wrote:
Not all of us get to have a single group to play with. For me it would mean having the sorcerer work differently in different groups all based on pre game posts.

This is the reason I never houserule anything in any of my groups, at least for myself (if the DM and an other player want to that, they're welcome, of course). I prefer to keep the closest to the rulebook, not bringing homebrew and try to get the vision the developers wanted. Of course, I get angry a lot of times for this.

Mellok wrote:
In my mind they choose to create a game mechanic problem for a print page count reason.

Adding "page count" to the list of reasons they didn't give full spontaneous heightening to Sorcerers.

Mellok wrote:
I keep hoping Mark will stick his head in here and throw us a slight spoiler.

The sooner I get the full rules about spontaneous casters, the sooner I can go throught the 5 stages of grief.

Denial: Oh no they didn't. There'll be an errata soon, right?

Anger: BUT WHY?!? WHY?!? THEY GOT THE FEEDBACK! WHY?!?

Bargaining: It's ok. I can houserule. Or maybe they are stronger then I can perceive, I just really need to try! Or at least they are easy to run! Yes!

Depression: What's the point? There isn't a system for me out there, even PF2 failed me...

Acceptance: Ok. I'll do the DM.


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

I mean... PF2e Sorcerers are in a strictly better situation compared to PF1e. Even if they had no spontaneous heightening AT ALL, they would still not be as far behind Wizards as PF1e Sorcerers were.

You can argue "PF2e didn't do enough", but you can't really argue "PF2e didn't address the problem at all". The devs clearly tried.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do we have any word on if Undercasting (as per Occult Adventures) is a thing for spontaneous casters? It would really make sense to be able to "upgrade" a spell and replace the lower level version of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I mean... PF2e Sorcerers are in a strictly better situation compared to PF1e. Even if they had no spontaneous heightening AT ALL, they would still not be as far behind Wizards as PF1e Sorcerers were.

You can argue "PF2e didn't do enough", but you can't really argue "PF2e didn't address the problem at all". The devs clearly tried.

While I can thanks them for trying because they are doing what I can't, meaning creating a new tabletop rpg with the wide scope of fixing a lot of PF1 problems, I still feel let down. Expecially because personally I wanted so little, I suppose. I mean, I literally see more people trying to found explanations for how things are instead of admitting that it could been easier, nicer and better overall if they went in a different direction.

I'm probably guilty too, by the way.
In fact, I removed myself from the Playtest because I thought, wrongly, that the product would have gone in a direction I wouldn't like. While the revelations from the Banquet put me back in the game... these little discoveries are hurting.
It's like when they announced the PF2. My hype was stellar, then the Blog post about magic came and I lost every hope.
I tought that my feedback couldn't change things and... well.
We are seeing that it seems that my fear was, after all, real.
What's coming out is a mix of sweet and bitter, with things I like and things I hate.

I still need to see the finished product to understand if this is a game for me and/or my groups, but I created this thread because spellcasting, spontaneous casting and Sorcerers are, first and foremost, what I focus on in the game and in the system, so...
Yeah, I really need to know this so I can quiet my heart and decide what to do, while knowing that the 1st of august I'll read everything on AoN anyway.

Paizo Employee Designer

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Gawain Themitya wrote:


I tought that my feedback couldn't change things

We really took the feedback from the surveys and forums to heart, and while it was anonymized so obviously I don't know exactly what survey results were from you and your group, your surveys and efforts, along with those of other fans, contributed greatly to improving the game in general and for sorcerers in particular.

Now, that being said, each of us has some opinions that were not reflected by the fan base at large, and that includes each of the game's designers too. I had some things I had wanted all along but couldn't really convince everyone you guys would like it but then your feedback gave me evidence to support it, and some things I wanted to see, you guys didn't want to see, so we changed it. Same is true for all the designers. Similarly, some of the things you want are probably also things that a lot of other fans wanted, while some of the things you would have liked to see might not have been as popular of changes. Sometimes, the ideas we each like that are actually very popular might not be popular in online discussion spaces, and sometimes the ideas we each like that are actually not very popular overall are significantly more popular in such spaces. Some of that is due to inertia, since once an idea gains inertia in a public online space, there's pressure on someone who wants to disagree.

For me, the critical design philosophy for PF2 is modularity: We built the game in such a way that we can all make changes to make our dreams and preferences a reality, without causing weird or unexpected side effects in various other systems that throw off the rest of the game. That way, if your group wants to do something different with spontaneous casters, we want you to be empowered to make that change and we want to make instituting that change as easy for you as is possible. On Arcane Mark last night, Elfteiroh mentioned that they usually didn't feel confident making bigger houserule changes in PF1 but have already started getting excited for some in PF2 and feeling confident in being able to adjudicate and apply them based on the playtest and the reveals so far. I hope that continues to be true!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Gawain Themitya wrote:


I tought that my feedback couldn't change things
[...] On Arcane Mark last night, Elfteiroh mentioned that they usually didn't feel confident making bigger houserule changes in PF1 but...

*feels special*

:D


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gawain Themitya wrote:

I mean, I literally see more people trying to found explanations for how things are instead of admitting that it could been easier, nicer and better overall if they went in a different direction.

I'm not sure exactly what ypure aiming to convey here, but if you're seeing more people giving reasons for why things are how they are instead of saying that another route (I presume you are referring to free spontaneous Heightening) would have been better then that just might mean a lot of people (at least around here) are quite fine or even happy with the assumed system.

Also, I don't know if this is intentional or not so I give the benefit of the doubt but your post here is very much non-conducive to good debate/discussion. Your use of certain phrases, namely "people trying to find explanations for..." and "instead of admitting that it could have been..." are fallacious and can easily be interpreted as condescending or rude as the phrasing implies that your opinion is definitely the correct one, as the phrasing implies that you think people are just trying to make excuses for what you presume to be a bad system (the one you don't like) and just aren't admitting that the system you like is better.

Again, I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and hope that attitude and approach isn't your intent as that's no proper way to act on these forums, but if it isn't your intent then I figured I should probably say something so that you know that it's very much how you come across.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I wanted to also thank Mark for that post. The time and dedication that it takes to sit down and write out exactly how they recognize everything that we said and did on these forums in the period of the playtest and after shows a great deal of personal dedication to their fanbase and integrity as a gaming entity.

When you are a creator, building something for people you care about and appreciate, and you have so many voices all clambering to express all of their personal desires, and having your own wants on top of that, it can be all to easy to either let it all become white noise or else collapse under the strain of being pulled in a hundred directions.

There are a few ways to push through this. And the way that the people who make Pathfinder have interacted with their fanbase here and elsewhere shows to me that they chose to approach the sea of madness with care. And I can't speak for the community at large, but I appreciate this.

Obviously not every choice will please every person. I personally still have some issues with the Champion and I am holding out hope that there's more to the Sorc than we've seen. I was a person who really liked Resonance conceptually and am sad that it wasn't able to work out. But whatever disagreements I might personally have with some of the fine minutia of the game, at the end of the day doesn't matter.

Mark's post above. That is why I have faith in this game. All the finicky details I can work out at own table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mark,

Thank you for posting in this thread even if you could not give us a preview of the Signature Spell rules.

I apologize if my game mechanic problem for page count reasons came across as harsh. I can see how that could easily fall under unintended consequences of the new spell spell level progression, streamlining the overall spell system to be more balanced with the melee action economy/DPR and a great way to add more content to the initial book without making the book too long.

I have been doing a lot of system level game mechanic design recently for a pet project Unity game so I was looking at it from a system design standpoint and not a hand crafted game standpoint. As I didn't send any feedback on the signature spell during the playtest phase I don't really have a leg to stand on, honestly didn't even come to the conclusion that spells should have been split into damage increases and form changes until I was writing the post earlier in this thread.

Overall I think PF2 is looking to be a good system and I think it will help ease the burden on the GMs to the point that a few in my group might be finally willing to run a game not directly out of a book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of House rules I think I have come up with my solution.

1) Do away with signature spells entirely.
2) Any Heighten that only adds #Ds are considered magnitude heightens and can freely be upcast with a higher spell slot.
3) Spells that change in form can be freely downcast but you need to spend the spells known slot of the highest rank you can cast.

51 to 100 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Sorcerer's Signature Spell All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.