| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You just have to read everything a player wants to use...Wanna know what is extra work? A default-disallow rule. Now a DM gets to read every rule a player thinks they want to use.You don't have to read a book to say no to it.
Is that not one of the GMs expected responsibilities? (As there is a lot of snark being thrown around as of late, I feel the need to clarify that this is a sincere question.)
No, PF1 minimum expected work, by the standards of this thread, is to know every spell in existence. Racial and religious spells, especially, have been the thorn in my side for ages, not to mention spells created by and known by one person.
Or do clerics/druids not have access to their spell list? Wizards can pick any spell to learn on level up.
And if you have to check each of those spells anyways... how is that different from PF2?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I've really benefitted from those posters who have shared their approaches to spell preparation in 2e. And I agree that (number of spells to choose from aside), it is a more complex process than PF1 at higher levels.
I love that wands and scrolls use your caster level for determining the effects of said spell. This lets you offload situational spells even more effectively than in PF1.
Spells like Bless, Command, Fear, Feather Fall, Grease, Illusory Object and Longstrider all have legs as 1st level slots even at high levels.
At 2nd level, Blur, Enlarge, Invisibility, Mirror Image and See Invisibility are strong, no matter your level.
Anyone have more thoughts to share on the topic?
If you don't have time to do it, you shouldn't be the GM.
eh?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I've really benefitted from those posters who have shared their approaches to spell preparation in 2e. And I agree that (number of spells to choose from aside), it is a more complex process than PF1 at higher levels.
Personally, I only feel Spontaneous is much more complex than 1E, what with Signature Spell dynamic, and even with Spontaneous there is less re-evaluating low level spells known in light of scaling CL, but that still is mostly at level-up and still leaves it a simpler caster type over-all.
For Prepared (which by default now doesn't allow leaving slots open, so it's 1/day choice aside from SpellSubst Thesis), much of Heighten options just reprise what were distinct spells in 1E, so no real change. And over-all there is less slots, so that reduces amount of decision making too, as well as Wands/Scrolls being more viable (along with more accessible Staves), which lessens demands on slot decisionmaking.
Personally, I've really benefitted from those posters who have shared their approaches to spell preparation in 2e. And I agree that (number of spells to choose from aside), it is a more complex process than PF1 at higher levels.Personally, I only feel Spontaneous is much more complex than 1E, what with Signature Spell dynamic, and even with Spontaneous there is less re-evaluating low level spells known in light of scaling CL, but that still is mostly at level-up and still leaves it a simpler caster type over-all.
For Prepared (which by default now doesn't allow leaving slots open, so it's 1/day choice aside from SpellSubst Thesis), much of Heighten options just reprise what were distinct spells in 1E, so no real change. And over-all there is less slots, so that reduces amount of decision making too, as well as Wands/Scrolls being more viable (along with more accessible Staves), which lessens demands on slot decisionmaking.
most of the problem comes from like heightened fireball. and the like, where you gain bonus damage or some similar vein. i really think people should plan for what they need and then put their combat stuff in the left open spaces to keep things running along.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Begins preparing spells.
This is too much work! All the rest are going to be fireballs! X'D
Begins preparing spells.
This is too much work! All the rest are going to be fireballs! X'D
I sincerely want to see a wizard character roll up with fireballs in every slot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sincerely want to see a wizard character roll up with fireballs in every slot.Begins preparing spells.
This is too much work! All the rest are going to be fireballs! X'D
*mustache twirling villain casts Fireball at fogue*
*rogue dodges Fireball*"Curses, you've foiled my Fireball. But what will you do against... Another Fireball? Muahahahaha!"
I sincerely want to see a wizard character roll up with fireballs in every slot.Begins preparing spells.
This is too much work! All the rest are going to be fireballs! X'D
And with the spell blending thesis you can even turn your level 1 and 2 slots into fireballs! (the pesky leftover level 2 slot can be turned into two cantrips)
(the pesky leftover level 2 slot can be turned into two cantrips)
...of Create Fire?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(the pesky leftover level 2 slot can be turned into two cantrips)...of Create Fire?
"Can I research a new cantrip? I want to call it Lil Fireball"
"Can I research a new cantrip? I want to call it Lil Fireball"(the pesky leftover level 2 slot can be turned into two cantrips)...of Create Fire?
smol-derball /pundog
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How powerful they are is determined by the slot used when castrating it.
o_0
Party Cleric: You know Fireball is not the best solution to every problem.
Party Wizard: That's why I occasionally prepare Lightning Bolt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You just have to fireball harder. After all, as the size of an explosion increases the number of problems it is incapable of solving approaches zero.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't get people like you, empowered players was the best thing about 1e. The main selling point for me.
As a player I love having a wide range of flavorful options to choose from. As a GM I like to have my players have a wide range of flavorful options to choose from.
D&D 5e completely fails me because there has been no meaningful expansion beyond the PHB. However PF1e often failed me as well.
The reason PF1 failed me is that there was an expectation that anything goes in terms of player options. There was flavour, but it was drowned out by the power gaming.
Having the books set the expectation that isnt true helps a lot. It means I can be permissive and say "in addition to these classes and the options that support them, the following is also available because it reinforces the flavour of the campaign rather than everyone taking Pirahna Strike because you want to dump strength."
Now PF2e might ultimately fail me as well. But at the moment they're making efforts to cater to me so there is a chance it won't. Importing PF1e's philosophy with no change would have guaranteed my preferences would not be catered to.
Finally if you prefer a "everything goes" philosophy and your group also wants it, then PF2e does nothing to stop you. The rules are explicit in that GMs can allow any option regardless of rarity (and GMs can ignore source restrictions as well).
I personally will be running by the book with specific exceptions for flavorful stuff in the campaign. I will, however, broaden the spell selection for spontaneous casters (if prepared casters are limited to CRB, then I'm likely to allow spontaneous casters access so CRB+APG). It gives spontaneous casters a small boost which I think they need (you may disagree of course).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...the developers covered their bases really, really well this time. You're not just limited by the rarity system; you're also limited by source.Paizo intended to empower GM's in this edition, and I like that.Just for comparison, the PF1 CRB says:
A wizard casts arcane spells drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list presented in Chapter 10A cleric casts divine spells which are drawn from the cleric spell list presented in Chapter 10.A druid casts divine spells which are drawn from the druid spell list presented in Chapter 10.etc.
So this isn't new language. Not sure why people are treating this as some major paradigm shift in how Paizo's presenting the rules.
A new edition is a chance to look at things with fresh eyes.
Also I would argue that wording is different. "In Chapter 10" is a direction on where in the book to look for things. "In this book" is not a direction on where to look for things. It serves no purpose beyond restricting people.
Also PF1 was sold as "you can use all your 3.5 material as well!" PF2 is not being sold with the same marketing so different attitudes will be brought into the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edge93, it's obvious you have a very different experience with these games than me, and your way sounds awful to me. Finding the broken stuff on things that bypass encounters is so much fun
Out of interest are you playing PF2e? If so, why? It is diametrically opposed to your way of playing and PF1e is perfectly tailored to your way of playing.
HOWEVER, what this does is beleaguer many more GMs with players asking for access to something thematic, but not technically in the list. For example, for wizards, some schools (*cough*divination*cough*) have a distinct shortage of decent spells that aren't at least Uncommon.
I don't think this is a problem for GMs at all. GMs no longer have to give players "ban lists" but can instead give them "here's a list of extra options you have access to." If the GM doesn't want to go to the effort, they can just as easily say "everything in the CRB is selectable" or "everything is selectable regardless of what book it's from." No GM is being forced to do something they don't want to do.
Personally, I loathe default-deny rules
Fortunately it's easy for you to undo it "everything is allowed except Blood Money and Sacred Geometry." And your players will love you for it (unless it completely destroys the game but even then they might still love you).
With a default-allow rule a GM has to say "Only these things are allowed, everything else is banned." And the players are going to hate him for it (unless they've had bad experiences with an everything goes game).
I know I'm glad Paizo has gone for a default disallow.
in this modern digital age, restricting to source books isn't that easy to do for some people.
I have little sympathy for people solely using digital resources to play the game for an extended period of time. I'm all for try before you buy, but sooner or later I expect players to actually buy the material they want to use. On a merely selfish front: The more people spend on Pathfinder material the more money Paizo has to produce more Pathfinder material.
On a practical level: I find using online resources and digital character builders in lieu of physical books greatly inhibits people's ability to learn the rules completely and quickly.
YMMV of course. This is only based on gaming with dozens of people across 11 years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons I personally like rarity and additional content being at the GM's discretion is the creative freedom it provides to Paizo to create niche content. Fairly early in the life cycle of Second Edition we are getting playable Lizardfolk, Hobgoblins, Orcs, and Kobolds in player facing books. In an environment where everything is open by default we would probably not be getting those things.
When you open things by default nearly every option has to fit nearly every game. Taking this tact means Paizo is free to experiment and provide things that are a strong fit for some tables, but would not be a good fit for other tables. They get to create subversive and potentially disruptive material that they would otherwise not get to write because its inclusion is based on GM judgment.
In my experience Fifth Edition is played in a very open way. Because of that Wizards of the Coast has a very rigorous approval process that means most niche content is either cordoned off in GM centered material or just does not get printed. I do not want that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I have been unfair in my avoidance of PF2. Perhaps I should give it a cha-[/ooc]
I think that (somewhat amusingly) playing high level casters is going to end up a lot more like how I build decks in Magic: The Gathering.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I don't think putting a set of spells together in PF2 is any more similar to MtG deck building structurally than it is in PF1. All three can require the use of an online search tool if you're really trying to optimize.
Optimization being a lot less necessary in PF2 actually makes it less similar if anything, IMO.
|
Edge93, it's obvious you have a very different experience with these games than me, and your way sounds awful to me. Finding the broken stuff on things that bypass encounters is so much funOut of interest are you playing PF2e? If so, why? It is diametrically opposed to your way of playing and PF1e is perfectly tailored to your way of playing.
Because they aren't printing more 1e Society. While it may be opposed to my usual method of play, if it's directly in line with my appetite for regular games where I don't need to GM.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I have been unfair in my avoidance of PF2. Perhaps I should give it a cha-[/ooc]
I think that (somewhat amusingly) playing high level casters is going to end up a lot more like how I build decks in Magic: The Gathering.I...see.
It's a step up from PF1, which was, mechanically, a Character Optimization Simulator where encounters and challenges were defeated mostly during the pre-game during the process of twinking out your PC in order to auto-succeed at what you wanted to auto-succeed at :)
in this modern digital age, restricting to source books isn't that easy to do for some people.I have little sympathy for people solely using digital resources to play the game for an extended period of time. I'm all for try before you buy, but sooner or later I expect players to actually buy the material they want to use. On a merely selfish front: The more people spend on Pathfinder material the more money Paizo has to produce more Pathfinder material.
On a practical level: I find using online resources and digital character builders in lieu of physical books greatly inhibits people's ability to learn the rules completely and quickly.
YMMV of course. This is only based on gaming with dozens of people across 11 years.
I do tend to buy things, just haven't gotten the CRB, for instance. I have some things that i personally wanted, but my players haven't gotten anything, and it's not like there's a theme across their characters i can use to identify what books they'd like.
limiting them to the books i do have would probably just get them to not play, asking them to buy any books they want to use, would likely do the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is only based on gaming with dozens of people across 11 years.
Subtle, that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have little sympathy for people solely using digital resources to play the game for an extended period of time. I'm all for try before you buy, but sooner or later I expect players to actually buy the material they want to use.
I know back when I was playing PF1 a new book would come out, I'd buy it, read it once or twice, then just go back to using d20pfsrd and aon because they're just much more convenient tools. So I don't think it's really fair to suggest that people who use digital tools and people who buy paizo products are necessarily mutually exclusive at all.
I have little sympathy for people solely using digital resources to play the game for an extended period of time. I'm all for try before you buy, but sooner or later I expect players to actually buy the material they want to use.I know back when I was playing PF1 a new book would come out, I'd buy it, read it once or twice, then just go back to using d20pfsrd and aon because they're just much more convenient tools. So I don't think it's really fair to suggest that people who use digital tools and people who buy paizo products are necessarily mutually exclusive at all.
Its only more convenient if your GM allows an everything goes campaign. If that works for you, great. Those sort if games killed my interest in Pathfinder 1e though. So it doesnt work for me and isn't more convenient.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its only more convenient if your GM allows an everything goes campaign.
Can you find the entry for Fireball flipping through a physical book faster than typing it into a search bar? There are plenty of things in character creation where online navigation is more convenient, even with only CRB.
Temperans,
I was speaking mostly to thematic rather than game balance concerns. Probably best to move this tangent to another thread.
I think as a GM I would start with "the approved references are CRB and Bestiary 1" and as new official stuff comes out, either add it to the list or not. If my players want some 3PP stuff, I'd check it out and then add it or not. I'm will to reconsider any such decision, of course, but that seems the best way to handle it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I highly, highly, highly doubt Paizo intended to make all spells from other books not available. I think you're reading into the intention of the wording wrong.Not that, that matters when making new prepared casters...
Cleric
Druid
Wizard
...the developers covered their bases really, really well this time. You're not just limited by the rarity system; you're also limited by source.
So unless you're a bard or sorcerer, which don't have that language, all of your spells MUST still come from the Core Rulebook DESPITE whatever new books you may have in your collection, or else you need permission from your GM to get access.
Surprise! Looks like I was right all along. :P
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Surprise! Looks like I was right all along. :PI highly, highly, highly doubt Paizo intended to make all spells from other books not available. I think you're reading into the intention of the wording wrong.Not that, that matters when making new prepared casters...
Cleric
Druid
Wizard
...the developers covered their bases really, really well this time. You're not just limited by the rarity system; you're also limited by source.
So unless you're a bard or sorcerer, which don't have that language, all of your spells MUST still come from the Core Rulebook DESPITE whatever new books you may have in your collection, or else you need permission from your GM to get access.
I'm not at all sure that's clear. You're certainly not alone in your interpretation but it's far from universal.
Surprise! Looks like I was right all along. :P
And yet we have people swearing paizo is pulling a fast one and that they could never have possibly intended it to work this way in the comments r_r.
Seriously though.
- It makes things less daunting for new players
- Requires less overall reading from the GM leading to less mistakes over time
- Is not the same as uncommon
- Solves an issue that cleric and druid had in 3.5/PF1e and one hst would have been WAY worse with there only being 4 spell traditions.
Surprise! Looks like I was right all along. :PAnd yet we have people swearing paizo is pulling a fast one and that they could never have possibly intended it to work this way in the comments r_r.
Seriously though.
- It makes things less daunting for new players
- Requires less overall reading from the GM leading to less mistakes over time
- Is not the same as uncommon
- Solves an issue that cleric and druid had in 3.5/PF1e and one hst would have been WAY worse with there only being 4 spell traditions.
Indeed!
Fighters gain access to a myriad of Common weapons, but they still need to pay for them. How is this any different?
Surprise! Looks like I was right all along. :PAnd yet we have people swearing paizo is pulling a fast one and that they could never have possibly intended it to work this way in the comments r_r.
Seriously though.
- It makes things less daunting for new players
- Requires less overall reading from the GM leading to less mistakes over time
- Is not the same as uncommon
- Solves an issue that cleric and druid had in 3.5/PF1e and one hst would have been WAY worse with there only being 4 spell traditions.Indeed!
Fighters gain access to a myriad of Common weapons, but they still need to pay for them. How is this any different?
Because you don't get automatic equipment but you can prepare spells you have access to? You just have to find the spell [access] not buy it [spend resources for it]. Apples and oranges IMO.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I mean, the rules are pretty clear you have access to all common options. That puts common spells into the available pool to grab as a spellcaster like a Cleric or Druid since it explicitly specifies 'or from other [tradition] spells to which you gain access'.
You have definitionally already 'gained access' to all common spells due to the way Rarity works.
Now, that may not be the intent, and the people at Paizo can certainly adjust it if they so desire, but it's at the very least an easily defensible interpretation of the actual wording.
Because you don't get automatic equipment but you can prepare spells you have access to? You just have to find the spell [access] not buy it [spend resources for it]. Apples and oranges IMO.Surprise! Looks like I was right all along. :PAnd yet we have people swearing paizo is pulling a fast one and that they could never have possibly intended it to work this way in the comments r_r.
Seriously though.
- It makes things less daunting for new players
- Requires less overall reading from the GM leading to less mistakes over time
- Is not the same as uncommon
- Solves an issue that cleric and druid had in 3.5/PF1e and one hst would have been WAY worse with there only being 4 spell traditions.Indeed!
Fighters gain access to a myriad of Common weapons, but they still need to pay for them. How is this any different?
As I said, we've always interpreted that as being a reference to spells not normally on your tradition list.
As many posters have already indicated, it doesn't make sense otherwise.
If you have two interpretations of a rule, and one makes sense and the other doesn't, then odds are the interpretation that makes sense is the correct one.
Now, that may not be the intent, and the people at Paizo can certainly adjust it if they so desire, but it's at the very least an easily defensible interpretation of the actual wording.
I do agree that it's a pretty easily defensible interpretation.