Holy cow! Preparing spells is HARD now!


Rules Discussion

101 to 142 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
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.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Anguish wrote:
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.

You just have to read everything a player wants to use...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Anguish wrote:
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.
You just have to read everything a player wants to use...

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.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

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?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Angel Hunter D wrote:
If you don't have time to do it, you shouldn't be the GM.

eh?

Scarab Sages

CrystalSeas wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
If you don't have time to do it, you shouldn't be the GM.
eh?

If you do not have time to do the necessary work as the GM, don't be a GM.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Given the amount of time learning all PF1 classes, items, monsters, subsystems, feats, spells and archetypes takes, that would mean the only people capable of GMing it would be pre-school kids and retirees.
.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Angel Hunter D wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
If you don't have time to do it, you shouldn't be the GM.
eh?
If you do not have time to do the necessary work as the GM, don't be a GM.

Which is fine. But when a new edition comes along and helps reduce that time, it comes across as an elitist comment in response to people liking that they have more time to GM.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks. We can't get off topic like this and then have the thread dissolve into fighting. Discuss OP's post, and don't comment on the time it takes others to plan their games. Everyone has unique circumstances and gaming needs, so this should be a non-issue.


Applied_People wrote:
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.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
Applied_People wrote:
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.

*Gets half way through the process*

This is too much work! All the rest are going to be fireballs! X'D


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Genocidal Jester wrote:

Begins preparing spells.

*Gets half way through the process*

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.
WatersLethe wrote:
Genocidal Jester wrote:

Begins preparing spells.

*Gets half way through the process*

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.

*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!"


WatersLethe wrote:
Genocidal Jester wrote:

Begins preparing spells.

*Gets half way through the process*

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.

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)


Garretmander wrote:
(the pesky leftover level 2 slot can be turned into two cantrips)

...of Create Fire?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Draco18s wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
(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"


WatersLethe wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
(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"

smol-derball /pundog


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
How powerful they are is determined by the slot used when castrating it.

o_0


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

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.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

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.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
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.
Squiggit wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
...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.
Franz Lunzer wrote:
Paizo intended to empower GM's in this edition, and I like that.

Just for comparison, the PF1 CRB says:

Quote:
A wizard casts arcane spells drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list presented in Chapter 10
Quote:
A cleric casts divine spells which are drawn from the cleric spell list presented in Chapter 10.
Quote:
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.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
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.

james014Aura wrote:
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.

Anguish wrote:
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.

Bandw2 wrote:
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.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

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.


5e takes so long to release things because of how bound everything is which requires extensive playtesting, not because of its open nature (which I see as more of a consequence of having very little actual options).
New options are generally guided by 2 things how open things are (is there space for new options) and how bound is the power level (is the new option broken/underpowered).

What rarity might do is just make playtest shorter because "its uncommon/rare, so it's fine if it's not up to par". And honestly PF1e (without rarity) had a lot of good options that weren't "broken"; The problem was some books got really poor playtesting (looks at shifter) and there were rules that devs didnt clarify until they had become a mess. Which is why errata and early FAQ are very important.

As for releasing more options early, it's a matter of half the work being done for them. In PF1e they had to think and design options from scratch and make sure they fit. Now they just need to convert old options to fit the new rules, which is much easier to do by comparison. Which has nothing to do with rarity besides how strong/common the option is.

************
This is a discussion on spell preparations, why are people discussing rarity and racial options?


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]

Brew Bird wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

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.

Scarab Sages

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
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.

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.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:

Maybe I have been unfair in my avoidance of PF2. Perhaps I should give it a cha-[/ooc]

Brew Bird wrote:
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 :)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
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.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
This is only based on gaming with dozens of people across 11 years.

Subtle, that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
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.


Squiggit wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
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.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
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.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Temperans,

I was speaking mostly to thematic rather than game balance concerns. Probably best to move this tangent to another thread.


This is exactly why 5e changed the way spells are prepared.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
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.

I'm a little confused on how digital tools = anything goes. The options on PFSRD and AoN are all sourced, at the bottom of the page and beneath the title of the feature, respectively, so banning specific books is as simple as it ever was.

On-topic for prepping spells, with my wizard I am running (and theorycrafting a lil ahead of level) I have been finding a trend where I will place most of my real big kaboom damage spells in my highest, or maybe second-highest slots and then everything a level lower may go to buffing, and beneath that basic utility things. Also I love cantrips. Absolutely love 'em.


I dont get it either Perpdedog, the only (or at least biggest) problem area are in pfsrd when they list options in the same page instead of a new one (Ex Vigilante). Aonprd has everything listed individually with all source books listed quite visibly.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

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.

101 to 142 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Holy cow! Preparing spells is HARD now! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.