Help Fix Magic

[ClanPsi]

Let's be honest here, PF2's magic system is... not good. 5e isn't a great system for customisation, but it got magic right. It took what was great about the PF1 Arcanist and expanded upon it.
How would you fix PF2's magic system to be more in-line with modern game design? Here are some of my ideas:

1) All spells which can be heightened are spontaneously heightenable.
2) Spontaneous casters don't need to re-learn higher level versions of the same spells.
3) Prepared casters are able to use their spell slots to cast whatever spells they've prepared. Not prepare-per-cast like it is now.
4) Spontaneous casters need new abilities to make them more unique and interesting, especially Bard.

The first three are easy enough to implement, but #4 is a bit of a doozy. Does anyone here have any suggestions?

[Samurai]

ClanPsi wrote:

Let's be honest here, PF2's magic system is... not good. 5e isn't a great system for customisation, but it got magic right. It took what was great about the PF1 Arcanist and expanded upon it.

How would you fix PF2's magic system to be more in-line with modern game design? Here are some of my ideas:

1) All spells which can be heightened are spontaneously heightenable.
2) Spontaneous casters don't need to re-learn higher level versions of the same spells.
3) Prepared casters are able to use their spell slots to cast whatever spells they've prepared. Not prepare-per-cast like it is now.
4) Spontaneous casters need new abilities to make them more unique and interesting, especially Bard.

The first three are easy enough to implement, but #4 is a bit of a doozy. Does anyone here have any suggestions?

Have you seen my house rules document? It does several of these things.

1)Spontaneous casters can freely heighten all their spells and just use whichever slot they wish.
2)They never need to learn spells at multiple levels, it is included for free.
3)To keep Prepared casters different, they too only need to learn the spell once, but they must prepare it in the level they intend to cast it at. They can prepare the same spell at different levels if they wish, but if they do so, that reduces their spell variety and choices until they prepare spells again. Their total number of choices are much larger (pretty much the full spell list for Cleric and Druid, limited only by alignment restrictions, and I expanded the number of Wizard free spells learned per level to either their Int bonus or 2, whichever is higher. Plus Wizards can learn even more with scrolls and enemy spellbooks found.)
4) I didn't do a whole lot more with the Bards specifically, except tweaking and clarifying their Polymath feats. If you want more variety as a Bard, go with the Polymath muse. It is the only way to eventually be able to use spells from all 4 casting traditions

I'm open to hearing more thoughts!

[Data Lore]

I personally wished they would have designed casters that way from the get go, but that ship has sailed. If we are lucky, they will release the Arcanist at some point.

Until then, I have a similar house rule as Samurai for my spontaneous casters and thier archetypes but mine is a bit more succinct. Basically, all thier spells are signature spells. That allows players that don't like strict vancian casting a more palatable option and doesnt require a ton of redesign work.

[Samurai]

Data Lore wrote:

I personally wished they would have designed casters that way from the get go, but that ship has sailed. If we are lucky, they will release the Arcanist at some point.

Until then, I have a similar house rule as Samurai for my spontaneous casters and thier archetypes but mine is a bit more succinct. Basically, all thier spells are signature spells. That allows players that don't like strict vancian casting a more palatable option and doesnt require a ton of redesign work.

That's pretty much what I did too, which is why I removed the "Signature Spell" ability at 3rd level, because in effect, all of their spells are signature spells by PF2's definition.

[ClanPsi]

That sounds fantastic. I don't really like what you did with prepared casters, but it's small enough change. Could you link to the document, please? <3

[Strill]

Personally my solution would be to make Prepared casters into Spontaneous casters, and give spontaneous casters MP instead of spell slots.

[Megistone]

Strill wrote:

Personally my solution would be to make Prepared casters into Spontaneous casters, and give spontaneous casters MP instead of spell slots.

So, does a Wizard only have a small selection of spells, or does it keep its ample spellbook and cast any spell freely?

And in my opinion, MPs just don't work if you have a vast selection of spells of wildly different power.

[Strill]

Megistone wrote:

Strill wrote:

Personally my solution would be to make Prepared casters into Spontaneous casters, and give spontaneous casters MP instead of spell slots.

So, does a Wizard only have a small selection of spells, or does it keep its ample spellbook and cast any spell freely?

You'd give them a spellbook, from which they choose some number of spells to prepare. Prepared spells could be cast freely.

Quote:

And in my opinion, MPs just don't work if you have a vast selection of spells of wildly different power.

Which is why they'd still have to choose the most appropriate spells for their repertoire.

[ClanPsi]

Spontaneous Caster ability idea:

Since Spontaneous Heighten is now a useless ability, how about...

After 8 hours rest, choose up to two spells from your spell list whose levels add up to half your level. You can cast those spells as if they were in your repertoire for the day.

[Megistone]

Strill wrote:

Megistone wrote:

Strill wrote:

Personally my solution would be to make Prepared casters into Spontaneous casters, and give spontaneous casters MP instead of spell slots.

So, does a Wizard only have a small selection of spells, or does it keep its ample spellbook and cast any spell freely?

You'd give them a spellbook, from which they choose some number of spells to prepare. Prepared spells could be cast freely.

This is exactly arcanist casting, not really spontaneous from a D&D/PF point of view, and the same as the OP had proposed for prepared casters. It's the way D&D5E has gone.

Strill wrote:

Megistone wrote:

And in my opinion, MPs just don't work if you have a vast selection of spells of wildly different power.

Which is why they'd still have to choose the most appropriate spells for their repertoire.

And they will always choose to use the strongest ones, unless they have really little energy left. I don't think that MPs would work unless the whole magic system is remade from scratch, and to be honest I wouldn't abandon the D&D traditions so completely. But to each its own, I guess.

[Samurai]

ClanPsi wrote:

That sounds fantastic. I don't really like what you did with prepared casters, but it's small enough change. Could you link to the document, please? <3

Sure, I have my own thread with it as well, but here you go:

Samurai's PF2e changes

There are a lot more than just magic changes, there are a bunch of changes throughout PF2e: some class changes, feat changes, crafting changes, changes to the way shields work, etc. I hope you like them!

Also, I didn't make as many changes to prepared casters as spontaneous casters. What would you suggest as improvements that doesn't take away from or make obsolete Spontaneous casting, and maintains the two different flavors of casting?

In my view, spontaneous casters have a limited number of spells in their repertoire and it is very hard to change them, but they should have full control over how they use them by spending any slot they want on them. By contrast, Prepared casters should have a lot more choices in their spells each day, but how they use them is more limited (thus keeping the need to prepare the spell at the higher level, and losing the spell when it is cast unless you prepared multiples of it.) If "prepared casters" could freely heighten spells the way the spontaneous casters can AND freely change their memorized spell list every day, then what makes them "prepared", and why would anyone ever choose to play a spontaneous caster?

I think those 2 abilities need to be the divider between the 2 casting types: Do you want to freely change your spells every day OR do you want to freely heighten the limited spells you always know? Pick 1.

[ClanPsi]

Samurai wrote:

If "prepared casters" could freely heighten spells the way the spontaneous casters can AND freely change their memorized spell list every day, then what makes them "prepared", and why would anyone ever choose to play a spontaneous caster?

That's why I think Sorcerers and Bards need more unique and interesting abilities. I personally don't think they should ONLY have spontaneous casting to differentiate them. 5e was a step in the right direction for Sorcs, especially the Wild Magic idea. I was really hoping PF2 would expand on that concept and make them even more unique. I was sorely disappointed by Paizo's inconceivable laziness.

[Samurai]

ClanPsi wrote:

Samurai wrote:

If "prepared casters" could freely heighten spells the way the spontaneous casters can AND freely change their memorized spell list every day, then what makes them "prepared", and why would anyone ever choose to play a spontaneous caster?

That's why I think Sorcerers and Bards need more unique and interesting abilities. I personally don't think they should ONLY have spontaneous casting to differentiate them. 5e was a step in the right direction for Sorcs, especially the Wild Magic idea. I was really hoping PF2 would expand on that concept and make them even more unique. I was sorely disappointed by Paizo's inconceivable laziness.

So you want all casters to freely heighten, and then, because of the prepared casters changing their spells every day, you want something more for the spontaneous casters (especially the bard)? Just trying to make sure I understand. That sounds pretty much like D&D5e.

One difference, though, is that in 5e you can only prepare a limited number of spells per day (caster level + stat bonus). Spontaneous casters, like sorcerer and bard, just have a limited number of spells known (which is slightly higher for bards than sorcerers, but generally 1 new spell learned per level as well). 5e bolsters the sorcerer with Sorcery points and meta-magic, and the bard with light armor proficiency, better weapons, and more HP. Do you think that is a fair compromise? If you do, rather than boosting their spells more, improve their HP, weapons, and armor.

If PF2 used the same rules, hypothetically speaking

[Temperans]

It's not the same given that 5e spells are more useful in context of their games compared to PF2 spells.

Also an extra for spontaneous casters could be spending focus to empower their spells without using an action. While other casters need to use an action (usually).

[Krugus]

Here are the changes I've made to my homebrewed campaign, just follow the LINK

[Rhiani32]

ClanPsi wrote:

1) All spells which can be heightened are spontaneously heightenable.

So if a caster has 4 1st levels, 4 2nd level, and 3 3rd level spells the 1st and 2nds automatically heighten to 3rd level giving them an effective 12 lvl 3 spells?

[Lucas Yew]

I like Neo Vancian for its ease of use and more verisimilitude for worlds not made by Jack Vance. But I'd make one more adjustment, that spontaneous casters learn more spells in total than their maximum number of spell slots, for they're stuck with the variety for the majority of their career. That 12 spells known for 5E Sorcerers, compared to the 20+INT of Wizards, is a major sin of the designer(s) in my eyes...

[Bandw2]

i think any MP type systems should have their own casting tradition, kinda like how kineticists do it.

though i'm fine with vancian casting, i do enjoy spheres of power.

I'm not really a fan of neovancian as it tends to be. I think anything neovancian should have some spells that they permanently have and then a few they can swap out.

[ClanPsi]

Krugus wrote:

Here are the changes I've made to my homebrewed campaign, just follow the LINK

Some of these changes are really good. Paizo should have hired you to help with the CRB.

[Zapp]

Data Lore wrote:

that ship has sailed

This. I really believe Paizo should be held culpable for releasing a game with obsolete Vancian casting in 2019, especially since the competition rightfully got rid of it already in 2015.

[Saedar]

Zapp wrote:

Data Lore wrote:

that ship has sailed

This. I really believe Paizo should be held culpable for releasing a game with obsolete Vancian casting in 2019, especially since the competition rightfully got rid of it already in 2015.

This is a whole package of entitled opinion. There are plenty of people who still appreciate the Vancian-style system, including the people who built the game. Trying to compete directly with their competition by just making the same thing may not be the business plan they are interested in. Maybe they think it better to distinguish themselves.

Ultimately: How would you hold them culpable? Just go play something else if the game's systems aren't right for you.

[Krugus]

ClanPsi wrote:

Krugus wrote:

Here are the changes I've made to my homebrewed campaign, just follow the LINK

Some of these changes are really good. Paizo should have hired you to help with the CRB.

Thanks :)

I've updated the changes how they would affect Archetypes (forgot to add that).

Just follow the LINK

[Henro]

Zapp wrote:

I really believe Paizo should be held culpable for releasing a game with obsolete Vancian casting in 2019, especially since the competition rightfully got rid of it already in 2015.

Held culpable? They already are, if people hate Vancian casting just that much they won't buy 2E.

I like Vancian casting, anyway. I might have "held Paizo culpable" (whatever that means) if they had gotten rid of it completely.

[Zapp]

I mean I believe Paizo's decision to go with cluttery Vancian casting is going to cost them money (lower sales).

Before 5th edition, Vancian casting was "sort of okay:ish" mostly because you couldn't just go out and buy a competing product offering an alternative. (3E offered Sorcerers where you paid a steep price to avoid Vancian)

In 2019, however, the price is not steep. You can go out and buy a competing product without Vancian. It thus no longer measure up. Honestly, Vancian's antiquated. A quaint thing once taken for granted.

But 5E has comprehensively shown millions of gamers that Vancian simply isn't needed (for balance, for story purposes, for character development...). Think that won't impact the Pathfinder community? Think again.

[Zapp]

(cont'd)

It's just one more example of where Paizo developed Pathfinder 2 in a bubble, where they come across as behind the times. Paizo needed to (and should have) created a game where no Core classes used Vancian.

For those of you who really want it, they could always add a class using it in a book such as the upcoming APG...

Sorry for not saying what you wanted to hear.

Cheers

[Data Lore]

I noticed an intense reaction against my 5e style casting homebrew from some folks when I released it on Reddit. Folks were clamoring about how OP it was or how the sorcerer being able to spontaneously heighten was op or whatever. It didn't matter that I stated up front that I didn't want to debate that stuff; I just wanted to release this thing so folks could use it if they wanted it. The plus and minus votes were the same (which is why it ended in +0 on Reddit) but most folks that liked it (and since it wasn't like -50, it was clear that some people did) didn't comment in the thread. Those that did were down voted. Basically, they were downvoted into silence!

Man, if Paizo would have released a more modern take on Vancian, I think some of their old die hards would have rioted. It would have been almost a 4E level of backlash. PF2 was made to keep as much of their fan base as possible and maybe nab a few new fans. So, from that standpoint, I can understand why they kept the strict Vancian system.

[Data Lore]

Also, I noticed the discussion about sorcerers up top. One thing to remember is that the sorcerer class was made as an alternative to the strict Vancian system. It is less needed in modern Vancian since the problem the sorcerer was designed to fix isn't really there any more.

In fact, during the DnD Next Playtest (5e), their original design had no sorcerer at all. Then they had the sorcerer as a weird half caster who slowly morphed into a melee monster as he spent spells throughout the day (they put it in because people were like, "hey, where is the sorcerer?"). If you Google, you can still find the old DnD Next Playtest files that show this.

The original wizard in the DnD Next playtest had the metamagic of the 5e sorcerer (through feats) with the casting of the 5e wizard. And it was great.

One thing to consider, and this is a bit radical, is if you just make the bard use the more modern take on Vancian, then, with all the Traditions represented, you can just remove the sorcerer. You could then have the prep casters be able to spontaneous heighten since you don't have to worry about saving something nice for the poor sorcerer. You could maybe then take those sorcerer bloodlines and make them caster-only class archetypes. Or maybe just have class feats to access those bloodline powers.

Then, bam, best of both worlds.

[Krugus]

Just an idea (didn't say it was a good idea ;p )

You could homebrew the attack Cantrips modeled like the Heal/Harm spells as something like this:

The number of actions you spend when Casting this Spell determines its targets, range, area.

1 action (somatic) The spell has a limited range of touch.

2 action (verbal, somatic) The spell has a range of 30 feet.

3 action (material, verbal, somatic) You disperse the Cantrips energy in a 30-foot emanation. This affects all viable targets in the area of effect but will only deal 1/2 damage if you hit.

The following Cantrips are affected by this change:

Acid Splash
Chill Touch
Daze
Disrupt Undead
Divine Lance
Electric Arc (add the attack trait & must make a spell attack thus remove Reflex Save)
Produce Flame
Ray of Frost
Tanglefoot
Telekinetic Projectile

Since almost all of the Cantrips have the Attack Trait then casting the single action version of the Cantrip will add to the MAP.

The 3 action version would be the Caster making a single spell attack test vs all within the 30' radius.

This would give the spell casters the ability to Cast a touch, range or AoE versions of the Cantrips thus allow them more choices. Which now allows the casters to interact better with the 3 action system when casting attack Cantrips.

[Samurai]

I just listened to a PF2e designer commentary on the APG playtest retrospective, and there was one line in it that really applies to Krugus' post above. They answered a fan question about whether there would be more 1 action spells, and they said not many, and especially not cantrips, because they don't want a caster to use a 2 action spell and then a 1 action cantrip all in the same round. In my mind, I thought, "then why did you make a regular melee Strike take just 1 action?"

Back in 1e, characters could only attack once per round until they leveled up and could then strike more times in a round. Why not say that at Trained rank, Strikes take 2 actions, and only when they become Expert does it drop to 1 action with the standard MAP penalties, and then allow MAP to decrease at Master and Legendary?

That might be a fair way to handle the 3-action economy for Martial characters, and you could then do something similar with spell casters. Say that at Trained, casting a regular spell takes 3 actions and a cantrip takes 2 actions. At Expert, spells take 2 actions and Cantrips take 1 action, but suffer a MSP ("multi-spell penalty") if you cast twice in the same round. Then reduce the MSP at Master and Legendary, maybe even drop casting a regular spell to a single action at one of those levels too.

I think if all of those things were done, it would help balance casters and martials better, and that is just the standard Strike action, the feats could still change the speeds as well... such as "this feat requires at lest Expert proficiency in the weapon you are using, and it lets you do this kind of strike as a single action", or "you can strike twice as a 2 action ability."

[Krugus]

Yea their logic don't follow if that's what they want.

Allowing certain spells like Flaming Sphere & Spiritual Weapon sustained 3 times in a round (I know others have asked but never got an Official reply if you can or cant, see the multiple Reddit posts on Flaming Sphere :p )but some how a 2 Action spell followed up by a 1 action Cantrip is bad? Not adding up.

Either way, patterning it after the Heal/Harm spells with the 1-3 action system in my play tests seems to play a lot better. Along with my other changes I've made, we are going to give the 1-3 action Attack Cantrip system a go in my next campaign at the start of the new year.

[Samurai]

Krugus wrote:

Yea their logic don't follow if that's what they want.

Allowing certain spells like Flaming Sphere & Spiritual Weapon sustained 3 times in a round (I know others have asked but never got an Official reply if you can or cant, see the multiple Reddit posts on Flaming Sphere :p )but some how a 2 Action spell followed up by a 1 action Cantrip is bad? Not adding up.

Either way, patterning it after the Heal/Harm spells with the 1-3 action system in my play tests seems to play a lot better. Along with my other changes I've made, we are going to give the 1-3 action Attack Cantrip system a go in my next campaign at the start of the new year.

Somehow I get the feeling they originally had something like that in mind, and decided against it, saying "Well, it will confuse people that see a 2-action icon and they won't remember to change it to a single action based on proficiency. So we'll drop martial attacks to single actions (mostly), and leave nearly all spells at 2 actions, and we just have to remember to go back and alter the spells to really be worth using 2 actions and a spell slot to cast." Only, it seems like they instead figured "casters have been on top in 1e for a long time, time for the martials to be the top dogs in 2e!"

[Indi523]

ClanPsi wrote:

Let's be honest here, PF2's magic system is... not good. 5e isn't a great system for customisation, but it got magic right. It took what was great about the PF1 Arcanist and expanded upon it.

How would you fix PF2's magic system to be more in-line with modern game design? Here are some of my ideas:

1) All spells which can be heightened are spontaneously heightenable.
2) Spontaneous casters don't need to re-learn higher level versions of the same spells.
3) Prepared casters are able to use their spell slots to cast whatever spells they've prepared. Not prepare-per-cast like it is now.
4) Spontaneous casters need new abilities to make them more unique and interesting, especially Bard.

The first three are easy enough to implement, but #4 is a bit of a doozy. Does anyone here have any suggestions?

I don't know 2e enough to just abandon it but I will point out that magic items are the key to power in 2e. Wands are different now. There are not 50 charges you can just dump in one battle. Only one spell per day but that is one spell every day and 2 if you are willing to lose the wand which if you have resources and time you might be willing to do. I don't think you have to invest wands but if you do you can have five of them. The staff is even better. You get charges equal to the highest level you can cast even if the staff only has level one spells in it. You then trade those points one per spell level to cast spells and the staff recharges every day.

Yes they took some of the higher level limburger cheese aspects of scrolls and wands out of the system but as a wizard player I understand. Now if you find a scroll you can't cast it unless you know the spell meaning a wizard can't just buy 50 scrolls of every spell for use when they need it. The wizard has to learn the spells. Same with wands and staves. Got that nifty staff of power. Great but until you learn how to cast every spell it can cast you can't fully use it. This does limit the caster. That said ………..

The key to power in 2e as written is magic items. Scrolls of spells you can cast ups your ability to last in long fights. Wands can do the same thing. Crafting items starts later as you have to be expert in crafting to have the magical crafting feat however you only need that one feat TO make any magic item so the crafter does not need to devout every feat he gets to Craft Potion, Craft wondrous item, crsft weapon, craft armor, craft want etc. This means that PC casters should find it easier to make magic items for their own use especially scrolls and wands and the one staff they are allowed. The wizard to my mind needs to do this.

The old notion that magic items are OP, god I hate giving them to the players especially the spell casters is now no longer a valid complaint. To me this fixes magic items. It also means making a magic item is now necessary for a caster to realize their true potential which I am good with. Casters need to scribe scrolls, they need to learn magic spells to up their power level. They need to make wands to add to their ability. HAving scrolls, wands and staves should be considered a norm for wizards because the DM has ways to limit it. You cast the spells at your level. They give you extra spells but one a day. You can't csat as spell froma scroll you don't know and certainly no more wizards rolling decipher checks to cast cleric spells. This I like. I don't know how it actually plays but it makes sense to me.

As to having to learn heightened versions of spells. This should not be a problem for a wizard to my mind. They should with time be able to figure out and add the heightened levels of spells they already know. I think GM's can be more free with this. Certainly one should not need Inventor feat for it.

So this means the learning heightened spells is an issue for the Sorcerer and the Bard since the divine casters will get it anyways. Now the spontaneous casters have the ability to swap out lower level spells when they go up in level. My house rule for this is that when the heightened version of a spell becomes available they can take that as their known spell which automatically frees up the lower level slot for something else. I think this makes this work without much change.

The one benefit the Sorcerer and the Bard get are with Staves. A 10th level Sorcerer gets 5th level spells so when they prep a staff they get five points. They can ast a 5th level spell for one point again instead of spending 5 which means their thing cast more spells per day stays even with magic items.

The change I would make to the Sorcerer is to give them the Occult List instead of Arcane. I would then based on their bloodline give them access to two a few Arcane spells which they can learn added to their list. This would be at least one spell per level but may two. All spells tied to the bloodline. I would also make them OCcult spellcasters. To my mind this makes more sense and it gives them a different spell list.

[Ed Reppert]

Authentic Thaumaturgy

[Staffan Johansson]

Indi523 wrote:

The key to power in 2e as written is magic items. Scrolls of spells you can cast ups your ability to last in long fights. Wands can do the same thing. Crafting items starts later as you have to be expert in crafting to have the magical crafting feat however you only need that one feat TO make any magic item so the crafter does not need to devout every feat he gets to Craft Potion, Craft wondrous item, crsft weapon, craft armor, craft want etc. This means that PC casters should find it easier to make magic items for their own use especially scrolls and wands and the one staff they are allowed. The wizard to my mind needs to do this.

Crafting items in 2e is inefficient. There are very few cases where you would not be better served by buying the item you need and spending the time earning income in some other way. Or doing something more productive with your downtime, like taking a break and enjoying your ill-gotten loot instead of working for a living.

[Staffan Johansson]

Zapp wrote:

Before 5th edition, Vancian casting was "sort of okay:ish" mostly because you couldn't just go out and buy a competing product offering an alternative. (3E offered Sorcerers where you paid a steep price to avoid Vancian)

Arcana Unearthed was released in 2003, and had what was essentially neo-Vancian casting.

[Ed Reppert]

What's the difference between "Neo-Vancian" and "Vancian" casting?

[Martialmasters]

ClanPsi wrote:

Let's be honest here, PF2's magic system is... not good. 5e isn't a great system for customisation, but it got magic right. It took what was great about the PF1 Arcanist and expanded upon it.

How would you fix PF2's magic system to be more in-line with modern game design? Here are some of my ideas:

1) All spells which can be heightened are spontaneously heightenable.
2) Spontaneous casters don't need to re-learn higher level versions of the same spells.
3) Prepared casters are able to use their spell slots to cast whatever spells they've prepared. Not prepare-per-cast like it is now.
4) Spontaneous casters need new abilities to make them more unique and interesting, especially Bard.

The first three are easy enough to implement, but #4 is a bit of a doozy. Does anyone here have any suggestions?

I'm all for people finding their fun. But don't pretend that 5e magic isn't a broken mess.

[Temperans]

Ed Reppert wrote:

What's the difference between "Neo-Vancian" and "Vancian" casting?

In Vancian casting, you have to prepare spell slots, and spells cast are forgotten. You can only cast a spell as many times as you have it prepared.

In Neo Vancian casting (Arcanist/5e prepared casting), you have to prepare spells, and spells cast are not forgotten. You can cast any spell you have prepared as long as you have spell slots.

Think Neo Vancian as preparing like a Wizard but Casting like a Sorcerer.

[Ed Reppert]

I see. Thanks.

[Pumpkinhead11]

Indi523 wrote:

Yes they took some of the higher level limburger cheese aspects of scrolls and wands out of the system but as a wizard player I understand. Now if you find a scroll you can't cast it unless you know the spell meaning a wizard can't just buy 50 scrolls of every spell for use when they need it. The wizard has to learn the spells. Same with wands and staves. Got that nifty staff of power. Great but until you learn how to cast every spell it can cast you can't fully use it.

You don’t need to learn every spell on a staff in order to use it; just one of the spells.

Preparing a Staff CRB pg 592 wrote:

During your daily preparations, you can prepare a staff to add charges to it for free. When you do so, that staff gains a number of charges equal to the highest level of spell you’re able to cast. You don’t need to expend any spells to add charges in this way. No one can prepare more than one staff per day, nor can a staff be prepared by more than one person per day. If the charges aren’t used within 24 hours, they’re lost, and preparing the staff anew removes any charges previously stored in it. You can prepare a staff only if you have at least one of the staff’s spells on your spell list.

You do however need to be able to cast the highest spell level the staff has though. (7th level spells for Staff of Power)

[Ediwir]

Spell list and spell known are different things.

[Pumpkinhead11]

Ediwir wrote:

Spell list and spell known are different things.

I was leaning in that direction, but I wasn’t quite sure. I just knew you didn’t need to learn all the spells before being able to use it.

[Ediwir]

You don't even need one. You just need to have access to them.

[Indi523]

Ediwir wrote:

Spell list and spell known are different things.

Hmm read that one wrong. To my mind a wizard only has access to spells that he knows which is the list in his spell book so the terminology was confusing.

But that brings up a question regarding sorcerers.

If they have access to one of the spells in the staff because they either have that as a bloodline spell or one of the spells happens to be say a primal or occult spell as well. If the are spells that are arcane only and the sorcerer is primal and there is say one spell not accessible through bloodline. Can he use the staff to cast that spell.

I am assuming the answer to that question is No.

Still I actually like the version of my mistake better. If you find a magic item you have to learn the spell (if a wizard or sorcerer) to use the spell in the staff. I would give a circumstance bonus to attempts to learn the spell from the staff. Knowledge is power.

[Indi523]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Indi523 wrote:

The key to power in 2e as written is magic items. Scrolls of spells you can cast ups your ability to last in long fights. Wands can do the same thing. Crafting items starts later as you have to be expert in crafting to have the magical crafting feat however you only need that one feat TO make any magic item so the crafter does not need to devout every feat he gets to Craft Potion, Craft wondrous item, crsft weapon, craft armor, craft want etc. This means that PC casters should find it easier to make magic items for their own use especially scrolls and wands and the one staff they are allowed. The wizard to my mind needs to do this.

Crafting items in 2e is inefficient. There are very few cases where you would not be better served by buying the item you need and spending the time earning income in some other way. Or doing something more productive with your downtime, like taking a break and enjoying your ill-gotten loot instead of working for a living.

Magic item shops where you can simply buy a wand of whatever you like are too Monty Haul. Why, if crafting that wand is so difficult would a mage simply sell it. Even if inclined to sell it, if it is more time consuming would that not mean less product on the shelves. Magic items for sale should be rare. In fantasy literature when the hero needs an item he has to have it made. He does not go to the magical equivalent of Walmart.

Besides Wizards are supposed to spend all their down time studying and crafting things.

[Sara Marie]

There's some hostility and aggression towards the game designers and Paizo in general in a number of posts here. Remember, our employees are also part of the community here on paizo.com. Things like "Paizo's inconceivable laziness," "I really believe Paizo should be held culpable for releasing a game with obsolete Vancian casting in 2019," are not helpful towards encouraging our gaming community to participate on our forums, both other fans and employees.

[Temperans]

Agreed Sara.

Now to the topic at hand. Magic Item shops are a staple of Pathfinder being able to buy magic items even in small villages (albeit ver weak items). The whole "magic items are rare" is a concept from other fantasy series not Pathfinder. Also, going to a magic shop is effectively asking for something to be made (if it's not already available), minus all the questing from other series.

Secondly, crafting is not the difficult part, its turning a profit in a reasonable amount of time and money spent that's a problem. Hence why Staffan said its inefficient. Just as a reference, it takes a PF1e character 1 day to make a 1st level wand, costing him 1/2 the book price (before cost reduction abilities).

Thirdly, Wizards are not more supposed to study and craft than a fighter should only be swinging his sword. That whole part of PF2 class info are just a bunch of stereotypes that ignores classes dont define the character.

**************
Regarding Vancian casting, there is really nothing wrong with it as long as you frame it in the right context. For example: It makes more sense when Wizard preparation is described as preparing rituals only needing that final incantation to set of the spell. As opposed to, the wizard spends 1 hour memorizing some phrasing only to forget it after he cast the spell.

Spell slots are easier to describe as preparing just enough energy to cast a spell without hurting yourself, than as a thing that limits how many spells you can cast. Of course the hurting yourself explanation works better with overcasting mechanics.

[Omega Metroid]

Hmm... for anyone that doesn't want sweeping changes, here's an alternative that fixes the spontaneous caster tax without any major rule rewrites, by adding new functionality to "Learn a Spell".

----

Original:

Quote:

If you have a spellbook, Learning a Spell lets you add the spell to your spellbook; if you prepare spells from a list, it’s added to your list; if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells.

----

Modified:

Quote:

If you have a spellbook, Learning a Spell lets you add the spell to your spellbook; if you prepare spells from a list, it’s added to your list; if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells.

If you have a spell repertoire, Learning a Spell can also be used to learn a higher-level or lower-level version of a spell you already have, so you can cast a heightened version of that spell. This is in addition to Signature Spell selections and spells gained by leveling up.

----

Gives spontaneous casters a downtime advancement option paralleling wizards', while also building on the differences between spontaneous and prepared casting (in that prepared casters can use Learn a Spell to gain more versatility (but not to gain more flexible usage of their spells), while spontaneous casters can use Learn a Spell to increase their spells' flexibility (but not to gain a more versatile option pool)).

----

The biggest problem balance-wise here, as pointed out to me by a friend, is that PF2 uses heightening as a replacement for two entirely different mechanics: Actual spell heightening (e.g., fireball), and spell families (e.g., [greater] invisibility). The spontaneous heightening rules appear to be designed around the latter rather than the former (which is... weird), and raise the question of whether there would be balance issues from treating all heightening as the former (issues namely being wizard budgets (low-priority) and spontaneous caster "freebies" (???-priority). I personally don't think there would be, but it's something to consider.

[Pumpkinhead11]

Indi523 wrote:

Still I actually like the version of my mistake better. If you find a magic item you have to learn the spell (if a wizard or sorcerer) to use the spell in the staff. I would give a circumstance bonus to attempts to learn the spell from the staff. Knowledge is power.

One problem i see with that is how Spontaneous Casters getting shafted with that deal. Druid and Cleric don’t have to do anything to use staffs with how they prepare; Wizard has to learn it once; and Sorcerers have to sacrifice their limited amount of spells known to use it with a staff. There’s also spontaneous casters getting less charges on their staff when they prepare them. Pretty sure the staffs were designed like that to give spontaneous casters access to a wider array with reasonable investment.

[corwyn42]

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Indi523 wrote:

Still I actually like the version of my mistake better. If you find a magic item you have to learn the spell (if a wizard or sorcerer) to use the spell in the staff. I would give a circumstance bonus to attempts to learn the spell from the staff. Knowledge is power.

One problem i see with that is how Spontaneous Casters getting shafted with that deal. Druid and Cleric don’t have to do anything to use staffs with how they prepare; Wizard has to learn it once; and Sorcerers have to sacrifice their limited amount of spells known to use it with a staff. There’s also spontaneous casters getting less charges on their staff when they prepare them. Pretty sure the staffs were designed like that to give spontaneous casters access to a wider array with reasonable investment.

I don't understand, from what I can gather reading page 592 of the CRB you don't have to learn the spell in the Staff in order to Cast it, it just needs to be on your Spell List and you need to be high enough level to cast a spell of that level.

If you are a Sorcerer who uses the Primal Spell List, you can cast the Resist Energy spell from a Staff of Abjuration even though Resist Energy is not in your spell repertoire as long as you can cast second level spells.

From the CRB Page 593:

"You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level."

Is Resist Energy on the Primal Spell List? - yes
Is the Sorcerer able to cast second level spells? - yes
Are there two charges in the Staff? - yes

All three requirements met - you are good to cast Resist Energy from the Staff of Abjuration.

The same would be true for a Wizard who does not have Resist Energy in their spellbook:

Is Resist Energy on the Arcane Spell List? - yes
Is the Wizard able to cast second level spells? - yes
Are there two charges in the Staff? - yes

Since Resist Energy is on all four Spell Lists, only the ability to cast second level spells and having enough charges in the Staff matter.

Now lets look at Feather Fall. Since it is only on the Arcane and Primal Spell Lists, the Wizard (Arcane) and Sorcerer (Primal) would be able to cast the spell from the Staff of Abjuration but a Bard (Occult) or Cleric (Divine) or a Sorcerer (Divine or Occult) would not be able to cast Feather Fall from the Staff of Abjuration.

In the case of a Wand, it only needs to be on your Spell List - you do not even need to be able to cast spells of that level.

From the CRB Page 597:

"To cast a spell from a wand, it must be on your spell list."

So a first level Wizard (Arcane) can cast a third level Burning Hands spell (Arcane or Primal) from a Wand created with a third level Burning Hands spell; however, the Reflex DC would be the DC from the first level Wizard casting the spell. The same would be true of a first level Sorcerer (Primal), but a Bard (Occult), Cleric (Divine) or Sorcerer (Occult or Divine) would not be able to cast the Burning Hands spell from the Wand.

Is my understanding correct? or am I missing something?