| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So one of the things I have seen a lot of is comments on how casters can't quite make full use of the the new 3 action economy due to it taking two actions for most spells
I am under the impression that more variable actions spells will be introduced down the line. Possibly in the APG. Right now there is Heal, Harm and Magic Missile (not sure of others off hand)
Now I am also working under the assumption that these options will be "new" spells
But it seems like there should be some "iconic" spells that should get this treatment e.g. fireball
So what spells do others think should get this treatment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been toying with the idea for my Homebrewed campaign with variable action Attack Cantrips based on the Heal/Harm spell variables:
1 Action (somatic) The spell has a limited range of touch.
2 Actions (verbal, somatic) The spell has a range of 30 feet.
3 Actions (material, verbal, somatic) You disperse the Cantrips energy in a 30-foot emanation. This can affect all viable targets in the area of effect but will only deal 1/2 damage.
Since they are attack cantrips they will be subject to the MAP.
I might go item route that alters the attack cantrips in this manor, have yet to decide.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest, if I recall, had a 3-action Cone of Cold for a larger area, though Paizo said it was unpopular.
One factor is metamagic. 3-action spells seldom work w/ metamagic actions, yet most iconic spells should. I also think it'd skew balance, since the game would have to account for the most powerful version of the spell despite it being hard to get a 3-action spell off (at least in the tougher battles).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the "aesthetic" of PF2 is that each turn martials do lots of small things, while casters do one big thing. Too many one action spells would muddy that. Conversely, metamagic already covers improving a spell by spending an extra action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I guess it more comes down to their being more 1 action options for casters (spells or otherwise)
I am only parroting what I have been reading and have not played yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One action spells are comparable to PF1 Quickened spells in efficacy.
Devs have to be extra wary w/ developing them.
And there's plenty for casters to do w/ an extra action, options typically more useful than a 3rd Strike attempt would be for martials.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the reach and widen metamagic feats essentially work this way as is. I'd much rather see a continuation of new metamagic feats rather than having a bunch more variable spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Off-the-cuff, should-be-sleeping, game-changing (but possibly for the better) house rule: adding a third action to an existing two-action spell does not consume the slot it's being cast from.
Whoa.
Goodbye five-minute-casting-day, hello choosing-to-be-a-station-target-is-risky.
Hypens were on sale today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Twinned Spell [A]
If your next action is to cast a one or two action spell, do not consume the spell or spell slot. You instead will lose the spell at the end of your next turn, or the next time you cast it.
Something like this?
Or maybe you need the action both times. That sounds more fitting.
|
Twinned Spell [A]
If your next action is to cast a one or two action spell, do not consume the spell or spell slot. You instead will lose the spell at the end of your next turn, or the next time you cast it.Something like this?
Or maybe you need the action both times. That sounds more fitting.
I see Twinned Spell more like this:
Twinned Spell (1A)
If the next 1 or 2 actions are used to cast a spell or cantrip that normally targets 1 creature, Twinned allows the caster to use the spell against a second target within range. You could throw 2 Rays of Frost or Daze 2 targets, for example. With regular spells, you could fire 2 Acid Arrows at different targets, for instance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That would be a good idea for a summoner feat. Able to maintain them without costing you an action. Wouldn't be a bad wizard feat to let you familiar have an action without you as well (high level feat maybe.)
|
With the way the action system interacts with magic, it feels like Haste has become one of the most important spells in a caster's arsenal. This is mostly theory crafting but a high level Universalist Wizard with Bond Conversion and Haste in one of their higher level slots can really exploit the feat. As for casters in general, I think the one action focus spells are supposed to be their way to leverage the action system but it doesn't feel as great since they're a limited resource. I'm kind of wishing for a revamp of Words of Power that'll let you apply variable actions to a spell to alter it. I could see it as an archetype or even its own distinct class with a word list rather than a spell list.
Maybe give casters a new metamagic feat? Like a lesser Quickened Casting. Let's call it Hasty Casting.
(Concentrate, Metamagic)
If your next action is to cast a cantrip or a spell that is at least 2 levels lower than the highest level spell you can cast, reduce the number of actions to cast it by 1 (minimum 1 action). After you cast the spell, you are stunned 1, regardless of any immunities you have.
Special This can only be used on a cantrip or spell from the class matching the one you gained this feat from.
Not sure what level this would be, but it's just an idea for now. An alternative cost than stunned could be force damage equal to your level times the spell level.
I've been thinking about the metamagic feat for cantrips only that bumps them up one level for heightening reasons for an extra action, and maybe a super high level feat with that as a prereq that lets you do it to any spell that's 2-lower than your highest slot. But yeah, casters don't get too much fun out of their 3rd action if they didn't take a metamagic feat in their early levels, and if you're without a familiar you can really only use it to stride and that's it. I do agree they could use more tool that make use of their 3rd action, but finding ones that don't kick balance in the face are hard to come by
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to turn this into another Martials vs Casters thread but after taking a step back, I think I can begin to understand why spellcasting takes as many actions as they do. Casters get the ability from level 1 up to target multiple enemies and/or apply heavy conditions. This isn't something Martials can do for one action without a crit apart from Rogues with Debilitating strike. If they tried to scale them back to make them single action, they'd have to be weaker than Focus Spells, maybe even weaker than existing cantrips to maintain balance.
There are options to exploit at higher levels, though. Aside from Bards, each of the other casters can get a 1 action damaging focus spell and Magic Missile is on the Occult and Arcane lists.
I would very much like to see more variable casting action spells, but I can understand why there are few:
- There already exist other ways to tweak spellcasting action cost vs effect, through metamagic feats.
- There already are a number of one-action spells: Some cantrips, a couple of spells, and some focus spells.
- Variable casting action spells make the game more complex.
- There is always a risk of disrupting game balance by adding this much flexibility. So, if a spell has a variable casting action count, it needs to make sure that the 1-action version isn't stronger than the 1-action Magic Missile, or a 1-action focus spell: ie, not very strong.
So, sure let's add more but devs are right to exercise caution. Creating more metamagic feats is a safer alternative.
I would be interested in expanding action rules for already existing spells. Maybe we'll see some of that in APG? I do want them to be careful, though. We don't want the "martial iterative attack problem" to be repeated in Casters.
|
I was pondering an option where you could try to cast faster. At the end of the first action, flat DC11 (aka coin toss) and it casts or not. If not try again for your second action. If you that fails, you can go for a third. If that fails, or if you bail on an earlier failure, then you lose the spell. That means
One round: 50%
Two rounds: 75%
Three rounds: 87.5%
Spell loss: 12.5%
Maybe allow this to continue to the next round, but no movement and no reactions makes me think that would not be popular.
No clue if this should be a class feat, a skill feat, or just a choice available to all casters. It should not be alliwed for your top few spell levels.
What if we allowed any any 2 action attack spell to be cast in one action, but:
-we strip the dice from damage dealing spells.
-we strip the proficiency bonus from the save or suck spells.
You could cast more often with greatly diminished effect.
I love the visuals of it, casters tossing spells around like gunslingers, taking out chumps.
Level appropriate threats would not be easily defeated by these spellcasting "jabs", basically it would be harassing fire to them.
The rule would favor maxed out casting stats especially at low levels,where multiple attacks on a single target will probably be better than a two action casting of the same spell(produce flame , I'm looking at you).
Still, it would give us a one and two action spell attack option, that will be sub-par most of the time, but allows casters to have more choices and ways to cast.
Just being able to Jedi out one turn, using Electric Arc,Sheild spell and, Strike,would please me greatly.
I also would consider a one round Magic Missile a waste of a spell slot.
My proposal is aimed at cantrips mostly.
Quicken doesn't show up till 10th level.
That one-action Harm and one-action Magic Missile aren't considered good uses of a spell slot in most circumstances seems to be part of an overall design decision that using your third action offensively after using your first two actions offensively gets you pretty substantial diminishing returns, outside of specific class abilities. In this way, Martials and Casters use the three-action system pretty similarly - you're reasonably happy to use two actions offensively, but you can often find something better to do with the third. If anything, the biggest difference between Martials and Casters is what they can do when you have exactly one action on your turn to use offensively.
While they certainly have some validity, the sort of complaints described in the first post feel like concerns born of first impressions of the game. It's not immediately clear just from reading the rules (or at least it wasn't immediately clear to me) that (Attack Tag Action) x 3 isn't often practical for a martial character, and even when it is, it isn't really that great because the last attack is so poor. That's not to say that having that option isn't a useful tool for Martials to have, but at least in my experience the gap between how different class models use their actions is a lot smaller than I would have guessed just based on knowing that it's a three-action system where attack-like actions often use one action and casting a combat spell often uses two.
|
|
That one-action Harm and one-action Magic Missile aren't considered good uses of a spell slot in most circumstances seems to be part of an overall design decision that using your third action offensively after using your first two actions offensively gets you pretty substantial diminishing returns, outside of specific class abilities. In this way, Martials and Casters use the three-action system pretty similarly - you're reasonably happy to use two actions offensively, but you can often find something better to do with the third. If anything, the biggest difference between Martials and Casters is what they can do when you have exactly one action on your turn to use offensively.
While they certainly have some validity, the sort of complaints described in the first post feel like concerns born of first impressions of the game. It's not immediately clear just from reading the rules (or at least it wasn't immediately clear to me) that (Attack Tag Action) x 3 isn't often practical for a martial character, and even when it is, it isn't really that great because the last attack is so poor. That's not to say that having that option isn't a useful tool for Martials to have, but at least in my experience the gap between how different class models use their actions is a lot smaller than I would have guessed just based on knowing that it's a three-action system where attack-like actions often use one action and casting a combat spell often uses two.
If the point is to give casters another option for their 3rd action the way most martials do, how about this proposal:
Shield Spell: Remove the line that "After you use Shield Block, the spell ends and you can't cast it again for 10 minutes." Instead, replace it with "Duration: Until the end of your next turn, may be Sustained for up to 1 minute max. You can use the Sustain a spell action each round to extend the Shield's duration for another round, and it does not end because of a Shield Block. The Shield is not destroyed even if the Hardness is breached, and if it is dispelled, it may be recast again next round." This would mean it takes 1 action to cast the Shield cantrip, a reaction to shield block, and by itself lasts till the end of your next round, but can be Sustained for an additional round as your 3rd action each round.
So that would help cover protecting Arcane, Divine, and Occult spell users. Primals don't get the Shield spell because they can use wooden shields, but wooden shields are mostly a joke in 2e. So how about a change there too to help them out.
Primal Wooden Shields: In the hands of a Druid, the stats for a wooden Buckler or wooden Shield's gain a circumstance bonus to Hardness. That circumstance bonus is equal to the Druid's level. In the hands of a 1st level Druid, a wooden Buckler has a Hardness 4. The Buckler only provides a +1 AC bonus, but if the Druid uses a regular Wooden Shield instead, they get the +2 AC, with Hardness 4 at 1st level. By 20th, the regular Buckler and Wooden Shield becomes Hardness 23. With a Darkwood Shield, the total Hardness becomes 25 with standard-grade Darkwood, 28 with high-grade Darkwood.
Using my Shield damage changes of 1 HP lost per time a shield is breached, a regular Buckler will still last for at least 6 hits and the Shield for up to a dozen breaches. Darkwood can last even longer. This purpose is to make Druids at least equal, if not slightly better compared to the other casters, even with the sustainable Shield cantrip. The Wooden Shield doesn't stop magic missiles like the Shield spell, but the effect is always on and the Druid just needs to Raise his shield to benefit.
It would be a total non option past the lowest levels. With no proficiency enemies will be pretty much automatically crit succeeded their saves past level 6What if we allowed any any 2 action attack spell to be cast in one action, but:
-we strip the dice from damage dealing spells.
-we strip the proficiency bonus from the save or suck spells.
Hmm, might be OK if it still works on low level punks, but it sounds like a set penalty would be better.
|
|
It would be a total non option past the lowest levels. With no proficiency enemies will be pretty much automatically crit succeeded their saves past level 6What if we allowed any any 2 action attack spell to be cast in one action, but:
-we strip the dice from damage dealing spells.
-we strip the proficiency bonus from the save or suck spells.Hmm, might be OK if it still works on low level punks, but it sounds like a set penalty would be better.
But the spell slots are a limited resource, unlike Martials attacks. If you waste one of your 2 or 3 slots for the day using a weakened 1-action spell, it's hurting you more than helping. One house rule I came up with is that your first Sustain a Spell in a round is a free action, and only your second and third Sustains in a round cost an action each. With this rule, you can cast a Sustain spell and still keep your 3 actions instead of only having 2 left any time you cast a Sustain spell.
But the spell slots are a limited resource, unlike Martials attacks. If you waste one of your 2 or 3 slots for the day using a weakened 1-action spell, it's hurting you more than helping. One house rule I came up with is that your first Sustain a Spell in a round is a free action, and only your second and third Sustains in a round cost an action each. With this rule, you can cast a Sustain spell and still keep your 3 actions instead of only having 2 left any time you cast a Sustain spell.It would be a total non option past the lowest levels. With no proficiency enemies will be pretty much automatically crit succeeded their saves past level 6What if we allowed any any 2 action attack spell to be cast in one action, but:
-we strip the dice from damage dealing spells.
-we strip the proficiency bonus from the save or suck spells.Hmm, might be OK if it still works on low level punks, but it sounds like a set penalty would be better.
Wouldn't this also allow casters to command a summoned creature as a free action, possibly on the same turn they cast the spell?
|
|
The command is already included on the first cast. But yeah each turn after you've got a Caster with 5 actions.
Right, and the Sustain is a free action, but I don't see anywhere that Sustaining your Summons allows the Command an Animal action for free (if you used Summon Animal). So, by my rules, the Sustain is free but Command an Animal is still an action. (see pg 249). RAW You must spend 1 action to Sustain and 1 action to Command, leaving just 1 action per round for the caster, and the minion gets 2 actions because it's just a minion. That seems like almost all Summoning spells are a trap option. "Hey, caster, you can give up casting anymore 2 action spells as you only have 1 action left, but on the bright side, your minion gets 2 actions of it's own!" Fair trade off? I don't think so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, and the Sustain is a free action, but I don't see anywhere that Sustaining your Summons allows the Command an Animal action for free (if you used Summon Animal). So, by my rules, the Sustain is free but Command an Animal is still an action. (see pg 249). RAW You must spend 1 action to Sustain and 1 action to Command, leaving just 1 action per round for the caster, and the minion gets 2 actions because it's just a minion. That seems like almost all Summoning spells are a trap option. "Hey, caster, you can give up casting anymore 2 action spells as you only have 1 action left, but on the bright side, your minion gets 2 actions of it's own!" Fair trade off? I don't think so.
The command is already included on the first cast. But yeah each turn after you've got a Caster with 5 actions.
It's in the minion trait.
Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands. For an animal companion, you Command an Animal; for a minion that’s a spell or magic item effect, like a summoned minion, you Sustain a Spell or Sustain an Activation; if not otherwise specified, you issue a verbal command, a single action with the auditory and concentrate traits.
|
|
Right, and the Sustain is a free action, but I don't see anywhere that Sustaining your Summons allows the Command an Animal action for free (if you used Summon Animal). So, by my rules, the Sustain is free but Command an Animal is still an action. (see pg 249). RAW You must spend 1 action to Sustain and 1 action to Command, leaving just 1 action per round for the caster, and the minion gets 2 actions because it's just a minion. That seems like almost all Summoning spells are a trap option. "Hey, caster, you can give up casting anymore 2 action spells as you only have 1 action left, but on the bright side, your minion gets 2 actions of it's own!" Fair trade off? I don't think so.
The command is already included on the first cast. But yeah each turn after you've got a Caster with 5 actions.It's in the minion trait.
Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands. For an animal companion, you Command an Animal; for a minion that’s a spell or magic item effect, like a summoned minion, you Sustain a Spell or Sustain an Activation; if not otherwise specified, you issue a verbal command, a single action with the auditory and concentrate traits.
Thanks for pointing that out. It really should be listed with the spell rather than having to look up the glossary/index for minions to know. It should be in the Summon Animal spell description or a sidebar next to the Summon spells at least, because if you summon animals and there is an ability to command animals, most readers will think they go together.
So that does help make Summon spells a bit better, but only the first Sustain is free so they can't summon the entire jungle's worth of animals and command them all with a single Tarzan yell. It helps with Flaming Sphere too, and a few other spells. If I had my way I'd probably redo a bunch of the spells to allow 1 action casting more often, either as an option (like Magic Missile and Heal) or simply have many weaker (especially non-combat) spells simply just take 1 action.