| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the 1.4 update to my homebrew Neo-Vancian (5e-style) variant casting classes and related play aides. Please read this Reddit post if you would like a full rundown on design goals and methodology.
A Note on the Why. My group wants to have a crack at the whimsy-filled Extinction Curse. One player thought it would be fun to play a Halfling Witch. Another was eyeing the Skald (Bard). After talking with them, I whipped up a Neo-Vancian Witch and made a smattering of other changes.
The Witch. I try to skew close to the original design in most cases but this is somewhat different than the APG Playtest take on the class (Neo-Vancian casting, patron choice matters more, a divine option is included, Cackle is useful, etc). Also, I kinda felt that the Witch was a bit too similar to the Mage (Wizard) so I did remove the Improved Familiar Attunement thesis from the Mage (Wizard) just to help them feel more distinct. The Witch's familiar also gets one more ability to start but the Witch no longer gets access to the Enhanced Familiar feat (it's somewhat baked in). I have not yet made a multiclass archetype version of the Witch. By the way, I couldn't come up with an alternative name that I or my player were happy with. I had considered "Crone" but it didn't quite fit.
MORE Small Tweaks to Spontaneous Casters. My spontaneous caster variants no longer gain a class feat at level one (which I had added in my last version). Feedback from my players suggested that the feat was not particularly necessary for the Thaumaturgist (Sorcerer) and seemed unsatisfying for the Skald (Bard). For my new campaign, my Skald (Bard) player asked for something that worked with his Performance skill and that gave him a tiny bit more flexibility. So, I gave the Skald (Bard) the "Practice" feature instead. The Skald (Bard) may now Retrain spells/cantrips at the same time that they Earn an Income from using Performance during downtime. This starts at 1 spell or cantrip a week at Trained, that increases to 2 at Expert, 3 at Master and 4 at Legendary. He seemed happy. I don't foresee further iterations here but if they do come, they will come from actual play experience at my table.
The Mage, [UPDATED!], the Wizard alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Shaman, the Druid alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Skald, [UPDATED!], the Bard alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Thaumaturge,[UPDATED!], the Sorcerer alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Vicar, the Cleric alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Witch, [NEW!], the Witch alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Archetypes, does not yet include the Witch (PDF)(InDesign)
Related Tweaks (PDF)
PF2 4x6 Spell/Action Cards (PDF)(InDesign)
Spell Tracker (PDF)
I care about balance but perfect mechanical balance is not my top priority. My group just doesn't obsess over that sort of thing. I chiefly focus on facilitating ease of play and on character options being compelling in a mechanical and narrative sense. I aim for said options to feel effective and fun in an adventuring party. Once I get in that ballpark, I call it good and move on.
My perspective on being “in that ballpark” may be different than yours. If you demand tighter balance than what is presented here then, by all means, continue to use the stock options or make your own.
Great, I'll read the updates tomorrow. On the Witch's alternate name, did you consider "The Warlock?" It may not be same as the 5e Warlock, but the name should work because I'll be surprised if PF2 ever creates a Warlock class of their own!
I had thought of that but Warlocks are not known to Cackle or to make Covens. This class has a very specific flavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This.IS.Good. Nuff said.
Really I like where this is going. Or went. Thank you for sharing
Great, I'll read the updates tomorrow. On the Witch's alternate name, did you consider "The Warlock?" It may not be same as the 5e Warlock, but the name should work because I'll be surprised if PF2 ever creates a Warlock class of their own!I had thought of that but Warlocks are not known to Cackle or to make Covens. This class has a very specific flavor.
You might be able to consider the name Medium instead of Witch or Warlock. It would give you the ability to be a caster tied to a Patron for their magic. I don't know that cackling would be bad for a medium. (perhaps not first association I'd think, but not unreasonable) However, I also see warlock as the masculine of witch, so don't have an issue with warlock being associated with cackle any more than I do witch.
Also, of note, there was quite a bit of discussion of potentially using some word other than Cackle for the witches ability name. Keeping much of it the same, but I think one of the better options had been Chant, which would be a repetitive verbal manifestation being able to sustain a spell, whether it be cackling, chanting, etc.
Of note: It really seems like the tendency to add the spell-casting modifier to the number of spells seems relatively contrary to existing spell-casting design withing second edition. Eliminating all of the existing spell-casting classes, that might remove concerns about that some, but it seems out of place, given the existing classes. I thought I would mention that.
I understand that to let a first level spell-caster be able to prepare more than a single first level spell that may appear to be almost a necessity. Although 1 + caster level would give them 2 prepareable spells at first level. Something relatively simple to do would be to give them the ability to 'prepare' 5 + caster level in number of spells. But they have to prepare any Cantrips they want prepared out of this number as well. So a neo-vancian would give them some wider flexibility than Vancian, but not necessarily completely better in all cases. I don't think that would then apply to sorcerers, but of course sorcerers don't necessarily need Neo-vancian spell choice rules since they are spontaneous by level.
I will grant that if you throw out Vancian spellcasting as an option, your system seems to make sense and have flavor and value to the options to choose between all these different classes. Getting rid of the existing spell casting classes removes the context making the adding spell casting attribute to spells memorized, seeming contrary to the exiting game mechanics. However, I'd myself prefer to see an option that left Vancian as a viable option.
Loreguard:
Sorry man, I don't care to debate this style of spellcasting on these boards or anywhere else. If you don't like it, just don't download it.
I'm just sorry that out of all of the content of my post, the only thing you seemed to take out of it was the incorrect assumption that I was trying to debate the validity of Neovancian spellcasting style, and that I disapproved of it.
Loreguard:
Hard to parse with that much text and this forum software's lack of decent WYSIWYG formatting. But either way, this is meant to approximate how 5e handles Vancian prep since that's one of the bits I really like about 5e and since the numbers approximate what PF2 reaches (eventually) while giving more flexibility early on (and throughout).
I apologize if I missed the thrust of your post but I honestly don't care to modify those underlying systems further.
Also I did consider Medium but that seemed more like a psychic who communes with spirits to me (like Whoopi Goldberg in Ghost). Cackles and Covens wouldn't work there.
So I looked at both the mage and thaumaturge. I sort of agree with your point that its not a big issue to allow mages to use neo-vancian casting. I do wonder if its a bit harsh to to force specialist mages to have TWO opposition schools. The specialist-wizard gets none. And the mage has 2.
But I assume it has to do with your design philosophy. It seems you nerfed the wizards (removed bonded item, imposed oppositions schools) to make up for the neo-vancian casting. Imo thats a balanced and clever design. Even if you had kept the Sorc exactly as in core, I still think the mage/wizard would not have overshadowed the sorc (or little at least).
Erk Ander:
Thanks for the kind words.
I've noticed that my players will tend to value more spell slots over flexibility. So it's really about making the generalist with it's 3 spells a level compelling compared to the specialist who gets a school spell slot on top of that (matching the sorcerors number of casts).
Also, the lack of arcane bond is mostly because my player thought it was clunky (I agreed) and he asked if we could just give the specialist an extra slot and call it good. So, that was me working with him.
Opposition schools are also in, in part, because I really like them. They lead to more varied spell use. One of the things I dislike about 5e is the lack of opposition schools and how samey specialist wizard spell loadouts tend to be. Why 2? Early editions had set opp schools for every school. That led to picking certain schools every time to get opp school you didn't care about. The idea for two opp schools but you choose is actually from PF1. It's a good idea. It leads to very different loadouts for each specialist.
Ultimately, though, perfect balance, as I mentioned in my post, isn't my main concern. It's chiefly about making options compelling and distinct (which is a bit different in my view).
Erk Ander:
Thanks for the kind words.
I've noticed that my players will tend to value more spell slots over flexibility. So it's really about making the generalist with it's 3 spells a level compelling compared to the specialist who gets a school spell slot on top of that (matching the sorcerors number of casts).
Also, the lack of arcane bond is mostly because my player thought it was clunky (I agreed) and he asked if we could just give the specialist an extra slot and call it good. So, that was me working with him.
Opposition schools are also in, in part, because I really like them. They lead to more varied spell use. One of the things I dislike about 5e is the lack of opposition schools and how samey specialist wizard spell loadouts tend to be. Why 2? Early editions had set opp schools for every school. That led to picking certain schools every time to get opp school you didn't care about. The idea for two opp schools but you choose is actually from PF1. It's a good idea. It leads to very different loadouts for each specialist.
Ultimately, though, perfect balance, as I mentioned in my post, isn't my main concern. It's chiefly about making options compelling and distinct (which is a bit different in my view).
No problem, I am mostly impressed with the design or the result of it. You took some and you gave some.
How do you mean that opposition schools lead to more varied spell use ? On facevalue it should lead to less. Given that you can only use that extra slot for a specialist school spell there isn't any more reasons to choose specialist over universalist. Ok the access to specialist feats.
I do hope Paizo looks at you version its IMO what spellcasting should have been. I can understand why they choose to keep standard vancian due to wanting to stand out from 5e or something like that.
Without opposition schools, I find that players often go for an optimal loadout of spells as defined by ubiquitous "best spell by level" guides. The go for all those "gold" or "purple" options and often have a spell set that does not thematically define the kind of mage they are.
By selecting opposition schools, their optimal loadout is, by definition, going to be different. They are choosing where they aren't going to go and means that some of their spell selections for their loadout won't be "gold" or "purple" on said guides. Moreover, since some flagrantly better spells are off the table, a larger percentage of "mediocre" or "utility" spells see play.
My implementation further encourage s the specialist to select spells from a specific spot by making that extra slot school limited. Two specialist mages with different specializations and different opp schools will have drastically different loadouts in a given session and will have different play experiences in a given campaign.
But, hey, if a players WANTS just those optimal selections, they can play a generalist.
Without opposition schools, I find that players often go for an optimal loadout of spells as defined by ubiquitous "best spell by level" guides. The go for all those "gold" or "purple" options and often have a spell set that does not thematically define the kind of mage they are.
By selecting opposition schools, their optimal loadout is, by definition, going to be different. They are choosing where they aren't going to go and means that some of their spell selections for their loadout won't be "gold" or "purple" on said guides. Moreover, since some flagrantly better spells are off the table, a larger percentage of "mediocre" or "utility" spells see play.
My implementation further encourage s the specialist to select spells from a specific spot by making that extra slot school limited. Two specialist mages with different specializations and different opp schools will have drastically different loadouts in a given session and will have different play experiences in a given campaign.
But, hey, if a players WANTS just those optimal selections, they can play a generalist.
Hmm, I see but thats issue of metagaming and bad spells in the game, imo. But I see your point.
I always felt that it was enough to make the extra spell slot of the specialist school-specific. If further enouragement to "stay in school" was needed I would implement a feature that gave +1 to DC, spell attacks etc when using school spells. I thoroughly dislike penalizing players (which is why 5e was so good).
I think restricting spell-lists encourages more optimization (choosing only the absolutely best spells) rather than creating more versatile and varied mages. But I understand your point its likely one way of making mages differ.
The reason I ask is because the creative process and reasoning behind design is interesting. I want to know whether your design-choices were for balance, lore or just sheer opinion. If understand you correctly it was not for reasons of actual game balance. Like for instance you removed arcane bond, which I assume that was for balance reasons.
From your expertise would changing prepared spell casting to neovancian (one preparation of a spell is enough as well as "free" heightening) and not doing any other change unbalance the wizard/cleric/Druid ? Is the removal of arcane bond, restricting spell selection for specialist necessary ?
I hope PAizo looks at your stuff and implements (and credits) it. Though I know they were already thinking about implementing it during the playtest/design of the game. Maybe some future splatbook might give us something else than horrible Vancian,
The more I read your stuff (the new classes) the more I realise how seamless and intuitive it is. Much more fun to play. I would probably never bother to play regular sorc or wizard. Apart from the Specialist having two opposition classes (I found that a little exessive) you Mage is perfect. Once again thank you for creating this. I will try to spread the good word of this creation.
Thanks for the praise.
Two restricted schools works well for me but I find restrictions just as valuable as options. But if that doesn't work for your table, do whatever does.