| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except casters are also limited in HP, even more so than martials. And due to their pathetic defences, it's even easier to remove that HP from them.
|
Except casters are also limited in HP, even more so than martials. And due to their pathetic defences, it's even easier to remove that HP from them.
I think it is only easier in certain situations, such as in an enclosed room or when an enemy is able to target the casters first. I do agree, however, that defenses are a problem for casters, but not really until later levels for the sorcerer and wizard when every other class has access to a master tier save with success to crit success. Yet, in most cases in my games, martials are able to get into melee with creatures, resulting in those creatures prioritizing damaging the martials. And the barbarian usually had AC equal to our casters because of rage (non-giant), making him just as easy to hit despite having a buffer to health. Casters, for the most part, have the advantage of attacking from range, and ranged attacks against them usually were lower by an attribute's amount.
From what I've seen, casters and martials both are only one crit away from getting dropped.
We'd have had a TPK in every session yet if not for Hero Points.
Players are all starting to double down on investing in the Medicine skill, related skill feats, and healing spells and items now.
Is it different for others? How do you manage?
I've only had TPK-incoming feeling in the early parts of Plaguestone. Once players got their bearing on how characters should play, and moved past level 1, TPK-incoming feeling become fairly rare occurrence.
Although I do promote liberal use of Hero Points, though my players mostly use them for rerolls, not to stop dying (partially because they use them before they get to dying XD ).
If you consider that you can level in the middle of an adventuring day then there is no more intent to read.
Now, I'd love to know how to do that, especially for prepared casters. Are they just screwed with no extra spells when the spontaneous ones get their new spells?I'd really love to know how people do that.
Essentially yes. This sort of thing has happened in my group. You get your HP (your current and max go up by whatever amount) and you gain whatever it is that you gain when you level up, but if you gain spell slots, they're considered empty. You can't prep anything in it until you sleep, and for spont casters they're considered spent.
I don't see how that's "more punishing" to casters than "nope, NO LEVEL UP BENEFITS AT ALL until you rest."
Does it advantage melee characters? Sure. But everyone gains some benefit.
If you consider that you can level in the middle of an adventuring day then there is no more intent to read.
Now, I'd love to know how to do that, especially for prepared casters. Are they just screwed with no extra spells when the spontaneous ones get their new spells?I'd really love to know how people do that.
Not only did you already figure it out on your own, it's still not relevant to your claim I asked for a citation to support.
There's nothing in the book, not even the "it's confusing to me if you level up in the middle of a day" (that's another thing from you, not the book), that says a particular number of encounters the devs expect to happen over a particular amount of in-game time.
Well, I see an intent, you don't, I'm not sure it's useful to run in circle trying to figure out if there's really an intent (and what it is). Zapp already opened topics about pace and no clear answer emerged.
I also think the adventuring pace has little to do with casters' power. If the difficulty is properly set, all your players (and not only casters') will ask for long rests when the casters are out of spells. So, as a DM, you can push your players into continuing but you're just basically removing casters from the party the same way you can put tons of swarms to eliminate the rogues from the party.
I'm just baffled by how confidently you can say "I see an intent" and then simultaneously say things like "Zapp already opened topics about pace and no clear answer emerged." which are themselves evidence that there's no intent for you to be seeing.
I'm sorry, Nobledrake, but you have a strange reading of my words.
Zapp opened a topic about pace and no clear answer emerged. It doesn't mean I can't have my point of view. "I see an intent" is clearly the expression of an opinion.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spells are non-expendable resources, too. The next day they're back.That barbarians damage output is going to be a somewhat steady curve vs the casters periodic spikes.
By and large, I don't think people put enough stock in the value of weapon attacks being a non-expended resource.
Good job on splitting those hairs!
Spells are expendable resources because once you spend them, you no longer have access to them. They are expended.
Sure you can get them back by taking an 8 hour rest and re-preparing, but that doesn't make them not expendable, it just means they aren't finite in the way a consumable item is.
Or are consumables also non-expendable because you can just make more?
You have to think about sustainability when playing a caster. If you don't manage to be sustainable, it's not a problem with casters but with the player not managing properly his resources.
This wasn't even the point of the discussion?
Spikes of "Blue Damage" from casters exceeding the "White Damage" of melee (to borrow terms from WoW) is what was being discussed. "Managing resource better" isn't the issue, it's the relative value of those resources that matters.
In PF2, 11 fights give you a level. And that's without story xp or non-combat encounters. An adventuring day should rarely put you in more than half a dozen fights. Some APs are not following the guidelines, I know. But outside specific situations, you should be able to easily achieve sustainability with a caster.
Cool, strict adherence to formula is precisely why I play RPG's. I hate variance, plot, stories and consequences of actions. Next time I run out of spell slots I'll just inform my GM that they have failed to follow official protocol.
And for the specific situations, you have scrolls
You mean casters get the honour of spending their downtime and money on consumables? That's swell! I mean, Staves and Wands would have been a better argument, but whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, scrolls are a great way to become more sustainable as a caster, but maybe not in the way one might think. As a caster, you may end up conserving spells for a "later, tougher fight" which can backfire if you make a bad call and this fight is the tougher fight. Scrolls are a great insurance you always have spells in the bank for the unknown future fight, allowing you to use your spells more freely and thus more effectively (having spell slots left over when you go to sleep means you wasted them).
|
|
To be fair, scrolls are a great way to become more sustainable as a caster, but maybe not in the way one might think. As a caster, you may end up conserving spells for a "later, tougher fight" which can backfire if you make a bad call and this fight is the tougher fight. Scrolls are a great insurance you always have spells in the bank for the unknown future fight, allowing you to use your spells more freely and thus more effectively (having spell slots left over when you go to sleep means you wasted them).
Don't get me wrong, I love a sack full of scrolls when I'm in a pinch. The issue for me wasn't that they aren't useful, it's just that they are a more expensive and time consuming answer to the problem than other methods available.
Plus, while melee characters have to invest in items the same as casters do, these are generally for permanent or long term buffs.
There just isn't ever a requirement for melee characters to spend time and money to get more "swing swords" per day.
I also want to clarify that I have no bother with the whole expended vs non-expended resource thing, as long as it's a worthwhile trade off.
it's the relative value of those resources that matters
That's it, and that's what I was pointing when speaking about sustainability.
If your character is sustainable, the value of a spell slot is close to zero. If your character is not sustainable, the value of a spell slot is high.And that completely changes your expectations.
So, when you say "By and large, I don't think people put enough stock in the value of weapon attacks being a non-expended resource." I answer that you put too much value in the fact that spells are an expendable resource. If you achieve sustainability, you won't care much about spells being expendable resources.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My main point is that scrolls can provide a benefit even when you don't use them - just having a backup means you can afford to cast more liberally and effectively even if you never use that backup. In that way, having a scroll can help you out for several fights even though you only end up using it once. It's not a permanent item, but can be very money-efficient that way.
As for what Bast wrote, I think determining under which circumstances you will use a consumable can help you get over that psychological hurdle. If you promise yourself "when I'm out of spells of my two highest level slots in a boss battle, I will use this scroll" in advance, that helps against the unwillingness to use it in the moment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, scrolls are a great way to become more sustainable as a caster, but maybe not in the way one might think. As a caster, you may end up conserving spells for a "later, tougher fight" which can backfire if you make a bad call and this fight is the tougher fight. Scrolls are a great insurance you always have spells in the bank for the unknown future fight, allowing you to use your spells more freely and thus more effectively (having spell slots left over when you go to sleep means you wasted them).Don't get me wrong, I love a sack full of scrolls when I'm in a pinch. The issue for me wasn't that they aren't useful, it's just that they are a more expensive and time consuming answer to the problem than other methods available.
Plus, while melee characters have to invest in items the same as casters do, these are generally for permanent or long term buffs.
There just isn't ever a requirement for melee characters to spend time and money to get more "swing swords" per day.
I also want to clarify that I have no bother with the whole expended vs non-expended resource thing, as long as it's a worthwhile trade off.
The issue melee martial characters have is that the "swing swords" ability has an incredibly limited set of situations that it is dominant in, and as a result, they have to spend a lot of party resources, not just their own, making that situation happen for an extended period of time. For most melee martials, even making 2 attacks a round is usually predicated on feat support, or giving up a necessary defensive action. This is almost never feasible for more than 2 turns against a powerful opponent without a significant amount of spell support.
Having a martial or two well supported by casters is a strong party build, maybe the strongest, but it is not strong because of the martials alone. Spending time talking to your party about tactics can result in a much better balance of who is supporting whom in combats, because casters are capable of doing incredible things if they don't have to spend all of their resources on martial support. The whole party wins when caster disguises themselves, charms a lowly guard and then gets to talk about what has been happening inside the dungeon for the last couple of weeks. The rogue has a chance at pulling this off by themselves, but usually against much more difficult DCs, and almost always under the threat of being captured or killed when their plan fails, because they had to go in alone to make it work.
As for what Bast wrote, I think determining under which circumstances you will use a consumable can help you get over that psychological hurdle. If you promise yourself "when I'm out of spells of my two highest level slots in a boss battle, I will use this scroll" in advance, that helps against the unwillingness to use it in the moment.
How many scrolls do you actually use in combat-time?
Where do you KEEP them?| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main point is that scrolls can provide a benefit even when you don't use them - just having a backup means you can afford to cast more liberally and effectively even if you never use that backup. In that way, having a scroll can help you out for several fights even though you only end up using it once. It's not a permanent item, but can be very money-efficient that way.
As for what Bast wrote, I think determining under which circumstances you will use a consumable can help you get over that psychological hurdle. If you promise yourself "when I'm out of spells of my two highest level slots in a boss battle, I will use this scroll" in advance, that helps against the unwillingness to use it in the moment.
I strongly agree with that.
It's the difference between a rationing and a sustained spellcaster.
When playing a rationing spellcaster, you cast spells depending on the situation, the state of your spell list and the expected number of incoming fights. First, it's exhausting. And you either cast too many spells and end up spell starving or, in general, cast too few spells and lose efficiency. Casting exactly the proper number of spells is roughly impossible as you can't precisely know the number of incoming fights and the need you'll have for spells in each of them.
A sustained spellcaster casts spells depending on the situation and that's all. It's way more enjoyable. And to avoid spell starvation, you have a buffer of scrolls. So you never cast too few spells, and when you cast too many scrolls, it just costs you money. As a result, you cast roughly 50% more spells, most of them coming from your spell slots as you don't care of using your very last slot. In terms of efficiency, you are twice more efficient than a rationing caster in dire situations (because of your buffer of scrolls that rationing casters tend not to buy) and outside dire situations you are still more efficient because you don't hesitate to cast your spells at the proper moment.
I played both styles in Starfinder. I hated playing as a rationing spellcaster and I really had a blast playing a sustainable caster.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the difference between a rationing and a sustained spellcaster.
I think ALL casters are at least partially rationing spellcasters, unless you're just playing PFS Quests or having a 1 minute adventuring day or into SERIOUS Rocket Tag mode or the like (you can come close to a sustained spellcaster in hexploration mode, for example).
I've very rarely seen a spellcaster just throw down their most effective (generally highest level spells) every single round in a combat during "normal play" where you're expecting several encounters in a day.
For the vast majority of games Resource Management IS a big part of the game for spell casters. Oh, you've got wands and scrolls and cantrips and renewable resources to HELP you with that Resource Management issue but it rarely completely goes away.
Do scrolls even get destroyed when you copy a spell from them? Maybe the wizard will have a bunch from learning those spells.
They are not destroyed by copying spells from them in PF2.
As for what Bast wrote, I think determining under which circumstances you will use a consumable can help you get over that psychological hurdle. If you promise yourself "when I'm out of spells of my two highest level slots in a boss battle, I will use this scroll" in advance, that helps against the unwillingness to use it in the moment.How many scrolls do you actually use in combat-time?
Where do you KEEP them?
Two scrolls, one for each hand. Martials start combat holding weapons, there is literally no reason for casters to have their hands empty. If I have a staff I'm going to use, I start combat with 1 scroll instead. If I am not holding a scroll and am planning to use one, drawing a scroll is a good use of a 3rd action. Obviously all of this applies to situations where I actually plan on using scrolls (usually because I am low on top-level spells). If I am topped out on spells, no real reason to start combat holding one unless I have no other use for a hand.
Two scrolls, one for each hand.
How do you decide which scrolls you're going to hold?
drawing a scroll is a good use of a 3rd action.
And where is that third scroll kept?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's the relative value of those resources that mattersThat's it, and that's what I was pointing when speaking about sustainability.
If your character is sustainable, the value of a spell slot is close to zero. If your character is not sustainable, the value of a spell slot is high.
And that completely changes your expectations.So, when you say "By and large, I don't think people put enough stock in the value of weapon attacks being a non-expended resource." I answer that you put too much value in the fact that spells are an expendable resource. If you achieve sustainability, you won't care much about spells being expendable resources.
The sustain rate for any given caster within the interval of an adventuring day, before around 18th level*, is currently about 0%.
Without the ability to replenish spell slots within an adventuring day, you aren't sustaining anything. The best you can do is control the rate at which your resource deplete by deploying them tactically and supplementing them with other actions/items/cantrips.
You can't reach an equilibrium, you can't balance your books, you can't make up what you've used.
After 18th level, many casters get access to the ability to replenish an extremely small and limited number of spells per day (*with a particular Wizard build being able to so to a controlled degree from 8th)
Your explanation of a "rationed" vs "sustained" spellcaster is actually just you describing the difference between being prudent vs being wasteful. That's not a game mechanics issue, that's a playstyle / player choice. On paper the two could look identical.
______________
I think my point is being lost however. I have no problem with spells as a limited resource, it's what allows them to do powerful and interestings without destabilizing the game.
What I object to is the notion that spells as a whole should not be able to beat the damage of weapon attack whenever that weapon attack costs no resources or requires no critical use. If melee characters are using focus points, limited use items and abilities, then go nuts.
Spending a limited resource should get you something more than just "average", regardless of class or damage type.
It's the difference between a rationing and a sustained spellcaster.
I think ALL casters are at least partially rationing spellcasters, unless you're just playing PFS Quests or having a 1 minute adventuring day or into SERIOUS Rocket Tag mode or the like (you can come close to a sustained spellcaster in hexploration mode, for example).
I've very rarely seen a spellcaster just throw down their most effective (generally highest level spells) every single round in a combat during "normal play" where you're expecting several encounters in a day.
For the vast majority of games Resource Management IS a big part of the game for spell casters. Oh, you've got wands and scrolls and cantrips and renewable resources to HELP you with that Resource Management issue but it rarely completely goes away.
Off course, I'm not encouraging in casting your higher level spells all the time. But combats rarely ask you to do so. You'll sometimes use lower level spells because they are the proper spell for the situation. And once the fight is a clear victory, even if there are a few remaining enemies, you will stop with limited spells and use cantrips in general.
But most of these things are what every caster player does.The only situation being sustainable removes from the equation is the situation where you see a spell that would be the proper spell for the situation but you decide not to cast it because you want to save it for later. And that situation happens quite often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two scrolls, one for each hand.How do you decide which scrolls you're going to hold?
Depends on the circumstance. In the aforementioned scenario of being low on power spells, I will usually select high-power generalist spells like AoE and debuff.
drawing a scroll is a good use of a 3rd action.And where is that third scroll kept?
A bandolier full of scrolls seems highly appropriate. Not quite sure what you're getting at.
Your explanation of a "rationed" vs "sustained" spellcaster is actually just you describing the difference between being prudent vs being wasteful. That's not a game mechanics issue, that's a playstyle / player choice. On paper the two could look identical.
I like the way you state it, as prudent is a quality and wasteful a drawback. As stated earlier, you are still playing rationing casters and I encourage you to go sustainable. The gain in power is substantial and easy to feel.
|
|
Your explanation of a "rationed" vs "sustained" spellcaster is actually just you describing the difference between being prudent vs being wasteful. That's not a game mechanics issue, that's a playstyle / player choice. On paper the two could look identical.I like the way you state it, as prudent is a quality and wasteful a drawback. As stated earlier, you are still playing rationing casters and I encourage you to go sustainable. The gain in power is substantial and easy to feel.
But there is no sustainability! The best option you have is just to control your rate of deleption.
A bandolier full of scrolls seems highly appropriate. Not quite sure what you're getting at.drawing a scroll is a good use of a 3rd action.And where is that third scroll kept?
That means you have to be selective about what 8 items you keep there. Every slot taken up by a scroll means it isn't a potion. The fact that you're keeping scrolls and potions there means you don't have something like a healing kit.
That's what I'm getting at. You can't just say "use more scrolls."
Depends on the circumstance. In the aforementioned scenario of being low on power spells, I will usually select high-power generalist spells like AoE and debuff.
Oh, this also precludes using Detect Magic as an exploration activity.
But there is no sustainability! The best option you have is just to control your rate of deleption.Your explanation of a "rationed" vs "sustained" spellcaster is actually just you describing the difference between being prudent vs being wasteful. That's not a game mechanics issue, that's a playstyle / player choice. On paper the two could look identical.I like the way you state it, as prudent is a quality and wasteful a drawback. As stated earlier, you are still playing rationing casters and I encourage you to go sustainable. The gain in power is substantial and easy to feel.
I don't control the rate of depletion of my Sorcerer and still never ended up in a situation where I was no more able to cast spells. Same for my Starfinder Mystic. Theoretical sustainability doesn't exist but practical one does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the circumstance. In the aforementioned scenario of being low on power spells, I will usually select high-power generalist spells like AoE and debuff.Oh, this also precludes using Detect Magic as an exploration activity.
This seems like a pretty harsh reading of the rules. A scroll is not a weapon, and most GMs I have played with let players walk around with weapons drawn, they only make it take an exploration activity if you actively want your shield raised at the start of combat.
I don't know of a RAW limit on how many bandoliers you can wear? Reasonably I would cap it at my tables around 2, maybe 3. With 8-16 slots available I think you could have a couple of key potions handy and fill the rest with scrolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every slot taken up by a scroll means it isn't a potion. The fact that you're keeping scrolls and potions there means you don't have something like a healing kit.
So you have 8 slots for scrolls/potions. Unless you're really high-level and have access to a lot of niche consumables, I just don't see myself running into the issues you describe.
(In addition, is there actually anything in the rules preventing you from having multiple bandoliers? It feels like the spirit of the rules is that you only have one, but I couldn't find anything preventing you from strapping up as many as you want)
Depends on the circumstance. In the aforementioned scenario of being low on power spells, I will usually select high-power generalist spells like AoE and debuff.Oh, this also precludes using Detect Magic as an exploration activity.
Casting Detect Magic requires a free hand? I'm not seeing this, am I missing something here?
I don't know of a RAW limit on how many bandoliers you can wear? Reasonably I would cap it at my tables around 2, maybe 3. With 8-16 slots available I think you could have a couple of key potions handy and fill the rest with scrolls.
While true, I'm pretty sure the intent was "1 bandolier" otherwise the limited slot nature of it is meaningless and you wouldn't need to wear a backpack ("why should I? I can fit all my stuff in my 23790 bandoliers!")
|
|
I don't control the rate of depletion of my Sorcerer and still never ended up in a situation where I was no more able to cast spells. Same for my Starfinder Mystic. Theoretical sustainability doesn't exist but practical one does.But there is no sustainability! The best option you have is just to control your rate of deleption.Your explanation of a "rationed" vs "sustained" spellcaster is actually just you describing the difference between being prudent vs being wasteful. That's not a game mechanics issue, that's a playstyle / player choice. On paper the two could look identical.I like the way you state it, as prudent is a quality and wasteful a drawback. As stated earlier, you are still playing rationing casters and I encourage you to go sustainable. The gain in power is substantial and easy to feel.
You’ve said that you do. That’s the whole ethos of the mindset you’ve touted.
Good for you that you’ve never run out of spells. It’s not a common experience.
I don't know of a RAW limit on how many bandoliers you can wear? Reasonably I would cap it at my tables around 2, maybe 3. With 8-16 slots available I think you could have a couple of key potions handy and fill the rest with scrolls.While true, I'm pretty sure the intent was "1 bandolier" otherwise the limited slot nature of it is meaningless and you wouldn't need to wear a backpack ("why should I? I can fit all my stuff in my 23790 bandoliers!")
After the errata, there is actually a good reason to be putting stuff in your backpack since it helps with bulk a little. Backpacks also have the niche benefit of allowing you to drop a lot of bulk quickly if you need to for whatever reason.
You’ve said that you do. That’s the whole ethos of the mindset you’ve touted.
Good for you that you’ve never run out of spells. It’s not a common experience.
It's an experience I'll hardly live with my casters. I'm not sure I can even live it, that would ask for such exceptional circumstances.
Anyway, I'm not sure I can convince you. I'd have tried.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a reason most Scrolls made by PCs in PF1 were for utility and niche spells not combat spells. Combat spells are too unreliable to be spending 100s or even 1,000s of gold on something that probably wont even work. Specially when they take at least 3 actions to use.
3 reasons, actually. Scrolls in PF1 were bad, their price was quickly skyrocketting and sustainability was easy to achieve by just getting a few more levels.
In PF2, they are a big part of your power.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard who skips on upgrading even a secondary weapon, instead of a martial, can vastly improve their day to day power with scrolls. When I play a martial character, I am usually fine setting aside a percentage of overall loot specifically for consumable resources like scrolls. Scrolls usually go a lot further than potions do in terms of utility.
Spells like invisibility are great to stock pile in scroll form at higher level and always have in hand or in a bandolier.
Fighters are pretty terrible if you try to build one without factoring in that they will be getting more equipment as they level up too.
Unless I misunderstood something. Drawing a Scroll from a Bandolier still takes 1 action. So casting scrolls would be 3 actions and you would just be standing there.
Also you have to spend money on things that might not even work.
There is a reason most Scrolls made by PCs in PF1 were for utility and niche spells not combat spells. Combat spells are too unreliable to be spending 100s or even 1,000s of gold on something that probably wont even work. Specially when they take at least 3 actions to use.
I've already addressed this. Go into combat with scrolls you plan to use already in your hands, and use leftover 3rd actions to draw scrolls if possible. Both me and Bidi have pointed out how even possession scrolls help you use your normal slots more efficiently.
Combat spells on scrolls are 100% viable.
|
|
[
I don't control the rate of depletion of my Sorcerer and still never ended up in a situation where I was no more able to cast spells. Same for my Starfinder Mystic. Theoretical sustainability doesn't exist but practical one does.
Uh, you just stated above that you DO, in fact, control the rate of depletion of your spells.
You keep stating things as an absolute when you clearly recognize that it is NOT absolute. You do NOT (by your own admission) automatically throw your best spell regardless of the situation.
I think that I actually agree with what I think is your main point. Conserving your spells TOO much IS counter productive and having scrolls/wands etc encourages you to spend more freely and, quite likely, more effectively.
But it IS a balancing act. For example, I've seen players who can't stand to do nothing in a round and will throw high level spells because they want to DO something more than a cantrip. And then they run out of spells before the scenario is over. I've seen players who refuse to ever bring out their big guns and end the scenario with all of their best spells. BOTH of these approaches are inefficient.
Part of the art of playing a spell caster is knowing when to go big, when to go small, and when to spam cantrips or weapon attacks or whatever.
You've found a balance that pleases you and that uses more spells than others you've seen. That is GREAT. But you're NOT a sustainable caster (by your own admission). You're a caster who has found a quite efficient way of spending their resources (and more credit to you for that).
Just stop talking in ridiculous absolutes and I think you'll find that many of us actually agree with you :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just stop talking in ridiculous absolutes and I think you'll find that many of us actually agree with you :-)
Ok, I like smileys. So rare on these forums. Hard to know if people are angry or not.
I see what you mean, but I also think there is a paradigm shift between what I call a rationing spellcaster and a sustained spellcaster. Hard to show a paradigm shift.
What I mean by "not controlling my spell depletion" is that, if I know I'll go through a long adventuring day, like a dungeon, I don't reduce my spellcasting, I buy scrolls. Instead of adapting my depletion, I increase my resources.
As a result, during the "biggest adventuring day" of my Mystic, she has cast 14 spells of her higher spell level. I haven't controlled my depletion, I've just loaded myself with scrolls (spell gems actually).
That's what I want to show. And I think it's a bit more than just knowing when to go big and when to go small (even if that is also an asset).
You cannot buy that many high level scrolls unless the party is literally giving you all their money. Even then its up to the GM to determine what scrolls you can get. Crafting them will take you 4 days minimum each at full cost.
My party in Age of Ashes, with the standard loot in the book, never had a hard time affording a number of relevant leveled scrolls in addition to all their other needed gear.
They aren't that expensive.
Its important to remember that you don't actually need a ton of scrolls - there will be plenty of days where you won't even burn through the spells you have prepared.
Generally, if you need extra slots, you only need a couple.
You shouldn't need to be burning 2-3 extra high level slots every single adventuring day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever you end a day with slots remaining, those slots are lost forever - they are wasted. If a couple of backup scrolls allow you to use those spell slots because you needn't worry about running dry, they are worth their weight in gp.
A wand gives you 1 spell slot, not at your highest level, for a high price. A few scrolls can actually give you more effective additional spell slots per day, when you waste less as a result.