|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm playing a 9th level (Maestro + Polymath) bard in Age of Ashes - and I'm currently determining if Quickened Casting is actually my best feat option at 10th level. Myself and the Cleric are the only casters in the party - so I've assumed the role of primary offensive caster for the party. I'm tempted to take Quickened Casting despite how the guides indicate otherwise - there just doesn't seem like a more ideal option available.
I understand that it's usage is only 1/day - but climactic boss battles are pretty evident (and often easy to anticipate to be fully rested for), but it's potential to almost immediately tip the scales in your party's favor without having to even fire off your highest level slots (I'm looking at you, Spiritual Anamnesis...) seem too good to pass up. We don't typically have 15-minute workdays, but the rest of the party does understand the value of having the casters close to full power - and this version of the game seems to understand that you'll be near full power for most encounters.
It just seems that once I hit 11th level, being able to cast two massive debuffs or sing, move (to the champion) and cast greater silence on him in the first round of battle seem as though they'd be tremendously helpful often enough to be worthwhile.
Used judiciously and carefully, I think that despite it's spell level and 1/day usage limitations, it's still to me well worth the investment to help your caster have more capability to overcome encounters.
It's extremely nice if you are in an action economy pinch in a life or death situation. Need to cast a heal, but also need to cast this other buff/debuff spell? It's there for just that occasion. And if you're in an adventure where you will be able to be at full resources for each fight, it's quite powerful. Even when you first take the feat, being able to cast Haste as a single action is huge, even for yourself, since you can still get a free action to move, plus cast your spell, and set yourself (or your ally) up for some serious paintrain action.
I remember that there was a thread that asked if people could take the feat multiple times to be able to use the feat multiple times per day, and people were saying that even if RAW permitted it that it wouldn't be allowed for balance reasons. I disagreed, because as you increase in levels, the value of your feat choices became more precious as stronger and stronger options became available, but it doesn't matter regardless since RAW doesn't allow it. So it stands to reason that the guide may have dropped the ball on it, and I'm not surprised, as guides, more often than not, will value things based on the guide writer's playstyle. Maybe they run 8 encounters a day with little to no resource expenditure, making the ability to cast a spell in one action once per day not very strong or worthwhile to begin with.
And besides that, what other feats are you going to take? You might want to expand on some dedication choices if you took them, or if you class offers better class feats. But last I checked, they don't at 10th level. Which is disappointing since other classes get some really strong 10th level feats. Like Fighters getting Combat Reflexes and Disruptive Stance.
I haven't read the guides that you are mentioning. But I am guessing that the feat is ranked so low because of its limited use. Being able to fire off two spells in one round, or only taking 1/3 of a particular round to cast a spell can be quite a power spike.
It reminds me of the debate around the usefulness of Cackle - which is also disparaged quite heavily because of its limited usage amounts. And Quickened Casting is usable even less often than Cackle is.
Re: Other feat choices I have available (no dedication feats):
Combat Reading
Call and Response
Soulsight
House of Invisible Walls
Symphony of the Unfetterred Heart
Unfettered Heart is a almost a non-starter. As a composition, it cancels my other compositions, costs a focus point and is probably inferior to Liberating Command (which is one of my 1st-level spells).
What about lvl 8 feats?
Ps: no dedications means no archetype feats either?
Burntgerb wrote: Re: Other feat choices I have available (no dedication feats):
Combat Reading
Call and Response
Soulsight
House of Invisible Walls
Symphony of the Unfetterred Heart
Unfettered Heart is a almost a non-starter. As a composition, it cancels my other compositions, costs a focus point and is probably inferior to Liberating Command (which is one of my 1st-level spells).
You could always take a dedication instead.
HumbleGamer wrote: What about lvl 8 feats?
Ps: no dedications means no archetype feats either?
Or lower levels feats. This build has both maestro and polymath, and it doesn't seem like you could take all of the available lvl 1-6 feats for both muses by that point. Both of those muses have some rather nice feats that work at any level.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Burntgerb wrote:
Symphony of the Unfetterred Heart
Unfettered Heart is a almost a non-starter. As a composition, it cancels my other compositions, costs a focus point and is probably inferior to Liberating Command (which is one of my 1st-level spells).
With performance your main skill with lots of plusses, it's way better then liberating command, which just gives an ally a check on a few conditions. Counteracting stunned at your highest level using your highest skill is quite something.
You can always cast a composition after the symphony.
I suppose Slowed and Stunned is just something I haven't seen much of (coming the party's way) yet - but you've certainly got a point there.
personally i'm a huge fan of House of imaginary walls for it's amazing utility. Being able to summon a solid wall for you and your allies is godsent in a lot of occasions. From making makeshift bridges, to use as a stepping stone to climb higher and etc
plus, you can use it as a regular invisible wall to block ranged attacks until it gets disbelived, which will take at least 1 action and a roll from each ranged enemy.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think Quickened Casting is actually not so bad as the guides give it credit for. I also think a lot of guides aren't really all that good.
|
12 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ascalaphus wrote: I think Quickened Casting is actually not so bad as the guides give it credit for. I also think a lot of guides aren't really all that good. I would rate most guides at least a solid orange.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I say it also depends the number of fights the party usually decides to face ( unless ambushes or situation when a long rest can't occur).
Given 3 encounters per day, it would mean 1 every 3 fights.
If they were instead 7, then it would mean 1 every 7 fights.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It's a one time a day for one round casting nova. If something else can be equally effective more times per day, then it is better. If not, then take Quickened Casting.
Double mega-disintegrate would be interesting one time a day.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think that the value of options that create good one-action options for spellcasters that don't have them built-in was initially undervalued by people when analyzing the system, and I think that the deeply negative initial reaction that some people had to Quickened Casting is part of that.
Many spellcasters have the trait that the best thing they can do with two actions is vastly better than the best thing they can do with one action. Because of this, Quickened Casting is often closer in its impact to getting an extra turn than just an extra action. (Though it's obviously not quite as good, for several reasons.) This isn't to say that the various "third actions" that we lean on don't have value, just that their value isn't anywhere close to the value of the two-action spell part of the turn, even if that two-action spell has to be lower than your maximum spell level. Being able to frontload your firepower in a tough battle also has a lot of impact.
In short, not all save-an-action things are created equal; the specific dynamic created by allowing spellcasters to save an action on casting a spell is especially critical.
That's not to say that Quickened Casting is a great feat. Especially on characters with exceptional one-action options, I don't even think it's even all that good of a feat. (Basically none of this applies nearly as much to Bards, for example.) It definitely isn't a core part of how spellcasters interact with the game system at high levels, the way that it was in Pf1e. In a post-APG world, where every class has tons of new class feat options available through archetypes, it's harder to justify than ever. If somebody were to say "I understand why the action saved by Quickened Casting is extremely powerful, but I still don't think it's a good feat," I'd think they were being totally reasonable, but I also think that the feat was initially misevaluated in general.
For what it's worth, it looks like most guides for classes that get it as an option have figured out Quickened Casting; only a few still give it as a below-average rating (which isn't necessarily unfair), and none still give it the lowest rating. One of the guides that gives it a low rating is a Bard guide, and Bards benefit less from Quickened Casting than Sorcerers and Wizards, in addition to arguably having stronger feat options for it to compete with. (It's still useful for Bards, but the value of a Bard's turn is more evenly spread between its three actions, for many Bards, so it doesn't have the same dynamic for them.)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
As a general rule, nothing is ever as bad as a guide says it is, nor is anything ever quite as good as a guide says it is.
There's an inherently exaggeration that happens when the writer of the guide picks out what they will view as "a typical campaign" because there's no such thing as an actually typical campaign (at least not that applies across a broad range of groups and adventure content).
Basically, the only time a guide is really going to be accurate is if the person that wrote it is also your GM and has also written the campaign and made it match the expectations their guide assumed.
On to the other part of the question... Quickened Casting is a feat that falls into the realm of "powerful, but not particular interesting." You can squeeze out a better action economy for one encounter and maybe combo together a couple of spells that have good synergy that wouldn't often have the opportunity - but it's not a feat that supports or enables a particular concept, so it doesn't stand out as "cool"
It is a feat I will probably always take every time I get the chance, but none of the other people in my group will ever take because there is some other option they prefer the flavor aspect of. For example, in one campaign my group is running I'm playing a wizard and I intend to take it, and in the other campaign the group is running my girlfriend is playing a wizard too but will almost certainly take Scroll Savant instead.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: personally i'm a huge fan of House of imaginary walls for it's amazing utility. Being able to summon a solid wall for you and your allies is godsent in a lot of occasions. From making makeshift bridges, to use as a stepping stone to climb higher and etc
plus, you can use it as a regular invisible wall to block ranged attacks until it gets disbelived, which will take at least 1 action and a roll from each ranged enemy.
I don’t think it stops ranged attacks because it doesn’t stop objects.
I would say it's particularly good for clerics, for that situation where another PC really needs spike healing but you also really need to do something else, like cast a protective spell or blast a weakened enemy to prevent it getting another turn.
I think Joyd was especially apt when describing it as being close to taking an extra turn. I feel like clerics especially need that extra turn sometimes.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: Quickened Casting is a feat that falls into the realm of "powerful, but not particular interesting." You can squeeze out a better action economy for one encounter and maybe combo together a couple of spells that have good synergy that wouldn't often have the opportunity - but it's not a feat that supports or enables a particular concept, so it doesn't stand out as "cool"
It is a feat I will probably always take every time I get the chance, but none of the other people in my group will ever take because there is some other option they prefer the flavor aspect of.
Well I rate it as a good option for the sorcerer. It fits every build and will be in most peoples theoretical once per day nova round. But
1) it is just once per day
2) there are lots of good single actions for the bard, and particularly now after APG a lot of good Charisma skill based single actions
3) there are many other good options that may be more thematic. Most classes have a lot of good options for higher level class feats, and if they don't you can dive into an archetype which will have.
4) maybe its just not as exciting.
Ascalaphus wrote: I would say it's particularly good for clerics, for that situation where another PC really needs spike healing but you also really need to do something else, like cast a protective spell or blast a weakened enemy to prevent it getting another turn.
I think Joyd was especially apt when describing it as being close to taking an extra turn. I feel like clerics especially need that extra turn sometimes.
Unfortunately Clerics don't get access to Quickened Casting.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
There are also lots of people who won't buy scrolls as casters. People have issues with limited resources and knowing when / how to make the best use of them.
Quickened casting is very powerful but likely limited to once per 1-2 sessions. I would happily take it, but it would almost always be so I can cast multiple spells in one round with a purpose.
I often see a weird mental block where people want to choose options that have always on or frequently on effects. I understand it but it gets a bit obsessive and where I have seen people buy wands for spells that are better off just being scrolls (given how infrequently they are used). Or bypassed skillfeats for niche scenarios that are thematic, in favour of getting trained in another skill they don't really care about and won't be the one the party relies upon because it always provides the benefit.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Gleeful Grognard wrote: There are also lots of people who won't buy scrolls as casters. People have issues with limited resources and knowing when / how to make the best use of them. That's because expending long-term resources for potential utility is a feel-bad effect.
You might be fine spending some of your total gold on a 1-use item, but personally I hate it because all too many times, it doesn't even give me the desired result.
I don't even like using Potions of Healing.
The limited-per-day feats fall under similar problem. Some are fine, but others are too limited, too restrictive, or too risky.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote: There are also lots of people who won't buy scrolls as casters. People have issues with limited resources and knowing when / how to make the best use of them.
Quickened casting is very powerful but likely limited to once per 1-2 sessions. I would happily take it, but it would almost always be so I can cast multiple spells in one round with a purpose.
I often see a weird mental block where people want to choose options that have always on or frequently on effects. I understand it but it gets a bit obsessive and where I have seen people buy wands for spells that are better off just being scrolls (given how infrequently they are used). Or bypassed skillfeats for niche scenarios that are thematic, in favour of getting trained in another skill they don't really care about and won't be the one the party relies upon because it always provides the benefit.
That's entirely true.
I say it's up to the player and eventually the DM to overcome this bad approach.
In fact, it's the same with talismans to be honest.
The majority of payers tends to sell any consumable in order to buy permanent stuff.
Personally, I don't allow players to sell consumables. This forces them to use those extra resources, and eventually contributes to correct a bad behavior.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: That's entirely true.
I say it's up to the player and eventually the DM to overcome this bad approach.
In fact, it's the same with talismans to be honest.
The majority of payers tends to sell any consumable in order to buy permanent stuff.
Personally, I don't allow players to sell consumables. This forces them to use those extra resources, and eventually contributes to correct a bad behavior.
That's your claim it is bad behaviour. I would argue it's bad design.
There's nothing worse than activating Potency Crystal only to miss all attacks. Not only have you missed, but you also wasted a very expensive piece of equipment.
Owlbear Claw is much better in that sense - it's cheap(ish) but you only expend it when it's useful.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
My suggestion is ignore the guides. They're made by people that know as much as the system as anyone currently does. Their opinions are even more wildly inaccurate than they were in PF1e. Each table varies a lot, so if this inaccuracy was true before, it's even more now that a lot of paradigms of design changed.
Make a character you want to make, most of your choices, specially in a Bard, will be useful. The system is pretty lenient with retraining, so you can choose without such a heavy conscience and test stuff in combat.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lightning Raven wrote: My suggestion is ignore the guides. They're made by people that know as much as the system as anyone currently does. Their opinions are even more wildly inaccurate than they were in PF1e. Each table varies a lot, so if this inaccuracy was true before, it's even more now that a lot of paradigms of design changed.
Make a character you want to make, most of your choices, specially in a Bard, will be useful. The system is pretty lenient with retraining, so you can choose without such a heavy conscience and test stuff in combat.
Retraining still inadvertently costs money and time to do, though.
If you're in downtime, instead of being able to use that downtime to earn income, you're using it to retrain. It might even cost you more to get the retraining done, since most people won't retrain you for free.
For characters who emphasize Lore, Crafting, or Performance (Bards in particular), the amount of gold you're losing out as a result is increased even further by your usual proficiency scaling.
NemoNoName wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: That's entirely true.
I say it's up to the player and eventually the DM to overcome this bad approach.
In fact, it's the same with talismans to be honest.
The majority of payers tends to sell any consumable in order to buy permanent stuff.
Personally, I don't allow players to sell consumables. This forces them to use those extra resources, and eventually contributes to correct a bad behavior.
That's your claim it is bad behaviour. I would argue it's bad design.
There's nothing worse than activating Potency Crystal only to miss all attacks. Not only have you missed, but you also wasted a very expensive piece of equipment.
One out of xxx talismans won't change anything.
It's like using a scroll of shocking grasp and fail the roll. It's part of the game.
The owlbear claw is useless if compared with the potency crystal, not to say it requires a trigger, so there is really no comparison at all.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: I say it's up to the player and eventually the DM to overcome this bad approach. The only "bad approach" when it comes to consumables is to get them (whether found, bought, or crafted) and then through forgetting you have them or "it might be more useful later" thought ending your campaign without using them and without selling them.
And to that end, I agree with NemoNoName that a lot of consumables are poorly designed.
HumbleGamer wrote: Personally, I don't allow players to sell consumables. This forces them to use those extra resources, and eventually contributes to correct a bad behavior. That does not force the players to use the consumables. They can store them and forget them. They can, and for many of them I would if I were a player with a GM that wouldn't allow selling them, just leave them wherever they found them because they know they have no intention to ever use the item.
HumbleGamer wrote: One out of xxx talismans won't change anything. The owlbear claw is useless if compared with the potency crystal, not to say it requires a trigger, so there is really no comparison at all. It's more than just one of the list of talismans. Most talismans, and also many other consumables, have something about their design that makes them a lot easier for many players to view them with an attitude of "I guess I'll take it... maybe I'll have a chance to use it before we get back to a town, but probably not, so I'll just sell it."
A few examples:
Owlbear claw is something you want to put on a weapon-focused character's weapon because those are the ones actually being used, but a few levels into the game the effect of the item is gained as a class feature - so then it's a hand-me-down to the "maybe i'll use a weapon sometime" characters, and most of them will out-level the benefit eventually too. The only saving grace is that you can't waste the activation.
Potency crystal you have to gamble an activate it before you know that an attack is actually going to hit, and the benefit quickly gets out-leveled because even 1st level characters are likely to get +1 weapons and striking runes come in very quickly. If you can use a scroll of magic weapon the 1 minute duration for the same gp cost of an item is an entirely superior choice.
healing potions especially in the case of minor healing potions, it can feel like a waste to spend the actions to drink a potion. If the 1d8 hp you regain doesn't result in staying conscious for another hit that you wouldn't have, there's almost always that deep sigh and "...of course I rolled a 2" response from the players. Where as if healing potions took after lay on hands more so than used random dice and healed specific values they wouldn't feel so "bleh" to use.
monkey pin and also all the other talismans that require a specific proficiency in something related to their effect, that's annoying design because the player in the party that least needs the help of the talisman is the only one that is allowed to use it - especially if the character has a skill feat that happens to relate to the same activity.
And I could go on - which is why it's not uncommon for players to want to sell these and buy something they like or feel they can actually get some use out of.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
my main issue with the consumables is something i was being vocal about even since the playtest, and it still didnt see any significant fixes:
they are VASTLY overpriced for what they offer compared to permanent items.
i get that they were afraid of the CLW wand issue, but they both overdid it, and they offered alternatives that make CLW wand issue extinct either way.
If consumables were costed at around 1/5th- 1/10th of what they are now i could see people using them often. Now they are, for most groups, gold pieces to be sold.
@tnd: I totally disagree with it.
To begin with, consumables are just a tiny part of the loot.
So the thing "they sell them to buy what they want" Doesn't stand at all.
Players are already able to sell anything they want, so even without selling consumables they will be fine.
This is just looking for crumbs.
Then, about outdated consumables, it's up to the players make a good use of then before they reach a too high level.
This could also mean using low level potions to push the exploration in order to save time.
Monkey pin, potency crystal and owlbear are no different at all. You will probably have a huge range to use it.
Even in paizo premade campaigns, you get them by lvl 1,so once again it's a player issue if they decide to save them instead of not using them. We used all of them and went fine.
Then, the game stopped rewarding us with low level stuff, to give consumables good for our level.
Shortly, consumables are something many players have issues to deal with.
It's not an illness, obviously, but simply not the correct approach you might instead have within the game.
You say that players could still not using the consumables even if you don't allow to sell them? It can happen, but so does the opposite. No change in terms of approach or behavior is always given for granted, and it is only normal that also people have to commit themselves in order to achieve something.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: To begin with, consumables are just a tiny part of the loot.
So the thing "they sell them to buy what they want" Doesn't stand at all.
The rules show 40 gp party currency as level 1 treasure, and two 2nd-level consumables and three 1st-level consumables. Being conservative about the value of those consumables gives them a total sell value of 10.5 gp (3 per 2nd-level, and 1.5 per 1st-level) - that's more than 25% of the money a party would normally have to spend at their own discretion.
Grabbing 15th-level as another example: 13k gp party currency, and easily 3,600 gp in sell-value of consumables - so again, roughly an extra 25% percent (actually came out closer to 28% but I'm being conservative here).
That is absolutely not "just a tiny part of the loot" or "just looking for crumbs"
HumbleGamer wrote: Then, about outdated consumables, it's up to the players make a good use of then before they reach a too high level. Many of which aren't a matter of player choice, but also require circumstances outside a player's control in order to use them.
For example, the player in my campaign that currently has an owlbear claw hasn't rolled a critical hit with the weapon it's attached to (too bad the talisman isn't just attached to the character so that he could elect to use it on one of the crits he rolled when circumstances called for him to use a different weapon). And the character with a saviour spike affixed to his armor hasn't had anything to fall off of, nor has the character with a crying angel pendant needed to Adminster First Aid at all let alone critically fail the check despite being an expert in Medicine.
Recognizing this as not getting any use out of these talismans and selling them to buy something else (my players want more scrolls, more non-minor healing potions, and to afford more permanent items as quickly as possible) is not failing to identify "the correct approach you might instead have within the game." It's making the most out of the loot the AP dealt.
HumbleGamer wrote: No change in terms of approach or behavior is always given for granted, and it is only normal that also people have to commit themselves in order to achieve something. You made a claim that the action of prohibiting sale of consumables caused players to use them instead. That claim was false. Now you have backpedalled the claim and turned it into what is basically "players that go out of their way to use consumables use consumables."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Gleeful Grognard wrote: There are also lots of people who won't buy scrolls as casters. People have issues with limited resources and knowing when / how to make the best use of them.
Quickened casting is very powerful but likely limited to once per 1-2 sessions. I would happily take it, but it would almost always be so I can cast multiple spells in one round with a purpose.
I often see a weird mental block where people want to choose options that have always on or frequently on effects. I understand it but it gets a bit obsessive and where I have seen people buy wands for spells that are better off just being scrolls (given how infrequently they are used). Or bypassed skillfeats for niche scenarios that are thematic, in favour of getting trained in another skill they don't really care about and won't be the one the party relies upon because it always provides the benefit.
There's a particular pathology with consumeables (I know about it because I have it) where people will sit on them essentially indefinitely because "I might need it more later". Its so common you see jokes about it in computer gaming (where you'll have people--again, present--who are sometimes still carrying around potions they've had since near the beginning of a game at the end).
I won't even vaguely claim its rational, but its common enough you need to account for it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote:
Personally, I don't allow players to sell consumables. This forces them to use those extra resources, and eventually contributes to correct a bad behavior. You're a funny man. All that would really do with me most likely is have me hauling around most of the consumeables I'd found at 1-3 levels still when I was hitting the two digit levels.
Thomas5251212 wrote: HumbleGamer wrote:
Personally, I don't allow players to sell consumables. This forces them to use those extra resources, and eventually contributes to correct a bad behavior. You're a funny man. All that would really do with me most likely is have me hauling around most of the consumeables I'd found at 1-3 levels still when I was hitting the two digit levels. That's astonishing!
I suggest you then to simply remove them from the game and have the equivalent in golds.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
It’s important to remember the context of guides as well!
A sorcerer / Bard guide should rate it higher than a Wizard guide for example, because it’s simply more effective for spontaneous casters, and doubly so for those who build off Charisma.
That said, it’s still say it’s middle of the road at best.
Besides it’s immediate restrictions, at 10th level it competes with a lot of really strong options for most classes. And most classes feat allocation after 10 becomes rather tight.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thomas5251212 wrote: The Gleeful Grognard wrote: There are also lots of people who won't buy scrolls as casters. People have issues with limited resources and knowing when / how to make the best use of them.
Quickened casting is very powerful but likely limited to once per 1-2 sessions. I would happily take it, but it would almost always be so I can cast multiple spells in one round with a purpose.
I often see a weird mental block where people want to choose options that have always on or frequently on effects. I understand it but it gets a bit obsessive and where I have seen people buy wands for spells that are better off just being scrolls (given how infrequently they are used). Or bypassed skillfeats for niche scenarios that are thematic, in favour of getting trained in another skill they don't really care about and won't be the one the party relies upon because it always provides the benefit.
There's a particular pathology with consumeables (I know about it because I have it) where people will sit on them essentially indefinitely because "I might need it more later". Its so common you see jokes about it in computer gaming (where you'll have people--again, present--who are sometimes still carrying around potions they've had since near the beginning of a game at the end).
I won't even vaguely claim its rational, but its common enough you need to account for it. Must...use...scroll. Use it. You don't need to save it for later. You can do it.
Now I need to remember to start blowing these things off. I do exactly this always thinking I might need it for some desperate situation that never occurs.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
If consumables were good, they wouldn't be thought of as "extra golds"
So if it's not going from 3 options (sell for gold, use, or not use) to 2 options (use, or not use) to take selling away, it's actually going from 1 option (sell for gold) to 0 options (hope your GM stops giving you items even they don't think you actually want).
And still, for starting this argument by trying to say consumables are worth using, I find it pretty mind-boggling that you're actually saying they're generally so terrible as to have to take away the best option of what to do with them. Seems it would have been more logically consistent if you were instead advocating the entire time for removing most consumables and replacing them with gold (or even just removing them and counting not having to fiddle with writing them down as a bonus).
HumbleGamer wrote: Thomas5251212 wrote: HumbleGamer wrote:
Personally, I don't allow players to sell consumables. This forces them to use those extra resources, and eventually contributes to correct a bad behavior. You're a funny man. All that would really do with me most likely is have me hauling around most of the consumeables I'd found at 1-3 levels still when I was hitting the two digit levels. That's astonishing!
I suggest you then to simply remove them from the game and have the equivalent in golds.
Two problems with that:
1. Not everyone is me.
2. Once in a while I'll realize that I've hit pretty much the perfect or necessary use for a consumeable and use one. Its just rare.
Deriven Firelion wrote: Thomas5251212 wrote: The Gleeful Grognard wrote: There are also lots of people who won't buy scrolls as casters. People have issues with limited resources and knowing when / how to make the best use of them.
Quickened casting is very powerful but likely limited to once per 1-2 sessions. I would happily take it, but it would almost always be so I can cast multiple spells in one round with a purpose.
I often see a weird mental block where people want to choose options that have always on or frequently on effects. I understand it but it gets a bit obsessive and where I have seen people buy wands for spells that are better off just being scrolls (given how infrequently they are used). Or bypassed skillfeats for niche scenarios that are thematic, in favour of getting trained in another skill they don't really care about and won't be the one the party relies upon because it always provides the benefit.
There's a particular pathology with consumeables (I know about it because I have it) where people will sit on them essentially indefinitely because "I might need it more later". Its so common you see jokes about it in computer gaming (where you'll have people--again, present--who are sometimes still carrying around potions they've had since near the beginning of a game at the end).
I won't even vaguely claim its rational, but its common enough you need to account for it. Must...use...scroll. Use it. You don't need to save it for later. You can do it.
Apparently not, generally.
Quote:
Now I need to remember to start blowing these things off. I do exactly this always thinking I might need it for some desperate situation that never occurs. Yup.
Thomas5251212 wrote: The Gleeful Grognard wrote: There are also lots of people who won't buy scrolls as casters. People have issues with limited resources and knowing when / how to make the best use of them.
Quickened casting is very powerful but likely limited to once per 1-2 sessions. I would happily take it, but it would almost always be so I can cast multiple spells in one round with a purpose.
I often see a weird mental block where people want to choose options that have always on or frequently on effects. I understand it but it gets a bit obsessive and where I have seen people buy wands for spells that are better off just being scrolls (given how infrequently they are used). Or bypassed skillfeats for niche scenarios that are thematic, in favour of getting trained in another skill they don't really care about and won't be the one the party relies upon because it always provides the benefit.
There's a particular pathology with consumeables (I know about it because I have it) where people will sit on them essentially indefinitely because "I might need it more later". Its so common you see jokes about it in computer gaming (where you'll have people--again, present--who are sometimes still carrying around potions they've had since near the beginning of a game at the end).
I won't even vaguely claim its rational, but its common enough you need to account for it. "But I only have 85 of them!"
shroudb wrote: If consumables were costed at around 1/5th- 1/10th of what they are now i could see people using them often. Now they are, for most groups, gold pieces to be sold. 1/5th of their actual price?!?!
My level 6 PFS Sorcerer currently has 22 scrolls including 6 level 3 ones. I would have 110 scrolls including 30 Fireballs!!!!!!
That would be way overpowered. Every caster would have an Independent+Valet Familiar and infinite casting. You can't reduce scrolls cost by more than 50% without completely changing the game balance. They are already so cheap they make wands useless.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
SuperBidi wrote: shroudb wrote: If consumables were costed at around 1/5th- 1/10th of what they are now i could see people using them often. Now they are, for most groups, gold pieces to be sold. 1/5th of their actual price?!?!
My level 6 PFS Sorcerer currently has 22 scrolls including 6 level 3 ones. I would have 110 scrolls including 30 Fireballs!!!!!!
That would be way overpowered. Every caster would have an Independent+Valet Familiar and infinite casting. You can't reduce scrolls cost by more than 50% without completely changing the game balance. They are currently so cheap they make wands useless. scrolls are by far the cheapest consumables for their effect.
and yes, trinkets, potions and elixirs, even at 1/5th of the price wouldnt break anything due to the action economy.
(let alone the fact that you have hoarded so many of them actually PROVES how bad they are for their price. If they were good for their price you would use them more often than simply hoarding them)
Hoarding them? It's my PFS character. I've bought them for coins.
I have so many because I use (or intent to use) so many.
|
