Is Quickened Casting actually as bad as the guides say?

[shroudb]

SuperBidi wrote:

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.

i dont play pfs, but still that sounds like you're the exception.

from every single person that i have played with, consumables were either sold for gold or some utility ones hoarded for whenever (stuff like potion of fly, waterbreathing, etc)

a level 3 potion is worth around 12gp, just 4-5 of them equal a permanent level 3 item in value.

That's terrible value.

a lesser healing potion heals you once, for 2 interact actions, for 2d8+5. and it costs 12gp

healer's gloves, for 1 action, heals you 2d6+7 once/day (same amount), and it gives you permanent bonuses to medicine. And it costs 80gp.

again: 12gp and 2 actions for once ever, vs 80gp and 1 action for 1/day.

[SuperBidi]

Healer's Gloves are the exception. Most of the time, permanent items are way too expensive compared to consumables.
For example, a potion of Haste is a level 9 consumable. If you want the same effect on a permanent item? Mental Bastion (Grand Gift, so level 15 item) or Speed Weapon Rune (level 17 rare item).
The only cheap permanent items are armors and weapons. Outside that, most of the time, you get equivalent if not better things out of consumable items. And it's mostly due to the fact that consumable items arrive at least 2 levels earlier than equivalent permanent items.

I also dislike consumables. I think it's not funny and I way prefer to have a few permanent items than a collection of consumables. But saying that consumables are weak is clear proof that you never bought many.
Now, I agree that lots of people disregard consumables. And because of that, they often end up with subpar characters (especially casters who gain so much power out of scrolls). If you think about optimizing your equipment, you buy consumables.

When I see a level 5 Rogue drawing his non magical bow without even a 4 gp Potency Rune on it, I'm sad. And it happened more than once in my (small) PFS carreer.

[shroudb]

SuperBidi wrote:

Healer's Gloves are the exception. Most of the time, permanent items are way too expensive compared to consumables.

For example, a potion of Haste is a level 9 consumable. If you want the same effect on a permanent item? Mental Bastion (Grand Gift, so level 15 item) or Speed Weapon Rune (level 17 rare item).
The only cheap permanent items are armors and weapons. Outside that, most of the time, you get equivalent if not better things out of consumable items. And it's mostly due to the fact that consumable items arrive at least 2 levels earlier than equivalent permanent items.

I also dislike consumables. I think it's not funny and I way prefer to have a few permanent items than a collection of consumables. But saying that consumables are weak is clear proof that you never bought many.
Now, I agree that lots of people disregard consumables. And because of that, they often end up with subpar characters (especially casters who gain so much power out of scrolls). If you think about optimizing your equipment, you buy consumables.

When I see a level 5 Rogue drawing his non magical bow without even a 4 gp Potency Rune on it, I'm sad. And it happened more than once in my (small) PFS carreer.

you cant really compare a 1minute haste with Permanent Haste from Speed rune, that's just silly.

It's not just Healer's gloves, every single 1/day item is a bargain compared to "consumables":

Moderate Cheetah elixir: 2 actions for +10 speed for 10minutes
25gp

Bracelet's of dashing: +1 to acrobatics permanetly and 1 action for +10speed for 1minute 1/day
58gp

and etc

(for Haste, a wand of Haste is just 360gp compared to 90gp for a potion. Just 4 times and the wand is already making profit)

[SuperBidi]

shroudb wrote:

you cant really compare a 1minute haste with Permanent Haste from Speed rune, that's just silly.

It's not just Healer's gloves, every single 1/day item is a bargain compared to "consumables":

Moderate Cheetah elixir: 2 actions for +10 speed for 10minutes
25gp

Bracelet's of dashing: +1 to acrobatics permanetly and 1 action for +10speed for 1minute 1/day
58gp

and etc

(for Haste, a wand of Haste is just 360gp compared to 90gp for a potion. Just 4 times and the wand is already making profit)

Scroll of Haste costs 30 gp, so a 12th of a Wand of Haste. The potion can be used by anyone and is one less action to use. There's no point in buying the wand.

Permanent items are fine if you are specialized in one thing. Like if you are the party diplomat, you'll certainly buy a 125gp level 5 Diplomat's Badge. But if you are the secondary diplomat of the party, only rolling Diplomacy when the primary diplomat is not there or doesn't speak the proper language, then a 12gp Moderate Silvertongue Mutagen will be a way cheaper item for a better effect.

Your grudge against consumables is in my opinion a grudge against a whole lot of items. Most items, permanent or consumables, will be either sold or hoarded. If you except runes, there are not so many useful permanent items.
But consumable item price is fine. Some of them (like the Cheetah's Elixir) are completely overpriced, but that's also the case for some permanent items. But most of them are right on the spot compared to permanent items. You'll sometimes prefer a permanent item, sometimes a consumable.

[shroudb]

SuperBidi wrote:

shroudb wrote:

you cant really compare a 1minute haste with Permanent Haste from Speed rune, that's just silly.

It's not just Healer's gloves, every single 1/day item is a bargain compared to "consumables":

Moderate Cheetah elixir: 2 actions for +10 speed for 10minutes
25gp

Bracelet's of dashing: +1 to acrobatics permanetly and 1 action for +10speed for 1minute 1/day
58gp

and etc

(for Haste, a wand of Haste is just 360gp compared to 90gp for a potion. Just 4 times and the wand is already making profit)

Scroll of Haste costs 30 gp, so a 12th of a Wand of Haste. The potion can be used by anyone and is one less action to use. There's no point in buying the wand.

Permanent items are fine if you are specialized in one thing. Like if you are the party diplomat, you'll certainly buy a 125gp level 5 Diplomat's Badge. But if you are the secondary diplomat of the party, only rolling Diplomacy when the primary diplomat is not there or doesn't speak the proper language, then a 12gp Moderate Silvertongue Mutagen will be a way cheaper item for a better effect.

Your grudge against consumables is in my opinion a grudge against a whole lot of items. Most items, permanent or consumables, will be either sold or hoarded. If you except runes, there are not so many useful permanent items.
But consumable item price is fine. Some of them (like the Cheetah's Elixir) are completely overpriced, but that's also the case for some permanent items. But most of them are right on the spot compared to permanent items. You'll sometimes prefer a permanent item, sometimes a consumable.

i already said that scrolls are fine, it's all the others that are terrible.

you keep ignoring all the examples given except the ones that fit your narrative.

again:

hat of disquise vs elixir of infiltration:
6gp for 10mins disquise vs 30gp for 1hour disquise 1/day.
healer's gloves
cheetah elixr vs dashing bracers
etc
etc
etc

every single 1/day item is around 5x-10x (max) the value of the consumable AND they offer permanent bonuses alongside the activatable abilities.

I had this argument from playtest, Paizo ignored it.

Now, except the very rare exception as yourself, every single player i've met, sees consumables as nothing more than extra gold pieces to be sold.

Even the ones defending them in this thread have to resolve to BANNING selling them so as the players actually are forced to use them.

p.s.
i have nothing against permanent items. In fact the opposite, i find them amazing for offering options. Options that you are never gonna waste your hard earned gold pieces in consumables to be used 1/campaign.

Permanent items aren't only for your "main thing". Most of my characters at some point get hats of disguise, cloaks, bracers, and etc that give them outs in situations. If i had invested in diplomacy, i would most certainly go for the diplomat's badge because it would be something that i would use more than 5 times in my whole 20levels career. If there's a second character with diplomacy, that makes no difference. If i am NOT invested in diplomacy, the +1 from the mutagen wont do any difference either way, why spend my money there?

[WatersLethe]

I'd like to point out that this edition of Pathfinder is inherently harder to make guides for. There are much, much fewer instances of something being mathematically superior or inferior.

Playstyle, table variation, and group dynamics can matter far more than minor power differences between two feat choices.

Go with your gut, retrain if you're disappointed.

[thenobledrake]

shroudb wrote:

again: 12gp and 2 actions for once ever, vs 80gp and 1 action for 1/day.

You're forgetting to account for the other costs associated with healer's gloves; they are an invested item (which might eventually matter to a player), they are gloves (which means a player has to choose between them and other gloves/gauntlets they might like to use), and the big one - "Effect You can soothe a willing, adjacent creature's wounds..." where as you can drink your own potion, rather than hope your ally has chosen to wear healer's gloves and is going to come use them on you.

All of which I say to point out that yes, many players will actually feel just fine about the 12 gp cost of a lesser healing potion.

[SuperBidi]

shroudb wrote:

i already said that scrolls are fine, it's all the others that are terrible.

And you keep choosing alchemical items as an example.

Alchemical items price is indexed on the level an Alchemist gets them. As such, they are often overpriced.

Now, if you disregard consumables, fine. But saying that they should be 80% to 90% cheaper is a proof that you didn't look at all of them. Many are fine as they are. And the weak ones are mostly weak because noone cares about the effect. I mean, 10ft extra speed for one minute, who wants that? Now, if you look at Comprehension Elixir, 7gp for one minute of reading has a clear use inside a dungeon, as there are often weird writings on the walls that can easily be read in a minute considering that 7gp is close to nothing.

And thenobledrake is right. At high level, you have a lot of invested items and consumables always work on top of these invested items. You don't take a Diplomat's Badge at high level without reasons (and being trained in Diplomacy is not a good enough reason once you have sufficient choice among invested items).

[shroudb]

thenobledrake wrote:

shroudb wrote:

again: 12gp and 2 actions for once ever, vs 80gp and 1 action for 1/day.

You're forgetting to account for the other costs associated with healer's gloves; they are an invested item (which might eventually matter to a player), they are gloves (which means a player has to choose between them and other gloves/gauntlets they might like to use), and the big one - "Effect You can soothe a willing, adjacent creature's wounds..." where as you can drink your own potion, rather than hope your ally has chosen to wear healer's gloves and is going to come use them on you.

All of which I say to point out that yes, many players will actually feel just fine about the 12 gp cost of a lesser healing potion.

I dont see anything prohibiting them to be used to yourself.

The keyword that doesn't include you is "target Ally" while the gloves just require a willing target in touch range, for which you qualify.

as for rquirements, i think it's far more difficult to run out of invested slots compared to running out of open hands to draw potions.

[thenobledrake]

shroudb wrote:

..while the gloves just require a willing target in touch range, for which you qualify.

The words "a willing creature within reach" and the words "a willing, adjacent creature" are not the same and should not be treated as such.

While a person might be beside themselves to find this out, their character is not an adjacent creature to their character.

shroudb wrote:

as for rquirements, i think it's far more difficult to run out of invested slots compared to running out of open hands to draw potions.

That's not an actual reason for accounting for every possible drawback on one side of your comparison and not doing the same for the other side.

[shroudb]

thenobledrake wrote:

shroudb wrote:

..while the gloves just require a willing target in touch range, for which you qualify.

The words "a willing creature within reach" and the words "a willing, adjacent creature" are not the same and should not be treated as such.

While a person might be beside themselves to find this out, their character is not an adjacent creature to their character.

shroudb wrote:

as for rquirements, i think it's far more difficult to run out of invested slots compared to running out of open hands to draw potions.

That's not an actual reason for accounting for every possible drawback on one side of your comparison and not doing the same for the other side.

The question "are you adjustent to yourself" have been asked since PF1.

In PF2, thankfully, they made it clear that when you are not supposed to use the abilities on yourself it says "target Ally"

nothing forbids you to use it on you.

[thorin001]

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.

This, right here, says that you know exactly how worthless consumables typically are. You force people to find ways to use them when the preferred use is as cash. But if they are so useful why is there not a market for them (aka being salable)?

[Darksol the Painbringer]

WatersLethe wrote:

I'd like to point out that this edition of Pathfinder is inherently harder to make guides for. There are much, much fewer instances of something being mathematically superior or inferior.

Playstyle, table variation, and group dynamics can matter far more than minor power differences between two feat choices.

Go with your gut, retrain if you're disappointed.

Retraining still costs a lot of downtime, and that has opportunity cost, such as not being able to craft or earn income to craft or purchase items, or pay for standard living. Knowing what to build beforehand will make you better on this front, especially if you have high proficiencies in craft, lore, or performance, where your tier and modifier make the difference between making bank or making peanuts. Characters with not so good lore, craft, or performance are inherently more forgiving to retrain with than those who are actually solid at those skills.

[lemeres]

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 already so cheap they make wands useless.

30 fireballs seems like the kind of number that would be used in a decisive battle of a war. It is the kind of thing that could wipe out hundreds of level 1-2 infantry that makes up many of the conscripts in medieval war. And it seems like enough to wipe out a large, elite cavalry unit if you focus fire and overlap bursts.

it is taken as a given that casters can eventually rain an apocalypse down on armies, but this is level 6. That still seems like the upper end of normal mortal people.

30 scrolls for fireball seem like the amount that would normally seen as evidence of a planned rebellion.

[Old_Man_Robot]

This thread really got off track!

[Burntgerb]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

This thread really got off track!

It sure did! And I still don't know if I'll take Quickened Casting or not!

[graystone]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

This thread really got off track!

Or is it on the right track... Maybe someone should write a guide to threads? ;)

On the topic, IMO it depends on the game and the pace of it. The feat can look awesome is you're in a sandbox game where you only have an encounter a day, meaning you use the feat every encounter. If, on the other hand, you're in a game with a time limit where you often power through a bunch of encounters one after another, you're only using it a fraction of your encounters.

[thenobledrake]

shroudb wrote:

The question "are you adjustent to yourself" have been asked since PF1.

In PF2, thankfully, they made it clear that when you are not supposed to use the abilities on yourself it says "target Ally"

nothing forbids you to use it on you.

How about a page reference?

Because yes, it is clear that if something says "an ally" it means not you - but that's only "necessary" because of the argument that used to be made that the definition of the word ally didn't inherently not include yourself.

Where as with "adjacent" there's not a similar situation of the definition being able to include a singular thing, as the word refers to relative position of things so at least two must be present. I.e. I am not adjacent to myself, though I am adjacenet to my desk. My house is not adjacent to my house, but it is adjacent to my neighbor's house, and so on.

[shroudb]

thenobledrake wrote:

shroudb wrote:

The question "are you adjustent to yourself" have been asked since PF1.

In PF2, thankfully, they made it clear that when you are not supposed to use the abilities on yourself it says "target Ally"

nothing forbids you to use it on you.

How about a page reference?

Because yes, it is clear that if something says "an ally" it means not you - but that's only "necessary" because of the argument that used to be made that the definition of the word ally didn't inherently not include yourself.

Where as with "adjacent" there's not a similar situation of the definition being able to include a singular thing, as the word refers to relative position of things so at least two must be present. I.e. I am not adjacent to myself, though I am adjacenet to my desk. My house is not adjacent to my house, but it is adjacent to my neighbor's house, and so on.

there's no definition of "adjustent" to point a page. So we BOTH work off with what the word means and not by rule text like there is for burst, cone, etc.

That has been the same since PF1.

Again, since they introduced a Keyword that exludes yourself in PF2, and that keyword is missing from the item, I can only rule in favor of allow yourself to be a target.

[thenobledrake]

shroudb wrote:

Again, since they introduced a Keyword that exludes yourself in PF2, and that keyword is missing from the item, I can only rule in favor of allow yourself to be a target.

"ally" is not a keyword, all they did was choose a side on the debate of whether or not you = ally or not, and chose "if we mean you, we'll say you"

Which is why it's weird that you're treating "adjacent creature" as also meaning "you" without any text in the book telling you to use any definition for "adjacent" other than the standard definition that refers to the spatial relationship of two different things.

[shroudb]

thenobledrake wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Again, since they introduced a Keyword that exludes yourself in PF2, and that keyword is missing from the item, I can only rule in favor of allow yourself to be a target.

"ally" is not a keyword, all they did was choose a side on the debate of whether or not you = ally or not, and chose "if we mean you, we'll say you"

Which is why it's weird that you're treating "adjacent creature" as also meaning "you" without any text in the book telling you to use any definition for "adjacent" other than the standard definition that refers to the spatial relationship of two different things.

yes, there isnt a rule definition, and since for every ability that they dont want you to target yourself (so far) they specify ally, it would have been much easier if that was the intent to simply wirte "target ally" instead of friendly adjustent if the intent was to specifically cut you out from healing yourself.

[thenobledrake]

shroudb wrote:

since for every ability that they dont want you to target yourself (so far) they specify ally

That's not true, though.

Here's why:

When they say "creature" that includes your character because there's no question whether or not your character fits the definition.

When they say "ally" they had to explicitly clarify that it doesn't include your character because some people will say "I am my own ally" and some people will say "no you aren't" and neither side is wrong according to the definition of the word outside of the context of this game.

And when they say "enemy" they don't have to specify that doesn't include your character because, while people could argue "I am my own enemy" and not be wrong according to the definition, they have no benefit to gain from this argument like they do with the "ally" argument so the game doesn't need to address it.

But nothing about all that, not even that "an ally" and "you or an ally" are two different things, means that "an adjacent creature" is meant to be treated as if the word "adjacent" isn't written there.

Or to phrase that differently: No, it's not that for every ability that they don't want to target yourself they say "ally" - it's that for every ability they want do want to target you they use a wording that includes you without question, or explicitly say "you"

[shroudb]

thenobledrake wrote:

shroudb wrote:

since for every ability that they dont want you to target yourself (so far) they specify ally

That's not true, though.

Here's why:

When they say "creature" that includes your character because there's no question whether or not your character fits the definition.

When they say "ally" they had to explicitly clarify that it doesn't include your character because some people will say "I am my own ally" and some people will say "no you aren't" and neither side is wrong according to the definition of the word outside of the context of this game.

And when they say "enemy" they don't have to specify that doesn't include your character because, while people could argue "I am my own enemy" and not be wrong according to the definition, they have no benefit to gain from this argument like they do with the "ally" argument so the game doesn't need to address it.

But nothing about all that, not even that "an ally" and "you or an ally" are two different things, means that "an adjacent creature" is meant to be treated as if the word "adjacent" isn't written there.

Or to phrase that differently: No, it's not that for every ability that they don't want to target yourself they say "ally" - it's that for every ability they want do want to target you they use a wording that includes you without question, or explicitly say "you"

i dont get what you are saying.

they use "ally" specifically when they want to exlude you, as seen in multiple spells and abilities that do so.

For me, "Adjucent creature" means that you can touch them, and since you can touch yourself, i see no problem nor any rules prohibiting you using the item on yourself.
Furthermore, if the intent was to exlude you, they could much more easily just write "target ally" and be done with it, they didn't.

Obviously, you see it differently, taking adjucent meaning that you can touch the one next to you but not yourself.

I cant see you convincing me that it's not that way, and obviously i cant see myself convinning you otherwise either.

Since that has nothing to do with the original thread, i say we leave it at that and carry on.

[thenobledrake]

While I agree you can touch an adjacent creature, I do not agree that "adjacent creature" is the same as "any creature you can touch"

It's a case of square vs. rectangle, with with adjacent being the square (you can touch it and it's next to you) and "you can touch" being the rectangle.

And this is because the game already has language they use for when they mean to tell you any creature you can touch is a valid target (see literally everything else in the game that says it has a range of touch, rather than an effect upon an adjacent creature).

shroudb wrote:

they use "ally" specifically when they want to exlude you

No, they use "you" specifically when they want to include you. It's a subtle, but very impactful difference.

[shroudb]

thenobledrake wrote:

shroudb wrote:

they use "ally" specifically when they want to exlude you

No, they use "you" specifically when they want to include you. It's a subtle, but very impactful difference.

there are spells that simply target "creature" and that includes yourself.

As an example Enlarge is "1 willing creature"

You can argue that "you" is the defining word, i can argue that "ally" is. Since for both of our arguments there are examples that use "target ally" or "target ally and you".

Again, let's just drop it, i believe that you are adjucent to yourself as far as touching someone is the premise, you believe that it's used to exlude yourself. There are rules for neither.

[thenobledrake]

I already explained that "creature" unquestionably includes you since you are unquestionably a creature.

We're talking about when there's a question of whether you are included or not - and the rules say "you" to show inclusion.

And if you want to drop it, drop it - don't keep saying I'm wrong without providing any evidence that "adjacent" being included even though "touch" like is used everywhere else would suffice doesn't have any bearing and then also tell me not to respond.

Here's how that works: If you don't point to something that indicates I'm not supposed to read "adjacent creature" differently than "range touch", I'm not responding any further to this topic.

[shroudb]

thenobledrake wrote:

I already explained that "creature" unquestionably includes you since you are unquestionably a creature.

We're talking about when there's a question of whether you are included or not - and the rules say "you" to show inclusion.

And if you want to drop it, drop it - don't keep saying I'm wrong without providing any evidence that "adjacent" being included even though "touch" like is used everywhere else would suffice doesn't have any bearing and then also tell me not to respond.

Here's how that works: If you don't point to something that indicates I'm not supposed to read "adjacent creature" differently than "range touch", I'm not responding any further to this topic.

you say "you" is used to show inclusion I say "ally" is used to show exlusion.

Neither is wrong.

Range touch includes yourself, you that doesnt even make sense.

I'm done with that, i said to drop it twice, you ignored it, dont expect any more replies on that matter.

[thenobledrake]

Yes, I ignored you trying to control how and when I post on a public forum - because it's rude for you, or anyone else besides the staff/owners/mods of the forum, to tell another user to stop posting which is what "drop it" is.

[shroudb]

thenobledrake wrote:

Yes, I ignored you trying to control how and when I post on a public forum - because it's rude for you, or anyone else besides the staff/owners/mods of the forum, to tell another user to stop posting which is what "drop it" is.

we wont agree. you cant convince me and i cant convince you.

The reason i said to drop it is because we can argue in all eternity, and in the absense of rules we just keep repeating the same things over and over, so it was a pointless endeavor.

I dont think that it's rude at this point to simply say "look, we dont agree, let's just leave it there" which is what i said.

[thenobledrake]

Actually, I can be convinced. That's the whole reason I bother coming onto this forum - discussion, which might lead me to things I didn't know or give me new thoughts that I feel are better than my old thoughts.

You just haven't presented anything convincing about why you think your take works.

And it became rude to try and end the conversation when you put it on me to stop talking on the topic rather than you making a choice for yourself to actually be done discussing it.

The difference between "I'm done talking about this" combined with then not continuing to talk on the same topic and "i say we leave it at that" but continuing to talk about it, but then also saying "again, let's just drop it" - one is you being done with a conversation, the other is you using manipulative tactics to get the last word. And yes, manipulative, because you put the other person in the discussion into the position of either shutting up like you wanted them to or being framed in a negative light as "not letting it go" if they had anything else to say on the matter.

[shroudb]

thenobledrake wrote:

Actually, I can be convinced. That's the whole reason I bother coming onto this forum - discussion, which might lead me to things I didn't know or give me new thoughts that I feel are better than my old thoughts.

You just haven't presented anything convincing about why you think your take works.

And it became rude to try and end the conversation when you put it on me to stop talking on the topic rather than you making a choice for yourself to actually be done discussing it.

The difference between "I'm done talking about this" combined with then not continuing to talk on the same topic and "i say we leave it at that" but continuing to talk about it, but then also saying "again, let's just drop it" - one is you being done with a conversation, the other is you using manipulative tactics to get the last word. And yes, manipulative, because you put the other person in the discussion into the position of either shutting up like you wanted them to or being framed in a negative light as "not letting it go" if they had anything else to say on the matter.

I tried to be as objective as i could in my "let's end this" post, presenting both sides as i could.

As for convincing you, i agree that the general premise of the forums and discussion is that, it's just that we both used our arguments, neither was convinced, and we just kept repeating the same things after that.

That's usually the sign of the end of a conversation and dragging it on usually doesn't result in good things.

As you said, my arguments didnt convince you, and your arguments didnt convince me.

I certainly didnt want to frame you in negative light (and sorry if it seemed that way to you), that's why i said in as neutral of a tone as i could "i said this, you said that, we cant agree, so let's end here"

Again, if you felt that i had any other intention than stepping away from a conversation that I could no longer see the point of, sorry, that was never my intention.

[Grankless]

Cool argument over dictionary definitions aside,

It's okay. I probably wouldn't take it on many characters, but as mentioned above it shines in campaigns where you generally have less encounters per day, like Kingmaker. Otherwise it's a bit of a silver bullet, I guess.

[WatersLethe]

I would specifically consider it in a build gas lots of options that I want that extra opportunity to show them off with.

I'd probably grab it if I didn't have a lot of other compelling choices at higher levels.

[Alchemic_Genius]

To address the OP:

Quickened can either be really bad if you have a lot of fights per day, or really good if you dont have many, and your answer of whether it's good or bad is really table dependant.

Like, at my table, it's very rare that multiple sessions take place over the span of one day, so, at most, theres only going to be 1 or 2 big battles a day. In this setting, quickened is really good, because you can basically use it in every decisive battle.

On most spellcasters, I'd say it's a 4/5 if your game consistantly only has 1 significant battle per day, about 2.5 for 2-3, and 1/5 for anything more

On a bard, I feel quickened is a lot less valuable since the class has access to a lot of really good single action filler abilities; inspire courage/defense or dirge of doom will never be bad plays, and you can use them as much as you want. The polymath can also make great use of coerce if they take the terrified retreat skill feat, since perform is almost certainly going to be maxed out, and you're likely to have plenty of bonuses to it.

Lastly, it depends a lot on your playstyle. If you're the "potion hoarder" and save stuff until you really need it, you probably won't use quickened often. If you're like me, who prefers to proactively use powerful resources to avoid those scenerios, you're most powerful foes at level 10 get to look forward to eating a synesthesia followed by a quickened heightened animated assault that they have to save at -3 and have a much harder time escaping because of the movement penalties from the first spell.

You don't use quickened spell to sneak a cantrip in after a spell, you use it to drop 2 max level (or near max level) spells on the boss like a swift and powerful obliterating nuke, or to whip out multiple silver bullets to completely turn the tide of combat. Quickened is for going completely ham once a day

[Nik Gervae]

I think what sours a lot of people on Quickened Casting is they read, "Lets you cast a spell faster" and think, that's awesome! Then they keep reading and it's all "except not your best spells", and "only once per day", and "can only use it with this class's spells", and by that third proviso they're fed up with all the hedging.

It could still be really useful when it's useful, but the feat description really prompts a sense of loss aversion.

[WatersLethe]

Nik Gervae wrote:

I think what sours a lot of people on Quickened Casting is they read, "Lets you cast a spell faster" and think, that's awesome! Then they keep reading and it's all "except not your best spells", and "only once per day", and "can only use it with this class's spells", and by that third proviso they're fed up with all the hedging.

It could still be really useful when it's useful, but the feat description really prompts a sense of loss aversion.

Haha! You put into words my exact feelings the first time I read it.

[Exocist]

CRB 283 wrote:

Natural attacks with this trait can be used to attack creatures up to the listed distance away instead of only adjacent creatures.

I believe adjacent is also used to include “in your space”, otherwise tiny creatures would be unable to attack you with natural weapons by RAW, and likewise you’d also be unable to attack tiny creatures or swarms on top of you without moving.

[The-Magic-Sword]

I'd say it also depends on what spells you want to use it with, it could be clutch to pop off two healing spells in one go, or to get that chunk of extra damage in. But you need to pick your moment with it carefully, if you're the type that's liable to use it *too* proactively so that it was low impact, and isn't there when you need it, it's gonna be bad, ditto for saving it for an 'even realer' crisis that never happens, you have to thread the needle with it.

[Falco271]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

On a bard, I feel quickened is a lot less valuable since the class has access to a lot of really good single action filler abilities; inspire courage/defense or dirge of doom will never be bad plays, and you can use them as much as you want. The polymath can also make great use of coerce if they take the terrified retreat skill feat, since perform is almost certainly going to be maxed out, and you're likely to have plenty of bonuses to it.

Bard here, almost getting there and I'm not even considering it. Too many useful options and actions already, for this once a day ability. Sometimes I wonder why a bard has spells.... :-)

High Cha means you can fill your actions with compositions, demoralize, Bon Mot is added to the arsenal since the APG.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Exocist wrote:

I believe adjacent is also used to include “in your space”, otherwise tiny creatures would be unable to attack you with natural weapons by RAW, and likewise you’d also be unable to attack tiny creatures or swarms on top of you without moving.

Why would that be the case,it would still be correct that a reach 0 creature is adjacent while in a square. It doesn't say adjacent square, just adjacent. A tiny creature or swarm is going to be next to anything they are attacking :p

The argument isn't about targeting squares, it is about the validity of targeting yourself (not a question of reach).
Kind of like how targeting of self limits the casting to yourself and doesn't mean "your square".

I won't get into an argument over intent, but adjacent by definition excludes the caster/ability user. You cannot be adjacent to yourself without some weird paradoxical stuff going on. ;)