| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like for the Arcane schools to be revamped a bit, kinda like how DMW's house rules improves them. For example, Evocation school giving you the benefits of Dangerous Sorcery will have a positive impact throughout that char's career as they build for blasting and do less mediocre damage (still far from good damage). Changing the focus spells could be done like the specialized schools in 1E, so for the second edition in a row we can get rid of the useless single magic missile in exchange for something relevant.
They are not getting rid of incapacitation. That is one of the best things they did in 2e that you can’t just go in there and one shot a boss with just a single spell. Now sure they could tweak the numbers a bit but I think this is a rule most players are happy with. Above level threats should be threatening and this helps that. If they remove that keyword they’d have to nerf the spells and I don’t think we’d want that.
They should be something about it. I know a lot of people like it but I'm very much opposed/ I don't like this sort of hidden information mechanic being so strong, so common and so dominant.
I don't see it as a good thing, but a randomly applied immunity and a new mechanic that we are simply better off without.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that something should be done. A vocal group of people don't enjoy it, but they are free to homebrew (and there have been numerous homebrew threads). To expect errata to come out and say, "Actually, forget that idea," is a little silly.
Now, a variant rule, sure. Pitch away. Or feats that have interaction with it (my buddy proposed a "expend two slots of highest level" metamagic feat to remove the incap trait; still very much against it as trading resources to one-shot encounters is not interesting to me). But to ask Paizo to fix the thing that isn't broken in a game where its inclusion fits the design philosophy more than a year after the printing of the core rulebook seems... Petulant?
Petulant. Perhaps. It remains a sore point, and it is a very strong effect. But this has been discussed before in other threads. So just noting it and moving on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are not getting rid of incapacitation. That is one of the best things they did in 2e that you can’t just go in there and one shot a boss with just a single spell. Now sure they could tweak the numbers a bit but I think this is a rule most players are happy with. Above level threats should be threatening and this helps that. If they remove that keyword they’d have to nerf the spells and I don’t think we’d want that.They should be something about it. I know a lot of people like it but I'm very much opposed/ I don't like this sort of hidden information mechanic being so strong, so common and so dominant.
I don't see it as a good thing, but a randomly applied immunity and a new mechanic that we are simply better off without.
It's not randomly applied and it's not that hard to gauge either. If there's less than three enemies, you should be wary of using your incap spells. If there's more, you can use them on key targets to remove it from the fight. If it's a big boss, use something else or coordinate with your teammates to increase the spell's chances of success (If a martial applies fear, then another uses Bon Mot, then we have at least a -4 to Will saves), if there's a Bard, then, he can guarantee the Frightened with Dirge of Doom and try the Bon Mot with good chances. Otherwise, just keep on trying to knock off a single action from the boss, it's the best case scenario and it's REALLY helpful.
If a martial applies fear, then another uses Bon Mot, then we have at least a -4 to Will saves)
Unless I'm mistaken, those are both status penalties and don't stack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not randomly applied and it's not that hard to gauge either. If there's less than three enemies, you should be wary of using your incap spells. If there's more, you can use them on key targets to remove it from the fight. If it's a big boss, use something else or coordinate with your teammates to increase the spell's chances of success (If a martial applies fear, then another uses Bon Mot, then we have at least a -4 to Will saves), if there's a Bard, then, he can guarantee the Frightened with Dirge of Doom and try the Bon Mot with good chances. Otherwise, just keep on trying to knock off a single action from the boss, it's the best case scenario and it's REALLY helpful.
While you are not wrong (you are indeed the best kind of correct) this does not remove the fact that the incap trait feels very gamey / meta'y in play, i.e. judging which enemies will or will not succumb to an incap spell by figuring out the encounter budget. And while a new player might quickly learn to not use an incap spell on the "single big guy" everything else requires knowledge that a new player simply should not need to posses.
While you are not wrong (you are indeed the best kind of correct) this does not remove the fact that the incap trait feels very gamey / meta'y in play, i.e. judging which enemies will or will not succumb to an incap spell by figuring out the encounter budget. And while a new player might quickly learn to not use an incap spell on the "single big guy" everything else requires knowledge that a new player simply should not need to possess.
I agree about the metagamey part, but it's also kind of consistant with what we expect from our favorite movies and games. Darth Vador won't just be hypnotized by Obiwan because those are not the droids he's looking for ^^
Or, to quote one of the best gaming villain ever:
"I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just imagine something like the tvtropes law of Conservation of Ninjutsu applies in Golarion to get rid of some of the metagameyness of incap.
Personally, I do think it's regrettable the way incap has to work. I always just tell my players if an incap spell is going to affect an enemy or not before they cast it since I don't really want to punish them for not metagaming. I think incap serves the game extremely well, so it's a degree of jank I'm willing to accept, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Specialization having early level impact even if just a ribbon. Spell blending has virtually no impact at level 1.
Focus point revamp. Allowing every specialization getting a focus spell they are likely to use every combat.
Thus would help even out their low levels.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't find Incapacitation metagamey. Some spells requiring the caster to be more 'spiritually powerful' than their target to work properly (or at least not less powerful) seems thematically fine as an in-universe thing, and is not materially different from HD limits on spells in PF1, just more common.
And yes, there are in character measures of who is more 'spiritually powerful', at least among spellcasters...it's directly linked to what level spells you can cast. In fact, a spell with Incapacitation is specifically limited to those who can cast the same level of spells as you most of the time, what with 5th level spells working fine on 10th level enemies even if you're 9th level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The metagaming aspect is moreso players assuming a single enemy is going to be a higher level than individuals in a pack. They might understand that encounter building works that way, but their characters would not. The reason I tell my players if an incap spell is going to trigger incap or not before casting is because I don't want to punish players who do not make this assumption.
Personally, I agree that "spiritual power" or whatever fits perfectly well as an in-universe thing and can explain away incap.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other thoughts.
Letting potency runes apply to spells hasn't thrown is my game.
Letting successful recall knowledge checks dictate one bit of known information as asked by the player hasn't broken encounter's.
Letting casters be more consistent hasn't broken the game
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Letting successful recall knowledge checks dictate one bit of known information as asked by the player hasn't broken encounter's.
I very much agree here. I think being so vague with creature identification was one of the biggest missteps in 2E, and it's going to seriously hurt casters at tables that take a more restrictive approach. I do the same as you, just let the player pick a snippet of information they want.
In another thread a few months ago someone suggested that the wizards might through feats or as part of a synthesis, be able to gain access to spells from other traditions and add them to their spell list/spell book, presumably using their arcane spell attack and save DC. With wizards being thematically *the* premier casting class whom unravels it's secrets, and given that in the past wizards defined themselves by having the best spell list, I think it would make sense to go this route. It doesn't directly offer power but it gives you a reason to choose them over a bard for their classic "god wizard" support role, and over an arcane sorcerer which has better focus spells and more features from their bloodline. Or at least this is what I hear is the case. I don't feel 100% confident saying what exactly is the weakness of the arcane tradition, especially compared to occult, until I've got more experience but people have informed me that the occult list is better CC and Debuffs, something the wizard used to focus on in 3.x and is still the best at in 5e. I also in concept like the spell schools getting more of a focus. Thinking about how 5e gives evokers spell shaping to make their blasts better by not hitting allies(something I think is essential for those who like blasting) or how abjuration makes an arcane ward. By adding guaranteed benefits from focusing on a school that enhances that gameplay style I think it gives the class another reason you might like it over anlther primary caster. Though I would be afraid the conjuration school might still focus on summoning which really isn't all conjuration does, in fact most of it's spells do crowd control or utility functions, teleports and spells like web, grease, stinking cloud etc. I would hope this would also be leaned into by taking conjuration as your specialization
Another idea I've thought about is that it might be interesting to have them be the only one who doesn't have focus spells and instead gets more options to tinker with spell slots, something they already do, but expanding this to give more oomph in place of getting guaranteed spells you can use each encounter. 5 spell slots per level might be too much, but I'll put it on the thought out there anyways and see what people think. An alternative printing of the wizard(and other classes potentially as well) in an upcoming book much like they did with unchained classes is not out of the question I don't think
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The metagaming aspect is moreso players assuming a single enemy is going to be a higher level than individuals in a pack. They might understand that encounter building works that way, but their characters would not. The reason I tell my players if an incap spell is going to trigger incap or not before casting is because I don't want to punish players who do not make this assumption.
I mean, I feel like this is more of a cost/benefit analysis in-character. I'd imagine the IC bit goes like this:
"Okay, there's one of him and four of us, either he's screwed and I shouldn't waste the spell or he's dangerous as hell and it wouldn't work."
Because, really, those are the two options when one person is fighting four people, y'know?
I don't generally warn my players about Incapacitation on specific foes (new players get a discussion on how it works the first few times they use it regardless of target), but they still wouldn't generally use such spells on single foes due to the logic given above.
God Support Wizard was not necessarily something that was defining for Wizards. It simply was the best you could possibly make in the system. Similar to how martials had DPR olympics.
That is something that often gets lost. Wizards were fun because the player could focus on some play style and become really good. Even if the Wizard had few features. Having said that. Weaking Arcane Schools and Wizard feats really damaged the theme of the Wizard a lot.
While you may be right in a sense, 1e and 2e AD&D certainly got a hell of a lot out of damage spells and save or die spells, which are effectively blasts if you think about it. Though the support role is still possible, but dead things don't attack you, so crowd control isn't necessary if the enemy is dead. CC/Battlefield control, whatever your preferred term, is only necessary if enemies are particularly tough or dangerous in most games. However I can't help but in my mind see the wizard as that specific sort of support role. To me it hits the right theming and aesthetics more than blasts do, which in my head have no real apparent flavor to them. Which is admittedly a me thing. I always imagined blasting as a sorcerer thing
If a martial applies fear, then another uses Bon Mot, then we have at least a -4 to Will saves)Unless I'm mistaken, those are both status penalties and don't stack.
It's true, I didn't check and thought that they were different kinds. But my point is that you can try to work around Incapacitation if you really want it. But I think that the trait is a necessary evil. I've GM some really lame boss fights because I misjudged the damage output of my players in PF1e and you can find a lots of stories online of encounters decided by a single unlucky roll.
I personally would prefer a kind of Boss Template that would make the creature significantly altered in order to make a more interesting fight, this way, there would be less need of overwhelming numbers stacked in the Boss' favor, and the creature could still use cool abilities and have sufficient agency (Action economy is and always will be paramount).
Just imagine something like the tvtropes law of Conservation of Ninjutsu applies in Golarion to get rid of some of the metagameyness of incap.
Personally, I do think it's regrettable the way incap has to work. I always just tell my players if an incap spell is going to affect an enemy or not before they cast it since I don't really want to punish them for not metagaming. I think incap serves the game extremely well, so it's a degree of jank I'm willing to accept, though.
That's what I think as well. It works. It's not particularly interesting, but it accomplishes it's intended purpose. The only thing I find it missing is guidelines on how to tweak it, either by changing the rules themselves(increasing the level gap so that slightly higher level enemies don't benefit from the trait) or maybe even character features and feat choices that expanded effectiveness of Incapacitation spells (still leaving Party Level+3 and above out of bounds).
I think a lot of folks are interested in one action spells, but I think people need to temper their expectations for power levels for those spells, because there are quite a few in the game already and it would be unwise to expect much more from a one action spell than what is already on offer.
Where I think secrets of magic could be a very successful book, is by giving us lot of new ways to use magic as optional systems that will allow for more game customization. I expect a lot of uncommon options and system dependent options that will allow for GMs to really customize magic to fit the world of their game most effectively.
I think even getting some slightly overtuned spells and possibly items set to rare or unique would also really help GMs have ways to reward the casters in their game with things that let them feel particularly special and magical.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of folks are interested in one action spells, but I think people need to temper their expectations for power levels for those spells, because there are quite a few in the game already and it would be unwise to expect much more from a one action spell than what is already on offer.
Where I think secrets of magic could be a very successful book, is by giving us lot of new ways to use magic as optional systems that will allow for more game customization. I expect a lot of uncommon options and system dependent options that will allow for GMs to really customize magic to fit the world of their game most effectively.
I think even getting some slightly overtuned spells and possibly items set to rare or unique would also really help GMs have ways to reward the casters in their game with things that let them feel particularly special and magical.
I don't care much about 1 action spells. What I want more is reaction spells and variable-action spells. They are far more interesting than just a weak 1-action spell. There are so many ways to make casters more dynamic if they have different expendable reactions and more ways to manipulate their magic. I wouldn't be against the old 1-round casting spells either, it could create a niche for really powerful but preventable spells that the game doesn't have (making recognizing spells far more valuable and Steady Spellcasting far more important, it could also prompt some mini-objectives mid-fight like "we need to stop that spell!", which is very much in line with the highly mobile playstyle of PF2e).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to point out Elemental Toss as a counterargument to 'one action spells must be weak'. That's a solid spell, if an attack action spell, and it's a Focus Spell. Spell slot spells are supposed to be stronger than that.
By that logic, 1d8/level vs. a single target on a Save spell is probably well within the range of a one action spell. Quite possibly even as much as 1d10 per level given the 'supposed to be more powerful' thing. I think people would take that, especially the latter version. Ditto 1d6/level on an area effect Save spell, honestly. And that's just one of the most direct examples.
I'd like to point out Elemental Toss as a counterargument to 'one action spells must be weak'. That's a solid spell, if an attack action spell, and it's a Focus Spell. Spell slot spells are supposed to be stronger than that.
By that logic, 1d8/level vs. a single target on a Save spell is probably well within the range of a one action spell. Quite possibly even as much as 1d10 per level given the 'supposed to be more powerful' thing. I think people would take that, especially the latter version. Ditto 1d6/level on an area effect Save spell, honestly. And that's just one of the most direct examples.
I am not sure I would call focus spells weaker exactly. There are plenty that are VERY close to power as spell slot spells. Just look at Dragon Breath that is 1d6 different in damage which is very little.
For the most part focused spells are balanced on once per battle lvl 1-11, at most twice per battle at 12-17, and at most three times a battle at 18+.
Harm is probably the strongest spell we will ever get which is 1d8 per spell level while being melee. A ranged version would probably have to be 1d4, 1d6 would make since also since it would pretty much scale the same.
Attack spells can scale better than that because lets admit a 1d8 attack is A LOT worse than a 1d8 save. I wonder if they had that conclusion before the core rules. Only benefit of attack spells imo is they can get the flat foot bonus.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure I would call focus spells weaker exactly. There are plenty that are VERY close to power as spell slot spells. Just look at Dragon Breath that is 1d6 different in damage which is very little.
Eh...Dragon Breath also has a much worse area of effect and range than fireball. Like, less than half the area and having to start adjacent to the caster rather than a 500 foot range.
Damage is only part of the equation when making a comparison like that.
For the most part focused spells are balanced on once per battle lvl 1-11, at most twice per battle at 12-17, and at most three times a battle at 18+.
Sure, but they're also, as explicitly stated by designers, stated as less powerful than spell slot spells of the same level. That too is part of their designed balance point.
Harm is probably the strongest spell we will ever get which is 1d8 per spell level while being melee. A ranged version would probably have to be 1d4, 1d6 would make since also since it would pretty much scale the same.
Harm is modular in how many actions it takes, can be used for a lot more healing than it is for damage on the right target, and otherwise not really a spell that 'just deals damage'. A spell that just deals damage and nothing else can be better, and one that can only be used in one 'action mode' can be relatively better within that one mode as well...having three modes is valuable.
Attack spells can scale better than that because lets admit a 1d8 attack is A LOT worse than a 1d8 save. I wonder if they had that conclusion before the core rules. Only benefit of attack spells imo is they can get the flat foot bonus.
It is, but the rules don't seem to be balanced around that or treat it as true in most cases. Even so, I didn't say that a d8 per level Save spell was balanced for another Focus Spell, but for a spell slot spell, which are more powerful.
I was just trying to say they aren't that much worse. Fireball I always feel is one of the "strong" spell in every system that really nothing compares in raw nuking power. Technically a level 3 burning hands is a also a level 3 spell, but it of course is laughable compared to fireball.
I never really thought about it but are higher level focus spells supposed to be stronger than lower level ones? I always thought they were just supposed to be somewhat equal in power to every other focus spell no matter the level. Kind of like fear is just as good as most level 3 spells.
I could be wrong but I feel all modular spells aren't balanced any weaker. I do agree you would think non modular spells could be stronger but oddly I feel the "modular" spells are just as good as two action as other two action spells.
I feel the modular spells are actually REALLY cool, it is probably too late but it would have been really fun if most spells were like that instead. Hopefully they start making a lot more.
Just as a basic one burning hands could have been.
1 - 1d4 damage 2.5 avg damage
2 - 2d6 damage 6 avg damge
3 - 3d4 damage 7.5 avg damage
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP apparently has disappeared, which makes it look like I created the thread. Is there a way to edit the thread title or re-add the OP's context?
I think it changes the tone of the thread greatly that the OP has disappeared.
I'm curious about spell range now that someone has brought it up. In ten+ years of gaming, I have never been in a situation in which a 500ft range fireball was better than a 30 ft cone purely for the range.
Indeed, as another example, I have never seen the second range increment of a longbow even used. Anything past 100 ft or so basically ceases to exist in every game I've played in, and I can't recall a lot of times in APs where this would have come up either (Ironfang, maybe?)
How atypical is my experience? Do people really get a lot of value out of the longbows range or fireball etc? I've never seen it factor in. Where does it happen? How do players set that up? How many times have you actually seen someone cast a fireball at 300 ft?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious about spell range now that someone has brought it up. In ten+ years of gaming, I have never been in a situation in which a 500ft range fireball was better than a 30 ft cone purely for the range.
I don't think a 500 foot range is meaningfully better than, say, a 150 foot range. Or not very often anyway.
But a 30 foot cone is close enough that most enemies you hit with it can get into melee with you the next round if they survive. Being able to attack from ranges above that is a pretty sizeable advantage.
Which is to say, I agree that everything past 100 feet tends to come up very rarely, but there's a huge difference between 30 feet and 100 feet.
Focus spells are weaker than regular spells. Focus spells can be used every encounter, multiple times a day at full strength since they auto-heighten. You only have a handful of your maximum level spells. An easy comparison is Force Bolt vs 1 action Magic Missile. Start off the same, but Magic Missile scales way better.
A 1 action regular spell could be stronger than a 1 action focus spell like Elemental Toss.
The only difference in power level is that Focus Cantrips are stronger than regular cantrips.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How atypical is my experience? Do people really get a lot of value out of the longbows range or fireball etc? I've never seen it factor in. Where does it happen? How do players set that up? How many times have you actually seen someone cast a fireball at 300 ft?
Plenty of times in AoA volume 2 with my WP of Sarenrae as it has a lot of overland travel and overland fights. However I have to admit that even then 300ft is not typical. As DMW already mentioned most our fights started at somewhere in between 65 and 150ft (i.e. short range + reach spell often not enough).
Focus spells are weaker than regular spells. Focus spells can be used every encounter, multiple times a day at full strength since they auto-heighten. You only have a handful of your maximum level spells. An easy comparison is Force Bolt vs 1 action Magic Missile. Start off the same, but Magic Missile scales way better.
A 1 action regular spell could be stronger than a 1 action focus spell like Elemental Toss.
The only difference in power level is that Focus Cantrips are stronger than regular cantrips.
No. I don't see why focus spells should be weaker than normal spells. The Druids certainly are not. They are just regular spells. If your focus spell is weaker than a regular spell then you have made a poor choice, get yourself a better one.
One action spells should be and are weaker than 2 action spells. Focus or not. Because 1 action means multiple can be cast in a turn and that is a big advantage eg harm, elemental toss.
Out of the initial Druid focus spells, Wild Shape is an actual 1st level spell. Tempest Surge is roughly as good as a 1st level spell. The others I would consider to be worse than a 1st level spell; Heal Animal is a strictly more limited version of heal. Focus spells don't need to be as good as a real spell to be solid, either. Horrific Visage is for nearly every purpose strictly worse than 3rd level fear, but it's still an extremely solid focus spell.
There are a lot of focus spells that are slightly weaker versions of same-level spells that are still quite good.
Out of the initial Druid focus spells, Wild Shape is an actual 1st level spell. Tempest Surge is roughly as good as a 1st level spell. The others I would consider to be worse than a 1st level spell; Heal Animal is a strictly more limited version of heal. Focus spells don't need to be as good as a real spell to be solid, either. Horrific Visage is for nearly every purpose strictly worse than 3rd level fear, but it's still an extremely solid focus spell.
There are a lot of focus spells that are slightly weaker versions of same-level spells that are still quite good.
You are making a fine point. Heal is one of the best spells in the game. Heal Animal has obvious limitations in comparison as does Goodberry, but they aren't bad as equivalent level spells. They are of that power level.
I feel like we're saying the same thing, but using different words? Many focus spells are slightly worse variants of same-level spells, often pretty decent ones (3rd level Fear and Heal are both good, as noted). This puts them near the general range of same-level spells power level.
Though in the case of Heal Animal, I think the significant restrictions placed on it make it quite a lot worse than Heal.
I agree with that, Arakasius. My main point is that focus spells tend to be in a spot of "slightly worse than at-level spell", so when we design a new focus spell that's about the power level to expect. And it's reasonable to consider a slotted spell that is a slightly better version of an already existing focus spell. However, focus spells often in many cases gain some of their value in scaling, as you say.
Though in the case of Heal Animal, I think the significant restrictions placed on it make it quite a lot worse than Heal.
Yes but the people who have this spell, do have an animal companion, so while its not generally very useful, it is useful to the people who have it.
Whereas even as a summoning wizard, I would not spend a focus point on augment summons. That's different, and a real problem.
Focus spells are weaker than regular spells. Focus spells can be used every encounter, multiple times a day at full strength since they auto-heighten. You only have a handful of your maximum level spells. An easy comparison is Force Bolt vs 1 action Magic Missile. Start off the same, but Magic Missile scales way better.
A 1 action regular spell could be stronger than a 1 action focus spell like Elemental Toss.
The only difference in power level is that Focus Cantrips are stronger than regular cantrips.
Depends on the Focus Spell. Some are weak and forgettable. Some are worth using every battle with rare exception, easily as strong or stronger than a spell.
Well the key thing is they auto heighten so it gives you a scaled 1st level spell. That’s stronger than a 1st level spell but worse than a max level spell, but having auto heightened spells are good.
True I guess. The level 1 spell heighten to max level is generally not quite as good as a max level spell. But its is often pretty good. Chain Lightning is clearly better than Shocking Grasp heightened to the same level. But a heightened Shocking Grasp is still nice.
|
Well, I have done a variety of things to help Wizards (as well as other classes).
1) Casting Time: If a spell takes 2 or more actions to cast, you can reduce the casting time by 1 action by adding the Flourish trait.
2) Arcane Schools: In addition to the Focus spell, belonging to an Arcane school increases the Wizard’s Proficiency bonus with that school by 1 step, but they are unable to learn or cast any spells from another school of your choice. So a 1st level Evoker is Trained in most spells, except 1 school of your choice, and Expert with Evocation spells. This benefit is carried as their proficiency increases, so at 7th level, he becomes Expert at most spells, and Master at Evocation, and at 15th level, the Master Spellcaster ability makes them Legendary with their school. At 19th level, they don’t get the Legendary Spellcaster ability, only Universalists get that it 19th level. Instead, they may choose a free Wizard class feat ay 19th level.
3) Amulet of Spell Power (new Item): These magical amulets come in 4 main varieties: Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal. They need to be Invested and worn to function, and they provide an Item bonus to the wearer’s spell attack rolls and spell DCs of the appropriate magical tradition. A Lesser amulet (lvl 2 item) gives a +1 bonus, costs 35 gp, and requires expert in Crafting to make it. The Greater amulet (lvl 10 item) gives a +2 bonus, costs 935 gp, and requires master in Crafting to make it. The Major amulet (lvl 16 item) provides a +3 bonus, costs 8,935 gp, and requires legendary Crafting to make it.
4) Universalist Wizards: Only Universalist Wizards get a free feat at 1st level. Instead of getting multiple Drain Bonded Item uses each day, they get 1 spell slot of each level they can cast that does not need to be prepared during the daily prep. That slot can be used to cast any spell in their spellbook of the appropriate level. The Wizard must be holding or carrying his spellbook on his person in order to select and cast the spell. Each variable slot can only be filled once per day, but once chosen the spell counts as prepared for that day, so you may be able to cast the spell again, either because it's a cantrip or you use your Bonded Item.
5) Sustain a Spell: Sustain can be done 2 ways: as an action or a free action. If you use the Sustained spell to attack, move, or change the spell's diameter in this round, the Sustain costs an action, and the action performed is included with the Sustain. If you just maintain the spell as it is for 1 more round, you can Sustain it as a Free action.
6) Metamagic: To apply a Metamagic effect, a caster may choose to either spend 1 action or his Reaction for the round in which he casts the spell to be modified.
Those are my biggest changes. I also made a number of spell changes for balance reasons, but if they just did these things, I'd be very happy! (If they have to choose some but not others, I ranked them in my opinion of their order of importance, from #1 (most important) to #6 (least important).)
|
|
No. I don't see why focus spells should be weaker than normal spells.
I'm discussing 'are' rather than 'should'. The people who make the game have said that they are, in fact, weaker and math generally bears that out. 'Should' is a very different discussion.
The Druids certainly are not. They are just regular spells. If your focus spell is weaker than a regular spell then you have made a poor choice, get yourself a better one.
Firstly, Druids have the most powerful Focus Spells in the game, giving up a spell slot per level to have such things, so using them as your example is a bit shaky. Secondly, the Druid's mostly are still less powerful than on-level spell slot spells. Tempest Surge is great, don't get me wrong, but it does half the damage of Sudden Bolt...yeah, it comes with Clumsy 1 and 1 Persistent damage, too, but that's not as good as doubled damage. Likewise Stormwind Flight is inferior to Fly, Goodberry is not as good as Heal, and so on.
Wild Shape is a very specific exception to this, and even then is only as good as actual spells in the long term if you invest heavily into Feats to improve it. No other Focus Spells really equal the power of equal level Spell Slot Spells.
One action spells should be and are weaker than 2 action spells. Focus or not. Because 1 action means multiple can be cast in a turn and that is a big advantage eg harm, elemental toss.
Nobody is arguing otherwise. The discussion is whether a one action spell more powerful than Elemental Toss is viable, but 'more powerful' in this context is still less than half as powerful as something like Fireball.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’s likely what happened in PF1 though when a boss did a saving throw and the GM rolled a 1 behind the screen and had to decide whether having a non fight for the boss was a fun player experience. Since an event like that can take months of real time to set up I like a game that gives the GM tools.
I can't stand such BS GMs!
I once played an earth sorcerer that specialized in flesh to stone in 1E. She could force a target to roll TWO DC 34 Fortitude saves (take lowest) against petrification. For those of you unfamiliar with 1E, that is an incredibly difficult check.
She was ultimately kicked out of the party (in-game) because she spent too many combat rounds doing nothing (the enemies kept saving against flesh to stone). The other heroes perceived her as weak and got rid of her as a liability.
I later found out that the GM had been fudging rolls and, rather than talking it out with me respectfully as an adult, instead opted to sabotage my character.
F@@! that s*+%.
It’s likely what happened in PF1 though when a boss did a saving throw and the GM rolled a 1 behind the screen and had to decide whether having a non fight for the boss was a fun player experience. Since an event like that can take months of real time to set up I like a game that gives the GM tools.I can't stand such BS GMs!
I once played an earth sorcerer that specialized in flesh to stone in 1E. She could force a target to roll TWO DC 34 Fortitude saves (take lowest) against petrification. For those of you unfamiliar with 1E, that is an incredibly difficult check.
She was ultimately kicked out of the party (in-game) because she spent too many combat rounds doing nothing (the enemies kept saving against flesh to stone). The other heroes perceived her as weak and got rid of her as a liability.
I later found out that the GM had been fudging rolls and, rather than talking it out with me respectfully as an adult, instead opted to sabotage my character.
F&+$ that s**+.
how did you make him roll twice and take the lower result?
No. I don't see why focus spells should be weaker than normal spells.I'm discussing 'are' rather than 'should'. The people who make the game have said that they are, in fact, weaker and math generally bears that out. 'Should' is a very different discussion.
The Druids certainly are not. They are just regular spells. If your focus spell is weaker than a regular spell then you have made a poor choice, get yourself a better one.Firstly, Druids have the most powerful Focus Spells in the game, giving up a spell slot per level to have such things, so using them as your example is a bit shaky. Secondly, the Druid's mostly are still less powerful than on-level spell slot spells. Tempest Surge is great, don't get me wrong, but it does half the damage of Sudden Bolt...yeah, it comes with Clumsy 1 and 1 Persistent damage, too, but that's not as good as doubled damage. Likewise Stormwind Flight is inferior to Fly, Goodberry is not as good as Heal, and so on.
Wild Shape is a very specific exception to this, and even then is only as good as actual spells in the long term if you invest heavily into Feats to improve it. No other Focus Spells really equal the power of equal level Spell Slot Spells.
One action spells should be and are weaker than 2 action spells. Focus or not. Because 1 action means multiple can be cast in a turn and that is a big advantage eg harm, elemental toss.Nobody is arguing otherwise. The discussion is whether a one action spell more powerful than Elemental Toss is viable, but 'more powerful' in this context is still less than half as powerful as something like Fireball.
Do you mean at 1st level?
Tempest Surge does Clumsy 2 and Persistent Electricity 1 per level of the spell.
At 7th lvl my tempest surge does 7d12 and on a failed save Clumsy 2 for 1 round and 7 persistent electricity.
A 7th lvl Sudden Bolt does 9d12 damage. And druids get sudden bolt in the primal list. So they can do both.
It’s likely what happened in PF1 though when a boss did a saving throw and the GM rolled a 1 behind the screen and had to decide whether having a non fight for the boss was a fun player experience. Since an event like that can take months of real time to set up I like a game that gives the GM tools.I can't stand such BS GMs!
I once played an earth sorcerer that specialized in flesh to stone in 1E. She could force a target to roll TWO DC 34 Fortitude saves (take lowest) against petrification. For those of you unfamiliar with 1E, that is an incredibly difficult check.
She was ultimately kicked out of the party (in-game) because she spent too many combat rounds doing nothing (the enemies kept saving against flesh to stone). The other heroes perceived her as weak and got rid of her as a liability.
I later found out that the GM had been fudging rolls and, rather than talking it out with me respectfully as an adult, instead opted to sabotage my character.
F~%# that s&%&.
I agree. I roll everything in front of my players. I trust them not to meta-game. Most of the times they are reasonable about it and even when we occasionally disagree, they go with my decision if I'm running it on meta-game issues.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
how did you make him roll twice and take the lower result?It’s likely what happened in PF1 though when a boss did a saving throw and the GM rolled a 1 behind the screen and had to decide whether having a non fight for the boss was a fun player experience. Since an event like that can take months of real time to set up I like a game that gives the GM tools.I can't stand such BS GMs!
I once played an earth sorcerer that specialized in flesh to stone in 1E. She could force a target to roll TWO DC 34 Fortitude saves (take lowest) against petrification. For those of you unfamiliar with 1E, that is an incredibly difficult check.
She was ultimately kicked out of the party (in-game) because she spent too many combat rounds doing nothing (the enemies kept saving against flesh to stone). The other heroes perceived her as weak and got rid of her as a liability.
I later found out that the GM had been fudging rolls and, rather than talking it out with me respectfully as an adult, instead opted to sabotage my character.
F&+$ that s**+.
Feat. Persistent Spell I believe. A very powerful feat. Casters did nutty things in PF1.
Though in the case of Heal Animal, I think the significant restrictions placed on it make it quite a lot worse than Heal.Yes but the people who have this spell, do have an animal companion, so while its not generally very useful, it is useful to the people who have it.
Whereas even as a summoning wizard, I would not spend a focus point on augment summons. That's different, and a real problem.
Oh I agree there. While a large number of focus spells are a little worse than same-level spells (and are still good), others are clearly worse to a greater extent and rather sub-par. If a focus spell is slightly worse than a regular spell, it's usually fine - it still autoscales as Arakasius noted. And getting a "slightly-worse-highest-level-spell" every fight really isn't bad. However, certain focus spells (a few of the wizard ones, and a handful of cleric ones off the top of my head) are clearly much worse than that.