| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think all three of those should see a few class archetypes before going Unchained. There are plenty of people satisfied with the chassis of them as-is, so an "Unchained" version would likely just muddy the waters.
I think they're not anything like ready for it yet. We need to work our way at least as far as slotless casters, and perhaps some more aggressive class archetypes.
Actually, I'd see that as being the core of it. PF2 has, thus far, been very cautious at handing out weird stuff. Like, Wellspring Mage is a really interesting idea, but the way it's been implemented, it's almost a strict downgrade in character power. The intro is crippling, and you have to work pretty hard with the feats to get it to the point where you might break even... and that's not counting the costs of the feats themselves.
Now, I get why they've done things this way. They'd rather undertune than overtune, and they're slowly mapping out the space and seeing what works and how well it works... but as they go, they refine their understanding of what works and reasonable costs and whatnot.
So to me, the Unchained equivalent is going to be after they've figured a lot of this stuff out with slow, cautious steps, coming back and rebuilding it to let those ideas be more robust because they have mroe viable tools in the toolbox, and they've got a better grasp on how to use them more aggressively without breaking everything. I'd see class archetypes and subclasses that are a lot more profound, more interesting ways to use magic, and so forth... but still not a lot of power creep, because the whole point is that they have better mastery of the systems involved. It's just that there will be more shapes for the power to be in.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think all three of those should see a few class archetypes before going Unchained. There are plenty of people satisfied with the chassis of them as-is, so an "Unchained" version would likely just muddy the waters.
I think when there's a big divide in satisfaction regarding classes is exactly when Unchained is most suitable. I know plenty of people thought the Chained Monk (with adequate system mastery and archetypes) was stronger than the Unchained Monk in 1e, and those people were free to keep playing Chained Monks. The Unchained versions really made it so the classes had wider appeal outside of the groups that already thought they were great, it didn't take anything away from the originals.
I do agree though, if it is possible within Paizo's framework to make these classes more widely appealing just through class archetypes then that'd be fine as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m all for seeing more Class Archetypes. I know the system is still new, but hope Paizo expands on them. Considering the initial suggestion of Warpriest, Alchemist and Witch, what do you think they’d be like?
I mean, I could see Alchemist exchanging reagents or item types for a better proficiency with Bombs or a better way to use Mutagens on themselves. The Warpriest and the Witch, though, I do not know so well…
I think that with Class Archetypes, the design space could be maleable enough that one could tinker a lot with some features.
Wouldn't that be more like a whole PF3 ?
Nah. It would be the same basic chassis, and many of the classes would be unchanged. It's just that the ones that were really held back by the structural limits imposed by caution would be rebuilt. Definitely Unchained.
PF3 (when it shows up in a decade or so) is likely to have the kind of profound changes to underlying structure that call for yet another round of initial caution.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark Seifter's Draconic Diehard class archetype opened my eyes to the potential of the class archetype system. Not being chained to consuming the 2nd level class feat is HUGE.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m all for seeing more Class Archetypes. I know the system is still new, but hope Paizo expands on them. Considering the initial suggestion of Warpriest, Alchemist and Witch, what do you think they’d be like?
I mean, I could see Alchemist exchanging reagents or item types for a better proficiency with Bombs or a better way to use Mutagens on themselves. The Warpriest and the Witch, though, I do not know so well…
I think that with Class Archetypes, the design space could be maleable enough that one could tinker a lot with some features.
Well, I've talked on this one before, but I'm hoping to see stuff that's willing to eat a lot more of the core features, and *not* have to fill in so much of its power budget with feats.
Like, to me, for Witch? I'd like to see a wave-casting witch, who got the rest of their power budget in focus cantrips and focus spell shenanigans. I'd *love* to see a version of Witch that somehow went entirely slotless, though I don't expect it. Technically, you *could* do this with a class archetype, but that's a rather mroe profound transform than the kind they've been doing so far. Actually, I'd like to see more "X as a wave caster" and "slotless X" class archetypes in general. Give me wave casting druids with extra-powerful battle forms. Give me wave casting warpriests with a magus-like chassis who have ways of sharing the effects of buff spells they cast on themselves. Give me slotless summoners who just get more feats to evolve their Eidolon with (while keeping the cantrips). Give me slotless bardic skalds... and so forth.
|
Wouldn't that be more like a whole PF3 ?Nah. It would be the same basic chassis, and many of the classes would be unchanged. It's just that the ones that were really held back by the structural limits imposed by caution would be rebuilt. Definitely Unchained.
PF3 (when it shows up in a decade or so) is likely to have the kind of profound changes to underlying structure that call for yet another round of initial caution.
IIRC Michael Sayre explained in a post some time ago that the max lifespan of a TTRPG edition these days is 7 years. Beyond that, sales plummet.
Which would mean PF3 Playtest should begin in 2025 at the latest. So, in 3 years.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the base chassis of PF2 is robust enough that...You really wouldn't need a PF3 to be that profoundly different. At least, not nearly to the same degree that PF1 and PF2 were.
Like there are things that would be good to change, sure, but the overall structure could remain remarkably familiar.
The kind of massive mechanical sweeps that happen between D&D editions and Pathfinder are the exception and not the rule - most other RPGs' editions are far more familiar to one another, and I feel that Pathfinder's could be in the same boat moving forward.
Designer
|
| 24 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the base chassis of PF2 is robust enough that...You really wouldn't need a PF3 to be that profoundly different. At least, not nearly to the same degree that PF1 and PF2 were.
Like there are things that would be good to change, sure, but the overall structure could remain remarkably familiar.
The kind of massive mechanical sweeps that happen between D&D editions and Pathfinder are the exception and not the rule - most other RPGs' editions are far more familiar to one another, and I feel that Pathfinder's could be in the same boat moving forward.
Yeah, I expect, but do not know, that whenever PF3 happens it will look a lot more like PF2 than PF2 looks like PF1. The core engine is just a lot sturdier and more modular so, based on what I'm currently seeing in sales and customer data, I don't think we'd throw that away when it's been so successful. There's definitely a couple places where modifications that are too intensive for errata fixes could be made that would make the experience even smoother and more enjoyable. For example, reducing proficiency bumps down to +1 per tier would require completely redesigning the monster math but would make warpriests better able to accommodate the desire for a divine striker who still has full casting, and it would make fighters feel less dominant among martials without actually changing many other paradigms. That's a change that requires a larger community who've really come to appreciate the potency of a +1 in a system where the math is tight and accurate, which we just didn't have coming from PF1. But I think that's also a good way down the road, thanks again to the sturdy and modular nature of the system. We've got books we haven't even announced yet that are going to have a big impact on the variety of options and play experiences in the game, and there's still just a lot of tread on the tire here. There's a lot of territory to explore before this edition even comes close to its expiration date, from coloring in the edges with things like monk bows and hobgoblin weapons and more magic tattoos, to reaching even farther past what we've shown so far to new types of spellcasters and mechanical executions of new and old concepts that we just haven't gotten to yet.
I’m excited for all of it :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's really nice to see the occasional bits of evidence that, yes, the designers are listening.
...and now I'm going to just hang out over here in a corner and feel quietly hyped.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, on top of the possibilities mentioned here, I would love to see Spellcasting Unchained. There was a moment way back then during the Playtest when Vancian Casting was put on discussion and I would like to see what a PF2e would look like with a more modern magic system.
This could lay the groundwork for the next edition, like the three actions action economy that started with PF1e Unchained and proved to be the most successful and well regarded feature of PF2e.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind a new baseline magic system as long as Vancian is still an option. I'm definitely firm on that, and will go full grognard if PF3 doesn't support Vancian.
The early general feats, especially proficiency feats, could use some tlc. They are just so lacking.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really like to see proficiency get rethought. The rules, the general feats, it all just feels unnecessarily restricting and a balance tool that stops more 'fun' builds than it does actually make the game more balanced.
Seconded on seeing alternatives to the 3.5 magic system too. It's so so so so so bad.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scaling... More things should naturally scale. You pick up a weapon or armor, it should scale with our other proficiencies.
Thirding a new magic system.
Take alignment out back and shot it.
Redo the oracle: like all of it. Uncouple mysteries from curses, make curses less awful and make curse escalation from focus spells optional.
I definitely could see Classes : Alchemist, Witch and Cleric (Warpriest).
Yeah, I can agree with those.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I expect, but do not know, that whenever PF3 happens it will look a lot more like PF2 than PF2 looks like PF1. The core engine is just a lot sturdier and more modular so, based on what I'm currently seeing in sales and customer data, I don't think we'd throw that away when it's been so successful. There's definitely a couple places where modifications that are too intensive for errata fixes could be made that would make the experience even smoother and more enjoyable. For example, reducing proficiency bumps down to +1 per tier would require completely redesigning the monster math but would make warpriests better able to accommodate the desire for a divine striker who still has full casting, and it would make fighters feel less dominant among martials without actually changing many other paradigms. That's a change that requires a larger community who've really come to appreciate the potency of a +1 in a system where the math is tight and accurate, which we just didn't have coming from PF1.
Going back to the +1 differences in proficiency could be interesting, though I think you might need at least another proficiency rank to get an adequate distinction between casters and martials where it matters.
Untrained, Trained, Adept, Expert, Master, Legendary is 5 degrees, which seems the minimum for this? Hmm...
Core Martial:
Weapon Proficiencies: Adept to Master (Fighter = Expert to Legendary)
Defense Proficiencies: Trained to Master (Monks, Champions Adept to Legend)
Strong Save: Adept to Master/Legendary
Medium Save: Adept to Master
Weak Save: Trained to Adept
Casting/Class DC: Trained to Master
Core Caster
Weapon Proficiencies: Trained to Adept
Defense Proficiencies: Trained to Adept
Strong Save: Adept to Master/Legendary
Medium Save: Trained to Expert
Weak Save: Trained to Adept
Casting DC: Adept to Legendary
Hybrids
Weapon Proficiencies: Trained to Expert
Defense Proficiencies: Trained to Expert
Strong Save: Adept to Master
Medium Save: Adept to Expert
Weak Save: Trained to Adept
Casting DC: Trained to Master
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big elephant in the room is Alchemist but I don't think it would be a great target for an unchained rebalance. Since most dissatisfaction with the class has to do with expectations and not with power level (yes, alchemist sucks early on, but it is "competitive" 3/4ths of the level spectrum if you play like an item dispenser and your party at least tries to make use of them). I would say the better option would be releasing a few class archetypes to dramatically improve proficiencies and lower versatility.
Swashbuckler could have some help at the early levels but otherwise it works perfectly fine so I would also leave it as it is.
IMO, the 2 classes I would tackle are Witch and Oracle. Witch definitely would benefit from an unchained version with better balanced cantrips and a better chassis. Oracle just needs to be less frontloaded on the curse part (Curses are too all in, I think the curse system would be a lot better if it were a bit more modular). Divine Access being a class feature would be great too.
Other than classes I would love to see a skill and general feat revamp. These vary too much power wise. Skill feats are maybe too much to tackle for Unchained (let's hope for PF3), but general feats would be more fun if they either removed things like Fleet, Toughness, Canny Acumen or Incredible Initiative or put them elsewhere.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Giving the alchemist the possibility to draw and toss ( without a roll )a healing elixir ( no quick alchemy ) on an ally would probably help with the action management.
Making each research field's benefit an action economy enhancer would go a really long way to smooth the class's playstyle and ease up on the need of solving this problem and then picking up flavorful stuff.
It's the same problem that was "solved" in the Gunslinger. That class would be DOA if it was shipped without a smoother action economy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I expect, but do not know, that whenever PF3 happens it will look a lot more like PF2 than PF2 looks like PF1. The core engine is just a lot sturdier and more modular so, based on what I'm currently seeing in sales and customer data, I don't think we'd throw that away when it's been so successful. There's definitely a couple places where modifications that are too intensive for errata fixes could be made that would make the experience even smoother and more enjoyable. For example, reducing proficiency bumps down to +1 per tier would require completely redesigning the monster math but would make warpriests better able to accommodate the desire for a divine striker who still has full casting, and it would make fighters feel less dominant among martials without actually changing many other paradigms. That's a change that requires a larger community who've really come to appreciate the potency of a +1 in a system where the math is tight and accurate, which we just didn't have coming from PF1. But I think that's also a good way down the road, thanks again to the sturdy and modular nature of the system. We've got books we haven't even announced yet that are going to have a big impact on the variety of options and play experiences in the game, and there's still just a lot of tread on the tire here. There's a lot of territory to explore before this edition even comes close to its expiration date, from coloring in the...Honestly, the base chassis of PF2 is robust enough that...You really wouldn't need a PF3 to be that profoundly different. At least, not nearly to the same degree that PF1 and PF2 were.
Like there are things that would be good to change, sure, but the overall structure could remain remarkably familiar.
The kind of massive mechanical sweeps that happen between D&D editions and Pathfinder are the exception and not the rule - most other RPGs' editions are far more familiar to one another, and I feel that Pathfinder's could be in the same boat moving forward.
That is... tantalizing, to say the least, can't wait for Paizocon or further out, Gencon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big elephant in the room is Alchemist but I don't think it would be a great target for an unchained rebalance. Since most dissatisfaction with the class has to do with expectations and not with power level (yes, alchemist sucks early on, but it is "competitive" 3/4ths of the level spectrum if you play like an item dispenser and your party at least tries to make use of them). I would say the better option would be releasing a few class archetypes to dramatically improve proficiencies and lower versatility.
Swashbuckler could have some help at the early levels but otherwise it works perfectly fine so I would also leave it as it is.
IMO, the 2 classes I would tackle are Witch and Oracle. Witch definitely would benefit from an unchained version with better balanced cantrips and a better chassis. Oracle just needs to be less frontloaded on the curse part (Curses are too all in, I think the curse system would be a lot better if it were a bit more modular). Divine Access being a class feature would be great too.
Other than classes I would love to see a skill and general feat revamp. These vary too much power wise. Skill feats are maybe too much to tackle for Unchained (let's hope for PF3), but general feats would be more fun if they either removed things like Fleet, Toughness, Canny Acumen or Incredible Initiative or put them elsewhere.
I agree that the Alchemist and Witch could do with a minor boost.
The Witch is not terrible its just that its very easy to do a 1 for 1 comparison against Wizard/Bard/Druid and the Witch clearly fails them all. Improve the Familiar, Temporary Potions and Cackle - maybe even just with some feats and the Witch is fine.
Alchemist needs a few more potions to start with. Perpetual Infusions should work for healing potions for the Chirurgeon.
The Swashbuckler is pretty good. The problem is some adventure paths have half their encounters versus a single enemy which means it can be hard to get panache. They should probably just start with panache.
I disagree about the Oracle. Its good enough. For sure a couple of the mysteries are hard to use well but they aren't that bad. Further its no different to any other class. Most classes have a dud sub class or two.
Lets see: Fury Barbarian, Genie Sorcerer, Metamagic Wizard, Spellshot Gunslinger, AntiPaladin, Interrogation Investigator, maybe the Bone Oracle, Eldritch Trickster Rogue, Fencer Swashbuckler, Chirurgeon Alchemist. I mean you can get them to work its just better to do it via another subclass.
Most of these can be fixed with a few feats or very minor errata. I just don't see the need for a new version yet.
Yeah, I expect, but do not know, that whenever PF3 happens it will look a lot more like PF2 than PF2 looks like PF1. The core engine is just a lot sturdier and more modular so, based on what I'm currently seeing in sales and customer data, I don't think we'd throw that away when it's been so successful. There's definitely a couple places where modifications that are too intensive for errata fixes could be made that would make the experience even smoother and more enjoyable. For example, reducing proficiency bumps down to +1 per tier would require completely redesigning the monster math but would make warpriests better able to accommodate the desire for a divine striker who still has full casting, and it would make fighters feel less dominant among martials without actually changing many other paradigms. That's a change that requires a larger community who've really come to appreciate the potency of a +1 in a system where the math is tight and accurate, which we just didn't have coming from PF1.Going back to the +1 differences in proficiency could be interesting, though I think you might need at least another proficiency rank to get an adequate distinction between casters and martials where it matters.
Untrained, Trained, Adept, Expert, Master, Legendary is 5 degrees, which seems the minimum for this? Hmm...
Yes I was very surprised that they went with +2 it was always going to be grainy, +1 would have been a better progression. At least marketing and player acceptance is a reason I can understand.
5 or 6 step for proficiency seems workable. I would like to see a few more feats and skill actions gated behind each skill rank.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For Oracles, a single line that says they get a free Divine Access feat at level 1 is all that's truly needed. The amount of issues it solves for many people and the class itself is crazy for how tiny of a change it is.
Other than that, a reevaluation of curse benefit/penalty ratios in some subclasses would be a nice bonus. Just bring everything in line with Cosmos mystery as close as possible. But if nothing else, let's just revamp the Lore mystery's whole curse mechanics.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really like to see proficiency get rethought. The rules, the general feats, it all just feels unnecessarily restricting and a balance tool that stops more 'fun' builds than it does actually make the game more balanced.
Seconded on seeing alternatives to the 3.5 magic system too. It's so so so so so bad.
3.5? What is this 3.5 of which you speak? Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Ilusionists have been rocking the "memorize your spells daily" thing since AD&D 1e. I think it's been around since OD&D, but I don't actually reach back that far myself.
Admittedly, we've only had spontaneous casting since 3.0, but....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Despite the very substantial amount of content we already have, PF2 to me feels like it is only scratching the surface. Thematically and mechanically, it has so much more to give and is solid enough to handle a lot more expansion, even in weird ways. I like a new edition as much as the next guy, but I hope the financial side is a bit more gracious than "just" 7 years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Despite the very substantial amount of content we already have, PF2 to me feels like it is only scratching the surface. Thematically and mechanically, it has so much more to give and is solid enough to handle a lot more expansion, even in weird ways. I like a new edition as much as the next guy, but I hope the financial side is a bit more gracious than "just" 7 years.
Given that the issue is "beyond that, sales plummet", I suspect that's at least partially up to us.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interestingly, I think the real takeaway for that, is that we have to continue to grow the base collectively, Pathfinder 2e is still a small percentage of its own potential market, looking at 5e as evidence of the market for 'high fantasy, crunchy roleplaying games' and how DND is apparently still growing in the context of its blue ocean strategy and what that means for the hobby as a whole as those layers gain experience and cease to be 'new.'
Everyone focuses on how Pathfinder is doing in comparison, but in reality, it just means that we have room to double, triple, quadruple, quintuple, etc our current player base. There's a staggering number of people, who may have started tabletop games in the last few years, and this product is absolutely worthy of taking a much bigger piece of that pie. That's me only thinking of a small portion of the 5e market even, not in the 'oh yeah we could totally take the number one slot' kind of way, we don't even have to meaningfully dent the 5e base to make Pathfinder a breakout hit.
We may find that the traditional alchemy for tabletop edition lifespans doesn't work the same when the possible market for the game is so much larger than it used to be, and still apparently soaring. We might find that the existing books sell even better than when they were released because of the compounding introduction of new players leading to even more new players to be introduced. The traditional plummet is an outgrowth of the relatively constrained, and non-renewable customer base that defined the last few generations of tabletop gaming.
That is very possible, it just requires the word to get out. Pathfinder 2e, with so much great design work and such done, is primarily a marketing challenge in my eyes-- its about getting people to try it, to think about it, to be tempted by it, to see it as a possible solution to some of their unfulfilled tabletop desires, to see it as something worth getting excited about. Some of the people who try it, especially if the marketing talks about it correctly, are going to find it is indeed perfect for them and start buying books.
It has the actual qualities to be those things, it just needs the platform-- and I think its perfectly positioned to get it, honestly. The TTRPG market has never been this big, we've never seen this many possible fresh faces, and its never been a war of information and attention to the same degree, and increasingly, DND is trying to be all things to all people, which might work for them as market leader, but its going to shed loads of people in the process who might see an opportunity to get something more specialized for what they're looking for (never mind the things this game arguably just does better overall.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example. Already in first ancestries feats in CRB we see: Dwarven Lore, Rock Runner, Stonecunning.
Oh man why someone will choose a lore as racial feat? To gain Crafting and Religion as trained skills? Really? Or to receive some more knowledge about your own race? Something that someone could just with society and even when some situation where that such Lore could be useful the players and GM will really remember what lores the char knows?
Why? Pretty simple really. Trained opens access to skill feats and sometimes you find yourself a bit behind in the skills you have so 2 more trained is good. As far as lore vs society, that's pretty simple too: you might not have society as a skill and Lore can have better DC's to roll against so if you're expecting to see a lot of dwarven ruins and such, it can be a much better pick.
I not saying that such things cannot exist but when placed in middle of other feats like Dwarven Weapon Familiarity and Unburdened Iron and many others turns many of these feats all these situational/too social feat turns into bloat in middle of the book.
I mean, those feats are situational too. If I'm playing a dwarf rogue or monk, those too can be pretty situational. A rogue most likely finds a +2 to find traps from stonecunning much better than getting dwarven weapon access that they can't sneak attack with and a monk might find that rock runner helps keep their mobility up where spending 2 feats to get dwarf weapons to work with their monk abilities doesn't seem so good.
I will try to not extend myself too much but such things is basically there are too much bloat in the feats. Specially in ancestries feats.
I see the opposite myself as their seems to me to be a lack of feats for some ancestries at particular levels: you might find no or 1 feats at some levels, forcing you to pick feats many levels lower to put in that feat slot. If we have bloat for ancestry feats, I can only hope it gets much, much bigger. :P
Continuing a little more about main topic.
The class I really think need a rework is cleric.
The warpriest and many already mentioned need more martial power. IMO it can be even converted to a wavecaster like a magus but focused in divine tradition and keeping the divine font.
The cloister needs more versatility. Cleric as spellcaster is too much focused in alignment (specially good vs evil) and positive and negative energy than a serve of a divinity.
Cloistered clerics in my vision needs to be more closer to its divinities desires than just act has healers/undead killers.
Ex.: Abbadar clerics basically have some focus related spells and 3 imported spells: "1st: illusory object, 4th: creation, 7th: magnificent mansion". The rest is basically a default cleric. Why just this, instead make the main cleric concept to work around it's good.
For Abbadar for example harm font spells could by default harms could count has lawful damage too to do extra damage against chaotic creatures, also may give an entire magic "scholl" like conjuration to represent a more closer relationship to want's kind of power that specific represents that gods nature and ban some many other spells even an entire school representing powers that such divinity don't have/allow.
These concepts exists in 1e and are more stronger there than here where domains are more representative to the daities than the currently focus spells.
At last something more similar to how misteries works to oracle but based in divinity instead of a mystery.
Other class we can have a rework is the champion. Many people waits a neutral champion not bounded to a good/bad principles but instead some thing more closer to honor, true freedom or in balance.
It's not like a unchained but more like a class expansion.
In general I think it's too early to think too much in unchained versions of the classes. In the end are too little complains about specific classes to justify an unchainend version now.
They still are in a phase of improve the game lore, currently game options and even add more classes, ancestries and options than rework some badly classes.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like d20 has always really struggled with making themed casters feel themed. Clerics in both PF1 and 2 suffer a lot from this, but so do Wizards and Sorcerers to varying degrees.
The foundations of the magic system encourage generalization to a large degree and kind of discourage themed spellcasting, despite theoretically the fantasy of some of these classes suggesting that you should lean heavily into a theme, while Clerics go beyond that and often don't even have very good access to their themes if their deity's wheelhouse is particularly far away from the Divine spell list.
It was an area where 3.5/PF1 really dropped the ball and it's kind of a shame they didn't do much of anything to address it in Pf2.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like d20 has always really struggled with making themed casters feel themed. Clerics in both PF1 and 2 suffer a lot from this, but so do Wizards and Sorcerers to varying degrees.
The foundations of the magic system encourage generalization to a large degree and kind of discourage themed spellcasting, despite theoretically the fantasy of some of these classes suggesting that you should lean heavily into a theme, while Clerics go beyond that and often don't even have very good access to their themes if their deity's wheelhouse is particularly far away from the Divine spell list.
It was an area where 3.5/PF1 really dropped the ball and it's kind of a shame they didn't do much of anything to address it in Pf2.
This generalization requirement also stems from the stratification of spells created by the Vancian Casting System. Remember the "ivory tower" design that was the basis of DnD3.X and PF1e (with experience the player is supposed to recognize what's good and what's not, instead of having balanced options)? Well, this has been kept in PF2e, because it's a fact that certain spells just don't "cut it". They're either too niche or they simply don't do enough.
Even worse, given PF2e spell's rebalance, even the very niche spells don't do enough to solve their problem. Imagine spending one of your even more precious high level slots - worse now they're greatly reduced compared to PF1e - to prepare a niche spell that has a fairly good chance of not solving the problem is supposed to on top being unlikely to come up in the first place? This paradigm simply pushes out any unusual and interesting spells in favor of broader but less effective spells. This is coming from a player that only used prepared casters (even in PF1e) and made an effort of actually swapping my roster of spells, which is certainly not the norm for most players (and it was never a thing in my group for other players, they at most swapped 1 or 2 once in a blue moon).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing I truly wanted was Vancian Casting dead and buried.
Redesigning an entire new magic system would allow for new spell design and spellcaster design. PF2e already had some major paradigm shifts way back then, why not kill that sacred cow as well? Sadly, people voted for it, so the same root strengths and weaknesses remained... Except that they kinda forgot that the strengths were inevitably going to be significantly cut down.
Personally, I would love a something that managed to blend a hard and a soft magic system (my golden standard is from Jim Butcher's The Dresden Files) that managed to bake into fewer spells more applications.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing I truly wanted was Vancian Casting dead and buried.
Redesigning an entire new magic system would allow for new spell design and spellcaster design. PF2e already had some major paradigm shifts way back then, why not kill that sacred cow as well? Sadly, people voted for it, so the same root strengths and weaknesses remained... Except that they kinda forgot that the strengths were inevitably going to be significantly cut down.
Personally, I would love a something that managed to blend a hard and a soft magic system (my golden standard is from Jim Butcher's The Dresden Files) that managed to bake into fewer spells more applications.
The Dresden Files RPG is excellent. I can't recommend it enough.
