| 1 person 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.
But new systems already exist in PF2. You have focus spells, spontaenous casters and things like Well Spring Mage and Flexible Caster.
I'm all for variety and new systems. But please be careful how you phrase your request, so that it repectful of other opinions. Some people like the traditional casting. For context I'm not one of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Dresden Files RPG is excellent. I can't recommend it enough.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.
I have the books, but no one in my group ever read the novels, so there wasn't enough willingness to try out the system. The book is great and the system seems to be quite interesting indeed.
I have the books, but no one in my group ever read the novels, so there wasn't enough willingness to try out the system. The book is great and the system seems to be quite interesting indeed.The Dresden Files RPG is excellent. I can't recommend it enough.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.
That's the one that's based on the older FATE system right? FATE has a lot of good points, but it can take a lot of getting used to the mindset the game requires (especially coming from a simulationist or gamist system) and anyone who can't quickly devise and then articulate what they want to do is going to quickly bog the game down. If you can get past all that, it's a good system for...I guess cinematic gaming if that makes any sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is effectively what the kineticist is. It is also one of the best PF1 classes and one of the most likely to be butchered by PF2 class design.
That class is just too good as is for PF2 standards. Getting talents, damage upgrades, and ways to change/boost said damage while mix and matching? Simply impossible unless free archetype was baseline and every class gave actual features.
This take is very interesting to me because Kineticist is usually regarded as “mediocre” specifically because it follows many design philosophies that transferred over to 2E. Everything it needs to be effective is given to you in the class chassis so it’s hard to make a bad kineticist, but the abilities are written to not interact with almost anything else so you can’t break the optimization ceiling either, the way you could with almost every other class. Not to mention you basically get class feats and skill feats (infusions and utility talents, respectively). The power levels will need to be reworked to fit into 2E’s baseline (but that happens with every class), and probably a burn rework, but the core feel of the class could remain largely unchanged.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Admittedly I've never seen any casting systems that were objectively a better fit for a game like this than Vancian, every other magic system I've seen are either bad fits because they only make sense for rules-lite narrative centric games, don't match the kind of action we do in this game system (Mage: The Awakening), or are weirdly fiddly (like spheres) such that I generally hear mixed reviews on them. 4e had a good 'magic system' but AEDU was really just another permutation of spell slot, and we've emulated most of it in a way that retains a greater degree of interesting asymmetry in the form of the Cantrip-FocusPoint-TopLevelSpells dynamic.
The casting system we have has a lot of benefits-- you can have massive differentiation between Spontaneous, Prepared, and Flexible Prepared, you have the 'bounded casting' niche, heightening allows you to use the same spells at a lot of levels (although, I think a caster archetype or feat that makes spells heighten 'better' as a playstyle enabler for 'I want to stick with heightened lower level spells for the whole game' is in order)
Like, to be clear, I come from 4e originally, and then went to 5e, and now PF2e and have tooled around with other systems entirely along the way-- pf2e is the first time I had 'real' vancian casting and I think its great, so I don't think its a matter of 'we only keep this around because of tradition.' Its genuinely a really good casting system, especially with all the bells and whistles people have designed into it over the years. Like it'll be cool when they add more kinds of spell casters, but I can't really see any other default, and I'm not sure its just a matter of killing a sacred cow.
In my experience. During all 3.5/1e I ran from vancian casters with the notable exception of clerics due it's focus in buffs where the prepared slots don't really make a great diference. You almost use all of them to buff the party and the rest put some all-rounder spell knowing that you will probably switch them for heal. For all other casters I always gone to spontaenous due it's way better versatility.
So I liked when 5e abandoned the old vancian castin making the old mage and clerics more versatiles but I also disliked as this broke raison d'etre of the sorcerers.
So when I came to PF2 I saw the old vancian casters back it was like it as a regression. But when I studied better the classes and played with some of the and saw some players playing them seeing Flexible Prepared mages in game, seeing how druid and cleric uses it like some what of compensation due the fact they starts knowing all their common spells and seeing how sorcerer was put as alternative to all of them and as the vancian could work well for spellcaster dedications I started to believe that vancian spellcasters have found their place to them in the system.
The only vancian class (but not their archetype) that I simply thinks that's only a bad option is the witcher due the class having no benefits to justify their vancian cast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Baseline free archetype falls into the same trap of the "Free Feat at level 1" popular variant of 5E, archetypes aren't as neatly balanced between themselves, and the person with a planned build and Champion dedication is just getting much more out of the deal than the thematically appropriate Pirate archetype in a sea-based campaign; it's a fine rule for the groups that run it, but it turns the complexity knob one step too far for some newer players and can provide a significant boost to some feat-starved builds, it also does work very well in 3-player or lower parties to fill in missing roles
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Admittedly I've never seen any casting systems that were objectively a better fit for a game like this than Vancian
I don't think I've seen a casting system worse for a game like this (or any other game).
Like, Vancian (even the term feels wrong because it doesn't really feel like actual Vancian magic) is so far removed from anything that exists in fiction you can't really emulate anything other than a D&D wizard with a D&D wizard, which feels problematic to some extent given that RPGs are about expressing ideas and character concepts that something as fundamental as magic is so alien and specific. Even D&D-centric fiction often eschews the minutiae of 3.5 casting because it's so bad.
It's clunky and tends to be needlessly complicated for new players (especially traditional prepared magic, which is literally designed to make life hard for less experienced players for trying to have fun), punishes people who want to play thematically driven concepts and has literally never not been a balance nightmare.
It's one of the biggest failings of the system and while I know there are some people online who defend it, the sentiments I see elsewhere is almost universal that people play Pathfinder in spite of 3.5 magic, not because of it.
While ultimately it is a sacred cow, so it isn't going anywhere, I appreciate Paizo for creating anti-vancian mechanics like focus spells and scaling cantrips to make classes more palatable and I hope they continue to explore alternative design spaces like they have been so far with new classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While ultimately it is a sacred cow, so it isn't going anywhere, I appreciate Paizo for creating anti-vancian mechanics like focus spells and scaling cantrips to make classes more palatable and I hope they continue to explore alternative design spaces like they have been so far with new classes.
Yeah I do think it sould go. But it part part of the problem with D&D4 - they changed too much at once. Which is the whole reason PF1 did as well as it did.
Maybe for PF3. I certainly now think that D&D5 has dropped it and been so successful that Paizo can take the risk of getting rid of it, or more likely making it an optional rule. In the same way that rolling your ability scores is now optional. That was another sacred cow.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that might go specifically against the design principals of PF2. I doubt they went as far as they did to weaken the utility of full round attacks only to make casters full round attackers, except at range.
Part of your character build planning should be "what can I do with my third action?" I would prefer more overtly magical options, like widely available 1 action cantrips or focus spells, or even skill actions with the magic trait, but I would rather flexible spell action casting remain a special, niche way to make certain spells stand out rather than the norm.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Admittedly I've never seen any casting systems that were objectively a better fit for a game like this than VancianI don't think I've seen a casting system worse for a game like this (or any other game).
Like, Vancian (even the term feels wrong because it doesn't really feel like actual Vancian magic) is so far removed from anything that exists in fiction you can't really emulate anything other than a D&D wizard with a D&D wizard, which feels problematic to some extent given that RPGs are about expressing ideas and character concepts that something as fundamental as magic is so alien and specific. Even D&D-centric fiction often eschews the minutiae of 3.5 casting because it's so bad.
It's clunky and tends to be needlessly complicated for new players (especially traditional prepared magic, which is literally designed to make life hard for less experienced players for trying to have fun), punishes people who want to play thematically driven concepts and has literally never not been a balance nightmare.
It's one of the biggest failings of the system and while I know there are some people online who defend it, the sentiments I see elsewhere is almost universal that people play Pathfinder in spite of 3.5 magic, not because of it.
While ultimately it is a sacred cow, so it isn't going anywhere, I appreciate Paizo for creating anti-vancian mechanics like focus spells and scaling cantrips to make classes more palatable and I hope they continue to explore alternative design spaces like they have been so far with new classes.
Ok, but what is the kind of magic system are we comparing it to? Generally when we talk about killing a sacred cow, we have something in mind to replace it.
Like 5e magic (neo-vancian) is arguably 'simpler' but it loses a lot of definition in the individual because it doesn't have room for meaningful differences between casting styles. It also, in practice, made the casters in the game dramatically overpowered.
I liked 4e with its power system but from what I understand, most people hated it much worse than they ever hated Vancian.
We have the 'alternative magic' in this game, but some of them, like bounded are just new configurations of vancian spell slots, and others like the Thaumaturge just put a magic coat of paint on a martial (which isn't a knock against it, its great in context), the cantrip and amp model is neat, but I don't think we should do that for every caster.
5e has a spell point variant, e.g. mana, and we know how that works out more or less-- the casters hoard points for the biggest effects because they don't have bespoke resources for smaller effects.
Most Video Games use Spell Point systems, but have casters that might as well be martials, and over time, often end up just using cooldowns anyway.
An item centric resource casting system would likely be more restrictive, rather than less.
Rules-Lite narrative games tend to elide the casting entirely into their moves, when you cast a spell to solve a problem you just roll the 'solve the problem' dice.
Honestly, I think of Vancian Magic as a 'vegetable mechanic' its something that isn't always exciting by itself, but the way it works is load bearing in holding up other fun parts of the game-- its fun in context, because it does a good job of giving us lots of desirable results.
Also, personal experience? the players who have a hard time with Vancian are generally the same players that always hate popping the rulebook open, and thematic builds are an outgrowth of how many spells you have in the system than the basic casting style (again, unless you go with 'Solve the Problem' rolls.)
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make each spell a 1-3 action activity with strong effects the more actions you spend on it.
Reason being, so I can always use my 3rd action to do 'something' be it casting a minor spell or what not.
That way I'm not just sitting there like, "Well, I cast my one spell for the turn and I have nothing for my last action to do."
Stride
Recall Knowledge
Cast Shield
Ranged Strike
Interact to draw a potion or a scroll
Battle Medicine
I guess there must be others I missed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make each spell a 1-3 action activity with strong effects the more actions you spend on it.
Reason being, so I can always use my 3rd action to do 'something' be it casting a minor spell or what not.
That way I'm not just sitting there like, "Well, I cast my one spell for the turn and I have nothing for my last action to do."
Stride
Recall Knowledge
Cast Shield
Ranged Strike
Interact to draw a potion or a scroll
Battle Medicine
I guess there must be others I missed.
Bon Mot
DemoralizeTake Cover
Aid
Hide
Sneak (if already hidden maybe you cast invisibility)
I'm sure there's more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, but what is the kind of magic system are we comparing it to? Generally when we talk about killing a sacred cow, we have something in mind to replace it.
Like 5e magic (neo-vancian) is arguably 'simpler' but it loses a lot of definition in the individual because it doesn't have room for meaningful differences between casting styles. It also, in practice, made the casters in the game dramatically overpowered.
I liked 4e with its power system but from what I understand, most people hated it much worse than they ever hated Vancian.
We have the 'alternative magic' in this game, but some of them, like bounded are just new configurations of vancian spell slots, and others like the Thaumaturge just put a magic coat of paint on a martial (which isn't a knock against it, its great in context), the cantrip and amp model is neat, but I don't think we should do that for every caster.
5e has a spell point variant, e.g. mana, and we know how that works out more or less-- the casters hoard points for the biggest effects because they don't have bespoke resources for smaller effects.
Most Video Games use Spell Point systems, but have casters that might as well be martials, and over time, often end up just using cooldowns anyway.
An item centric resource casting system would likely be more restrictive, rather than less.
Rules-Lite narrative games tend to elide the casting entirely into their moves, when you cast a spell to solve a problem you just roll the 'solve the problem' dice.
Honestly, I think of Vancian Magic as a 'vegetable mechanic' its something that isn't always exciting by itself, but the way it works is load bearing in holding up other fun parts of the game-- its fun in context, because it does a good job of giving us lots of desirable results.
Also, personal experience? the players who have a hard time with Vancian are generally the same players that always hate popping the rulebook open, and thematic builds are an outgrowth of how many spells you have in the system than the basic casting style (again, unless you go with 'Solve the Problem' rolls.)
How about cribbing from Burning Wheel (and many other systems) and making spells into skills where you roll a skill test and then can spend degrees of success to generate results. The broadness of these skills and what they can accomplish is a lever that can be tuned to balance things.
You could also do something with spheres or base spell components and make it take an action to add them to a spell. For example, the sphere of fire might add fire damage to a spell, boost a physical attribute, or cleanse an ailment when paired with healing. You then tune these numbers until they generate the results you like. Optionally you can then show which combinates create classic Vancian spells of editions gone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... one straightforward system that I've seen in many video games, at least a few tabletops is a mana system. You have access to a limited number of spells. Each spell costs a certain amount of mana. You have a certain max pool of mana and various ways to get that mana back.
Now, 3.x had this with the psychics, plus the wacky bit that basically every power could be heightened to max. It worked, and some people liked it, but it hasn't made it into either 5e or PF2.
So... why didn't it? I mean, it didn't even make it in as an alternate rule. It allows for a lot of interesting frobbing for class differentiation. (How big is your max pool vs what causes you to recover mana/psi and how much vs how much can you spend on each spell vs how many spells do you have access to.)
No, seriously. I'm sure there must be a reason. Does anyone know the reason? I'm honestly curious.
Thats sounds like Words of Power. Which was not a well liked system given that it was printed once and never again.
You know, I had this whole rant ready to go about you likening non-Vancian systems to WoP inappropriately, and then you had to ruin it by actually being totally right this time. So, yeah. That really does sound a lot like Words of Power. That's... not a good thing. Don't be like WoP. It won't end well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thats sounds like Words of Power. Which was not a well liked system given that it was printed once and never again.
The question is, who didn't like it? If it was the players, that's fine don't go there again. If it was the devs, I think they need to suck it up and give it another go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you look up words of power all you will find is people saying that the system is weird. Weird for players to use who will 90% just use the same list of spellls. Weird for the GM that has to deal with it. Its just choice paralysis central even more than regular spells.
That type of system works well in books and games because you aren't playing with other people and so it flows. But when you have to sit down and wait for the person to pick what they want every single time...
I have never experienced that and I have written my own skill-based magic systems for games that didn't have their own. I don't think I had a table of super players either. I just made sure that they had a list of the magic they could use and what it would take to use it with their character sheet and they told me when they wanted to use it and made the rolls.
I'm amazed that so many people on these forums seem to play with players I would kick from my table in a heartbeat and think their antics are normal. Slow players kill games, when I've had them as guests at my table I give them a few sessions to learn and then start putting their turns on a timer if it remains an issue. If a payer just won't use their class features, that's on them, they can be a passenger until they figure out the character that they built for themselves.
As a GM, or even as a player, it's okay to put your foot down and say that player x is causing issues and that those issues needed to be fixed or one of you won't be coming back to the table.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I would favour a move to more encounter based abilities, I kind of feel the arbitrary length of an adventuring day means that the value of daily resources massively and do stuff by encounter would make things more consistent.
Wasn't this one of the problems that turned people off from DnD4e? Too many encounter-based abilities?
As for a magical system, I would like to bring back The Dresden Files once again and say that, saying it simply, using magic works a lot like physical exertion. This means that you can use it all day, but you can get tired on short bursts and in intense situations you can get truly fatigued and unable to do anything.
This dynamic creates all kinds of balance levers that can be used to codify a system.
The system as a whole is more complex than that, but pretty much everyone that likes the books praise the magic system. It mixes well hard rules that allows predictability and clear boundaries while being soft enough to maintain the sense of wonder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, Mana Systems get a little degenerate to optimize for various reasons-- like if you have a big spell that does a lot of damage, players end up deciding they can't cast anything else to save up for those big spells, whereas slots take your resources and force some of them to be spent on other things because you almost always have low level slots that aren't worth the action economy in terms of damage. Mana by itself is just one dimensional, whereas spell slots have both volume and level.
Skill based magic is either going to be too vague for the relatively exacting tactical space of Pathfinder, or even less streamlined and more clunky if you have to process a skill roll into a set of potentially complex effects on every cast.
In my experience, Mana Systems get a little degenerate to optimize for various reasons-- like if you have a big spell that does a lot of damage, players end up deciding they can't cast anything else to save up for those big spells, whereas slots take your resources and force some of them to be spent on other things because you almost always have low level slots that aren't worth the action economy in terms of damage. Mana by itself is just one dimensional, whereas spell slots have both volume and level.
Skill based magic is either going to be too vague for the relatively exacting tactical space of Pathfinder, or even less streamlined and more clunky if you have to process a skill roll into a set of potentially complex effects on every cast.
On top of mana I would add some kind of exerting factor, which means that casting big spells would be more tiresome. Thus, if you spend a huge chunk of your pool at once, AKA burning your best spells, you get the penalties (whatever form they take).
Of course, this is just off the top of my head and I don't particularly have a preference for a mana system, just adding to the discussion that mana costs don't have to be the single limiting factor to balance spells.
Yeah, that sounds like the burnout mechanics that mana systems tend to have. If you can get players that like that type of thing and play into it, it's great. Otherwise, it's just guaranteeing 15-minute adventuring days as casters are already punished in this edition with low stats. Adding further penalties because they used their spells is just feels bad. Unless you plan to add some type of compensation to casters?
Burnout mechanics are great when you know the magic is worth the cost (Ex: Oracle and Kineticist). But if they aren't... people will sooner not play than suffer through that.
As it's expected, this would require a complete system and class overhaul. Similar to what happened with Alchemists (as an example of the extent of changes not of successful execution).