| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
At low levels, cantrips will just straight up one shot a lot of the enemies you face. They have really good minimum damage for ranged attacks.
Uhm…that has never happened once in any encounter I have every played or run.
As increased spell slots was one of the suggestions I made as to a fix for spell caster damage, I fully support it.
IMO the thing I usually miss in witch's cantrips is a good heightened effect. Mostly don't progress or don't progress well.
I am not understanding what you are talking about. Most of the Hex cantrips create bonuses or penalties and don't need to scale. Some create conditions and also don't need to scale. The ones that cause damage do scale. If an enemy succeeds at their save against Clinging Ice it does damage approximately equivalent to what Wizards get with Force Bolt. Spirit Object scales at the same rate as Telekinetic Projectile - though the damage die size is one step lower.
Though I do think that Personal Blizzard does heighten very badly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At low levels, cantrips will just straight up one shot a lot of the enemies you face. They have really good minimum damage for ranged attacks.Uhm…that has never happened once in any encounter I have every played or run.
Many level -1 creatures can get OHKO'd by a 1st level Electric Arc (Skeleton Guard has 4 HP and always dies to a failed save). That stops being true as soon as you get to level 0 creatures so "a lot of the enemies you face" is definitely an exaggeration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
weaknesses can also make cantrips pack a pretty good punch. lower level Automatons can be wrecked by electric arc. Ray of frost can be a show stopper against oozes (-5 movement makes them very easy to kite). persistent fire damage from produce flame can wreck enemies with a weakness to fire. I don't know about 1 shotting them, but 2 or 3 characters electric arcing enemies at low levels will drop a lot of encounters without a second thought.
They are no where near rogues getting critical hits with sneak attack good at one-shotting encounters though.
Level -1 enemies are likely the majority of enemies (not encounters, but enemies) you face at first level, and a solid chunk of your first few levels. Unsavory tribes or squads of kobolds/goblins/gremlins/bandits are the default level 1 adventure antagonists. And things like zombies, skeletons, and giant rats or centipedes are usually encountered in groups. Electric Arc lets you kill a lot of things two at a time, and Ray of Frost lets you do it from 120 feet away. (Admittedly minimum damage won't one shot all of those creatures, but even minimum damage is going to take out a any of them in two.) Telekinetic Projectile shreds both zombies and skeletons more consistently than bows. There's a variety of options that let you bypass resistance or trigger weakness.
Your cantrips damage is remarkably good compared to non-critting range weapons until striking runes come into play, and at that point you're on the cusp of 3rd level spells, a major breaking point both in your number of slots and most powerful options.
The other thing I'll mention is Sustained spells like flaming sphere or spiritual weapon have great value at low levels. You can have solid DPR across an entire fight with one of those being your only spell slot spent, especially if you spam Electric Arc with your other actions.
Regarding the overall spell slot number... I dunno. An awful lot of APs don't apply time pressure, so you can basically rest whenever you're out of slots. In hexploration, you likely only have one or two encounters a day. I've been playing in a homebrew campaign where the GM puts us on ticking clocks, and from level 3-10 my Battle Oracle has pretty consistently been down to his last slots by the end of an adventure but not completely out. But I've also seen the occasional extended gauntlet that casters will really struggle through. (Age of Ashes has several.) There are an awful lot of variables, but in practice I haven't seen it as much of an issue. Usually the party rests whenever the casters run dry.
IMO the thing I usually miss in witch's cantrips is a good heightened effect. Mostly don't progress or don't progress well.I am not understanding what you are talking about. Most of the Hex cantrips create bonuses or penalties and don't need to scale. Some create conditions and also don't need to scale. The ones that cause damage do scale. If an enemy succeeds at their save against Clinging Ice it does damage approximately equivalent to what Wizards get with Force Bolt. Spirit Object scales at the same rate as Telekinetic Projectile - though the damage die size is one step lower.
Though I do think that Personal Blizzard does heighten very badly.
There's some differences between cantrip power depending from it's level.
For example, Evil Eye is a lvl 1 cantrip that's basically works like a sustainable Demoralize. It don't progress, you have access to it since lvl 1 but it's keeps the same until lvl 20.While bard's Dirge of Doom is a lvl 3 cantrip and probably due this minimum level cantrip it's does an AoE frightened 1 without checks and the targets don't becomes immune to it.
Or Contagious Idea that's a lvl 5 cantrip that can turn up 2 targets frightened 2 if they fail their saves and they don't become immunes unless they pass in the save check yet they still will be frightened 1. (OK it's 2-action cantrip so may not be a good comparison yet still better)
I'm still a bit confused, but I suspect that it is because of your choice of wording.
There's some differences between cantrip power depending from it's level.
For example, Evil Eye is a lvl 1 cantrip that's basically works like a sustainable Demoralize. It don't progress, you have access to it since lvl 1 but it's keeps the same until lvl 20.
While bard's Dirge of Doom is a lvl 3 cantrip and probably due this minimum level cantrip it's does an AoE frightened 1 without checks and the targets don't becomes immune to it.
Or Contagious Idea that's a lvl 5 cantrip that can turn up 2 targets frightened 2 if they fail their saves and they don't become immunes unless they pass in the save check yet they still will be frightened 1. (OK it's 2-action cantrip so may not be a good comparison yet still better)
This is regarding comparative spell power between a Hex cantrip and a similar spell.
This is not regarding spell scaling or heightening. Because character level 20 Bard casting a level 10 Dirge of Doom also has the exact same effect as the level 6 Bard casting the level 3 Dirge of Doom.
Contagious Idea does get slightly better as levels increase. Level 10 Contagious Idea will be giving 10 temporary hit points instead of 5. Though I am not convinced that this is actually an improvement - it appears to me that it does not scale as fast as the increase in expected damage between level 10 enemies and level 20 enemies. Regardless, the Terrifying Thought version of the spell is identical between the level 10 version and the initial level 5 version.
So your concern doesn't appear to be that the Hex cantrips don't progress or have a good heightened effect. The concern seems to be that the spells are not very powerful from the very beginning. And that is a much more common and understandable complaint.
OK to try to make more simple. What the advantage to do a Witch over a Bard or a Psychic especially when we talk about being a debuffer?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK to try to make more simple. What the advantage to do a Witch over a Bard or a Psychic especially when we talk about being a debuffer?
There really isn't. But if we are going to gripe about the class, we should do it accurately.
The problem isn't that level 10 Evil Eye is exactly the same as level 1 Evil Eye. The problem is that Evil Eye is quite a bit worse than Dirge of Doom since Evil Eye is single target, can't be reapplied, and has no effect if the enemy succeeds at the save.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with this, between cantrips and focus spells the total number of spells in general stops being a problem by level 5, you have more than enough room to never want for more options, with the important exception of spells that demand heightening, such as damage spells, summons, and incapacitation spells all of which have a hard per-day limit of between 3 and 8, that other kinds of spells just don't need to deal with.I hate it... because of heightening...
While it doesn't apply to cantrips and focus spells, it's pretty taxing to use a higher spell solt to heighten a spell now.
I wish there was a way to spend 1 action / 1 heightened level instead, with Concentration checks to avoid losing your casting.
It's not just that: wasting a spell slot on a heightened spell... is one spell slot for a utility spell that doesn't require to be heightened.
Metamagic feats already take an extra action in order to modify, so why not have Heighten Spell as a feat that ask you to spend more action sto heithen it to higher levels? Why not use focus points?
Heigthening, back in P1E, was mostly to beef up the save DC, but now damage is tied to it...
Something like?:
Hightneing Spell [1-action] - Feat 4:
Metamagic
The next spell from a spellslot that you cast in this turn no matter what spellslot is used is automatically heightened to the half of your level (rounded up). You receive a spell DC status penalty equals to the double of the difference of half of your level (rounded up) and the spellslot that you are currently using for casting. Ex.: If your level is 9 but the next spell you cast is a fireball using a level 3 spellslot your penalty would be -4.
--
Something like this would be fun but will never happen.
At low level cantrips carry casters hard.
5-10,5-12,5-10x2 these are the damage ranges if a Cantrip typically. From 30ft
A short bow does 1-6, 2-12 with equal action use but a chance to miss on second attack. They critically hit harder, the caster can target weaknesses easier, and piercing is the weakest physical damage type.
Focus spells are a bit if a mixed bag though. Some seem great, some seem less so. But they are still in the very least one per encounter options.
Trading heightening for a lowered spell DC is a terrible trade off. A 3rd level fireball is a much better spell at full DC than a spell adding 4d6 to the damage and dropping the save DC by 4.
3rd level fireball is not actually a terrible spell for a 9th level caster to have memorized. Against more than 3 opponents it will do very good damage and be pretty likely to crit many of them because your DC will be pretty good against lower level foes. Against anyone with weaknesses, it is still useful too. The idea that damage spells in lower level slots is always bad is a false myth in PF2. They are just not the spell slots to turn to early in encounters against higher level foes…most of the time. Magic missile automatically hitting with force damage can some times be worth it in really difficult to hit situations against creatures with stubborn resistances.
Now that I think about it, wouldn't a spell specializaton type feat work for those hightenning purpose?
Something like :
"when you select this feat, pick one spell you know which you can cast. Whenever you cast that spell, heighten it to half your level rounded up, even if you used a lower level spell slot.
You may take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, select a different spell."
It would allow "blaster caster" to fill a lot more slot with their prefered spell, and have them heigtenned as if it was a cantrip, but limiting it to one spell per "taking" of the feat should prevent shenanigans. It would also reward playing a "specialized" caster instead of a versatile one, which I think is one of the issue people have with PF2 casters (that they are now balanced around the versatility, so specializing them for thematic reason make them a lot less powerfull).
I'm not sure about the balance, maybe it should also force people to spend one more action casting the spell if they want it to be heightenned? Or maybe just put it as a witch or wizard feat if those class are lacking when compared to other casters.
Now that I think about it, wouldn't a spell specializaton type feat work for those hightenning purpose?
Something like :
"when you select this feat, pick one spell you know which you can cast. Whenever you cast that spell, heighten it to half your level rounded up, even if you used a lower level spell slot.
You may take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, select a different spell."
It would allow "blaster caster" to fill a lot more slot with their prefered spell, and have them heigtenned as if it was a cantrip, but limiting it to one spell per "taking" of the feat should prevent shenanigans. It would also reward playing a "specialized" caster instead of a versatile one, which I think is one of the issue people have with PF2 casters (that they are now balanced around the versatility, so specializing them for thematic reason make them a lot less powerfull).
I'm not sure about the balance, maybe it should also force people to spend one more action casting the spell if they want it to be heightenned? Or maybe just put it as a witch or wizard feat if those class are lacking when compared to other casters.
That's a huge increase in power. Being able to turn all your spell slots into a maxed level heightened slot feels straight broken. A prepared caster would at least take a hit to their versatility if they really did prep nothing else, but they'd be able to swap their spells out for daily challenges still. Meanwhile a spontaneous caster's output just shot through the roof.
Compare that to what a spell blending wizard can do to get heightened slots. It is not a favorable exchange for the thesis.
If what you want is a caster who just spams Sudden Bolt every turn, I think we might as well just make them not a caster but a martial that fires lasers instead of arrows.
Trading heightening for a lowered spell DC is a terrible trade off. A 3rd level fireball is a much better spell at full DC than a spell adding 4d6 to the damage and dropping the save DC by 4.
3rd level fireball is not actually a terrible spell for a 9th level caster to have memorized. Against more than 3 opponents it will do very good damage and be pretty likely to crit many of them because your DC will be pretty good against lower level foes. Against anyone with weaknesses, it is still useful too. The idea that damage spells in lower level slots is always bad is a false myth in PF2. They are just not the spell slots to turn to early in encounters against higher level foes…most of the time. Magic missile automatically hitting with force damage can some times be worth it in really difficult to hit situations against creatures with stubborn resistances.
This feat was basically a joke making a homebrew feat to allow the spells to works more closer to how they do in PF1. I agree with you such lower DC is terrible.
But you have a good point here.
In general the feeling that lower level spells in PF1 were more powerful because their damage increased along with the caster's level makes one think that they were much more efficient. When in fact it wasn't like that. As the spell DCs there were in practice the spell's level (spellslot) + stat vs a save that was half the level (in case the class/creature was "proficient") + stat or 1/4 of the level + stat reminds me that most lower spellslot spells in general (with the notable exception of magic missiles) ended up only doing half damage in most cases, but due to the high numbers of dice that the player saw in a first analysis the general feeling was that they were amazing. When in fact they weren't much better than the cantrips we have today.
OK, in PF2 Martials also get a tremendous damage boost, which 3.5/PF1 normally didn't have. But in fact, maybe the difference is not as big as people imagine.
Given that even when targetting the weakest save spells tend to be less accurate than strikes from a martial, that it cost more actions, that roughtly a third of the foes will be especially resilient to any one given spell (because of highest save), and that it would still be a limited ressource... it does't feel that inherently broken?
It seems indeed stronger than spell blending (and the big decrease in versatility don't quite make up for the incredible ease of use), but I'm not familiar with spell blending wizard, and I don't really know if it's especially powerfull or not. It seems to me that like the other arcane thesis, it increase versatility rather than raw power, but I may be wrong.
But then again, more effective "highest level slot" is indeed strong, even if they eat up your lower level slot and are limited to one specific spell, so pilling restriction onto it might keep it in line. Making it cost one more action, make it use additionnal lower level slots or even simply restricting the number of time you can use it in a day would all be fine restriction for such a feat (altho all at once would probably make the feat straight up bad).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Scarablob: Nah, just go with Kineticist.
If what you want is a caster who just spams Sudden Bolt every turn, I think we might as well just make them not a caster but a martial that fires lasers instead of arrows.
Hopefully that is what Kineticist will feel like when it comes out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Going with kineticist" isn't really possible as long as rage of the elements isn't out. And as long as they aren't released, we can't really know if they will indeed fit into this "blaster caster fantasy" or not. I remember the expectation around treasure vault "fixing" the crafting system, and the subsequent disapointment when the changes weren't what was expected.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now that I think about it, wouldn't a spell specializaton type feat work for those hightenning purpose?
Something like :
"when you select this feat, pick one spell you know which you can cast. Whenever you cast that spell, heighten it to half your level rounded up, even if you used a lower level spell slot.
Sorry, but that is a terrible - terrible - idea.
And if you think damage spells are the worse that could happen with this feat, you need to play the game more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To my knownledge, damage spells, summonning spells and incapacitation spells are the only ones that "heighten" consistently, while the other spell types often have additionnal effect when heightenned to certain level (like targetting more people), but that's it. Furthermore, I was under the impression that both incapacitation and summonning spells were just considered "ok" when cast at the highest level, as summon require sustainning and lag a few level behind you, and incapacitation are nigh useless against higher level foes, who automatically increase their degree of success by one.
Do you have an exemple of a spell that would be broken if caster could "freely" heighten it while using lower level spell slot?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have an exemple of a spell that would be broken if caster could "freely" heighten it while using lower level spell slot?
Dispel Magic
Dispel Magic
Oh, yeah, forgot about that one. Altho it would open up the "antimagic magician" fantasy that I haven't seen at all in PF2, loading on low level dispel magic to counteract every high level effect you meet is kinda silly.
Alright, new idea for a spell specialization variant, would this be fine :
"when you select this feat, pick one spell you know which you can cast from a spell slot. You may cast that spell without expending a spell slot by spending one focus point. If you do so, it is considered a focus spell (and thus, heightenned to half your level, rounded up). Increase the number of Focus Points in your focus pool by 1.
You may take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, select a different spell."
That way, you have technically "infinite" casting per day of your favorite spell, but it's restricted to between one and three per encounter, like all focus spells. People who just want to start every encounter with a fireball would be able to do it, but they won't be able to just spam it during the whole fight.
Altho since it would allow you to turn any spell into a focus spell, I think this feat should be restricted to wizard only if it is to exist one day (otherwise, it would make focus spells as a whole kind of pointless if it's too easily available), and probably need to be a level 8 or 10 feat at the earliest to prevent people from grabbing it throught multiclass too soon. Peraps even restricted to a spell from your arcane pool, to make them more impactfull.
That way, it give wizard a niche that play into the "master of their school" fantasy. From what I've heard, they also tend to have the worse focus spell of any class, so this feat would explain "why" (because their study allow them to latter chose any spell as a focus spell). I also remember people saying that universalist wizards are simply better than those with an arcane school, so if this is restricted to your arcane school, it would give people a reason to pick one that isn't simply flavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have an exemple of a spell that would be broken if caster could "freely" heighten it while using lower level spell slot?Dispel Magic
Err...
Even using highest spellslot the Counteract effect basically have an "incapacitant" trait embedded in it. It's hard to think that the fact of you are able to cast it multiple times makes it OP.
It's not quite an 'Incapacitation' effect.
A level 12 character can cast level 6 spells. And has 9 spell slots of level 2 - level 4 that could be filled with Dispel Magic.
A level 6 Dispel Magic can dispel a level 7 spell on a successful check.
Level 7 spells are the highest spell slots of a level 15 creature - one that is a CR +3 enemy.
Being able to attempt counteract checks against a CR +3 enemy's best spells or other magical effects up to nine times while still keeping your highest two spell slots available for other combat spells does indeed seem a bit OP.
I think you are mistaken, a CR15 spellcaster ennemy (like a horde lich) can cast up to 8th level spells (just like level 15 players can cast level 8 spells too). Also, dispel magic can only ever counter ongoing effect, so every spell with an immediate effect would go through as normal (which is most of them).
But I do think that "virtually illimited" casting of dispel magic heightenned to max level may possibly trivialise some encounters, and thus is a bit much. What do you think of the "turn it into a focus spell" version?
I think you are mistaken, a CR15 spellcaster ennemy (like a horde lich) can cast up to 8th level spells (just like level 15 players can cast level 8 spells too). Also, dispel magic can only ever counter ongoing effect, so every spell with an immediate effect would go through as normal (which is most of them).
Hmm... That is correct. I have my odd and even levels mixed up.
But a level 14 enemy is only casting level 7 spells while a level 11 character can still cast level 6 spells. So that is still a 3 level difference and the character still has 9 Dispel Magic slots available without touching the level 5 or 6 slots.
I already walked back on the previous version of the feat, but now that you expose it like that... It doesn't seems that strong? Unless I'm mistaken, the counteract check would still be done using your own spellcasting modifier against the opponent spell DC, which make a success unlikely unless you try multiple time. Dispel magic takes 2 actions, so you can only try once per turn, and you won't be able to cast another spell for the turn.
Frankly, for a character that have invested most of his slot into only dispel magic, it doesn't seems wrong to allow them more "try" at dispelling a high level effect, especially since each try would eat one of your turn. Having only two or three tries that also eat all of their higher level spell slot seems like it would feel especially bad since the odds are already stacked against them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Focus spells are very deliberately gated at below your top level slots. That's a straight buff and would make even the best current focus spells pointless. Even the really good ones.
Focus spells are very deliberately gated at below your top level slots. That's a straight buff and would make even the best current focus spells pointless. Even the really good ones.
Yeah, that's what I noticed afterward, allowing even a single spell to "auto heighten" without having to use high level spell slot would completely walk over focus spells, they'd have the auto heightenning, the ease of use, and even be more spammeable.
Which is why after reflexion I think that such feat could work, but only if it's gated to a single class, in essence making it a "core feature" of that class. And since wizard seems to lack one according to people, and since it seems widely accepted that they have the worse focus pool, it would kinda be perfect for them I think. Restrict it to a spell from their arcane school, make sure that it's a relatively high level feat (either over level 10 or close to it) to prevent it from being easily accessed from multiclass, and it seems quite balanced.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that even when targetting the weakest save spells tend to be less accurate than strikes from a martial, that it cost more actions, that roughtly a third of the foes will be especially resilient to any one given spell (because of highest save), and that it would still be a limited ressource... it does't feel that inherently broken?
I don’t know where this “advice” comes from, but it is wrong. People who say it are almost always talking about a flanking fighter vs a caster casting a random spell with the right save vs the enemy. Fighters are not the only martials and flat footed is not a given. It is a good idea to spend actions getting a target flat footed. It is also a good idea to debuff a target before casting big spells. AC is usually as high as a high save. The math makes it very difficult for many martials to hit higher level enemies without taking actions to lower defenses…the same needs to be understood as true for casters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the topic about spell slots I think it depends a lot on style of play. If you have a party that pushes, with a healer that specializes in healing. You can push beyond the ability of low level casters to keep up. But if your group likes take breaks and pulling back to rest it isn't really a problem. At least that is my opinion on it.
As for the witch subtopic, it was one of my favorite classes in 1e and now after reading it. I think it is one of the weakest if not weakest caster. It doesn't really seem to offer anything special anymore beyond flavor. I admit I have not yet played one but reading it, that has been my impression and what I have read here and on other places from others that seems to be a common opinion which is sad.
Right now after only reading things and not playing I think my fix would be the following.
focus spell - it allows you to cast any spell known by your familiar. Giving the witch a slight spontaneous caster ability. The idea is the focus spell is she is drawing the power from her familiar/patron and not herself casting it per say but only acting as a focus point.
hexes - make them at will abilities. can only use 1 of the 3 actions a turn on using a hex. cackle is uses the reaction action for the turn, to let a witch be a good buffer and debuffer again. Might have to removed a couple of the spells that are currently called hexes though for that to work would have to check it.
but that is my first thoughts on the witch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t know where this “advice” comes from, but it is wrong. People who say it are almost always talking about a flanking fighter vs a caster casting a random spell with the right save vs the enemy. Fighters are not the only martials and flat footed is not a given. It is a good idea to spend actions getting a target flat footed. It is also a good idea to debuff a target before casting big spells. AC is usually as high as a high save. The math makes it very difficult for many martials to hit higher level enemies without taking actions to lower defenses…the same needs to be understood as true for casters.
Mmh, after a search on archive of nethys, I couldn't find a single monster whose good save was equal or lower to it's AC (do note that saves are rolled, while AC are rolled against, so to compare them you need to add 10 to the save score, or substract 10 to the AC, it's the same difference between spell attack and spell DC).
For exemple, the horde lich I linked above have two good and one low, both good being 2 above, and the low being 4 below. I checked random monster of all CR, and the tendency was confirmed for all of them except a precious few outlier (like the CR1 air mephit who had 16 AC, but comparatively 29 reflex as a good save). The highest save tend to be 1 to 5 above the AC, while the lowest tend to be 1 to 4 below (and it tend to increase as level goes up, most low level monster only having a low save at 1 or 2 below it's AC, while high level one tend to have 4 below more often).
So you are right, low saves tend indeed to be lower than AC. However, when accounting for potency runes, they actually tend to be so only by a single point, meaning that any circumstance bonus like flank make the AC effectively lower than the lowest save for martial characters. There's also the issue of level 5-6 and 13-14, where spell DC lag two point bellow martial attack (taking into account only the non-fighter/gunslinger martial here), in which the lowest save is effectively higher than the AC for a normal strike from a martial character. And while you might argue that you should try to give circumstance debuff to saves just like you should try to debuff AC, those are few and far between, and usually far more difficult to pull off than a simple flank. The only "easy" one to give is frightenned, which is still more difficult to pull off than a flank, and also reduce AC anyway.
From what I see here, the only levels where low save are consistently easier to hit for caster than AC are for martial is level 18+, when caster get legendary proficiency but (most) martial are stuck at master. Martial still have that +3 from the potency runes, but since low saves tend to be three to four bellow the AC at that level, caster have a sweet +2 to success (which is still equal as long as a flank is in place). Also the very first few levels, when martial don't have any potency rune yet, caster have a slightly easier time to succeed if they target the low save. Unfortunately, it's also the moment where they have the fewest spell, and thus can't take a lot of "swings" (and once again, any flank make the martial as or more likely to hit).
But nevermind all of that, I still want to hear what you (or anyone really) think of the idea of a wizard only feat that allow you to chose any one spell of your arcane school and use it as a focus spell.
Focus spells are very deliberately gated at below your top level slots. That's a straight buff and would make even the best current focus spells pointless. Even the really good ones.Yeah, that's what I noticed afterward, allowing even a single spell to "auto heighten" without having to use high level spell slot would completely walk over focus spells, they'd have the auto heightenning, the ease of use, and even be more spammeable.
Which is why after reflexion I think that such feat could work, but only if it's gated to a single class, in essence making it a "core feature" of that class. And since wizard seems to lack one according to people, and since it seems widely accepted that they have the worse focus pool, it would kinda be perfect for them I think. Restrict it to a spell from their arcane school, make sure that it's a relatively high level feat (either over level 10 or close to it) to prevent it from being easily accessed from multiclass, and it seems quite balanced.
I think you should build a class from the ground up around it. That feat would still be a must take for wizards. And I think stronger focus spells is the wrong direction to buff the wizard. Classes like the druid, psychic, and oracle have stronger focus spells to make up for having less slots than the wizard. (With that other portion being better defenses for the oracle and druid.) Making the focus spells the signature feat for wizards just feels like it eats the lunch of those classes too much.
I also think wizards are the only class where top level slots isn't really that much of a problem thanks to Drain Bond and Spell Blending.
I think that if there's a problem with the wizard, then trying to fix it via a single must-have high-level class feat is a mistake. That's not the place to fix it. I think that if there's not a problem with the wizard, then they don't need a feat like that.
Further, I think that this is the sort of thing that would severely warp the current balance of the game. Structurally, this sort of assumption-breaking change is unlikely to result in exactly the right adjustment to fix whatever problem you've decided you have without offering builds that can utterly break things, and even if by some miracle you managed this, it would be something that they'd have to carefully balance around for the rest of the life of the game.
Just as an example... I might suggest you consider the possibility of loading up a stack of lvl 1 Wands of Manifold Missiles, and making Magic Missile your go-to cheeseball spell. Walk around with a wand in each hand, and swap them out after each fight.
More broadly, I think you should really look into the spell blending wizard. Here's a guide:
1RUXeVfKYX538K_a13r3hS8Qv4ee3oxKm5S_GTY3vjiU
You can get 9 castings of your top level slots with it. (Though realistically you probably want to 7 or your top level and 6 of your 2nd higher slots.) It doesn't help at low levels, but neither do your heightening solutions.
I think you should build a class from the ground up around it. That feat would still be a must take for wizards. And I think stronger focus spells is the wrong direction to buff the wizard. Classes like the druid, psychic, and oracle have stronger focus spells to make up for having less slots than the wizard. (With that other portion being better defenses for the oracle and druid.) Making the focus spells the signature feat for wizards just feels like it eats the lunch of those classes too much.
I also think wizards are the only class where top level slots isn't really that much of a problem thanks to Drain Bond and Spell Blending.
It pain me to admit, but your reasonning is sound. I thought wizard would be the perfect fit because such idea seems tailor made to fit into the "master of their domain" fantasy that wizard try to embody, with the idea of being "the best" in casting a single spell being sort of a logical continuation to the singular school focus that non-universalist wizard take. But it's true that being a 4 spell class, with the option of further boosting their number of high spell slot, they also seems to be the class that would need such feat the least.
The one other class that could need some love (and some flavoring) would be the witch, but their special focus spell is already the thing that make their identity, and having an option to just add one obviously stronger spell as a focus would probably overshadow every other focus spell they have. Altho thinking about it, it could help stiring them away from focus spells and putting their emphasis more on the hex cantrips, and into that single "core" focus that could be any spell at all. And it would give a reason to let them be of any tradition, it would allow literally any single spell to be the "core" spell of a witch.
But at that point, it would be a completely different class.
EDIT : Altho I think there was an errata on the spell blending thesis because as far as I can see, it prevent you from creating more than one slot of a single level, so at most you are getting a +1 on your highest level (with an additional +1 thanks to drain bonded item, for a total of 6 spell of your highest level, and 5 of your second highest).
I think that if there's a problem with the wizard, then trying to fix it via a single must-have high-level class feat is a mistake. That's not the place to fix it. I think that if there's not a problem with the wizard, then they don't need a feat like that.
Further, I think that this is the sort of thing that would severely warp the current balance of the game. Structurally, this sort of assumption-breaking change is unlikely to result in exactly the right adjustment to fix whatever problem you've decided you have without offering builds that can utterly break things, and even if by some miracle you managed this, it would be something that they'd have to carefully balance around for the rest of the life of the game.
Just as an example... I might suggest you consider the possibility of loading up a stack of lvl 1 Wands of Manifold Missiles, and making Magic Missile your go-to cheeseball spell. Walk around with a wand in each hand, and swap them out after each fight.
I probably didn't explain myself clearly, but the idea of the wizard feat wasn't to let them pick a spell and then cast it heightenned no matter the spell slot or where they got it, it was to let them pick a spell and them let them cast it like a focus spell, using focus point to cast it "spontaneously" automatically heightenned. In essence, turning any spell into a focus spell.
But like captain morgan said, it's probably not the right kind of feat for a wizard. They can already get the most max level slot out of all the class, and giving them an incredibly powerfull focus on top of it all would be uncalled for.
I would be 100% fine with the number of slots we have RN if damaging spells had a sort of "catch-up" mechanic attached to them. It is what is holding blasting back the most. As it is, even 4 slots per level does not feel enough if you want to focus on blasting.
With that, I mean something similar to what Caster Level did in first ED. Let's take Fireball as an example. I think adding 1 extra d6 of damage for every spell level under the max slot level you have to the spell (so 2d6 if you cast it as a level 3 spell when you have access to level 5 spells) or something like that would make damaging spells feel much better. Probably that is too much scaling, but you get the idea.
If you focus on debuffs, buffs and utility with just the occasional damaging AoE, the number of slots as they are fine.
More broadly, I think you should really look into the spell blending wizard. Here's a guide:
1RUXeVfKYX538K_a13r3hS8Qv4ee3oxKm5S_GTY3vjiU
You can get 9 castings of your top level slots with it. (Though realistically you probably want to 7 or your top level and 6 of your 2nd higher slots.) It doesn't help at low levels, but neither do your heightening solutions.
I'm afraid you can't. The maximum you can have is 6. 3 from normal spellslots + 1 school spellslot + drain bounded item + spellblending. You cannot more than 1 bonus spellslot from blending in the same level:
Spell Blending
You theorize that spell slots are a shorthand for an underlying energy that powers all spellcasting, and you've found a way to tinker with the hierarchy of spell slots, combining them to fuel more powerful spells.When you make your daily preparations, you can trade two spell slots of the same level for a bonus spell slot of up to 2 levels higher than the traded spell slots. You can exchange as many spell slots as you have available. Bonus spell slots must be of a level you can normally cast, and each bonus spell slot must be of a different spell level. You can also trade any spell slot for two additional cantrips, though you cannot trade more than one spell slot at a time for additional cantrips in this way.
More broadly, I think you should really look into the spell blending wizard. Here's a guide:
1RUXeVfKYX538K_a13r3hS8Qv4ee3oxKm5S_GTY3vjiU
You can get 9 castings of your top level slots with it. (Though realistically you probably want to 7 or your top level and 6 of your 2nd higher slots.) It doesn't help at low levels, but neither do your heightening solutions.
I'm afraid you can't. The maximum you can have is 6. 3 from normal spellslots + 1 school spellslot + drain bounded item + spellblending. You cannot more than 1 bonus spellslot from blending in the same level:
Spell Blending
You theorize that spell slots are a shorthand for an underlying energy that powers all spellcasting, and you've found a way to tinker with the hierarchy of spell slots, combining them to fuel more powerful spells.When you make your daily preparations, you can trade two spell slots of the same level for a bonus spell slot of up to 2 levels higher than the traded spell slots. You can exchange as many spell slots as you have available. Bonus spell slots must be of a level you can normally cast, and each bonus spell slot must be of a different spell level. You can also trade any spell slot for two additional cantrips, though you cannot trade more than one spell slot at a time for additional cantrips in this way.
Not entirely sure but I am pretty sure spell blending and bonded spell cannot give you 10th level spells due to the FAQ.
Same with clerics not being able to use font for 10th lv heal/harm.
Yes you cannot blend to lvl 10, only until lvl 9. It's stated in 1st errata:
Several classes were accidentally missing an important limitation for 10th level spells. In the following class features, add “You can’t use this spell slot for abilities that let you cast spells without expending spell slots or that give you more spell slots.”
Page 121: Miraculous Spell
Page 133: Primal Hierophant
Page 207: Archwizard's Spellcraft
But cleric font can up to 10 normally. It can't receive extra level 10 open spellslots except from the level 20 feat but like cantrips and focus spells, fonts auto-heighten normally without such limitation.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think PF2 maintaining Vancian casting was a huge mistake. 5E casting is far superior and fits 99.999% of how casting is in fantasy. Get rid of Vancian casting and move to 5E heightening and spell lists, casters are much more fun to play.
I could see during a few early play throughs of PF2 that 5E made the smarter choice with casters. PF2 added a bunch of unnecessary signature spell rules and kept Vancian casting to the detriment of the game.
I moved all casters to 5E style casting. Made casters far more fun, flexible, and enjoyable.
Being able to cast the spell you need or want at the desired power level when you want to do it makes casters feel more effective. And it balances the sorcerer's additional slots versus the wizard's flexibility.
I will never go back to Vancian casting. Never liked it. Never felt like fantasy story casting. 5Es move away from is one of the best changes to the D&D/PF system ever made.
I hope Paizo/PF kills that sacred cow at some point because it will greatly improve the game and the caster player experience. This hoping you picked the right spell and fiddling around with signature spells isn't fun, isn't a part of any story I've read and I'm still not sure it is Vance's method done well, and hurts the game and caster player experience.
Focus spells are a bit if a mixed bag though. Some seem great, some seem less so. But they are still in the very least one per encounter options.
TBH I think this is the biggest potential swing here.
With the right build, I'm spending one (or more) rounds per combat casting my cool focus spell and it does a lot to improve my longevity as a character. Spell slots last a lot longer when you're effectively getting another one back between every fight.
And then some characters get Oathkeeper's Insignia or Augment Summoning or Glutton's Jaws instead.
I'm still pretty low level with my character so I can't seriously speak to it, but I'm having a perfectly good time with the power level of my Witch.
I set my expectations differently though. Last time I played a caster was when 3.0 was new and I had a Sorcerer and the campaign only made it to level 2 so... yeah.
I'm not just playing a witch though. She's occult / fate also, and I took the Familiar mastery at level 2 as my 'free archetype' as we're using that variant.
When I get spells, I go through them to focus on the one really strength of the class: cackle lets me sustain as a free action.
So I'm focusing on as many sustained spells as I can. If I can find a spell that is great if I can just keep it running in the background - that's the one I get.
This isn't a big advantage, but it has saved my own character and another character on different occasions when I happened to have one of those "tiny buff spells" going in the background.
I'm not yet convinced I'm weaker than another caster. But time will tell.
As for 'do we have enough spell slots' I missed the 4E and 5E D&D eras so this isn't really different from what I saw in 3.5, except I have more room with my cantrips now.
I do still think it's weird that we even have daily spell slots. After playing MMOs, and playing games like Hero and GURPS back in the day, I got used to everyone having all of their abilities all of the time - and then just balancing around that.
But this is a game based on the legacy of D&D, and I'm here playing it - so that 'why isn't it like GURPS' issue is already behind me.
I do find it more useful to fill the slots with utility spells, and try to do as much of my combat spells with cantrips as I can. And that probably does speak to the OPs concern. There are so few slots that it feels really weird to waste one on something that is just a single damage roll in one round of combat when we're likely to have half a dozen battles a day.