Something like?:
Hightneing Spell [1-action] - Feat 4:
MetamagicThe 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.
No need to be this complicated.
Heightening Focus - Feat 6
Frequency Once per day/4 levels
You can spend 1 Focus Point to heighten your next spell without spending a higher-level spellslot.
That's it. No problem...
I swear, I think Focus points are only used for Focus spells and not for anything else...
Speaking about 10 level slot, I feel like having so few of them mean that you would never slot any summonning or incapacitation (especially incapacitation) spell one you reach level 19, is that correct? Given that the way they highten mean that they become all but useless if you don't slot it in your highest available slot, but that they're "just ok" when you do, I feel like having only one (or two at most) of these slot make it so that you'd never slot any summonning/incapacitation spell here, and thus, never slot any summonning/incapacitation spell at all at those levels.
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.
I agree. But I wouldn't just kill the Vancian magic system as it would also end the entire Slot Spell System. IMO the Spell Slot system was created to support Vancian magic as a way to ban players from preparing maximum level spells. Without the Vancian system the maintenance of the Spell Slots system only serves to complicate more the mechanics of conjuration, so much so that in the 5 and one of the things that makes Sorcerer one of the most preferred classes among the players who conjure (this if it was no longer adopted the Spell Points variant on the table) is precisely the fact that it has Blood Points that in practice operate as an MP system.
Both the vancian system and Spell Slots only exist in the D&D universe and PF. Any other non-D&D based system is far from these solutions, because IMO they are simply bad.
| 1 person 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.
While I do think 5e casting (also currently present in 2e as a class archetype) is better for most people; I never struggled with fantasy of vanician casting. I've always looked at it as basically enchanting yourself with a number of one off consumables. Back when material components were a thing, I'd also imagine it as going out and collecting the requisite ingredients; and your preped spells reflects what materials you were able to harvest.
I do think though that this time period represents a bit of a turning point in people's imagination of the game. People often think of D&D/PF as a "generic" fantasy when in fact, they are both part of a more specific subgenre of fantasy; one thats reflected over and over again innthe mechanics and rules of the game, and especially with how magic works. I've also noticed that the more younger (and by younger, I mean millennial and gen z players) join the game, the less popular vanician casting is. This isn't a dig at this age range (I am this age range)! For many of us, we've played a lot of other fantasy video games before playing tabletop, and most of them choose to represent you "magical stamina" through mana bars and/or cooldown times, so this is how many players naturally think how magic should work. Spontaneous casting is kinda sorta close, but full prep is nothing at all like it
Speaking about 10 level slot, I feel like having so few of them mean that you would never slot any summonning or incapacitation (especially incapacitation) spell one you reach level 19, is that correct? Given that the way they highten mean that they become all but useless if you don't slot it in your highest available slot, but that they're "just ok" when you do, I feel like having only one (or two at most) of these slot make it so that you'd never slot any summonning/incapacitation spell here, and thus, never slot any summonning/incapacitation spell at all at those levels.
It's another thing to complain about spellcasters in PF2. It's just that incapacitation and summoning spells exist much more to be used by NPCs and monsters than by players.
Yes, in practice this is the apex of the bad situation.
Incapacitation spells and summons already have a very reduced usability because they are very little (if not completely) against creatures of higher levels than the caster, not to mention the insecurity of this since you don't necessarily know your opponent's level and nothing in the RK says the GM should pass this information on. So when you reach the end of the game and you are already there at level 19/20 and you only have one or at most 2 spell slots of level 10 it is completely normal for a player to be afraid to prepare an incapacitation spell or even a summon in these spell slots, which in the end cementing the low utility and high rejection of these types of spells.
Video games other than D&D games don't work like Vancian casting.
Books don't work like Vancian casting.
I'm wondering if Vancian casting works the way it does in D&D in the books myself.
It's an outdated system that makes casters feel like they don't know spells.
The slot system works fine with 5E. You get a certain number of slots of a certain power, you prepare the spells you want per day, you use them in an appropriate level slot with heightening.
That's why it was so easy to import the 5E system into PF2. I literally made every spell act like a signature spell, all done with the rule change. It helped the wizard the most. They were terrible before my rule change. The locked in and limited caster in the game with terrible focus spells. Their ability to change spells meant nothing as once they used the slot, the spell was gone whether the opponent was hit or made their save and the sorcerer took a similar high value spell and blasted it off in 4 slots. If it a sig spell, they could just keep using it in higher slots.
Nothing ruined the PF2 wizard more than Vancian casting rather than going with 5E. Wizard still isn't great, but at least their touted versatility works as they can have a nice big and varied spell list then use their varied spell list as needed rather than just with whatever slot they put a spell in.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Video games other than D&D games don't work like Vancian casting.
Books don't work like Vancian casting.
I'm wondering if Vancian casting works the way it does in D&D in the books myself.
It's an outdated system that makes casters feel like they don't know spells.
The slot system works fine with 5E. You get a certain number of slots of a certain power, you prepare the spells you want per day, you use them in an appropriate level slot with heightening.
That's why it was so easy to import the 5E system into PF2. I literally made every spell act like a signature spell, all done with the rule change. It helped the wizard the most. They were terrible before my rule change. The locked in and limited caster in the game with terrible focus spells. Their ability to change spells meant nothing as once they used the slot, the spell was gone whether the opponent was hit or made their save and the sorcerer took a similar high value spell and blasted it off in 4 slots. If it a sig spell, they could just keep using it in higher slots.
Nothing ruined the PF2 wizard more than Vancian casting rather than going with 5E. Wizard still isn't great, but at least their touted versatility works as they can have a nice big and varied spell list then use their varied spell list as needed rather than just with whatever slot they put a spell in.
The problem is that D&D5 casting is very close to Spontaneous casting. So if you move to this type of casting you remove the main difference between Spontaneous and Prepared, and between most casters using the same tradition. That's a very big reduction of game content, that can lead to all casters feeling alike.
In my opinion, Paizo will make a strong rework of spellcasting for PF3. It gonna be the main difference with PF2. Maybe they should release an Unchained casting at some point, it'd be interesting (I wonder if I could homebrew a new casting system that doesn't eliminate differences between classes...).
PF1 casting was far too powerful. PF2 casting kept the versatility but reduced the power to an acceptable level. But it's not satisfying as it forces casters to be toolboxes. PF3 casting will reduce the versatility (or at least for some classes) and increase power to end up at a more satisfying middle ground (yes, I can say that, I'm a Time Oracle).
The issue with vancian casting is that it was originally based on completely different dynamics to what PF2 uses
Please tell me how any of your statements are accurate given Vancian predates 3e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with vancian casting is that it was originally based on completely different dynamics to what PF2 usesPlease tell me how any of your statements are accurate given Vancian predates 3e.
Well, TBF, I the "spells scale on character level" thing was always there, or at least back as far as AD&D 1e. (I can't speak on OD&D one way or the other.) I remember what a change it was when 3e came along and fireball got capped at 10d6.
On the other hand, metamagic wasn't a thing, touch attacks weren't really a thing, and spontaneous casters weren't a thing, so you're right on the rest of them.
The issue with vancian casting is that it was originally based on completely different dynamics to what PF2 usesPlease tell me how any of your statements are accurate given Vancian predates 3e.When it comes to Pathfinder all that really matters is DnD 3e, DnD 3.5e, and Pathfinder 1e.
Anything else shouldn't matter as more than "oh this mechanic was inspired by this or that".
You know the spell slot system predates all of those, right? That's literally what Vancian is built around.
When it comes to Pathfinder all that really matters is DnD 3e, DnD 3.5e, and Pathfinder 1e.
Anything else shouldn't matter as more than "oh this mechanic was inspired by this or that".
Why?
Why is "3.x + PF1" the magical past that we should all aspire to or refer from or whatever? What essential virtue does it have that no other game systems before or since had?
I mean, all of PF2 is basically just a "was inspired by" off of PF1, plus porting Golarion itself over (with various modifications). The connection isn't any tighter than that as far as rules are concerned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why?
Why is "3.x" the magical past that we should all aspire to or refer from or whatever? What essential virtue does it have that no other game systems before or since had?
I mean, all of PF2 is basically just a "was inspired by" off of PF1, plus porting Golarion itself over (with various modifications). The connection isn't any tighter than that as far as rules are concerned.
I think you missed the begginning of this conversation, the idea of tamperans here wasn't that PF2e should "stick" to PF1e or 3.5, is was that the vancian casting "worked" in these edition because it was based on different dynamics. Making spells scale according to their spellcaster level instead of their slot level for exemple, which meant that more spell remained usefull even when you kept them in lower level slot (while high level slots are "crowded" in PF2 where damage, incapacitation and summonning all want to be heightenned to the max always).
Basically, what they are trying to say here is that changing these dynamics but keeping the system is what make caster in PF2 so wonky. And rather than advocating for a return of the old ways, they're implying that PF2 should have ditched vancian altogether instead of just changing it halfway.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is "3.x + PF1" the magical past that we should all aspire to or refer from or whatever? What essential virtue does it have that no other game systems before or since had?
More like essential sin.
It's less that 3.5/PF1 is something to aspire to, but more that it's the source of most of the systemic baggage in PF2.
Pretty much every weird design choice or strange mechanic exists because it's a legacy mechanic from 3.5.
Well... I don't think Vancian really "worked" in 3.x, either. If anything, PF2 seems to have come the closest to Vancian casting actually "working". It's certainly not perfect, and I'm not pretending that it is, but it's quite a lot better than what came before.
This is actually something that I've seen a few times from Paizo. They go deep into the external playtesting thing, which is great. They pretty much can only afford one playtest shot each time, though. So when the thing they toss out there is already pretty close to the mark, it only needs a few nudges, and they can dial it in pretty tight. When the thing that they toss out there requires significant changes, it's a lot easier for them to miss the relatively minor things that come out of the changes they had to make... like the Magus issue with taking opportunity attacks. That never would have made it into the final if the playtest magus had been close enough to the magus we have now for people to spot it.
The whole caster thing in 3.x was deeply, deeply broken. PF1 tried to fix some of its worst excesses, and, indeed succeeded at fixing some of its worst excesses. It was still pretty broken. PF2 fixed it more - a lot more. It's now mostly workable. It's just a few things - like blaster casters - that don't work as well as we'd like them to... and they're working on fixing them within the framework that they now have.
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.
Having played both systems
I think it's a great idea if you want overpowered casters who have access to far more spells than a 5e caster does.
Video games other than D&D games don't work like Vancian casting.
Books don't work like Vancian casting.
I'm wondering if Vancian casting works the way it does in D&D in the books myself.
It's an outdated system that makes casters feel like they don't know spells.
The slot system works fine with 5E. You get a certain number of slots of a certain power, you prepare the spells you want per day, you use them in an appropriate level slot with heightening.
That's why it was so easy to import the 5E system into PF2. I literally made every spell act like a signature spell, all done with the rule change. It helped the wizard the most. They were terrible before my rule change. The locked in and limited caster in the game with terrible focus spells. Their ability to change spells meant nothing as once they used the slot, the spell was gone whether the opponent was hit or made their save and the sorcerer took a similar high value spell and blasted it off in 4 slots. If it a sig spell, they could just keep using it in higher slots.
Nothing ruined the PF2 wizard more than Vancian casting rather than going with 5E. Wizard still isn't great, but at least their touted versatility works as they can have a nice big and varied spell list then use their varied spell list as needed rather than just with whatever slot they put a spell in.
The problem is that D&D5 casting is very close to Spontaneous casting. So if you move to this type of casting you remove the main difference between Spontaneous and Prepared, and between most casters using the same tradition. That's a very big reduction of game content, that can lead to all casters feeling alike.
In my opinion, Paizo will make a strong rework of spellcasting for PF3. It gonna be the main difference with PF2. Maybe they should release an Unchained casting at some point, it'd be interesting (I wonder if I could homebrew a new casting system that doesn't eliminate differences between classes...).
PF1 casting was far too...
Paizo built every class strong enough to not have to worry about prepared versus spontaneous casting.
Sorcerer extra slots and great focus options still make them attractive and the wizard versatility actually means something when they can cast a spell they need at a level they need it at and change it out with preparation. It was a win-win decision.
| 1 person 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.
Having played both systems
I think it's a great idea if you want overpowered casters who have access to far more spells than a 5e caster does.
It hasn't caused a problem in my games to date. The only thing it did was make casters more fun to play.
There are already so many balance limiters in PF2 that using ones you used in PF1 aren't needed. PF2 casting has limited slots, reduced spell power, requires heightening, can use spells that cost 2 and 3 actions, and high saving throws for enemies that additional limiters were not necessary.
Add in the following:
1. Lack of long duration buffs.
2. Short combats in the 3 to 5 round range.
Changing PF2 casting to 5E style did next to nothing to make the game easier. I can still pull monsters out of the book and run them against the party and the fights still last 3 to 5 rounds or longer.
PF2 math is innately balanced. The biggest way to imbalance something is to shift the math so far in your favor the enemy had no chance. That is what made PF1 and 3E so problematic was the unprecedented ability to shift the math in your favor. That doesn't exist to near the same degree in PF2, thus some of the other limiters aren't necessary and overly restrict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is pretty ironic that the same people who argue vehemently that spell casting is no fun when enemies make their saves are the same people arguing that PF1 spell were better because the damage scaled up without the saving throw DC scaling. Without specialization in specific spells, even your top level slots could have pretty bad DCs. Lower level slots could be minorly salvaged in your super specialized school for a couple levels, but still fell off hard. PF2 spell casting has a much better grip on balancing spell DCs than PF1 and D&D 2e+.
Secrets of magic does a very good job placing the systems of magic used in PF2 in the world of Golarion. It is also a fun read. PF2 was designed to tell the stories developers wanted to tell in the world of Golarion. GMs should feel free to hack it to tell their own stories in their own worlds, but there are a lot of moving parts. Tweaking it small in your own game is not the same thing as making changes that can work well as default rules for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 math is innately balanced. The biggest way to imbalance something is to shift the math so far in your favor the enemy had no chance. That is what made PF1 and 3E so problematic was the unprecedented ability to shift the math in your favor. That doesn't exist to near the same degree in PF2, thus some of the other limiters aren't necessary and overly restrict
You can unbalance it a lot though
- flat footed gives a circumstance penalty of 2 to AC
- frightened, sickened, clumsy are all a status penalty to DCs so only the worst applies, Synethesia is clumsy 3.
- Status bonuses to attack, can get to +3 with a high level heroism
- Circumstance bonus to attack, can get to +4 at level 15 with Aid
Ignoring the normal item and proficency differences, it is clear you can turn around AC by 12 at least. Which puts you in a posistion of 50% critical hits/50% regular hits against a higher level opponent.
Why is this not a problem? Because it is the result of team work and actions. Not one character permanently having these modifiers in place as was the case for PF1, or D&D3.5, or as is currently the case for D&D5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 math is innately balanced. The biggest way to imbalance something is to shift the math so far in your favor the enemy had no chance. That is what made PF1 and 3E so problematic was the unprecedented ability to shift the math in your favor. That doesn't exist to near the same degree in PF2, thus some of the other limiters aren't necessary and overly restrictYou can unbalance it a lot though
- flat footed gives a cicumstance penalty of 2 to AC
- frightened, sickened, clumsy are all a status penalty to DCs so only the worst applies, Synethesia is clumsy 3.
- Status bonuses to attack, can get to +3 with a high level heroism
- Circumstance bonus to attack, can get to +4 at level 15 with AidIgnoring the normal item and proficency differences, it is clear you can turn around AC by 12 at least. Which puts you in a posistion of 50% critical hits/50% regular hits against a higher level opponent.
Why is this not a problem? Because it is the result of team work and actions. Not one character permanently having these modifiers in place as was the case for PF1, or D&D3.5, or as is currently the case for D&D5.
Exactly.
That's why spontaneous casting for all casters was no issue. Even with spontaneous casting, no single caster can take the game over like PF1. No matter what spell you cast, it's still going to lead to teamwork being a requirement to maximize penalties and bonuses. The limiters are already in place that 5E casting does nothing to make the game easier save allow a spellcaster to have more fun by being able to cast the right spell at the right time which is usually going to be in that 3 to 5 round time frame rather than they cast the spell with the slot earlier and now have to sit there feeling useless for the next few fights while the martials keep swinging away.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've written my vision of what "Unchained spellcasting" should be in PF2. It's not really the place to discuss it (even if Deriven already detailed his homebrew changes) but it shows what I think are the issues with PF2 spellcasting and how to solve them in my opinion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. Personally, I think the biggest miss with spell casting in PF2 is the ritual rules. I think the cast majority of utility magic could have been rituals and the casting time on rituals is needlessly high. You can easily limit the spamming of ritual spells by making sure the critical failure effect of performing the ritual is something unpleasant and best avoided. Something like “you have offended your god and can’t cast rituals at all again until you atone for X amount of time.” Or “an equal level fiend is summoned to your general area but you don’t know where. It knows you are responsible for bringing it here and it will come to thank you…eventually.
Things that can be used narratively by FMs, and give average people a distrust of spell casters, especially ones that go around casting rituals too often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Utility magic and rituals are 2 different things in my opinion. One classical example is Comprehend Language. I see something written on the door in a language no one knows, I'm not supposed to cast a ritual to read it, or wait 8 hours before being able to read it. I want my (high level enough) Wizard to be able to read it quite quickly (and even the 10 minutes I've put to avoid abuses are already a lot when you just want to read a single sentence).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These changes seems interesting, altho the "unlimited utility spells" one let a bit too much to GM fiat to my taste. I really wish there was a way to cast spells such as "shape woods" regularly (and to have the decision of slotting them or not not being entirely based on guesswork about the rp/encounter balance of that day), but this leave a bit too much to the GM to decide, and I know a few that wouldn't allow many things at all based on this.
The one other issue I'm seing tho is that it would probably encourage casters to use all of their offensive spells in every fight, and then "force" the group to wait around for a few hours while they recover all of it. It would put them in a situation were either he casters slow down the group massively, or the group don't allow them to recover (in which case the lower amount of slot become a nerf).
These changes seems interesting, altho the "unlimited utility spells" one let a bit too much to GM fiat to my taste. I really wish there was a way to cast spells such as "shape woods" regularly (and to have the decision of slotting them or not not being entirely based on guesswork about the rp/encounter balance of that day), but this leave a bit too much to the GM to decide, and I know a few that wouldn't allow many things at all based on this.
I can imagine shenanigans with this rule, that's why I prefer to let the GM decide. Also, giving unlimited Heals (even if 1st level) for level 7+ casters is a significant change in the rules.
Shape Wood is an excellent example of these spells that should become easy to use for a high level Druid, and not only once per day because you can't prepare it 10 times.The one other issue I'm seing tho is that it would probably encourage casters to use all of their offensive spells in every fight, and then "force" the group to wait around for a few hours while they recover all of it. It would put them in a situation were either he casters slow down the group massively, or the group don't allow them to recover (in which case the lower amount of slot become a nerf).
Be careful, I've specified that this action can only be used once after a significant encounter. So if you burn your spell slots, you end up with only one spell left.
I see, for what it's worth, I don't think being able to cast a "3 level below" heal every ten minute would be too much of an issue, given that goodberry exist and that "on level" treat wound should be more effective.
I missed that rule about the "one per significant encounter". Once again it let a bit too much to be interpreted for my taste, but it's much better than what I though it was.
I missed that rule about the "one per significant encounter". Once again it let a bit too much to be interpreted for my taste, but it's much better than what I though it was.
I've rephrased it, to avoid speaking about the GM (as it looks like you don't like your GMs).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that I don't like my current GM, he's pretty good, but I know that their interpretation can vary widly and change a lot of how the game is played. Having a character effectiveness vary widly wether they interpret the rules the same way you do or not is one of the most common "feel bad" in tabletop RPG I found, so "tighter" rule that leave little to interpretation just feel better to me.
I mean, by nature, almost all GM end up changing some rules in minor ways, and every table end up with a slightly homebrewed version, it just felt that these ones were a bit too "big" to be left to interpretation that much. it feel like some entire character build might be made viable or not depending on wether the GM think "X" spell work with the unlimited utility, or wether any fight is a significant encounter, or only those that have a higher CR than the party.
I haven't changed the part about utility spells. It would need an analysis of all the spells to determine if some of them would imbalance the game if available at will. And, even if I don't have an idea right now, I'm pretty sure some of them could cause issues. I also don't think it's that important. If your GM really doesn't want you to cast Shape Wood regularly, you can still buy Wands. It's more of a feel good rule than one that really affects the game significantly.
I have read some (not all, sorry) of the post on the threat, and I was thinking...what about using the Focus not to regain spells on your highest level, but highest level-1?
I have read some (not all, sorry) of the post on the threat, and I was thinking...what about using the Focus not to regain spells on your highest level, but highest level-1?
Exactly one of my proposition for my vision of Unchained Spellcasting :)
*shrugs* As sorcerer you can easily have 2 safe options and one unsafe option. Especially since you can swap spells out at level ups.Not only that, but staves, wands, and scrolls are all very viable options even for offensive spells, because they use your spell attack and DC values instead of some pre-crafted (crappy) value.
In PF1 those items mostly sucked for offensive use because the values never scaled. In PF2 these items are good because they do, and allow a sorcerer to pick up spells they wouldn't frequently use but want to have access to and still have them be effective.
Honestly, the versatility of wizards in PF1 is what made them good. They could potentially have any spell for any situation, that's why people loved them (even if in reality this rarely actually worked that way). Sorcerers were derided for their limited number of spells known. But in PF2, items and consumables can make up for that, without a decrease in potency. Now the tables have flipped, and I find little reason to play a wizard over a sorcerer.
Edit: And to expand on that, I see little value in prepared spell casting over spontaneous, thanks to how the above magic items work. At least in a comparison of spell casting only. Class features of any given class could shift the preference in different directions.
Prepared Spell casting is a good idea if there exist strong spells that are only strong in particular situation. PF2 basically got rid of all these spells or balanced them down to minor improvements over the base line. Spells that do extra damage to undead or fiends or whatever, aren't really that strong over a standard spell like fireball.
Tactical spell changes are still viable for prepared spell casting.
Exploiting weakness is meaningful but really it is small. +5 or +10 damage is useful to an extent, but it is more relevant to martials who strike more.
Counter spells are weak options. Specific counters are very specific and arn't especially useful as there are very few permanent effects. By the time you get to the next day to prepare such a spell the effects typically wear off. Aside from the a small handful of spells they aren't required.
There exist very generic spells like Magic Missile, Heal, Fireball, Scorching Ray, Wall of Force/Stone. A Spontaneous Caster like a Sorcerer just has to have a couple of these as signature spells and they can usefully and reasonably use every slot they have. They still can afford to know a few special spells useful in particular situation only because of this backup ability. Whereas a Prepared Caster is going to have wasted slots at the end of their day.
I guess it is no surprise I'm firmly on the side of spontaneous casters being better. But I want to acknowledge that there are a lot of people who are on the other side of this equation too, who really like to be able to tailor their spells for a specific challenge. Example Derek from KOLC.
I do see this as a problem. A classic fantasy Wizard is supposed to have esoteric and peculiar magic available to them. Not just huge elemental powers. I don't see enough of this in PF2. Something maybe with secret vulnerable to this special thing power that the Thaumaturge has, but done in spells. Perhaps something like Ray of Enfeeblement but say a stronger area of effect sustain, and only against one particular creature type. That you could choose when you prepared your spell. There being 23+ creature types so essentially it is a prepared only spell. That is a top tier spell (not unbalanced just strong) with narrow targetting. A few more spells like this would give the wizard a stronger niche.
Pulling it out of your document
1. Reduction of the size of spell lists at mid-high level
I agree the size of the spell lists does get unwieldy at mid to high level. Not so much if you have played this character for 6 months, but definitely if you are putting together a character to use for a couple of sessions.
I'd be Ok with this if they made more spells like Heal which scales appropriately and has 1,2, and 3 action casting time variants.
2. Recovery of spell slots during the adventuring day
3. At will use of utility spellFor Prepared casting:
4. Open spell slots that can be prepared during the day
We already have focus spells, cantrips, and the wizard has Spell Substitution - which is quite popular in some quarters. Then there is Well Spring Mage. So while you may want some differences these are sort of here.
Some of what you want could be covered by the ability to recover a lower level spell slot on a short rest. Which would be a fair power for a high level caster. Or perhaps a Spell Substitution wizard could subsitute a spell as a single action if it was more than 3 level lower than their best spell slot.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
i mean part of that is that situatuational abilities seem to be balanced with no regard to the fact that they are situational, as seen by the lastwell book that had various anti undead tech that would be pretty ok if it worked all the time, but instead are borderline useless because they have a "balanced" effect that only turns on in certain situations and is just a feat thrown in the trash the rest of the time.
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.
A hard per-day limit of between 3 and 8 what? Castings?
Pretty much every weird design choice or strange mechanic exists because it's a legacy mechanic from 3.5.
Hm. I thought the idea behind PF2 was to get rid of the "legacy" stuff from 3.5. At least, James Jacobs said something like that a couple of years ago. Are you saying the designers failed in this endeavor? :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some legacy mechanics persist for continuity with the past and/or "to make the thing intelligible to people familiar with the family of games."
Like the reason your strength is like 12 or 18 rather than +1 or +4 is that we want people to be able to generate stat arrays by rolling D6s. The reason constitution still exists is because people are familiar with the existing 6 ability scores. We have weapons that weren't contemporaneous (like "rapiers" and "bastard swords") because people want both- hell, flails most likely were never used in a military context (though things like nunchaku were used by farmers for threshing) but you can't have the game without them.
Vancian casting I think is one of these things- we have it because we've always had it.
The benefit prepared caster had was the ability to plan ahead and upgrade spells via metamagic. Both of which have been nerfed or removed. While Spontaneous got buffed by getting free at will heightened spells.
How has the ability to plan ahead been nerfed?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much every weird design choice or strange mechanic exists because it's a legacy mechanic from 3.5.Hm. I thought the idea behind PF2 was to get rid of the "legacy" stuff from 3.5. At least, James Jacobs said something like that a couple of years ago. Are you saying the designers failed in this endeavor? :-)
Failure implies that the developers tried something and didn't succeed. But most of the legacy elements seem to have been kept very intentionally.
The benefit prepared caster had was the ability to plan ahead and upgrade spells via metamagic. Both of which have been nerfed or removed. While Spontaneous got buffed by getting free at will heightened spells.How has the ability to plan ahead been nerfed?
Temperans has misidentified the issue here. The ability to plan ahead hasn't been nerfed.
The big nerf to prepared casters in PF2 is that they can no longer afford to not plan ahead.
PF1 was stuffed full of spells that were simply the correct answer, irrespective of circumstances. Various techniques to enhance the potency and accuracy of your spells allowed you to not have to worry as much about exploiting saves or enemy types appropriately. Having more information made you stronger, but it was easy enough to simply win fights.
PF2, with its much tighter math and overall reduced spell potency, rewards the prepared caster much more for picking the correct spell for its circumstances. Or to put it another way, you're punished more for having a suboptimal spell selection. Targeting the wrong save can significantly hurt your spells overall power.
The result is that foreknowledge is much more important in PF2, and a lack of it can make prepared casters feels weaker as a result.
Theoretically, this is why prepared casting had so many advantages in d20 over spontaneous casting. It just didn't matter in practice because spell design was a joke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "Planning ahead" nerf that PF2 executed was to put a stop to "scry and fry" strategies which were really only fun for one player.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
More slots really aren't going to fix the issues that casters have when the issues are:
1) There is a list of spells that are objectively correct to take for any given campaign and Paizo balanced the game around your character taking those spells. This makes it so that any suboptimal choice, whatever the reason for making it, punishes you while also using up a limited resource.
2) Paizo intentionally made certain playstyles worse due to issues those styles of play caused in previous editions. Summoning and strong utility that could replace skill checks are two categories of spells that were hit especially hard.
3) Paizo chose to lean hard into niche protection and one of the niches that is being protected is single target damage. Thus your mage, even pushing all in is going to struggle to significantly out-damage the fighter against enemies of level +1 or greater.
4) Many published adventures don't allow casters to play to their strengths often presenting tight setups where the long range of a caster doesn't come into play. The same isn't true for martial characters who can be assured that most encounters will take place in enclosed spaces with little room for a foe to maneuver or fly away.
5) It can be more difficult to recreate specific character fantasies from fiction with spellcasters than it can be with martial characters because such characters are often built around a specific style of spellcasting. Martial characters can more easily fit their mental picture of their character with the mechanics of the system.
6) Casters often feel like they're still playing with the old two-action system while martial characters, especially CRB classes, get to use all three actions each turn.
7) Paizo has 'missed' on a couple of classes with Witch (and Wizard to a far lesser extent) being both bland and underpowered. They don't seem keen to circle back on these design flaws so we'll likely be stuck with these classes as they are until we get a new edition.
8) Paizo has a firm power cap that some CRB classes may have broken but that no class published afterward even approaches. So any desire for a class like *blank* but better is unlikely to happen even if *blank* is currently underpowered and/or inadequately supported by the current rules.
The "Planning ahead" nerf that PF2 executed was to put a stop to "scry and fry" strategies which were really only fun for one player.
I disagree. A spell such as knock used to open a significant number of locked objects without requiring any dice to be rolled, so if you knew you were breaking into some place you'd surely want to have it as a backup option for if (when) the mission goes for careful stealth to a smash and grab. That's not the case any longer so you won't see nearly as many wizards preparing knock even if they know they may run into a situation where it could be useful.
Utility spells were a point of system mastery beyond simply memorizing saves and weakness/resistance to elements that is less present in the modern game.