It really makes spontaneous casters struggle to justify their existence - just look at 5e, where the spont casters are just worse than the prepped casters in most contexts.One wonders why, if flexible casting has so much upside and so little downside,
Paizo didn’t make it the default in the first place.
I don't think that raison d'être of spontaneous spell casters in PF2 is the spontaneous casting by-self like it was in 3.x/PF1. All spontaneous casters have many unique mechanics to justify themselves (bards sings focus cantrips, sorcerer has bloodlines and excellent focus spells, oracles had mysteries benefits and very good focus spells, summoners has eidolons, psychic has psychic cantrips and amps) and if you think this isn't enough this still can easily solved just adding more spell slots to them.
Once again. I think that Flexible Spellcasting could be a thing because the PC1 just com with bards with spontaneous alternative. This can be as optional/alternative rule as suggested but I think there's good to have a solution in PC1 to avoid new players to be forced to play using AoN/old books or not having access to spontaneous non-bard casters at all.
On side note for those who think that fighter is overpowered in your opinion what nerf he should receive to be in line with other Martials?
I don't think fighters needs to be nerfed. I have a table with a fighter with usually 2-handed melee weapon (it has shifting rune so I just call as 2-handed melee weapon :P), a barbarian with a 2-handed axe and a rogue with a longbow and I don't see an advantage of the fighter over the other 2. The fighter don't receive the great additional damage that these other 2 classes get but hit and crits more making them pretty closer has DD. The main difference is that fighter is simple. So simple that my fighter player put a shifting rune to have more options than move and attack, attack an AoO (he uses the ability to change weapon to shove, trip and grab with rune bonus or just to increase the reach in some situations).
IMO fighter isn't OP in any point of view it's just so easy to play that many people think that it's OP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well that is better solution overall but it would be far harder to implement
I'd say it is the other way around. The only thing the fighter chassis really has is numbers, and those have zero wiggle room. To adjust the fighter, you'd need at least one new major class mechanic that is inredibly simple and has little inherent flavour beyond "you are good at weapons".
In contrast, to even the playing field, which is only necessary for post-CRB martials, most only need a moderate numbers boost. Their problems have a lot of overlap with areas other than strict effectiveness, so those need looking at anyway.
Edit: Also, just to make it clear, I'm not of the opinion that the fighter is op. It works exactly as it should. The others just need a good hug anyway.
Maul fighter is a little OP only because you crit quite a lot as a fighter and knocking something prone with no save or ability to resist is a nightmare. That's why I think Kip Up should be way more common on higher level NPCs and creatures than it is because knocking something Prone is so unbelievably powerful. No one can take advantage of the Prone damage loop than a fighter.
Fighter archer also has Debilitating Shot which is a brutal control ability with unlimited use and no save. With a fighter's accuracy, you can keep a creature slowed indefinitely.
If you have one PC knocking the thing prone and another slowing it with no save, you turn a boss fight into a trivial situation.
This is why I so often recommend starting fights at longer range and keep up the range if you can for enemies. If they allow a coordinated group to close on them, they are likely all done as long as at least one Prone Damage loop PC and/or a slower is in the group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like witches need a stronger identity, more feats focused on their patron powers or the like. I really, really like the flavor of the witch, but they feel like they're missing something. Like, I want to play a scrappy hedge witch, the thaumaturge of casters. When I say I want the witch to be "bargain bin wizard", I don't just mean "like the wizard, but a little worse". It might be neat if witch got some unique metamagics or rules around spell acquisition to reflect that "cobbled-together" vibe. Maybe give them some feats related to scrolls and magic item usage?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like witches need a stronger identity, more feats focused on their patron powers or the like. I really, really like the flavor of the witch, but they feel like they're missing something. Like, I want to play a scrappy hedge witch, the thaumaturge of casters. When I say I want the witch to be "bargain bin wizard", I don't just mean "like the wizard, but a little worse". It might be neat if witch got some unique metamagics or rules around spell acquisition to reflect that "cobbled-together" vibe. Maybe give them some feats related to scrolls and magic item usage?
That would be a neat idea for an entire class really.
Full spellcaster, natively Flexible casting, no tradition, not pick-a-list either.
Has a class feature where every time they gain a new spell level, they can select a list to take spells from that level. Number of spells you can know would be pretty restricted. You could then take feats which allowed you to nap spells from any list from which you've previously drawn spells, and have these feats be the primary way you learn new spells.
Allow them to use magic items from any tradition they have drawn spells from.
Give them a unique lore skill which autoscales, and allow them to replace any tradition-skill requirement with that lore skill.
A few bespoke focus spells to help with the classes combat options, as those might be otherwise pretty jumbled.
Done.
PF2's own Red Mage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is cool! Definitely not what I meant, but that would be its own really awesome thing. Actually, I've been working on a witch class archetype focused on spell stealing (the "dredge witch"), so I guess that's kind of related, but it's separate from what I'm talking about here.
Wizard needs massive upgrades all around:
* Skills the same as other casters.
* Reintroduction of prepared metamagic.
* Upgrades to existing school abilities.
* More feats period (seriously, they have given wizards so few feats).
* More archetypes that actually care about Int and work with Wizard's proficiency. Way too many are more focused on literally any other class. (Only Con gets less love).
* More poaching of other classes. If all other casters are going to get feats that let them take spells from any list, why are Wizards being left out when their thing is studying magic?
* Rebalance Thesis because right now some are clearly way too weak. Not to mention that Spell Substitution should had been either a feature or a feat if wizards had actual features.
* Related to more feat, more metamagics and way to modify said metamagic. As well as ways to modify spells period.
* If spontaneous casters are going to get ways to get prepared spells, Wizards should have ways to get spontaneous spells.
I agree, and think this is a great list of ideas for wizards. The meta magic thievish would have been better if it gave bonus class feats, or the meta magic feat you could prepare was at up to your level.
At least wizards had a clear vision of what the class was about. Witches, sigh. They could have been so cool.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm let me check something.
* DnD3.5e: Spontaneous Vancian and Prepared Vancian about equally good. Pick spontaneous and you get more spells, pick prepared and you can do some special tricks.
* PF1e: Repeat of DnD3.5e but more streamlined and more options. They also added Arcanist which is Prepared Spontaneous Vancian.
Not accurate at all, spontaneous was usually considered a significant downgrade because of the loss of versatility and, more significantly, the slower spell progression, especially in 3.5 when sorcerers didn't really have class features.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
More like from clearly overpowered to pretty much fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not accurate at all, spontaneous was usually considered a significant downgrade because of the loss of versatility and, more significantly, the slower spell progression, especially in 3.5 when sorcerers didn't really have class features.Hmm let me check something.
* DnD3.5e: Spontaneous Vancian and Prepared Vancian about equally good. Pick spontaneous and you get more spells, pick prepared and you can do some special tricks.
* PF1e: Repeat of DnD3.5e but more streamlined and more options. They also added Arcanist which is Prepared Spontaneous Vancian.
I disagree with the loss of versatility, but I agree with the part about reduced progression.
Versatility has always been theoretical, but never practical for prep spellcasters. The fact that prep classes could choose from a wide range of available spells, but being tied to spell slots had just the opposite effect. As the prepared spellcaster normally had no way of knowing what he would expect during that day, he ended up preparing his most all-rounder spells in his spell slots in order not to run the risk of ending up with spell slots trapped with situational spells that ran the risk of not being needed that day.
The only prep class that players still enjoyed the versatility of was clerics due to the ability to convert spell slots with prepared spells into healing spells, which gave the freedom to be able to place situational spells because the player knows that in the worst situation he could discard it and use heal instead.
In PF2 it got much worse because in addition to the access to new magic levels/ranks being the same for both spellcasting models, the conversion also ceased to exist. And even though some wizards can re-prep spells, the fact that it's out of combat greatly limits their versatility, especially in a game where long duration buffs are basically gone and arcane tradition doesn't offer condition removal spells and at most has a few utility spells that justify re-preparation to some degree.
My PF1 Witch has been able to prepare the right spells (either in the morning or by leaving some open slots) in a lot of situations, and that really helped the group having an easier time with challenging encounters. In several occasions, we knew the enemy because we had retreated from it; sometimes we were able to gather some information ahead of time; in other cases, it was just guessing right based on the kind of place we were going to (but honestly I also guessed completely wrong every now and then).
Stuff like Death Ward is something that you may keep in a slot, but not for the entire group unless you know that you will need it - and when you do, you really thank having that option. Utility spells like Locate Creature, Scrying, Speak with Dead, Tongues, are other things that you probably wouldn't pick if you had a limited selection, while having them in your repertory and being able use them with just a 15 minutes notice can be extremely useful.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least wizards had a clear vision of what the class was about. Witches, sigh. They could have been so cool.
I honestly don’t think this is true for the Wizard. I think one of the real problems of the Wizard is that it lacks a real, distinctive, class identity.
Most of the Wizards distinctive class aspects are either incredibly marginal, or overly subtle in what they bring to the table.
It certainly doesn’t do anything in the space of a “magical scientist”, nor does it fill the role of the “preeminent spellcaster” in any meaningful sense.
|
|
It certainly doesn’t do anything in the space of a “magical scientist”, nor does it fill the role of the “preeminent spellcaster” in any meaningful sense.Well, he could get the best version of counterspell and is the only caster which gets Silent Spell, and could have other mildly interesting things like selection of two spells in one slot or two spells from one slot at once. But yeah.
Blood Component Substitution is generally just better than Silent Spell. An action costs more than some HP, and Silent Spell comes with a feat tax whereas BCS can have it all baked in.
But otherwise, like a said, marginal.
But none of these things makes a class identity.
The identity of the Wizard is trading too much on its legacy and doesn’t do nearly enough to establish itself in actual play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It certainly doesn’t do anything in the space of a “magical scientist”, nor does it fill the role of the “preeminent spellcaster” in any meaningful sense.Well, he could get the best version of counterspell and is the only caster which gets Silent Spell, and could have other mildly interesting things like selection of two spells in one slot or two spells from one slot at once. But yeah.Blood Component Substitution is generally just better than Silent Spell. An action costs more than some HP, and Silent Spell comes with a feat tax whereas BCS can have it all baked in.
But otherwise, like a said, marginal.
But none of these things makes a class identity.
The identity of the Wizard is trading too much on its legacy and doesn’t do nearly enough to establish itself in actual play.
... What? Blood Component Substitution is a 12th level feat that costs a chunk of hitpoints and doesn't do the useful/interesting thing that Silent Spell does- make it easier to hide your casting. Wizard and Bard are the game's only potentially subtle casters, and Bard has to hide it in a performance.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one knows you’ve cast a spell if you use BCS, you can replace all the components with an otherwise innocuous effect, which can’t be used to identify the spell or even that spell was cast. If you want to throw a deception check in there because you are worried about people noticing, then I’m sure no one would stop you.
But, even besides that, Silent Spell is not a class identity. It’s not even an iconic Wizardary “thing” to have hidden magic really. It’s neat, and good, and I’m glad it’s there. But it’s not the class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one knows you’ve cast a spell if you use BCS, you can replace all the components with an otherwise innocuous effect, which can’t be used to identify the spell or even that spell was cast. If you want to throw a deception check in there because you are worried about people noticing, then I’m sure no one would stop you.
"... spells normally have sensory manifestations that would make spellcasting obvious to those nearby."
That's why Conceal Spell both disguises your casting components and hides the manifestations. I can see why if you're treating components as the only noticeable part of spellcasting, BCS would look better.
And yeah, it's not the class's identity. I disagree with you about Wizard not filling the role of preeminent caster well, but I also don't care about how flavorful or bland Wizard is enough to discuss it; the class does enough for me.
So, let's agree. Comparing Silence Spell to Blood Component Substitution is like comparing eating a liquid-rich meal to quench your thirst with a nutrient-rich drink to quell your hunger.
They are different mechanics, to solve different problems than conjurations. While Silent Spell resolves restrictions and situations related to sound, such as Silence and casting unnoticed (hidden), Blood Component Substitution resolves situations such as Attacks of Opportunity and Paralyzed. They are different solutions to different problems that even occur at different frequencies.
I think what he means, with arcane lore, is the fact that the wizard is that character who has deeply studied the fundamentals of magic (and arcane magic is the best suited to that) to the point of mastering it as a tool your need.
In this concept, the fact of being prepared, spontaneous, flexible does not make much difference, there is not much reason for the fact that the wizard is linked to this. However, this does not justify the fact that today the wizard is among the least skilled spellcasters due to the bad set that formed around his chassis.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard's problem is poorly thought out feats and schools and making Spell Substitution a thesis instead of a class feature. Who cares if you have a big old spellbook if you can't change it on the fly. You're better off being an Arcane sorcerer if you want to change the next day using the Arcane Evolution with more spell slots and better feats.
Making a wizard take their only thesis choice to do something that they should be able to do by virtue of the type of caster they are is a strange design decision to say the least.
The schools powers should fit with the way the spells each school would use in combat play. Augment Summoning requiring an action when summons are 3 action spells? So you need two rounds to get your summon going? What kind of design decision is that in a game with 3 to 5 round combats? Making an evocation advanced spell require the evocation caster to be amongst the targets he's nuking? Why would they do that?
It was school design decisions like the above that make you go, "Were you even thinking about how this would play in the game of fast a furious combat where the summon needs to be ready to go as soon as it appears and an evoker is blasting from range?
It felt like the wizard was finished very early, forgotten about, and never much tested prior to release.
Although it seems a bit off topic, is there a forum with all the announced (or possible) changes? As I'm not a native English speaker, it's easier for me to translate a text than to listen to an interview, which, personally, is extremely boring and tedious to me...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've often thought that Wizard should have some rules around being able to develop their own spells.
They're arcane masters and academics right? Surely the best way to represent that is to have them develop a new spell or two?
Like I can CPR, but I'm not a doctor, a doctor might be able to do heart surgery. A great Doctor might develop a new surgery.
Although it seems a bit off topic, is there a forum with all the announced (or possible) changes? As I'm not a native English speaker, it's easier for me to translate a text than to listen to an interview, which, personally, is extremely boring and tedious to me...Not yet. I imagine one might get made during or after Paizocon.
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've often thought that Wizard should have some rules around being able to develop their own spells.
They're arcane masters and academics right? Surely the best way to represent that is to have them develop a new spell or two?
This will require an entire amount of ruleset to allow Wizards to create their own spell. But I agree this would be incredible fun for most creative players and extremely flavorful to Wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean it seems like a rule set worth investing in though doesn’t it?
It’s not like only wizards could use it, it could be wizards main thing, and dedicating unto wizard might let another caster create one spell.
Like a wizard could get 2 spells (one at max level one at half rounded up or lower if they choose) when they get expert, again at master and again at legendary, so by max level wizards get 6 spells they made up.
So they could end up with 1x 2nd level, 2x 4th level, 1x 5th level, 1x 8th level and 1x 9th level.
Let people live their bigby’s hand fantasy. Or whatever.
And then maybe a feat route for classes like the sorc or witch to build 1 or 2 of their own.
It could also be a dedicated arcane thing, to give the people who think arcane has been laid low, something to smile about.
I think some version of heightened spells is likely to be the most PF2 can handle.
Really? I’d have thought it’d be relatively simple
Presumably they already have some sort of frame work/guidelines for how spells should be written so that when a new book is written they don’t accidentally blow everything out of the water.
Just publish a simpler version of that
My fear with that is it might end up looking like metamagic with a different name, if you're just modifying existing spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My fear with that is it might end up looking like metamagic with a different name, if you're just modifying existing spells.
If it's permanently applied metamagic that doesn't cost additional resources in the moment, that seems like it could still be cool. That would make it much more a matter of "I'm modifying spells" than "I'm casting it a bit differently this time". Like, yeah, it's not the same fiction as someone who's creating new spells out of nothing, but you're still using your mastery over the arcane to get permanently modified spells, and that's something that no one else (who's not a wizard) gets.
...and I just started thinking about it all in grad school terms and now I'm imagining wizards in the Magaambya defending their dissertations in wizard duels.
I don't know that they do. Or if they do, at some point they didn't. Every time I compare acid storm to fireball and lightning bolt, I can't fathom why it's such a higher level spell with much smaller damage. It's not like it does extra (i.e., persistent) damage. Sometimes QA for things seems a little... wonky.
Acid Storm is an ongoing spell that lasts for a minute. It doesn't even take concentration. That means that if you can force an enemy to stay in the thing (or you can throw them back into the thing) you can do a lot more damage.
Still, let's look at the numbsers:
- lvl 5: fireball is doing 10d6 (avg 35). Acid Storm is doing 3d8 (avg 13.5)
- lvl 10: fireball is doing 20d6 (avg 70). Acid Storm is doing 5d8 (avg 22.5)
So the acid storm is doing around one third of the damage of the fireball (higher or lower depending on even/odd levels), and deals its damage on those that begin their turn in the area.
Okay, I'll admit it, that seems a bit on the weak side for the acid storm, by comparison. My guess is that fireball is deliberately a little overtuned, as it's one of the iconic spells.
The main idea would be some rule set similar to Building Creatures and Personal Staves but to wizard create spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what changes do people want to see for the Core 1 classes?
What changes do people think are important, because I don't have a lot?
Hmmm...
That's a hard one because the Witch is the only one of them that needs a LOT of help and we know it's happening but as noted - the conversation for that is elsewhere because it's a big conversation.
I think:
Rogue:
1. Redo Mastermind so it's not just a gimped Investigaor.
2. Redo Scoundrel because it's so clearly weaker than Thief.
3. The big one: make the Thief's damage ability class baseline. Which then means redo thief to be... a thief.
In the current Rogue, you either pick Thief for your Racket or you intentionally nerf your character for roleplay reasons.
Cleric:
1. Make sure someone would want to play warpriest. So... if I want a melee martial character with healing spells - is this effective? I think it is. So do we just need better flavor text?
Druid:
I feel the only reason to take leaf is to get the focus healing spell. Am I wrong? Probably - but make sure it shows me why. If I go wildshape, can I play it like a Guardian or Feral Druid in World of Warcraft? Because my instinct wants to.
Ranger:
If I go archer ranger, I feel I need a reason to not regret going archer fighter (which gets better archery feats like Point-Blank Shot). Show me why I should not feel this way.
Fighter and Wizard: I have few issues here. Most of the time my problem is only "if I pretended the only thing I cared about what game mechanics; then why am I not playing a fighter or a wizard?"
Bard: I have nothing to say here only because I don't know enough. What I do know is that the occult spell list that is the most common one for Witch is way too themed for the Bard. As in... the problem with the Bard is that it's spell list is otherwise used by classes that feel more "occultish" but the spell list was designed to be more perform and diplomat because when it came out - it came out for this class.
And you have to think, most monsters are highly mobile and allergic to damage. So at best acid storm will do damage twice.
Being able to pressure monsters to avoid a given area is not a bad effect. You can also pre-cast terrain control spells, making acid storm great for an ambush or for defending an area you know enemies will have to come through later. Terrain control spells just have different balance considerations.
I've often thought that Wizard should have some rules around being able to develop their own spells.
They're arcane masters and academics right? Surely the best way to represent that is to have them develop a new spell or two?
Like I can CPR, but I'm not a doctor, a doctor might be able to do heart surgery. A great Doctor might develop a new surgery.
The Shek-Pvâr are exactly that. Apprentice wizards attend a chantry, where they are taught the skills Arcane Lore and Arcane Discipline and eventually, about half a dozen spells. Then they are released from the Chantry, told to go out into the world and not to return for at least a year and a day (some don't return for considerably longer, some don't return at all). When they return they can be examined for promotion to Shenava (Master). This requires that they present three new spells and three useful magical artifacts to the chantry.
In order to learn a new spell, the mage must research it. This is a time consuming process which can be aided either by being "original research" or by having the aid of a mentor or a written work. Once the mage learns the spell, he knows it and can cast it whenever he likes, however many times a day he likes (subject to fatigue, which will reduce his chance of success with the spell and thus increase the chance of a misfire).
The first part of a spell in Hârnmaster is the spell description, the set of game rules that define what the spell does in game. In comparison to Pathfinder, the Spells chapter of the CRB contains spell descriptions. The second part of the spell is the in-game writeup. If you're researching a spell for which there's already a spell description, you just have to do the research in game. If it's a new spell you work with your GM to get an acceptable spell description, and then you can do the research.
You can check it out here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyways, this "class feature" already exists. It's called, "prepared casters being able to learn new spells much more easily than spontaneous casters". Just homebrew a spell and ask your GM if you can use it.
I don't really agree with the central "wizards are underpowered" conceit, though, so maybe this conversation just isn't for me.