| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am arguing that if you feel like the limited number of spell slots is preventing you from casting spells you want to cast, then scrolls is a good solution to that problem. People then respond that it is unrealistic to expect to have a scrolls on hand with different spells for different situtations, and it is necessary to point out that the rules very much enable casters to use scrolls liberally if they want to.
I can testify that the above is quite true. My spellcasting characters (as well as those of numerous associates) frequently use scrolls quite liberally, both in PFS and in several home games. They are effective, useful, and little bother to obtain, even in significant quantities (so much so that there are people on these boards who will tell you not to bother with wands over a fist full of scrolls.
If you're having trouble accessing scrolls, then you're GM is not following the base expectations of the game's rules.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not arguing that any caster needs to use scrolls. I am arguing that if you feel like the limited number of spell slots is preventing you from casting spells you want to cast, then scrolls is a good solution to that problem. People then respond that it is unrealistic to expect to have a scrolls on hand with different spells for different situtations, and it is necessary to point out that the rules very much enable casters to use scrolls liberally if they want to.
Generally the criticism is that the number of spell slots are overall too low to cover what is expected of casters, while also being able to maintain a general level of effectives, without having perfect knowledge.
Because expecting perfect knowledge is unrealistic, it means that a broad category and spread of spells is required. Each spell slot filled with a spell which can't be used is a spell slot wasted for that period.
In this situation, scrolls aren't a solution because they require even more perfect knowledge.
Or, rather, the optimal use here is prepare your situational spells in your slots while using scrolls for your bread & butter spells. This carries on until you can get a staff which gives more general spell access.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, rather, the optimal use here is prepare your situational spells in your slots while using scrolls for your bread & butter spells.
I don't get it, how do you get to this conclusion?
Scrolls are ideal for situational spells as these spells clutter your spell list otherwise. And very often situational spells can be taken at a fixed and low level, they rarely need to be heightened at max level.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a huge difference between expecting perfect knowledge, and expecting casters to be a class that tries to gain knowledge about encounters. What casters cannot do (without perhaps entirely focusing on support) is completely give up on trying to learn about the campaign and the kinds of challenges the party is going to face. You can’t be a blaster and just cast the exact same spell all the time. This is not requiring perfect knowledge it is requiring some effort to learn the game and learn the campaign.
Issues with the GM enter the picture, when casters/parties are trying to learn more about the encounters and campaign, and feel like trying to do so is an exercise in futility. That is a real and serious table-sized communication problem bigger than player frustration with casters, but that frustration is a strong symptom of it.
The number one job of the GM (after making sure everyone at the table feels like they are safe and comfortable, which is actually everyone’s job) is to help players learn and feel engaged with the story of the campaign being run. If players are getting frustrated with feeling like their characters never know what they are supposed to do, or when what they want to do always feels like the wrong thing, then it doesn’t matter if it is casters or martials, encounter mode or exploration mode, there is an expectation/communication problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like the types of scrolls that you should stock up on fall into basically two categories:
- Your bread and butter spells, you would like to cast these all the time anyway, and are limited by spell slots.
- Things you understand are situationally useful, but are not going to be worth preparing. So you own a scroll so you're okay whenever that situation crops up.
With this in mind, it doesn't seem particularly difficult to figure out "which scrolls you want."
I'm finding it ridiculous how much people are complaining about the wizard as if it gets nothing when if you look at the feats it becomes extremely apparently they get the most slotted spells in the game from their features. Between things like bond conservation, creating two scrolls everyday, getting to turn a slot into a double slot and so on. The wizard's niche is spellslot manipulation and getting to cast the most spells in a day. Which is way better than getting better focus spells. I really hope all the complaining doesn't make us lose these features in favor of focus spells because no one bothered to think about just how many spells a day a wizard getsA Specialist Wizard has the same number of spell slots as a Sorcerer.
The Wizard gets their Bonded Item feature to grant an effective extra spell slot (N+1).
A Universalist Wizard gets the same as a Sorcerer (N).
The Sorcerers choice of Evolution feat can grant them an extra Spell Slot (N+1)
Both Echoing Spell and Bloodline conduit are the equivalents to Bond conversation and Reprepare spell.
Bond conservation allows a universality to cast a tenth level spell, then a 8th, then a 6th, then a 4th, then a 2nd with only having expended one slot and one use of your bonded item. Same is true for 9th,7th,5th,3rd and 1st. In addition echoing spell doesn't grant spells as nearly as high level. Staff nexus makes this especially powerful by allowing you to use two high level slots for your staff and then get to do this trick without having cast these spells, but also still have charges in your staff to turn it into spells anyways
Wizards can eek out additional higher level slots at the cost of their lower level, paying 2 for 1.
Sorcerers have 3 native focus spells (of various qualities) vs the Wizard's native 2 (mostly poor quality).
The ability to squeak out a marginal advantage in a white room isn't exactly thrilling character design.
and you are missing Scroll Savant which gives you what amounts to two extra spell slots. Spell mastery gives 4 extra slots of 9th level or lower if you prefer that over a second 10th level slot. Superior bond gives another effective spell slot 2 levels lower than your max
Not to mention Reprepare is level 18 and Bloodline Conduit is level 20, meaning you have to choose this over an extra 10th level slot and only gives you an extra 5th or lower where as Reprepare is 8th or lower by level 20
Without universalist doing the drain trick, you have 3 extra from drain, conservation and superior, 2 from scroll savant, 1 from Reprepare and potential four from spell mastery. The drain bonded trick can theoretically give an extreme number of spells and in practical terms give 2-3 extra per use of drain bonded item. I just could not care about the extra focus spell from sorcerer or it's worse extra slot abilities
I don't believe drain bonded item works with 10th level spells. You can only get 10th level spells from the 19th level feature, the 20th level feat, or focus spells.
Nothing says it doesn't, but I mentioned this working with 9th down, and if no 10th, 8th down, for this reason. I do believe it works because it doesn't add a slot, it "refills" a slot that has been expended
I don't believe drain bonded item works with 10th level spells. You can only get 10th level spells from the 19th level feature, the 20th level feat, or focus spells.Nothing says it doesn't, but I mentioned this working with 9th down, and if no 10th, 8th down, for this reason. I do believe it works because it doesn't add a slot, it "refills" a slot that has been expendedYou can't use this spell slot for abilities that let you cast spells without expending spell slots or that give you more spell slots. Unlike with other spell slots, you don't gain more 10th-level spells as you level up, though you can take the Archwizard's Might feat to gain a second slot.Getting another use is gaining more spell slots and so that does not work. Also they specifically changed the wording to stop people from getting more 10th level spells.
Drain Bonded items says:
You expend the power stored in your bonded item, as long as the item is on your person. During your turn, you gain the ability to cast one spell you prepared today and already cast, without spending a spell slot. You must still Cast the Spell and meet the spell's other requirements.
so yes it doesn't qualify but not because it adds a slot. Either way, the tech I mentioned still works, just not with the 10th level slot
Call of the grave was sickeningly good in the Slithering. I get that super low AC enemies are not generally that common, but goo-howdy does sickened 2 and slowed one against oozes completely obliterate them. Even against not oozes, sickened 1 against most foes is pretty useful and generally worth a spell slot. I don't think it fits the fantasy of many players who choose to be necromancers maybe, but I think it is a good focus spell. We'll see if that one sticks around in any form and where it goes. I imagine the transmuter focus spell is gone though...or radically changed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agree to disagree? Sickened 2 doesn’t go away without wasting actions to make checks affected by sickened 2. And the slow doesn’t go away either without spending those actions. Fleeing can be better than slow 1 for one round if your party likes attacks of opportunity, but it can also result in your party losing out on making attacks against a heavily debuffed foe. Lastly call of the grave affects mindless creatures, and doesn’t prevent you from also demoralizing before hand. But…
…While I love me a wizard with high charisma, but it is not a common or popular build. Even if you do go charisma, it is probably to boost deception and stealth (for conceal spell and convincing illusions) and you need to boost arcana. That puts intimidate in a lot of competition compared to spell casting proficiency. At low levels demoralize is still probably worth it, but it stops being a great use of an action for wizards by mid levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is more that sickened 1 isn't that much better than frightened 1, slowed 1 isn't any better than fleeing for 1 round (terrified retreat feat), and you can impose the latter with a single action (demoralize) at-will without burning focus points on it and with a fair bit more accuracy (skills actually get item bonuses to hit, unlike spell attack rolls, and they scale up to legendary a LOT faster. Also, Will DC is a much better target than AC). The thing that kills it, in my opinion, is the 2-action cost. At 1 action? Yeah, competitive enough with demoralize, probably better. But at 2? Just no.
That's not a fair comparison.
Demoralize asks for Charisma, and Charisma is mostly a caster stat. The best Demoralizers are in general casters, even if martials can raise it but it means raising a dump stat otherwise (because there's not much to get out of Charisma save from Intimidation, Intelligence at least gives Trained skills).Then, you compare a level 1 spell to a level 8 skill option (unless you're a Rogue/Investigator then it's 7). Also, skills tend to become stronger and stronger, at low level Demoralize is not really a strong option, it's really a mid to end game option with a heavy cost.
That is a good catch superbidi, I was confusing the fear spell and demoralize for a minute so I forgot that demoralize can’t induce fleeing by itself. Intimidate is very costly for a wizard, even if you like charisma for them, they just have so much else to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play a lot of Charisma-based characters (Sorcerer, Oracle, Summoner) so Demoralize is quite an obvious path. Before Scared to Death got nerfed, I got some success out of it, slightly less after the nerf. But I've never found Demoralize to be anywhere close to strong.
Frightened is not incredible in terms of efficiency. There are a few enemies immune to it. But mostly because Frightened 1 doesn't last a round, it lasts at most a round. Very often, the creature will play right after you and get rid of the Frightened condition immediately. And as you paid an action to Demoralize it, you can't benefit fully from the condition unless you were well prepared. So to get anything out of Frightened 1 you need to time it right.
Of course, you can Demoralize and roll for the critical success. At high level, it's doable as skills tend to increase faster than saves. But you need an item bonus for that, which means investment (and PF2 considers that a Demon Mask costs more than a Striking Rune, so it's actually quite an investment). And even in that case, you are rolling for a 30% chance of success on lower level enemies. It's not bad but it's not overwhelmingly good.
Demoralize is a very nice third action, and that's all. I see people considering it strongly and while I fully agree that a nice Intimidation is always handy it's important not to forget about its limitations.
I don't consider Call of the Grave to be a strong option either. But you can cast it with True Strike to guarantee a good chance to hit especially against bosses. And Sickened is a nasty penalty as getting rid of it asks for an average of 2 actions.
All I was saying is there there is at least one published Paizo adventure where call of the grave was an absolute monster of an ability, and Lowe AC monsters are not that uncommon. There are not that many focus spells that are pretty much encounter ending on a crit, but call of the grace is pretty close when you are fighting one enemy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new kineticist dedication is going to profoundly change the caster meta. If you play free archetype, it’s going to be an auto pick for casters. Even if you don’t, for many casters (*cough* wizard) almost no class feat comes close to kineticist dedication feats, especially early on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I was saying is there there is at least one published Paizo adventure where call of the grave was an absolute monster of an ability, and Lowe AC monsters are not that uncommon. There are not that many focus spells that are pretty much encounter ending on a crit, but call of the grace is pretty close when you are fighting one enemy.
Sickened is a good condition to apply. No duration. Requires an action to get rid of. One of the few decent level 1 wizard abilities, not great, but decent. The attack roll makes it rough to land against serious enemies. True Strike helps.
All I was saying is there there is at least one published Paizo adventure where call of the grave was an absolute monster of an ability, and Lowe AC monsters are not that uncommon. There are not that many focus spells that are pretty much encounter ending on a crit, but call of the grace is pretty close when you are fighting one enemy.Sickened is a good condition to apply. No duration. Requires an action to get rid of...
And stops huge monsters from Swallowing Whole!
The new kineticist dedication is going to profoundly change the caster meta. If you play free archetype, it’s going to be an auto pick for casters. Even if you don’t, for many casters (*cough* wizard) almost no class feat comes close to kineticist dedication feats, especially early on.
As opposed to all the suggestions for Alchemist that already exist?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As opposed to all the suggestions for Alchemist that already exist?The new kineticist dedication is going to profoundly change the caster meta. If you play free archetype, it’s going to be an auto pick for casters. Even if you don’t, for many casters (*cough* wizard) almost no class feat comes close to kineticist dedication feats, especially early on.
Ehh. I'd still rather rush swashbuckler/one for all on cha casters at least. Consistent +15-20% to skills and attacks is too useful to pass up.
I absolutely don't see what Kineticist Dedication brings to casters. Is there some hidden combo I'm not aware of?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with the blaster caster or wizard is that even your core blaster spells like burning hands, or magic missile generally do about as much or less damage than a martial just hitting with a sword attack - doesn't matter if you are using scrolls the damage is low.
Casters have generally lower saves and native defences, their survivability is generally given by the same very limit resource they have for blasting or support of debuffing. I don't think other than tradition there is a good balance reason for this, after all you can range with a non caster and generally get better saves.
At low levels blaster casters are very frustrating to play. Assuming 4 encounters a day you get 1 spell per encounter and low level spells are terrible for damage. Cantrips helped smooth it but with the loss of key attribute to damage this is no longer the case. Wait for the full remaster is cold comfort for those of us who waited for APG and SoM with the same assurances only to get more of the same poor low level experiences.
No one wants PF1 casters, but if you spend your limited resources stacking blaster spells and you still deal with the low defences and if wizard less skills as well is generally not fun.
Casters I see at my tables end up end up quitting and rerolling or taking the same couple of buff/debuff spells as blowing your burning hands for 4 damage on the dice then having the enemies save reducing it to 2 for one of your big 3 or 4 spells is awful.
It gets slightly better at 5 with lightning bolt or fireball (etc) for AoE but it seems for the first couple of levels enemies are much more likely to save. It is also harder to pull off unless you are ambushing enemies before they get amongst the party as casters generally have low initiative making the problem worse. Not sure why casters need lower initiative and perception in PF2e.
So you wait till level 7 to finally catch up in proficiency, a full 3rd or more of the way through a campaign where if you plan hard, wait for just the right moments of...
I could not agree more with all of this. It pains me that this is the current bitter situation most casters find themselves in. Paizo, for the love of Desna, please address this. Please fix this in the remaster, or I will have to begrudgingly go back to house ruling the s*** out of my favourite game and take back the title of "so good it doesn't need fixing" that I so hoped this game would proudly wear.
I absolutely don't see what Kineticist Dedication brings to casters. Is there some hidden combo I'm not aware of?
Maybe at low levels there are some impulses that are better than normal cantrips, but your kineticist DC is going to lag behind your caster DC from level 7 to 12 and from 15 to 20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe at low levels there are some impulses that are better than normal cantrips, but your kineticist DC is going to lag behind your caster DC from level 7 to 12 and from 15 to 20.
Kineticist uses Con for their DC, so the Kineticist DC lag behind much more than that.
You take stuff like deflecting wave or consume power
It's not really limited to casters but it's true you need no other uses for your reaction.
Or you take stances like winter sleet that impose flat-footed in a big area for the rogue to enjoy.
Winter Sleet affects allies. In my opinion, it's not worth the investment.
The free healing of fresh produce or ocean's balm are also nice, and don't scale off proficiency or Con at all. And are easy to add to your routine, as they're only 1-action.
The healing is really low. Considering you need to be level 4 to grab them, it's not really interesting.
Anyway, I was reacting to the poster considering that it's an auto-pick for casters and that it will change the meta, which seems hardly true if all you can get is these Impulses. Psychic Dedication is still the best Dedication for casters, the meta doesn't change.
Druid taking earth and getting armor in earth or for any caster that wants heavy armor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shrugging it's the same as 1-action heal on ocean's balm , and it scales with your character level without requiring any slots at all. That's about the same as lay on hands, and doesn't cost a focus point so you can use it on multiple people. For fresh produce , scales at 7.5 per two levels, which is slower than 2-action heal but also doesn't cost two actions - it allows you to conjure it with your 3rd action and them to eat it with their 3rd action.
For some casters, I'd say that's well worth their 2nd and 4th level feats. Those feats just aren't that good for a lot of PCs.
The scaling was not appearing properly on AoN, so I thought it was just 1d8.
I change my mind. They are nice abilities (for anyone actually, not just casters, I even think it's ideal on a Monk).| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Druid taking earth and getting armor in earth or for any caster that wants heavy armor.
Druids get medium armor, they can get heavy armor with one feat (from Sentinel) instead of two feats from the Kineticist dedication. Druids aren't banned from metal armor anymore, since metal is an element.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking for myself there's a few things that could be done to make wizards and other casters more fun to play.
1) Kill the vancian system its a relic that belonged in an era when my spells could turn the tide of battles and achieve amazing effects. Like it or hate it the spellcasters have been nerfed down to parity with martials but they are still limited by vancian spells. Using sleep to maybe knock out that ogre or drop some kobolds felt fun and a worthwhile use of that slot. Using it to in all likelihood give an enemy -1 to perception or maybe fall asleep, standing up, while holding a weapon, and making perception checks to wake up feels like a waste of a limited spell slot.
Especially since the practical result is usually (a) just resting after each combat "Don't worry I'm sure the cultists wont kill the villagers while we take an eight hour rest and wait till I can cast spells again", (b) sinking resources into workarounds like scrolls or (c) pulling out a book when combat starts and going "yeah I'm . . . there, somewhere, let me know when its done. Oh Randolf has met Mortimer interesting.". Since the casters are now theoretically on par with the martials does it really hurt if I can use my spells all day or 3 per day when no one else is limited like that?
2) Make the wizard interact more with the 3 action economy. Instead of 90% of spells taking two turns give me ones that are 1, 2 or 3 actions. For example I can cast a 1 action direct attack that has the same chance of hitting as the martials but does less damage, a 2 action that has the same chance to hit and does the same damage as one of their attacks or buffs/debuffs and a three action that can hit multiple targets. I'm not outshining the martials as I'm doing less damage than them or at best equal damage for more actions but I feel like I'm contributing and have a choice in how I do things. Yes if you tally up the numbers any martial will out damage me but I can feel like I contributed by actually hitting the enemy or I can choose to use two actions to buff/debuff or raise my damage and three actions to hit multiple enemies at once.
3) Don't let the martials cross specialize into magical areas as easily they're already able to duplicate a lot of spells e.g trip vs grease so don't let them heal and heroism (equivilent) themselves as well or better than casters do with minimal investment.
I know this one is more perception but even the encounter modifying utility spells make me feel like I should put on a cheerleader outfit and start going "Rah, rah, cis cum bah if you can't do it I ruddy well can't." because all I'm doing is buffing the martial, making the martial fly, making the martial breath water, making the martial better able to do things. Now yes that's mechanically a contribution but as said earlier in the thread few people enjoy playing support roles over DPS. I know I feel happier playing a DPS in online games even if I rank at the very bottom of the chart than dealing with the stress and effort of healing/tanking/supporting only to end the raid and watch everyone patting themselves on the back for topping the DPS chart (and making your job harder as they kept stealing agro) and not even get a thanks for keeping them alive to do that.
When even that contribution starts getting eroded away by the martials buffing/healing/othering themselves it moves from being a cheerleader to just that random person who happened to be around the real heroes when they did amazing things. I'm not Merlin the magician or King Arthur I'm randolf the poor sod who cleans the dung off the street so neither Merlin nor Arthur have to step in it. Perhaps with years of hard work I might rise up to the gutter or maybe even just below average if someone takes pity on me and runs a campaign to 19th or 20th level. Again yes I know there are ways to mechanically benefit things (though these changes seem like they'll be taking some of those away) but it never feels like it because at the end of the fight most of the time the group is talking about that amazing crit not the +1 that (maybe) allowed it or the fighter taking that terrifying crit and then killing their opponent not the healing used on them to allow it (if they didn't do that healing themselves).
Even the first one alone wouldn't really affect game balance but would at least remove the gut wrenching misery of using one of your limited spells for two actions only to achieve nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can those materials teleport, plane shift, conjure magical mansions and see invisible enemies?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can those materials teleport, plane shift, conjure magical mansions and see invisible enemies?
At higher levels . . .
Teleport/plane shift: Get the martial where they need to be "Hi I'm Ron Wilson bus driver." and that's assuming the campaign involves other planes and doesn't ban teleport as problematic and gets high enough level to use them and doesn't take place in one area in or around a city. Not to mention it is fairly high level which most games don't get too making it outside the scope of this thread which is dealing with low level casters who can't do any of those things you listed. I mean seriously if I don't have teleport or plane shift do you really think the game will end in defeat or will the GM have us miraculously find another way to get there in time? I'm not needed for them, indeed in first ed people HATED having mages with teleport.
Conjure magical mansions: Honestly I don't think I've ever seen this spell used, then again I've never been in a game that got high enough to really do so and didn't have you staying in forts or other established strongholds instead. Its also uncommon so there's no guarantee you'll even get it as a caster. Come to think of it so are teleport and plane shift.
See invisible enemies: Yes.
*
as long as you can identify the location precisely both by its position relative to your starting position and by its appearance (or other identifying features). Incorrect knowledge of the location's appearance usually causes the spell to fail, but it could instead lead to teleporting to an unwanted location or some other unusual mishap determined by the GM. Teleport is not precise over great distances. The targets appear at a distance from the intended destination equal to roughly 1 percent of the total distance traveled, in a direction determined by the GM. For short journeys, this lack of precision is irrelevant, but for long distances this could be up to 1 mile.
2) Make the wizard interact more with the 3 action economy. Instead of 90% of spells taking two turns give me ones that are 1, 2 or 3 actions. For example I can cast a 1 action
Done here are 67 single action spells already in the game
32 of them are arcane.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) Make the wizard interact more with the 3 action economy. Instead of 90% of spells taking two turns give me ones that are 1, 2 or 3 actions. For example I can cast a 1 actionDone here are 67 single action spells already in the game
And if we remove all uncommon and rare spells its 20, if we remove those that aren't of arcane tradition its 16 and then we can remove ones that are for specific modules or people with specific splat books it probably gets worse. In other words of those 67 spells listed there only 20 don't require GM approval to learn and that gets worse if you aren't of the common arcane tradition, I think there were half a dozen primal or divine ones. Not to mention are you really going to spend a slot on things like illuminate to magically light all fire based illumination sources in 30 feet of you as oppose to just lighting them normally?
I didn't say they didn't exist I said allow more interaction with the 3 action economy. This also isn't limited to spells give ways to get similar benefits to using those spells e.g. metamagic lasting a round or till the end of your next round rather than needing the spell to imediately follow it or it vanishes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can those materials teleport, plane shift, conjure magical mansions and see invisible enemies?At higher levels . . .
Teleport/plane shift: Get the martial where they need to be "Hi I'm Ron Wilson bus driver." and that's assuming the campaign involves other planes and doesn't ban teleport as problematic and gets high enough level to use them and doesn't take place in one area in or around a city. Not to mention it is fairly high level which most games don't get too making it outside the scope of this thread which is dealing with low level casters who can't do any of those things you listed. I mean seriously if I don't have teleport or plane shift do you really think the game will end in defeat or will the GM have us miraculously find another way to get there in time? I'm not needed for them, indeed in first ed people HATED having mages with teleport.
Conjure magical mansions: Honestly I don't think I've ever seen this spell used, then again I've never been in a game that got high enough to really do so and didn't have you staying in forts or other established strongholds instead. Its also uncommon so there's no guarantee you'll even get it as a caster. Come to think of it so are teleport and plane shift.
See invisible enemies: Yes.
*
as long as you can identify the location precisely both by its position relative to your starting position and by its appearance (or other identifying features). Incorrect knowledge of the location's appearance usually causes the spell to fail, but it could instead lead to teleporting to an unwanted location or some other unusual mishap determined by the GM. Teleport is not precise over great distances. The targets appear at a distance from the intended destination equal to roughly 1 percent of the total distance traveled, in a direction determined by the GM. For short journeys, this lack of precision is irrelevant, but for long distances this could be up to 1 mile.
So, it's a "no, no, I'm going to move goalposts around so that I appear to win the argument", how can a Fighter see invisible enemies?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A fighter with blindfight and using Seek makes short work of invisible enemies in my experience.
And if we remove all uncommon and rare spells
Why? They are all there and freely available online. Why are you restricting yourself then complaining about those restrictions?
I didn't say they didn't exist I said allow more interaction with the 3 action economy. This also isn't limited to spells give ways to get similar benefits to using those spells e.g. metamagic lasting a round or till the end of your next round rather than needing the spell to imediately follow it or it vanishes.
Then there are all the other single actions that spell casters can take as well. Like move, sustain, take cover. Use skills.
Your argument doesn't stack up at all. You just want something different. Which is Ok. Probably most of us do. The turn and action economy is rich enough. Especially with all the extra reactions that came into the game. Use them.
1) Kill the vancian system its a relic that belonged in an era when my spells could turn the tide of battles and achieve amazing effects. Like it or hate it the spellcasters have been nerfed down to parity with martials but they are still limited by vancian spells. .
Acutally I and happy for it to go just on complexity grounds. There are still some spells that can turn the tide of battle.
But Vancian magic was one of the many features that got PF1 started and many of the originals into the game. They still play and subscribe. It was a bit much to get that change in PF2. Maybe PF3.