| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the first thing I'd do is put their casting modifier back on damaging cantrips. It's not like removing it is going to make Wizards less likely to have a +3 or +4 Int modifier, because it's still used for their casting DC. That's probably not going to happen, but I could still hope, you know?
Furthermore, at least in the Remaster preview, the idea of school curriculum, in my opinion, needs work. Wizards (well, non-universalists) are going from "your extra spell slot can contain any spell from this school for that spell level" to "here's a list of 1-3 spells that can go in there". Yes, it's more flavorful, but it's a rather extreme limitation. Plus, if Wizards are losing that much versatility for that extra slot, they honestly should get something for it.
Their defenses, over all, are terrible. Yes, I get it, squishy wizard. But the fact remains that they have one of the worst save progressions in the game, never get legendary in any save, and never get higher in unarmored defenses or perception than expert.
Yes, they get a number of skills at first level due to being an Int heavy class, but most of them never go past Trained. Okay, that's true for a fair number of classes, but would it really break things if they got free automatic improves to Arcana?
A fair number of the Wizard feats need to be looked at and revamped. Okay, most of the metamagic feats are fine as-is, but the Wizard really needs some feats that say "This is a good feat to take instead of a dedication." For example, most of the 4th level Wizard feats are just terrible.
It's too long to explain. Just read the feat list of wizards then read the feat list of other spellcasters and you will understand.
I agree yet I still think that the Witch feat list still better. Specially after what was show in the remaster.
Then you need to re-read the rulebook. They are spells, they can go in a slot, they can be cast from a slot quickly, and without a slot with a +10 minutes time. Not all classes CAN cast spells with a ritual tag as rituals (Sorcerers can't, another thing they are punished with). And most classes that can cast ritual spells as rituals must prepare or know the spell. Only (? maybe something changed) wizards can cast spells with 'ritual' tag simply from their spellbooks. There's also a feat to have a spellbook with ritual spells for everyone if I remember correctly (and you know that feats compete with stats in 5e).They were called rituals last time I played. I like the way they were handled in 5E better.
I don't recall you having to use them in a slot in 5E.
I did reread it. They are rituals. They can be cast without a slot.
I will once again reiterate that I like the way 5E handled rituals for some of the reasons you stated. They are more flexible and useful than PF2 rituals.
I did recall the feat letting non-casters use rituals.
If you don't prefer the way 5E handles rituals, so be it.
But it is not apples and carrots. 5E made ritual spells. They are more flexible and usable than PF2. I like that much, much better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a wizard. Several. I understand the issue. I was curious if people had specific ideas for improvements since we seemed to be going down the angry negative road.
Feats that boost curriculum/school abilities I would like to take.
Not vastly inferior feats where I'm spending a feat to create a mild spontaneous caster slot that casts two spells two levels lower while the sorcerer is laughing at me as he's picking heal for his arcane caster repertoire at level 6.
Level 18 wizard feat. Infinite Possibilities. Cast any spell in your spellbook 2 levels lower one time per day.
Level 18 sorcerer feat: Greater Crossblooded Evolution: Pick three spells from other spell lists.
These are considered equivalent feats by the designers. When I design a character, one looks absolutely great. The other looks like something I would rarely use and isn't worth taking, especially with things like the incap trait existing.
A wizard feat that is something the sorcerer does for free with up to 36 spells, 9 of which he designates as signature spells.
The wizard feats need to be better. There are so many undesirable feats on the wizard list that I have a harder time listing them all than I do listing quality wizard feats:
1. Spell Penetration: One of the few feats that boosts wizard spell DC in a unique way that is situationally useful, but against very powerful creatures.
2. Bond Conservation: Amazing for a universalist.
3. Scroll Savant: Free extra casting.
4. Effortless Concentration: Always good
5. Reprepare Spell: Cast 4th level or lower blow off spell endlessly.
6. Spell Mastery, Spell Combination,
Normally a class with weak feats like a fighter can be enhanced by taking archetypes and it works well on the chassis.
You can take archetype feats for the wizard to make them a more diverse caster or have more skills. So bad feats is not always a bad thing.
I imagine if they improved the arcane list or something about the wizard, it might make it more interesting to play. In current PF2 party design, I don't see the wizard being that great until they can combat heal or support better while doing all the other stuff. They don't bring much to the table and create limited party design options because of their so so feats and being locked into the Arcane list with all its inherent weaknesses and limitations.
PF2 really nuked the Arcane list compared to what it was in PF1. This has hurt wizards more than any other class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reprepare Spell is a trap. What really useful non-duration rank 1-4 spells do you will use repeatedly?
Reprepare Spell is a trap. What really useful non-duration rank 1-4 spells do you will use repeatedly?
Hmm. endless low level fireball? Or Sudden bolt level 4?
The wizard feats need to be better. There are so many undesirable feats on the wizard list that I have a harder time listing them all than I do listing quality wizard feats:
1. Spell Penetration: One of the few feats that boosts wizard spell DC in a unique way that is situationally useful, but against very powerful creatures.
2. Bond Conservation: Amazing for a universalist.
3. Scroll Savant: Free extra casting.
4. Effortless Concentration: Always good
5. Reprepare Spell: Cast 4th level or lower blow off spell endlessly.
6. Spell Mastery, Spell Combination,
These aren't terrible, they are all useful; but the only one I describe as good is Effortless Concentration which almost everyone gets. Reprepare spell is only once per ten minutes and it is useful for some of the good reaction spells we now have like say Cloud Dragon's Cloak. But it is a rank 4 spell and you have rank 9 slots by then - so keep it in perspective.
The wizard list of feats is very sorry.
Reprepare Spell is a trap. What really useful non-duration rank 1-4 spells do you will use repeatedly?Hmm. endless low level fireball? Or Sudden bolt level 4?
Is it ever bad to have slow or haste ready to go either at the start of an encounter, or sometimes even before opening the door?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it ever bad to have slow or haste ready to go either at the start of an encounter, or sometimes even before opening the door?Reprepare Spell is a trap. What really useful non-duration rank 1-4 spells do you will use repeatedly?Hmm. endless low level fireball? Or Sudden bolt level 4?
It has to be a no duration spell. If it were any 4th level or lower spell, now that would be a truly good feat.
Reprepare Spell is a trap. What really useful non-duration rank 1-4 spells do you will use repeatedly?Hmm. endless low level fireball? Or Sudden bolt level 4?
Err! In a level where a rank 4 fireball have same avg dmg of EA I see little reason to get a lvl 18 feat to be able to stop 10 minutes to re-prepare a rank 4 slot to use a fireball or similar dmg spell.
But I know you already get the poverty of it. That's mediocrity that defines most of wizards feats.
The wizard feats need to be better. There are so many undesirable feats on the wizard list that I have a harder time listing them all than I do listing quality wizard feats:
1. Spell Penetration: One of the few feats that boosts wizard spell DC in a unique way that is situationally useful, but against very powerful creatures.
2. Bond Conservation: Amazing for a universalist.
3. Scroll Savant: Free extra casting.
4. Effortless Concentration: Always good
5. Reprepare Spell: Cast 4th level or lower blow off spell endlessly.
6. Spell Mastery, Spell Combination,
These aren't terrible, they are all useful; but the only one I describe as good is Effortless Concentration which almost everyone gets. Reprepare spell is only once per ten minutes and it is useful for some of the good reaction spells we now have like say Cloud Dragon's Cloak. But it is a rank 4 spell and you have rank 9 slots by then - so keep it in perspective.
The wizard list of feats is very sorry.
Unfortunately you can't use Cloud Dragon's Cloak it has a duration too.
Reprepare Spell is a trap. What really useful non-duration rank 1-4 spells do you will use repeatedly?Dimension door, Enervation (for drained), Phantasmal Killer (for fear and a bit of damage). But yeah, the requirement of no duration is absolutely bizarre: it's already 4th rank spell once per battle when you have 9th max rank. Why, why did they decide they needed to nerf the feat even more? Is Fly a problem at 18th level? Weak Wall of Fire? 5 min Variable Gravity? Telepathy? 1 person Suggestion? I just don't see it at all.
I liked the idea of Dimension door and Phantasmal Killer as a fear that's do some damage. This could make the feat useful not really good but useful.
Most of my wizard thoughts are theoretical because no one in my group can stomach playing a wizard for more than a few levels as a single class character. They aren't fun to level up. Wizards in PF2 are like the porridge of caster classes. A bland, flavorless class that can do the basic job of being a caster.
The wizard is probably the class from PF1 that had the hardest fall from God Class to the class that no one in my group wants to play any more.
I hope if they do an unchained or something similar in PF2, the wizard is one of the classes that gets spruced up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reanalyzing the Wizard feats I came to the simple conclusion that many of them was good if wasn't so restrictive.
For example:
Lvl 20:
LvL 18:
LvL 16:
LvL 14:
LvL 12:
LvL 10:
LvL 8:
LvL 6:
LvL 4:
LvL 2:
LvL 1:
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't read the whole thread. Just the OP.
My take :
1. an additional open slot at every spell rank (rather than one dedicated to your school)
2. Your school spells added for free to your spellbook at the appropriate level.
3. Focus spells that enhance your school spells (or synergize well with them).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't sat down to design an alternative version of the Wizard, but just going off the dome, a couple of things I would like to see while still keeping somewhat to the current mould.
1) School
I think I would like to see the school de-emphasised mechanically but increased for overall flavour.
- Schools would grant the additional lore feat, for a set lore skill related to that school.
- Decouple the Wizard focus spells from the school choices and move them into feat/thesis choices.
- Change curriculum spells so that just automatically add those as spells learned on level up, with no interaction with spell slots.
2) Thesis
I think I would like to see Thesis options as a whole reworked a bit, as there is a pretty big disparity between them as a group. Move the 1st level focus spell away from school and into the Thesis section, freeing focus spells from the school theme and gearing them towards the mechanical operation of play.
- Remove Improved Familiar Attunement, Metamagical Experimentation and Spell Substitution. Chop these up and rework parts of them as class feats.
- Create a series of 1st level focus spells which work with the new Thesis options, either adding to or expanding their themes on a practical level.
Spell Blending could have a reaction focus spell which, [when you fail but not critically fail, or miss but not critically miss] a spell against an enemy, you can roll a pretty tough flat check to try to retain the spell. But you can only 1 spell per spell rank per day this way.
Staff Nexus could probably borrow an element or two from the staff magus. Perhaps a version of Runic Impression focus spell, but restricted to your staff and with a greater series of level tearing of the options.
- Introduce new Thesis options designed to aid the Wizard in some of their stated design goals.
Monstrosity Antominist a version of Bestiary scholar that works from level 1, and allows you to use Arcane for the other Tradition skills when it comes to identifying enemies. At 8th level it gains the Knowledge is power benefit, just like Bestiary Scholar, but increases the bonus to +2 at 16th.
Focus spell for this could grant the benefits of the automatic knowledge feat for 1 minute, but enemies you use it on are immune for 10 minutes. Tact a small status bonus to the rolls as you gain levels.
3) Chassis
- Convert the bonus spell slot from School into a generic 4th spell slot.
- With the de-emphasised nature of schools, rework the concept of a Universalist entirely. Strip out Arcane Bond as a generic class feature and make it a Universalist feature + roll in a reduced version of the current universalist use of arcane bond, say 1 use per 2 levels. Making them more of a slinger but with reduced inherent versatility.
4) Feats
Add feats which enable / augment actual playstyles for the Wizard.
Move most of the existing school focus spells into selectable feat options. Scale the new focus powers across their levels, changing power level as appropriate. Enable the Wizard to get up to 3 focus points natively like all other focus casters. That said, a few of the focus spells could probably be dropped entirely without too many tears.
Some off the cuff feat ideas:
Interdisciplinary Research - 10th - Gain access to the benefits of an additional school. Adding those spells to your spellbook and gaining that school's additional lore feat.
Reintroduce Spell Substitution as a 4th level feat. Add an 18th/20th level feat that allows you change one spell per spell rank per 10 minute period.
A feat which grants a focus spell version of the Pocket Library spell would be a dream.
Other focus spells as feat options distributed across the levels, invisibility cloak at 10th, Dread Aura at 12th etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd care more about Scintillating Spell if martials weren't handing out dazzle/blind on crit since level 6 with the doorknob. I trust martials, particularly magus and fighter, to land crits backed by de/buffs more than I trust a failed caster save.
At least by the time 16 rolls around reflex is the most common low save.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't prefer the way 5E handles rituals, so be it.
But it is not apples and carrots. 5E made ritual spells. They are more flexible and usable than PF2. I like that much, much better.
It's better if we recognize that the thing in 5e called "ritual casting" and spells with the "ritual" tag are not comparable or anywhere close to the same as the rituals in 2e. These are different mechanics and different thematically too. Rituals in 2e are actually rituals, 5e rituals are a way to increase caster longevity by allow some spells to be cast without using slots by making them inaccessible in combat. We are looking at two different things that share a name. Frankly PF2e could have both but call the thing like in 5e something else. It could be specific to wizards and witches, maybe accessible to clerics and druids, but not to spontaneous casters
I do like this mechanic in 5e as well. Particularly how spells like conjure familiar and comprehend languages are things that get you utility outside combat and let you be magical in more places than combat without expending precious resources. ATM only cantrips do this
I think a cool version of this could be the knock spell which could be cast on you as a daylong buff or something to that effect that lets you use arcana to pick locks, and perhaps do it with your mage hand with some feats or something. (Wizards and rogues traditionally have overlap as d20 games were not designed with rogues in mind originally so that schtick was covered by the wizard before)
If you don't prefer the way 5E handles rituals, so be it.
But it is not apples and carrots. 5E made ritual spells. They are more flexible and usable than PF2. I like that much, much better.
It's better if we recognize that the thing in 5e called "ritual casting" and spells with the "ritual" tag are not comparable or anywhere close to the same as the rituals in 2e. These are different mechanics and different thematically too. Rituals in 2e are actually rituals, 5e rituals are a way to increase caster longevity by allow some spells to be cast without using slots by making them inaccessible in combat. We are looking at two different things that share a name. Frankly PF2e could have both but call the thing like in 5e something else. It could be specific to wizards and witches, maybe accessible to clerics and druids, but not to spontaneous casters
I do like this mechanic in 5e as well. Particularly how spells like conjure familiar and comprehend languages are things that get you utility outside combat and let you be magical in more places than combat without expending precious resources. ATM only cantrips do this
I think a cool version of this could be the knock spell which could be cast on you as a daylong buff or something to that effect that lets you use arcana to pick locks, and perhaps do it with your mage hand with some feats or something. (Wizards and rogues traditionally have overlap as d20 games were not designed with rogues in mind originally so that schtick was covered by the wizard before)
And once again, I like the way 5E did the mechanics of rituals better.
So attempting to say, "They are so different" is meaningless because that is exactly why I like how 5E handled rituals better. Their mechanical idea for ritual type spells make them more usable and more interesting. It was a smarter mechanical decision in my opinion.
Fine to disagree, but don't act like rituals existed before 5E changed some spells to rituals. And PF2 didn't piggy back their idea. They absolutely did.
And I like how 5E handled it better than PF2. It was a smarter mechanical decision that made rituals more usable and fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fine to disagree, but don't act like rituals existed before 5E changed some spells to rituals. And PF2 didn't piggy back their idea. They absolutely did.
And I like how 5E handled it better than PF2. It was a smarter mechanical decision that made rituals more usable and fun.
You really didn't address what I said, and you also extremely wrong that they didn't exist before 5e, because that was a mechanic from 4e brought over to 5e. Regardless let me restate my point in no uncertain terms, these are two different things with the same name. PF2 rituals and 5e ritual spells are only the same insofar as they share the same name. Only similar in superficial ways. PF2 can have both. 5e didn't "do rituals better" because these two games did something different. You phrased your response like I was arguing with you when I agreed that 5e rituals were cool and could be a fine addition here but should be called something else because they are a different thing from PF2 rituals. Both of these can exist in the game
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the 2e ritual are very similar in form if not function to 3.5 Incantations. A fairly underwhelming optional mechanic. If you can look at the through line to see the evolution of incantation -> 4e rituals -> 5e rituals, if you are so inclined, you might see a connection. So you could say the DNA was there for 5e rituals in the far far time long long ago.
Incantations are like spells, but they can be cast by characters who are not spellcasters. This variant enables characters who know the correct ritual gestures and phrases for an incantation to achieve powerful magic effects. Incantations don’t use spell slots, you don’t have to prepare them ahead of time, and you can use an incantation an unlimited number of times per day.
Incantations have drawbacks: They’re time-consuming to cast, and success isn’t assured. They are often expensive, and some require additional participants to complete the ritual. Some incantations work only under certain specific conditions, such as during a full moon.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like semantics to me, I honestly prefer 5e rituals too, even if you call them "something else" I would still prefer that "something else" to replace the second edition rituals regardless of whether they are apples or oranges.
It's literally the opposite of sementics, this argument here I am making is a semantic argument however. Since this has to do with the meaning of words, semantics in this case. Saying something is in function and form different from another thing with the same name is the exact opposite of semantics. Rituals in 5e are spells which have a modal function of being cast for a longer duration in order to not consume a spell slot, rituals in pf2 are an entire subsystem with unique spells only castable as part of a skill challenge and doesn't intersect with the actual spellcasting mechanics at all up to and including the fact you don't need to be a spellcaster to cast them. Frankly this is a cool system and chucking it because people like a totally different thing also called "rituals" in another game system is silly. We can have both, they do different things
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear I just don't like the 2e rituals, you may think its cool but to me it feels restrictive, maybe its because i'm a introvert but I don't see the appeal in being forced to beg some stranger on the internet for permission to learn and cast a spell that I could already use in 5e, that and it makes casters meaningless since now anyone can cast the coolest spells without the need for a caster.Sounds like semantics to me, I honestly prefer 5e rituals too, even if you call them "something else" I would still prefer that "something else" to replace the second edition rituals regardless of whether they are apples or oranges.It's literally the opposite of sementics, this argument here I am making is a semantic argument however. Since this has to do with the meaning of words, semantics in this case. Saying something is in function and form different from another thing with the same name is the exact opposite of semantics. Rituals in 5e are spells which have a modal function of being cast for a longer duration in order to not consume a spell slot, rituals in pf2 are an entire subsystem with unique spells only castable as part of a skill challenge and doesn't intersect with the actual spellcasting mechanics at all up to and including the fact you don't need to be a spellcaster to cast them. Frankly this is a cool system and chucking it because people like a totally different thing also called "rituals" in another game system is silly. We can have both, they do different things
I mean, if we don't like the 2E rituals, then why implement a completely different mechanic under the same name? For a game trying to both differentiate itself from its competitor(s), as well as keep the game simplified and streamlined, having a mechanic that both essentially copies from another game as well as has the same name as another existing (even if lame) mechanic in the game sounds like both a waste of time and something not worth focusing on, either for arguments or for brainstorming.
I would rather Paizo implement new options that enhance the Wizard instead of copy-pasting 5E mechanics and saying that it's either original or fun. If we want to play 5E Wizards, we'd just go play 5E. Given how boring 5E is and how it's basically an Advantage/Disadvantage game, it's not exactly compelling for Paizo to try and copy-paste it, even if the sole reason it's successful is because of its simplicity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You really didn't address what I said, and you also extremely wrong that they didn't exist before 5e, because that was a mechanic from 4e brought over to 5e. Regardless let me restate my point in no uncertain terms, these are two different things with the same name. PF2 rituals and 5e ritual spells are only the same insofar as they share the same name. Only similar in superficial ways. PF2 can have both. 5e didn't "do rituals better" because these two games did something different. You phrased your response like I was arguing with you when I agreed that 5e rituals were cool and could be a fine addition here but should be called something else because they are a different thing from PF2 rituals. Both of these can exist in the gameFine to disagree, but don't act like rituals existed before 5E changed some spells to rituals. And PF2 didn't piggy back their idea. They absolutely did.
And I like how 5E handled it better than PF2. It was a smarter mechanical decision that made rituals more usable and fun.
Glad you like them better too.
The fact is both 5E and now PF2 used a thing they called rituals with a different than usual mechanic taking old spells and turning them in this ritual thing.
I'm sorry if I don't see that as vastly different other than the mechanics employed. The basic idea is the same to me: former spells turned into rituals.
I prefer the way 5E handled that better.
This claim the word "ritual" matters as in its actual meaning is irrelevant.
The relevant parts are the following:
1. 5E and PF2 took previous spells and turned them into this ritual thing whether a tag or a name.
2. They both made it possible for non-casters to use this ritual thing in each game. 5E with a feat and PF2 by learning the rituals.
3. I think 5E was more successful in handling this mechanical change making these former spells into more interesting and usable rituals.
I have no idea why this was not easy to see to the point someone had to claim they were completely different when they are not. Different mechanics chosen by designers for the same general purpose: to turn former spells into a new type of spell known as a ritual.
PF2 rituals are a direct decendant of PF1 rituals. The issue with PF2 rituals is that just like magic they are so boring or difficult to use that the whole system is wasted. I said it once and I will say it again, the idea of "well just copy 5e's version" is bad when Paizo is actively moving away from even their own game.
If paizo is not willing to copy Kineticist, Swashbuckler, Witch, Oracle, Vigilante, Cavalier, Alchemist, etc. all classes that are entirelt unique to Paizo and Pathfinder why in this wide world would they ever copy 5e? Congrats you like a 5e mechanic. That is not a fix for the issues with the PF2 wizard.
Making Wizard features better is a fix. Fixing wizard feats is a fix. Rebalancing spells so that buff/debuff are not the only worth while spells is a fix. Rewarding wizards for specializing is a fix. Making rituals into a copy of a 5e mechanic is not a fix.
PF1 may have come out with rituals way later, but they did not exist for the entire time I played that game. So no idea what book they came out in or when.
I did not see them in 4E either or recall them. I didn't play 4E very long as 4E is why I am PF player at this point. D&D 4E drove me from D&D into the arms of PF. Now here I am.
No one is saying PF should do exactly like 5E. I'm saying some of the 5E choices are better and more fun than the PF2 choices. Rituals and casting with heightening are two of those choices I still really like about 5E over PF2.
I despised 4E. I liked 5E and would still play it as a player, though it is too boring to run as a DM. PF is a more robust and interesting system overall for me, but I don't hate 5E like I despised 4E.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
5E ritual casting and PF2E rituals are made for completely different purposes, 5E ritual casting is just utility spells you have time to cast slower to be able to make use of out of combat without using a spell slot, PF2E rituals are for much bigger effects that are also non-combat but aren't just some utility spells you can make use of
PF2 rituals are a direct decendant of PF1 rituals. The issue with PF2 rituals is that just like magic they are so boring or difficult to use that the whole system is wasted. I said it once and I will say it again, the idea of "well just copy 5e's version" is bad when Paizo is actively moving away from even their own game.
If paizo is not willing to copy Kineticist, Swashbuckler, Witch, Oracle, Vigilante, Cavalier, Alchemist, etc. all classes that are entirelt unique to Paizo and Pathfinder why in this wide world would they ever copy 5e? Congrats you like a 5e mechanic. That is not a fix for the issues with the PF2 wizard.
Making Wizard features better is a fix. Fixing wizard feats is a fix. Rebalancing spells so that buff/debuff are not the only worth while spells is a fix. Rewarding wizards for specializing is a fix. Making rituals into a copy of a 5e mechanic is not a fix.
PF1 may have come out with rituals way later, but they did not exist for the entire time I played that game. So no idea what book they came out in or when.
I did not see them in 4E either or recall them. I didn't play 4E very long as 4E is why I am PF player at this point. D&D 4E drove me from D&D into the arms of PF. Now here I am.
No one is saying PF should do exactly like 5E. I'm saying some of the 5E choices are better and more fun than the PF2 choices. Rituals and casting with heightening are two of those choices I still really like about 5E over PF2.
I despised 4E. I liked 5E and would still play it as a player, though it is too boring to run as a DM. PF is a more robust and interesting system overall for me, but I don't hate 5E like I despised 4E.
PF1 rituals are from Occult Adventures (mid 2015). They came out alongside: Kineticist, Occultist, Mesmerist, Medium, Psychic, and Spiritualist.
No idea about 4e, except that PF2e is a more digestible version of that system. Not sure why you are talking about it in a response to me, but I assume its to...
5E casting isn't some huge advancement in casting.
It's spontaneous casting with the ability to change out spells. Not exactly copyrightable as a rule.
No idea why they didn't just make the switch when making PF2 since PF2 and 5E cross-contaminated a ton of rules ideas.
I don't even know why PF2 went to rituals. I would have kept a bunch of the spells they changed spells, especially considering they made these spells practically unusable.
5E ritual casting and PF2E rituals are made for completely different purposes, 5E ritual casting is just utility spells you have time to cast slower to be able to make use of out of combat without using a spell slot, PF2E rituals are for much bigger effects that are also non-combat but aren't just some utility spells you can make use of
For rituals with completely different purposes, they sure look like old spells turned into rituals in both games. With one edition making those spells still viable for use and other one turning them into a barely usable form that I would surmise is ignored by a large majority of players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
5E ritual casting and PF2E rituals are made for completely different purposes, 5E ritual casting is just utility spells you have time to cast slower to be able to make use of out of combat without using a spell slot, PF2E rituals are for much bigger effects that are also non-combat but aren't just some utility spells you can make use ofFor rituals with completely different purposes, they sure look like old spells turned into rituals in both games. With one edition making those spells still viable for use and other one turning them into a barely usable form that I would surmise is ignored by a large majority of players.
That rituals are ignored because:
They don't have much to do with normal adventuring. They seem like GM tools. There is nothing particularly powerful or useful there to drive interest.
They have a cost.
Players only have so much brain space and they don't seem like they are worth investigating.
There are only a few like Word of Recall which would be good for general adventuring. But you already got teleport earlier and it doesn't have a big cost.
Heroes' Feast looks OK. Awaken Object can be fun, once.
5E ritual casting and PF2E rituals are made for completely different purposes, 5E ritual casting is just utility spells you have time to cast slower to be able to make use of out of combat without using a spell slot, PF2E rituals are for much bigger effects that are also non-combat but aren't just some utility spells you can make use ofFor rituals with completely different purposes, they sure look like old spells turned into rituals in both games. With one edition making those spells still viable for use and other one turning them into a barely usable form that I would surmise is ignored by a large majority of players.
That's an overly simplified take, since I imagine a lot of the spells that are rituals in 5E aren't likewise rituals in PF2. Spells like Comprehend Languages and Conjure Familiar were referenced as example Ritual spells in 5E, which sounds like a completely different set of expectations for what to label such spells as compared to what was given an identical label in PF2.
Even if we argue for them to be at-best the same thing with a different label, what would we call them? Continuous spells? Constant spells? At that point, it might as well just be a trait and be done, but that is both lazy (which probably isn't enough to justify a difference of copyright) and requires an editing pass that simply won't be done given that the Core 1 and Beastiary 1 books are already printing and being put together to sell come November.
I can understand the frustation of PF2 rituals, but saying that they should have just gone the 5E route isn't really helpful to the discussion, nor is it a reasonable solution for Paizo to implement because it reeks of copyright lawsuit battles for Hasbro to jump on, among other reasons.
Also, a fair amount of these spells technically already exist when heightened. Longstrider at 2nd level is basically an all-day effect, same with See Invisibility at 5th, Tongues at 7th, etc. If all we have to do is adjust durations, then what's the point of categorizing them into their own spell type?
That's an overly simplified take, since I imagine a lot of the spells that are rituals in 5E aren't likewise rituals in PF2. Spells like Comprehend Languages and Conjure Familiar were referenced as example Ritual spells in 5E, which sounds like a completely different set of expectations for what to label such spells as compared to what was given an identical label in PF2.
Even if we argue for them to be at-best the same thing with a different label, what would we call them? Continuous spells? Constant spells? At that point, it might as well just be a trait and be done, but that is both lazy (which probably isn't enough to justify a difference of copyright) and requires an editing pass that simply won't be done given that the Core 1 and Beastiary 1 books are already printing and being put together to sell come November.
I can understand the frustation of PF2 rituals, but saying that they should have just gone the 5E route isn't really helpful to the discussion, nor is it a reasonable solution for Paizo to implement because it reeks of copyright lawsuit battles for Hasbro to jump on, among other reasons.
Also, a fair amount of these spells technically already exist when heightened. Longstrider at 2nd level is basically an all-day effect, same with See Invisibility at 5th, Tongues at 7th, etc. If all we have to do is adjust durations, then what's the point of categorizing them into their own spell type?
The biggest reason we would want these kinds of spells for spellcasters is that they don't require spellslots and for wizards they don't require preparing them either. So this directly answers your last part. Casting heightened spells still requires a preparation and a slot. Secondly I think a tag is quite enough. This hypothetical tag could say that the spell can be cast directly from your spellbook, or what have you, without expending a spell slot by taking 10+ minutes instead. The first part you said is correct, there are different expectations for these two ritual mechanics and is why it is smaller utility focused spells that are castable in this way in 5e. I would want to see this mechanic brought to PF2E in some way to allow my wizard to feel especially wizardy by getting to use magic for everything. That's kind of the fantasy. It's why something like prestidigitation exists. That spell would be a perfect candidate for always being in every wizard spellbook and castable without needing prepare it as a cantrip. I think we ought to be more careful in PF2 what we give easily and early without a cost, but it would be nice to have this small thing. It doesn't do much at all to boost the power of spellcasters, just gives them something nice they can do to feel that little bit just extra magical
And to be clear, I want to also keep PF2 rituals as they are. They're a grander more spectacular thing really deserving of the title "ritual"