| 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'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...
The game companies refer to them as rituals.
I call them former usable spells that were turned into a different kind of mechanic as an experiment. That experiment was done better in 5E than PF2 in my opinion.
I remember using spells like commune, resurrect, create undead, and the like in previous iterations of the games they are based on without any problems.
Now it's a big pain to use these spells in PF2.
That's what I see.
And I've tried to use these spells just to see if they could provide some useful function in a reasonable way. They don't.
1. Too costly.
2. Too many skill checks with high failure rates to accomplish something worthwhile.
3. Not fun. Easier to just ignore as though they don't exist unless you want to use them as GM roleplay tool.
That's my experience with the PF2 ritual experiment.
Whereas using spells with the ritual tag in 5E was a good experience. Prolonged my casting. Could be used in real time for combat purposes or setting up an ambush or something. Had a useful impact on casting longevity and caster power.
So when I base what each company did with a certain number of former spells turning them into the idea of a ritual spell or a ritual, I find 5Es was a more usable, fun, and impactful mechanic.
Not like I didn't give both a try. I gave them both a try. PF2s ritual system isn't fun for me and isn't impactful. It's a fairly bogged down, overly expensive, and fail-based system. I don't like it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 thisWell, also focus spells to a point (and fully after remaster). Though of course focus spells are much more restricted as you can't just select what you want most of the time.
I like the focus spell mechanic. That was a good addition to PF2. Still limited, but fun and useful as long as the focus spell is well-designed.
I thought it was a smart way to create an additional resource that increased casting longevity and could be used to give different classes powers with a generic mechanic you can flavor in a lot of different ways.
So when I base what each company did with a certain number of former spells turning them into the idea of a ritual spell or a ritual, I find 5Es was a more usable, fun, and impactful mechanic.
Not like I didn't give both a try. I gave them both a try. PF2s ritual system isn't fun for me and isn't impactful. It's a fairly bogged down, overly expensive, and fail-based system. I don't like it.
Fwiw, I'd also like to see something similar to 5E's ritual system. I think rituals, for all the reasons you mentioned, are an underutilized narrative tool and short, minor rituals in the 10 minute range could be added as an alternative to scrolls and other consumables.
Hm, spells that you can cast without having them memorized, for a cost...isn't this exactly what scrolls are in PF2? And you can cast them in encounters, just spending 1 extra action.
I get wanting a different narrative way of covering that space, but you can do that by reflavoring scrolls in your own home game. Codifying rituals into the same space feels like it would just be the system fighting itself. If the goal is to remove the opportunity cost of having to commit in advance to what spells you might want to be able to cast in a day, that feels again like a change you could make to the crafting rules for your own home game, but literaly any wizard that wants that power has access to it with the spell substitution thesis.
I am sorry some GMs are making it so difficult to use that thesis, but my wizard who had it in Outlaws of alkenstar got tons of use out of it. Any campaign where you are assaulting a base, or planning hiests or being asked to accomplish a specific goal by a quest giver gives you tons of time to change spells around. I mean every party is trying to rest for 10 minutes after any encounter. So you can always just adjust what combat encounter spells you have memorized after seeing what spells you cast last time. I have rarely had any other caster so effectively use all of their spell slots as my Gnoll Illusionist Burdock Howler Day.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hm, spells that you can cast without having them memorized, for a cost...isn't this exactly what scrolls are in PF2? And you can cast them in encounters, just spending 1 extra action.
They're entirely different use cases. Its closer to wands than any other item really, but even then not quite.
The idea is that spells which aren't needed always in combat but are still useful to have, have a means of casting which don't impact your combat utility while you are in exploration mode.
An example from an Edgewatch game I was in, our Bard wanted to cast Clairaudience a bunch so we could "stake out" a warehouse from the roof of a seperate warehouse across the street. The Bard used 2 of their 3 3rd level slots while we all waited for the sting to playout. Narratively it was fun and made a lot of sense, but cost the Bard a decent chunk of their (at the time) top slots for the the ensueing fight.
If there was a way to "ritual cast" Clairaudience, which if it was an exploration style re-casting that didn't consume slots, we would have been able to do the same thing, without that bard having to resort to their hand-crossbow like what ended up happening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm excited at the prospect of how many more sacred cows can be axed in a distant pf3. I'm personally ready for them to go full DND 4e and nix vancian/ slot based casting so everybody can play the same resource game....basically make every caster a different flavor of kineticist. I enjoy the power, longevity, and scaling provided by buying your spells with class feats
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well you could just play both games its not like a sports team where you have to be exclusively one or the other.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.
Sure, but saying "This game does it better, so just use those rules instead" is neither helpful to the discussion when it's a completely different system, nor a viable, actionable answer to the question of "How can we make PF2 Wizard better?"
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm excited at the prospect of how many more sacred cows can be axed in a distant pf3. I'm personally ready for them to go full DND 4e and nix vancian/ slot based casting so everybody can play the same resource game....basically make every caster a different flavor of kineticist. I enjoy the power, longevity, and scaling provided by buying your spells with class feats
4e had a lot of pitfalls, but I feel that these were all implementation based, rather then conceptual.
The D&D 4e <> Pathfinder 2e comparsion is apt as they both try to address the same sets of problems that came with the various 3.x engines.
I feel like there is a solid middle ground between the two methods. Personally I ended up hating the "shameness" of 4e, as the general packets of at wills / encounters / daily powers left the game feeling kind of bland. (As a side note, it felt like so many things were just some variant of Push or pull with an assorted damage type tacted on)
I like the PF2e method where Martials and Casters meaningfully act differently and care about different things.
I also personally like vanican casting. It has a lot of issue overall, but I feel like a lot of the rough edges could be worked through with a better set of cantrips and focus cantrips which seek to allow repeatable and meaningful actions without washing out variety of actions.
|
|
How would people feel about a version of Staff Nexus wherein, instead of being able to overcharge 1 staff, you could eventually prepare up to 3 staves?
Something like:
Your thesis maintains that early and intense adoption of staves from the first days of study can create a symbiotic bond between spellcaster and staff, allowing them to create remarkable magic together. You've learned to form complex and dynamic connections with more than one staff at a time, starting with a makeshift staff you built. Allowing you to infuse ever more staves as you gain greater power.You begin play with a makeshift staff of your own invention. It contains one cantrip and one 1st-level spell, both from your spellbook, but it gains no charges normally during your preparations; you must expend a spell slot to grant it charges in the same way you would add additional charges to a normal staff. You can Craft your makeshift staff into any other type of staff for the new staff's usual cost, adding the two spells you originally chose to the staff you Craft.
At 8th level, you can prepare an additional staff. This staff gains charges as is normal for a prepared staff, however if you expend a spell slot to grant additional charges, you can split those charges across both staves. At 16th level, you can prepared a thrid staff, splitting any additional charges across all three staves.
As is normal, you can’t expend more than one spell in this way each day to grant additional charges.
This way you are getting more variety, but at the expense of being able to over-clock your staff for 30+ True Strikes a day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm excited at the prospect of how many more sacred cows can be axed in a distant pf3. I'm personally ready for them to go full DND 4e and nix vancian/ slot based casting so everybody can play the same resource game....basically make every caster a different flavor of kineticist. I enjoy the power, longevity, and scaling provided by buying your spells with class feats4e had a lot of pitfalls, but I feel that these were all implementation based, rather then conceptual.
The D&D 4e <> Pathfinder 2e comparsion is apt as they both try to address the same sets of problems that came with the various 3.x engines.
I feel like there is a solid middle ground between the two methods. Personally I ended up hating the "shameness" of 4e, as the general packets of at wills / encounters / daily powers left the game feeling kind of bland. (As a side note, it felt like so many things were just some variant of Push or pull with an assorted damage type tacted on)
I like the PF2e method where Martials and Casters meaningfully act differently and care about different things.
I also personally like vanican casting. It has a lot of issue overall, but I feel like a lot of the rough edges could be worked through with a better set of cantrips and focus cantrips which seek to allow repeatable and meaningful actions without washing out variety of actions.
Fair enough. At the very least I hope for more casters with toolboxes as limited as the kineticist. Those limitations buy you soooo much as far as enjoyable table experiences go, not least of which being not caring when things whiff bc "lol, I'll do it again next turn, this well can't run dry!!"
|
|
I feel like D&D 4e gameplay always tipped too heavily into "dominant strategy" sameness.
Because your encounter powers where hard set to once an encounter, as opposed to PF2e where focus points mean you can use a range of powers, perhaps the same one up to 3 times, you get more variety and versatility from having a bigger spread. It makes you more adaptable as combat evolves.
|
|
That seems very hard to pull off with 2 hands, and gets near impossible with 3 staves. Personally, I would merge the staffs into one ultimate staff, with the spells and charges of all of the constituent staffs.How would people feel about a version of Staff Nexus wherein, instead of being able to overcharge 1 staff, you could eventually prepare up to 3 staves?
Something like:
Your thesis maintains that early and intense adoption of staves from the first days of study can create a symbiotic bond between spellcaster and staff, allowing them to create remarkable magic together. You've learned to form complex and dynamic connections with more than one staff at a time, starting with a makeshift staff you built. Allowing you to infuse ever more staves as you gain greater power.You begin play with a makeshift staff of your own invention. It contains one cantrip and one 1st-level spell, both from your spellbook, but it gains no charges normally during your preparations; you must expend a spell slot to grant it charges in the same way you would add additional charges to a normal staff. You can Craft your makeshift staff into any other type of staff for the new staff's usual cost, adding the two spells you originally chose to the staff you Craft.
At 8th level, you can prepare an additional staff. This staff gains charges as is normal for a prepared staff, however if you expend a spell slot to grant additional charges, you can split those charges across both staves. At 16th level, you can prepared a thrid staff, splitting any additional charges you expend across all three staves.
As is normal, you can’t expend more than one spell in this way each day.
The action cost of switching would be part of the trade-off in combat.
But you would then also introduce a 10th level feat version of Quick Stow feat from the Swordmaster archetype.
Have 2 strapped to your back and 1 in hand at all times.
I feel like D&D 4e gameplay always tipped too heavily into "dominant strategy" sameness.
Because your encounter powers where hard set to once an encounter, as opposed to PF2e where focus points mean you can use a range of powers, perhaps the same one up to 3 times, you get more variety and versatility from having a bigger spread. It makes you more adaptable as combat evolves.
I feel like this is true of any game though. A group will find a strong default strategy that powers through 99% of anything they come up against and adjust or brute force the remaining 1%.
|
I'm excited at the prospect of how many more sacred cows can be axed in a distant pf3. I'm personally ready for them to go full DND 4e and nix vancian/ slot based casting so everybody can play the same resource game....basically make every caster a different flavor of kineticist. I enjoy the power, longevity, and scaling provided by buying your spells with class feats4e had a lot of pitfalls, but I feel that these were all implementation based, rather then conceptual.
The D&D 4e <> Pathfinder 2e comparsion is apt as they both try to address the same sets of problems that came with the various 3.x engines.
I feel like there is a solid middle ground between the two methods. Personally I ended up hating the "shameness" of 4e, as the general packets of at wills / encounters / daily powers left the game feeling kind of bland. (As a side note, it felt like so many things were just some variant of Push or pull with an assorted damage type tacted on)
I like the PF2e method where Martials and Casters meaningfully act differently and care about different things.
I also personally like vanican casting. It has a lot of issue overall, but I feel like a lot of the rough edges could be worked through with a better set of cantrips and focus cantrips which seek to allow repeatable and meaningful actions without washing out variety of actions.
I enjoy the vancian casting because of what you mention. I hate the "I do the same thing" every turn type approach and love having significant variety between turns. That being said I have played a flexible caster wizard and cleric. Both can be good, but I end up missing the extra lots I could have prepped appropriate things for the AP on.
Fair enough. At the very least I hope for more casters with toolboxes as limited as the kineticist. Those limitations buy you soooo much as far as enjoyable table experiences go, not least of which being not caring when things whiff bc "lol, I'll do it again next turn, this well can't run dry!!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like D&D 4e gameplay always tipped too heavily into "dominant strategy" sameness.
Because your encounter powers where hard set to once an encounter, as opposed to PF2e where focus points mean you can use a range of powers, perhaps the same one up to 3 times, you get more variety and versatility from having a bigger spread. It makes you more adaptable as combat evolves.
TBH that's kind of why I liked the way 4e did the psychic classes. Instead of encounter powers you had... literally PF2 amps (at-will abilities you could upgrade into 'encounter powers' by spending points you regenerate with a short rest).
I feel like this is true of any game though. A group will find a strong default strategy that powers through 99% of anything they come up against and adjust or brute force the remaining 1%.I feel like D&D 4e gameplay always tipped too heavily into "dominant strategy" sameness.
Because your encounter powers where hard set to once an encounter, as opposed to PF2e where focus points mean you can use a range of powers, perhaps the same one up to 3 times, you get more variety and versatility from having a bigger spread. It makes you more adaptable as combat evolves.
This happens in every edition of every game I've ever played.
Even in a game like GURPS, arm bar was overpowered so everyone was taking arm bar as a martial arts maneuver.
Everyone was raising up their skills to head or brain shot as it almost guaranteed a kill.
Even in 4E everyone was choosing the best abilities for each class.
It's what some people do. People are naturally inclined to use what works best and copycat each other when they see something working well in action across game systems and into the real world.
I even see this all the time in investing. People buying the same stocks or investing strategies because someone shows them how to make it work or someone makes a ton of money so others hop on like the crypto craze.
It's basic human psychology to use what works best or looks most beneficial.
I feel like D&D 4e gameplay always tipped too heavily into "dominant strategy" sameness.
Because your encounter powers where hard set to once an encounter, as opposed to PF2e where focus points mean you can use a range of powers, perhaps the same one up to 3 times, you get more variety and versatility from having a bigger spread. It makes you more adaptable as combat evolves.
Yeah I can definitely see that critique. Speaking as someone who adored 4e (and as someone who was HORRIFIED upon discovering Vancian casting for the first time...) I'd argue that making more things encounter-based (focus points) is a giant leap forward, because it means the developers don't have to worry about balancing for 15-minute workdays with one fight vs. 10-fight slogfests. It is quite impossible to make a system that performs well in all of those scenarios when you have spells/day limitations, since as a designer you do not know when the PCs are going to finally take an 8 hour rest.
And before someone gets on my case for "oh but that allows for tactical flexibility" or something. I don't really think it does. What it allows for is players (not characters, players) getting into fights about when to long rest, with the wizard either gritting their teeth and spamming cantrips or annoying the group by asking to take one while the martials just stand there obliviously going "but my resources are fine!"
Pathfinder 2e is very very similar to 4e, it's just that the 3-action economy is a million times more efficient and dynamic than the standard/move/minor actions that 4e had going on, and that it keeps the cosmetics of a 3.x engine with Vancian casting. Now that that sacred cow is less relevant...I'd really like to see the per day recharge limits go the way of the dodo. Not going to happen in the remaster, but maybe in Pathfinder 3...
You could even keep Vancian casting. Just scale it so it works on a per-refocus basis or something.
The basic structure of Vancian casting works fine. I don't like prepared Vancian casting. It's too limiting at this point.
|
|
I don't think prepared Vancian casting itself is the problem as there are still people that enjoy working around those limitations (if it would be rewarded properly)
And then there's already a solution for people that prefer prepared Vancian casting of 5E. The Flexible Spellcaster Archetype from Secrets of Magic, which does exactly that at the cost of one slot per spell rank (the one gained from even levels)
And while I don't see the cost of one slot for more flexibility as a problem per se, Wizards again feel more punished than other classes by this, because other classes can rely on their chassis more, while wizards have nothing else and the wizard's spell repertoire is more limited to begin with. That and half or more of the Arcane thesis suddenly become a lot worse with this option.
Especially in the remaster, where the school slot is now limited to very few spells (because extra slots from classes don't change their mechanics)
If the flexible Wizard had best of both worlds at an overall 25% performance decrease (as in a 3 slot caster with a spell book and 3*spell rank available spells, not restricted to level), I think this would be fine. But as it works now (or rather in the future), it's not.
We actually aren't sure how the wizards' extra slot will be treated in the Remaster as we've only seen a few pages. I'm going to hold off until we have a better idea.
I also tend to prefer the wizard style of casting over others because they have significantly more spell options to cast from instead of being limited like a sorcerer. Unless of course you prepare the same spell many times, and if you do that you should probably play a different class or Flexible.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think prepared Vancian casting itself is the problem as there are still people that enjoy working around those limitations (if it would be rewarded properly)
And then there's already a solution for people that prefer prepared Vancian casting of 5E. The Flexible Spellcaster Archetype from Secrets of Magic, which does exactly that at the cost of one slot per spell rank (the one gained from even levels)
And while I don't see the cost of one slot for more flexibility as a problem per se, Wizards again feel more punished than other classes by this, because other classes can rely on their chassis more, while wizards have nothing else and the wizard's spell repertoire is more limited to begin with. That and half or more of the Arcane thesis suddenly become a lot worse with this option.
Especially in the remaster, where the school slot is now limited to very few spells (because extra slots from classes don't change their mechanics)
If the flexible Wizard had best of both worlds at an overall 25% performance decrease (as in a 3 slot caster with a spell book and 3*spell rank available spells, not restricted to level), I think this would be fine. But as it works now (or rather in the future), it's not.
We actually aren't sure how the wizards' extra slot will be treated in the Remaster as we've only seen a few pages. I'm going to hold off until we have a better idea.
I also tend to prefer the wizard style of casting over others because they have significantly more spell options to cast from instead of being limited like a sorcerer. Unless of course you prepare the same spell many times, and if you do that you should probably play a different class or Flexible.
Be nice if it worked that way.
Even if you memorize a different spell in every wizard slot, sorcerer still has way more versatility. Only time a wizard has an advantage is needing to change more than one spell and having the Spell Substitution Thesis.
A sorcerer's repertoire is 36 spells, 9 chosen by Bloodline. 27 the sorcerer chooses. Then they can spontaneous cast all of them with up to 4 slots. So while the wizard is memorizing one of each different spell in a slot hoping each slot is useful, the sorcerer has 4 different spells per level and 4 slots to use those 4 spells in any way they see fit. Then they get 9 signature spells they can heighten opening up even more slots for up to 9 spells.
With Arcane Evolution they can either add a 37th spell of their choosing to their repertoire or another signature spell. They can change that extra spell out daily.
And on top of that one of their spells can be from another list other than Arcane. So they can make an Arcane caster that can heal.
On top of that if they're imperial, they can access any non-lore skill up to Expert level eventually with a single focus point to even see more erudite than the wizard.
Hm, spells that you can cast without having them memorized, for a cost...isn't this exactly what scrolls are in PF2? And you can cast them in encounters, just spending 1 extra action.They're entirely different use cases. Its closer to wands than any other item really, but even then not quite.
The idea is that spells which aren't needed always in combat but are still useful to have, have a means of casting which don't impact your combat utility while you are in exploration mode.
An example from an Edgewatch game I was in, our Bard wanted to cast Clairaudience a bunch so we could "stake out" a warehouse from the roof of a seperate warehouse across the street. The Bard used 2 of their 3 3rd level slots while we all waited for the sting to playout. Narratively it was fun and made a lot of sense, but cost the Bard a decent chunk of their (at the time) top slots for the the ensueing fight.
If there was a way to "ritual cast" Clairaudience, which if it was an exploration style re-casting that didn't consume slots, we would have been able to do the same thing, without that bard having to resort to their hand-crossbow like what ended up happening.
I think this might hit the nail on the head for me on what I'd get out of 5e style rituals. One thing I've wanted for a while is more, for lack of a better description, magical effects that players could do (usually I ask for it as a skill check) without expending a spell slot, use a feat to buy a cantrip, or use a consumable or daily class resource. Allowing a certain subset of spells to be able to be cast as exploration activities would scratch that itch. The "repeat a spell" exploration activity already is in the rules, this could expand on that activity.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(...)(...)Be nice if it worked that way.
Even if you memorize a different spell in every wizard slot, sorcerer still has way more versatility. Only time a wizard has an advantage is needing to change more than one spell and having the Spell Substitution Thesis.
A sorcerer's repertoire is 36 spells, 9 chosen by Bloodline. 27 the sorcerer chooses. Then they can spontaneous cast all of them with up to 4 slots. So while the wizard is memorizing one of each different spell in a slot hoping each slot is useful, the sorcerer has 4 different spells per level and 4 slots to use those 4 spells in any way they see fit. Then they get 9 signature spells they can heighten opening up even more slots for up to 9 spells.
With Arcane Evolution they can either add a 37th spell of their choosing to their repertoire or another signature spell. They can change that extra spell out daily.
And on top of that one of their spells can be from another list other than Arcane. So they can make an Arcane caster that can heal.
On top of that if they're imperial, they can access any non-lore skill up to Expert level eventually with a single focus point to even see more erudite than the wizard.
You have an interesting point here. The old premise of prepared vs. spontaneous was the extra flexibility of prepared. But for that to actually be true, there are a couple of conditions:
1) The spontaneous caster is really limited by how many spells they know.
2) The prepared caster knows more spells than they'd select from on a given day, so tomorrow could show up with really different spells.
3) Having exactly the right spell available is much more powerful than having a generic, versatile spell available.
And I would say that all of these are under pressure in PF2;
For 1, spontaneous casters actually know quite a lot of spells, and signature/heightening subtly increases this a bit more, and scrolls and staves can add more options.
For 2, this can be true, but you don't automatically learn all that many spells per level.
And for 3, we all know the anguish of using a "silver bullet" spell and the boss critically saving against it.
So what can we do? We can't really do much about point 1 because our goal is not to hose another caster, us casters gotta stick together against martial dominance :P
For point 2, we could be a bit more generous with spells gained per level, and retrying learning a spell. The concept of the wizard who's greedy for knowledge is a powerful one, but it is kinda weird that sorcerers and clerics don't pay gold to learn new spells (or only for some uncommon ones).
Point 3 is probably where we need to focus on. We need more silver bullet spells, and we need more reliability that they'll work. For example, constructs are immune to a lot of different effect, but where are the powerful specialized anti-construct spells? The best example I know of a silver bullet spell is Spiritual Anamnesis, but that's an AP spell for the occult/divine list.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel it's more that the "silver bullets" don't do enough more over a generic good spell for it to be rewarding to bother with it. Spending time/resources learning a spell that's only marginally better some of the time just doesn't feel worth it.
Edit: on topic, I'd give wizards a feat chain to boost their spell DC in exchange for not interacting with the 4 degrees of success and eventually limiting their results to success and failure. If the existence of crit fail effects are the reason why save DCs can't be boosted or enemy saves can't be debuffed the same as AC, then I'll gladly throw it away in exchange for a 10-15% boost to the ability to land a regular fail.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(...)(...)Be nice if it worked that way.
Even if you memorize a different spell in every wizard slot, sorcerer still has way more versatility. Only time a wizard has an advantage is needing to change more than one spell and having the Spell Substitution Thesis.
A sorcerer's repertoire is 36 spells, 9 chosen by Bloodline. 27 the sorcerer chooses. Then they can spontaneous cast all of them with up to 4 slots. So while the wizard is memorizing one of each different spell in a slot hoping each slot is useful, the sorcerer has 4 different spells per level and 4 slots to use those 4 spells in any way they see fit. Then they get 9 signature spells they can heighten opening up even more slots for up to 9 spells.
With Arcane Evolution they can either add a 37th spell of their choosing to their repertoire or another signature spell. They can change that extra spell out daily.
And on top of that one of their spells can be from another list other than Arcane. So they can make an Arcane caster that can heal.
On top of that if they're imperial, they can access any non-lore skill up to Expert level eventually with a single focus point to even see more erudite than the wizard.
You have an interesting point here. The old premise of prepared vs. spontaneous was the extra flexibility of prepared. But for that to actually be true, there are a couple of conditions:
1) The spontaneous caster is really limited by how many spells they know.
2) The prepared caster knows more spells than they'd select from on a given day, so tomorrow could show up with really different spells.
3) Having exactly the right spell available is much more powerful than having a generic, versatile spell available.And I would say that all of these are under pressure in PF2;
For 1, spontaneous casters actually know quite a lot of spells, and signature/heightening subtly increases this a bit more, and scrolls and staves can add more...
What I see as the problem from PF1 to PF2:
1. Wizards had a means of obtaining Spontaneous Casting with Spell Perfection and similar feats. Maybe only one spell, but one spell was often all you needed. I know I used quickened enervation to set up a ton of spells to absolute wreck most enemies. Enervation was an absolutely brutal spell and made lowering saves incredibly easy if not outright killing what you faced.
2. Wizards had a Spell Substitution equivalent as an innate class feature in PF1. You could leave slots empty and fill them as needed.
3. Wizards had a lot more slots due to stats providing a huge number of bonus slots.
4. Wands and other disposable items were a lot easier to make, cheaper, and the wizard was clearly the best at making them receiving Scribe Scroll for free and metamagic or item creation feats as bonus feats.
5. Metamagic was a lot more powerful for wizards as they could slot metamagic ready to go without increasing casting time and could create items with metamagic spells in them.
6. The school abilities were much better with schools like the Divination school being overpowered and even evocation and conjuration were good. You had good capstones for a lot of schools.
7. Arcane spell list was very, very clearly and inarguably the best spell list in the game with everything on it but healing and condition removal. Now some try to argue that Arcane is just as good as before and it isn't, not even close. Occult is the best list of PF2 and it even has healing and quite a bit of condition removal.
PF2 wizards look like some sick joke compared to PF1 wizards. They hammer nerfed them so badly that they are a pale memory of what they once were. This new version doesn't feel right at all.
That's why I'm surprised that wizard is the favorite class of Jason Buhlman and he for some reason can't see the nerf hammer dropped way to hard on the wizard. Maybe his favorite class changed for PF2. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes.
We all knew the wizard had to be balanced and reduced in power dramatically. Maybe that is the class the Paizo designers watch the closest so they don't ever return to the old paradigm. I don't know. The PF2 wizard feels so bad in this edition. I really, really hope they do something to fix it at some point. Maybe that will take until some new future edition of the game.
I feel like D&D 4e gameplay always tipped too heavily into "dominant strategy" sameness.
Because there were so few of them, and some of them were just broken.
You have an interesting point here. The old premise of prepared vs. spontaneous was the extra flexibility of prepared. But for that to actually be true, there are a couple of conditions:
1) The spontaneous caster is really limited by how many spells they know.
2) The prepared caster knows more spells than they'd select from on a given day, so tomorrow could show up with really different spells.
3) Having exactly the right spell available is much more powerful than having a generic, versatile spell available.And I would say that all of these are under pressure in PF2;
1) Some spontaneous casters get a spellbook that they can use daily for one spell. All spontaneous casters can use spell books to record spells, then use the down time retraining rules to swap in a new spell. It takes a week typically. So spontaneous casters are not locked into their choices long term.
2) True but that typically requires reconnaissance and foreknowledge. A lot of groups tend to be light on reconnaissance as it tends to be one or two players only doing it while others sit out so to speak. So it can be rushed. Our recall knowkedge mechanic has potential but it is an in combat thing. Players need to be reminded to do it more before combat. This is something I feel the players and the GM can resolve. Paizo's contribution would be in writing modules where reconnaissance is encouraged.
3) I just don't think this is true. I mean there are a few spells for specific situations, but the good generic spells are already at the ceiling of power for spells.
The spontanteous caster can prepare 2-3 generic spells and still have space for a couple of specialist spells that are strong in particular situations. Because of signature spells they can actually have more of the spell they need.
Where prepared casters are good is in completely replacing a large portion of their spells day to day. I just don't see it used that much in practice as it is a lot of work. Mostly it is one or two spells changed. At which point you may as well be a spontaneous caster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) True but that typically requires reconnaissance and foreknowledge. A lot of groups tend to be light on reconnaissance as it tends to be one or two players only doing it while others sit out so to speak. So it can be rushed. Our recall knowkedge mechanic has potential but it is an in combat thing. Players need to be reminded to do it more before combat. This is something I feel the players and the GM can resolve. Paizo's contribution would be in writing modules where reconnaissance is encouraged.There seems to be a disparity between what the devs expect people to play like and how they actually play like, I believe its called white room analysis, this problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the wizard player doesn't have full control of the situation, if the rest of the party decides to go full leeroy jenkins then the wizard will take the penalty for someone else's choice due to being more reliant on preparation to work.
None of my groups have ever needed to wait for a spell to be changed out for combat encounters. PF2 martials are so effective, they don't need a silver bullet spell. Their weapons, skills, and class abilities are all the silver bullets they need.
The only time I've seen the wizard versatility as useful is non-combat problem solving. Sometimes you let the wizard do with spells what someone else might do with skills or like for the Kingmaker campaign set up a mailbox because no caster is going to memorize magic mailbox in their repertoire unless it is for the day. You can make the wizard feel good letting them craft stuff and use their spell versatility to look cool during exploration or downtime because repertoire casters won't often memorize spells for those activities.
That is of course if they have Spell Substitution or multiple days of downtime.
For combat nothing the wizard does is particularly necessary, though if a party likes the wizard and feels like doing so they can make that PC feel good for coming up with a strategy that makes them feel useful. My group's strategy is usually crush the enemy as fast as possible as soon as they show their face. They optimize their martials and casters to do so. No need to wait.
2) True but that typically requires reconnaissance and foreknowledge. A lot of groups tend to be light on reconnaissance as it tends to be one or two players only doing it while others sit out so to speak. So it can be rushed. Our recall knowkedge mechanic has potential but it is an in combat thing. Players need to be reminded to do it more before combat. This is something I feel the players and the GM can resolve. Paizo's contribution would be in writing modules where reconnaissance is encouraged.There seems to be a disparity between what the devs expect people to play like and how they actually play like, I believe its called white room analysis, this problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the wizard player doesn't have full control of the situation, if the rest of the party decides to go full leeroy jenkins then the wizard will take the penalty for someone else's choice due to being more reliant on preparation to work.
Do you think the developers do not playtest these things?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There seems to be a disparity between what the devs expect people to play like and how they actually play like, I believe its called white room analysis, ...
What AD said, but as a further aside; whatever the disparity between dev expectations and actual play (as there must always inherently be in any game exposed to the general public, so that's not in question), 'white-room analysis' is not the name for such a thing. It is technically possibly for a given example of dev/player disparity to be caused by white-room analysis, but the two should be recognised as distinct things.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think the developers do not playtest these things?2) True but that typically requires reconnaissance and foreknowledge. A lot of groups tend to be light on reconnaissance as it tends to be one or two players only doing it while others sit out so to speak. So it can be rushed. Our recall knowkedge mechanic has potential but it is an in combat thing. Players need to be reminded to do it more before combat. This is something I feel the players and the GM can resolve. Paizo's contribution would be in writing modules where reconnaissance is encouraged.There seems to be a disparity between what the devs expect people to play like and how they actually play like, I believe its called white room analysis, this problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the wizard player doesn't have full control of the situation, if the rest of the party decides to go full leeroy jenkins then the wizard will take the penalty for someone else's choice due to being more reliant on preparation to work.
Comments like this get made a lot, for pretty much every game I can think of.
The flip side of the coin is that the Success Factors tested for may not be the same Success Factors that players value once something is released.
It’s why dialogue is important.
|
Do you think the developers do not playtest these things?2) True but that typically requires reconnaissance and foreknowledge. A lot of groups tend to be light on reconnaissance as it tends to be one or two players only doing it while others sit out so to speak. So it can be rushed. Our recall knowkedge mechanic has potential but it is an in combat thing. Players need to be reminded to do it more before combat. This is something I feel the players and the GM can resolve. Paizo's contribution would be in writing modules where reconnaissance is encouraged.There seems to be a disparity between what the devs expect people to play like and how they actually play like, I believe its called white room analysis, this problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the wizard player doesn't have full control of the situation, if the rest of the party decides to go full leeroy jenkins then the wizard will take the penalty for someone else's choice due to being more reliant on preparation to work.Comments like this get made a lot, for pretty much every game I can think of.
The flip side of the coin is that the Success Factors tested for may not be the same Success Factors that players value once something is released.
It’s why dialogue is important.
Indeed. But posters on these boards are not the whole of PF2 players. Far from it. And we do not even have a shared vision of what needs to be changed, even less how.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s true, but many-to-one relationships are how all product feedback happens.
It’s impractical, if not impossible, to set the standard for quality changes as universal consensus. It just never happens. Paizo should have a wider view of player feedback than anyone person here, because all feedback channels lead to them.
That said, many of us aren’t just in one place, and we can see the feedback channels in motion in as well. Be that here, Reddit, discord, PFS forums, and a bunch of the smaller ones.
Conversations have been happening constantly.
Direct play test feedback seems to get the most direct response, but as far as I’m aware, the Remaster changes were never publically play tested. So it’s hard to say what went on there.
But in any case, a shared vision from end users shouldn’t be a requirement to action consistent feedback. If anything, if your entire customer based has a shared vision on a QA feature, it’s probably something that should have been caught way earlier in design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remaster changes would have been a nightmare to playtest. As has been seen on these boards, communicating about changes that were necessary because of legal considerations and how to handle that can’t really be filtered through general audience feedback. The players are not the ones potentially facing major law suits for getting it wrong.
Plus the feedback cycle adds a lot of time to the process and Paizo needed to act quickly.
It will be interesting to see how the star finder playtest pans out since it is going through a full revision change.
|
|
That’s true, but many-to-one relationships are how all product feedback happens.
It’s impractical, if not impossible, to set the standard for quality changes as universal consensus. It just never happens. Paizo should have a wider view of player feedback than anyone person here, because all feedback channels lead to them.
That said, many of us aren’t just in one place, and we can see the feedback channels in motion in as well. Be that here, Reddit, discord, PFS forums, and a bunch of the smaller ones.
Conversations have been happening constantly.
Direct play test feedback seems to get the most direct response, but as far as I’m aware, the Remaster changes were never publically play tested. So it’s hard to say what went on there.
But in any case, a shared vision from end users shouldn’t be a requirement to action consistent feedback. If anything, if your entire customer based has a shared vision on a QA feature, it’s probably something that should have been caught way earlier in design.
I agree. But Paizo having much more info than we do should make us careful when using the "white room" trump card argument.
Maybe most players are actually not bothered by what some posters see as glaring holes in the class design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think the developers do not playtest these things?I don't understand what are you trying to argue here, many people on this forum keeps repeating that wizards need to have the right spells prepared, that they need to scout ahead and find information about enemies so they can prepare the right spells to target their weak saves use scrolls etc... and regardless of the reason people are not playing like that with most parties rarely ever using the spells substitution, so clearly there is a disparity between how they were intended to play and how they actually play, it could be due to anything from a lack of communication to preference but they clearly aren't playing the way they were excepted to or are you arguing that the developers were expecting players not to do any any of that?
I didn't make an argument, I asked you a question
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't actually know how most wizards are being played at other tables. Collecting that data is a lot of work to do accurately and it isn't at all necessary to have an oppinion about how the wizard feels in play, so even having that data isn't going to change things for people who feel like it should have different mechanics.
It is not developers stepping in and saying "use more scrolls!" it is us players who have had a positive experience doing so. I do personally believe that scrolls are absolutely the most effective way for casters to get quality returns on gold spent on expanding spells per day..but that is based upon my experience of actually doing that in play. The same with getting the whole party to participating in learning more about the mission ahead, not just with scouting, but with gathering information in town, researching those leads when possible, and spending time discussing with the party after encounters what we fought and how creatures fit within the ecology of the dungeon we are in. Play style and experience are just going to vary vastly from table to table.
It is perfectly fine to say, "that style isn't going to work at my table." The issue that the developers have to contend with is that small changes here or there to suit one style of play can easily blow the doors off of another (see the many past conversations about normalizing item bonuses to attack roll spells). That is part of the reason why I think people generally need to embrace how simple a system PF2 is to hack and mod and we all need to stop implying that house rule changes and homebrewing rules is a lesser form of interacting with the game, and that any changes that a person wants to see in the game need to be embraced by the company itself.
If you have ideas about what will make the game better, play it that way. If know one you play with wants to play it that way, then maybe you can get some feedback on your ideas and find out why. If you want better wizard schools for your games, make them. The new design is super simple and small enough not to be a massive task to just throw together some spells and focus spell from one of the old wizard focus spells, or even probably the cleric domain spells and not completely break the game...especially not at your specific table. If one of the focus spells becomes a problem, or the GM feels like it is a problem, you all can resolve that easily yourselves.
The same is really true for spells as well. Lots of people try different house rules for incapacitation effects. I have yet to see any of them that I would use as a GM, because my villains have access to these spells as well and mind control and paralysis are two absolutely game stopping/rage quit-inducing conditions to have to sit through in play.
Players are never seeming to think about how rules modifications will work back at them, leading to a lot of ideas that will cause many more headaches than they alleviate. The same is true with ideas like giving school spells bonuses to accuracy. Most of these ideas are being floated at the old "every spell is in a school" framework, but that would be terrible for the new system. Players will only memorize spells they get these accuracy bonuses to. It will massively encourage players making bad tactical choices because they have narrowed their strategy down around assuming that a +1 to doing the same thing every encounter is going to work better than trying to read the encounter and respond with something better.
Why do I think this? Because I played PF1. Caster overspecialized all day long. They did the same thing over and over again. It worked 90% of the time and then in the 10th encounter, they died because their specialization trick was ineffective against this specific type of foe and their defenses were absolute garbage. God wizards played like gods because you had silent dimensional door memorized multiple times in your slots, an obscene bonus to initiative, and you pulled your whole party out of any situation where you were not 100% certain your party was ready to crush the encounter. That is how real soldiers and militaries fight too. Don't commit until you know you will win.
It is also anti-climactic and terrible play for a game. When our PF1 GM got tired of us playing that way, he turned things around and had the higher level enemy casters play that way too. The result is rocket tag, and dynamic battlefields get thrown right out the window. If every action is not dedicated to total victory, then that side has already lost. It is essential that every action taken in PF2 have a risk of doing nothing or of being less effective than another thing a character can do. Already people are trying to create a narrative that fighters can do the same thing over and over again, and that has been completely false in the games I play. Fighters sudden charging, getting a crit against a solo boss and knocking them down feels awesome. Fighters sudden charging, missing and then getting knocked unconscious against a solo boss is a real problem for the whole party. If the second doesn't feel like a real possiblity than the first becomes an automatic action in every encounter (and losing automatic knock down on crits is going to severely limit the frequency of the sudden charge crit knock down that can just end solo boss encounters a lot. It is a massive nerf coming to fighters, far bigger than the limiting of school spells, but it will take a while for that to show up. The tables that are already adopting it were tables already seeing automatic knock down as a big problem, the people who don't realize how much it is going to change the fighter meta won't really see it until the remastered rules are fully in play.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My particular issue with the grief about the wizard is when it omits the strengths of the class. I had to bring up how they do factually have the most slotted spells per-day when you account for things like the feat which gives you two scrolls every day among other things. I do want the wizard to get more toys, so I agree with the feeling behind the grief a little bit. I sympathize and that is why I am trying to not argue about it, but I would be very very upset to get all these crappy things people are asking for and lose all these features that give more slotted spells. Such as better cantrips, flexible spellcasting, or spell substitution being an inherent class feature. None of these are exciting features at all if you ask me
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My particular issue with the grief about the wizard is when it omits the strengths of the class. I had to bring up how they do factually have the most slotted spells per-day when you account for things like the feat which gives you two scrolls every day among other things. I do want the wizard to get more toys, so I agree with the feeling behind the grief a little bit. I sympathize and that is why I am trying to not argue about it, but I would be very very upset to get all these crappy things people are asking for and lose all these features that give more slotted spells. Such as better cantrips, flexible spellcasting, or spell substitution being an inherent class feature. None of these are exciting features at all if you ask me
More slotted spells you can't do anything with is not worthwhile. Not sure why you think it is.
Why is walking around with a ton of useless spells important to you? Because Spell Substitution is the only reason...the absolute only reason...why you would even be able to take advantage of more slotted spells in a day without having to wait until the next daily preparation to fill slots that don't do much with useful spells.
If you're sitting there with a bunch of prepared spells that don't do anything for the day or having to memorize multiple spells of the same kind, how exactly do you have an advantage?
It is completely illogical to state, "I have the most slotted spells" while at the same time saying, "I don't want spell Substitution as a class feature so I can effectively use all my slotted spells." PF1 had a Spell Substitution equivalent as a built in class feature and it was absolutely one of the features that made the spellcasting versatility of the wizard as good as it was.
You could leave slots open and fill them throughout the day as needed. You didn't need to prepare every spell at exactly the daily preparation time. You could instead leave the slots open and fill then after your scouts told you what you were facing and could prepare the spells good to defeat the encounter in actual play time.
It was one of the advantages of prepared casting that was for some reason removed from this edition which greatly advantages spontaneous casters in this edition.
It is exactly why I see so many layers of reduced power that add up to not so great play experience for prepared casters. They did enough to reduce prepared casting power with the following:
1. Incap trait
2. Vastly reduced number of spell slots
3. Roughly 50% baseline saving throws give or take some.
4. No level base damage increases inherently built into spells, just heightening.
5. Vastly increasing martial capability to the point where they can deal with most things without your help by flying or what not.
Then toss on top of that an inability to change slots in real play time without having to wait a day unless you take a single thesis that used to be a class feature?
And you consider that something you don't want even while it leverages all those slots you are talking about to be far more useful in actual play time while allowing you to take a more interesting thesis?
The entire advantage of playing a wizard is spell versatility. If you can't take advantage of your versatility at the same speed the game is played as you used to be able to do in PF1, then you've eliminated one of the biggest reasons to play the wizard.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish we, as a community, would move away from arguments around population and consensus. We don’t have the data, and claims towards what group-level opinions are in one way or another, doesn’t do anything.
It’s not just productive.
The only voice any of us can really speak to is our own. We don’t have the hard numbers to say otherwise.
Naturally we can talk about observable discourse, but we really should stop trying to turn those into arguments from the majority.
I wish we, as a community, would move away from arguments around population and consensus. We don’t have the data, and claims towards what group-level opinions are in one way or another, doesn’t do anything.
It’s not just productive.
The only voice any of us can really speak to is our own. We don’t have the hard numbers to say otherwise.
Naturally we can talk about observable discourse, but we really should stop trying to turn those into arguments from the majority.
I never use those arguments myself.
They aren't important. I test things. I want to see how they work in play.
This edition of PF greatly advantages spontaneous casting because of the choice to force everyone into preparation at a single time every day without knowing what you might have to deal with during the day.
PF1 did not do this to prepared casters. Which kept prepared casting on par with spontaneous casting.
PF1 prepared casting:
Spell Selection and Preparation
A divine spellcaster selects and prepares spells ahead of time through prayer and meditation at a particular time of day. The time required to prepare spells is the same as it is for a wizard (1 hour), as is the requirement for a relatively peaceful environment. When preparing spells for the day, a divine spellcaster can leave some of her spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes. During these extra sessions of preparation, she can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if she prepares more than one-quarter of his spells.
Divine spellcasters do not require spellbooks. However, a divine spellcaster’s spell selection is limited to the spells on the list for her class. clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers have separate spell lists. A cleric also has access to two domains determined during character creation. Each domain gives her access to a number of special abilities and bonus spells.
This is why prepared casting used to be on par with spontaneous casting. Because prepared casters truly did have spell versatility usable in real play time and not this "Pick all your spells at the start of the day and hope they are all useful for that day."
I do not know why the designers removed this from prepared casting as it pretty much shifted the balance of prepared casting versus spontaneous casting heavily in favor of spontaneous casting.
If I ever decide to go back to non-5E casting, then I will at least implement this PF1 preparation rule so that prepared casting doesn't suck as much as it currently does compared to spontaneous casting.
I highly recommend if you have the power within your campaign to do so and want to keep prepared casting as is implementing this very well done preparation rule from PF1 into PF2 because it is what kept prepared casting on par with spontaneous casting. Without this rule prepared casting is inferior to spontaneous casting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had a player who was desperate to play a caster's caster, but was never using scrolls, and the rest of the party was tending to hoard their wealth to buy new weapon runes almost exclusively, I think I would be very tempted to use Automatic Bonus Progression, and then give casters extra spell slots every day. I think I would give 1 of the highest rank, 2 of the second highest rank, 3 of the 3rd, all the way down. This would be pretty close to how much wealth can expand the casting options of a caster. This will have a greater impact for wizards, clerics, druids, and witches than sorcerers and other spontaneous casters, since they would have more flexibility about what could go in those slots, but most spontaneous casters have other options than casting spells from slots that they tend to do a lot of in combat, so it really only would be the sorcerer that might feel a little restricted by it. Then again, most people play sorcerers to cast the same couple of spells as often as possible, so those players probably weren't rushing to get a ton of different scrolls in the first place.
Definitely for wizards, the key goal of any change should be to encourage players to try out different spells and really try to learn how to target the right defense at the right time in the encounter, as that is where the accuracy boosting of casters is heavily focused. I think getting stuck without spell slots, and feeling like you have no good options for this encounter is the biggest pain point for the class. Scrolls obliterate this pain point very effectively, but in campaigns, it takes both player and GM to make that work, whereas it is built in to Society play, so it just takes the player spending their gold after every scenario instead of sitting on it. You get so much gold in society play that the flow of "buy what you can now, because next level you will get so much more so quickly."
As far as whether prepared casters need spell substitution as default. 1 hour is barely different from 8 from a game design perspective. 15 minutes is a very awkward number for PF2, so I am guessing Deriven's suggestion is to just make all prepared casters are able to leave slots open and spend 10 minutes to fill it later? I think you'd have to be careful about how that interacts with spell blending as a thesis, as it could get pretty confusing keeping track of what slots go with what, and it obviously makes spell substitution as a thesis almost irrelevant (the ability to have spells in a slot and then change them later is better than having to keep those slots open from the start), but it could be a fun mechanic for some players that wouldn't really change the game balance much. Personally, I think the spell substitution thesis is a better way to test out whether that change feels fun for you or not than giving it away to everyone, but it could be a way to get some players experimenting more with different spells, which is a valuable design goal for prepared casters. GMs can also accomplish a very similar thing in more urban settings by having a silly vender in town who offers discount scrolls on the regular and reminds the players that "you can always comeback and pick up that knock scroll, or disguise self scroll later if you change your mind," as a way to get the players used to asking themselves "is there a spell that would really be useful here? Can we get access to it quickly?"