|
So, I was just looking over my recently purchased copy of Player Core, when I stumbled upon Bard's "Signature Spell" feature. That made me look up Spell Heightening and Spontaneous Heightening, and I have to ask:
WHY IS THIS A THING???
Why are spontaneous casters penalized like this? Their spell repertoires are already on the low side, so why should they have to clog it up with multiple copies of the same spell???
*Takes a deep breath and exhales*
Sorry. I'm just trying to understand why this rule exists and why I shouldn't just pretend it doesn't exist. Can someone help me understand how this rule does not simply penalize spontaneous spellcasters?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Penalized compared to who? If every spell in their repertoire worked like a signature spell, they'd start feeling like they had a really huge flexibility advantage over prepared casters (who don't need to know the spell twice but do still need to plan which slot to prep the spell into at the start of the day, whether it's base level or a heightened level). I've already talked to and played with more people who feel like spontaneous casters are in a better place over prepared casters in 2E, with the rules as they are.
I think you might also be underestimating just how big of a toolkit you can build your repertoire into by mid or high levels, as is. Part of that is that there are a lot of spells that hold their value well without casting them at a lot of different levels, or any different levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to expand on one detail.
Even a low R spell in a low R slot still is cast with your full DC. So spells like Grease that have no damage dice, but a great effect will keep scaling up with you. No need to get another copy of it in your repertoire.
As such, Signature Spells that do get to heighten freely are best used for spells that have damage dice or other rather granular Heightening effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the designers chose to keep Vancian prepared casting and the only way to balance that and make it seem remotely desirable was to limit spontaneous casters to a limited number of spontaneously heightening spells otherwise what would be the point of playing a prepared caster.
To me this is one more reason to move to Vancian spontaneous casting for everyone like 5E did, but right now we're stuck with this system for PF2.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Penalized compared to who? If every spell in their repertoire worked like a signature spell, they'd start feeling like they had a really huge flexibility advantage over prepared casters (who don't need to know the spell twice but do still need to plan which slot to prep the spell into at the start of the day, whether it's base level or a heightened level). I've already talked to and played with more people who feel like spontaneous casters are in a better place over prepared casters in 2E, with the rules as they are.
I think you might also be underestimating just how big of a toolkit you can build your repertoire into by mid or high levels, as is. Part of that is that there are a lot of spells that hold their value well without casting them at a lot of different levels, or any different levels.
You make a good point, HammerJack. Maybe I'm just experiencing some kind of prolonged kneejerk reaction to this revelation regarding the rules.
Just to expand on one detail.
Even a low R spell in a low R slot still is cast with your full DC. So spells like Grease that have no damage dice, but a great effect will keep scaling up with you. No need to get another copy of it in your repertoire.
As such, Signature Spells that do get to heighten freely are best used for spells that have damage dice or other rather granular Heightening effects.
Another good point indeed, Trip.H. After all, if a spell's description lacks any mention of benefits for Heightening it, then why waste a higher-level spell slot?
Because the designers chose to keep Vancian prepared casting and the only way to balance that and make it seem remotely desirable was to limit spontaneous casters to a limited number of spontaneously heightening spells otherwise what would be the point of playing a prepared caster.
To me this is one more reason to move to Vancian spontaneous casting for everyone like 5E did, but right now we're stuck with this system for PF2.
...I'm going to be honest, Deriven Firelion, "Vancian Spontaneous casting" sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me...
Penalized compared to who? If every spell in their repertoire worked like a signature spell, they'd start feeling like they had a really huge flexibility advantage over prepared casters (who don't need to know the spell twice but do still need to plan which slot to prep the spell into at the start of the day, whether it's base level or a heightened level). I've already talked to and played with more people who feel like spontaneous casters are in a better place over prepared casters in 2E, with the rules as they are.
I think you might also be underestimating just how big of a toolkit you can build your repertoire into by mid or high levels, as is. Part of that is that there are a lot of spells that hold their value well without casting them at a lot of different levels, or any different levels.
You make a good point, HammerJack. Maybe I'm just experiencing some kind of prolonged kneejerk reaction to this revelation regarding the rules.
Just to expand on one detail.
Even a low R spell in a low R slot still is cast with your full DC. So spells like Grease that have no damage dice, but a great effect will keep scaling up with you. No need to get another copy of it in your repertoire.
As such, Signature Spells that do get to heighten freely are best used for spells that have damage dice or other rather granular Heightening effects.
Another good point indeed, Trip.H. After all, if a spell's description lacks any mention of benefits for Heightening it, then why waste a higher-level spell slot?
...Because the designers chose to keep Vancian prepared casting and the only way to balance that and make it seem remotely desirable was to limit spontaneous casters to a limited number of spontaneously heightening spells otherwise what would be the point of playing a prepared caster.
To me this is one more reason to move to Vancian spontaneous casting for everyone like 5E did, but right now we're stuck with this
You could call it prepared spontaneous casting if you want. 5E did it with their prepared casters where you prepare a spell list, then heighten or cast them in an appropriate slot as needed like a spontaneous caster. A wizard can still change out spells daily. They used other mechanisms to make each class attractive.
I know some on here like the tradition set in stone Gygaxian Vancian magic, but I much prefer the direction 5E took with casters.
Penalized compared to who?
Summoners. They do get all of their spells in Repertoire as Signature Spells.
If they were the comparison point the OP had meant, their remarkably small number of spell slots would be a necessary part of any comparison.
Yup. All five of them.
|
|
You could call it prepared spontaneous casting if you want. 5E did it with their prepared casters where you prepare a spell list, then heighten or cast them in an appropriate slot as needed like a spontaneous caster. A wizard can still change out spells daily. They used other mechanisms to make each class attractive.
I know some on here like the tradition set in stone Gygaxian Vancian magic, but I much prefer the direction 5E took with casters.
I see...
I consider "Vacian Spontaneous" an oxymoron for reason that, admittedly, aren't relevant to this topic...Summoners. They do get all of their spells in Repertoire as Signature Spells.
If they were the comparison point the OP had meant, their remarkably small number of spell slots would be a necessary part of any comparison.
Yup. All five of them.
No, I get why Summoners get a small number of spell slots (I played in a party with someone who played a Synergist Summoner back in 1-Ed) and given the revelation of Spontaneous Heightening, I can totally get why all their spells would be signature spells.
You could call it prepared spontaneous casting if you want. 5E did it with their prepared casters where you prepare a spell list, then heighten or cast them in an appropriate slot as needed like a spontaneous caster. A wizard can still change out spells daily. They used other mechanisms to make each class attractive.
I know some on here like the tradition set in stone Gygaxian Vancian magic, but I much prefer the direction 5E took with casters.
I see...
I consider "Vacian Spontaneous" an oxymoron for reason that, admittedly, aren't relevant to this topic...
Yep but this was the reason why Signatures Spells exists in fact. To "nerf" spontaneous casters (with the notable exception of summoners) to have only one spell per rank that is heightenable once that they don't need to try to guess who and how much uses of the spells they need in that day what's usually means that players playing with prepared casters usually only takes more general use spells than specific ones to avoid dead prepared spellslots due lack of need.
Anyway most spontaneous casters usually doesn't care too much about this anyway, selecting buffing/debuffing/utilitary/situational spells that don't need to be heighted for non-signature repertoire space (spells like fear, goblin pox, translate, unfettered movement, Marvelous mount, see the unseen, umbral journey, share life, ghostly carrier, truespeech, migration, slow, synesthesia...) only picking signature spells for spells that need to be casted in multiple levels (like heal/soothe) or to extent the verstility of top rank options that you have (like have multiple damage type spells).
Summoners. They do get all of their spells in Repertoire as Signature Spells.If they were the comparison point the OP had meant, their remarkably small number of spell slots would be a necessary part of any comparison.Yup. All five of them.No, I get why Summoners get a small number of spell slots (I played in a party with someone who played a Synergist Summoner back in 1-Ed) and given the revelation of Spontaneous Heightening, I can totally get why all their spells would be signature spells.
This was Farien's pranksting. Farien is the irreverent familiar of Eoran. These are characters of breithauptclan (Finoan) for Play by Post games that sometimes he uses to make some pranks or ironize some topic.
|
Let me offer an analogy.
Let's say a Fighter has 10 masterwork swords.
Now let's say that having 10, full, masterwork swords is considered too strong. Ok. Let's take it down a notch. But without taking away any # of swords.
Compromise: Fighter gets 1 masterwork sword, 2 good quality swords, 3 moderate quality swords, and 4 shoddy swords.
=)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The analogy works fine once you add that the swords all break after you use them once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I Definitely prefer Pf2's system with Prepared and Spontaneous rather then 5:e's system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other justification Paizo shared for signature spells is cognitive load. If a PC can heighten every spell in their repertoire they have 3-4 times as many options to consider on any round of combat. That can be overwhelming.
Which feels a bit weird to say considering how disastrously messy they chose to make prepared spellcasting, but it is what it is.
Personally, I really like that they took away the overwhelming advantages of prepared casting from PF1, so that there is no power incentive to choose to be a prepared caster. Let players who enjoy having all the fiddly bobs keep them, but not as a secret way to have overpowered characters. 1 signature spell per rank really makes the choice meaningful and character defining without taking away spell slots or spells known. I am pretty impressed by the balancing act, even if I have a deep preference for prepared casting
Sorcerors used to get thier higher level spells at later levels than prepared in older editions. I will gladly keep the current heighten restrictions on spontaneous casting rather than go back to the old ways.
I Definitely prefer Pf2's system with Prepared and Spontaneous rather then 5:e's system.
Yet you can use it if you want with Flexible Spellcaster class archetype.
Which feels a bit weird to say considering how disastrously messy they chose to make prepared spellcasting, but it is what it is.
That is not a good line of reasoning since a prepared caster has far greater cognitive overload having to sift and pick the right spells, heightened to the right level, at the right time.
Then there is the detail work of switching involved for what is often a minor, unnecessary advantage.
I figure they kept prepared casting as is because someone with power on the design team wanted to keep the traditional Vancian casting along with not wanting to copy 5E in more ways than they did.
Unfortunately, they made spontaneous casting so good in this edition that performance based players focused on combat will prefer spontaneous with signature spells to prepared. It's better for combat and allows more endurance with the high value spells that win combats.
The entire reason I house ruled everyone to spontaneous is because the spontaneous casters were vastly outperforming prepared casters in combat. Prepared casters attempting to diversify spell selection by preparing different spells in different slots were finding out the hard way that it is far better to have 3 or 4 spells you can use in any combination with 3 slots (or more with signature spells) than locked in prepared spells that once used can't be used again save one time per day with Arcane Bond. It made their in play spell endurance and versatility far lower than spontaneous casters.
I could not stomach a wizard being a worse in combat caster than a sorcerer. I can't have that. So I just went with the 5E method that still allowed a wizard to change their spell list while all their slots were spontaneously so they would have equal on demand versatility to the sorcerer while having better versatility with downtime. Given the sorcerer already has great feats and bloodlines, it balanced out to make the wizard equally desirable to the sorcerer, at least the arcane sorcerer since the sorc has far more role versatility to the wizard since they can also do the healer role and have a main casting stat that allows them to use skills like Intimidate and Diplomacy as well as dip charisma multiclass classes easier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I Definitely prefer Pf2's system with Prepared and Spontaneous rather then 5:e's system.
But why?
I Definitely prefer Pf2's system with Prepared and Spontaneous rather then 5:e's system.But why?
** spoiler omitted **
What is your reasoning?
I don't understand how a player can interpret prepared as better for spell combat.
Let's take a level 10 caster as an example.
1. Prepared caster: They will have 3 max level slots with 1 school slot or a use of arcane bond or nothing for say a druid or cleric.
Let's say at 5th level they do: 5th level fireball, Cone of Cold, and 5th level magic missile. Then one use of arcane bond.
In play, that means they get one of each spell with one variable use Arcane Bond usable after they have cast the spell.
2. Spontaneous Caster: 4 slots.
Repertoire:
1st level: Magic Missile Signature Spell
2nd level: Sudden Bolt Signature Spell
3rd: Fireball signature spell
4th level: Phantasmal killer signature spell
5th level: Cone of Cold, Banishment, Passwall, Tongues
That means the spontaneous caster now has 8 choices for each of their 4 slots usable in whatever combination they desire.
Then for an Arcane Caster with Arcane Evolution another choice that they can use to add a spell at whatever level they want or they can add another signature spell as needed for a given day expanding their signature spell choices to 9 spells with 4 slots or an additional spell of any level.
It's far more on demand versatility than a prepared caster with enough useful flexibility for most campaigns.
I'm not real sure why some can't see the math massively favoring spontaneous casters even for the supposed trait of versatility prepared casters are supposed to possess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to say that if there's one thing I am confident PF3 will not do it's "become more like 5e."
They may well drop Vancian spellcasting entirely, but they're surely not going to do what the competition does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to say that if there's one thing I am confident PF3 will not do it's "become more like 5e."
They may well drop Vancian spellcasting entirely, but they're surely not going to do what the competition does.
And I'm willing to bet that it won't be the same with the competition.
I'm sure Hasbro will look at things like the three-action system, note its success and popularity, then steal it for themselves without hesitation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which feels a bit weird to say considering how disastrously messy they chose to make prepared spellcasting, but it is what it is.That is not a good line of reasoning since a prepared caster has far greater cognitive overload having to sift and pick the right spells, heightened to the right level, at the right time.
Prepared casters certainly have their share of complexity, especially wizards. The key difference, though, is a wizard's cognitive load is significantly less when it hurts the game most-- the middle of combat. Prepared casters can figure out their preparations while other players are doing scenes, or even between sessions. The game doesn't need to grind to a halt while they handle their cognitive load.
Sans feats, thesis, or drain binder object, an 18th level wizard starts their day with a max of 36 slotted spells they could cast on any round of combat, assuming they don't prepare multiple copies of the same spell at the same rank. A sorcerer without spending feats has 36 spells, but 9 of them can be cast in multiple slots. That's like 45 additional options, and that assumes they don't use a higher level repertoire spot for undercasting. The sorcerer starts their day more than twice as many options to consider on the first round of combat. And that's without touching that the remaster explicitly reintroduced the ability to burn higher level slots to cast spells without the benefits of heightening them.
What's worse is that the cognitive load gap increases as it gets later in the day and more spells are used. A wizard's available choices narrow as they cast. (Except arcane bond, which is just one cast. And you could swap in bards and witches if you like and the same principle applies.) The sorcerer's options don't shrink until they use all the slots at a particular level. And as you use more slots, there more pressure to make the last slots count, further increasing cognitive load.
We forget that we are the Uber nerds here who get off on this level of depth, and the average TTRPG player isn't necessarily built to handle... Jeez, what, four times as many options for any given slot as what I outlined above? I recall Paizo talking about the signature spell quantity during the playtest as something they focus tested to find the sweet spot.
None of this touched on balance, by the way. I'm not commenting on how prepared and spontaneous stack up to each other because mileage varies a lot on that topic. But I have more faith in the signature spell number hitting the right cognitive load for the widest possible audience than I do, say, an alchemist hitting that benchmark.
In response to Deriven’s comment about being unaware of how a prepared caster can be more effective than a spontaneous caster in combat:
1st of all, preference and style of play here mater a lot. I am not trying prepared casting is objectively and always better than spontaneous casting, but that it can be, and more importantly, it can be more fun for some players too.
But prepared casters can utilize sells that spontaneous casters won’t touch. Spell immunity, for example, really has to be a signature spell to me maximally effective at higher levels, and there will be many days where you won’t use it at all, so why would you want it taking up space in your repertoire? But a wizard can memorize it on days you know you are going up against casters, especially ones you’ve heard rumors about, at exactly the right level without it wasting much space in the “total spells a wizard might cast.” It is an awesome defensive spell that lasts all day and doesn’t waste any actions in combat.
False life is another example. Is it worth a signature spell? No. But dropping it in the highest slot not specifically needed for a particular other spell is pretty nice and can be the difference between getting taken out in an encounter, or having another round to cast spells, again without wasting combat actions. Definitely not worth a signature slot though.
Dimensional Anchor can be a clutch spell when you know you will be fighting fiends that teleport away to alert reinforcements, but what level to memorize it at? Depends on your level and their access to dimensional door and what level they have it at. 5th rank is probably good, but is it worth a rep. spot? By the time your casting level 6 spells, it is an easy spell to have in your book, just in case for some campaigns, but for others (like wrath of the righteous) maybe even a sorcerer is going to find it a necessary spell for levels of play at a time.
Summon and form spells are more flexible for prepared casters than spontaneous ones too.
Incapacitation spells across the board are better for prepared casters than spontaneous ones unless those are taking up a signature slot, which end up with massive competition.
I mean fireball in a signature slot? That seems like a terrible idea unless you plan on doing a lot of retraining. Sudden bolt instead of dispel magic? I love magic missile/force barrage at many different levels but eventually Thunderstrike really out paces it (or pairs powerfully with it as a third action) for mega single target damage rounds.
It is much harder to get really creative with your strategies and team tactics when your character is limited to a handful of spells you can cast at each level rather than when you can heighten all of your spells known. Scrolls can buy some of that back but wizards combining scrolls with creative, flexible spell selection can do it more often and for cheaper. Yes, there are days your spell selection can burn you (not as often with spell substitution) but that is the trade off for this style of play.
I'm going to say that if there's one thing I am confident PF3 will not do it's "become more like 5e."
They may well drop Vancian spellcasting entirely, but they're surely not going to do what the competition does.
And I'm willing to bet that it won't be the same with the competition.
I'm sure Hasbro will look at things like the three-action system, note its success and popularity, then steal it for themselves without hesitation.
Eh, I love the 3 action lifestyle as much as the next fanboy, but I feel like D&D wants to remain easier to learn and 3 actions gets confusing. MAP is an essential balancing cornerstone of it that trips up D&D players trying to transition. And people take longer than I'd like to learn how two action activities work, which is especially rough for spells.
In response to Deriven’s comment about being unaware of how a prepared caster can be more effective than a spontaneous caster in combat:
1st of all, preference and style of play here mater a lot. I am not trying prepared casting is objectively and always better than spontaneous casting, but that it can be, and more importantly, it can be more fun for some players too.
But prepared casters can utilize sells that spontaneous casters won’t touch. Spell immunity, for example, really has to be a signature spell to me maximally effective at higher levels, and there will be many days where you won’t use it at all, so why would you want it taking up space in your repertoire? But a wizard can memorize it on days you know you are going up against casters, especially ones you’ve heard rumors about, at exactly the right level without it wasting much space in the “total spells a wizard might cast.” It is an awesome defensive spell that lasts all day and doesn’t waste any actions in combat.
False life is another example. Is it worth a signature spell? No. But dropping it in the highest slot not specifically needed for a particular other spell is pretty nice and can be the difference between getting taken out in an encounter, or having another round to cast spells, again without wasting combat actions. Definitely not worth a signature slot though.
Dimensional Anchor can be a clutch spell when you know you will be fighting fiends that teleport away to alert reinforcements, but what level to memorize it at? Depends on your level and their access to dimensional door and what level they have it at. 5th rank is probably good, but is it worth a rep. spot? By the time your casting level 6 spells, it is an easy spell to have in your book, just in case for some campaigns, but for others (like wrath of the righteous) maybe even a sorcerer is going to find it a necessary spell for levels of play at a time.
Summon and form spells are more flexible for prepared casters than spontaneous ones too.
Incapacitation spells...
It's funny. I've never used dispel magic in the entire time I've played PF2 after trying it a few times with a 50/50 counteract check. It became apparent that dispel magic with a fairly high chance to fail and a failure costing 2 actions and a spell slot, often a high level spell slot, for possibly getting nothing was an incredibly bad use of a spell slot when most effects are temporary.
The main spell you need to counter at lower levels is invisibility. So I usually pick up see invis or faerie fire and neither of those require heightening.
I have not found battle forms worthwhile for non-druids who can obtain battle forms for the cost of a feat and a focus point that auto-heightens on top of higher base hit points.
Incap spells work better as a sig spell since not many are worth using. A good 2nd level sig spell for an occult or divine caster is calm emotions. By having calm emotions as a sig spell, you don't need to slot in a higher level slot. You can use it in either your highest or second to highest level slot if you need it as that is most often what you will run into.
An incap spell in your highest slot still often won't work against bosses. You don't want to use an incap spell unless you know it's going to have a chance to land.
Slow is the most powerful combat spell in the game and is useful in 99% of combats. Both the AoE and single target version. You can pretty much spam that and be as effective as any other spell in the game. Main problem with that tactic is it is super boring. I can't do it over and over again because I'll get so bored.
Heal is another spell that can handle a huge number of your combat problems. Once again, super boring. Though you are right, I usually take slow and not fireball as my 3rd level signature spell.
I completely understand doing something for fun. I play a bunch of classes for fun because once you know all the power combinations, it's more fun to try other things to see you can make them work. In PF2 you can make almost everything work.
Which is why I can see wizard players being effective past the low levels when they are super terrible. Is it optimal? Nope. Can it be effective and more fun? Yep. Always pursuing optimal gets super boring.
Main reason I post on the wizard because it would be nice to see the class get real improvements that make it more fun. My goodness it is such a boring class with dry, boring abilities that could be so much more interesting.
The wizard doesn't do almost anything you can't do with another type of caster. Intel' s not a very interesting stat with interesting feats. The wizard feats don't allow much ability to branch off into anything, not even other wizard theses. No tampering in other magical traditions. Just a straight, prepared Arcane caster with a severely limited party role. They don't even give them more skill ups to at least let them be Mr. Intel skill guy. It's like "Gee, I get a huge number of skills with a high intelligence, but I can't do much with them because I get exactly the same number of skill increases as every other class that isn't a skill monkey." It feels like a class was left in a very dry, uninteresting state that some players still gravitate to for old time's sake.
I get it. Wizard was the first class I tried in PF2 when the new edition came out. Gotta playtest the most iconic magic using class in D&D/PF history. Boy, what a disappointment. It's a little better now, but not enough to pull me off other classes. It feels far too limited.
I'm going to say that if there's one thing I am confident PF3 will not do it's "become more like 5e."
They may well drop Vancian spellcasting entirely, but they're surely not going to do what the competition does.
Even with the Remaster, they still do a lot of what the competition does. So it would not surprise me to move to a casting style like 5E. Part of the appeal of PF is always going to be at least some resemblance to D&D done more to the taste of a certain segment of the same fanbase.
What if they had given wizards the ability to cast curriculum spells in place of any spell prepared for that same spell rank. The extra slot they get for curriculum spells would just be a normal slot.
This would have really emphasized the flexibility of the wizards preparation and equally emphasized their dedication to their curriculum.
I guess if they went that direction they would have had to do something for unified magic theory though. That idea wouldnt work at all for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played around with modifying the wizard. The only modification that puts them on par for what they are supposed to be good is spontaneous prepared casting meaning they can change out their spell list and cast it as needed with their slots. Then their versatility really shines.
It's too hard to match the on demand versatility of a sorcerer taking high value spells with signature spells giving their slots more and more on demand flexibility on top of everything else.
Then they get Bloodline Evolution to cherry pick a spell off another list.
When I hit 18, I took Greater Mental Evolution which boosted my spell options from 36 to 45, 46 if you include Occult Evolution which allowed me to eliminate a ton of mental spells I could not need all the time and could take with 1 minute of downtime once per day.
Everyone touts the number of spells on a spell list, but the reality is a spell list could have 400 plus spells on it and only 20 to 30 will see consistent use and 50 to 80 inconsistent use. The rest are just filler spells that may be situational or just bad and tacked on to add content to a book. This is the part no one much mentions when touting the number of spells on a spell list. I'd much rather see a tally of what casters actually use on a spell list consistently. That number would be much, much smaller and likely redundant across lists. A larger spell list in no way is indicative of the quality of the spells on the list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's worse is that the cognitive load gap increases as it gets later in the day and more spells are used. A wizard's available choices narrow as they cast. (Except arcane bond, which is just one cast. And you could swap in bards and witches if you like and the same principle applies.) The sorcerer's options don't shrink until they use all the slots at a particular level. And as you use more slots, there more pressure to make the last slots count, further increasing cognitive load.
As someone who has played high level characters, I can attest to this.
My mind absolutely reals at the number of options available to my high level sorcerer, Yiankun. I absolutely would lock up if I had not played the character from level one and had a lot of play time to learn the ins and outs of her myriad abilities. Even considering all that play investment, it still takes me longer than her even higher level wizard counterpart.
When I see dispel magic used most frequently in combat encounters is against traps and hazard where it can be a one shot kill, although I have seen it used against spells like fly and fly like magical effects too.
Edit: also, a high rank dispel magic counters any lower rank effect even on a failure. So it can often be much greater than 50/50.
Yeah you don't need dispel magic 90% of the time, but 10% of the time it can completely overhaul a campaign.
I usually take slow and not fireball as my 3rd level signature spell.
Really good spells with only two points of heightening like slow, invisibility, or fear are actually really good candidates for taking multiple times individually, rather than as signature spells.
I personally prefer to save my signature spells for spells that have heighten effects at several ranks, or every rank. Selecting a two-option spell (especially one that might not see any benefit for several levels) just seems like a waste or a precious signature spell slot.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to say that if there's one thing I am confident PF3 will not do it's "become more like 5e."
They may well drop Vancian spellcasting entirely, but they're surely not going to do what the competition does.
I'd take that bet any day of the week. If there is one Paizo has done over the years, and done well, it is taking design and narrative inspiration from what previous editions of D&D did successfully to one degree or another and refining/improving them. PF1 took what 3.X did and made it way better, PF2 took what 4e did, threw in Action/turn economy improvements, and polished the daylights out of it while abandoning pretty much everything that differentiated and made PF1 better than 3.X.
5e has gone GANGBUSTERS and Paizo is already leaning pretty heavily into differing to gm interpretation for a ton of things versus writing comprehensive and consistent rules that smoothly connect mechanically and eschewing the responsibility of vague or inconsistent wording in rules as being something the GM needs to manage on their own instead of relying on the actual rules.
I can't imagine PF3 drops anytime in the next five years and there are a TON of things that could change in that time but one thing I can't imagine they'll do is try to take a step AWAY from what has made 5e so successful for new and casual players which is where that system really shines.
Everyone touts the number of spells on a spell list, but the reality is a spell list could have 400 plus spells on it and only 20 to 30 will see consistent use and 50 to 80 inconsistent use. The rest are just filler spells that may be situational or just bad and tacked on to add content to a book. This is the part no one much mentions when touting the number of spells on a spell list. I'd much rather see a tally of what casters actually use on a spell list consistently. That number would be much, much smaller and likely redundant across lists. A larger spell list in no way is indicative of the quality of the spells on the list.
I think the heart of our disagreement is that I see "situational" spells as useful spells to be able to cast when you know you are entering into those situations, which spontaneous casters can only really cover with scrolls, so probably only once, and requiring access to a magic store in the time between knowing they will be useful and needing to use them.
Prepared casters generally need a day to accomplish similar tasks, with wizards sometimes needing a day and access to a magic shop, but because that aspect of prepared casting is so much fun to me, Spell Substitution makes for a play style that no other class can touch, which is why I spend so much of my gold on scrolls as well. I agree that it tends to require a lot more preparation on the part of the player coming into sessions, but it doesn't usually take much time away from the game, as everyone usually wants to rest at least 10 minutes after an encounter anyways and that is usually enough time for me to figure out what spells I want to change around.
I think there is a lot of table variation on how often that happens, and how often GMs will make sure to give casters the time to go buy scrolls that will be obviously useful for the upcoming encounter.
While we are talking about this I'd mention that in remaster you now can cast low-rank spells from higher-rank slots spontaneously, just without getting any Heightened benefits, at the base rank.
ironize some topicDoes this ^^^ count as goldinizing the topic?
Wait, they finally clarified that? They freaking finally answered that question?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it is explicitly given as an option, in Player Core 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually take slow and not fireball as my 3rd level signature spell.Really good spells with only two points of heightening like slow, invisibility, or fear are actually really good candidates for taking multiple times individually, rather than as signature spells.
I personally prefer to save my signature spells for spells that have heighten effects at several ranks, or every rank. Selecting a two-option spell (especially one that might not see any benefit for several levels) just seems like a waste or a precious signature spell slot.
I use slow so often that I prefer to use it in every available slot. I know it's boring, but it's hard to talk myself out of not using it as it only has one chance of utterly failing. In these short combats, even 1 round of slow against a boss monster is just brutal to that monster, especially when combined with a group that uses trip or some other maneuver.
Slow is the uber spell of PF2. The only counter is usually haste and immunity to slow. Haste can be fairly common depending on if a lot of casters in the module, but immunity to slow is super rare unless fighting golems or will-o-wisps who are immune to all spells.
When you have this spell 90 percent plus chance of doing something very effective, it's hard not to use it when so many other spells fail 50/50 doing almost nothing. I also use synesthesia a lot, but not as often as slow.
I am finding wail of the banshee is better than I thought it was. Hits only enemies. Full damage on a successful save. Brutal drained condition on a fail and drained 4 on a critical fail. What a hammer spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I see dispel magic used most frequently in combat encounters is against traps and hazard where it can be a one shot kill, although I have seen it used against spells like fly and fly like magical effects too.
Edit: also, a high rank dispel magic counters any lower rank effect even on a failure. So it can often be much greater than 50/50.
In PF1 I used dispel magic a ton. I used to keep quickened dispel magics to quickly strip enemies or remove effects off allies.
Everything is so temporary and easy to remove in this edition. Even in PF1 a dispel magic could be real good against mirror image. But in PF2 you can remove mirror image fairly quickly as only a critical fail on a hit roll fails to remove an image and there are only 3 images. Mirror image ends up getting removed without expending any permanent resources in a round or two depending on what people are doing. It used to be a much stronger spell.
So hard for me to justify its use. Then when using it against a powerful effect, you have to heighten it real high or you might fail. Using a super high spell slot for a dispel magic for a 40 to 50 percent success chance is also hard to justify and not particularly fun.
So I leave the dispel's to chance. And so far after multiple APs and 17 plus level characters, I haven't found dispel to be that important like it was in PF1. Dispel magic was a must take in PF1 and now it's a maybe you'll use it and feel like it did something once in a blue moon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone touts the number of spells on a spell list, but the reality is a spell list could have 400 plus spells on it and only 20 to 30 will see consistent use and 50 to 80 inconsistent use. The rest are just filler spells that may be situational or just bad and tacked on to add content to a book. This is the part no one much mentions when touting the number of spells on a spell list. I'd much rather see a tally of what casters actually use on a spell list consistently. That number would be much, much smaller and likely redundant across lists. A larger spell list in no way is indicative of the quality of the spells on the list.I think the heart of our disagreement is that I see "situational" spells as useful spells to be able to cast when you know you are entering into those situations, which spontaneous casters can only really cover with scrolls, so probably only once, and requiring access to a magic store in the time between knowing they will be useful and needing to use them.
Prepared casters generally need a day to accomplish similar tasks, with wizards sometimes needing a day and access to a magic shop, but because that aspect of prepared casting is so much fun to me, Spell Substitution makes for a play style that no other class can touch, which is why I spend so much of my gold on scrolls as well. I agree that it tends to require a lot more preparation on the part of the player coming into sessions, but it doesn't usually take much time away from the game, as everyone usually wants to rest at least 10 minutes after an encounter anyways and that is usually enough time for me to figure out what spells I want to change around.
I think there is a lot of table variation on how often that happens, and how often GMs will make sure to give casters the time to go buy scrolls that will be obviously useful for the upcoming encounter.
Do you ever think about what some of these classes can do?
1. The bard has an ability called Esoteric Polymath which allows them to keep a spellbook to switch out or expand the number of signature spells per day. So they can switch out a spell on a daily basis and how often do you need to switch out multiple spells daily? I don't mean you want to do it, but how often do you really need to?
This is on top of having charisma as main stat which allows them to use skills to handle a lot of situations a wizard would need spells to handle with Diplomacy or Intimidation or what not.
By level 20 the Polymath bard can switch out spells for any list. The bard basically becomes a caster capable of casting spells from any list on top of all their bard composition abilities and charisma skills being a major strength for manipulating or influencing targets.
2. Sorcerer:
Arcane Sorcerer has Arcane evolution. This allows them to keep a spellbook and change out at least one spell a day as needed from the arcane list or have a flexible arcane spell daily they can use for whatever they need.
Occult Evolution: As I stated, Occult Evolution allows you to eliminate a ton of spells with the mental trait and add them as needed on a daily basis. You can do this as needed since it only takes you 1 minute to grab it when you needed it. So it's a very flexible spell slot.
This is on top of Bloodline Evolution which allows you to cherry pick a spell off another list.
Then Greater Mental Evolution at level 18 allows you to expand your Spell Repertoire to 45 spells for Arcane or Occult.
Now the oracle and psychic are more limited. But the bard and sorcerer have a pretty large amount of built in flexibility as casters. The bard's flexibility is the best in the game at the highest possible level. The bard for some reason is the true master of magic at level 20. Why is that the case? Doesn't that seem a little crazy to you?
I usually take slow and not fireball as my 3rd level signature spell.Really good spells with only two points of heightening like slow, invisibility, or fear are actually really good candidates for taking multiple times individually, rather than as signature spells.
I personally prefer to save my signature spells for spells that have heighten effects at several ranks, or every rank. Selecting a two-option spell (especially one that might not see any benefit for several levels) just seems like a waste or a precious signature spell slot.
I use slow so often that I prefer to use it in every available slot. I know it's boring, but it's hard to talk myself out of not using it as it only has one chance of utterly failing. In these short combats, even 1 round of slow against a boss monster is just brutal to that monster, especially when combined with a group that uses trip or some other maneuver.
Slow is the uber spell of PF2. The only counter is usually haste and immunity to slow. Haste can be fairly common depending on if a lot of casters in the module, but immunity to slow is super rare unless fighting golems or will-o-wisps who are immune to all spells.
When you have this spell 90 percent plus chance of doing something very effective, it's hard not to use it when so many other spells fail 50/50 doing almost nothing. I also use synesthesia a lot, but not as often as slow.
I am finding wail of the banshee is better than I thought it was. Hits only enemies. Full damage on a successful save. Brutal drained condition on a fail and drained 4 on a critical fail. What a hammer spell.
You don't need a spell to be signature to use it in every slot in the remaster.
I Definitely prefer Pf2's system with Prepared and Spontaneous rather then 5:e's system.But why?
** spoiler omitted **
I actually have a hard time to pinpoint exactly why, even after thinking about it a while.
But after playing alot of both all i can say is that i prefer pf2.
Maybe its the lack of identity in 5:e or the lack of real choices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was how I used Dispel Magic on my sorc-turned-summoner in our Age of Ashes campaign. Spoilers here if someone is playing it. ** spoiler omitted **When I see dispel magic used most frequently in combat encounters is against traps and hazard where it can be a one shot kill, although I have seen it used against spells like fly and fly like magical effects too.
Edit: also, a high rank dispel magic counters any lower rank effect even on a failure. So it can often be much greater than 50/50.
We handled the same hazard the following way.