|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They will keep them there because if you want you still can play using the OGL books. Not everyone wants to play using new books. It's same reason that they keep 1e until today.
It's different from foundry team that chooses to replace the content from OGL to ORC except those that have different names.
I glad for the work of AoN team. They done an incredible job. But I think this doesn't have any context here. What I'm criticizing is the people that says "we have AoN, so it's ok that some things aren't reprinted just use AoN istead of books if you don't have them".
The Foundry team explicitly is not removing things that are not reprinted. They have changed the names of some things where the text between the two sources is identical other than the names, but they have not explicitly removed things that aren't in PC1.
When I got into PF2, having not played PF1, I quickly found Path builder on my own and shared it with every group I joined. So to me that doesn't seem like much of a problem, who doesn't look for things to help make the complexities of the game easier? Likely the kind of people who will be fine with everything that's in the book they have access to.
|
So, this is speculative, I haven't seen PC2 yet but I've seen Paizo's modus operandi for a decade.
- The designers most likely thought Synesthesia was too good to be true. A mistake in the old CRB.
- They don't consider it "iconic". It's not an essential piece of any class identify, it's just really powerful.
- It might get brought forward in PC2, probably nerfed.
- If it doesn't, then it's essentially "dropped". That's not the same as errata. Ray of Frost got errata for it's damage dice. Synesthesia just disappeared without a trace.
- If dropped, it won't show up any more in new books, NPCs won't have it, you won't find a scroll of it in loot, it's not going to be on a staff etc.
So, in a home campaign, does that mean it's "banned"? Well that's really up to the GM. At some point the remaster books basically completely replace the legacy books, and it's up to the GM to decide what do do with any options from the legacy that were dropped.
---
What about PFS? PFS has made strong statements that old options that haven't been reprinted remain available in their old form. PFS is actually a pretty permissive campaign that allows a lot. Consider how many home campaigns allow that many wacky ancestries? Does every GM allow guns?
So PFS, in the name of "whatever Paizo book you bought, you can use" and "if it was legal once, we really hate revoking that" will continue to allow Synesthesia if it doesn't get remastered.
---
What should the GM do? IMO, as a GM I'd treat everything that hasn't been remastered as being under suspicion. Basically, every option that clearly could have been remastered but wasn't, is not Common anymore. It needs players to ask permission. Like, the obvious books to reprint Synesthesia are PC1 and PC2. If it's not coming back in PC2, then I think the wise thing as a GM is to treat it as a Rare spell.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trip, I think the high level problem is you're painting with an extremely broad brush and presenting your own preferences as indisputable fact. They are, in fact, quite disputable. And as Phntm888 points out, while there are people who thrive on wading through a thousand options (even if many of them are bad) there also players who do not. Pathfinder is trying to appeal to both, which means there's always a balancing act.
I explicitly stated that Paizo's **lack** of proper digitization is doing harm to pf2e.
This feels like a weird take. Like, I wouldn't object to Paizo having more high tech PDFs, cross referencing, and what have you. But at the end of the day they aren't a tech company. They are a book publishing company, and not a big one at that. They don't make money off of free data bases, they make money off selling books. I imagine they hope that those free databases lead to more book sales down the line by making the game accessible, but it is still a remarkably chill use of their IP. I don't see why they are obligated to maintain or improve these free resources themselves, especially when the fan community has proved willing and able to do so.
Also doesn't seem like Paizo would do great at it. I had to delay posting this because the forum broke down, and it is clunky at the best of times. If they lack the staff power to update their basic website, I don't love their odds of implementing the stuff you're looking for.
Having more options for spell selection really does not add much in the "decision paralysis" department,
AoN lists sorcerers as having 63 feats, and the arcane spell list alone has 684 spells to on it. Does not add much, you say?
and only full-list casters like Clerics are even affected by it directly.
Not true. Every slot caster has to sift through the spell list every time they level up at minimum.
Even for Clerics, they are only "option stunlocked" by a need to review a big list when they get access to a new rank of spell.
Also not true. You can change your spell loadout every day, so you can get stun locked every day.
More to the point, that is what players sign up for when selecting the class. It is no coincidence that Clerics and Druids have Champions and Rangers as "caster lite" variants of similar theme.
True, to a point. But complexity for the sake of complexity is still bad.
It is absolutely wild to me that PC1 can have so many *less* spells that the original base launch, and players will still find someway to say that "it's better."
Player Core 1 is not a complete package without Player Core 2. Despite that, player core 1 is still a pretty solid set of spells.
Like, every caster affected is unambiguously nerfed when they have fewer options to pick from. I would hope that at the very least from a mechanics and game balance perspective, it can be agreed that fewer spell options weakens the caster who uses that list.
That is true if all the remaining options aren't changed from their original form, which was not the case in Player Core. See Phntm888's point about Entangling Flora. Every caster got a power boost when Dancing Lights was eliminated and folded into the new and improved light cantrip. Then there are spells that got replaced with stronger versions, like Black Tentacles becoming Slither. And then there are existing spells which got added to traditions, like Marvelous Mount becoming a divine spell.
Some people enjoyed wading through 300-700 spells. And those folks still have access to the full list. Whether you think Pathfinder's content bloat is a bug or feature is very much a matter of personal opinion. Speaking personally, I don't like wading through content which is so bad it should never be used, nor do I like the inconsistent use of rarity to gate the occasional overpowered option. Instead of 500 spells where only 50 are worth using, I'd prefer a game with 250 spells where 100 are worth using.
You're not alone in preferring more options to less, but I just want to be clear it is not a universal truth. There are legit advantages to a more curated spell list, regardless of whether we are talking about a single book (whose other half is yet to be published) or the system as a whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trip, I think the high level problem is you're painting with an extremely broad brush and presenting your own preferences as indisputable fact.
That's kind of this thread in a nutshell. Like the whole premise of this thread is based on a series of assumptions built around the OP's personal tastes. It seems reasonable for someone like Trip to have a different opinion on it.
It's really not a point of preference to say that full spell list casters are improved with a greater diversity of spells to pick from.
That's the core piece of their design. One can easily self-limit by flavor theme, filter search by any number of criteria, ect. The whole idea is to pick a small subset that most appeals to the player.
I just finished a campaign with a Magus who took all lightning / electricity spells + Mirror Image. If they didn't have access to Secrets of Magic, they may not have had enough options to even have that simple of a fantasy to be viable without homebrewing. Even Sudden Bolt is from an AP book.
__________________________
I think the biggest misunderstanding /misconstruing is the notion that full-list casters need to read the entire spell list.
They do not.
As soon as a Cleric decides a suite of spells are good enough to slot, the decisions are over. Whenever they so choose, they can spend more time exploring their list. If the possibility of good options not discovered harms their fun, that's not a design flaw of the system.
And again, full list each day casters are explicitly positioned with adjacent caster lite alternatives.
AoN lists sorcerers as having 63 feats, and the arcane spell list alone has 684 spells to on it. Does not add much, you say?
It really doesn't, not when only 10 of those feats are any good, and maybe 50 of those spells are any good. When you have only a couple feats over the course of a few levels worth taking, and only a few spells over the course of a few levels worth taking, the idea that there is a decision paralysis to be had doesn't track.
Honestly, the amount of "dead" or nothingburger spells in the Arcane list or class feats for spellcasters, simply means that it's bloated with useless options, it doesn't add much to the decision-making other than another "Nah, this sucks." At best, it makes newer players waste more time to go through a majority of useless options to essentially either stick to the same optimized loadout that most spellcasters already take, and at-worst, they slip into the 'trap' options that Paizo keeps printing out; and players who played spellcasters in the past wonder why they're boring or uninspired.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with "more high tech PDFs" is two-fold.
- If the digital version of the book is clearly superior to the paper version of the book, that threatens to damage Paizo's relationship with FLGS, which is a bad idea because your FLGS is important for things like organized play and on-boarding people to the hobby/system.
- Making a digital version of the book have bells and/or whistles requires additional skilled work. You can't simply add significant work to the production of a book without also increasing the price. It's possible that Paizo has figured that they're going to make more money selling $20 PDFs with minimal features than they would selling $30 PDFs with more features.
Arcane List definitely has the most number of useless spells due to the sheer size of the list. Besides situational spell use, I focus on a small number of battle spells that work the best. If you understand how the game works, you know what spells are the best. You're using other spells for your own amusement, which is fine but not necessary.
I feel like you're substantially overestimating how bad most spells are. 90% of spells are absolutely useable. some may be better than others, but they have their uses and are absolutely picked. the other 10% is a problem, but honestly with how many spells they have, only having 10% of them be bad is impressive.AoN lists sorcerers as having 63 feats, and the arcane spell list alone has 684 spells to on it. Does not add much, you say?It really doesn't, not when only 10 of those feats are any good, and maybe 50 of those spells are any good. When you have only a couple feats over the course of a few levels worth taking, and only a few spells over the course of a few levels worth taking, the idea that there is a decision paralysis to be had doesn't track.
Honestly, the amount of "dead" or nothingburger spells in the Arcane list or class feats for spellcasters, simply means that it's bloated with useless options, it doesn't add much to the decision-making other than another "Nah, this sucks." At best, it makes newer players waste more time to go through a majority of useless options to essentially either stick to the same optimized loadout that most spellcasters already take, and at-worst, they slip into the 'trap' options that Paizo keeps printing out; and players who played spellcasters in the past wonder why they're boring or uninspired.
I can see why you would say that. When I refer to a "good" spell, I mean that it is a spell that is used at all levels of play (starting from the level it is acquired, to the highest levels), and does its job quite well across each level.
Some spells usually have either an on-level effect, or has its value transfer between levels, but at no point are we going to say that Breathe Fire has value past Character Level 4.
I feel like you're substantially overestimating how bad most spells are. 90% of spells are absolutely useable. some may be better than others, but they have their uses and are absolutely picked. the other 10% is a problem, but honestly with how many spells they have, only having 10% of them be bad is impressive.AoN lists sorcerers as having 63 feats, and the arcane spell list alone has 684 spells to on it. Does not add much, you say?It really doesn't, not when only 10 of those feats are any good, and maybe 50 of those spells are any good. When you have only a couple feats over the course of a few levels worth taking, and only a few spells over the course of a few levels worth taking, the idea that there is a decision paralysis to be had doesn't track.
Honestly, the amount of "dead" or nothingburger spells in the Arcane list or class feats for spellcasters, simply means that it's bloated with useless options, it doesn't add much to the decision-making other than another "Nah, this sucks." At best, it makes newer players waste more time to go through a majority of useless options to essentially either stick to the same optimized loadout that most spellcasters already take, and at-worst, they slip into the 'trap' options that Paizo keeps printing out; and players who played spellcasters in the past wonder why they're boring or uninspired.
90% is a vast overestimation.
I would say maybe 30% of a spell list is usable, with most being situational. About 10% or lower depending on level are high quality spells that perform well. I would say this for almost any spell list.
If someone is using the other 70%, they are doing it due to boredom with a desire to prove some low quality spell is useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another change that I found due a removed spell (probably due it being too OGL) was remastered version of Reckless Abandon that changed the reference of prismatic wall that didn't get a remastered version to wall of fire that's a spell that is in the book.
OK, it's just a reference to explain how the feat works but again is another pointer that changed due an old spell that wasn't ported.
OK, once again I note that this could reappear in PC2 yet it can also be removed for good and we won't know if it would be removed due license or a balance decision (yet in this case I strongly believe that is due license only).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
AoN lists sorcerers as having 63 feats, and the arcane spell list alone has 684 spells to on it. Does not add much, you say?It really doesn't, not when only 10 of those feats are any good, and maybe 50 of those spells are any good. When you have only a couple feats over the course of a few levels worth taking, and only a few spells over the course of a few levels worth taking, the idea that there is a decision paralysis to be had doesn't track.
Honestly, the amount of "dead" or nothingburger spells in the Arcane list or class feats for spellcasters, simply means that it's bloated with useless options, it doesn't add much to the decision-making other than another "Nah, this sucks." At best, it makes newer players waste more time to go through a majority of useless options to essentially either stick to the same optimized loadout that most spellcasters already take, and at-worst, they slip into the 'trap' options that Paizo keeps printing out; and players who played spellcasters in the past wonder why they're boring or uninspired.
You're missing the point with your first paragraph, and then hit upon it in your second. Wading through bad options is still adding complexity even if they aren't seriously considered. On top of that, your math still illustrates my point about feats vs spells. There are still way more spells to pick from, which means they are a significant contributor to the complexity of a caster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really not a point of preference to say that full spell list casters are improved with a greater diversity of spells to pick from.
That's the core piece of their design. One can easily self-limit by flavor theme, filter search by any number of criteria, ect. The whole idea is to pick a small subset that most appeals to the player.
I just finished a campaign with a Magus who took all lightning / electricity spells + Mirror Image. If they didn't have access to Secrets of Magic, they may not have had enough options to even have that simple of a fantasy to be viable without homebrewing. Even Sudden Bolt is from an AP book.
__________________________
I think the biggest misunderstanding /misconstruing is the notion that full-list casters need to read the entire spell list.
They do not.
As soon as a Cleric decides a suite of spells are good enough to slot, the decisions are over. Whenever they so choose, they can spend more time exploring their list. If the possibility of good options not discovered harms their fun, that's not a design flaw of the system.
And again, full list each day casters are explicitly positioned with adjacent caster lite alternatives.
I think I'm losing track of your point here. Why do you care so much about all the spells you want being in player core if you were already using non-core books to round out your list? People who want to use the full list can always do that (barring their GM limiting books.) A single core rulebook will never contain every spell.
What are you actually upset about? Is it that Synesthesia wasn't in Player Core 1? Is it a concern that people who only use printed books won't get spells from books they don't own?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be ok losing synesthesia. It's a powerful spell. Not sure it's fun. I don't like spells that are so good they drown out other options. Same reason I don't love trip for combat maneuvers. I'd much rather have spells, maneuvers, and abilities provide the same relative value even if the mechanics are slightly different or the visual is different.
I think I'm losing track of your point here. Why do you care so much about all the spells you want being in player core if you were already using non-core books to round out your list? People who want to use the full list can always do that (barring their GM limiting books.) A single core rulebook will never contain every spell.
What are you actually upset about? Is it that Synesthesia wasn't in Player Core 1? Is it a concern that people who only use printed books won't get spells from books they don't own?
The Magus example I mentioned would not have been able to fulfill their desired fantasy of being a lighting spell caster if they were limited to just the OG Core Rulebook release.
There is not an overabundance of options, even with every pf2e book published to date. Due to how spell choice is limited by tradition, rank, and other factors, just trying to keep a PC with a consistent theme can already be impossible without homebrewing copy spells with cosmetic (or in the case of dmg type, not cosmetic) changes.
Having a larger spell list means that more players can create the characters that they want to play. That's why a big spell list is needed to better player enjoyment.
And for the Nth time, there are many players disconnected from the zeitgeist who genuinely are limited to the one or two books they have. PC1 chopping off a 70ish spells compared to the OG release is not a good thing, and it's frankly bizarre that is somehow contentious to state the obvious there.
_______________________
The other point was to say that players do not have to read the entire list to pick from it. How many players read the full text, not just the table summary version, of every Class Feat they can pick from? Or other sub-class options? What about the other classes they could have selected?
I don't need to read the full text of a Mastermind Rogue to know that I'll pass. By the same token, I can know my PC is going to skip over spells with the necromancy tag, ect. It's not an issue that somehow makes it worse to have more options.
IMO, the "issue of option bloat" or however it's phrased is vastly overstated. Yes, some players shy away from complexity as a whole. I have absolutely played with those players, and there's nothing "wrong" with that aversion. Said players were never intended to choose a full list caster, and alternative classes are available.
That understanding of "players don't read what they don't care about" not actually causing "complexity bloat problems" is a huge part of why the Kineticist works so well. Despite how monstrous it is in word count, players can read an impulse or two of an element, and go "nah, I don't think I want to pick Metal." They do not have to study all their possible choices and their unique interactions with other options before making decisions and having fun.
Only a fraction of the available options needs to be considered, and players automatically read, and skip reading, their options in accordance to their interest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're missing the point with your first paragraph, and then hit upon it in your second. Wading through bad options is still adding complexity even if they aren't seriously considered. On top of that, your math still illustrates my point about feats vs spells. There are still way more spells to pick from, which means they are a significant contributor to the complexity of a caster.AoN lists sorcerers as having 63 feats, and the arcane spell list alone has 684 spells to on it. Does not add much, you say?It really doesn't, not when only 10 of those feats are any good, and maybe 50 of those spells are any good. When you have only a couple feats over the course of a few levels worth taking, and only a few spells over the course of a few levels worth taking, the idea that there is a decision paralysis to be had doesn't track.
Honestly, the amount of "dead" or nothingburger spells in the Arcane list or class feats for spellcasters, simply means that it's bloated with useless options, it doesn't add much to the decision-making other than another "Nah, this sucks." At best, it makes newer players waste more time to go through a majority of useless options to essentially either stick to the same optimized loadout that most spellcasters already take, and at-worst, they slip into the 'trap' options that Paizo keeps printing out; and players who played spellcasters in the past wonder why they're boring or uninspired.
So do you just... not want Paizo to publish more stuff? That sounds kind of awful.
... I also feel like "63 feats" is a bit misleading, because when you're picking you're not picking one of 63 feats you're picking one of four level 4 feats more often. I've had more players (new and old) complain about a lack of options here than an overwhelming number.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are you defineing "usable"? Because it does not appear to be how most other people define usable. Go to any spell guide (like...I feel like you're substantially overestimating how bad most spells are. 90% of spells are absolutely useable. some may be better than others, but they have their uses and are absolutely picked. the other 10% is a problem, but honestly with how many spells they have, only having 10% of them be bad is impressive.AoN lists sorcerers as having 63 feats, and the arcane spell list alone has 684 spells to on it. Does not add much, you say?It really doesn't, not when only 10 of those feats are any good, and maybe 50 of those spells are any good. When you have only a couple feats over the course of a few levels worth taking, and only a few spells over the course of a few levels worth taking, the idea that there is a decision paralysis to be had doesn't track.
Honestly, the amount of "dead" or nothingburger spells in the Arcane list or class feats for spellcasters, simply means that it's bloated with useless options, it doesn't add much to the decision-making other than another "Nah, this sucks." At best, it makes newer players waste more time to go through a majority of useless options to essentially either stick to the same optimized loadout that most spellcasters already take, and at-worst, they slip into the 'trap' options that Paizo keeps printing out; and players who played spellcasters in the past wonder why they're boring or uninspired.
90% is a vast overestimation.
I would say maybe 30% of a spell list is usable, with most being situational. About 10% or lower depending on level are high quality spells that perform well. I would say this for almost any spell list.
If someone is using the other 70%, they are doing it due to boredom with a desire to prove some low quality spell is useful.
I'm defining usable as in something that is even worth your time to learn and use, even if situationally so.
I had a sorcerer with 47 spells at level 20. That is about 10% of the overall Occult list. And I didn't even use all of those. I could have played and defeated everything in this game with maybe 15 to 20 spells.
Most spells you could never bother reading them much less slotting them in your spell slots and be just fine.
Most spells are generally inferior to some prime option. For example, one of the best blasting spells in the game is chain lightning. You could rely on this spell even in your 9th level spell slots and you won't even care that you didn't pick up meteor swarm or howl of the banshee.
I've read on here some players like to change up their spells for personal tastes, not because the spells actually perform better than a high value spell. That's fine. Personal enjoyment is a good enough reason to try out different spells.
Those spells aren't necessary. If you ignored them, you wouldn't even notice a reduction in performance.
It's why I don't value the arcane list like a player like say Gortle. I have little interest in finding clever ways to use spells using convoluted, unnecessary strategies. I prefer straightforward spells that achieve victory. There are only a handful of those in the game on any of the spell lists. I'm likely being generous with 30% considering even a 20th level caster is barely likely to know 10% of the spells on a given list.
A really diligent wizard or prepared caster player may learn more than 10 or 15%, but very few would ever be so diligent as to even approach 50% of spells known, much less used.
A level 20 non-specialist wizard will only have about 29 prepared spells at a given time absent feats. That's about 5% of the entire Arcane list.
That is why the size of a spell list is about as important me to as telling there are 200 channels on cable. I can only slot so many and I have to be sure I slot good spells. For a wizard, he's often going to slot the same spells in multiple slots due to lack of spontaneous casting and thus further reduce the percentage of spells he will ever use on the arcane list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're missing the point with your first paragraph, and then hit upon it in your second. Wading through bad options is still adding complexity even if they aren't seriously considered. On top of that, your math still illustrates my point about feats vs spells. There are still way more spells to pick from, which means they are a significant contributor to the complexity of a caster.AoN lists sorcerers as having 63 feats, and the arcane spell list alone has 684 spells to on it. Does not add much, you say?It really doesn't, not when only 10 of those feats are any good, and maybe 50 of those spells are any good. When you have only a couple feats over the course of a few levels worth taking, and only a few spells over the course of a few levels worth taking, the idea that there is a decision paralysis to be had doesn't track.
Honestly, the amount of "dead" or nothingburger spells in the Arcane list or class feats for spellcasters, simply means that it's bloated with useless options, it doesn't add much to the decision-making other than another "Nah, this sucks." At best, it makes newer players waste more time to go through a majority of useless options to essentially either stick to the same optimized loadout that most spellcasters already take, and at-worst, they slip into the 'trap' options that Paizo keeps printing out; and players who played spellcasters in the past wonder why they're boring or uninspired.
So do you just... not want Paizo to publish more stuff? That sounds kind of awful.
... I also feel like "63 feats" is a bit misleading, because when you're picking you're not picking one of 63 feats you're picking one of four level 4 feats more often. I've had more players (new and old) complain about a lack of options here than an overwhelming number.
No, I want them not to publish BAD stuff. I want them to keep publishing stuff worth using.
And the point I was making is that spells add more complexity than feats. Trip was saying spells don't add that much complexity, when by comparison they add 10x as many choices as feats. Feats are way easier to pick, partially for the reason you described.
That's what the kineticist is for, yeah. And Easl basically covered my response re: how many spells are in player core 1. Let's at least wait for the other half of the core to be published before we complain about the number of spells.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spells don’t exist only for player characters, nor only for combat, nor only for 1 class of caster. Sometimes a spells existence isn’t for your character, which is ok. If a spell looks bad for your situation, don’t use it.
At the same time, getting upset at the spell lists because they don’t support a narrow theme of a caster, like lightning wizard, is missing the larger design choices of PF2, like weaknesses and resistances, targeting weak saves, and not trying to overpower enemies strengths by superior specialization. The game’s lack of options for extreme overspecialization is very intentional, as is the fact you can’t be a full caster and expect to cast the exact same spell in every encounter. If you are a full caster, even a highly focused one like a healing cleric, your party needs you to be able to have useful actions to take at least once or twice every encounter, often more often than that. Heal is a great spell in PF2, but if you are casting it in the first round of an encounter, something has gone very badly for your party, for example. Chain lightning against a powerful solo monster with a really high reflex is a waste of actions. Slow against a black dragon already in flight is probably a waste of time too. These were intentional design choices.
My experience skews towards prepared casters with GMs that are pretty permissive of letting creative approaches to encounters bypass combats entirely, usually in such a way that makes for 1 extreme rolling/collapsed encounter at the end of the dungeon, although sometimes with enemies fighting each other along side the PCs. These encounters tend to run 6 to 12 rounds with a fair bit of tactical movement. AoEs and multiple target spells are often great in these encounters, but not usually in the first or second round. Battlefield control options do a lot better, especially as it often takes a fair number of medium rank spells to create the situations that lead to these kind of encounters in the first place. I recognize that the spells that work great for me in my games are not necessarily the same spells that do better in 3 round moderate encounters separated always by 10 minute breaks. The game benefits from having spells that are useful for different kinds of play styles.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
PC1 chopping off a 70ish spells compared to the OG release is not a good thing, and it's frankly bizarre that is somehow contentious to state the obvious there.
That's pure hyperbole. PC1 took a lot of the "removed spells" and rolled them into each other so that a dozen spells effectively became 3. The game is better for it.
It's true that some spells didn't make the cut, and may or may not return in PC2, but please don't spread misleading alarmist rhetoric.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also worth noting a fair bit of CRB spells aren't in player core 2 because they are focus spells for classes which weren't re-released yet.
... And you know, despite that, I finally looked up how many spells were sourced to Player Core 1 vs the CRB on Nethys.
Player Core 1: 472
https://2e.aonprd.com/Sources.aspx?ID=216
CRB: 537
https://2e.aonprd.com/Sources.aspx?ID=1
Trip, where the heck where you getting these "less than half" numbers from?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also worth noting a fair bit of CRB spells aren't in player core 2 because they are focus spells for classes which weren't re-released yet.
Trip, where the heck where you getting these "less than half" numbers from?
Gotta disagree with you there again. Your assumption is that more content/options has no draw backs, and that is not the case. Having a smaller, more curated list of options which cover your major bases are easier for new players to parse, and less likely to overwhelm them when choosing spells. Even I am finding this to be the case, and I have top tier familiarity with the system. I've found myself using player core 1 alone to pick spells lately. Part of that is that the player core spells are largely more powerful than their legacy equivalents, but it is also because the full spell list is just super duper bloated at this point. I don't need 95% of the published options. They tend to be worse than that 5% or at least too niche for a spontaneous caster to ever bother learning.
And to respond to the "half a spell list is better, actually" take
It was a "pick a number" hypothetical for the sake of exaggerated discussion, in direct response to you and your 95% claim.
To try to specifically challenge the take that a significantly smaller number of spell options could be construed as a good thing. When I think it's rather obvious that full list casters benefit from a bigger list of options.
It is not at all pleasant that I am getting pseudo called out for something so obviously misinterpreted and reviewable with a single click to check page 1. The specific circumstance of it being directly in response to your 95% is painfully ironic, and not in a good way. When the actual number of spells different in PC1 vs CRB was relevant, I checked AoN and used that ~70 number. If I could edit my posts, I'd add scare quotes to the later reuse of "no way to cut the spell list in half..." to make it that much harder to think I was claiming that happened in PC1.
_______________________________
I myself am not super strict with my PC theming, and have had my GM reject my spell re-flavoring "because the other players might not recognize the buff you're casting".
There are many people like that Magus, players who don't like the idea of touching the rules even to cosmetically homebrew their own spells, yet would love to pick a simple theme, filter search AoN, and have a set of options that matches. Because of the community's great resources, and the huge arcane spell list, that Magus was able to play their lighting striker without much "hassle".
What I might find a fun opportunity to rewrite a bit of flavor, that is something that many, and tbh most, people do not enjoy. For them, re-flavoring is a time-costing hassle, but to many, they are completely uncomfortable touching the system/rules at all, and have an aversion somewhat describable as "possibly messing things up"
And the idea that a player wishing to build a PC that uses mostly just lightning spells is too specific a fantasy to be compatible is... like, wild. That is a super vanilla desire. I didn't realize how few lightning spells were core until I checked.
_________________________________
To try to restate a point from a different angle:
You saying that you only use or care about 5% of the spell list is actually normal.
I'd guess most full list casters are about the same, keeping about 30ish spells that they care about.
But, the catch is that your 30 spells is quite different than the next caster's. Everyone needs a big list of options to browse in order to find their personal 30, and the design of "growing personal list" casters like Wizard is made explicitly so that it's a gradual and exploratory process. Discovering a scroll or spellbook is a great moment explicitly because the full list is far too large to know what spells are in there.
Casters thrive on finding a "useless" or "sub-optimal" spell and making it their personal signature. IMO, it's flavor that is more fun than power. A spell's utility/power -is- a pre-requisite for it's use, but it needs only be "good enough" in the players mind. The flavor, meanwhile, is generally the part the player actually derives fun from.
As such, I strongly disagree with the idea that reducing the list size can ever really be called a "good thing."
__
Where Synesthesia specifically factors into the discussion is that it's extremely common to find in many players 30.
That specific spell is a signal/symbol for all the other players who lost or will never find the few spells they care about, whether that's due to the PC1 list being about ~70 fewer, or what I worry about a bit more, which are those offline, non AoN players.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're missing the point with your first paragraph, and then hit upon it in your second. Wading through bad options is still adding complexity even if they aren't seriously considered. On top of that, your math still illustrates my point about feats vs spells. There are still way more spells to pick from, which means they are a significant contributor to the complexity of a caster.AoN lists sorcerers as having 63 feats, and the arcane spell list alone has 684 spells to on it. Does not add much, you say?It really doesn't, not when only 10 of those feats are any good, and maybe 50 of those spells are any good. When you have only a couple feats over the course of a few levels worth taking, and only a few spells over the course of a few levels worth taking, the idea that there is a decision paralysis to be had doesn't track.
Honestly, the amount of "dead" or nothingburger spells in the Arcane list or class feats for spellcasters, simply means that it's bloated with useless options, it doesn't add much to the decision-making other than another "Nah, this sucks." At best, it makes newer players waste more time to go through a majority of useless options to essentially either stick to the same optimized loadout that most spellcasters already take, and at-worst, they slip into the 'trap' options that Paizo keeps printing out; and players who played spellcasters in the past wonder why they're boring or uninspired.
Sifting through the trash isn't really a complex thing, but it is a menial and time-consuming task, since you might actually find something useful among the trash, and I can understand players not liking spellcasters from this perspective. However, this isn't really a "decision paralysis" thing; to make it "decision paralysis," you have to have numerous good options that have strong parity against one another. Having a dozen trash options and one or two good options with clear distinct niches does not constitute "decision paralysis," because it becomes clear that if you build Path A, you take Option A, and if you build Path B, you take Option B. The other options don't matter, even if you decide to make up a Path C.
Sifting through the trash isn't really a complex thing, but it is a menial and time-consuming task, since you might actually find something useful among the trash, and I can understand players not liking spellcasters from this perspective. However, this isn't really a "decision paralysis" thing; to make it "decision paralysis," you have to have numerous good options that have strong parity against one another. Having a dozen trash options and one or two good options with clear distinct niches does not constitute "decision paralysis," because it becomes clear that if you build Path A, you take Option A, and if you build Path B, you take Option B. The other options don't matter, even if you decide to make up a Path C.
I like that framing of the difference.
Sifting and filtering down a giant list is not at all the same thing as genuinely measuring options against each other on a scale. Whether the player is searching for a spell to do a function or by matching a personal theme, that kind of "trash diving" is driven by a player having a goal in mind most of the time, even if it's a vague one like "I want a buff spell" / "want a single target blast".
That's completely different from "level up and pick a new Feat."
For decision paralysis, I'd also add that the consequences of the choice need to be longer lasting and harder to change once made. Picking between Feats, or Classes for that matter, can cause paralysis.
Repertoire casters IMO are the closest to those w/ "spell list paralysis" precisely because they don't have an easy time changing their selection once made.
While Clerics have the full list to pick from each day, the fact that they can just freely pick the next day really does mean that it's kind of a nothing-burger to see a giant list.
I'd argue that once a player sees that the number of options is huge enough, that overwhelming quantity is key to triggering a mode switch into that "trash sorting" mode that does not have the mental friction of decision paralysis. If the list is too small, then the player may be *more* likely to sweat about picking the "right" one(s).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apologies for offending. Was not my intention. In these long threads with walls of text it is easy to lose track of what was being said originally. It has happened to me in this thread as well-- multiple people have replied to me saying that there aren't that many feats to pick from when that was the point I was trying (ineffectively) to make in the first place.
In regards to Player Core having 70 less spells than the CRB... That's a 12% reduction in spell count. I do not find that concerning for a litany of reasons, and think casters are better than ever now.
- Redundant spells were condensed into singular, more powerful versions.
- A general trend towards spells being upgraded. Compare flame strike to divine immolation, black tentacles to slither, etc.
- Many of those spells we lost were focus spells for champions, monks, and sorcerers, which we get back in player core 2. (Along with oracle focus spells.)
- Player Core 2 will contain additional slotted spells to round out Player Core 1.
- Refocus changes.
For Synesthesia, specially, I think it is a poor symbol of the game as a whole for exactly the same reason it showed up in so many people's favorite spells. It was a balance outlier. A balance outlier which, as I've noted, became all the more pronounced with the Resentment's release. If Paizo wants to reprint it, it is easy to why they'd wait until Player Core 2 to do so. This just isn't representative of other spells.
A better example would be your magus character, since several attack spells were moved to save versions that are more effective for most casters but worse for spell strike. And at that point we could quibble about whether horizon thunder sphere's versatility makes up for losing a little damage over spell strike, on the viability of continuing to use renamed and remodeled spells like acid arrow, etc. but Synesthesia just isn't that.
On the flip side, Mirror Image, the other spell Yuri cited? I honestly don't care that if it stays or goes. The flavor is really OGL specific and the mechanics of the PF2 version always felt bad to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would Synesthesia, as written, be too strong as a 6th level spell? 7th? Too weak for 9th?
Genuine question. I don't have a dog in the hunt.
I don't think there's agreement on whether it is too strong a spell at its current rnak, just that it is exceptionally strong. What I will say is that even among higher level spells I don't see a comparable effect. The higher level debuffs tend to have incapacitation, which significantly limits their application. And honestly, adding the Incapacitation trait would be the easiest way to balance Synesthesia. The critical failure condition is basically incapacitation already. Maybe give a little more of that to the basic failure condition.
If you were to raise the rank of the spell, I'd note Quandary (formerly Maze) as an 8th rank point of comparison. You need to work a little harder to abuse it, using Snares and what not. But it is a really powerful effect even on a successful "save" and has no incapacitation.
Just as an aside, how many spells do you prepared casters have in your books or familiars?
As I noted above, as a level 20 sorcerer I end up with 47 spells known usable in 38 slots with one flexible mental slot with Occult Evolution. I don't even use all 47 I have memorized. Even learning 47 spells, it's roughly 10% of the occult list.
So for the prepared caster wizards and witches, how many spells do you normally end up with in your spellbooks at level 20 or around level 15 of the 600 on the arcane list? When you finish the game, how many do you have in your book on your personal spells known list? Out of that list how many do you use consistently?
When I look at my level 11 wizard, I think I had about 70 to 80 up to 6th level spells. A bit more than 10 a level with certain levels being stacked by like 3rd and 6th.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would Synesthesia, as written, be too strong as a 6th level spell? 7th? Too weak for 9th?
Genuine question. I don't have a dog in the hunt.
Asking for a level change doesn't really help much, especially since it has a 9th level Heighten entry which gives it pretty potent uses for multiple weaker enemies. That being said, there are ways to balance the spell out without changing the spell level.
1. Give it the Incapacitate trait. This means you can't just trounce a high level boss with a 5th level spell by them either rolling bad or having a bad save being targeted. It also means that if you want this kind of debilitating power to use against higher level enemies, you need to spend up for it. Plenty of other save/suck spells have this trait, why shouldn't this one, which gives 3 significant debuffs, compared to other ones which do not?
2. Reduce the overall durations/effects of the spell. On a success, make it only inflict Clumsy 1, a Flat 3 for targeting/spellcasting, and -5 movement for a round. This enforces the 'still does something on a success' while not making it extremely powerful as it usually is. On a failure, apply the full normal effect for a round, enforcing that when enemies fail the spell, it's still extremely powerful. On a critical failure, apply the full effect for a minute. This still gives it its niche, but also doesn't turn it into a complete save/suck spell. It also works quite well with the likes of True Target, et. al., giving your party a single round to absolutely wreck a given enemy.
3. Make it accessible to other spell lists, like Arcane and maybe even Divine. Now, instead of requiring a specific class of spellcaster, other spellcasters can inflict this spell effect and won't feel left out of doing what is likely a key component of their class for the party.
4. Have each effect produce its own save, which each Critical Failure instead inflicting a stacking Stunned 1. This means the spell might be effective sometimes and sometimes not; I think this would be an interesting thing to implement, giving it both a unique mechanic as well as an unusual/occult element to it, but I probably wouldn't do this both to keep the spell simple, as well as because it can still inflict serious problems if you roll bad on just one of these saves.
Just as an aside, how many spells do you prepared casters have in your books or familiars?
As I noted above, as a level 20 sorcerer I end up with 47 spells known usable in 38 slots with one flexible mental slot with Occult Evolution. I don't even use all 47 I have memorized. Even learning 47 spells, it's roughly 10% of the occult list.
So for the prepared caster wizards and witches, how many spells do you normally end up with in your spellbooks at level 20 or around level 15 of the 600 on the arcane list? When you finish the game, how many do you have in your book on your personal spells known list? Out of that list how many do you use consistently?
When I look at my level 11 wizard, I think I had about 70 to 80 up to 6th level spells. A bit more than 10 a level with certain levels being stacked by like 3rd and 6th.
At the end of level 4, my spell substitution wizard has 19 rank 1 spells and 11 rank 2 spells in her spell book.
At the end of level 4, my spell substitution wizard has 19 rank 1 spells and 11 rank 2 spells in her spell book.Just as an aside, how many spells do you prepared casters have in your books or familiars?
As I noted above, as a level 20 sorcerer I end up with 47 spells known usable in 38 slots with one flexible mental slot with Occult Evolution. I don't even use all 47 I have memorized. Even learning 47 spells, it's roughly 10% of the occult list.
So for the prepared caster wizards and witches, how many spells do you normally end up with in your spellbooks at level 20 or around level 15 of the 600 on the arcane list? When you finish the game, how many do you have in your book on your personal spells known list? Out of that list how many do you use consistently?
When I look at my level 11 wizard, I think I had about 70 to 80 up to 6th level spells. A bit more than 10 a level with certain levels being stacked by like 3rd and 6th.
So that is about 18 percent of 1st level spells and 10 percent of 2nd level spells you can possibly know. Seems about right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I roughly never add any spell in my spellbooks/familiars (unless I play a Substition Wizard but I never did). I have a few Scrolls at the ready if needed (Scrolls are nearly part of my spellbook as I can easily prepare a spell from them but it currently never happened). Overall, 4 spells per rank are far enough to cover my needs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been fascinating how much I continue to learn about this game from these conversations about spell casters. There is so much about perception of game balance and effectiveness that rests upon what you are trying to do with your character in different modes of the game. From action by action in combat encounter mode, to fitting your potential exploration activities to your specific campaign, to maximizing the effectiveness of the gear your character uses: Your own expectations for what is an effective use of your character can shape so much of how you see various game options.
For just one example, even in the realm of playing a support character, some parties are going to benefit more from a character that can help the whole party identify and exploit successful tactics, enemy weaknesses, and low defenses, more than they are going to benefit from a caster casting the same buffs and debuffs every encounter. Meanwhile, other parties are not going to make use of 90% of that information, or they are going to get that information without engaging in the game mechanics that reveal it, and those parties are going to write off all of those options. I don’t believe either play style is inherently right, but each one is just going to massively change what resources you want to bring to the table.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that there's a lot of mumbo jumbo around prepared casters: "Right spell for the job", "adapting your spell list to the day", "intelligence", "versatility". For me, it's just smoke and mirror over decision paralysis. When crap hits the fan no one cares about the spells in your spellbook.
My spellcasters are never support character (even if they can have support options). I don't buff and debuff as I find these options to be subpar (before very high level). I tend to have very recognizable combat patterns, extremely effective ones as I only prepare the most effective spells. The party quickly understands how I play and adapt its strategies to my spells. Clear, ruthless efficiency. I also fully use casters' ability to up their game in dire times to save the day.
And for out of combat I have skills and Scrolls. It covers most situations. Convoluted situations that absolutely need extremely niche spells are either created by the player themselves or give you enough leeway so you can buy the proper Scrolls for the job. It would be crazy to expect a party to have Cleanse Cuisine prepared to beat a challenge.
I roughly never add any spell in my spellbooks/familiars (unless I play a Substition Wizard but I never did). I have a few Scrolls at the ready if needed (Scrolls are nearly part of my spellbook as I can easily prepare a spell from them but it currently never happened). Overall, 4 spells per rank are far enough to cover my needs.
That, and there aren't many spells (if any) that absolutely require spending WBL on learning, meaning that WBL is better spent on getting actual gear that is far more helpful than if you simply acquired the spell from levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that there is confusion and unclear expectations established by the game for how a prepared caster spends their wealth on gaining spells. There is no where on the character sheet where you keep track of how much gold you spent on your spell book and are you supposed to treat that investment like permanent items or like consumables? A GM that treats gold spent learning spells like consumables is going to have to make sure that prepared casters are getting more gold than other players, just like they would be expected to if one player was buying and using lots of consumables (like scrolls). But a GM that treats the spell book like a permanent item that increases in value (which is awkward because the game doesn't provide a way to do that) would say that the caster is at the same level as other party members. It is an undefined aspect of the game that can cause hurt feelings in multiple ways: Players of prepared casters feeling like they are wasting money doing an essential expectation of their character class, or other players feeling like they are being penalized for not spending enough of their wealth on consumables.
As a GM, I would recommend not trying to force "one true way" over your party without talking about the issue after it becomes clear someone is going to play a wizard or a witch (or any character that is going to be using a lot of consumables really, even though there is guidance for that, not everyone agrees with it). It is not really an issue with PFS, because you get so much gold that everyone should be pretty happy. Honestly, that model tends to work pretty well in campaigns as well (just give more treasure that is useful to players instead of always forcing them to sell everything and they tend not to care about trying to count coins or worry about falling behind game expectations), but for some campaigns, that might not be a good fit, and players really do have very different expectations about wealth and how the party gains it, it is a good conversation to have in a session 0.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that there's a lot of mumbo jumbo around prepared casters: "Right spell for the job", "adapting your spell list to the day", "intelligence", "versatility". For me, it's just smoke and mirror over decision paralysis. When crap hits the fan no one cares about the spells in your spellbook.
My spellcasters are never support character (even if they can have support options). I don't buff and debuff as I find these options to be subpar (before very high level). I tend to have very recognizable combat patterns, extremely effective ones as I only prepare the most effective spells. The party quickly understands how I play and adapt its strategies to my spells. Clear, ruthless efficiency. I also fully use casters' ability to up their game in dire times to save the day.
And for out of combat I have skills and Scrolls. It covers most situations. Convoluted situations that absolutely need extremely niche spells are either created by the player themselves or give you enough leeway so you can buy the proper Scrolls for the job. It would be crazy to expect a party to have Cleanse Cuisine prepared to beat a challenge.
And you pretty overwhelmingly prefer to play spontaneous casters, so it is clear that you have a set of expectations that line up really well with some classes better than others. That is exactly what I am saying. Because you have those expectations, and you expect those around you to conform to them, it is going to paint a very particular picture of many of the other classes, spells and game options that isn't going to line up with the evaluations of other players who bring in completely different expectations. Which is how all of this works right? Any "Best 4 spells of X rank" list is going to be a subjective list based upon players expectations based upon the games they play. Which isn't to say that there are not objective statements that can be made about different spells or classes or abilities, nor that every spell or ability is accomplishing the purpose of the players who want to use it, but writing off all other options as useless for everyone because they don't fit in your style of play can lead to contradictory and confusing meta-narratives about the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That, and there aren't many spells (if any) that absolutely require spending WBL on learning, meaning that WBL is better spent on getting actual gear that is far more helpful than if you simply acquired the spell from levels.
That's why I very often use the strategy of not learning a spell but just having a Scroll of it. If I need it, I have the Scroll. If I want to Prepare it, I learn the spell before getting to bed. Especially with Magical Shorthand, you can build your Prepared spells directly from your Scrolls on top of your spellbook. And it saves on money as learning spells can quickly get you broke. For example, Unicore example should have cost 60 gp which is nearly a Striking Rune. It's not impossibly high but still rather expensive.
A GM that treats gold spent learning spells like consumables is going to have to make sure that prepared casters are getting more gold than other players, just like they would be expected to if one player was buying and using lots of consumables (like scrolls).
I've never seen anything like that. And I would find that unfair if another character gets more money than mine. Martials need a fully runed weapon, casters don't, should they get more money then? In my opinion, such a conversation about character monetary needs will just generate bad feelings. All the parties I've been in have separated gold equally (unless the loot gave a specifically good item to one character and then this character was having less gold than the others).
Also, if a character starts siphoning money, the others will certainly want to have a say about this character spendings. Chances are high that some of your spells will be considered low priority by the party and as such no one will pay for them.
If your fantasy is to have a big spellbook then it can create issues that you can talk out with the GM and the group. But it's not a basic expectation from my experience to have more money because of that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you pretty overwhelmingly prefer to play spontaneous casters, so it is clear that you have a set of expectations that line up really well with some classes better than others. That is exactly what I am saying. Because you have those expectations, and you expect those around you to conform to them, it is going to paint a very particular picture of many of the other classes, spells and game options that isn't going to line up with the evaluations of other players who bring in completely different expectations. Which is how all of this works right? Any "Best 4 spells of X rank" list is going to be a subjective list based upon players expectations based upon the games they play. Which isn't to say that there are not objective statements that can be made about different spells or classes or abilities, nor that every spell or ability is accomplishing the purpose of the...
I'll obviously never advocate for the One True Way of playing a caster (or whatever). Also, I wouldn't say that I prefer Spontaneous casting over Prepared casting. I find it much more effective (and it tends to be a common conclusion even if we are definitely dealing with subjective feelings). But a class has to be taken as a whole and Prepared casters tend to have more features than Spontaneous ones (legitimately in my opinion).
Now, I feel there's a common discourse around Prepared casters, a discourse I deeply disagree with. Between PF1 and PF2 the game has changed but the discourse around Prepared casters hasn't (the discourse around Spontaneous casters on the other hand has completely changed). I think it's an issue as it is now no more in line with the reality of the game. For example, the "right spell for the job" is no more a thing in PF2, spells are no more so powerful that casting a single spell will solve a situation (at least not without extreme luck).
As such, building and playing a Prepared caster should evolve. There are tons of directions that have never been explored, due to a lack of deep analysis (in my opinion). My goal is to shoot on the anthill (expression in my language that I'm sure you can get) so a better understanding can emerge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My witch is only level 4, but even with some weird house ruled restrictions around where I can learn from I am enjoying adding to my options. It lets me play with different loadouts. I've been using your standard occult debuff/damage hybrid spells, but I'm going to try and swap in Final Sacrifice and some summon spells to see how I can synergize with Elemental Betrayal. There's also an interesting push and pull for the merits of scrolls based on the rank of the spell. Heightening lets some spells stay relevant. At level 5, I don't expect to use a 1st rank scroll of summon undead, but I can spend 1 gp to learn it and prepare it at rank 3, where I will use it.
Prepared casters are also really nice for hexploration, low time pressure campaigns where you only do one encounter a day and can often tailor your loadout to it. I don't see taking Cozy Cabin on a spontaneous caster, but I have high hopes for using it prepared in Kingmaker where the night time random encounter chance is way over tuned.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My spellcasters are never support character (even if they can have support options). I don't buff and debuff as I find these options to be subpar (before very high level). I tend to have very recognizable combat patterns, extremely effective ones as I only prepare the most effective spells. The party quickly understands how I play and adapt its strategies to my spells. Clear, ruthless efficiency. I also fully use casters' ability to up their game in dire times to save the day.
So you don't support your party, then when everyone inevitably fails without it, you swoop in claiming to be the hero?
That's not an adventurer. That's a dead weight with hero syndrome.