|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The only minor thing I have to add is there is much more allowance to add a spell to a curriculum than to a spellschool. Adding a spell to a curriculum feels like an optional rule, except more allowed than a normal optional rule would be with the way it's phrased, while adding a spell to a spellschool is pure homebrew territory. At the very least, with the new version, it tells a GM that adding a spell is fine, whereas good luck getting a GM to mess with the spell schools if the GM is home rules light.
I'd lump this in with wider variance as well. Because, you're right, including the clause in the text does show that there is intent for this to happen, but they didn't didn't go so far as to indicate things likes permissibility, commonality, total numbers, if it works as a swap-out or pure addition, etc.
So while there will be tables where the Wizard is basically an unrestricted 4 slot caster, there will be others where they are basically 3 slot casters with a strict list of additions.
Which can dramatically impact play experience. And, given that this is meant to be the Wizard's whole thing, it means the experience gulf from player to player could be extreme.
I honestly feel like this was one of the worst possible ways to implement this ability.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point I Just assume that's the design goal. The wizard, more than any class other than maybe the investigator, is stuffed full of features that rely heavily on GM buy-in to work in a satisfying manner.
It's not a class you're supposed to just bring to a table and play like a fighter or cleric or druid or sorcerer or gunslinger.
The gap between the 'bare minimum' (highly irregular adventuring days with no foreknowledge, little to no time to learn a spell, basic curriculums with no uncommon spells) and the 'high GM buy-in' (lots of room for preparation and foreknowledge, plenty of time and money to add extra spells, flexibly curated curriculum additions) is just too significant, even before you consider the more mundane table variations everyone has to deal with.
Treat the wizard not as a normal class, but as a project between the player and the GM.
A remastered Inventor should be able to add more innovations...
Right now, it's a maximum of 2 initial ones, 1 breakthrough one and 1 revolutionary one. It doesn't help that many have repeated traits...
I'll also take an Inventor who can build customed weapons for anyone else and can add, swap and remove traits when crafting.
A big part of why people want pc3 is because paizo has done such a good job not only with adapting classes for the remaster, but touching up classes to make them more enjoyable to play. In my mind, that is why people want pc3. Lots of people have their favorite class not in the core/core 2 list, and the idea that the issues they have with their class could possibly be fixed (or they just straight up get new toys) is a big reason to want them updated.
Not only. After watch many videos about new PC2 content I saw many legacy things becoming incompatible, buggy, overpowered or senseless due many classes changes to (not only due the removal of alignment system or how focus spells works now but due changes of how many classes works now like many non-crb/apg witches and oracles subclasses) and a PC3 and even a PC4 bringing all supplementary content rules to remaster may help to fix this and put a mark where "starting from here is better to just use the remastered content instead of try to use legacy content that not always works seamlessly".
I know that the Paizo promessed to make erratas to fix the incompatibilities but up to now it is far from the same work that they done in the fully remastered content.
Helps because they can put the reviewed incompatible buggy stuff correct for remaster in the new books. This already will happen with PC2 spells.