Paizo, the errata to Runelord’s arcane bond and personal rune is a bad decision and should be reverted.

[Old_Man_Robot]

That is it, that is the post.

I won't rehash the myriad issues I have had Wizards over the years. Just revert the change that so that Runelords can remain as an actually good version of the class. The whole archetype has the rare tag already.

[Squark]

Here's my 2 cents on the matter. The previous interpretation made Runelords with consistently good sin spells very strong focused casters, and those without consistently good sin spells still viable. The weaker new interpretation makes the Runelords with consistently good sin spells still playable (but probably not even the best in their niche, while giving up more than the best did), but makes playing a sin without consistently good spells feel like you don't have an arcane thesis half the time.

[Gaulin]

While I think wizards could use a boost, I really don't think the power spike that runelord gave is the way to do it.

[Finoan]

I'm putting my vote in the 'no, you don't get to prepare two staves and get the free charges on both of them' column. That was a TGTBT ruling that wouldn't fly at my tables to begin with. If you want to play it that way at your tables you are still certainly able to houserule it that way.

You do still get to combine the spells from both staves together along with a polearm into one item so that you can wield all three of them at the same time.

[cavernshark]

The Runelord staff still functionally gives a Runelord an extra top level spell slot on top of them already having 3 + School spell. This comes in addition to the free advanced school spell feat at level 8.

Appropriate level staves almost never have on-rank spells attached so even with extra charges you can only use lower level versions (e.g. Greater Staff of Phantasms, a level 10 item, only has 4th rank spells available. Casters getting that at level 9 or 10 already have 5th rank and are about to get 6th).

Runelords effectively have a limited form of Spell Substitution (dedication ability), Staff Nexus (personal rune staff), and Spell Blending (extra top rank slot from the staff). I get being disappointed, but this is really fine. They're still thematic and strong for a wizard choice.

[Blave]

That "extra top rank slot" is limited to two spells. Oh, and at level 15+ it's reduced to a single spell. You at least get to spontaneously choose which one you want to cast before then.

Then there's spell quality. Getting to choose between 2 spells isn't great if one or even both of them are just bad or highly situational.

Sure, you can use the charges to spam a few lower level spells but even for those many are bad - or become bad as levels go on because they rely on damage, counteracting or have the incapacitation trait.

There's maybe 2 sins with a spell list that really benefits from those extra top rank slots at all levels.

The errata'd Runelord is barely worth dealing with the anathema. And only because the base wizard is somehow even worse, if more flexible.

[Finoan]

Blave wrote:

That "extra top rank slot" is limited to two spells. Oh, and at level 15+ it's reduced to a single spell. You at least get to spontaneously choose which one you want to cast before then.

Then there's spell quality. Getting to choose between 2 spells isn't great if one or even both of them are just bad or highly situational.

Sure, you can use the charges to spam a few lower level spells but even for those many are bad - or become bad as levels go on because they rely on damage, counteracting or have the incapacitation trait.

There's maybe 2 sins with a spell list that really benefits from those extra top rank slots at all levels.

The errata'd Runelord is barely worth dealing with the anathema. And only because the base wizard is somehow even worse, if more flexible.

Well, that is a bunch of other things that are valid critiques of the archetype.

None of them are fixed by giving the wizard extra staff charges.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Finoan wrote:

I'm putting my vote in the 'no, you don't get to prepare two staves and get the free charges on both of them' column. That was a TGTBT ruling that wouldn't fly at my tables to begin with. If you want to play it that way at your tables you are still certainly able to houserule .

What are you talking about?

It’s a functional staff which has your sin spells, and a number of charges equal to your highest spell rank + a regular staff.

So at most + 10 charges at 19th level.

[cavernshark]

Blave wrote:

That "extra top rank slot" is limited to two spells. Oh, and at level 15+ it's reduced to a single spell. You at least get to spontaneously choose which one you want to cast before then.

Then there's spell quality. Getting to choose between 2 spells isn't great if one or even both of them are just bad or highly situational.

Sure, you can use the charges to spam a few lower level spells but even for those many are bad - or become bad as levels go on because they rely on damage, counteracting or have the incapacitation trait.

There's maybe 2 sins with a spell list that really benefits from those extra top rank slots at all levels.

The errata'd Runelord is barely worth dealing with the anathema. And only because the base wizard is somehow even worse, if more flexible.

I was going to point out that if you don't like your top level bonus spell slot, you could convert those points down into lower level spells (which is also flexibility), but you seem to be aware of that.

So instead I'll politely ask if maybe this archetype just isn't for you? I don't think getting *another* extra top level slot from those two spells is going to fundamentally change the issues you've got with the archetype if you don't like how the first one works.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Finoan wrote:

Blave wrote:

That "extra top rank slot" is limited to two spells. Oh, and at level 15+ it's reduced to a single spell. You at least get to spontaneously choose which one you want to cast before then.

Then there's spell quality. Getting to choose between 2 spells isn't great if one or even both of them are just bad or highly situational.

Sure, you can use the charges to spam a few lower level spells but even for those many are bad - or become bad as levels go on because they rely on damage, counteracting or have the incapacitation trait.

There's maybe 2 sins with a spell list that really benefits from those extra top rank slots at all levels.

The errata'd Runelord is barely worth dealing with the anathema. And only because the base wizard is somehow even worse, if more flexible.

Well, that is a bunch of other things that are valid critiques of the archetype.

None of them are fixed by giving the wizard extra staff charges.

Drawbacks can be offset by benefits.

[Finoan]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Finoan wrote:

I'm putting my vote in the 'no, you don't get to prepare two staves and get the free charges on both of them' column. That was a TGTBT ruling that wouldn't fly at my tables to begin with. If you want to play it that way at your tables you are still certainly able to houserule .

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about this rule right here:

Preparing a Staff wrote:

No one can prepare more than one staff per day

That is the power ceiling for all characters of any class.

Runelord was never intended to bypass that to get extra charges by preparing both their Arcane Bond weapon and a regular staff. It isn't how I would run it at my tables even before the errata. You could combine the staves together first and then prepare the combination as one staff.

Is there a part of that that is still confusing?

[Squiggit]

nerfing wizards because Paizo accidentally let a build be okayish very on brand.

What a comically bad errata season

[Finoan]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Drawbacks can be offset by benefits.

AKA MinMaxing.

That leads to powergaming and builds that break the power curve.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Finoan wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Finoan wrote:

I'm putting my vote in the 'no, you don't get to prepare two staves and get the free charges on both of them' column. That was a TGTBT ruling that wouldn't fly at my tables to begin with. If you want to play it that way at your tables you are still certainly able to houserule .

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about this rule right here:

Preparing a Staff wrote:

No one can prepare more than one staff per day

That is the power ceiling for all characters of any class.

Runelord was never intended to bypass that to get extra charges by preparing both their Arcane Bond weapon and a regular staff. It isn't how I would run it at my tables even before the errata. You could combine the staves together first and then prepare the combination as one staff.

Is there a part of that that is still confusing?

I guess I’m confused by you patting yourself on the back for now allowing an interpretation that I personally never saw anyone bar you advance.

So I guess good work on that!

I fully agree that being able to prepare two staffs, get the charges from both, and then add your max spell rank in additional charges on top of that is not what the original text said. Mostly because it never said that.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Finoan wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Drawbacks can be offset by benefits.

AKA MinMaxing.

Not in this context… that term just doesn’t even apply here.

[Karys]

Being able to prepare two whole staves and get the charges for both combined seems kinda broken in a bad way. Definitely feels like an error that was fixed, not a nerf.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Since the Wizard was already pretty good, I can see why they wouldn't want the runelord to be significantly stronger.

[ElementalofCuteness]

All it let them do is cast 1 extra top tier spell for a total of 7 max Ranks instead of just 5 which normal wizards get and that's in edition to their crazy Anathema which lets face it, Envy is terrible, no offensive spells outside of Mental damage!? Wrath and Gluttony is amazing and makes them super viable. But unable to cast entire groups of magic is killer to some builds...

[Blave]

cavernshark wrote:

So instead I'll politely ask if maybe this archetype just isn't for you? I don't think getting

*another* extra top level slot from those two spells is going to fundamentally change the issues you've got with the archetype if you don't like how the first one works.

Well, I kind of want to like the Wizard but the remaster has made this really hard. The Runelord made it quite a bit easier for various reasons. With the errata, one big reason is gone. And I'm not even speaking from a power perspective here. I'm planning to play a Greed Runelord, despite it being one of the weakest sins - and definitely not gaining much from an extra top level cast at most levels.

But the mere fact that I could have gotten an overcharged stuff was a very fun thought. Even though the Greed spell list is quite lackluster. Breaking the limits of normal spellcaster with your sin spells is just a great concept.

Now this is gone. The main draw for the archetype is just a staff with a questionable spell list. Yes, its max spells are a rank higher than equal level bought staves, which isn't nothing. But I'm basically giving up 98% of all will targeting spells for this. A huge hit to the character's flexibility, which is usually what I value in arcane and prepared casters.

Past level 5 or so, I don't see much mechanical value in the Runelord. If you happen to have one of the sins with a great spell list, sure. But for the other 4 or 5? The abilities will simply not balance out the anathema. I'm reasonably sure that a basic spell blending or substitution wizard will be more powerful.

I will probably still play him because I don't really have time to come up with something else before the campaign starts and I've been tinkering on this character for at least 6 months.

[moosher12]

Yeah, I don't think that one is getting reverted. That ability was definitely in the "Too good to be true" territory. I remember reading it and thinking, "Well whose gonna wanna play a normal wizard," which is not gonna be a good approach.

[Blave]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Envy is terrible, no offensive spells outside of Mental damage!?

Not that it changes all that much, but there's still non-mental ways of dealing damage as an Envy Runelord. You can still use spells that deal force or sonic damage (few as they are). Or physical damage as long as the spell isn't elemental or void-based. Stuff like vomit swarm and telekinetic projectile work. Even Rouse Skeleton doesn't technically violate your anathema, despite it's necromantic flavor.

[Blave]

moosher12 wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that one is getting reverted. That ability was definitely in the "Too good to be true" territory. I remember reading it and thinking, "Well whose gonna wanna play a normal wizard," which is not gonna be a good approach.

I honestly think the anathema is enough of a deterrent to make sure players still play the vanilla wizard.

And frankly, the Runelord was hardly overpowered when compared to remastered Imperial Sorcerers or Oracles. The Wizard being worse in comparison is a flaw in the base class, not in the archetype.

[Errenor]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Envy is terrible, no offensive spells outside of Mental damage!?

Force? Sonic? Physical/Bleed? Poison? Acid? Cold? Electricity? Possibly but improbably Spirit. Of course, if any spells has Air, Water, Earth, Fire, Metal, Wood traits it wouldn't work I suppose. But not all of them have.

For example Arctic Rift hasn't any elemental traits. Still, it can be argued it's still 'elements' but it's rather weak, we all know what actual elements in pf2 are.
Electricity also is NOT an element.
That's such bad and unclear anathema. :( I can't even be sure what they wanted. But I would be very literal I think: no one of 6 elemental traits - allowed (well, and void).
Besides, if Elementalists can't have lightning spells - then Envy definitely will get them.

[ElementalofCuteness]

Honestly some Oracles are underpowered despite the 4/rank of magic. Look at Ancestor and Battle, both are horrible and one will let you see your Ancestors quickly because it makes you clumsy which lowers yoru already low AC and Reflex Saves by penalizing DEX while a different Curse like Cosmos makes you Enfeebled which lowers STR... Like when is a Oracle ever building Strength and why would you be penalized for it?

Bone is easily cheesed because you are still a living creature vs effects which general target undead say they target undead. Flame is forgettable at higher level as 1-4 persistent fire damage is not even that much at higher levels.

And unlike Runelords you can choose to ignore the curse mechanic where Runelord must balance it out to the Anathema...So take this as you will and I did do a look and honestly the spelsl you can use are rather weak as an Envy Runelord to defend yourself.

[Zoken44]

So with the Envy Runelords... are we going to pretend that summoning spells don't exist? that' you can't just summon a any creature beyond elementals to attack for you. I mean, that's offensive AND defensive since it's also another body on the battle field.

You can also lay down terrain hazards, allthe direct stuff others have mentioned.

[Tridus]

Zoken44 wrote:

So with the Envy Runelords... are we going to pretend that summoning spells don't exist? that' you can't just summon a any creature beyond elementals to attack for you. I mean, that's offensive AND defensive since it's also another body on the battle field.

... yes? I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen summon spells be used in combat in the last 3 years, and that's GMing multiple games and playing multiple games (and PFS). The number of times it was effective was less than that.

In the fights where it really matters, summons are simply too far below the level of the foe to be useful. There's almost always a better option for that spell slot.

[thenobledrake]

This is amusing to me.

When I initially read the revision of the Runelord archetype in Rival Academies I was thinking I had misread something or was misunderstanding because it looked like the book had said I got something that was really extremely beneficial and I thought "wait... that's too much, isn't it?" Yet the wording was clear, so I went with it.

Then the errata removed the phrasing that was responsible for what I initially clocked as being too much good stuff.

And now people are reacting with overblown dramatic responses like saying that now it's just a worse staff nexus.

Meanwhile, if we look at a practical comparison of just the staff aspect of the character we can see a situation like the following case in my current runelord character:

As a runelord I have a staff of water that I can spend a 3rd rank slot during my daily preparations and have 6 (no longer 9) charges to cast spells from, and that staff has 2 added cantrips and 2 added spells of each rank from 1st to 3rd for a total of 8 extra spells on top of the standard staff of water options.

If I instead had the staff nexus thesis and that staff of water I would have the same 6 charges to use it at my current level, but would only have 1 added cantrip and 1 added 1st rank spell. The upside of getting to pick exactly what those spells are is not, in the raw mathematical sense, worth the trade of not getting another 6 spells - especially not since I already picked what sort of runelord to be based on the spells the feature would be giving me because I believe in steering into the option rather than trying to fight against its limitations.

We'd have to look at other levels to see staff nexus start to have something which isn't so overshadowed by the benefits of the runelord feature that I would have thought it was unquestionable (i.e. we look at level 1 and the runelord gets a staff with 2 cantrips and 2 1st rank spells and can prepare it normally, the nexus thesis gets 1 cantrip and 1 spell and only gets a charge if they expend a spell slot), and then we're up into the 8th and 16th level features that let more charges be added - which I feel is a valid set of pros and cons overall, but a long time to wait for your first upside relative to something else and not as good of an upside as one would present it as because another 4 charges to cast spells with isn't as potent as actually having a 4th-rank spell to spend 4 charges on where you otherwise might not.

And then beside this "staff nexus, but different" there is also "spell substitution, but limited" and even though that does lock you out of a different feat it is still a case that the runelord gets the worth of a thesis, a school, and a feat, as well as a bonus language and a later bonus feat with very little paid for the privilege since avoiding certain types of magic is something players do even when the game doesn't give them an incentive to do so.

It's still a very easy argument to say that the runelord is the most potent of the wizard options even though it's not as potent as it ended up being because someone stuck "and its charges" in the middle of a sentence that didn't need it to be there.

[Deriven Firelion]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

All it let them do is cast 1 extra top tier spell for a total of 7 max Ranks instead of just 5 which normal wizards get and that's in edition to their crazy Anathema which lets face it, Envy is terrible, no offensive spells outside of Mental damage!?

That's why they're envious.

[Perpdepog]

I've got to admit I really liked getting the double charges and was looking forward to getting to spell spam even more than wizards normally get to. By the same token yeah, it feels a bit too good to be true.

[ElementalofCuteness]

Maybe I am just hopeful for Wizards to feel good?

[Ravingdork]

It never even occurred to me that the archetype could use more than one stave so (1) this errata essentially doesn't effect me or my view of the game and (2) I'm surprised so many people really intended to take advantage of what was an obvious exploit (or that their GMs would ever allow it).

[NorrKnekten]

Ravingdork wrote:

It never even occurred to me that the archetype could use more than one stave so (1) this errata essentially doesn't effect me or my view of the game and (2) I'm surprised so many people really intended to take advantage of what was an obvious exploit (or that their GMs would ever allow it).

You and me both, I never read the previous text as being able to have double charges as the base value. Just that you need to prepare either your bonded staff or the magical staff(Combining the two), but cannot prepare both.

[Blave]

The wording was very much "add the staff's charges". If anything, I'm baffled that anyone read it another way.

The biggest argument against it was always "you can't prepare two staves" but then again, it also never said you have to actually prepare your personal rune staff.

But that's all moot now I guess. We live in a post spring-errata world now and wizard is back at the bottom of the class list - and I obviously don't mean alphabetically.

[ElementalofCuteness]

I have to agree with Blave here. It was very much ADD charges of both Staff charges together because I was assuming the Anathema was more then enough to balance the double staff charges. Guess it is really Too good to be true even knowing Remastered Wizard feels incredibly weak despite the 3+1/rank of magic. Imperial Sorcerers show the world what versatility means vs ability to cherry pick spells.

[SnakeyViperSkin]

Has anyone play tested or heard any feedback with the pre-errata remastered Runelord? I can understand the visceral fears stemming from previous editions of TTRPGS (fear of power creep) but I am having trouble visualizing why having a few more (balanced) spells breaks the game especially with the heavy anathema.

[Squiggit]

SnakeyViperSkin wrote:

Has anyone play tested or heard any feedback with the pre-errata remastered Runelord? I can understand the visceral fears stemming from previous editions of TTRPGS (fear of power creep) but I am having trouble visualizing why having a few more (balanced) spells breaks the game especially with the heavy anathema.

Yeah it was a nothing burger. A mild power boost to an archetype that came with its own restrictions, which is largely how you'd expect an archetype to work.

The fact that nerfing this was one of Paizo's top priorities for errata feels somewhat telling at this point.

[thenobledrake]

SnakeyViperSkin wrote:

Has anyone play tested or heard any feedback with the pre-errata remastered Runelord? I can understand the visceral fears stemming from previous editions of TTRPGS (fear of power creep) but I am having trouble visualizing why having a few more (balanced) spells breaks the game especially with the heavy anathema.

I was playing one, though admittedly not for long.

9 charges in a staff at 5th level instead of 6 was just enough so that I felt like I'd never run out of spells throughout the day. Though also I feel the need to mention that just in general between slots, bonded object, focus, scrolls, and having a staff at all it tends to be that a wizard gets to the end of their adventuring day without having spent all their spells in the first place - meaning the extra that were possible with the old wording of runelord were not just "not breaking the game" they were also "not really changing anything in practice" so it isn't a problem of any practical sort that they are gone now.

"Heavy anathema" is not actually a reason to alter the balance of things unless those anathema are actually difficult to avoid. In the case of runelord where the player can select their sin and then plan accordingly there are hardly even any downsides to the character and no chance of "oops, I wasn't supposed to do that, now I have to atone" coming up. So it's basically just "can I have a bonus to Athletics if I promise to never train myself in Thievery?" level of hoping to be better at what want to do in exchange for giving up a thing you weren't going to do anyways.

[Ectar]

thenobledrake wrote:

"Heavy anathema" is not actually a reason to alter the balance of things unless those anathema are actually difficult to avoid. In the case of runelord where the player can select their sin and then plan accordingly there are hardly even any downsides to the character and no chance of "oops, I wasn't supposed to do that, now I have to atone" coming up. So it's basically just "can I have a bonus to Athletics if I promise to never train myself in Thievery?" level of hoping to be better at what want to do in exchange for giving up a thing you weren't going to do anyways.

Imo, it's more akin to a rogue promising to never train in Thievery for a bonus to Stealth.

You're giving up the possibility of doing something you'd otherwise be quite proficient in.

Every Anethema has some very desirable spells, so there's a real opportunity cost in not being able to select them.

Envy and Sloth- no Electric Arc. No Fireball.

Gluttony- no Fear and severely curtailed usage of defensive and utility spells. Arguably, very limited wall usage.

Greed- No Invisibility or Fear.

Lust- no Polymorph effects. No water breathing, enlarge, or darkvision.

Pride- no conjuring anything, so most walls and creature summons are out. No Polymorph.

Wrath- again no physical walls or summons, but also no defensive buffs.

Virtually every Anethema will affect your spell selection in some way. Even if all you wanted to do was cast fireballs all day, not being able to either fly or turn something invisible is hurtful to the character's flexibility, ie: ostensibly the thing the wizard is supposed to be good at.

[Bluemagetim]

Loss of flexibility is a meaningful limiter, but I wouldn't say it is ever equivalent to a vertical gain.

[Ectar]

Bluemagetim wrote:

Loss of flexibility is a meaningful limiter, but I wouldn't say it is ever equivalent to a vertical gain.

Is the opposite also true?

Does a significant increase in flexibility ever equate to a loss in vertical gain?

How many spell slots would you be willing to give up to acquire access to every spell of all 4 traditions?
If the answer is anything other than "I wouldn't ever give up any number of spell slots for access to that additional flexibility", then I think at some point there is an equivalency.

[NorrKnekten]

Theres certainly a case that the runelord sacrifices spell versatility for a rather substantial increase in flexibility.

You gain both a staff that not only has more spells than what a staff would have at your level, it can also be expanded by combining with any other staff you have. That used to be a level 10 feat.

You have two curricilums, Which never invoke anathema. So a Lust Runelord can still cast Darkvision, Greed Runelord can still cast Mind Probe and Wrath can still protect others with foresight or Wall of Ice. Every runelord can fly, use darkvision, scrying and protect themselves with Mystic Armor. And you can change any prepared spell into one from your curricilum as part of refocus.

Additionally I think people are sleeping on Runelord's Sin Counterspell, Any curricilum spell prepared can now counterspell spells that violate anathema? welp... Envy and Sloth just shut down all incoming elemental spells using spells they would've already been prepping and with no need to learn spells beforehand.

[Bluemagetim]

Ectar wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Loss of flexibility is a meaningful limiter, but I wouldn't say it is ever equivalent to a vertical gain.

Is the opposite also true?

Does a significant increase in flexibility ever equate to a loss in vertical gain?

How many spell slots would you be willing to give up to acquire access to every spell of all 4 traditions?
If the answer is anything other than "I wouldn't ever give up any number of spell slots for access to that additional flexibility", then I think at some point there is an equivalency.

Youre kind of talking about giving up resources you have for access to spells you plan to select in your example and comparing that to giving up access to spells you dont plan to select to begin with to get more resources to cast spells you want to cast.

Thats not the same thing to me.

[thenobledrake]

Ectar wrote:

Imo, it's more akin to a rogue promising to never train in Thievery for a bonus to Stealth.

Sure... but that's not actually any different despite your presentation that it is.

Wanting to be sneaky no more implies that you also actually care about being able to pick pockets, open locks, and disable devices than want to play a spell caster implies you actually want to be able to do every kind of magic there is to do.

Especially when we get to the "you were only actually going to prepare so many spells in the first place" of it, missing out on broad categories of magic - no matter how desirable they are - is not actually a problem for the player.

In order for it to be an actual obstacle or inconvenience there'd have to be a pronounced weakness inherent to the scenario of "I couldn't choose that" that isn't just as present in the scenario of "I didn't choose that even though I could". And since there's no difference between "this character doesn't know electric arc or fireball" and "it would violate this character's anathema to cast electric arc or fireball" there is no actual inherent value in that anathema.

And that you can point at every runelord option and say desirable spells it can't do - which happen to be other sins go-to sorts of spells - proves that getting by without certain things is hardly even inconvenient outside of having the GM/group inflicted case of "I was allowed to pick an option that is awful in the campaign and am not being allowed to do anything other than tough it out."

[Dork Smurf]

Smurf the Runelords and their laughably "narrow" focus! When do I get to play Megumin?

[YuriP]

Megumin is an example as you can sacrifice all your versatility for power! kkkk

[NorrKnekten]

When the wizard knows only fireball and thinks the limits to spellblending is just a suggestion

[Old_Man_Robot]

thenobledrake wrote:

Ectar wrote:

Imo, it's more akin to a rogue promising to never train in Thievery for a bonus to Stealth.

Sure... but that's not actually any different despite your presentation that it is.

Wanting to be sneaky no more implies that you also actually care about being able to pick pockets, open locks, and disable devices than want to play a spell caster implies you actually want to be able to do every kind of magic there is to do.

Especially when we get to the "you were only actually going to prepare so many spells in the first place" of it, missing out on broad categories of magic - no matter how desirable they are - is not actually a problem for the player.

In order for it to be an actual obstacle or inconvenience there'd have to be a pronounced weakness inherent to the scenario of "I couldn't choose that" that isn't just as present in the scenario of "I didn't choose that even though I could". And since there's no difference between "this character doesn't know electric arc or fireball" and "it would violate this character's anathema to cast electric arc or fireball" there is no actual inherent value in that anathema.

And that you can point at every runelord option and say desirable spells it can't do - which happen to be other sins go-to sorts of spells - proves that getting by without certain things is hardly even inconvenient outside of having the GM/group inflicted case of "I was allowed to pick an option that is awful in the campaign and am not being allowed to do anything other than tough it out."

There is quite a bit of circular reasoning in this.

You are asking for it to hurt, and for the player to be made to feel that hurt everyday, but the practical cash-outs are virtually identical. The players still aren't casting the proscribed spells.

The players intention of ever using those spells is immaterial. It is, however, impacting what happens within the confines of the game and limits the possible scope of solutions that player could bring. The correlate of being a prepared caster is that for every spell you prepare, you are not preparing every other spell that could also fill its space. Restricting what can and cannot be prepared causes the spells in this correlate to shift as a natural consequence.

Saying this doesn't impact balance is kind of silly.

If impacting the types of magic a Wizard can do is not enough, then what would a real cost look like?

- A HP deduction for additional slots? - Wizards try to avoid being hit regardless, so evidently this is aso not an actual obstacle or inconvenience.

- A scaling penalty to saves for slots? - Wizards strive not to be impacted by harmful effects anyhow, so this is also not an actual obstacle or inconvenience.

- A loss of feats for extra slots? - Wizard class feats of note are few and far between, so trading them away would not be an actual obstacle or inconvenience.

And with those 4 options, we have expended the resoures afforded in the Wizard chasis.

Beyond that, all we could offer would be penalties to the classes proficiencies with Magic. Which seems like a rather pyric trade at best.

Perhaps if players were allowed to strick their fingers in mousetraps at the start of each session, that woud suffice.

[Ectar]

thenobledrake wrote:

In order for it to be an actual obstacle or inconvenience there'd have to be a pronounced weakness inherent to the scenario of "I couldn't choose that" that isn't just as present in the scenario of "I didn't choose that even though I could". And since there's no difference between "this character doesn't know electric arc or fireball" and "it would violate this character's anathema to cast electric arc or fireball" there is no actual inherent value in that anathema.

Regular Wizard: Don't worry, party members. I didn't prepare Water Breathing [or other niche spell here] today, but we can rest up for the night and I'll prepare it tomorrow.

Could you imaging the inconvenience if the last group of bandits didn't have that scroll I could learn the spell from?

Runelord of Lust: I guess we're walking back to the nearest major city to go shopping.

[Bluemagetim]

Well if were talking about spells the runelord has already chosen at their level and then saying well no some of those can't be cast due to anathema, well that is a penalty.
But if were talking about spells they never used finite resources to gain in the first place its not a penalty. Its more or less a class direction kind of like Occult casters have a different list to draw from than divine casters or primal casters.You wouldn't say those casters are penalized because one has this list of spells and the other has that list to choose from.

No reason to consider spells per day gains for the class as a tradeoff for the second of those situations. Its just a class buff from the normal wizard with a more focused direction that the player can choose from a number of runelord options.

[Ectar]

Bluemagetim wrote:

But if were talking about spells they never used finite resources to gain in the first place its not a penalty. Its more or less a class direction kind of like Occult casters have a different list to draw from than divine casters or primal casters.You wouldn't say those casters are penalized because one has this list of spells and the other has that list to choose from.

No reason to consider spells per day gains for the class as a tradeoff for the second of those situations. Its just a class buff from the normal wizard with a more focused direction that the player can choose from a number of runelord options.

Of course an Occult caster isn't inherently penalized compared than an Arcane one. Now, if that Occult caster lost access to ~10% of their available spell list, THEN If considered them penalized.