Right, but with which mechanics? Gather Information is a Diplomacy action that only pertains to "local markets, taverns, and gathering places in an attempt to learn about a specific individual or topic",Little 'g' little 'i', to include using a variety of skills as well as simple role playing.
It's great if the GM accommodates those players, but it would be even better if there were an actual mechanic in place to support that, methinks.There's no wrong way to play, but I don't see role-play scenes in a role-playing game as GMs going out of their way to accommodate a specific player type. ;)
I see it more as the reverse: when a GM is cutting out most/all role-playing scenes which PCs may use to learn stuff about campaign threats, in favor of emphasizing combat scenes almost exclusively, that GM is altering the game from it's baseline to accommodate a specific player type. Again, that's fine. It's simply to say that since the base line game assumes that PCs will have opportunities and knowledge to make swappable daily prep abilities useful, there are a bunch of classes that make use of swappable daily prep abilities. If a table removes the utility of swappable daily prep because it doesn't work for them, or the GM has a hard time thinking about what info about future threats the PCs could reasonably access in the story they are telling, that's fine but then that choice will devalue a couple of classes.
You only have so much time to play in a week and my players want to advance in level, not spend time on imaginary conversation. They like imaginary combat. So you focus the game on what the players like.
A class should be able to perform well in any form of game played. Adventures should in no way be written with a post-script, "If you have a wizard in the group, they can use this spell to solve the problem to feel like they contributed." Nothing like this should be required for any class.
I assume they meant 'Reductio ad absurdum.' They probably shortened the whole phrase to 'reductio,' which is why it came out like that. So presumably, it would be 'attempt at a reductio ad absurdum' By the way, I’m not defending them, just trying to figure out what they meant.
I think you're right. That's all the more perplexing to me, though, as the reductio ad absurdium is in fact a valid form of argument that demonstrates how a proposition is false by showing it leads to absurd conclusions -- an essential technique in some mathematical proofs, and also not in any way related to any argument made in the above conversation.
In any case, back to the original subject, how's this for a ritual:
Traits: Rare
Cast: 1 hour (performed during your daily preparations)
Primary Check: Arcana, Nature, Religion, or Occultism
Requirements: You must be a spellcaster who prepares spells, and the skill you use must correspond to the tradition of spells you prepare (Arcana for arcane, Nature for primal, Religion for divine, and Occultism for occult).
You draw from your knowledge, intuition, and available evidence to determine how to best prepare your magic for the day. If you can prepare spells from multiple different traditions, focused preparation's benefits only apply to spells of the tradition corresponding to the skill you used for the ritual, as listed in its requirements above.
Critical Success: Choose as many of your spell spell slots as you wish, up to a rank equal to the ritual's rank. The GM prepares spells into the chosen spell slots from the list of spells available to you; these spells are the ones most likely to aid you during the current day, as determined by the GM.
Success: As critical success, but you can only choose up to one spell for each rank of spell you can cast, up to the ritual's rank.
Failure: You fail to gain any useful insight, and must prepare your spells yourself.
---
Effectively, it'd be a cheap, straightforward way for the player to get the GM to nudge them a bit in the right direction with their prepared spellcasting, if the GM allows to enable the ritual. This'd be of particular benefit to prepared arcane casters, who could find themselves with more niche arcane spells that are guaranteed to be useful at some point in the adventuring day.
It requires the GM to know all the spells a player could prepare and what their likely impact will be, putting a lot of cognitive work onto them
"All the common spells in the divine/primal list" isn't really a complicated condition to remember, though, and a GM will normally have access to the spells a Magus, Witch, or Wizard has in their spellbook. It's true that the GM would have to think about what spells to prepare that would be relevant, but then that is "a lot of cognitive work" that the player would have to do, which may not even be within their ability to do if they're new to the game or unfamiliar with their class. What you are presently admitting is that it can be very difficult for a player to prepare the right spells, which is why the above would allow the GM, at their discretion, to help them out.
It implies that the GM knows what's going to happen during the day, and so only possibly works in campaigns that are quite railroaded (no judgment on such campaigns)
This too is an implicit admission that a player, who operates on even less information than the GM, could easily prepare the wrong spells for the day in an open-ended campaign. While the party could certainly drop their plans and do something completely different, the fact that this is happening during daily preparations, prior to or during which the party will likely have indicated what they intend to do, means the GM has both context from the party and context from their own world to work with, which is more than what players have. In the worst case, the GM could also just straight-up ask the party what their plans are for the day, which is itself not uncommon.
It takes away the agency from the player that presumably is a good part of the draw of choosing a prepared caster to begin with. At best, if they previously also had 0 agency because they had no information, it leaves that state unchanged
This is a ritual the player chooses to undertake, where they choose exactly how many spells they let the GM prepare. How exactly is their agency being taken away here?
It can create bad feelings if later on, the spell choices of the GM turned out not that optimal after all (either in actuality or in the perception of the player)
This I agree with, if the player doesn't find a use for those spells, or the GM made a mistake, then the player would have someone else to blame. I'd say this simply means this ritual isn't made for players who would rather have full control over their own spell selection, and even then, those players would be unlikely to use this ritual in the first place.
It can be narratively weak. The player ends with a specific prepared loadout but no explanation of why exactly they chose those spells, when the character should surely have one that they based their decisions on (even intuition is based on something). This could be easily adressed though by flavoring it more as divination magic rather than reasoning and evidence
I don't see how following a gut feeling and basing yourself off of context clues you've received is "narratively weak"; if anything that would help give narrative grounding to the spell selection. You are, however, free to reflavor this however you like, I'm not the flavor police.
I think if I wanted to help a prepared caster feel better about their stick, I'd just give them spell substitution from wizard (and compensate such a wizard in turn).
Straight-up powercreeping a whole bunch of casters is certainly a choice, but one that carries its own consequences. It was not that long ago that prepared casters dominated over spontaneous casters in past editions, so I'd rather not swing things that way again. While spell substitution is a great arcane thesis, I also don't think it really solves the problem of advance planning: prepared casters have the potential to feel really good when the spell loadout they prepped in the morning happens to be really well-suited to their adventuring day, whether due to smart planning or pure serendipity; the problem is that the means of being able to prepare accurately ahead are vague and not supported by any strongly-defined rules elements. Spell substitution doesn't really make that advance planning more likely to happen, it just lets players make adjustments on the fly when their loadout doesn't suit their immediate needs.
If a table wants to gloss over exploration as well and is mostly interested in combat, they could emulate this by giving the caster a couple of flexible slots to fill in during the encounter as they want. Narratively then, those were the slots that the character had time to re-prepare while scoping out the opposition and we are finding out in real time which spells they ended up preparing.
I'm not sure giving prepared casters multiple instances of an 18th-level feat from the get-go is necessarily the best idea. While I do support giving prepared casters more opportunities to shine, this feels more like bypassing spell preparation entirely and giving prepared casters the ability to draw the perfect answer from their entire spell list on the spot, several times per encounter. I'm not sure how spontaneous casters are meant to compete with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mostly dislike that implementation, let me list some reasons:
I don't see how the ritual requires an undo cognitive load or loss of agency because it requires both DM buy in [it's a RARE ritual so the Dm HAS to allow it in] and player buy in [by hunting down and using the ritual]. At worst, if a player feels bad after using it, then they don't use it again. As far as the DM, they just have to pick what they'd have picked if they were the PC and since the DM presumably knows or has access to the PC's spell list and should have a good idea what they can do: they'd just have to pick useful spells, not check each and very spell for the perfect loadout.
If it's not in the spell list, maybe arcane spellcasters could get something more...
For instance, for arcane spellcasters exclusivily, give them a Spellshape feat that grants the player 1 point/level, in which they can use to heighten a spell using those points instead of preparing a higher spell slot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have it, it is not an interesting choice whether to use it. There's no cost involved, no reason to ever not just 'press the button' and let the GM fill all the slots that your outcome will allow (unless the GM is somehow worse at spell preparation than you even with all the information they have).
Gee, it's almost as if it were by design. Given that this ritual is exceptional in incurring no cost, no heavy downtime, and no punishment for failure, it's almost as if the intent isn't to saddle the player with the typical heavy costs and tradeoffs of rituals, but to simply give them the option to receive assistance from the GM at the latter's discretion.
By agency, I mean the process of active deliberation and ultimately choice between multiple potentially viable options based on one's own criteria and available information. Essentially, exactly what the GM is doing in that moment.
At the player's explicit request. I don't know if you understand that a player taking the initiative to engage in an interaction and setting the exact terms of this interaction is by definition the literal opposite of them having their agency taken away.
My initial point can be summarized as 'gathering information about future encounters is a regular part of a regular game
Alright, please point to the bit in the in-game rules that state this. If there is not even guidance on how to go about doing this, then it is not a regular part of the game, it is an accommodation the GM has to make. That's not a bad thing, and not a thing the GM isn't allowed to do, but it is certainly something that would be much easier to do, and an actual part of a regular game, if there were at least some rules text or guidance on the subject.
They have the 'option', yes. But why ever not use that option once they have it?
If you feel like you can prepare those spells yourself, you could always do away with this, but ultimately, as mentioned already, whether or not you choose to use this is not meant to be some profound strategic decision in the first place; it is there to help you if you want.
I think it's a far more interesting mode of interaction with the game for the players to have that information (or a relevant part of it) and make their own decisions based on that, rather than essentially asking the GM to play their character for a bit.
This is valid. I'll be very keen to see what implementation you propose for an activity, guideline, or something similar, that would ensure this and give the GM and players something reliable to follow.
If one is to fiddle with prep, you can just say that wizards can prepare additional spells per day per slot, but their actual casting per day is the same.
Say I prepare the following list:
Fireball
Fireball
Iceball
Earthball
Snotball
Puppyball
I can cast:
Fireball
Fireball
SnotbalL
Puppyball
but I cannot cast
Fireball
Fireball
Fireball
Fireball
or
Fireball
Fireball
Puppyball
Puppyball
Versatility up, power the same, not stepping on Spontaneous, mostly just makes analysis paralysis worse.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it's not in the spell list, maybe arcane spellcasters could get something more...
For instance, for arcane spellcasters exclusivily, give them a Spellshape feat that grants the player 1 point/level, in which they can use to heighten a spell using those points instead of preparing a higher spell slot.
Arcane casters don't need help. I wish people would stop lumping in classes that are fine like the sorcerer or magus.
Prepared arcane casters need help, mainly the wizard. If you increase the power of arcane, you just make a bunch of classes that have no problem stronger for no reason like they did in the Remaster buffing the cleric, sorcerer, and rogue when they were already very strong.
The way they buffed the divine list made divine casters much, much stronger as a whole to where the cleric, oracle, and animist are now extremely strong compared to the 6 hit point casters.
You have to be careful with improvements as if you improve a whole list like arcane, you further exacerbate a problem between the classes that have great class features and now an improved spell list becoming even stronger with comparative strength increase for class with weaker class features like the wizard.
Despite my OP, I don't think arcane is that bad or weak per se, it's just that it lacks flavor.
If you were to explain traditions to a newcomer, you would say something like:
- "Occult has great mental magic and the best debuffs in the game !"
- "Divine is awesome against unholy and can heal like there's no tomorrow !
- "Primal is the best blaster while still being able to heal !"
And Arcane ? Most of the time, Arcane is defined by what it cannot do. "You can do a lot of things except healing".
It's great to have access to many spells - including a heap of garbage, but also some great ones - but I just feel it would be better if there would be some coherence or cohesion.
It doesn't need to be stronger, just give some purpose or direction.
If it's not in the spell list, maybe arcane spellcasters could get something more...
For instance, for arcane spellcasters exclusivily, give them a Spellshape feat that grants the player 1 point/level, in which they can use to heighten a spell using those points instead of preparing a higher spell slot.
Arcane casters don't need help. I wish people would stop lumping in classes that are fine like the sorcerer or magus.
Prepared arcane casters need help, mainly the wizard. If you increase the power of arcane, you just make a bunch of classes that have no problem stronger for no reason like they did in the Remaster buffing the cleric, sorcerer, and rogue when they were already very strong.
The way they buffed the divine list made divine casters much, much stronger as a whole to where the cleric, oracle, and animist are now extremely strong compared to the 6 hit point casters.
You have to be careful with improvements as if you improve a whole list like arcane, you further exacerbate a problem between the classes that have great class features and now an improved spell list becoming even stronger with comparative strength increase for class with weaker class features like the wizard.
Yep. Arcane spell list itself is fine, but the wizard has problems.
And Arcane ? Most of the time, Arcane is defined by what it cannot do. "You can do a lot of things except healing".
It's great to have access to many spells - including a heap of garbage, but also some great ones - but I just feel it would be better if there would be some coherence or cohesion.
Until something changes, that's how I'd describe it to a new player: the strength of the list is moar spells. 757 arcane vs. 613 (occult), 570 (primal), or 427 (divine). The kitchen sink, except for healing.
My gut inclination towards a theme would be to say 'keep force spells as only arcane or at least make them the lead in it', but (a) Paizo has mostly gotten away from one-list spells and (b) I can't really argue against that decision as a general thing.
Well, yes, except moar spell doesn't equate moar power. It has the smallest amount of tradition-specific spells, and is burdened by a lot of chaff.
It's great to have 757 spell, less great when most of them are useless like Bread Crumbs, Fold Metal, Mending, Unbroken Panoply and yet another part are redundant spells or spells who get upgraded after a few levels.
And Arcane ? Most of the time, Arcane is defined by what it cannot do. "You can do a lot of things except healing".
It's great to have access to many spells - including a heap of garbage, but also some great ones - but I just feel it would be better if there would be some coherence or cohesion.
Until something changes, that's how I'd describe it to a new player: the strength of the list is moar spells. 757 arcane vs. 613 (occult), 570 (primal), or 427 (divine). The kitchen sink, except for healing.
My gut inclination towards a theme would be to say 'keep force spells as only arcane or at least make them the lead in it', but (a) Paizo has mostly gotten away from one-list spells and (b) I can't really argue against that decision as a general thing.
Well, yes, except moar spell doesn't equate moar power. It has the smallest amount of tradition-specific spells, and is burdened by a lot of chaff.
It's great to have 757 spell, less great when most of them are useless like Bread Crumbs, Fold Metal, Mending, Unbroken Panoply and yet another part are redundant spells or spells who get upgraded after a few levels.
Fold metal is usable for ambushing an enemy camp folding up the bosses weapon before he picks it up and can find a use if one of the martials uses disarm enough to crit sometimes. So very situational but not useless.
But not all spells have to be combat spells to be considered worth learning. mending lets the caster repair shields or now guardian armor if they get that armor break feat for the martial even though they wanted to be good at playing guitars instead of crafting.
I do wish mending was a combat spell though. it could have been kind of like the arcane casters closest thing to a heal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See "Investigate", PC1 p439. See 'Failing Forward', GMC p11. See 'Yes But', GMC p16. The GMC is telling GMs over and over again not to limit players to 'there is only one roll that you can use to do this, and only a success gets you anything.'
In skills, see "Impersonate" PC1 p238. See "Coerce" p240.
I would invite you to actually read the rules you are citing, as Investigate is about gathering clues about your surroundings, not looking ahead, whereas "failing forward", "yes but", Impersonate and Coerce have no direct relevance to trying to gather information about the composition of a dungeon or similar locale. You could Coerce a village local into talking about the third floor of the dungeon, but there is no particular reason why that local would know that that floor is filled specifically with recently-summoned earth elementals.
You would not allow a PC to use these skills to help them get information? Or the lore skills: you would not allow "I use lore: mining because i want to see if this is goblin or dwarf tunneling"? No "I use Lore: academia to look up the history of the temple in the library."? You don't allow anything like that, because it's not specifically stated in the rules?
So let me get this straight: you're knee-deep in this dungeon, you Recall Knowledge about it to see the architecture or whatever, find out it's made by goblins, and do... what, exactly? Are you going to camp in the middle of that dungeon just so that you can prepare your spells accordingly? Because I do obviously allow these RK checks, which are well within the rules, it's just that by the time they're happening, you are already in the thing you were trying to prepare for. I'm quite surprised you didn't seem to realize this, to be honest.
Do we share that mindset? Or do we have a difference here, where you view this more as a board/video game where you see the core rules as not allowing any action or skill roll that is not explicitly described in them?
If by a shared mindset, you mean that we both believe TTRPGs have the power to let players and GMs improvise and play with the rules in a way that more rigidly-defined board, card, and video games don't allow, yes we do. That was never in dispute. Where the disagreement exists, however, is in how much we're both relying on this improvisation to fill in the gaps: correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to believe that because everything can be improvised, there's no real need to define things as specific rules elements. My stance, however, is that in a system like Pathfinder, defining things as rules elements is an extremely helpful thing to do, as it gives GMs and players the tools to do exactly what they want in a manner that makes full use of the game's ruleset. It takes pressure off the GM to constantly have to improvise the same thing, especially if it's routine, and sets a more consistent framework across tables where the rules element can not only be discussed, but also be properly integrated as an official part of the game, rather than something that could otherwise be debated or omitted. Am I wrong in saying we differ in opinion here?
Because to be clear, I think there's a glaring issue with your notion that it's just up to the players and GM to improvise, and it's that quite simply, the GM can easily not do that. This isn't a hypothetical either: at many tables and in many adventures, the pacing and structure of the adventure simply does not give the party the inherent opportunity to gather information about the next day and prepare their spells accordingly. This is one of the criticisms being made in this thread: prepared casters shine when they know which spells to prepare ahead of time, but there is nothing in the game that guarantees they can do so. It is one of the reasons why prepared casters are thought of as unsatisfying to many players here, because picking niche spells without advance knowledge can result in wasted spell slots, and lack of information can often push players to stick to a small subset of safe options instead of making full use of their versatility, as one would normally imagine. This is why I am advocating for an actual mechanic to enable this advance preparation, because from what I seen it does not consistently happen in practice, and expecting everyone to just improvise has clearly not solved this problem.
To bring this back to the thread's main topic, this is particularly relevant for the arcane tradition, because the arcane list is full of niche utility spells that have the potential to be really useful in highly specific situations, but useless otherwise: given advance preparation, these spells could really shine, and so would the tradition as a whole. Because this advance preparation isn't a guarantee and isn't enshrined in any strongly-defined game mechanics, however, it often doesn't happen in practice, and so prepared arcane casters suffer as a result.
A part of me wonders if there could have been more Flavor given to the Traditions if some spells had a Primary Tradition, and when a spell had a Primary Tradition. Those casters from that Tradition (or explicitly have the spell added to their Tradition, such as Domains) have full access to the spell. But casters from alternate listed Traditions would not be able to fill their Highest slot with a spell whose primary Tradition is listed as some other tradition.
Potentially, cantrips which have a primary tradition defined, might heighten to only maxRank -1 for casters of secondary traditions? Also you could make non-primary spells take a -2 circumstance penalty to Learning the spell potentially for non-primary tradition casters.
If you wanted to give Wizards a 'perk' they have to 'collect and learn the spell' but maybe they can ignore the primary tradition limitations on their top rank spells other casters might be limited with.
With this, not all spell need have a defined/primary tradition. Some could simply be open to all traditions, or only a few, without a specific one being primary. But you could take some of the stronger spells and make them have a primary tradition, which would strengthen their association with said tradition, without keeping the other traditions from having any access to it.
It would be harder to take away access to spells via this, than it is to grant things not currently had from a logistical view, but if the players were for it, it wouldn't be impossible to accomplish. It would take going through all the spell lists and determining what if any tradition to make its primary tradition. (maybe making force barrage primary Arcane)
You'd also need to decide if Primary Tradition limitations only affect ranks above 1st. (if having cantrips heighten to max -1, do you have it be unavailable to other traditions generally until they reach rank 2 spells, or do you make the heighten always be minimum of rank 1?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the criticisms being made in this thread: prepared casters shine when they know which spells to prepare ahead of time, but there is nothing in the game that guarantees they can do so. It is one of the reasons why prepared casters are thought of as unsatisfying to many players here, because picking niche spells without advance knowledge can result in wasted spell slots, and lack of information can often push players to stick to a small subset of safe options instead of making full use of their versatility, as one would normally imagine.
I just want to clarify that this is primarily a player/GM/group play-style issue and not a class feature/mechanics issue.
A prepared caster works best if the player and/or party takes the initiative to Gather Information, do research, etc. during downtime before they go "adventuring." Note: This is an old-school* style of play that requires more than just "building" a character and starting the session at a dungeon entrance; it requires the player to use their agency so that they actually can customize their prepared spells.
*- pre-D&D 3.x; when all casters (unless using house rules or psionicists) were prepared casters
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Arcane ? Most of the time, Arcane is defined by what it cannot do. "You can do a lot of things except healing".
It's great to have access to many spells - including a heap of garbage, but also some great ones - but I just feel it would be better if there would be some coherence or cohesion.
Until something changes, that's how I'd describe it to a new player: the strength of the list is moar spells. 757 arcane vs. 613 (occult), 570 (primal), or 427 (divine). The kitchen sink, except for healing.
My gut inclination towards a theme would be to say 'keep force spells as only arcane or at least make them the lead in it', but (a) Paizo has mostly gotten away from one-list spells and (b) I can't really argue against that decision as a general thing.
Well, yes, except moar spell doesn't equate moar power. It has the smallest amount of tradition-specific spells, and is burdened by a lot of chaff.
It's great to have 757 spell, less great when most of them are useless like Bread Crumbs, Fold Metal, Mending, Unbroken Panoply and yet another part are redundant spells or spells who get upgraded after a few levels.
Yep. This many spells with 3 to 4 spell slots a level is like having 200 channels and one TV.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to clarify that this is primarily a player/GM/group play-style issue and not a class feature/mechanics issue.
A prepared caster works best if the player and/or party takes the initiative to Gather Information, do research, etc. during downtime before they go "adventuring." Note: This is an old-school* style of play that requires more than just "building" a character and starting the session at a dungeon entrance; it requires the player to use their agency so that they actually can customize their prepared spells
This completely misses what was said immediately before the bit of the quote that you snipped:
This isn't a hypothetical either: at many tables and in many adventures, the pacing and structure of the adventure simply does not give the party the inherent opportunity to gather information about the next day and prepare their spells accordingly.
This isn't an old-school versus new-school style difference: often, the party will quite simply not have the downtime to Gather Information, and often Gathering Information or doing research does not or cannot possibly assist in spell preparation for a particular situation the party wishes to engage in for the day. Adopting an "old-school" approach would not change these factors, particularly when the party is already adopting that approach whenever possible.
I just want to clarify that this is primarily a player/GM/group play-style issue and not a class feature/mechanics issue.
A prepared caster works best if the player and/or party takes the initiative to Gather Information, do research, etc. during downtime before they go "adventuring." Note: This is an old-school* style of play that requires more than just "building" a character and starting the session at a dungeon entrance; it requires the player to use their agency so that they actually can customize their prepared spells
This completely misses what was said immediately before the bit of the quote that you snipped:
This isn't a hypothetical either: at many tables and in many adventures, the pacing and structure of the adventure simply does not give the party the inherent opportunity to gather information about the next day and prepare their spells accordingly.This isn't an old-school versus new-school style difference: often, the party will quite simply not have the downtime to Gather Information, and often Gathering Information or doing research does not or cannot possibly assist in spell preparation for a particular situation the party wishes to engage in for the day. Adopting an "old-school" approach would not change these factors, particularly when the party is already adopting that approach whenever possible.
I would say a balanced game has a mix of situations. Some you can prepare for and some you cannot. And actually some where you can prepare for some known elements while there will still be unknown elements.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the criticisms being made in this thread: prepared casters shine when they know which spells to prepare ahead of time, but there is nothing in the game that guarantees they can do so. It is one of the reasons why prepared casters are thought of as unsatisfying to many players here, because picking niche spells without advance knowledge can result in wasted spell slots, and lack of information can often push players to stick to a small subset of safe options instead of making full use of their versatility, as one would normally imagine.I just want to clarify that this is primarily a player/GM/group play-style issue and not a class feature/mechanics issue.
A prepared caster works best if the player and/or party takes the initiative to Gather Information, do research, etc. during downtime before they go "adventuring." Note: This is an old-school* style of play that requires more than just "building" a character and starting the session at a dungeon entrance; it requires the player to use their agency so that they actually can customize their prepared spells.
*- pre-D&D 3.x; when all casters (unless using house rules or psionicists) were prepared casters
It also requires the time and means to gather that information. A lot of the spells that used to assist with doing that were nerfed and/or made uncommon in PF2, so doing it magically has gotten significantly harder.
That means doing it another way, like with skills. In many situations that's impossible, and in a lot of other's its difficult enough that it puts the character doing it at considerable risk... and if they can get close enough to learn what is up ahead, they're also close enough to have set up an ambush and just attack it with a party that doesn't need a day to prepare for a fight.
It's not like you can just go to town and ask around about the enemies guarding the BBEG in a place that no one has ever been and that almost no one has heard of outside of legends, after all.
It's an old school play style, but it also requires an old school campaign style. Other classes that can simply attack without requiring advanced research don't have this problem, of course.
There is another method for choosing spells. You can choose based on what your party needs you to do. So if the party needs aoe blasting or terrain manipulation or buffs or debuffs because that kind of spell prep fits into the party's prescribed tactics its hard to go wrong.
But I will admit if this is what the wizard is doing then a sorcerer could have done it as well while having all its class benefits.
But it also means in situations where the party's main go to tactics are not the best for whats coming at them day after day of gameplay the sorcerer isnt doing much different while a wizard can be completely different if needed.
But apparently no one experiences this kind of situation.
You know though what has come up from others was how a wizard can slip into different parties and be what is needed for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say a balanced game has a mix of situations. Some you can prepare for and some you cannot. And actually some where you can prepare for some known elements while there will still be unknown elements.
I agree, but we're talking about entire adventuring days, not just individual situations. The ask isn't to have a fully-planned roadmap of every encounter and obstacle in the day to prepare for ahead of time, the ask is to consistently have the opportunity to plan ahead to some degree to begin with, which isn't currently a guarantee.
Your players never try to interrogate one monster to learn about others? And 'yes but' and 'failing forward' absolutely have relevance because if the party's in the dungeon and they come up with some off the wall idea for gaining information, this is when the GM decides whether to say flat no (I assume that's you?), yes but, no but, or let them try knowing it's not going to produce much with an idea of 'how can I help them fail forward?'
You mean, the monster that's trying to kill you, is unlikely to speak your language, may not even speak a language at all, and may lack the intelligence to form anything but the most basic statements? Yeah, sometimes. The kobold said there were more kobolds, so we immediately dropped everything and rested so that we could prepare for that.
... oh wait, no we didn't, because that's patently absurd. We kept going, because by the time we obtained this information, we were already in the dungeon. That is in fact the critical problem with the method you're suggesting here, one that was pointed out to you already.
No that's never been in any of my posts. I said wizards can gather information about future encounters, you said that was a Diplomacy action, I said 'little g, little i', and then you proceeded to tell me there were only two options of how to play, and now you've taken it all the way to I don't think there should be rules...or something /like that. I'm not arguing anything crazy. Just that many different skills can be used in many different situations to possibly provide some info about future encounters. Which you agreed you allow, and you think is in the rules.
So I am totally fine to agree on that point. That is the 'actual mechanic' a GM who wants to allow PCs to gather information (little g, little i) can use: relevant and clever player uses of skills to yield information, or even not-so-relevant skill uses that get a 'yes but' a 'no but', or fail forward.
Except as pointed out to you, it's not: Recall Knowledge isn't this magical divinatory action that lets you peek ahead, it's about recalling what you already know. Gathering information, little "g" and little "i", about the adventuring day while within that same adventuring day can certainly be useful, but not for preparing spells ahead, because the day is already happening. There's this constant, glaring chronology error you're making here that prevents anything you're saying from having any relevance to the topic of preparing spells.
The actual mechanic to allow advance preparation is skill rolls to figure out information about what's going on in the campaign. That is clearly a skill roll thing.
Again, please point to the skill that guarantees you'll be able to prepare spells that will be suited to the next adventuring day. Please point to where the rules state or advise that the party can always make these skill checks to inform spell preparation. As pointed out already, these skill checks do not guarantee anything, and activities like Gather Information, big "g" big "i", similarly are not a guarantee of useful information for spell prep, nor are a thing you are guaranteed to be able to do in-between each adventuring day.
Also just adding a ritual to the rules doesn't compel GMs to allow it - so if there's a GM who is unwilling to add info collection opportunities via skill rolls into their campaign, why would they allow a ritual that gives the PCs what they clearly don't want the party to have?
If the GM simply doesn't want to give the party information, that's definitely bad, but you're missing the case of the GM who'd very much like to give the party information, but can't, because the AP they picked up rushes the party along a series of largely unpredictable encounters and events, and doesn't give them the downtime or opportunity to peek ahead. That GM would probably appreciate this ritual as a way of helping out prepared casters who'd have no strong reference points to work with during those APs. And if that GM doesn't want to include a ritual, that's fine too -- at least there'd be a rules element catering towards this specific purpose, as opposed to no specific rules element or guideline at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe people put too much stock into knowing what's to come when a spontaneous caster can already have a wide selection of spells covering most angles.
Let's imagine a game where you ABSOLUTELY know what you'll encounter the next day - no gathering info, no check, just straight up divine knowledge entering your brain. "THOU WILST ENCOUNTER A GROUP OF GOBLINS THEN A GROUP OF FIRE MEPHITS THEN AN OGRE BOSS"
Most of the time, this knowledge won't translate into any advantage over spontaneous, because most challenges and monsters you face in campaigns are fairly classic. In the above scenario, for instance, the sorcerer will absolutely have the means to deal with the goblins, the fire mephits and the ogre boss, and there's very little the prepared caster can do to offset this.
In a few edge cases, there might be a very specific setup where you might actually get an advantage. I think someone in the thread mentioned Stone Bulwarks. They're tough cookies, with lots of immunities and resistance 10 to anything but adamantine, cold, earth and water. So in this case, IF the wizard has howling blizzard in his spellbook, he can prepare a boatload of it and win at being prepared, right ? Well, yeah, except that the arcane sorcerer has the very same spellbook, and can prepare howling blizzard as well (if he doesn't already have it), instantly giving him 4 flexible castings of the highest level - while still being able to cast something else with it if it becomes overkill).
But wait, what if the sorcerer somehow didn't make his research while the wizard did, or the sorcerer also didn't take arcane evolution for some convoluted reason, or the sorcerer didn't invest as much time and money as the wizard into said spellbook and doesn't have howling blizzard ?
That's a lot of "what ifs", but ok. Then the arcane sorcerer with a basic spell list can cast any kind of buffs or debuffs (mass slow, mass haste), still contributing to this very specific fight. Oh, and using a 6th level blasting spell, which gives him +6 from dangerous sorcery, he might actually end up ahead in damage despite the resistance 10 since he'll be more flexible in his choice of blast.
For instance, Howling blizzard by wizard at level 6 is 12d6 (av 42). Chain Lightning by sorcerer at same level, even without counting the void damage, is not only easier to aim but also 8d12+6 (av 58). So, even with resistance 10, sorcerer is ahead. And he's still more flexible with his defenses, his buffs and other spells.
Yeah, even in this case where the wizard holds all the cards, flexible spellcasting still comes ahead in the combat department. And even if you can somehow devise a scenario where you DO have a silver bullet that the sorcerer cannot use, I'm not sure being more useful in that 1% edge case will offset being worse the other 99% of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the idea behind being prepared ahead of time is that you do end up having a better idea of those edge cases where a spell like breadcrumbs or secret page would be useful -- those aren't spells a spontaneous caster would want to add to their repertoire unless they really feel like messing around, but in the niche situations where they're useful, they can be very useful indeed. Trouble is, by that same virtue it means that a prepared spellcaster is unlikely to prepare that kind of spell unless they have a pretty good notion that it will be useful in the day.
To put it another way: suppose that the players were literally omniscient, such that they knew exactly which spells they will cast the next day and in which amounts. At that point, prepared spellcasting would blow spontaneous spellcasting out of the water, because you'd be able to prepare exactly the right spells in the right slots, and choose from a much larger selection each day. In this deliberately extreme example, the flexibility of spontaneous spellcasting wouldn't matter, because there would be no need for it; everything would be preordained in perfect proportions. Even in their current lackluster state, the Wizard would therefore be likely to outperform even a Sorcerer on sheer versatility.
Now, of course, nobody is omniscient, so that's obviously never going to happen, but to me it does show that the performance of prepared spellcasters is on a spectrum, and the defining factor of that spectrum is the ability to predict what spells will need to be prepared next. We'll almost certainly never reach that tipping point of advance knowledge that would cause prepared spellcasting to make spontaneous spellcasting redundant, but it seems to me like we're at a point on the spectrum where players often have so little advance knowledge that they frequently can't access the perks of prepared spellcasting very much at all. Some more reliable access to that advance knowledge could be the key to balancing the scales at many tables, and leveraging more of the arcane list's perks.
I believe people put too much stock into knowing what's to come when a spontaneous caster can already have a wide selection of spells covering most angles.
Let's imagine a game where you ABSOLUTELY know what you'll encounter the next day - no gathering info, no check, just straight up divine knowledge entering your brain. "THOU WILST ENCOUNTER A GROUP OF GOBLINS THEN A GROUP OF FIRE MEPHITS THEN AN OGRE BOSS"
Most of the time, this knowledge won't translate into any advantage over spontaneous, because most challenges and monsters you face in campaigns are fairly classic. In the above scenario, for instance, the sorcerer will absolutely have the means to deal with the goblins, the fire mephits and the ogre boss, and there's very little the prepared caster can do to offset this.
In a few edge cases, there might be a very specific setup where you might actually get an advantage. I think someone in the thread mentioned Stone Bulwarks. They're tough cookies, with lots of immunities and resistance 10 to anything but adamantine, cold, earth and water. So in this case, IF the wizard has howling blizzard in his spellbook, he can prepare a boatload of it and win at being prepared, right ? Well, yeah, except that the arcane sorcerer has the very same spellbook, and can prepare howling blizzard as well (if he doesn't already have it), instantly giving him 4 flexible castings of the highest level - while still being able to cast something else with it if it becomes overkill).
But wait, what if the sorcerer somehow didn't make his research while the wizard did, or the sorcerer also didn't take arcane evolution for some convoluted reason, or the sorcerer didn't invest as much time and money as the wizard into said spellbook and doesn't have howling blizzard ?
That's a lot of "what ifs", but ok. Then the arcane sorcerer with a basic spell list can cast any kind of buffs or debuffs (mass slow, mass haste), still contributing to this very specific fight. Oh, and using a 6th level blasting spell, which gives him...
On top of Blue Frog's point, the game is also a group game. Is your wizard going to stand out that much being prepared when the rest of the group just wastes what you're fighting and you maybe fired off one prepared spell that mattered?
This is my experience. Casters no longer overshadow martials or end fights with a single spell. Martials are doing damage while the caster is doing damage. They might even activate a weakness more often than caster who casts once and is done whereas the martial is whacking away with a run that may activate the weakness each hit.
I have not found any situations where the wizard would have done much better than the spontaneous caster. In fact, the caster has to try to keep up with martial damage if they are focused on damage as the martials whack away with their endless hits. No one notices what the wizard has done with changed out spells in combat.
Where the wizard or a prepared casters gets noticed is when you have to do something like an infiltration or deal with special obstacles or situations. Then they can usually find some spell strategy to solve the problem or at least help solve the problem that a sorc may not have slotted.
A spontaneous caster can often take wizard archetype to pick up utility spells and change them out daily if that will be needed. You don't need much intelligence to cast magic passage or teleort or a battle form or some other utility spell throughout the day. If you're playing free archetype, you can do this very easy.
I have one player who wants lots of spells, so they stack free archetype on their base character to stack tons of spell options. There are very few high level utility spells needed. If you can get up to level 6 spells, you can pick up most needed utility spells.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will always be reluctant with any solution which places an additional burden on a GM, at least not while the class remains Common. While I think its true that the current state of the Wizard does already place a higher burden on both the player and the GM than most other classes, and that this burden is generally uncommunicated and sort of left for people to discover on their own, I think this is generally a mistake by Paizo rather than an intentional requirement.
Personally, I think the issue with preparation is already a solved problem in PF2, its just that Wizard's don't generally have it.
Most classes solve the preparation problem by have either good fall back options in the form of either good, general purpose, focus spells or some class actions which are repeatable and worthwhile.
Witches have their Familiar actions and access to a wide range of focus spells, Clerics and Druids have access to a bunch of different focus spells and can tip their toes into other subclass styles, Animists can kind of do whatever they want.
It's largely the Wizard which fails to have good fallback options which allow them to remain relevant and interesting while not having good preparation.
If more focus spells where built like Friendly Push, with additional focus spell options on top of them, it would go a long way to fixing up the gaps in the Wizard.
Friendly Push is the model on which all 1st level Wizard school focus spells should be based. Cheap, repeatable, Impactful, Flavourful and a source of greater subclass identity and something a Wizard may wish to do every turn if possible, and scales as they level.
Imagine if Force Bolt could be sustained, imagine as well if you eventually got to 3 bolts fired per sustain. Or if you could sustain Earthworks to move or reshape every turn.
These would be impactful, identity defining features, which would allow Wizards of different schools to feel different from each other and for them to have options they could do if cause of poor prepation.
You add to this additional focus spell options in general, things Wizards might want, the standard refocus feat at 12th, and you've reformed the class without having to fundamentally rework preparation.
Let imagine a world in which the wizard can "cast spontaneously" any spell in his spell book.
Does that really fix the wizard? I don't really think so.
Because he's still going to have to know that perfect spell for the situation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let imagine a world in which the wizard can "cast spontaneously" any spell in his spell book.
Does that really fix the wizard? I don't really think so.
Because he's still going to have to know that perfect spell for the situation.
I made everyone spontaneous casters with all signature spells to balance the playing field and it did not fix the wizards.
In this game, class features are everything because casting is balanced across every caster with the same proficiency and the same number of actions to cast per round and roughly the same number of spell slots.
Being able to cast slightly more often is one of those things rarely needed and needed even less as you gain more slots.
Base class features that integrate well with your class are everything.
Actually Claxton it probably would have been more in keeping with the spirit of the past edition wizards while keeping this editions balance if the school slot allowed wizards to slot any spell but spontaneously cast any school spell from it instead of the prepared one.
That would have fixed the issue some have with the 4th slot.
Blue_frog to be fair with your Stone Bulwarks example only that first one is getting the bonus 6 damage. Both the wizard or the sorcerer using chain lighting will be comparable against a group of them. 6 extra damage to one of 3 or 4 is not really that impactful overall. having more spell options that can do more useful effects the creatures are not immune to would be good to prepare for. The main difference like we settled before is arcane evo wont reliably get you an alternative 6th rank spell.
Also to make the my point about more spells introduced being better for wizard than the sorcerer lets look closer at the Stone Bulwarks.
An ideal spell will go against reflex but going against will is also fine as long as its not a mental effect. It would not have any of its budget wasted on things these creatures are immune to. They are giving each other standard cover so no attack spells, but also they may keep each other in range of their cover ability so a burst or cone could be fine for targeting area. it only has 20ft speed and its ranged attack is less effective compared to its 10ft reach melee attack so movement reduction is not bad against them. Having the Cold, Earth, or Water tags can help bypass resistance (I am not certain this is RAW but I have been running resistance this way otherwise what would be the point of resisting anything but water or earth?) Adding effects like slow, moving penalties relegates them to rock throws against anyone not moving to them, or clumsy for ac, enfeeble for both the melee and brutal rock throws, fear likely would be a spell with the mental trait so it wouldnt work.
What spells check some of those boxes of the ideal spell?
Vitrifying blast is a 15 foot cone but widen spell can get that to an acceptable 25ft (a wizard that has widen spell could leverage it better than one without it) It has the earth trait, it does not have traits the creatures are immune to, it can apply slow, it also applies bludgeoning weakness (great if your party has bludgeoning martials already or if others casters and you also slot some additional earth bludgeoning damage spells), It hits reflex. This is less damage than even the resisted chain lighting but It has potential chain lighting doesn't have. If your party is already set to do bludgeoning this spell increases in value, the slow rider on fail on its own might be good enough a trade off for the damage already. If the slow hits on even one target it will have been worth it. At level 11 fail is 11 or under for the creatures so when getting multiple its likely at least one will fail.
And at level 11 a rank 6 Vitrifying Blast is a top slot spell and the DC to learn is 28, so a 13 or up for the expert arcana sorcerer with no int. Failure means waiting for level 12 and the moment will have passed.
Blue_frog to be fair with your Stone Bulwarks example only that first one is getting the bonus 6 damage.
Sorcerous potency can affect every target once, so in the case of an AOE or a chain reaction like chain lightning, every opponent gets the bonus 6 damage.
Sorcerous potency can affect every target once, so in the case of an AOE or a chain reaction like chain lightning, every opponent gets the bonus 6 damage.
Blue_frog to be fair with your Stone Bulwarks example only that first one is getting the bonus 6 damage.
My bad i read that wrong. Ok so each will get an extra 6 damage.
Ok so something like the new battlecry! Frozen Fog would only get the extra damage the first time it damages and not on any sustained rounds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let imagine a world in which the wizard can "cast spontaneously" any spell in his spell book.
Does that really fix the wizard? I don't really think so.
Because he's still going to have to know that perfect spell for the situation.
I made everyone spontaneous casters with all signature spells to balance the playing field and it did not fix the wizards.
In this game, class features are everything because casting is balanced across every caster with the same proficiency and the same number of actions to cast per round and roughly the same number of spell slots.
Being able to cast slightly more often is one of those things rarely needed and needed even less as you gain more slots.
Base class features that integrate well with your class are everything.
That's my suspicion. Although in your case, while you made all casters equal in terms of spells, it just makes the wizards failure points more obvious how they stack up to other classes.
My question is more, if you left other casters as they are, and let wizards spontaneously cast any spell in their spell book would that fix them.
I think the answer is still no, because they don't have good class features to really make their usage of spells stand out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let imagine a world in which the wizard can "cast spontaneously" any spell in his spell book.
Does that really fix the wizard? I don't really think so.
Because he's still going to have to know that perfect spell for the situation.
I made everyone spontaneous casters with all signature spells to balance the playing field and it did not fix the wizards.
In this game, class features are everything because casting is balanced across every caster with the same proficiency and the same number of actions to cast per round and roughly the same number of spell slots.
Being able to cast slightly more often is one of those things rarely needed and needed even less as you gain more slots.
Base class features that integrate well with your class are everything.
That's my suspicion. Although in your case, while you made all casters equal in terms of spells, it just makes the wizards failure points more obvious how they stack up to other classes.
My question is more, if you left other casters as they are, and let wizards spontaneously cast any spell in their spell book would that fix them.
I think the answer is still no, because they don't have good class features to really make their usage of spells stand out.
I asked myself a while ago if even unlimited 1A spellsub would make wizard competitive with sorc. There was a discussion about it, but my instinct at the time remained no, because sorc has enough spells to function well in the context of the system, and more aren't really -needed-, even if they can be nice. Others (particularly Teridax, I think? it's been forever, might be wrong) disagreed, and felt it would be too strong.
I think considering the cost of spells vs. the default wealth allocation, I'd say now that it would remain weaker than Sorc in-combat. 2A to cast a good spell with sorc's benefits, like sorcerous potency and blood magic, is probably still better than 3A to cast the best spell for the situation. But the wizard would obviously be better out of combat, and would excel in some play sequences (particularly things like chase scenes run using the chase system).
Really, a lot of how good the wizard and spellbook prepared casting are depends on how useful it is to have access to a larger selection of lower level but heightenable spells from the arcane list. (I say lower level because on-level spells are prohibitively expensive, and very low level spells become exceedingly cheap as players level.) We've discussed that ad nauseam at this point, and there's not a real consensus across posters here as to the value of spell variety.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My bad i read that wrong. Ok so each will get an extra 6 damage.
Ok so something like the new battlecry! Frozen Fog would only get the extra damage the first time it damages and not on any sustained rounds.
Yep, exactly !
Let imagine a world in which the wizard can "cast spontaneously" any spell in his spell book.
Does that really fix the wizard? I don't really think so.
Because he's still going to have to know that perfect spell for the situation.
I made everyone spontaneous casters with all signature spells to balance the playing field and it did not fix the wizards.
In this game, class features are everything because casting is balanced across every caster with the same proficiency and the same number of actions to cast per round and roughly the same number of spell slots.
Being able to cast slightly more often is one of those things rarely needed and needed even less as you gain more slots.
Base class features that integrate well with your class are everything.
That's my suspicion. Although in your case, while you made all casters equal in terms of spells, it just makes the wizards failure points more obvious how they stack up to other classes.
My question is more, if you left other casters as they are, and let wizards spontaneously cast any spell in their spell book would that fix them.
I think the answer is still no, because they don't have good class features to really make their usage of spells stand out.
It would probably make them better. There is an advantage to casting the spell you need at the time you need which is what makes Spontaneous so good.
Speaking from my experience, I maybe use a handful of spells over and over and over again working in occasional other spells if needed or I want to try something.
Slow, Chain Lightning, Eclipse Burst, Fireball, Howling Blizzard, Magic Missile, Sure Strike, and a few others are spells I see every class use over and over again. High value, no incap, good damage, and even on a successful save they do something in the case of slow and the damage spells.
I have been trying to use Dominate because I always liked the idea of a caster turning their enemies into tools. I think I stuck one crit fail dominate after 9 castings. I've had a ton make their saves. Maybe one regular failure that lasted for a round or two. It takes a high level slot and 2 actions to use which means there is a pretty big opportunity cost to use it due to the incap trait.
I do think the wizard would be better if they could cast any spell out of their spellbook. They would at least be able to experiment a little more, but not necessarily a lot better because they would still action starved and limited by traits like incap. They even have a feat or two that lets you pull any spell form your spellbook a few levels lower and I'm not sure how many wizard players take it.
PF2 designers really designed this game very tight with spellcasting proficiency and spell design. The thing that makes classes better than others all comes down to class features. Things like cleric font which gives them a massive supply of auto-heightening powerful heals. It may not be versatile, but the 2 action heal is strong you can heal your way through almost any fight. For druids it's Untamed Form. All day use of forms with versatile movement and other abilities. Sorcs get sorcerous potency and at least a few good focus spells and their feats are pretty great. That's what stands out.
Casting more spells per day or top slots might come in hand once in a while if you did a really long combat. But there are so many ways to do things with magic items, letting martials do their thing, focus spells, and even stuff like ancestry feats for flight and eventually permanent flight casting a few more spells doesn't matter that much which is what the wizard does with its feat and at least one of its popular thesis.
That type of ability is very encounter and party dependent and becomes less interesting as you level because one higher rank slot doesn't matter that much when you can use every slot from level 6 to 9 for the same spell.
Yep, exactly !My bad i read that wrong. Ok so each will get an extra 6 damage.
Ok so something like the new battlecry! Frozen Fog would only get the extra damage the first time it damages and not on any sustained rounds.
Comparing them with that in mind and being fair.
+6 damage even per creature on a chain lightning doing 8d12 is that 6 is not even 1 standard deviation from the average. So a wizard or a sorcerer if they want to do damage probably should be using this even if the wizard isnt getting 6 extra per target.But! adding that 6 on top of the difference between what a chain lighting does vs vitrifying blast is a pretty significant loss of damage (so if the caster is there to do damage its the way to go for either wizard or sorcerer. the sorcerer just more likely to but not guaranteed to get more of it in) Gaining slow on one or maybe on multiple targets that can remain on subsequent turns and even increase in value is really good. The extra damage from bludgeoning when complimentary to your team is a nice to have if the party is using that damage type. Even the maul user will get 2-3 hits in one round considering reactive strike and at slow 1 thats almost half the 20 damage difference on a single stone bulwark lost for not using chain lighting. if one of them progressed or started at slow 2 and you have 2 party members able to take advantage of the extra damage it will add up very quickly.
So what I guess i am getting at here is that although a wizard is not better at just doing damage they can pick up a variety of spells that have situational benefits and using them in those situation can have better outcomes than just damage.
I would be interested in hearing if anyone sees what I am missing in this assessment. As much as I love lighting spells I would prepare a vitrifying blast for this fight and learn the spell for it if I knew it was coming.
Yep, exactly !My bad i read that wrong. Ok so each will get an extra 6 damage.
Ok so something like the new battlecry! Frozen Fog would only get the extra damage the first time it damages and not on any sustained rounds.
Comparing them with that in mind and being fair.
+6 damage even per creature on a chain lightning doing 8d12 is that 6 is not even 1 standard deviation from the average. So a wizard or a sorcerer if they want to do damage probably should be using this even if the wizard isnt getting 6 extra per target.But! adding that 6 on top of the difference between what a chain lighting does vs vitrifying blast is a pretty significant loss of damage (so if the caster is there to do damage its the way to go for either wizard or sorcerer. the sorcerer just more likely to but not guaranteed to get more of it in) Gaining slow on one or maybe on multiple targets that can remain on subsequent turns and even increase in value is really good. The extra damage from bludgeoning when complimentary to your team is a nice to have if the party is using that damage type. Even the maul user will get 2-3 hits in one round considering reactive strike and at slow 1 thats almost half the 20 damage difference on a single stone bulwark lost for not using chain lighting. if one of them progressed or started at slow 2 and you have 2 party members able to take advantage of the extra damage it will add up very quickly.
So what I guess i am getting at here is that although a wizard is not better at just doing damage they can pick up a variety of spells that have situational benefits and using them in those situation can have better outcomes than just damage.
I would be interested in hearing if anyone sees what I am missing in this assessment. As much as I love lighting spells I would prepare a vitrifying blast for this fight and learn the spell for it if I knew it was coming.
I can only tell you what I see wrong with your experience. The game is a group game. You have all these other characters doing stuff around you, often really effective stuff. It's not as simple as inserting a different class doing some key spell.
Blasting as an example. Blasting is super effective because it does a bunch of damage that lowers target hit points. And you can do it quick, doesn't require sustain or a duration, and allows you flexibility in what you do next.
Why is this important? If you are doing some sustain damage spell or effect, how long will it really last? In my experience, not that long. Martials do pretty nuts damage. When they move in and start wasting stuff, it goes down fast. If you get one or two sustains during a fight, you're pretty luck. That means damage has to be hard and fast.
One thing that monsters often lacking is healing power. Healing power sustains PCs in fast and furious fights, but the enemy often lacks it which gives them a huge advantage as hit point attrition is the way fights are ultimately won.
That means you want up front hit point attrition. The faster you take their hit points, the less chance have to take yours.
In our particular group, martials go after the most damaged targets and take them off the board. This takes their actions off the board, but also takes them off the board to impacted by your sustain spells. So you're doing a sustain effect for less damage affecting fewer targets.
It's the same with bosses if you try to use a sustain damage spell against a boss. Downside of bosses as well is need a sustain spell that does a very small area. So any sustain spell with a big area interferes with ally engagement. That's often a no go strategically. That's why a spell like phantom orchestra is considered one of the best sustain spells because it has such a small area.
So against bosses it's much better to hit them with slow, an action reducer, which greatly limits what they can do taking away all 3 action activities or any movement and 2 action activities or lets them cast one spell and nothing else. Then hit them with direct damage stack on the damage or a debuff ast he martials go to town on it.
So even with phantom orchestra, you're still better off using a non-sustain slow spell against bosses.
Slow is almost always useful with rare exception. Direct damage is almost always useful. Other types of spells are a mixed bag you have to test to see if it just might be better and is it worth preparing to use for one encounter you aren't sure how long it will last?
Let's say you fight a boss. You cast this silver bullet spell thinking it will do really well. Then your party giant barbarian moves up to and crit hits this thing. Just smashes it for a 100 point plus brutal crit. Then your rogue moves up and lands to harsh hits stacking on debilitations on it. They are tearing through its hit points. It has no healing. You are sustaining this spell having a minimal effect while the martials are ripping it apart.
Does that make the spell useful? Or did your theory abut how well it worked not survive contact because the other members of your group proved too effective?
That's my experience. I have no time for set up or theoretical sustains or that kind of stuff. All the martials in my group are well built and they go to town smashing stuff. We usually have a second blaster and they are not waiting for a set up, soon as they are in range they will pop off the strongest blast they can that won't hit their allies because the surest way to beat your enemy is hit point attrition as fast as possible.
New, random thoughts about things that could be cool for wizard:
What if wizard got to action compress spellshapes? The game still needs more of them for this to feel worthwhile, I think, but it's a pretty PF2E-ish thing to give the class. Spending a focus point to spellshape and move, or spellshape and sustain, sounds like an extremely compelling ability. It could also be a good way to give the class better FP spends within its own chassis. This is pretty powerful... but wizard is also in a pretty bad place.
In a similar vein, another idea: allow wizard to spend a focus point to add a spellshape to a slotted spell when preparing it, and don't allow that focus point to be recovered until after the affected slot is expended. (You could do this as many times as you had focus points.) This gives wizard some of that "master of metamagic" flavor, but at the cost of their more renewable resources. I find that cost somewhat hard to gauge right now, but it's prima facie interesting.
New, random thoughts about things that could be cool for wizard:
What if wizard got to action compress spellshapes? The game still needs more of them for this to feel worthwhile, I think, but it's a pretty PF2E-ish thing to give the class. Spending a focus point to spellshape and move, or spellshape and sustain, sounds like an extremely compelling ability. It could also be a good way to give the class better FP spends within its own chassis. This is pretty powerful... but wizard is also in a pretty bad place.
In a similar vein, another idea: allow wizard to spend a focus point to add a spellshape to a slotted spell when preparing it, and don't allow that focus point to be recovered until after the affected slot is expended. (You could do this as many times as you had focus points.) This gives wizard some of that "master of metamagic" flavor, but at the cost of their more renewable resources. I find that cost somewhat hard to gauge right now, but it's prima facie interesting.
I feel like 5E got wizards right this time. They did the better design job by giving schools thematic and effective scaling abilities as well as spontaneous heightening.
PF2 wanted to hold onto the old prepared Vancian casting and in my opinion it was a miss on design.
I prefer PF2 over 5E for most things, but wizard design was a 5E win. 5E wizards really feel like specialists in a given field with powerful, thematic, and useful abilities built around their theme.
PF2 wizards feel like some hodgepodge caster with weak focus spells trying to hang on to PF1 design that no longer works very well.
The 5E wizard being good wasn't enough to offset all the other weak design decisions in 5E like Advantage/Disadvantage which made every power feel like "The way I get advantage or give disadvantage." I did not like that. The lack of integrated magic items and feats. Lack of class customization.
But I will give them kudos on a better wizard than PF2. 5E wizard was some good design work I would like to see make its way over to PF2. Not just the spontaneous casting, but the schools felt really differentiated, cool, and powerful. Right now the curriculum feel like nothing. You could completely ignore curriculum and it wouldn't alter your play experience with the wizard class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your goal is to guarantee (you use that word several times in your reply) PC access to forward information, correct, skill rolls don't do that.
That's only half of what I said. I specifically stated the game doesn't guarantee that the PCs can obtain forward information. It's not that checks are unreliable, as that's fine, it's that often the party will simply not have the time or opportunity to even make those checks in the first place.
I just don't see this as a realistic problem. You're positing a kind of Schroedinger's GM - someone utterly unwilling to add plot devices to an AP (even something as simple as a book in a room), but is willing to add in a new ritual.
I mean, for starters, I do see it as a realistic problem, and clearly so do others, but on top of this your depiction is severely imbalanced: homebrewing changes to an AP just to have the party gather information on what to prepare ahead of time even when it would make no sense is a lot of work to ask on the GM's part, and they may not know where to begin. Popping in an extremely simple, prepackaged ritual, however, would be far less difficult to implement. Thus, I wouldn't blame a GM for not wanting to rewrite an adventure just for the sake of giving prepared casters a chance at advance information, just as I wouldn't assume that that same GM would automatically refuse a much simpler alternative.