Rituals can be preformed repeatedly and take hours days to prepare. It is narratively useful to have something like a wish that can only be cast once and do things way beyond cast any xyz spell.
I mentioned Cinderella because that seems like a good example. The fairy godmother wasn’t going to be able to do this every night. It is a one time shot at something game changing that needs to be done immediately.
I imagine stuff like go back in time, stop the sun, change you into a dragon for a whole day/week/year, so that you really are a dragon and don’t appear to be a transformed human to spells, etc. basically fairy tail stuff that should be a bigger part of the story than “the thing I spent 2 actions on that maybe turned the tide of one encounter.”
Basically 1 round cast time versions of what would be ritual effects is what I expect. The kind of thing that will have narrative impact and some mechanical one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rituals can be preformed repeatedly and take hours days to prepare. It is narratively useful to have something like a wish that can only be cast once and do things way beyond cast any xyz spell.
I don't really see the narrative difference between a ritual that requires a McGuffin to use [so it can't be used repeatedly] and a spell McGuffin that can't be used repeatedly.
Basically 1 round cast time versions of what would be ritual effects is what I expect. The kind of thing that will have narrative impact and some mechanical one.
Most rituals wouldn't be meaningfully impacted by a time reduction in casting; most are out of combat utility or require more time after use.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't you think it's almost completely unrelated? And unfair? I fully expect a bit of spells in such book, they should work as cool toys. Whether these new impossible spells are something interesting and more than any GM can think on the spot is another issue.So a McGuffin except a spell instead of an item. That's... underwhelming. We already have rituals for that. I honestly can't think of a less interesting addition to the system at this point in its life than "something the GM adds specifically because the plot requires you to have it at some point, except as a spell."
It sometimes feels like Paizo has bad memories of overpowered spellcasters in PF1 and is utterly terrified of giving them cool toys in PF2.
No? the thing I was replying to was describing a McGuffin. PF2 already has multiple ways to do that and "another one, except a spell" isn't even remotely interesting to me.
Now, it's entirely possible people misinterpreted the teaser and that's not what these spells are. That would be great. But that wasn't what I was replying to.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do people think about the potential change to wave casting? As a reminder in the stream there was a reference to changing a feature both magus and summoner share, which I'm 99% sure is only wave casting, outside of your standard features, of course.
I'm hoping it's something that stops the weirdness summoner especially has where you actively lose spells as you level, but realistically I imagine it might be you get an extra rank's worth of slots, so at 7th level you get 2/2/2 slots, for instance.
I think one of these is the most likely change to wave casting:
* A 10th rank spell slot.
* 2 spell slots in your three highest spell ranks (rather than your highest two).
* 3 spell slots at each rank.
|
I think one of these is the most likely change to wave casting:
* A 10th rank spell slot.
* 2 spell slots in your three highest spell ranks (rather than your highest two).
* 3 spell slots at each rank.
I would think the last one so that you get to cast one of your most powerful spells in each of the three encounters you get in your typical adventuring day.
It's either that or you retain 1 slot from the lower rank spells (so like 1 1 1 2 2 at 10 or 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 at 20)
What a slap in the face to the psychic it would be to give 2 more slots to the wave casters. I guess slapping the psychic around is the cool new thing to do.
But giving the magus more lower rank slots also feels like a cruel joke unless casting spell slot spells with spell strike is jmjust going away ant the magus can only spell strike with cantrips. Another top slot rank feels like the most appropriate buff to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I meant the last part about fear of overpowered spellcasters and lack of cool toys for casters.
I mean, that's kind of a defining thing about PF2. Most of the narrative power casting had was removed, and they even did more of that in the remaster by removing "The GM might allow you to try using Miracle/Wish/etc to produce greater effects than these, but doing so may be dangerous, or the spell may have only a partial effect" text when creating Manifestation which is just baffling, and replaced it with a ritual that is so impractical that it'll basically never show up in actual play.
Spell attack rolls have been garbage since the system was released.
They tend to be really conservative when adding new things that spellcasters can do or defenses against it are disproportionally strong (Mythic has entered the chat, both on Mythic Resilience vs Mythic Resistance but also in just how generally lame caster mythic destinies are).
They've overcorrected for the problem in more than one case, and at some point that starts to look like fear.
* 3 spell slots at each rank.Eh? This is the base, normal spellcasting.
For a regular caster, not for wave casters.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is fair to say they gave Martial and Caster pretty different areas of expertise as the basis for separating the concepts.
The Martial is the ultimate king of Striking. So targeting AC and dealing good damage to a single target.
The Caster is the rest : targeting saves, dealing good damage distributed between several targets, inflicting detrimental conditions, buffing self and/or allies, healing.
Then we have exceptions and complexity added to this simple basis.
But in the end, each of the 2 concepts will shine in its area of expertise rather than the one of its opposite.