PF2: Spells!

[TwoSix]

This blog post got me hyped! Everything in here looks awesome, especially the formatting of the spells, which is very nostalgic for me as a 4e fan.

It is kind of weird how much this edition seems to be taking the good parts of 4e and 5e. If they really haven't looked at 4e or 5e much, parallel evolution is a hell of a thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Unlikely as previous material has classified some spells as costing one action, some costing two due to length of casting and now we've seen rituals. While they could get that granular and say that spells with only one component are one action and those with two are two actions, It feels like that's too complicated for where they're going.

They’ve already been shown to work this way in the glass cannon podcast. Each component takes one action to perform, which is the reason different spells cost different numbers of actions. Even in the article, the heal spell lists it’s effects (which we know to cost 1, 2, and 3 actions respectively) by the components required to cast them.

 

[Charlaquin]

It is kind of weird how much this edition seems to be taking the good parts of 4e and 5e. If they really haven't looked at 4e or 5e much, parallel evolution is a hell of a thing.

Either way, I’m thrilled about it! PF2 seems to be taking a the best design innovations from the past decade along with a few new ideas and creating a truly great game out of them.

 

[timbannock]

It is kind of weird how much this edition seems to be taking the good parts of 4e and 5e. If they really haven't looked at 4e or 5e much, parallel evolution is a hell of a thing.

"We haven't looked much at XYZ while designing..." and "we never played XYZ ever" are two different things ;-) I think "we haven't looked..." is really kinda just their way of saying "recently."

I do love what I'm seeing though, which I didn't expect. Not sure why the spell's range/area has to be listed thrice and then again in each of the different castings...and yet the "target" entry doesn't note how one of the castings is quite different from what that entry says...

I hope these aren't finalized. But they are definitely headed in the right direction!

 

[TwoSix]

Either way, I’m thrilled about it! PF2 seems to be taking a the best design innovations from the past decade along with a few new ideas and creating a truly great game out of them.

I admit, I wasn't planning on getting too excited about PF2, but my next turn in the DMs chair should be happening right around when the playtest material comes out. I think picking up the playtest book for that game just might be turning into an option.

 

[Charlaquin]

"We haven't looked much at XYZ while designing..." and "we never played XYZ ever" are two different things ;-) I think "we haven't looked..." is really kinda just their way of saying "recently."

I do love what I'm seeing though, which I didn't expect. Not sure why the spell's range/area has to be listed thrice and then again in each of the different castings...and yet the "target" entry doesn't note how one of the castings is quite different from what that entry says...

I think for the same reason Vampiric Exsanguination doesn’t list a target. If a spell has an area instead of a range, it’s implied that it affects everything in the area without targeting them.4

I hope these aren't finalized. But they are definitely headed in the right direction!

They’re not finalized yet. The wording on Vampiric Exsanguination has already been changed in response to feedback in the comments of the blog post.

 

[TwoSix]

They’ve already been shown to work this way in the glass cannon podcast. Each component takes one action to perform, which is the reason different spells cost different numbers of actions. Even in the article, the heal spell lists it’s effects (which we know to cost 1, 2, and 3 actions respectively) by the components required to cast them.

I don't recall...do components act as an action restriction? Can you use Action 1 to cast a verbal component 1 action spell, and then action 2 to cast a second verbal component 1 action spell? Or can you only use each type of component once per round?

I like the idea to act as a brake on casting a good 1 action spell three times per round, which is kind of repetitive.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't recall...do components act as an action restriction? Can you use Action 1 to cast a verbal component 1 action spell, and then action 2 to cast a second verbal component 1 action spell? Or can you only use each type of component once per round?

I like the idea to act as a brake on casting a good 1 action spell three times per round, which is kind of repetitive.

You can use each type of casting actions as many times as you have actions to spend on it. So for example, you could use the 1-Action version of Heal three times in one turn, if you wanted to do a lot of healing to just one ally (or a lot of damage to just one undead). I only know this because in the comments of the spell blog post, someone asked about the wording on Heal’s Heighten effect (+1d8 or +2d8 if you are using the one or two action version to heal the living) and if it was intended that using Heal to damage undead scaled so poorly, Siefter said it was because they have to be very careful with one-Action spells that do damage, since they can potentially be used up to three times in one turn.

 

[Erdric Dragin]

Goodbye, Pathfinder, nice knowing what you used to be. Now they've become their own RPG system completely irrelevant to the last.

 

[TwoSix]

You can use each type of casting actions as many times as you have actions to spend on it. So for example, you could use the 1-Action version of Heal three times in one turn, if you wanted to do a lot of healing to just one ally (or a lot of damage to just one undead). I only know this because in the comments of the spell blog post, someone asked about the wording on Heal’s Heighten effect (+1d8 or +2d8 if you are using the one or two action version to heal the living) and if it was intended that using Heal to damage undead scaled so poorly, Siefter said it was because they have to be very careful with one-Action spells that do damage, since they can potentially be used up to three times in one turn.

Yea, just read those comments. Looks like component will be more of a hook to hang class distinctions on, then (like the bard with the violin example). Makes sense.