Menu
Home
Post new thread
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Community
Post new thread
Create wiki page
Community supporters
All threads
Latest threads
Hot threads
New posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Chat/Discord
EN Publishing
EN5ider
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Podcast
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Post new thread
Create wiki page
Community supporters
All threads
Latest threads
Hot threads
New posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE FOR 14 DAYS ONLY! --
Enchanted Trinkets II for D&D 5th Edition
on Kickstarter! More enchanted trinkets for your 5th Edition game in a new softcover compilation!
log in
or
register
to remove this ad
Home
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
PF2: Spells!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Connorsrpg" data-source="post: 7398429" data-attributes="member: 19265"><p>The idea of same spell being cast at different levels is MUCH better than having similar named spells to prepare/learn at different levels. (Glad PF & 5E are going this route).</p><p></p><p>I LOVE the idea of each component type being an action. It actually brings these often ignored components into to play. (We already trialled something similar with 5E).</p><p></p><p>Also, in 3E we sorted all divine and arcane spells into 3 groupings: Simple, Advanced?, Exotic (much like weapon proficiencies and a cue from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed). We also borrowed and expanded Monte's idea of spell descriptors. EVERY spell had 1+ descriptor. This meant we no longer had to track every class's individual spell list. (Something I do NOT like in 5E). For eg. A Druid got access to Simple Divine Spells and added spells with certain descriptors to their list. These were usually a choice (for example 6 of the following - where 12 nature-type descriptors may have been listed).</p><p></p><p>In a nutshell, I like modular spell lists that can be easily expanded upon, rather than just adding to every class's list. A big problem in 5E for divine casters that therefore have no limit to spells 'known'.</p><p></p><p>If PF adopts something like the above with its spell groupings, I am all for it. (Looking at discussion in the blog re spell groupings).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Connorsrpg, post: 7398429, member: 19265"] The idea of same spell being cast at different levels is MUCH better than having similar named spells to prepare/learn at different levels. (Glad PF & 5E are going this route). I LOVE the idea of each component type being an action. It actually brings these often ignored components into to play. (We already trialled something similar with 5E). Also, in 3E we sorted all divine and arcane spells into 3 groupings: Simple, Advanced?, Exotic (much like weapon proficiencies and a cue from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed). We also borrowed and expanded Monte's idea of spell descriptors. EVERY spell had 1+ descriptor. This meant we no longer had to track every class's individual spell list. (Something I do NOT like in 5E). For eg. A Druid got access to Simple Divine Spells and added spells with certain descriptors to their list. These were usually a choice (for example 6 of the following - where 12 nature-type descriptors may have been listed). In a nutshell, I like modular spell lists that can be easily expanded upon, rather than just adding to every class's list. A big problem in 5E for divine casters that therefore have no limit to spells 'known'. If PF adopts something like the above with its spell groupings, I am all for it. (Looking at discussion in the blog re spell groupings). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
PF2: Spells!
Top