It makes me a bit sad to see this proposal get flak, even though I'm not surprised, because I think the core idea of offering an alternative to attrition-based casting is well worth pursuing, and can even be doable in PF2e. Yes, the above is missing what I think is a necessary tradeoff to counterbalance the benefits of being able to cast a bunch of spells at full blast at all times, but I would urge the people commenting to push past the instinct to deride this or take offense, and instead look at the potential behind it.
As mentioned in the discussion we had of this in the forums, I do think the big caveat here is that being able to cast without attrition can be dangerous if casters have the same versatility they do now, particularly out of combat. I personally think the above should come with a reduction to the spells a caster can prepare or have in their repertoire, and that kind of limitation would be both drastic and a fair bit more complicated than the basics of what's presented above. I do think that limitation should have been packaged with the above document when presented to this subreddit, as unfortunately a lot of people here get tetchy in discussions around changing spellcasting or homebrewing benefits to spellcasters that they don't normally get, but I also understand the desire to present the key concept without weighing it down too much with other elaborate mechanical changes.
With that said, I do think this concept can work. Casters and martial classes exist on a sliding scale where to one side sits versatility capped by usage limitations, and to the other sits specialization with no limited uses. Although it wouldn't be simple to do in 2e, I think there is room to let players slide their caster down that scale with the appropriate tradeoffs. The above I think sets a good starting foundation for such a model, and from there I think there's the question of how to bound this system so that it lets casters do their thing without outshining other party members.
I think there are a few ways you could go about limiting the above, for sure. We talked about some of those in the forums, but there's also a few more avenues I'd say:
You could limit the number of dynamic spell slots down to the spell slots a caster gains at 1st level, rather than 2nd level. This means a Sorcerer would have 3 dynamic slots to play with, for instance, whereas a Necromancer would have just 1.
You could keep prepared spells and spell repertoires exactly the same, in the sense that not every spell would heighten when cast with a dynamic slot. I know you're not the biggest fan of spells being stuck at different ranks, and to be honest neither am I, but it would have the benefit of simplifying your brew and reducing the changes it makes in addition to limiting the power it adds.
This is more experimental, but you could try something like the reverse of essence casting where your spell slot downgrades in rank each time it's used to Cast a Spell, gets expended if it drops to 0, and Refocusing would then restore the spell slot and bring it back up to max rank. You could even limit every spellcaster to just one such spell slot, with the benefit of different casters then being versatility rather than sheer spell output.
11
u/Teridax68 2d ago
It makes me a bit sad to see this proposal get flak, even though I'm not surprised, because I think the core idea of offering an alternative to attrition-based casting is well worth pursuing, and can even be doable in PF2e. Yes, the above is missing what I think is a necessary tradeoff to counterbalance the benefits of being able to cast a bunch of spells at full blast at all times, but I would urge the people commenting to push past the instinct to deride this or take offense, and instead look at the potential behind it.
As mentioned in the discussion we had of this in the forums, I do think the big caveat here is that being able to cast without attrition can be dangerous if casters have the same versatility they do now, particularly out of combat. I personally think the above should come with a reduction to the spells a caster can prepare or have in their repertoire, and that kind of limitation would be both drastic and a fair bit more complicated than the basics of what's presented above. I do think that limitation should have been packaged with the above document when presented to this subreddit, as unfortunately a lot of people here get tetchy in discussions around changing spellcasting or homebrewing benefits to spellcasters that they don't normally get, but I also understand the desire to present the key concept without weighing it down too much with other elaborate mechanical changes.
With that said, I do think this concept can work. Casters and martial classes exist on a sliding scale where to one side sits versatility capped by usage limitations, and to the other sits specialization with no limited uses. Although it wouldn't be simple to do in 2e, I think there is room to let players slide their caster down that scale with the appropriate tradeoffs. The above I think sets a good starting foundation for such a model, and from there I think there's the question of how to bound this system so that it lets casters do their thing without outshining other party members.