SangoProduction
2023-01-31, 02:35 AM
Preamble: Hello and welcome all you weary souls. And I apologize for going over to 5e and immediately inflicting my curse upon the land. (Although, let's be honest, the companies, Hasbro and WotC, were clearly signaling they were *that* sort of company for a long while.)
But anyway, now that everyone is (at least saying that they are) scrambling back to Pathfinder...well, I am too.
And I come bearing gifts - none of which are cursed, trust me - including a homebrew Pathfinder adaptation of the 5e adaptation of a Pathfinder third party rule set. See, not cursed at all.
Purpose: To both acknowledge and integrate the good-to-amazing changes to Spheres from the 5e adaptation (like the Telekinesis sphere, to name the most glaring deficiency of the PF version). I think that I am both knowledgeable - and good faith - enough to at least attempt such an adaptation. I may get to it later.
This is going to be the first in the Adapting 5e Spheres series, and so I figured that the best place to start would actually be with the core Spheres rules for 5e. Spheres of Power in specific. I care much less about Spheres of Might (in all editions - just so much less to work with on the flavor dimension).
Also, this should help me to align the goals of my own adaptations so as to ensure I have the best homebrew PF adaptations of (...) possible.
Adaptations:
Standardized sphere blocks: As in, each independent ability has a block where it explicitly and concisely lists its casting time, range, duration, etc. Just like regular spells. It's not buried in the description of the talent.
Unironically huge improvement. Makes it much clearer and easier to read at a glance when you are greeted with the core stats of the effect, rather than figuring it out from a paragraph, in addition to shortening the paragraph. (Especially when bringing it up to someone who has never seen the system before.) The irony here being that I am currently just writing paragraph after paragraph.
Explicit Augments: Most, if not all, spheres (of power) in 5e have an "augment," which is the option to access a more powerful version of the talent, or addon to another ability by spending more spell points. Sort of like a in-talent metamagic feat... without costing an extra feat or talent, or so on.
There are a few of these equivalents in PF. But they are no where near as present, nor standardized and explicit. (For example, I remember at least one talent where it says to spend an additional spell point to also do something. Then ends the sentence, and continues describing... either this "augment" or the talent, and it's not exactly clear which was which. By best guess it was from the divination sphere. Not exactly common, but I do remember at least 1 example where explicitness would have been appreciated.)
Spell point limitation: 5e has a limit on the number of spell points spent per sphere-cast. Equal to roughly 2 + 1 per 5 levels. PF has no such cap. If you have 14 spell points, you can shove all the metamagic on there that you want, up to 14 spell points. Even though that would be the equivalent metamagic-spell-slot-level of 15. Granted, there aren't enough worthwhile metamagic effects that you'd ever want to apply to spheres. But you could, if there were.
I do believe that having a level-limit of some kind makes for a handy tool through which you can level-limit the total effects. (Especially given the explicit augment system, where you actually do have the "worthwhile metamagic effects.") It's either "this or that," at low levels, rather than À la carte.
What is the appropriate cap for PF spheres? No idea. I found the 5e version a bit too restrictive, as someone whose campaigns last from roughly levels 1 to 10. (Even at one level per session, one session per week, every single week with no breaks, that's over 3 months on one campaign. A quarter year. Make it 2 sessions per level - which is still fast by comparison to many tables - and maybe missing every 2-3 sessions, and we have something that takes almost full year. And that assumes that it finishes.)
I would hazard to say 2 + 1 per even level. Maybe 2 + 1 per 3 levels. Of course, in making the early levels flexible and progressing, that does mean that, unless the rate slows down later, it simply splits open the "late game." So... I'll just stand here and say, "I don't know."
Magic Traditions: In 5e, they include 2 bonus talents as part of the tradition. This is functionally no different from how it works in PF, where gaining the sphere casting ability grants you 2 talents the first time you get it. But it is more obvious to new players that it is gained only one time (especially for those who seem to have a hard time reading the rules), and I appreciate the change enough to mention it as an adaptation that should be carried back.
But as I am not adapting classes, nor traditions, this doesn't matter to me.
"Sphere-Specific Drawbacks" as "Variants": No functional change, but the movement of sphere-specific drawbacks to the spheres themselves is a good organizational change. And the renaming them to "variants" does help keep them distinct from "drawbacks" which are tradition deficiencies, for which you either gain spell points, or tradition boons.
I might make note of them in the sphere adaptations.
Universal Sphere: The Universal sphere cuts down on some talent bloat (like the [range] and [strike] and [mass] and so on talents), by basically turning them into metamagic augments. And also take the place of metamagic feats in 5e, because they don't exist - being instead Sorcerer class features, which is a actually really cool way to distinguish wizard and sorcerer. But we're not here to talk about that.
I am going to bring the Universal Sphere in, including choice metamagic feats from PF, and then say that regular metamagic doesn't get to be applied to sphere effects.
Concentration: Concentration in 5e is a non-action that doesn't impair you in 'most any way. You simply can't concentrate on more than one thing at a time.
I feel that this is an improvement over the PF equivalent of having to spend your [any action here] to concentrate, but so long as you have more of said actions, or better, you can concentrate on more things. It just feels a lot better in my opinion.
-
Fixed Caster Level: In 5e, the only distinction between casting classes was the number of talents gained, not the level of power of the given sphere effects. Half casters have fewer "spells" but cast the few they know just as well.
I fundamentally agree that either the talent count or the caster level should be equalized.
I personally rather dislike less-than-full casters in PF spheres for how they just seem to be worse at fulfilling a given fantasy I have in mind, unless they are explicitly "Martials with a sprinkling of magic."
So... honestly, having all casting classes cast at full CL is probably fine, in my opinion. (Even in base Pathfinder, a Paladin still casts as casters of [class level].)
----
Reserved for links to the rest of the adaptations.
Universal Sphere (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?653762-Universal-Sphere-(Adapting-5e-Spheres))
Telekinesis Sphere (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654016-Telekinesis-Sphere-(Adapting-5e-Spheres))
But anyway, now that everyone is (at least saying that they are) scrambling back to Pathfinder...well, I am too.
And I come bearing gifts - none of which are cursed, trust me - including a homebrew Pathfinder adaptation of the 5e adaptation of a Pathfinder third party rule set. See, not cursed at all.
Purpose: To both acknowledge and integrate the good-to-amazing changes to Spheres from the 5e adaptation (like the Telekinesis sphere, to name the most glaring deficiency of the PF version). I think that I am both knowledgeable - and good faith - enough to at least attempt such an adaptation. I may get to it later.
This is going to be the first in the Adapting 5e Spheres series, and so I figured that the best place to start would actually be with the core Spheres rules for 5e. Spheres of Power in specific. I care much less about Spheres of Might (in all editions - just so much less to work with on the flavor dimension).
Also, this should help me to align the goals of my own adaptations so as to ensure I have the best homebrew PF adaptations of (...) possible.
Adaptations:
Standardized sphere blocks: As in, each independent ability has a block where it explicitly and concisely lists its casting time, range, duration, etc. Just like regular spells. It's not buried in the description of the talent.
Unironically huge improvement. Makes it much clearer and easier to read at a glance when you are greeted with the core stats of the effect, rather than figuring it out from a paragraph, in addition to shortening the paragraph. (Especially when bringing it up to someone who has never seen the system before.) The irony here being that I am currently just writing paragraph after paragraph.
Explicit Augments: Most, if not all, spheres (of power) in 5e have an "augment," which is the option to access a more powerful version of the talent, or addon to another ability by spending more spell points. Sort of like a in-talent metamagic feat... without costing an extra feat or talent, or so on.
There are a few of these equivalents in PF. But they are no where near as present, nor standardized and explicit. (For example, I remember at least one talent where it says to spend an additional spell point to also do something. Then ends the sentence, and continues describing... either this "augment" or the talent, and it's not exactly clear which was which. By best guess it was from the divination sphere. Not exactly common, but I do remember at least 1 example where explicitness would have been appreciated.)
Spell point limitation: 5e has a limit on the number of spell points spent per sphere-cast. Equal to roughly 2 + 1 per 5 levels. PF has no such cap. If you have 14 spell points, you can shove all the metamagic on there that you want, up to 14 spell points. Even though that would be the equivalent metamagic-spell-slot-level of 15. Granted, there aren't enough worthwhile metamagic effects that you'd ever want to apply to spheres. But you could, if there were.
I do believe that having a level-limit of some kind makes for a handy tool through which you can level-limit the total effects. (Especially given the explicit augment system, where you actually do have the "worthwhile metamagic effects.") It's either "this or that," at low levels, rather than À la carte.
What is the appropriate cap for PF spheres? No idea. I found the 5e version a bit too restrictive, as someone whose campaigns last from roughly levels 1 to 10. (Even at one level per session, one session per week, every single week with no breaks, that's over 3 months on one campaign. A quarter year. Make it 2 sessions per level - which is still fast by comparison to many tables - and maybe missing every 2-3 sessions, and we have something that takes almost full year. And that assumes that it finishes.)
I would hazard to say 2 + 1 per even level. Maybe 2 + 1 per 3 levels. Of course, in making the early levels flexible and progressing, that does mean that, unless the rate slows down later, it simply splits open the "late game." So... I'll just stand here and say, "I don't know."
Magic Traditions: In 5e, they include 2 bonus talents as part of the tradition. This is functionally no different from how it works in PF, where gaining the sphere casting ability grants you 2 talents the first time you get it. But it is more obvious to new players that it is gained only one time (especially for those who seem to have a hard time reading the rules), and I appreciate the change enough to mention it as an adaptation that should be carried back.
But as I am not adapting classes, nor traditions, this doesn't matter to me.
"Sphere-Specific Drawbacks" as "Variants": No functional change, but the movement of sphere-specific drawbacks to the spheres themselves is a good organizational change. And the renaming them to "variants" does help keep them distinct from "drawbacks" which are tradition deficiencies, for which you either gain spell points, or tradition boons.
I might make note of them in the sphere adaptations.
Universal Sphere: The Universal sphere cuts down on some talent bloat (like the [range] and [strike] and [mass] and so on talents), by basically turning them into metamagic augments. And also take the place of metamagic feats in 5e, because they don't exist - being instead Sorcerer class features, which is a actually really cool way to distinguish wizard and sorcerer. But we're not here to talk about that.
I am going to bring the Universal Sphere in, including choice metamagic feats from PF, and then say that regular metamagic doesn't get to be applied to sphere effects.
Concentration: Concentration in 5e is a non-action that doesn't impair you in 'most any way. You simply can't concentrate on more than one thing at a time.
I feel that this is an improvement over the PF equivalent of having to spend your [any action here] to concentrate, but so long as you have more of said actions, or better, you can concentrate on more things. It just feels a lot better in my opinion.
-
Fixed Caster Level: In 5e, the only distinction between casting classes was the number of talents gained, not the level of power of the given sphere effects. Half casters have fewer "spells" but cast the few they know just as well.
I fundamentally agree that either the talent count or the caster level should be equalized.
I personally rather dislike less-than-full casters in PF spheres for how they just seem to be worse at fulfilling a given fantasy I have in mind, unless they are explicitly "Martials with a sprinkling of magic."
So... honestly, having all casting classes cast at full CL is probably fine, in my opinion. (Even in base Pathfinder, a Paladin still casts as casters of [class level].)
----
Reserved for links to the rest of the adaptations.
Universal Sphere (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?653762-Universal-Sphere-(Adapting-5e-Spheres))
Telekinesis Sphere (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654016-Telekinesis-Sphere-(Adapting-5e-Spheres))