Arcane list should be heavily buffed

Claxon wrote:

If the wizard class had a feat that was simply "you get 1 extra spell slot of each level of spells you can cast" that would literally just be a feat you would be dumb not take. It would be required. Something like that is better done as part of the base class.

Remaster Oracle has entered the chat. ;) There's multiple feats in that class that nothing else even remotely competes with, and one of them is literally "you get spell slots back".

(Also remaster Gang Up, which was buffed for some reason despite already being quite good.)

I was thinking it'd be more of a feat that lets you get access to other spells rather than just adding spell slots, but yeah. Straight up adding more spell slots is pretty much always a must take.

Yes, and I consider it a less than desirable design approach, and it's kind of a band aid that would've been better being part of the class chassis.

Independently of the Wizard, I'm personally quite interested in the question of what the arcane list should look like, ideally: right now, it does most things besides vitality stuff, and while that does mean it does a lot of stuff, I think it's also been to the detriment of the tradition's identity as well as its appreciation over time. It's probably going to sound weird to talk about taking things away, but I do think that cutting off swathes of spells attached to the arcane list would make room for a sharper identity along with other, more tangible benefits.

For example: the arcane list is meant to be the junction of material and mental essence, so it stands to reason that the arcane list ought to access every mental spell out there... except it doesn't, and for good reason, because if every arcane caster could access heroism and synesthesia on top of their current spells, there'd be few reasons to pick casters of any other tradition unless it was for heal. Despite the fact that both spells could theoretically fit the arcane list, synesthesia in particular, neither can be allowed on a tradition that already has a lot of spells attached to it, even if not all of those spells are equally valuable.

With this in mind, I do think that it would help to not only give the arcane list some more spells, including spells unique to the tradition, but also prune spells that aren't necessarily the strongest thematic fit. Just as examples:

Trip.H wrote:

I do caution that dreaded powercreep issue, as if this is done by Wiz school choice, then you quickly get a situation where the old schools become "trap" options in the face of a nicely curated and cross-tradition poached list.

This was always going to be the outcome.

The majority of the schools in Player Core 1 just aren't good. The system Paizo chose for them also meant that they would age poorly as the system progressed.

We shouldn't worry about it, they did a bad job in Player Core 1 and there is no dancing around that.

They either make better school going forward, which we are seeing occassionally, or they will provide ways up update/override spell choices in a mechanically meaningful way (not just "You and your GM sort it out, Hasbro's lawyers are on line 2").

Powercreeping schools, and the entire Wizard class as it stands, is not only good for the game but desireable.

Gates wizard is this powercreep and honestly I'm here for it gates wizard is fly as f~$%. Do wish they'd buff the old schools though, being stuck with charming words as your focus spell was already old when printed and is now dying of terminal cancer.

I wish it wasnt such a huge task. Becasue I love the idea of a mostly balanced, but even more separate set of spell traditions.
It would take a lot of work from a pretty decent number of people though.
You'd practically have to have 5 or more people make their desired arrangements of spells to traditions, then overlap all of them, then vote for the ones that don't fit.

I genuinely don't think a single person's take would be good enough, and voting on every spell would take way too long.
I don't know, the thought just came to me.

Independently of the Wizard, I'm personally quite interested in the question of what the arcane list should look like, ideally: right now, it does most things besides vitality stuff, and while that does mean it does a lot of stuff, I think it's also been to the detriment of the tradition's identity as well as its appreciation over time. It's probably going to sound weird to talk about taking things away, but I do think that cutting off swathes of spells attached to the arcane list would make room for a sharper identity along with other, more tangible benefits.

For example: the arcane list is meant to be the junction of material and mental essence, so it stands to reason that the arcane list ought to access every mental spell out there... except it doesn't, and for good reason, because if every arcane caster could access heroism and synesthesia on top of their current spells, there'd be few reasons to pick casters of any other tradition unless it was for heal. Despite the fact that both spells could theoretically fit the arcane list, synesthesia in particular, neither can be allowed on a tradition that already has a lot of spells attached to it, even if not all of those spells are equally valuable.

With this in mind, I do think that it would help to not only give the arcane list some more spells, including spells unique to the tradition, but also prune spells that aren't necessarily the strongest thematic fit. Just as examples:

* Void spells are about manipulating life energy, and so should probably go out of the list despite having sat with Wizards across various editions.

* For some reason, the arcane list does have a couple of vitality spells that should probably no longer be there. Lifewood cage is an awkward one, though, because it's a remaster of force cage whose presence makes sense for historical reasons, but not for thematic ones, and the incongruity comes specifically from a mechanical side...

You and I have talked about it extensively, and were pretty much the only two participants on your thread on the topic, but I always want to bang this drum when it comes up. WE NEED TO MASSIVELY RESTRICT THE SPELL LISTS! STOP GIVING EVERYONE EVERYTHING PAIZO! I seriously wish we could have a version of 2e where every spell list was cut massively down to a few core roles it plays based on the thematics of the essences, occult is buffs, debuffs and battlefield control, arcane is battlefield control, utility and blasts, primal is healing, blasts and summoning, divine is healing, buffs and summoning. Something like this. Then subclasses of a class can add additional spells for theme/flavor, or an expanded role in and out of combat, change the spell list for the class if it makes sense (but for the love of God FEWER pick a lists!), or what have you. The lists are bloated with too many different things they can do and do not provide meaningful restrictions and this is most apparent with the divine list

Cutting the lists would be cool.....provided it didn't further damage a caster's ability to target all three saves. That's already a tall order on some lists, but further pruning can really hamper the one recourse casters have when going up against these large enemy save numbers.

I do think there is a valid concern that spell lists are bloated as they are now in part to satisfy certain expectations of spellcasting in 2e, chiefly that of being able to work around certain immunities. With that said, it's already entirely possible to get hard-countered, as happens to occult casters in Spore War for instance, and I suspect the arcane tradition would be able to deal with immunities better than occult magic by virtue of having lots more damage and save types to choose from.

Cutting the lists would be cool.....provided it didn't further damage a caster's ability to target all three saves. That's already a tall order on some lists, but further pruning can really hamper the one recourse casters have when going up against these large enemy save numbers.

Mythic Resilience made this far, far worse too. Going up against high saves is hard, but if you have to, it's at least doable. Going up against Mythic Resilience feels like the creature is just straight up countering you and you have to use another option to not feel like you're throwing a hail mary.

With that existing, being able to effectively target all 3 saves is necessary for a caster to function in any kind of offensive capacity. Otherwise you'll run into fights where your character simply doesn't work.

And yeah, Spore War has a lot of "mental effects need not apply" situations that hit some lists far harder than others. But I still think lists should have an identity and theme, and giving every spell to all 4 lists dilutes that. As Teridax mentioned though, Arcane doesn't have much of an identity right now.

This is probably worth an entire separate discussion by itself, but shortening spell lists down to sharper identities I think ought to make it worth questioning the extremes of high saves and immunities that we see now: although the idea of a fire elemental being immune to fire makes thematic sense, it also shuts down the very notion of a pyromancer character, for example, who either ends up incapable of doing anything or needing to use a mechanic like the Kineticist's Extract Element, which doesn't work against every enemy and makes fire Kins very sad against devils. The fact that so many enemies are straight-up immune to mental effects makes it similarly difficult to play mentalists -- which is troublesome, because mentalism is a very big part of the occult tradition in particular.

While targeting two saves is generally to be expected for primal and occult casters in particular, and there are alternatives when both saves are high, the alternatives are generally to revert to pure support by handing out buffs or heals, which is not what every caster player wants to do. By contrast, martial classes can generally expect to deal some measure of Strike damage, because attack modifiers can be much more easily raised to overcome even extreme AC, and it's extremely rare for monsters to be immune to BPS damage (though sadly not precision damage). A designer a while ago mentioned that this system of harder counters existed to pressure casters to leverage the versatility of their spells to the fullest, but I think enough time has passed to show that a lot of players don't really care all that much about more versatility past a certain point, so much as a minimum degree of reliability.

This is likely to be stuff we're unlikely to see until 3e, but I'd quite like counters in general to be softer: it's fine for enemies to resist certain effects better than others, but immunity is something that should only be used if there's a guarantee it won't shut down someone's character, if it should be used at all. It's great to encourage players to switch up their playstyle, especially if the resistances are thematically appropriate, but preventing a playstyle from working in any capacity I don't think jives well with players who committed their build to a particular concept. If we can encourage martial characters to switch things up without hard-countering them (unless they're Investigators, Rogues, or Swashbucklers), the same should go for spellcasters.

With so few spell slots, the number of spells is overkill. It was ok to have huge spell lists in PF1 when you had 6 or more slots for every spell level, cheap scrolls, items, and the like, but with so few spell slots you don't need that many spells. You won't be able to use many of them.

This is probably worth an entire separate discussion by itself, but shortening spell lists down to sharper identities I think ought to make it worth questioning the extremes of high saves and immunities that we see now: although the idea of a fire elemental being immune to fire makes thematic sense, it also shuts down the very notion of a pyromancer character, for example, who either ends up incapable of doing anything or needing to use a mechanic like the Kineticist's Extract Element, which doesn't work against every enemy and makes fire Kins very sad against devils. The fact that so many enemies are straight-up immune to mental effects makes it similarly difficult to play mentalists -- which is troublesome, because mentalism is a very big part of the occult tradition in particular.

While targeting two saves is generally to be expected for primal and occult casters in particular, and there are alternatives when both saves are high, the alternatives are generally to revert to pure support by handing out buffs or heals, which is not what every caster player wants to do. By contrast, martial classes can generally expect to deal some measure of Strike damage, because attack modifiers can be much more easily raised to overcome even extreme AC, and it's extremely rare for monsters to be immune to BPS damage (though sadly not precision damage). A designer a while ago mentioned that this system of harder counters existed to pressure casters to leverage the versatility of their spells to the fullest, but I think enough time has passed to show that a lot of players don't really care all that much about more versatility past a certain point, so much as a minimum degree of reliability.

This is likely to be stuff we're unlikely to see until 3e, but I'd quite like counters in general to be softer: it's fine for enemies to resist certain effects better than others, but immunity is something that should only be used if there's a guarantee it won't shut down someone's character, if it should be used at all. It's great...

And I am certainly someone who was in the camp of preferring the verisimilitude of the quasi realism that a lot of these things bring such as fire immunity on fire elementals, but like how undead ancestries and archetypes don't give you undead immunities for balance I also think that we are already in the real of combat as sport (as opposed to war) and should at least consider applying the philosophy further. I am even on record saying that I think "pyromancer" is a shallow character theme and concept. I still think so, but players should be allowed to make these kinds of characters regardless of my own personal taste and the game shouldn't shut them down

I also think slimmer spell lists let classes get more, and more interesting, class feats and features that interact with spell casting to really help differentiate casters and give them stronger identities

I would even say that I would prefer that we go from 10 ranks of spells to something like 5 but have it be more in line with 10 slots per rank or something instead. The number of ranks really feels like bloat and many ranks really blend into each other. I'm not sure we need ten whole degrees of spell power levels. To my mind ranks 1 and 2 don't really feel super distinct as much as they feel distinct from rank 3, and 3 isn't crazy different from 4 and perhaps 5 as well. Without looking at the lists it's hard to say which ranks really feel like a real distinct jump but it definitely feels to me that some of these ranks really blend together

Narrow concepts like "pyromancer" are often narrow because of a lack of supportive options that allow a concept to be well-rounded in theme. The fire kineticist is a better example of what can be done, but misses things like fire-powered punches, melting terrain and objects, stoking the internal fires for an exhausting burst of energy, etc. which could allow a more varied set of options. This of course eats up page space and makes it harder to differentiate between builds, but the option go full Hunter X Hunter* with a theme is there, in theory.

* An anime that made the guy with bubblegum powers one of the main villains because he used it in all kinds of deadly ways.

How would the game be effected if Wizards were the "fighters of casters"?

Meaning, Expert in Spell Mod from level 1, gets to Legendary at 13, and build flexibility (spell substitution as part of chassis and Combat Flexibility for Wizard Feats).

Narrow concepts like "pyromancer" are often narrow because of a lack of supportive options that allow a concept to be well-rounded in theme. The fire kineticist is a better example of what can be done, but misses things like fire-powered punches, melting terrain and objects, stoking the internal fires for an exhausting burst of energy, etc. which could allow a more varied set of options. This of course eats up page space and makes it harder to differentiate between builds, but the option go full Hunter X Hunter* with a theme is there, in theory.

* An anime that made the guy with bubblegum powers one of the main villains because he used it in all kinds of deadly ways.

I agree with this. "I cast fireball every turn" is a shallow character concept, but we have a vast number of pyromancers to draw from in fiction that are nuanced, interesting, and above all varied in the way they use their powers. Just to take Avatar as an example, we have Azula and Ozai as highly mobile blasters, Zuko as a more balanced firebender who can redirect harmful lightning and even create weapons out of fire, Sozin as a firebender with the unique technique of being able to manipulate heat itself to affect the environment, and Jeong Jeong as master who uses fire almost always defensively, forming it into walls. Most of these are things a Fire Kineticist can do, and single-element fire Kins I think would be able to shine as pyromancers if they didn't get hard-countered so easily.

I also think part of what would make pyromancer casters, or just more focused casters seem boring now is the fact that a lot of spells are actually quite narrow and simplistic: fireball is a good example of this, because you just point and something explodes, full stop. The main thing that makes the spell interesting, other than its burst potentially affecting your allies in cramped areas, is that it uses up a daily spell slot. If you could cast fireball at-will every turn, that would get very boring very quickly, and the expectation on casters at the moment is to complement these pure damage spells with equally narrow spells focused on utility. By contrast, martial feats tend to mix things together, so you might still Strike and deal the damage you're supposed to, but also apply a bit of utility too. Although many spells do blast and offer utility at the same time, they also compete with pure blast and pure utility spells, which causes some players to ignore them in favor of the more specialized options. That, and because casters often lack mechanics that interact consistently with their own spells besides bump up their numbers, it's difficult to create the sort of interesting synergies you can get from martial classes with their own Strike-boosting class features.

I would even say that I would prefer that we go from 10 ranks of spells to something like 5 but have it be more in line with 10 slots per rank or something instead. The number of ranks really feels like bloat and many ranks really blend into each other. I'm not sure we need ten whole degrees of spell power levels. To my mind ranks 1 and 2 don't really feel super distinct as much as they feel distinct from rank 3, and 3 isn't crazy different from 4 and perhaps 5 as well. Without looking at the lists it's hard to say which ranks really feel like a real distinct jump but it definitely feels to me that some of these ranks really blend together

I'm fully in support of this. I talk about this more in another thread, but I personally think the concept of levels, useful as it is, is quite limiting in many ways and ought to be reexplored for a potential 3e. There are certainly distinct tiers of power in Pathfinder, in that being able to hurl a single small object with your mind is obviously not in the same ballpark as calling down meteors from the sky, but I agree with you that there aren't necessarily 10 different power tiers, so we could probably reduce spell ranks down to match the general expectations of what magic is meant to do at each power tier. I also think that spells in this respect don't necessarily have to be treated differently from feats, whether they're martial abilities or more magic feats like the Kineticist's impulses: although spell slots can be easily bolted onto at-will powers (case in point, here is how you do it for the Kineticist), the reverse isn't as true, so if we're talking pie-in-the-sky systemic changes, it might be worth designing spells more like feats and then seeing how Vancian characters can then turn those into spell slots.

How would the game be effected if Wizards were the "fighters of casters"?

Meaning, Expert in Spell Mod from level 1, gets to Legendary at 13, and build flexibility (spell substitution as part of chassis and Combat Flexibility for Wizard Feats).

I'd quite like spell substitution as a default class feature instead of arcane bond on the Wizard, but I think the fundamental difference here is that the Wizard is otherwise the polar opposite of the Fighter: whereas the Fighter is an extremely focused class that pays a significant cost in versatility for their above-average Strike accuracy, the Wizard is meant to be an extremely versatile class with lots of different tricks up their sleeve. If the Wizard gave up a lot of their existing power, I could see that justifying better spell accuracy, but I also don't think that's necessarily how everyone would want to play the Wizard either. More broadly, the question of "What if the Wizard were X" tends to never draw much agreement, because there are so many different expectations going around of what the Wizard is supposed to be that orienting them in one specific direction is likely to always upset more people than it would please.

The fire kineticist is a better example of what can be done, but misses things like fire-powered punches, melting terrain and objects, stoking the internal fires for an exhausting burst of energy, etc. which could allow a more varied set of options.

But that isn't the problem of a fire-themed focused caster, the problem is that in PF2e classes don't receive any support whatsoever after release.

If wizards (or casters in general) worked similarly to how the kineticist works in that they could choose one or a few "themes" to build around, even if certain options didn't exist right away they would probably exist at some point, assuming Paizo would print new ones every other book like it happens for spells currently.

How would the game be effected if Wizards were the "fighters of casters"?

Meaning, Expert in Spell Mod from level 1, gets to Legendary at 13, and build flexibility (spell substitution as part of chassis and Combat Flexibility for Wizard Feats).

I think fighter progression for a wizard's spell attacks and DCs would be a bit too much. However, I'm of the opinion that most of the arcane thesis should have been made into baseline features of the wizard, turned into regular feats, or directly removed. Experimental Spellshaping feels like the perfect analogue to the fighter's Combat Flexibility, Improved Familiar Attunement doesn't make much sense in the wizard now that the witch exists, and I could easily see Spell Blending Staff Nexus becoming feats. Spell Substitution just feels right as a baseline wizard feature, more so in PF2e where the wizard doesn't really have much in regards to features.

I would personally like the default scaling for casters to be like martials in capping at master but the "my whole thing is casting" classes like Wizard and probably sorcerer, to cap at legendary instead. This requires a different formula for saves and spells than 2e has... the things I want are kind of long and numerous

1. Super Class as feat packages. "Wizard" is no longer a class but a super class. Classes such as necromancer, magus, and possibly even witch might fit under the wizard super class and as such have a shared pool of feats that offer baseline features that related casting classes should get. Wizard super class might have more feats that manipulate spell slots, make scrolls, wands an/or staves, have more spellshape feats etc. Then the book space for class feats does not have to include effortless concentration for every caster and similar such feats. Likewise for martials you might have Warrior/Fighter as a super class, and some thematic word for the hit and run/more dexterous martials like rogues and rangers. The Magus for example might get to count as a wizard and a warrior. We can do hybrids

2. Casters should be like martials have scaling that is designed to cap at master and having legendary be something special for casters who are singularly focused on casting very powerful spells

3. Spell ranks condensed down to fewer than 10. 5 is the number I like, but it can be 7 or 4 etc

4. Sorcerers and other spellcasters who do innate magic get moved to a kineticist like system for spells and casting spells for these characters builds up strain that alleviates after smalls rests after combat. Hitting your threshold causing you to hurt yourself, accidentally knock yourself unconscious etc. Rather than be a pool of points it's a limit and you build up. Lower rank spells eventually become worth zero strain becoming more like cantrips. This system can be universalized to all casters too but previously vancian casters don't pick from feats, but instead slot spells each day that they can cast effectively at will until they hit their cap and have to take a break

5. Spell lists get massively trimmed down to skeletons that support a framework of a kind of play style and thematics. Specific in and out of combat roles, but then simultaneously subclasses give additional spells that round out a given character. Necromancer might be occult or arcane but get a massive list of thematic divine spells. Or it might just be a divine list caster but get some spells from occult or arcane to round it out

5.5 Force spells become unique to arcane. Spirit takes up the role of force for divine and occult casters. Primal gets neither and other similar tweaks to sharpen identities

What I don't want to see with a spells as feats idea is a recreation of 4e. Spells didn't feel like spells in that game, and ironically martial abilities felt like spells. There was a lot that didn't feel distinct. It works better for kineticist, but if spells are tied to feats in some way it needs to function in a way that makes it stand apart and feel different from playing a non-magical character

I think fighter progression for a wizard's spell attacks and DCs would be a bit too much. However, I'm of the opinion that most of the arcane thesis should have been made into baseline features of the wizard, turned into regular feats, or directly removed. Experimental Spellshaping feels like the perfect analogue to the fighter's Combat Flexibility, Improved Familiar Attunement doesn't make much sense in the wizard now that the witch exists, and I could easily see Spell Blending Staff Nexus becoming feats. Spell Substitution just feels right as a baseline wizard feature, more so in PF2e where the wizard doesn't really have much in regards to features.

For 2e I want an unchained wizards that resembles what the playtest Technomancer in SF2E looks like. Their emphasis on spellshaping is pretty much exactly what the wizard needs to feel like a wizard, and they should just be switched to 4 slots and call it a day

4 slots, the Technomancer jailbreak class feature, being able to free action swap prepared spells with school spells, totally redesigned from the ground up schools. Thesis should all be feats or removed, I agree

Agonarchy wrote:

The fire kineticist is a better example of what can be done, but misses things like fire-powered punches, melting terrain and objects, stoking the internal fires for an exhausting burst of energy, etc. which could allow a more varied set of options.

But that isn't the problem of a fire-themed focused caster, the problem is that in PF2e classes don't receive any support whatsoever after release.

If wizards (or casters in general) worked similarly to how the kineticist works in that they could choose one or a few "themes" to build around, even if certain options didn't exist right away they would probably exist at some point, assuming Paizo would print new ones every other book like it happens for spells currently.

That's one of the problems, yes. But in general Pathfinder is a very specific/proscriptive game. Spells do X, and if you want to something thematically related to X that isn't X, you probably need another spell. It's very inflexible in terms of the example above of all the different types of Fire Benders and how varied their abilities are despite it all being the same kind of magic.

The closest thing to that in PF2 is Kineticist with things like Base Kinesis, which is less proscriptive in what it does and opens up some variance.

If you were to make all the Fire Benders listed above in Pathfinder, you'd need a huge list of extra feats to enable it all and create the variance. That won't happen because as you pointed out: classes don't tend to get support post release. Splatbook classes more so, and Kineticist is the worst offender (Mythic for example doesn't really acknowledge Kineticist exists). But even if it did happen it's a ton of extra stuff, and past a certain point too much stuff becomes bloat.

To do it in a more narrative game, it's super easy, barely an inconvenience. You add a feature/aspect/whatever the system calls it to enable the things that make that character's fire bending different from "baseline", and you're done.

Of course, changing that makes this a totally different game, and there's upsides to things being detailed that you lose in a different style of game. It's also easier to sell lots of books since you can't print lists of extra feats/spells/etc in books if all that stuff is doable in the base rules.

* An anime that made the guy with bubblegum powers one of the main villains because he used it in all kinds of deadly ways.

Anime does that all the time. The Wrong Way To Use Healing Magic comes to mind as a good example. Hell, we have an anime about a super powerful dungeon explorer vending machine.

There's lots of anime stories you can tell really well in PF2 (Solo Levelling as an example), but there's also these other ones where you really can't (at least not without massive homebrew and some handwaving).

ALTA is an example of something where the story its telling is just a bad match for PF2 as a system. Which is fine, since PF2 is good at the stories it wants to tell.

What I don't want to see with a spells as feats idea is a recreation of 4e. Spells didn't feel like spells in that game, and ironically martial abilities felt like spells. There was a lot that didn't feel distinct. It works better for kineticist, but if spells are tied to feats in some way it needs to function in a way that makes it stand apart and feel different from playing a non-magical character

I agree with your entire list, particularly grouping certain feats under certain categories so that it's easy to distribute them across classes without having to special-case them every time, but I especially want to touch upon the above because I think this would be especially relevant in the context of arcane magic. I would personally want spells to be made into feats, and I do think a lot D&D 4e's design has ended up proving quite successful when implemented elsewhere, but I also agree with you that its big mistake was in abstracting too far: because it took a gameplay-first approach rather than a flavor-first approach and tried generalizing classes to broad functional roles across martial-caster boundaries, the feeling of distinction between spells and martial abilities was lost. That, along with the balancing of spells compared to 3.5e, was in my opinion a major reason why so many players hated caster classes in that edition.

I don't think the problem is intractable, though, and in my opinion the best way to drive a distinction between the magical and the mundane is to identify what separates the two: for healing, for instance, a skilled medic might be able to work miracles, but would likely need to be close to their patient so that they can use the right tools on them. If they're crafty, they might perhaps have healing potions they can lob, but that still requires producing an item and throwing it. A Cleric, by contrast, can simply chant a prayer and close an ally's wounds from a distance, because their healing is not a product of their own physical capabilities so much as their faith. Similarly, even highly skilled martial characters are going to be unlikely to conjure temporary structures out of thin air, teleport creatures and objects, or cloak an area in an illusion. Martial characters shine as a result of their incredible physical abilities and skills, to the point where they can achieve impossible feats, but spellcasters shine at doing things that no amount of physical ability or skill can replicate, not even when taken to extreme levels. So long as that separation is preserved, I think magic-users and martials are likely to feel different from one another. This I think could lend itself particularly well to arcane magic, whose entire purpose is to achieve amazing things in our Universe that non-casters can maybe imagine and would very much desire, but could never achieve, like scry from across vast distances, levitate people and objects, or fire lightning bolts from your fingertips.

I'd quite like spell substitution as a default class feature instead of arcane bond on the Wizard, but I think the fundamental difference here is that the Wizard is otherwise the polar opposite of the Fighter: whereas the Fighter is an extremely focused class that pays a significant cost in versatility for their above-average Strike accuracy, the Wizard is meant to be an extremely versatile class with lots of different tricks up their sleeve. If the Wizard gave up a lot of their existing power, I could see that justifying better spell accuracy, but I also don't think that's necessarily how everyone would want to play the Wizard either. More broadly, the question of "What if the Wizard were X" tends to never draw much agreement, because there are so many different expectations going around of what the Wizard is supposed to be that orienting them in one specific direction is likely to always upset more people than it would please.

This is the real problem. If you ask 10 people "what should Wizard look like", you're getting 10 answers. It's a class with a ton of history and different ideas on what it looks like, which means it doesn't have a singular strong identity.

The remaster cost us one of the big identities it did have: the spell school specialist. That was a Wizard thing for a long time and it doesn't really exist anymore since the schools in question no longer exist (being a specialist in the "School of Ars Grammatica" is not really the same thing as being an Illusionist was).

PF2 itself cost us another one, which was the idea that Wizard is a master of magic, having the biggest spell list in the game, faster access to it than Sorcerer, and abilities like Spell Substitution (which you can get, but have to pick now). If your goal in PF1 was to have access to the most and strongest magic available, Wizard was a natural fit. Other casters gave you other stuff with tradeoffs, but no one was really matching the raw magical access Wizard was bringing to the table.

In PF2, a lot of that doesn't exist anymore and a bunch more of it doesn't matter because of the other changes to how spells work. I honestly couldn't tell you what PF2 Wizard's identity is, except that it exists because it's an iconic class in the history of the game. But in this edition the class has really lost its way.

AestheticDialectic wrote:

What I don't want to see with a spells as feats idea is a recreation of 4e. Spells didn't feel like spells in that game, and ironically martial abilities felt like spells. There was a lot that didn't feel distinct. It works better for kineticist, but if spells are tied to feats in some way it needs to function in a way that makes it stand apart and feel different from playing a non-magical character

I agree with your entire list, particularly grouping certain feats under certain categories so that it's easy to distribute them across classes without having to special-case them every time, but I especially want to touch upon the above because I think this would be especially relevant in the context of arcane magic. I would personally want spells to be made into feats, and I do think a lot D&D 4e's design has ended up proving quite successful when implemented elsewhere, but I also agree with you that its big mistake was in abstracting too far: because it took a gameplay-first approach rather than a flavor-first approach and tried generalizing classes to broad functional roles across martial-caster boundaries, the feeling of distinction between spells and martial abilities was lost. That, along with the balancing of spells compared to 3.5e, was in my opinion a major reason why so many players hated caster classes in that edition.

I don't think the problem is intractable, though, and in my opinion the best way to drive a distinction between the magical and the mundane is to identify what separates the two: for healing, for instance, a skilled medic might be able to work miracles, but would likely need to be close to their patient so that they can use the right tools on them. If they're crafty, they might perhaps have healing potions they can lob, but that still requires producing an item and throwing it. A Cleric, by contrast, can simply chant a prayer and close an ally's wounds from a distance, because their healing is not a product of their own physical capabilities so...

Sure the effects are an important part but I also think the mechanics of using magic being distinct helps much more in creating the divide. Particularly when we have magical martials such as champions, monks and the thaumaturge. A big thing for me especially is how many abilities, kinds of effects, do we get to select for a spellcaster at a time? Is it a separate feat track like impulses? Kineticist for example do far fewer things than our current casters. It works well for them, and may work well for a sorcerer, but it wouldn't feel right for a wizard. Innate magic and spellcasting could function differently and sorcerers can be the poster child for this innate magic system, and kineticist later being another inmate magic class if they bring them back again. Sorcerer and kineticist want a streamlined system of fewer effects to choose from and few abilities they have access to at a given time. For better and worse I do think even as people disagree about the wizard in our d20 fantasy people are going to want more breadth than this system might offer. I do want to move past vancian magic, but I also think that I would want the wizard in specific to still be able to fill up their book with as many spells as possible. I do also think druids and clerics shouldn't be given their whole list and it should be limited by choice of subclass/deity. I also think that we could argue Bard should be moved under the hypothetical wizard super class as they're studious in the lore

But in this edition the class has really lost its way.

I mean let's be real here, it never really had a way. The biggest thing PF2 did to destroy its 'identity' over older editions was make it less overpowered, which says a lot about what the class actually does.

That said, having a class that's generic and self referential isn't necessarily bad. The wizard is mostly just a little bit underbaked and saddled with a terrible casting mechanic.

Tridus wrote:

But in this edition the class has really lost its way.

I mean let's be real here, it never really had a way. The biggest thing PF2 did to destroy its 'identity' over older editions was make it less overpowered, which says a lot about what the class actually does.

That said, having a class that's generic and self referential isn't necessarily bad. The wizard is mostly just a little bit underbaked and saddled with a terrible casting mechanic.

Well, it's more like with the changes to spell castings (primarily that spell DC isn't based on spell rank) along with spontaneous casters having the ability to swap and retrain spells in their repertoire as they level, and having signature spells...

If you want to give wizards something that gives them a real advantage (but what I'm about to suggest is broken) would be letting them swap a prepared spell slot to any spell known as a single action. Then their large spell list would be useful, having the perfect spell for any situation. Obviously this is broken, so you'd have to set a limit of how many times a day they can do it. How many is appropriate? I'm not sure. Maybe it scales up to being doable like 4 times per day. Of course, something like this should be a class feature and not a class feat. But suddenly having the biggest and most diverse spell list is meaningful and wizards can in theory have the perfect spell for any situation.

It's like spell substation on steroids, but it works better in this edition when scouting ahead and knowing what's coming well enough to actually tailor your entire spell list to the adventuring day is not impractical but kind of impossible.

Of course, then the problem is that YOU the player need to know what the perfect spell for the situation is.

I think they would have been fine if they had just tossed out the idea of the PF1 wizard and built the wizard like it was made for PF2.

To me it felt like the designers didn't understand why the wizard was so good as the wizard was great less due to class features which very few people cared about other than maybe the divination initiative bonus.

The 3E/PF1 wizard was so great for the following systemic reasons:

1. Best spell list in the game and it wasn't even close. Every major buff, debuff, damage, utility, and etcetera spell. It had everything but healing for the most part and you could access healing with limited wish and wish.

2. Metamagic was amazing. Prepared casting or certain feats allowed very efficient use of metamagic.

3. Access to amazing feats that boosted DC and allowed you to turn a few spells into spontaneous.

4. Huge number of slots.

5. Slots were flexible and could be kept empty throughout day.

6. Intelligence based skills were the main way to recall knowledge and were a free action to use. They knew everything.

7. Skill points went off intelligence. Intelligence was a highly valuable stat because of how it impacted skills.

8. Crafting and magic items was amazing. Wizards got free feats for crafting items as well as metamagic. They had every spell when the spells you could access mattered for crafting magic items.

When you try to build the wizard class like it was in PF1, then rip apart every systemic advantage that made the wizard what it was you're setting yourself up for a big fail.

The reason the wizard feels bad is the base class is built like the PF1 wizard which would have been an equally unattractive class in PF1 if all the systemic advantages they had were removed like they were in PF2.

The PF1 wizard would have been a terrible class if it hadn't had so many built in system advantages in PF1. The designers didn't quite seem to grasp how important these system advantages were to the power and attractiveness of the wizard class.

Thus they should have thrown out the PF1 wizard template as it had very little to do with drawing people to the wizard class and remade the wizard with PF2 in mind. More focus on a few really potent class abilities mixed with high quality focus spells versus ripping the system down then expecting things like school specialization to be anything anyone wanted by making a spell slot dependent on school when all the reasons that was worthwhile are gone. They are even more gone in PF2 Remastered with the schools removed and the spell choices so narrow.

I just feel the designers need to let someone have a go at a PF2 wizard that is completely free form any association with the old one at this point. There's nothing that looks great there any more other than the name.

A big thing for me especially is how many abilities, kinds of effects, do we get to select for a spellcaster at a time? Is it a separate feat track like impulses? Kineticist for example do far fewer things than our current casters. It works well for them, and may work well for a sorcerer, but it wouldn't feel right for a wizard. Innate magic and spellcasting could function differently and sorcerers can be the poster child for this innate magic system, and kineticist later being another inmate magic class if they bring them back again. Sorcerer and kineticist want a streamlined system of fewer effects to choose from and few abilities they have access to at a given time. For better and worse I do think even as people disagree about the wizard in our d20 fantasy people are going to want more breadth than this system might offer. I do want to move past vancian magic, but I also think that I would want the wizard in specific to still be able to fill up their book with as many spells as possible. I do also think druids and clerics shouldn't be given their whole list and it should be limited by choice of subclass/deity. I also think that we could argue Bard should be moved under the hypothetical wizard super class as they're studious in the lore

I feel this is a request more specific to the Wizard than anything else. If even the Sorcerer could wield magic in the form of at-will feats and still feel like a spellcaster next to magical martials, the problem isn't that spellcasters need spells as their own separate thing, spell slots, and Vancian spell preparation to be seen as such, but that the Wizard in particular is exceptionally well-suited to being the archetypal Vancian spellcaster with a big bag of tricks, and it would feel weird if strictly no character class offered that mode of play. I think it is entirely possible to have a Vancian caster in a world where spellcasters don't normally use spell slots, and if the Wizard were the only class to use this system, I think they'd have a much better chance of standing out for their versatility. Otherwise, though, I do think complexity should be opt-in, and don't think spellcasters as a group of classes need to be defined by having dozens of limited-use powers.

As for Bards, Clerics, Druids, and other caster classes, I think perceptions of those have already shifted past spell slots anyway: a lot of people expect Druids to be strong shapeshifters, for instance, and that's not something you can get in large amounts while also having dozens more spells you could cast at maximum potency. Bards I think have always toed the line between magic-user and skilled performer, and I think it would be okay if the line between performance and magic were blurred for them. Clerics, meanwhile, I think could benefit significantly from a categorization system like the one you mention, if this categorization meant each deity provided access to a whole range of spells based on their domains, rather than three specific slot spells and a few focus spells. I'd go as far as to say that Vancian spell preparation doesn't even necessarily make the most sense for either Wisdom class, so it'd be worth seeing how either would feel without it.

Deriven that's a wonderful breakdown of why the wizard used to be good.

And to breakdown the current situation:
1) Spell list has been reigned in some, but also the other spell lists are competitive in terms of offerings. Also spell lists are themed around the essences of magic and how they combine.
2) Metamagic basically isn't a thing. I mean it is, as spellshapes. But they're just....not good. And take extra actions (typically) to cast a spell using them can be a bit painful. A big part of prepared metamagic compared to spontaneous (in PF1) was that it DIDN'T cost extra actions.
3) There's basically no feats that are DC enhancers (probably the best for game balance, but still a blow).
4) Everybody lost spell slots, but it feels extra bad on the wizard.
5) This can still kind of be done via spell substitution, but the 10 min swap time and lack of foreknowledge makes it challenging.
6 & 7) Int is kind of not good in this edition. It boost Arcane, Occult, and Lore skills. And lore skills are of questionable value, cause you have to guess what lore you want, and while it theoretically could have a lower DC to know something, its dependent on your GM and and what your lore is. Probably what's most painful is that more INT doesn't mean more skill progression ranks (which is roughly equivalent to skill points). So being smart doesn't make a wizard better at more skills the way it did in the past. You can be smart a few topics, but the Rogue and Investigator will always beat you are number of topics excelled at.
8) Crafting in general isn't great. If everyone else has access to on level ways of making money, crafting doesn't give you any more value than other people Earning an Income. And again while you could craft items that aren't accessible....you can't craft for the whole party so the party is going to get access to necessary gear because they have to. Or your GM has to adjust encounters for not having the expected gear.

I just had a thought....what is we did kill Vancian casting in a way. What if we just remade the wizard to be a bit like the Arcanist of PF1.

What if wizards prepared a number of spells known per day, rather than individual spell slot. The wizard memorizes X many spell per rank per day, and can cast any of those spells out of their slots.

I think the whole "I forgot my spells" thing as soon as they were cast was something that most people didn't actually like.

I feel this is a request more specific to the Wizard than anything else. If even the Sorcerer could wield magic in the form of at-will feats and still feel like a spellcaster next to magical martials, the problem isn't that spellcasters need spells as their own separate thing, spell slots, and Vancian spell preparation to be seen as such, but that the Wizard in particular is exceptionally well-suited to being the archetypal Vancian spellcaster with a big bag of tricks, and it would feel weird if strictly no character class offered that mode of play. I think it is entirely possible to have a Vancian caster in a world where spellcasters don't normally use spell slots, and if the Wizard were the only class to use this system, I think they'd have a much better chance of standing out for their versatility. Otherwise, though, I do think complexity should be opt-in, and don't think spellcasters as a group of classes need to be defined by having dozens of limited-use powers.

As for Bards, Clerics, Druids, and other caster classes, I think perceptions of those have already shifted past spell slots anyway: a lot of people expect Druids to be strong shapeshifters, for instance, and that's not something you can get in large amounts while also having dozens more spells you could cast at maximum potency. Bards I think have always toed the line between magic-user and skilled performer, and I think it would be okay if the line between performance and magic were blurred for them. Clerics, meanwhile, I think could benefit significantly from a categorization system like the one you mention, if this categorization meant each deity provided access to a whole range of spells based on their domains, rather than three specific slot spells and a few focus spells. I'd go as far as to say that Vancian spell preparation doesn't even necessarily make the most sense for either Wisdom class, so it'd be worth seeing how either would feel without it.

It could be the case in our hypothetical system we are half dreaming up here that we have our four traditions, and for magic that is innate(sorcerer, kineticist) or magic given through patronage(cleric, oracle) that class feats give you the spells, but if you're under the wizard super class you get something more like our current system. I am also kind of feeling that it would be cool to have each use a different stat. I really feel that instead of charisma innate magic should be a new stat called volition or willpower, or constitution like it is for the current kineticist. Likewise I think it is logical that divine/granted magic be keyed off charisma as you are invoking, beseeching, what gives you the power to perform the magic. Then our studied magic, our wizard super class, is all intelligence. Wisdom gets rolled into intelligence, and I really truly feel wisdom only felt appropriate for the druid, and I suppose now the animist, but I really did not feel fit the cleric. Especially because charisma in the etymological origin is a divine gift. I very much agree that classes that aren't literally the wizard or spellcasters that are essentially wizards with stronger themes, a kineticist system works perfectly fine and it's really dudes that are performing the magic themselves as spells as something learned and created, that they are the only ones I really want operating closer to how it is now, but with tweaks that move us out of spells being a daily resource perhaps. I also feel that the two aforementioned groups of innate and granted magic would be characters that more naturally incorporate non-spell abilities and skills into their kit, where our wizard-like characters are purely about spells. Druids shapeshifting and having animal companions, Clerics wearing armor and recreationally swinging a weapon etc

I just had a thought....what is we did kill Vancian casting in a way. What if we just remade the wizard to be a bit like the Arcanist of PF1.

What if wizards prepared a number of spells known per day, rather than individual spell slot. The wizard memorizes X many spell per rank per day, and can cast any of those spells out of their slots.

I think the whole "I forgot my spells" thing as soon as they were cast was something that most people didn't actually like.

Everyone wants that, though. It's one of the things 5e does that actually works better than PF2. If I were doing a PF3, Vancian casting as we know it in PF1/2 wouldn't exist.

And while this would help Wizard play better, it's doing so by reducing the burden of preparation rather than by giving some advantage to preparation.

Yeah, I wouldn't like "spell feats" either because that's one of the problems 4e had. It works for the kineticist because its hyper specialized but it wouldn't for a regular caster, even in a world with non-vancian gameplay casters. In fact, I think Paizo already has the best system to replace vancian casting; the way focus spells work. A system where casters would prepare 3-5 spells which they can change and/or recover with a 10 minute rest between encounters.

I also think it really doesn't make much sense for at least spell attacks to not scale like weapons do for martials. The 5-6 and 13-14 levels are common points of frustation for caster players and I think it wouldn't really break anything if it where to be changed (either in a future edition or as a variant rule or class archetype in PF2e) because casters are scale equal to martials for 16 out of 20 levels already, so those 4 levels in which they don't feel notoriously bad.

Going back to the "themes" idea I mentioned for casters earlier, I would probably make something that mixes the mechanics of arcane schools, kineticist elements, and spheres from the 3pp supplement Spheres of Power from PF1e. Each "theme" (placeholder name) would have its trait (like "mental", "polymorph", etc.) and just by virtue of having that theme selected you'll have access to a related Base Kinesis-like cantrip to use. A caster would gain access to the spells that shared the trait of the "theme" or"themes" they selected. A prepared caster would be able to prepare their spells and "themes" each day at the beggining of the day, while a spontaneous caster would learn them through leveling and they would need to retrain to change them.

It could be the case in our hypothetical system we are half dreaming up here that we have our four traditions, and for magic that is innate(sorcerer, kineticist) or magic given through patronage(cleric, oracle) that class feats give you the spells, but if you're under the wizard super class you get something more like our current system. I am also kind of feeling that it would be cool to have each use a different stat. I really feel that instead of charisma innate magic should be a new stat called volition or willpower, or constitution like it is for the current kineticist. Likewise I think it is logical that divine/granted magic be keyed off charisma as you are invoking, beseeching, what gives you the power to perform the magic. Then our studied magic, our wizard super class, is all intelligence. Wisdom gets rolled into intelligence, and I really truly feel wisdom only felt appropriate for the druid, and I suppose now the animist, but I really did not feel fit the cleric. Especially because charisma in the etymological origin is a divine gift. I very much agree that classes that aren't literally the wizard or spellcasters that are essentially wizards with stronger themes, a kineticist system works perfectly fine and it's really dudes that are performing the magic themselves as spells as something learned and created, that they are the only ones I really want operating closer to how it is now, but with tweaks that move us out of spells being a daily resource perhaps. I also feel that the two aforementioned groups of innate and granted magic would be characters that more naturally incorporate non-spell abilities and skills into their kit, where our wizard-like characters are purely about spells. Druids shapeshifting and having animal companions, Clerics wearing armor and recreationally swinging a weapon etc

I could definitely see this happening, yeah. Categories as we're imagining them here I think are effectively traits: just as traits can be used to categorize feats, creatures, and other game elements, so can they be used to categorize magic, whether in the form of spells or feats in the same way the rest (and we do have tradition traits even in 2e). One of the reason I'm a proponent of spells as feats is that this would make it a lot easier to integrate magic with the rest of the game: if spells by default were at-will feats with one or more magic tradition traits, for instance, and fire Kineticists could access every such primal fire feat, they wouldn't need as many feats custom-made to fit them in order to access a wide variety of different effects, including utility effects like Thermal Remedy or fiery punches through Flame Dancer. It also in my opinion makes spells a bigger deal, since getting magical powers piecemeal from feats, even if you have more feats than other classes, I think makes those powers feel more individually significant, and could let those powers be stronger and more individually versatile too.

To bring up some of the above again: I do genuinely believe Vancian casting is very easy to bolt onto non-Vancian mechanics, even if the reverse isn't true: to use this homebrew as an example, it effectively takes the Kineticist and turns their impulses into daily spells, even letting you choose between prepared or spontaneous spellcasting. The switch from level scaling to slot-based scaling isn't too difficult to do, either, so anyone wanting Vancian spellcasting could easily start with a framework of at-will feats and work from there. By contrast, it's extremely difficult to take existing spells and make them usable at-will in a way that doesn't severely distort gameplay. Thus, if Vancian casting were to no longer be the default, it could still easily exist, and you could have your Wizards shine with a much wider range of the same magic that arcane Sorcerers could instead cast at-will from a much smaller selection.

In fact, if we were to put Vancian casting aside for a moment: suppose that if in this hypothetical framework, casters get magic from feats in the same way that martials get their own abilities, that would open up a huge amount of space for each of those casters to get much wilder class features. If Kineticists can get master armor proficiency, legendary Fort saves, effectively 10 HP per level, a bunch of other goodies, and still get six bonus impulse feats that they can progressively swap out, imagine what you could give to a Sorcerer or a Wizard: with a 6 HP/level cloth caster chassis, I'd say it would be extremely easy to justify a Wizard having twice as many feats as other classes, or being able to retrain their spell feats on a daily basis or even faster alongside other arcane-themed benefits. Casters tend to struggle with having fun feats because most of their power and complexity is focused on their spells already, but if their feats are their spells, it would be easy to give the Wizard heaps of spell feats that could each feel genuinely really strong.

As for attributes, my personal opinion is that they're legacy design that's made redundant by proficiencies, and I'd gladly see them taken out in future editions, but if we're keeping attributes, I could definitely get behind rejigging them so that they have stronger thematic and mechanical significance. Wisdom I think is difficult to design for because it's fairly passive and in practice defines senses more than good judgment, and I'd be happy to tie it into Intelligence if it helps establish a clearer distinction between characters who are sharp-minded and characters who have compelling personalities.

2. Metamagic was amazing. Prepared casting or certain feats allowed very efficient use of metamagic.

3. Access to amazing feats that boosted DC and allowed you to turn a few spells into spontaneous.

4. Huge number of slots.

5. Slots were flexible and could be kept empty throughout day.

6. Intelligence based skills were the main way to recall knowledge and were a free action to use. They knew everything.

The funny thing is that the wizard has partial access to all of these things through their thesis, but they only get one thesis, and from my (admittedly limited) experience the end result is that you have a situation where any one of these points can be taken for a given wizard but not all, and for no thematic gain because unlike most other subclasses the thesis makes no sense as to why it's limited.

Just give the wizard more thesis, cut bonded item (or make it universalist only, w.e.) if needed.

In fact, if we were to put Vancian casting aside for a moment: suppose that if in this hypothetical framework, casters get magic from feats in the same way that martials get their own abilities, that would open up a huge amount of space for each of those casters to get much wilder class features. If Kineticists can get master armor proficiency, legendary Fort saves, effectively 10 HP per level, a bunch of other goodies, and still get six bonus impulse feats that they can progressively swap out, imagine what you could give to a Sorcerer or a Wizard: with a 6 HP/level cloth caster chassis, I'd say it would be extremely easy to justify a Wizard having twice as many feats as other classes, or being able to retrain their spell feats on a daily basis or even faster alongside other arcane-themed benefits. Casters tend to struggle with having fun feats because most of their power and complexity is focused on their spells already, but if their feats are their spells, it would be easy to give the Wizard heaps of spell feats that could each feel genuinely really strong.

I am quite attached to a 3.5e homebrew that amounts to a spell point systems in reverse mainly because of thematics. They use the terminology "spellpoint" and "mana" but what I like is that casting spells is additive rather than typical mana systems in video games which are subtractive. While the execution needs work, the flavor of casting spells building up stress in your mind and body tickles something in my brain. What I would like is that all spells become at-will and use a modified version of this system where it's 10 minutes rests like focus spells to clear your accumulated strain from exerting yourself, it is designed to such that you are expected to maybe cast 1-3 of your most powerful spells in an encounter. Lower rank spells contribute less strain and eventually none. Like focus points I would prefer the pool be done with small numbers if possible rather than what they have. I think this could be combined with spells as feats too. Spells could have five, or maybe 4(?) tiers associated with proficiency Novice, Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary, or alternatively Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary, Mythic. We can tag spells into traditions, classes have a traditionbthey give access to. Each class can fit under a super class and this is handle through tags like you're saying and this sorts them into different broad categories of how their magic works. The wizard group not getting spells through feats, or exclusively feats. Wizards pick from the same spell list of the tradition the class gives you, but they prepare a set amount in each proficiency tier, and while prepared they use the same strain system. How much they can swap them, and how many prepared "slots" they get can be determined by the class itself. Maybe necro gets less flexibility because they have bespoke spells like the playtest necro. What I cannot innate magic, and granted magic, can function the same but granted magic could have fewer spells given by feats and more bespoke abilities? Trying to figure out what makes these two better than the wizard classes I conjured up. I definitely want to move past one-and-done vancian magic, and I think most people do too. Feels like variant rule territory

Deriven Firelion wrote:

2. Metamagic was amazing. Prepared casting or certain feats allowed very efficient use of metamagic.

3. Access to amazing feats that boosted DC and allowed you to turn a few spells into spontaneous.

4. Huge number of slots.

5. Slots were flexible and could be kept empty throughout day.

6. Intelligence based skills were the main way to recall knowledge and were a free action to use. They knew everything.

The funny thing is that the wizard has partial access to all of these things through their thesis, but they only get one thesis, and from my (admittedly limited) experience the end result is that you have a situation where any one of these points can be taken for a given wizard but not all, and for no thematic gain because unlike most other subclasses the thesis makes no sense as to why it's limited.

Just give the wizard more thesis, cut bonded item (or make it universalist only, w.e.) if needed.

The point wasn't that the wizard has access. The point was all of those things aren't what makes a class strong anymore. They are all weak abilities because the system has been gutted making all of those things less powerful and less attractive to take.

For example, who cares if the wizard gets more trained skills because trained skills don't mean much anymore. Skills scale up to legendary and the system builds the rolls assuming you scaled up the skills. Intelligence does nothing to build skills up.

When you change the entire system to make all the things that made a class great weak, then the class ends up weak.

You can even see this in reverse for a class like they fighter where the made value of a strong attack roll much stronger due to the increase power of crits based on your attack roll with the plus 10 above rule.

The base system changed making the things that made classes strong vastly different. In PF2 for casters, good focus spells and useful class abilities that you can build with class feats make the class strong. Having a ton of spells when fights are shorter and you're action starved doesn't do a whole lot. You need impactful abilities that will be impactful if you go days with only one or two fights like you might in a module like Kingmaker.

PF2 is a very different system. It has made very different abilities valuable while the wizard seems stuck being what it was in PF1 and when all that made them so valuable has been vastly weakened or changed.

While I respect that there is a lot of fun theory crafting happening, a few of these ideas we would be lucky to get in a 3e as it is to major a change. I am not convinced that making the Wizard more potent is bad merely because it doesn't fit the idea of the versatile wizard, which we acknowledge wasn't everyone's idea of a wizard anyways.

It doesn't really matter about making it wrong as long as we don't make it worse, because the current wizard is the worse it has ever been. It is so bad it created a misconception about the Arcane list that started this thread. This is all a hope dream, but if there is ever going to be a Reremaster of the Wizard that we will see and be able to enjoy in this edition we should theory craft towards simpler changes to the class. So far we have a lot of that.

Unless it would absolutely break the game I am not convinced that letting flexibility be from a huge spell list, swappable spellshapes and spells between combat, and emphasis of spell power through earlier Expert, Master, and Legendary is something to simply dismiss because its not perfect for everyone. It is practical on a printing level and thats what might, with luck, get Paizo to change. Things that already have page space get moved from the feat and thesis side to the class chassis side, and you change Trained to Expert, Expert to Master, Master to Legendary, and delete the redundant Legendary, where you find them related to Spell Modifier. Secondarily Paizo can emphasize more exclusively Arcane spells with new book releases.

While there might be more fixes to add, this is simple and practical. It doesn't matter if it isn't the wizard everyone wants because the wizard we have is the wizard no one wants. We need a buff for the wizard practical enough that someone is going to want to play it and Paizo is willing to print it. Hell my suggestion is so simple it could be done in an errata.

While I respect that there is a lot of fun theory crafting happening, a few of these ideas we would be lucky to get in a 3e as it is to major a change. I am not convinced that making the Wizard more potent is bad merely because it doesn't fit the idea of the versatile wizard, which we acknowledge wasn't everyone's idea of a wizard anyways.

It doesn't really matter about making it wrong as long as we don't make it worse, because the current wizard is the worse it has ever been. It is so bad it created a misconception about the Arcane list that started this thread. This is all a hope dream, but if there is ever going to be a Reremaster of the Wizard that we will see and be able to enjoy in this edition we should theory craft towards simpler changes to the class. So far we have a lot of that.

Unless it would absolutely break the game I am not convinced that letting flexibility be from a huge spell list, swappable spellshapes and spells between combat, and emphasis of spell power through earlier Expert, Master, and Legendary is something to simply dismiss because its not perfect for everyone. It is practical on a printing level and thats what might, with luck, get Paizo to change. Things that already have page space get moved from the feat and thesis side to the class chassis side, and you change Trained to Expert, Expert to Master, Master to Legendary, and delete the redundant Legendary, where you find them related to Spell Modifier. Secondarily Paizo can emphasize more exclusively Arcane spells with new book releases.

While there might be more fixes to add, this is simple and practical. It doesn't matter if it isn't the wizard everyone wants because the wizard we have is the wizard no one wants. We need a buff for the wizard practical enough that someone is going to want to play it and Paizo is willing to print it. Hell my suggestion is so simple it could be done in an errata.

You're overstating it quite a bit here. The wizard like all casters in this game has a solid baseline and is perfectly acceptable from a balance perspective. It has powerful feats and features, and can sneak in power through a deceptive ability to inflate the amount of slotted spells it has well above what other casters can do. The problem with the class is that the skill floor is too high, and the skill ceiling feels too low given the high skill floor. The "juice isn't worth the squeeze". The class as is doesn't actually need a whole hell of a lot as evidenced by the fact people really only want more feats and for spell substitution to become a baseline class feature

I disagree. This is a long thread and it isn't filled with wizard defenders. Everyone has one reason or another to explain why the wizard is only playable compared to where other classes are excelling.

We want spell substitution as part of base despite it being something you can already have at level one. The class needs a lot more added to it than getting what you already have as a default.

It is well detailed by Firelion that PF2e Wizard is PF1e Wizard with all the bells and whistles pulled off. Now we wouldn't want them back on because we don't want the PF1e wizard back, but importantly it really has very little to show how it has adapted to 2e, making it the worst of all solutions.

I agree fully that the perfect solution is one of the grander ideas above that can really address the wizards flaws at its core, making a whole new class, but these ideas are limited also in how system wide they would be too necessitating a wait till 3e.

My idea is only a band aid, but at least we could say that the class identity of wizard could be as simple as "the fighter of casters" and its simple enough it could be in an errata.

Madhippy3 wrote:

While I respect that there is a lot of fun theory crafting happening, a few of these ideas we would be lucky to get in a 3e as it is to major a change. I am not convinced that making the Wizard more potent is bad merely because it doesn't fit the idea of the versatile wizard, which we acknowledge wasn't everyone's idea of a wizard anyways.

It doesn't really matter about making it wrong as long as we don't make it worse, because the current wizard is the worse it has ever been. It is so bad it created a misconception about the Arcane list that started this thread. This is all a hope dream, but if there is ever going to be a Reremaster of the Wizard that we will see and be able to enjoy in this edition we should theory craft towards simpler changes to the class. So far we have a lot of that.

Unless it would absolutely break the game I am not convinced that letting flexibility be from a huge spell list, swappable spellshapes and spells between combat, and emphasis of spell power through earlier Expert, Master, and Legendary is something to simply dismiss because its not perfect for everyone. It is practical on a printing level and thats what might, with luck, get Paizo to change. Things that already have page space get moved from the feat and thesis side to the class chassis side, and you change Trained to Expert, Expert to Master, Master to Legendary, and delete the redundant Legendary, where you find them related to Spell Modifier. Secondarily Paizo can emphasize more exclusively Arcane spells with new book releases.

While there might be more fixes to add, this is simple and practical. It doesn't matter if it isn't the wizard everyone wants because the wizard we have is the wizard no one wants. We need a buff for the wizard practical enough that someone is going to want to play it and Paizo is willing to print it. Hell my suggestion is so simple it could be done in an errata.

You're overstating it quite a bit here. The wizard like all casters in this game has a solid...

The power is fine. It's in line with all other features.

Yep. Spell Substitution should be a class feature like the wizard version of Sorcerous Potency.

I would like to see Curriculums made way more interesting. Get rid of the extra curriculum spell slot and give them 4.

Give the curriculum more interesting focus spells focused on what they're supposed to do well.

Almost every caster I play right now barely ever uses all their slots in a day and I don't even play a wizard. It's not necessary. Spell slots might stand out in a really long fight, but even them a magic item or good focus spell would be equally useful.

I disagree. This is a long thread and it isn't filled with wizard defenders. Everyone has one reason or another to explain why the wizard is only playable compared to where other classes are excelling.

Yeah because these arguments have been going on for years now and most people are exhausted. You're late to the party

I just had a thought....what is we did kill Vancian casting in a way. What if we just remade the wizard to be a bit like the Arcanist of PF1.

What if wizards prepared a number of spells known per day, rather than individual spell slot. The wizard memorizes X many spell per rank per day, and can cast any of those spells out of their slots.

I think the whole "I forgot my spells" thing as soon as they were cast was something that most people didn't actually like.

You just described Flexible Spellcaster, only without its costs: cantrips, spell slot per rank and 2nd level feat.

Everyone wants [vancian magic to be killed off], though.

I promise you, "everyone" does not want that. For example, I don't.

And while this would help Wizard play better, it's doing so by reducing the burden of preparation rather than by giving some advantage to preparation.

I guess the problem here is that "preparation" is really GM dependent. And in PF2 you don't even have good tools to try to figure out what to expect. In past editions you had powerful divination magic that had a long duration and worked over long distances. Now, you basically have nothing that would allow you to reasonably prepare for a full day's adventure.

To be honest, I think the game is better if the GM doesn't have to worry about what they should tell the player (especially in a home brew campaign) nor the player need to worry about tailoring this list to get the "I know the perfect spell" effect.

Madhippy3 wrote:

I disagree. This is a long thread and it isn't filled with wizard defenders. Everyone has one reason or another to explain why the wizard is only playable compared to where other classes are excelling.

Yeah because these arguments have been going on for years now and most people are exhausted. You're late to the party

I've been banging the "Wizards are poorly designed" drum since 2019. The Remaster made them worse, and Paizo seems to constantly have their head in the sand.

Paizo have declined to share how their internally Satisfaction/Success metrics work, so we can only guess at how we truely got to the current state.

While I respect that there is a lot of fun theory crafting happening, a few of these ideas we would be lucky to get in a 3e as it is to major a change. I am not convinced that making the Wizard more potent is bad merely because it doesn't fit the idea of the versatile wizard, which we acknowledge wasn't everyone's idea of a wizard anyways.

It doesn't really matter about making it wrong as long as we don't make it worse, because the current wizard is the worse it has ever been. It is so bad it created a misconception about the Arcane list that started this thread. This is all a hope dream, but if there is ever going to be a Reremaster of the Wizard that we will see and be able to enjoy in this edition we should theory craft towards simpler changes to the class. So far we have a lot of that.

I'll put this at the top of my post so that you don't have to sift through a bunch of brainstorming, but if it's of any interest, I did homebrew a Wizard rework a while back that may be of use. In short: it strips back the extra curriculum slot and supercharges the class's arcane thesis to create this "choose your own Wizard" framework, where your thesis really defines how your class plays. If you want to fully commit to flexible spellcasting, maximum spell output, or spellshapes, there'd be a different arcane thesis for each of these options that would give you exactly what you'd want. On a secondary note, the brew's feats let you dip into other arcane schools and improve your scholarly abilities in a variety of ways. None of this is ever likely to be made into official material (and, IMO, we're unlikely to see another Wizard rework in 2e's lifetime unless it's in an Unchained rulebook much later on), but it could help you enjoy the Wizard more at your table.

I am quite attached to a 3.5e homebrew that amounts to a spell point systems in reverse mainly because of thematics. They use the terminology "spellpoint" and "mana" but what I like is that casting spells is additive rather than typical mana systems in video games which are subtractive. While the execution needs work, the flavor of casting spells building up stress in your mind and body tickles something in my brain. What I would like is that all spells become at-will and use a modified version of this system where it's 10 minutes rests like focus spells to clear your accumulated strain from exerting yourself, it is designed to such that you are expected to maybe cast 1-3 of your most powerful spells in an encounter. Lower rank spells contribute less strain and eventually none. Like focus points I would prefer the pool be done with small numbers if possible rather than what they have. I think this could be combined with spells as feats too.

I like this system, and I think being able to push your magic to its limits at the risk of overexerting yourself is something that could really fit a Psychic or a Sorcerer in particular. Really, there's actually quite a lot of different possible modes of spellcasting out there:

Paizo have declined to share how their internally Satisfaction/Success metrics work, so we can only guess at how we truely got to the current state.

I honestly doubt they have such metrics at all.

By all accounts, it really seems like there is outright no "real" QA pass where new content goes through a dedicated checker. Too many things make it to print that would get caught by a dedicated check pass, like impulses being published without a range entry.

Pf2 is a system where a monster with +10 to its rock throw attack entry gets published, but never gets any form of official correction. Not even an acknowledgment of error. That is not a "red flag," that is simply proof positive that Paizo sell an incomplete and erroneous product.

Not only is there a "well vs poorly designed" question, that entire premise is complicated by existing in a swamp where we first must confront what was an error of language and what was an intentional design choice.

The only times the community really digs into this is when an error creates an outright break in play, because we have to. If we were honest and allowed more RaI talk to enter discussions, there would be too many open questions to play the game. (Such as how to best nerf blatant outliers mistakes like Timber Sentinel)
The community's rather hard-RaW stance is borne out of necessity; it came about because it plays from a text full of errors, gamebreaking and otherwise.
(to this day, Paizo has never fixed the weakness / resistance text to match how Foundry and most tables play. If that procedure is correct, the text needs to be changed to provide that procedure.)

There is simply no excuse in the year 2025 to not have a public facing list of official errors and corrections for a game system as complex as pf2. Only learning of the errata when it sent to physical print is insanity. You don't wait to share errata, as soon as the error is recognized and addressed internally, it is to be immediately shared with those it affects.

No judge is going give a lawyer a pass to not fix that rock throw entry "because it's so minor and obvious." If the lawyer is aware of a factual error, they must correct the record ASAP. Because that ethos is the only way to preserve system integrity.

Tiny 3rd party devs would not attempt that bullsht, yet afaik Paizo themself have never recognized this as an unacceptable problem they are committed to fixing. Not even having a commitment or promise from Paizo is insane.

_______________

This problem of Paizo simply having no sound internal procedure is quite harmful, and even creates issues that errata simply cannot fix.

Wtf is a steelman sane guy in Paizo supposed to do now that Firework Tech was published with recharging VVials?
It's blatantly obvious that recharging alchemy is intended to be the core chassis feature exclusive to R:Alchemist. But because that "unstated design rule" was not in a memo, not provided inside a real "design bible," nor was there a QA check to catch it, the dev tasked with Firework Tech failed to match the design.
Now, any PC can gain recharging VVials with a single dedication feat. The idea to unify Quick & Adv alch features has backfired horribly; instead of each alch archetype being siloed and isolated (for worse and for better), now, a single archetype can has already fked the balance for all of them. Only F.Tech was designed around those archetype VVs being rechargeable. Investigators don't even have the new 10min effect limit on Q:Alch, but use VVs.

The steelman sane dev cannot fix this with errata-level changes.
That archetype either needs to be completely redone, erased, or Paizo has to knowingly leave that "design break" as is simply because it's too much effort/disruption to correct it (or any other excuse/reason, such as fearing backlash for "taking away" erroneously-given power). The archetype alchemy system is and forever will be tainted by the existence of Firework Tech's recharging VVs; the entire subsystem's balance is just fked.

Without the ability to catch mistakes before publishing, nor the will to fix such mistakes after print, Paizo has created a reality where pf2 is a jenga tower. The system destabilizes and suffers from every "mistake" like Firework Technician until the mistakes are too much to bear, and pf2 is no longer an enjoyable experience worth playing nor paying for.

I wouldn't go that far; I do think Paizo checks its products for balance, consistency, and overall quality. I do think, however, that the company has set an unrealistically busy schedule for its developers since the OGL crisis that has had a tangible impact on the quality of its products, because crunch culture breeds mistakes. That, and there's always been an issue of different Paizo products being siloed from one another while in concurrent development, so bits of content end up clashing with each other, and content specific to certain APs or side expansions can end up not at all aligning with the game's normal standards of balance or design. Although I don't think those are necessarily unfixable problems, I do think they're fairly complex organizational problems that are difficult even for qualified people to fix, and that would take time to address.

I also don't think every mistake is necessarily the product of incompetence: sometimes, designers make executive decisions that are based on sound reasoning and are appropriate for what they're trying to achieve, but whose negative consequences are subtle and only revealed much later on. For instance, deciding to build the arcane list around the Wizard made some kind of sense at the time where the general philosophy was to pick an iconic caster class for each tradition and build the tradition's spell list around them. It meant that the Wizard had a fair amount of spells to choose from regardless of which OGL school of magic they selected, and thus catered very well to the class's design at the time. Now that Paizo moved away from the OGL and redesigned the Wizard accordingly, that bit of identity is lost for both the arcane list and the class, causing both to feel much less satisfactory as a result. Perhaps if Paizo had adopted a different approach for designing spell lists, it would have been much easier to future-proof the Wizard, as well as do other stuff like design a dedicated primal caster besides the Druid, but at the same time I don't think they can be blamed for another company choosing the pull the rug on what was meant to be an irrevocable license.

The reason this is such an unavoidable problem is because neither interpretation A nor B is considered acceptable in 2025.

Lets stick w/ Firework Tech as the example.

________
A: this is *not* a dev error.
This would mean that Paizo lacks a cohesive design bible where devs share understanding of base assumptions. This leads to (literally) random explosions in "power creep by carelessness," where it's considered "fine" if an Investigator takes F. Tech.
It's "fine" for a single spend of a dedication feat to result in net gain of power where the PC now buffs the entire party with every 8hr+ duration elixir in the system for no resource cost. As far as I know, this is genuinely is the largest power spike in all of pf2. The change from super limited daily elixirs into having no cap on the all-day buffs they can apply, to every ally creature.

A is unacceptable because the game balance is too amateur and poorly done to be a professional product.

________
B: this *is* a dev error.
This would mean that Paizo quickly became aware of the error after/during publishing, but has chosen to not admit to the error, and has made no public effort to correct it.

This is unacceptable, telling us that Paizo is not willing to spend the effort/capital to fix an error that is harming their own product. In 2025, the 3rd door of "being incapable of" does not exist. A simple text web page listing such errors is simply too low a barrier to even entertain such an option: C.
Yes, there would be a turnaround time from the moment such work began to the creation of that public-facing redress, but it would not be long. The lack of even a promise is very revealing, as such promises would need to be kept.

Until they inform us otherwise with a promise, we have no choice but to believe this lack of error correction is their intended methodology.

________

Being an Alchemist main and reading remaster Firework Tech has rather thoroughly rubbed my face in this unavoidable issue.

It doesn't matter if Paizo is too design-incompetent to uphold their own design presumptions, like limited VVs, or if they are too cowardly/miserly/etc to fix what they understand to be errors.
Either way, Firework Tech is still "live" in the game, keeping alchemy in a broken state while this is ongoing.

Neither option is "acceptable" for professional products, and it's not much of an asspull to then claim Paizo / pf2 gets away with it for the same reason D&D / Wizards has, brand loyalty and historical inertia.

We have to come to terms with the fact that Paizo has no qualms with selling us subsystem breaking errors, while choosing to pretend "this is fine" when they know about the problems they created.

The only alternative is that Paizo is so clueless as game designers that they are willing to accept such balance-breaking as "intentional" design.

Which is blatantly BS. Option A really doesn't hold up. But without that not-so-plausible deniability, it means we as players are smacked in the face with the intentional neglect of paizo in addressing these errors. That sucks, so psychologically we try to avoid thinking about how paizo is doing this "neglect" knowingly.

Madhippy3 wrote:

I disagree. This is a long thread and it isn't filled with wizard defenders. Everyone has one reason or another to explain why the wizard is only playable compared to where other classes are excelling.

Yeah because these arguments have been going on for years now and most people are exhausted. You're late to the party

That doesn't rebuttal what I said in the slightest...